The Audacity of Hope, Not the Audacity of Hate

Barack Obama just held a press conference where he clarified the differences in his views from those of his former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Read more here. While I am very glad that Senator Obama did so, I am saddened by the necessity of his actions. Unfortunately, Reverend Wright who was forced into the spotlight when a few of his inflammatory statements became widely played, had a unique opportunity and he squandered it. Rev Wright had the opportunity to bring a Christan message of helping those who are oppressed and talk about what needed to be done to help us move forward together. He hurt the causes he believes in whether he realizes it or not. That is most unfortunate, because, these are causes I believe are important - social justice, racial equality, and an end to aggressive and violent foreign policies.
I am saddened by Reverend Wright's choice to make himself the story and suggest that the media are not criticising his fringe views but the African American church. Senator Obama had to distance himself from his friend and former pastor. He really had no choice. This is Reverend Wright's fault for making such inflammatory statements. Remember, Reverend - it is the audacity of hope, not the audacity of hate that brings change and progress. Now let's hope the media can focus on the issues and not be distracted by the Reverend Wright.

ABC's Terrible Debate

On Wednesday, April 16, 2008, the two leading Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama held a debate moderated by ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. This was easily the worst debate I have seen in this election cycle. Huffingtonpost called it the "gotcha debate." Read the story here. The first half of the debate was full of petty criticisms of personal misstatements, questions of guilt by association, and other petty "distractions" to quote one of the moderators of the debate. In such an important time in such a crucial election, why were such distractions given so much focus? We are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, have top officials in the government admitting to have authorized torture, we have a housing, credit and energy crisis, millions without health care, U.S. paid mercenaries who are not subject to any law killing civilians in Iraq, billions of dollars wasted or lost in Iraq, and many many other pressing problems. Instead of concentrating on these vitally important questions, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos decided to concentrate of the HRC's multiple misstatements regarding snipers in Bosnia and Obama not always wearing a flag pin. Absolutely ridiculous. I hate to be so critical of George Stephanopoulos since I met him, during Bill Clinton's first run for the presidency in 1992 and know him to be very intelligent and personable. But this was a terrible excuse of moderating. As Keith Oblberman pointed out today, some of the questions posed by Stephanopoulos came from Sean Hannity of Fox News infamy. That showed. This terrible excuse for a debate probably will mark the end of the debates between Obama and Clinton. If this is to be the way future debates were to be held - that is certainly a good thing.

Quod Principi Placuit Legis Habet Vigorem

Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem or "That which pleases the prince has the strength of law" seems to be the maxim of the Bush administration. Recently, it was revealed that top officials at the White House including Vice President Dick Cheney, then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, and CIA Director George Tenet met and approved the use of torture. Read more here. Even more seriously, President Bush has admitted his knowledge of these meetings and their substance. Read more here. This was clearly against the law, and even then Attorney General John Ashcroft reportedly objected saying "History will not judge this kindly." What we are confronted with is an administration that uses signing statements or flat out ignores the law to get done what it wants. This is an administration that puts far more emphasis on loyalty than on adherence to the constitution or the law. So in effect we are left with an administration that might live up to the Latin maxim above. This is even worse than the Regan administration's "imperial presidency" or Nixon's where he claimed that the law is never broken when the president is doing a given thing. This is the worst administration in U.S. history - the corruption, blatant abuse and disregard for the law and governmental institutions shows that this administration must be stopped. Bush and the top aides should all be impeached - but I know it won't happen due to a lack of political will. I pray that the Democrats will win back the White House in November and then we will see some serious prosecutions. If McCain wins, these criminals who are running our government will not be prosecuted and may very well be pardoned. It is necessary for this Republic to show what happens to officials who live by the misguided maxim "Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem" - those who seek to govern in this manner have no place in a Democracy.

Iraq: Five Years Later

Five years ago, the United States invaded Iraq. I remember living in Japan and witnessing the beginnings of a war that I knew would be tragic. I prayed that we would not start a preemptive war against a nation that was no direct threat to our own. My prayers were not answered and the bloodshed and destruction began. I watched President George W. Bush and Dick Cheney full of bluster talk about how we would be greeted as liberators. I knew that things would be bad and unfortunately I was right. Of course living overseas, I had the uncomfortable experience of the anti-American backlash in the face of our naked aggression. "Why did the U.S. invade Iraq?" people would ask me. I would feebly explain that the U.S. government believed that they had weapons of mass destruction. Some Japanese would then ask if it wasn't true that we had been keeping Iraq bottled up with strict sanctions and no-fly zones. I would answer that it was true. They asked me if I believed there were weapons of mass destruction. "Maybe", I answered, but I knew there couldn't be many. Inspectors had searched and searched the country and we had destroyed the few remnants after the Gulf War. But the hardest questions came from my students. "Why does America like war so much?" they would ask. My answers to them were unconvincing. "Why does America want to kill all the Muslims?" they would ask. I told them that it wasn’t true but they did not all believe me. A few even voiced some sympathy with Al-Qaeda. It was a difficult position for an American charged with putting a positive face on America, the English-speaking, and in a broader sense, the Western world and its culture. I did what I could and talked about how I disagreed with the actions of my government. But in a democracy, I told them, that is ok. In fact it is a duty to oppose the government when you disagree with its policies. I tried hard to convey this to a simple rural people who like many people everywhere tend to think that all the people in a country support it's government and all its actions.
I knew many people in the U.S. who strongly supported the war and were ready to "Kick Sadam's ass." But I knew enough of the history and culture of the region (which I had studied quite extensively in college and on my own) to know that things were going to become a mess. The British faced a committed insurgency in the 1920s and had to withdraw. The county was a patchwork of Kurd, Shia, and Sunni with some other groups thrown in for even more complication. The Kurds had enjoyed defacto independence - why would they want to be part of an Arab Shia led nation that might only drag them down and steel some of their wealth? What of Kurdish irredentism? There are a lot of Kurds who live in Turkey. Would Turkey get involved to fight against Kurdish terrorists/freedom-fighters (depending on one's view)? As it turned out they did and they probably will again. The Shia are the majority and would naturally gravitate toward friendly relations with Iran (which has happened). The U.S. would not approve and have to fight that. The Sunnis who are a minority in Iraq were favored and ruled the nation through Sadam's brutal regime. They would want to fight to remain in control. Of course the Shia would fight them back. Let's not forge the Shia who rose up against Sadam following the Gulf War with the strong encouragement and promise of support by President George H. W. Bush and were crushed by Sadam's forces. They weren't going to be happy with the U.S. Let us not forget that in the 1980's the Regan administration sold weapons to Iran (who was at war with Iraq) while selling intelligence to Sadam in (what seemed to be) an obvious effort to keep the two nations fighting each other so that Iran would be occupied and Iraq wouldn't attack Israel. Why would anyone in that country trust Americans? Then what did we find out once we invaded - there were no weapons of mass destruction. So the stated purpose of the war was changed. We were there to stop Iraq's connection with Al-Qaeda. A ridiculous claim. A secularist megalomaniac like Sadam had no use for religious extremist terrorists inside his own county, especially when they were regularly making statements denouncing his surprisingly tolerant religious freedom policies. (For example he gave money to some Christian churches.) So the purpose of the war was changed to spreading democracy in the Middle East. That didn’t work so well. Sure elections were held, but is the government functioning? It is divided along ethnic and religious lines and is not working together. So then one of many terrorist groups operating in Iraq decided to become an Al-Qaeda franchise. By pledging loyalty to Osama Bin Ladin. These were not the people who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001; these were other Arabs who wanted the immoral support of the top Al Qaeda extremist. The purpose of the war, then stated by the White House to stamp out Al Qaeda in Iraq - an organization that existed only because the U.S. invaded Iraq! Eventually, they were on the run - in the so called "Sunni awakening" in Al Anbar province in western Iraq. Why were the Sunni fighting fellow Sunni, in this case local tribes vs. Al Qaeda in Iraq? Ostensibly because they were tired of all the collateral damage and the U.S. counter attacks. But of course they had been fighting the U.S. too - but money talks and it talked them into opposing Al Qaeda in Iraq. They were happy to take money and weapons from the U.S. government. At the same time we were and are supplying money and weapons to the Shia government in Baghdad. I cannot stress this enough. We have supplied weapons and arms to the local Sunnis in Al Anbar. At the same time we gave money and weapons to their main opposition the Shia dominated central government in Baghdad. You think Iraq is a civil war now - wait until this one plays itself out. Not to mention the Kurds and the Kurdistan Worker's Party which carries out terrorist attacks in Turkey. This war is a mess and there is nothing to do but walk away. There are no good options. The U.S must cut its losses and have "victory with honor" or "Iraqization of the war", "strategic withdrawal" whatever euphuism once wants to use. Whatever we call it, the U.S needs to get out of Iraq. Five bloody, destructive and costly years later, the situation is a mess and I fear there is worse to come no matter what we do. I suggest we get out of the way before we get caught in the middle of a real full-scale civil war and before we become entangled in the spillover into Iran and Turkey.
My wife and I are currently watching "Vietnam: A Television History" the excellent PBS documentary from PBS. I am struck by the parallels to that conflict and the one we are involved in Iraq. That conflict was a mess to start with - we leaned no lessons from the French defeats, tried to impose a domino theory of global communism on a conflict that many there saw as an anti-colonial fight, and were drawn into spill over conflict in Laos and Cambodia. It was a mess, millions died as a result and America's image and potential to do good in the world was diminished. We should see the parallels for what they are and end this current conflict as quickly and carefully as possible.
At the same time, I honor the service of the American soldiers, sailors and marines who have had to endure the very worst in life. They are doing what they see as their patriotic duty and their service is exemplary. It is because of their dedication to America that makes their sacrifice to a vain cause all the more tragic. I wish them all the best and keep them in my thoughts and prayers as I also do with the people of Iraq.

Obama's Speech "A More Perfect Union"

Barack Obama gave an excellent speech today explaining his experience with race and putting his relationship with Rev. Wright into context. It was an excellent speech that again shows why this man is in a unique position to bring this country together.

Destructive Religious Rhetoric and Politics

By now everyone has heard the inflammatory statement's that Barack Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright made concerning America's responsibility in events that led up to 9/11 as well as his remarks against a white-dominated government who tried to keep African Americans down. Read more here. The Reverend may have had a case for some of his points, but they were made in a dogmatic and divisive way. But what was his ultimate point? That the U.S. government had made poor foreign policy decisions and that the U.S. had oppressed African Americans for years. Honestly, when rephrased, much of what he said is obviously true. The problem was the in the angry tone and dogmatic nature of the statements that turned a point worthy of discussion into something that sounded angry and destructive.
But let us compare those statements to John McCain's spiritual advisers. Read more here. John Hagee who railed against Catholicism. Rather than referring to it as a branch of Christianity to which he disagreed, he called it "a cult" and "the great whore." Not helpful. More destructive divisive rhetoric. Even more disturbing, was what McCain spiritual advisor Rod Parsley had to say. He has written: "I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore." Read the story here. Not only is this bigoted, and destructive but it shows a complete disregard for historical accuracy and common sense.

I am tired of religious "leaders" who try to drag us into such hateful thinking and policies. I'm tired of the partisan nature of this country and religious leaders who try to steer us in a direction based upon one or two narrow issues. In my own Catholic church, I have been disappointed by a priest who couldn't stop telling worshipers how much he admired George W. Bush because he is a man who was not afraid to pray and admit it in public. This during the closing months of 2004 when we were getting ready to vote for President. My first thought was that Osama Bin Ladin wasn't afraid to pray publicly either, but it was more about the content of those prayers than the prayers themselves that was either noteworthy or despicable. Attending a friend's wedding at another Catholic church, a time which should be focused on the joy of the union being consecrated and celebrated, we were "treated" to an anti-Protestant tirade. Something I have NEVER experienced before in a Catholic church. It was depressing. I was glad to finally hear a message of inter-religious unity and common cause at the National Shrine of St. Francis here in San Francisco. That gave me hope again that I could find a comfortable place inside organised religion. The other aforementioned examples made me depressed and disappointed.
When I grew up, politics was mentioned as important in the church, but were were told to exercise our own judgement, pray for guidance and remember one's intentions when selecting one's leaders. I certainly wish the Reverends Wright, Hagee, and Parsely would be giving us more of that message than the ones that they did. And what about that part about turning the other cheek, and loving one's enemies? I seem to remember that being of somewhat importance in Christianity.... ...maybe it's time we all remembered that!

Hillary Clinton Must Reject and Denounce Geraldine Ferraro's Extremely Divisive Comments

Former 1984 Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro who was working for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has on a number of recent occasions made outrageous comments about Barack Obama suggesting that it is only because of his race that he has been successful thus far. I could write on and on about how terrible these comments are, and how Hillary Clinton has surrounded herself with mean spirited people who seem more intent on winning the next primary than the future of the Democratic party or that of America, but Keith Olbermann has already said it best in his latest special comment:

Obama Wins Mississippi

Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in the latest Democratic contest in Mississippi. It is harder and harder to imagine a scenario where HRC wins the nomination. The math is definitely in Obama's favor!

Obama Wins in Wyoming

Barack Obama Won yet another contest - this time in the state of Wyoming. He has won 29 of 43 contests, and is leading in the popular vote as well as in the number of delegates. I think it's obvious that Hillary Clinton has little chance of overtaking him and winning the nomination. She can only attack him and make it harder for the Democrats to win in November. She wants to have it both ways - saying that he's not ready to be President and yet hoping that he will accept a Vice Presidential slot so she can gain his enthusiastic supporters and well organized team. It won't work. He will be the nominee, God willing.

One Charity Helping Americans Without Adequate Health Coverage

I recently saw a report on 60 minutes about a charitable organization - Remote Area Medical that is providing free health care services for thousands of Americans who either have no insurance or are underinsured. It was stunning to see what the state of health care is in the wealthiest nation on Earth. I strongly encourage everyone to read or watch the report here and then to donate to this wonderful organization here.



This just reminds me of how awful our system of caring for people is in the U.S. We have a for-profit system that leaves people suffering while those on top make millions of dollars. The right perpetuates the myth that any tampering would lower the quality of healthcare. Even if that was true, it doesn't matter how good the care is if very few can ever take advantage of it.

This report also shows how even people who are insured are suffering because of high deductibles. I'm sorry but that is why I like Obama's plan to lower insurance costs over HRC's mandates.

In any case, no matter where you stand politically, I encourage people to learn more about and generously support this very noble endeavor.

Obama Must Win

Barack Obama narrowly lost to HRC on Tuesday March 4 in Rhode Island, Ohio and the Texas Primary, He won in Vermont and looks like he will have won in the Texas caucus when the votes are finally counted. HRC will end up gaining only a handful of delegates. Obama still leads by over a hundred delegates. HRC needs to win by huge margins all or most of the remaining states, count on Michigan and Florida being seated at the convention in her favor, and then hoping that the super delegates will mostly jump to her side - all of this to give her a narrow victory over Obama. The math is heavily against her.
I am so disgusted by her campaign. I am really upset that I am so upset. I was very happy with the entire field of Democratic candidates last year - and despite my very early support for Obama campaign - not in the way a fellow rival campaign should make me upset but in the way that Bush, Rove and the cheep dirty Republican political machine has run recently. I realized that I was supporting , I liked what I saw in all the other candidates. All wanted our troops out of Iraq, wanted to provide health care to all Americans and would have been a huge improvement over the disastrous Bush administration. But as time went on, I became more and more upset by the HRC campaign. We need Obama not just because he is a visionary and an inspiring leader who works for bipartisanship, but because he wants to end this sort of politics. America has been poisoned and polarized by many years of the politics of hate and fear. Bush's presidency was defined by this approach. But the Clintons and their opponents did more than their share of this sort of dirty dishonest politics during the last years of Bill Clinton's administration. The Clintons were always shifty but they did seem to do thier best to bring out the worst in their opponents. America is tired of a politics that triumphs in the face of defeating their opponents yet does nothing to solve the real myriad of problems that Americans face. HRC would be a continuation of this politics-as-usual. That is why we need Obama. The math is on his side. HRC can only succeed in providing material for John McCain. Her type of politics is a large part of what is wrong with America. That is why OBAMA MUST WIN!

Live from New York - A Shameless Appeal to Vote for a B%#@h, Hillary Clinton

I have watched Saturday Night Live for my entire life. When I was young I remember eagerly waiting for the next Mr. Bill sketch. I grew up and went to school watching Ed Grimly, Toonces the Driving Cat, Sprockets and Wayne's World. In times of an excellent cast and great writers, I watched the show. In bad times when that wasn't the case, (and there have been far too many years where the cast and/or writing hasn't been very good one must admit) I continued to watch the show. I always enjoyed SNL's unique brand of social satire and political humor.
With this in mind, I watched Saturday Night Live's first show since the writer's strike and the first of 2008. Tina Fey was the host - I was looking forward to seeing the ex-cast member and one of my favorite writers back on SNL. The opening sketch was a parody of the Democratic debates which seemed to give an impression that the media was in love with Barack Obama (something I would dispute.) The sketch was shallow, but physical impressions were done well. Then came the Weekend Update sketch where Tina Fey made an appearance. I have to say, my wife and I were shocked and disgusted. Tina Fey had a tirade that was nothing but a humorless endorsement for Hillary Clinton. She made her argument that "B*%#h was the new black", an obvious assessment that voter's support for Obama was just a fad, and the next fad would be voting for a B*#&h, i.e. Hillary Clinton. She claimed that people were upset at Hillary Clinton, not for her Iraq War vote, or support of NAFTA, but because Bill Clinton would be there to help her. I'm sorry but Bill Clinton's experience would probably be an asset to Hillary Clinton - but for the fact that she is so polarizing that they would block every attempt she would make to do anything. Tina Fey misses the whole point - we are tired of the politics of fierce division and partisanship that marked much of the Bill Clinton and all of the George W. Bush administrations. We are tired of B*%#hes. We want real unity, real hope for tomorrow and real progress - not a B*$&h. I was very upset by Tina Fey's naked appeals to the voters of Ohio and Texas. It was not funny and it had no place on SNL. Contrary to Ms.Fey's argument, B*%#hes don't get things done. They get people upset and that interferes with their ability to get important things done. The paradigm is shifting and it is shifting in Obama's favor not in any B*&%h's favor.

Obama Wins the Democrats Abroad Global Primary

Barack Obama has won yet another contest. American Democrats living abroad voted for the Democratic nominee all over the world. Read the story here. Obama won about 65% of the vote. He won 79% of the vote in Japan. As someone who lived abroad for 3 years, I know how hard it is to be an American overseas with the very unpopular Bush administration in Washington. Thank you, Democrats Abroad for being involved and for voting for change! Yes we can win back the white house and restore our own and the world's confidence in America.

Obama Wins 10 in a Row !

Last night, Barack Obama won the Wisconsin Primary and the Hawaii Caucus, extending his winning streak to 10 out of 10 contests. He has won in every contest since Super Tuesday in Washington, Louisiana, Nebraska, The U.S. Virgin Islands, Maine, The District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and now Wisconsin and Hawaii. He is ahead in delegates, number of states won, and in the popular vote. His opponent for the Democratic nomination, HRC is in a difficult position. I hope that she will not go overly negative and give ammunition to the Republicans, but I fear that she will. Already, John McCain, the all-but-certain Republican nominee is giving speeches attacking Obama as if he were the Democratic nominee!

A New Blog to Read

Tired of the fluff and half-baked emotionalism that passes for thought in cyberspace, my wife, Jen, has started her own blog: In Pursuit of Reason. Please read and comment!

Obama Sweeps February 9th Democratic Contests

Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in Washington, Nebraska, Louisiana and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Read the story here.

Obama won by a wide margin and I hope this is a sign of his continuing momentum and will bring him closer to securing the Democratic Party nomination for president!

Current Delegate Totals In the 2008 Presidential Races

I Did My Part

I think Barack Obama showed very well in yesterday's Super Tuesday elections across America. He had some very large victories and even in most of the states he did not win, he finished a close second. The delegate totals are tight (MSNBC is reporting Obama 838 to HRC 834) and this long nomination process will continue.

I am disappointed that Obama did not do better in California, although he was very far behind in the polls until a little over a week ago. I know I did my part to help him win. I made hundreds of phone calls, talked to many people in person, volunteered and attended many events and even held a small visibility and get-out-the-vote rally in my own precinct on Monday. I convinced 12 first time voters and 1 disenchanted older voter to vote for Obama.

I am glad to see that Obama carried San Francisco:

San Francisco

Candidate	Votes	% of votes
Barack Obama	88,886	52%
Hillary Clinton	75,341	44%
John Edwards	3,715	2%
100% of precincts reporting

source: MSNBC.com

I did what I could do. I did my part. Now it's up to you who live in the next states to vote to do yours. You can start here.

My Top 5 Reasons for Supporting Barack Obama for President

Here are my top 5 reasons for supporting Barack Obama for president of the United States of America.

1. Barack Obama brings a message of hope and optimism to politics that has been long absent in our nation’s recent history. He is inspiring millions of new voters and giving hope to many who had been turned off by negativity, dishonesty and corruption in politics. He has asked his supporters not just for their money, but has given them the opportunity to get involved and be a part of something greater than themselves.

2. Obama is appealing not just to Democrats, but also Independents and Republicans who see the need to work together to solve many of this nation’s problems such as healthcare, education, energy, and the economy. More so than any other candidate, Obama seeks to build a new collation to tackle these large scale problems.

3. After what will have been 8 years of a disastrous Bush Presidency, Obama seeks to bring competent people to fill important government posts. He is not taking any money in his campaign from Washington lobbyists or PACs. The people he appoints will be answerable to the American people and not special interests. In confronting entrenched interests such as the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies, Obama wants to televise these discussions and through transparency, the people will see what is happening.

4. Obama has a comprehensive vision and sees how many of our problems and thus their solutions are tied together. He argues in his book “The Audacity of Hope” how creating “green” jobs to work for energy independence will strengthen our economy, lessen our dependence on foreign oil and create new opportunities for millions of workers in America, while addressing the challenges of global warming and pollution.

5. Obama is the most electable democrat. By appealing to Independents and some Republicans, he will be able to draw votes that other democratic candidates cannot. Here are some polls that show how Obama ranks head to head against John McCain (who seems to be the Republican frontrunner):

(Source: http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm)

Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll. Jan. 31-Feb. 2, 2008. N=855 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.4.

McCain: 45% McCain: 41%

Clinton: 41% Obama: 43%

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Jan. 30-Feb. 1, 2008. N=1,249 adults nationwide. Fieldwork by TNS. Current results based on registered voters.

McCain: 50% McCain: 47%

Clinton: 45% Obama: 48%

If John McCain is the Republican nominee, he will be difficult to beat. Obama has the best chance of doing so, by appealing to people outside the Democratic Party. John McCain has said that troops may remain in Iraq for another 50, 60 or even 100 years. Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning and is committed to bringing our troops home as quickly and as safely as possible.

On February 5, 2008, Stand for Change and vote for Barack Obama!

To learn more visit: www.barackobama.com

Obama: Style with Substance

Barack Obama is the most inspirational leader in my lifetime. I have been following his career since he first ran for the U.S. Senate. Inspirational leadership has been truly lacking in this country for a very long time. I know Obama will motivate us and awaken us to new possibilities as president. However, many critics claim that he is all style and no substance - that he is some sort of demagogue who says nice things but will do little. They ask where the substance is. If all we had from Obama were his powerful and moving speeches, they might be right. But we have far more than that. He has accomplished much in his lifetime, both inside and outside government. He offers a 64 page summary of his plans in his "Blueprint for Change". With Obama we get both the substance and the style that we are in need of in America today.