Politics

Keep an eye on “Other Russia.” It seems that Russian President Vladimir Putin is following in the path of so many in term of the corrupting influence of power. Using old style Communist police tactics, Putin has tried to violently suppress those that disagree with his policies. If “Other Russia” has its way, these efforts to stifle dissent would come to an end.
The following is part of the closing statements made by “Other Russia” at the close of their 2006 conference.
“The conference has succeeded in showing that Russia still possesses a civil society capable of defending its rights. It is also clear that this fact has become a special source of concern to the powers that be in Russia. Their goal is the complete and unending control of every national resource and this can only be achieved by repression and anti-constitutional means based on the destruction of civil liberties and the cleansing of the political field. Such methods are certain to drive Russia into the abyss.
Our goal is to combat this destructive trend and this is why they despise us and fear us. Their fear is justified as the tasks we set for ourselves and our country are incompatible with the existence of the present regime. We aim to restore civil control of power in Russia, a control that is guaranteed in the Russian Constitution that is so frequently and unambiguously violated today. This aim requires a return to the principles of federalism and the separation of powers. It calls for the restoration of the social function of the state with regional self-administration and the independence of the media. The judicial system must protect every citizen equally, especially from the dangerous impulses of the representatives of power. It is our duty to free the country from outbreaks of prejudice, racism, and xenophobia and from the looting of our national riches by government officials.”

These principles should attract sympathy and support from any free society. Who can argue with the ideas of federalism, the rights of a free press, support for civil liberties for all, equal protection under the law and a society free of racism? It seems that Mr. Putin has a problem with some of these fundamental rights. There is the lingering cloud over possible Putin involvement in the death of a leading Russian journalist who frequently opposed his policies. His actions this past March in crushing a peaceful rally in St. Petersburg attests to his views on free speech. Whenever you here Putin’s name it seems that he is using some bullying tactic or show of force to make his point. Perhaps that is why he and President Bush get along so well. Neither wants dissent. Of course in the U.S. we still have the right to express differing views, at least for now.

What is interesting about “Other Russia” is that it is made of divergent groups from very pro-westerners to the old Communist party and everything in-between; reminds of the old U.S. Democratic Party before they became “Republicanized” (i.e. controlled by the few).

Of course Putin is supposed to step down next March and it will be interesting if he will concoct a reason to remain in power like climate change being a national security risk. What is known is that pro-Kremlin supporters will do all that they can to prevent “Other Russia” from participating, never mind winning, any important seats in the elections. It should be interesting to watch. Russia has a solid history of dictatorial leaders and it will be interesting to see if groups like “Other Russia” will survive and keep the hopes of a more democratic Russia alive.

My article, “Time for Israel to Take the High Road” (American Chronicle, 4-1-07) has attracted numerous comments. These comments can give a clue as to why peace in the Middle East is not an easy feat to achieve.

One would think from the statements that follow and more that I received on my blog, that we are talking about two separate corners of the globe. Depending upon the faith or nationality of the commentators, two totally separate histories arose concerning the birth of Israel and why tensions exist between the Arabs and the Jews. There is no question that deep seated animosities exist between these peoples. The questions for the rest of the world are, “How do we overcome such deeply rooted feelings? How do we bridge the gap between such divergent views of history?” Read the following emails that I received. I have left the writers names out but their point of view is evident.

“You must be referring to Israeli Terrorism and Power hungry Politicians, I am quite curious why you Christians are unable to accept the History of the Zionist occupation of Palestine, if you will but examine the facts, there is no denying that the occupation of Palestine was not ordained by God ,but by the Brits, Germans,and U.S.,financed by
Jewish bankers supported by the U.S Military and paid for by the American Taxpayer. Which I must say is a high price to pay for Genocide and ethnic cleansing in the name of God. But then again, according to your own Mythology, when the Jews return to Jerusalem then Jesus returns, perfect fit. When until recently the Jews were your enemy after all they crucified your Man. This kind of Hypocrisy is unbelievable, since both Jews and Palestinians are of the same Mythological Father Abraham. And by the way
your present day Jews Are converted Jews not Hebrew which are Semitic and account for about 10% of the World Jewish population, the rest are Euro-Jews or Ashkenazim.
But I agree the Israel must take the high road or it will definitely invalidate your entire belief system that one must abide by the “Golden Rule”, that golden rule is not just for Jews and Christians, Goyums or Infidels, it’s for everyone.”

“There are two Arab requirements that make the plan impossible.

1) It requires giving away Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the spiritual and emotional center of Israel. This plan is a non-starter and the Arabs know it.
2) The right of return means that Israel will accept as citizens a number of people greater than the current population who are currently trying to kill them. This would be suicide.

There is also no reason to believe that the Arabs currently shooting at Israel will abide by any peace proposal short of the elimination of Israel.

The “peace” plan is a publicity stunt designed to hoodwink the western press. And apparently, it’s succeeded.”

These two emails represent a common thread that indicates that opinion is fixed and not subject to easy change. What is uncertain is whether these ideas represent the majority or the fringe. Fundamentalists tend to be more vocal in their opinions. If they are indicative of mainstream thought, the road to peace in the Middle East may continue to be a dead end. Where is the middle ground in these divergent views? Are we destined to dealing with never ending conflict until such time as either side decides to use unspeakable weapons to implement a “final solution?” I am not sure that the world has the luxury of letting this go on and on. But, with these views, is there any wonder why there is no peace in the Middle East?

Arab leaders meeting in Riyadh affirmed their intention to revive their proposed peace plan for the Middle East. This plan was offered at the Beirut summit in 2002. While initially rejected by Israel, the peace proposal is now being reevaluated by Israeli authorities. Now is the time foe Israel to take the high road and end this blight on the international political arena.

The major components of the plan include full recognition of Israel by the Arab states if it returns to its 1967 boundaries; the allowance of the creation Palestinian state; and the return of Palestinian refugees. While the idea of this plan has been around and rejected on numerous occasions, it is now time for the leaders of Israel to put and end to this madness that has taken an untold number of lives.

There can be no question that both Arabs and Israelis have suffered loss of life, homes and economic progress resulting from this never ending conflict. There are certainly unresolved issues that will result if the Saudi plan is adopted but now is the time for the Israeli government to put its pride aside and end the tensions that could one day bring the entire world into a war. The world cannot afford this kind of conflict anymore. There are just too many other pressing issues that demand our attention. This is not to downplay the issues at stake for Israel. It is my personal belief that the Jewish State has been on the end of ruthless, inhumane and terrorists style attacks that are beyond the scope of imagination. And certainly, the misery of this conflict for the Palestinians is no less an affront to a civilized world and no less terrible. We all know that most of this conflict results from power hungry leaders and terrorists whose sole purpose is to eliminate the Jewish State and to create their own brand of religious dictatorship. Those who suffer are the civilians who, just like you and I, would like to raise their families in a peaceful, living and prosperous environment.

However, Israel in the drivers seat regarding peace or war in the Middle East. The U.S. has understood its fears and has stood by her side with monetary and military support for decades and I believe this has been the proper course of American foreign policy. This support cannot go on forever if Israel is unwilling to bite the bullet and to compromise for the sake of a more peaceful world. The Saudi peace plan is not perfect. There is no question that many issues will have to be worked out and fine tuned. All parties involved will ultimately have to give but the opportunity to put and end to the violence in the region is too important to pass up.

A key to the Saudi plan is that it comes from and is endorsed by most of the Arab world. It is not a plan from the West or the U.S. and would have a greater likelihood of being honored by the nations in the area. Most plans from the West have been rejected and are subject to mistrust by the Arab community. Any attempt to impose a treaty would likely fail and history bears witness to this fact. Lasting peace is only achieved when it come from within and forced from without. Will Israel have to make sacrifices? Yes, but the Arab communities will have to do the same.

There are too many issues beating down on the world to continue these types of conflicts. In all probability all nations will be confronted with having to address global climate change. Resources that are being drained in the senseless Middle Eastern conflicts will be needed elsewhere. Populations are climbing, water is drying up, food issues are looming in many countries and who knows what the summer will bring as nature tries to strike a balance to offset rising levels of pollution. In the interest of all people’s, Israel must take the high road and restore peace and order with its Arab neighbors.

The March 17th news story reported by AP’s writer Sarah Karush on the Christian march in Washington, D.C. against the war in Iraq is disheartening. Karush reported that thousands of Christians took to the streets and held prayer services and a candlelight march on the empty White House. A permit for 30,000 marchers has been issued for a march from the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial to the Pentagon.

In the United States people who claim that they are of the Christian faith represent 75% to 85% of the total population. Obviously we are talking in the hundreds of millions who claim to be followers of Jesus and the Christian Bible. The percent “on the march” should be embarrassing to the Christian faith.

Equally disturbing are some of the comments made by several of the marchers. One marcher said that his “opposition to the war developed over time.” Another said that he “toasted the military might of the United States on the night of the attack” (against Iraq). A protester said that the war has been dominated by the religious “right,” who have supported the war but that he is not how he reads the Gospels. A reverend added that, “This war…is an offense against God.”

When the national sentiment was all in favor of the war in Iraq, barely a protest was heard. Now that public opinion has swayed in opposition to the war, we begin to religious rumblings. My take is that the Bible, actually all sacred religious texts including the Qur’an are opposed to violence and war. How does one proclaiming the Christian faith justify opposition developing over time? How does one claiming to be a follower of one of the most peaceful person to walk the face of the planet “toast the military might of the United States?” Is the claim “This war is an offense against God” imply that others wars are not?

Religion has been the cause or underlying reason for many of the world’s ills. While on the one hand the teachings claim that the guiding principle is “love thy neighbor,” it seems that a footnote should be added that says “If your neighbor is of the same religion.” Time and time again religions have remained silent and even promoted war, persecutions, genocides, tortures and division among peoples. They were silent, and some say supported, the Holocaust. They have been silent in Darfur. They were silent in
Rwanda. They have amassed great wealth while touting their charities. Is it any wonder why the younger generations are searching for a new spiritual experience? Religious leaders of times past always said that “you will know people by their works.” If we teach by example, what kind of example are we setting for the world’s youth?

History is only repetitive because for some reason, each generation loses sight of the lessons learned from those that preceded them. A fundamental issue is how do we communicate past lessons to our sons and daughters in a meaningful and effective way? Must each generation experience the errors of their fathers in order to learn? If we are to know followers of any religion “by their actions,” there is little doubt that most faiths have any true believers. The so called, “Christian march for peace” is too little and way too late and is indicative of how many selectively practice the teachings of their founders.

In case you haven’t been paying attention to the latest flap that makes me ashamed to be a leftist, Garrison Keillor wrote an article for Salon.com that got him in trouble with some feminist and GLBT groups, and most notably, Dan Savage. Before you read the commentary, you should read the article. Seriously, read the article. Here is the paragraph that is most often cited as being offensive:

The country has come to accept stereotypical gay men — sardonic fellows with fussy hair who live in over-decorated apartments with a striped sofa and a small weird dog and who worship campy performers and go in for flamboyance now and then themselves. If they want to be accepted as couples and daddies, however, the flamboyance may have to be brought under control. Parents are supposed to stand in back and not wear chartreuse pants and black polka-dot shirts. That’s for the kids. It’s their show.

This has been cited as an argument that Keillor is homophobic, and casting stones at GLBT parents. Dan Savage says:

Where to start? How about that one sentence that somehow manages to pack in six flaming stereotypes about gay men—fussy hair, small dogs, over-decorated apartments, and on and on. Yes, Garrison, all of us gay men—particularly us gay parents!—are decadent, flamboyant creatures. Sure, having kids means puke on your chartreuse trousers and candy ground into your expensive sofa—but, hey, those are small prices to pay if it means getting to show off your chartreuse pants at PTA meetings!
What an asshole. Asshole, asshole, asshole. What Keillor wrote today on Salon is every bit as offensive as Ann Coulter’s “faggot” joke about John Edwards and relies on the same set of cultural prejudices.

This, to me, is a drastic mis-reading of both the article and Lake Wobegone. I did appreciate this commentary, because I don’t think that it is the best-written piece by Keillor, and I think there are some problems in translation from the radio to print. However, the best answer I’ve read so far to these charges of bias is this one, where Alec Blaze provides a spot-on answer to the claims of homobophobia:

We live in a culture where shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and Will and Grace are actually popular among people who are against our rights. There are people who tune in every week to watch Carson “Oh, snap” a straight guy’s wearing green and blue together or Jack fashion-trash-talking Grace, who also go to the ballot booth, pull the curtain tight, and cast a ballot to support an anti-marriage amendment. Keillor attempts to explain this apparent psychic dissonance by pointing out that such shows profit on one stereotypical view of gay men, and that such a view, which is consumed like pornography by many heterosexuals, ultimately has denied and continues to deny us our rights.
In other words, if parenting is all about the kids, then parents have to be able to fade into the background to appropriately put their needs behind their children’s, in the Focus on the Family mindset. The ability to parent gets judged on the ability for someone to be bland. And how can gay men ever be considered bland in a culture that is obsessed with gay culture as flamboyant? Is the reason that so many straight people cling to this stereotype exactly because it affirms their fears that gay men make bad parents? He’s describing how conservatives have drawn two completely separate boxes of behavior, one for what they see as gay men’s behavior and another for proper parents’ behavior. Since their stereotypes don’t allow for overlap of those two boxes, they can simultaneously enjoy camp culture and say they’re pro-gay and go and vote anti-gay, just like Ann Coulter does when she watches a drag show (which she does enjoy) right after writing a column about how gays will destroy marriage.

What about you? What do you think?

Image via The Nick Baker Report

Garrison Keillor, Prairie Home Companion, Salon

So, Fox News apparently decided that they were going to sponsor a Democratic Presidential Primary Debate, in Nevada. However, as a result of Fox News Chair and CEO Roger Ailes’ comments about presidential contender Barak Obama, that debate will not take place. As CNN explains:

Democrats canceled the debate Friday. They said a comment by Ailes during a Thursday night speech to a group of radio and television news directors indicated the network was biased against their party.
“It’s true that Barack Obama is on the move,” Ailes said, deliberately confusing the Illinois senator’s name with that of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. “I don’t know if it’s true President Bush called [Pakistan President Pervez] Musharraf and said, ‘Why can’t we catch this guy?’ ”
Even before Ailes’ remarks, there was intense pressure from the liberal group MoveOn.org to cancel the August event as part of its boycott of Fox.
Ailes has served as a campaign adviser to Republican candidates, including former Presidents Reagan and Bush.

I don’t think there’s any question that Ailes’ comment was out of line, offensive, and disgusting. But were the Democrats correct in completely eliminating the debate? Senator John Edwards pulled out even before this specific incident, because Fox was sponsoring the debate, and there is substantial evidence that Fox is biased against the Democratic party. The better question, even: if Fox is biased against Democrats, should there be a widescale boycott? MoveOn.org argues that “Fox should be treated as a right-wing misinformation network, not legitimized as a neutral source of news.” Are they right?

Image via Movable Theoblogical

Campaign 2008, Democratic Party, Democrat, Barak Obama, Roger Ailes, Fox News, MoveOn

In a move that some are calling “fully intentional, even if ill-advised,” fashion designers Dolce & Gabbana ran - and are now pulling - the advertisement seen here, which is being criticized by National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy, who referred to the ad as “a stylized gang rape.” Newsweek explains:

Is the image glorifying gang rape or tapping into a sexual fantasy? That may still be up for debate in some quarters. But Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women says the ad indisputably promotes violence against women and has put it at the top of their Web site’s page of offensive advertisements. Meanwhile, Stefano Gabbana says that he regrets the way the ad was perceived and insists that he and his partner Domenico Dolce were not intending to demean women. He adds that the image is artistic and was meant to “recall an erotic dream, a sexual game.”
Provocative images have been a staple for D&G, whose other ads have featured sexy scenes including one of a nude man lying down while several other clothed men look on seductively. Another ad, which was pulled last year from British publications, featured women brandishing knives. The most recent controversy broke out last month when the Spanish government demanded that D&G’s ‘fantasy’ rape ads be withdrawn. The country was coping with a wave of crimes against women at the time and public outrage was high. The designers complied, but said that Spain was “behind the times.” That claim got harder to maintain on Friday when 13 Italian senators also demanded that the photo be taken out of circulation. On Tuesday, Stefano Gabbana said that they did not mean to “cause controversy,” and were pulling the ads. But when is an onslaught of attention ever bad for a company looking to stay on fashion’s leading edge?

So what do you think: Should the ads be pulled? What -if anything- should be done if running offensive and controversial ads is a regular feature of the D&G advertising brand? How do you feel about D&G’s assessment that the ads are just “an erotic dream, a sexual game”?

The whole Newsweek article can be found here.

Image (and original link) via Feministing.

gender, advertising, Dolce & Gabbana

The greatest thing about presidential elections is the dirt that’s dredged up by each candidates’ campaign staff. But we are still a year and a half away from the election and already the brawl is starting. While some people do care about the Republican candidates, clearly the star power of the coming election resides in the Democratic party. Hilary Clinton is the traditional Dem favorite and has the experience. Barack Obama is the charasmatic candidate, charming his way into pop culture. Usually the mudslinging comes later but this week the Clinton camp fired off some comments about Obama’s fundraising. This arises from comments made by media mogul David Geffen who suggested that Hilary and former president Bill Clinton were “liars”. Geffen, a Democrat and former supporter of the Clintons, co-hosted a Hollywood fundraising event for Obama on Tuesday. Those who attended the event include: George Clooney, Jennifer Aniston, Morgan Freeman, Eddie Murphy, director Ron Howard, and Dixie Chick Natalie Maines. The event raised $1.3 million. In response the Clinton camp suggested that Obama return the funds after Geffen insulted them. The Obama camp fired back saying,”We aren’t going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters. It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom.” It is clear that the Clinton camp feels threatened by this turn of events. Some have assumed that Hilary would easily hold the Hollywood dollars and support, but lately it seems that Hollywood favors Obama. Here is my read between the lines analysis. Hilary is saying that she doesn’t want to get into this smear tactic battle, but that’s my cash. While Obama says that if Hollywood’s money is good for Hilary, it should be good for me. I do believe that this skirmish is a win for Obama in 2 ways. First, the Obama camp was able to paint the Clintons as big babies and sore losers. Second, it seems that Hollywood is falling for Obama, which could seriously boost his image among those who listen to Hollywood. And by that I mean the “Daily show” generation. Obama is seemingly the “hip” candidate, and while Clinton has the experience and the resume, the “hip” factor may come back to haunt her. Round 1 has begun…

Operation Return to Sender which has netted 13,000 illegals so far has just had a big helping hand by California.

SANTA ANA, Calif. — Federal officials said Tuesday they arrested more than 750 illegal immigrants over the past week in the Los Angeles metropolitan area in what they described as one of the biggest such sweeps in U.S. history.

Which is the biggest roundup of illegals in one sweep so far. They come into our country(United States) and commit crimes. Not all of them do that. Not all Mexican immigrants do violent or drug crimes. However some do. For the ones that do there needs to be a change in the way they are dealt with. They need to sit in a cell for the period of time a United States citizen would. If Mexico doesn’t like it tough. What’s Mexico going to do? Invade our country? That worked real well last time.

Operation Return to Sender doesn’t just target illegal Mexicans it targets all illegal immigrants

The sweep netted illegal immigrants from 14 countries in all, including Mexico, Honduras, Ukraine, India, Japan, Poland and Trinidad.

Now I’m Italian/Cuban. My Cuban family was a refugee family so you know we came here illegally in a sense however we were running from a dictator so I can understand an illegal Iranian but and illegal Mexican? No I can’t understand that if they are willing to do back-breaking labor let them do it legally and pay taxes like everyone else.

Story found on Foxnews

The new hip thing for celebrities to do is annouce that they won’t be getting married until their GLBT friends can do the same. First it was Charlize Theron and Stuart Townsend, then Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. While it probably doesn’t change anyone’s personal actions to know what a celebrity is doing, it does raise a fundamentally political question: What obligations, if any, do people have to make their personal relationships accountable to larger political goals?

In an article that doesn’t provide an answer to these queries but does explore the issue quite poetically, Courtney E. Martin, a writer, teacher and filmmaker living in Brooklyn, writes,

Some of the ways in which love can be radical are quite obvious and tied to institutions. The choice of whether or not to get married in a nation where the status (and its tax benefits) is still doled out discriminatorily is a powerful one.
Reflections on ritual, commitment and partnership are quite radical in a world that is pushing you to link your love to a market, spend conspicuously, be a celebrity-for-a-day no matter what the cost, call it quits half the time. Muting the cacophony of outside propaganda about love and weddings — and listening to your own inner answer — is incredibly difficult and also morally necessary.

Martin explores two historical ways that the notion of love as political has been effective. The first, which parallels the current debate about gay marriage, is the question of interracial marriage. As she says, “If you think that love is finite, think again. Just as your dollar has ramifications well beyond the taste of the organic, locally-grown apple you buy, your devotion can influence whole generations. Look at Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving — the interracial couple that pushed Loving vs. Virginia all the way to the Supreme Court — striking down the last anti-miscegenation law on the books and ushering in a new era of legally-sanctioned love across racial boundaries. June will mark the 40th anniversary of their courage as the Loving Day campaign reminds us.”

The second example is less overt, but powerful all the same:

Anyone who doubts that our most intimate relationship can also be the site of our most impactful activism need look no further than the second wave of feminism. A generation of women insisted that the personal was the political, that they would only be in relationship with those who respected their full humanity, and we — their daughters and sons — are engaged in far more fair partnerships as a result. (Though we have much more work to do if we are to fully realize their dream of equal parenting.)

These two examples, combined with that of the current GLBT fight for equality, prove heartily that at least some groups of people’s love is political. The interracial couple, the gay couple, the feminist couple - those are explicitly political, because they challenge traditional notions of what it means to get married. But do you have to be in one of those groups to have a political love? I would say no. First, because it seems unfair that those groups of people who are already the most marginalized have to take all of the burden of politicization on their own, when their “challenge of notions of normality have freed us all — gay, straight, bisexual, weary of labels — to be more honest about our own complex sexualities.” Second, because allies are incredibly powerful. Do I think that the answer is necessarily to boycott marriage until it’s available to all? No. But I do think that, as Martin concludes, “It is the moment we critically and consciously choose how to shape our love that we move towards freedom.”

Image via Philadelphia and the Countryside

gay marriage, GLBT rights, love

There is so much going on in the world today that each deserves a little comment. One can only hope that the U.S. follows the lead of England and Germany with respect to addressing the issues of global climate change. Our leaders must recognize that just trying not to increase pollution levels is going to lead to disaster. We must reduce CO2 emissions and do it now-not ten years from now. Technologies exist to solve a big share of the problem and we need to tax the record profits of oil companies to put those technologies into the marketplace. If there are any higher costs let them be absorbed by those who created the problem in the first place.
Japan, leave those whales alone. I am sorry that your ship caught fire but what goes around comes around. There is no reason to continue whaling-it’s not like you need the food. Times have changed and you need to change with it.
North Korea may have bribed us but in the end, it is worth the money. Who wants nuclear weapons in the hands of a bunch of crazies? If they abide by the agreement this will be a good thing. By the way, kudos to China and not President Bush are called for regarding this agreement on dismantling their nuclear reactor.
Episcopal Church officials are in a tizzy in Tanzania. I have no problem if a religious sect bites the dust since they are the cause of so much strife among peoples of the world. When will organized religions realize that they are a divisive force for humanity?
What’s with the Orthodox Jews in Israel? Trying to force women to sit at the back of the bus and to dress according to their dictates sounds like the Taliban and civil rights revisited. People who use religion to suppress others are another example of why the world needs a new spirituality that is based on discussion and the exchange of ideas and not dogma. How long must the world endure the insanity imposed by organized religions and the associated violence and abuse that they foster?
President Bush says that he will not talk to Iran. Aren’t things bad enough in the Middle East without the U.S. President refusing dialogue? While Iran is finally beginning to make overtures it would seem to be in our national interest to hear what they have to say. With things appear t be cooling off in North Korea and Iraq in a mess, I guess it is difficult to have an “axis of evil” with just one country being the demon. Hey wait; we could always add Venezuela to the list. They will have to find out the hard way that nationalization is not the panacea to social ills.
Why do we need an anti-missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic? Are we just trying to aggravate the Russians and stir up a new cold war? Who do we plan to defend against-Austria? It seems that the Bush White House is trying to stir every pot imaginable with its so called foreign policy. If the White House is looking for a legacy, let it not be death and destruction and global climate disaster.

Any Minnesotans out there?

After weeks (nay, months) of speculation, Al Franken officially announced today, his last day on Air America, that he’s running for the Minnesota senate seat currently held by Norm Coleman. He’ll be running as a Democrat, and has been incredibly successful as a fundraiser for the past couple of years. You can watch a video of his announcement here, and some information about how to get involved here. Addressing concerns about his qualifications for such a role, the Franken campaign said:

Hi, I’m Al Franken. I’m running for the United States Senate here in Minnesota.
I’d like to talk to you about why I’m running.
I’m not a typical politician. I’ve spent my career as a comedian. Minnesotans have a right to be skeptical about whether I’m ready for this challenge, and to wonder how seriously I would take the responsibility that I’m asking you to give me.
I want you to know: nothing means more to me than making government work better for the working families of this state, and over the next twenty months I look forward to proving to you that I take these issues seriously.

I especially liked this comment: “My political hero is Paul Wellstone. He used to say, “The future belongs to those who are passionate and work hard.” I may be a comedian by trade, but I’m passionate about the issues that matter to your family because they mattered to mine, too. And I’m ready to work as hard as I can to help us build a better future together.” Maybe I like it cause, Guess What? Paul Wellstone is my political hero, too!

I’m not sure he’ll win, but I do know one thing for sure: he’s gotta be better than Norm Coleman.

Al Franken, Franken Senate Campaign, Air America, US Senate, Election 2008

Where is the Love?

According to the Associated Press, President Bush is planning on budget cuts in VA funding in two years. I’m not a political science major, but even I, my busybody neighbor Sue down the street, Jimmy the dull eyed video store clerk, my 12 year old son, and dog Stella know that there is a war going on.

Bush is proposing to cut back on medical care funding for our troops in the midst of injured soldiers returning from Iraq. This proposal would shortchange patriotic men and women who have suffered loss in the name of serving our country. They have given their best for our country. Shouldn’t they be entitled to the best in medical care?

The Associated Press further detailed that the proposed budget cuts would decrease funding in 2009 and 2010 and then stabilize thereafter. This is occurring as the VA is taxed already with increasing numbers of veterans requiring medical attention.

Experts speculate that the cutbacks are an attempt by Bush to balance the budget. I do believe in balancing the budget, Mr. President. However, I think that America has a moral responsibility to our troops to find another way. Even my nosey neighbor Sue shakes her head.

Just 24 hours after announcing his intents to run for the Democratic Nomination and President, Australian Prime Minister slams Obama’s stance on the War in Iraq - and Obama hits back.

I don’t pretend to keep up on politics, or get overly involved, and I hate talking about it. But I can’t help but think that having a candidate that stands his ground and fires back without looking like a long-tailed cat in a room fulla rocking chairs is a good thing.

Obama’s rebuttal and suggestion that the PM put his troops where his mouth is, for “otherwise, it’s just a bunch of empty rhetoric” was spot on. I said it back in 2004 - had Obama run, he’d have my vote. I gotta say, if he keeps on like this, he’ll have it again. He’s definitely the guy to watch, in my very humble opinion.

There are an estimated 295 million English speaking internet users and somewhere around 1,000 million users worldwide. Within the internet there are thousands of groups, chats and forums. What would happen if internet users joined into one overwhelming group to lobby for action to reduce global warming? What would happen if millions of emails were sent, on a given day, to the world’s policy makers? What would happen if the U.S. Congress, the White House, members of Parliaments, Prime Ministers and other world leaders received hundreds of millions of emails, in a single day, demanding that action be taken now to end the pollution of or planet?
This year, Earth Day is April 22nd. An author and blogger by the name of Philip Harris in Maine has come up with the idea of circulating his “OPEN LETTER TO WORLD LEADER ON GLOBAL WARMING” throughout the internet to try to get users to flex their email muscles. His plan is to ask internet users to send his letter, or one of their own, to policy makers on April 22nd and to show decision makers the extent of worldwide concern over the issue of and support of the UN’s recent IPCC report regarding global warming. Mr. Harris’ letter has been featured in the on-line newspaper, The American Chronicle where he is regular contributor. It also appears on his blog, http://philipharris.blog.com and has been run on numerous blogger web sites and Ezines.
Mr. Harris said that,” response to the letter on climate change has been excellent. In just a few short days the letter on the Chronicle received over 4,000 views. Comments to the letter on various blog sites have also been very supportive with only a few negative comments like global warming is a myth and a government plot to take over the world.” He went on to say that he will circulate the letter and this release to internet groups in the hope that they also will pass it along to other groups so that views will grow exponentially. “This could be the environmental shot heard around the world,” he added and he urged forward thing media to help publicize the effort by running this release. The letter he wrote is as follows:
AN OPEN LETTER TO LEADERS OF THE WORLD ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

The debate is over can we get to work now? The UN report on climate change should put a lot of issues to rest and perhaps even silence the censors of the scientific community. The bottom line, this planet is in trouble. Even if we all act now we will are going to experience major climate change. Anyone with a rational mind has known this for decades. We, humans, are causing change and those changes are not going to be very positive for many unless we deal with the problem in a positive way now!
Time is not on our side. What we have sown, we shall reap. The question is do we want to keep planting the same polluted seeds and make matters even more dire? It is unfortunate that most people and governments seem to need a calamity before they will act to solve a problem. Can we afford to wait for another climatic catastrophe before we get our act together? How many will have to die in some weather disaster before we believe what the leading scientists of the world are telling us?
The White House said that they are considering the information but see no change forthcoming in policy. How arrogant! Will the weather killing field have to strike even more on U.S. shores before our so-called leaders wake up? Katrina wasn’t enough so what will it take? We cannot afford not to act because the cost of potential and probable disaster will far exceed any cost to address greenhouse gas emissions now. Retrofit is always more costly than building from the ground up. Exxon’s recent profit statement makes it obvious that money is available from the oil giants to tackle the pressing issues now. What good are record profits without a world to spend them in?
Can we truly afford to wait for governments to ‘study’ the findings and then take years to debate the facts? We are near, if not already past, the climatic tipping point. If the climate begins to spiral out of control, nothing we do will stop it for generation upon generation to come. That, of course, assumes there will even be generations. We have the technology to make change now. Setting standards that will not be met for ten or twenty years will be too late. Look at the rate of industrialization in China. They are using the very technologies that got us into this mess in the first place. Add Africa and Asia to the mix and we are really in deep trouble if we do not halt the use of greenhouse emitting technologies now. The world cannot afford another industrial revolution unless it is based on renewable and non polluting energy sources.
The citizens of the U.S. and the world must demand immediate action on the parts of their respective governments to end the polluting madness. We are talking about our lives and those of our children and grandchildren. This issue is not some distant event. This issue is now!