Attacks in Syria, Pakistan

Yesterday the U.S. killed eight people in Syria, just across the border from Iraq. Late last week, using an unpiloted plane, the U.S. killed at least eight children in Pakistan. And again yesterday, in another attack using an unpiloted plane, the U.S. killed ten people in Pakistan, at least in this one it was a militant training camp.

Eight days before the election, and the U.S. has committed what are generally considered acts of war against Pakistan and Syria. The attack in Syria was a first, and we don't know how they might respond. The attacks in Pakistan continue a sharply increasing trend, which has intensified since last week when the Pakistani Parliment unanimously passed a resolution calling on the government to "defend its sovereignty and expel foreign fighters from the region."

First of all, what are they doing attacking a school!? I don't care if it was Al Qaeda Middle School, they were children. How can people claim with a strait face that the U.S. is the primary force for good in the world? They targeted a school.

Secondly, right in lead up to the election, we're pissing off two countries that are most dangerous (Pakistan has nukes, Syria is supposedly armed by Iran), most volatile, and both of which have land disputes with critical allies of ours (Syria with Israel over the Golan Heights, Pakistan with India over Kashmir). A flare up of either of those, directly with the United States, or with our allies would be great for McCain in the election.

So why wouldn't we think that the Republicans controlling the executive are politically motivated in these actions? They've proven the moral laxness to do just about anything for political reasons time and again. Why not killing brown-skinned children?

Hopefully Syria and Pakistan, who like the rest of the world (save Al Qaeda) have an Obama presidency in the best interests, see through the tactics and restrain themselves.

***edit***
Yesterday (the 28th) Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi Government Spokesman, reminded the U.S. that the Iraqi constitution disallows Iraqi land being used as a launching area for attacks on neighboring countries.

It's a tired point by now, but bares repeating: U.S. leaders talk about democracy promotion, but ignore the will of people when it doesn't serve us, as here with Iraq's constitution and a couple years ago with Hamas in Palestine.

Voting from South Korea

A couple of days ago, I sent in my absentee ballot - which I think ought to be renamed... can you think of one positive or even neutral phrase with the word absentee in it? All day after I mailed it, I had a Paul Simon line running through my head: "I registered to vote today, felt like fool."

It was expensive to vote from Korea. 16,500 won (US$11.60 today, because the won has been getting beaten on for a while now) for each of two mailings, but at least they could be split with Melanie and mailed together.

The Boulder County Clerks Office was on it. They answered our questions by email, helped with foreign addressing, and we can check if our votes have been counted online.

The whole transaction took a little over a month, with us shelling out for 3 - 4 day mailings each time. Because of an earliest date for requesting ballots, it's unclear whether we could have used surface mail. But at least we have a reliable public postal system here. In less developed countries, folks have to pay up for a private courier each time, which would get very expensive. I stumbled upon a suggestion to use the army's mailing system for all official election correspondence - seems like a good idea to me.

To the actual voting. I think my subconscious was calling me a fool because I voted strait down the party line. I like to think of myself as a critical thinking, independent, well-informed citizen. And in this, my most important civic duty, I could have just copied off the Boulder County Dem's cheat sheet.

I'm not at all embarrassed to have voted for Barrack Obama. I was a little bit with Kerry in '04, and I stand by my Nader vote (in Colorado) in 2000. As Noam Chomsky notes, despite the cliche, voting for the lesser of two evils is in fact voting for less evil, and the decision to do that should be balanced against the potential benefits of voting for a third-party candidate.

I am a little embarrassed to have voted for Mark Udall for the Senate. He's a Democrat that has been representing my congressional district for almost a decade. The Colorado 2nd is one of the most liberal districts in the country, and I would have liked to have seen more fierce advocacy on the environmental front and the stand-up-to-President-Bush front. But, I'd love to see the Democrats achieve a filibuster-proof majority (60-40) and push some real legislation through. I think there is some real chance for reform in the coming terms. And I'm not sure the legislative branch is the place for third party support - it seems a third party executive would be much more powerful.

On the amendments, I struggle with affirmative action and so was tempted to vote yes on amendment 46. I think it's the wrong way to right historical and contemporary racism. But it doesn't need to be banned in the constitution. And what really got me is this argument: we all know that many jobs are gotten by networking - who you know, rather than what you know. That tact doesn't work for someone with poor parents, who is striving to enter a new societal stratification. Affirmative action works to counter-act the old-(white)-boys club that clearly still dominates the sphere of power in the United States.

I wanted to vote for amendment 50, not so much on any ideology, but that I still play a bit of poker, and poker with $5 bet limits is a little like fat-free ice cream. But I find deplorable the political maneuvering that led to the increased revenues from increased betting limits going to community colleges (they should be funded, massively, but strait-away, not through this obvious political scheme). Highway 6, a two lane road up one of the most beautiful canyons I've even seen has become an accident magnet, and the new highway built to connect I-70 to the casino towns is a scar a top otherwise pristine mountains, save the new suburban-style subdivisions built there in the middle of nowhere. And as much as I'd like to be able to play real poker an 45 minutes from Boulder, it's just not worth having Atlantic City 45 minutes from my home.

Finally, my favorite amendment, 53 - criminal liability of executives for the actions of corporations - was withdrawn in order to get a group of influential business-owners to oppose an anti-union amendment elsewhere on the ballot. I nevertheless shaded in the yes box and quietly dreamed of a day when business will have no more power, no more wiggle room, and no less culpability than do us sentient beings.

Why Obama Supporters Can't Afford to Rest

It's weird being abroad in the lead up to the election. I'm still connected to the US media, but only the media sources I deliberately choose. When you're in the US, you see headlines as you walk down the street, watch CNN as you wait for your teller at the bank and you hear people talking.

I get the sense that the feeling at home is that Obama has the election all but wrapped up. And with good reason - Obama has an real and steady lead, McCain's unfavorables are high and rising (and Palin's are worse) and Obama raised more money in the last month than McCain has had to spend in the entire campaign.

Nevertheless, I think the sentiment is dangerous. So when MoveOn sent out an email yesterday asking anyone with a blog to spell out some reasons why Obama supporters shouldn't be resting easy, I thought, yes I'd be happy to be your tool.

So here are six reasons why it's time to quiet the "it's in the bag" talk and get back to work:

1. The polls could be off. Many pundits are discounting the idea that voters may be disinclined to tell pollsters they're against Obama for fear of being perceived as racist. We've never had a national referendum on a black man before. No one knows what effect race may have on election day, but it absolutely could still be a factor.

2. Electioneering. Remember Ohio in 2004? Remember 2000? Wonder why Republicans are talking so much about ACORN? Voter suppression efforts have begun already, and the new requirement for a state-issued ID will make them much more effective than in the past. Note: 1/5 black people in the US don't have a state issued ID.

3. Obama's demographic. Lots of factors affect who shows up on election day and who stays home. Much of Obama's base is young and/or poor first time voters - folks that could easily stay home on election day under the impression that the contest was in the bag.

4. October surprise. For the last month or two, I've felt like the Bush Administration (I originally wrote "we" - ha!) has been trying to pick a fight with Pakistan or Venezuela/Bolivia. Anything like that, a terrorist attack, good news from Iraq or the bin Laden front would give McCain a huge bump.

5. Things change in the final weeks. Al Gore was seven points down just days before the 2000 election and went on to win the popular vote, in 1980 Regan was eight points down in late October. Almost all of the presidential contests in the last forty years have tightened in the final days. This one will too.

6. Margin matters. Political capital is earned in margins of victories. If Obama is at 353 today, getting to 380 means he could do more to get the country on the right track once in office. His efforts also help Democrats running for Congress, which I think has something to do with implementation of policy too.

So keep doing what you're doing. Spread the word that it's not over until, as my father taught me, the fat lady sings. And for the love of your country - vote!

Tomorrow, I'll discuss my experience voting from 6,000 miles away...

Election Prediction

Popular vote: 50% Obama, 48% McCain.

I hope I'm off on this. I hope momentum keeps building for Obama and he ends up with 350+ electors. But I think it will tighten. We'll see if before November 4th they can find bin Laden or goad Pakistan into a war. And we'll see just how badly they can suppress poor and black voters.

Anyway, this is my prediction. I'm happy to accept wagers.....

What if... ?

I got an email from my uncle this morning that does a nice job providing a fresh perspective on the qualifications and character history of the Obamas and the McCains. Maybe you know someone who needs to see this?

I think the double standard arises less, though not negligibly, out of racism, as the message portends. I think it grows more out of the treatment the two parties receive from the press, the way the two party's political operatives do their jobs (as I wrote about a couple days ago), and the sorts of people who, generally, support each party. For evidence of that, just look at the perception of the military service of Senator Kerry and President Bush in the 2004 campaign.

Anyway, here's the message. I'm curious, what do you all think -- is it racism or is it political affiliation-ism?

~~~

What if the Obamas had paraded five children across the stage, including a three month old infant and an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter?

What if John McCain was a former president of the Harvard Law Review?

What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class?

What if McCain had only married once, and Obama was a divorcee?

What if Obama was the candidate who left his first wife after a severe disfiguring car accident?

What if Obama had met his second wife in a bar and had a long affair while he was still married?

What if Michelle Obama was the wife who not only became addicted to pain killers but also acquired them illegally through her charitable organization?

What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?

What if Obama had been a member of the Keating Five? (The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s.)

What if McCain was a charismatic, eloquent speaker?

What if Obama couldn't read from a teleprompter?

What if Obama was the one who had military experience that included discipline problems and a record of crashing seven planes?

What if Obama was the one who was known to display publicly, on many occasions, a serious anger management problem?

What if Michelle Obama's family had made their money from beer distribution?

What if the Obamas had adopted a white child?

You could easily add to this list. If these questions reflected reality, do you really believe the election numbers would be as close as they are?

This is what racism does. It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative qualities in another when there is a color difference.

Educational Background:

Barack Obama:
Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization in International Relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cu m Laude

Joseph Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in History and B.A. in Political Science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

vs.

John McCain:
United States Naval Acade my - Class rank: 894 of 899

Sarah Palin:

Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism

Education isn't everything, but this is about the two highest offices in the land as well as our standing in the world. You make the call.

Rachel Maddow and the difference between FOXNews and MSNBC

What's the difference between Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann as opposed to Sean Hanity and Brit Hume? Rachel Maddow nails it in this interview with former Bush speechwriter, David Frum.

Frum comes on Maddow's show to say that the attacks coming from the McCain camp are hurting the country, and by the way, your show, Rachel, is doing the same thing. In the ensuing discourse it becomes clear, to those who weren't sure of it already, that Rachel Maddow is a heavyweight. She stays calm, holds her ground, stays on topic and embarrasses Frum (look for his downcast eyes - he knows he's beat).

But this discussion highlights a bigger, maybe the predominant, trend in today's national politics, especially since 2000. Democrats attack Republicans on issues of policy, experience and competence. Republicans, needing a response, and unwilling as always to defend themselves (After Katrina: "We're not going to play a blame game;" in the financial crisis: "When the house is on fire, you don't want to talk about how it was set."), have to find a way to counter-attack. Since, for the most part, they can't attack on policy matters, both because they've been doing such a crappy job and because the Democrats have been in opposition, they have to resort to personal attacks.

There are legitimate different approaches to policy between the Dem's and the GOP (the role of military force, the allotment of power to federal, state and local governments, etc.), and we see some discussion of them between the campaigns (albeit more from the Obama camp). When personal attacks are made, the Democrats, and Olbermann and Maddow, point to personal shortcomings that are relevant to the capacity to lead (involvement in political scandals, temper, competence), where Republicans and their supporters in the media seem to be simply grasping for any mud they can find (Clinton's voice makes men's balls shrivel, Obama is a terrorist), because it's all they can do right now.

Martial Law and Posse Comitatus

The Army recently announced that the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team - which has spent 3 of the last 5 years on active duty in Iraq, including participating in the Battle of Fallujah - will be stationed on U.S. soil "as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters... They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control" (Army Times, 9/30/08).

Add to that the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, which gives the President the ability to deploy troops domestically, basically whenever he determines they're needed to maintain order (note: that act expired this year, but Still-President Bush issued a signing order declaring he was not bound by its repeal).

Add to that the economic crisis ("manmade emergency?") and the upcoming election, and it starts to look like the stage is set for martial law. I've long had suspicions about the succession of President Bush. I have a deep fear that come hell or high water, the cabal that has been running the country for eight years is going to find a way to continue running it.

Speaking of martial law, check out the comments of Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), on the recent bailout bill: "The only way they can pass this bill is by creating and sustaining a panic atmosphere. That atmosphere is not justified. Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday that the sky would fall, the market would drop two or three thousand points the first day, another couple of thousand the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no."

US Congresspeople were threatened with martial law. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 is dead. And taxpayer money continues to be given to the largest corporations in the country. Will there come a time when we apply the label fascist to the United States Government?