"Georgia is an ancient country, at the crossroads of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and one of the world’s first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion."
That is attributed to John McCain as he was talking about current developments in Georgia (the country) and as it was reported in " McCain warns Russians of "severe, long-term negative consequences" ." So, does that imply that John McCain actually favors Christianity being adopted as an official (state) religion? I hope not, but it certainly sounds like that to me.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Legitimate questions
It makes me sick how quick everyone, lead by the media hungry for sensations, seems to be to bury the questioner for asking legitimate questions.
Look at this latest episode with Gen Clark. Without quoting, it seems to me that at least one of the things he is saying, or at least is implying, is that we should all be more informed on what exactly that "military experience" of Sen McCain is or was. What is wrong with wanting to know the details in order to make educated, intelligent decisions? Especially since that experience is often used as one of the important arguments for his fitness to be the president. Should we just follow what some authority out there says? I do not think so.
But no! Gen Clark is now atacked from all sides for asking clarifying questions about Sen McCain's military experience or his service to the country, you name it.
I think Gen Clark's questions were legitimate and many of us, including myself, might want to know the answers to them. Plus, from what I know, he did not volunteer that subject, he was apparently asked by an interviewer to offer his judgment on the value of Sen McCain's military experience.
When making such crucial decisions like electing a president, it would be very irresponsible not to ask those sorts of questions -- not as challenges disputing the significance of the claim, but rather as requests for more information.
Unless, of course, we are supposed to remain ignorant and elect the president based on how much we (dis)like the nominee in general or on how many signs we see in our neighborhoods supporting a nominee. In either case, people get presidents they deserve.
Look at this latest episode with Gen Clark. Without quoting, it seems to me that at least one of the things he is saying, or at least is implying, is that we should all be more informed on what exactly that "military experience" of Sen McCain is or was. What is wrong with wanting to know the details in order to make educated, intelligent decisions? Especially since that experience is often used as one of the important arguments for his fitness to be the president. Should we just follow what some authority out there says? I do not think so.
But no! Gen Clark is now atacked from all sides for asking clarifying questions about Sen McCain's military experience or his service to the country, you name it.
I think Gen Clark's questions were legitimate and many of us, including myself, might want to know the answers to them. Plus, from what I know, he did not volunteer that subject, he was apparently asked by an interviewer to offer his judgment on the value of Sen McCain's military experience.
When making such crucial decisions like electing a president, it would be very irresponsible not to ask those sorts of questions -- not as challenges disputing the significance of the claim, but rather as requests for more information.
Unless, of course, we are supposed to remain ignorant and elect the president based on how much we (dis)like the nominee in general or on how many signs we see in our neighborhoods supporting a nominee. In either case, people get presidents they deserve.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Mrs. Michelle Obama
Mrs. Obama is fabulously sexy - I'd just love to have a hug with her (and dance a tango). Her demeanor reveals a thoughtful, self-confident, kind person. She is both deep and child-like in the same time. And then she is also beautiful. Her walk is, well, quite inspiring. What an attractive combination! How about Michelle Obama to represent the US, a new US in the world! Yes!
Too bad that the Pres and the VP can not, by law, be from the same state. (take a look)
Too bad that the Pres and the VP can not, by law, be from the same state. (take a look)
Friday, June 13, 2008
To Sen McCain
According to CNN:
Thank you Sen McCain for being deligent about finding things out about other people, finding the truth, but, your conclusion above is preposterous. "Media and observers" should be the last in line of decision makers regarding the matter.
The sad part is that those in the media and those observers do seem to feel called upon to indeed make the decisions mentioned.
"I think people in the media and observers will make a decision as to whether these people, individuals, should be part of Sen. Obama's campaign," McCain said in Boston, Massachusetts, on Thursday [June 12, 2008].
Thank you Sen McCain for being deligent about finding things out about other people, finding the truth, but, your conclusion above is preposterous. "Media and observers" should be the last in line of decision makers regarding the matter.
The sad part is that those in the media and those observers do seem to feel called upon to indeed make the decisions mentioned.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
I still can't figure him out
Sen Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for the Pres of the USA, gave a speech to the campaign staff in Chicago, Feb 6, 2008. It was nice to see him talk to those who work behind the scene to keep that train moving.
But, I am still not sure I know who he really is under his skin. I hope we get to know him better in the months to come.
But, I am still not sure I know who he really is under his skin. I hope we get to know him better in the months to come.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Obama and political progress
What does Obama's nomination and potential presidency mean for the evolutionary progress in the political life of the US and the world? If you listen to him carefully, you will quickly realize that he is no progressive beyond his rhetoric and even there he slips. Take his speech to the AIPAC Conference June 4, for example, where he said, among other things:
"Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper – but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided. " (read).
First off, why does he feel called upon to have an opinion on the state of State of Israel and that of Jerusalem? It seems to me that a progressive thinking would direct one to favour those affected, those who live in the affected region, to have a safe way of deciding for themselves what it is exactly they want and how they want to organize their lives. The best a world power can and perhaps should do is support a process which would yield a just solution whose architects would be those affected by it -- a process called self-determination.
Second, even his statement itself carries a contradiction. Unless Obama favours undivided Jerusalem to be a capital of both a Jewish and a Palestinian state (not an impossibility), how can he argue for a "contiguous and cohesive" Palestinian state which excludes Jerusalem?
Another example. On many occasions, he felt a need to declare that he was not a Muslim (I wish that his pronunciation of the word "Muslim" was more in agreement with that that I heard many Muslims prefer). I was hoping that at least once he would take an opportunity to point out that nothing would be wrong with him being a Muslim, anyway. Or, is that not the case?
Those examples point out that even his much-trumpeted speeches leave out much to be desired. So, where are the opportunities for true progress?
Just like Jesse Jackson's presidential campaign did in 1988, Obama's campaign attracted many new voices and included them into the political process. And herein lies an opportunity. This mass of grassroots volunteers can be transformed into a formidable movement which could provide a progressive alternative to a status quo. But, the initiative can not be expected to come from Barack Obama for a number of reasons. If it were to materialize at all, this new, progressive, alternative movement must remain genuine, it must grow from the bottom -- it must self-organize.
"Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper – but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided. " (read).
First off, why does he feel called upon to have an opinion on the state of State of Israel and that of Jerusalem? It seems to me that a progressive thinking would direct one to favour those affected, those who live in the affected region, to have a safe way of deciding for themselves what it is exactly they want and how they want to organize their lives. The best a world power can and perhaps should do is support a process which would yield a just solution whose architects would be those affected by it -- a process called self-determination.
Second, even his statement itself carries a contradiction. Unless Obama favours undivided Jerusalem to be a capital of both a Jewish and a Palestinian state (not an impossibility), how can he argue for a "contiguous and cohesive" Palestinian state which excludes Jerusalem?
Another example. On many occasions, he felt a need to declare that he was not a Muslim (I wish that his pronunciation of the word "Muslim" was more in agreement with that that I heard many Muslims prefer). I was hoping that at least once he would take an opportunity to point out that nothing would be wrong with him being a Muslim, anyway. Or, is that not the case?
Those examples point out that even his much-trumpeted speeches leave out much to be desired. So, where are the opportunities for true progress?
Just like Jesse Jackson's presidential campaign did in 1988, Obama's campaign attracted many new voices and included them into the political process. And herein lies an opportunity. This mass of grassroots volunteers can be transformed into a formidable movement which could provide a progressive alternative to a status quo. But, the initiative can not be expected to come from Barack Obama for a number of reasons. If it were to materialize at all, this new, progressive, alternative movement must remain genuine, it must grow from the bottom -- it must self-organize.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Why Obama?
What makes it marginally of interest for me to support Sen. Obama's presidential campaign has nothing to do with his proposed and/or supported policies (he often manages to make me think twice about supporting his campaign with his extremist pronouncements like "I will keep embargo on Cuba"), but rather the perceived effect the campaign has had on the grassroots organizing.
The organizing momentum of the campaign may result in a genuine and sustained grassroots movement for a positive change, regardless of how unprogressive Sen. or Pres. Obama may end up being, which may really live on as a bottom-up sort of phenomenon, the only one that can work for the masses.
Keep up the pressure.
The organizing momentum of the campaign may result in a genuine and sustained grassroots movement for a positive change, regardless of how unprogressive Sen. or Pres. Obama may end up being, which may really live on as a bottom-up sort of phenomenon, the only one that can work for the masses.
Keep up the pressure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)