June 19, 2008
GREENLAND ICE CORE ANALYSIS SHOWS DRASTIC CLIMATE CHANGE NEAR END OF LAST ICE AGE
Information gleaned from a Greenland ice core by an international science team shows that two huge Northern Hemisphere temperature spikes prior to the close of the last ice age some 11,500 years ago were tied to fundamental shifts in atmospheric circulation.
The ice core showed the Northern Hemisphere briefly emerged from the last ice age some 14,700 years ago with a 22-degree-Fahrenheit spike in just 50 years, then plunged back into icy conditions before abruptly warming again about 11,700 years ago. Startlingly, the Greenland ice core evidence showed that a massive "reorganization" of atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere coincided with each temperature spurt, with each reorganization taking just one or two years, said the study authors.
The new findings are expected to help scientists improve existing computer models for predicting future climate change as increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere drive up Earth's temperatures globally.
The team used changes in dust levels and stable water isotopes in the annual ice layers of the two-mile-long Greenland ice core, which was hauled from the massive ice sheet between 1998 to 2004, to chart past temperature and precipitation swings. Their paper was published in the June 19 issue of Science Express, the online version of Science.
The ice cores – analyzed with powerful microscopes – were drilled as part of the North Greenland Ice Core Project led by project leader Dorthe Dahl-Jensen of the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Neils Bohr Institute of the University of Copenhagen. The study included 17 co-investigators from Europe, one from Japan and two from the United States – Jim White and Trevor Popp from the University of Colorado at Boulder.
"We have analyzed the transition from the last glacial period until our present warm interglacial period, and the climate shifts are happening suddenly, as if someone had pushed a button," said Dahl-Jenson.
According to the researchers, the first abrupt warming period beginning at 14,700 years ago lasted until about 12,900 years ago, when deep-freeze conditions returned for about 1,200 years before the onset of the second sharp warming event. The two events indicate a speed in the natural climate change process never before seen in ice cores, said White, director of CU-Boulder's Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research.
"We are beginning to tease apart the sequence of abrupt climate change," said White, whose work was funded by the National Science Foundation's Office of Polar Programs. "Since such rapid climate change would challenge even the most modern societies to successfully adapt, knowing how these massive events start and evolve is one of the most pressing climate questions we need to answer."
Both dramatic warming events were preceded by decreasing Greenland dust deposition, indicating higher tropical temperatures and significantly more rain falling on the deserts of Asia at the time, said White. The team believes the ancient tropical warming caused large, rapid atmospheric changes at the equator, the intensification of the Pacific monsoon, sea-ice loss in the north Atlantic Ocean and more atmospheric heat and moisture over Greenland and much of the rest of the Northern Hemisphere.
"Here we propose a series of events beginning in the lower latitudes and leading to changes in the ocean and atmosphere that reveal for the first time the anatomy of abrupt climate change," the authors wrote. White likened the abrupt shift in the Northern Hemisphere circulation pattern to shifts in the North American jet stream as it steers storms around the continent.
"We know such events are in Earth's future, but we don't know when," said White. "One question is whether we can see the symptoms before big problems occur. Until we answer these questions, we are speeding blindly down a narrow road, hoping there are no curves ahead."
Each yearly record of ice can reveal past temperatures and precipitation levels, the content of ancient atmospheres and even evidence for the timing and magnitude of distant storms, fires and volcanic eruptions, said White. The cores from the site – located roughly in the middle of Greenland at an elevation of about 9,850 feet – are four-inch-diameter cylinders brought to the surface in 11.5-foot lengths, said White.
##
Contact:
Jim White
University of Colorado at Boulder
303-492-2219
jwhite@colorado.edu
This text derived from:
http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/c26eac043404365b046ade72e8bc9424.html
Friday, July 4, 2008
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Congress Should Hold Propaganda Hearings
Posted on May 30.2008 by Timothy Karr
New information about the extent of the government and the mainstream media’s propaganda campaign continue to emerge, and we have not let up on pushing Congress to act.
More than 100,000 Free Press activists and our allies have already urged their members of Congress to launch an investigation into the media's role in spreading pro-war propaganda.
Now Free Press is calling on Congress to convene hearings to determine the extent of the mainstream media and the government’s wrongdoing. Sign the letter and tell Congress that we're not backing down until the truth comes out.
The country is buzzing today over a tell-all book by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. In his explosive memoir, McClellan reveals that the Bush administration ran a "political propaganda campaign" to mislead the American public on the war in Iraq.
But he takes it one step further, implicating the mainstream media for its role in "enabling" this propaganda: "The national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House" in spreading the president's case for the war, McClellan writes. The mainstream media didn't live up to its watchdog reputation. "If it had, the country would have been better served."
This should be a shock to everyone. The president's own spokesman lays a large share of the blame for Bush's pro-war propaganda on the media's "deferential" treatment of White House spin.
Please become part of a growing people-powered campaign to investigate this scandal and make media more accountable to the public:
Click on the link above and sign a letter that urges House Committee Chairs Ike Skelton, John Tierney and Henry Waxman to convene full congressional hearings about propaganda in the news.
The media's complicity in promoting this war was confirmed Wednesday night by CNN correspondent Jessica Yellin who said that network executives had pushed her not to do hard-hitting pieces on the Bush administration as the nation readied for war.
"The press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation," Yellin told CNN's Anderson Cooper. (Watch the video).
More than 100,000 Free Press activists and allies have already urged their members of Congress to launch an investigation into the media's role in spreading pro-war propaganda. By joining their call, you will be part of a massive coalition of citizens, bloggers and independent media who refuse to let Big Media off the hook:
Expose the Propaganda 'Enablers' and End Fake News
McClellan's memoir comes on the heels of an April 20 New York Times exposé, which revealed an extensive -- and likely illegal -- Pentagon program to recruit and place pro-war military pundits on nearly every major news outlet in America. Congress has promised to investigate the Pentagon’s role in the scandal, but it shouldn't end there.
Our democracy is in peril when mainstream media fail to question the official view and put the interests of ordinary Americans first. This watchdog role is especially critical during a time of war.
Sign the letter and then tell your friends to help send a loud message to Congress: We're not backing down until the truth comes out.
New information about the extent of the government and the mainstream media’s propaganda campaign continue to emerge, and we have not let up on pushing Congress to act.
More than 100,000 Free Press activists and our allies have already urged their members of Congress to launch an investigation into the media's role in spreading pro-war propaganda.
Now Free Press is calling on Congress to convene hearings to determine the extent of the mainstream media and the government’s wrongdoing. Sign the letter and tell Congress that we're not backing down until the truth comes out.
The country is buzzing today over a tell-all book by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. In his explosive memoir, McClellan reveals that the Bush administration ran a "political propaganda campaign" to mislead the American public on the war in Iraq.
But he takes it one step further, implicating the mainstream media for its role in "enabling" this propaganda: "The national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House" in spreading the president's case for the war, McClellan writes. The mainstream media didn't live up to its watchdog reputation. "If it had, the country would have been better served."
This should be a shock to everyone. The president's own spokesman lays a large share of the blame for Bush's pro-war propaganda on the media's "deferential" treatment of White House spin.
Please become part of a growing people-powered campaign to investigate this scandal and make media more accountable to the public:
Click on the link above and sign a letter that urges House Committee Chairs Ike Skelton, John Tierney and Henry Waxman to convene full congressional hearings about propaganda in the news.
The media's complicity in promoting this war was confirmed Wednesday night by CNN correspondent Jessica Yellin who said that network executives had pushed her not to do hard-hitting pieces on the Bush administration as the nation readied for war.
"The press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation," Yellin told CNN's Anderson Cooper. (Watch the video).
More than 100,000 Free Press activists and allies have already urged their members of Congress to launch an investigation into the media's role in spreading pro-war propaganda. By joining their call, you will be part of a massive coalition of citizens, bloggers and independent media who refuse to let Big Media off the hook:
Expose the Propaganda 'Enablers' and End Fake News
McClellan's memoir comes on the heels of an April 20 New York Times exposé, which revealed an extensive -- and likely illegal -- Pentagon program to recruit and place pro-war military pundits on nearly every major news outlet in America. Congress has promised to investigate the Pentagon’s role in the scandal, but it shouldn't end there.
Our democracy is in peril when mainstream media fail to question the official view and put the interests of ordinary Americans first. This watchdog role is especially critical during a time of war.
Sign the letter and then tell your friends to help send a loud message to Congress: We're not backing down until the truth comes out.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Hillary, the GOP, and Obama: And never the two shall meet.
"You just don’t know what might happen".
Something bad could happen in June. I am not saying something will, mind you, but nonetheless, something may very well happen. On a few occasions, the woman who has nothing to lose, and decreasing amount to win, is now hinting that bad things may happen. Smell that, friends, smell that odor of fear she is trying to cover the room with? Fear the uncertainties; fear the unknown, a chance on hope is not worth what “might” happen.
She is quietly selling fear. She is slowly, trying to justify her political actions, by using the same book which is used by the Republicans.
She has pandered to her older white rural and uneducated base, by trying to sell them on her legitimacy as a candidate, by referring to none other than Karl Rove and an analysis he did between herself and McCain. An analysis which shows she is far stronger than her opponent, Sen. Obama.
Karl Rove of all people she uses to support her case.
I never seem to be able to get that acid imprinted mantra out of my mind. The one where she says over and over, “If this were a republican presidential primary, I would have already won”, says a member of the Democratic Party.
As if our friends in the GOP, who have “little real blame” in letting Bush get whatever he wanted, are not so bad. It’s as if she is saying, “Don’t hate the playa’, hate the game”. Again, she dangles Republicanism in the faces of fellow democrats. At whose gain, I ask you; and at what loss.
What about Fox News, while playing softball question hour with the pundit of all pundits, Greta.
What about the slights about race made by Bill Clinton, “…at least I didn’t steal the car.” Remember South Carolina? And no, if you watch and listen to the video long enough to get his point, you see what he meant.
You have seen it. Maybe for so long it's hard to separate the true politicking of the citizen, and the divisiveness of the politics itself.
Hey wait a minute, that’s my game she wants to change. I don’t want another president who has been in Washington long enough to truly know how to play the game. I want someone in Washington who will bring a new direction to the game.
And a vote for Obama, in my view, is a vote for the future style of governmental leadership, from which I feel Americans were derailed, and have been waiting for, the last eight years.
I grew up in Washington, I have met these people. I know where they hang out. What restaurants and bars, and to which after-hours joint de fantaisie et d'élite, they go to.
My brother Aaron has a great restaurant in Washington, DC, called
The Russia House Restaurant & Lounge. It is a great and hip place (check out the link), and if you ever stop by, tell him I sent you and don’t talk politics with him (maybe I’ll get some brother credit?).
But anyway, you get those people in there as well. They are not bad people themselves, for they are just doing a job, and doing it anyway and wherever they can. It’s just the way their job is set up.
It is about time that we elected a person that will work with others in running our country. Not at the direction or insistence of a heavy lobbyist group, or from a fat and deep PAC, but because that which is trying to be done is the best thing for “our” country.
We need a person who can look at a situation from a multitude of various perspectives, and with the end goal being to have made the wisest decision for our country, and our future, that solves the issue as best as possible. That is what we need. We need governance, not from the perspective of the corporations and special interest, but from someone who is not beholden to the gold coffers of the heavy industry players.
We need someone who has a vision of what things can be like, someone who is not afraid to imagine what may be, and one who has the innate sense of diversity which allows him to see from many perspectives, and come to a much wiser decision.
We need someone in Washington who has not lost their imagination, due to the many years of the political enculturation and doctrinarian, into the old ways of politics. Be they young or old, Republican or Democrat, the old ways are dead, and information has changed the court.
It should be obvious that I support Sen. Obama, but just for the record; I support Barry. He can be trusted to make the best decisions for this great country, if and when they arise.
We need, as a Party and a Country, to move beyond the politics of destruction, and into the politics of Hope. To bring to our present political system, a more transparent and citizen minded, perspective, outlook, and visage. A 21st century view on what is the best that government can do for its citizens and the world.
That’s no different than any other President would try to do, but the crux difference between Sen. Obama and the rest, is where he has already been. The gathered world perspective he has experienced, to be able to see the world through another’s eyes, is something that comes along ever so rarely. And, for the last 8 years, not at all, it seems.
And that my friend is a bit about why I support Sen. Barack Obama.
Something bad could happen in June. I am not saying something will, mind you, but nonetheless, something may very well happen. On a few occasions, the woman who has nothing to lose, and decreasing amount to win, is now hinting that bad things may happen. Smell that, friends, smell that odor of fear she is trying to cover the room with? Fear the uncertainties; fear the unknown, a chance on hope is not worth what “might” happen.
She is quietly selling fear. She is slowly, trying to justify her political actions, by using the same book which is used by the Republicans.
She has pandered to her older white rural and uneducated base, by trying to sell them on her legitimacy as a candidate, by referring to none other than Karl Rove and an analysis he did between herself and McCain. An analysis which shows she is far stronger than her opponent, Sen. Obama.
Karl Rove of all people she uses to support her case.
I never seem to be able to get that acid imprinted mantra out of my mind. The one where she says over and over, “If this were a republican presidential primary, I would have already won”, says a member of the Democratic Party.
As if our friends in the GOP, who have “little real blame” in letting Bush get whatever he wanted, are not so bad. It’s as if she is saying, “Don’t hate the playa’, hate the game”. Again, she dangles Republicanism in the faces of fellow democrats. At whose gain, I ask you; and at what loss.
What about Fox News, while playing softball question hour with the pundit of all pundits, Greta.
What about the slights about race made by Bill Clinton, “…at least I didn’t steal the car.” Remember South Carolina? And no, if you watch and listen to the video long enough to get his point, you see what he meant.
You have seen it. Maybe for so long it's hard to separate the true politicking of the citizen, and the divisiveness of the politics itself.
Hey wait a minute, that’s my game she wants to change. I don’t want another president who has been in Washington long enough to truly know how to play the game. I want someone in Washington who will bring a new direction to the game.
And a vote for Obama, in my view, is a vote for the future style of governmental leadership, from which I feel Americans were derailed, and have been waiting for, the last eight years.
I grew up in Washington, I have met these people. I know where they hang out. What restaurants and bars, and to which after-hours joint de fantaisie et d'élite, they go to.
My brother Aaron has a great restaurant in Washington, DC, called
The Russia House Restaurant & Lounge. It is a great and hip place (check out the link), and if you ever stop by, tell him I sent you and don’t talk politics with him (maybe I’ll get some brother credit?).
But anyway, you get those people in there as well. They are not bad people themselves, for they are just doing a job, and doing it anyway and wherever they can. It’s just the way their job is set up.
It is about time that we elected a person that will work with others in running our country. Not at the direction or insistence of a heavy lobbyist group, or from a fat and deep PAC, but because that which is trying to be done is the best thing for “our” country.
We need a person who can look at a situation from a multitude of various perspectives, and with the end goal being to have made the wisest decision for our country, and our future, that solves the issue as best as possible. That is what we need. We need governance, not from the perspective of the corporations and special interest, but from someone who is not beholden to the gold coffers of the heavy industry players.
We need someone who has a vision of what things can be like, someone who is not afraid to imagine what may be, and one who has the innate sense of diversity which allows him to see from many perspectives, and come to a much wiser decision.
We need someone in Washington who has not lost their imagination, due to the many years of the political enculturation and doctrinarian, into the old ways of politics. Be they young or old, Republican or Democrat, the old ways are dead, and information has changed the court.
It should be obvious that I support Sen. Obama, but just for the record; I support Barry. He can be trusted to make the best decisions for this great country, if and when they arise.
We need, as a Party and a Country, to move beyond the politics of destruction, and into the politics of Hope. To bring to our present political system, a more transparent and citizen minded, perspective, outlook, and visage. A 21st century view on what is the best that government can do for its citizens and the world.
That’s no different than any other President would try to do, but the crux difference between Sen. Obama and the rest, is where he has already been. The gathered world perspective he has experienced, to be able to see the world through another’s eyes, is something that comes along ever so rarely. And, for the last 8 years, not at all, it seems.
And that my friend is a bit about why I support Sen. Barack Obama.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Republicans and Our Enemies
By JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.
May 23, 2008; WSJ Page A15
On Wednesday, Joe Lieberman wrote on this page that the Democratic Party he and I grew up in has drifted far from the foreign policy espoused by Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy.
In fact, it is the policies that President George W. Bush has pursued, and that John McCain would continue, that are divorced from that great tradition – and from the legacy of Republican presidents like Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
Sen. Lieberman is right: 9/11 was a pivotal moment. History will judge Mr. Bush's reaction less for the mistakes he made than for the opportunities he squandered.
The president had a historic opportunity to unite Americans and the world in common cause. Instead – by exploiting the politics of fear, instigating an optional war in Iraq before finishing a necessary war in Afghanistan, and instituting policies on torture, detainees and domestic surveillance that fly in the face of our values and interests – Mr. Bush divided Americans from each other and from the world.
At the heart of this failure is an obsession with the "war on terrorism" that ignores larger forces shaping the world: the emergence of China, India, Russia and Europe; the spread of lethal weapons and dangerous diseases; uncertain supplies of energy, food and water; the persistence of poverty; ethnic animosities and state failures; a rapidly warming planet; the challenge to nation states from above and below.
Instead, Mr. Bush has turned a small number of radical groups that hate America into a 10-foot tall existential monster that dictates every move we make.
The intersection of al Qaeda with the world's most lethal weapons is a deadly serious problem. Al Qaeda must be destroyed. But to compare terrorism with an all-encompassing ideology like communism and fascism is evidence of profound confusion.
Terrorism is a means, not an end, and very different groups and countries are using it toward very different goals. Messrs. Bush and McCain lump together, as a single threat, extremist groups and states more at odds with each other than with us: Sunnis and Shiites, Persians and Arabs, Iraq and Iran, al Qaeda and Shiite militias. If they can't identify the enemy or describe the war we're fighting, it's difficult to see how we will win.
The results speak for themselves.
On George Bush's watch, Iran, not freedom, has been on the march: Iran is much closer to the bomb; its influence in Iraq is expanding; its terrorist proxy Hezbollah is ascendant in Lebanon and that country is on the brink of civil war.
Beyond Iran, al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan – the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 – are stronger now than at any time since 9/11. Radical recruitment is on the rise. Hamas controls Gaza and launches rockets at Israel every day. Some 140,000 American troops remain stuck in Iraq with no end in sight.
Because of the policies Mr. Bush has pursued and Mr. McCain would continue, the entire Middle East is more dangerous. The United States and our allies, including Israel, are less secure.
The election in November is a vital opportunity for America to start anew. That will require more than a great soldier. It will require a wise leader.
Here, the controversy over engaging Iran is especially instructive.
Last week, John McCain was very clear. He ruled out talking to Iran. He said that Barack Obama was "naïve and inexperienced" for advocating engagement; "What is it he wants to talk about?" he asked.
Well, for a start, Iran's nuclear program, its support for Shiite militias in Iraq, and its patronage of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
Beyond bluster, how would Mr. McCain actually deal with these dangers? You either talk, you maintain the status quo, or you go to war. If Mr. McCain has ruled out talking, we're stuck with an ineffectual policy or military strikes that could quickly spiral out of control.
Sen. Obama is right that the U.S. should be willing to engage Iran on its nuclear program without "preconditions" – i.e. without insisting that Iran first freeze the program, which is the very subject of any negotiations. He has been clear that he would not become personally involved until the necessary preparations had been made and unless he was convinced his engagement would advance our interests.
President Nixon didn't demand that China end military support to the Vietnamese killing Americans before meeting with Mao. President Reagan didn't insist that the Soviets freeze their nuclear arsenal before sitting down with Mikhail Gorbachev. Even George W. Bush – whose initial disengagement allowed dangers to proliferate – didn't demand that Libya relinquish its nuclear program, that North Korea give up its plutonium, or even that Iran stop aiding those attacking our soldiers in Iraq before authorizing talks.
The net effect of demanding preconditions that Iran rejects is this: We get no results and Iran gets closer to the bomb.
Equally unwise is the Bush-McCain fixation on regime change. The regime is abhorrent, but their logic defies comprehension: renounce the bomb – and when you do, we're still going to take you down. The result is that Iran accelerated its efforts to produce fissile material.
Instead of regime change, we should focus on conduct change. We should make it very clear to Iran what it risks in terms of isolation if it continues to pursue a dangerous nuclear program but also what it stands to gain if it does the right thing. That will require keeping our allies in Europe, as well as Russia and China, on the same page as we ratchet up pressure.
It also requires a much more sophisticated understanding than Mr. Bush or Mr. McCain seem to possess that by publicly engaging Iran – including through direct talks – we can exploit cracks within the ruling elite, and between Iran's rulers and its people, who are struggling economically and stifled politically.
Iran's people need to know that their government, not the U.S., is choosing confrontation over cooperation. Our allies and partners need to know that the U.S. will go the extra diplomatic mile – if we do, they are much more likely to stand with us if diplomacy fails and force proves necessary.
The Bush-McCain saber rattling is the most self-defeating policy imaginable. It achieves nothing. But it forces Iranians who despise the regime to rally behind their leaders. And it spurs instability in the Middle East, which adds to the price of oil, with the proceeds going right from American wallets into Tehran's pockets.
The worst nightmare for a regime that thrives on tension with America is an America ready, willing and able to engage. Since when has talking removed the word "no" from our vocabulary?
It's amazing how little faith George Bush, Joe Lieberman and John McCain have in themselves – and in America.
Mr. Biden, a Democratic senator from Delaware, is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
May 23, 2008; WSJ Page A15
On Wednesday, Joe Lieberman wrote on this page that the Democratic Party he and I grew up in has drifted far from the foreign policy espoused by Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy.
In fact, it is the policies that President George W. Bush has pursued, and that John McCain would continue, that are divorced from that great tradition – and from the legacy of Republican presidents like Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
Sen. Lieberman is right: 9/11 was a pivotal moment. History will judge Mr. Bush's reaction less for the mistakes he made than for the opportunities he squandered.
The president had a historic opportunity to unite Americans and the world in common cause. Instead – by exploiting the politics of fear, instigating an optional war in Iraq before finishing a necessary war in Afghanistan, and instituting policies on torture, detainees and domestic surveillance that fly in the face of our values and interests – Mr. Bush divided Americans from each other and from the world.
At the heart of this failure is an obsession with the "war on terrorism" that ignores larger forces shaping the world: the emergence of China, India, Russia and Europe; the spread of lethal weapons and dangerous diseases; uncertain supplies of energy, food and water; the persistence of poverty; ethnic animosities and state failures; a rapidly warming planet; the challenge to nation states from above and below.
Instead, Mr. Bush has turned a small number of radical groups that hate America into a 10-foot tall existential monster that dictates every move we make.
The intersection of al Qaeda with the world's most lethal weapons is a deadly serious problem. Al Qaeda must be destroyed. But to compare terrorism with an all-encompassing ideology like communism and fascism is evidence of profound confusion.
Terrorism is a means, not an end, and very different groups and countries are using it toward very different goals. Messrs. Bush and McCain lump together, as a single threat, extremist groups and states more at odds with each other than with us: Sunnis and Shiites, Persians and Arabs, Iraq and Iran, al Qaeda and Shiite militias. If they can't identify the enemy or describe the war we're fighting, it's difficult to see how we will win.
The results speak for themselves.
On George Bush's watch, Iran, not freedom, has been on the march: Iran is much closer to the bomb; its influence in Iraq is expanding; its terrorist proxy Hezbollah is ascendant in Lebanon and that country is on the brink of civil war.
Beyond Iran, al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan – the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 – are stronger now than at any time since 9/11. Radical recruitment is on the rise. Hamas controls Gaza and launches rockets at Israel every day. Some 140,000 American troops remain stuck in Iraq with no end in sight.
Because of the policies Mr. Bush has pursued and Mr. McCain would continue, the entire Middle East is more dangerous. The United States and our allies, including Israel, are less secure.
The election in November is a vital opportunity for America to start anew. That will require more than a great soldier. It will require a wise leader.
Here, the controversy over engaging Iran is especially instructive.
Last week, John McCain was very clear. He ruled out talking to Iran. He said that Barack Obama was "naïve and inexperienced" for advocating engagement; "What is it he wants to talk about?" he asked.
Well, for a start, Iran's nuclear program, its support for Shiite militias in Iraq, and its patronage of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
Beyond bluster, how would Mr. McCain actually deal with these dangers? You either talk, you maintain the status quo, or you go to war. If Mr. McCain has ruled out talking, we're stuck with an ineffectual policy or military strikes that could quickly spiral out of control.
Sen. Obama is right that the U.S. should be willing to engage Iran on its nuclear program without "preconditions" – i.e. without insisting that Iran first freeze the program, which is the very subject of any negotiations. He has been clear that he would not become personally involved until the necessary preparations had been made and unless he was convinced his engagement would advance our interests.
President Nixon didn't demand that China end military support to the Vietnamese killing Americans before meeting with Mao. President Reagan didn't insist that the Soviets freeze their nuclear arsenal before sitting down with Mikhail Gorbachev. Even George W. Bush – whose initial disengagement allowed dangers to proliferate – didn't demand that Libya relinquish its nuclear program, that North Korea give up its plutonium, or even that Iran stop aiding those attacking our soldiers in Iraq before authorizing talks.
The net effect of demanding preconditions that Iran rejects is this: We get no results and Iran gets closer to the bomb.
Equally unwise is the Bush-McCain fixation on regime change. The regime is abhorrent, but their logic defies comprehension: renounce the bomb – and when you do, we're still going to take you down. The result is that Iran accelerated its efforts to produce fissile material.
Instead of regime change, we should focus on conduct change. We should make it very clear to Iran what it risks in terms of isolation if it continues to pursue a dangerous nuclear program but also what it stands to gain if it does the right thing. That will require keeping our allies in Europe, as well as Russia and China, on the same page as we ratchet up pressure.
It also requires a much more sophisticated understanding than Mr. Bush or Mr. McCain seem to possess that by publicly engaging Iran – including through direct talks – we can exploit cracks within the ruling elite, and between Iran's rulers and its people, who are struggling economically and stifled politically.
Iran's people need to know that their government, not the U.S., is choosing confrontation over cooperation. Our allies and partners need to know that the U.S. will go the extra diplomatic mile – if we do, they are much more likely to stand with us if diplomacy fails and force proves necessary.
The Bush-McCain saber rattling is the most self-defeating policy imaginable. It achieves nothing. But it forces Iranians who despise the regime to rally behind their leaders. And it spurs instability in the Middle East, which adds to the price of oil, with the proceeds going right from American wallets into Tehran's pockets.
The worst nightmare for a regime that thrives on tension with America is an America ready, willing and able to engage. Since when has talking removed the word "no" from our vocabulary?
It's amazing how little faith George Bush, Joe Lieberman and John McCain have in themselves – and in America.
Mr. Biden, a Democratic senator from Delaware, is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
McCain and Hagee sitting in a tree...
Well, it is Mother’s Day, and I am tired of getting e-mails from Hillary, Bill, and even Chelsea. Scrapbook photo’s showing how much Chelsea loves her mother, How Bill is so proud of Hillary for being able to breed a child, and Hillary, for being able to produce a child who loves her so much.
To be fair, if it were not for these e-mails, I would not have really believed that Hillary was a Mother, and not just a politically fabricated one. But that misses the true point of this missive. Hillary is done when it comes to this campaign, and now she must step aside.
The focus now for the Democratic Party, and as should be for Hillary as well, is to begin on McCain. Johnny “Jungle Rot” McCain, who has vowed to run a clean and negative free campaign, is starting his dirty republican ways, vis-à-vis his “uncontrollable” 3rd party surrogates.
Even though Sen. Obama has not sought the endorsement of Hamas, he has received it. And, according to McCain, he should have something to say about such an unsought endorsement. The fueling of terrorist fears, ignorant questioning of Sen. Obama’s Christianity, and justifications for the White Vote to question whether a man named Barack Hussein Obama should be the president of a John Smith white country, shows the true colors of our GOP opponent.
What about Rev. Hagee? Well, here is just a tidbit:
Hagee on Hurricane Katrina: "All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that." [NPR Fresh Air, 9/18/06]
Hagee on Islamic Beliefs:
Fresh Air host Terry Gross asked if Hagee believed that "all Muslims have a mandate to kill Christians and Jews," to which Hagee replied, "Well, the Quran teaches that. Yes, it teaches that very clearly." [NPR Fresh Air, 9/18/06]
Hagee on African-Americans:
The San Antonio Express-News reported that Hagee was going to "meet with black religious leaders privately at an unspecified future date to discuss comments he made in his newsletter about a 'slave sale,' an East Side minister said Wednesday." The Express-News reported:
"Hagee, pastor of the 16,000-member Cornerstone Church, last week had announced a 'slave sale' to raise funds for high school seniors in his church bulletin, 'The Cluster.'
"The item was introduced with the sentence 'Slavery in America is returning to Cornerstone" and ended with "Make plans to come and go home with a slave." [San Antonio Express-News 3/7/96]
Hagee on Catholicism:
"Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews." [Jerusalem Countdown by John Hagee]
Hagee on Women:
"Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist." [God's Profits: Faith, Fraud and the Republican Crusade for Values Voters, Sarah Posner]
"[T]he feminist movement today is throwing off authority in rebellion against God's pattern for the family." ["Bible Positions on Political Issues," John Hagee]
Hagee on LGBT Americans:
"The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment." [NPR Fresh Air, 9/18/06]
Hagee on Iran:
"The coming nuclear showdown with Iran is a certainty," Hagee wrote [in 2006] in the Pentecostal magazine Charisma. "Israel and America must confront Iran's nuclear ability and willingness to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons. For Israel to wait is to risk committing national suicide." [The Nation, 8/8/2006]
And what might be McCain’s response to an endorsement from Rev. John Hagee?
"Well I think it's important to note that pastor John Hagee who has supported and endorsed my candidacy supports what I stand for and believe in. When he endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for and believes. And I am very proud of the Pastor John Hagee's spiritual leadership to thousands of people and I am proud of his commitment to the independence and the freedom of the state of Israel. That does not mean that I support or endorse or agree with some of the things that Pastor John Hagee might have said or positions that he may have taken on other issues. I don't have to agree with everyone who endorses my candidacy. They are supporting my candidacy. I am not endorsing some of their positions."
And Reverend Wright was a problem? Let us see what kind of people really don’t have a problem with race, and are willing to take to task anyone, of any background, who is “associated” with someone who makes comments that are seen as offensive.
We shall see!
To be fair, if it were not for these e-mails, I would not have really believed that Hillary was a Mother, and not just a politically fabricated one. But that misses the true point of this missive. Hillary is done when it comes to this campaign, and now she must step aside.
The focus now for the Democratic Party, and as should be for Hillary as well, is to begin on McCain. Johnny “Jungle Rot” McCain, who has vowed to run a clean and negative free campaign, is starting his dirty republican ways, vis-à-vis his “uncontrollable” 3rd party surrogates.
Even though Sen. Obama has not sought the endorsement of Hamas, he has received it. And, according to McCain, he should have something to say about such an unsought endorsement. The fueling of terrorist fears, ignorant questioning of Sen. Obama’s Christianity, and justifications for the White Vote to question whether a man named Barack Hussein Obama should be the president of a John Smith white country, shows the true colors of our GOP opponent.
What about Rev. Hagee? Well, here is just a tidbit:
Hagee on Hurricane Katrina: "All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that." [NPR Fresh Air, 9/18/06]
Hagee on Islamic Beliefs:
Fresh Air host Terry Gross asked if Hagee believed that "all Muslims have a mandate to kill Christians and Jews," to which Hagee replied, "Well, the Quran teaches that. Yes, it teaches that very clearly." [NPR Fresh Air, 9/18/06]
Hagee on African-Americans:
The San Antonio Express-News reported that Hagee was going to "meet with black religious leaders privately at an unspecified future date to discuss comments he made in his newsletter about a 'slave sale,' an East Side minister said Wednesday." The Express-News reported:
"Hagee, pastor of the 16,000-member Cornerstone Church, last week had announced a 'slave sale' to raise funds for high school seniors in his church bulletin, 'The Cluster.'
"The item was introduced with the sentence 'Slavery in America is returning to Cornerstone" and ended with "Make plans to come and go home with a slave." [San Antonio Express-News 3/7/96]
Hagee on Catholicism:
"Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews." [Jerusalem Countdown by John Hagee]
Hagee on Women:
"Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist." [God's Profits: Faith, Fraud and the Republican Crusade for Values Voters, Sarah Posner]
"[T]he feminist movement today is throwing off authority in rebellion against God's pattern for the family." ["Bible Positions on Political Issues," John Hagee]
Hagee on LGBT Americans:
"The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment." [NPR Fresh Air, 9/18/06]
Hagee on Iran:
"The coming nuclear showdown with Iran is a certainty," Hagee wrote [in 2006] in the Pentecostal magazine Charisma. "Israel and America must confront Iran's nuclear ability and willingness to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons. For Israel to wait is to risk committing national suicide." [The Nation, 8/8/2006]
And what might be McCain’s response to an endorsement from Rev. John Hagee?
"Well I think it's important to note that pastor John Hagee who has supported and endorsed my candidacy supports what I stand for and believe in. When he endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for and believes. And I am very proud of the Pastor John Hagee's spiritual leadership to thousands of people and I am proud of his commitment to the independence and the freedom of the state of Israel. That does not mean that I support or endorse or agree with some of the things that Pastor John Hagee might have said or positions that he may have taken on other issues. I don't have to agree with everyone who endorses my candidacy. They are supporting my candidacy. I am not endorsing some of their positions."
And Reverend Wright was a problem? Let us see what kind of people really don’t have a problem with race, and are willing to take to task anyone, of any background, who is “associated” with someone who makes comments that are seen as offensive.
We shall see!
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Pass me more kool-aid please.
When it is all said and done, and the numbers are put into the books, Sen. Obama will gain about 214,000 more popular votes and 8 delegates more then Hillary Clinton. So, where does that leave us, my friends?
During the lowest point in the Obama campaign, there was no stunning victory in Indiana, as was predicted by the Clinton campaign. After reeling from the loss in Pennsylvania, and having to deal yet again with the never-ending Rev. Wright situation, Sen. Obama beat Hillary Clinton handily in North Carolina, and only lost in Indiana by about 18,000.
But, we must realize that these are only numbers. The leader of the popular vote, the number delegate vote, or even the leader of contests won, makes no real difference. What really matters in this primary race is one thing; Hillary thinks she would be a stronger candidate.
Pass me more kool-aid please.
After Pennsylvania and the Clinton campaign’s 10 million dollar donation boost, which by the way helped them to make up for being 9 million in the hole, all looked liked the Clinton comeback kid status had kicked in.
They touted that such a flood of donations proved that they were supported by the people. And they told us that over and over again.
But wait, as it turns out, she loaned herself another 6.4 of the 10 million. That brings her personal loans to her own campaign to 11.4 million.
Not bad for a “working class” woman of the people. Imagine how much she might have loaned herself if she were an elitist. It’s as if she quietly has become the Mit Romney of the Democratic Party.
But, do not fear, she claims that she is staying in until the end. Be that the end of this primary race, or the end of the Clintonian Era.
During the lowest point in the Obama campaign, there was no stunning victory in Indiana, as was predicted by the Clinton campaign. After reeling from the loss in Pennsylvania, and having to deal yet again with the never-ending Rev. Wright situation, Sen. Obama beat Hillary Clinton handily in North Carolina, and only lost in Indiana by about 18,000.
But, we must realize that these are only numbers. The leader of the popular vote, the number delegate vote, or even the leader of contests won, makes no real difference. What really matters in this primary race is one thing; Hillary thinks she would be a stronger candidate.
Pass me more kool-aid please.
After Pennsylvania and the Clinton campaign’s 10 million dollar donation boost, which by the way helped them to make up for being 9 million in the hole, all looked liked the Clinton comeback kid status had kicked in.
They touted that such a flood of donations proved that they were supported by the people. And they told us that over and over again.
But wait, as it turns out, she loaned herself another 6.4 of the 10 million. That brings her personal loans to her own campaign to 11.4 million.
Not bad for a “working class” woman of the people. Imagine how much she might have loaned herself if she were an elitist. It’s as if she quietly has become the Mit Romney of the Democratic Party.
But, do not fear, she claims that she is staying in until the end. Be that the end of this primary race, or the end of the Clintonian Era.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
The Traditional Media: What is to be done?
The Indiana and North Carolina contests are almost upon us, and how can I express my excitement and anticipation, over the finding out of who will win. Will it be Sen. Clinton, and her 35 years of super-First Lady Experience? Or, could it possible turn out to be the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, with all his over-and-over again played clips, calling out certain issues that might face America?
Beyond all the excitement however, there seemed to be something missing. Something, that no matter how hard I looked at these two über candidates, I could not put my finger on. Then it hit me, that thing that seemed to be so elusive to me, and which had also turned out to be so elusive to the Traditional, was that it wasn’t Rev. Wright that was running against the Clinton/McCain machine. And to make me feel even more out of touch with what was more important to America, it turned out that it was this other guy.
It was actually some guy named Sen. Barack Obama. I vaguely remember this guy from the news media. There seemed to be some question about whether he was a Muslim, or was it a Muslim who converted to Christianity, so that he then could take over America.
Or, maybe it wasn’t that, but that it was that I should question this guy Obama’s intentions because his middle name was Hussein. Hell, even his last name rhymes with that guy that brought us into the war on terror, that guy Saddam. No, that wasn’t it; it was this cave dwelling guy with bad kidneys, Osama. Yea, that was the guy. I even think they said on Faux News that they are distant cousins. Or, was that a guy named Cheney?
The media, with whom the Clinton administration had complained and whined about, until the Traditional did away with any semblance of parity and went full tilt toward Reverend Wright and his former parishioner, has no complaint these days. They are quite happy to march lock step with the McCain camp, in both actions and silence while never standing up in defense of her fellow Democratic Party members, when the Johnny Mac and GOP attacks come a flyin’.
Now, with the never disappearing Rev. Wright, and his recent self-centered and egotistical publicity rounds, the Traditional feels even more emboldened to keep the focus on the non-issue banter going. In all honesty, why shouldn’t they? It really is our own fault. How long have we allowed, hell trusted, the media to keep us informed on what is going on? What are the important things to focus on, and even what the important things that the general public should focus on? How long have we sold our souls for the convenience of the easy thought?
What does the Traditional tell us currently is important? Listen to them, to them all. They tell us that Sen. Obama was a member of this guy Wright’s Church. That he was Sen. Obama’s pastor. That he spent 20 years sitting in the pews. Of course, we have all seen the 15 seconds or so contained in the 3 most played video clips, but what the hey, we all get the idea. Obama cannot be allowed to be the POTUS of the future, due to Rev. Wright, and those 15 seconds.
When the Traditional, (ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, Faux News) decides to look upon an associate of a political candidate that is one thing. But, when the same media comes to the end of whatever it was that made it a newsworthy story in the first place, and then continues to keep the subject of such an inquiry alive in the media when the only new aspect of the story is whatever it is that the Traditional themselves has introduced, then there is within the media a problem.
Did he ever lie about the length of time that Rev. Wright was his pastor? Did Obama ever lie to the American public about Bosnia, in an attempt to bolster his perception of toughness and world experience, only to remake such a history into a misstatement? To admit that he knew that he intentionally told what he knew was not true. No, of course it was not Sen. Obama that said such things; it was Sen. Clinton. How long did that story stay in the media? Maybe that would have made journalism something that it isn’t these days.
How can they justify the continuation of such a news inquiry? Sen. Obama has addressed the issue of Rev. Wright, yet due to the media attention that the Reverend has sought, and been given, the story is still front and center. “He sat in the pew for 20 years”, I can hear them say over and over. The simple answer is that they cannot justify such behavior, and they cannot continue to call what they pretend to do journalism; for it is better known as yellow journalism.
Matthew McGovern
Beyond all the excitement however, there seemed to be something missing. Something, that no matter how hard I looked at these two über candidates, I could not put my finger on. Then it hit me, that thing that seemed to be so elusive to me, and which had also turned out to be so elusive to the Traditional, was that it wasn’t Rev. Wright that was running against the Clinton/McCain machine. And to make me feel even more out of touch with what was more important to America, it turned out that it was this other guy.
It was actually some guy named Sen. Barack Obama. I vaguely remember this guy from the news media. There seemed to be some question about whether he was a Muslim, or was it a Muslim who converted to Christianity, so that he then could take over America.
Or, maybe it wasn’t that, but that it was that I should question this guy Obama’s intentions because his middle name was Hussein. Hell, even his last name rhymes with that guy that brought us into the war on terror, that guy Saddam. No, that wasn’t it; it was this cave dwelling guy with bad kidneys, Osama. Yea, that was the guy. I even think they said on Faux News that they are distant cousins. Or, was that a guy named Cheney?
The media, with whom the Clinton administration had complained and whined about, until the Traditional did away with any semblance of parity and went full tilt toward Reverend Wright and his former parishioner, has no complaint these days. They are quite happy to march lock step with the McCain camp, in both actions and silence while never standing up in defense of her fellow Democratic Party members, when the Johnny Mac and GOP attacks come a flyin’.
Now, with the never disappearing Rev. Wright, and his recent self-centered and egotistical publicity rounds, the Traditional feels even more emboldened to keep the focus on the non-issue banter going. In all honesty, why shouldn’t they? It really is our own fault. How long have we allowed, hell trusted, the media to keep us informed on what is going on? What are the important things to focus on, and even what the important things that the general public should focus on? How long have we sold our souls for the convenience of the easy thought?
What does the Traditional tell us currently is important? Listen to them, to them all. They tell us that Sen. Obama was a member of this guy Wright’s Church. That he was Sen. Obama’s pastor. That he spent 20 years sitting in the pews. Of course, we have all seen the 15 seconds or so contained in the 3 most played video clips, but what the hey, we all get the idea. Obama cannot be allowed to be the POTUS of the future, due to Rev. Wright, and those 15 seconds.
When the Traditional, (ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, Faux News) decides to look upon an associate of a political candidate that is one thing. But, when the same media comes to the end of whatever it was that made it a newsworthy story in the first place, and then continues to keep the subject of such an inquiry alive in the media when the only new aspect of the story is whatever it is that the Traditional themselves has introduced, then there is within the media a problem.
Did he ever lie about the length of time that Rev. Wright was his pastor? Did Obama ever lie to the American public about Bosnia, in an attempt to bolster his perception of toughness and world experience, only to remake such a history into a misstatement? To admit that he knew that he intentionally told what he knew was not true. No, of course it was not Sen. Obama that said such things; it was Sen. Clinton. How long did that story stay in the media? Maybe that would have made journalism something that it isn’t these days.
How can they justify the continuation of such a news inquiry? Sen. Obama has addressed the issue of Rev. Wright, yet due to the media attention that the Reverend has sought, and been given, the story is still front and center. “He sat in the pew for 20 years”, I can hear them say over and over. The simple answer is that they cannot justify such behavior, and they cannot continue to call what they pretend to do journalism; for it is better known as yellow journalism.
Matthew McGovern
Friday, April 25, 2008
What are we to think? What are we to believe?
When a presidential candidate will do anything and whatever it takes to win the nomination for the highest job in the land, what does that really mean? When a presidential candidate will give the allusion to doubts of an opponent’s religion, and put the interests of their own Party aside, in the pursuit of a position that would change the lives of every American, where would it stop?
We have seen a campaign run by a candidate that has changed with every whistle stop. Be that a change coming in the form of saying that their opponent’s qualifications being nothing more then a speech, to answering when all are listening to the same question, a definitive, “Yes! Yes! Yes!”
What are we to think? What are we to believe?
When a candidate, who has taken more money from the special interest groups, PAC’s, and Lobbyist’s, that have plagued Washington for years, and helped allow the very few to govern the American many, what are we to think. Especially so, when the candidate has voiced publicly that they will continue to take these money-with-string donations.
What are we to think? What are we to believe?
When a candidate will say one thing today, and another tomorrow, all in pursuit of a vote that will only keep them in a race that will be decided by, yet again, a small and selective group, what are we to believe?
What are we to believe when a candidate, who had previously agreed to accept the sanctions made by their own party on Michigan and Florida, when they felt that they were a shoe in for the presidential nomination, only to change and decry the Party sanctions when the chips were down. And then, try and tell the American people that they in fact have the majority of the popular vote, even when in a state like Michigan her numbers would include votes for her, and nothing for her opponent.
Win by any means necessary? What does that really mean? Any reasonable American can see what is going on. Any reasonable American can easily understand the problems that would lead to such a person, with such character.
Judgment and wisdom seems to be something that people with feelings of self entitlement do not usually hold. And in this case it seems quite evident that this holds true. This can even be seen when a candidate would take such a serious vote to go to war, so lightly that they would not even read the main committee report on the legitimacy of such a war, before they cast such an important and life changing vote. Seriously, what are we to believe about such a candidate?
In this world, when you cannot and do not know what the future will hold, can you really take a chance on someone who you at least know to be untrustworthy and a person not of their word, but of their word for a vote? I would rather go with a person who will bring together a country torn apart by a president beholden to the same old day to day special interest’s, PAC’s, and Lobbyists, than a candidate that will tell me what I want to hear today, so they may do as the please tomorrow.
Matthew McGovern
The.mcgovern.minute@gmail.com
We have seen a campaign run by a candidate that has changed with every whistle stop. Be that a change coming in the form of saying that their opponent’s qualifications being nothing more then a speech, to answering when all are listening to the same question, a definitive, “Yes! Yes! Yes!”
What are we to think? What are we to believe?
When a candidate, who has taken more money from the special interest groups, PAC’s, and Lobbyist’s, that have plagued Washington for years, and helped allow the very few to govern the American many, what are we to think. Especially so, when the candidate has voiced publicly that they will continue to take these money-with-string donations.
What are we to think? What are we to believe?
When a candidate will say one thing today, and another tomorrow, all in pursuit of a vote that will only keep them in a race that will be decided by, yet again, a small and selective group, what are we to believe?
What are we to believe when a candidate, who had previously agreed to accept the sanctions made by their own party on Michigan and Florida, when they felt that they were a shoe in for the presidential nomination, only to change and decry the Party sanctions when the chips were down. And then, try and tell the American people that they in fact have the majority of the popular vote, even when in a state like Michigan her numbers would include votes for her, and nothing for her opponent.
Win by any means necessary? What does that really mean? Any reasonable American can see what is going on. Any reasonable American can easily understand the problems that would lead to such a person, with such character.
Judgment and wisdom seems to be something that people with feelings of self entitlement do not usually hold. And in this case it seems quite evident that this holds true. This can even be seen when a candidate would take such a serious vote to go to war, so lightly that they would not even read the main committee report on the legitimacy of such a war, before they cast such an important and life changing vote. Seriously, what are we to believe about such a candidate?
In this world, when you cannot and do not know what the future will hold, can you really take a chance on someone who you at least know to be untrustworthy and a person not of their word, but of their word for a vote? I would rather go with a person who will bring together a country torn apart by a president beholden to the same old day to day special interest’s, PAC’s, and Lobbyists, than a candidate that will tell me what I want to hear today, so they may do as the please tomorrow.
Matthew McGovern
The.mcgovern.minute@gmail.com
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Hillary Clinton & the 4th Estate
So, the paper which prints all the news that’s fit to print, has finally seen the error of their ways, and printed some old news. The New York Times, the paper which has endorsed Sen. Clinton, now says that, “By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues like terrorism, the economy and how to organize an orderly exit from Iraq, Mrs. Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don’t like negative campaigning. She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr. Obama.”
The candidate, who claims that what we need are solutions, and not just speeches, is the same candidate who is now emphatically declaring that she has more votes then Sen. Obama. That is, if you listen past the quick phrase, “of all those that have cast votes.”
The math she is using to get to this “more popular vote total” is that ultimately if all Michigan votes for Hillary are counted, and NONE are allotted to Sen. Obama, then she has more votes. And that includes votes from Florida as well. Can she get any more outlandish?
We know what she is implying with her slippery verbosity. Besides her attempt to play the old style political “change the game midway through” strategy, what she is truly showing us, is that she is the same person she has always been, a purveyor of misleading and questionable linguistics.
"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." By now, we all have either seen the media or the Youtube video’s, of her rush for safety under sniper fire arrival, while greeting people and having a poem read to her by a little girl. All she seemed to be able to muster in defense of her outright lie, was, “I misspoke”.
She said she had a "different memory" about the landing. She also said, "So I made a mistake. That happens. It proves I'm human, which, you know, for some people, is a revelation."
However, when the Senator with already questionable trustworthiness, was asked about her Bosnia statements during the questionably “unbiased” Philadelphia presidential debate, she responded, “On a couple of occasions in the last weeks I just said some things that weren't in keeping with what I knew to be the case and what I had written about in my book. And, you know, I'm embarrassed by it.” Embarrassed for being caught in a lie? I don’t know about you, but I would have been ashamed.
To cap off her dismissal, of what was obviously known to be a lie, she states, “It just didn't jibe with what I had written about and knew to be the truth.”
What we have here is a testament to the integrity and honesty of a candidate that has already demonstrated her desire to play old school and republican politics. A candidate who will tell the people, whose votes she needs to maintain her insurmountable deficit, that even though she has received more PAC and Lobbyist money than any other candidate, that she will not let them influence her more than the American people.
Now, you may ask yourself where the 4th Estate is. Where are those journalist and talking heads that have let this one individual incident go truly unquestioned? Why are there no questions in the Main Stream Media about her honesty? Why have they let this just slip into the past, like so many other Clinton misstatements and unfounded statements? Why are we still hearing about Rev. Wright over and over again, even after Sen. Obama has publicly spoken so many times about it, and not a peep about Bosnia? What about Bitter-gate, but not about her lying without even admitting it directly.
The answer to these questions could be many, but the one thing that would be hard to disprove, is that the longer this un-winnable contest for Hillary Clinton continues, the pendants will have more to talk about, and the networks will make more money.
These convenient omissions of parity on the part of the MSM are battles we must fight against. With that, I STRONGLY encourage you to take a stand in defending our candidate, and our movement toward a new, and more transparent, style of government.
We must show the MSM that we are watching, and that we are not happy with what they are doing. If you have any doubts about what they are up to, take a listen to Joe Scarborough, and the way he continuously calls Hillary his, “girlfriend”, or when he cannot say enough how much he, “just loves Hillary.” You think I am kidding? Just watch the show one morning.
And while you are doing that, make a note of the advertisements that you see. Those are also people you can write to express your displeasure at the commentary by the MSM pundits. Tell them, that until things change that you will be boycotting their products, as well as urging your friends and neighbors to do the same.
Write often, but always attempt to be as civil as possible. Overtly, and abusively angry letters, are not given as much credence as those that seem to be rational, serious, and steadfast. These are the times we need to secure honesty and parity from the Main Stream Media.
Matthew McGovern
The candidate, who claims that what we need are solutions, and not just speeches, is the same candidate who is now emphatically declaring that she has more votes then Sen. Obama. That is, if you listen past the quick phrase, “of all those that have cast votes.”
The math she is using to get to this “more popular vote total” is that ultimately if all Michigan votes for Hillary are counted, and NONE are allotted to Sen. Obama, then she has more votes. And that includes votes from Florida as well. Can she get any more outlandish?
We know what she is implying with her slippery verbosity. Besides her attempt to play the old style political “change the game midway through” strategy, what she is truly showing us, is that she is the same person she has always been, a purveyor of misleading and questionable linguistics.
"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." By now, we all have either seen the media or the Youtube video’s, of her rush for safety under sniper fire arrival, while greeting people and having a poem read to her by a little girl. All she seemed to be able to muster in defense of her outright lie, was, “I misspoke”.
She said she had a "different memory" about the landing. She also said, "So I made a mistake. That happens. It proves I'm human, which, you know, for some people, is a revelation."
However, when the Senator with already questionable trustworthiness, was asked about her Bosnia statements during the questionably “unbiased” Philadelphia presidential debate, she responded, “On a couple of occasions in the last weeks I just said some things that weren't in keeping with what I knew to be the case and what I had written about in my book. And, you know, I'm embarrassed by it.” Embarrassed for being caught in a lie? I don’t know about you, but I would have been ashamed.
To cap off her dismissal, of what was obviously known to be a lie, she states, “It just didn't jibe with what I had written about and knew to be the truth.”
What we have here is a testament to the integrity and honesty of a candidate that has already demonstrated her desire to play old school and republican politics. A candidate who will tell the people, whose votes she needs to maintain her insurmountable deficit, that even though she has received more PAC and Lobbyist money than any other candidate, that she will not let them influence her more than the American people.
Now, you may ask yourself where the 4th Estate is. Where are those journalist and talking heads that have let this one individual incident go truly unquestioned? Why are there no questions in the Main Stream Media about her honesty? Why have they let this just slip into the past, like so many other Clinton misstatements and unfounded statements? Why are we still hearing about Rev. Wright over and over again, even after Sen. Obama has publicly spoken so many times about it, and not a peep about Bosnia? What about Bitter-gate, but not about her lying without even admitting it directly.
The answer to these questions could be many, but the one thing that would be hard to disprove, is that the longer this un-winnable contest for Hillary Clinton continues, the pendants will have more to talk about, and the networks will make more money.
These convenient omissions of parity on the part of the MSM are battles we must fight against. With that, I STRONGLY encourage you to take a stand in defending our candidate, and our movement toward a new, and more transparent, style of government.
We must show the MSM that we are watching, and that we are not happy with what they are doing. If you have any doubts about what they are up to, take a listen to Joe Scarborough, and the way he continuously calls Hillary his, “girlfriend”, or when he cannot say enough how much he, “just loves Hillary.” You think I am kidding? Just watch the show one morning.
And while you are doing that, make a note of the advertisements that you see. Those are also people you can write to express your displeasure at the commentary by the MSM pundits. Tell them, that until things change that you will be boycotting their products, as well as urging your friends and neighbors to do the same.
Write often, but always attempt to be as civil as possible. Overtly, and abusively angry letters, are not given as much credence as those that seem to be rational, serious, and steadfast. These are the times we need to secure honesty and parity from the Main Stream Media.
Matthew McGovern
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Bosnia: Not Done Wright!
What else can Barack Obama do? What else can the man say? What can he do to separate himself from “the preacher” and his blathering? Nothing, I would suggest, and he shouldn’t have to do another thing to distance himself from the hate filled and divisive rhetoric. He has done all he can do, and it is sad enough that the Traditional Media will not focus on issues that really matter to the American people.
The one thing that really has gotten pushed by the Traditional Media the last couple of days is the questioning of whether or not Sen. Obama has waited too long to respond about Rev. Wright. Is it too late for Obama, they ask.
But wait; hold on for a sec, what was the Philadelphia speech all about? Did he not answer the Rev. Wright question then, and do so in a most presidential way, standing high above the fray and discussing topics that others would treat as a political 3rd rail. Yes he did, for 5 weeks he did this, but it seems that the Traditional Media was not listening.
But now, after coming out and denouncing and distancing himself, yet again, from the man he had already denounced and distanced himself from, it seems it might not be enough. All the while, I imagine Sen. Obama wishes he had lied, in such a bold faced way to America and the world, about running for cover under threat of sniper fire. That is, lied knowingly to the American people, in an attempt to bolster a theoretical claim to 35 years of presidential experience. If he had, the story would have lasted a week, and then it would have gone away.
What else can the man do, when it appears by all rational standards, that the Traditional Media will not let it go? They have ignored the chance for an honest inquest into the character of a person running for the highest office. A person who admitted knowingly lied to the American people was let off the hook without a peep. A person, that the majority of the American public, does not trust in the first place.
A person, who has sided with the McCain camp, allowed the opposition to attack one of their own while standing silently by, and has at every turn distorted truths to win a position that they obviously feel entitled to, gets a nod, and is allowed to pass on by.
And the Traditional media, which until this last outburst by Rev. Wright, as been the only contributing factor to the Obama-Wright story, now asks if Obama has waited too late to speak about his former pastor. Does anyone else see the insanity of this?
We have trusted the 4th Estate to keep the focus on the government, to bring about issues that truly matter to Americans, and to do so in a fair and impartial manner. They have failed, for the most part, in the keeping this trust secure. They have become complacent, lazy, fearful, and above all political. They have become the lowest form of journalism; Yellow.
Matthew McGovern
The one thing that really has gotten pushed by the Traditional Media the last couple of days is the questioning of whether or not Sen. Obama has waited too long to respond about Rev. Wright. Is it too late for Obama, they ask.
But wait; hold on for a sec, what was the Philadelphia speech all about? Did he not answer the Rev. Wright question then, and do so in a most presidential way, standing high above the fray and discussing topics that others would treat as a political 3rd rail. Yes he did, for 5 weeks he did this, but it seems that the Traditional Media was not listening.
But now, after coming out and denouncing and distancing himself, yet again, from the man he had already denounced and distanced himself from, it seems it might not be enough. All the while, I imagine Sen. Obama wishes he had lied, in such a bold faced way to America and the world, about running for cover under threat of sniper fire. That is, lied knowingly to the American people, in an attempt to bolster a theoretical claim to 35 years of presidential experience. If he had, the story would have lasted a week, and then it would have gone away.
What else can the man do, when it appears by all rational standards, that the Traditional Media will not let it go? They have ignored the chance for an honest inquest into the character of a person running for the highest office. A person who admitted knowingly lied to the American people was let off the hook without a peep. A person, that the majority of the American public, does not trust in the first place.
A person, who has sided with the McCain camp, allowed the opposition to attack one of their own while standing silently by, and has at every turn distorted truths to win a position that they obviously feel entitled to, gets a nod, and is allowed to pass on by.
And the Traditional media, which until this last outburst by Rev. Wright, as been the only contributing factor to the Obama-Wright story, now asks if Obama has waited too late to speak about his former pastor. Does anyone else see the insanity of this?
We have trusted the 4th Estate to keep the focus on the government, to bring about issues that truly matter to Americans, and to do so in a fair and impartial manner. They have failed, for the most part, in the keeping this trust secure. They have become complacent, lazy, fearful, and above all political. They have become the lowest form of journalism; Yellow.
Matthew McGovern
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
The Cult of Her Own Personality
To my fellow Democratic Party American’s; we have a dark specter crossing the landscape of our Party. Divisive primary politics aside, we have a radical element among our membership. This element is becoming more evident with each and every loss that they rack up, in that they are pulling apart of our Party. This element is showing that the pulling apart, and possible fracturing of our great Party, for what seems to be nothing more then feelings of self-entitlement toward the nomination, is a justifiable cost for their goals and aspirations.
"Senator Obama's words are contradicted by deeds. He said he would -- he pledged to take public financing as now Senator McCain has pledged. He has just reversed that pledge." --Hillary Clinton surrogate Lanny Davis, CNN Late Edition, Feb. 17. 2008.
Again, I feel it necessary that we examine the true benefit of tying the hands of a possible Republican challenger, in this case Sen. Obama, when it comes to financing a general presidential campaign. Is it a responsible move for a Party member to actively fight against another possible presidential candidate in such a way?
Is it wise for the Party to allow ourselves to enter into a most important election with one arm tied behind our backs? Of course it is not a smart political move, yet this dangerous element in our Party feels it is fair game to attack a fellow Party member on such a matter. And, in a sense, help the opposition’s presidential candidate’s campaign.
By rejecting public funds, which no major party candidate has done for a general election since public funding for elections was instituted in the 1970’s, Sen. Obama will be putting himself at an obvious disadvantage. Not just because Sen. Obama would have to return more money then McCain. Sen. Obama has raised $6.1 million toward the general campaign, compared to the $2.2 million that McCain has raised, but his grassroots fundraising machine is massive and not nearly close to being tapped out. This would be not just poor politics on the part of Sen. Obama, but it would be irresponsible to the Party to do such a thing.
The Democratic Party has a wonderful advantage against the Republican nomination this election year cycle when it comes to funding. A tool, which if not utilized, would be a politically reckless action on the part of a presidential Party candidate.
What we are facing with this dangerous Party element, is a high ranking member of the Party that is willing, and desirous, that we concede such an advantage for what? Is it for a possible underlying feeling of presidential self-entitlement? Is it a campaign’s last ditch effort to win? A do or die burn fest? Whatever the reasoning behind such a destructive move on the part of Sen. Clinton, it is nonetheless, a very dangerous ploy for such little possible gain.
Is this the kind of politics that we need in the party, let alone in America? The idea which seems to resonate with the American populace is that we need to move away from the typical day to day operations of our political leaders. We need to have a Party, and a Country, that is truly for the people by the people. Not a country controlled by the minority of its citizenry, or by its far right leaning religious minority, nor even by the money-throwing special interest groups, all of which attempt to circumvent the will and betterment of the majority of Americans. No, this is not the type of Party that we should be. This is not what the Democratic Party is all about.
What we are facing is a path that can take us either into a future, which is based on the belief, and yes hope, that we can do truly wonderful things if we pull together, or a future that concedes we have reached the pinnacle of American greatness, and we must go back to the way it was before these disastrous last 7 years. The idea and belief that America should be governed from the bottom up, and not the top down, is a crossroads sign post which we must use to choose our great nations future.
I, personally, will give the benefit of the doubt, and look to what great things we can hope to do with this belief and faith. The past was good, and we were served well by its purveyors, but it was just that, the past. To whatever future we find ourselves living in is yet to be seen, yet the leader of our Party is clear. The time is now to realize the fact that we have our leader for the campaign to reclaim the Presidency of the United States, and we must show unity and support behind Sen. Obama if we are to succeed. The alternative will be more of the same support for the status quo, which is both detrimental, and unacceptable to the American way of life.
-- Matthew McGovern
"Senator Obama's words are contradicted by deeds. He said he would -- he pledged to take public financing as now Senator McCain has pledged. He has just reversed that pledge." --Hillary Clinton surrogate Lanny Davis, CNN Late Edition, Feb. 17. 2008.
Again, I feel it necessary that we examine the true benefit of tying the hands of a possible Republican challenger, in this case Sen. Obama, when it comes to financing a general presidential campaign. Is it a responsible move for a Party member to actively fight against another possible presidential candidate in such a way?
Is it wise for the Party to allow ourselves to enter into a most important election with one arm tied behind our backs? Of course it is not a smart political move, yet this dangerous element in our Party feels it is fair game to attack a fellow Party member on such a matter. And, in a sense, help the opposition’s presidential candidate’s campaign.
By rejecting public funds, which no major party candidate has done for a general election since public funding for elections was instituted in the 1970’s, Sen. Obama will be putting himself at an obvious disadvantage. Not just because Sen. Obama would have to return more money then McCain. Sen. Obama has raised $6.1 million toward the general campaign, compared to the $2.2 million that McCain has raised, but his grassroots fundraising machine is massive and not nearly close to being tapped out. This would be not just poor politics on the part of Sen. Obama, but it would be irresponsible to the Party to do such a thing.
The Democratic Party has a wonderful advantage against the Republican nomination this election year cycle when it comes to funding. A tool, which if not utilized, would be a politically reckless action on the part of a presidential Party candidate.
What we are facing with this dangerous Party element, is a high ranking member of the Party that is willing, and desirous, that we concede such an advantage for what? Is it for a possible underlying feeling of presidential self-entitlement? Is it a campaign’s last ditch effort to win? A do or die burn fest? Whatever the reasoning behind such a destructive move on the part of Sen. Clinton, it is nonetheless, a very dangerous ploy for such little possible gain.
Is this the kind of politics that we need in the party, let alone in America? The idea which seems to resonate with the American populace is that we need to move away from the typical day to day operations of our political leaders. We need to have a Party, and a Country, that is truly for the people by the people. Not a country controlled by the minority of its citizenry, or by its far right leaning religious minority, nor even by the money-throwing special interest groups, all of which attempt to circumvent the will and betterment of the majority of Americans. No, this is not the type of Party that we should be. This is not what the Democratic Party is all about.
What we are facing is a path that can take us either into a future, which is based on the belief, and yes hope, that we can do truly wonderful things if we pull together, or a future that concedes we have reached the pinnacle of American greatness, and we must go back to the way it was before these disastrous last 7 years. The idea and belief that America should be governed from the bottom up, and not the top down, is a crossroads sign post which we must use to choose our great nations future.
I, personally, will give the benefit of the doubt, and look to what great things we can hope to do with this belief and faith. The past was good, and we were served well by its purveyors, but it was just that, the past. To whatever future we find ourselves living in is yet to be seen, yet the leader of our Party is clear. The time is now to realize the fact that we have our leader for the campaign to reclaim the Presidency of the United States, and we must show unity and support behind Sen. Obama if we are to succeed. The alternative will be more of the same support for the status quo, which is both detrimental, and unacceptable to the American way of life.
-- Matthew McGovern
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
