On Planet Janet - NYPOST.com

On Planet JanetComments: 52Last Updated: 5:52 PM, December 29, 2009Posted: December 29, 2009President Obama yesterday pulled his head out of the sand long enough to promise a thorough review of US security practices after the near-suicide bombing of a commercial airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day.

Then he stuck it right back in.

Obama, in a brief address from Hawaii, did manage to utter the “T” word: “A full investigation has been launched into this attempted act of terrorism.” But he refused to define the nature of the threat.

Nor did he fire Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano — a pity, because if any government official ever earned the boot, it’s her.

Sunday, she claimed “the system” she allegedly oversees “worked” on Christmas Day — even though Nigerian jihadist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab brought a bomb aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 and almost detonated it.

The claim was nonsensical, as she finally noted yesterday — “the system didn’t work” — but not before destroying the credibility she needs to hold the job.

Yet Obama is short on credibility, too. Why

can’t he bring himself to describe the threat for what it is: an Islamist holy war against America?

Yesterday, Obama termed Abdulmutallab “an isolated extremist.”

Really? Is that all?

The bomber’s own

father warned US officials in October that his son had fallen in with Islamic radicals.

Abdulmutallab

himselfreportedly told federal officials he trained with al Qaeda in Yemen — and, for what it’s worth, al Qaeda in Yemen confirms that.

And ABC News reported yesterday that two of Abdulmutallab’s Yemeni trainers had been released from Guantanamo Bay to the Saudis in 2007 — and then set free after (no joke) “art therapy rehabilitation.”

Meanwhile, Brian Jenkins of the Rand Corporation reports 12 incidents of Islamist terror either in the United States or involving Americans abroad in 2009, the most in any year since 9/11. (These include the Fort Hood massacre.)

See the trend line?

Obama refuses to.

“Those who would attack our country” is how he described the jihadis — a formulation he used

four timesin his brief address.

But if the president refuses to define the enemy, how can he expect America to

defendagainst that enemy?

No

wonderNapolitano is so confused.

No reasonable person believes that terror screening can ever be foolproof. But Americans need full confidence that their government is addressing the problem as vigorously as possible.

This would require Obama to order two basic changes in anti-terror policy:

* Captured terrorists need to be treated as such — and not as common criminals. Abdulmutallab needs to disappear down a black hole somewhere, and stay there until the war on terror is over. No criminal trials for terrorists.

* Homeland Security needs to quit pretending little old ladies from the heartland pose a security threat and institute an intelligent traveler-profiling policy that targets Middle Eastern males.

Certainly, Abdulmutallab’s attack was instructive: Who knew it was so easy to waltz through security with high explosives stuffed down one’s pants?

But while odds are that some equally imaginative jihadist will someday succeed, a comprehensive, focused anti-terror policy will make that much less likely.

* PRINT * EMAIL * dropdown SHARE o Yahoo! Buzz o Digg o Reddit o Fark It o Newsvine o StumbleUpon o Twitter o Facebook * rss RSSPresident Obama yesterday pulled his head out of the sand long enough to promise a thorough review of US se curity practices after the near-suicide bombing of a commercial airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day.Then he stuck it right back in.Obama, in a brief address from Hawaii, did manage to utter the “T” word: “A full investigation has been launched into this attempted act of terrorism.” But he refused to define the nature of the threat.

On Planet Janet – NYPOST.com

Blogged with the Flock Browser

[Via http://theneointellectual.wordpress.com]

Let's talk about... BALLS!

Balls and bombs that is. So the word on the street is that a would-be terrorist allegedly sneaked explosives onto a flight, in his crotch. As much as I admire the ingenuity and creativity of the terrorists, I want to know what we as a country intend to do to stop them. I’m all for the kumbaya, hug a thug attitude that the Obama administration wants to display, but I am much more interested in landing and making it home safely. That includes NOT being blown up at 30,000 feet. As cute as political correctness is, I find public safety even cuter. Nobody wants to be the one responsible for profiling. Let’s not mention the possibility of lawsuits. Some might even argue that there are terrorists of all shapes and colors. And a rock solid argument might even be the example of the shoe bomber, Richard Reid, the white sympathizer. But I need to point out that for ever Tim McVeigh or Richard Reid, there are 20 crazy camel riding motherfuckers named Abdul Amed Omar Bin Laden trying to blow up as many people their homemade bombs can reach. As much as I would love to not offend people, someone has to have the balls to keep it real. Evil comes from everywhere, but the facts remain constant. Although the average Muslim is not a nutty terrorist, the average terrorist is a nutty muslim. As much as I feel bad for the poor family going on vacation who has to be “random-searched” because they have the right (or in this case, the wrong name), lives are more important than your indignation. Suck it up, take off your shoes, and walk through that body scanner so we can be sure you don’t have a bomb hidden under  your nuts.

View This Poll
survey software

[Via http://bibssince1985.wordpress.com]

French Atomic Pique

Sarkozy unloads on Obama’s ‘virtual’ disarmament reality

President Obama wants a unified front against Iran, and to that end he stood together with Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown in Pittsburgh on Friday morning to reveal the news about Tehran’s secret facility to build bomb-grade fuel. But now we hear that the French and British leaders were quietly seething on stage, annoyed by America’s handling of the announcement.

 

Both countries wanted to confront Iran a day earlier at the United Nations. Mr. Obama was, after all, chairing a Security Council session devoted to nonproliferation. The latest evidence of Iran’s illegal moves toward acquiring a nuclear weapon was in hand. With the world’s leaders gathered in New York, the timing and venue would be a dramatic way to rally international opinion.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy flanked by President Barack Obama, and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

President Sarkozy in particular pushed hard. He had been “frustrated” for months about Mr. Obama’s reluctance to confront Iran, a senior French government official told us, and saw an opportunity to change momentum. But the Administration told the French that it didn’t want to “spoil the image of success” for Mr. Obama’s debut at the U.N. and his homily calling for a world without nuclear weapons, according to the Paris daily Le Monde. So the Iran bombshell was pushed back a day to Pittsburgh, where the G-20 were meeting to discuss economic policy.   Click here to read more…

[Via http://rightlinks.wordpress.com]

TGR-RE: December 25, 2009

This week’s broadcast includes:

Muslims say FBI tactics sow anger and fear
4 big mortgage backers swim in ocean of debt
Glenn Beck – Media Matters’ ‘Misinformer of the Year’
American Indian land sold off by IRS to pay off taxes
Kucinich panel to investigate Citigroup tax ruling
New CDC estimate: 1 in 110 children have autism
Politifact’s ‘Lie of the Year’ – Death Panels
NIH’s New Year’s resolution?
The brain may feel other people’s pain
US silent about Taliban guarantee offer on al Qaeda
Obama ordered missile strikes in Yemen
Stunning statistics about the war every American should know
Perils of empire-building
Colombia to build new military base on Venezuelan border
Iraq’s security forces implicated in December bombings
Israel harvested organs in ’90s without permission
India’s killer cookers a recipe for disaster
Polluting pets: the devastating impact of man’s best friend
Iran charges 12 at prison over death of protesters

[Via http://theglobalreportradioedition.wordpress.com]

Christmas is almost here... Well, in Hawaii.

Glee Countdown: 110 Days

Which reminds me, I opened my Glee Volume 2 CD It is awesome and I’m already listening to it. I’m not supposed to be up since Santa’s almost here, according to the Santa Tracker. Yes, I do check that… for my sister. He’s in Alaska… Amazing, why not come to Hawaii before Alaska? I mean, Alaska is much closer than Hawaii is to the North Pole. Ah, well I can’t wait to open all my preasents in the morning!

I feel all stuffed from the food I ate at Tsukiji’s… God, they have really good Asian/American food…

AND I TOTALLY FORGOT: Obama’s in town. No biggie though, there’s nothing much to really say. I found out todayon the next Iron Chef (YES, I do watch Food Network) that someone very political is going to be guest starring. I was cheering on in my head, “OBAMA. OBAMA. OBAAAAMAAAAA!”… Turns out that they flashed out in the commercial who it is going to be… His wife. Great.

[Via http://heyfromtay.wordpress.com]

Dolly M. Gee: FIRST! Chinese American Female US District Court Judge

Judges Jacqueline Nguyen, Dolly Gee, and Edward Chen

Today, the Senate unanimously confirmed Dolly M. Gee to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles), making her the FIRST! Chinese American female to serve as an Article III Judge, which are lifetime presidential appointments.

The Asian American Justice Center and the National APA Bar Association recommended Gee for the seat, and worked with the Obama Administration, the White House Counsel’s office, and California Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein to support Gee (along with Judges Jacqueline Nguyen and Edward M. Chen) for the US District Court.

 In addition to being a legal eagle, Gee has served on the boards of the Western Center on Law and Poverty, the California Women’s Law Center, and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center.  She  received NAPABA’s ”Trailblazer award”, as well as heap of pro bono service awards and the “Super Lawyer” distinction from Los Angeles Magazine. 

FIRST!

Adapted from AAJC News Release 

[Via http://bicoastalbitchin.wordpress.com]

"Have you no sense of decency, sir?"

It’s two days before Christmas and my intent had been to write something light, airy, and apolitical. I had illusions of creating a memorable piece; something along the lines of Francis Pharcellus Church’s 1897 editorial in which the famous aphorism “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus” was first published.

Alas, I lack both Church’s gift for words and his sense of optimism in uncertain times.

On my mind today is another historical figure, Joseph Nye Welch, who was an attorney for the United States Army during the 1950’s. Welch represented the Army during the infamous McCarthy Senate hearings.

“Tail-Gunner Joe” McCarthy saw a communist under every bed, behind every lamp-post, and in virtually every government office. After weeks of abusive interrogations, during which McCarthy conjured rumors, lies, innuendo, fear, uncertainty, and despair over the character of a string of largely guiltless witnesses, Nye was at last moved to address McCarthy:

“You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

The hundreds who packed the galleries of the Senate burst into applause.

Today, I address Mr. Welch’s words to the sixty Democrats in the Senate who are lining up to vote for Obamacare.

You are ready to vote for this bill in the face of public opinion polls that clearly indicate a majority of Americans are opposed to “health care reform.”

You are ready to vote ‘yes’ despite the dozens of documented questionable, certainly unethical, probably illegal, and perhaps unconstitutional deals that have been made with various states, individuals, lobbying groups, and private corporations in order to garner the bare minimum of support necessary to pass this bill.

You have turned your backs and held your noses so as not to witness the decay and corruption that abounds about you.

Only a few of you have even complained and that was when you discovered too late that you did not hold out for enough—that Harry Reid and Barack Obama would have given you almost anything to ensure your support.

You have prostituted yourselves to your party, your president, and your contributors. You have betrayed your constituents. You have joined in a feast of greed and corruption by which every other congress pales in comparison.

I can only wish I were as eloquent as Joseph Nye Welch:

“You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

[Via http://rlifud.com]

2010 to be key year in fight against nuclear arms | Reuters

In April, U.S. President Barack Obama declared in a speech in Prague that the United States was committed “to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” In September he chaired a meeting of the U.N. Security Council that unanimously supported this vision.

Analysts and Western government officials say Obama’s ability to begin delivering on his promise will be tested next year when Moscow and Washington resume haggling on an arms reduction pact and again at a key U.N. nuclear arms conference in May.

They say success of a month-long review of the troubled 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will depend largely on whether U.S. and Russian negotiators can first agree on a successor pact to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty

via 2010 to be key year in fight against nuclear arms | Reuters.

[Via http://crousey.com]

THE IRANIAN BOMB THREAT MEANS THAT YOU MUST BUILD THE TROTSKYIST PARTY

by Felix Quigley

21 December, 2009

What dominates everything in the world today is the political and economic crisis int he capitalist system. This is a stinking corpse, in terminal decline and nothing shows this better than that there is a real possibility of a new Shoah of the Jews at the hands of the Iranian Fascists.

Some people think that opposition to Ahmadinejad by courageous youth in Iran means a weakening and a lessening of the threat to israel. In fact the very opposite is the casde.

More and more power is concentrated in the hands of the fundamentalists, the revolutionary guard element.

But the real danger to incineration of Jews again comes from the US Imperialists under Obama, the European antisemites and pro Arabists like Zapatero (see the Southern Sahara case), but most of all from the supine leaders in Israel itself

We on 4international say that there must be a huge campaign in Israel and out, to concentrate on uniting with Netanyahu and forcing netanyahu to act immediately with the IAF against the Iranian Nuclear bomb making.

This must be made the centre of all activity of Israeli, jewish and pro Israeli groups. There must be marches, demonstrations, calls by every group and it must focus on this very issue.

Essentially all other issues pale into insignificance in comparision to this.

This struggle will mean a war against the Staslinists and revisionist Lefts like Chomsky. The most important thing is the creation of a true trotskyist party on Trotskyist principles.

This latter struggle to build up Trotskyism means to take up a struggle against the sceptics like Ayn reagan and yamit82 on Israpundit, and also on pro US Imperialists like Ted belman on the same site, and on others.

This is the purpose of 4international, to fight for this.

In so far as DEBKAfile has got its information correct, and it seems to be correct given everything we know about Obama and netanyahu, the following report has to be taken most seriously, studied and acted upon.

Please leave ideas and comments at the end.

[Begin Debka report on Iran Bomb here]

US president Barack Obama’s tough talk of sanctions has melted into soft soap for luring Iran into further dialogue. Adopting the reverse tactic, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sounds almost reasonable for a change, even as Tehran pushes its revolutionary goals as pugnaciously as ever.

DEBKAfile’s Washington sources disclose Saturday, Dec. 19 that official US warnings that Washington’s patience is running out and tough sanctions are imminent are no more than a smokescreen for three major steps embarked on by the Obama administration in the last four days for dragging out sanctions and setting back military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu gave the US president another six months for diplomacy without the threat of military action when they met at the White House November 9. The first six months’ grace runs out at the end of Dec. 2009. The second ends in mid-2010. Netanyahu was backed up by defense minister Ehud Barak who said Monday, Dec. 14: “There is still time for diplomatic action to stop Iran.”

Using the respite, our sources report that the US president offered three inducements for tempting Tehran to call off its military program:

1. Whereas Tuesday, Dec. 15, Congress approved penalties for firms selling Iran gasoline and the insurance companies underwriting its sale, the following day, the influential senator John Kerry announced through his spokesman Frederic Jones that the Foreign Relations Committee, which he heads, “needs time to consider the bill.”

2. Friday, Dec. 17, Pentagon spokeswoman Tara Rigler announced a six-month delay in deploying the precision-guided, 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator or “bunker buster” bomb (developed specifically for the nuclear facilities Iran and North Korea have sunk deep under ground).

“Funding delays and enhancements to the planned test schedule have pushed the capability availability date to Dec. 2010,” she announced.

Only five months ago, in August, the US Air Force announced that the 15-ton bomb for delivery by B-2 stealth bombers had been funded and would be ready for service in July 2010.

Washington is thus offering Tehran another six months to play with, free of threat of sanctions and safe from the bombardment of its subterranean nuclear facilities.

3. Over the weekend beginning Friday, Dec. 18, Israeli newspaper correspondents briefed by administration officials ran stories denigrating Mossad director Meir Dagan as the only Israeli official hold-out on the need to attack Iran. He is presented as being in the grip of a fixation detrimental to his handling of other key issues. One editorial advised the Israeli government to learn to live with a nuclear-armed Iran.

But the Obama administration’s lures had at least one result: Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking from the Copenhagen climate conference, said:

“Everything is possible, 400 kilos, 800 kilos, it’s nothing,” for enrichment abroad, “but not in a climate where they threaten us. From the outset, delivery of 1,200 kilos of uranium was not a problem for us, but if they believe they can wave a stick to threaten us, those days are over. They have to change their vocabulary to respect and legality.”

While preaching to others about sticks, the Iranian president must have thought the big sticks Tehran waved in the last four days alone were invisible.

Wednesday, Dec. 12, Tehran launched an improved Sejil 2 missile which DEBKAfile’s military sources confirm is capable of penetrating US and Israeli anti-missile defense shields and defying their interceptors, although US and Israeli sources were at pains to play down its capabilities. Those sources report that Sejil-2 is loaded with electronic chips used as decoys to mislead the electronic systems of the Israeli Arrow 2 and the US Patriot, Aegis and THAAD anti-missile missile systems.

Only last week, furthermore, Tehran signed a new military pact with Syria, roping in the Lebanese Hizballah and Palestinian Hamas as second-strike wielders; Wednesday, the “Iranian Cyber Army” hacked into Twitter and filled its home page with anti-US slogans; for most of December, Iran-backed Yemeni rebels have kept Saudi and government forces on the run and, Friday, Iranian soldiers seized control of an Iraqi oil well in a disputed border region.

All the same, Obama’s beckoning gestures and Ahmadinejad’s smooth response indicate a fresh round of talks will be explored between the 5P+1 bloc (five Security Council permanent members plus Germany) and Iran before sanctions are broached or either the US or Israel resort to military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

This means that Washington’s determined ultimatum to Iran to comply with its international obligations by the end of 2009 has been extended by a whole year – an extra six months granted by Israeli up to June 2010 and another six months which President Obama tagged on himself in order to further delay an Israeli attack on Iran.

By then, it will all be over: Tehran will have attained a nuclear weapon plus the means of delivery.

Saturday, an Iranian military spokesman declared: “Our forces are on our own soil, and based on the known international borders this well belongs to Iran.”

It is not hard to imagine how Tehran will comport itself once it has “the bomb.”

[End Debka report here]

WHAT THE ABOVE SAYS IS CLEAR

“By then, it will all be over: Tehran will have attained a nuclear weapon plus the means of delivery.”

ESSENTIALLY THIS MEANS THAT THE MOBILIZATION MUST TAKE PLACE ON A BROAD FRONT, IN ISRAEL, IN EUROPE, ESPECIALLY IN AMERICA

ISRAEL MUST STRIKE IMMEDIATELY AGAINST THE IRANIAN BOMB MAKING AND ROCKET DELIVERY SYSTEMS

NETANYAHU MUST STOP GABBLING WITH OBAMA. HE OPERATES LIKE A DOOMED XMAS TURKEY

THE FIGHT AHGAINST THE STALINIST AND REVISIONIST LEFT MUST BE TAKEN UP

THE TROTSKYIST PARTY MUST BE BUILT TO FORM A UNITED FRONT WITH ALL THOSE JEWS AND NON JEWS WHO WILL FIGHT ON THIS ISSUE

The crisis in the capitalist system is dominating all of the life on the planet, from the extinction of species, to global heating, to these issues of the danger of Shoah facing the Jews.

Millions and millions are being thrown in to crisis. It is necessary to build this Trotskyist leadership and to educate a generation of fighters in the true principles of Trotskyism, which is the language of struggle in our epoch.

[Via http://4international.wordpress.com]

Ghetto Finance Monday 12/21/09: Depressing...

By Edward Harrison who writes the blog Credit Writedowns:

Excerpt 1:

When debt is the real issue underlying an economic downturn, the result is either Great Depression-like collapse or a period of stagnation and short business cycles as we have seen in Japan over the last two decades.  This is what a modern-day depression looks like – a series of W’s where uneven economic growth is punctuated by fits of recession.

Excerpt 2:

We will go through a giant debt-restructuring, because we either have to bring debt-service payments down so they are low relative to incomes — the cash flows that are being produced to service them — or we are going to have to raise incomes by printing a lot of money.

Excerpt 3:

So where are we, then?  We are in a fake recovery that could last as long as three or four years or could peter out very quickly in a double dip recession.

Me: Smart guy, really really smart guy.

[Via http://thecrosspollinator.wordpress.com]

Visa delay to affect aid efforts, US cautions Pak

The State Department said that if this continued, Washington’s efforts to help stabilise Pakistan could be affected.

WASHINGTON: The US State Department said on Thursday that if Pakistan continued to deny visas to hundreds of US officials and contractors, Washington’s efforts to help stabilise the violence-ridden country could be affected.

At a briefing, the department’s Deputy Spokesman Robert A. Wood confirmed earlier reports that Pakistan had denied visa to hundreds of US officials and citizens.

“Well, it is true. Hundreds of visa applications and renewals for US officials and contractors are awaiting issuance by the Pakistani government. The cause of the delays is unclear. But we are working with our Pakistani counterparts to try to resolve these issues. And we’re working very hard,” he said.

“In terms of what kind of an impact it may have, I would suspect, if this continues, it will indeed have an impact on our ability to do the work that we want to do to help the Pakistani people, in terms of fighting terrorism; in terms of economic development, and a whole range of issues.”

In an unusually harsh expression of public indignation from an official platform, the official said while the US administration was trying to work these issues with the government of Pakistan, “but indeed there are cases that are — that we’re concerned about”.

Asked if it’s a deliberate campaign to harass US officials and US operations in Pakistan, Mr Wood said: “I don’t think I can call it a deliberate campaign” but “certainly, if any of our officials feel that they are being harassed, there are appropriate channels to go through in order to file complaints about that sort of thing”.

Yet, he said, he would not “make a general comment that there’s an official harassment campaign”.

Explaining how the US administration was trying to resolve this dispute with a country it regards as a key ally in the war against terror, Mr Wood said: “We have raised these issues with Pakistani officials at very senior levels. And we’ve expressed our concern about the delays and the impact that this could very well have on our programmes and activities.”

The Pakistani authorities, he said, were well aware of America’s concerns. “I can’t give you any reason why they’re being delayed. But these issues are important.”

He said that while only Pakistanis could explain why they were doing so, for the Americans it was a big concern and they had raised it at very senior levels.

“We’re committed to trying to work with Pakistan to make sure that we can get these visas and get on with the business of what we’re trying to do in Pakistan.”

“In terms of raising it at senior levels, how far does this go back? Did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raise it on her recent trip?” he was asked.

“Let me just say this: We’ve raised it at very senior levels. I don’t really want to get more specific than that,” said Mr Wood.

Asked if the delay was already having an impact on US-Pakistan relations, Mr Wood said: “It’s hard for me to characterise how — would I want to stand up here at the podium and say it’s having a real impact right now. I don’t — I can’t really say that. I just don’t know. But I think, should this continue, it indeed will have an impact.”

[Via http://naumanrk.wordpress.com]

Prosecuted pot provider accuses Obama of entrapment, uses campaign promises as defense.

As progressives complain that Pres. Barack Obama isn’t fulfilling the promises he made on the campaign trail, one medical cannabis provider is now using the then-candidate’s words to defend himself in federal court.

James Dean Stacy, the defendant, is calling it entrapment.

Stacy, a martial-arts instructor and medical cannabis patient who ran the Movement in Action Collective in Vista, was arrested on September 9 as part of the countywide raids that temporarily closed 14 medical marijuana dispensaries. So far, criminal charges have been filed against two individuals in state court, and two federal court.

Last week, Joseph Nunez of Green Kross Collective, pleaded guilty in his federal case, but Stacy is holding strong. His attorneys, Federal Defenders of San Diego, filed on December 9 a motion to dismiss the indictment, drawing largely from statements Obama made while campaigning for the presidency.

In essence, Stacy is arguing that he meticulously researched the process  and did the due diligence of forming a collective in compliance with the California Attorney General’s guidelines and the Secretary of State’s policies for forming a non-profit. He says that he opened the collective based on the assumption that US Attorney General Eric Holder and Obama would stand by their statements that medical cannabis dispensaries obeying state law would not be prosecuted.

Stacy’s motion calls it a “fundmental notion of fairness:  fundamental notion of fairness: the individual must have fair
warning of what conduct the government intends to punish.”

The defense relies on  “entrapment by estoppel,” whichthe Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ defines as “when an official tells the defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant believes the official.”

Stacy cites everything from the LA Times to the Huffington Post to back up his claim. Here’s the big one he throws in Obama’s face, a statement the candidate made during an interview with the Medford Mail-Tribune on March 22, 2008:

“When it comes to medical marijuana, I have more of a practical view than anything else. I mean, my attitude is that if it’s an issue of doctors prescribing medical marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma or as a cancer treatment, I think that should be appropriate because there really is no difference between that and a doctor prescribing morphine or anything else. I think there are legitimate concerns in not wanting to allow people to grow their own or start setting up mom andpop shops, because at that point it becomes fairly difficult to regulate. And again, I am not familiar with all the details of the initiative that was passed and what safeguards there were in place, but I think the basic concept that using medical marijuana in the same way with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors, I think that’s entirely appropriate. What I am not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue. Simply because I want folks to be investigating violent crimes and potential terrorism. We’ve got a lot of things for our law enforcement officers to deal with.” (bolding added)

He also cites a May 12, 2008 statement by Obama’s spokesman (and currentWhite House staffer) Ben LaBolt:

“Voters and legislators in the states – from California to Nevada to Maine – have decided to provide their residents suffering from chronic diseases and serious illnesses like AIDS and cancer with medical marijuana to relieve their pain and suffering. . . Obama supports the rights of states and local governments to make this choice – though he believes medical marijuana should be subject to (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) regulation like other drugs.” LaBolt also said Obama would end U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration raids on medical marijuana suppliers in states with their own laws. (bold added)

And of course, the defense also draws from Holder’s much publicized statements and official guidelines for prosecuting medical marijuana cases, that is, that the Department of Justice shouldn’t if it’s in keeping with the state law.

Stacy is making this a Constitutional issue, arguing that the prosecution subverts state law, breaking the 10th Amendment, and violates his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment.

The process Stacy underwent to set up his collective is laid out in detail: He researched web sites, hired an attorney, went back and forth with the Secretary of State’s office to get the non-profit’s articles of incorporation just right. Ultimately, he claims that the case must be dismissed because prosecutors cannot prove he was breaking California’s  medical cannabis laws—and, as Holder and Obama promised, the DOJ should use the resources to investigate and prosecute real crimes, like terrorism.

Click here to download the motion and exhibits (pdfs).

[Via http://lastblogonearth.com]

Inspirations from Obama's Nobel Prize speech-- the limited power of the international community in prosecution.

Whether you like Obama winning the Nobel Prize  not, his speech has revealed a major concern that lies within the UN—- our international community’s governing body. In retrospect, many international problems have been solved with the help of America. If so, it the following statement true?

“The International community is all bark and no bite.”

With the advent of technology, adding onto the clout of globalization, the international community as become increasingly inter-connected through better flow of information and  various conduits of communication. The first thing that comes to the minds of many when “international community” is mentioned is United Nations. Indeed, as an international governing body of 192 members states since 1945, United Nations is definitely the best icon that can be representative of the phrase “international community”, it is at the same time, a platform for various nations to interact. One of its most influential subsidiary bodies is the Security Council, which often helps to settle various disputes. However, the international community through its performance at UN, has often been censured for its incapability to uphold and buttress international laws. One example is that f nuclear proliferation. Despite the international community’s efforts to prevent more nuclear powers from emerging, India, Pakistan and Israel have all subsequently produced nuclear weapons successfully. In 2009, Iran and North Korea have embarked on their journey for the pursuit of nuclear power.

There are numerous examples where the international community failed to punish those sates that broke the rule. If so, is the international community really all “bark and no bite?” Nevertheless, situations where international community does “bite” exist as well. A possible reason that can be held accountable for this is the burgeoning complexities that are emerging around the world. President Obama’s recent Nobel Peace Prize speech has given me some hints on this subject.

The underlying factor for international community to fail to “bite” lies in the word “community”, which means a group of interacting organisms sharing an environment. 192 nations— you hardly expect them to share any major similarities— they are different in language, geography, climate, culture and most importantly, politically and ideologically diverse. The result will be difference in approach towards punishing nations that break the international laws. Mr. Obama said, “Those regimes that break the rules must e held accountable” gives us some enlightenment, it was recognition of the presence of barricades that obstructs the passing of any resolutions or actions by international community against countries that break the rules. This is evident at the Security Council where countries are split into two broad categories—- “Mind you own business” and “Let justice be served”.

The first category includes countries such as Russia and china, their principle is to avoid interference in other nations’ domestic affairs. They usually give no opinions on events that are regarded as other nations’ internal issues. For example, they have often veto against the passing of any resolution that imposes sanctions on countries such as Iran, North Korea and Myanmar. Often, they have an interest in these countries. For instance, Russia sells weapons to Iran and North Korea is a traditional ally of china. Imposing sanctions will reduce revenue for Russia and reduce geopolitical influence in the region for China. For not meddling with other nations’ domestic and often sensitive issues, they hope the rest will do the same towards them in return, especially when they have thorny issues at hands too: Chechnya and Georgian War in Russia and Tibet and human rights issues for China.

The second category is where U.S. and UK will fall in. As victors of WWII, as the sole superpowers of the world (especially America), they feel they have the obligation to protect the world. In the case of Myanmar, there is no denial that U.S. is at the forefront of lambasting the secular state for its human rights problems, in particular, the house arrest of Aung Sun Suu Kyi. The Western values- democracy, liberty and capitalism, have been seen as the viable model for countries to adopt, especially after the fall of Berlin Wall where U.S. eventually emerged victorious. These western values, however, are not viewed as universal by every member of the community. The Middle East and Now the South America, led by Venezuela, are rejecting them altogether. While these values are acceptable to me, ideological differences have made the oppositions difficult to understand and appreciate wholeheartedly.

The potpourri of ideologies and politics has made different nations to view events differently. Yet, if the international community does not share any common traits—intent, belief, preferences, is this a community in the first place?

Nations face different needs and interests. Upon the clash of interests, someone has to give up his. If not, nations will come to an impasse. As world leaders gather at Copenhagen for climate change discussions, our theory is lucidly displayed before us. Bounteous protests have been staged as the ongoing altercation failed to make any progress. Nations are divided into numerous groups including BRIC, G77-China and the West. At the moment, talks are deadlocked over emissions cuts and financial aid for poorer countries. At such occasions, we expect “self before community”; abnegation? You must be kidding me!

However, if were  to face a common problem these differences will fade away and abscond.

In this borderless world that we stay in, there are no limits to crime. Crimes are becoming high-tech these days- piracy, file-sharing, cyber attack are the new forms of threats we are facing today. Any hacker that manages to invade a nation’s network can paralyze the entire country. In the face of it, international community I working towards a common goal.  U.S. has finally joined UN’s cyber war talks recently. International cooperation in such situations is often more effective as there are multilateral benefits. Another example is that of Somali piracy, where navy forces from various nations have joined to escort ships.

International community’s attempt to avoid war and use diplomacy and sanctions whenever possible has to be noted. The desired outcome if of course to solve problems without any shedding of blood ad further conflicts, as Obama has said, “it was simply a fact, like drought or disease- the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences. In the twenty-first century, diplomacy and talks are sometime deemed too slow to produce any results but violence is sought to be avoided as much as possible. Ask yourself, would you prefer another Iraq war on Iranian soil or UN Security Council’s resolution: Non-proliferation. Diplomacy has not only avoided misunderstandings, but also encourage further bilateral relationships, such as the deployment of missile defence system in Eastern Europe; after diplomacy and talks and finally the abolishment of the plan altogether, U.S. and Russia are working closer together especially in the area of nuclear non-proliferation.

A major setback of the international community lies under the imperfections of various international governing bodies. These organizations are more often platforms for nations to voice their opinions and in terms of judging nations on their right and wrong, the international community seems to be ready to go for that. One thing they have to forego is national sovereignty. In order to be more effective in terms of reactive to global events and enforcing international laws, nations have to incorporated into the international community and be willing to have a higher authority to rule over them. For now, it has been “America that led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace”. After the “U.S. has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and strength of our arms”, can the international community one take over of the role and not just another superpower (BRIC)?

[Via http://thecriticalangle.wordpress.com]

Getting Back to Social Work

The dreaded Direct Loans statement came in the mail today. I’ve been feeling pretty good so thought, what the hey, I’ll open it up this month. So, apparently the US Department of Education wants over $800 a month from me to pay back student loan for my Master of Social Work degree. Yeah right! Fuck you very much lenders!!! Seriously, you bail out the banks, a herd of greedy, amoral, vile, asshats that given a second chance decide to pad their own wallets, and you have the nerve to expect me to pay back $800 a month. At the same time you (mostly the cold hearted Republicans) want to defund and cut spending to mental health and social service agencies making the likelihood I will even find a decent paying job questionable. Therefore, I am basically donating a percentage of my time and money to this country, to the socially, economically, and mentally disadvantaged citizens. Throw a little of that bail out money to the social workers will ya! The teachers get the love with the loan forgiveness and most teachers I know are dumb as rocks. (to the teachers that read this, I don’t mean you But seriously, it takes a lot of nerve to charge a social worker the tuition many are charged and then only pay in the 30,000’s with a Master’s. Could it be because the majority of social workers are women, and women in this country are expected to get married, therefore making their paycheck “extra” money for the household? Possibly, but that is another blog post.  However,  I will be adding the word chump on my business card because that is what I feel like for spending 70 grand on an education that nets me 34 grand a year.   Jane Addams, MSW, and henceforth known as  the US Depart of Education’s bitch.  Maybe one day the collective we will value the mental well-being of children enough to pay those that work with underserved and disadvantaged children a living wage.

[Via http://whatwouldjaneaddamsdo.wordpress.com]

Obama's "Sex Trumps Religion" EEOC Nominee Heads To Full Senate Hearings

Just another gay radical that Obama wants in his administration

Here is another radical that Obama wants to appoint into his administration that is already full of radicals. Chai Feldblum is an openly GAY, and LIBERAL, law professor that Obama wants to appoint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Why is Feldblum so radical?

Feldblum has some radical views about polyamory (multiple sexual partners — whether homo, bi, or heterosexual) and polygamy (multiple spouses — homo, bi, or heterosexual) are just as good as the old-fashioned model. She believes “gay sex is morally good.”

Another day, another radical up for appointment by Obama. What is up with Obama and his love to appoint radical gays into his administration? Isn’t Obama’s Safe-School Czar, Kevin Jennings, radical enough?

[Via http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com]

Tea Party Express III, March 27, 2010, Just Vote Them Out, Searchlight NV, Las Vegas NV, Boston MA, Congress, White House, Take our country back

TEA PARTY EXPRESS TO RETURN FOR PART III!

 

“National Tea Party caravan will hold conservative rallies March 27 – April 15
SACRAMENTO, CA – The Tea Party Express (website: http://www.teapartyexpress.org/ ) is planning a 20-day tour that will cross the nation holding Tea Party rallies with the slogan “Just Vote Them Out!” in reference to the upcoming 2010 congressional elections.

The “Tea Party Express III: Just Vote Them Out” tour will rally conservatives in support of principles such as limited government, fiscal responsibility, and an end to the socialist policies being imposed by the Obama administration.

The caravan will launch with a “Mega Rally” in Searchlight, Nevada (population: approximately 500), the tiny hometown of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, on March 27th.

The Searchlight rally will feature numerous conservative celebrities and VIP’s, as well as the candidates vying for Reid’s senate seat. The Searchlight Mega Rally is expected to draw participants from multiple states to an event unprecedented in size and scope for the small town. From there, the Tea Party Express travels eastward towards its final destination of the massive April 15th Tax Day Tea Party rally in Washington, D.C.”

Read more:

http://teapartyexpressblog.blogspot.com/

SCHEDULE

Saturday, Mar 27
Searchlight, NV

Las Vegas, NV

Sunday, Mar 28
Phoenix, AZ

Flagstaff, AZ

Monday, Mar 29
St. George, UT

Tuesday, Mar 30
Provo, UT

Salt Lake City, UT

Wednesday, Mar 31
Grand Junction, CO

Denver, CO

Thursday, April 1
North Platte, NE

Omaha, NE

Friday, April 2
Topeka, KS

Tulsa, OK

Saturday, April 3
Little Rock, AR

Tupelo, MS

Sunday, April 4
Huntsville, AL

Nashville, TN

Monday, April 5
Evansville, IN

St. Louis, MO

Springfield, IL

Tuesday, April 6
Davenport, IA

Rockford, IL

Madison, WI

Wednesday, April 7
Milwaukee, WI

Green Bay, WI

Thursday, April 8
Minneapolis, MN

Duluth, MN

Ironwood, MI

Friday, April 9
Escanaba, MI

Sault Sainte Marie, MI

Saturday, April 10
Traverse City, MI

Grand Rapids, MI

Lansing, MI

Sunday, April 11
Detroit, MI

Cleveland, OH

Erie, PA

Monday, April 12
Buffalo, NY

Syracuse, NY

Tuesday, April 13
Albany, NY

Concord, NH

Wednesday, April 14
Boston, MA

[Via http://citizenwells.wordpress.com]

The uniqueness of the United States?

Have you caught any of the public (media) controversies about whether President Obama really likes the U.S.? You have sound bytes of Americans saying that Obama doesn’t even like the country and even the former Vice President Cheney making a similar accusation. It is not a new controversy. Certainly, the comments of his then pastor didn’t help him…The bruhaha about wearing a flag pin…and Michelle Obama’s comments about her first time feeling proud about the U.S.

Without debating Obama’s feelings about the country, I’d like to consider the issue of our uniqueness. Is there something special or unique about the US that places us in a special category different from the rest of the world? Is it okay to even ask this question or does it automatically indicate a disrespect for our forefathers, for democracy, for the Christian roots of the country?Is it tantamount to saying that God has not had his hand on this country in some special ways?

Stating that we are not unique may be one of the remaining heresies of our time.

But, should it be a heresy to suggest that in the eyes of God and others, we aren’t so different. This does not mean that we wouldn’t choose every time to still live in this country. This is not to suggest that we have blessings that few others have.  This is not to say that God isn’t carrying out his purposes via our country either.

But are we special? We have flawed individuals making up a flawed government who are seeking both personal good and, yes, the good of others (for the most part). Isn’t that true of other governments as well? Maybe not all governments seek this, but certainly many do.

Is America great? But could it be better? Yes. And so, being willing to criticize, even publicly, this country is one of the evidences of its greatness. Even further, being willing to criticize and demand better care for all is a sign of our greatness.

Seems the debate is not really about our pride in the US but in demanding no honest criticism. Sounds like the, “I can criticize my family all I want, but I’ll never admit to you that they have any flaws” mindset.

So, are we special and unique? Is it so bad to admit our flaws? Our failures? To even note that other countries have done a better job at certain things? What do you think? If your family emigrated to Canada instead, would you really be less of an individual? Would you be jealous of Americans?

[Via http://wisecounsel.wordpress.com]

The EPA's Carbon Bomb Fizzles

Well this just proves again, when you try to bypass the Constitutional process something may bite you back. The EPA ruling was an attempt at an end run about the Constitutional process of 2/3 of the Senate ratifying any treaty that Obama might sign in Copenhagen. The EPA ruling was an obvious stunt by Obama to put a feather in his cap when he goes to Copenhagen and it may have just backfired on him in the America. Congress should be up in arms at the president attempting to bypass them……..AGAIN! (remember the czars and Senate approval prescribed by the Constitution?) There’s some great insight and info about the Clean Air Act that the EPA must follow:

The EPA’s Carbon Bomb Fizzles The administration has given a skittish Congress another reason not to pass cap and trade.

In the high-stakes game of chicken the Obama White House has been playing with Congress over who will regulate the earth’s climate, the president’s team just motored into a ditch. So much for threats.

The threat the White House has been leveling at Congress (that’s what it is~a threat) is the Environmental Protection Agency’s “endangerment finding,” which EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson finally issued this week. The finding lays the groundwork for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions across the entire economy, on the grounds that global warming is hazardous to human health.(Science does not back this up, as far as a slight warming being hazardous~quite the opposite. Just a slight warming would benefit plants and humans.)

From the start, the Obama team has wielded the EPA action as a club, warning Congress that if it did not come up with cap-and-trade legislation the EPA would act on its own (kind of like a thug or bully would do)—and in a far more blunt fashion than Congress preferred. As one anonymous administration official menaced again this week: “If [Congress doesn't] pass this legislation,” the EPA is going to have to “regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.”

The thing about threats, though, is that at some point you have to act on them. The EPA has been sitting on its finding for months, much to the agitation of environmental groups that have been upping the pressure for action.

President Obama, having failed to get climate legislation, didn’t want to show up to the Copenhagen climate talks with a big, fat nothing. So the EPA pulled the pin. In doing so, it exploded its own threat.

Far from alarm, the feeling sweeping through many quarters of the Democratic Congress is relief. Voters know cap-and-trade is Washington code for painful new energy taxes (Which translates to continued high unemployment). With a recession on, the subject has become poisonous in congressional districts. Blue Dogs and swing-state senators watched in alarm as local Democrats in the recent Virginia and New Jersey elections were pounded on the issue, and lost their seats.

Industry groups are gearing up for a legal onslaught; and don’t underestimate their prospects. The leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit in England alone are a gold mine for those who want to challenge the science underlying the theory of manmade global warming.

But the EPA’s legal vulnerabilities go beyond that. The agency derives its authority to regulate pollutants from the Clean Air Act. To use that law to regulate greenhouse gases, the EPA has to prove those gases are harmful to human health (thus, the endangerment finding). Put another way, it must provide “science” showing that a slightly warmer earth will cause Americans injury or death. Given that most climate scientists admit that a warmer earth could provide “net benefits” to the West, this is a tall order.

Then there are the rules stemming from the finding. Not wanting to take on the political nightmare of regulating every American lawn mower, the EPA has produced a “tailoring rule” that it says allows it to focus solely on large greenhouse gas emitters. Yet the Clean Air Act—authored by Congress—clearly directs the EPA to also regulate small emitters.

This is where green groups come in. The tailoring rule “invites suits,” says Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.), who has emerged as a top Senate watchdog of EPA actions. Talk of business litigation aside, Mr. Barrasso sees “most of the lawsuits coming from the environmental groups” who want to force the EPA to regulate everything. The agency is going to get hit from all directions. Even if these outsiders don’t win their suits, they have the ability to twist up the regulations for a while.

Bottom line: At least some congressional Democrats view this as breathing room, a further reason to not tackle a killer issue in the run-up to next year’s election. Mr. Obama may emerge from Copehagen with some sort of “deal.” But his real problem is getting Congress to act, and his EPA move may have just made that job harder.

Online.WSJ.com

[Via http://stevescomments.wordpress.com]

The Politically Incorrect News: Morning Edition: 12/09/09

Politically Incorrect News for the Politically Incorrect Readers

Some items you may or may not have read…

Item #1- Dozens in Congress are calling for the firing of Obama’s Safe-School Czar for being a perverted porn promoter. A radical, homosexual activist is promoting fisting to 14 year olds. Jim Holt, over at Gateway Pundit, has a very detailed, and graphic, report about Obama’s “safe-school” czar. It is graphic and very disgusting.

Item # 2- Obama newest scam. Wants to use TARP, which the banks paid back, for his new jobs bill. There’s a slight problem. It might be illegal since the paid back money is supposed to go towards paying down the deficit. 

Item #3- Rachel Maddow, the liberal dyke of the left-wing media, has to be reminded that al-Qaeda is not “hypothetical,” It actually exists. Let’s see, the left gets their “news” from a sportscaster [Olbermann], a tingly sissy-boy [Chrissy Matthews] and a dyke that believes in her own whitty intellect [Maddow]. I wonder what would happen if they reported about Obama, who is president, instead of Fox News talk show hosts. Maybe their ratings would go up.

Item #4- Developing Nations Call for Rich to Aid Emissions. That sounds like Obama’s Economic and Health Care plans. Tax the rich to pay for your schemes.

Item #5- What’s the difference between Abortions and Viagra? Don’t ask that super Libtard Barbara Boxer (D-Calif). Denying women the opportunity to kill a baby compared to killing a boner. Which is murder?

[Via http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com]

Fried Pork

When history is written on what undid the Obama presidency, the focus will be on, I’d wager, his choice of being a leader as destructive to the vision of America as FDR or LBJ rather than leaving his radicalism behind and focusing on being the best president in history.

President Barack Obama’s call Tuesday to spend much of the $200 billion in “extra” bank bailout funds on job creation efforts embodies Democrats’ strategy to make a second economic stimulus more palatable to wary taxpayers.

He showed his stripes on the Stimulus Package. Rather than bringing a mission of excellence and bipartisanship to solving the demands of the moment – Obama punted on his responsibility, saving his political capital for the Public Option while allowing Congress to create a bloated pork package that has proven ineffective.

Democratic congressional leaders estimated that a jobs bill, which could pass early next year, would cost $75 billion to $150 billion, with more spending to follow. “These are all figures being talked about,” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

Liberal economist Paul Krugman described last week how much better a second stimulus can be than the first at generating jobs.

There are things you can do to create jobs more cheaply than the kinds of things they did before. You can have tax credits for businesses that hire more people. You can have direct employment programs, WPA type stuff, you know, short-term employment things that are quite cheap per job created, because they create poor-paying jobs, but it’s better than nothing.

It’s too bad that we elected a guy who puts the leadership challenge of being president second to the opportunity to kidnap the country from what it was intended to be.

So you can — Economic Policy Institute has a plan that is going to be announced tomorrow that is a $400 billion thing. And it looks plausible. It could create quite a few jobs. It would make a big difference.

With a second stimulus being pushed, an expansion of the spending frenzy that has Americans doubting Obama already – his political dimunition will be accelerated.

[Via http://realclearthinker.com]

Taxpayer money safe for now

TARP is working! Critics lambasted Obama’s administration’s Troubled asset Relief Program some months ago. It was not only a political risk for President Obama but also the taxpayers. It was not a small sum either, it was US$700bn. Yet, various signs have indicated that these concerns are very pessimistic.

Recently, bank of America decided to repay US$45bn to the federal government, leaving Citi Bank to be the last largest financial institution to repay its debt. There were also signs that TARP- the biggest and first use of taxpayer money may break even, as the loan to banks come in dividends and interests.

On the side note, US economy has two pieces of good news, lower than expected unemployment (10%) and evaluation of the US dollar (perhaps not good news for traders).

While these indicate that the economy is recovering, they create uncertainty as well. We can only aver “we’re out of recession” after a few months of observation. During this period, we’ll expect speculations.

[Via http://thecriticalangle.wordpress.com]

More embressment for obama.

This is what we get when a candidate promises more than he can deliver.   obama of course wanted to appear to be the total opposite of President Bush, and was willing to say and do anything to prove that.   More evidence of just how little experience obama has.  While it’s fine to try not to appear to be like a former President, obama it appears seems to have not given much thought to his ideas. 

Of course obama has instructed his staff to continue to use the open and transparent talking points, making him look even dumber. 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5joOOsTVD57lFwm_InpZY_nRbg4KQD9CDRVOO0

[Via http://citizenofmanassas.wordpress.com]

Obama's "third party support" Campaign - about how new media can make a PR campaign successful

This is a guest post from Thomas Gensemer, Managing Partner of Blue State Digital, the strategy and software company that spearheaded the Obama campaign’s web operation.

He has chosen PRMediaBlog to exclusively reveal his thoughts on how the PR industry can learn the lessons of Barack’s online success.

What can communication professionals learn from the Obama campaign?

The network is better than you are.

Obama for America changed the economics of campaigns. Instead of seeing supporters as passive recipients of message, they were seen as an integral part of the team that would propel Obama to the Whitehouse.

And it had a simple strategy behind it all – find your support, recruit them, give them something to do and then say thank you. And by repeating these steps, changing the calls to action, and monitoring how each user responds, the campaign quickly built an organization of unpredicted scale and commitment to Barack Obama.

While much of Obama’s success came from his capacity to promote a message that authentically resonated with the American people, this connection was dramatically amplified by supporters willing to adopt his messages and then share this endorsement within their own peer groups.

By focusing the campaign on this process, Obama’s message was strengthened through independent third party support – and then shared with an audience that Obama could never have reached without his networks support.

They embraced the idea that in a world of communication divergence you can’t afford to be a single message campaign in a multi-message world – and accordingly provided groups and networks for traditional and non-traditional support alike. So what happens when other groups – firms, charities, unions – start talking directly to communities?

Imagine neighbours, friends, and family members, colleagues uniting for a shared love or cause. And then imagine what’d happen if you asked for their help.

The key concept of Obama’s campaign still applies; whose advocacy are you most likely to respond to – your best friend or a monolithic organisation’s centralized message? Digital strategists often become blinded by technology.  But the Obama campaign wasn’t about cheap gimmicks, short term tactical wins.

It was about people – and the awe-inspiring capacity of a huge number of individuals to take small actions which in turn generate a huge communal effect. $500 million dollars, 1.2 billion emails, 10 million phone calls, and 300,000 grassroots events later, Barack Obama won the Presidency. And it all started with a “do this now” call to action.

The Internet did not win the election – it simply provided the capacity to release and develop the communities potential, and in a far more efficient and analytical manner then ever before.

Source: http://pr-media-blog.co.uk/obamas-web-strategist-what-pr-people-can-learn-from-the-campaign/

[Via http://mappingwhatmatters.wordpress.com]

Criticizing Obama for the Right Reasons

Unlike a lot of folks who were swept up in the Obama-mania of 2008, I don’t think I expected miracles.  I don’t think I expected Obama to be anything other than a politician, though I hoped he’d be a more ethical and competent one than those who’d held power during the Bush administration.  I certainly didn’t expect him to undo eight years of bad policy decisions in a matter of months, or to turn the country into a leftist paradise. 

Watching his Afghanistan speech, though, I felt the disappointment sinking in and taking hold where it had previously just danced at the edge of my consciousness.  Hearing the fear-mongering, the insistence that this war was different from other wars, the fractured logic that sending in more troops will somehow lead to a quicker exit–it felt like a very bad case of deja vu.  The boyfriend and I immediately thought of Bataille and Mbembe (yeah, that’s what grad students do, name-drop theorists in the context of political speeches) and the idea of a state of war being a state of normalcy, the unstoppable force of the “war machine” that, like a corporate entity, will do everything it can to survive, even if that means ensuring that peace doesn’t come. 

I’ve been reluctant to criticize Obama primarily because of the barrage of (mostly petty) criticism he receives daily from the right, the hodgepodge of wacked-out conspiracy theories and thinly veiled racist attacks mixed with the occasional legitimate complaint about policy.  But then I remembered that criticism of a leader–rational, competent criticism, not the sort of horse-hooey being thrown around by the likes of Glenn Beck–is imperative to the success of any democratic nation.  It is bizarre to hear the same people who called any criticism of the Bush administration ”un-American” volleying such harsh and frequently illogical complaints against Obama, and then claiming censorship or the bias of a liberal media when they’re criticized in return.  Criticism and self-reflection are healthy.  A complete lack thereof leads to totalitarianism.

For the right to focus so much of its attention on unfounded, extremist criticisms of the president seems a self-defeating and utterly unproductive practice, especially when any intelligent person, liberal or conservative, could find plenty of legitimate criticisms to make of Obama’s policies.  I for one have problems with his trust in Tim Geithner and William McChrystal, his inaction on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and his continued waffling on whether a public option will be central to the Senate health care bill.  I would like to think that conservatives could come up with similarly rational complaints, rather than focusing on his birth certificate or the idea that he has a secret plan to “kill grandma” with the health care bill. 

I’d still like to give Obama a chance to prove himself.  I think removing the global gag rule was an important step.  He’s certainly doing a lot to improve the image of the U.S. abroad.  He’s brought intellect and measured planning back into government (critics might call it “dithering,” but rushing in without a plan is what got us into so much trouble in the first place).  I want to have hope, to believe that “yes we can” wasn’t just a slogan.  But the Afghanistan speech disturbed me, and I’m done holding back my criticism.  I hope we see more rational criticism in the months and years to come–less of the birthers and the tea baggers and more people who simply want to engage in the very American practice of holding their leaders accountable.

[Via http://gradland.wordpress.com]

It's showtime!

OK, 30,000 additional American troops in Afghanistan, victory guaranteed by the summer of 2011 (or else) and the best part of all? President Obama’s Afghanistan strategy, as expected, also envisions a major increase in NATO troop levels there, meaning of course more German troops too.

Go Germany! I’m impressed already, sort of (but not quite yet). What would never have been possible during the reign of his evil cowboy predecessor will now be given to Obama with a smile. Some 2000 troops, or so the rumor goes.

Poor Mr. President. He still doesn’t know who he’s dealing with over here. Here in Germany, I mean. Afghanistan he’s starting to get though, I think.

Die Nato-Staaten müssten ihr Truppenkontingent ebenfalls aufstocken – also auch die Bundeswehr.

[Via http://observinghermann.wordpress.com]

My Thoughts on the Speech

Minutes ago, a friend of mine sent me an IM saying “Obama finished strong.” I asked him to read what I wrote earlier today. Namely, that the speech is irrelevant to the facts on the ground, and therefore I will not even listen to it.

So it was. I didn’t listen to it, and I am sure I didn’t miss anything. The Left will probably say that this is “one of the best speeches.” Those on the Right will say otherwise. I am saying what I said in the morning: it makes NO difference on the ground. All what matters is America’s will to defeat the enemy once and for all. Anything beyond that is just political claptrap.

[Via http://yossigestetner.com]