Conservative historian Andrew Bacevich talks to Bill Moyers about the state of the U.S. and how our imperialistic President has set us on the wrong path.
Warning: Bacevich tells the unvarnished truth. For those of you who get news from the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Glen Beck, or Sean Hannity (on the right) or Keith Olbermann or Air America Radio (on the left), Bacevich's take may be a little too honest. But, if you'd like to have your eyes opened, click the above link to wake up.
If you're still undecided, you're just not listening.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
McCain vs. Palin
Would a more interesting debate be between Sarah Palin and ... John Mccain? Ruth Marcus thinks so.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Christianity, American Foreign Policy, and Baklava
Since the debate last Friday night, I have reflected on the keynote topic: foreign policy. Just a friendly reminder: I am writing from the perspective "how should Christians view this issue" in light of how Christ reveals himself and teaches us in the New Testament.
While often times Jesus is presented as a global capitalist that is concerned primarily with how freedom and democracy are spread throughout the world, I want to challenge this perspective by offering a more biblical approach.
The Way the World Perceives Us Matters for Missionaries
Since I work for an international missionary organization (a group that facilitates the spreading of the message of Christ around the world) I am deeply concerned with the way in which the world looks at America - not because of economic reasons (although this is part of it) nor is it a desire for tourism without harassment. Rather, I am concerned with the way in which the world will
receive American missionaries. I am convinced that the way to stop wars and oppression is to spread the love of Christ throughout the globe, but if Christianity is linked with America (God help us) then it will be hard to get this message of love to countries that only receive our bombs or military occupancy (this will be explored more in the post on War and Violence). In this election, the candidate, then, that emphasizes American perception around the world is more appealing to me than the "beat up, take what we want, and ask questions later" position that we have struggled with over the past several years.
Treating People Like Ugly Americans
In Biblical Studies, one of the key areas of study for biblical interpretation is called hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the art and science of interpretation. In this type of study, we develop an interpretative infrastructure that attempts to build "bridges" that link our culture, customs, and perspectives with the biblical culture, customs and perspectives. In other words, we try to not read the Bible like ugly Americans and instead attempt to see the passages through the eyes of a first-century Jew.
I know what you're thinking, "So what does this have to do with political foreign policy?" Well, if our politicians would take this same tactic in foreign policy negotiations (trying to understand the issues from the eyes of their audience) instead of expecting everyone to see things from our perspective, we may be able to make significant progress in relating to foreign countries.
For example, one of the primary mantras that has been chanted over the past eight years has been, "It is America's responsibility and duty to spread freedom and democracy across the world." Here is the problem: "freedom" and "democracy" do not transcend all cultures. American foreign policy overlooks some key sociological components when trying to push our agenda.
First, Middle Eastern countries are not individualistic but communal based societies. In their world, the sociological currency is "honor" and "shame" (contra, America = "time" and "money"). In their society, they have a deep understanding of their families' honor and they will do anything to protect their names from shame. One of the ways in which shame is incurred to a family name is when the person stands out from their social group. Their job is not to excel, move up, nor stand out, their job is to keep the status quo, which preserves and heightens their family honor. When someone violates this status quo by speaking up or standing out, the rest of the society sees this as a challenge to someone else's honor -- because there is only so much honor to go around, and therefore anyone trying to progress is stealing someone else's honor. This situation can become tumultous and even dangerous for people, because no one knows whose honor is being threatened so everyone will challenge the initiator.
In light of this, there are several problems:
Anti-Terrorism and Pro-Israel?
Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this foreign policy faux pas: we claim we are fighting a war on terror but hold that Israel is our closest ally.
What I am about to express is the key reason why so many Middle Eastern countries hate America. It is not because we are rich and they are poor. It is not because they are evil and we are good, and well evil hates good. It is not even because they "hate freedom." Rather, the Middle Eastern countries hate us because we support a nation that has been a key agent of terrorism to their brothers and sisters - the Palestinians.
The formation of Israel in 1948 can be described as nothing short of terrorism. The Palestinian nation, who had lived in the land for hundreds and hundreds of years, were warm, welcoming, hospitable people who had sold some of their land (under 6%) to the Jewish people and welcomed them into their territory. This loving spirit, however, was used against the Palestinians as Israel began to plan an assault and takeover of the entire region in what was known as Operation Dalet (dalet = the fourth letter in the Hebrew alphabet). Spearheaded by a Jewish man named Ben-Gurion, the nation of Israel began elaborate plans to not just take the land of Israel, but to wipe out the Palestinian presence altogether.
In 1947, the United Nations turned a blind eye to the injustices against the Palestinians and a deaf ear to the outcries from the Arab world and awarded Israel around 60% of the Palestinian land in what was known as Resolution 181. Israel, however, was not satisfied with only 60%, and began implementing their plan for 100% takeover of the region. This included: midnight raids of Palestinian villages, burning entire communities to the ground, executing key officials of villages, raping women, killing children, planting land mines in house rubble to prevent people coming back, and overall displacing over 800,000 Palestinians through forced evacuation or murder.
By 1948, Israel was permanently occupying the land of the Palestinians, consigning the Palestinians to little or no land at all. Israel, from this day forward, demanded that anyone who would be their ally or would negotiate peace with them must deny the existence of the Palestinian cleansing (this is the reason Ahmadinejad will not acknowledge the Holocaust as occurring). The Arab world saw this as an initiative by the west to wage war against them, and their honor has never been restored since.
The lunacy, then, of America's "war on terror" while teaming with a "nation" that is predicated on terrorism is nothing short of astonishing. Until this foreign policy blunder is rectified in a manner that is fitting for the Palestinian victims, we will not see peace in this world. For people that function off of honor and shame do not forget history -- they fight against it. (For more information see: Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine or his website).
Conclusion
For me, foreign policy is more about treating people the way they deserve to be treated than about American dominance around the world. While we spread Pax Americana I pray that Christ's message will be able to outshine this ethnocentric attempt at imperialism to show the world that true Christianity, not a self-proclaimed "Christian nation", is about love and peace in Jesus Christ for a kingdom that is not of this world.
While often times Jesus is presented as a global capitalist that is concerned primarily with how freedom and democracy are spread throughout the world, I want to challenge this perspective by offering a more biblical approach.
The Way the World Perceives Us Matters for Missionaries
Since I work for an international missionary organization (a group that facilitates the spreading of the message of Christ around the world) I am deeply concerned with the way in which the world looks at America - not because of economic reasons (although this is part of it) nor is it a desire for tourism without harassment. Rather, I am concerned with the way in which the world will
receive American missionaries. I am convinced that the way to stop wars and oppression is to spread the love of Christ throughout the globe, but if Christianity is linked with America (God help us) then it will be hard to get this message of love to countries that only receive our bombs or military occupancy (this will be explored more in the post on War and Violence). In this election, the candidate, then, that emphasizes American perception around the world is more appealing to me than the "beat up, take what we want, and ask questions later" position that we have struggled with over the past several years.Treating People Like Ugly Americans
In Biblical Studies, one of the key areas of study for biblical interpretation is called hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the art and science of interpretation. In this type of study, we develop an interpretative infrastructure that attempts to build "bridges" that link our culture, customs, and perspectives with the biblical culture, customs and perspectives. In other words, we try to not read the Bible like ugly Americans and instead attempt to see the passages through the eyes of a first-century Jew.
I know what you're thinking, "So what does this have to do with political foreign policy?" Well, if our politicians would take this same tactic in foreign policy negotiations (trying to understand the issues from the eyes of their audience) instead of expecting everyone to see things from our perspective, we may be able to make significant progress in relating to foreign countries.
For example, one of the primary mantras that has been chanted over the past eight years has been, "It is America's responsibility and duty to spread freedom and democracy across the world." Here is the problem: "freedom" and "democracy" do not transcend all cultures. American foreign policy overlooks some key sociological components when trying to push our agenda.
First, Middle Eastern countries are not individualistic but communal based societies. In their world, the sociological currency is "honor" and "shame" (contra, America = "time" and "money"). In their society, they have a deep understanding of their families' honor and they will do anything to protect their names from shame. One of the ways in which shame is incurred to a family name is when the person stands out from their social group. Their job is not to excel, move up, nor stand out, their job is to keep the status quo, which preserves and heightens their family honor. When someone violates this status quo by speaking up or standing out, the rest of the society sees this as a challenge to someone else's honor -- because there is only so much honor to go around, and therefore anyone trying to progress is stealing someone else's honor. This situation can become tumultous and even dangerous for people, because no one knows whose honor is being threatened so everyone will challenge the initiator.
In light of this, there are several problems:
- Democracy, by definition, is an individualistic phenomenon. The democratic process asks people to express their individual voice in an election. The problem with this system in communal societies is that this practice is seen as a threat to the status quo and therefore dangerous.
- The way we define freedom, again, is to allow people the opportunity to use their own time to gain money. But, again, in a communal society, time and money are not as important as honor and shame. They will spend all of their time and money to increase their honor, but they will not sacrifice their honor for time and money (This is the reason for suicide bombers. The logic goes like this: "life is terrible because we cannot eat, feed our families, and therefore are shaming our family name. I would rather die than live like this, and the only way to gain honor is to do something fantastic for my family name - i.e., suicide bomb." It is all about honor -- which we do not get).
- Our wars have shamed not only them as a people, but also their God ("Allah"). The only way in which the person can gain honor back for them and their God, in this situation, is to deal a blow that is more substantial and long-lasting to the last person that inflicted dishonor. Therefore, we have entered into a spiral of violence that will not stop, because we refuse to see this interaction as anything more than a war between governments -- it is bigger than that.
Anti-Terrorism and Pro-Israel?
Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this foreign policy faux pas: we claim we are fighting a war on terror but hold that Israel is our closest ally.
What I am about to express is the key reason why so many Middle Eastern countries hate America. It is not because we are rich and they are poor. It is not because they are evil and we are good, and well evil hates good. It is not even because they "hate freedom." Rather, the Middle Eastern countries hate us because we support a nation that has been a key agent of terrorism to their brothers and sisters - the Palestinians.
The formation of Israel in 1948 can be described as nothing short of terrorism. The Palestinian nation, who had lived in the land for hundreds and hundreds of years, were warm, welcoming, hospitable people who had sold some of their land (under 6%) to the Jewish people and welcomed them into their territory. This loving spirit, however, was used against the Palestinians as Israel began to plan an assault and takeover of the entire region in what was known as Operation Dalet (dalet = the fourth letter in the Hebrew alphabet). Spearheaded by a Jewish man named Ben-Gurion, the nation of Israel began elaborate plans to not just take the land of Israel, but to wipe out the Palestinian presence altogether.
In 1947, the United Nations turned a blind eye to the injustices against the Palestinians and a deaf ear to the outcries from the Arab world and awarded Israel around 60% of the Palestinian land in what was known as Resolution 181. Israel, however, was not satisfied with only 60%, and began implementing their plan for 100% takeover of the region. This included: midnight raids of Palestinian villages, burning entire communities to the ground, executing key officials of villages, raping women, killing children, planting land mines in house rubble to prevent people coming back, and overall displacing over 800,000 Palestinians through forced evacuation or murder.
By 1948, Israel was permanently occupying the land of the Palestinians, consigning the Palestinians to little or no land at all. Israel, from this day forward, demanded that anyone who would be their ally or would negotiate peace with them must deny the existence of the Palestinian cleansing (this is the reason Ahmadinejad will not acknowledge the Holocaust as occurring). The Arab world saw this as an initiative by the west to wage war against them, and their honor has never been restored since.
The lunacy, then, of America's "war on terror" while teaming with a "nation" that is predicated on terrorism is nothing short of astonishing. Until this foreign policy blunder is rectified in a manner that is fitting for the Palestinian victims, we will not see peace in this world. For people that function off of honor and shame do not forget history -- they fight against it. (For more information see: Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine or his website).
Conclusion
For me, foreign policy is more about treating people the way they deserve to be treated than about American dominance around the world. While we spread Pax Americana I pray that Christ's message will be able to outshine this ethnocentric attempt at imperialism to show the world that true Christianity, not a self-proclaimed "Christian nation", is about love and peace in Jesus Christ for a kingdom that is not of this world.
Krugman On the Next 3 AM Phone Call
Paul Krugman of the New York Times writes about the prospect of an economic "3 AM phone call" and who should be answering it.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
While the Bailout Negotiations Went On...
Hey Ryan,
Just thought I'd drop a line to see what you thought of the debates and to offer some interesting tidbits about the candidates' weekends post-debate. You see, even after the event was in the books, the negotiations for the bailout deal continued on Capitol Hill. And what were the candidates doing all that time?
Well, Barack Obama was here:
Yep, 22 hours after the debate in Oxford, Mississippi, Obama and Biden were in Fredericksburg, Virginia, talking to voters and getting out their message.
Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., lawmakers were working on the bailout deal that went well after midnight.
And, where was John McCain? Surely, after his "suspension" theatrics and demolition of an earlier deal this week, McCain must have hopped a plane and got right back to D.C. to continue with the negotiations, right? Well, he went back to D.C., but he ended up going to Cafe MoZu, a fine dining establishment, for dinner with wife Cindy and Sen. Joe Lieberman and his wife.
After making phone calls to Congressional negotiators and Bush the Junior from his home in Virginia and his campaign office on Saturday, McCain lit out for some night life. Good for him. Hope he got a good night's sleep. Screwing up delicate negotiations and having to face the American people (if not the opponent sharing the stage with him) can take a lot out of a guy. Gosh, that sounds like a schedule that (gasp) a President might have to keep. I think somebody might be in line for the vacation day record...
Way to phone it in, John!
By the way, it's approximately 828 miles from Oxford to Fredericksburg. If you were driving between them at the speed limit, it would probably take you 14 hours and change. And as stated above, Obama and Biden were in Fredericksburg, Virginia, 22 hours after the debate in Oxford, Mississippi.
Does the time frame sound familiar? It should, because 22 hours was the amount of time between when McCain "suspended" his campaign to "rush" back to Washington, D.C., to "help" with the negotiations on the bailout and when he actually made it back to the capitol. Distance between New York City and Washington, D.C.? 228 miles. You could drive between them (not counting traffic) in a little over four hours.
Maybe McCain should get ahold of Obama's travel agent. Or, maybe he could see if he's got any staffers who moonlight as lobbyists for the travel industry.
Charles
Just thought I'd drop a line to see what you thought of the debates and to offer some interesting tidbits about the candidates' weekends post-debate. You see, even after the event was in the books, the negotiations for the bailout deal continued on Capitol Hill. And what were the candidates doing all that time?
Well, Barack Obama was here:
Yep, 22 hours after the debate in Oxford, Mississippi, Obama and Biden were in Fredericksburg, Virginia, talking to voters and getting out their message.
Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., lawmakers were working on the bailout deal that went well after midnight.
And, where was John McCain? Surely, after his "suspension" theatrics and demolition of an earlier deal this week, McCain must have hopped a plane and got right back to D.C. to continue with the negotiations, right? Well, he went back to D.C., but he ended up going to Cafe MoZu, a fine dining establishment, for dinner with wife Cindy and Sen. Joe Lieberman and his wife.
After making phone calls to Congressional negotiators and Bush the Junior from his home in Virginia and his campaign office on Saturday, McCain lit out for some night life. Good for him. Hope he got a good night's sleep. Screwing up delicate negotiations and having to face the American people (if not the opponent sharing the stage with him) can take a lot out of a guy. Gosh, that sounds like a schedule that (gasp) a President might have to keep. I think somebody might be in line for the vacation day record...
Way to phone it in, John!
By the way, it's approximately 828 miles from Oxford to Fredericksburg. If you were driving between them at the speed limit, it would probably take you 14 hours and change. And as stated above, Obama and Biden were in Fredericksburg, Virginia, 22 hours after the debate in Oxford, Mississippi.
Does the time frame sound familiar? It should, because 22 hours was the amount of time between when McCain "suspended" his campaign to "rush" back to Washington, D.C., to "help" with the negotiations on the bailout and when he actually made it back to the capitol. Distance between New York City and Washington, D.C.? 228 miles. You could drive between them (not counting traffic) in a little over four hours.
Maybe McCain should get ahold of Obama's travel agent. Or, maybe he could see if he's got any staffers who moonlight as lobbyists for the travel industry.
Charles
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Checking the Facts on the First Presidential Debate
Here's the rundown from Factcheck.org on the misrepresentations, misstatements, and...well...outright lies from the first presidential debate. Even though McCain was involved, the lies were actually kept to a minimum. AND he didn't try to call any time outs, which is a step up for him.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Dowd Bows To Sorkin...The Rest of Us Follow
Maureen Dowd relinquishes control of her New York Times column to West Wing and Studio 60 writer/creator Aaron Sorkin and the results are spectacular!
Now That's A Thought...
MSNBC pulled this ad after Bill O'Reilly pitched a hissy fit. But we're putting it up here for the five of you (maybe) who read this site, because it deserves attention.
If, after seeing this ad, you're still not scared to death about Sarah Palin as VP, check yourself into the nearest detox center and get help...seriously.
Extra! Extra!
A story from NPR this morning about a new DVD that is making its way to newspaper subscribers in battleground states and the impact it could have on this year's election.
A tale of media malpractice
A friend passed this tale along via e-mail.
A tale of media malpractice:
John McCain declares that lemons are purple. Barack Obama says, “Actually, they’re yellow.” McCain criticizes Obama for implying that lemons are cowardly.
Sarah Palin announces that she saved Alaska taxpayers $33 million by planting purple lemons. The crowd cheers wildly. Obama says “Lemons don’t grow in Alaska.” An Associated Press story is headlined “Candidates clash over color of lemons.” The story is considered “balanced” because it gives both sides equal coverage. The fact that lemons are actually yellow is mentioned in the fourteenth paragraph.
Rush Limbaugh asks, “How can somebody from Kenya presume to know what grows in Alaska?” The McCain campaign produces an ad accusing Obama of anti-citrus bias. It airs nonstop in Florida.
CNN commentators debate Obama’s denunciation of lemons for two days. An MSNBC poll asks “Does Barack Obama hate fruit?” The multiple-choice answers are “Yes”; “No, just lemons”; and “No, it’s politics as usual.”
McCain says that Palin saved taxpayers $43 million and Obama evidently doesn’t appreciate it. In a Gallup poll, 41 percent of voters say they trust Obama less following his gaffe about lemons.
McCain wins the election with 52 percent of the vote.
Someone's feeling confident!
Hey Charles,
Is this like "Dewey defeats Truman?"
Here's an interesting Internet ad that appeared in the online edition of the Wall Street Journal this morning.
And here's a little more about McCain's incredible debate victory!
Ryan
Is this like "Dewey defeats Truman?"
Here's an interesting Internet ad that appeared in the online edition of the Wall Street Journal this morning.
And here's a little more about McCain's incredible debate victory!
Ryan
Suckers!
Hey Charles,
This just in ... McCain will attend the debate! What, was Katie Couric busy?
Not sure if you saw McCain's statement that he is "resuming all activities," including traveling to the debate this afternoon. Here is my favorite part:
"The difference between Barack Obama and John McCain was apparent during the White House meeting yesterday where Barack Obama’s priority was political posturing in his opening monologue defending the package as it stands. John McCain listened to all sides so he could help focus the debate on finding a bipartisan resolution that is in the interest of taxpayers and homeowners. The Democratic interests stood together in opposition to an agreement that would accommodate additional taxpayer protections."
Of course, we know what really happened. Now in the job I have, I try not to call too many meetings. But if I do, I usually don't just sit there and not say anything -- certainly not for 40 minutes! Maybe Obama was, in fact, posturing, as McCain alleges. And I'll be the first to tell you that in meetings there's always someone who just likes to hear himself talk. But if you're going to make a big point of suspending your campaign, flying back to Washington, and calling for a meeting with the president, are you not obliged to say something, to offer some type of solution to the gridlock? What did he think was going to happen? "Oh, John's here. We can all go home now!" I mean, if you didn't have to play the games, the Chicago Cubs would have a couple of World Series titles by now!
If the situation weren't so serious, I might find this political grandstanding entirely amusing. I mean, you have a Republican proposal that is struggling to get Republican support. You have a party leader in McCain who suspended (we also know the truth about that, too) his campaign to make sure this plan gets through, but, by coming out too strongly in support of it, risks alienating the populist folks in his party who he desperately needs to win in November. And let's not forget that our Republican rescue hero is the same guy who admits that the economy is not his strong suit and who, until recently, took advice from another guy who said America was turning into a "nation of whiners."
Of course, maybe McCain's relative silence yesterday was better than some of the scenes and statements that happened at yesterday's meeting, described in this morning's New York Times. "If money isn't loosened up, this sucker could go down," said President Bush upon suddenly morphing into Mr. T. One sucker, Treasury Secretary Paulson, actually did go down, kneeling in front of Nancy Pelosi, begging her not to withdraw Democratic support for the plan. Phil Gramm would've slapped him had he been there.
Alas, saving us from this ridiculousness is the first presidential debate of 2008 and it promises to be a good one. That is, of course, if journalists can somehow focus on the substance of the debate, and not the style and sighs of the candidates. As this look back at the 2004 debate coverage shows, we'd be wise not to expect too much from our trusty friends in the media.
But I guess we should just be grateful that we're even having a debate. Thank you, John McCain. You've saved us again!
Ryan
This just in ... McCain will attend the debate! What, was Katie Couric busy?
Not sure if you saw McCain's statement that he is "resuming all activities," including traveling to the debate this afternoon. Here is my favorite part:
"The difference between Barack Obama and John McCain was apparent during the White House meeting yesterday where Barack Obama’s priority was political posturing in his opening monologue defending the package as it stands. John McCain listened to all sides so he could help focus the debate on finding a bipartisan resolution that is in the interest of taxpayers and homeowners. The Democratic interests stood together in opposition to an agreement that would accommodate additional taxpayer protections."
Of course, we know what really happened. Now in the job I have, I try not to call too many meetings. But if I do, I usually don't just sit there and not say anything -- certainly not for 40 minutes! Maybe Obama was, in fact, posturing, as McCain alleges. And I'll be the first to tell you that in meetings there's always someone who just likes to hear himself talk. But if you're going to make a big point of suspending your campaign, flying back to Washington, and calling for a meeting with the president, are you not obliged to say something, to offer some type of solution to the gridlock? What did he think was going to happen? "Oh, John's here. We can all go home now!" I mean, if you didn't have to play the games, the Chicago Cubs would have a couple of World Series titles by now!
If the situation weren't so serious, I might find this political grandstanding entirely amusing. I mean, you have a Republican proposal that is struggling to get Republican support. You have a party leader in McCain who suspended (we also know the truth about that, too) his campaign to make sure this plan gets through, but, by coming out too strongly in support of it, risks alienating the populist folks in his party who he desperately needs to win in November. And let's not forget that our Republican rescue hero is the same guy who admits that the economy is not his strong suit and who, until recently, took advice from another guy who said America was turning into a "nation of whiners."
Of course, maybe McCain's relative silence yesterday was better than some of the scenes and statements that happened at yesterday's meeting, described in this morning's New York Times. "If money isn't loosened up, this sucker could go down," said President Bush upon suddenly morphing into Mr. T. One sucker, Treasury Secretary Paulson, actually did go down, kneeling in front of Nancy Pelosi, begging her not to withdraw Democratic support for the plan. Phil Gramm would've slapped him had he been there.
Alas, saving us from this ridiculousness is the first presidential debate of 2008 and it promises to be a good one. That is, of course, if journalists can somehow focus on the substance of the debate, and not the style and sighs of the candidates. As this look back at the 2004 debate coverage shows, we'd be wise not to expect too much from our trusty friends in the media.
But I guess we should just be grateful that we're even having a debate. Thank you, John McCain. You've saved us again!
Ryan
Biden's Rolodex
Not sure if these guys are on Biden's speed dial (some of them are deceased), but I thought it might be good to offer a partial list of the foreign leaders Biden has met, by country:
Iraq: Allawi, al-Jaafari, al-Maliki, Talabani, Massoud Barzani, Nechirvan Barzani
Israel: Golda Meir, Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni
Palestinian Territories: Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas, Salam Fayyad, Ahmed Qurei
Jordan: King Hussein, King Abdullah
Egypt: Hosni Mubarak, Anwar Sadat
Libya: Muammar Qaddafi
Lebanon: Prime Minister Rafiq Haririm, Najib Mikati
Bahrain: Crown Prince Shaikh Salman bin Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa
Syria: President Bashar al-Assad
Turkey: Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Ahmet Sezer, Abdullah Gul, Bulent Ecevit, Demirel
Greece: Kostis Stephanopoulos, Kostas Karamanlis, Kostantinos Mitsotakis, Andreas Papandreou
Cyprus: George Vassiliou, Glafcos Clerides
Afghanistan: Hamid Karzai
Pakistan: Asaf Ali Zardari, Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani, Pervez Musharraf, Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif
India: Manmohan Singh, Atal Bihari Vajpayee
Sri Lanka: Ranil Wickremasinghe
Russia: Vladimir Putin, Boris Yeltsin, Mikhail Gorbachev, Andrei Gromyko, Alexey Kosygin, Leonid Brezhnev
France: Jacques Chirac, Dominique de Villepin, Fracois Mitterrand
U.K.: Queen Elizabeth II, Tony Blair, John Major, Margaret Thatcher
Ireland: Bertie Ahern, John Bruton, Albert Reynolds, Charles Haughey
Germany: Angela Merkel, Gerhard Schroeder, Helmut Kohl, Helmut Schmidt
Italy: Silvio Berlusconi, Romani Prodi, Cossiga Serbia Boris Tadic, Vojislav Kostunica, Zoran Djindjic, Slobodan Milosevic
Yugoslavia: Josip Broz Tito
Croatia: Franjo Tudjman Slovenia Janez Drnovsek, Ibrahim Rugova, Milan Kucan
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Haris Silajdzic, Sulejman Tihiae, Alija Izetbegovic
Kosovo (as an independent nation): Fatmir Sejdiu, Hashim Thaci
Poland: Lech Walesa, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz
Czech Republic: Vaclav Havel
Hungary: Gyula Horn, Arpad Goncz, Viktor Orban
Finland: Paavo Lipponen
Romania: Ion Iliescu
Georgia: Mikheil Saakashvili, Eduard Shevardnadze
Kazakhstan: Nursultan Nazarbayev
Ukraine: Viktor Yushchenko
Canada: Paul Martin, Brian Mulroney
NATO: George Robertson, Javier Solana, Manfred Woerner, Peter Carrington
China: Jiang Zemin, Zhu Rongji
Hong Kong: Tung Chee Hwa
Taiwan: Chen Shui-Bian
Korea: Kim Dae Jung
Singapore: Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Chok Tong, Lee Hsien Loong
Indonesia: Megawati Sukarnoputri, Bambang Yudhoyono
Australia: John Howard, Paul Keating
Philippines: Gloria Arroyo, Fidel Ramos
Vietnam: Phan Van Kai
East Timor: Ramos Horta
Tibet: The Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso
Colombia: Alvaro Uribe, Andres Pastrana, Cesar Gaviria
Mexico: Vincente Fox, Ernesto Zedillo
Bolivia: Jaime Paz Zamora
South Africa: Thabo Mbeki, Nelson Mandela
Liberia: Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf
Lesotho: Leabua Jonathan
United Nations: Ban Ki-moon, Kofi Annan, Boutros Boutros Ghali
Vatican City: Pope John Paul II
Slovakia: Rudolf Schuster
Turkmenistan: Saparmurat Niyazov
Sure beats a night out at a Mexican restaurant, huh?
Iraq: Allawi, al-Jaafari, al-Maliki, Talabani, Massoud Barzani, Nechirvan Barzani
Israel: Golda Meir, Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni
Palestinian Territories: Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas, Salam Fayyad, Ahmed Qurei
Jordan: King Hussein, King Abdullah
Egypt: Hosni Mubarak, Anwar Sadat
Libya: Muammar Qaddafi
Lebanon: Prime Minister Rafiq Haririm, Najib Mikati
Bahrain: Crown Prince Shaikh Salman bin Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa
Syria: President Bashar al-Assad
Turkey: Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Ahmet Sezer, Abdullah Gul, Bulent Ecevit, Demirel
Greece: Kostis Stephanopoulos, Kostas Karamanlis, Kostantinos Mitsotakis, Andreas Papandreou
Cyprus: George Vassiliou, Glafcos Clerides
Afghanistan: Hamid Karzai
Pakistan: Asaf Ali Zardari, Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani, Pervez Musharraf, Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif
India: Manmohan Singh, Atal Bihari Vajpayee
Sri Lanka: Ranil Wickremasinghe
Russia: Vladimir Putin, Boris Yeltsin, Mikhail Gorbachev, Andrei Gromyko, Alexey Kosygin, Leonid Brezhnev
France: Jacques Chirac, Dominique de Villepin, Fracois Mitterrand
U.K.: Queen Elizabeth II, Tony Blair, John Major, Margaret Thatcher
Ireland: Bertie Ahern, John Bruton, Albert Reynolds, Charles Haughey
Germany: Angela Merkel, Gerhard Schroeder, Helmut Kohl, Helmut Schmidt
Italy: Silvio Berlusconi, Romani Prodi, Cossiga Serbia Boris Tadic, Vojislav Kostunica, Zoran Djindjic, Slobodan Milosevic
Yugoslavia: Josip Broz Tito
Croatia: Franjo Tudjman Slovenia Janez Drnovsek, Ibrahim Rugova, Milan Kucan
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Haris Silajdzic, Sulejman Tihiae, Alija Izetbegovic
Kosovo (as an independent nation): Fatmir Sejdiu, Hashim Thaci
Poland: Lech Walesa, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz
Czech Republic: Vaclav Havel
Hungary: Gyula Horn, Arpad Goncz, Viktor Orban
Finland: Paavo Lipponen
Romania: Ion Iliescu
Georgia: Mikheil Saakashvili, Eduard Shevardnadze
Kazakhstan: Nursultan Nazarbayev
Ukraine: Viktor Yushchenko
Canada: Paul Martin, Brian Mulroney
NATO: George Robertson, Javier Solana, Manfred Woerner, Peter Carrington
China: Jiang Zemin, Zhu Rongji
Hong Kong: Tung Chee Hwa
Taiwan: Chen Shui-Bian
Korea: Kim Dae Jung
Singapore: Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Chok Tong, Lee Hsien Loong
Indonesia: Megawati Sukarnoputri, Bambang Yudhoyono
Australia: John Howard, Paul Keating
Philippines: Gloria Arroyo, Fidel Ramos
Vietnam: Phan Van Kai
East Timor: Ramos Horta
Tibet: The Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso
Colombia: Alvaro Uribe, Andres Pastrana, Cesar Gaviria
Mexico: Vincente Fox, Ernesto Zedillo
Bolivia: Jaime Paz Zamora
South Africa: Thabo Mbeki, Nelson Mandela
Liberia: Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf
Lesotho: Leabua Jonathan
United Nations: Ban Ki-moon, Kofi Annan, Boutros Boutros Ghali
Vatican City: Pope John Paul II
Slovakia: Rudolf Schuster
Turkmenistan: Saparmurat Niyazov
Sure beats a night out at a Mexican restaurant, huh?
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Say It Ain't So, Johnny!
Hey Ryan,
Stop me if you've heard this one.
McCain races back to Washington (22 hours after his "suspension" announcement) only to find that the deal is almost done. So, what does he do? You guessed it! SPOILER! BUZZ-KILL!
And, bonus:
He's a maverick alright...he's just not breaking the right way.
Charles
Stop me if you've heard this one.
McCain races back to Washington (22 hours after his "suspension" announcement) only to find that the deal is almost done. So, what does he do? You guessed it! SPOILER! BUZZ-KILL!
And, bonus:
He's a maverick alright...he's just not breaking the right way.
Charles
Did I Miss Something?
Hey Ryan,
Has Bill Clinton become a Republican? I just saw an article on ABC News' Political Radar blog about how he's saying we shouldn't "overly parse" McCain's request to suspend his campaign yesterday. Clinton went on to say he "presumed" McCain made the move "in good faith". Watch:
Forget about sagging polls. Forget about the incoherent ramblings this old bastard's been peddling for the past two weeks. Forget about the top-to-bottom crooked-as-a-dog's-leg nature of his campaign and advisory staff.
That's what Bill Clinton says, "Forget about all that." McCain's calling off his campaign because he...well...doggone it, he loves us. It's hard for him, you know, being a war hero and all to say it out loud sometimes. But he does (sniff, sniff) and he's going to show it by trying as hard as possible not to stand in front of us and tell us his views on the issues. What more do we want him to do? Introduce a banking or housing bill of some sort in Congress?
No, Bill, you're right. We have no reason to doubt that old salt! His campaign has been above board so far by anyone's standards! It might especially look to be on the up-and-up to a guy who's soft peddling his elected candidate to big note his wife's next run. No cynicism here!
Watch CBS Videos Online
Yeah...she's a great backup, Grandad.
Charles
Has Bill Clinton become a Republican? I just saw an article on ABC News' Political Radar blog about how he's saying we shouldn't "overly parse" McCain's request to suspend his campaign yesterday. Clinton went on to say he "presumed" McCain made the move "in good faith". Watch:
Forget about sagging polls. Forget about the incoherent ramblings this old bastard's been peddling for the past two weeks. Forget about the top-to-bottom crooked-as-a-dog's-leg nature of his campaign and advisory staff.
That's what Bill Clinton says, "Forget about all that." McCain's calling off his campaign because he...well...doggone it, he loves us. It's hard for him, you know, being a war hero and all to say it out loud sometimes. But he does (sniff, sniff) and he's going to show it by trying as hard as possible not to stand in front of us and tell us his views on the issues. What more do we want him to do? Introduce a banking or housing bill of some sort in Congress?
No, Bill, you're right. We have no reason to doubt that old salt! His campaign has been above board so far by anyone's standards! It might especially look to be on the up-and-up to a guy who's soft peddling his elected candidate to big note his wife's next run. No cynicism here!
Watch CBS Videos Online
Yeah...she's a great backup, Grandad.
Charles
"Suspension" Update
Hey Ryan,
You've gotta love that Johnny McCain! I wanna be like that guy when I grow up!
He announces a suspension yesterday and then...WHOOP, WHOOOOOP! His people are back on the road, well, campaigning!
He's such a maverick, he doesn't even listen to himself! Awesome! And, of course, our Man With No Plan really hit the ground running today by...making a campaign speech at the Clinton Global Initiative forum today. But then, yes, THEN he's going to, you know, show up for a meeting at the White House at four this afternoon to shake hands with the people who've done the REAL work on this bill!
Charles
You've gotta love that Johnny McCain! I wanna be like that guy when I grow up!
He announces a suspension yesterday and then...WHOOP, WHOOOOOP! His people are back on the road, well, campaigning!
He's such a maverick, he doesn't even listen to himself! Awesome! And, of course, our Man With No Plan really hit the ground running today by...making a campaign speech at the Clinton Global Initiative forum today. But then, yes, THEN he's going to, you know, show up for a meeting at the White House at four this afternoon to shake hands with the people who've done the REAL work on this bill!
Charles
Side Effects
Truthout.org article about the testimony from Peter Orszag, head of the Congressional Budget Office, in which he says that the bailout plan could, in fact, make the problem even worse.
Alternatives To Paulson's Parachute Plan
Anthony Faiola and David Cho from the Washington Post look at some alternatives to the Bush-sponsored Paulson Plan.
A New Nugget of Knowledge
Hey Ryan,
Do you have time for a short history lesson? You might already know this stuff, but I found it to be pretty interesting in a Lincoln-Kennedy-history-repeats-itself sort of way.
Let's start with a little excerpt from the interview between Charlie Gibson and Sarah Palin that took place earlier this month:
Sure, never mind that she can roughly be right, given that international travel wasn't all that feasible for (roughly) half of our history's VP's, with Thomas Jefferson as a notable exception. Still, he makes a good point. If we still lived in the same world they did, with the same economic and foreign policy concerns (or lack thereof), then she would be supremely qualified seeing as how she lives next door to Russia and all. Of course, we don't, do we.
But still, that left me to wonder if Palin was right about the modern era of VP's. My first inclination was to trust her, given her vast knowledge of the job. Nevertheless, I thought I might just look into the subject a little closer to see what I could find.
Now, the first mention I saw of this said you'd have to back 32 years to find a VP who hadn't met a foreign head of state.
As it turns out, though, that isn't quite true, because if you look at when the last VP without foreign policy experience was elected, then you'd have to go back an even40 years ago, to 1968 and Spiro Theodore Agnew, Nixon's VP muscle.
You know Spiro Agnew, right? The man who could cut down anyone or anything with an alliterative assault that would make your seventh grade English teacher proud. In fact, one such quote has, by now, become legendary:
I love it! I wonder if he came up with that one when his teleprompter broke! I bet he didn't even have a teleprompter. I bet he didn't even need notes. Those GOP'ers, man, they are an eloquent bunch!
Anyway, this "nattering nabob" line was actually written by William Safire, and was pointed at the "liberal" media. I hear echoes through the years...
So, maybe Palin can run as the new Spiro Agnew. And, maybe she can crash and burn just like Good Ol' Spiro, too.
Of course, we don't have the time or the margin of error wiggle room to let her do that, not with the possibility of electing the oldest President ever as her running mate and with all this globalization and economic turmoil and such.
You see, ultimately, the problem with Sarah Palin's nomination isn't really about Sarah Palin at all. It's about John McCain's choice in nominating her. At best, it looks like pandering to the Repub base he so often preaches about being a maverick against.
At worst (and most morbidly, I know), McCain choosing Palin as a running mate shows a tremendous lack of planning for the doomsday scenario. Like I said, McCain would be the oldest President ever sworn in should he get elected. That, coupled with his medical history (at least, what we know of it), doesn't make him the safest bet as far as being able to survive the heavy toll the presidency takes. And his backup plan is Sarah Palin? Wow. Maybe "Country First" means throw the country overboard first.
It reminds me of this Hubert Humphrey ad about Spiro Agnew...
Of course, somebody's already made a Palin version of this ad, but I'm not going to post it because, well, it wasn't very good. And, it would just feed into what the Repubs really want...a martyr. (That is assuming that anyone is reading this that remotely supports the McCain/Palin ticket.)
But, you know what? Maybe McCain does have a plan in choosing Mrs. Palin as Potential President. Oh, wow, I just thought of this, but it relates to...you guessed it...Spiro Agnew (I love that guy's name).
John Ehrlichman, Nixon's assistant, counsel and Watergate co-conspirator, once asked his boss why Nixon had decided to keep Agnew on as VP for the 1972 election. This was Tricky Dick's reply:
"No assassin in his right mind would kill me."
I think I'm beginning to see the light, now. McCain's a McGenius!
Charles
Do you have time for a short history lesson? You might already know this stuff, but I found it to be pretty interesting in a Lincoln-Kennedy-history-repeats-itself sort of way.
Let's start with a little excerpt from the interview between Charlie Gibson and Sarah Palin that took place earlier this month:
GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?
PALIN: I have not. And, I think if you go back in history and I think if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they have the same answer that I just gave you . . .
Sure, never mind that she can roughly be right, given that international travel wasn't all that feasible for (roughly) half of our history's VP's, with Thomas Jefferson as a notable exception. Still, he makes a good point. If we still lived in the same world they did, with the same economic and foreign policy concerns (or lack thereof), then she would be supremely qualified seeing as how she lives next door to Russia and all. Of course, we don't, do we.
But still, that left me to wonder if Palin was right about the modern era of VP's. My first inclination was to trust her, given her vast knowledge of the job. Nevertheless, I thought I might just look into the subject a little closer to see what I could find.
Now, the first mention I saw of this said you'd have to back 32 years to find a VP who hadn't met a foreign head of state.
As it turns out, though, that isn't quite true, because if you look at when the last VP without foreign policy experience was elected, then you'd have to go back an even40 years ago, to 1968 and Spiro Theodore Agnew, Nixon's VP muscle.
You know Spiro Agnew, right? The man who could cut down anyone or anything with an alliterative assault that would make your seventh grade English teacher proud. In fact, one such quote has, by now, become legendary:
"In the United States today, we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism. They have formed their own 4-H Club -- the 'hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history.'"
I love it! I wonder if he came up with that one when his teleprompter broke! I bet he didn't even have a teleprompter. I bet he didn't even need notes. Those GOP'ers, man, they are an eloquent bunch!
Anyway, this "nattering nabob" line was actually written by William Safire, and was pointed at the "liberal" media. I hear echoes through the years...
So, maybe Palin can run as the new Spiro Agnew. And, maybe she can crash and burn just like Good Ol' Spiro, too.
Of course, we don't have the time or the margin of error wiggle room to let her do that, not with the possibility of electing the oldest President ever as her running mate and with all this globalization and economic turmoil and such.
You see, ultimately, the problem with Sarah Palin's nomination isn't really about Sarah Palin at all. It's about John McCain's choice in nominating her. At best, it looks like pandering to the Repub base he so often preaches about being a maverick against.
At worst (and most morbidly, I know), McCain choosing Palin as a running mate shows a tremendous lack of planning for the doomsday scenario. Like I said, McCain would be the oldest President ever sworn in should he get elected. That, coupled with his medical history (at least, what we know of it), doesn't make him the safest bet as far as being able to survive the heavy toll the presidency takes. And his backup plan is Sarah Palin? Wow. Maybe "Country First" means throw the country overboard first.
It reminds me of this Hubert Humphrey ad about Spiro Agnew...
Of course, somebody's already made a Palin version of this ad, but I'm not going to post it because, well, it wasn't very good. And, it would just feed into what the Repubs really want...a martyr. (That is assuming that anyone is reading this that remotely supports the McCain/Palin ticket.)
But, you know what? Maybe McCain does have a plan in choosing Mrs. Palin as Potential President. Oh, wow, I just thought of this, but it relates to...you guessed it...Spiro Agnew (I love that guy's name).
John Ehrlichman, Nixon's assistant, counsel and Watergate co-conspirator, once asked his boss why Nixon had decided to keep Agnew on as VP for the 1972 election. This was Tricky Dick's reply:
"No assassin in his right mind would kill me."
I think I'm beginning to see the light, now. McCain's a McGenius!
Charles
The Deal's Close, But They've Got To Stop For White House Photo-Op
An interesting article from Julie Hirschfeld Davis about the progress in the bailout negotiations and how McCain's trumped up White House photo-op is actually going to stall them rather than help them. Country first, right?
Another Fist Bump
Always enlightening to hear from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, featured in the new E-Weekly. Love the cover photo, too.
McCain's Bailout
Hey Charles,
Will She Still Charge McCain Per Diem?
Hey Ryan,
Looks like Sarah Palin's campaign might be "suspended," too. Of course, that's not saying much.
Since her nomination 26 days ago, she has been to 21 rallies (mostly with McCain), has done three interviews, speed-dated the U.N., Henry Kissinger, and Rupert Murdoch, and snubbed Bono.
That's a pretty full schedule there! That looks like a Bill Clinton I'm-campaigning-for-someone-besides-my-wife-type of itinerary! Don't blow yourself out, Sarah!
So the two questions that remain are:
1. Since she has been doing very little by campaign standards, will this be a "suspension" or a "vacation"? And...
2. Will she charge the McCain campaign per diem while she's off the road?
The VP job looks like good work, if you can get it.
Charles
Looks like Sarah Palin's campaign might be "suspended," too. Of course, that's not saying much.
Since her nomination 26 days ago, she has been to 21 rallies (mostly with McCain), has done three interviews, speed-dated the U.N., Henry Kissinger, and Rupert Murdoch, and snubbed Bono.
That's a pretty full schedule there! That looks like a Bill Clinton I'm-campaigning-for-someone-besides-my-wife-type of itinerary! Don't blow yourself out, Sarah!
So the two questions that remain are:
1. Since she has been doing very little by campaign standards, will this be a "suspension" or a "vacation"? And...
2. Will she charge the McCain campaign per diem while she's off the road?
The VP job looks like good work, if you can get it.
Charles
It's More Than Just Money...It's Judgment
Now, let me get this straight...McCain's defense against the Carly Fiorina charge is that he "doesn't know the details on her compensation package"?
The best case scenario (and it's not good) is that he's just lying through his teeth and making an end run by attacking the press and hoping the moral- or silent- or whatever that majority is calling itself these days will fall in behind him.
The worst case scenario is that McCain just doesn't know who he has surrounded himself with. Personally, I'm more frightened by this second possibility because, as a voter, I have to question the man's judgment. It seems like every day brings a sad or scary new revelation about who McCain is working with.
When are we going to stop talking about the possibility that McCain is lying about all this and start discussing whether he is mentally fit to lead the country? Shouldn't the last eight years of "leadership" from an unfit "leader" be enough to help us wake up?
Separation of Church and State?
A post from Max Blumenthal on The Nation website about Thomas Muthee, the Kenyan pastor who prayed over Sarah Palin, blessing her gubernatorial run. The article, itself, covers the Wasilla Assembly of God church and how it has handled media scrutiny through total crackdown.
What's most interesting about this post, though, is the video included with it. It's a nine and a half minute sermon in which Muthee espouses Pentecostal political policy from the pulpit before praying over Palin. (By the way, the audio and the video are not in sync.)
Is this separation of church and state? More importantly, is this safe?
What's most interesting about this post, though, is the video included with it. It's a nine and a half minute sermon in which Muthee espouses Pentecostal political policy from the pulpit before praying over Palin. (By the way, the audio and the video are not in sync.)
Is this separation of church and state? More importantly, is this safe?
McCain Lies AGAIN?!?
So, yesterday, McCain announces he is going to "suspend his campaign" to concentrate on an economic proposal he hadn't even read as of two days ago...even though two days before that, he had said he would support it, only to say the following day that he had some reservations about it. (Sit back, shake out the cobwebs, okay, back to it.)
Now, according to McCain and his people, "suspending" a campaign means no rallies, no appearances, and no ads. Here's a quote from McCain campaign chief Steve Schmidt:
“We're going to take the ads down. They won't be traveling. There won’t be rallies."
Really? No ads, huh? Because I could've sworn when I woke up this morning, what did I see? Yep, an advertisement from the McCain campaign attacking Obama!
Does this guy tell the truth about anything?
It might seem, at first glance, like I'm blowing this out of proportion. The guy's campaign is a big operation, right? Apparently, it's so big, he didn't even know that (whoops!) his campaign manager is still on the payroll at his former lobbying firm. But if he can't run a campaign staff and make good on promises that he offers up of his own volition, what kind of confidence can voters have that he'll keep the promises required by the job he seeks?
Now, according to McCain and his people, "suspending" a campaign means no rallies, no appearances, and no ads. Here's a quote from McCain campaign chief Steve Schmidt:
“We're going to take the ads down. They won't be traveling. There won’t be rallies."
Really? No ads, huh? Because I could've sworn when I woke up this morning, what did I see? Yep, an advertisement from the McCain campaign attacking Obama!
Does this guy tell the truth about anything?
It might seem, at first glance, like I'm blowing this out of proportion. The guy's campaign is a big operation, right? Apparently, it's so big, he didn't even know that (whoops!) his campaign manager is still on the payroll at his former lobbying firm. But if he can't run a campaign staff and make good on promises that he offers up of his own volition, what kind of confidence can voters have that he'll keep the promises required by the job he seeks?
Lawmakers Have Regrets, Too.
Here's an article from Politico that pins some of the blame for the latest market meltdown on the members of Congress who voted to roll back regulation in the late '90s. Not pretty.
Conveniently for the candidates, neither of them was present at the vote. Obama, of course, was not yet in the Senate, although his campaign says he was fighting for increased regulation at the time.
As for McCain, well, he just missed the vote. It might've been during his other bid for the presidency. Or, he might have just been off on a self-imposed "suspension". Who knows?
Shades of Armageddon, the Education of Sarah, and Bill Clinton's Weak Push
"Atmospheric" columnist Maureen Dowd delivers a brilliant piece touching on...well...everything in the title of this post.
The biggest bite, though, is saved for Bill Clinton. What's he up to? Sometimes I look in his eyes as he "campaigns" for Barack Obama and say to myself, "What's he building in there?"
We have a right to know...
The biggest bite, though, is saved for Bill Clinton. What's he up to? Sometimes I look in his eyes as he "campaigns" for Barack Obama and say to myself, "What's he building in there?"
We have a right to know...
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Country...No, Politics...No...Country First
Hey Ryan,
Man, this whole election thing just gets better and better, doesn't it?
Today, McCain called for a time out. He wants to take a step back and figure out this whole Wall Street deal...even though, as of last night, he, uh, hadn't read it.
That's cool, right? The guy is running for President, after all. It's probably pretty hard to get your hands on a brand-spanking new three-page legal proposal when you're out on the campaign trail. You'd think the guy could find Internet access somewhere on the road. But, hey, maybe not. Who am I to judge?
Besides, it's been a rough couple of weeks. Who's had time to do homework? Certainly not this lady:
She acts like every interview she's done is a quiz she forgot to study for. And she was McCain's superstar! Can you blame him for taking a powder? I mean, she's doing stuff like this on TV and having to get tutorials on (from?) world leaders? She's busy, man! She's so busy, she couldn't even meet Bono like she planned! No that's busy!
And she's got to be tired. She spent seconds under the bright hot spotlight of uncontrolled media scrutiny this past week, talking about Karzai's kid. I hope McCain doesn't spend up all her superstar capital in one spot!
You know what, though, I'm on board with this plan...the whole taking time out. It's about time Maverick got back to the Beltway and started kicking some ass! He's got to get back there and show them what real ethics and oversight are all about. He's gonna take on Wall Street goons and their Golden Parachutes and the lobbyists who've helped them descend on Washington and anybody else who gets in the way of freedom (from regulation)!
But before he can do all that...he needs to put on the brakes on this whole...presidential thing. He needs to put away partisanship and ambition by showing the country what kind of leader he'll be should we become embroiled in multiple crises after he becomes President (with a capital "P").
And, you know, he's learned from the best. He knows that the serfs, er, people want their leaders tanned, rested and ready, dealing with one issue at a time. They don't want a guy who can multi-task! Walking and chewing gum? Fugettaboutit! Patting head and rubbing tummy? Fugettaboutit! Multi-tasking's for suckers!
Man, this whole election thing just gets better and better, doesn't it?
Today, McCain called for a time out. He wants to take a step back and figure out this whole Wall Street deal...even though, as of last night, he, uh, hadn't read it.
That's cool, right? The guy is running for President, after all. It's probably pretty hard to get your hands on a brand-spanking new three-page legal proposal when you're out on the campaign trail. You'd think the guy could find Internet access somewhere on the road. But, hey, maybe not. Who am I to judge?
Besides, it's been a rough couple of weeks. Who's had time to do homework? Certainly not this lady:
She acts like every interview she's done is a quiz she forgot to study for. And she was McCain's superstar! Can you blame him for taking a powder? I mean, she's doing stuff like this on TV and having to get tutorials on (from?) world leaders? She's busy, man! She's so busy, she couldn't even meet Bono like she planned! No that's busy!
And she's got to be tired. She spent seconds under the bright hot spotlight of uncontrolled media scrutiny this past week, talking about Karzai's kid. I hope McCain doesn't spend up all her superstar capital in one spot!
You know what, though, I'm on board with this plan...the whole taking time out. It's about time Maverick got back to the Beltway and started kicking some ass! He's got to get back there and show them what real ethics and oversight are all about. He's gonna take on Wall Street goons and their Golden Parachutes and the lobbyists who've helped them descend on Washington and anybody else who gets in the way of freedom (from regulation)!
But before he can do all that...he needs to put on the brakes on this whole...presidential thing. He needs to put away partisanship and ambition by showing the country what kind of leader he'll be should we become embroiled in multiple crises after he becomes President (with a capital "P").
And, you know, he's learned from the best. He knows that the serfs, er, people want their leaders tanned, rested and ready, dealing with one issue at a time. They don't want a guy who can multi-task! Walking and chewing gum? Fugettaboutit! Patting head and rubbing tummy? Fugettaboutit! Multi-tasking's for suckers!
Charles
See How Your Tax Money Is Spent
Here's a pie we can all claim a bite out of...if we're either Wall Street or the Military-Industrial Complex. All others step to the back of the line.
Bush Regime To Hold Back "Grim" War Report
The Bush Regime plans on holding back a "grim" war report coming out of Afghanistan until after the election. Well that's good. I guess we wouldn't want to have all the facts before we vote, huh?
Pepe Escobar on the Straight Mess Express
Real New Network correspondent Pepe Escobar takes a look at the curiosities and inconsistencies of McCain's message over the past few months. It's nine and a half minute video, so watch when you have some time on your hands.
Palin Pal In the Hot Seat Next Week
Alaska Repub Senator Ted Stevens will be in the hot seat next week as he goes "on trial in federal court on charges of failing to disclose $250,000 in gifts and home renovations from a politically connected oil services company." This piece from the New York Times touches on how his "ill-timed" trial might affect elections from the top on down.
Good luck, Ted!
Good luck, Ted!
The Healthcare Plans
A few sources of information comparing, contrasting, and analyzing the candidates' respective healthcare plans:
--A comparison by MSNBC health writer JoNel Aleccia focusing on the costs and benefits of each plan.
--A side-by-side comparison chart from the Henry Kaiser Family Foundation.
--And, an interview from NPR's Fresh Air with Jonathan Oberlander that offers an in-depth analysis of the candidates' plans. (Click "Listen Now" at the top of the NPR page to hear the interview.)
Know more. Vote smart.
--A comparison by MSNBC health writer JoNel Aleccia focusing on the costs and benefits of each plan.
--A side-by-side comparison chart from the Henry Kaiser Family Foundation.
--And, an interview from NPR's Fresh Air with Jonathan Oberlander that offers an in-depth analysis of the candidates' plans. (Click "Listen Now" at the top of the NPR page to hear the interview.)
Know more. Vote smart.
I'm From the Government...
A good Op-Ed from Tom Friedman about what he, as a voter, would like to hear the candidates say about this economic turmoil.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Democrats Reject the Blank Check...FINALLY!
WHAT!?!?!
The following piece was posted by Glenn Thrush today on Politico.com:
Soooo...we're supposed to trust these two Bozos (sorry Bozo) with between $700 billion and $2.5 trillion, but they can't even tell us what will happen to our collective credit rating?!?! In case you're unsure about who he is, Bernanke is the CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK...and he doesn't know "'how the rating agencies' calculate such scores"? You've got to be kidding me!
This lack of preparedness sounds eerily like the run-up to the Iraq War. The Bush Administration rushed through all the required "diplomacy," all the while tapping their feet and repeating warnings about Armageddon and then, when they got there, we realized they had lied about the reasons for going and didn't have a plan to get out!
But that took months! This financial "deal" (read: mugging) is only supposed to take a week!
Bernanke, Paulson tiptoe around credit rating
One of the creepiest moments in today's five-hour bailout marathon was Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester's questioning of Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke at the tail end of the hearing when the room had all but emptied out.
Does the bailout threaten the credit rating of the United States? Tester wanted to know.
Paulson stumbled around a bit -- and had to be told to speak directly into the microphone -- before saying that the $700 billion was just an initial payment and that much of the money was likely to be recouped.
"Everything we do effects the credit rating—but we believe this is the right thing to do," he added.
Bernanke spoke more directly to the point: "I don't think so – but I don't know how the rating agencies" calculate such scores. he said.
Soooo...we're supposed to trust these two Bozos (sorry Bozo) with between $700 billion and $2.5 trillion, but they can't even tell us what will happen to our collective credit rating?!?! In case you're unsure about who he is, Bernanke is the CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK...and he doesn't know "'how the rating agencies' calculate such scores"? You've got to be kidding me!
This lack of preparedness sounds eerily like the run-up to the Iraq War. The Bush Administration rushed through all the required "diplomacy," all the while tapping their feet and repeating warnings about Armageddon and then, when they got there, we realized they had lied about the reasons for going and didn't have a plan to get out!
But that took months! This financial "deal" (read: mugging) is only supposed to take a week!
Dateline Washington: Uncle Fester No Longer Able To Wrangle Children
So, it seems like the whole "lame duck" thing has been taken to a new level...that is, down a level to include Uncle Fester, er, I mean Dick Cheney...as GOP Housies are pushing back against the old man. Careful, guys, if you push too hard, you might have to jump start him.
The Lies, The Lies...There's Just Too Many To Keep Up With
CNN debunks yet another flat out lie from John McCain. Where has the old McCain gone?
The Media Revolts? Awesome!
McCain/Palin wanted to control how much media got in to her meetings with U.N. leaders today, so that there would be no editorial presence and, thus, no real commentary on what was said in those meetings. So, what did the media do? They cut her off!
At least for the time being, Palin isn't going to get the foreign policy photo-op she'd been hoping for to insert into campaign ads touting her flimsy record.
So sorry, Sarah. You hear my inner Agnew coming out?
At least for the time being, Palin isn't going to get the foreign policy photo-op she'd been hoping for to insert into campaign ads touting her flimsy record.
So sorry, Sarah. You hear my inner Agnew coming out?
Are You Insured?
Well, I guess that's how it goes...
While you're trying to pat out the flames from this current financial crisis, the insurance man is sneaking in to burn your house down...at least, figuratively. Take a look at this article from The Nation by John Nichols about how the insurance industry is trying to slip in some de-regulation legislation of its own on the coattails of new financial law.
If you have a piece of the rock, make sure it's not tied to your foot.
While you're trying to pat out the flames from this current financial crisis, the insurance man is sneaking in to burn your house down...at least, figuratively. Take a look at this article from The Nation by John Nichols about how the insurance industry is trying to slip in some de-regulation legislation of its own on the coattails of new financial law.
If you have a piece of the rock, make sure it's not tied to your foot.
Is This the Legacy He Was Hoping For?
Here's a Think Progress piece about the Bush Regime's "legacy" of irresponsible tax dollar spending (read: squandering).
Do you think THIS was the legacy Ol' Cowboy Georgie was hoping for? Oh...yeah...right...we'll let history be the judge...that's what he always says.
Do you think THIS was the legacy Ol' Cowboy Georgie was hoping for? Oh...yeah...right...we'll let history be the judge...that's what he always says.
Olbermann and Krugman Discuss the Trillion Dollar Baby
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and NYT's Paul Krugman discuss Paulson's Trillion Dollar Baby Bailout Plan and the presidential candidates' reactions to it.
The Keating 5 Ghost Rises Again
It seems as though the "Keating 5" team name is starting to show up more and more in discussion in light of this recent financial catastrophe. So, if you're asking who the Keating 5 are, read this article from Mark Sumner in The Nation to get an idea of how John McCain can take some "credit" for this new economic meltdown.
Getting Mugged By Moguls
A great article from PBS's Bill Moyers and Michael Winship on moguls with golden parachutes and their soft landing pad at the new stadium that New Yorkers are half-shouldering. Welcome back to the 1930s.
"Is Our Children Learning?"
Stacy Teicher Khadaroo of The Christian Science Monitor offers a brief overview of the differing education plans from McCain and Obama, complete with some samples from their respective proposals at the end.
Which one sounds better and more complete to you?
Which one sounds better and more complete to you?
The Results Mentality
So, Bush is going to give his final speech at the U.N. today and, boy, are they glad his tenure almost over. So, what's Bush the Junior going to talk about? Here's a hint from Yahoo:
Great suggestion from Lil' Bush! Let's focus on results and forget about process! Who needs process? Who cares how we accomplish our goals? I mean, it worked for our financial institutions, right?
Idiot.
US National Security advisor Stephen Hadley said Mr Bush's speech "will highlight the current challenges facing multilateral organisations like the UN and how to improve the ability of these organisations to meet these challenges".
"He'll talk about the need to focus on results," Mr Hadley said. "You've heard him say he's kind of an outcomes guy, not a process guy, and sometimes we spend too much time on the process and not enough time on the outcomes."
Great suggestion from Lil' Bush! Let's focus on results and forget about process! Who needs process? Who cares how we accomplish our goals? I mean, it worked for our financial institutions, right?
Idiot.
Improving the Bailout
E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post offers some insight and information about the bailout plan and how Congress could make it better.
Contact Your Representatives Quickly
Contacting our representatives in Congress as quickly as possible is important in times like this. Go to http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/ and go to the "Soapbox" section in the bottom center of the page to write emails to your representatives about a number of issues...including the bailout plan. All you have to do is enter your address and zip code and the site will provide a form for you to write your letter.
Take some time and do this.
Take some time and do this.
Where there's a Will ...
Once upon a time, George Will called Born in the U.S.A.! a "grand, cheerful affirmation" of America. For my tax dollars, that's pretty much all you need to know about George Will. But the bow-tied wonder struck a strong chord today, calling John McCain's verbal attack on SEC Chairman Chris Cox a "childish reflex," "unpresidential," and "fact-free slander." Will still has his moments ("the political left always aims to expand the permeation of economic life by politics" ... huh?), but calling McCain a "flustered rookie," that's pretty good for ol' George.
Heck, even the Boss would agree with that one.
Heck, even the Boss would agree with that one.
The Treasury "Bailout" Plan
Hey Ryan,
I just finished reading the Treasury Department's version of the "Bailout" Plan. It's not Law & Order, but it is chilling in parts. Here's an example from Section 3:
Wow, the disdain for the taxpayer's position in all of this comes out front and center! Oh, well, at least they're not keeping it a secret anymore, huh? It's funny how this administration lets its corporations-first-little-guy-second mentality seep into the public record like this. Maybe they figure not that many people will actually read it...even if it's only two pages long. Or, maybe they just don't care anymore. That's more than likely the case.
And, really, who's going to call them on it? In the scheme of things, this little passage isn't really that big of a deal. If we still slapped each other with gloves and had duels, this sort of slight might mean more to us, as voters. As it is, though, the majority of us have shown time and again that we're perfectly willing to give up some self-respect in exchange for a (usually false) sense of security.
But the real shock and awe here, aside from seeing eleven trillion, three hundred fifteen billion dollars written as a real number, is a blatant power grab of a passage that reads:
This is fairly straightforward for a legal document, but it wouldn't hurt to make it clearer:
This sentence means, essentially, that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson could take that $700 billion figure that's been flying around out there and do whatever he wants with it and not be accountable to anyone for his actions. No oversight, no other minds collaborating on the decision-making. This guy would be one of the most powerful people on the planet...if not THE most powerful person!
And who voted for Paulson? No one. He was appointed by Bush the Junior in 2006. He is a former CEO of Goldman Sachs, which will be one of the biggest beneficiaries of this new "Bailout" Plan. Looks like the Section 3 credo of "providing stability [to] the financial markets" before "protect[ing] the taxpayer" is springing into action!
But what else do we know about Henry Paulson?
Well, NOW we know all we need to know. They called him the Hammer? That's good enough for me! It's great that he gives millions to nature conservation...but I don't care. That doesn't tell me, as a voter, why I should fork over my part of (at least) $700 billion in tax money to spend however he sees fit! For once, Michelle Malkin and I agree on something (kind of, but it'll probably never happen again). Neither of us trust Henry Paulson.
And you know what? I could be Paulson's best friend and still not trust him. Not because of who he is, but because of who we all are. Putting that much power in anyone's hands is dangerous, especially in a volatile arena like the economy.
Let's call it right down the middle, nobody knows anything when it comes to finances. Not the economists. Not the bankers. Not the brokers. And not the Treasury Secretary. Sure, those people are a lot smarter on the subject than I am, but that's still not saying much. You could fill libraries with what I don't know. But, at its core, the financial system is...well...magic. The labyrinths these firms and institutions have set up contain multiple Minotaurs and not even the most savvy single econo-wizard can predict what's going to happen. That's why opposing viewpoints (and collaboration and oversight) are so important.
Since early 2007, Paulson has said over and over that the mortgage credit crisis would be "contained" and that it might be "fading" because the fundamentals of the economy are...well, you know that quote by now.
But now, his tune has changed. On Meet the Press this past Sunday, Paulson said that he wants to "have authority to move very quickly to purchase these assets, these illiquid assets from banks" in the interest of "preventing failure." Let's see here, the administration is going to choose to engage in this deal with a three-page plan as a blueprint, all under the supervision of one man. Does this sound like a song we've heard before?
Of course, the real shank in the taxpayers' ribs might be the fact that both Paulson and the lobbyist sharks lurking around this deal have said that Congress should not move to limit corporate executive compensation packages as part of this deal. According to Paulson, that would be a "poison pill" to agreeing on a deal. Gosh, when you out it that way, Mr. Secretary, it almost sounds like this "bailout" might not be so urgent, after all.
The lobbyists, though, are the real pros here. According to Elizabeth Williamson of the Wall Street Journal, their argument against limiting Golden Parachutes is that such a policy would "hurt their ability to find and retain top brass." Do they mean "top brass" as in...the executives who contributed to the mess we're in? Yeah, we really should try to find or, at least, keep those people on the payroll! They've done such a great job so far!
On the plus side, though, I've gained new (to me) insight about our country through this whole debacle. I realize now that our two-party system isn't about Republicans and Democrats. It's about the rich and the poor. The rules are not the same for the rich as they are for you and me. I've known that for a long time, but now I realize it. It's like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said: "Capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich."
"Socializing" something isn't good...until it's the robber barons who need it.
Then it becomes necessary.
Color me enlightened.
Charles
I just finished reading the Treasury Department's version of the "Bailout" Plan. It's not Law & Order, but it is chilling in parts. Here's an example from Section 3:
Sec. 3. Considerations.
In exercising the authorities granted in this Act, the Secretary shall take into consideration means for--
(1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and
(2) protecting the taxpayer.
Wow, the disdain for the taxpayer's position in all of this comes out front and center! Oh, well, at least they're not keeping it a secret anymore, huh? It's funny how this administration lets its corporations-first-little-guy-second mentality seep into the public record like this. Maybe they figure not that many people will actually read it...even if it's only two pages long. Or, maybe they just don't care anymore. That's more than likely the case.
And, really, who's going to call them on it? In the scheme of things, this little passage isn't really that big of a deal. If we still slapped each other with gloves and had duels, this sort of slight might mean more to us, as voters. As it is, though, the majority of us have shown time and again that we're perfectly willing to give up some self-respect in exchange for a (usually false) sense of security.
But the real shock and awe here, aside from seeing eleven trillion, three hundred fifteen billion dollars written as a real number, is a blatant power grab of a passage that reads:
Sec. 8. Review.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
This is fairly straightforward for a legal document, but it wouldn't hurt to make it clearer:
This sentence means, essentially, that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson could take that $700 billion figure that's been flying around out there and do whatever he wants with it and not be accountable to anyone for his actions. No oversight, no other minds collaborating on the decision-making. This guy would be one of the most powerful people on the planet...if not THE most powerful person!
And who voted for Paulson? No one. He was appointed by Bush the Junior in 2006. He is a former CEO of Goldman Sachs, which will be one of the biggest beneficiaries of this new "Bailout" Plan. Looks like the Section 3 credo of "providing stability [to] the financial markets" before "protect[ing] the taxpayer" is springing into action!
But what else do we know about Henry Paulson?
Well, NOW we know all we need to know. They called him the Hammer? That's good enough for me! It's great that he gives millions to nature conservation...but I don't care. That doesn't tell me, as a voter, why I should fork over my part of (at least) $700 billion in tax money to spend however he sees fit! For once, Michelle Malkin and I agree on something (kind of, but it'll probably never happen again). Neither of us trust Henry Paulson.
And you know what? I could be Paulson's best friend and still not trust him. Not because of who he is, but because of who we all are. Putting that much power in anyone's hands is dangerous, especially in a volatile arena like the economy.
Let's call it right down the middle, nobody knows anything when it comes to finances. Not the economists. Not the bankers. Not the brokers. And not the Treasury Secretary. Sure, those people are a lot smarter on the subject than I am, but that's still not saying much. You could fill libraries with what I don't know. But, at its core, the financial system is...well...magic. The labyrinths these firms and institutions have set up contain multiple Minotaurs and not even the most savvy single econo-wizard can predict what's going to happen. That's why opposing viewpoints (and collaboration and oversight) are so important.
Since early 2007, Paulson has said over and over that the mortgage credit crisis would be "contained" and that it might be "fading" because the fundamentals of the economy are...well, you know that quote by now.
But now, his tune has changed. On Meet the Press this past Sunday, Paulson said that he wants to "have authority to move very quickly to purchase these assets, these illiquid assets from banks" in the interest of "preventing failure." Let's see here, the administration is going to choose to engage in this deal with a three-page plan as a blueprint, all under the supervision of one man. Does this sound like a song we've heard before?
Of course, the real shank in the taxpayers' ribs might be the fact that both Paulson and the lobbyist sharks lurking around this deal have said that Congress should not move to limit corporate executive compensation packages as part of this deal. According to Paulson, that would be a "poison pill" to agreeing on a deal. Gosh, when you out it that way, Mr. Secretary, it almost sounds like this "bailout" might not be so urgent, after all.
The lobbyists, though, are the real pros here. According to Elizabeth Williamson of the Wall Street Journal, their argument against limiting Golden Parachutes is that such a policy would "hurt their ability to find and retain top brass." Do they mean "top brass" as in...the executives who contributed to the mess we're in? Yeah, we really should try to find or, at least, keep those people on the payroll! They've done such a great job so far!
On the plus side, though, I've gained new (to me) insight about our country through this whole debacle. I realize now that our two-party system isn't about Republicans and Democrats. It's about the rich and the poor. The rules are not the same for the rich as they are for you and me. I've known that for a long time, but now I realize it. It's like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said: "Capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich."
"Socializing" something isn't good...until it's the robber barons who need it.
Then it becomes necessary.
Color me enlightened.
Charles
Monday, September 22, 2008
Why Religion is NOT Right!
I have been asked to post some entries from a "faith perspective" on politics. Since it is my job description to think about my faith, research my faith, write about my faith, and simply immerse myself in my faith, it is only natural that I have a few opinions about faith and politics.
This first post is to establish a fact that is often unfairly characterized in the political world: religion (Christianity) is NOT a "right wing" monopoly.
A Christian writer named Derek Webb sings in his song A King and a Kingdom, "There are two great lies that I've heard: 'the day you eat of the fruit of that tree, you
will not surely die' and that Jesus Christ was a white, middle-class republican and if you wanna be saved you have to learn to be like Him."
As a Christian, I am sick of being pigeon-holed into the right-wing, conservative, Republican agenda as if "this is what all Christians believe". I have no allegiance to the Republican party (or the Democratic party for that matter) because my allegiance is to a kingdom that is not of this world--and frankly does not function like this world (i.e., first is last, suffering is victory, loss is gain, etc.).
The propaganda machine of the Republican party (which has been adopted by some Democratic candidates) that flaunts their "Christian beliefs" as a way to win votes is simply unacceptable. I am offended when candidates quote scripture (often times completely out of context thereby distorting the true meaning of the passage) and acting as if they are a part of some "end times" scheme that is based off of faulty theology to begin with (see www.shanejwood.com for more information). I do not want to see the pledge of allegiance being said in my worship services any more than I want to see God's name drug through the discourse of political policies to stamp their own personal agendas with a divine right of passage.
"Why do you feel this way about faith and politics?" some may ask. Because I am tired of paying, as a Christian, for the sins of politicians that wear the badge of Christ but do not emulate the message of Jesus in their lives or policies. I am tired of wars being waged in the name of Christ. I am tired of Jesus being a tool for political propaganda. I am tired of being caricatured as something other than a follower of Christ, my King, as part of different empire than the American one. The ideology I strive after has nothing to do with an American dream--in fact many would see my ideals as nightmares (i.e., anti-materialistic, pacifistic in all areas of my life, etc.).
As a result, I would like to offer in several forthcoming posts the way in which I as a Christian look at politics, and specifically this upcoming election. I will admit, my faith will guide my vote--but it is a guide that is not partial to any party, but rather to the Politics of Jesus (see John Howard Yoder's, The Politics of Jesus).
For other Christians that are NOT Republican please see: Donald Miller (Blue Like Jazz), Jim Wallis (God's Politics), and many, many more. For other Christian perspectives on politics see: www.JesusPolitics.net.
This first post is to establish a fact that is often unfairly characterized in the political world: religion (Christianity) is NOT a "right wing" monopoly.
A Christian writer named Derek Webb sings in his song A King and a Kingdom, "There are two great lies that I've heard: 'the day you eat of the fruit of that tree, you
will not surely die' and that Jesus Christ was a white, middle-class republican and if you wanna be saved you have to learn to be like Him."As a Christian, I am sick of being pigeon-holed into the right-wing, conservative, Republican agenda as if "this is what all Christians believe". I have no allegiance to the Republican party (or the Democratic party for that matter) because my allegiance is to a kingdom that is not of this world--and frankly does not function like this world (i.e., first is last, suffering is victory, loss is gain, etc.).
The propaganda machine of the Republican party (which has been adopted by some Democratic candidates) that flaunts their "Christian beliefs" as a way to win votes is simply unacceptable. I am offended when candidates quote scripture (often times completely out of context thereby distorting the true meaning of the passage) and acting as if they are a part of some "end times" scheme that is based off of faulty theology to begin with (see www.shanejwood.com for more information). I do not want to see the pledge of allegiance being said in my worship services any more than I want to see God's name drug through the discourse of political policies to stamp their own personal agendas with a divine right of passage.
"Why do you feel this way about faith and politics?" some may ask. Because I am tired of paying, as a Christian, for the sins of politicians that wear the badge of Christ but do not emulate the message of Jesus in their lives or policies. I am tired of wars being waged in the name of Christ. I am tired of Jesus being a tool for political propaganda. I am tired of being caricatured as something other than a follower of Christ, my King, as part of different empire than the American one. The ideology I strive after has nothing to do with an American dream--in fact many would see my ideals as nightmares (i.e., anti-materialistic, pacifistic in all areas of my life, etc.).
As a result, I would like to offer in several forthcoming posts the way in which I as a Christian look at politics, and specifically this upcoming election. I will admit, my faith will guide my vote--but it is a guide that is not partial to any party, but rather to the Politics of Jesus (see John Howard Yoder's, The Politics of Jesus).
For other Christians that are NOT Republican please see: Donald Miller (Blue Like Jazz), Jim Wallis (God's Politics), and many, many more. For other Christian perspectives on politics see: www.JesusPolitics.net.
READ THIS NOW!
Naomi Klein, author of the disaster-capitalism expose The Shock Doctrine, has posted an article at the Huffington Post about not giving in to the Bush Regime's domestic version of Shock and Awe.
This is a good read and should be followed up by taking in Ms. Klein's book.
This is a good read and should be followed up by taking in Ms. Klein's book.
The Dodd Plan
Democratic Senator Chris Dodd is putting together a more aggressive plan than the Treasury's original bailout plot.
Take a look.
Take a look.
ABC Panel Gives McCain a Thumbs Down
On ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, the panel (including conservative George Will) gave McCain a resounding thumbs down rating as far as acting "presidential" in the recent financial crisis.
Imagine what the guy would do if he was ACTUALLY President.
Imagine what the guy would do if he was ACTUALLY President.
Wall Street Running Low On Money...and Shame
Man, do these guys and gals just not realize how greedy they are? It seems as though Wall Street is ALREADY trying to find a way to profit from the impending government bailout. I love it.
Now, THIS is what free market capitalism is all about, right? Or, as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. called it, "Capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich."
Now, THIS is what free market capitalism is all about, right? Or, as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. called it, "Capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich."
Growing Up In Public
An insight into a root cause of the financial crisis by James Surowiecki of the New Yorker, explaining how the investment firms' decisions to go public left them open to this breakdown.
Who's Your Buddy?
Al Hunt, that's who! Here is a great article from Charlie Rose Show stalwart and Bloomberg News Executive Editor for Washington Al Hunt about last week's economic turmoil and how the candidates' respective responses showed which of them was better at crisis management.
Obama: "No Blank Checks..."
An article from New York Times columnist Jeff Zeleny on Obama's call for a no blank check policy on the financial institution bailouts.
Notes on a "Dictatorial" Bailout Plan
Paul Krugman of the New York Times shares his view of Henry Paulson's $700 billion, tax-payer funded bailout plan for Wall Street, including (n his mind) the four steps that lead to the meltdown and other disturbing details, including this dusty gem:
Wow, Bush's presidency comes to an end with a humiliating bang and his administration STILL wants to be given total control of something they helped to destroy! Classic!
...Mr. Paulson insists that he wants a “clean” plan. “Clean,” in this context, means a taxpayer-financed bailout with no strings attached — no quid pro quo on the part of those being bailed out. Why is that a good thing? Add to this the fact that Mr. Paulson is also demanding dictatorial authority, plus immunity from review “by any court of law or any administrative agency,” and this adds up to an unacceptable proposal.
Wow, Bush's presidency comes to an end with a humiliating bang and his administration STILL wants to be given total control of something they helped to destroy! Classic!
Sunday, September 21, 2008
That's a great question, Sean!
Leave it to Jon Stewart to perfectly capture the ridiculousness of the Sarah Palin/Sean Hannity infomer...err...interview!
The Meltdown Explained
Here's an interview from NPR's Fresh Air with law professor Michael Greenberger about the economic crisis of the past two weeks. Just click the Listen Now link at the top of the page and let the knowledge wash over you...
Thanks to Sean and Tony for the heads up on this one.
Thanks to Sean and Tony for the heads up on this one.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Light Weekend Reading
This is a very long and interesting article from The Nation about national security myths that permeate the election banter. If you can trudge through the three online pages, it's well worth the understanding you get about the state of our security as it stands right now.
Dinner and a Movie...Minus Dinner
Healthcare is a huge issue this election. Most Repubs want to leave it to the free market to solve. But we all know what "free markets" look like, don't we?
Buy this DVD whenever you can. But until then...
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
Part 11
Part 12
Part 13
Buy this DVD whenever you can. But until then...
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
Part 11
Part 12
Part 13
Who Is Daddy Warbucks?
You are. And so am I.
The next time you hear a politician talk about defense or going to war or a "supplemental" bill for billions of dollars to "fund our troops", remember this video:
Also, be sure to get your hands on Robert Scheer's Pornography of Power. It deals with the very situation outlined in the above video.
The next time you hear a politician talk about defense or going to war or a "supplemental" bill for billions of dollars to "fund our troops", remember this video:
Also, be sure to get your hands on Robert Scheer's Pornography of Power. It deals with the very situation outlined in the above video.
The Oil Queen of Juneau, Alaska
Some facts and figures from The Nation about Alaska's lone designation as a "petrostate" and how it affects Palin's energy policy focus and her legislative "experience".
Country First...Riiiiigggghht...
Todd Palin has refused to testify in the "Troopergate" case. Color me surprised.
This sounds EXACTLY like another investigation that SOMEONE wouldn't cooperate with...after they said they would.
And, with regard to Palin, herself, here's an article from the Washington Post about her governing style. Some quotes that might sound familiar:
Does that sound like some "leader" we know?
If it's not ringing a bell with you, let's take a look at another quote about Palin and see if we can figure it out.
Looks like it's more of the same on all fronts.
This sounds EXACTLY like another investigation that SOMEONE wouldn't cooperate with...after they said they would.
And, with regard to Palin, herself, here's an article from the Washington Post about her governing style. Some quotes that might sound familiar:
"She can only handle a few issues directly," said Lois Epstein, director of the Alaska Transportation Priorities Project, who has attended meetings with Palin. "And she relies on a very small number of trusted advisers for those issues. . . . That means certain issues don't get any attention."
Does that sound like some "leader" we know?
If it's not ringing a bell with you, let's take a look at another quote about Palin and see if we can figure it out.
According to lawmakers, senior gubernatorial aides and others who have watched her closely, [Palin] has little interest in political give-and-take, or in sustained working relationships with legislators or other important figures around the state. Nor has she proven particularly attentive to the details of public policy. "She's not known for burning the midnight oil on in-depth policy issues," said Larry Persily, a former journalist who was associate director of the governor's Washington office until the spring.
Looks like it's more of the same on all fronts.
Biden Bites Back
From an interview yesterday between Katie Couric and Joe Biden:
Amen to that, brother!
Katie: "Your vice presidential rival, Governor Palin, said "To the rest of America, that's not patriotism. Raising taxes is about killing jobs and hurting small businesses and making things worse."
Biden: "How many small businessmen are making one million, four hundred thousand--average in the top 1 percent. Give me a break. I remind my friend, John McCain, what he said--when Bush called for war and tax cuts--he said, it was immoral, immoral, to take a nation to war and not have anybody pay for it. I am so sick and tired of this phoniness. The truth of the matter is that we are in trouble. And the people who do not need a new tax cut should be willing, as patriotic Americans, to understand the way to get this economy back up on their feet is to give middle class taxpayers a break. We take the tax cut they're getting and we give it to the middle class."
Amen to that, brother!
THAT Clears It Up
A forwarded e-mail from a friend:
I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight.....
* If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're 'exotic, different.'
* If you grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American story.
* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
* If you name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.
* If you graduate from Harvard law School, you are unstable.
* If you attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well-grounded.
* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment, & Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council, 6 years as the mayor of a town with fewer than 7000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.
* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.
* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife to marry the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.
* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
* If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system, and your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible.
* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.
* If your husband is nicknamed 'First Dude,' has at least one DWI conviction, and has no college education, and who didn't register to vote until age 25, and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.
OK, much clearer now.
The Great References Just Keep Rollin' In
As mentioned yesterday here, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska has weighed in on his belief in Sarah Palin.
Youch!
And here's one for Obama from Republican Senator Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland.
And, finally, we've got Elizabeth Drew, who authored the friendly 2002 biography Citizen McCain, on how the candidate has since lost her through his recent actions.
Youch!
And here's one for Obama from Republican Senator Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland.
And, finally, we've got Elizabeth Drew, who authored the friendly 2002 biography Citizen McCain, on how the candidate has since lost her through his recent actions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
