What do you hope for in 2009?

A simple question. Some are making resolutions to lose weight, or quit smoking. Some hope for world peace, a less polluted planet, or just a few less guns on the streets. Some pray for fame, other wish to have their work recognized. And in these troubled times more than a few just want to be able to make ends meet for one more year for their family, friends, and themselves.

All are good things, and I hope each one comes true. But for myself I would like to see honesty.

Right now the nation is preparing to peaceful switch power from President Bush to President-elect Obama. IT will be the first time a Black man has ever held so high an office in this nation. Some fear that, as if the national sport will become basketball or fried chicken will replace hamburgers - and I have heard such drivel. Some believe that this will end all forms of racism left in the nation, as if the declared movies and television shows of 2009 will magically be infused with African Americans, Hispanics, Asians and other cultures at the stroke of midnight.

Neither is going to happen. Both are dreams based in a dishonest expectation of America. And that's why I hope for honesty.

I would love to hear the hypocrits in Hollywood admit that they are one of the last bastions of discrimination. In front of and behind the camera. Because there is no other reason for the abysmal diversity in that industry, even though they love to present stories of diversity and change via their medium.

I would love to hear the extreme left and right tell us that they are promoting some laws and issues just because they want to piss-off the other side. Why else would they not compromise and enact legislation that benefits more people than their bickering and inaction prevents being helped.

I would love to hear racists or whatever race publicly discuss their rationale for their hate. Not with anger or threats but actual debate, so all of us can see the folly in every conclusion. And at least then we all would know what we are actually dealing with.

I would love to have various industries explain why products created today, with superior technology, cannot endure half as long as decades older products made with inferior products still in use.

I would love to hear the radicals that believe in global warming, or global freezing, sit back and admit that there is nothing to prove what they believe, even though it can't hurt us to improve the planet. I would enjoy hearing them state the fact that the Earth changes over time, whether we like it or not, in ways we cannot predict any better than an earthquake and that adapting to the changes is smarter than trying to stop them.

It's all about honesty. Because there is honesty in what I have said, but not what we read and hear everyday. Because some need to be right, even when they are partially wrong. Because some have just a bit more greed than is good for anyone. Because some want power at all costs. And because many people fear any type of change at all.

If 2009 can be a year of honesty, real truth, it will be a year of great changes. Not all of those changes will be pleasant, comfortable, or good for everyone. In fact I would expect everyone to be upset with various aspects of knowing, or acknowledging, the truth. But once that discomfort is over, once the change is past imagine what the world could be like.

Some things will still be unfair, some things will still be harder than they need to be. Some wrongs will go unpunished and everyone won't have everything they want or need. But most things will be better. Closer to equitable. Just that much more balanced. Just that much more improved.

Life is never without struggle. Living is a daily challenge that we all lose at some point. But if we could be just that much more honest, it would be one less thing to have to strive against. One less hurdle to muster strength for. One more thing we all could pat ourselves on the back for having achieved.

Am I asking for too much? Probably is the honest answer. We are all very ingrained with the lifestyles we lead right now. To be honest would be akin to being brutal at this point. There is just too much vested in the continuation of what is happening right now.

So Hollywood will remain biased, politics will continue to be ineffective. Business will take advantage, and the planets resources will dwindle. Things will slowly, at least part of the time, get worse. And we will all get a little deeper into the vortex.

But I can still imagine it different, and as long as some of us can do that we have the potential to change.

Labels: 2009, American politics, global warming, Hollywood, New Year's resolution, race relations

Ok, so is it just me or has anyone else noticed the way the Democrats are rewarding each other? President-elect Obama took the Democratic Primaries, and to reward Senator Hillary Clinton for not fighting out the DNC he gave her the Secretary of State position.

In doing so he swallowed all of the comments of former President Bill Clinton - most regarding President Obama as secondary and racially questionable. He has effectively ignored all the attempts of the Clinton campaign to paint him as a Muslim, and drug dealer. And he has taken the most ambitious and willing -to-do-anything political viper into his cabinet.

All Senator Clinton had to do was make a complete political 180-degree turn around on what she had spent months and millions of dollars stating. Not that such actions are unusual for her.

And the public got a Secretary of State that derives part of her income from monies donated to charities she and her husband run, from countries what have dubious at best relations with the U.S. We received a Secretary of State that was willing to have a major fundraiser that was a known fugitive from the law, and tried to keep the money he provided, which was known to be stolen.

President-elect Obama has just rewarded Gov. Richardson with a Secretary of Commerce position. Gov. Richardson was the first to back Obama and run from the Clinton campaign. For such political shrewedness it was expected he would get the State position. But Latinos are not as important as donor money, 18 million supporters, and a backdoor deal (made just after Hillary conceded).

One of the things that has really gone unmentioned is Representative Charles Rangel. He was the key Democrat that push Senator Clinton into conceding the Democratic Primary. He is known as a staunch Clintonite, so his doing so made him a visible example.

Shortly after blasting Hillary (politically) it was found that Representative Rangel had homes in the Dominican Republic that he paid no tax on, that he had several rent-subsidized apartments in new York City though he claims Washington DC as his residence. Add to that the fact he is now also being investigated for receiving $1 million in donations to his Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service from the CEO of Nabors Industries after he got them a tax break.

Most of his tax and residence issues all existed for years. And not a single person in Congress ever made not of this. The IRS never questioned it. Everyone in politics were completely fine with his actions, until he pissed of Hillary Clinton.

So what are we seeing in the Obama Administration?

Old politics in the embodiment of past figures from the Clinton Administration. Partisan politics in the number and degree of down-the-line Democrat political figures. People (Like Rahm Emanuel and Hillary Clinton) that are known for their spiteful actions to those that oppose their views. People that are willing to accept funds and favors from anyone that can advance their political goals. People that will seemingly say anything, and reverse their publicly stated opinions at the drop of a hat, for political favor.

And we have an Administration that is filled with crossed political agendas. Vice President-elect Biden opposed President-elect Obama on several foreign policy and economic views - which he reportedly believes in and wants to support. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton opposes President Obama on Iraq, the economy, healthcare, and a number of goals that she has sworn repeatedly to uphold for her 18 million voters. And Secretary of Commerce Richardson is not without his disputes and objectives.

This is an Administration that was primarily loyal to the Clinton's, hates any policy that is not left-wing liberal, blindly pro-Democrat, with little to no positive experience with economic issues. Several of the key figures all have opposing and partisan agendas - none of which match the stated goals of President Obama.

The in-fighting that will occur will be unmatched by any Administration I can recall in my lifetime. And we the people will get the rewarding opportunity to watch this all unfold via television and blogs. The only price of admission will be the economy at large and the national debt. Not too big a price some might say.

And for those that oppose any part of this, this Administration has enough venom to kill a African Black Mamba. Just ask Rep. Rangel. Too bad Iran, Al Quida, Indian extremists, Russian expansionists, OPEC, the stock market, NATO and many others could give a damn less about American internal political oneupmanship.

Labels: American politics, Congressman Charles Rangel, Democratic Party, Gov. Bill Richardson, Obama Administration, President Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Senator Hillary Clinton, Vice President Biden

The Presidential election is now 14 days over, and President Obama has already violated several campaign promises. Can you imagine what things will be like in 2 years? I realize that a multitude of Obama fans are getting rabid over that statement so I will make it clear that this is not an opinion, but factual.

President Obama ran his election campaign on a couple of basic concepts. While most of his promises were very vague it was clear that he promised change, and exit from Iraq, and a new style of politics in Washington D.C. Of course the first item on the list, change, was both abut as vague as you can get, and at the same time the most blitheringly stupid thing to promise since President Bush was not up for re-election.

But when it comes to change it seems that President Obama really meant reliving the past. Like much of the Democratic rhetoric over the election the point was to go backwards in time. Anything that reflected or brought back memories of the Clinton Administration was a positive. Thus he has been very busy in filling positions in his new Administration with ‘old politics’ politicians from the Clinton Administration, plus a few friends from Chicago.

How this is a new way of doing politics is beyond me. Other than perhaps the fact that since Congress is Democrat-led, and thus capable of passing almost any liberal platform it wishes, he will push his agenda forward no matter what Conservative think. Of course that is also entirely partisan, blindly following Party dogma, and violates his pledge to work in a bi-partisan manner. But maybe he meant that bi-partisan as in the Executive and Legislative branches working together. It’s a stretch, which is the closest we can get so far.

President Obama was very clear that he was against fighting in Iraq. He made it absolutely clear that he will retreat from Iraq and bring America’s soldiers home. His plan was for an organized retreat, over several months. This would allow opposition forces plenty of time to gather their strength and bide their time. This plan took hold of the Iraqi government, and is currently being debated in that nation. The deal on the table will force American combat troops out of Iraq just in time for the nomination of the next election cycle.

But what is important there is the word combat. Because the deal in hand will do what President Obama wrongly misinformed the public Senator McCain wanted to do. It will provide America with base(s) for land, sea, and air troops in Iraq for 10 years.

That wouldn’t be a big deal, except that President Obama campaigned to remove all troops from Iraq and not staying in Iraq in any form (until he was embarrassed to admit that was a bad idea). But after correcting his initial plan he campaigned with careful wording to imply he was still going to remove all the troops. And if anyone thinks that President Obama did not help shape, and is currently involved with, this Iraqi proposal they don’t understand international politics – in my opinion.

So new politics are out, as is leaving Iraq. And change was just for anyone too blinded to notice the obvious. But wait, there more.

As a bonus there is the economy. President Obama was elected on this basis more than any other factor according to polls by just about everyone. Because the economy needs help, and President Obama was going to make a change. Even though he could not be bothered to be involved in the discussions of the single largest economic policy act in over 2 generations – the mortgage bailout – without having to be called to discussions like a truant schoolboy.

But this massive issue is one that President Obama promised to be on top of. It was issue number one, alongside a new stimulus plan (cost between $300 and $500 billion in money that doesn’t exist). And how has President Obama reacted for the first goal in his Presidency? He’s avoided it.

President Obama could help calm the markets with an announcement of who he is considering for Treasury Secretary. But he hasn’t. He’s worked on several other positions, none as vital to the nation as who is going to be in charge of some $350 billion from the mortgage bailout, plus at least $25 billion for the auto industry, and who knows what else. And people wonder why the stock market is jumpy.

I have to say that this does not bode well for President Obama. Especially since he is looking to compound his Presidency with multiple problems. That would be VP Biden, and now a potential Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. And it’s Mrs. Clinton that makes me really laugh.

The problem with Hillary Clinton is that the donors to the Clinton organizations are unknown and potentially a deal-breaker. Ties to foreign countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others look bad. Not to mention favors made to people like Mark Rich. But that is being dealt with as we speak, with a couple hundred of the donors being revealed – and it’s unlikely the major news media will check to connect the dots of donations made and favorable deals happening for the donors.

The funny part is that since Senator Clinton is having such problems getting cleared for Secretary of State, how in the hell was she ok to become President? Well more on the problems of having a viper in your backyard later.

Politicians use polispeak to get elected. It happens all the time. It’s old politics. And President Obama seems to be following that path to the tee. The only questions that remain are what other campaign promises will be broken, and how will it affect America.

Obama lovers can now begin their rants, all of them avoiding the fact that President Obama is breaking from his promises.

Labels: American politics, Iraq, Polispeak, President Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, U.S. economy

In roughly 2 weeks the nation will be going to the election booths and selecting a leader for the next 4 years. That leader will be responsible for all the issues facing the nation today. The economy, the war in Iraq, potentially selecting Supreme Court Justices, and abortion to name a few.

Abortion is one of the bigger issues that the nation is very divided on. It has not been a main point of the debates nor in the media and pundits, yet millions will base their vote on this issue alone. Considering how strongly most feel on the issue I thought it deserved a bit more attention.

Just to be fair I will mention that I disagree with late-term partial birth abortions. I find that concept to be distasteful and painful just in imagining the act. I do understand how such a procedure can be performed to save the life of a mother, but beyond that I have no reason to accept this act.

Further I believe that men have no rights in any part of the thought of abortion these days. The media portrays men as callous and unfeeling, unreliable and prone to departure and as such deserve no voice in the matter. I feel that while this could be true of some men, it is not true of all men. I am not saying a man’s wishes should be the final decision, but that since it took 2 people to create the life in question some regard should be given to those men that wish to actively be involved.

And I do not believe in the concept of those that say that a baby is merely a visitor in a woman’s body. That the woman is the sole responsibility in how a pregnancy will play out. That the child has no right beyond that given to it to live.

Overall I am an advocate of choice with leanings to life, understanding that there are situations that create the need for an abortion. That does not mean that I am tunnel-visioned and cannot hear arguments on either side and evaluate situations as they are presented to me. Like life itself, abortion seems to me to be a situational decision that cannot be fit into slot A or B like policy on economics or building nuclear power plants.

All that said, the positions of the candidates are essentially the following as I understand it:

Obama supports the overall Democratic view that any form of abortion is permissible

McCain supports the view that abortion should be a decision of the individual state, as defined by that states population, and the Federal government should be outside that choice.

I state that Obama supports any form of abortion, including late-term abortions, due to his strong support of the Freedom of Choice Act (he is a co-sponsor of the bill, as is Senator Hillary Clinton). This Act assumes the thought that abortions are a Right, similar to the Rights detailed and outlined in the Constitution. While I agree that the Constitution is free to some interpretation, this claim is completely outside of its framework. There is no Right to abortions any more than there is a Right to suicide.

The Freedom of Choice Act asserts that abortion has affected the

“ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives”

Which seems to state to me that it is also stating that raising children is a negative for women, which I disagree with. And it seems to state that abortion is a form of contraception, which I think is foul. And I would even say that if a woman was really so focused on raising her economic and social life she could either not have sex, or ensure that contraceptives were used to prevent pregnancy, and/or ensure that her partner and/or she no longer had the ability to procreate.

But the Freedom of Choice Act also attacks the fact that there have been bans on abortion that disregard the health of a woman. That is equally a bad choice and a problem of law.

In essence my problem with the Act is most with the following language:

“the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.”

The definition of that last part, when combined as a Right, allows for almost anything to be done. What is necessary for the health of a woman? Her emotional health, financial health? Does that include weight gain? Does that health provision mean serious changes in health or just cosmetic ones?

Thus under the wording that exists any form of abortion is allowable, which I disagree with.

But there is a problem with the view held by McCain as well. In backing away from a Federal mandate to allow abortions of at least some type, states could be pressured into making illegal any form of abortion, even when the life of the mother is in danger. That is not beneficial to women, or the nation.

If States are the only voice then women lose the strongest advocate in a truly personal and life changing decision. It weakens the ability of women to make this choice and opens the potential for ridicule and persecution of women that make this choice. I do not favor that kind of action.

So the question is which is the right choice for America? Which candidate would be most flexible? In my opinion Obama is less flexible than McCain. The Freedom of Choice Act is too vague and open to interpretation. It can be used to allow for abortion as a form of contraception, which I disagree with. And while McCain supports State decisions, he can be swayed to ensure an overall Federal support of the choice and legality of having an abortion.

Now without religion being brought into this discussion, which is a personal factor that does not apply to all citizens of the nation, which do you support? Will this make a difference in your vote? Is there a middle ground that the candidates should be looking to support? Is it possible to have a middle ground, and if so which candidate seems likely to reach it?

Labels: Abortion, American politics, political debate, Presidential election race 2008

As we turn our attention to the eventual Presidential race between Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama it's time that we start to mark what they promise and state to the American people. Rather than focusing on polispeak soundbites that can be, and often are, misquoted or taken out of context by major media; I prefer to provide the actrual words of the candidates.

The following is the full speech by Senator John McCain. I take this to be his core promises of what his Presidency can provide. It's comments we can hold any future discussion, debate, or speech to.

I hope this will help those still deciding (like myself) between McCain and Obama a bit more facts and input to make a decision on.









You only have one vote, use it!

Labels: American politics, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, republican candidates, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain

Well here is something original. You may be very surprised at the following chart; it details the political position of the various Presidential candidates here in the United States. One thing you should note about this chart is the fact that it is based on a wide spectrum, and not just the American political universe. Thus Senator Clinton is left here, but a conservative moderate on a worldwide basis. No doubt that alone makes this list interesting.


One of the things about this list is the chance it allows each of us to see where we land. You might just be a bit surprised. I for one found out that, according to this, Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton are my closest contemporaries out of all the candidates. (I'm 5.75 Right and 1.59 Authoritarian - somehow I always thought I'd rate more authoritarian.)

If you are wondering where you might lad on this chart, take the test at The Political Compass.

Labels: American politics, Political Comapss, Presidential candidates, Ron Paul, Senator Hillary Clinton