I was looking through the net today, trying to get back on pace with the Presidential election, and I ran across an interesting post by Andy Ostroy on the Huffington Post. Its title is Why Obama Must Become President.

The post is filled with problems. Problems about America’s racial past, our economic current, and our unsure future. It highlights the failures of the President Bush Administration, and several points that I’ve heard ultra-liberals spout since Democrats started announcing their intention to run in 2007. And not once does it give a reason to vote for Senator Obama.

Mr. Ostroy correctly points out the many hurdles that were in the way of a Senator Obama nomination. He hints at the racial bias and emphasis used against Senator Obama throughout the primaries. He even quickly glanced over the fact Senator Obama has virtually no experience. But none of those are reasons to pick a President.

His main reasons why Senator Obama should win can be summed up in these 3 things:
He is Black
He is not President Bush
It’s a good thing for the Democratic powerbase

That’s it.

Now I would love to see a Black President in my lifetime. I agree that

“America needs to get over itself and finally break down these walls of racism. It's time that its citizens stop viewing each other through the prism of color, and focus instead on the person beneath the skin.”

But a President is more than just a color barrier. Racism is a major issue in America, I know because I have lived with its influence in my life. But it is not the only nor main issue in America.

“Whites would finally be presented with a black president and be forced to confront their inherent fears, while hopefully accepting the cultural reality that success or failure in the Oval Office has nothing to do with race. And for some blacks, they would no longer be able to hide behind the contention that the "system" is keeping them down, and instead assume a greater responsibility for their own successes and/or failures.”

This is all true. A Black President would be a great force in defeating stereotypes and excuses all too readily used and portrayed in the media and many people’s lives.

But how would Senator Obama’s color change the economy? How would his eternal tan prevent Iran from creating nuclear weapons? How would the breakdown of stereotypes end the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, or disuade groups like Al Quida from attacking Americans?

Race is a central theme in America, but it has little power over national economics, international policy, or national defense – to name a few issues.

So I have to reject the premise made by Mr. Ostroy that

“But if Obama loses to McCain in November, that will be an even greater statement of where America is with regard to race. That a candidate from a severely weakened party, who votes in virtual lockstep with Bush, could beat Obama while voters voice that they so desperately want and need change, would signal that having a black president is, in 2008, perhaps too much change.”

The election in November is not about what race the majority of Americans want to lead the nation, but who is the best person. The best person with the best plan – that can realistically be implemented – is the person who should win. That may or may not be Senator Obama, but you would never be able to know from Mr. Ostroy’s post.

Is President Bush’s apporval rating low? Yep, and those of the 2 year Democrat-led Congress are even lower. Government as a whole has failed the American people on many levels. Each party has failed to live up to promises and expectations. President Bush has failed to recognize and react to his mistakes in a timely manner, and the Democratic Congress can’t stop trying to blame the Administration for every ill known to man and actually pass a few of the laws they polispoke their way into office for.

Yet neither potential Presidential candidates has a last name that remotely sounds like Bush or Pelosi. Thus change from the abysmal political leaders of this nation, whether Democrat or Republican, is assured. The question that remains is which is best.

The energy problem in America is the result of 30 years of both political parties failing to act. The only actual answer is to say that America will investigate all energy avenues – including domestic drilling, nuclear, new refineries, switching to sugar and grass based ethanol as well as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and so on. But neiter political party is willing to say that, and the candidates both seem unwilling to annoy some of their political followers in favor of a real solution for the nation.

Similar statements can be made about real fixes to Social Security, Education, and the Economy. But when it comes down to it, one of the biggest issues facing this election is experience, not color.

Does America want a President that has decades of experience, or a candidate that will be learning on the job. Both have their good and bad points. Neither involves race. To say that it does is to overstate an issue and bully some into acting in a manner they don’t believe in. That’s wrong.

Mr. Ostroy makes a great emotional post. It sets up a wonderful argument over the importance of how the media and politics still use race to make the playing fields uneven. If this were an election for Govenor, or Mayor, then it might make more sense; but this is about the President and in all honesty it is not a priority.

I have long said that all fanatics are wrong no matter what the cause or reason, and that any decision made based on a fanatical view is misguided in the least. I feel that is true of suicide bombers, bailouts for dumb economic decisions, and elections.

If you want to vote for Senator Obama, or McCain, have a reason. Race is not a reason but a cause if it is the only basis for the decision. It’s fanatical reasoning, and in my eyes therefore inherently wrong. There are reasons to vote for either, and your vote does count. Don’t waste it on just one issue that does not resolve any other issue America will face in the next 4 years or decades. If you do I guarantee that you won’t like the result.

Labels: Andy Ostroy, Congress, energy alternatives, ethanol, huffington post, Nancy Pelosi, nuclear energy, Polispeak, President George Bush, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, Social Security

Earlier today I wrote about oil shale, and it’s potential to help ease energy needs in the future. I received an email later in the day from a Mr. D.B. [I’m withholding his name since he did not publicly make a comment] pointing me to information found at The Wilderness Society. The specific page I was directed to mentions (with a nice use of bold tags and darkly worded writing) how oil shale is ineffective as a fuel source today, will not affect prices today, and that any new action is inadvisable since oil companies have access to oil shale today.

I never stated that oil shale or anything else will resolve the price of crude oil, or the need of energy in the United States, tomorrow. In fact in the few lines I devoted to a timeline I clearly stated a far future point.

“Now since there is no oil shale market (yet) and given that mining shale is a very different process from drilling for oil, I would imagine that several oil companies will be looking for acquisitions and joint-venture deals with mining companies that have the ability and experience in this field. Schlumberger, Shell, EnCana, Chattanooga Corp, Fushun Mining Group, Tosco Corporation, Petrobras, Viru Keemia Gripp are just a few involved in some aspect or projects with oil shale. I doubt that the number of companies will decrease in the coming years.”

But I will say that not acting today on multiple energy sources simultaneously will only create a bigger problem in the future. It is the inaction and political bickering of past Congresses that has lead to the problems of today. In 1973 America knew that foreign oil was a problem. It was $10 then. Since that time we have decreased our refineries, decreased our drilling, blocked multiple sources of drilling, blocked or hindered multiple pathways for energy research, and cherry picked the worst energy alternatives in the world. Thus oil today is $140, gasoline at $4.07.

I will also dispute the claim that oil shale is unusable as an energy source. It may have difficulties but several nations use it today. They may not be the size of the U.S. but they are creating power via oil shale. Thus near term use is a reality (unless you believe that Estonia has a secret ability to generate most of its power from oil shale). In fact Canada, Turkey, Jordan, and Egypt all have plans to use oil shale to some degree or manner for power generation. Effective use, which the article states is maybe a decade away, is near-term especially as other nations find means to use this resource.

Thus already 2 of the major themes to not START a serious oil shale program are defeated between this post and the last. The big question, which I know little about, is what are companies doing currently.

The article states that a handful of companies haver some land with oil shale reserves. It states that nothing has been done with this land. It does not state whether environmental regulations will allow the mining of shale, or any other material. Just like the oil reserves found of the coasts of America, we know where it is and comnpanies hold rights to explore – but federal and state regulations prevent any action on them. The article completely fails to address that issue, which is a factor that has helped to cause the current environment.

The article wastes no space in stating we should not rush into oil shale, but it gives no space to any alternatives. It is that kind of philosophy that leads to problems that cause a rush to action. Again, I was not advocating oil shale or any single energy source. I advocate (and believe the government needs to mandate) all energy sources. I think we need to require oil shale development, and solar, geothermal, wind, biomass, grass-derived ethanol, nuclear, and coal as well as oil. Developing all of these ensures that America will have power at reasonable prices in 10 years, 20, even 50 years after all oil is gone.

Now I can understand why no alternative was suggested. Wilderness Society has since 1935 sought to protect wild nature. They are like other groups that prevent logging to save spotted owls, and refuse to allow drilling in ANWAR. The friends I grew up with, went to college with, served in the millitary, and currently live around would call these people treehuggers. Not meant in a nice way.

While I respect their love of nature, I am a city-dwelling internet using, motorcycle riding man of the 21st century. I fully understand that to live the lifestyle we all enjoy there are sacrifices that must be made. I also understand that technology and understanding of the environment have improved enough that we can minimize the impact we make to gain the fuels and resources we need. I futher understand that the only way for humanity to cease it’s impact on nature is to give up computers, cell phones, iPods, cars, lights, television, movies, plastics, hamburgers, you get the point.

Mr. D.B. may have many reasons to believe that oil shale is not viable today. And I agree with some. But I am willing to work on it and other ideas so when we need it in 10 or 20 years we will be ready. Their argument would have you light a candle.

But choose for yourself.

Labels: ANWAR, Canada, Congress, energy alternatives, Jordan, oil shale, Turkey, Wilderness Society

I hate watching blatant partisan politics. It’s the blatant use of polispeak and opportunism that gets my ire going. Such as the subpoena on Karl Rove.

It’s May 2008 and Karl Rove is getting questions about his involvement in the President firing lawyers around April 2007 and the conviction of former-Alabama governor Don Siegelman in June of 2007. Isn’t it interesting?

Let’s see, there is a Democratic Congress in place now. Karl Rove is seen as a dark evil figure that was instrumental in the Bush Presidency. This is an election year and the Democratic Congress has achieved none of the goals they were elected for in 2006. Does it sound like Congress is trying to give the Democratic Presidential candidate a boost with the public by attacking the Republican Party sideways?

You might think this polispeak bluster is just that since we know a few things. First that there was nothing illegal about the President firing the lawyers in 2007. After multiple Congressional meetings, and untold numbers looking through the laws it was confirmed that the lawyers in question worked at the pleasure of the President. That means, at any time, for any reason, the President can fire these individuals – which he did. No surprises there, everyone knew this. And for all the bluster and all your taxes spent that’s all that happened. But because of the polispeak and accusations Alberto Gonzalez resigned his position.

And in the case of Governor Siegelman, an investigation was long in place tracking his acceptance of bribes and conspiracy. The former-governor was a criminal, and he was caught. Some Democrats want to place blame with Republicans and I have to ask why? Because Seigelman didn’t win his re-election bid, or because he was a criminal that got caught? Some question if the investigation was politically motivated, I question why a criminal was shielded from the law as long as he was. Remember, Seigelman was convicted – that’s not political so no matter the cause of the investigation (which could be just good work by the FBI and other law enforcement groups) the man was point blank a criminal.

So where in all this does Karl Rove need to speak to Congress. Over half a year after the facts, in cases where there is no law broken, Congress wants to spend your money to ask him questions. And the only hope that Congress can have for justifying this is if, while being questioned, Rove says anything that hasn’t been said before – or exactly the same way. That would lead to perjury charges. That’s the best case Congress can get.

So considering that Congress is wasting your money, and making an obvious political push to elect a candidate, how do you feel? Do you think your taxes are being spent well? Because some tens of thousands of dollars (if not more) are going to be spent to question Karl Rove about old useless factual events, instead of getting a better law regarding your children’s education, or getting more oil from non-Middle East sources, or lowering the cost of healthcare, or getting our soldiers home from Iraq (whichever you may think is important).

No wonder Congress has a lower approval rating than President Bush.

Labels: Alberto Gonzales, Congress, Don Siegelman, Karl Rove, President George Bush, Republican Party

As the snow begins to fall here on the northeast, I happened to chance upon an item of minor interest. What that involved was the money spent by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on flowers this year. Not a big deal right? Except you have to remember that Speaker Pelosi gained her position on the basis of change (remember all the Democrats declaring that as the only platform for the 2006 elections). The change in this case was an increase in the amounts of money Speaker Pelosi spent of the taxpayers’ money.

Before becoming Speaker of the House, Pelosi spent $5,000 in 2006 on flowers. The mind boggles at why she would need that many. But in 2007 that number soared to $16,058 for reasons that really seem silly to me. I mean for whatever reason that Pelosi felt she had to host meetings with dignitaries that the President was already hosting, did she really need to give them all flowers too?

But the spending frenzy did not end there. Speaker Pelosi also felt the need to swell her staffing by 46% more than the previous speaker, and her travel budget was a whopping 34.3 TIMES as large as the previous. All in all

“Pelosi (D-Calif.) spent a little more than $3 million in the first nine months of 2007, records show, compared to the $1.8 million Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) spent during the same period in 2006.”

And don’t forget that 2006 was an election year, which generally increases spending. Thank you Speaker Pelosi for taking my hard earned money and frittering it away.

But let me be fair. What have we received for this huge increase in expenditures? Well with the help of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, America was promised that the Democrat led Congress would

“use the first 100 hours of legislative work of the new Congress to reform lobbying, push raises to the national minimum wage, implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and reduce prescription drug costs for seniors and college loan interest rates for students.”

They went on to promise

“Tighter restrictions on spending earmarks, lobbying, gifts and travel will be proposed…A $2.10 hourly increase in the minimum wage to $7.25…”

And what have we received?

Months of debate over why Alberto Gonzalez fired some lawyers (all of whom worked at the privilege of the President and can legally be fired at any time for any reason), though it was clearly known that no law was broken. As noted above restricted spending obviously does not include flowers, staffing, or travel for the Speaker of the House. And since leadership flows from the top down, is there any surprise?

More specifically, on 2 issues that I find to be important and dealing with the lives of children what has the Congress done? H.R. 180 IH, otherwise known as the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act, was introduced in January 2007. As of Dec 12, 2007 it is still not a law. It took the House virtually 8 months to finally vote on this as a good idea, and its gone no further.

What is it? What does it do?

“To require the identification of companies that conduct business operations in Sudan, to prohibit United States Government contracts with such companies, and for other purposes.”

Since most have not heard of Darfur, let me give you an idea of what is happening. Genocide. The murder of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children over the last 4 years plus. I did not call it genocide, the U.S. government has. And the Congress, under Pelosi and Reid who promised change and want to help all the kids whose parents are in this nation illegally or are poor, can’t even agree to stop giving Government money to a country killing people non-stop (possibly 100 more women and children are dead by the time you have read this far) for years.

Well maybe genocide is too political. Perhaps America is not the police force of the world. Maybe our government makes too much money from dealing with the Sudan and the economy will fail if we change. How about protecting children’s lives?

Everyone wants to protect children. Only a beast would want to put them in harm’s way. Only monsters would stand by and allow a child to be killed. At the least you would say something, right? Not if you are in Congress.

In the House there is H.R. 2620: Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2007 (in the Senate, where Harry Reid “leads”, there is S. 1175: Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2007. They are identical.) The purpose is simple

“A bill to end the use of child soldiers in hostilities around the world, and for other purposes”

So what has been done? In the Senate it was introduced in April, in the House June. And that is it. Just as H.R. 5966 [109th]: Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2006 died with nothing done, so is this years version.

Wow, with this kind of leadership the premium that we are paying Congress and all the perks House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is spending our money on, really seems worth it. I mean even our own soldiers are not getting funding while Congress gets ready to relax in their large well lit, well heated homes for Christmas.

Yes, the leadership in Congress promised change and they delivered. Too bad they didn’t mention that it would be a change to waste of our money and inaction on any legislation of importance.

Still feel good about that vote in 2006? Keep it in mind as you vote in 2008.

Labels: Child Soldier Prevention Act, Congress, Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Dennis Hastert, Senate Majority Leader, Speaker of the House

The more I read the results of polls and surveys discussing the Presidential candidates, the more I think that you could prove the sky is purple, or that 9/11 was an inside job. Oh wait; there are some that actually think the former. There goes my point.

There are daily, weekly and I don’t doubt hourly polls and surveys for every candidate, newspaper and major media outlet. Each and every one of them has something different to say. Which I find remarkable, if they are all asking the same question.

Of course that is the problem. They aren’t asking the same question. They are asking all kinds of things, and then presenting the results as candidate X is leading the race. When stated in that manner you might think that popular support in America, or a particular region, was incredibly high for one candidate of another. That isn’t the case though.

How often have you heard results that said, ‘X% of undecided voters favor candidate Y.’ Sounds simple and straightforward. Except it’s crap. If a voter is undecided it means they are not favoring anyone. They are up for grabs, and at any moment they might change their mind. Better to ask them how many grains of sand you can hold in your hand.

Or how about when you hear

“Overall, 83% of those surveyed said Hillary Clinton was well prepared enough for the job of president. For John Edwards, 29% said he had been spending his time attacking his opponents. For Barack Obama 60% said he has been spending his time explaining what he would do as president and 80% said that Oprah Winfrey’s help made no difference to them.”

This is just a cluster of misleading information.

First note that it starts with the question of who is prepared for being President. The next sentence goes off track to state how John Edwards and Senator Obama spend their time. It then goes further off the original thought by comparing Oprah’s impact. What in the world does that have to do with if John Edwards or Senator Obama are prepared to be Preisent?

You have just been given a subtle and purposeful guide to positively view Senator Clinton. It’s a falicy of logic. It’s a neat trick, comparing apples and oranges.

You are given the positive of the subject they want you to like, a negative about everyone else, and a negative distraction to keep your mind busy about the lack of cohesiveness. At least they are being consistent about how Senator Obama and John Edwards are spending their time. Though I have to wonder how these same people felt Senator Clinton was spending her time?

Here is another question on those results. It’s stated that Senator Obama spent 60% of his time explaining what he would do as President. It’s phrased as a negative in context of the wording. Why is that bad? Would you want to elect a President that you have no idea of what their goals and objectives were? Think about it. Do you want a President that will suddenly take a conservative or liberal stance on say illegal aliens, taxes, the economy, or the war in Iraq?

Of course not. So why is that a negative? I think the better question is what’s the percentage of the other candidates spending their time doing the same thing.

Why is this important? Because if you don’t pay attention it’s the same thing as being lied to. It’s trying to promote an agenda that is hidden. It’s trying to present bias in a platable manner. It’s on par with a scam.

The next Presidential election is vital to this nation. Far too many issues will be decided between 2009- 2013 that will have ramifications for the lives of our children and perhaps grand-children. Some of those consequences will be irreversible. And there are some that are trying to take advantage of the inattentiveness the general populace has for elections and primaries.

I am not saying that the writer of the above quoted post is trying to do this. I would say that the New York Times and many other pundits and major media are. And if you don’t watch the details, you probably won’t like what you get.

Kind of like when the Democrats campaigned on change in 2006. They never stated what would change. People assumed it would be the war in Iraq. It turned out to be giving up on governing the affairs of the nation and seeking near endless meetings and investigations to blame Republicans and the President. Essentially they changed the limited effectiveness of Congress to being a complete waste of taxpayer funds.

When you don’t pay attention to the details, the wool gets pulled over the eyes with ease. But the Presidential election in November 2008 is too valuable. Look for the details and then make a choice. Because once you vote, there are no do-overs.

Labels: Congress, election 2008, Iraq War, John Edwards, presidential election, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama

Ok, I just saw the Swift Kids ads that are appearing on television. I am insulted and offended. Not because they are attacking Democratic candidates, attack ads seem to be par for course in politics today, but because they are using kids and are themed in the most insulting manner.

I realize that this is a smear ad. I realize that its intention is to match the cute innocence of children with political messages. But it fails horribly. Take for example the Swiftkids ad against Senator Barack Obama.



This is insulting. First they start off with an insulting play of his name. “Black orama” is one that instantly caught my attention. And I feel it was an intentional statement aimed at the race of Sen. Obama. That somehow his race affects his ability to lead this nation. That borders on racist.

Then it’s the old, “his name is too hard to say” line. I’ve generally heard such a comment from people missing many teeth and with far less education than my 11 year old nephew. It’s an ignorant comment.

Then to suggest that a persons name has an effect on their abilities. Again it seems to be an insult based on the race of Senator Obama. Because his name is not a traditional W.A.S.P. styled name that somehow confers a lack of something that say President John Fitzgerald Kennedy or President Millard Fillmore had. If anyone is swayed by such a comment, I am ashamed that they have a right to vote.

And then one of the kickers. Senator Obama is not Black? Since when? I suppose under the seemingly drug induced logic of the makers of this ad; I would not be Black either. I’m sure the racists that have called me N-word throughout my life would beg to differ. And what makes Senator Barack Obama not African American? That his mother is White? I’m sure that if most African Americans looked back in their family trees they would find a mixing of the races. My family includes Irish blood as well as White slave owners. But I’ve never had anyone mention that to me. And lets not forget that many White Americans have blood that is equally mixed, as some of the descendants of Thomas Jefferson learned from DNA tests not long ago.

The fact is every aspect of this ad is insulting and racist. It makes no credible claim against Senator Obama. It plays on the most base of reasons to not vote for this candidate. It oozes fear and ignorance.

I don’t doubt that most will reject this garbage instantly. But just like the small minds that created this ad, there are some that will be swayed. It’s a testament to the need of more movement forward on race relations in this nation. It disgusts me, and I have issues with any television station that will run this.

Much the same can be said about all the Swift Kids ads. They are without taste, credibility, or talent. They are vacuous in the claims they make and benefit no one. None should ever see the light of day, or coverage on television. This is no different than the MoveOn.org ad against General Petraeus. It insults all Americans, and diminishes everyone.

I hope to never have to see an ad like this again. Hopefully this post will help ensure that our nation’s politics never have to be dragged through filth like this again. And I suggest that everyone who sees this post asks their Congressional Representative and Senator to denounce these ads, just as they should have with the MoveOn.org ad. And I will judge those that will not vote, or vote in favor of this ad, as harshly as I did those who voted for MoveOn.org, or failed to vote.

Labels: Congress, Democratic candidates, election 2008, moveon.org, political ads, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, President Millard Fillmore, Senator Barack Obama, Swift Kids

**This is also found at Children's Health Blog, where I am a contributing author.**

So, everyone wants to talk about nationalized healthcare. Presidential candidates, Congress, Conservatives and Liberals. There are just massive amounts of communication on the issue. You hear about it from pundits on cable news channels, listen to answers (and half-answers) about it from candidates, read polls on it in newspapers and countless blogs like this one discuss all aspects of the issue. Except one.

The one item is quality of the care. Whether any citizen is able to get private care, or publicly funded medical coverage or any other solution that may be proposed the real issue is how good the quality of the care they receive is. This is no more critical than when the quality of care given to children is concerned.

I want to thank Dr. Risa Lavizzo-Mourey for the article she wrote on a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study was based on 1500 children, and conducted by Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle, the University of Washington School of Medicine and the RAND Corporation, with support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Roughly 80% of the children had private medical coverage and nearly all had some form of coverage.

What the study found was shocking. 46% of the care that the kids should have gotten never happened. While treatment for something like the common was mostly appropriate, but for asthma and other chronic ailments it was half as effective. Let me be clear, out of 175 items that should be part of child care – including the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up – many items were never done. And this is among children that had the money.

Imagine that. Your kids are not getting the treatment they need, and politicians are arguing over how to pay for what they aren’t being given in the first place. The priorities seem to be fundamentally flawed. The question that should be asked appears to be why is the quality of care as low for children in a nation with as many resources and experts as America does?

No matter the political affiliation, I believe that everyone loves children. None would wish them harm and want only the best for them. Yet political bickering is oblivious to this issue, stuck in a quagmire of how to pay. I am not a parent but I am sure that every parent I know hasn’t a single care about cost when their child is sick. If you gave them a million dollars and stated their child would remain ill, or have lifelong complications from failing to get the right treatment, the parent might throttle you for such a suggestion. Yet that is the political environment today.

I am insulted to learn this information and to hear of this lapse. This is America, a land where the best of everything exists and the standards in virtually every aspect of life are the envy of every nation in the world. Yet our children lag far behind. Not behind our potential, but behind our actual ability to provide care. That is an insult, our children deserve more.

Labels: cable news, child health, Congress, national healthcare, New England Journal of Medicine, RAND Corporation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Finally we see the start of some action. Finally leadership has arisen and taken a stand. Sadly it was not the United States that has been the bold leader that our nation can be, and often is. Even so, I am happy to spread this news.

The United Nations has announced that it will be sending 26,000 peacekeeping troops to stop, or at least stem, the mass murder in Darfur that has claimed some 400,000 lives and left 2,500,000 homeless. I have been speaking about Darfur for a little while now, inspired by the words and actions of Mr. Don Cheadle.

Still the resolution has its flaws. Since the troops will be comprised of African Union and U.N. troops it will take months to organize and implement. Additionally there is no sanction component that can cause a dampening effect on the ruling government, slowing its efforts to commit genocide. This sanctioning is a needed component as is food aid for the area. It is an abysmal fact that the major industrialized nations of the world, including America, have sat on their collective asses in this matter.

As I mentioned previously HR 180 IH, has sat in Congress without action all year. In 2005 the members of the G8 summit sought to address the issue, and after few words that hold as much impact as the soundbites politicians use for most every situation these days, did nothing. So I have mixed emotions right now.

There is the start of actions to improve the lives of millions of Africans, a start but that is all. American businesses continue to support and by their inaction fund a genocide that has been on-going since 2003. Politicians have failed to act on resolutions presented to them. The news media has virtually ignored the situation. This is insulting.

I place myself along with the major media, up until recently. We can all do better and more. The stories on the vapid and imbecilic Paris Hilton can wait a bit. The comments on the rantings of Ms. Rosie O’Donnell will still be there later. BET will still provide the second-rate, debateably exploitative programming which can be protested against while they ignore their obligation to provide news and substance to the very target group the cable news channel is named for.

Fox News, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS et al. need to forget that this is happening in Africa and treat this matter like it was in Europe. I strongly feel that were this happening on a separate continent, with people of a different color, more would be done. Well it is happening and they are human beings and we can do more.

And politicians can take the simple amount of time it takes to act on HR 180 IH, Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007, forcing companies to admit if they are supporting the regime that is murdering women and children for no reason beyond the fact they exist. I dare even one politician to provide a reason that is logical that explains why this has not passed yet. To explain why this simple act has yet to be passed after 7 months seems inplausible to me. That only 151 Representaives have backed this is sad. How many lives will it take to move forward and act?

America is a great nation, I believe that without hesitation. We have helped and defended millions across the globe for decades. We stand for freedoms and rights that no other nation can claim to give so completely. Because of these reasons we cannot fail to act when the need is so dire.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Congress, Darfur, Don Cheadle, HR 180 IH, United Nations

Continued from A very important YouTube question, that no one answered Part 1...

We sent troops to Bosnia, though almost at the end of the conflict. We had a no-fly zone and sanctions for a year or 2 prior as I recall. That wasn’t working and we sent in troops. They were part of U.N. force s, but were predominantly ours, as usual from what I recall. And the number of troops was over 2,500 for us alone. That war, which had it’s own ethnic cleansing – genocidal mass murder really – lasted 3 years and had about 100,000 dead and lasted 3 years.

In the Sudan there has been fighting for 4 years and counting now. The U.S. has yet to figure out how to get economic sanctions going. There are states and mutual funds investing in the Sudan, effectively funding this war. For those liberals against war at all costs, you may be funding it right now. And the Congress can’t even bother to pass a law forcing companies to even tell you they are invested there. [For those that would want to blame this on President Bush, HR 180 IH was brought in by the Democratic led Congress, this year, and has been sitting around since January with no real action.]

I’ll say it again, 200,000 are dead. The killing is still going on. And Congress has been satisfied over the last 4 years to merely mention that we don’t like this. We haven’t divested money (which we finally did to South Africa after decades of Apartheid), put in a mostly useless no-fly zone, or anything of serious importance. They have investigated how officials that serve at the pleasure of the President were fired though. For the better part of this year they have wasted tens of thousands of dollars looking for a conspiracy – which has no basis in law – and read through some 40,000 pages of information. Meanwhile people are dying.

Try to equate this. Several people, whom the President can fire at will, without need of reason and completely legal, were fired. No law was broken. There has been a continual hunt for evidence of a conspiracy. To my knowledge, even if one did exist it still does not break the law and those fired remain fired. Yet no facts or actions have been found to suggest what is being searched for. So Congress decides it needs to search more, wasting our taxes and their time.

On the other side of the equation, in this example, roughly 33,000 people have been killed (estimates claim that the number could be 50% higher or more) and 410,000 have lost their homes and possessions in that same time. That’s more than most towns and many cities in this nation.

So why was Bosnia so much more important than Darfur? Neither country is truly significant in virtually any manner. Strategically, economically, militarily and so forth. Why was America willing to defend the innocent coif one nation; and are willing to allow the deaths of others now?

For those that disagree with war, or murder, or genocide I ask you how does it feel to know that you may be indirectly supporting these things.

In a nation as rich and powerful as we are. To see how little we are doing, and the things we are wasting our time with, is quite insulting.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: apartheid, Bosnia, Congress, Darfur, genocide, HR 180 IH

Concluded from Discussing retreat or fighting in Iraq Part 2...

There is no simple solution to this situation. Blame covers virtually ever member of Congress and the Executive branch. The reasons for enacting this war, no matter how questionable today, have been supported by more than the majority of Congress up until the 2nd quarter of 2006. Even until the end of April 2007 the general consensus has been in support.

Partisan bickering has not resolved any of the issues involved. No effective plan has been offered as a counter to the existing one. No plan currently includes the probable outcomes 2 years or more down the road.

Anger at various officials has overshadowed the actual events ongoing. If President Bush were to be replaced by ANYONE at this moment, there still would be no better plan in place than what exists at this moment. In fact there would be less of a plan in place (based on the exact plans declared by virtually all the candidates to date) thus promoting chaos.

Emotion must be removed, as well as partisan election games, to reach an effective middle road. Extremes are ineffective and costly. Lack of planning is terrifying. We are America, better can be done.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Afghanistan War, Congress, Iraq War, presidential candidate, terrorist attack

Continued from Discussing retreat or fighting in Iraq Part 1...

Looking at the other side of this issue, we see those that wish to fight until all opposition is removed. Such an action requires the building of a colony or commonwealth. It would involved the complete takeover by the United States. Iraq would cease to be independent and fighting would continue for about 2 generations. This plan would require that America rebuild the entire nation. A new infrastructure, buildings, economy and education system would need to be created. Military bases would have to be installed. The cost to America would be enormous, with any return on the investments there not being seen for 5 years to a decade.

An immediate problem would be the response by moderate and liberal nations in the world. France as an example would likely be outraged by ‘actions in America that harkens back to imperialist empire-building.’ During the first 10 years at least there would be constant attacks on Iraq, with several nations (notably Iran) claiming that this was an attack on Islam. The loss of soldiers would increase roughly 10-fold over the first 10 years.

Given history, it would be expected that assimilation would begin after the generation raised with improved facilities (hospitals, schools, running water, ect) reached the age of 25, and began families of their own. By the second generation internal support of America would be high and the improved quality of life would draw more moderate individuals from neighboring countries. Stateside, there would be fewer attacks but they would be more severe, as the emphasis would be on destabilizing Iraq. Liberals in America would be enraged, and strong divisions in both political parties would emerge. Taxes would increase to offset the investment in Iraq, but economic returns would improve roughly 7-12 years after the start of this program.

As neither of these extremes is attractive, or viable, what alternative exists? There is no plan offered currently other than that of continued fighting. The current plan requires Iraq to stabilize it’s government, which is not happening. The near civil war in Iraq will likely take about a decade to resolve, with continued U.S. support. Current strategies will continue the slow loss of American soldiers and high cost of fighting. Within 2 years taxes will have to be increased to cover the cost. The strain on the economy will be increased, and corporations will seek to gouge business in Iraq to make up for the risk and protracted cost.

Without U.S. support, actual civil war will occur, with Iran and several other nations supporting various groups in the fighting. The Middle East will have higher tensions, oil prices will go up. Hundreds of thousands will die. Likely an autocratic if not theocratic government will be formed and tens of thousand will be jailed in response to having aided the U.S. efforts or those of other groups. The children that lost family, as well as grown adults will be convinced that America was the cause of the current ills, and that they are worse than the subjugation of Saddam Hussein and the Baath party. Within 7 years, recruits to Al Quida and similar groups will triple to a 5-fold increase. Within 2 years of a gradual loss of U.S. support, without a strong central government, America will have a major attack, with several minor attacks similar to those that have occurred in England happening before and after the main attack.

Continued in Part 3...

Labels: Afghanistan War, Congress, Iraq War, presidential candidate, terrorist attack

Not long ago there was a battle in the Congress to bring troops fighting in Iraq back to America. This was lead by the Democratic party, based in part on the results of the 2006 mid-term elections where Democrats ran on the platform of change in Iraq policy. The Democrats failed to force the President to withdraw immediately, the only concession being the establishment of a timeline where the status of the new surge policy would be evaluated in September 2007.

Today there is renewed efforts to bring the troops back home. While the initial push for this same policy was a partisan effort, largely, 5 months ago this new effort is more bi-partisan. Some are stating they are unwilling to wait to learn the results of the strategic change, and are demanding the troops return. Without regard to political affiliation this is a serious issue with ramifications that will affect America for decades. As such some need to pause and evaluate what we are doing, and attempting to do.

Looking at the extremist views, in particular on the left, there is a call to leave Iraq immediately. Those that have this view seek to turn and run from Iraq. Semantics aside, that is what immediate withdrawal means. Let’s consider the implications of such an action. I will guarantee that upon news of an immediate withdrawal several things will happen. The first is that the news will be broadcast over Al Jazira (an Arabic equivalent of CNN or other cable news networks). Many of the most extreme militant groups in the Middle East watch this program regularly, and would learn of this act immediately. Within hours news of this would reach Afghanistan and Iraq, or more particularly those who are fighting American troops. EVERY nation in the world would see this as a loss for America, and in the Middle East anti-American groups would be dancing in the streets.

Within days of that news, attacks on American troops would increase. That is not a guess, it’s basic military strategy. The opponent is turning their back to flee, which means any aggressive action will have greater effect. The higher level of direct attacks, plus the demoralizing effect on American troops (no one likes to lose a fight, and as a nation that is the strongest in the world, losing to a few small groups is a smack in the face) would be devastating. Any student of military strategy will tell you that attacking retreating forces will cause them to have greater casualties, and confusion. Of course that does not include the fact that opponents of America will rally to Iraq, being in on the winning side is either a matter of self-preservation in a post-war country or a bragging point.

Going beyond the immediate increase of enemy forces, increased attacks, and the change in morale is the question of what happens stateside. Sleeper cells in the United States would be emboldened. New cells will seek to enter the nation. Within 6 months, several attacks will occur in several major cities. This is not random speculation but highly probable actions determined from the stated goals of militants that we are currently fighting, military strategies, and the rush of new recruits to organizations that will claim they cause America to ‘cower in fear and run away’. Looking across the world, and throughout history this always happens to nations that flee a fight of this nature.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: Afghanistan War, Congress, Iraq War, presidential candidate

Here is something annoying. You have not heard a single Presidential candidate speak about this. I don’t recall any news media coverage of this. Were it not for the efforts of Mr. Don Cheadle, and several other prominent actors, and the humanitarian award he received I might not have heard about this. Not that there was any significant attention made about Mr. Cheadle getting the award or why.

The point is that the United States government has reacted pitifully in regard to Darfur. So far 3 sessions of Congress have been discussing this and still nothing has been done. And here is the proof. On January 4th Representative Lee introduced HR 180 IH. If you wonder what that means it’s the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 (Introduced in House). So far any attempt at accountability has gone out the window.

As of my writing this now, as Congress prepares to go on July 4th celebration seven months after introducing this bill the best thing that can be said is that it only took 3 months for a subcommittee meeting on this. In virtually seven months there has been no movement on this bill since March 20th. Perhaps if the members of Congress were in danger of losing loved ones there might be more action on the matter.

Now some of you may be saying, ‘Hold on, we don’t need to start another war.’ Others may be saying, ‘What is HR 180 IH?’

The answer to the first is that the bill doesn’t require the United States to put a single solider anywhere they aren’t already. The answer to the second is

“To require the identification of companies that conduct business operations in Sudan, to prohibit United States Government contracts with such companies, and for other purposes.”

Basically this bill cuts off money that goes to support what the 108th Congress

“declares that the atrocities unfolding in the Darfur region of Sudan, are genocide.”

That was almost 3 years ago to the day. How many have died since that time do you think? The GENOCIDE was unfolding according to Congress, it still exists, and we barely hear anything about it.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell told Congress there was a genocide, President Bush told the U.N. that there as a genocide, yet only 4 states have passed laws requiring that no company doing business with the Sudan can do business with their state. Odds are it’s not your state. I can guarantee that it’s not New York State, home of Wall Street, and where the big six brokerage houses invest millions of dollars in mutual funds that could be doing business with [thus supporting] the Sudan and genocide.

I bet that 99% of those reading this now, that have a pension or mutual fund, have no idea what that mutual fund is invested in. I would bet that 99.5% have no idea what businesses might be supporting the Sudan government. Yet I am sure that, of those over 30 [which is maybe 50% of my readers] everyone was for and supported the bans against South Africa and Apartheid back in 1986.

To my knowledge, virtually every member of Congress is old enough to have at least heard about the 1986 bans. They have no excuse.

Of the 24 colleges mentioned in this bill there is not one that I am aware of that is a Black college. That could be simply an oversite of Representative Lee, or that they are doing matters separate of this bill. But I recall that back in ’86, there was more than one black college that was invested in South Africa.

Perhaps Congress can sleep at night without doing more than speaking about this terrible situation. Perhaps they have more to do in preparing their particular candidate for the 2008 election, or raising funds for that candidate. Perhaps every candidate for President right now can’t spend any time to come up with a 30 second soundbite for Darfur, as there isn’t enough time after explaining the resolution to Iraq, taxes, terrorism, social security, and why they are so great and warm people. Each of those points explained in 30 second soundbites. Perhaps the moderators of the debates are too overwhelmed with questions on when America will be out of Iraq, that question can be and has been asked in each debate maybe 20 different ways, to find one on Darfur.

I know that I was too busy writing to 6 blogs, and growing my company to stop and get into this issue. But at some point you have to stop and say, I can do more.

Well here I am doing more. I’ve raised the bar. Now you know. What will you do? Will you get in touch with you Congressional representative and ask them what they did over the 4th of July while people died and a simple resolution sat on the congressional floor? Will you take a moment to read HR 180 IH, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007?

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: African American, Colin Powell, Congress, Darfur, Don Cheadle, genocide, HR 180 IH, Iraq War

Continued from part 1...

If someone says “so and so just said you sleep with animals” and you hit so and so, it doesn’t matter that what you were told wasn’t true or only partially true. You will be in a fight all the same. I it’s known that you stop fighting once you get a bloody nose, I’d expect you will get hit in the nose. If you do stop fighting because your nose starts to bleed, it doesn’t mean the other person is going to stop fighting, in fact I’d expect them to kick your arse now that you stopped resisting. Every kid in elementary schoolyards understands that.

I try to understand the conspiracists that feel Americans staged the 9/11 attack on other Americans. I am lost at how anyone could agree with this. I am befuddled. Where is the logic in it? What is the gain? Is there anything of worth for America in Afghanistan? Did we need to kill Americans to attack Iraq? Didn’t we fight a war previously without any attacks on our soil?

I wonder how anyone can claim that EVERY Jewish person was out of the Towers and away from the area. I personally know for a fact that several I know where there and injured. I am told from friends of Jewish persons being part of those that died. I wonder how anyone could know the religion of every person that didn’t show up for work that day, or everyone that died to be able to make such a claim. I wonder how many Black Americans, Hispanic Americans and Whites and other minorities didn’t make it to the Towers that day. What are the percentages? If more women didn’t show up to work for the attack does that mean that N.O.W. organized the attacks? If that sounds ludicrous (which I feel it is) how is any other group of Americans more credible?

If it were Jewish Americans what could they gain? America already supports Israel. The Twin Towers were not owned by any Jewish corporations or persons at that time to my knowledge. If the profit were shared among Jews the payout from the insurance is worthless unless a handful of people were involved. If it were a handful, why would they need to kill thousands just to get a minor amount of money? Wouldn’t it have been easier to simply use hijacked planes that were empty and attack in the middle of the night?

Of course all Americans have a right to think whatever they wish. They have the freedom to make any movie, or help distribute any movie, they wish and can afford. But where is the logic in this theory? Where is the gain? And what consequence is likely? Wouldn’t EVERY enemy America use such a film to denounce the war in Afghanistan and Iraq? Wouldn’t EVERY militant Muslim group point to such a film to gain recruits and funds? Wouldn’t every terrorist use such propaganda to incite attacks against Americans everywhere in the world?

And I have to consider how different the actions of liberals today are from the actions of liberals during Viet Nam. How much support is shown by retreating from the fight now? How much respect is given to those that VOLUNTEERED to fight in IRAQ? How much confidence are we inspiring as congressmen and women seek to enact restrictions that would prevent soldiers from protecting themselves [part of the recent bill passed by 218 congressmen and women requires that there must be a 15 day prior notice to Congress before any troops can be moved into Iraq. Thus is troops need support from the air, they would need to wait 15 days to get a C130 in with supplies. This is a fact not a supposition. Read page 72 of the bill.] I wonder how long it will be before ultra-liberals call the troops baby-killers as they did to those that returned from Viet Nam.

These are things I wonder and see. What about you?

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Afghanistan War, Congress, Iraq War, Twin Towers, Viet Nam