Day: June 4, 2008

What Does Clinton Want?

From CNN:

Sen. Hillary Clinton said Tuesday night she would make no immediate decision on her next steps after winning the South Dakota primary but watching rival Sen. Barack Obama pick up enough delegates to win the Democratic presidential nomination.

Clinton congratulated “Obama and his supporters on the extraordinary race they have run.”

“Our party and our democracy are stronger and more vibrant as a result,” she said.

But she stopped short of conceding the race to Obama. Instead, her speech Tuesday night sounded more like the one she had made for several weeks, touting the number of votes that she had won, and how she had won in battleground states that Democrats would have to win to have a chance against Republicans.

“Even when the pundits and naysayers proclaimed week after week that this campaign was over, you kept on voting,” she said, adding that she won most of the swing states that would be needed to push a Democratic ticket to the 270 electoral votes to win the presidential election.

Ok Clinton supporters, what does she want?  The nominee has been chosen the way that the system is set up.  She got 17+ million votes, so did Obama.  Is it really about the election or the person?  Is it really about a unified Dem Party?  Sorry, but does not sound like it to me.  It sounds more like arrogance than concern for the unity of the party.  The plan seems to be to keep the divisions within the party open and on-going.  What can that really accomplish?  If their positions are so similar, why would anyone want to vote Repub in the Fall?

I am not knocking Clinton I am just wanting to understand the thought process here.  The whole idea of voting for a Repub because one’s candidate lost the nomination seems a bit childish to me.  I look forward to hearing some comments on this situation.

To Talk Or Not To Talk

I found this article by Sheldon Richman about the argument between McCain and Obama about talking with our enemies. I post it here so that all can see the paradox, maybe, and to get any comments on whether we should or should not talk.


 Obama and McCain Are Both Wrong
by Sheldon Richman

Barack Obama’s call for talks with “our enemies” is shaping up as a major bone of contention between him and John McCain in the presidential campaign. As usual, both the Democrat and the Republican get it wrong.

Obama says he would sit down with so-called adversaries such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Cuban President Raul Castro, and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to talk out their differences. Although somewhat vague, he emphasizes that such talks should be held with few conditions. As his website puts it, “Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead.”

McCain has slammed Obama, arguing that his position shows his “inexperience and reckless judgment.”

How can both be wrong?

McCain and Obama are wrong because they operate from the imperial premise that virtually anything that goes on in the world is the business of the U.S. government.

McCain, whose hero is the belligerent nationalist Theodore Roosevelt, embraces a policy of confrontation with “our enemies” — i.e., foreign governments that have never threatened to attack the United States. He enthusiastically supported the invasion of Iraq, and his attitude toward Iran was made clear when he sang, “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.” No doubt he would apply the same “what we say goes” policy to Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, China, Russia, and any other country that did not pay sufficient deference to America’s “leadership.”

That, of course, is a recipe for perpetual conflict, cold and hot, which for obvious reasons is contrary to the interests of most Americans, whose well-being depends on peace and free trade.

Does that mean Obama’s policy of negotiation is the right one? No. Ironically, McCain asks the right question, “What should we talk about?” What indeed?

What would be the agenda of a meeting between President Obama and President Ahmadinejad? Perhaps Obama wants to talk about the allegations that Iran trains Iraqi insurgents and supplies explosives that kill American troops. (We’ll accept those charges for the sake of argument.) What’s to talk about? The surest way to prevent Iran from aiding attacks on American forces is to withdraw those forces. No talks are needed.

This brings up a larger issue, Iran’s relationship with Iraq. Why is that any business of the United States? An American president should no more be meddling in that relationship than an Iranian president should meddle in the relationship between the United States and Mexico. It’s Iran’s neighborhood, not the United States’. How would McCain or Obama react if Ahmadinejad issued a suitably revised Monroe Doctrine?

The American ambition to manage Iran’s dealings with Iraq is ludicrous, considering how much it has messed up in the past. After Iraq attacked Iran in 1980, the Reagan administration sided with Saddam Hussein. Later, in the Iran-Contra affair, it sold arms to the Islamic Republic. Then, in 2003, the U.S. government removed the barrier to Iranian dominance in the region by toppling Saddam’s regime and helping to install a government with close ties to Iran. When will U.S. presidents learn to leave well enough alone?

What about Iran’s supposed ambitions to become a nuclear power? There is no reason to see that as a threat to the American people. The value to Iran of nuclear weapons in the Middle East would be to deter attacks from the United States and Israel, which right now is the nuclear monopolist in the region. The lesson of Iraq is not lost on them. Would the United States have attacked if Saddam had had a nuke?

The best course for the American people is to withdraw from the Middle East and let the parties find their own way to accommodation. Contrary to McCain, the alternative to talking is not confrontation. It’s nonintervention, free trade, and peace.

SEIU And The Anti-Buyout Campaign

Beginning Wednesday, the Service Employees International Union, one of the country’s biggest unions, will call upon people to attend protests on July 17 in 100 cities in 25 countries. The rallying cry will be: Take back the economy from buyout firms that the union says have exploited tax loopholes to amass great wealth at others’ expense.

“We think the buyout industry and the way it operates are systematic of what’s wrong in this economy,” said Stephen Lerner, director of the union’s private equity project. “We want to make them responsible corporate citizens.”

The S.E.I.U.’s latest effort is an escalation of a fight that began last April, when it began a broad campaign against private equity firms with a study questioning the value that the leveraged buyout industry adds to the national economy.

S.E.I.U. officials acknowledge, however, that changing the tax code could upend the modern corporate regime and say they have not endorsed any specific proposals.

The union also argues that the attention on private equity firms has been justified by the huge role they now play in the economy. Companies owned at least in part by Kohlberg Kravis employ more than 816,000 people, according to the firm’s Web site — more than the population of San Francisco.

The fight has been contentious at times, notably during an altercation between an S.E.I.U. member and Mr. Rubenstein at an industry conference in Philadelphia. And the bulk of the S.E.I.U.’s campaign has taken place amid the credit squeeze, which has all but squelched private equity’s lifeblood of striking deals.

To the union, however, that same economic malaise has hurt ordinary workers more.

And in tune with the times, the union plans to introduce a political angle in its attack against private equity: The S.E.I.U. will highlight the fund-raising that Mr. Kravis, a longtime Republican donor, has done for Senator John McCain, that party’s likely presidential nominee. The goal, S.E.I.U. officials say, is to highlight the unwillingness of Mr. McCain to consider revamping the tax code and make a partisan appeal to a possible Democratic administration and more Democratic Congress.

Truth About Your New Light Bulbs

I wrote a piece awhile back about the dangers of the new light bulbs (CFL) and then I was reading on the Green Party website and found that they and others are hardily supporting the new bulbs.  I just had to send a letter to the Party about their position.  It follows here:

I recently was on the website of the Green Party, USA and found their 10 values, which are excellent values to have, but I read their #3:

3. ECOLOGICAL WISDOM
Human societies must operate with the understanding that we are part of nature, not separate from nature.  We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet.

We support a sustainable society which utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we must practice agriculture which replenishes the soil; move to an energy efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems.

Why do I bring this particular one up? I will answer that in awhile, but there is more I need to say first. On the Mississippi chapter of the Green Party they display a piece from 18seconds.org telling about the benefits of the new CFL bulbs. The say that say that Mississippians have bought 2,219,236 of the bulbs. Those bulbs have saved 188,624,690 lbs of coal and that 807,313,672 lbs of carbon monoxide have been eliminated and that $51 million have been saved by using the bulbs. It also says that 12,854 cars are off the road. Now what does cars have to do with the bulbs? Got no idea but wanted to include all the stats.

This statement is part of the Green Party’s 2008 Environmental policy statement:

· No new coal fired-power plants; no new nuclear power plants; reduce by 90% the mercury emissions of coal-fired power plants by 2012; protect human health and the environment.in the disposal of coal-fired power plant wastes.

Again the Green party is concerned with gaining votes than a real solution to the problem. They are willing to support reduction in mercury emissions, while supporting a position that will add mercury to the soil and water table. A helluva plan!

There is at least one presidential that is on the bandwagon for the new bulbs. From the Clinton website:

An aggressive comprehensive energy efficiency agenda to reduce electricity consumption 20 percent from projected levels by 2020 by changing the way utilities do business, catalyzing a green building industry, enacting strict appliance efficiency standards, and phasing out incandescent light bulbs.

Now you are definitely asking what has all this to do with anything? Let me ask, how will you dispose of the bulbs when you have to replace them? Probably throw them in your trash, right? I know, get to the

you have to replace them? Probably throw them in your trash, right? I know, get to the point Professor. Next time you buy the new bulbs look at the bottom of the package. The bulbs contain mercury. And according to the EPA fall under this Act:

These bulbs will be consider hazardous waste and as such will fall under the Resources Conservation and recovery Act (RCRA). And as such cannot be disposed of in incenerators or landfills.

Household users of efficient mercury containing fluorescent lamps, including compact fluorescents, are typically exempt from special disposal requirements although a few states and localities ban homeowners from disposing of such lamps in normal household trash. Sorry, but this is not acceptable.

Now my point is, how many consumers will read the bottom of the package? When they change a bulb where will they throw it? Knowing the answers to these questions, the one to ask now is how long will it take the mercury to get into the water table?

Once it enters the water table here is what the population has to look forward to:

1. Psychological Disturbances (erethysm)
Irritability, Nervousness, Fits of Anger, Memory Loss, Lack of Attention, Depression, Low Self Confidence, Anxiety, Drowsiness, Shyness/timidity, Decline of Intellect, Insomnia, Low Self Control.

2. Oral Cavity Disorders
Bleeding Gums, White Patches – Mouth, Stomatitis, Bone Loss Around Teeth, Loosening of Teeth, Ulcers of Gums- Palate- Tongue, Excessive Saliva, Burning of Mouth, Foul Breath, Gum Pigmentation, Metalic Taste.

3. Gastrointestinal Effects
Abdominal Cramps, Colitis, Crohn’s disease, Gastrointestinal Problems, Diarrhea.

4. Systemic Effects
Cardiovascular, Irregular Heart Beat, Changes in Blood Pressure, Feeble or  Irregular Pulse, Pain or Pressure in Chest

5. Neurologic
Chronic or Frequent Headaches, Dizziness, Ringing or Noises in Ears, Fine Tremors (Hands, Feet, Eye Lids, Tongue)

6. Respiratory
Persistant Cough, Emphysema, Shallow or Irregular Breathing.

7. Immunological
Allergies, Asthma, Rhinitis, Sinusitis, Swollen Lymph Nodes in Neck

8. Endocrine
Subnormal Temperature, Cold Clammy Hands & Feet, Excessive Perspiration, Muscle Weakness, Fatigue, Hypoxia, Edema, Loss of Appetite, Loss of Weight, Joint Pain.

Mercury is an element in the earth’s crust. Humans cannot create or destroy mercury. Pure mercury is a liquid metal, sometimes referred to as quicksilver that volatizes readily. It has traditionally been used to make products like thermometers, switches, and some light bulbs.

Mercury is found in many rocks including coal. When coal is burned, mercury is released into the environment. Coal-burning power plants are the largest human-caused source of mercury emissions to the air in the United States, accounting for over 40 percent of all domestic human-caused mercury emissions. EPA has estimated that about one quarter of U.S. emissions from coal-burning power plants are deposited within the contiguous U.S. and the remainder enters the global cycle. Burning hazardous wastes, producing chlorine, breaking mercury products, and spilling mercury, as well as the improper treatment and disposal of products or wastes containing mercury, can also release it into the environment. Current estimates are that less than half of all mercury deposition within the U.S. comes from U.S. sources.

Time for the people to wake up! A wonderful thing, energy saving, but everything comes at a price and the CFLs have a price. My question is why would anyone support anything that would have such lasting effects? We settle for short term feel good solutions and the whole time we are poisoning our children’s children. Good plan!

My point is that this is NOT the answer!

What Will The Outcome Be?

It is all but over for Clinton, Obama has the delegates and awaits making it official at the convention.  I have some serious concerns on the coming election.

If by some chance Obama wins the general against McCain in November, will the Party embraces more progressive issues?

My problem is that I am not convinced that an Obama Admin. will do that–they may attempt to do so but they just do not have the chops to do it.  IMO, one telling event before the election on which direction an Obama White House will travel is in the VP he chooses.  Will it be a true progressive or one of those pale progressives from the DLC?  If his choice is Clinton, Bayh or Vilsack, to mention only a few, then that will be only an extension of the Clinton-esque policies from the past.  Meaning that the worker, the middle class will gain nothing.

What Now?

Finally, the end of the primary season, but not the end of the bickering.  Obama has the delegates for the nomination, but Clinton has not conceded that it is over.

The GOP sees the Dem Party as a fractured Party and will attack on that level.  McCain is already stoking the fires of the the dissenting voters–women, Hispanics and the rest.  The GOP will do all they have to to keep the divisiveness of the Dems going all the way to the convention.

It will be interesting to see where the MSM comes down here….will they continue the BS of non-issues or will they now and finally start focusing on the issues like health care?

For now the insanity is over….may I have an amen?  But now the backroom deals will begin.