http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Default.html progress's Blog en-us Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:26:14 EST Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:26:14 EST Intralink Custom Development webmaster@u4prez.com webmaster@u4prez.com http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/A-Political-Crossroads.html It is official. I am completely confused. Here it is 2009. The Bush Administration, of which put me through a severe political identity crisis, is over. Here I am sitting back and thinking of where I was in 2000; and what might I be if I had Rip-Van-Winkled the entire Bush presidency. I grew up a moderate Republican. I believed in the Republican Party's mantra of giving people the chance at the American Dream. I liked the 1980's under Reagan and the Democratic Congress. I voted Republican on every ballot between 1994 and 2000 except for one; I did vote for Clinton over Dole in '96 simply because Dole, IMO, never provided any substantial answer for me on any of the issues. I was apalled at the Monica scandal; although I opposed impeachment out of respect for the office of President itself. I voted for compassionate conservatism; and was 100% behind the president when we were attacked on 9/11. Then, the drum beats began for Iraq. I had a bad feeling about it from the beginning. To me, the whole "War on Terror" slogan was starting to sound eerily like the old "Red Scare" in the 1950's. Even when my personal hero, Colin Powell, addressed the UN; while I praised it comparatively to Adlai Stevenson's address during the Cuban Missile Crisis, I still did not see Iraq as anything like the threat that the Soviet Union had once been. It felt as if the hole left by the Cold War was so empty that we were looking for anything to put in its place. I simply hoped that it was over fast. As the invasion began, and the ease of it brought our troops to Baghdad; I began to feel more comfortable with it. Yes, I still questioned the merits of it; but perhaps we could just overthrow Saddam Hussein and get out of there. Once Saddam was captured; I presumed the end was near. Then the killing began. "Why are we still there?" I was asking. I understood helping them start a government; but then protect their freedom? That should not be our responsibility. If they want their new freedom; then they needed to get out there and fight for it. We were constantly reminded at home that freedom is never free; but nobody was telling the Iraqi people! By the 2004 election, I was siding w/ the Democrats on Iraq; and I was close on a lot of the other issues. While I was still skeptical of the extreme left, I voted Democratic that year. Don't get me wrong; I was never that impressed with John Kerry. But Bush just did not seem that much better; and I felt like a Democratic president w/ a Republican Congress would provide a needed balance. Not that I don't think Bush means well; but I really believe he got in over his head. A man of his person should not be a President of the United States; and IMO, the combined average intellect of all of our presidents has been weighted down because of him. On the issues, I am completely torn apart. I agree with the Democrats that the abortion procedure can not be outlawed completely; but I agree with the Republicans that it should not be a form of birth control. As for gay marriage, I tend to stand on a more Libertarian position that marriage should be stripped from the states completely with the civil union in its place; and marriage simply a religious ceremony like baptism. Immigration is a subject I feel somewhat indifferent to. Yes, they take many jobs; but they are willing to do jobs that most Americans deplore. Yes, they are a heavy weight on the social services system. However, some of the hate and racial slurring associated towards them discourages me from participating. The anti-immigration rallies have come so close to the KKK that I find myself wishing and hoping that an illegal takes the particular orator's job. That is not a healthy political view either. As for economics, I don't know. Let's be honest; I haven't the first clue about which economic theory is better. Karl Marx's theories look good on paper. Ron Paul's economic theories do sound more like freedom; but do they work? What about children who can not control their circumstances? What about the elderly? The free market, when it is completely free, thrives on greed; and it seems to punish those the most who have the least means to help themselves. Then there are those at the top of the scale that get too much sway in the government; which is why I am suspicious of the heavy corporate influence in the Republican Party to this day. So, where am I politically? Where do I fall in? I oppose the Republican Party's beliefs in legislating human behavior on one hand; but defending gun rights' on the other. I am not too cool with the Democratic Party's taking over banks. I really do not share the Libertarian Party's desire to legalize all drugs; although I have conceded the need to decriminalize the less-harmful stuff. I must say that I am at a crossroads. The 8 years of Bush hath confuseth me. However, it has challenged my beliefs and made me realize that I do not have to go along with everything. I do look forward to a new year; and I will be renewing my critical-thinking lens on everyone this year, including the cultic following of one President Barack Obama. This is an open invitation for all of you alleged "political experts" to convince me that your positions are the best for America! No, I am not leaving the Democratic Party....yet. Although, I am not taking it off the table either. I am simply re-evaluating myself based on the fact that the extremist, almost-third-party-in-itself Bush presidency is over. Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/A-Political-Crossroads.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Progressive-News-Update-11-28-09.html The latest news from the perspective of Michael, formerly known as Arch. PN: So, how was your Thanksgiving? MF: I ate too much. Watched a little football. Oh, and my wife and I went and got new cars. PN: Well, that had to be exciting. What did you get? MF: She got a Hyundai Santa Fe, and I traded in my Nissan Xterra for a Hyundai Elantra. PN: That was a downsize. MF: Yes, it was. I do not need a car that size just going to work and back. Besides it was 16 mpg in the city. So, I decided to downgrade to something a little more economical, and environmentally friendly. Besides, my warranty was out. PN: Ok, well, so how are things with you and U4Prez? Do you like the new setup? Did you ever hear from U4Prez on whether your vote was counted or not? MF: No, I have not. As far as I know, since I was on a cruise in Mexico, I was unable to participate. But that is ok. As for the new setup? I am still undecided at this point. It does seem to have a few bugs in it, but I believe Eric and Matt and crew are working on those. PN: Before the interview, you talked about the fact that some private messages are being posted in comment sections from people who were not recipients. Any further comment on this? MF: I still have not determined if this is one of the glitches because of the site update, or if in fact the original recipients decided to share these with other members. If it is the latter, this is unfortunate. If it is the former, I hope that Eric and Matt fix this ASAP. I will not be using PM's for awhile until I hear differently. PN: Based on some of the comments, some scathing accusations are coming forth. MF: Well, I will say two things. First of all, when posting a private comment from someone else, it is very easy to paste it and re-word things in a more negative light. I suppose the integrity of the candidate would have to be considered. Secondly, we have to realize that there is a context in which the messages were sent. One message, without the other corresponding messages, only gives a partial understanding of the conversation that took place. PN: Well said! However, in spite of those legitimate points, there seems to be a sense that you were working behind the scenes with Erock and Brinmat on the election, and you harbored a grudge against KT. Care to explain this? MF: You know what? Your right. The truth needs to come out. As for KT, I have allowed my judgment to be affected based on the way she handled a situation involving Lucky and myself when she was Dem Leader. This is unfortunate. I need to move on. So, in regards to that, for what it is worth, I would like to say that I forgive her. I don't care about it anymore. If I over-reacted, or if she did not make a good call on it, who cares? I am moving forward. PN: She has made the case that she would not accept an apology from you on this matter. MF: And she has every right to make that decision. She does not have to care what I say about it. I will respect that right. I am still moving on, and I choose to no longer care about what happened. I hold nothing against her from here on. PN: What about the revelations concerning the election in regards to Brinmat and Erock? MF: I hope that Erock did not leak this private message. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt that it is part of the site update. However, an explanation is needed. Erock and I made an agreement several months back when his profile was being attacked with 1's on a daily basis. He had been relegated all the way to page 2 of the GOP candidates list as a result. At the time, I was still using the Arch profile and was ranked #2 with the Dems. As a show of good faith, I informed Erock that I was willing to use my fake profiles to counter the attacks he was suffering from and try to get him at least in the top 5 within his party. PN: It seems to have worked! MF: Yes, it did. He began showing up in runoffs, and winning them. Although, I must admit, my ability to affect the runoffs was severely limited. PN: You did use the fakes in the runoffs then? MF: Yes, but I could only vote for him up to 3 times. He won most of them by significantly larger margins that that, so it was not a factor, in my opinion. PN: This is a damning confession. After all, you have been adamantly protesting the actions of Big Daddy and Lucky for acts similar to this for most of the year. MF: You are correct; and I do apologize for my hypocrisy. What they were doing was still wrong; but what I was doing was just as wrong as well. Part of my goal for the next year is to no longer take part in this type of activity, which is why I changed my profile to a more honest one as myself instead of the Arch alias. I need to practice what I preach. PN: So, what was erock offering you in return? MF: Nothing specifically. Just his good will, and perhaps his vote in runoffs and things like that. PN: So, what kind of picture does this paint of Erock as the winner of the election? MF: Well, as I stated before, I did not vote in the election as far as I know. So, he won by some other means. PN: But you are not understanding my question. If you had not been giving him 10's with your fake profiles, perhaps he might not have been in the top 10, or perhaps he might not have won runoffs? MF: I really think that is going too far. My number of fakes is nowhere even close to the arsenal BD and Lucky had. My effect on Erock winning anything was minimal. However, I do agree that I participated in unethical behavior in that regard, and no amount of justification can erase that. PN: Well, I will leave that to the rest of the site to decide. What about Brinmat? According to KT"s post, you accuse Brinmat of working w/ Trish in manipulating scores. MF: Again, that was a private message between Brinmat and myself. Again, I hope that this has to do with the site update. As for an explanation, this is in reference to last year's election, not this year's. Like I said, context is important. PN: What do you mean by last year's election? MF: Well, if you will remember, there at the very end Brinmat had a surge of votes and almost caught up to LC. That was Brinmat and Trish. It almost worked. PN: This is a scathing accusation. Why come forward about it now? MF: It is time to be the change that I wish to see in U4Prez. It is time for some blunt honesty. I will say this: I will not reveal anything that is told to me in private comments. It seems some have lost track of what it means to be "private." It is unfortunate that these private messages have surfaced; but like I said before, it is either a glitch in this new format or some members are sharing their private messages with me with the rest of the site. I am being candid about them because they have come out, and certain people are owed an explanation. However, I will not reveal the details of any private message between me and another candidate as long as they respect the same. PN: So, in regards to this PM by KT, is it true that you doubted the integrity of Brinmat as a candidate and thus voted for Erock for that reason? MF: That would seem to be the case except for what we have already discussed. Erock and I were involved in scandalout activity of our own. So, it would have been hypocrisy for me to hold that against Brinmat when I was obviously involved in behind-the-scenes maneuvering myself. The truth is, as I already stated before, that I allowed my judgment to be affected by my spat with KT, and I voted for Erock as a result. Had Erock chosen KT as his running mate, I would have probably voted for Brinmat. PN: But Lucky and Big Daddy were out of the question? MF: Yes! PN: Even though you were involved in similar activities like themselves? MF: Unfortunately, that is true. However, again, that was not the deciding factor for them either, although I confess I allowed it to be colored in that light. Lucky is militantly anti-Christian, so I could not vote for him. Big Daddy accused me of being a pedophile awhile back. So, obviously that lost his favor with me. So, as you can see, the voting manipulations, as much as I wished they could be reformed, were not really a part of the logic behind my support of Erock and Smashey. PN: So, the truth is out! You were as much involved in voting manipulation as everyone else. MF: Yes, I was. That is why I no longer use the Arch profile. As Michael, w/ the Hub City Progressive campaign, I am not participating in anymore manipulations. That is part of the change I wish to see in myself as well as U4Prez now that I am taking responsibility for what I say and do, and no longer using aliases and fake profiles for the runoffs and so forth. PN: Still consider yourself a Republican? MF: Yes. I am just right of center on the political spectrum. It is time, now that Bush is gone, for the common-sense Republicans to take back their party from the ideological social conservatives that have taken it over. PN: You consider the social conservatives the off-shoots of the Dixiecrats that left the Democratic Party after the Civil Rights movement. Correct? MF: Yes, I do! That is why there is a growing sentiment within the Republican Party of those who believe in secession arguments, even though those arguments were defeated as far back as Andrew Jackson as well as Lincoln. It is really a travesty that the Party of Lincoln is now home to those who would have us be the party of dissension and treason. PN: Being from Texas, you must be referring to Rick Perry. MF: Not just him. There are a handful of folks. PN: Is it fair to lump all social conservatives with this generalization of being a part of the Dixiecrats, a faction within the Democratic Party that supported Jim Crow, lynchings, and segregation? MF: Probably not. I believe there are some that reject those notions, but a large part of them do not. The social conservatives in the south were the ones in history who defended slavery, states' rights, nullification, and eventually the Confederacy. I don't believe they are necessarily uneducated or dumb. I believe they are deluded into conspiracy theories like the ones touted by Glenn Beck, similar to the days of Joe McCarthy and the Red Scare. PN: You support Kay Bailey Hutchinson's gubernatorial candidacy in Texas? MF: Yes, I do. She is a Republican moderate and closer to myself politically. PN: Have you given up on Obama yet? MF: I am sticking to my guns on this. I will reserve my judgment until the 2010 fall elections. PN: Fair enough. That is all we have time for today, folks! Thank you, Michael, for the candid interview. I fear there will be those who will hold you accountable for what you have said here. MF: I wouldn't want it any other way. PN: Thank you, and good night. Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Progressive-News-Update-11-28-09.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Progressive-News-Update-11-18-09.html Progressive News sat down with Michael, the head of the Hub City Progressive campaign, in the aftermath of the U4Prez general election to discuss various issues. PN: So, Michael, what are your thoughts on the election? MF: I must say I am satisfied. PN: Were you surprised at all by the result? MF: I must admit I was concerned that Lucky and Big Daddy were going to achieve what they threatened to do all year, and that was to rig the election in their favor. Before my cruise to Mexico, I believed almost 99% that I would come back and see them victorious. So, it gives me some hope that Eric and/or Matt got more involved in the election process and made sure that it was fair, to the best of their ability. PN: Do you believe that the election is credible? MF: Yes, I do. I think Eric and/or Matt used their best judgment to sift through those that voted came up with a reasonable result. PN: Do you believe that all the voters counted were legit? MF: (laughs) No, I do not. I mean, there were probable some fakes that made it through the process. That is why I stipulated "to the best of their ability." I liken what Eric and/or Matt did to a form of damage control. I feel that they limited the effect that the fakes had on the general, and being what it is, I think that was the most sufficient solution at this point. PN: Were you able to vote while away in Mexico? MF: Not online. No. I did send a PM to U4Prez Development asking that my vote be counted in absentia since I would not be in the country that week. I did not recieve a reply, so I do not know if it was counted or not. PN: Did you follow through on your endorsement for the Erock/Smashey campaign? MF: I did. I private-messaged Matt and asked that my vote be counted as an absentee ballot for Erock and Smashey. But like I said, I do not know if it was since I did not get a reply. PN: Well, you have stated your positions on two of the campaigns. What about the Brinmat/KT campaign? MF: I think it says a lot that they came within 4 points. They were certainly my second choice. The fact that the Lucky/BD ticket came in last says a lot about this site. Their antics were ridiculous, and it gives me hope that 59 out of the 81 votes cast were against them. The unfortunate part of the whole thing, though, is that they basically hijacked the Independant ticket. Because of this, it is only reasonable that independants joined the other two tickets. They were the only choices left! PN: What do you mean the only choices left? MF: Well, think about it. The purpose of the Independant Party on this site is to provide an alternative to the reality of the two-party system. At least for this general election, that alternative was stolen. Did any of the independants have a chance against the Lucky/BD arsenal of winning their party's nomination? No! Eric and/or Matt stepped into the process for the General Election. But where were they during the nomination process and the primaries? PN: This is an astounding pronouncement. So, you believe that Lucky and Big Daddy stole their party's nomination, thus driving the independants to choose between the two main parties? MF: Exactly! In my opinion, there were only two legitimate choices in this election. There was no independant candidate. It was between Erock and Brinmat. PN: So, how is your relationship with your former party leader? MF: As far as I am concerned, it is great! I Yahoo'ed him just last night actually. He seemed to be in good spirits considering he had been defeated for the second year in a row. PN: Do you believe Brinmat's choice of KT as his running mate hurt his chances. MF: You had to ask me that, didn't you? In a word...yes. I do! And not for the reasons everybody would like to believe. My personal feelings have nothing to do with how people voted in the General Election. That is absurd. I believe that a strong majority of the site is center-right. Now, based on my own conversations with Brinmat, I can honestly say that he is closer to the center than most Democrats. However, he chose a running-mate that kicked his campaign out into left field. I think he lost some votes on that decision. PN: He only lost by 4 votes. Last year, I believe it was 2 or 3. Do you believe Brinmat could have won with a centrist or right-leaning running-mate? MF: Yes! Last year, the Independant Party had a strong ticket with LC and RSobien. The Independants were fairly united in their support for them. KT is a strong candidate in her own right. Don't get me wrong! To put this in baseball terms, you could say that Brinmat picking her is the equivalent of a line drive into left field. But when Erock picked Smashey? That was a smash hit over the just-right-of-center wall! PN: So, in your own words, what does this say about the state of things in the real world? MF: Hard to say. I don't believe we have an accurate demographic on this site to state anything for certain. I will say this! Obama needs to get his act together, and real soon! I don't believe the Republican Party is back just yet. They are strongly divided between the social conservatives and the libertarian conservatives. Who wins out of that debate will determine their fate. PN: Being somewhat libertarian on cultural issues yourself, you feel that the social conservatives would bring about the downfall of the Republican Party. Is that correct? MF: Yes! A recent poll showed that 40% of Americans consider themselves conservative, and I agree with that. What that poll does not show is how that 40% is divided into libertarian and social conservative camps. That is the big secret. This is certainly one of the biggest crossroad years in the history of the Republican Party, to be sure. If the social conservatives, who I believe are a fringe minority in this country, are allowed to control the party's agenda, I think they will still lose. The libertarian vote, which I happen to believe is a strong majority of the independant swing vote in this country, will not be enthusiastic about a candidate who wants to involve the government in the legislation of human behavioral issues based on theocratic ideologies. PN: You are talking about the separation of church and state. MF: Most definitely! I hear these people saying they want the government out of their health-care and all that. Great! I want the government out of my decisions about faith and spirituality. I believe in a God that has wisdom beyond human comprehension; and in His infinite wisdom he granted us free will. Free will is the liberty to choose our way of life. If it is good enough for God, then it is good enough for me! Governments are not here to legislate human behavior. They are here to provide consequences to choices and behaviors that infringe on the liberties of others against their will. PN: Just a couple more questions, and we can wrap this up. So, what is up with your relationship, or lack of one, with KT? MF: I look at it as a falling out. I disagreed with the way she handled a particular situation when she was the Democratic Leader between me and, what was at the time, a fellow member of the party. My biggest beef with the left in general, not just KT, is that they seem to prioritize tolerance over responsibility, or holding people accountable. I call it "tough love." I feel, and I concede that this is my perception of the events, that KT allowed one of two things to occur. Either she was more concerned with emphasizing tolerance and "getting along" over holding someone accountable, or she allowed her personal relationship with this person, who was a friend, to affect her judgment of the situation. Either way, I disagreed with her choice. It was a falling out. I don't hate her guts or anything. I just feel like it should have been handled differently. And to be honest, since I have moved on, I haven't really given much thought to exactly what "differently" should have entailed. I don't know. I just know that I was not satisfied with the result, and it left a bad taste in my mouth about her leadership at the time. PN: Which is why you were open to the actions of Brinmat to take over the leadership? MF: Yes! PN: So, who else was involved? MF: I do not feel it helps what is already a volatile situation to revisit those days. So, I am going to ask that you be satisfied knowing that I was involved in assisting Brinmat in his ouster of KT from the Democratic leadership. I will allow others to divulge their involvement at their own pace, or not at all if they so choose. PN: One final question. What are your plans for the next cycle here on U4Prez? MF: Well, for starters, I need to stick to a profile and party affiliation. I did not like all the jumping around from other candidates last year, and then I found myself doing it. Besides that, I went through about 4 different profiles before I finally settled on this one. So, that is my first objective going into the next cycle. PN: So, Hub City Progressive is it, huh? MF: Yes! I have slowly evolved to this point. I started out trying to obscure my identity completely with profiles of old men or young girls even. It was all in fun, but at the same time I was not comfortable revealing my true identity. PN: And now you are? MF: Yes, actually! I had a major breakthrough in my personal life dealing with my family and it has affected me in other ways as well, including work. It is a feeling of personal responsibility and not being afraid to man up to it. I don't want some fake identity getting credit for the things I do, good or bad. So, I am Michael of the Hub City Progressive campaign; and I will be from now on come hell or high water. PN: Well, on that note, I thank you for your time. This was certainly an interesting interview. We will be watching you for next year. MF: Thank you! And before I go, I just want to give a shout out to Erock and Smashey! Congratulations on your win, and let me know if there is anything I can do to help you guys out. You have my full support. PN: Well that wraps up today's edition of Progressive News Update. Hope to see you again soon. Until then, good night! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Progressive-News-Update-11-18-09.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/House-Passes-Health-Care-Reform-Legislation.html By John Whitesides and Donna Smith WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives approved a sweeping healthcare reform bill on Saturday, backing the biggest health policy changes in four decades and handing President Barack Obama a crucial victory. On a narrow 220-215 vote, including the support of one Republican, the House endorsed a bill that would expand coverage to nearly all Americans and bar insurance practices such as refusing to cover people with pre-existing conditions. Most Republicans criticized its $1 trillion price tag, new taxes on the wealthy and what they said was excessive government interference in the private health sector. Democrats cheered and hugged when the 218th vote was recorded, and again when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pounded the gavel and announced the results. The battle over Obama's top domestic priority now moves to the Senate, where work on its own version has stalled for weeks as Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid searches for an approach that can win the 60 votes he needs. Any differences between the Senate and House bills ultimately will have to be reconciled, and a final bill passed again by both before going to Obama for his signature. "Thanks to the hard work of the House, we are just two steps away from achieving health insurance reform in America. Now the United States Senate must follow suit and pass its version of the legislation," Obama said in a statement after the vote. "I am absolutely confident it will, and I look forward to signing comprehensive health insurance reform into law by the end of the year," he said. The overhaul would spark the biggest changes in the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system, which accounts for one sixth of the U.S. economy, since the creation of the Medicare government health program for the elderly in 1965. ABORTION DEAL The vote followed days of heavy lobbying of undecided Democrats by Obama, his top aides and House leaders. The narrow victory was clinched early on Saturday by a deal designed to mollify about 40 Democratic opponents of abortion rights. Democrats had a cushion of 40 of their 258 House members they could lose and still pass the bill. In the end, 39 Democrats sided with Republicans against it. The lone Republican to vote in favor of it was first-term Representative Anh Cao of Louisiana. "It was a bipartisan vote," Democratic leader Steny Hoyer said to laughter among fellow Democrats afterward. The landmark vote was a huge step for Obama, who has staked much of his political capital on the healthcare battle. A loss in the House would have ended the fight, impaired the rest of his legislative agenda and left Democrats vulnerable to big losses in next year's congressional elections. Obama traveled to Capitol Hill on Saturday morning to meet with House Democrats and emphasize the vital need for the healthcare reform bill. Republicans and Democrats battled in sometimes testy debate through the day and into the night on Saturday over the bill, which would require individuals to have insurance and all but the smallest employers to offer health coverage to workers. It would set up exchanges where people could choose to purchase private plans or a government-run insurance option bitterly opposed by the insurance industry, and it would offer subsidies to help low-income Americans buy insurance. Congressional budget analysts say the bill would extend coverage to 36 million uninsured people living in the United States, covering about 96 percent of the population, and would reduce the budget deficit by about $100 billion over 10 years. "We can't afford this bill," said Republican Representative Roy Blunt. "It's a 2,000-page road map to a government takeover of healthcare." REPUBLICAN PLAN REJECTED Democrats rejected on a 258-176 vote the much smaller Republican healthcare plan, which focused on cost controls and curbing medical malpractice lawsuits but did not include many of the insurance reforms of the Democratic plan. The House also approved on a 240-194 vote an amendment that would impose tighter restrictions on using federal funds to pay for abortions. House Democratic leaders agreed to allow a vote on the amendment to mollify about 40 moderate House Democrats who threatened to oppose the overhaul without changes to ensure federal subsidies in the bill for insurance purchases were not used on abortion. The move enraged Democratic abortions rights supporters, but they largely voted in favor of the bill in hopes they can remove the language later in the legislative process. (Editing by Arshad Mohammed and Todd Eastham) Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/House-Passes-Health-Care-Reform-Legislation.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Progressive-News-Update-11-05-09.html We caught up with Michael here in Texas originally to get his thoughts on the upcoming general election on U4Prez. However, recent events in Ft. Hood, Texas, changed priorities on a dime. PN: Do you have any statement on the news out of Ft. Hood? MF: I do not want to jump to conclusions just yet! We do not know all of the information. I am sure our law enforcement, as well as the military, are doing a thorough investigation. For the time being, my thoughts and prayers are with the families of those serving at Ft. Hood. This is certainly a tragic day for Texas and the nation. PN: Any thoughts on the fact that the aggressors were Muslim converts? MF: I am not sure what you are getting at! PN: Well, in the past, you have raised issues concerning the fact that you do feel their religion is somewhat violent. MF: I have made statements about some of the text of the Quran that seem to encourage violence, but the same can be said of Christianity as well. I do believe there are peaceful Muslims that live in America. However, they are not fundamentalists either. It is those Muslims who believe in the literal interpretations of the Quran, in my opinion, that are a threat to us. PN: So, you believe that these assailants were fundamentalists? MF: Like I said before, we will have to wait for more information. PN: Well, turning to something a little more positive, where are you on the U4Prez election? MF: I am not a candidate! (laughs) PN: Have you given any thought to who you might endorse? MF: Yes, I have! PN: Care to share it with us today? MF: (laughs) Sure, why not? (pauses as if to reflect) MF: I will not be voting in this general election. PN: and why not? Is it because of the runoff issues? MF: (laughs) I wish that it was some sort of principled stand, but I must confess it is not. I will not be near a computer at all next week. I am going on a cruise to Cozumel, and I will not return until Sunday, November 15th. Looks like I am going to miss the whole thing. PN: That is unfortunate! So, who do you think will win? MF: Lucky and BD! The U4Thugz Mafia! The others don't have a chance! PN: Is that who you would endorse? MF: Hell no! Sorry! (sighs) PN: So, if you weren't going away for a week, who would you vote for? MF: Hmmm.....It has been a crazy year. I have done a lot of soul-searching within myself this year. One thing that I have discovered is that I have not necessarily been anti-conservative as much as I have been anti-Bush. He was bad for the Republican Party, and bad for our nation. Now that he is gone, it feels like everything can be new again. Of the other 2 candidates, I have had good relationships with both. But I must say that I have to vote with those who I feel have shown the best ability to lead on this site, persevere and handle criticism, and refuse to back down for what they stand for on a variety of issues. Therefore, I am endorsing the Erock/Smashey ticket! PN: Wow! Did you and Brinmat have a falling out or something? MF: No! Not at all! It is a question of judgment. The selection of a running-mate is one of the only indicators we have in an election of the judgment of a candidate. Take McCain's selection of Sarah Palin, for example. I don't think it was the only factor, but it certainly hurt his cause down the stretch. Brinmat chose KT, which means that the ticket is definitely a left ticket. Erock, a Republican, chose Smashey, a former Republican like myself with a Libertarian streak. I will not be so naive as to say we agree on everything; but we do agree on a lot. PN: Have you discussed this with Brinmat? MF: I have not. And for good reason. I still consider Brinmat to be a friend, and so I wanted to make this judgment as un-biased as possible. PN: Does this mean you have issues with KT? MF: Certainly not! Yes, we have had our differences in the past when she was Dem Leader, and we obviously disagree on abortion. But I bear no ill will towards her at all! PN: Ok, there you have it! The Hub City Progressive campaign endorses Erock/Smashey for the U4Prez general election. Quite a surprise for someone who has been a Democrat since he joined this site. Thank you for reading Progressive News Update! Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Progressive-News-Update-11-05-09.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Progressive-News-Update-11-01-09.html It is official! The Hub City Progressive campaign, according to chairman Michael, has officially left the Democratic Party for the Libertarian. This comes as a complete surprise being that past statements indicated a longing to be a part of the Republicans, especially in light of being entered in a GOP runoff. We sat down with Michael to discuss his switch, and what this means for the future of the Hub City Progressive campaign. PN: Thank you, Michael, for joining us today. I guess I will start with the question that is on everyone's mind. Progressive Libertarian? How does that work? MF: I am still a believer in the Progressive movement that was in place under Theodore Roosevelt. I am willing to accept private interest when applicable to achieve reforms that work towards the public good. However, I am not for closing the door on government regulation in interstate commerce when there is public injury. With freedom comes responsibility, and the market must respect that. PN: So, in effect, you are still not a 100% supporter of the Libertarian Party's platform? MF: You would be hard-pressed to find anyone who is. Every organization has members that differ to varying degrees on certain statutes within itself. I favor liberty, reducing the size of the government, and cutting taxes. Those are very fundamental areas that I find attractive about the LP. That is why I am pledging my support. PN: Let's touch on some of the issues that you disagree. For starters, you disagree with their published stance on abortion. They believe it should be left to each individual. How do you differ? MF: It is that "individual" part that confuses me. Is an unborn fetus an individual as well? I believe so! Therefore, their rights must be protected. I concede the need for abortion to exist as a medical procedure for the health of the mother or a fetus. I would never wish the choice to be made by any woman who must choose herself or her unborn child in such a case. While it is certainly noble for her to take her chances and keep the child; I certainly could not hold it against her if she chooses to save her own life. Even more so, I do not feel that I, or any government entity, has the right to choose for her. PN: But you differ on this in regards to other kinds of abortions? MF: Yes! A child, even one that is unborn, should not be destroyed based on the ignorance of his/her parents. I do not believe in accidents! There are millions of people, like my wife and I, who are unable to have children. To have an abortion because the pregnancy is inconvenient at that moment in time is one of the most selfish acts imaginable, in my opinion. There must be personal responsibility if people engage in the acts of sexual intercourse. As for rape and incest? They are certainly unfortunate! I am open to allowing these on a case-by-case basis. I still think adoption would be a much more conscientous alternative. PN: Turning now to economic liberty. You stated that you do not agree with the Libertarian Party's belief that wage laws should be repealed. MF: No, I do not! If businesses were allowed to pay whatever they wanted, the part-time worker would be of more value than our millions of full-time ones. Minimum wage was an excellent benefit of the progressive movement, just as the 40-hour work week, overtime laws, and so forth. I consider this to be the equivalent of a curb on a street to ensure that businesses pay an acceptable living wage. PN: On your platform, you state that you still support some government funding for education and health care. This is certainly not consistent with the Libertarian platform. MF: I realize that! I strongly believe that a society is best judged on how it takes care of the least fortunate amongst them. Children, our elderly, and our disabled still must be provided for. This includes those children who do not have the means to prepare themselves for our changing world. To simply leave them to the risks of the free market is not a risk I am willing to take. PN: On Social Security, you are not sold on scrapping the system? MF: No, I am not. And with the recent economic downturn, I am not sold on giving it over the Stock Market either. I will confess that I am not an expert on the current status of Social Security. I have read different theories from the left and right on how to save it, or even if it needs saving or not. One of the first things I would do as President would be to create a bi-partisan task force whose sole responsibility will be to assess Social Security, and advise on what we should do with it. PN: On national and international defense, you do not share the same isolationist tones as other Libertarians. Care to elaborate on that? MF: Sure! I don't think they are living in the same world I am. I use the comparison of Gulliver's Travels, as he was among the Lilliputians. A simple sneeze could be cataclysmic to them. The same is true of America's influence in the world today. We are so involved economically, strategically, psychologically, and even militarily. We can not ignore the responsibility that comes with being the superpower that we are. I reject the notion that this means we should be the moral voice in the world. Let other nations have that liberty to decide how they wish to function. But we can not withdraw behind imaginary walls and pretend that we have no effect. This is an ignorant approach, in my opinion. PN: So, what does this mean in regards to Afghanistan and Iraq? MF: It means that I would bring the troops home. They have achieved their goals. Hussein is gone, and al-Qaeda is on the run. PN: What about Osama Bin Laden? MF: I would still want him caught! Oh yes! But we can do that without a military occupation. We have done it hundreds of times throughout the 20th Century. This idea that the only way we can get him is through the means of war is absurd! I believe that this reasoning was one of many to attempt to justify Bush's ideological policies in the War on Terror. PN: On free trade, you stated that you reject the Libertarian Party's position in its entirety. MF: Yes! I believe that this must remain an economic weapon to use for those nations that engage in human rights violations. I also believe it can be used to negotiate climate change as well. PN: Based on your answers, it still seems that you harbor beliefs sympathetic to the Democratic Party. So, what makes you certain that this is where you belong? MF: The Democratic Party, as well as the Republican Party, is controlled by what Ron Paul referred to as Corporatism. Neither of them are capitalistic in practice, regardless of what kind of rhetoric they are using. I simply can not, in good conscience, make myself a party to it anymore. I applaud Paul-inspired Republicans for their fight, but the social conservatives have taken over their party. The Democratic Party preaches the Constitution in regards to equality and civil rights, but they seem to reject it in regards to government expansion. They are getting too big! I will concede that Bush started it, but that does not make it right for the next guy. We need a revolution, and the Libertarian's have the more right, more constitutional approach. PN: You have professed to be a Christian yourself! So, where do you differ with the social conservatives? MF: We can not legislate human behavior. It has always failed; and it always will. The purpose of government is to provide consequences and accountability, and demand personal responsibility, not legislate human behavior. Simply because I do not agree with your lifestyle choices does not mean I have the right to outlaw it unless it infringes upon my rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. PN: Alright! Well, that is all the time we have today. I want to thank you, Michael, for taking the time for this interview. Progressive Libertarian! Certainly a gamble! We will watch and see how that works for you! MF: I appreciate your candor. This is the only runoff where a Libertarian candidate is running against a Republican establishment one. So, I hope that I answered questions sufficiently for a positive response. PN: Thank you and good night. Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Progressive-News-Update-11-01-09.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/America-in-Decline.html 9 Signs of America in Decline ShareComment By Rick Newman Posted: October 26, 2009 The sky isn't falling, exactly. America isn't on a fast track to irrelevance. Even in a state of total neglect, we could probably shamble along as a disheveled superpower for a few more decades. But all empires end, and the warning signs of American decline seem to be blinking more consistently. In the latest annual "prosperity index" published by the Legatum Institute, a London-based research firm, the United States ranks as the ninth most prosperous country in the world. That's five notches lower than last year, when America ranked No. 4. The drop might seem inconsequential, especially in the midst of a grueling recession—except that most of the world has endured the same recession, and other countries are bouncing back faster. China and India have recovered smartly from the recession, for example. Brazil seems to be barreling ahead. Australia is growing faster than expected, prompting worry among government officials who fear they may have overstimulated the economy. The United States, meanwhile, is muddling through a weak, jobless recovery, and we have a lot of problems that could make prosperity feel elusive for a long time. [See 4 problems that could sink America.] Real household income in America has flat-lined, for instance, which means many middle-class families are barely keeping up with inflation. The exploding federal deficit hamstrings the government's ability to help. Healthcare is too expensive, America's manufacturing base is eroding, and two open-ended foreign wars are draining the national treasury. This is not a recipe for building national wealth. There are still millions of diligent, innovative Americans who could help the nation dig out of its hole. But overall, the American population is falling behind, by a variety of measures. Here are some of them: Jobs. The International Monetary Fund predicts that the U.S. unemployment rate will be 9.3 percent for all of 2010. That's lower than in some European nations, but it's higher than in Canada and a lot worse than most countries in Scandinavia and Asia. Overall, the U.S. unemployment rate is about average for advanced economies and likely to stay that way. It could be worse, but middling job creation isn't a sign of global leadership. [See 7 ways to survive the jobless recovery.] Economic growth. The IMF also predicts that the U.S. economy will grow 1.9 percent in 2010. That's a tad better than the average for all advanced economies, but at least 10 developed nations will grow faster. Woo-hoo. Three cheers for mediocrity. Poverty. The U.S. poverty rate, about 17 percent, is third worst among the advanced nations tracked by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In that sample, only Turkey and Mexico are worse. Education. American 15-year-olds score below the average for advanced nations on math and science literacy. But don't worry, our nation's future leaders are still ahead of their peers in Mexico, Turkey, Greece, and a few other places. Competitiveness. In the latest global competitiveness report from the World Economic Forum, the United States fell from No. 1 to No. 2. Sure, let's console ourselves that the No. 1 country, Switzerland, is a tiny outlier nation and that getting bumped from the top spot doesn't really mean anything. Add an asterisk, and we're still No. 1. [See 5 myths about the economic "recovery."] Prosperity. The most prosperous nations, according to the Legatum report, are Finland, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway. These fairly homogenous European countries are the teachers' pets of global rankings, often appearing near the top because of right-sized economies and a relatively small underclass. For a huge economy like America's, a No. 9 ranking is still respectable. And part of the drop from last year's No. 4 spot is a change in methodology that puts more emphasis on the health and safety of citizens. Still, in the index's subrankings, the United States isn't even in the top 10 for economic fundamentals, safety and security, or governance. We should do better. Health. In the Legatum study, the United States ranks 27th for the health of its citizens. Life expectancy in America is below the average for 30 advanced countries measured by the OECD, and the obesity rate in America is the worst among those 30 countries, by far. And, of course, we spend far more on healthcare per person than anybody else—but get no bang for the extra buck. Well-being. In the United Nations' Human Development Index, which attempts to measure the overall well-being of citizens throughout the world, the United States ranks 13th, one notch lower than in the prior set of rankings. Norway, Australia, Iceland, and Canada are at the top. [See 4 countries with better healthcare than ours.] Happiness. The United States ranks 11th in the OECD's measure of "life satisfaction"—behind Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, and other usual suspects. That's not bad, but the United States is one of only four countries where life satisfaction is going down, not up. The other downer nations are Portugal, Hungary, Canada, and Japan. Plus, the research behind these rankings predates the recession, so it's likely that Americans are a lot less satisfied these days. The overall portrait of America isn't exclusively gloomy, and in some areas we still seem to have an important edge. The Legatum prosperity index, for example, ranks America first for entrepreneurship and innovation. And in a GfK Roper survey of how nations rate as global "brands," America rocketed from No. 7 in 2008 to No. 1 in 2009, largely because the world cheered the election of Barack Obama as U.S. president. But a brand-name leader can't just strong-arm his nation back to greatness. He needs a lot of help from educated, healthy, and employed citizens determined to spread the wealth. —With Carol Hook and Danielle Burton Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/America-in-Decline.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Progressive-News-Update-10-23-09.html In a stunning press release, the Chairman of the Hub City Progressive campaign, formerly known as Arch, made an unbelievable statement today. "I am a Progressive of the Teddy Roosevelt mold. I believe that if you really believe in something, you jump in with both feet. My feelings on Afghanistan, and even Iraq before it, was that we should not hit at all if it is more honorable not to, but we should never hit soft. These small scale occupations and invasions are foolish; and they only waste American taxpayer dollars as well as American lives. I did not support it under Bush, and I will not support it under Barack Obama. In regards to the health care reform, I am puzzled by the Democrats. Elected by the American people in 2006 and 2008, and having a sizable majority in Congress, they still can't get anything passed. Bush and the Republicans did not have this problem when they controlled Congress and the White House, and with significantly less majorities. This brings me to the realization that the so-called "progressives" of the Democratic Party have no backbone. They do a lot of "soft-talking," but where is the "big stick?" So, in regards to these shortcomings, I am prepared to make an official pledge. In regards to the wars in the Middle East, neither party has really met my standards. If we can't provide a reasonable strategy for winning these wars, then bring our troops home. All of them! I am tired of hearing that freedom isn't free when nobody is telling the Iraqi and Afghan governments this. If they aren't willing to fight for it; then why should we? In regards to healthcare, here is my pledge. If the Democrats, or "progressives" (with a little 'p' because they certainly have not earned the title), do not pass health care with a public option; I am renouncing them as my party affiliation. I can deal with not agreeing with everything they do. I can deal with the fact that I am more conservative than most of the party. I am a Texas Democrat, so I am accustomed to not going along with the rest of the crowd. But not getting a public option, and allowing the big health insurance lobbies to win, is unacceptable! They will be viewed by me as wimps! There is nothing progressive about allowing yourself to be bought up by corporations who prefer the status quo. So, that is where I stand." _____________________________________ PM: Being that you used to support the Republican Party until, as you stated "the party left me;" would this mean that you would consider going back to the GOP? MF: Yes, I would definitely consider it. I would probably weigh my options as an Independant, just as I did in 2003-4. I am a moderate social libertarian, so the Libertarian Party certainly appeals to me as well. But I still admire some Republicans, such as Colin Powell and Joe Scarborough to name a few. Ron Paul is also one I like to watch, though I can't say I agree with everything he says. I would still consider myself a Progressive; but they started out in the Republican Party, so I have no qualms about going back there. PM: Just to be clear, what would happen if the Democrats do get a public option passed? MF: Well, it will show me that they have the guts to punch things through. One thing I will give Bush and Cheney credit for is that when they felt strongly enough about something, they did not care whose toes they stepped on to get it done. While I think they rushed to judgment too quickly on a great many things, applying what seems to be ideological justifications to their decisions, I do respect the fight in them. That seems to be lacking from the Democratic Party; especially when dealing with lobbyists. PN: So, you will remain a Democrat then? MF: Oh, yes! Most definitely! This would be a landmark day in healthcare reform for the whole country! It would be the fruition of the dreams of Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Edward Kennedy, and so many more. It will be the indisputable evidence for me that the Democrats certainly are the Progressive Party in this country. PM: So, you have doubts then that they are truly progressive as they claim? MF: The Progressive Movement brought reform. Through Republicans like Robert La Follette of Wisconsin, and Charles Evans Hughes, the Progressives saved this country. People forget their history. With the huge monopolies and trusts at the beginning of the 20th Century, the middle class in this country was getting squeezed. Teddy Roosevelt inspired a generation of progressives that started with Womens' Suffrage, Park Conservation, protecting consumers with the Food & Drug Administration. They went on to fight against child labor, demand the direct election of US Senators, Worker's Compensation, and a progressive income tax. What does this have to do with your question? Results! I want to see results! The Democrats have claimed this mantel as their own for years, "waiting on the world to change" as John Mayer sings. Well, it has changed! They control the White House, the Congress, and are one justice away from controlling the Supreme Court. Time to stop promising us the moon and deliver. If they don't, if they cave in, then they show us all why they were so easy to kick around all these years. PM: So, what are your plans for this U4Prez election cycle? MF: Wait and see! We shall wait and see! That is all the questions I will answer for now. Good night, and God bless! ________________________________________________ So, there you have it! Michael, aka Arch, aka Shadowolf, aka Cougar Mellencamp? (How did that get in there?) Drawing a line in the sand in his support for the Democratic Party. No public option, no Michael. Thank you for reading the Progressive News! Have a great Friday! Progressive Media Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Progressive-News-Update-10-23-09.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Progressive-News-Update-October-20-2009.html In the latest concerning the drama that is the Hub City Progressive campaign, the Chairman, Michael, decided to sit down with us. It is apparent that he seems to have had a change of heart, as his first statements were an apology. "After further reflection on my own part, I realized that my attempts to plug up the runoff system was simply me lashing out at what I feel is an incompetent system. However, it is not my place to judge others if they choose to participate in spite of this fact. So, I have decided to pull back my fake profiles. Instead, I will simply make a personal boycott of the system by refusing to participate in runoffs myself, and no longer voting 10's or 1's to any candidate. I also offer an apology for my arrogant actions as I realize that trying to draw support to a cause does no good if I just piss off everybody." After this sudden honest moment, I decided to ask Michael about his blog stating a short list of possible endorsements. He refused to name any single candidate, but had this to say: "My only motivation in debate is to challenge a person's beliefs, because we honestly very rarely change them. I can usually tell if someone is simply regurgitating something they heard on talk radio or Glenn Beck. I prefer those candidates who research the issues and take a stance based on what they learn. That is why I like the articles that I post. They challenge people's thinking, IMHO. It is these candidates, the ones that are willing to challenge even their own beliefs to purify and strengthen them, that I respect, regardless of whether we agree or not. They are the ones on my short list." I asked Michael what his expectations were regarding the next few months, on U4Prez and the US in general. "I suppose anything is possible. I think Kempite and Smashey are re-energizing the site for a climactic ending to the campaign. Kempite, in particular, has made an amazing ascent within the Republicans considering his fall from grace a couple years back. Smashey is a formidable Independent candidate. Brinmat is the quiet one. It will be interesting to see where he lands in all of this. As for the country in the real world? I see some form of health care bill being passed. It may be so watered down that it accomplishes very little, but every journey starts with one step. I agree that, if freedom isn't free, we need to remind Afghanistan of that fact. If they expect to win their freedom with American blood, but refuse to partner in the effort, then I say we leave that desolate place. As for Obama? I am still undecided. I gave Bush 2 years before I left the Republican Party in 2003. I will give Obama 2 years. If there is no sign of improvement by the fall of 2010, he will begin to erode my support." In closing, I asked Michael to reflect on what U4Prez has done for him. "Well, it has been bittersweet. I have played devil's advocate so much that I don't think people know who the real me is. I have learned alot. If anything, I have a better grasp of debate than I ever thought possible. For one thing, you better know what you are talking about. Those candidates on the site that just spout whatever they heard on TV get eaten alive here. It is a glimmer of hope that Americans still have a BS-Meter that works. LOL!" So there you have it! The man behind the Arch speaks frankly. Thank you for reading, and good night. Progressive News Group Tue, 20 Oct 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Progressive-News-Update-October-20-2009.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/Progress/Progressive-News-Report.html It has now been confirmed from an anonymous spokesperson for the Hub City Progressive campaign that contact has been made by U4Prez Democratic Leadership concerning the campaign's strategy for drawing attention to allegations of corruption within the U4Prez system concerning runoffs and fake profiles. Early Sunday morning, a claim was made by the Chairman of the HCP, Michael, that due to fake profiles and a suspect runoff system, the U4Prez election process could not be taken seriously. This was in response to the Kempite campaign's call for renewed interest in the virtual election. To bring attention to this, a strategy was employed to monopolize the top 4 or 5 spots within the U4Prez Democratic Party, and thus take up a majority of the Democratic runoffs. According to our source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they had received instructions not to speak to the press, Democratic Leadership was not pleased that the HCP had done this. Information has been leaked concerning the campaign of candidate Andyy, who officially changed his status to Independent as a result of this effort. This obviously runs contrary to the obligations of the Democratic Leadership to recruit new members. While Democratic Leadership has yet to comment on this situation, we have reason to suspect that this was discussed. However, according to our anonymous sources, the profiles will now be expanded to include all parties rather than simply plugging up the Democratic Party. There are now numerous profiles that have infiltrated the Republican and Independent as well as the Democratic. The HCP's goal is simply to have as many profiles as possible in the runoffs in a given week along all party lines. When asked if this strategy was endorsed by the Democratic Leadership, our source replied that, to his knowledge, they were not aware of it. Our source would only refer to a current bill that has been submitted to resolve this issue. (Link provided at the end of this page.) When I mentioned that some have dismissed this as simply a form of frustration from Michael based on some alleged inability to stick to a permanent strategy and name, our source reiterated what Michael himself has already said in a previous statement; which is that while he understands the hesitant responses regarding this new campaign, he is more interested in more direct dialogue with no more monikers or aliases in order to present a more responsible and accountable approach to the campaign's actions. When asked how this coincides w/ the attempts to use these same monikers and aliases in runoffs, our source simply stated that "everyone knows who is behind these fake profiles. There are no smoke and mirrors here trying to cover this up. Michael is determined to help lead on this issue. That is what matters at this point. The interests of a thriving U4Prez community is, and always has been, our primary motivation; and a more competent election process certainly would benefit everyone involved." When asked if there was any contact w/ U4Prez Administration, the Hub City Progressive campaign refused to comment at this time. We are hoping to hear from Democratic Leadership as well. Stay tuned for further details. Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/Progress/Progressive-News-Report.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Preventing-the-Flu.html Killing Flu Germs: What Works? Will disinfectants help prevent flu in your family? By R. Morgan Griffin WebMD FeatureReviewed by Jonathan L Gelfand, MDWe’ve all seen news reports about the revolting germs that lurk on the surfaces of things we touch every day. So as flu season approaches, you might be preparing for battle, a battle against flu germs, a battle waged on doorknobs, and keyboards, and telephones, and other surfaces in your home and office. But before you douse all your possessions with bleach, there’s one thing you should know: Experts say that you really don’t need to bother. “Honestly, if you’re trying to prevent the flu, there’s just not evidence that spraying everything with disinfectant is going to make any difference,” says Christine Hay, MD, assistant professor at the University of Rochester Medical Center. Why is that? “Outside of the body, the flu is a really wimpy virus,” Hays says. Other flu experts agree. “There may be some transmission of flu through things like tabletops and doorknobs, but it plays a very minimal role,” says William Schaffner, MD, chairman of the department of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University’s School of Medicine in Nashville. Even so, there are still things you can do to protect yourself from influenza -- and kill some flu germs in the process. Here’s what you need to know. How Are Flu Germs Transmitted? While the flu virus may be a tough guy when it’s inside your body, in the outside world, it’s a frail weakling. The way the flu is structured, it simply isn’t very resilient. The flu is nothing like some of the nasty gastrointestinal viruses, like the bane of all cruise ship vacationers, norovirus. “Some of those viruses can survive on an object for months and withstand cleaning with bleach,” Hay tells WebMD. “Influenza isn’t like that.” There have been studies of how long significant amounts of flu germs can survive on surfaces. Estimates range from a few minutes up to 24 hours, depending on the type of surface. (It lives longest on hard surfaces.) While 24 hours seems like a long time, experts downplay the significance. “I’ve looked at the data, and there just isn’t good evidence that environmental surfaces have a significant role in the transmission of the virus,” says Trish M. Perl, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore. Instead, the flu seems to depend more on direct transmission from an infected person. Flu Prevention Tip: Clean Your Hands If you’ve got the urge to clean away flu germs, the best place to start is with your hands. “Covering your mouth and washing your hands are the two most important ways to stop the spread of the flu,” Perl tells WebMD. What should you wash with? You might assume that antibacterial soap would be preferable, but that’s the not the case. First of all, flu is caused by a virus, not bacteria. Second, any type of soap will do. “Time and thoroughness are what matters when it comes to washing your hands,” says Schaffner. “Not the type of soap.” It’s the scrubbing that counts. You’re not killing the virus with soap so much as dislodging it from your skin and sending it down the sink drain. The CDC recommends that you wash your hands for the length of time it takes to sing “Happy Birthday” twice, about 15 to 20 seconds. Schaffner says that while 30 seconds would be ideal, he admits that this isn’t always possible. “I’ve timed myself, and that can seem like a really long time,” Schaffner says. While it’s still a good goal, at the very least make sure that you’ve covered the surface of both hands and done it vigorously. What about alcohol-based hand sanitizers? Flu experts are enthusiastic. “I love the stuff,” Perl tells WebMD. She observes that one of its main advantages is that you can use it on the go, far away from sink. Just rub it in until it’s dry, she says, which usually takes just ten seconds or so. “Gels are just as effective as soap and water at killing influenza virus,” says Schaffner. “We like both of them.” Killing Flu Germs Around the Home and Office Even if it may be an unlikely mode of transmission, it’s still conceivable that you could pick up the flu bug from a surface. So if you’d like, you can disinfect some of the areas in your home and office that are most likely to harbor flu germs. While flu germs can theoretically be spread by sheets or towels, it’s unlikely: Influenza can only live a few minutes on soft surfaces. (Still, it’s best to not share hand towels or anything else with someone who has the flu.) Influenza germs tend to last longest on hard surfaces, so you could focus on: Doorknobs Hand rails Desks Tables Faucets Computer keyboards and mice Remote controls Video game controllers Elevator buttons Toys What type of cleaner should you use? “Really, any disinfectant will do the job,” says Schaffner. One common recommendation is a 1/2 cup of bleach mixed with a gallon of hot water. Of course, if you have kids, all the precautions in the world may not be enough. “Children are flu factories,” says Hay. “And with little kids, it’s almost impossible to stop them from sharing viruses with one another and bringing them home.” Even though day care centers may wash the toys and surfaces with bleach, it’s very hard to keep up. What can a parent do? Aside from making sure your children get the flu vaccine, not a whole lot. Even hearty adults who haven’t been sick in decades are generally laid low once they have children, Schaffner says. Just consider it another cost of parenthood. Keeping Perspective About the Flu If you want to, you can spray your telephones with disinfectant and scrub your keyboards with bleach-soaked cotton swabs every day of flu season. But don’t get so focused on disinfecting surfaces that you neglect the three most important things you can do to keep flu germs out of your life. Regularly wash your hands with soap and water or an alcohol-based sanitizer. Cover your mouth when you cough, preferably with something other than your hand. Get the flu vaccine every year. Everything else is optional, flu experts say. Fri, 01 May 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Preventing-the-Flu.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/The-Gay-Rights-Movement-and-the-Separation-of-Church-and-State.html When the California Supreme Court ruled that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional, many of the more conservative districts decided on a solution. Since the courts were stating that, in order to offer hetero-sexual marriages, they had to offer homo-sexual as well; they decided not to offer any marriages. I agreed with that sentiment; albeit on very different grounds, as I will explain. Conservatives, particularly the religious right, like to think this is a simple issue. They like to quote Judeo-Christian values, and Bible scriptures condemning the immorality of homosexuality as a defense against the Gay Rights Movement. Unfortunately, while I agree personally with their assessments from a spiritual standpoint, their arguments do not hold a lot of water in a Constitutional debate. In fact, if they continue down this course of maintaining marriage as a state institution, but mandate a requirement that it is for hetero-sexual couples only, they are a threat to themselves; and they will lose this fight. If the government decrees, either through judicial review or legislation, that gay marriage must be protected as an equal right; then since marriage is a state institution, they will have legal justification to require churches to marry homosexuals or be penalized for discrimination. However, if marriage is seen as simply a religious observance; it can be stripped from the state entirely, and the churches will have the right to marry whomever they want. In the case regarding these conservative districts in California, this was the more constitutionally-sound way to go. The only way for the religious right to keep marriage as between a man and a woman is to completely take the state out of the picture. Basically, the government should not have the right to marry anyone, period. I realize that, for some, this is an emotially-charged issue. Many hold very conservative religious views regarding homosexuality, and I am one of them in that regard. Unfortunately, the Bible, or any religious text, is not admissable in a US court of law as a valid argument for or against in a political debate. This is a fact. Having said that, I am of the opinion that the Gay Rights Movement is right on constitutional grounds. If the government is going to be in the marriage business, they can not discriminate because certain couples do not live a certain lifestyle condoned by a certain religion. In addition, I want to set the record straight in regards to hate-crimes legislation. I understand the intent; and I do feel that the far right is exaggerating this a bit. However, I am wary of the slippery slope we are on. There are some on the far left that believe a pastor or priest who condemns homosexuality from the pulpit is somehow committing a hate crime. I disagree. Because of freedom of speech, as well as religion, they should have the same equal protections under the law as the KKK Grand Master who preaches his hate of the Negro. I am not equating these two. I am simply stating that they should have the same protections under the Constitution; and in regards to religious sermons, even moreso. Again, the religious right needs to heed some caution in regards to how they fight these things. Quoting the founding fathers as being pro-Judeo/Christian values being legislated from the government is an innacurate and ignorant depiction of what transpired when this nation was created. The Constitutional Convention was extremely heated in regards to religion's influence in our government; and the belief that our founding fathers were in unity on this is intellectually dishonest. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison opposed religion's influence adamantly, in debate and action; and it was of much controversy even at that time. Our government, at the beginning, supported a very strict separation of church and state which could not be any more demonstrated than in regards to their reactions to the treaty signed between the United States and the Barbary Pirates of Tripoli, in 1796. The treaty included in its wording the statement that "the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...." When the treaty was presented to Senate for ratification in May of 1797, it was read in its entirety. There were 23 Senators present at this reading. There was no debate over the treaty, and no documented statements criticizing it. When the votes were counted; the treaty was ratified unanimously. John Adams then signed it into law on June 10, 1797 without a word decrying the use of this sentence. I am not arguing that John Adams or the US Senate at the time of this treaty were not Christians. On the contrary, I am simply stating that the separation of church and state was essentially worn into the fabric of the responsibilities of our government. In conclusion, I must hold the position that, in spite of my own religious convictions regarding God's view of the immorality of homosexuality, the most powerful enemy of those who wish to keep marriage between one man and one woman is the United States Constitution itself. The Gay Rights Movement's position on this issue is constitutionally sound. The only solution would be to have no secular observance of marriage at the state level; and simply delegate marriage as a religious sacrament the equivalent of baptism or ordination. Anything less than this will only breed a new battle; as the government will be obligated by law to combat discrimination against any organization, religious or otherwise, who refuses to participate and recognize same-sex unions. Arch. Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/The-Gay-Rights-Movement-and-the-Separation-of-Church-and-State.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/FREE-BEER.html Gotcha! Works every time! Happy Friday, and I hope everyone has a nice weekend! ;) Sat, 25 Apr 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/FREE-BEER.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/What-Else-Are-We-Wrong-About.html by Jacob Weisberg Newsweek A lot of premises have turned out to be wrong lately. I am not talking about evanescent bits of conventional wisdom, but about overarching assumptions that were widely shared across the political spectrum. For instance, before 1989, virtually all Sovietologists agreed the U.S.S.R. was highly stable. Before 2001, few Middle East scholars worried that America was vulnerable to a major terrorist attack. Before 2003, neocon hawks and French lefties agreed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Before 2008, few economists doubted the fundamental soundness of the U.S. financial system. So at a moment when everything we once assumed is suddenly up for discussion, it is worth asking: what other big stuff could we be wrong about? I am looking for issues where the received wisdom may be entirely correct-but merits a stronger dose of skepticism than it usually gets. NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION IS BAD. It seems self-evident that countries joining the nuclear club-India, Pakistan, North Korea, maybe Iran-create a greater risk of catastrophic war or accidental launch. But in an influential paper, the political scientist Kenneth Waltz argued that nuclear rivalries help keep the peace because "they discourage states from starting any wars that might lead to the use of such weapons." In this view, nukes are inherently defensive-and the countries that want them do so for good reason. Waltz argues that possessing nukes induces restraint and caution, causing irresponsible regimes to behave more responsibly. His argument is buttressed by another: you can not stop proliferation even if you try. CLIMATE CHANGE WILL BE CATASTROPHIC We all know civilization is doomed if we do not reduce carbon emissions, right? The physicist Freeman Dyson disagrees. Dyson does not dispute that human activity is causing warming. But he challenges the consensus that warming will be catastrophic. In a New York Review of Books essay, Dyson wrote that warming "is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter." Carbon emissions could make the earth more fertile and prevent harm from global cooling, which is not caused by humans. And if it really turns out that there is a serious problem, genetically engineered carbon-eating trees might fis it. (Might.) CHINA IS STABLE. Twenty years after Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party apparatus shows every sign of being in control. The economy has continued to grow at 9 percent a year since 1978, fueling China's rise as a global power. There is little sign of opposition. But rising living standards tend to produce political discontent and have driven the democratic change throughout most of the rest of East Asia. Samuel Huntington, the late political scientist, argued that regimes become vulnerable at a level of per capita income that China is fast approaching. HOMEOWNERSHIP IS BETTER FOR US The assumption that owning beats renting has been the basis for American social policy since at least the New Deal, when Congress first insured and subsidized mortgages. It is a natural assumption that owners have more of a stake in their communities. But even if that is true, why should it outweigh the obvious disadvantages of homeownership? As many more people are discovering, it means taking on enormous financial risk. It diminishes labor-market mobility. It encourages longer commutes. And at least one study says it makes you fat and unhappy. STOCKS OUTPERFORM BONDS IN THE LONG RUN Jeremy Siegel's "Stocks for the Long Run" has been the most pervasive financial wisdom of recent decades. Siegel shows that since 1802, stocks have returned an average of about 7 percent a year, better than any other asset class, with less risk. Others have claimed that stocks outperform bonds for any isolated 20- or 30- year period since the late 1800s. But if stocks have really outperformed with lower risk over a long period, they have been undervalued. And now that investors recognize the undervaluation, there is no reason for it to persist. as of this year, the 30-year Treasury Index has beaten the chief index of global stocks over a 30-year period. DETROIT CAN NOT COMPETE. No one is optimistic about US carmakers right now. For decades they ahve been losing ground to better-built foreign imports. But the Big Three's manufacturing practices have greatly improved in the past couple of years, and their labor costs have come way down. Shanghai GM is China's leading carmaker; Buick recently tied with Ford-built Jaguars in an owner survey as the most reliable car brand; and Ford has built what may be the best midsize hybrid, the 2010 Fusion. There is an argument that Detroit's real problem is its overhang in debt, high health-care costs, and pension liabilities-all of which can be fixed-as opposed to a deeper inability to make products people want to buy. THE CUBS WILL NEVER AGAIN WIN THE WORLD SERIES. Oh, nevermind. Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/What-Else-Are-We-Wrong-About.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/When-Should-America-Respond-With-Force.html I agree with my favorite president, Theodore Roosevelt. "Don't hit at all if it is more honorable not to; but never hit soft." For this reason, I agree with Colin Powell's assessment of why Desert Storm was successful, and Vietnam, and thus Iraq, was not. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Powell was part of the decision to send 500,000 troops to Saudi Arabia. We also had a clear goal-to push Iraq out of Kuwait. This was decided in the beginning; which is why, despite some public pressure, once Kuwait was liberated, we were open for truce negotiations. We refused to change the agreed upon goal no matter what. With Iraq, and even Vietnam, those in charge of policy kept shifting gears; and the sad part is that our soldiers had to bear the consequence of it. So, when should we use force? Very good question. I believe it is when a nation threatens the welfare and soveriegnty of our nation. September 11, 2001 was an attack that fit this description, in my opinion. I was 100% behind our president when we invaded Afghanistan and went after the Taliban. Honestly, I still question the merits of the Iraq invasion. There now exists evidence that Bush/Cheney had their eyes set on provoking Iraq into war even before 9/11; and the War on Terror just gave them a reason. I tend to agree with Alan Greenspan that it was mostly about oil. The links of Saddam Hussein to Al-Qaeda were dubious; and even Karl Rove admitted they were not true on a Meet the Press interview. However, in spite of all of this, had we committed 500,000 troops to Iraq from the beginning; I do believe the war would have been more successful; especially if we had left once Hussein was toppled. After all, I will admit that the surge worked; but the war didn't. Of course, debating what ifs is counter-productive; but I still wonder. Had John McCain beat out Bush for the GOP nomination in 2000; might he have been a better president? Hw was more sympathetic to Powell's view on the military; and he would not have advocated torture. I will say this. I will not live in fear. I will not fear Obama or my government. I will not fear taxes or terrorists or anything else. That is not a healthy way to live; for not only physical health reasons, but mental and spiritual as well. Let the cards fall where they may. I will continue to assert my rights to judge my own thoughts and behavior; and accept responsibility for the consequences of my actions. That is all I can do. Thank you! Arch. Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/When-Should-America-Respond-With-Force.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Child-Abuse-Spikes-as-US-Economy-Flounders.html I try to see a way for the government to be less intrusive in our lives. I try to believe that with less government, people will be more responsible. Then I see this: By Jason Szep BOSTON (Reuters) - One 4-month-old baby was shaken so violently she needed surgery. Another 3-week-old suffered fractured ribs from abuse at home. A 9-year-old diabetic boy stopped receiving proper treatment for his condition. Those cases reported by Boston hospitals are part of a spike in child abuse in United States during a recession that has driven some families to the brink and overwhelmed cash-strapped child-protection agencies. "In the last three months we have twice as many severe inflicted injury cases as we did in the three months the previous year," said Allison Scobie, program director of the Child Protection Team at Boston's Children's Hospital. Typically, her hospital handles about 1,500 such cases a year. That rose to 1,800 last year. "We're finding that it is directly attributable to what is happening economically," she said. "Many of the hospitals around here report an increase of 20 to 30 percent of requests for consultation regarding suspected child maltreatment." Many cases bear the imprint of economic troubles, like a 9-year-old diabetic boy hospitalized after his mother, a single parent, could no longer afford insurance co-payments needed to treat his disease. She left him home alone for long stretches on days when he required medical attention. "She had difficulty with the bare bone things that would keep this child healthy," said Scobie. Similar stories have surfaced in other regions, according to anecdotal and official reports. The Illinois department of child and family services, for example, reported a 5.8 percent rise in child abuse cases in the state in 2008. In the Chicago area, child abuse cases rose more than 9 percent last year. Child abuse cases in Ohio, a state hit hard by the recession, topped 100,000 for the first time in 2007 and have continued to rise, according to the Public Children Services Association of Ohio, a nonprofit association of agencies charged with child protection. "Many of our county agency directors tell us their child abuse reports have risen," said the group's director, Crystal Ward Allen, whose agency relies heavily on local revenue drawn from property taxes, which have collapsed in the recession. "Our basic safety net is really faltering," she said. Most recent federal data show child abuse declined in the United States in 2007 to a rate of 10.6 percent of America's total 71 million children, from 12.1 percent in 2006. But some see that changing dramatically. A March poll by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research showed that 88 percent of 607 sheriffs, district attorneys and chiefs of police nationwide expect a rise in child maltreatment. They based their views largely on similar rises in past recessions. 'HUGE INFLUX OF SHAKEN-BABY CASES' Many doctors agree. Seattle's Children's Hospital and the Harborview Medical Center are seeing more children suffering subdural bleeding caused by blows to the head from abuse. In a typical year, they treat about one such child a month. Last year, they admitted nearly three times as many -- or 32 children. "We have been pretty busy again this year,' said Dr. Kenneth Feldman, medical director of the Children's Protection Program at Seattle Children's Hospital. "The vast majority are from families who are struggling financially." A flurry of similar cases startled doctors late last year in Syracuse, New York. "I was just shocked," said Dr. Ann Botash, who heads the Child Abuse Referral and Evaluation Program at State University of New York in Syracuse, a city of about 147,300 people. The medical university where she works treated 19 children with head injuries consistent with beatings or being severely shaken last year, including four who died, up from just a handful the year before. Victims averaged about 7 months old. "Around December I saw much more than I usually see. I usually get one consult a month. And we were quadrupling that," she added. "I'm seeing more severe physical abuse. In general there's a lot more stress right now in society. And it comes out on the kids. They are the weakest link." Some doctors term such cases "shaken-baby syndrome," which the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke says bear distinct signs: brain hemorrhaging, retinal hemorrhaging and damage to the spine, neck or ribs. Because of a baby's relatively large head and weak neck, shaking "makes the fragile brain bounce back and forth inside the skull and causes bruising, swelling and bleeding, which can lead to permanent, severe brain damage or death," it says. "We saw a huge influx of shaken-baby cases," said Dr. Alice Newton, medical director at Massachusetts General Hospital's Child Protection Team, which treated 25 children for serious abuse this year. That compares with 16 for all of 2008. In a typical year she might see 12 to 14 children for serious inflicted head trauma. But she's already seen nine this year. And many are from families without the usual warning flags such as a prior history of child abuse or drug problems. In one case, a 4-month-old girl was admitted in a "staring spell" and needed surgery to remove fluid around her brain. The father had been laid off and the mother was working. Money was tight, she said. Some utilities had been shut off in the home. "That clearly is a family that is stressed," she said. The girl was treated a month earlier for similar symptoms and vomiting, but doctors at the time didn't suspect abuse. Such cases in Boston are sent to Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel Conley, who has seen allegations of child abuse more than double in January to February from the same period last year, said Conley's spokesman, Jake Wark. Some parents are arrested and prosecuted, and their children put in the care of relatives or foster families. But overwhelmed and underfunded agencies are not able to keep pace with the rise. "We're getting swamped," said Robert Sage, director at the Boston Medical Center's Child Protection Team, which treated 500 children with injuries consistent with abuse last year. That rate rose 30 percent in the first two months of 2009. "It's pretty much everything. A lot of physical abuse. Some neglect," he said. Many state agencies and hospital are grappling with the increases while facing budget cuts. In Massachusetts, for example, the Department of Children and Families in charge of protecting children from abuse expects to see its budget cut by $25 million in fiscal 2010. (Editing by Cynthia Osterman) Thu, 16 Apr 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Child-Abuse-Spikes-as-US-Economy-Flounders.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Somalia-Pirates-or-Simply-the-Somalia-Equivalent-to-Our-Own-Minutemen.html Johann Hari from The Independent: "In 1991, the government of Somalia collapsed. Its nine million people have been teetering on starvation ever since – and the ugliest forces in the Western world have seen this as a great opportunity to steal the country's food supply and dump our nuclear waste in their seas. Yes: nuclear waste. As soon as the government was gone, mysterious European ships started appearing off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first they suffered strange rashes, nausea and malformed babies. Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and leaking barrels washed up on shore. People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than 300 died. Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN envoy to Somalia, tells me: "Somebody is dumping nuclear material here. There is also lead, and heavy metals such as cadmium and mercury – you name it." Much of it can be traced back to European hospitals and factories, who seem to be passing it on to the Italian mafia to "dispose" of cheaply. When I asked Mr Ould-Abdallah what European governments were doing about it, he said with a sigh: "Nothing. There has been no clean-up, no compensation, and no prevention." At the same time, other European ships have been looting Somalia's seas of their greatest resource: seafood. We have destroyed our own fish stocks by overexploitation – and now we have moved on to theirs. More than $300m-worth of tuna, shrimp, and lobster are being stolen every year by illegal trawlers. The local fishermen are now starving. Mohammed Hussein, a fisherman in the town of Marka 100km south of Mogadishu, told Reuters: "If nothing is done, there soon won't be much fish left in our coastal waters." This is the context in which the "pirates" have emerged. Somalian fishermen took speedboats to try to dissuade the dumpers and trawlers, or at least levy a "tax" on them. They call themselves the Volunteer Coastguard of Somalia – and ordinary Somalis agree. The independent Somalian news site WardheerNews found 70 per cent "strongly supported the piracy as a form of national defence". No, this doesn't make hostage-taking justifiable, and yes, some are clearly just gangsters – especially those who have held up World Food Programme supplies. But in a telephone interview, one of the pirate leaders, Sugule Ali: "We don't consider ourselves sea bandits. We consider sea bandits [to be] those who illegally fish and dump in our seas." William Scott would understand. Did we expect starving Somalians to stand passively on their beaches, paddling in our toxic waste, and watch us snatch their fish to eat in restaurants in London and Paris and Rome? We won't act on those crimes – the only sane solution to this problem – but when some of the fishermen responded by disrupting the transit-corridor for 20 per cent of the world's oil supply, we swiftly send in the gunboats." I am not justifying the use of hostages or violence. Simply showing once again the western world's hypocrisy.-Arch. Mon, 13 Apr 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Somalia-Pirates-or-Simply-the-Somalia-Equivalent-to-Our-Own-Minutemen.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/The-Confederate-Flag.html Heritage or rebellion? Hospitality or slavery? Pride or Insult? The confederate flag means different things to different people. I am for freedom of speech, so if someone wants to ride around in a beat-up pick-up truck with a confederate flag waving, they do not have to worry about me raising an alarm. However, I must point out the hypocrisy here. There are many Mexican-Americans who like to put out their Mexican flags because of heritage, or pride. Yet, these same backwards ignorants who state they would die for the right to display the "stars and bars" have the audacity to say that Mexican-Americans have no right to do the same. You say that they should learn to assimilate into American culture or go home. So, what is stopping you? The Confederacy lost! In fact, just like Mexico 20 years before, they were invaded, torched, and burned to the ground. (Does the name William Sherman ring a bell?) The confederate flag represents, to many Americans particularly black, a huge embarrasing period in our history in which we enslaved other human beings, and those who were trying to defend the right to continue to do so. It is an insult to the road they have had to travel, which was built by those who flew these colors. Not only that, but it represents the only time in our history that Americans chose to revolt against their own government. Therefore, it is a symbol of rebellion and treason. Fly it if you like. You have that right. Don't be surprised if I call you a hypocrite when you call out an immigrant for representing their heritage as well. Arch. Sun, 12 Apr 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/The-Confederate-Flag.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Church-Timeline-or-Church-Vineline.html When I think of church history, I think of a vine. As it first sprouted, it was one branch pointing straight upward. However, at some point, it broke off into two branches; and then began breaking off into several. Over time, the main branch began to tilt, level out, and eventually began to move downward. The other branches had this same type of lifespan. Today, there are very few branches that still reach towards heaven; and none of them are perfectly upright. This is how I view the church of today. The Roman Catholic Church, as others have argued, is the original branch. It split off into the Greek Orthodox; and finally the many Protestant branches. Unfortunately, even these branches have lost their upright positions over time. That is where I am at. Hope that makes sense. Arch. Sat, 11 Apr 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Church-Timeline-or-Church-Vineline.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Obama-and-Illegal-Immigration.html Obama's next big political battle: Immigration reform By David Neiwert Thursday Apr 09, 2009 2:00pm Pat Buchanan is promising a "bloodbath." Brad Blakeman is vowing that Republicans will line up against it en masse. But according to the New York Times, President Obama is planning to push for comprehensive immigration reform this year anyway: Mr. Obama will frame the new effort — likely to rouse passions on all sides of the highly divisive issue — as “policy reform that controls immigration and makes it an orderly system,” said the official, Cecilia Muñoz, deputy assistant to the president and director of intergovernmental affairs in the White House. Mr. Obama plans to speak publicly about the issue in May, administration officials said, and over the summer he will convene working groups, including lawmakers from both parties and a range of immigration groups, to begin discussing possible legislation for as early as this fall. Some White House officials said that immigration would not take precedence over the health care and energy proposals that Mr. Obama has identified as priorities. But the timetable is consistent with pledges Mr. Obama made to Hispanic groups in last year’s campaign. He said then that comprehensive immigration legislation, including a plan to make legal status possible for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, would be a priority in his first year in office. Latino voters turned out strongly for Mr. Obama in the election. The legislation that Obama favors, in fact, sounds pretty familiar: In broad outlines, officials said, the Obama administration favors legislation that would bring illegal immigrants into the legal system by recognizing that they violated the law, and imposing fines and other penalties to fit the offense. The legislation would seek to prevent future illegal immigration by strengthening border enforcement and cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants, while creating a national system for verifying the legal immigration status of new workers. If this sounds an awful lot like the immigration-reform legislation, promoted by then-President Bush, that died in 2007 because Rush Limbaugh's flying monkeys descended upon it, that's because largely it is. In other words, it's not very different from what a Republican President recently proffered -- but which died at the hands of the rabid nativist wing of his party. So there was Pitchfork Pat today on MSNBC's Morning Joe: They will face a bloodbath if he tries try to legalize 12 million illegal aliens when the unemployment rate is rising, and it is huge among working-class Americans. Republican strategist Brad Blakeman came on MSNBC today to discuss it, and said Republicans will line up against it because: "It's just bad policy." One wonders if he thought so back in 2007. He went on to suggest that John McCain, who's championed this kind of legislation for many years, may be the lone Republican this time out. Let the games begin! Fri, 10 Apr 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Obama-and-Illegal-Immigration.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Campaign-for-Liberty-supporter-harassed-at-airport.html What is in store for us now? Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Campaign-for-Liberty-supporter-harassed-at-airport.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Palin-Wars.html Sarah Palin vs Levi Johnston By John Amato Sunday Apr 05, 2009 5:54pm Who knew The Tyra Banks show could be this good? Levi Johnston, the father of Bristol Palin's child went on to clear the air about rumors and lies. I'm not interested in their sex life, but it's obvious that Sarah forced him to go the RNC convention. In the interview, the Johnston family reveals Bristol Palin, who became pregnant at 17, forced Levi to attend the Republican National Convention in September. Mercede said, "Levi told me [Bristol Palin] called and said that, 'You're going,' and he said, 'I want to go hunting,' and she said, 'You're going.'" Sarah Palin was not too pleased and her camp released this statement attacking Levi: After talking about sex on "The Tyra Banks Show," Johnston – the 18-year-old father of Bristol Palin's baby – was hit with a blistering response from Bristol's mother, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. "Bristol did not even know Levi was going on the show. We're disappointed that Levi and his family, in a quest for fame, attention, and fortune, are engaging in flat-out lies, gross exaggeration, and even distortion of their relationship," says the statement from the Palin family rep. "Bristol's focus will remain on raising Tripp, completing her education, and advocating abstinence," the statement continues. "It is unfortunate that Levi finds it more appealing to exploit his previous relationship with Bristol than to contribute to the well being of the child." The statement ends, saying, "Bristol realizes now that she made a mistake in her relationship and is the one taking responsibility for their actions." It's pretty sickening to use a child for political gain, but a shot gun RNC Convention was what John McCain used to set up Levi. Mon, 06 Apr 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Palin-Wars.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/North-Korea-Fires-Rocket.html TOKYO/SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea fired a long-range rocket over Japan on Sunday, provoking international condemnation and triggering an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council as it succeeded in grabbing the world's attention. The reclusive communist state's official media said a satellite had been launched into orbit, and it was now circling the earth transmitting revolutionary songs. U.S. President Barack Obama said North Korea, which tested a nuclear device in 2006, had violated U.N. resolutions with what analysts believe was effectively a test of a ballistic missile designed to carry a warhead potentially as far as Alaska. "With this provocative act, North Korea has ignored its international obligations, rejected unequivocal calls for restraint, and further isolated itself from the community of nations," Obama, who is on a European tour, said in a statement. In a speech to be delivered in Prague later, Obama will commit himself to reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal, bringing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty into force and seeking tough penalties for nuclear rule-breakers, the White House said. The White House said that Obama will also say he remains committed to six-nation talks to "denuclearize" North Korea. South Korea branded the launch of the rocket a "reckless" act, Japan said it was "extremely regrettable" and the European Union "strongly condemned" Pyongyang's step. China, the nearest the reclusive North has to a major ally, and Russia both called on all sides for calm and restraint. Analysts said Washington and Tokyo may seek a U.N. resolution condemning the reclusive state's action, but they expect resistance to tougher action such as new sanctions from Beijing. "NEGOTIATING HAND STRENGTHENED" South Korea's Yonhap news agency quoted a government official in Seoul as saying the rocket appeared to have carried a satellite, which Pyongyang had all along insisted was its plan for a launch it had flagged would come in an April 4-8 window. Analysts said the launch may bolster North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's authority after a suspected stroke last August raised doubts about his grip on power. It wins North Korea the attention it has sought as the new U.S. administration wrestles with recession and the war in Afghanistan, and it could strengthen Kim's hand in using military threats to win concessions from global powers. "North Korea is likely to judge that its negotiating position has been strengthened now that it has both the nuclear and missile cards," said Shunji Hiraiwa of Shizuoka Prefectural University in Japan. Washington, Seoul and Tokyo had said before the launch that in reality it would be a test of the Taepodong-2 missile, which is designed to fly an estimated 6,700 km (4,200 miles). Japan said it stopped monitoring the rocket after it had passed 2,100 km (1,305 miles) east of Tokyo. In the only previous test flight of the Taepodong-2, in July 2006, the rocket blew apart 40 seconds after launch. It said the first booster stage of the rocket appeared to drop into the Sea of Japan, some 280 km (170 miles) west of its northern coast, and the second into the Pacific Ocean. Park jong-Kyu, an economist at the Korea Institute of Finance in Seoul, said the impact on financial markets when they reopen on Monday would most likely be short-lived or negligible. "When North Korea carried out the nuclear test several years ago, Seoul markets had fallen on the very day but recovered the next day. Based on the situation until now, it's not a market moving factor anymore," Park said. In New York, Japan's U.N. ambassador requested an emergency meeting of the Security Council to discuss the launch. A diplomat said a meeting would be held at 3 p.m. EDT on Sunday. The United States, Japan and South Korea will view the launch as a violation of a Security Council resolution passed in 2006 after Pyongyang's nuclear test and other missile tests. That resolution, number 1718, demands North Korea "suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program." CHINA COULD USE VETO U.N. Security Council diplomats have told Reuters on condition of anonymity that no country is considering imposing new sanctions but the starting point could be discussing a resolution for the stricter enforcement of earlier sanctions. Both Russia and China have made clear they would block new sanctions by the Security Council, where they have veto power. "If the United States and Japan insist on a new resolution and new sanctions at the United Nations, China will most likely use its veto," said Shi Yinhong, professor of international security at Renmin University in Beijing. "China's principle is only to support United Nations sanctions in the most extreme cases. Although the launch was serious, it was much less serious than the nuclear test." U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the launch was not conducive to peace and stability and called on North Korea to return to six-country talks on ending its nuclear programs. Stephen Bosworth, Washington's special envoy for North Korea, said ahead of the launch last week that he hoped to bring the North back to the talks once the "dust" had settled. While saying the talks among the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the United States were central to efforts to get North Korea to give up its nuclear program, he also said Washington was ready for direct contact with Pyongyang at any time. The six-party talks stalled in December and Pyongyang has threatened to quit the dialogue if the United Nations imposes any punishment over its rocket launch. (Additional reporting by Jon Herskovitz and Kim Yeon-hee in Seoul, Rodney Joyce in Tokyo, Arshad Mohammed in Washington and Louis Charbonneau at the United Nations, Writing by John Chalmers; Editing by Dean Yates) Mon, 06 Apr 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/North-Korea-Fires-Rocket.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Stop-the-violence.html Another day, another shooting. All motivated by fear, frustration, and desperation. There has got to be a better way than people taking matters into their own hands. What drives me crazy is that most of the gun rights crowd are in the same group that believes in the right to life. Yet, they seem to be the most vocal about stirring up violence and revolution. Three police officers, just doing their jobs responding to a domestic disturbance call in Pittsburgh, now dead because some guy believed Obama was going to take his guns. Now he is dead; and can't even use his guns. Our country is not going to hell in a handbasket. I know people are frustrated with the economy, and jobs, and mortgages. I know that frustration sometimes breeds desperation. Trust me; I have been there. We have to get away from fear; and know that there is something better around the bend. Our nation has a history of triumph over despair; but it seems that Americans do not have faith in this country anymore. It is saddening how easily some people are just giving up. I don't have an answer. All I know is that we have been here many times before. When a superior British army occupied our shores twice; we prevailed. When our nation was torn in half over civil war; we prevailed. Through 2 world wars, depression, civil rights movements for women and minorities, scandals, and numerous other conflicts that have tried the American spirit; we have prevailed. Why give up now? I understand desperation. I remember when my wife and I first got married, and I brought home $137/week bagging groceries at a local supermarket. I recall not having barely enough money to get by; and conjuring up ideas in my imagination to try and change our circumstances, some legal, some not-so-legal. We just refused to give up. She went back to school to get what eventually became a Master's Degree. I worked my way up through the convenience store industry, and then took that management experience to my current occupation in parking enforcement at a state university. We aren't billionaires; but we are certainly making a lot more than $137/week. Sure, there were times in our 12+ years of marriage when we could have given up. There were times when we could have taken matters into our own hands; and risked our freedom, our marriage, or possibly even our lives, to try and find an easier way out. We chose not to. We believed in ourselves and each other enough to fight harder for what we wanted out of life; and we did not have to resort to violence to do it. So, stop listening to Glenn Beck's and Sean Hannity's calls for revolution. Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh's pleas to failure. Believe in America again; and believe that we can overcome anything. We have before; and we will again. Arch. Sun, 05 Apr 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Stop-the-violence.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Americans-are-not-fooled.html Just because they keep saying it does not make it true. Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Americans-are-not-fooled.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Uh-Oh.html When Obama was asked why he had not come out against the AIG bonuses right away, he said it was because he likes to know what he is talking about before he speaks up. The media took this as Obama arrogance. Well, it looks like Joe the Plumber could use some Obama advice. He tries to say he is against the Employee Free Choice Act in Pennsylvania, and finally has to admit that he doesn't even know anything that is in it. That did not go over too well. Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Uh-Oh.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Finally.html ....somebody responds to the crying-rodeo-clown-act that is Glenn Beck! Wed, 01 Apr 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Finally.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Shutting-Detroit-Down.html So, why doesn't Obama have this same attitude towards Wall Street? Tue, 31 Mar 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Shutting-Detroit-Down.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/RIP-Dan-Seals.html submitted by Arch. Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/RIP-Dan-Seals.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Many-Important-Administration-Jobs-Go-Unfilled-Because-of-New-Ethics-Code.html By Susie Madrak Wednesday Mar 25, 2009 5:00pm I wondered at the time the new Obama hiring rules were announced if that was possible in a company town like D.C., and it looks like it isn't. While it's a valiant effort, it's just not practical if it cuts some of the most talented and experienced people out of the running. And, as the examples in this Gloria Borger column show, in some cases, it's just plain silly: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Tim Geithner may be the latest political piñata in Washington these days, but -- policy aside -- there may be another reason he is the one fellow everyone is picking on at Treasury: He's there alone. President Obama's ethics code requires that no lobbyist can work for an agency he may have lobbied. Believe it or not, Geithner is the only confirmed official at his department. Some top nominees, even those who have served in government before, have decided to withdraw. Others are still pending as they go through arduous background checks that one pro-Obama Democrat calls "maddening vetting hell." Sure, this is about extensive scrutiny to make sure no one has a tax problem after Geithner's own embarrassing unpaid tax bill. But the staffing problem is not just at Treasury, and it goes way beyond the time-consuming nature of extensive background checks. It's also about overreaching anti-lobbyist rules. Consider Tom Malinowski. He's the advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, an expert on genocide and torture. But when it came time for a top human rights job at the State Department, he was turned away. Why? "Because he lobbied against torture," says one incredulous administration official. "It's crazy." But the rules are the rules: The ethics code requires that no lobbyist can be hired to work for an agency he may have lobbied. So, just to clarify: Someone like Malinowski who lobbied against torture and is a widely acknowledged expert on international human rights law is, er, blackballed. More to the point, he was shown the door precisely because he tried to influence Congress on an issue that both he and the administration agree, and care deeply about. (Malinowski won't comment.) Only in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of Washington would this make any sense. And it still doesn't. It's just a prime instance of the problems that can arise when great-sounding (theoretical) campaign one-liners rub up against the (real) difficulties of trying to staff a government. In other words, the short-term interest in demonizing all lobbyists has led to some very difficult staffing problems. So, if you're an environmental expert and lobbyist, forget about the Environmental Protection Agency. But you might want to think about some work in the health field. Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Many-Important-Administration-Jobs-Go-Unfilled-Because-of-New-Ethics-Code.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Deregulation-for-Dummies.html Maddow: There would be no outrage about AIG's bonuses if AIG hadn't needed bailing out, right? I mean sure people get mad at fat cats with high salaries when everyone else is broke. But it's the fact that this company was using our money, taxpayers money to pay those bonuses that caused the entire country to grind our teeth down their nub ends to rage at these guys. So there would be no outrage about AIG turning taxpayer bailout dollars into executive bonuses if there hadn't been a bailout. AIG wouldn't have needed bailing out if it weren't too big to fail, too integral to all these other parts of the financial industries. AIG wouldn't have become too big to fail if they hadn't become a big hybrid complicated uber-financial everything company that made all sorts of arcane financially engineered moves that got them squirreled into every kind of financial related business that you can think of. AIG wouldn't have become a big hybrid complicated uber-financial everything company if there hadn't been, and this is key, deregulation of Wall Street that allowed firms to get like that. And massive deregulation of Wall Street wouldn't have happened without the rise of a political movement that preached that regulation was inherntly evil and deregulation was inherently wise and virtuous and would make everyone rich and it would be free well behaved puppies for every family. Do you want an example of how this deregulation thing worked? You can totally use this at the high school dance or a bar or whatever to try to impress someone. Somebody starts complaining about the bailout. Complaining about AIG. You tell them actually the real villain here is Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Just say it with total confidence. Watch. You will get dates. Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Deregulation-for-Dummies.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/The-Gift-That-Keeps-On-Giving.html It ceases to amaze me! Bernanke has a degree from MIT in Economics, and years of experience dealing w/ the financial system in this country. He has access to information that we only see bits and pieces to. Yet, he is questioned and ridiculed when he states what we must do to fix this economy. Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize winner, gets the same treatment. But, when it comes to "Joe the Plumber," he is an icon and represents the view of the average American? Perhaps the average conservative would be more accurate. Enjoy the video! Sat, 21 Mar 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/The-Gift-That-Keeps-On-Giving.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Bush-White-House-never-linked-Saddam-Hussein-w-9-11.html On the eve of the sixth anniversary of the Iraq war, Condoleezza Rice joined the long list of Bush White House figures taking to the airwaves to rewrite their boss' tragic legacy. "No one," she told Charlie Rose last night, "was arguing that Saddam Hussein somehow had something to do with 9/11." Of course, Rice was just one of many Bush administration officials making that claim before and after the invasion. And as it turns out, Ari Fleischer and George W. Bush himself among others are continuing to peddle that same mythical link between Iraq and September 11th. As ThinkProgress noted, then national security adviser Rice argued in September 2002 that Saddam had "links to terrorism [that] would include al-Qaeda." But on Wednesday, the former Secretary of State traveled back in time to whitewash history. Of course, Rice wasn't the only one in the Bush White House contending "there were ties going on between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime," as she insisted as late as September 2006. Echoing President Bush's farewell in January, former press secretary Ari Fleischer made the Saddam - September 11 connection just seven days ago. Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Bush-White-House-never-linked-Saddam-Hussein-w-9-11.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/CNBC-Asks-If-We-Should-Copy-China.html Seriously, this is unbelievable! So, all of our unemployed are enjoying themselves and drawing benefits on purpose so that they can lose their houses? So, unwed teenage mothers are getting "knocked up" on purpose to get money from the government? Why are we asking if we should copy China on how we handle unemployment? Since when did Communist countries become models of how we should treat the unfortunate in society? As Ms. Burnett said, "I am just asking questions." Arch. Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/CNBC-Asks-If-We-Should-Copy-China.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Economic-Recovery-Energy-Reform.html It is interesting that, in the 1960’s, enough oil was discovered in Alaska to keep America independant of foreign oil for centuries. However, the government decided to classify it. Why? Because they had already tied American currency to Middle Eastern oil. If our government had allowed the Alaska reserves to be used; then the lessened demand for foreign oil would have destroyed our currency. This is the explanation for our convenient good relations w/ Saudi Arabia and their corrupt government. However, there were 2 nations that backed out of this agreement; and refused to base their oil production on our currency-Iraq and Iran. We have had stormy relationships with them ever since. It is no wonder that the Corporate Republicans wanted to invade Iraq, and perhaps eventually Iran. In the last few years, w/ the increasing deficit between us and China, other Middle Eastern countries have been pulling out of our economy. Syria has begun withdrawing all of their securities from our banks, which numbers in the billions of dollars in assets. The growing concern over the American economy is the catalyst for Middle Eastern countries expressing interest in overseeing our ports. This is a crisis of astronomical proportions; and I agree w/ Obama that energy reform is going to be an extremely integral part of our recovery in lessening our dependance on foreign oil. I also support drilling in the ANWR preserve in the interest of de-classifying a 40-year-old government lie. Arch. Mon, 16 Mar 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Economic-Recovery-Energy-Reform.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Happy-Birthday-Albert-Einstein.html 130 years old! Sun, 15 Mar 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Happy-Birthday-Albert-Einstein.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Leave-Limbaugh-Alone.html LEAVE LIMBAUGH ALONE!!! Sat, 07 Mar 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Leave-Limbaugh-Alone.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Joe-ain-t-no-average-American.html Joe ain't no average American, By Gen. JC Christian, patriot RINO spinmeisters, aided and abetted by the liberal media, have promoted Joe the Plumber as being an everyman, the archetypical "average American." This book shatters that image. Joe the Plumber is not the "average American." He's the "average conservative," and I thank God for that. Last year, the "average American" elected a Harvard educated constitutional law professor to the presidency. Average conservatives knew better. They rallied behind Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin, people like ourselves; people I proudly call "mediocre Americans." And that's why Joe is still so immensely popular. He's angry, vicious, ignorant, and intellectually incurious. He's one of us, and like us, he didn't learn about public policy and international relations at a university or from books or journals; he learned everything he needed to know by tuning into Rush, Hannity, Savage, and Ingraham. This is a great book, one every true conservative should buy, and more importantly, read. Yes, I know that sounds like a tall order, but it's an easy read. Joe uses one and two syllable words (many of them, written forms of various grunts) almost exclusively. If I have one complaint, it's that the publisher, Pearlgate, printed it in ink rather than crayon like the original manuscript. Other than that, I think it truly is the perfect book for the average conservative. Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Joe-ain-t-no-average-American.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Angry-Unemployed.html Jobless Angry at GOP Governors for Playing Politics over Unemployment Funds By Susie Madrak Friday Feb 27, 2009 9:00am I guess the Republican governors are counting on their residents becoming so poor, they won't have TVs and so they won't find out what they're missing in other states? I really don't see the point of playing such heartless games with peoples' lives: For people like Henry Kight, 59, of Austin, Tex., the possibility that the money might be turned down is a deeply personal issue. Mr. Kight, who worked for more than three decades as an engineering technician, discovered in September that because of complex state rules, he was not eligible for unemployment insurance after losing a job at a major electronics manufacturer he had landed at the beginning of the year. Unable to draw jobless benefits, he and his wife have taken on thousands of dollars in credit-card debt to help make ends meet. It is precisely these kind of regulations, involving such matters as the length of a person’s work history or reason for leaving a job, that the federal government is trying to get the states to change. Such a move could extend benefits to an estimated half-million more people, according to the National Employment Law Project, a liberal group in New York that supports the changes. Mr. Kight and other unemployed workers said they were incensed to learn they were living in one of a handful of states — many of them among the poorest in the nation — that might not provide the expanded benefits. “It just seems unreasonable,” Mr. Kight said, “that when people probably need the help the most, that because of partisan activity, or partisan feelings, against the current new administration, that Perry is willing to sacrifice the lives of so many Texans that have been out of work in the last year.” He was referring to Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, who has said he may decline the extra money rather than change state policy. [...] The anger at the governors’ positions goes beyond just the unemployed workers who could directly benefit from the changes. Because eligibility rules for unemployment insurance are complicated and vary by state, many unemployed people do not even know whether they would be affected. [...] As a result, many laid-off workers across the South have been fretting over precisely what they might lose out on, even as they express astonishment that they might not receive the help that jobless people in other states will get. “I don’t understand the whole thing,” said Kelley Joyce, 43, of Myrtle Beach, S.C., about indications from Gov. Mark Sanford that he may reject some of the stimulus financing in that state. “Apparently because he has money and he doesn’t have to worry about everybody else who doesn’t have money.” Well, Kelley, it's not about logic! It's about political ambition and power, and you should be grateful that your life will serve as a stepping stone for your GOP betters! All better now? Sat, 28 Feb 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Angry-Unemployed.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Torture-Confessions-in-a-post-9-11-World.html Seems Khalid Shekh Mohammed has confessed to just about everything short of the Kennedy assassinations. For some gossip on that, see http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KUP20070315&articleId=5087 , which speculates that KSM was set up as a stooge. Which shows the problems with using psych techniques over the course of years to unhinge a suspect’s mind. Guantanamo is all about psych techniques. I have compared Guantanamo to Russia’s gulags, but the comparison is not accurate. In some ways, the gulags were more brutal but also more free. There is no freedom whatsoever at Guantanamo, just psych treatment, 24/7/365. Total control. So, I don’t know if Khalid Mohammed was involved in anything. His confession means nothing. And I don’t trust our government to not lie to us about Mohammed. Masterminds, masterplans. You can look in detail at any detailed plan and find flaws and places where it almost went astray. Take Pearl Harbor for example. Masterminded by Adm. Yamomoto. The Japanese fleet ran the risk of being discovered by long distance patrol aircraft. Or they could have been sunk by a typhoon. Didn’t happen. What did happen was that the incoming flight of Japanese aircraft was detected, then dismissed as being American planes from Hickam AFB. Prior to that, a Japanese mini scout sub ran agound and was captured. There were two chances for alert U.S. personnel to derail the attack. Two chances wasted. This is typical. Mistakes abound on both sides. So it was for 9-11. So many opportunities were missed to detect the perps or to thwart their plan. Loopholes which the hijackers knowingly or accidentally took advantage of. Who was it who first thought of using aircraft in that way? Tom Clancy? Or the Japanese kamikazis of WWII? It was hardly a surprise, until it happened, then it was, “Where did that come from?” 9-11 was successsful because of luck and extreme American stupidity and hubris. They were successful despite themselves. We helped a lot. The next attack will have to be better planned and executed by an order of magnitude. Designing a high-tech nuclear weapon is beyond anyone al Quaida has. Designing a truly portable nuclear weapon is beyond Pakistan’s technology. (The plans that hit the news yesterday were for a missile-carried, medium-sized warhead, not a suitcase bomb.) Smuggling in a bomb is easier, thanks to our not having any adequate screening. Suitcase or briefcase nukes are unlikely for a few years. The technology required is too fancy. Pakistan-type nukes can be smuggled in only in a truck, most likely from Mexico, or offloaded from a ship. (Or a cargo aircraft, but that is less likely.) Even a klutzy, WWII style “Big Boy” can be smuggled in in a ship. Buy a freighter keeping any terrorist connection remote from ownership or operations, install bomb amid lead ballast or welded into a hidden compartment, go about business, then sail into a harbor such as Port of Los Angeles, Port of Houston, Miami, or New York, detonate bomb, ideally at a time when the prevailing winds will carry fallout inland from the harbor. As a higher-tech alternative, the ship could be outfitted to carry a missile with a nuclear, biological, or chemical warhead, and launch miles from the U.S. coastline. This is less fool proof, though. Whole lot more technology. more to go wrong, modifications to ship more detectible by the CIA. Could such a ship be detected and the ship intercepted? Yes! But we would need radiation detectors, mass detectors, many more Coast Guard personnel, and a policy of boarding and inspecting all incoming ships on open waters. As it is, the Coast Guard is the bastard stepchild of our military, when it should be the most important and most heavily funded service branch. I think the Coast Guard should be built up to about 50-100 times its present size and assigned all coast and border inspection duties--no more civilian Border Patrol, except as pertaining to INS processing. Sat, 28 Feb 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Torture-Confessions-in-a-post-9-11-World.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/BIG-NEWS-NO-MORE-SWISS-BANK-ACCOUNTS.html Swiss Bank Will Open Files to U.S. Authorities By Susie Madrak Thursday Feb 19, 2009 7:00pm Ah yes, the Swiss bank account. Truly, the end of an era. For decades, it was the banking tool of choice for those who were hiding income - for reasons as mundane as tax evasion, but also for more nefarious purposes, like money-laundering from illegal enterprises: UBS, the largest bank in Switzerland, agreed on Wednesday to divulge the names of well-heeled Americans whom the authorities suspect of using offshore accounts at the bank to evade taxes. The bank admitted conspiring to defraud the Internal Revenue Service and agreed to pay $780 million to settle a sweeping federal investigation into its activities. It is unclear how many of its clients’ names UBS will divulge. Federal prosecutors have been examining about 19,000 accounts at the bank, but UBS ultimately may disclose the identities of only a few hundred customers. But to some, turning over any names at all heralds the end of the secret Swiss bank account, whose traditions date to the Middle Ages. “The Swiss are saying that this is the end of Swiss banking as they knew it,” said Jack Blum, an offshore tax specialist. “Nobody will trust the security of the Swiss bank account.” As part of the settlement, UBS agreed to cooperate with a broad summons issued by the Justice Department to turn over the names. Under the terms of a so-called deferred prosecution agreement, the bank and its executives could be indicted if UBS didn’t identify the customers. [...] Prosecutors suspect that from late 2002 to 2007, UBS helped American clients illegally hide $20 billion, letting them evade $300 million a year in taxes. Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/BIG-NEWS-NO-MORE-SWISS-BANK-ACCOUNTS.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Interview-w-Obama-about-religion-faith.html An Interview w/ Illinois State Senator Barack Obama March 27, 2004 by Cathleen Falsani Me: decaf He: alone, on time, grabs a Naked juice protein shake FALSANI: What do you believe? OBAMA: I am a Christian. So, I have a deep faith. So I draw from the Christian faith. On the other hand, I was born in Hawaii where obviously there are a lot of Eastern influences. I lived in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, between the ages of six and 10. My father was from Kenya, and although he was probably most accurately labeled an agnostic, his father was Muslim. And I'd say, probably, intellectually I've drawn as much from Judaism as any other faith. So, I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people. That there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and there's an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived. And so, part of my project in life was probably to spend the first 40 years of my life figuring out what I did believe - I'm 42 now - and it's not that I had it all completely worked out, but I'm spending a lot of time now trying to apply what I believe and trying to live up to those values. FALSANI: Have you always been a Christian? OBAMA: I was raised more by my mother and my mother was Christian. FALSANI: Any particular flavor? OBAMA: No. My grandparents who were from small towns in Kansas. My grandmother was Methodist. My grandfather was Baptist. This was at a time when I think the Methodists felt slightly superior to the Baptists. And by the time I was born, they were, I think, my grandparents had joined a Universalist church. So, my mother, who I think had as much influence on my values as anybody, was not someone who wore her religion on her sleeve. We'd go to church for Easter. She wasn't a church lady. As I said, we moved to Indonesia. She remarried an Indonesian who wasn't particularly, he wasn't a practicing Muslim. I went to a Catholic school in a Muslim country. So I was studying the Bible and catechisms by day, and at night you'd hear the prayer call. So I don't think as a child we were, or I had a structured religious education. But my mother was deeply spiritual person, and would spend a lot of time talking about values and give me books about the world's religions, and talk to me about them. And I think always, her view always was that underlying these religions were a common set of beliefs about how you treat other people and how you aspire to act, not just for yourself but also for the greater good. And, so that, I think, was what I carried with me through college. I probably didn't get started getting active in church activities until I moved to Chicago. The way I came to Chicago in 1985 was that I was interested in community organizing and I was inspired by the Civil Rights movement. And the idea that ordinary people could do extraordinary things. And there was a group of churches out on the South Side of Chicago that had come together to form an organization to try to deal with the devastation of steel plants that had closed. And didn't have much money, but felt that if they formed an organization and hired somebody to organize them to work on issues that affected their community, that it would strengthen the church and also strengthen the community. So they hired me, for $13,000 a year. The princely sum. And I drove out here and I didn't know anybody and started working with both the ministers and the lay people in these churches on issues like creating job training programs, or afterschool programs for youth, or making sure that city services were fairly allocated to underserved communities. This would be in Roseland, West Pullman, Altgeld Gardens, far South Side working class and lower income communities. And it was in those places where I think what had been more of an intellectual view of religion deepened because I'd be spending an enormous amount of time with church ladies, sort of surrogate mothers and fathers and everybody I was working with was 50 or 55 or 60, and here I was a 23-year-old kid running around. I became much more familiar with the ongoing tradition of the historic black church and it's importance in the community. And the power of that culture to give people strength in very difficult circumstances, and the power of that church to give people courage against great odds. And it moved me deeply. So that, one of the churches I met, or one of the churches that I became involved in was Trinity United Church of Christ. And the pastor there, Jeremiah Wright, became a good friend. So I joined that church and committed myself to Christ in that church. FALSANI: Did you actually go up for an altar call? OBAMA: Yes. Absolutely. It was a daytime service, during a daytime service. And it was a powerful moment. Because, it was powerful for me because it not only confirmed my faith, it not only gave shape to my faith, but I think, also, allowed me to connect the work I had been pursuing with my faith. FALSANI: How long ago? OBAMA: 16, 17 years ago. 1987 or 88 FALSANI: So you got yourself born again? OBAMA: Yeah, although I don't, I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I'm not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I've got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others. I'm a big believer in tolerance. I think that religion at it's best comes with a big dose of doubt. I'm suspicious of too much certainty in the pursuit of understanding just because I think people are limited in their understanding. I think that, particularly as somebody who's now in the public realm and is a student of what brings people together and what drives them apart, there's an enormous amount of damage done around the world in the name of religion and certainty. FALSANI: Do you still attend Trinity? OBAMA: Yep. Every week. 11 o’clock service. Ever been there? Good service. I actually wrote a book called Dreams from My Father, it's kind of a meditation on race. There's a whole chapter on the church in that, and my first visits to Trinity. FALSANI: Do you pray often? OBAMA: Uh, yeah, I guess I do. Its' not formal, me getting on my knees. I think I have an ongoing conversation with God. I think throughout the day, I'm constantly asking myself questions about what I'm doing, why am I doing it. One of the interesting things about being in public life is there are constantly these pressures being placed on you from different sides. To be effective, you have to be able to listen to a variety of points of view, synthesize viewpoints. You also have to know when to be just a strong advocate, and push back against certain people or views that you think aren't right or don't serve your constituents. And so, the biggest challenge, I think, is always maintaining your moral compass. Those are the conversations I'm having internally. I'm measuring my actions against that inner voice that for me at least is audible, is active, it tells me where I think I'm on track and where I think I'm off track. It's interesting particularly now after this election, comes with it a lot of celebrity. And I always think of politics as having two sides. There's a vanity aspect to politics, and then there's a substantive part of politics. Now you need some sizzle with the steak to be effective, but I think it's easy to get swept up in the vanity side of it, the desire to be liked and recognized and important. It's important for me throughout the day to measure and to take stock and to say, now, am I doing this because I think it's advantageous to me politically, or because I think it's the right thing to do? Am I doing this to get my name in the papers or am I doing this because it's necessary to accomplish my motives. FALSANI: Checking for altruism? OBAMA: Yeah. I mean, something like it. Looking for, ... It's interesting, the most powerful political moments for me come when I feel like my actions are aligned with a certain truth. I can feel it. When I'm talking to a group and I'm saying something truthful, I can feel a power that comes out of those statements that is different than when I'm just being glib or clever. FALSANI: What's that power? Is it the holy spirit? God? OBAMA: Well, I think it's the power of the recognition of God, or the recognition of a larger truth that is being shared between me and an audience. That's something you learn watching ministers, quite a bit. What they call the Holy Spirit. They want the Holy Spirit to come down before they're preaching, right? Not to try to intellectualize it but what I see is there are moments that happen within a sermon where the minister gets out of his ego and is speaking from a deeper source. And it's powerful. There are also times when you can see the ego getting in the way. Where the minister is performing and clearly straining for applause or an Amen. And those are distinct moments. I think those former moments are sacred. FALSANI: Who's Jesus to you? OBAMA: Right. Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he's also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher. And he's also a wonderful teacher. I think it's important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history. FALSANI: Is Jesus someone who you feel you have a regular connection with now, a personal connection with in your life? OBAMA: Yeah. Yes. I think some of the things I talked about earlier are addressed through, are channeled through my Christian faith and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. FALSANI: Have you read the bible? OBAMA: Absolutely. I read it not as regularly as I would like. These days I don't have much time for reading or reflection, period. FALSANI: Do you try to take some time for whatever, meditation prayer reading? OBAMA: I'll be honest with you, I used to all the time, in a fairly disciplined way. But during the course of this campaign, I don't. And I probably need to and would like to, but that's where that internal monologue, or dialogue I think supplants my opportunity to read and reflect in a structured way these days. It's much more sort of as I'm going through the day trying to take stock and take a moment here and a moment there to take stock, why am I here, how does this connect with a larger sense of purpose. FALSANI: Do you have people in your life that you look to for guidance? OBAMA: Well, my pastor [Jeremiah Wright] is certainly someone who I have an enormous amount of respect for. I have a number of friends who are ministers. Reverend Meeks is a close friend and colleague of mine in the state Senate. Father Michael Pfleger is a dear friend, and somebody I interact with closely. FALSANI: Those two will keep you on your toes. OBAMA: And they’re good friends. Because both of them are in the public eye, there are ways we can all reflect on what's happening to each of us in ways that are useful. I think they can help me, they can appreciate certain specific challenges that I go through as a public figure. FALSANI: Jack Ryan [Obama's Republican opponent in the U.S. Senate race at the time] said talking about your faith is fraught with peril for a public figure. OBAMA: Which is why you generally will not see me spending a lot of time talking about it on the stump. Alongside my own deep personal faith, I am a follower, as well, of our civic religion. I am a big believer in the separation of church and state. I am a big believer in our constitutional structure. I mean, I'm a law professor at the University of Chicago teaching constitutional law. I am a great admirer of our founding charter, and its resolve to prevent theocracies from forming, and its resolve to prevent disruptive strains of fundamentalism from taking root ion this country. As I said before, in my own public policy, I'm very suspicious of religious certainty expressing itself in politics. Now, that's different form a belief that values have to inform our public policy. I think it's perfectly consistent to say that I want my government to be operating for all faiths and all peoples, including atheists and agnostics, while also insisting that there are values that inform my politics that are appropriate to talk about. A standard line in my stump speech during this campaign is that my politics are informed by a belief that we're all connected. That if there's a child on the South Side of Chicago that can't read, that makes a difference in my life even if it's not my own child. If there's a senior citizen in downstate Illinois that's struggling to pay for their medicine and having to chose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer even if it's not my grandparent. And if there's an Arab American family that's being rounded up by John Ashcroft without the benefit of due process, that threatens my civil liberties. I can give religious expression to that. I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper, we are all children of God. Or I can express it in secular terms. But the basic premise remains the same. I think sometimes Democrats have made the mistake of shying away from a conversation about values for fear that they sacrifice the important value of tolerance. And I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive. FALSANI: Do you think it's wrong for people to want to know about a civic leader's spirituality? OBAMA: I don't' think it's wrong. I think that political leaders are subject to all sorts of vetting by the public, and this can be a component of that. I think that I am disturbed by, let me put it this way: I think there is an enormous danger on the part of public figures to rationalize or justify their actions by claiming God's mandate. I think there is this tendency that I don't think is healthy for public figures to wear religion on their sleeve as a means to insulate themselves from criticism, or dialogue with people who disagree with them. FALSANI: The conversation stopper, when you say you're a Christian and leave it at that. OBAMA: Where do you move forward with that? This is something that I'm sure I'd have serious debates with my fellow Christians about. I think that the difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and proselytize. There's the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven't embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they're going to hell. FALSANI: You don't believe that? OBAMA: I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell. I can't imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity. That's just not part of my religious makeup. Part of the reason I think it's always difficult for public figures to talk about this is that the nature of politics is that you want to have everybody like you and project the best possible traits onto you. Oftentimes that's by being as vague as possible, or appealing to the lowest common denominators. The more specific and detailed you are on issues as personal and fundamental as your faith, the more potentially dangerous it is. FALSANI: Do you ever have people who know you're a Christian question a particular stance you take on an issue, how can you be a Christian and ... OBAMA: Like the right to choose. I haven't been challenged in those direct ways. And to that extent, I give the public a lot of credit. I'm always stuck by how much common sense the American people have. They get confused sometimes, watch Fox News or listen to talk radio. That's dangerous sometimes. But generally, Americans are tolerant and I think recognize that faith is a personal thing, and they may feel very strongly about an issue like abortion or gay marriage, but if they discuss it with me as an elected official they will discuss it with me in those terms and not, say, as 'you call yourself a Christian.' I cannot recall that ever happening. FALSANI: Do you get questions about your faith? OBAMA: Obviously as an African American politician rooted in the African American community, I spend a lot of time in the black church. I have no qualms in those settings in participating fully in those services and celebrating my God in that wonderful community that is the black church. But I also try to be . . . Rarely in those settings do people come up to me and say, what are your beliefs. They are going to presume, and rightly so. Although they may presume a set of doctrines that I subscribe to that I don't necessarily subscribe to. But I don't think that's unique to me. I think that each of us when we walk into our church or mosque or synagogue are interpreting that experience in different ways, are reading scriptures in different ways and are arriving at our own understanding at different ways and in different phases. I don't know a healthy congregation or an effective minister who doesn't recognize that. If all it took was someone proclaiming I believe Jesus Christ and that he died for my sins, and that was all there was to it, people wouldn't have to keep coming to church, would they. FALSANI: Do you believe in heaven? OBAMA: Do I believe in the harps and clouds and wings? FALSANI: A place spiritually you go to after you die? OBAMA: What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don't presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing. When I tuck in my daughters at night and I feel like I've been a good father to them, and I see in them that I am transferring values that I got from my mother and that they're kind people and that they're honest people, and they're curious people, that's a little piece of heaven. FALSANI: Do you believe in sin? OBAMA: Yes. FALSANI: What is sin? OBAMA: Being out of alignment with my values. FALSANI: What happens if you have sin in your life? OBAMA: I think it's the same thing as the question about heaven. In the same way that if I'm true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, when I'm not true to it, it's its own punishment. FALSANI: Where do you find spiritual inspiration? Music, nature, literature, people, a conduit you plug into? OBAMA: There are so many. Nothing is more powerful than the black church experience. A good choir and a good sermon in the black church, it's pretty hard not to be move and be transported. I can be transported by watching a good performance of Hamlet, or reading Toni Morrison's Song of Solomon, or listening to Miles Davis. FALSANI: Is there something that you go back to as a touchstone, a book, a particular piece of music, a place ... OBAMA: As I said before, in my own sort of mental library, the Civil Rights movement has a powerful hold on me. It's a point in time where I think heaven and earth meet. Because it's a moment in which a collective faith transforms everything. So when I read Gandhi or I read King or I read certain passages of Abraham Lincoln and I think about those times where people's values are tested, I think those inspire me. FALSANI: What are you doing when you feel the most centered, the most aligned spiritually? OBAMA: I think I already described it. It's when I'm being true to myself. And that can happen in me making a speech or it can happen in me playing with my kids, or it can happen in a small interaction with a security guard in a building when I'm recognizing them and exchanging a good word. FALSANI: Is there someone you would look to as an example of how not to do it? OBAMA: Bin Laden. FALSANI: ... An example of a role model, who combined everything you said you want to do in your life, and your faith? OBAMA: I think Gandhi is a great example of a profoundly spiritual man who acted and risked everything on behalf of those values but never slipped into intolerance or dogma. He seemed to always maintain an air of doubt about him. I think Dr. King, and Lincoln. Those three are good examples for me of people who applied their faith to a larger canvas without allowing that faith to metastasize into something that is hurtful. FALSANI: Can we go back to that morning service in 1987 or 88 -- when you have a moment that you can go back to that as an epiphany... OBAMA: It wasn't an epiphany. It was much more of a gradual process for me. I know there are some people who fall out. Which is wonderful. God bless them. For me it was probably because there is a certain self-consciousness that I possess as somebody with probably too much book learning, and also a very polyglot background. FALSANI: It wasn't like a moment where you finally got it? It was a symbol of that decision? OBAMA: Exactly. I think it was just a moment to certify or publicly affirm a growing faith in me. -END- Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Interview-w-Obama-about-religion-faith.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/The-Janus-Effect.html Obama's Janus Effect By nonny mouse Saturday Feb 14, 2009 6:00pm George Santayana’s adage that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it has been quoted (and often mis-quoted) quite a lot recently. But it is not enough to simply remember the past in order to prevent the travesties of justice we have seen happening over the last decade in the United States, again and again. Patrick Leahy’s perhaps well-intentioned (if he’s being naïve) or misguided (if he’s being politically expedient) call for a bipartisan ‘truth commission’ based on such as the Church commission or the truth commissions in South Africa, while offering the enticement of granting immunity from prosecution, is simply not enough. Nor is it enough for the current president to insist that, regardless of whatever crimes his predecessor or those in his administration have committed, the United States now obeys the law, and that he prefers to ‘get it right moving forward’. It is simply not enough. It’s not enough, but not because of any inappropriate thirst for revenge on the part of the now liberal majority, or excessive fear that we might jeopardize a desperately needed economic recovery if we antagonise those on the right willing to obstruct the current administration should prosecution for war crimes be seen as potentially feasible against members of their own party. Those in our government who have committed war crimes must be aggressively prosecuted; not simply because we are legally obligated to under our own laws, and under laws and treaties our country was instrumental in establishing for the entire world. Not because this country’s reputation has been devastated by such acts of barbarity and inhumanity on the part of our leaders we would instantly condemn as those more apposite to tin-pot dictators and tyrannical madmen. It isn’t because we are morally obligated to pursue the ideals of justice on principle. It isn’t even because preventing such prosecutions would in turn make us all accessories after the fact, a position that fills me with a sense of both loathing and outrage. It is vital for our survival as a nation, as a people, as a society, and even for the future of our entire world that we do so. Because in the words of Hannah Arendt, ‘it is in the very nature of things human that every act that has once made its appearance and has been recorded in the history of mankind stays with mankind as a potentiality long after its actuality has become a thing of the past’. She wrote that in 1963, and was speaking about the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem, but what she wrote then, about a different time, a different nation, a different crime, hold true today. ‘It is essentially for this reason: that the unprecedented, once it has appeared, may become precedent for the future, that all trials touching upon “crimes against humanity” must be judged according to a standard that is today still an “ideal”’. For if we do nothing, if we protect those accused of war crimes from investigation out of a misguided, even perverse ‘respect’ for the offices these individuals held, if we allow those who have abused the power of their office in order to commit war crimes to escape from being judged, claiming immunity for reasons of exigent circumstances, we establish a precedent. It isn’t enough to remember, it is necessary to also act, if we are to prevent history from repeating itself. The Dick Cheneys and Donald Rumsfelds and George Bushes will return, again and again, with different names, and different faces, but the same lust for violence and disregard for the rule of law that should be enforced to protect us all from crimes against humanity, and it will be those of us who established the precedent of bestowing immunity on the perpetrators of today’s war crimes from their acts who will be responsible for tomorrow’s crimes against humanity. It is not enough to simply remember. Those who will not face the past will face a future neither you nor I will want to live in. That is the Janus effect Obama will have to deal with, and soon, if our country has any real future to speak of. Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/The-Janus-Effect.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Whistleblower-Protection-Stripped-so-GOP-can-blame-Dems-Later.html Susan Collins Stripped Whistleblower Protection from Stimulus Bill So GOP Can Blame Dems Later By Susie Madrak Thursday Feb 12, 2009 3:00pm (I totally stole this from The General...) Via TPMMuckraker: Gotta love those "centrists"! Sen. Susan Collins, the Maine GOP dealmaker who's been in the limelight this week for helping to pass a watered down stimulus, has been talking a good game about the need to avoid wasting taxpayer money. But it looks like Collins also worked today to strip from the final bill a measure that's crucial to exposing that waste. Here's what happened: The House stimulus bill contained a provision designed to protect federal whistleblowers. Currently, those protections are shockingly weak. According to the Project On Government Oversight, whistleblowers who are fired or demoted can file a complaint with a government board -- but over the last eight years, that board has ruled in favor of whistleblowers only twice in 55 cases. More to the point, the protections were designed to encourage federal workers to point out cases where taxpayer money is subject to waste, fraud, or abuse -- a legitimate concern when Congress spends $800 billion, and one that centrists and Republicans have been particularly exercised about. Yesterday, 20 members of the House, from both parties, yesterday sent a letter to House negotiators urging them to ensure that the protections remained. But, according to a person following the bill closely, Collins used today's conference committee to drastically water down the measure, citing national security concerns as the reason for her opposition. In the end, the protections were so weakened that House negotiators balked, and the result was that the entire amendment was removed. According to the person following the bill, Collins was the "central roadblock" to passing the protections. But wait, here's the good part! So when, in the coming months, conservatives start jumping up and down over the fact that money from the stimulus bill is being wasted, as they surely will, it's worth remembering that a key measure designed to help expose that waste was removed from taken out of the bill -- and by a senator said to be a champion of fiscal discipline. Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Whistleblower-Protection-Stripped-so-GOP-can-blame-Dems-Later.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/The-2nd-Civil-War.html Nevermind. Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/The-2nd-Civil-War.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/GOP-turning-their-backs-on-those-who-tried-to-play-by-the-rules.html Republicans Turn Their Backs On The People Who Have Played By The Rules And Need Help By Susie Madrak Sunday Feb 08, 2009 4:00pm This is what the Republicans and Blue Dog Dems are turning their backs on: All over the New Jersey, the welfare lines are getting longer and longer. Victims of the recession are lining up to apply for food stamps and seek help paying for utilities, rent and subsidized health care in numbers that veteran social service workers have never seen before. While the lines may run the longest in urban Essex County, rural Salem County and suburban Middlesex see the same thing: lines getting longer, lines made up more and more of people that have never stood there before. Nikki Hernez, a 45-year-old Newark bus driver looking for work since October, said she has stood in lines all over the county. She walked 2 1/2 miles to a Newark office Monday to pick up a bus pass, only to be told to come back Thursday because the office was so jammed. Hernez finds the line in East Orange office the most chaotic. "The line at 50 South Clinton Avenue is crazy -- people get there early in the morning, a lot of the people are cursing, yelling and screaming," Hernez said. "You gotta understand, people are under so much pressure there is only so much they can take," said Hernez, who ran out of unemployment benefits and applied for welfare in the fall. "But even I tell them, real nice, you're not going to get anything quick by cursing the worker out." [...] They include people like Joan, a 52-year-old Warren County resident who applied for public assistance in December, after years of holding white-collar and part-time tutoring jobs. County workers told her to come back in January because they were "so overloaded," she said. Joan, who declined to reveal her full name to protect her son's privacy, said she doesn't blame the county workers -- "good people doing the best they can. But I have always been a taxpaying citizen. I am playing by the rules and I can't get help." And really, that's what it's about. If even people who worked hard and played by the rules can't get help, our leadership is a joke and our system a complete failure: She said she pawned jewelry to make a car payment, and put food on the table by going to food pantries and taking handouts from friends and family until, upon her third visit, the county came through with a one-time food stamp grant for $227 last month. "I never thought I would be in this situation," Joan added. "Something has to be done about people like me." The state Department of Human Services, which oversees the distribution of welfare, Medicaid and food stamps benefits, saw a dramatic spike in the demand for these programs in the fall. Food-stamp applications doubled from 2,234 people in October 2007 to 4,547 people in October 2008, according to the most recent state data available. During roughly the same period, there was a 61 percent spike in the number of people seeking cash assistance through public welfare, known as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or General Assistance. State unemployment rose to 7.1 percent in November, the highest in 15 years. Mon, 09 Feb 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/GOP-turning-their-backs-on-those-who-tried-to-play-by-the-rules.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Abortion-and-Population-Control.html With the recent controversy surrounding the newest octuplets, I have noticed a growing debate on other sites regarding this issue. The most glaring conundrum presented is how those who are against abortion tend to voice some support for measures of population control. There are so many contradictions on this issue that it amazes even me; and I have been aware of conservative hypocrisy for awhile now. But I digress… I hold firm to my belief that children should not be punished for their mother’s ignorance. As much as it seems to eerily get mentioned as a solution, "sewing her up” would be considered cruel and unusual punishment in any court of law. Fertility science has certainly opened up a whole new book on ethics. The risks of fertility treatments, which this woman was well aware of, muliply the issue further with even more questions. Being that my wife and I are currently planning on trying fertility treatments; we are already having to ask some of these tough questions ourselves. What if we get pregnant w/ multiples? We could handle one or two on our incomes; but more than that, and we will be financially strapped beyond what we can afford which would require government assistance? Would we consider selective abortion to get it down to two, or one? Would we consider having all of them and put some up for adoption; but risk my wife’s health in the mean time? Not that I need to justify my life choices based on the beliefs of others, but I am most curious what some of you think about such things? Then there is the Catholic prohibition of contraceptives and such. With the Roman Catholic Church, as well as some other far right denominations, taking such a hard stance on birth control; the possibility of “multiplying like cockroaches” (as one person liked to refer to it) is certainly an issue. But what are the realistic solutions to all of these questions? We can half-heartedly joke about sewing people up, or putting them in prison for abusing entitlement programs by having too many children; but doesn’t that just put more of a burden on the programs anyways? I mean, now we have these children with no parents that we, as a society, have to take care of. We don’t do a very good job of taking care of the other “wards of the state” in our care. Have we taken these children away from the possibility of having at least one mother only to put them into the black hole abyss we call “foster care?” What is an acceptable, and ethical, form of population control? For now, abortion is a legal remedy available to the government. Based on current polling numbers, those who are against abortion are for some form of population control, even if their motivations are suspect (rising population of minorities, alleged abuse of entitlement programs, etc.). I admit I have no solution to offer. Only questions about where we should draw the line in the sand. This is uncharted territory, folks! Science and technology have certainly passed us by; and so, as a result, the effectiveness of a political solution as well. Sun, 08 Feb 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Abortion-and-Population-Control.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/The-Darwinistic-Hypocrisy-of-the-Far-Right.html Simple question: Why is it that those who reject the teaching of evolution in the classroom have no qualms about employing the Darwinistic tenets of "survival of the fittest" into their scheme of everyday living? Sun, 08 Feb 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/The-Darwinistic-Hypocrisy-of-the-Far-Right.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Finding-sincere-honesty-about-the-situation.html Well, now I'm really depressed. From Naked Capitalism, a disturbing piece (via Corrente): "Willem Buiter, who has some expertise in dodgy debtor nations, has a typically insightful post today, "Fiscal expansions in submerging markets; the case of the USA and the UK." Despite the dry title, what is noteworthy is that Buiter discusses in some detail how corruption, both in the government and society, limits policy choices. Put simply, diseased leadership has trouble pulling a country out of a debt crisis because no one trusts that they will do the right thing (and frankly, why should they?). Buiter makes a compelling case that lack of credibility has real costs, and uses it to bolster his argument that the US and UK should not go on the kind of whole hog spending spree that most orthodox economists are demanding right now. He thinks a currency collapse, a scenario that most would dismiss as impossible for the dollar, is in fact probable at higher deficit levels in part because creditors and investors know the US and UK lack the discipline to trim the sails soon enough. While Buiter does not frame it this way, in effect he is saying that the downside of doing too little (deep recession and/or very sluggish growth) is preferable to doing too much (high inflation and the risk of collapses in major currencies. But the most important aspect of the post is not the policy implications, but the fact that a Serious Economist has finally said that the lack of scruples in America and Britain has gone beyond the tipping point, and is going to exact high societal costs. The parasites are eating the host. I hope someone out there is taking notice." Because we, and the UK, are not willing to do enough; we are holding ourselves back. Someday, people are going to look back at this time and shake their heads; and wonder why we did not have the courage. Sun, 08 Feb 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/Finding-sincere-honesty-about-the-situation.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/From-the-President.html 'Are these folks serious?' Obama rips into stimulus-plan critics By David Neiwert Thursday Feb 05, 2009 11:00am Speaking before the Energy Department this morning, President Obama made a stirring defense of his stimulus package, and nailed his critics' ears to the wall: "As we are meeting, in the halls of Congress just down the street from here, there is a debate going on about the plan I have proposed, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan. This isn't some abstract debate. Last week we learned that many of America's largest corporations are planning to lay off tens of thousands of workers. Today we learned that last week the number of new unemployment claims jumped to 626,000. Tomorrow we're expecting another dismal jobs report. On top of the 2.6 million jobs that we lost last year, we've lost half a million jobs each month for the last two months. Now, I believe that legislation of such magnitude as has been proposed deserves the scrutiny that it has received over the last month. I think that's a good thing, that's the way democracy is supposed to work. But these numbers that we're seeing are sending an unmistakable message, and so are the American people. The time for talk is over. The time for action is now. Because we know that if we do not act, a bad situation will become dramatically worse. Crisis could turn into catastrophe for families and businesses across the country, and I refuse to let that happen. We can't delay, and we can't go back to the same, worn-out ideas that led us here in the first place. In the last few days we've seen proposals arise from some in Congress that you may not have read, but you'd be very familiar with, because you've been hearing them the last ten years -- maybe longer. They're rooted in the idea that tax cuts alone can solve all our problems, that government doesn't have a role to play, that half-measures and tinkering are somehow enough. That we can afford to ignore our most fundamental economic challenges -- the crushing cost of health care, the inadequate state of so many of our schools, our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. So let me be clear: Those ideas have been tested, and they have failed. They have taken us from surpluses to an annual deficit of over a trillion dollars. And they have brought our economy to a halt. And that's precisely what the election we just had was all about. The American people have rendered their judgment. And now it is time to move forward, not back. Now is the time for action." The whole talk, in fact, was strikingly energetic, even inspiring -- especially for those of us waiting to see him come out fighting against the Republican ankle-biters he has to deal with. Later on, he lashes Republicans and their talking heads for how decidedly unserious their entire approach has been: "Now, I read the other day that critics of this plan ridiculed our notion that we should use part of the money to modernize the entire fleet of federal vehicles to take advantage of state-of-the-art fuel efficiency. This is what they called pork. You know the truth. It will not only save the government significant money over time, it will not only create manufacturing jobs for folks who are making these cars, it will set a standard for private industry to match. And so when you hear these attacks, deriding something of such obvious importance as this, you have to ask yourself: Are these folks serious? Is it any wonder we haven't had a real energy policy in this country?" No doubt the Republicans will be howling about how this ends "bipartisanship." Let them. Fri, 06 Feb 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/progress/From-the-President.html