Household vs. Nation

Yes, they have shown pictures and news clip with her nursing her 4 months old baby at the office with the bottle sitting on official government documents but how will she be able to hold such a powerful office and deal with so many problems at home/? As parents we sacrifice a great deal for a children whether father or mother and when our children have special needs we find ourselves in a position where doing more is the norm. How will she represent one of the richest nations in the free world to other nations? Will they say, “Go home now you need to care for your sick baby and your pregnant teenage daughter”, how can she hold such an important office and deal with so many serious

problems in her household? This young man he is 18 years-old the daughter is 17 years-old isn't it a law against that in Alaska? Too many things are being swept under the rug and the republicans act as if it's just “wonderful”. What happens if the republicans win the White House and God forbids something happens to John McCain and Palin has to step into the role of Commander and Chief? As an American I would not want a woman or man who had moral and ethical issue involving their home life to represent my country. When you really take a look at this situation it only one word to describe it,” SCANDALOUS”! The republicans can spin it how they wish it is nothing more than a scandal. Americans have always prided themselves on their moral and ethical conduct so why should we change for Governor Palin? The republicans, and John McCain made a poor choice of selecting Sarah Palin for Vice President.

John McCain Choice

Many in the media have said that John McCain choice of running mate was a desperate one. His choice says that he is a true maverick who is willing to do any and all tricks to get in the White House no matter how foolish of a choice. Sarah Palin is a woman who has serious issues going on in her household. Should she really be running for the second most powerful office in the nation? Or should stay in Alaska and take care of her family?

Yes, John McCain chooses a woman. Does he really think Palin can win over the Hilary Clinton supporter because she is a woman? Those who supported Senator Clinton did so because of her service and her vision, not because she is a woman. Does Palin think she can fill Hillary's shoe the size of Alaska with experience, service, and vision?

I woke up this morning and had a very frightening thought. I only mention this because I don't usually think before my first espresso. What was the thought; am I turning into a racist? Scary.

Politicians and Change

Now, before you answer for me, let me give you some background. The question arose because of the forthcoming Presidential election in the United States and the theoretical, hypothetical, question of who would vote for if I could. I confess, I can't vote, I am not able to vote, but I am interested, not just in the sense of curious, but interested in the very real sense of being a citizen of a world which, rightly or wrongly, is heavily influenced by the country of which Barack Obama or John McCain is about to become the President. In their, Americans' terms, the Leader of the Free World (which is actually just to the south of Surbiton). So it interests me.

Loose Change

Change. It is such a lovely word. Obama uses it. It is his his motto, his, trademark, his brand. But I think John McCain represents Change, in ways that Obama does not. What can you say? Okay, let's say it, politicians sometimes tell fibs, but McCain, McCain is the man that I have waited for for years, he is a politician with a small p, a brave man, a true man of courage, a man who represents honour writ large. Writ, indeed, so large that he was prepared to risk his life in a very real sense and suffer certain pain and torture in order to meet the requirements of the US Navy's code of honour. Change, real change, excellent change: a new man, someone who is a politician, but also has honour. A politician who does and says as thinks and who does not think according to the lines that his party sets but thinks independently; a man, his own man, an independent man.

A politician with honour. Look around the world, check it out, where is the other one? Who would you choose? Putin? Berlosconi?

Obama

Obama does not for me represent change, despite his branding, in the same way. Obama seems to be more of a Politician to me. I don't know him, I have never met him, but he seems to me to be more amenable to changes, in particular changes of principle and in principles. One example that for me sticks out is the assertion during his long running dispute with Hilary Clinton that he would accept public funds, and therefore a cap on his spending, for the election battle with John McCain. That he did not comply with. Astute, politically clever, flexible? Yes, but not McCain honourable. Change? Dick Cheney is related to him. So, no change there.

I Vote For Obama

You may not be interested, but I would vote for him, because I think he represents CHANGE. Why? Because he is a member of a group of people that have been systematically discriminated against and oppressed. I guess you may have noticed that. He is CHANGE with letters written 40 feet high. He is the man that can and, in my opinion, should, make Martin Luther King's dream come true. When he gave that speech, and said to the world that he had a dream, a black man could not sit in the same bus or on the same park bench as a white man. Now the United States is charged with the responsibility of making history; either history in the smaller sense of appointing a man who is honest as a politician or History as in the sense of epoch making.

Obama means CHANGE, not because of the man he is but because of what he represents. He represents what John Kennedy could have achieved had Oswald's bullet cut him down. He is the successor to that which Clinton might have achieved, if he had not emasculated his Presidency.

He is CHANGE, real deep and fundamental CHANGE, just because of his skin colour and he is not just another rich white guy. He represents healing to the world, a chance to bring a better future not just for the United States but for all, and in particular all people who have been discriminated against and oppressed.

In Honour of Martin Luther King

So, yes, if I could vote I would vote for Obama,because the fact that a black man is a contender in the toughest race in the world is not enough, he has to win it, because making a black man the President of the United States will be the first step in bringing a fundamental change to the world and the rest is not up to Obama , but up to us, for all that for which Martin Luther King, another courageous and honourable man, lived and died.

When you look at what happened at the Democratic National Convention this past week when it comes to unifiying the Democrats with the rest of the voters who supported Hillary Clinton, that job was done. It took the whole week to do it, but it got done.

Good job.

However, the historic speech by Obama put the nation's first African-American presidential nominee out swinging from the corner.

Then McCain pulled a headfake, with everyone thinking Mitt Romney would be the choice. I didn't think he'd go for him because Mitt couldn't even win his home state, let alone make this country go red. So why not pick a woman? Obama didn't.

First-time governor Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will be Sen. John McCain's running mate.

That announcement came Friday, with he and the 44-year-old mother from Alaska making their first appearance in Ohio.

McCain explained he had many good people to choose from, and said that he was grateful to all of them for their willingness to serve with him. He also said she has the grit and the common integrity needed in Washington today.

Like Obama, very little is known about Palin, so both parties will have a lot to show. Republicans and Democrats are thinking on the same levels for the first time in a long time when it comes to strategy.

She admits to make McCain's short list was a "privilege", and promises to bring nothing but the best to the ticket.

Even though she really didn't say anything that to me stuck out other than her giving a resume of what she has done. I admit she's a good pick because she's wasn't a ringer for the RNC, but, she's going to really have to show why she's the right pick to run as Vice President other than the fact that she's a woman and that she wasn't picked because Obama didn't pick one. That's something that Palin can ony do.

And with Van Halen's "Right Now" playing in the background, the duo made their way to the stage

Either way you look at it, things are going to change in Washington D.C. The faces are going to change.The 2008 General Election will be one for the books.

History

Joe Biden received a Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law. He is a Roman Catholic. His first wife and an infant daughter died from a car accident in 1972. His two sons were badly injured, but eventually made a full recovery. Latter he remarried Jill Tracy Jacobs, and had a daughter. His political career began in 1970 when he was elected to the New Castle County City Council. Then in 1973 he became the fifth youngest Senator in U.S history. Since then he has won every reelection to his Delaware Senate seat, making him the longest serving Senator in Delaware history. During his time in the Senate he has served on the Committee on Foreign Relations, Committee on the Judiciary, and the Caucus on International Narcotics Control. Over the years he has chaired and co-chaired many of the divisions within these committees and has been instrumental or the author of many laws and acts. Some of Senator Biden's accomplishments include: The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act , Violence Against Women Act , RAVE Act, KIDS 2000 legislation, etc….

What Senator Biden Adds

So, what does he bring to the Obama ticket. First, he brings the foreign policy experiencethat Obama lacks. He can tout that he has been the ranking member and chair of the Committee on Foreign Relations. These titles have given him first hand exposure to foreign relations. In the 1990's Senator Biden made many trips to the Balkans and meet with Siberian leaders. He argued to lift the arms embargo, investigate the war crimes, and advocated for NATO involvement. Biden's argument was an instrumental element that convinced President Clinton to act on the human rights issues of the area. No doubt that Senator Biden has the references to go head to head with Senator McCain where Senator Obama does not. Second, he provides the age and white male factor. This year Senator Biden will be sixty-six years old. Therefore, he provides the “wisdom comes from age” contrast to Senator Obama's “fresh politics.” Third, Senator Biden has a son that is about to deploy to Iraq as a JAG officer (military lawyer.)

What Senator Biden Detracts

Now, what will he detract from Senator Obama's campaign. First, Senator Biden is going to have to do some major foot in the mouth backpedaling. Senator Biden at a Democratic debate: “This is not about experience. It's not about change. It's about action. Who among us is going to be able to, on Day 1, step in and end the war?” This quote along with many others directed at Obama's lack of experience and readiness are going to be hard to explain. Second, there is a stark contrast in that Senator Biden initially supported going to Iraq and Senator Obama's did not and has made that fact a key element of his campaign. Third, Senator Obama is running on a platform of change but, Senator Biden is a thirty year veteran of Washington.

Dirt

So what is the dirt on Senator Biden? In 1988 Joe Biden plagiarized a law review article while he was attending law school. Biden also had made claims to have graduated in the top half of his law school class, with three degrees, and on a full scholarship . Where as in actuality he graduated 76 th of 85, received two degrees, and had a partial scholarship. Then, in 1988 when Senator Biden was in the midst of his presidential bid, lightning struck twice. Parts of a speech were plagiarized from a previous speech by British politician, Neil Kinnock. Senator Biden when announcing his bid for the 2008 presidential race: “the first mainstream African American [candidate] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” Many African American were offended by this comment. Senator Biden: "I've had a great relationship with East Indians in America. In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking." This offended many Indian Americans.

My Theory

To sum it up………Senator Biden is one of the most experienced politicians out there, but also has a really bad case of foot in the mouth disease. . It would be hard to find a more vetted and well rounded running mate. However, the stark contrast between some of Obama's key platforms and Senator Biden's political decision history does not mesh well. The real question will be this: Can Senator Obama pull continue a “change” message while allowing Senator Biden to be the experience blow horn?

After Russia counter attacked the Georgians in the region of South Ossetia, they went deeper into the country to capture key points linking the east and west side of the country.

Their military presence is still being felt after they destroyed much of the central city of Gori and other cities along the east-west route. They have also captured the port of Poli and are going through its port facilities perhaps in search of weapons that might have been used to widen the conflict. Georgia is a sovereign nation; too bad it did not get into the NATO membership before the conflict otherwise the Russian would have thought differently from exasperating a conflict which could have ended with their capture of the so-called pro-Russian province of South Ossetia. Personally I don't know how pro-Russian that province is, but I do know that passports were given out to its residents perhaps to rekindle an animosity between Ossetians and Georgians? So who is the aggressor then?

But the reason we love the Olympics is the controversy that surrounds the competitions. Here is a place where the whole world will gather in a theme of unity but at the same time accuse other countries of cheating and biasness. Case in point; female gymnastics. From the underage claims to the dubious tie-breaking procedure to the knee landing being better than a two feet landing, we had one of the best Olympic moments. The media was ecstatic, churning article after article about China's Olympic conspiracy.

And then there was the moment when it was not the 29th Olympiad but the 1st Phelpiad. Okay, so the guy set 7 world records individually or otherwise, on the way to winning 8 gold medals. That in itself is remarkable. But when I tuned in to watch the Olympics and all that was on American T.V stations was Phelps live swims followed by Phelps re-runs, that story turned old faster that moldy bread. The glamour was lost and all I could think off was when do I get to watch real Olympics.

Another reason why we love the Olympics- We (or maybe just I ) will celebrate when an athlete (Phelps) does something remarkable, but complain when he (Phelps) becomes the Olympics, because there are thousands of other athletes we would like to see. Save the accolades until after the Olympics.

And the main reason we love the Olympics? The dubious sport activities. Trampoline! Really, trampoline. Maybe I just don't get it, but I watched both the men's and women's finals and still cannot figure out how 1 minute of that exercise is considered an Olympic event. And let's not forget the equestrian thing. Tried watching a few minutes of it and all I could think was that English royalty would be good at it. Too bad they don't compete. I wonder if it's forbidden by the queen.

My own personal reason for loving the Olympics? To find out how many athletes have changed citizenship for money. I still can't get over how many Kenyan runners are turning up for other countries especially Qatar and Bahrain. Although on the other hand, if a country offered me one million dollars and $1,000 every month for life just to get its passport, I would not think twice. But then again, my patriotism is somewhat misplaced. However, now that the IOC has decided to put a stop to country hopping, I will need a new reason to look forward to the next Olympics. Oh! I already have one. What will Phelps do next?

Happy Olympics!!

One of the most obvious examples and most talked about is the Russia US men's basketball gold medal game. There is no question that the referees who were from Soviet bloc countries though not the USSR were making up rules to favor the USSR. For instance in the end when the USSR had lost the game they added time on to the clock and gave possession of the ball to the USSR because they claimed a member of the USSR team fouled and American. They rules at the time do not allow them to add time nor should possession been given to the Soviets. That extra time and possession gave the Soviets the chance to win the game, which had already ended in there, lose. The referees that favored the Soviets made other obvious errors. No attempt was made at following the rules but new rules were made up on the spot to help the USSR. The US team in protest did not attend the medal ceremony.

The Soviets loved to cheat and it even becomes obvious when you notice that they were once a dominant Olympic contender in most sports but they have now fallen from the height of there Olympic power. While doping was done by about all Soviet teams and we now have actual evidence and people who have admitted to cheating for the East German and Russian teams using drugs to hide the drugs the athletes were given. In fact many female Olympians during the doping era of communist teams are suffering from many problems while the men have had little negative effect. When you look back on the fact that the US Men's hockey team played not amateurs but professionals (lest face it military men who's only training is Hockey and are paid well for it are professionals) who were on steroids it is truly a miracle they were beat.

The soviets did not only use steroids to cheat but they cheated by any means possible. One way that Soviets as well as most other countries except the US would cheat is by having amateurs with government jobs like postal workers who never did there jobs but trained. This was at a time when all the events were for amateurs. Because no one really was amateur the IOC did one of the only fair things in its history and allowed professionals in most sports. The Soviets would use other means to cheat such as when they were caught cheating in fencing by using electronic equipment to register near hits instead of having to make an actual hit. Fortunately this was discovered.

Asian teams also love to cheat such as during the Korean Games when the US Taekwon Do champ was told that the Korean he had beat by throwing out of the ring was not in fact thrown out contrary to what the cameras kept showing repeatedly. China has taken over as the cheating communist country. In the last few Olympics the Chinese have been caught doping more then anyone with some years when they were caught doping more then the rest of the world combined. China isn't as good at cheating as the Russia was.

What is sad is that the US has much lower history of cheating or getting caught at the least and still is the best. Most issues with the US are examples of our snowboarding who was stripped of his medal in Nagano for having used Pot, which is not really a performance enhancing substance. The US is the team that suffers the most from cheaters. While cheaters come and go such as the USSR the US remains the best capable of beating teams without having to cheat.

The IOC seems to only care about money. What the IOC should do is to have one big ceremony where all players who lost to teams which eventually were found to have cheated to given the medals they deserve if they got silver give them a gold if they missed a bronze give them the bronze, and they should put asterisk by the historical records showing that they cheated and show the fourth place finishers for those who were denied bronze medals so the world will know who really got what. The IOC has plenty of money, countries fight hard and spend fortunes making sure they host Olympic events they can easily afford to give the medals to those who deserved them.

In a court statement, Hamdan said that “I would like to apologize one more time to all the members and I would like to thank you for what you have done for me”. In actual fact, Hamdan's apology isn't genuine at all because right after the hearing, Hamdan muttered “God willing”, implying that if he had the chance or got orders from bin Laden or senior al-Qaeda leaders, perhaps he would carry out catastrophic attacks himself. The judge who sentenced Hamdan has also failed in his duty. The judge allegedly told Hamdan that “I hope the day comes when you return to your wife and daughters and your country and you're able to be a provider, a father and a husband in the best sense of all those terms”. Why is this judge siding with this Taleban/Al-Qaeda operative? If Hamdan is allowed back into society, he may go back to helping bin Laden. In fact, he may plan attacks on his own. Suicide bombers also express love for their families. Then, they go out like martyrs, blowing people up and killing themselves.

1. Tibet has been part of China's territory since the 1200's A.D. (Yuan Dynasty)

   Many people believe that China stole Tibet's independence 50 years ago; however, the truth is, since the 13th century, Tibet has mostly been a protectorate of the Chinese Empire; only during the turmoil at the end of the Qing Dynasty (around 1900) did the Tibetans gain a brief independence. (NPR.org).
   
   
   

2. Tibet cannot possibly prosper as an independent nation.

   Tibet is a landlocked mountainous nation that lacks natural resources. Most of the resources used there are brought over from eastern China.



3. Contrary to beliefs, the Dalai Lama wants only a greater degree of autonomy for Tibet, not independence.

   Please refer to the website of His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet.
   

4. Contrary to beliefs, Tibetans do have the freedom to worship their religion.

5. Contrary to beliefs, the Chinese government is actually trying to preserve Tibetan culture and landmarks because they attract tourism.
   
   

6. Tibetan wages are the 2nd highest of all provinces in China.

   Please refer to the website of the BBC.
   

7. Tibetans do not have to obey the 1-child policy.

8. Tibetans have gained much higher living standards.

   After China regained Tibet in the 1950s, hospitals, schools, and infrastructure were built. Life expectancy for Tibetans has increased from 35.5 in 1950 to 67 in 2000. (BBC News).
   

9. Old Tibet's Feudal Theocracy

   Before the 1950s, Tibet was a theocratic despotism ruled by aristocratic monks who lived like kings. Not only did the peasants (the majority of the population) of Tibet not have any rights, they were extorted by the monks as serfs and forced to pay extremely high taxes. Since most of them could not pay off their taxes in their lifetime, the taxes passed down to their children and entire generations had to work as slaves. (Parenti, Michael. Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth).
   

10. Old Tibet's Evil Society

    The religious teachings of old Tibet emphasized that the poor and suffering are that way because of their wicked ways of previous lives. This is why the Tibetan serfs never revolted against society. In feudal Tibet, because it was against Buddhist teachings to take someone's life, torture and mutilation - including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation - were favored punishments inflicted upon thieves, and runaway or resistant serfs. In 1951, China came in and immediately put an end to these practices; the Tibetan people at that time actually welcomed the Chinese soldiers as liberators. (Parenti, Michael. Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth).

On March 14, 2008, Tibetans started a large scale riot in Lhasa, attacking and murdering people of Chinese ethnicity on the streets, and burning and looting shops and buildings belonging to people of Chinese ethnicity. In light of these actions, two rhetorical questions present themselves: What difference is there between the actions of these people and that of terrorists? And, how is a group of terrorists worthy of such pity from the international community?

Please do not blindly advocate an idea or movement just because so many other people are doing it. One should always take the time to first research both sides of the idea or movement and decide for oneself which side is more logical.

I wish there was a Pulitzer Prize for foolishness. John McCain would be its first recipient. His latest attack ad against Obama certainly caused him to stoop to the lowest common denominator.

Perhaps McCain harbors secret fantasies of being with some young, hot thing instead of that Jurassic Park known as his wife. Or maybe he gets sexually aroused at the thought of a young girl licking the skin cancer sores on his face.

It's quite obvious now that this man does not deserve to be president. McCain is a bitter old man and its time for him to retire. Need I say more?

From the kindness of my own heart, I strongly advise him to get a new campaign manager, so he can reclaim what respect and dignity he has left.