(–)
Post will be back soon
One of the best things about reading online news is reading the comments that people post about the news. Some of them are really enlightening, some are obnoxious and annoying, and others make you think. Alternet.org has some questionable articles sometimes, and they also have really good articles. But the comments that readers leave are always interesting. Here is another example of an article that is so-so, but the comments are worth the read. Or, you could just read the coemments and and skip reading the actual article. I won’t blame you.
The 2008 Presidential election is already one of the most controversial and publicized elections in recent history. This election could bring dramatic change to the Whitehouse. President George W. Bush has been in office for seven years, and many Americans strongly feel that it is time for a change in American politics. The current candidates in the race are all high profile individuals, and some carry a lot of baggage. Senator Obama could be the first African-American President, Senator Clinton could be the first female President. Senator McCain has his own background - a POW for five years, and some voters claim that he is constitutionally unelectable because of the geographic location of his birth. And Ralph Nader, the man whose values may actually come close to most Americans, but who somehow can never seem to attract a lot of voters (he got about .32 of votes in the last election).
Many people feel that this election is one of the most historically significant in American history. Americans on both sides of the political spectrum have already come out in landmark numbers to vote in the primaries and caucuses, and the media is constantly covering the race. What makes this election so important? A large percentage of voters feel that the current Bush administration has wrought havoc on the United States. The war in Iraq that was supposed to be over quickly has gone on for nearly five years, costing taxpayers trillions of dollars, thousands of American soldiers have lost their lives, and at least hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead as a result of the invasion. The Bush administration has brought about a series of events and laws on the country that have been highly controversial - from tax cuts to the wealthy, more free trade agreements with South America, wiretapping civilians phone calls, to the practice of waterboarding and secret prisons. Many voters feel that the country needs to be lead in a new direction, and the Democrats are pretty confident that they will be in the Whitehouse in a little less than a year.
However, the Republican candidate Senator John McCain, who has been endorsed by President Bush, has a significant following among voters, who believe that the fighting in Iraq must continue until the country is stabilized and no longer poses a threat to national security.
In such a contentious election, it is important for voters to research and choose a candidate that they feel will take the country in the right direction. Below is some information about each candidate, but it is by no means comprehensive and all encompassing.
The Candidates
Senator Barack Obama:
Senator Obama has opposed the war in Iraq since the invasion, and since his arrival on Capitol Hill in 2004, he has voted against legislation to continue to fund the war. As president, Obama has said that he has a plan to withdrawal all combat troops from Iraq in phases. His plans for reconstruction and stabilization of Iraq include empowering Iraqi officials and introducing measures to unite the Iraqi people and government. Such measures include protecting Iraq’s boarders, physical reconstruction and humanitarian aid.
Barack Obama opposes the tax cuts for individuals with higher incomes passed by the current administration, and believes that tax breaks for working families would give workers the relief that they need to help stimulate the economy. Obama supports fair trade, and, according to his website, will push trade policies that support high labor and environmental standards. Obama believes that the federal government should invest in clean, efficient technologies, create sustainable jobs and invest in small businesses and public schools.
Obama believes that the administration should meet with all foreign leaders, especially leaders that have been ignored by the Bush administration. President Bush usually refuses to meet with leaders like President Ahmadinejad of Iran and Raul Castro of Cuba. In several speeches and debates, Obama has said that in order accomplish anything diplomatically, all world leaders must meet and attempt to work together, despite disagreements.
Senator Hillary Clinton:
Senator Clinton voted for the war in 2002 that authorized the invasion, but has since announced her opposition. She has said that she was mislead by Bush’s intelligence reports on Iraq, and would have never voted to invade Iraq had she known the effects that the war would have on both the US and Iraq. Since her initial vote to invade, Clinton has voted to authorize government funding for the war, but also has stated that as President, she would initiate phased withdrawal of American combat troops in Iraq. Senator Clinton’s plan for rebuilding Iraq includes the help of American allies to protect the Iraqi boarder, and funding to help reconstruct the country.
Hillary Clinton also opposes the tax cuts for the wealthy and wants to return taxes to what they were in the 1990’s – raising corporate taxes and taxes on those with higher incomes.
Senator Clinton supports trade agreements that benefit American businesses and workers. In Congress, Clinton has voted for free trade with Oman, Singapore, and Andean nations. In various interviews and speeches, Senator Clinton has stated that she believes free trade and consumer power hold the key to bringing about equality and fairness to the poor and disenfranchised around the world.
In recent debates, Hillary Clinton has stated that she would not meet with hostile foreign leaders if they would not initially agree to make any progress. This February, Clinton used the recent election of Raul Castro as an example, stating that she would not pursue or engage in talks with Cuba until they agree to certain terms, such as improving human rights and working to release political prisoners.
Senator John McCain:
Senator McCain is the more conservative candidate, although many Republican critics have accused him of not sticking true to traditional social conservative issues like abortion and immigration.
John McCain has supported war in Afghanistan and Iraq since the invasion, and continues to rally his supporters to continue to fight the war until it is won. McCain recently stated in a meeting in New Hampshire that American combat troops could stay in Iraq “maybe a hundred years”, and that as long as the war was won, “that would be fine with me.” McCain has consistently voted to authorize and fund the war, and considers it a step in the right direction to fight global terrorism.
John McCain is a supporter of “trade without boarders”, and believes that free trade is the answer to problems caused by globalization. McCain supports NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, and although he has stated that human rights and respectable working conditions should be practiced in every nation in the world, he believes that laws and provisions that mandate humane working conditions should not be part of international trade agreements. In a 1999 speech to the National Press Club, Senator McCain told reporters that he doesn’t “believe in walls… If I were President, I would negotiate a free trade agreement with almost any country willing to negotiate fairly with us.”
Ralph Nader:
Ralph Nader is an activist, attorney and author running as an Independent. Nader opposed the war in Iraq since the beginning, and has called for the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney, accusing them of being war hawks and covering up intelligence in order to gain support for the invasion. As President, Ralph Nader has a plan for a “responsible 6-month withdrawal” from the occupation in Iraq.
Nader supports fair trade over free trade. Nader has stated that free trade is not a “win-win” situation, because American workers lose when corporations export jobs overseas, and foreign workers lose when they are being paid scant wages to do the same work. Ralph Nader is anti-corporation, and has accused many politicians in Washington of being corporate puppets.
Many people in a lot of different political parties would support Ralph Nader, who has been running for President since 1992, but consider him unelectable for various reasons, including his anti-corporate stance, and the fact that most voters have a loyalty to more mainstream candidates. In this high-profile election, Nader does not get a lot of media coverage.
President George Bush said today “it’s time for congress to ensure the flow of vital intelligence is not disrupted.” He is talking about his attempt to pass a law allowing the government to wiretap terrorist suspects phone calls. Without a court order. Well, they are terrorist suspects. But who says that the people who are having their phones tapped are really terrorist suspects? According to many articles that I’ve read, the Bush administration has been wiretapping a bunch of telephone calls. According to Bush, anyone making a phone call to Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq or Lebanon can be considered a terrorist suspect.
How can anyone want this law to be passed? Logically, if someone is going to be considered a terrorist suspect by the government, the government should have a reason for suspecting the individual of terrorism. If they have this evidence, then they can present it to a court to get a warrant to wiretap their phone calls. If this law is passed, then there will be no need to get a warrant, and the government/CIA/FBI will be able to wiretap virtually anyones phone calls, whether they are actually terrorist suspects or not. I mean, if someone complains that Agency-X is misusing their authority and spying on random people, who is going to investigate? Agency-X?
Most citizens want and depend on the government to protect them from terrorism, that is part of it’s job. But spying on the citizens without sufficient evidence, and without a court order wont accomplish anything.
The fact remains that when the President first authorized the wiretapping, it was illegal. President Bush broke the law to begin with, then he wanted to grant immunity to the companies that helped him break the law, and now he is changing the laws so that he can do what he wants.
And back to the President’s statement. “…Ensure the flow of vital intelligence…” Since when has President Bush relied on his intelligence? He ignored the intelligence when he invaded Iraq, he is ignoring the intelligence about Iran. So why is he so concerned about keeping the intelligence flowing if he is just going to ignore it anyway?
I don’t understand Israel. First, they have nuclear weapons. And I would say that they are a pretty unstable country, and that their nuclear capability should scare everyone. If the United States broke it’s alliance with Israel, for whatever reason, why wouldn’t Israel use nuclear weapons against Americans?
But this thing now. Israel’s Prime Minister accusing Iran of having nuclear weapons. What is he trying to do? Provoke Iran into attacking Israel? Starting even more war and conflict in the Middle East? And the only evidence that Israel has is that there is no evidence showing that Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons. That logic doesn’t make much sense to me. Especially since the release of the intelligence report stating that Iran has not had nuclear weapons programs for years.
Lookie:
This is a graph from Al Jazeera English. it is an online poll of anyone from anywhere in the world, of who they think would make the best US president. Most of the votes are from non-Americans, and I just thought it was interesting that the majority of people…. The overwhelming majority of people voted for Barack Obama, with Ron Paul pulling in second. Of course, this is only out of 1230 votes. But still. Whoohoo Obama!
Some conclusions I have come to…
-The war was based on a lie, most people accept this. It isn’t working, and we need to end the occupation and start the reconstruction. Of course we have destroyed the country too much to just pick up and leave. But there has to be a way for us to start picking the country up again. Maybe we could start by employing some of the Iraqi citizens. Maybe funding more schools. Some of the money that is going to build more weapons and to send more and more American combat troops into Iraq could go to building schools and establishing an Iraqi-run police system, and actually working on establishing a stable government. If we are truly the most powerful and richest country in the world, certainly we can do this?
-Iran is not a threat to the US. At least not now. The way we are heading with our foreign polices however is going to lead to trouble. I am not Anti-US, but I see our Iran policies as arrogant and imperialistic. We have forgotten (those of us who know the history) that Iran was a democratic republic until we overthrew their government in our own selfish interests and replaced the elected leader with a dictator. How many of the problems we have with Iran are a result of our interference? We should work to build friendly relations with Iran. I understand the fear of Iran having nuclear weapons. But they don’t have nuclear weapons, according to Bush’s own intelligence agencies. (I personally believe that NO ONE should have nuclear weapons…) So instead of talking about Iran as if it is anti-American, and as if they are preparing to bomb us, why don’t we talk about what we do know for sure about Iran, and why don’t we make plans for peace with Iran? It seems to me that a lot of the reason that Iran is unfriendly and indifferent is because we as a country act as if Iran was a poor uncultured nation with a bunch of terrorists. Whether these things stem from ignorance, or racism, I don’t know. But Iran is a beautiful country with a beautiful language and a very very old history and culture. We need to treat Iran like an actual country, much like we would treat the UK or France or Japan. Iran doesn’t have a perfect government, but the majority of Iranians want democracy. We should encourage democracy and diplomacy, not war, invasion, or sanctions.
- Immigration. I hear a lot of people talking about how bad immigration is for the country, bad for our jobs, bad for our economy, bad for our culture, etc. But what are we going to do about it? Building a fence and deporting people is only going to do so much. And what are these people going to go back to? Most illegal immigrants are here because they are poor and can’t find work at home to support their families. What happens when they go back to their native country. Their kids grow up poor with nothing to do to build a better life. This is probably one of the biggest causes for terrorism. There are so many stories about how America is a great place to go and to work, but if we stop letting people in, we are just adding to the cycle of terrorism that we are spending billions of dollars on to try to stop. The real solution is, I believe, is to find out why so many people are coming to work in our country illegally. There has to be a reason. And the reason is that there is no economic or social justice in these countries. Personally, I see a big link between huge corporations and the increase in illegal immigration. Corporations, to raise profits, will go to the places that can offer lower prices to produce the same amount of goods. I’m sure that this happens in the food industry a lot too. The areas that most of the illegal immigrants come from are rich in land that can be used to grow the food that Americans consume way too much of. So we go in, buy out the natives fields so that we can have cheaper hot dog buns, and the natives are left with only two choices. They can stay in their country and work for the business who bought their fields. If they do this, they won’t get any of the resources obtained from the land that is rightly and historically theirs, and they will be paid such scant wages that they most likely wont even be able to feed and clothe themselves, how about an entire family? They could probably also stay and work in one of the many sweatshops/factories that produce the cheap goods that Americans buy so many of. (Keep in mind that most of these goods are going to be thrown out in a matter of months anyway). The other choice is to move somewhere where they have hope of finding a job that can actually support them and their families. Many of these people move to the US, but a lot are also moving to Europe. It seems like a very unfair, and certainly undemocratic system we have going on here. We go into a country, destroy the peoples land, force them to come to our country to do the scummy jobs that “no American citizen wants to perform”, and then we have a fit because they are coming here. This isn’t just an issue of people coming to our country illegally. This is a CAUSE ISSUE. The reason so many illegal immigrants are coming to our country is because they are forced to because of the destructive and unnecessary habits of Americans. If we want to make changes that will really reduce the number of illegal immigrants, we have to invest in things that will build sustainable economies, both in the US and abroad.
-Health care. I think that most Americans want universal coverage, but a lot of people have concerns. I have heard numerous stories of Americans traveling to Canada to get medicine they need but can’t afford, and I have heard stories of Canadians coming to the US to see specialists that they can’t get into in Canada. I’m thinking that no matter what system we have, there are always going to be some problems. But we need a system that has less problems than the one we have now. For one, why are a lot of drugs so expensive? People NEED insurance, because without it, you’re screwed if you need medicine, or, God forbid, surgery. But the problem is that a lot of people can’t afford insurance, so they’re screwed either way. I don’t think that people should be able to patent drugs that can be life saving so that they can charge exorbitant prices. Of course, the people who discovered and created the drug should be given credit and should be paid, but no one has the right to sell medicine that helps people at such high prices, especially when that money is just going in to the pockets of people who are already millionaires. Something has to be done about this, and this seems to be a non issue with most people. There are certain issues and problems in the system that we have that cause our health care system to be so dysfunctional, and we need to question and rework this system.
-I don’t understand the amount of support that the US has for Israel. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against Jews or Israelis, but I still question our undying support for Israel. Israel HAS nuclear weapons. It seems to be a double standard that Israel can have nuclear weapons, but the thought of Iraq having WMD’s was enough for invasion, desecration and occupation. And what about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Israel is just as much responsible for this nonsense as Palestine, yet our support goes to Israel! If anything, we should remain neutral in regards to Israel and Palestine, and work with both equally to create peace. Sometimes I think that the only reason we support Israel is because 1.) most right-wing Christians will support Israel no matter what because it is “God’s chosen country”, and Palestine doesn’t have anything to do with it and 2.) because we are afraid that if we stop or cut our support, Israel will start bombing us. Maybe even with nuclear weapons. There. I said it.
So now Al Qaida is training children to be terrorists? Is it really Al Qaida? We have been fighting a war on terror for half a decade now. Al Qaida is the group responsible for carrying out 9/11 (we’ve been told), and if their stronghold is in Afghanistan, why aren’t we concentrating our efforts in Afghanistan? Why are we now occupying Iraq? Occupation is not progress. We need to end the occupation and start the reconstruction if we are going to see any progress. It can be tearfully upsetting to see small children, some 6 years old, in terrorist training videos, wielding guns and setting off bombs. Is this what the world has come to? I’m afraid that we have started a mess that is going to be incredibly difficult to clean up. That much has been obvious for a long time. But this news just takes it to a new level.
The Shock Doctrine - The Rise of Disaster Capitalism
By Naomi Klein
+
The Shock Doctrine, by Naomi Klein, was originally about the current crisis in Iraq, and the role privatization and deregulation is playing today in Iraq, but quickly expanded to address the very causes of this frenzy of privatization, and perhaps even the war itself. The Shock Doctrine delivers stunning and disturbing stories and histories of nations all over the world from the US to Argentina, Bolivia, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Russia, Poland, and China, and the role that the economics that Klein calls “the shock doctrine” has played, and it’s effects. Everyone knows that the US is a huge force in the global economy, but most people don’t realize what kind of force it has been in recent history, and what the effects of Milton Friedman’s theories about total deregulation and privatization has been, not just in the US, but all over the world.
Klein begins by discussing the electroshock therapy techniques used by psychiatrists in the mid-1900’s that were adopted by the CIA for various reasons (most importantly torture). Electroshock therapy is an attempt to blank the mind and open the possibility to recreate a persons entire personality from scratch. Klein asserts that this kind of shock treatment not only works on an individual, but on entire societies. Both 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina served as catalysts that shocked entire societies and paved the way for dramatic economic reform. The radical decisions and actions taken by the US government following both of these events has been unprecedented and, indeed, shocking to the general public. Many of these policies are overlooked by the media and swept under the rug by politicians, but they have great impact on great numbers of people. Public schools are rapidly disappearing in New Orleans because of the shocking aftermath of Katrina, and new chartered private schools are being established, much to the dismay and alarm of the majority of New Orleans citizens, most of whom are still haunted by the damage wrought by the hurricane. Now they have to worry about whether or not they can afford to send their children to school. Compulsory education is a cornerstone of American society, and it is being undermined by individuals for a profit.
The Shock Doctrine digs even deeper into the histories of radical economic deregulation in “shocked” countries like Bolivia, Poland and Sri Lanka, where the essential US aid was given only if the countries adopted economic systems that benefited the rich Western investors, not the citizens who needed it to survive. Of course, most fiscal conservatives don’t believe that their practices and theories of mass-deregulation and free trade hurt society. They openly claim that they essential for democracy. Naomi Klein, after years of research, claims that “fundamentalist capitalism” is an enemy of democracy, and cites numerous countries and specific examples from all over the world to prove her point. This book is well written, well researched and well cited, and is probably one of the most relevant books of our time.
Links:
I don’t understand why everyone is tip-toeing around about Christmas, a.k.a. “The Holidays”. I know that all people don’t celebrate Christmas, but it’s getting kind of obnoxious when people everywhere say stuff like “I don’t know if you celebrate Christmas, so I hope I don’t offend you.” What? How would that offend anyone? I don’t celebrate x, but I’m not going to be offended if someone says “Happy x” to me. People are different, and we need to celebrate that diversity, not clump it all together and trash culture to include everyone. Christmas has some roots in Christianity, but so does our country. I don’t believe that this is, or should be, a “Christian nation”, and I firmly believe in separation of church and state, but it seems like to just toss Christmas because it’s a major holiday for Christians and that it might offend someone seems ridiculous. If you celebrate Christmas and want to say “Merry Christmas”, go for it. If you celebrate Kwanzaa and want to say “Happy Kwanzaa”, shout it out. Same thing with anything else. We have such an eclectic culture, and we should celebrate diversity, not blanket it over. “Happy Holidays” doesn’t offend me, but it offends me when people assume that I’m going to be offended because they celebrate Christmas or something.
