Obama thinks it is a question of attitude. The Republican attitude that most of us, even Democrats, have absorbed stresses the importance and value of competition in everything. Just listen to Hillary Clinton whose every other word out of her mouth is "fight." If you want anything you must "fight" for it. If you are mistreated you must "fight" for your dignity. If you are losing your job you must "fight" to keep it.

This attitude of rugged and self-interest competition is everywhere. Gregory Rodriguez, who I thought would be sympathetic to Obama's explanations, wrote an op-ed piece in the L.A. Times that shows he does not get the real Obama message.

Rodriguez says that Obama had orginally asked for a racial dialogue and now that Rev. Wright has started one Obama doesn't like it because it is not going the way he thought it should. According to Rodriguez, we can't bring races together simply by talking:

But lovely as it sounds, apart from the elite spokespeople, that's not the way race is lived and felt in America. For most people, it's not about statistics or civil rights cases, politics or access to healthcare. It's not even about redress or reconciliation. Rather, it's about something much deeper and more visceral, less quantifiable and more heartfelt. It's about memories and respect, hurt feelings and long grudges, fears and expectations.

All of this is true and well said. But this is what Rodriguez does not understand: Yes, dialogue between groups that believe in the primacy of competition will engender the type of talk indulged in by Wright. This attitude leads to constant emphasis on self interest and to our "fighting." It leads to the vituperative language of Wright. This in turn, is replied with more vituperative language.

This is not the dialogue that Obama seeks. Obama, first and foremost, wants to change our attitude towards each other, our constant adherence to our self-interest, our idea that we must "fight" for everything and that what benefits you hurts me. Once this happens we will talk to each other with more empathy and understanding. We will get to know each other better. Instead of "fighting" we will be enjoying each other. The idea of race would fade.

It is this type of dialogue with empathy that Obama stands for. If he is elected president U.S. will go a long way toward healing the racial divide.

This is certainly not the first time the White House has argued that staff are protected by Executive Privilege from testifying before Congress. In mid-July 2007, Bush extended the mantle of executive privilege to Josh Bolton and Harriet Miers who had been subpoenaed to testify regarding the dismissal of U.S. attorneys. At that time, it was argued that Bush had the right to deny Congress access to White House records, documents and staff.

This is consistent with the Bush administration structuring of the President as a "Unitary Executive." This is essentially an argument that the President of the United States has the authority to act unilaterally and without the oversight of Congress. The administration has crafted these powers largely through the use of thousands of executive signing statements, and by usurping powers without response from the Congress. The clearest statement of this "authority" was issued in an executive signing statement appended to the "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005" - signed into law March 9, 2006. In part, that statement read:

The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.

The executive branch shall construe section 756(e)(2) of H.R. 3199, which calls for an executive branch official to submit to the Congress recommendations for legislative action, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as he judges necessary and expedient.

Like the signing statements before and after it, the Congress did not challenge the administration on its overreaching grab for power.

The Unitary Executive theory of the Presidency does not extend to the Vice President - at least not according to anything I have read. Therefore, for Cheney to argue that Congress has no authority over him is not legitimate even under that illegitimate theory. What this does represent is the further carving out of aristocratic powers by the administration. Apparently Cheney feels that not only should the President/King be unfettered with checks and balances, but so too should the Vice President / Heir Apparent. His refusal to allow Addington to testify is a furthering of his arguments that the Vice President's office is a "hybrid" and therefore unfettered by Congress. An argument he made in 2007 to avoid releasing classified documents to Congress last year.

Last year, Congress voted to place both Bolton and Miers under contempt of Congress. As far as I know, that has had no consequences whatsoever. One assumes they will issue the same to Addington.

The claims of freedom from Congressional or Judicial oversight are a stalling tactic at this point. With the lack of speed with which the Congress has progressed, it is a tactic that is likely to work. Unfortunately, the fact that the Bush administration has been able to effectively rewrite the powers of the presidency will pass on to the next president - and on into the future. It has done more than set a precedent of presidential hubris. It may well have carved away the balance of powers.

See King Bush - The Unitary Executive for a more extended discussion of the Unitary Executive, and critical signing states Bush has employed.

It's certainly must be flattering to us for folks to imply that we're programmed like machines, indoctrinated like cult members. I mean certainly, Obama's supporters must somehow be diminished in their capacity to think for themselves, right, unlike all those free thinkers out there who repeat their candidate's talking points and take their cues from talk radio and bogus e-mails.

And of course, it's oh so egalitarian to imply that the only reason why a man of color in this campaign can come so far is that people are simply giving him affirmative action. Nice, we're trending into racist dogwhistles and not giving credit to a campaign that upset the Clinton political machine.

And who knows how many times I've heard people in the media, the pundits and the journalists wondering whether Obama's message is going to go over people's heads, whether people are moral enough to look past the old politics, speculating on the damage that's going to be caused without even a single ounce of input from the people who are supposed to be confounded or who are supposed to disappoint everybody on election day. The pundits always say: "These people will be offended", "These people will turn away." And do they? some do, but despite everything, Obama closes the leads, even wins contests he wasn't supposed to.

That just makes his rivals angrier. How dare he not peform mediocrely!

The truth is, ours is a political system built as support for mediocre candidates, for a lackluster politics that encourages people to feel alienated, encourages people to feel apathetic. The whole purpose of the philosophy of elitism that drives our politics is that people are morons, that they're not worthy of being treated as anything but a mob of ignorant, fickle, underacheiving, decadent fools that should have the decency to follow the old patterns of appropriate political behavior. The elites among the Republicans like to claim their politics was an antidote to this, that they're in sync with the common folk, but the truth is, their politics was an intensification of that elitism, made worse by their false sympathies.

They encouraged underachieving, encouraged ignorance, celebrated Americans making themselves fatter, overspending. They might talk about religion being so important, but at the same time they celebrated an ultra-competitive, hyperindividualistic, selfishly self-interested way of people carrying out their dealings. They not only gave more of a voice to special interests in their time in power, but they also fed their own people into that racket to make sure the spoils of such victories came back to them, reinforcing their strength.

That many Democrats joined in this and helped perpetuate this has been an irritation among our rank and file. It's something we settled for in light of the political situation, but it's never sat well with us. Again in 2000, 2002, and 2004, we made our sacrifices. Rather than shoot for the top, we settled for the same old BS. We lost each time.

In 2006, we got sick of the compromises and more aggressively pursued the political advantage. We backed progressive values, we pushed our party as a serious alternative, and didn't stop our strategy at the borders of the red states. Lo and behold, we won! During that contest, who was it who supported the most candidates for the legislature, who spread the wealth? Who is it that now seeks to use that strategy again to both support his party and gain his presidency?

Some knock Barack Obama for his ambition. Do I knock him for it? Why should I? Is this not the time to be ambitious? We're sick of politicians who look at this sort of situation and go "Let's just stick with what we have." Sure we might lose. That's the risk of actually competing. Elites like to keep power, and don't like stepping into situations where support is uncertain and dependent upon their cooperation. They don't want to have to bother with us. They like their hierarchies untangled, feedback filtered for their consumption, the public nice and docile.

Trouble with this mentality is how much it invites these folks to bubble themselves off.

Both of the other candidates have bubbled themselves off quite fine, thank you very much. McCain may be revered by some as a maverick, but he's essentially reversed many of his long-time position, selling himself out to the hardline power centers of his party. He sold himself out to the Religious Right, the Wall Street Republicans, and intensified his already considerable support for the Neocons. He reversed himself on abortion, started calling the war a success, and never really stopped his long time associations with lobbyists. He's not free from the special interests, he's surrounded by them, and no absence of earmarks can change those facts. He's no breath of fresh air. His political campaign is nothing new. His views are stock party views. He's like Tom Cruise: he's not a real Maverick, that's just his scripted role on screen.

Hillary Clinton's biggest wins have been in the states with the strongest, deepest party support. She was born, politically, on third base, and congratulates herself for having hit a triple. However, her faction in the Democratic party structure, one that does not necessarily correspond to a real-world voting bloc, is not at all well-liked by the party's rising activist core. The feeling, it seems, is mutual. She's running this campaign on experience, on electability, claiming that Obama is just too much of an unknown, that he's too ambitious, that he doesn't fight bitterly enough. She's running on toughness, but keeping a tough image has been a problem for her, and not in that she fails to do it. She succeeds, but by engaging in the kind of politics that has really worn out its welcome for many Democrats, not to mention many Americans. The Clintons are also well connected to the long-loathed strategy of triangulation, where the party attempted to neutralize the Republican advantage by coming up with slightly different versions of Republican policies. The fact of the matter is, though, that the Republicans are out of favor. So what good lies in triangulating now? Old habits die hard, though, and nobody likes to admit obsolescence.

People wanted a leader like Obama before Obama even showed up. They wanted a charismatic candidate. The want a strategy whose ambition matches the party's rising fortunes, rather than reflects its more defensive past. They wanted a candidate who doesn't have a political policy of giving into the other side on important matters, and in their hearts, they love the notion of a candidate who can bridge the gap between the two parties. A real uniter, not merely somebody who talks about uniting people but whose idea of unity roughly resembles that of the Borg Collective: full assimilation into the party.

It helps things that Barack Obama's campaign involves people so much at a grassroots level, that it's funding, it's style of spreading the campaign relies on people's own initiative. This is a campaign, it seems that happens with you, rather than just to you. That, perhaps, is why charges of elitism have such a hard time sticking to Barack Obama. Wouldn't a true elitist look down his nose at such rabble-rousing tactics, at a campaign more dependent on the movements of ordinary folks than any in recent history?

The mediocre politicians, wedded to the politics of the past, reflect that in the disdain they have for this untraditional campaign's supporters. It's been a long time since a candidate's been capable of arousing such fierce positive support. Now of course, for some this elicits fears of another betrayal, another leader whose charm hides a deeply flawed personality and politics. Ironically enough, I think the reason people don't trust Barack Obama relates to the husband of his current rival: Bill Clinton. He too was a young, charismatic politician who at the end of his second term had left his own party bruised, battered, and out of the majority. Bush, to a lesser extent, inspires similar fears about diehard support.

If being young and charming were all that Obama had going for him, I'd be reticent, too. The reason why I would say that those fears were unwarranted is the fundamental creativeity of the Obama Campaign. Both the Bush administration and Clinton's were pros at working within the confines of Reagan Politics, the paradigm of the Reagan Revolution. Obama seems more like a Reagan-style game-changer than a Bush or Clinton-style opportunist or snake-oil salesman. He owes less to the old system, and in fact seems poised to bring about its successor. Given where the politics of the last generation or so has landed us, it couldn't be better time.

It's time to leave behind mediocrity, to believe that Americans deserve better than they'e been getting. It's time for a politics that lives up to what can be great in our society, rather than sinking down to what is worst or blandest about us. America has better things to do than to wait another few years to start bouncing back from this horror-show of a decade.

Ninety-two percent of farm-dwellers derive either all or most of their income from sources other than farming or subsidies....The other 8 percent — commercial farmers who derive most of their income from farming and subsidies — earned an average of $200,000 last year — an increase of 22 percent from 2006. This year, income for this group is projected to hit $230,000 — another 9.3-percent increase. The USDA, which calculated these estimates, reported last year that the windfall for commercial farmers is due in large part to "demand from the rapid expansion of ethanol production."

....Right now, Congress is attempting to renew farm subsidies for five more years, even though the vast majority of the payments go to farmers who are making six figures a year. The chief obstacle is President Bush, who has threatened to veto the bill in its current form. Bush, who signed the massive 2002 farm bill, has set an unbelievably low bar for Congress to clear, calling only for modest spending restraint in the wake of record farm incomes. Yet Congress cannot even bring itself to cap payments to millionaires, among other simple reforms.

There are at least 2 things terribly wrong. The first is obvious. People earning more thant $200,000 a year are making money off the government - that's us - for doing and offering nothing.

The second is that subsidies are being spent for the "rapid expansion of ethanol production." This obviously is catering to corn states who are using corn to make ethanol. These states don't need subsidies. Business is good, thank you. Besides, corn ethanol offers almost no improvement in carbon dioxide emissions. Furthermore, corn subsidies have raised food prices all over the world.

We daily annouce to the world that we believe in free trade. What a farce. The only reason U.S agribusiness gets the business is that the many subsidies of corn and ethanol make their corn and other food products artificially cheaper. Take away the subsidies and poor nations would be able to sell their farm products and make a living.

I'm happy to see that President Bush has threatened a veto - the only veto I approve of.

The free market has been suspended by the Congress/agribusiness coalition. Make agribusiness earn its money and restore the free market.

Clearly a part of the Pentagon effort, Bill Gates is trying to manipulate the Presidential election in order to get someone more sympathetic to the war elected. He says that troop levels will be coming down in 2009 for sure, (2009??? After we have committed ourselves to another vicious hawk, if he gets his way. That is when troops will come home???). He can not see that far ahead in such an unstable region unless he is willing to end this war. He is not. Further, he promised troop reductions after the "surge." There are more troops there now than before the surge. Bush is so articulate that I hate to correct his regime's English, but that is called a permanent escalation - not a surge. See: "I'm not saying when in 2009, but I believe we will have a lower number of troops in Iraq in 2009," That is called a bait and switch. Promise troop reductions, get a hawk elected, then say oops and create a new slogan. When people ask awkward questions about troop reductions, instead of saying; "Victory in Iraq", say; "When hell freezes over, we can walk on water."

Even though Gates has a political agenda for the upcoming Presidential election, the truth must out - and here he tells like it is. See: But he said that "there are no exit strategies". "There are no exit strategies"!!! At last this Regime admits that it has led us into a trap. What ever happened to: "When the Iraqis get an erection, we will lay down" or stand up or stand down or something." What ever happened to "Victory in Iraq." What ever happened to "Mission accomplished." "There are no exit stategies"!!! But any liberal that develops an exit strategy must be a terrorist loving, defeatist, cut and running, surrender monkey... Now, I don't claim to be no military genius. (That is why I use double negatives.) But I think, as a general rule of thumb: When you are trapped in a kill zone, it is best to git to hell out of it. Iraq is a kill zone. We are trapped in Iraq. We need to get out. There needs to be an exit strategy. Every time the Democrats try to present one they are attacked. Without an exit strategy, and, refusing to consider exit strategies, the Republican plan for Iraq is no plan. Their plan is to cling to a security blanket and cry for Mommy. Problem is, the Republicans claim to be the world's Daddy. So Daddy is crying for Mommy to save him... ...pretty wimpy...

By the way, "hell" is not a swear word for me because I am an atheist. For me it just an innocent metaphor for a bad place. Fornicate Under Carnal Knowledge only describes human sexuality... Bush... ...now that is a filthy four letter word. The next time you are really mad, instead of saying;Fornicate Under Carnal Knowledge IT!!!, just say; BUSH IT!!! People will know what you mean. You could also say; IRAQ IT!!! This filthy four letter Regime has given us endless possibilities to create new urban slang.

U.S. and Iraqi security forces regularly discover mass graves in different parts of Iraq for people killed in chaos and sectarian violence since the U.S.- led invasion in 2003.Yea! The surge worked... ...we are winning... ...Iraq is becoming a stable democracy... If you believe that, you probably watch Faux News. We can keep the lid on their civil war - at great cost to ourselves. We can sweep it under the rug. We can bury our heads in the sand about it. We can have rah, rah, Republican lapel flag pin patriotism, or we can be real American patriots and take responsibility for our own country and stop sticking our noses into other peoples business.

The Republicans think that they have a right to stick their noses into other people's business.

The Republican party thinks that they should have a right to stick their noses into a woman's reproductive business whether she lays down and lifts her dress or not. If she doesn't lay down, they would throw her down and stick their nose in by force. They think that they should have a right to stick their noses into Terri Schiavo's business and deprive her of the God given right to die. They think that they should have a right to stick their noses into the romantic, sexual, domestic relationship choices of consensual GLBT adult men and women and tell them what color their picket fence has to be. They think that they should be able to shred the Constitution and spy on Americans. They stick their noses into the foreign affairs of sovereign nations. See a pattern here? The base of the Republican Party are nosy, pushy, self righteous people. There are of course, plenty of nice Republicans and plenty of nosy pushy Democrats, but the core of the Republican Party and the core Republican ideology that they embrace are based on nosy, pushy, self righteousness. See: "Reacting strongly to State Department Deputy Spokesman Tom Casey's observations in Washington on Tuesday, A spokesman of the India's Ministry of External Affairs said "both nations are perfectly capable of managing all aspects of their relationship with the appropriate degree of care and attention." Given these core personality defects of the Republican Party, is it any wonder that they believe that they should stick their noses into Iraq's civil war. The world is all about them after all. They smoke their offensive cigars, weave in and out of traffic in their huge un-American Toyota Tundras, boss, push, and bully people around... They are belligerent drunks or self-righteous dry drunks... Us nice elite, intelligent, effete, liberals drive politely in our American Saturn Vue Hybrids, sip our latte, toke our organically grown joints, and say peace man... ...but at least we are intelligent and polite.

We can keep the lid on Iraq's civil war - at great cost to ourselves.

But it is happening in slow motion anyway. We can drag it out for fifty years - "Heck, make it an even100"" - or we can get out of the way and let the Iraqis get it over with. Reality has the property of being real and we can not change it. The civil war in Iraq is happening in slow motion and is going to continue regardless of what we do. However we can protect Bush's legacy and dump the blame for his failure on the next Emperor... er... President, or the next... or the next... or... the next. How broken do you want to break our country on behalf of Haliburton and Exxon? How many Americans have to die for their profit and pleasure? How many Iraqis must die for their profit and pleasure? How many new terrorist must we create for their profit and pleasure?

It appears that the war mongering war whores (Bush and Cheney) are determined to have a war with Iran one way or the other. Their best efforts to start a shooting war have been repeatedly blocked so clearly they have decided to engage Iran in a proxy war. Sader is Iran's man and our puppet Maliki is cracking down on him at our behest. So, the proxy war with Iran is on. If they did not crack down on him, I would have, and have, criticized them for handing Iraq to Iran on a silver platter.

That is the whole point.

They have led us into a no win situation. If they don't engage Iran directly or indirectly then we lose Iraq. Our enemy Iran becomes much more powerful and gains regional hegemony. If we engage Iran directly, it will be a real mess. Can you say: Apocalypse Now? Not the movie - the real thing. If we indirectly engage Iran in a proxy war then it is a major escalation of an already unwinnable war and Iraq immediately morphs completely into a Vietnam style war where we are fighting entrenched insurgency in the active war zone and an enemy outside of the war zone that is beyond our reach. There is absolutely no way to win that unwinnable war.

Bear in mind, Iran wants to keep us bogged down in Iraq and will try to influence our elections. To that end they will probably restrain Sader until after the elections. It is win - win for them. After the election, if a Democrat wins, they can turn Sader loose and make it look like they drove us out - - - - - which - - they kinda did. We will have to fight our way out of the kill zone, but our guys will kick ass all the way out. If the war monger wins, then they can turn Sader loose - cut us - and watch us bleed, and bleed, and bleed, and bleed, and bleed, and bleed, and bleed, and bleed, and bleed, and bleed, and bleed, and bleed, and bleed, and bleed, and bleed in blood, lives, treasure, national focus on real existential threats, national creativity, national confidence, national political resiliency, and national military preparedness. Why would we want an exit strategy?

See: "In response, Sadr threatened to formally lift the ceasefire on his fighters first ordered in last August, which was credited to the security gains and significant violence drop ever since."

See also: "The insistence of the Americans to lay siege on Sadr City has led to the killing of innocent people and is a mistake that will lead to negative results and the Iraqi government will have to shoulder the responsibility," Qomi added.

See also: "First of all, there is nothing called an improved security situation, all that has happened is the government-backed militias who used to butcher people, were stopped from doing so for tactical reasons." ------ "More than 4,000 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq, who killed them? The resistance of course, but they [the US] do not want to talk about it, they only want to continue crying loud 'al-Qaeda'."

We are not just fighting Al-Qaida in Iraq. We are not just fighting an insurgency. We are also fighting Iran, Syria, and most of the people in Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan. Syria appears to be offering peace in exchange for the Golan Heights or maybe the U.S. and Israel are doing the offering. I believe that the Bush Regime deserves the credit for this. They did not plan it this way, and they will probably screw it up, or get taken for a ride, but everybody gets lucky sometimes. They handed Iraq to Iran and they handed Syria negotiating capital to exchange for the Golan Heights. None the less, peace between our proxy Israel and Syria is a big thing.

See; "Olmert's interest in keeping the fires of a potential agreement with Syria stoked seems geared, at least in part, to weakening Iran by pulling Syria out of its orbit. The isolation of Iran is an overarching aim of Israel and the US, and pulling Syria away would help achieve that goal."

The Bush Regime and its apologist, (like McCain and Lieberman), have no connection to reality which means that by definition they are certifiably insane. See:"While official sources today speak of nearly 20 victims in the clashes and bombings of the last two days, Rice congratulated the Iraqi government for advances in security."

See also my articles titled:
The Surge is Working
Bush's Private War
Success in Iraq?
The Fog of War
Iran has won the war. It is time to sue for peace.
The Democrats Do Not Have a Unified Plan for Iraq

Lawmakers generally don't like to push such controversial measures, in spite of the broad support they might have among the electorate, as opposition is often virulent and moralistic. Without the fear of being removed from office, citizens are free to follow their common sense when considering these measures. There remain excellent arguments both for and against the use of the initiative process. Thomas Cronin wrote a whole book on the subject. I know in my state voters have approved measures against taxation and for specific spending, tying the hands of lawmakers who must find ways to balance the budget. In other cases voters may approve measures limiting the rights of minorities, one of the founders' fears.

A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party.

My own tendency, when there's any doubt whatsoever, is never to sign initiative petition drives, and to vote against those which do make the ballot. Initiative 1000, in contrast, is a measure for which I am actively gathering signatures. It does not attempt to control the budget, and rather than constraining rights, it expands them.

Foremost, I find it offensive that someone facing a terminal illness and the prospect of suffering and indignity for the remainder of their lives, should not legally have the option to end their own suffering at the time of their choosing. Whose life is it anyway? Arguments to the contrary are grounded in religious beliefs not shared by all Americans.

People do have reasonable concerns about whether allowing physicians to prescribe life-ending medications might open the door to patients feeling pressure to end their own lives due to feeling a burden to their loved ones. Nine years after the enactment of Oregon's law, which is the model for this initiative, little evidence has emerged to suggest this is a problem. While it is impossible to say that did not play into some patients' decisions, the total number of people taking advantage of the plan is relatively small according to Oregon's mandated reports, and the law requires that two physicians be convinced that the request is the free will of the patient. The worst case scenarios predicted by those who opposed Oregon's law simply have not come to pass. A conservative Supreme Court would not strike it down, and evidence suggests support for the law in Oregon has grown over time.

Certainly it is important that those suffering from depression are not given too easy a route for ending their lives prematurely, and the measure's many safeguards mitigate that concern.

At the heart of the argument for providing this option, are the personal stories of those who would otherwise be trapped in a medical culture which values the prolonging of life over compassion for the life which is being sustained. Far more numerous that those who have taken advantage of Oregon's law, are those whose peace of mind has been enhanced simply by knowing the option was available to them. It is the prospect of facing a debilitating terminal illness without any control of how it ends which robs multitudes of sufferers of that peace. Read the comparison of terminal patients in Miami, Florida with those in Portland, Oregon toward the end of this article

The initiative process is likely overused, and sometimes abused, but expanding the rights of patients to more fully control their end of life medical care to include ending that life when they choose is long overdue.

Some resources:

chronology of assisted dying
Derek Humphrey (founder of Hemlock Society blog
I-1000 Yes website
I-1000 No website

Hasn’t this nation been hoodwinked enough by the complete and utter demise of the media’s manipulation of politics? Haven’t we learned enough from the years and years of planted stories, fake-news spots and so-called experts pontificating night after night? How can we as American’s make honest assessments of anything of value if all that we’re presented with are innuendo, half-truths and supposition from the 24 hour-a-day nationwide chatter of punditry?

It’s high-time that this nation boycott this media.

Republican. Democrat. Independent. Black. White. Asian. Catholic. Jewish. Muslim. Whathaveyou: It’s time that we as Americans, for a period of one-month, turn off our televisions and radios, stop purchasing newspapers, do not buy that news magazine and do not read online news. Completely detach yourself from the media is every, way shape or form.

Tell the media to get back to reporting the news that matters.

For awhile Wright was silent. In the last few days he has spoken out. Every time he speaks he makes more outrageous statements than before. Obama has answered as forcefully as he could:

What Rev. Wright said yesterday directly contradicts everything I've done during my life. It contradicts how I was raised and the setting in which I was raised, it contradicts the issues that I've worked on, it contradicts what I've written in my books...it contradicts everything I've been saying on this campaign trail.

This is obviously true. If you have heard Obama speak you know that what he's saying is true. Both McCain and Clinton, his opponents, know this is true. But the attacks continue. Here is what Jonah Goldberg said today:

To cap it off, Wright threw Obama under the bus. First, the pastor explained, Obama himself had taken Wright out of context. Moreover, Obama neither denounced nor distanced himself from Wright. And, besides, anything that Obama says on such matters is just stuff "politicians say." They "do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls." So much for Obama's new politics.

Unwittingly Goldberg is praising Obama. When he says "So much for Obama's new politics" he is implying that Obama's "new politics" is better than the old politics that HE IS USING IN HIS ARTICLE. If a die- hard conservative such as Goldberg sees the difference and approves - reluctantly, of course - other people will eventually see it as well.

All Obama has to do now is be himself and follow his "new politics" of honesty. respect and inclusion. It may take time, but once people see the difference between Obama's politics and the character-assassination politics we have today, Obama will get the votes.

I echo the conservative Andrew Sullivan:

And today, we found that he can fight back, and take a stand, without calculation and in what is clearly a great amount of personal difficulty and political pain. It's what anyone should want in a president. It makes me want to see him succeed more than ever. It's why this country needs to see him succeed more than ever.

Rev. Wright did not realize that he was boosting Obama. He and everybody else thought that he was hurting Obama. This so-called problem will eventually be recognized as a gift from Wright to Obama.

During my college years I still recall the excitement with which a friend extolled a new ism, which seemed to capture the piece of liberalism which was true and right, but without some of the naivety often ascribed to it. I listened, not fully convinced, to his description of libertarianism which in the late 70s was far less well known than it is today. Certainly the notion of individualistic freedom which was already ingrained into me as an American was appealing. It seems that only a few days or weeks later, that the same friend came back disillusioned, describing these libertarians as nothing more than laissez-faire capitalists minus the puritanical authoritarianism of our caricature of traditional conservatives.

Reagan co-opted the economic piece of libertarianism and branded the Republican party with it, much to my dismay, but undeniably to the political advantage of Republicans who now tapped into a whole new constituency raised in a more permissive generation not likely to go back to the more restrictive brand of conservatism, but amenable to this new animal. But it is this economic libertarianism which I now find more pernicious than the stodgy old-fashioned conservatism, and more in opposition to my own ideals.

But there are pieces of truth in any way of thinking. What we should agree on is that tyranny must be avoided.

Libertarians seek to avoid the tyranny of big government, liberals seek to avoid the tyranny of big business, conservatives the tyranny of permissiveness, et cetera. The ideals always feel principled, but the reality is that mundane concepts like checks and balances remain the best weapon against encroaching tyranny, and at any given time the greatest threat of tyranny lies in the hands of whomever it is that holds the most power. Jack Whelan, at After the Future writes:

in the world we live in the real threat of tyranny comes not from the political sector, but from the economic. For me the fundamental flaw in Libertarian thinking is its failure to recognize this. Tyranny derives from the abuse of power, and so it follows that the greatest threat to freedom comes from those who have the greatest concentrations of power. Look around you. Does that power lie in the hands of Liberal congressmen and professors? Of course not. It lies with those factions within American society which have enormous economic power. And the greatest threat to American democracy lies not in the power of big government if it serves the will of the broad electorate, but in the power of big government if it serves the will of those with enormous economic power.

The Libertarians fixation with freedom and economic prosperity seems to blind them to how their emphasis of them leads to problems with the distribution of power. They seem not to care at all about the dangers associated with the growing concentration of economic power in fewer and fewer hands. They seem not to realize how that concentration of power is the direct result of their hard work to pull back government power as a counterbalance to economic power. The kind of crony capitalism that we're seeing in Washington now is not caused by a failure of conservatives to live up to their ideals; it is the inevitable result of economic power moving into the territory from which good government has retreated. If the government won't stand as a counterbalance to economic power, it inevitably winds up being co-opted by it. And then neither principled conservatives nor principled Liberals get what they want--they both have to deal with a big, bloated government serving the needs of big pharma, big oil, or the big companies that make their money from military spending.

Eager to salvage conservatism from the wreckage of conservative rule, right-wing pundits are furiously blaming right-wing politicians for failing to adhere to right-wing convictions. . . . A conservative president and an even more conservative Congress must be repudiated to enable genuine conservatism to survive. . . . [They say the Bush presidency failed] because Bush and his Republican allies in Congress borrowed big government and foreign-policy idealism from the left. . . . Of course, many of these dissidents extolled the president's conservative leadership when he was riding high in the polls. But the real flaw in their argument is akin to that of Trotskyites who, when confronted with the failures of communism in Cuba, China and the Soviet Union, would claim that real communism had never been tried. If leaders consistently depart in disastrous ways from their underlying political ideology, there comes a point where one has to stop just blaming the leaders and start questioning the ideology.

Right now the most important thing we can do as Americans is to preserve our democratic institutions and insure that we retain pluralism, restore trust in our vote counting mechanism, and speak out as citizens. Whether our elected leaders can ever bring real change to the processes which currently funnel power through lobbyists on K street or the boardrooms of the largest multinationals remains to be seen, but we would do well to start asking the right questions. We cannot count on the corporate owned media to do so.

Lilly Ledbetter sued Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in Gadsden, Ala., six months before retiring in 1998, after she had found documents showing that she earned as much as 40% less per month than male managers of her same position..... Senate Democrats failed Wednesday to overcome a threatened Republican filibuster... of a bill that would loosen the restrictions on the length of time in which workers could file pay discrimination claims against their employers.

The 56-42 vote was split largely along party lines. John McCain of Arizona, did not vote.

McCain made this statement:

I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what's being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems. This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system.

Yes, I believe in equal pay for women, but not in interference with any company that is not disposed to do it. I'm for it but not for legislation that will accomplish it.

I am for it and I'm against it at the same time.

Bon Appétit Management Co. rolls out its new Low Carbon Diet in 400 cafes it runs at university and corporate campuses around the country. Chicken, it turns out, has a lower carbon footprint than beef.

This is a front page article in the L.A. Times. And for the first time that I can remember, on the front page, there is a pictorial sequence - of the carbon footprint of cheese. (On the Internet I could not find this excellent diagram.) Here is the sequence representing the footprint of cheese:

1 - Factories manufacturing fertilizer use a fuel-intensive process that emits CO2

2 - Excess fertilizer applied to fields produces nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the warming potential as CO2

3 - Corn, used for feeding cows, is harvested, processed, trucked and stored, all of which use CO2-emitting equipment

4 - A cow belches annually 145 pounds of methane, which has 23 times the warming potential of CO2

5 - Refrigeration, production and packaging of cheese use CO2-emitting equipment

6 - Transporting the cheese requires refrigeration equpment as well as vehicles that emit CO2

7 - At the supermarket, the cheese is displayed in CO2-emitting containers

8 - Consumers travel to food stores and then go home and store the cheese in a refrigerator, and both activities emit CO2

9 - Cheese that is thrown out gets to a landfill which generates methane and CO2

Bon Appétit Management Co. deserves a lot of credit for determining food carbon footprints and using this information to decide what food to sell. Hamburgers are out, vegetables are in. Imagine the courage it takes to remove hamburgers from the menu. But they are doing it. I hope other companies in the food industry as well as in other industries will follow this example.

Solving global warming can not be accomplished through technology, taxes (regardless of the type), political action or by any other top-down means. These things are necessary, but not sufficient. Global warming can only be solved if we get individual citizens to participate. Calculating carbon footprints is a great way to start.

McCain has said that, as president, he would call for creation of a "league of democracies" that would move aggressively to tackle problems the United Nations fails to resolve, such as the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs, civil strife in Sudan and world health crises.

So-called "realists" attacked this idea because they think countries like Saudi Arabia, China and Russia may be upset. Though they are not democracies we need them for many issues. They were especially concerned because McCain seemed to imply that this league would be militarily equipped and engaged in warfare outside the purview of the UN.

Now McCain back pedals:

"It does not envision military action," McCain told reporters in Dallas on April 11. He said it would "not be a formal organization; it would be a coalition of nations that shifts sometimes depending on what their priorities are."

I'm all for such a league if it concentrates on promoting democratic actions everywhere, especiallly at the UN. Autocracies often beat democracies in UN votes by working together. Why can't we form a League of Democracies to build a consensus democratic view on a given issue? Then we'd go the UN and vote in unison for the democratic policies we favor.

Of course, this means that America will not always have its own way. But the League of Democracies would often have its way - a lot more satisfying condition than what we have now.

It also means that America will become a true leader in the UN. The League of Democracies will enable democracies to prevail on many important issues, such as peace, terrorism and human rights.

With respect to Rev Wright, I was startled today when I came across the following remarks by Daniel Schorr on NPR :

Who is the real patriot, willing to service his country? One such man in 1963 served two years in the Marines, then volunteered to become a Navy medical corpsman. In that capacity, he helped to care for President Johnson after his surgery in 1966. ... And who was that patriot? A young, African-American man who went on to become the pastor of a church in Chicago. That's right, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

I was startled because I have not heard this before, not in any newspaper, not on any TV show, not anywhere. You would think that the way the media has attacked both Obama and the reverend they would want to say something positive - you know, to even the playing field. The media did not do this because if they did what would happen to the "scandal"? How could there possibly be an election campaign without "scandals"?

The media follow the Republicans who are reknown for their Karl-Rove-character assassination capabilities. The Republicans have spent decades making "liberal" a dirty word. Since this caused conflict, the media followed suit. The media have reached the point where gotcha is lauded.

Conservative David Brooks gave the moderators an A for an excellent performance: the media are suppose to produce controversy and Gibson and Stephanopolous did just that. Most other Republican commentators agreed.

This type of politics is what Obama has criticized. As the Washington Post reports:

Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition. The tactic has been to "take one statement and beat it to death," he said.

I said the Republicans started gotcha politics. Yes, but Clinton is doing the same thing. She denigrates Obama every chance she gets and the media love it because it produces conflict. But it also produces polarization and hatreds and sniping and is preventing us from solving real problems. Barack Obama wants to change all this. He wants to replace non-issues with real issues, bombast with discussion and negative with positive political debate.

Barack Obama wants to replace the politics of gotcha with the politics of reason.

In many cases, since its final adoption in 1995, Motor Voter succeeded in bridging the gap for many previously disenfranchised voters and opened up avenues for the youth and people with disabilities. However one thing that Motor Voter did not account for was serious technical and bureaucratic problems.

Those technical and bureaucratic problems created their own brand of voter disenfranchisement. And, in the 2006 election, specifically Pennsylvania, where there are still a couple of undecided state house races, Motor Voter, and its new brand of disenfranchisement, created a host of problems that the courts may soon need to decide.

In Pennsylvania, each county has an election board and a county voter services department. Each voter services department manages the rolls of registered voters within their county. Each state has different laws, but for Pennsylvania, voter services will purge voters from the rolls, voters that have been inactive in the last five years.
Pennsylvania also has a department of transportation. And as part of the Motor Voter act, PennDot provides the ability to register to vote, while registering for your driver’s license. But since PennDot’s computer system doesn’t communicate with the Voter Services department of each county, both systems live separate lives. Because neither department share data with one another, the Motor Voter act relies solely on the manual, paper process. This process of sending the paperwork to Harrisburg, then forwarding the paperwork to the particular county for processing is viewed at PennDot and Voter Services level as a convenience. In fact, when someone registers to vote or changes their voting registration address at PennDot they receive a receipt of this action. As if to say, thank you Voting Citizen, you are registered to vote in the wonderful Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The voter sees this process as a process not a convenience.

The problem occurs when a voter follows the procedure correctly and appears at the polling place, only to find that they are not on the active, voting rolls. And this is what exactly happened across Pennsylvania during the 2006 election.

As an election official working in my precinct, a number of citizens appeared at the polling precinct only to find that they were not registered according to the rolls. Procedure requires officials to phone Voter Services to verify their records. In many cases, Voter Services noted that they were not registered. This was an occurrence was common throughout the county, not just the precinct. The voter at that time can vote, via provisional ballot, if they do so choose. However, the provisional ballot will only be validated if Voter services can verify the voter’s registration. So for most cases of these voters, where the voter followed the rules correctly and assumed that the voting registration or change of address process was handled, their votes were not counted for the 2006 election. According to Voter Services, they couldn’t vote, either with a provisional ballot, because they do not appear on the registration rolls regardless whether or not they have a receipt from PennDot.

How can a voter tell the difference?
Answer: they can’t. To the voter, Voter Services and PennDot appear to be the same; they appear as a single, large government bureaucracy. And because of the technical problems between technical communication between each bureaucracy and the education of the voting community, citizens are being systematically disenfranchised from voting.

For all of the first-time voters coming out for this 2008 Presidential primary, it’s time to take another hard look at Motor Voter law. Bureaucracy shouldn’t get in the way of Democracy and Voters shouldn’t be penalized for following directions.