The VP Choices for Barack Obama

A Season for Runners

Next week, Sen. Barack Obama will officially be the Democratic presidential nominee and he'll have a running mate. There's lots of speculation as to his VP pick, but most of the names mentioned are not good choices, like Sen. E. Bayh from Indiana. First principle is do no harm! Obama should choose a VP that will not distract or have "excessive baggage"--sorry, Hilary Clinton is therefore excluded by definition.

However, I don't want to see another Dan Quale, so lightweight that he'll just blow away in eight years--which brings me to my point: Obama should be the beginning of progressive change that will be continued by his VP in 2016! Therefore, this person should be able (age, ability) to continue the course after Obama leaves office.

Another requirement would be that the VP should not be a senator from a state that has a Republican governor. The governors appoint senators until the next election when there's a vacancy. There's a great effort & an opportunity this year to increase the Dem majority in the Senate. Obama should know that much of his success as president will depend on getting legislation through Congress-- this measn both chambers, or there's no deal! Often, this translates into having 60 votes in the Senate to prevent the conservatives from filibustering sensible legislation. The more Dems in the Senate the better the chances for president Obama to get things done, like universal health care.

The other requirement would be to pick someone who is progressive. Don't try to balance the ticket. I don't think this works. It worked with Kennedy-Johnson, but for the most part Americans vote for the president alone, not who's his running mate. Along the same line, I disagree with those pundits that advise Obama to "move to the center." What center?... [The answer in the next post in a couple days.]

Is it About Sex, Again? I Don't Think so.

By now, I'm sure you've heard that former Dem presidential contender John Edwards admitted to an affair that took place in 2006-2007. For me, the sex part is not important. As far as I'm concerned anybody can have sex with whomever (adults) he or she likes! I wouldn't even presume to know a couple's "arrangement" of their relationship or their "understanding" of their marriage.

But, I do have a problem with hypocrisy, and I'm not talking about pretending to be a great chef when you can't even make toast. When president Clinton looked his staff, his supporters, and the nation straight in the eyes and said, "I did not have sex with that woman," he betrayed the trust he, as a leader, had asked us for. It's this simple!
I also don't buy the argument, everybody does it. Well, not everybody, but even if this was the case, those everybodies are not asking for my support, my commitment, and for the opportunity to lead this country. For better or probably worse, Americans are about marital pretenses more than the western Europeans; so a situation like this has the potential to inflict great political damage.

Can you imagine what position we progressives would be in today if Edwards was the Dem nominee? No, siree, I don't want to be debating about the skeletons in someone's closet that come out months before this critical election--when we progressives expect some good change to occur! Someone asked, think of the situation in August of 2004, when we had our hopes on the Kerry-Edwards ticket... I worked for this team (in Cleveland, Ohio), four years ago, and I wouldn't have liked it at all to have this bomb dropped on us because of Edwards's insincerity and, frankly, irresponsibility!

Now, before the Repubs jump in self adulation, they have to be reminded that many of their leaders have been the worst offenders. McCain cheated on his former wife--the one that waited for him for years to come back from Vietnam--and they're allegations [Vicki Iseman, anyone?] that he strayed later too. As for the great GOP moralists who went after president Clinton, Newt Gingrich (Speaker of the House) has admitted that he was having an affair (yes, cheating on his then wife), and the House Judiciary chairman, Henry Hyde, was also a wife cheater. These two were leaders in the Clinton impeachment!

If I was advising a candidate, I'd tell them to make sure that the story you're about to tell the people jives with the truth in your private life. If you're a philanderer, you can't run on a platform to "raise the moral fitness of America." [I like this saying, used by many in conservative Christian circles only to have their leaders (ie, Ted Haggard) fall on their sword]. Otherwise, run on other issues, like the "it's economy, stupid."

It is the story a person tells to the public that comes back to bite them. I believe that most Americans could forgive someone who committed marital infidelity or had another trespass. That is, as long as that person isn't being deceptive. When someone is parading his family and using them to score political points & improve their image, this becomes part of the story they're telling us. Yes, I know, we the citizens are partly to blame, because maybe the country is ready to elect a black or a woman to the highest office, but I'm not sure it's ready for a single person without a family and who might be a libertine...

Does this mean that, for example, a homosexual or an atheist (god forbid) should pretend? No, on the contrary! Pretending to be something that they are not might eventually be revealed with dire consequences to themselves, their cause, and the nation. At a minimum, if a candidate doesn't want to discuss certain issues they consider private, then he/she can say, sorry, this topic is off limits. Besides, despite the huge egos and often holier-than-thou attitudes, the politicians have to understand that it's not about them but about us. Service to society should be high in their list of priorities.


PS>Full disclosure: I had supported John Edwards's presidential effort, because I liked the message, on the economy, the middle class, foreign policy, energy, etc. Also, I had hoped that Elizabeth Edwards (I wish she was running sans cancer) would somehow push for universal health care as a first lady. Elizabeth will be speaking at the Dem convention later this month, no doubt about the need for health care as a right not a privilege!

Memo: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."

The Threat of Terrorist Attacks in the US Was Ignored by Bush

Can you imagine the raucous the conservatives would be creating if president Al Gore had received an intelligence memo saying that Al Qaeda was preparing to attack the US by using airplanes, and that the 9-11 terrorist attacks occurred during a Democratic administration?

Just so we don't forget what happened seven years ago (on August 6th), president Bush and Condie Rice (then "in charge" of National Security) received a briefing titled, "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in the US." [click on link to read the whole memo in pdf]

Richard Clarke [Clarke's take on terror, on 60 Minutes, CBS]--who had been serving in the anti-terrorism task force since Ronald Reagan--tried repeatedly to convince the Bush White House that the greatest threat to the US was stateless terrorism, but was scorned. Condie Rice, (Ph.D. in political science), was to deliver a speech on 9-11 about the need for a missile defense umbrella that reflected a "cold war" approach. She, and the Bush administration, did not say anything about "two-bit terrorists" (as Bush would call them later) trying to inflict harm on the US.

George (recipient of a Bush presidential medal) Tenet was the CIA chief--who became the president's lap dog by working on marketing scenarios for Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction,"--didn't (or couldn't) alert the president of the seriousness of terrorism.

Based on the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission findings:

— We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford, Texas, on August 17 and participated in the PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period. [p. 262]


We now know that Bush and his neocon cohorts spoke about attacking Iraq in the very first cabinet meeting in January of 2001, as many sources have confirmed, including Bush's own then Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill. That was 9 months before the attacks on Sept. 11th.

We have to remember the facts. I understand that after a long train of abuses amnesia may settle in, that is, there are so many tragic mistakes, much incompetence, illegality, etc, that we may lose track of the particular events.

But, also remember that political regimes which depend on popular participation have governments that usually reflect the judgment of the citizens. The country made a big mistake by voting for Bush in such great numbers. The Repubs stole the 2000 election, but almost half of the country did vote for Bush & Cheney in 2000 and 2004! Have we learned from this mistake? And, perhaps more importantly, will we remember not to repeat it?

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a Person of Conscience Who Stood Against Tyranny, Dead at 89.

A Giant by the power of his pen

One of the books I read in my later teen years that stayed with me for a long time was One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. I had nightmares because of it. I was already interested in politics and I was forming my ideological preferences, so I was reading all sorts of stuff, but I wasn't prepared for a detailed description of a totalitarian state employing unimaginable brutish means in an attempt to dehumanize someone who it considered a dissenter! It didn't take much to believe that freedom of speech and freedom of conscience are fundamental rights and no one should even attempt to take them away.

It's hard to believe this nowadays, but before the end of the Soviet Union, such regime was an option for some! Actually I have lived in Europe--on the western side of the "iron curtain"-- and I experienced this first hand. The soviet-style system had many supporters and Stalinism was even considered preferable to the capitalist system by millions of Communists and other leftists in the West. The Communist parties of Spain, Italy, France and Greece, to name a few, were ideological fraternities of the Soviet regime! What was striking was that these parties and their sympathizers were enjoying the freedoms of liberal democracy while saying that if they got to govern they'd abolish all those bourgeois freedoms and rule like the communists in the USSR and eastern Europe!

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008) had been a patriot who did what any good patriot should do: speak up when his country does the wrong thing! He paid for his dissent, by imprisonment, exile, and eventually thrown out of the country. The Gulag Archipelago was a 3-part tome that documented the brutality of the soviets and helped bring to light their atrocities. It helped de-mystify the aura of superiority of the "workers' paradise" and brought attention to the issue.

In Europe and elsewhere outside the US, the definition of a leftist didn't necessarily mean a progressive person, who was in favor of liberal democracy and its individual freedoms! I've have many debates while in Europe and in grad school with people who were sympathetic to the Soviet regime. Most refused to believe what Solzhenitsyn and others were saying about the brutality as a method of control and political power used by the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. It was much like today's fundamentalists who don't want to even entertain any challenging view to their own absolute convictions.

It is human nature to defend something that you've been guarding as dear, no matter what the contradicting evidence shows. The greater the investment the harder for someone to change their mind. And, if this becomes part of the person's identity, then it's almost impossible to amend. I also believe that the less secure & confident the individual is, the more the need for the absolute. Dogma solves lots of problems in areas that you're weak. If you can't be a skeptic, you don't need be dialectical about an issue. Case in point, some of us are fine with the "I don't know" option, but others are not! They want an answer, any answer that feels good! It's what Steven Colbert says, thuthiness, and a gut feeling.

Solzhenitsyn was born a year after the Bolshevik revolution (actually a coup d'etat that put an end to a very young experiment of democracy in Russia), but managed to survive and outlive this brutal regime. I felt sad about his death, even though his time had passed. Nevertheless, he was a human being who did the right thing regardless of the risks involved. That's admirable. Humanity progresses when people act to make a difference because they care!

Ideas & Speeches that Build Consensus & a Movement Forward

I've heard mostly from conservatives that Barack Obama delivers general speeches without many specifics, but I guess they haven't been paying attention to McCain's speeches. Look, many politicians make general speeches and some do offer details, as I think Sen. Obama has done. Their speeches also reveal their philosophy about government, priorities, and the vision for the future. Don't tell me that you haven't noticed a real & profound difference between McCain and Obama!

Check this video and tell me if you don't see something that distinguishes Obama from his opponent. I see a fundamental difference of view regarding the role of government: to protect and empower the people, especially those who are denied equality of opportunity by the system as it exists in the US today.

The president's most important political power is the power to convince. He has to convince the Congress and the American people that his policies are good for the country. Therefore, we do have an important role to play. Every citizen, I believe, has to know enough to make an informed & responsible decision. The basis of democracy is the demos: the people. Conversely, the quality of our democracy, indeed the quality of our lives, greatly depend on our ability to think rationally and elect the right leaders for the job at hand.

Now, the progressive community has to maintain its momentum and apply pressure on Mr. Obama to uphold the principles he articulated during the Democratic selection contest. Here's a letter, published in The Nation magazine, titled, A Change We Can Believe In.

"We recognize that compromise is necessary in any democracy. We understand that the pressures brought to bear on those seeking the highest office are intense. But retreating from the stands that have been the signature of your campaign will weaken the movement whose vigorous backing you need in order to win and then deliver the change you have promised."

Excerpt from the open letter to Sen. Obama [you can add your name too]

Biblican Heroes not as Perfect as Greek Gods! And, a Way to Lower Gas Prices!

Update 7/30/08

Lieberman defends Hagee: His Holocaust comments were ‘taken way out of context.’

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody today, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) defended radical pastor John Hagee’s late 90s comment that “Hitler was a hunter” sent by God in order to get “the Jewish people” to “come back to the land of Israel.” “A comment Pastor Hagee made about the Holocaust was taken way out of context,” Lieberman told Brody. Lieberman, who compared Hagee to Moses at the Christians United For Israel conference last week, added that Hagee’s “a dear friend” for whom he has “the greatest admiration.”

I think certain statements can stand on their own, regardless of the context in which they were used.

[Original post below]


<--Adam, Eve, and dinosaurs having a picnic outing [according to the belief by millions of Americans who know these "all-vegetarian species" lived together in harmony]

When a US Senator says something about the Hellenic gods, I notice--even if that senator is uninformed and often acts like a barbarian. According to Joe Lieberman (I-CT), the Biblical heroes, unlike the demigods of Greek mythology, "are humans--great humans, but with human failings."

First, I'm glad to hear that the old Hellenic gods were superior, but the fact is that they were far from perfect. What made the Hellenic religion more humanistic was that the gods, except for immortality and other super powers, weren't all that different than the people. Even Zeus, the god of gods, was notorious for exhibiting human emotions and committing errors in judgment. But, something has to be said for a religion that had a god of love (Aphrodite & her cohort, Eros), and of wine (Dionysus). Not to mention, all the other gods involved in pursuing pleasurable activities and showing humans how to have fun! Or was it the other way around? Anyway, perhaps the ancient Greeks were also the first ones to try to trick the gods, and even question their existence!

This reminds me of the Ibo tribe in Africa who created their own gods, built temples and made offerings to them. But, once a god became unreasonable, like asking for human sacrifices, then the Ibo destroyed his temple and image--never to be spoken of again! Nice!

The Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) have much in common. All seem to believe that it's a great moral act when a father who hears voices proceeds to put a knife to the throat of his son in order to prove his faith to his maker!

What's the occasion for Lieberman to be making another idiotic reference to religion? Well, as you may have heard, the US has many, many totally delusional lunatics who faithfully follow bigots like pastor Hagee! [check the link for more info & video about Hagee] Hopefully, after the coming election, the Dems will increase their Senate numbers so Lieberman can be deemed useless [he caucuses with the Dems as an Independent, so the Dems are in the majority; otherwise there would be a 50-50, and Cheney would give the Repubs control of the Senate]

Even though I believe in the separation of church and state, and that creationism or intelligent design "theories" [don't even qualify as theories because they don't really explain anything, except by making references to some ..magical events] have no place in a science class, I think it is a good idea to teach comparative religion in schools. Religion should be taught as part of human civilization, anthropology, culture, and ideas. Of course, religion (many versions of the definition about god) should not be an indoctrination but a critical approach to understanding the forces that have shaped human societies.

It's about time the people--especially the ones who profess an absolute conviction that their god is the only true god--really learned what's in the holy scriptures they hold so dear, and why others equally profess different religious beliefs. As you may have suspected, I'm not a religious person, but what I find truly astonishing is that 99% of the religious persons I had a discussion about faith do not know much about their own faith.

It's no coincidence, that the vast majority of people accept the religion of their parents or the prevailing faith of their locality. The accident of the birthplace determines the flavor of faith. This fact alone should offer some pause for thinking. I mean, even if we accept the existence of GOD, his nature is extremely important. What kind of god he is, what are his reasons, his expectations, his imperative laws, etc. Obviously, people strongly disagree among themselves about God's qualities and many are willing to kill the infidels, in the name of their God--as the Christian God, for example--commands. [link, here]

At any rate, if we are to discuss the reality, to evaluate certain choices, make public policy, debate the national priorities, we have to do with using reason--which should be the currency of understanding; it's better to avoid references to the supernatural since we cannot agree how may angels fit on the head of a pin.


UPDATE, 7/28/08

It's my belief that humans should look for answers by using the scientific method and to take personal responsibility for their actions. I happen to think that asking a deity to do things for you is not a good thing, even if it makes you feel good. Such an activity adds to a delusional belief that a conscious entity out there is aware of you and can take care of you, if you follow a prescribed set of rules--which include shutting off your critical mind.

This video of people praying for lower gasoline prices may not represent the majority of Americans, but please start paying attention to the absurd beliefs our fellow countrymen hold. Just look around at all those ridiculous claims (bolstered by "divine revelation") certain leaders make and the millions of people who willingly become their flock!

When I pray to Zeus and ask for something, he has three answers: 1. Yes, 2. No, 3. Wait. Of course, I don't know which one it is, but it's always one of the three! George Carlin used to pray to the Sun or to Joe Pesci (can't remember which one), but Carlin said he got the same results!! Wow!

US Healthcare: Poor or No Choices for One in Three Americans

When people organize themselves into a civil society they expect certain benefits according to the abilities of their commonwealth and the historical circumstances. We hear a lot about freedom and choices in this market economy, many of the arguments coming from the conservatives and the ruling elites. The market economy, capitalism, competition, reward for one's efforts, innovation, private profit, efficiency, rationalism, etc, are all good things. But, it helps to examine the details, because as it is said, the devil hides in the details.

Adam Smith is an icon of capitalists, though I doubt many have read his Wealth of Nations carefully enough. Who needs public schools, he asks. The wealthy can purchase their own education, and the "free" choice the poor can exercise is to go to work in the factories. Same scenario with the health care in this country. The market forces and our government have failed to provide a good solution to the nation's ailing population. About 1 in 3 Americans either lacks health care insurance or is under-insured.

This is the only industrialized country where a person can be driven into bankruptcy because of medical expenses. In addition, despite all the militaristic culture and the huge outlays on security, more Americans die every year (6 times more) that all those Americans who were killed by terrorists on 9-11. The American Cancer Society estimates that cancer deaths in the US can be cut in half if everyone has access to care and early detection! The only solution, of course, is to provide universal coverage.

So, next time you hear the politicians talk about choice, freedom and the ..American way, speak up, ask questions, think for yourself, define what the American dream is all about. For freedom to be meaningful it has to be practical and available. You're not really free, if you're free to think & say whatever you want in solitary confinement! You also have to be alive to have freedom. In this dangerous world, we have to ask smart questions about safety, and be ready to form majorities to demand real, practical safety, and access to all the services a wealthy, advanced, democratic society should provide to its people. That's a progressive culture or life!

Sharks are dangerous to humans for they kill a few dozen people a year world-wide;. Yet, this is not a risk most of us have to be afraid of, because we can reasonably escape it. Talking about the sharks and spending billions upon billions to protect ourselves while practically ignoring the most dangerous animal* (that injures 200 million and kills 3 million humans every year) is absurd. Let's put a few things into perspective here. The absence of a public safety net is what kills more people and brings so much suffering.

Oh, one more thing. It's shameful that the wealthiest country on the planet has really bad health statistics as ranked by the World Health Organization. It's a travesty that there is a gap of 30 years in the average life span between the people in the Northeast and those in several states in the South!

* mosquito!!!

PS>In an earlier post, I discussed Bush's statement that the US has a better health care system that other countries... Click here to jump to that page.

Independence Day Could Be Happier Without King George [and his cohorts & enablers]

It's a nice, long holiday weekend, and even though the weather isn't all that great in the northeast these days, nevertheless the summer is in full swing. During this patriotic holiday it's kinda hard to wear those lapel flags, so if you're unsure of the level of your patriotism--and don't want to spend too much time thinking about it-- there a few things you can do to show your patriotism. So, go ahead, use the flag as underwear & bathing suits, have it plastered on sandals, napkins, and pizza boxes. Promote the use our national flag for any possible commercial reason except free speech. Yet, whatever you do, you can't possibly compete with the patriotism of car dealerships that fly a 20-acre flag! You may want to compensate though. Buy a bigger, gas-guzzling car and put a Chinese-made ribbon on it, "Support the troops". You can help kill dissent--because you know those who criticize el presidente are un-Americans. Above all, vote for politicians who are conservative Republicans!


I don't know why, but I just re-read the Declaration of Independence, and I read further than the first paragraph and these lines:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Look what I found:

• He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers...
• He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation...
• For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury...
• In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people...

Thankfully, we can change our ..prince and deliver a resounding defeat to him and his cronies this November.

McCain: A Military Hero Who's Got it Wrong!

On another subject, has anyone really examined Wesley Clark's statement about McCain? Clark praised the conservative senator but he just pointed out the obvious: that being shot down by the enemy and being a POW does not necessarily mean you can make the right decisions as the commander in chief of our military! McCain has served in the military and sacrificed for our country, and that's a fact. What did he learn from his military experience? We perhaps don't know all of it, but we do know that he won't hesitate to sacrifice many more Americans in a pointless, stupid, very expensive war in Iraq, even for another hundred years more! McCain has flip-flopped on torture, has refused to extend medical benefits to veterans, and even objected to GI Bill to boost veterans college education proposed by Sen. Webb (D-VA)! We're are not disputing his service (unlike the conservatives with John Kerry's record), but we can challenge his views!

Judging from McCain's public record, we can see that he has learned the wrong lessons from his military experience. Again, he is a conservative after all, supporting policies and promoting a ideology that belong to the past. He represents a Bush third term, and a threat of judicial reactionism--yes, here is a change for the worse. Think of the Supreme Court when you vote this November!

Conservatives Hail Jesse Helms Ideals

I can remember who said this, but to paraphrase it a bit, my mother told me to speak well of the dead... Jesse Helms is dead. That's good! Have you seen the praise conservatives have laid out for their departed friend? I almost gagged every time I heard a talking head offer good words for the bigoted former North Carolina senator, like this from a current Republican leader, Trent Lott: "He had a philosophy, had principles he believed in, and he stood and fought for them,” Lott said, adding that he admired that Helms accomplished his work without being "mean-spirited and disrespectful." Really??!!!

Why, I can think of many horrible persons who stuck to their principles! That's not a good attribute by itself! Stalin, by the way, was a very principled man! Helms, indeed, maintained his bigoted views throughout his life. Here's a FAIR article from 2001 when Helms was the conservative icon in the Senate.

• "White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories? Frank Graham favors mingling of the races." Another ad featured photographs Helms himself had doctored to illustrate the allegation that Graham's wife had danced with a black man. (The News and Observer, 8/26/01; The New Republic, 6/19/95; The Observer, 5/5/96; Hard Right: The Rise of Jesse Helms, by Ernest B. Furgurson, Norton, 1986)
• The University of North Carolina was "the University of Negroes and Communists." (Capital Times, 11/22/94) Black civil rights activists were "Communists and sex perverts." (Copley News Service, 8/23/01)
• Of civil rights protests Helms wrote, "The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men's rights." (WRAL-TV commentary, 1963) He also wrote, "Crime rates and irresponsibility among Negroes are a fact of life which must be faced." (New York Times, 2/8/81)
• Over the years Helms has declared homosexuality "degenerate," and homosexuals "weak, morally sick wretches." (Newsweek, 12/5/94) In a tirade highlighting his routine opposition to AIDS research funding, Helms lashed out at the Kennedy-Hatch AIDS bill in 1988: "There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy." (States News Service, 5/17/88)
• Sen. Jesse Helms says the government should spend less money on people with AIDS because they got sick as a result of "deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct," The New York Times reported Wednesday.... "We've got to have some common sense about a disease transmitted by people deliberately engaging in unnatural acts," Helms told the Times.
• A year before the election, when public polls showed Helms trailing by 20 points, he launched a Senate filibuster against the bill making the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. a national holiday. (David Broder, Washington Post, Aug, 29, 2001)

Also, the Guardian got it right! Among other points,

In domestic politics he denounced the 1964 Civil Rights Act as "the single most dangerous piece of legislation ever introduced in the Congress", voted against a supreme court justice because she was "likely to uphold the homosexual agenda", acted for years as spokesman for the large tobacco companies, was reprimanded by the justice department and the federal election commission for electoral malpractice, and compiled a dismal personal record as a slum landlord."

Helms was a person that made our country worse by prolonging discrimination, racism, and sexism, among other regressive policies he promoted. I can't see why praise is appropriate here, except by those who share his convictions--in which case, we should take note who identifies with whom! Wink-wink, nudge-nudge, you know what I mean?

An Announcement that Changed the World: Charles Darwin's Discovers Natural Selection

On July 1st, 1858, Charles Darwin announced his discovery of natural selection--a major force behind the theory of evolution. So, this year, a celebration of sorts begins that will last well into next year. His 200th birthday is on Feb 12, 2009. His Origin of the Species was first published in November of 1859. It wasn't flawless, but that's the beauty of science: through inquiry revision is welcome. Science is a process. It's also the best tool we have to understand the world around us.... and those worlds very far away!

This scientific theory is one of the strongest we have, yet, most Americans believe that God made us in our present form a few thousand years ago when the earth was created! In other words, more people accept creationism than evolution. Why is that? Is it the failure of schools to teach proper science, or is it the religious influence that propagates myths? Or, is it people's preference for wanting to be the center of the universe? That all exists for humans--as God's greatest creation?

I find it disturbing that in an age of abundant information and scientific knowledge, the US has such widespread ignorance about everything important. Isn't worth learning how we got here, why things work they way they do through the physical laws?

Here's a recent Richard Dawkins interview on Darwin and the theory of evolution.

The Conservatives Have Opposed Most of the Good Things We Take for Granted Today

Today, NPR did a story on the 40th anniversary of Earl Warren's retirement from the Supreme Court, and it reminded me of the important role the high court has played in shaping our country. Even a cursory look back at the court's major decisions, it's easy to see the differences between the liberals and the conservatives: That the conservatives have opposed over the last several decades it has now widespread support!

The conservatives (I include the Dixiecrats) have opposed all legislation and SCOTUS rulings in regards to civil rights. Just to name a few: desegregation, voting rights, reproductive choice & women's rights, privacy issues, church & state separation, Miranda rights of self incrimination and procedure, illegally seized evidence not admitted in court, etc, etc.

The high court has ruled that the Bill of Rights applies not only to the federal government but also to the states--an opinion that isn't shared by justices Scalia and Thomas! [here's a link to an earlier post discussing the views of Scalia & Thomas] Seriously, they believe the First Amendment doesn't apply to atheists and the Establishment Clause doesn't apply to the states! Can we affort to add another justice to the RATS (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia) team on SCOTUS?

McCain will make sure that the Supreme Court will go back. If for nothing else, the next president will have a chance to shape our country via SCOTUS for many years after he leaves office. With Obama--assuming that the next vacancies will most probably be from the liberals (Ginsberg, Stevens, Souter)--we can hold the line.

I didn't want to include all the other good things we managed to secure for the commonwealth despite the rabid conservative response, like Social Security, minimum wage, labor laws, etc., etc.

The problem is that conservatives do not have a positive proposal for government! It's a philosophical stance, that government is bad, (except when it gives preferential treatment to the elites), and that smaller is better... If you don't think that government can be a force for good change and empowerment, then you should never be allowed to get a hold of any major public office.



PS. I'm frequently updating the Meet the Presidential Candidates column (right side of this blog). Currently, there's a nice video of McCain's ideas about sex education, birth control, etc.

The Real Issue of the Telco Immunity is to Cover-up The Illegalities of the Bush Regime

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The 4th Amendment, US Constitution

The House passed a bill giving retroactive immunity to the telecommunication comanies (telcos) for helping Bush perpetrate the illegal spying on Americans. The Senate is taking up the measure these days. It's about the FISA law that gives the government quick access to any person who is deemed a threat to the US national security.

There's lots of talking points out there--most probably you've heard already--and many Americans don't understand what the issue is. Here it is:

The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution supposedly is in force; it hasn't been changed. If you look closely, this constitutional provision also creates a record of governmental activity, which is necessary for accountability!

The telcos cooperated with the Bush administration--and they knew they were breaking the law. What Bush & Co want to do is not necessarily protect the telcos from lawsuits (from customers whose rights have been violated), but when those cases end up in court, then they will reveal the extend of the illegality perpetrated by the current regime! That's why Congress should not give immunity to the telcos, and, by extension, to this criminal administration!

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI):
"[Immunity] doesn't simply have the impact of potentially allowing telephone companies to break the law," Feingold said. "It may well prevent us from getting to the core issue, that I've challenged since December 2005, which is the president ran an illegal program I think that was essentially an impeachable offense."

The Senator went on to criticize the Democrats in the House and the Senate who caved in.


Update: Sen. Barack Obama supports this compromise FISA bill, and this is wrong!!! The argument that a future president Obama may criminally prosecute the telcos isn't a good one. We need to know what has happened so the next President can prosecute the law breakers. What was Obama thinking on this one???!!!

Here's a case where progressives argue and debate this issue: Olbermann v. Greenwald. I think it's very important not to keep quiet when a candidate we support makes a big mistake, like this one!

Update 7/1/08: mcjoan on DailyKos unearthed this gem, from former SCOTUS justice Louis Brandeis.

If the government becomes a law breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means 'to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal' would bring terrible retribution. What a thought, heh?!!

The Supreme Court (by slim margin): The U.S. Constitution is Still Valid!

<-- GITMO--US military base in Cuba (AP)

If you didn't know already, the Supreme Court has a marginal majority of more or less sane judges--something that will change (for better or worse) when the next president takes office. In another "stunning blow" to the Bush regime, SCOTUS, by 5-4, decided that the GITMO detainees have rights of habeas corpus (due process) even if they're foreign nationals. The high court reaffirmed the principle that the US constitution affords rights to persons (not just citizens) and that not even Congress can take away those rights. [here's the complete SCOTUS decision,in pdf]

Bush&Co thought to keep the enemy combatants on Cuban soil so that the laws of the United States didn't apply to them. There are hundreds of detainees at the US base in Cuba. Some of them are really bad people but some were caught in a wide dragnet when the US was paying thousands of dollars to local warlords to turn in "enemy combatants." You can imagine who accurate this was. Thus, the question is what should a person who's been caught & labeled "enemy combatant" do? Should the US detain such persons for ever without any charges filed against them? And, for no way for them to petition the courts? Of course not! If we are to remain a nation of laws, and not of men--like the Old Regime's elites that operated outside the law--then we have to maintain our high standards of legality of a civilized & liberal society.

What's also obvious, is that the country has to opt for a regime change in the White House, and for a Congress that will void the disgraceful Military Commissions Act. As the case Marbury v. Madison showed, the Executive and Congress cannot act in violation of the constitution. It also established the principle of judicial review--that the courts can rule on the legality of the actions by the branches of our government.

However, there are radical extremists on SCOTUS nowadays. Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and increasingly Roberts who want to reverse the progress the US has achieved in civil rights and liberties. Three of them are ready to overturn Roe v. Wade, and even demolish the separation of church & state--as Scalia & Thomas seem to think that such restrictions apply only to the federal government not the states!!!! Just think about this. Then make sure Bush&Co don't get a third term.

The nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Dissenting Justice Scalia

This is in line with Scalia's views on torture--that torture is OK as long as it is not punishment--as he argued in his recent interview on 60 Minutes. Sure, what a brilliant legal mind he's got! Our country has faced far greater enemies than the terrorists today, so there's no excuse for giving up those principles and conditions we've been admired for and have made our country great.

"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Justice Kennedy writing for the majority opinion of the Supreme Court

Obama's Choices for VP Should be about the Future, not the Past or Present

There's lots of "short lists" for Obama's VP choice floating around, but I don't understand why most of those names appear on such lists. [here's one from Huff Post/MSNBC] I think most of this pre-vetting process has more to do with a show and to keep certain people happy (for being considered), than with reality.

Sen. Obama needs to pick someone to complement the ticket, not bring negatives to it. Furthermore, I hope that Obama picks someone who could be presidential material in eight years--an incumbent VP in 2016 who is progressive enough and will solidify the political realignment & progressive direction of the country.

I'm not ready to make any predictions yet; we'll have a much better understanding of the situation after the convention. I'm cautiously optimistic though, and there are several indicators that point to a historic political realignment about to take place. It's even possible that the election won't even be that close. But, let's not get ahead of ourselves right now.

The VP choice would further give Obama a boost, but he should choose someone who can carry the mantle forward not just a party elder to "anchor" the ticket. Clinton and Gore, both in their 40s, did just fine, so a younger age isn't a problem. The most important thing is to get a VP who can have an active & complementary role in the next administration. This election will be about change, and this can begin with two people who have a similar vision of where the United States should be in the near & foreseeable future. Let's not forget that we don't have much (if any) margin for error anymore thanks to the present gang in the White House.



PS. If it's another Senator, he/she cannot be at the expense of losing a Democratic seat in the Senate! Yes, it is very important the Dems get a serious majority in the upper chamber too, hopefully 60. One of the very first things to do after the election is to kick Lieberman (I/R-CT) out of any position of influence.

Barack Obama Wins The Democratic Presidential Contest! [please, someone tell Sen. Clinton it's over!]

The Democrats Have Selected their Presidential Candidate.

This is a historic moment for the United States, and the first step to changing the direction of our country. Not so long ago, who could have imagined that a Clinton with lots of money, insider support, and "air of inevitability" would be ultimately defeated by a black man with a funny name--Barack Hussein Obama?! That the junior senator from Illinois would be the one to lead the Democratic party to vie for the presidency in 2008?!! This is the time for change, and I mean progressive change!

This contest has been decided today after a long, harsh, but beneficial process. It gave the opportunity to millions of Americans--many new to politics--to participate in an important event, and to many others to get to know the next president of the US. Senator Obama learned a great deal as well from this long campaign--a necessary experience for him to be "vetted" and become a better, formidable candidate.

Hubris

This is an opportunity to celebrate and look ahead with hope. However, there's a sour note in this: Senator Clinton refused to concede! "No decision tonight," she said. I say, what's the point senator? What the hell are you trying to achieve now? This is not about you anymore. The millions of Americans that voted for you are not your property. Thank you for your participation, now be gracious and throw your support behind Sen. Obama! It's over, as it should be. And, please, don't try to fool us by asking your supporters to go to your website to tell you what to do next! You don't know?!! Of course, you do! You still think it's about you, and that you can hold hostage a political party that is so near to winning an extremely important election!

This used to be funny, but I bet it can get ugly if Clinton persists

On the other hand, Sen. Clinton has to look no further than her own speech tonight (6/3/08) to see who should be the next president of the country. Who would implement change and the policies she advocates? Sen. Clinton, to her credit, talked about health care for every American, better opportunities for education, smarter foreign policy in Iraq, medical research, an economy that serves most Americans, stopping the genocide in Darfur, and having pro-environment policies! Also as a pro-choice woman, Hillary knows that the future of the Supreme Court is at stake here--the next president will definitely nominate at least one justice to the high court. Not even for a moment does she think that Sen. McCain would be the better president! If so, she should stop being petulant and selfish, and work hard to elect Obama and as many progressive Democrats to Congress in November!

"Deranged narcissism." CNN's Jeffrey Toobin on Clinton's refusal to concede.

As for the so-called "dream ticket," I don't think it would be a good idea for Obama to offer the VP spot to Clinton, at least not yet. He should take his time, examine the possibilities and potential running mates. He should get a boost in the country after today, and his VP choice should be a gain-only to the ticket. It should be a deliberative choice not one under pressure from the Clinton camp. It'll take a while. Obviously it goes without saying that Sen. Clinton has to "disband her army" and drop her demands--just as she would expect Sen. Obama to do if she had won the contest!



PS>As I've said numerous times in the past few months, I still don't think the Democratic party will get to the Convention in August divided. If I was advising Hillary, I'd tell her to drop this silliness before the party leadership [remember, she doesn't control the party], the activists, the netroots, and many of her own troops come down on her like a ton of bricks.


Update, 6/8
Well, it's done. Hillary Clinton saw the light (that the party would not stand for her ..narcissism) and today she suspended her campaign. According to some reports, she's almost $30 million in the red, so by suspending she can still raise money to pay off her bills. So far, I've predicted correctly that the Dems would finish this selection process in the first week of June, and solidify behind Obama. What's happened so far, it will be ancient history by the time Obama accepts the nomination 45 years to the day Martin Luther King delivered his "I have a dream" speech at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC.

Dying for Love.... Victims of Barbaric Customs [an update]

This is the update on the earlier (May 12, 2008) post here, Dying for Love.. There's a new tragic development.

The mother who defied the killers of her 17-year old daughter is herself murdered.

According to The Guardian: Five weeks ago Leila Hussein told The Observer the chilling story of how her husband had killed their 17-year-old daughter over her friendship with a British soldier in Basra. Now Leila, who had been in hiding, has been murdered - gunned down in cold blood. [click on the links for more info].

Obama is Ever so Closer to Clinching the Nomination Outright!

Will the Democrats Come to Their Senses?

As the Democrats deciding what to do with Florida and Michigan, the math as to who will end up with more delegates will not change. I've supported the process and Sen. Clinton's right to fight for the nomination--and for as many delegates as she could get. But, this will have to end this coming week!

Back in August, all the representatives of Clinton to the rules committee agreed to the penalty for any state holding early contest (before Feb. 5th). The sole dissenter was one Obama supporter from Florida. Harold Ickes, chief Clinton campaign strategist was elated back then.

The process, as it was laid out clearly favored Sen. Clinton--she had name recognition and lots of money. A shorter campaign with several bigger media markets upfront favor such a candidate. The idea was to open up the process a little bit, and in order to convince states not to come before Iowa and New Hampshire, the DNC (and the RNC) made it clear that there would be penalties! [even though we have state parties, the national convention is controlled by the national committee]. Clinton believed that this contest would have been wrapped up by mid-Feb, and that she'd be the inevitable winner.

One more thing about the rules. The Clinton campaign has been moving the goal posts and now is trying to change the rules after the game has reached its final minute! Florida and Michigan broke the rules and had been told that if they held their contests before Feb 5th, they would not count. They knew the rules before they decided to break them!

Let's say I'm a Dem voter in one of those two states. I'm told that the contests will not count. I decide to do something else with my time instead of voting in a "meaningless contest." Now, I'm told that the contests would count after all. Whaaaaaaa? How is that fair??!!! I am disenfranchised!

...

Update 5/31 (6:30pm)

There's been a compromise. Both Florida & Michigan delegations (pledged & unpledged) will be seated in full strength at the convention but with half their votes. This deal gives Clinton at least 94.5 more delegates, and Obama 68 more. Most importantly, however, it moves the goalposts to 2118--the number needed to clinch. Obama, therefore, may fall short of this new mark after all the contents are done this week. He may have to rely on more superdelegates' support to clinch... Which probably will happen. On the other hand, Clinton will not have any chance of getting the nomination unless there's a massive movement of the superdelegates to her side--this is not likely since the movement has been consistently in Obama's favor.

I expect lots of activity (public and behind the scenes) this coming week, because it's becoming more apparent that Clinton thinks more of herself than the party and the ultimate goal of stopping a Bush third term in November! This is a serious matter and should not be allowed to fester during the summer. I can see how this perception may become a boomerang against Clinton. The Dems will see that they cannot blow this chance of winning.

I read Ickes's objections today (and from other Clinton reps) as keeping their options open to haul this fight all the way to Denver! This protracted fight should not be allowed to take place. The superdelegates and other party officials should immediately declare that the process has produced a nominee--a person who leads in the delegate count and the popular vote.

This compromise is to the satisfaction of the MI & FL Democratic parties even if the Clinton camp objects! It shows that the Clinton campaign has lost control of the party! It'll be very hard to maintain the same stance ("I'm staying in to fight to the end") until the convention.

By the numbers (5/31/08, 8 pm)

Obama needed 41 delegates to clinch before today, but now needs 64 of the remaining total 291 (pledged & supers). Clinton needs 241. It is estimated that Obama will be able to get 40-45 in the next 3 remaining primaries. That would leave him short of 20-25 only! I think this is a number he'll reach before the week is out. So, 2118 will be achieved before the convention. The only remaining question is whether Sen. Clinton will work for or against the Dems winning the White House this year.

Here's an excellent site that keeps track of all the numbers and dates.

editor's note: the picture is from Black Adder's 4th season, which satyrized the lunacy of WWI.

PS>In another unrelated story about nonsense, some conservatives have found an offensive corporate logo and are asking for a boycott. An American (US) Christian group called The Resistance says the chain's logo has a naked woman on it with her legs "spread like a prostitute... The company might as well call themselves Slutbucks". Starbucks says the image - based on a 16th century Norse design of a mermaid with two-tails - is not inappropriate.

What do you think? I think if you looked at the original logo with a magnifying glass you could see two dots around where the mermaid's tits should be.... not to mention that she's totally naked!.... Damn those ancient Greeks and their nudity, they started it!

The Ethical Code Violated, the People's Trust Betrayed... [McClellan: Now, Let's Sell Books Based on Trespasses While in Office]

No Ethical Barriers Could Stop the Bushies from Accomplishing their Mission!

Everyone has a sense of what's appropriate regardless of what the law is. I suppose that most people don't commit crimes because they think it's a bad thing to do; and they do so not because of the fear of punishment. Of course, I understand that a civil society relies on both--an ethical code and punishment, but I want to focus on the perception of what's appropriate. What's that ethical guide that makes people do the right thing even if there is no threat of legal punishment?

I just read some excerpts from the book by Scott McClellan (Bush's press secretary from 2003 to 2006), and I now dislike McClellan more than when he was pushing the Bush agenda from the White House podium. In addition to pleading being "misled" by others [like Lewis Libby and Carl Rove] in the Bush administration, he now admits that he played a part in pulling this huge misinformation campaign to deceive the public and plunge the country into a war, because his boss wanted to leave a greater mark in history than his father, Bush 41.

So, in plain language, McClellan is now trying to make money from his disservice to the country! Much like the former CIA chief, George Tenet [see post on this blog] tried to do recently. I bet you, Collin Powell and Condie Rice will come out with nice book deals to try to re-write history and make money while doing so. Yet, when their integrity was needed to serve the country, they conveniently and cowardly violated the ethical code of standing up and speaking the truth--and, if necessary, resigning in protest. We are not talking about minor policy issues or a difference of opinion here, but about propaganda to mislead the country into a bloody war of bad choice, to name one serious trespass.

When too many horrible things happen, they may blend into a mangled painful memory, so let me refresh our memory: Weapons of mass destruction, smoking gun in the form of mushroom cloud, Al Qaeda-911-Saddam, hurricane Katrina and the New Orleans disaster, Valery Plame's secret identity leak, torture & rendition, secret & illegal domestic spying...

Who could honestly tell us with a straight face that they served the nation when they facilitated unethical and illegal government policies? Only those who, with the same face & without missing a beat, told us they came to power to "restore honor and integrity to the White House"!!!

Update, 5/31

Bush&Co always had the same message that everybody repeats like a parot. They decide on a script and they stick to it. I'm talking about the same language and terminology. Now, they've decided that come-too-lately McClellan sounds "like a left-wing blogger"!

• Former White House aide Karl Rove: “First of all, this doesn’t sound like Scott. It really doesn’t. Not the Scott McClellan I’ve known for a long time. Second of all, it sounds like somebody else. It sounds like a left-wing blogger.”


• Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer: “We were wrong about whether Saddam had a WMD but that didn’t mean the president manipulated anything. And Scott uses the very same words that the far-left uses and I find that troubling because I find it inaccurate.”


• Former counselor to the President Dan Bartlett: “But he uses these very infammatory and explosive words like, ’shading the truth,’ ‘propaganda,’ all these touchstones of the liberal left, which really makes me pause to think, ‘are these Scott’s words or are they the words of a liberal publisher who’s the guy behind this book.” [The Mike Gallagher Show, 5/30/08]

Does the truth have a liberal bias? McClellan is affirming what most us understood long time ago, but the conservatives refuse to acknowledge publically and are still trying to play the public for a fool.

PS>In a seemingly unrelated story about appropriate messages to the American consumer, the conservatives were upset that Dunkin Donuts coffee ads would remind Americans of anything even remotely Arabic... This ridiculous claim--that Rachel Ray's scarf looked Arabic--carried weight, because the conservative lunatic fringe is not marginal in the US. So, DD pulled this ad! [Here's the link and a photo, judge for yourselves]