Left, Middle [East], Right…

I honestly cannot believe those of us on the left that are frothing and chomping at the bit for radical change to the makeup and practices of the United States still do not realize the value in moderacy. We cannot run willy-nilly, pushing our agenda like we’ve only got 4 years to make up for all the lost freedoms, injustices, and societal ills from the past three decades or so.  It looks panicked.  The U.S. has enough going on that just needs to be fixed, or at the very least, stabilized.  An economy in shambles, with nearly every single major  American industry affected, job losses like we haven’t seen in a while, and a war on a distant front (three of them) that is all but forgotten and our medicaland social support systems can’t do much for the wounded and broken young men and women when they get back…the American dream  is weaker than ever. Let’s test out the minds of a younger, more team-solution oriented American workforce to solve some problems in the financial sector.  Let’s see what deadlines do for the car manufacturers, and apply those deadlines (in a more creative way ) to TARP and stimulus funded states on those shovel-ready programs we promised before we were sidetracked.  Let’s take dead US manufacturing jobs and create an in-house green supply industry; working to build the parts that will make green energy attainable, get our best scientific minds finding the best methods,  or fund building the systems that make our wind, solar and geothermal energy sources work for us. If we do well enough at this, we fix the job problem (by creating some), we fix the global warming/dirty energy issue  and save the earth, and we fix the trade issue by creating a product that other countries would invest in or purchase. Let’s also stay away from as many special interest groups as possible.

If our party wants to do the greatest good, we need to first strengthen what we know is broken, win the support of the very people our party is founded upon–even if they are not Democrats–and once the danger of utter collapse is past, then take our newfound support and make America great again by proving that if our ideas are great when we’re working with the “big ticket” items, wait and see what we can do with the emerging ideas, job markets, and concerns.  If we focus on this “strategy”, we may have at least four more years of time. Instead of splitting our energy into a million + one things that liberals have wanted to accomplish for a long time (and feel like Obama’sadministration is the perfect time to do so), we probably need to focus on restoring our image as a party of the people and do the most beneficial work for as many Americans as is possible.  Sure that may sound socialist, but given the alternative…an America in despair…I’d rather sound socialist.

Speaking of that distant war, remember the war in Afghanistan that turned into the war in  Iraq that turned into the war in Pakistan (which, save the border areas, we are largely uninvolved in)?  See if we can name all the countries in the middle east that haven’t made the news for conflict lately.  Let’s see–there’s Oman, which from the lack of fiery reports, sounds like a wonderful country to take a holiday in. I haven’t heard much about Lebanon lately,  or Jordan, or Yemen or oddly enough, Saudi Arabia.  The last one concerns me, since the entire region is suffering through no small amount of instability and they are second only to Iran in size, smack in the middle, but why do we not hear the Saudi voices of concern about the state of their region?  Now, I am not a Saudi Arabia hater–no!–I was just as enthralled by all the cool stuff that Air Force Dad brought back from Saudi as the next military kid, but I just find it so odd that they are so silent. Maybe they’re not talking to us since we crashed the stock market–that was full of their money.  If anyone has any insight or any news from al Jazeera that I may be missing, please don’t hesitate.

Poor Pakistan. Is this the price a country that appearsto be an ally of the US must pay? Pakistan went from a normal country, fairly progressive even, in the Middle East to a warzone in a relatively short amont of time. They were warned, though.  Even the Bush administration had enough sense to warn Pakistan to get their border region in check, but they only half listened.  Our drone attacks haven’t helped any.  I worry about my Pakistani friends’ families and if they’re in an affeccted region, because as bad as it already is, it could get worse relatively quickly.  I feel like the U.S. as “visitors” in the region are at a distinct disadvantage simply because we are in the middle of some really fierce “family feuds” right now and do not adequately understand the culture after all this time, becuase through all the years of the random acts of west-hating terrorist attacts, Iran-Contra and even prior transgressions (such as creating Israel and the ensuing fallout) we never tried to understand who they were, we just assumed they would conform to the ways of the western world and simmer down.  To make matters worse, Iran is poking at the exposed wounds of several countries in the area to provoke…well…I don’t know, but they are certainly provoking some kind of response.  There is no action great enough and no words wise enough to help even a single person in the most embattled parts of the Middle East, and I feel so sad and powerless to make this any better in my lifetime.

Heading back to the Right, I have to say I have had this incredible craving for news radio, and so during my lunch breaks, there is only a 2 minute blurb of the day’s events so far on NPR, and I indulge in the Rushbag’s show.  I have to say, some of his rantings are coherent and well thought out.  but lately he’s been on this “blah, blah…this only shows who Obamais…blah, blah” kick.  Sotomayor proves who Obama is. The auto bailout proves who Obama is. So on, and so on.  I’m not sure what that’s all about, but I do agree with him on the fact that Republican party does not need to “cow down” to every popular opinion.  It makes even the real, good, and conservative politicians seem less real.  I still have a soft spot in my heart for John McCain who is real (he just picked a dumb running mate) and out of every politician in D.C., I’d like to hear more of what he  has to say about the torture memos.  Speaking of those, does Dick Cheney know that he is not in charge of destroying the United States anymore? I don’t want to be scared to death–I want a solution to make the world insurgents live in more stable so that they want to function as a part of the normal  society in their home country, which makes ours more stable as a desireable by-product.

Honestly our country is in a make or break position.  We have some real challenges that cannot be tackled when our pols on the left or right cannot refrain from sensationalizing their displeasure in anything that wasn’t their idea.  This is destructive, and we need to drop the partisanship now.  Especially now that millions of Americans are suffering through the temper tantrums without jobs and homes.

The Great Debaters

With the Oxford, MS debate last night, my personal jury is still out.  One belief of mine—that we are entitled to some naivety, some faith in humanity’s ability to be reasonable—keeps coming to me as I read the transcript of the debate (I missed it on TV, closing at work again).  The positions and policies that the candidates set forth made me question what the real priorities are, in order for our children to even know the United States our generation grew up in.

Now, as some argued in defense of Palin’s ABC interview failure, a transcript does not give the fine nuances of speech. But I hope I can look objectively at the substance of Obama and McCain’s words. The assumption that Americans refuse to consider ourselves on the same level as the members of other countries…in Europe and some less “established” areas…as human beings makes me a little mad.  But when leveled at us from other countries, I can see the perspective of a French or Italian person that sees a United States bullying around the world, diplomatically, with cheers from the “sidelines”. If they had the opportunity, talking with the average U.S. citizen would reveal that we didn’t want anything but peace and prosperity for all peoples. I can’t think of a single person that wants people to suffer all the time—I feel like even those of us that lost loved ones in the September 11^th attacks would not want other families to suffer as they have had to.

In my opinion, our foreign policy has deeply embarrassed the nation.“World Police” is not exactly a compliment. So the candidates’ responses are important to me, in light of my faith in people.

In every country where tension currently exists, the candidates have distinct policies. Obama tends toward diplomacy, especially where at least some of the tension is our doing. Maybe once we establish with Ahmadinejad what the main reasons for nuclear enrichment are (and I think we might be surprised at Iran’s need for reliable nuclear power—in average citizens’ homes, that is), we can find ways to convince them not to use it for other purposes. Maybe propose ways to help them develop nuclear plants, lending our expertise (or best research) that will form some mutual respect, possibly earning some profit for our science and technology fields at home. Offer to lend them our brightest researchers—only if their safety can guaranteed. Or, bring their brightest developers and scientists to the U.S. for research, assuring them of the best resources and tools we have at our disposal. I agree that preconditions for talks should exist, but we must have some positive reinforcement to go along with any conditions we might set. If I’ve learned anything through teaching, I’ve learned that you get more flies with honey…

Concerning Russia, Obama said:

Now, we also can’t return to a Cold War posture with respect to Russia. It’s important that we recognize there are going to be some areas of common interest. One is nuclear proliferation.

They have not only 15,000 nuclear warheads, but they’ve got enough to make another 40,000, and some of those loose nukes could fall into the hands of Al Qaida.

This is an area where I’ve led on in the Senate, working with a Republican ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Dick Lugar, to deal with the proliferation of loose nuclear weapons. That’s an area where we’re going to have to work with Russia.

But we have to have a president who is clear that you don’t deal with Russia based on staring into his eyes and seeing his soul. You deal with Russia based on, what are your — what are the national security interests of the United States of America?

McCain, however, seemed more on the offensive with his positions:

Again, a little bit of naivety there. He doesn’t understand that Russia committed serious aggression against Georgia. And Russia has now become a nation fueled by petro-dollars that is basically a KGB apparatchik-run government.

I looked into Mr. Putin’s eyes, and I saw three letters, a “K,” a “G,” and a “B.” And their aggression in Georgia is not acceptable behavior.

If we put ourselves in Russia’s shoes…say there is some disturbance in Mexico…and it threatens the stability in our region, what would we do? If the past decade is any indication, I’d say U.S. response would be similar in scope. I’m a little young to truly understand what KGB power means to the world, but I do see his point, in that a rational government would have come to Georgia’s aid, unless their government’s agenda is more sinister than we know. I just feel that the smartest thing we could do is know enough to keep an eye on the situation, and remain diplomatically friendly enough with the Russians that they’d be willing to keep us “in the know”. We have kind of betrayed the world’s trust by acting impulsively lately.

McCain also said something about a small part of our financial crisis–the loss of domestic, blue-collar jobs in manufacturing and other industries:

Right now, the United States of American business pays the second-highest business taxes in the world, 35 percent. Ireland pays 11 percent.

Now, if you’re a business person, and you can locate any place in the world, then, obviously, if you go to the country where it’s 11 percent tax versus 35 percent, you’re going to be able to create jobs, increase your business, make more investment, et cetera.

I want to cut that business tax. I want to cut it so that businesses will remain in — in the United States of America and create jobs.

While I realize that many of these jobs will never come back from China, I would like to know the factcheck on this information. I will admit that this part of the crisis stems from some Clinton-era trade deals and some of the deregulation of the present administration, but would McCain’s policy actually help? 

Near the end of the debate, McCain says (in reference to being safer since 9/11), “We have to work more closely with our allies. I know our allies, and I can work much more closely with them.” My reading comprehension is average, at best, but everything stated in the debate suggested that McCain’s strategy or tactic (whichever one’s definition you understand better) could be influenced by impulse, or gut reactions.  We need a leader that will carefully weigh out the possibilities and consequences of national actions, and I can’t really trust that Senator John McCain is that man.

It is true that Senator Barack Obama does not have even a decade of experience in one of the premier legislative branches of the nation.  But how much worth can we attach to experience in “the way things have always been”? Our best chance to adapt to the 21^st century is to change the way we do things in America.  Obama isn’t old enough to be an “institution” in legislature, but he does have rational ideas, and a sensible approach to foreign policy.  It is usually new ideas that lead the United States around the next corner (remember the internet), so we can’t afford cling to policies that no longer work in this brave new world.  He has been criticized as having socialist policies, but I think that maybe balancing out the capitalism in our country with a few facets of the socialist ideology is a good idea, and part of a better long-term solution to our financial woes. 

Perhaps the suggestion (I won’t attribute it to anyone—I can’t remember who said this) that when the government creates the bail-out package, and every American taxpayer pays for it in some way or another, why don’t we award every American taxpayer with a stake in the affected institutions?  A stimulus check comes only once—then it is quickly spent.  How healthy would the economy be if everyone reaped the benefits of the bull market as stockholders? I bet that a little extra cash flow into average citizens’ pockets would boost the economy greatly, especially if it is regarded as a reward for paying taxes in the country.  But, I digress—that issue is another post altogether.  However, If Obama’s views lead us in a similar direction, where every family stands to benefit from taking a chance on saving our country in unorthodox ways…why not try his approach? 

Jihadists hellbent on destroying us aside, all people–not just Americans–have needs of safety and reasonable prosperity.  If we can come to a diplomatic understanding through reasoning with other world leaders, then a little open-mindedness is certainly called for. But these are my opinions. 

Form yours.  Here is a link to the transcript; read it.  Or if you’re more comfortable, watch it. We have to take this election seriously, because there has never been more at stake.

Obama on 9/11 and legislation about Hurricane Katrina

Some may call this following statement “unpatriotic” (just like not wearing that flag pin). Really, I think these words show a leader’s finest traits of good judgement.

Obama’s response to the events of 9/11 and the course of action we must take as a nation was published on September 19, 2001 in the Hyde Park Herald:

Even as I hope for some measure of peace and comfort to the bereaved families, I must also hope that we as a nation draw some measure of wisdom from this tragedy. Certain immediate lessons are clear, and we must act upon those lessons decisively. We need to step up security at our airports. We must reexamine the effectiveness of our intelligence networks. And we must be resolute in identifying the perpetrators of these heinous acts and dismantling their organizations of destruction.

Obama went on to say:

We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.

We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe—children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and within our own shores.

I hope we can glean some insight into that on today, our darkest of days. Though we are now somewhat desensitized to the tragedy, as a nation (a little bit more absorbed in ourselves nowadays), the clarity with which he saw the situation in the weeks following, should let us know that, as president, he would not react to tragedy with panic–a move which we have seen only creates more tragedy, not only for ourselves (our servicemen, servicewomen, contractors, etc) but for our allies, and “enemies” alike.

***

He has the ability to make informed decisions.  For the critics of Obama, that state he never wrote or sponsored any real legislation, let me inform you that he sponsored a bill for special-needs evacuation plans. In light of the recent Hurricane Gustav Hysteria, this might prove to be more “mud” to throw at the Republican response. Especially read the legislative outcome at the end.

Obama sponsored including special-needs people in emergency evacuation plans
OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: A bill to ensure the evacuation of individuals with special needs in times of emergency.
SPONSOR’S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. OBAMA: One of the most striking things about the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina is that the majority of stranded victims were our society’s most vulnerable members–low-income families, the elderly, the homeless, the disabled. Many did not own cars. Many believed themselves unable to flee the city, unable to forego the income from missed work, unable to incur the expenses of travel, food and lodging. Some may have misunderstood the severity of the warnings, if they heard the warnings at all. Some may have needed help that was unavailable. Whatever the reason, they were not evacuated and we have seen the horrific results.

This failure to evacuate so many of the most desperate citizens of the Gulf Coast leads me to introduce today a bill to require states and the nation to consider the needs of our neediest citizens in times of emergency. It appears that certain assumptions were made in planning and preparing for the worst case scenario in the Gulf Coast. After all, most of those who could afford to evacuate managed to do so. They drove out of town and checked into hotels or stayed with friends and family. But what about the thousands of people left behind because they had special needs?

Communities with special needs may be more challenging to accommodate, but they are every bit as important to protect and serve in the event of an emergency. What we saw in the Gulf Coast cannot be repeated. We may not be able to control the wrath of Mother Nature, but we can control how we prepare for natural disasters.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; never came to a vote.

Source: Emergency planning bill (S.1685) 05-S1685 on Sep 12, 2005

Barack on Budget & Economy

Ok…I’m a bit tired of the personal attacks flying back and forth between the Obama and McCain campaigns (and for the record, if you put lipstick on a pig, it IS still a pig). I know deep down in my soul that I have been part of the problem, but I got distracted by Sarah Barracuda for a minute.   I’m truly interested in the policies that candidates have a position on. So, without further adieu…

Obama’s stance on Budget and Economy

A different economic approach vs. McCain’s 4 more years. (May 2008)

Can’t do anything at home with $12 billion a month on Iraq. (Feb 2008)

Protect consumers with Credit Card Bill of Rights. (Feb 2008)

More accountability in subprime mortgages. (Feb 2008)

Bush stimulus plan leaves out seniors & unemployed. (Jan 2008)

Voted against limiting credit to 30%, because 30% too high. (Jan 2008)

Account for every single dollar for new proposed programs. (Jan 2008)

Help the homeowners actually living in their homes. (Jan 2008)

Bankruptcy bill pushed by banks &. (Jan 2008)

Lack of an energy policy is a financial burden. (Jan 2008)

Bush & GOP dug budget hole; need years to dig out. (Dec 2007)

Save $150 billion in tax cuts for people who don’t need them. (Dec 2007)

Take China “to the mat” about currency manipulation. (Dec 2007)

Rejects free market vision of government. (Oct 2007)

Regulate financial instruments to protect home mortgages. (Aug 2007)

Government regulation needed for when markets fail. (Aug 2007)

Return to PayGo: compensate for all new spending. (Oct 2006)

Bush’s economic policies are not working. (May 2004)

Supports federal programs to protect rural economy. (May 2004)

Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs’ effectiveness. (Mar 2007)

Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)

Get minorities into home ownership & global marketplace. (Jan 2001)

Require full disclosure about subprime mortgages. (Dec 2007)

Reform mortgage rules to prevent foreclosure & bankruptcy. (Feb 2008)

 

There are a few standout quotes from these bullet-points:

Part of the reason that Kuwait and others are able to come in and purchase, or at least bail out, some of our financial institutions is because we don’t have an energy policy. We are sending close to a billion dollars a day. A realistic plan is going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and to invest in solar & wind & biodiesel. That would make a substantial difference in our balance of payments, and that would make a substantial difference in terms of their capacity to purchase our assets.

Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008   

Or this one:

Q: Would it be a priority of your administration to balance the federal budget every year?
A: Over the last seven years, what we’ve seen is an economy that’s out of balance because of the policies of George Bush and the Republicans in Congress. Not only do we have fiscal problems, but we’ve got growing inequality. People are working harder for less and they’re seeing costs go up. So what I want to do is get the long-term fundamentals right. That means that we are investing in education & infrastructure, structuring fair trade deals, and also ending the war in Iraq. That is money that can be applied at home for critical issues.
Q: So a priority to balance the federal budget, or not?
A: We are not going to be able to dig ourselves out of that hole in 1 or 2 years. But if we can get on a path of sustained growth, end the war in Iraq, end some of the special interest loopholes and earmarks that have been clogging up the system, then I think we can return to a path of a balanced budget.

Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate Dec 13, 2007

 

Update: (9/11) I forgot to mention that this information is courtesy of On The Issues. This website has information on all the candidates, and go back to at least the 90’s. I’ll pick out my favorite ones in the next few days.

What is the main difference in Political Parties?

The difference between democrats and republicans is this:  For Democrats, the premise that “out of many, comes one,” reigns; on the other side of the partisan fence, the Republicans believe that “out of one, comes many.”

What is the evidence to suggest this? For one, if Republicans believe that, to stimulate large companies from Washington will “trickle down” to the masses–can it not be obvious that they truly believe in the goodness of humanity to a naive degree?  To think that out of “one” (government) will come prosperity for all, starting from the top down, will really occur in our selfish society is saddening.  We have seen this not to be true for so long.  It is a noble principle, but can this theory ever work in practice?

Democrats, maybe the more jaded of the two (made up of minorities, women, and others who have been denied the American Dream at some point), seek to create change by focusing on the masses.  The newest thinkers in the party have possibly gone too far in trying to please all in the broad spectrum of American viewpoints.  But essentially, the Democratic principle believes that for everyone to benefit, you have to improve life at the bottom of the barrel.  People have called the health plans of the Clinton administration and the current plan of Obama “socialist” in nature, but what is so terrible about making sure that all Americans would be able to live their lives without drowning in medical debt?  For example, even the average, middle-class family knows a possibility exists that one illness could jeopardize their children’s college fund.

If you pay attention to such statistical tools as the Bell Curve, you might notice that most of us will fall in the middle–with the least fortunate at the bottom end.  Where would you rather most political energy to be focused?  At the top, with the wealthiest few, or with the least of us?