Amnesty for the Real Bad Guys. Guess Who Those are...

El Supremo Presidente
[has anyone checked if there's there a "signing statement" somewhere in the constitution document?]

The Executive has grown to be the most powerful of the three branches of our governmnet, but Bush has broken the law in expanding presidential power. Another tricky Dick, Nixon, tried to do this but was caught and the rule of law restored. But, back then Congress and others within the administration had the guts and the honor to be patriots first.

Obviously, this president doesn't have much credibility left, and most Americans can't wait for him and his cohorts to leave for good. The incredible thing is that Congressional Democrats still behave like little puppies seeking to please the master. The US Senate with the help of several Dems passed a FISA/spy/limit civil liberties bill Bush had asked for. The House recessed without taking any action.

Bush has said he'd not sign just an extension of the present legislation, because he wants to protect Americans from the bad guys. Yet, he's willing to leave them ..unprotected instead of a temporary fix! Yeah, whatever. I'm sure you've heard much about this debate already, but do you know why Bush is adamant about giving retroactive amnesty to the telcos which surrender everything they had on us to the Bush administration? Why should they get amnesty? I thought the Republicans and all other patriots were against any amnesty. Or, are they only against giving amnesty to immigrants who've worked for American companies (and many other well-to-do Americans) and have lived in the US for many years as law-abiding people after their initial trespass? Do you see a double standard here?



Why is it OK to give amnesty to Blackwater? To corporations that rip off the US treasury? [check this Bill Moyers Journal on overisight and waste] This is not even touching upon the fraud perpetrated on the American public as the necessity of war... I hope the latter is resolved after the election in November, and I'd like to see some serious criminal charges leveled against the evil doers!

Amendment IV
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.

Everybody knows that when the government wants a warrant it gets one. It can also get an indictment as well. But, this creates a record, it gets due process take its course. The records are very important as we can go back, re-examine, and correct our current law & policies. We know, for example, that the FBI had spied on John Lennon, not because the Beatles or Lenon were revolutionaries (actually they were businessmen) but perhaps because Lenon sang, "Imagine there's no heaven"...

There's evidence that suggests Bush had started the illegal spying even before 9-11-01, and that the lawsuits against the telcos will reveal that if no amnesty is given to them. That's why Bush wants not only the extra (and probably unconstitutional) powers but amnesty too.

As far as I know, the constitution has not been amended, so the government must obtain a warrant "by oat and affirmation" before it spies on us. Since it's an automatic procedure (they ask, they get court permission) to obtain a warrant--even days after the spying has started--then why Bush didn't bother doing so?

I'm sick and tired of being treated as a little child with impressionable mind by the Bush government. The politics of fear get me agitated instead of docile.

What Kind of Change are You for? Super Tuesday Shows the Choices We've got.... and, There's a Huge Difference!

I just voted--five years to the date (Feb 5th, 2003) when Collin Powell used up his credibility to tell the world (via the UN) that he knew! This is a good thing about democracy--that we can change things and our leaders too. Obviously, great care should be exercised to avoid disasters like this imperial presidency under Dubya.

This election is about change, unlike the one in 2000. Back then, the country enjoyed peace and prosperity, and most Americans that voted for Bush [actually the majority voted against him] just to preside, not to do anything specific. But, he turned into an evil doer. In 2008, it is almost a universally accepted wisdom that we need change, and all the candidates on both sides talk about change. Here's what I think of change.

• More Americans participating in the affairs of our nation because they care. They register and vote, and they keep a close eye on their representatives.


• The nation is inspired to achieve greatness through education, civil rights, science, and a new age of reason. We can finally put racial politics in the dust bin of history.


• We come together as a country to show that we can take care of each other, that not everything is decided by selfishness; that a progressive culture of life means education and healthcare for all, not only for those who can afford it. It's Americans helping Americans.


• That being a world leader today doesn't mean brute force. Many battles can be won by ideas (if you've got them) than by bullets. We must be physically strong and able to defend ourselves, but without being smart, without moral leadership, and without wisdom, we will fail. We need leaders who understand that the age of military empires has passed.

I often said that the Republicans leaders speak a language I don't care for. They are not progressives. Actually, they're not for real change. Basically, they're for staying the course only they'll be more competent than Bush, they argue. The GOP presidential candidates appeal to very conservative voters in the primaries. Today, the GOP leadership is more conservative than their greater political base that. Hopefully, after another resounding defeat in November, the GOP will become more moderate and, thus, more reasonable. If Mr. Obama is the president they'll lose their hate-everything-Clinton as their cause.

I'm keeping my eyes on the big picture here. Either Obama or Clinton will be improvements over the current regime and what the GOP has to offer. I don't want to live in a theocracy, in a country where scientific illiteracy is encouraged! Where instead of moving forward with civil rights & liberties we turn back as the result of a few people (5-6) dressed in black robes who'll make decisions fit for the Dark Ages! These life-tenured appointees will have the chance to shape our lives for many years well after the next president leaves office! I'm talking about the Supreme Court. Yes, this election is also about SCOTUS!

I had to make a choice today in the voting booth, and I picked Obama. It felt good to vote for change. But, this is only one step in exercising the rights & obligations of citizenship. I picked Obama because I believe he'll be the stronger candidate in the general election. He can help the "ticket" down the line giving us stronger majorities in the Congress. I don't know if there's "a spirit of JFK in the air" [I wasn't around then] but impressions and perceptions do matter. Obama seems to bring more Americans out to participate & vote. If he brings out the best from within us, we will indeed make a great leap forward. And, boy, do we need one great leap to get out of this bog....

Why do the Rich & Powerful Get a Free Lunch from Our Government While We Pick up the Check?

There's a problem with the US economy these days and our leaders are talking about an economic stimulus package. They have to appear to be doing something even though their actions aren't going to help all that much; yet, they'll add hundreds of billions to our huge debt. It's a political decision more than an economic one. Impressions matter, often more than the facts, and this being a big election year, no politician wants to be accused of not helping Americans. Paul Krugman has the details here.

I just finished reading Free Lunch. Have you heard David Cay Johnston these days on a few programs --like PBS (on Moyers Journal) & NPR--talking about the many ways that the profits go to individuals while the risk is socialized? His new book, Free Lunch, is a must-read. He writes in plain language and provides many examples of how the system is being fixed to serve those who have power and money. Another self-identified Republican, Kevin Phillips, has written extensively about the "game" that's being played here. His book, Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich is an excellent source to understanding how things work when (if) someone wants to know what it means to be rich in America.

Only 11% of US taxpayers make more than $100,000 a year, yet, there's this popular myth of upward economic mobility. The best predictor of one's financial situation is his/her parents. The vast economic center of American society has seen very small steps of financial improvement, while the poor have been worse off, and the very rich have entered a new Gilded Age. Most people will never make that much. Who, nowadays, has the power to make the government spend money to help the very rich? To maintain a system that shrinking the government and cutting services means having an adverse impact on the vast majority of Americans who depend & need those services from their own government? Robert Reich [former Labor Secretary] has made a very important observation: Unless the system allows the people to practice citizenship, then you can kiss democracy good-bye.

There are lots of problems with the government. I've spent my life exposing all sorts of problems with government. But government is fundamentally essential. Government is what creates for us civilization. We created this country so that we could be free, so that we could pursue our lives the way that we want to pursue them. And wealth is a byproduct of that. But the government is being turned into a vehicle not to ensure our liberties and create a level playing field but instead into a vehicle to take from the many to enrich the few. David Cay Johnston

Representative government is a cornerstone of democracy. The debate among the conservatives and the progressives has been centered on the role of the government. Is it our government's role to: 1. Protect, and, 2. To empower? If so, then the next question is, who should be protected and empowered? Those who need it the most or those who only need government to keep the game fixed?

January 20th 2008-2009: One Year Left in Bush's Presidency.

Waving good-byes?

As I'm writing this, one year from this moment, there will be a new president in the White House. I've been running the Bush countdown clock (on the sidebar) for a long time, but I finally sense the end of this disastrous presidency is near--not soon enough though. I can't wait for November 4th... Obviously, I have preferences over the current field of candidates, but, I'll repeat, any Dem is way much preferable to any Repub at this point.

I've been watching the contests for the nomination. It's exciting and gives me hope for the future. The Republicans are confused and looking for an identity while most of their choices leaves them with much to be desired. Back in the early summer, I thought that the Democratic race would be between Hillary Clinton and the "anti-Hillary." For a while it seemed that there would be a 3-way race and that Edwards's populist appeal would be the counterbalance to the "establishment" candidacy of Mrs. Clinton. The grass-roots, progressives, the blogosphere and party activists had considered Edwards as the best one [absent Gore] to head the Democratic ticket in November.

Obama managed to capture the imagination and the momentum instead and be the only one able to challenge Mrs. Clinton's inevitability as the party's flag bearer. It seems more so now with the deflation of John Edwards--whose South Carolina is his last chance to survive as a player (not a serious contender though)--and his supporters moving over to Obama, as it was shown in the Nevada caucuses.

By the way, what the hell is going on with the caucus system? It's not very democratic; it's rather inefficient, and unnecessarily complicated. In addition to changing the order states hold their contests and the front-loading, the caucus system has to go too. It can be replaced by a primary. If states want to maintain some of the characteristics of a caucus, the voters can be given a ballot whereas they can indicate on their ballots, choice 1, choice 2, and choice 3, etc.

As for the runors that Mike Bloomberg (the billionaire mayor of NYC) could run as independent, I think this guy is looking but won't make a decision until the two parties have their nominees. The Dems will have a strong ticket and the winds of change. It'll depend on the Repubs. If they nominate someone who won't have a freakin chance, Bloomberg may run. I don't think he's got any chance. Third-party/independent candidates have had absolutely no chance in presidential politics. Even Teddy Roosevelt (a national figure and a past president) couldn't get elected as an independent in 1912. *

I still think there's lots of progressive reforms needed in the way we recruit, select, and eventually elect the president of the US. The caucus system is not very democratic system and should be replaced with an open primary, that's held from morning to evening. By the way, the primary is paid by the state whereas the caucus is paid by the party. Maybe this explains the arcane rules and the limited access to the ballot box (or device that records the votes).




*T. Roosevelt served as US president, 1901-1909. He ran as a progressive against the Republican incumbent president, W.H. Taft, and won most of the primaries where states had open contests. Most of the states (then and in the past) selected their nominees through state conventions where party bosses dominated. The open primaries was the result of the progressive movement at the beginning of the century and Roosevelt's efforts opened up the party nominations to the membership, gradually breaking up the political bosses' control. Yet, those bosses had control of the party and gave the nomination to Taft. Roosevelt took his delegates from the Republican convention and formed his own party. Taft was the first sitting president to come in third in a three way race, behind T.R. Democrat Woodrow Wilson won that election with 42% of the national vote in 1912.

The Unbearable Lightness of Republican Beings

The Greeks had a word for this, hubris!

When I recently said that all the Republicans running for president this year could might as well be speaking Klingon, I meant that they're clearly not speaking to me or any progressive person. It would have been funny, except that obviously they're saying something that many Americans like to hear. For me, the problem isn't how we get things done--at least in such instance, we could debate the better course of action. No, the Republicans [leaders and much of their base] identify the wrong demons. Thus, the proposed policies do not solve problems and do not benefit most Americans. What has the Republicans done in the last many years except to make things worse for most of us? This is the bigger issue here--let's not forget it!

I'm sorry, but I don't think this is what a Republican front runner should be trying to do; but then again, he doesn't even accept the strongest scientific theory we've got, that of evolution! [note to Huckabee: a scientific theory is supported by facts, it's verifiable, and can be amended if better evidence is discovered; it's not an opinion, guess, gut feeling, wishful thinking!]:

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.

Mike Huckabee to a cheering audience, 1/14/2008

These words were not taken out of context. Huckabee is running as a preacher and has made similar statements in the past. Actually, I'd welcome a discussion on the merits of changing our Constitution. Let's see what needs to be changed and debate why. But, this discussion will have to have reason as the platform for a meaningful discussion. Sadly, I don't think Huckabee--and all those who want to impose their religious dogma on the rest of us--are capable of a reasonable discussion without justifying their arguments on what they believe their god commands. Otherwise, we enter into a childish argument, like my god can beat the crap out of your god...

I mean, I myself have had private divine revelations. I know what God wants, and let me tell you, Zeus really doesn't like anyone who believes in false gods. Eternal damnation in Hades awaits those who disobey Zeus. If we were to amend the US Constitution, Zeus has told me, we should establish a theocratic state according to the old Hellenistic religion. Get ready for lots of nudity and a god of wine!

I believe one the best things we've got here is the secular constitution, and the "establishment clause" that separates church and state. In a recent post, I analysed why the US was founded upon this principle and why we must be 1st Amendment patriots.

PS. I have to point to another religious fanatic running for president:

"It is as if they [non believers] are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They're wrong." Mitt Romney, Republican presidential candidate

[Addendum] A few years ago, I thought that the US would go through a serious struggle, a fight between religion and science/modernity. It has started, and, unless you've been under a rock, it has intensified under Bush & Co. When I wear my political communications hat, I understand that elections are not about educating the public; it's about a battle of ideas and of framing issues. A person makes up his/her own mind after being exposed to myths, ideologies, and the cultural environment usually over a long time. Some myths are so strong that people do not examine them at all. A long and complicated discussion--especially one that challenges strong & long-held impressions--cannot take place in the heat of a political campaign.

Campaigns are ran by appealing to already preconceived notions of the electorate. Image, code words, behavior, are all meant to paint an image of the candidate--an image that re-affirms and identifies with the popular sentiment.

However, the progressives and any person who has a fondness for the truth, have to take a stand to defend against the forces of darkness and regression. We have to contribute to the debate about the conditions in our country today and about the future of humanity. The level and depth of misinformation, scientific illiteracy, and plain ignorance in the US is a serious problem--for a country so influential on the world stage. I don't think any topic should be off limits. A new renaissance, a new Age of Reason is due here.

Lastly, we have to re-open the topic of morality, because I'm sick & tired of being lectured about morality by ignoramuses, theocrats, social authoritarians, and charlatans of history.

editor's note: Religion made simple by Jesus & Mo (sketch above; click to make it bigger)

The Citizens can be the Winds of Change but Our Next Captain Should Also Have a Good Sense of Direction!

Hopefully in this election, we're changing direction too not just the driver.

Everyone talks about change, but aren't the two winners in New Hampshire part of the establishment? Especially if you see the teams Clinton and McCain have assembled. Anyway, usually I don't really pay much attention to those who say they're for change. Even the conservatives are for change these days--even though the prescribe the same poison as Bush. Unless, someone specifically explains not only what he/she wants to change but also how, then I look for other clues in evaluating the candidate. On the other hand, we have seen real change in these first two presidential contests: a black and a woman have won! Never before such persons had won state presidential contests (for a major party in the US).

The polls got it wrong about the Democratic race. Way off. Now everyone is talking about an upset that Hillary delivered. I see it differently. Clinton was ahead in N. Hampshire by double digits for ever. Obama was poised to deliver an upset after his win in Iowa, but couldn't. The difference (39% to 37%) between Clinton and Obama was very small; a different, harsher weather might have flipped the result. The vote count may be attributed to the independents that chose to boost McCain, perhaps thinking Obama had this thing wrapped up.

The race will go one for a while longer, and in more diverse states. With a Bill Richardson [Hispanic roots] dropping out, the Hispanic vote in Nevada (and elsewhere) will be very important. Here's the Democrats' schedule for the next few weeks:

• Michigan, Jan. 15th
• Nevada, 19th
• South Carolina, 26th
• Florida, 29th
• 23 States, Feb. 5th
  

This site has all the state-by-state count, dates, poll numbers, etc. Great resource.

There's a fight going on, with the Dem. National Comm. (DNC) penalizing Michigan and Florida for holding their primaries so early against the wishes of the DNC, but they are important states in the general election, so the DNC may give in and seat their delegates at the national convention in Denver. Clinton (and anyone with a budget and name recognition) favored a short primary season--the earlier the better. But, I hope this system is re-evaluated, including the order of the states in the process.

I'd prefer a system that gives a chance to candidates who are lesser known, and without big bank accounts. A group of 5-7 small states, on a rotating basis, to start the presidential race for the nomination. Then we should move on to another group of bigger states, and so forth. This way, small and big states could be important players in the process.

Opening up the system with greater access to voting is necessary. Such measures would include, same-day voter registration, absentee balloting (hence, eliminating the caucus!), and, of course, reliable methods of balloting! Those who don't know it, the airwaves belong to the public. Part of the licensing requirements is that media should serve the public interest! Wow, that's a good idea, isn't it? In a democracy, elections are important, just as the need of the public to be informed. Therefore, I'm suggesting a legal obligation of that media to provide free airtime to all candidates who meet some minimum qualifications.

NOW (on PBS) just aired an interesting segment on Dirty Politics. As the South Carolina primary is approaching, watch what happened there a few years ago [when Bush destroyed McCain using dirty tricks].

I clearly dislike dishonest politics, and I do want to see smarter politics, not appeals to the lowest common denominator, use of fear, or campaigns that rely on pushing the emotional buttons. Since I'm not running for public office, I can say that it comes down to the individual citizen to have the interest in the affairs of our country and invest the appropriate time before making his decision at the ballot box. Further, people don't like negative ads, but they exist because they're effective. Let's be honest here, why should it matter if McCain had an Asian child out of wedlock, or Hillary was a lesbian, or Obama Hussein was not a Xtian? [watch NOW's video, link above, on these claims]

To me, it's more relevant to ask a candidate whether he accepts the scientific method, and whether he accepts the theory of evolution or does he prefers something else? Does he confuse the meaning of scientific theory with any view, or a guess, or a feeling? And, whether this candidate will promote creationism, alchemy, astrology, and phrenology...

On the other hand, the public has to have access to information, and the system should provide the framework & the safeguards for free and accurate information. Smarter people produce smarter politics. We should take ownership of our government, should we not?

The quality of government says a great deal about the citizens and the conditions that exist in a particular country. Does it not? Several countries (i.e., in Scandinavia) have managed to have rather efficient government, no serious corruption problems, with strong social safety net, while maintaining a very free & democratic system!

In the US, the Republicans see the government as the problem and the enemy that needs to be "drowned in a bathtub." What kind of a government such a party can run? More often than not, the GOP has no well-laid plans to make the government work for the people. "Cut taxes, cut services, shrink the government," they tell us. No ones likes taxes, but, then, who needs the services government can & should provide?!! Under Bush and the neocons, we've gotten the worst of conservative medicine: they've cut the taxes (guess who's benefited?), cut services, but made the government bigger than ever before! Oh, and they did it while accumulating the biggest debt ever!

Boy, it is time for some radical change around here!


Comics by Ziggy

And They're Off. The First Votes for the Next President are Being Cast!

[with updates, below the main post]

It won't be until January 20th, 2009, when Bush 43 will finally vacate the White House, but for all practical purposes this 2008 is his final year. Unfortunately, his terrible policies will leave a toxic residue for a long time. But, elections have consequences. The higher the office, the more care the citizens should exercise in rendering a decision. As I'm writing this, the very long presidential campaign is about to be tested with actual votes in the caucuses and primaries. Soon, the field will be whittled to 2-3 candidates of either party. Tonight, it's the Iowa caucuses, so I'll be updating this post frequently as results come in.

Back in the early 1970s, the Democratic Party thought it would be a good idea to have a new way to start the contest by having a small state, or two, go first, so candidates & voters could partake in "retail politics." Generally, this has been a way for lesser known candidates with less money to have a shot at the nomination of their party. This idea appealed to the Republicans too, so their party also picked Iowa to go first in their contest. The rules, however, are different. The Democrats have been using an incredibly complicated system that requires lots of time & effort from every participant. The Republicans make it easier: just show up, vote their preference and go back to their warm homes.

Democracy is a work in progress. The system is frequently tweaked, while better educated citizenry with more interest in the affairs of the country can produce better politics. Politics reflect the people, especially in a democratic society. But, what we have in Iowa is not very good democratic politics.

First, the cost is enormous--not only in Iowa, but everywhere. In the year before a single actual vote is cast, candidates are deemed viable not on the basis of their qualifications, policy proposals, etc, but on their ability to have a big bank account. Second, the Iowa caucus system is exclusionary! The voting takes place in the evening and lasts a couple hours. Those who work the evening/night shift can't participate. There's no absentee balloting. Those Iowans serving in the armed forces are de facto excluded. Third, there's no one-person-one vote. Precincts are allocated delegates based on part turnout rates. Or, having 1,000 people vote for you in this pricinct may give you 1 delegate, same as 10 people voting in another! (The rules book is like a telephone directory of a big city)

It's no surpise that the turnout is only 5-10% of eligible voters of Iowa! Yes, it's this low. This year, I've heard that close to 200,000 (maybe even more) Iowans will participate. Let's see. On average, some 60,000 Dems and 90,000 Repubs turn out in January to cast a vote. That's not good, especially if you put this into the perspective of the money spent, the disproportionate impact on the race, and--not to forget--the non-representative sample of America Iowa has. It's a very rural state, 95% white. Nevada, the Carolinas, for example, can be better representative sample of the US.
.....
[continued...]

I don't really care who does what on the Republican side. I've said it before, their candidates speak a different language than I, and, obviously, have the wrong priorities & policies. On the Democratic side, as I've been hinting all along, my preference is Edwards, even though I will support the eventual nominee as a far better choice than whomever the GOP puts forth. My ideal ticket would be Edwards/Obama in November. Edwards can be a good president that can bring the country together at a time when the US has no more margin of error and must immediately begin the recovery effort on January 20, 2009, a minute past noon! Obama can be a great VP for the next 8 years, and possibly the next president of the US; he's young and talented enough for this, and, by then, there would be a forgone conclusion that our country can indeed elect a non-white to the highest office.

I also believe that Edwards will be a very strong candidate in the general election, stronger that the other 2 Dems. Faux News is scared of him, as they've never aired hypothetical math-ups between him and other Reps, while they've done this with both Clinton and Obama! I'd never take anything for granted in politics, but a very strong Democrat may turn victory into another tide of electing more Dems to the US Senate. This is very important too, because part of the renewal process will be to remove some of the regressive & obstructionist senators while pushing for needed changes. We have to make Lieberman (I-CT) irrelevant. We have to have the votes to get sensible justices to the Supreme Court. This body--one of the 3 branches of our government--is extremely important when it comes to issues of privacy, human rights, civil rights, education, science v. theocracy, democracy, freedom of expression, and basically on all matters that concern life in the US. Because of GOP presidents, we got extremists and regressives on SCOTUS. This generally conservative court has, on a few cases, held back the conservative assault by a 5-4 margin.

Things can drastically deteriorate in our country if we don't get some new sensible justices on the high court soon--especially with 3 of its most liberal justices half a step from retirement. Let's not forget this important aspect when votes are cast on November 8th, 2008.... Despite disagreements on policy with Mrs. Clinton, I do think she'd make a far better president than the Bushes or any other Republican. But, if she leads the Democratic ticket in the general, Republicans and all those who for whatever reason don't like her, will be more likely to come out to vote against her. This may boost the support of other GOP candidates. Even hardcore Repubs have told me that they know the presidency will change hands in the next election because they admit Bush has been a royal screw-up. Their only hope is that Ms. Clinton runs, so there might be a close race. In other words, I want to see the strongest possible Dem going into the general, and winning not just the White House but enough popular support and with a coattail that results in bigger majorities in the two chambers of Congress.

----
Final Update 1/3/08
The numbers are in. Obama has won by 8 points (38%) over Edwards (30%) & Clinton (29%). All three move on to New Hampshire's primary on Jan. 8th. The rest will soon drop out. The biggest loser on either side is Romney (25%) who outspent winner Huckabee (35%) by many millions of dollars. The Republicans are still searching for identity. I expect most of the Repubs in the field to continue on for a while longer.

I think it's been an amazing night for Obama, who may win in five days too. Increased participation as a whole, and among the young and the independents helped him win big. Iowa is a white (95%) conservative state, but at least the Dems there are willing to give a black man a chance to win the nomination!

As I said in my previous post, a higher turnout wouldn't be good for Edwards, because he relied on seasoned, experienced caucus goers. But, he is still a good contender, although he must do well in NH, Nevada, and South Carolina to have a realistic chance. Clinton was hurt more in Iowa, because her inevitability is crushed. The spin that will follow may inflict more damage--if the focus is on her poor return for her investment of many million dollars in Iowa--estimated, $200 per vote. Her "firewall" is Feb. 5th--the super-duper multi state primary date--when her money (wich includes field operations) and name recognition will be a great asset.

Turnout appears to be much higher than before, but still way too low for such an important decision. There are about 1.2 million Iowans registered to vote, almost evenly split between the two parties. The Repubs almost always turned out in greater numbers as their voting procedure has been a simple matter, unlike the Dems. This year is was very unusual. The Repubs increased their numbers by 1/3, but the Dems went from 60,000 to over 235,000! That's huge.

Obviously, Obama benefited from this turnout of young and new voters. This may be his key to success--to do what others hoped, promised, but never managed to deliver: huge blocks of new voters. I'm surprised that Edwards held on to second place based on this numbers and being outspent by alot.
More numbers: According to the Entrance Poll, 57% of attendees were first time caucus goers! This is incredible. Obama won that group, by 41% to 29% Clinton and 18% Edwards. It also appears that Edwards received the majority of second-choice votes.

editor's note: I'm ending this post here, revised & updated. Of course this thread will be picked up again in a couple days...

The Flux of US Presidential Politics... How Can you Not Pay Attention?

What would it take to make US politics more interesting??!!

Various polls indicate that the presidential race is in flux. There'll be no coronations, possibly a few surprises. Many voters--you know, the ones that are committed enough to show for a 2-3 hour caucus in a very cold & snowbound Iowa--will change or solidify their minds about a candidate in the last few hours before the contest begins. This means that numbers can change [and have in the past] very rapidly. A great chunk of present support is soft, and people may like one candidate but can vote for another because of other considerations.

All top three Dems are similar in policy matters--please, don't argue with this. I'm talking about perception among the Dems and the general public. If you asked American voters, including the Democrats who will vote in the selection process, about Hillary--who, we're told, has high negatives--they would not be able to tell you how her proposed policies are different than Obama's or Edwards's. Thus, it's very likely that we'll see a repeat of 2004--when Dems picked John Kerry as the strongest candidate--in Iowa and N. Hampshire in 2008.

When McCain was considered dead in the water (just floating from place to place, making no waves), I had said that he was the most reasonable choice for the Republican party. All the others probably had problems that would bring them down in the end, that is, before the polls opened. McCain, I argued, was someone who could bring together most of the party's base and have a reasonable go against the Democratic nominee. It seems this trend is emerging these days. Romney and Giuliani are spending a lot, but one is considered "phony" and the other one, "an unacceptable neo-con." Yes, I know, there's Huckabee (for whom I'd vote if I had the chance, just to see him be the Repub nominee!), but com'on now....

On the other side, I had expected the race to come down to Hillary and the "anti-Hillary" candidate. In Iowa, the top 3 are basically tied. In New Hampshire, Obama has a slight lead. Iowa will determine a great deal, influence greatly the first primary state (NH) and from then on, the dynamic will change too. OK, so there are still 3 candidates standing, and this trio may last way past Feb. 5th--the super primary date, when the majority of the delegates will be chosen.

If I had to bet today, a couple days before xmas, I'd say Edwards is positioned to win Iowa. He's also the only one of the top 3 who can not afford to lose there. But, if he wins, he can quickly become the front-runner, banking on media coverage and on his chances as a very strong candidate to face the Republican nominee in the general.

Edwards leads among the previous caucus voters (those who've done this before as compared to those who say they will probably participate in the process), and also leads in 2nd choice preference. This is extremely important because in that contest, there is a second choice. Viability means that a candidate has to get at least 15% of the initial "vote." If not, his supporters can caucus (support) with another candidate. Turnout will be critical. The lower, the better for Edwards.

I'm very comfortable with Edwards as the nominee, and I'll support the Democratic ticket that emerges from the process. It's not even close when it comes to the choices I have among the present candidates from both parties. Heck, even Dodd, Biden, and Richardson are far better than any Republican. I have my priorities, issues, and my philosophy of what the US can & should be. Only the Democrats I mentioned come close to my politics, therefore, I'm going to actively support them.

Being a political scientist and an engaged citizen in the affairs of our country, I find this process not only important but interesting too. It also has a practical component: elections have consequences. Who could really argue with this after experiencing the Bush years?...

Sadly, only a tiny fraction of eligible voters will participate in the selection of the next president of the United States. There are many choices now, in the primary season, unlike in the general. Usually only 5-7% of Iowa eligible voters turn out, despite their verdict having such a huge impact on the political process... With a few bright exceptions [like New Hampshire that can have a 30% turnout], most states have just a 5-10% turnout rate in the primaries...

Bush is Right: We Have Better Health Care Compared to "Other Systems in the World"

El Presidente is a gambler too! But, he's gambling with other people's lives & money.

I've been a gambler. I admit it. There was nothing I could do about it. The circumstances, you know, didn't allow me to stop gambling with my health, and I could not afford to stop. Either pay for grad school or for health insurance--that was my choice. I has hoping that I wouldn't get sick for a while. I was lucky. As you can imagine, I'm very sensitive to this issue of health care and the need for universal coverage. In an advanced country, I consider it a right not a privilege determined by price and available only to those who can buy it.

I’m going to tell you something — we have fabulous health care in America, just so you know. I think it’s very important — before people start griping about the health care system here — and of course there’s always grounds for complaint — just to compare it with other systems around the world.
President Bush, Fredericksburgh, VA (Dec. 17th, 2007)

He's right! The US ranks much higher in health care than most countries in the world. We're not in the top 10 though. Not in the top 20. Not in the top 30. Does it matter? After all, as Paul Krugman says the US health care "at its best, is the best." Does it matter that an estimated 47 million Americans don't have health insurance? Many more are under-insured. In 2005, the # 1 reason for personal bankruptcies was health care costs--and most of those people who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance but not enough coverage.

The World Health Organization ranked the US #37 among 191 countries in 2000. Do you think there's been an improvement since? Our own American Cancer Society says that there is a way to reduce cancer deaths in the US by half! Save more lives than all our expensive operations against the terrorists combined. How? By giving every person universal coverage that includes prevention & early detection! Is this too much to ask? Can we afford not to have it?

This is another important difference among the presidential candidates. The Democrats seem more sensitive to this issue. The Republicans want the marketplace (as if it hadn't had the opportunity already) to solve the problem. [Read between the lines: profit is more important than lives]. John Edwards has the best plan out there, and, for me, this is a very good reason to endorse him. I'm not one-issue voter, but health care weighs very heavily in my mind.

I don't want to hear about the threat of "European socialism" as the Repubs describe any sensible plan for universal coverage. Are the western democracies that have universal coverage less democratic than the US?!! Besides, what's wrong with a social program that promotes the general health of a nation? We do it here for our veterans, our senior citizens, with administrative costs around 3%, instead of 30% for the rest of the system!

Oh, I don't want to forget, our leaders in the US Congress, the White House, and in the high echelons of our government enjoy the best health care in the world! We pay for it. Is it socialized medicine for millionaires? Yes, I liked it very much when Edwards said he'd take away this coverage if Congress didn't pass a universal coverage plan. He's also said that you can't solve this huge mess by negotiating with the insurance companies as Hillary Clinton has suggested. I agree. Health care administration costs have to come way down, and profits shouldn't the result of denying coverage to people! This is a rather simple approach I think. It will take a fight to change the health care system in this country, and we should be involved in this--starting by electing a president who understands the need and the urgency of solving this problem.

Of course Bush can say that we have the best care in the world. It costs us 17% of GDP--way more per person than any other country! And, we get less. But other than that, we're number one--well, if you don't count those who can't afford any coverage and the under-insured. Eliminating demand does wonders.

Isn't insane to spend trillions on armaments, invading & occupying countries to keep our country "safe" from foreign threats while millions of Americans die unnecessarily, often not without prolonged suffering? When the doctors examined the First Colon and found pre-cancerous polyps and removed them, they likely saved Bush's life--because of preventive care, frequent checkups. Rudy is with us today and running for president because he could be tested early and treated for prostate cancer. A good thing? Why should the rest of us be gamblers?

It's feels nice to wave the flag and sing patriotic songs. But, for what kind of country are we rooting for? When we exalt our virtues, our values, our achievements, our greatness, shouldn't we recognize our problems too? There are 30 million Americans below the poverty line. There are almost twice as many (57 million) of the missing class as Catherine Newman describes them. [click on her name, it's worth reading/hearing what she has to say about this class]

But, what am I saying? I forgot. Compassionate conservatism is concerned with ..sex*[see footnote]. When two cells meet--life begins at conception (even earlier) they tell us. But after that point, the mother is on her own. Her children? On their own too. Poor families, heck, you know... If the children make it to 18, then they can enlist in the Armed Forces. No high school diploma (education) is necessary either. What a culture of life this is...

No, a civil society has a government in order to promote the commonwealth. To protect and empower the people. This is the measuring value. Is it not? But, this view is a progressive culture of life. Don't expect the same from those who see the government as the problem; a problem so big that they want to shrink our government so much as to "drown it in a bathtub" and therefore make it incapable of protection and empowerment!

* Every day, 10,000 young people get a sexually-transmitted disease in the US. But, according to some, condoms are worse! The Bush administration continue to promote anti-scientific and non-effective policies, while insisting on funding abstinence-only programs. Teenage & unintended pregnancy rates are also rising in the US.

It's time we focus more on the conservatives' illusion of being fiscally responsible. OK, Bush & Co mortgaged the future of our kids, but even the likes of Ron Paul and other economic hawks cost our society a great deal in financial terms. They disguise their budget cuts by shifting costs from the federal government to the states and the individuals. They also promote a system whereas saving some money today results in bigger expenses in the future (as discussed above).. .

The drawing is by one of my most favorite political cartoonists, Ted Rall (12/23/06)

Wrapped in the American Flag and Carrying a Cross...

As it often happens, especially around xmas time, I get into discussion whether the US is a Christian country. [discussed here in an earlier post] I'm sure you've heard complaints about the attacks on xmas, and what a ..blasphemy it is to say, "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas." I thought we are a multi-cultural/religious country whose religious tolerance and separation of church-state are embedded in our constitution.

Early on, it was understood that religious conformity--having an official religion--was a bad thing for a civil society. Why? Well, because it fueled serious conflict. I'd add, if you believe that there's only one absolute truth (often privately revealed) and you identify it with the power of the state, then what prevents you from enforcing it on everybody? Totalitarian regimes are based on such ideologies of the absolute truth; and if you don't "get it," then there's something wrong with you! Do we really want people to be sent to the Ministry of Love and Room 101?

I have to ask, why do the presidential candidates speak so much about their faith? I assume it must be an advantage to do so, right? Of course, it is! In total reversal of European views (which include those who are faithful), an atheist is the least acceptable person to be in public government. Richard Dawkins thinks that it's based on a misunderstanding of what atheists like him stand for.

In the US we ask ridiculous questions of our candidates for public office. For me, the more devout a person is, the more he/she accepts scripture without error, the less likely it is that I'll vote for him/her. I do have a problem with people who:

• Claim the absolute truth
• Want to establish a theocracy
• Believe in the literal reading of any "holy" book
• Claim private knowledge as revealed to them by gods
• Think that their god is the only true moral authority
  
• Are intolerant of other people's right to worship, hold contrary beliefs including non-belief
• Want to use the power of our government to push one brand of religion
  

But, here are some more important and appropriate questions we should ask:

• Does your faith prevent you from serving on the Sabbath?
• Does your religion make you a pacifist? [therefore, can't be the Commander-in-Chief]
• Are you for separation of church and state?
• Do you accept science & the scientific method? Should the religious view of cosmology be taught as science in public schools? [Intelligent Design, Creationism, etc]
  
• Do other faiths and non-believers have a place in your government, in our country?

Instead we have Huckabee who asks if Mormons hold that Jesus and Satan are brothers.... We have leaders who say being a Christian gives you some moral superiority and thus a better claim to political power! Have they been under a rock? You don't have to go back to the Inquisition and the Salem witch trials to get a taste of Christian moral failures. The Catholic Church in the US has paid more than a billion dollars in settlements for priests who sexually abused young boys while its leadership kept quiet. All other Christian churches have had similar problems of sexual abuse and dishonesty. The Evangelicals--the most self-described born-again Christians--have been involved in all sorts of illegal and immoral trespasses as well.

"The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. And I take responsibility for the entire problem,” ... “I am a deceiver and a liar. There’s a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life.
Ted Haggard, former pastor of New Life Community Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and former head of the National Association of Evangelicals. He's been one of the many fallen Christian leaders in recent history.

I'm sure we can list many more transgressions by the very religious. This shows that there's no greater morality or sense of purpose, a kinder & gentler policies, and a more caring culture of life simply because someone says he's a fervent believer. Let's leave religion as a private matter. Convince me about your character with the public policy you propose and the consequences of your actions as they pertain to the rest of us!

Obviously, many good things have been done by religious people. There are several people I admire that are religious. I judge them not by their rhetoric and their unproven claims of their version of the supernatural, but I judge them by their character as it relates to me and their actions in this world. The key, I think, is that their faith does not prevent them from seeing reality. Sadly, too many people of too much faith don't see reality! And, the problem is that they want to impose their views on us. I agree with Hitchens on this one, that they won't leave us alone; they're intend upon ..saving us by coercion if necessary!

When humans invented religion their priority was not to appeal to utility & reason, so fear was an absolute necessity. Lords and kings, and rulers of all stripes and denominations have seen the need for the element of fear: it makes easier for people to obey and be controlled.

Fear of punishment maybe still necessary in a civil society, but don't you think most of us should declare that the devil does not exist? Let's take responsibility for our own actions!


Update 12/18/07: My goodness. Ron Paul must have read this post. He just came out with his own attack against Mike Huckabee using the similar phraseology, and quoting Sinclair Lewis who said "when fascism comes, it'll be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross"!

Some Presidential Candidates Are Anti-American[remember the constitution?] Romney Makes a Convincing Case for Prejudice & Ignorance!

Beware of False Prophets

"It is as if they [non believers] are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They're wrong." Mitt Romney, Republican presidential candidate

Mitt Romney, and whoever else shares his views, cannot appeal to me. Here's why.

Freedom does not need religion. Furthermore, secularism is not a religion--it is freedom of and from religion--and above all, it's a separation of church and state.

The Founding Fathers--wise and politically astute--were not infallible, nor did they think so. Otherwise, they'd have established divine rule (like monarchy) and religious conformity via an official religion. On the contrary, the best thing they did was to give us the Bill of Rights, and the separation of church & state. They explicitly wrote into the constitution that there should be no religious test for public office (article 6, sec. 3).

Here's a sensitive subject: God did not give us liberty--unless by liberty you mean the ability of the human brain to inquire and reason! We, the people, and those individuals who used reason came up with the ideas of liberty. The liberal democracy we have today came out of the Enlightenment! Humans, of course, are capable of reason and, indeed, they can construct the conditions that allow them to have liberty and progress.

There are thousands of gods with different qualities, priorities, and prescribed dogmas. Obviously, Romney (and the like-minded) talks about the Christian god. But, that god gave us the Bible--either the "original" a couple thousands years ago, or the one that prophet John Smith found in the woods and deciphered with special stones after looking into a hat... [South Park gives the treatment]

So, the Biblical god did not give us ideas about liberty--not as we understand liberty today. He gave us a theocratic state. He said it was OK to have subjugated women in the multitude. Slaves were OK too! There are countless passages in the Old Testament that apostates, and the non-believers deserve to die, including punishing the children for the sins of their parents!

Romney, Huckabee, McCain, and all those who express their religiosity, who use their religion to tell me that they're better persons; that they are more fit to be leaders because of their religion! Then what choice do I have but to rise and oppose such ridiculous claims.

By all means, let's have an open discussion. I want to know. I want to know why someone, who literally believes in unproven claims, should be the leader of the free world. Mr. Romney, a former pastor of Mormonism, accepted the claims of Mormonism as an adult. Does he deserve our votes today because of this? He had accepted that blacks were "unclean" [as people who had ..facilitated Satan] until 1979 when the Mormon elders got another message from god revising centuries-old prejudice. Has he changed his mind? When? Why?

Mainstream media won't ask such questions, because if you begin to raise doubt, inquiry, and introduce reason into examining religious claims, then you offend the majority of Americans, many of whom don't want to examine their belief systems. After all, where on Earth there's such a revival of born-again Christians but in the US? Where do you find so many humans in an advanced country who believe in the scripture without error, in prophesy, and eschatology?

Watch this video of Bill Moyers Journal, and read this article on Religion & Politics by PRA. While surfing the Net, check Olberman's take on Romney's speech. Keith's my favorite in mainstream media.

It was fitting to see Romney deliver his faith speech at the library of former president G.H.W. Bush. The latter once said that only Christians were patriotic, true Americans! Amidst the misinformation and the myth propagation, there's a good thing about all this! Dubious beliefs and ideas see the light of day; the more people are exposed to them the better. This may lead to compare & contrast--a favorite activity of mine since elementary school. Heck, you may even realize that everyone is an atheist about other people's gods!

Why shouldn't we ask Hitchen's question, can you point to any good act performed by a believer that cannot be performed by non-believer? And, can you point to vile acts done by people because of their religious beliefs?

Anyway, this post isn't about religion per se but about those who use ridiculous claims to sway people by appealing to their emotions while spreading ignorance and prejudice. I find such behavior appalling.

Most what I've read these days is "nuttery"--as former prime minister Tony Blair describes the use of religion to advance a political agenda. But, obviously, the nut cases have some currency. Without an audience they'd be irrelevant. Why would those "reverends" be afforded more credibility, and a media platform, because of their religious title?

In must of western Europe there's a reverse reality when it comes to religious fanatics and matters of the state. Political leaders are judged on their ability to get things done, in the here & now, in the physical world where human lives and the quality of life are at stake. Metaphysical, supernatural and mystical matters are of another realm, not appropriate in the public square. I like this approach better. I mean I prefer to deal with someone who's after my wallet rather than my soul.

to be continued...

The Republicans Are Fighting Over their Shrinking Political Base. What will the Democrats do?

How much time & effort do you spend listening to the "other side"? That would depend on who's doing the talking, right? I'm an open-minded person, I think, but there is a point when I determine that listening to dogma is a waste of time. Case in point the current Republican presidential candidates. I watched their entire debate the other day. Maybe they're just trying to appeal to their political base now, but what they're saying seems either irrational or way over the edge (often both). I mean, how many times can you listen to someone who basically says the Earth is flat?..

I don't mean to offend the many good and reasonable people who happen to be Republicans--although I think they are the exception. The Republican majority and its leaders, unfortunately, support backward views by and large. In a democracy, there is a correlation between the conservative base and the kind of politicians representing it and elected to public office.

In our country we have many people who just don't get it! I know, to say so it's a political offense of the highest degree. However, who can deny, for example, that a dangerously high number (almost half) of Americans don't accept one of the strongest and verifiable theory we have? That is, the theory of evolution. Their representatives--either equally misinformed or playing to their constituents--make public policy that reflects this uneducated view. It's no wonder that president Bush and like-minded conservatives argue that "the jury is still out" on a plethora of scientific theories/discoveries/facts. [Chris Mooney has written an interesting book, The Republican War on Science] Of course, without a doubt, there are misinformed, stubbornly close-minded people that support the Democratic party too. But, there's a huge difference: The size of such groups and the role they play in their respective political parties. The current political debates among the presidential candidates reveal a great deal about the nature and kind of the arguments presented. Check it out for yourself.

I won't get into what human nature is, but there are people who differ vastly when it comes to thinking, examining the world around them, and are able (or have the courage) to amend their views. This study about the war in Iraq and US policy is just one of many. It shows that those who have misconceptions tend to support the Republican party. Note the almost exact reverse correlation (media outlet & misconceptions) between those who get their information from Fox News and those from NPR/PBS! I don't know if it's kind like which came first, the chicken or the egg. But, watching the Faux news channel is a choice after all. Sure, if you need to hear that we're winning the war in Iraq, the economy is working great for most Americans, and want to see lots of exposed skin & gratuitous sex, turn to this media outlet. [just ignore the rantings about the falling "moral fitness of America" by the Faux preachers]

The Republican party has had a regressive direction in the last 15 years. Even Ronald Reagan would be a moderate economic Republican today. In 1986, he overhauled the tax code and (gasp) made the rich pay more taxes! [raised the effective tax rate on corporations and wealthy Americans]. This is considered treasonous by the GOP today. By 1993, when president Clinton passed his balanced budget, not a single Republican in both chambers of the Congress voted for it! The centrists had been replaced by the extremists (ala Grover Norquist) in the GOP. Their leaders, their think tanks and friendly media/commentators all pushed for a new "gilded age" of unbridled capitalism.

This regression went far beyond the economic sphere and into all aspects of our society. George H. Bush (41) was deemed a "traitor" and his son W. Bush (43) the ..savior of conservative politics. Of course we know where he's led the country, but these conservatives never question their ideology and their methods; the problem always lies with individuals--they fail, not their principles!

Where in the world an enlightened, smart electorate would we have leaders like the current crop of Republican candidates? Leaders who question the best tool we have for understanding the world: the scientific method. Where would those leaders would say that when two cells meet, it's called a human life, and all abortions are "murder", and that women & their doctors should be punished as criminals? [Yes, even Mr. Giuliani said it'd be OK for states to enact criminal laws for abortion, and that he'd appoint justices to SCOTUS who'd overturn Roe v. Wade] Let's not forget about the future of the Supreme Court, a future that hinges on the next election!

Advanced countries [with lots less of a religious attitude to guide their true compassion] health care and education are considered rights and not privileges, but, in the US, Republicans disagree! Instead the latter prefer to sell fear and ignorance! Fear of terrorism, fear of the unknown, fear of modernity, fear of progress, fear of homosexuals, the immigrants, and the godless hedonists! They prefer the emotional responses not rational thinking. One example is their response to the question posed by that retired general--whether the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of military conduct should be repealed. All emphatically said, no! That's right. They're afraid of having homosexuals around them. They want to perpetuate divisions, like the one of the rather recent past--all white regiments, because having blacks among white men would demoralize the troops!

Fortunately, their political base is shrinking, America's attitudes are changing, but the GOP seems to be trapped in the "southern strategy" which favors divisions, polarization, and irrational fears. Oh, yes, ignorance too. It may take a few elections of stunning defeats to change course, although this won't happen unless the moderate Republicans regain control of their party. This, however, is not certain. Sometimes, the reaction of extremists is to blame the decline on individuals and not its core ideology and practices. Same thing is happening with the Islamists*--who blame their society's problems not on their reactionary beliefs, methods and the ruthless but incompetent rulers, but on anything & anybody else.

It also seems that the racial prejudice directed at the blacks in the past is now shifting to the immigrants. America is transcending its racial attitudes [hence the Southern strategy is already failing], but the GOP wants to use divisive politics against the immigrants. Most Americans want a sensible immigration policy that's smarter, humane, and efficient. The Latino groups are breaking about 65% for the Democrats. If this new largest minority group solidifies behind the Dems [as the Italians, Jews, Irish, et al. did in the past], then we're talking about a huge re-alignment with long-term political implications.

We do need a new direction, as far as possible from the one in the last several years. Getting a new president is a good start. But, don't forget the local races. We have to elect progressive people who understand the needs of America and the world in general. This would be a good point to end this post, but to avoid gloating by Democrats I have to remind them the following.

The Republicans have been incompetent, corrupt, and out of touch. The disastrous war in Iraq has also played a big role in political fortune reversal. This whole situation has been a gift to the Democrats. Such a collapse doesn't happen often though. The Democrats have to take this opportunity to govern with courage, with clear politics that benefit most Americans, and with a vision for the future--a new America, a progressive country that enhances the culture of life, empowers and protects its citizens. Being anti-something won't get you far. Being Republican-lite is a recipe for failure.

---

*I use the term Islamists to describe the people who want a theocracy, are against modernity, human rights, and violence is just another means to their ends. I do not equate them with the Republicans in the US. However, I think the analogy about reacting to their problems remains.

Addendum: This just came to my attention. The very conservative National Review has come out with an article about the impending doom for the Republican party, an outcome that will be like FDR's election in 1932. The authors of this article may lament about the declining fortunes of the GOP, but they're grappling with the truth. The Dems have a tremendous opportunity to produce a political re-alignment for a generation or more, and, more importantly, to finally turn this country into a solidly progressive course. This opportunity will only be meaningful if the Dems do the right thing.

Much of the debate centers around the role of the state. An enlightened country can use the government's power not to baby-sit its citizens but to protect and empower them! That's an ideal of a liberal democracy. The more people see the benefits of good public policy the less likely to go back to divisive conservative politics. Hopefully in the future we won't have to waste time debating false choices and the politics of fear, but instead select the most able leaders to get the job done.

World AIDS Day: Pay Attention Today, Tomorrow, and Until We Beat this Disease

People living with HIV/AIDS (adults and children)
Global Data, 2007; Country Data, 2005

Global health data provided by GlobalHealthFacts.org
Customize a map for your website

Many problems humanity faces are not dealt expeditiously, with all the available resources, or with reason. Now if such problems are connected to sex, then it's even harder to deal with them. Obviously, AIDS is not entirely the result of sexual activity if you count the people infected through blood transfusions, but the images of the drug addict, the homosexual, the lascivious & promiscuous person dominates many minds in this case. However, the pandemic unnecessarily drains humanity of resources and lives. We can change this with education and sensible public health care.

Many HIV/AIDS victims live in the under-developed world. Women in Africa who have HIV/AIDS tend to be married and infected by their husbands! There's a lack of education about human sexuality, prevention methods, and sparse availability of treatment. Oh, and there's religion that complicates things. Religion that keeps women as chattel, sexually subservient to men, and the Catholic Church that says AIDS is bad but condoms are worse!

Here in our country, el presidente places his emphasis on faith-based groups that teach abstinence instead of giving practical information & ways to prevent the spread of HIV. To fight the disease, Bush has given 2/3 of the money to abstinence-only programs! Of course, such approach is not effective!