Wow, Palin proved tonight she could air the new modern day sit com of Roseanne. She proved she can throw out one liners of sarcasm and ridicule. We will see how she handles real facts and debate.
Let's compare her speech to Joe Biden's:
My parents taught us to live our faith and to treasure our families. We learned the dignity of work, and we were told that anyone can make it if they just try hard enough. That was America's promise
Ladies and gentlemen, but today, today that American dream feels like it's slowly slipping away. I don't have to tell you that. You feel it every single day in your own lives. I've never seen a time when Washington has watched so many people get knocked down without doing anything to help them get back up.
Like millions of Americans, they're asking questions as — as ordinary as they are profound, questions they never, ever thought they'd have to ask themselves.Should Mom move in with us now that — now that Dad's gone? Fifty, sixty, seventy dollars just to fill up the gas tank, how in God's name, with winter coming, how are we going to heat the home? Another year, no raise. Did you hear — did you hear they may be cutting our health care at the company?
(I did't hear Palin mention health care at all)
Now — now we owe more money on our home than our home is worth. How in God's name are we going to send the kids to college? How are we going to retire, Joe?
You know, folks, that's the America that George Bush has left us.
And, folks, these are not isolated discussions among families down on their luck. These are common stories among middle-class people who worked hard their whole life, played by the rules, on the promise that their tomorrows would be better than their yesterdays.
John McCain is my friend. We've known each other for three decades. We've traveled the world together. It's a friendship that goes beyond politics. And the personal courage and heroism John demonstrated still amaze me.But I profoundly disagree with the direction that John wants to take the country. For example, John thinks that during the Bush years "we've made great progress economically." I think it's been abysmal.
And in the Senate, John sided with President Bush 95 percent of the time. Give me a break. When John McCain proposes $200 billion in new tax breaks for corporate America, $1 billion alone for just eight of the largest companies, but no relief for 100 million American families, that's not change; that's more of the same.
Even today, as oil companies post the biggest profits in history — a half trillion dollars in the last five years — he wants to give them another $4 billion in tax breaks. But he voted time and again against incentives for renewable energy: solar, wind, biofuels. That's not change; that's more of the same.
Millions of jobs have left our shores, yet John continues to support tax breaks for corporations that send them there. That's not change; that's more of the same.
He voted 19 times against raising the minimum wage. For people who are struggling just to get to the next day, that's not change; that's more of the same
And when he says he will continue to spend $10 billion a month in Iraq when Iraq is sitting on a surplus of nearly $80 billion, that's not change; that's more of the same.
The choice in this election is clear. These times require more than a good soldier; they require a wise leader, a leader who can deliver change the change everybody knows we need.
Now who connects with the average joe in America? Joe Biden who gets it or Sarah Palin who wants to be the next Roseanne Barr sit com?
Time to fight OPEC and speculators Saturday, July 5, 2008
JOEL D. JOSEPH Joel D. Joseph is chairman of the Made in the USA Foundation
WASHINGTON
CONTRARY TO POPULAR myth, the price of oil is not magically determined by supply and demand. The price of oil is manipulated by OPEC (the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) and by speculators.
Other factors, including the war in Iraq and new demand from India and China, as well as momentum, have contributed to the price of oil rising so far this year more than 40 percent, to $143 barrel.
Without the war in Iraq, OPEC restrictions on supply and speculation, the price of oil would be about $50 a barrel, or less. The astronomical price of oil is contributing to a worldwide recession and adding to the food crisis by increasing the cost of basic grains.
The International Energy Agency estimates that global demand will rise to 86.8 million barrels a day this year, up from 85.8 million barrels last year, due largely to booming demand from developing nations such as India and China. This represents an increase of just over one percent, not a dramatic increase. Certainly not an increase that would justify a price increase of nearly 100 percent in the last year.
The increased demand from India and China is relatively small compared with the other factors. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, annual Chinese demand for petroleum has increased over the last five years from 1.88 billion barrels to 2.8 billion barrels, an increase of 920 million barrels a year or about 2.5 million barrels a day.
This increase corresponds to the U.S. decrease in oil consumption.
Demand for oil in United States fell about 3 percent in the first three months of this year. As prices rise the demand will fall. Similarly, the supply of oil should increase as prices rise, but OPEC has not allowed this to happen.
At the same time, speculation in oil futures has increased. This is a relatively recent phenomenon. Futures contracts for oil, the Nymex only began trading in 1981. Trading in commodity futures let speculators buy a crude-oil futures contract by having to pay only a small portion (about 6 percent) of the value of the contract. For example, at a price of $130 a barrel, this means that a futures trader only has to put up only about $8 for every barrel, while borrowing the other $122. This ability to leverage commodity futures purchases by up to 16 to 1 helps drive prices to wildly unrealistic levels. Added to this is the momentum of the rise in oil prices—it seems to keep going up and up with new speculation adding fuel to the fire.
I propose that Congress and foreign governments end OPEC's cartel and prohibit speculators from buying and selling oil.
Several Connecticut oil dealers are joining forces with U.S. Rep. John Larson (D.-Conn.) to support federal legislation that would curb commodities speculation. Larson's proposal would forbid people from speculating on oil unless they are an "end user" of the product.
This would let United Airlines, for example, buy future oil contracts, but would prohibit pension funds and billionaires not in the oil business from speculating in oil. Speculators have stockpiled the equivalent of more than one billion barrels of oil, more than any single government, driving the price of oil to record levels.
German leaders have proposed a worldwide ban on oil trading by speculators, blaming the latest spike in crude prices on manipulation by hedge funds. India has already suspended futures trading of oil.
Uwe Beckmeyer, transport chief for Germany's Social Democrats, said his party would call for joint measures by the G8 powers to prohibit leveraged trading on energy contracts. Mr. Beckmeyer said the last 25 percent rise in the price of oil had nothing to do with underlying supply and demand. "It's pure speculation," he said.
Washington overcame a significant obstacle recently in its attempt to allow lawsuits against OPEC for behaving like an oil cartel and keeping the price of petroleum artificially high. I participated in an antitrust case against OPEC 30 years ago — the U.S. courts refused to let OPEC be sued in American courts unless Congress expressly allowed it. Now Congress has done so. The House overwhelmingly approved legislation to bring a lawsuit against OPEC nations for price fixing. President Bush is opposed to the legislation because he believes that it will trigger retaliatory measures by OPEC member countries such as Saudi Arabia against American business interests. While the law still has to be passed by the Senate, the size of the majority in the House — 324 votes in favor versus 84 against — is sufficient to override a Bush veto.
We don't have to sue OPEC to get results. The United States and European nations can put pressure on OPEC nations by withholding or revoking World Trade Organization memberships, or by restricting trade in other products, such as automobiles, oil equipment and aircraft.
African and Asian nations, which are harmed most by OPEC's price gouging, can join the chorus as well.
Breaking up OPEC and reducing speculation are only short-term answers.
In the long run, the United States must be self-sufficient in energy by using solar, wind and other alternative sources of energy.
Germany, not a country known for its sunny climate, has more solar panels in place than the United States. Brazil has become self-sufficient in energy and the United States can do the same.
Senator Obama resigned today from the Trinity United Church of Christ. This resignation comes days after a visiting Catholic priest mocked Hillary Clinton during a sermon at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Obama stated, "We don't want to have to answer for everything that's stated in the church. We also don't want the church subjected to the scrutiny that a presidential campaign legitimately undergoes." Obama went on to say, "That is why I am deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn't reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause."
In his resignation letter to the church, Obama states, "I did not anticipate my fairly conventional Christian faith being subjected to such scrutiny. My faith is not contingent on the particular church I belong to and I do not believe that I am going through a religious test."
Thinking about all this raises the question, "What does it mean to be a Christian?" Does it mean claiming the name of Christ, wearing a cross around your neck, attending church regularly or the membership in a particular church? Or does it mean following the teachings and example of Jesus? Is Christianity flamboyant preachers who have hijacked the name of Jesus to lash out against gays, evolution, seperation of church and state, or political figures? Is Christianity supporting war, caring little for the poor or discriminating against others?
Jesus never spoke about gays, evolution or seperation of church and state, but Jesus did have concerns about war, caring for the poor and discriminating against others. Jesus taught God's followers should keep God's words ever before them, teach them to their children, and obey them. As Christians despite what some fundamentalist preachers say, it is the words of Jesus that are the most important part of scripture. Deuteronomy 11:18-21 speaks of God driving out the inhabitants of the land before the children Israel, but Jesus instructed his followers to love even the most hated of their neighbors like brothers and sisters. Jesus taught his followers to be peacemakers. To many contemporary preachers and churches who claim the name of Jesus, Christianity is confronting enemies, supporting war, and discriminating against others. This is not Christianity or following Jesus' teachings. It is Constantinian dominance religion. The religion of Constantine's day promoted war and put more emphasis on doctrine than praxis. Jesus' emphasis was just the opposite.
The Christian faith involves commitment of one's whole life to the practice of Jesus' teaching not assent to a set of doctrines. Paul said that God justifies those who have the kind of faith in God that Jesus had. What kind of faith is that? It is a total trust in God to guide one through thick and thin. It is confidence that God will stand by you during the toughest times of life. It is assurance that God rewards those who do what is right.
Christianity does not entail adherence to a certain set of beliefs, nor does it involve exhibitions of spirituality. This is what Obama was saying today. Obama understands Christianity is showing mercy to the poor, safety of our countrymen without the destruction of our enemies, and unity of all people to work together for the common cause. And belonging to a church or some organized religion is not a requirement to achieve this. All that is needed is living Jesus' teachings and living in faithfulness doing the will of God as revealed through Jesus to best of our ability.
Luke (NRSV) 6 24"But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. 25"Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry. "Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep. 26 "Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets.
Recently Reverend Wright’s words of "God damn America" became a controversy in the Obama campaign. Rev. Wright was criticizing the US government for its failure to address the continuing racial divide which puts many Black Americans at a disadvantage in terms of education, jobs, and health care. Obama condemned Rev. Wright’s "incendiary" language, while at the same noting that the he expresses views common in the African American community.
Some Christians may be offended by the use of the words "God" and "damn" believing them to be a violation of prohibition against taking God’s name in vain, but in fact they are perfectly in keeping with the rhetoric of Jesus. In Luke 6:24-26, Jesus proclaims the condemnation of God on the rich, the well-fed, those who laugh without concern, and those who enjoy popular support of those in power. Rev. Wright’s tone in expressing "God damn America" is no different than Luke 6:24-26. Even more "incendiary" are the words of Ezekiel (Ezek 16), who describes the nation of Judah as a "whore", which will suffer the penalty for its sins, before God ultimately offers forgiveness and restoration. Ezekiel is saying God condemns sin, especially the exploitation of the weak by the strong, but God always holds out the possibility of reconciliation. Isn’t this what Obama said in his speech last week? There is always hope for reconciliation.
Another Rev. Wright sermon following the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 stated:
We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.
Critics of Rev. Wright claim he is blaming the US for the terrorist attacks on the country. This is similar to Jerry Falwell’s comments blaming purported American moral failures for the attacks. However, Wright’s words are far different than Falwell’s words. Falwell claimed that God was so incensed with homosexuals, feminists, pagans, abortionists, and the ACLU that "God lifted the curtain" of protection so that American’s enemies could give us "what we deserved." But on the other hand, Rev. Wright does not attribute the 9/11 attacks to God’s divine judgment. He argues that America’s acts of violence around the world over the past several decades coupled with policies supportive of repressive regimes gave rise to outrage of the individuals behind this terrorist attack. Rev. Wright is correct. The terrorists who plotted and executed 9/11 are guilty of the act not the victims of the attack. But he points out nations that perpetrate acts of violence must consider there will be repercussions to these acts of violence.
Obama clearly pointed out the problem with Rev. Wright’s words is that Rev. Wright sees white racism as "endemic in America." Obama doesn’t see it that way. He eloquently explained that while the Black community feels repressed due to generational experiences, the White community feels resentment due to Affirmative Action. Until we recognize these feelings on both sides, we cannot have reconciliation.
Is Rev. Wright a blasphemer, unpatriotic, or a supporter of terrorists? There is nothing in his words that suggests or concludes that. He is saying words that Americans need to hear. He is saying words that brings cause to Americans to be self-critical. Rev. Wright’s sermons offer the opportunity to reflect on America’s weaknesses as well as its strengths. And it is Rev. Wright’s right to preach these words in America. The First Amendment specifically states, "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people...to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Whether you agree with Rev. Wright or not, he has the right to speak his "grievances." And Obama respects his right to do that...as should we.
Politics of Cynicism or Politics of Hope
Category: News and Politics
Barack Obama once said, "My parents shared not only improbable love, they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or blessed, believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success." After the past few months of attacks on Barack Obama’s religion and race, I wonder if his parents were too idealistic. Are we a nation that talks the talk but really doesn’t walk the walk?
The latest attack involves Barack Obama’s minister and the words his minister has preached about 9/11 and race. As for his minister’s words on 9/11, while he stated it indelicately in my opinion, it’s a fact 9/11 was a blowback from misguided US foreign policy in the Middle East. It goes back at least as far as US involvement in Mosadec in Iran and the Reagan administration’s training and funding of Osama bin Laden to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan. What is dangerous and sad is that whenever someone points out this fact they are subject to be excoriated in the Corporate Media. It is a chilling effect on our public debate and our ability to analyze, understand and deal with the problem of combating and counteracting terrorism.
Next. Reverend Wright was wrong to espouse his ideas from the pulpit, but is he any worse than Jerry Falwell blaming 9/11 on lesbians, Pat Robertson blaming Katrina on the gay people living in New Orleans, Catholic-hater John Hagee, or Muslim-hater Rod Parsley? Is Obama responsible for Reverend Wright’s comments because he attends his church? Was Bush responsible for Robertson and Falwell’s comment when they were instrumental to his presidency? Is McCain responsible for Hagee and Parsley’s comments when they are advisors to his campaign and endorse him?
In terms of race, months ago, Obama denounced the comments made by Reverend Wright. Last Friday, he denounced them again. Obama has not campaigned as a Black man. Obama has not made race an issue in his campaign, his opponents have. There is nothing in Obama’s Senate record, his life as a biracial child, or his words that support anything Reverend Wright has said.
In all this, the bottom line is religion does not have a place in politics and government. We can vote according to our beliefs, but one religion should not control our government.
As Barack Obama says, "In the end, that is what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope?
