Put water on the fire

With the global financial crisis going on, no one really knows how things will end up. On MSNBC last night one interviewee called this (in 2008) the Great Depression. Let's hope it doesn't get that bad.

The truth is, many people have already lost a lot. Especially those who had their retirement funds in the stock market.

If you add that to people losing their houses because of bad mortgages, families losing loved ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of disabled soldiers coming home, and a bunch of angry kids who haven't been prepared well by our failing public school system...we could be in big trouble.

At this point it is extremely important for the McCain campaign to clamp down on the violent threats being screamed out at their rallies. It is time for a long conversation, not a Saturday Night Live type presidential debate. McCain, Palin, and the GOP need to stop telling everyone to be afraid. They need to encourage their supporters to think of positive solutions instead of letting them scream about knocking off the opponent.

Suggestions to the McCain people

Tell your supporters to

1. be sure and vote.

2. not to join the crowd that is working towards suppressing the vote (suppression breeds anger)

3. volunteer in the neighborhood. (there is still lots of work to do in Houston cleaning up after Hurricane Ike)

4. volunteer at your local public school.

5. take a night class at the local college - one on politics!

6. pray.

7. read a book about globalization.

8. watch the U.S. Senate or House of Reps. on C-Span - so they can see some of how our gov't works.

9. read a book about the history of the Middle East (esp. the last 200 years)

Waiting for the Barbarians in The Nation, October 16, 2008

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/17/AR2008101702496.html?nav=hcmodule

A Rage No One Should Be Stoking

Washington Post

By Colbert I. King
Saturday, October 18, 2008; A15

"Kill him": the battle cry of a lynch mob and words yelled out by a man at a Sarah Palin rally in Clearwater, Fla., this month, according to my Post colleague Dana Milbank.

Some observers claim that the proposed killing was directed not toward Barack Obama but at Bill Ayers, the co-founder of the radical Weather Underground that bombed public buildings during the turbulent Vietnam era. Ayers, now a college professor who has served with Obama and other noted Chicagoans in civic enterprises -- and hosted a campaign event for Obama's initial run for the state legislature -- is being portrayed by John McCain's campaign as Barack's bosom buddy, the facts notwithstanding.

Whether the call for assassination was aimed at Obama or Ayers is immaterial. It represents a dangerous new low in American politics.

Tell a rabid audience that Barack Obama is "palling around with terrorists" (as Palin has done), imply that Obama is friendly with people out to destroy America (as she also has done) and what do you expect?

The ugliness is stunning.

Milbank also reported that in Clearwater, one of Palin's supporters shouted a racial epithet at a network soundman and told him, "Sit down, boy."

This month, an angry white man was arrested in Monroe, La., after allegedly threatening election officials who had not sent him a voter registration card. He badly wanted to cast his vote, he told police, so that he could "keep the nigger out of office."

Dangerous stuff. That's why Georgia Rep. John Lewis, the civil rights icon, spoke out.

It is no accident that the English-language operation of al-Jazeera, the Arab-language news network, tried to capture and broadcast to the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere a glimpse of America's more sinister side.

Al-Jazeera found it in St. Clairsville, Ohio, a white, working-class community that was the site of an Oct. 12 Palin rally.

Armed with a video camera and a hand-held mike, interviewer Casey Kauffman -- who by appearance could pass as a Buckeye State native -- recorded the following observations about Obama:

From an older white woman: "I'm afraid if he wins, the black [sic] will take over. He's not a Christian. This is a Christian nation! What is our country gonna end up like?"

An older white man: "When you got a Negro running for president, you need a first-stringer. He's definitely a second-stringer."

A young white man holding a child: "He seems like a sheep -- or a wolf in sheep's clothing to be honest with you. And I believe Palin -- she's filled with the Holy Spirit, and I believe she's gonna bring honesty and integrity to the White House."

An older white man: "He's related to a known terrorist, for one."

An older white man: "He is friends with a terrorist of this country!"

An older white man: "He must support terrorists! You know, uh, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. And that to me is Obama."

A young white woman: "Just the whole, Muslim thing, and everything, and everybody's still kinda -- a lot of people have forgotten about 9/11, but . . . I dunno, it's just kinda . . . a little unnerving."

A white woman: "Obama and his wife, I'm concerned that they could be anti-white. That he might hide that."

An older white woman: "I don't like the fact that he thinks us white people are trash . . . because we're not!"

The video also shows an Obama supporter, identified only as Taylor, waving a placard on a roadside, greeting motorists as they traveled to the Palin rally.

Taylor told al-Jazeera that he's been shocked by his neighbors' reaction. "I've been called the N-word, I've been called a Muslim, I've been called un-American," he said.

"I'm worried that these people . . . the tension is getting thicker and thicker, when people like that . . . it's starting to scare me. . . . To be specific," Taylor said, "I'm afraid some of these people might try to hurt Obama."

With Palin's supporters chanting in the background, Kauffman tells viewers that the divisive nature of this year's presidential campaign has brought into the open what is usually discussed behind closed doors in America. "It's a reminder," intoned Kauffman, "that hate and fear are powerful forces in American society."

Was this fodder served up by al-Jazeera to feed anti-American sentiment overseas?

To be sure. But the camera didn't lie.

Did al-Jazeera, however, record the whole truth?

Do those Ohio residents, or the Florida Palin supporter who snapped "Sit down, boy," or that angry man in Louisiana who wants to "keep the nigger out of office" represent today's America?

Or are they part of a dwindling breed of die-hards who have seen their best days? I believe they are the latter.

But we, and the rest of the world, will know more on Nov. 4.

·

Last week, in writing about the stewardship of troubled youths by the D.C. Department of Youth and Rehabilitation Services, I reported a recent assault by juveniles on a correctional officer at the agency's Oak Hill facility.

Yesterday, I learned that another correctional officer at Oak Hill had been severely beaten and taken to a hospital in Laurel. Hours after I inquired, DYRS told me: "We can confirm that a physical altercation occurred this afternoon, at [Oak Hill], between a staff member and a youth. There are conflicting accounts as to who initiated the incident, staff or youth. Staff requested that we call an ambulance, which we did, and the staff member involved was transported to the hospital. The incident is currently under investigation."

As of last night, the officer's family was with him at the hospital.

DYRS continues to say that it cannot provide a count of youth assaults against staff this year or in 2007.

kingc@washpost.com

link to photo

LA Times evaluation of candidate's position on immigration

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-equality17-2008oct17,0,6873423.story

Editorial
Los Angeles Times
Immigration, abortion and the next president
McCain and Obama are closer on immigration issues but differ starkly on reproductive rights.
October 17, 2008

...Immigration is one subject on which McCain and Obama broadly agree. Both acknowledge that the system is broken and favor securing borders, creating a guest-worker program and providing a path to citizenship. As a sponsor of two comprehensive reform bills, McCain should be unbeatable on this issue. Standing up to fellow Republicans (and some Democrats), he declared that the nation could not turn its back on the impoverished millions who have come here to work and prosper. Unfortunately, the free-thinker has become a follower, trailing behind the worst instincts of his party. Abandoning problem-solving for politics, McCain has made border security and employment enforcement his new mandate. That may be good Republican politics, but it's not sound policy. An estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants arrived in the United States last year -- down from about 700,000 the year before -- and about 280,500 people were deported. Those expulsions too often took their toll on families and businesses and did nothing to address the wider consequences of a large population of illegal immigrants within our borders.

Obama acknowledges the importance of border and workplace security but does not make it a prerequisite for solving the problem in its entirety. Also, his proposal to increase economic development opportunities in Mexico offers hope for addressing the causes of illegal immigration, not just the symptoms. He does not have McCain's impressive record in support of comprehensive reform, nor does he have McCain's cynical abandonment of that position...

Just because you don't have blue eyes

If Obama had blue eyes, people wouldn't be screaming ugly things about him at McCain rallies.  There is something about being a little darker skinned that makes many (white) Americans think it is OK to insult or threaten someone...  It doesn't help that McCain and his pal Palin are egging people along.

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/12/AR2008101201873.html?hpid=topnews

Does Your Subconscious Think Obama Is Foreign?
By Shankar Vedantam
Monday, October 13, 2008; A10

A few years ago, psychologists Mahzarin Banaji and Thierry Devos showed the names of a number of celebrities to a group of volunteers and asked them to classify the well-known personalities as American or non-American. The list included television personality Connie Chung and tennis star Michael Chang, both Asian Americans, as well as British actors Hugh Grant and Elizabeth Hurley. The volunteers had no trouble identifying Chung and Chang as American and Grant and Hurley as foreigners.

The psychologists then asked the group which names they associated with iconic American symbols such as the U.S. flag, the Capitol building and Mount Rushmore, and which ones they associated with generically foreign symbols such as the United Nations building in Geneva, a Ukrainian 100-hryven bill and a map of Luxembourg.

The psychologists found that the participants, who were asked to answer quickly, were dramatically quicker to associate the American symbols with the British actors, and the foreign symbols with the Asian Americans. The results suggest that on a subconscious level people were using ethnicity as a proxy for American identity and equating whites -- even white foreigners -- with things American.

The psychologists initially assumed that this bias began and ended with Asian Americans and would not apply to other ethnic groups. But in another experiment involving famous black athletes around the time of the 2000 Sydney Olympics, they found that the same pattern applied to African Americans. Although white volunteers agreed explicitly that hurdlers Allen Johnson and Angelo Taylor, who won two golds at Sydney, "contributed to the glory of America" and "represent what America is all about," they were slower to associate photos of black athletes than white athletes with American symbols. Black participants, on the other hand, were as quick to associate black athletes as white athletes with being American.

"The reason this is powerful is it shows our minds will not just distort our preferences but distort facts," said Banaji, who works at Harvard. "African Americans in their [own] minds are fully American, but not in the minds of whites."

The experiments, based on tests that are accessible at http://implicit.harvard.edu, have provoked controversy -- especially in terms of what they mean. It may embarrass people when they subconsciously associate whites with being American, but does that matter? If people have no trouble distinguishing Americans and foreigners in their conscious minds, why should we care about their subconscious tendencies?

It may matter a lot when it comes to voting behavior, the researchers said.

In a new series of experiments, Devos has shown that the "white equals American" bias could well be playing a powerful role in the presidential election. (Banaji is a registered Democrat; Devos is not an American citizen.)

During the primary season, Devos, at San Diego State University, along with colleague Debbie Ma at the University of Chicago, found that on a subconscious level, people more easily associated Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton with being American than Sen. Barack Obama. Clinton is white; Obama is biracial.

Even more remarkably, the psychologists found that the volunteers were quicker to associate former British prime minister Tony Blair with being American than Obama. Blair is white.

On a conscious level, the participants had no trouble identifying Obama and Clinton as American, and Blair as a foreigner. But Devos and Ma found that the subconscious associations mattered: People who were slower to see Obama as American on a subconscious level were less likely to be willing to vote for the senator from Illinois than people who more easily associated him with American symbols. This was true of both Republicans and Democrats.

In a final set of experiments completed just last week, Thierry said the researchers had found an identical pattern when they compared people's subconscious associations with Obama and his Republican presidential opponent, Sen. John McCain. On a conscious level, volunteers said that both Obama and McCain were American, but on a subconscious level, volunteers were quicker to associate McCain with being American than Obama -- and the strength of these subconscious associations predicted people's voting intentions.

"The less you see Obama as American compared to McCain, the less likely you are to vote for him," Devos said.

It is important to emphasize that the bias uncovered by the studies was subtle, and only one of many factors that go into people's voting choices. The research in no way suggests that all of Obama's opponents are racially biased -- people who do not find Obama appealing may well reach their conclusions based on policy positions, partisan identification and personal circumstances.

But Devos said the difficulty in seeing African Americans as fully American is clearly a drag on Obama's prospects, without which he would probably be further ahead in the polls.

The provocative research also may help explain why Obama has proved vulnerable to negative messages that question his identity and his loyalty to America. From the false rumors that Obama is a Muslim and that he refuses to salute the American flag, to the repeated reminders at Republican rallies that Obama's middle name is Hussein and recent concerns that voters just don't know enough about him, the attacks that have dogged the Democratic presidential candidate are not the traditional racial stereotypes that have been used against many African American politicians.

"We cannot think of him as frightening or a likely criminal -- he is the antithesis of that," Banaji said. "So when the mind goes searching for reasons to distrust him, the first thing it lands on are the foreign connections" -- Indonesia and Africa, places to which Obama has ties.

"Suggesting Obama is foreign or unknown offers a cover for racism," she said. "You can't say he is black and unfit to be president, but you can say that he is Muslim and therefore unfit to be president."

Immigration being ignored in presidential campaign

A few questions for Obama and McCain from the Huffington Post:

• What is realistic and what should be done about the 12 million immigrants here in the U.S. without papers?

• What should be done with the employers who knowingly hire unauthorized workers, take advantage of them, and undercut their competitors: what should be done about them?

• Opponents of reform say anything that provides legal status to those here illegally is amnesty: how do you define amnesty? Do you support amnesty? If not, what do you support?

• How do you make sure that we actually solve the problem rather than pass reforms that perpetuate the problem and lead to another 12 million coming in illegally in the future?

--

U.S. Latinos Slammed by Immigration Debate Gone Ugly
Immigration Policy Center

October 9, 2008

The current climate of undeterred public immigrant-bashing along with an immigration policy of "attrition through enforcement" has cultivated unfettered hatred and bigotry against an entire ethnic population. A recent survey by the Pew Hispanic Center shows its toll: half of all Latinos, immigrant and non-immigrant, say that their situation in this country is deteriorating and is worse now than it was a year ago. IPC has released a fact sheet and written a piece on the Huffington Post on Pew's report and its serious implications.

* U.S. Latinos Slammed by Immigration Debate Gone Ugly - (IPC Fact Sheet - October 9, 2008) Read this fact sheet to find out why the Pew Hispanic Research Center is reporting that Latinos, regardles of immigration status, are feeling anxious and discriminated against amid public immigrant-bashing and stepped-up immigration enforcement measures.

* One in Ten Latinos Asked for Papers for LWL: Living While Latino - (Huffington Post - September 24, 2008) A post by Angela Kelley on the vicious public denunciations of undocumented, brown-skinned immigrants -- once limited to hard-core white supremacists and a handful of border-state extremists -- that are increasingly percolating into the mainstream and are surely fueling the problems that Latinos are facing.

Also, check out IPC's new piece in the Huffington Post on the absence of immigration in the election debates, "Presidential Debates Ignore 12 Million Elephants in the Room."

For more information contact Andrea Nill, 202-507-7520 or Wendy Sefsaf, 202-631-0358 or email ipc@ailf.org

US Foreign Policy & the 2008 Presidential Election

Different opinions from different countries:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/09/2008927175058288972.html

----

Global Voices - US Foreign Policy

Al Jazeera

September 30 2008

Latin America has frequently been called "the backyard of the United States".


Opposition to some US policies has increased rapidly in the region and there are dozens of examples, even in such traditional US allies as Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, and my country, Costa Rica.
After a four-year discussion on whether Costa Rica should join the the Central American Free Trade Agreement (Cafta) a referendum was held.

Not only it was the first referendum ever in the history of Costa Rica, it was the first referendum in the world held to decide the fate of a free trade agreement.

After a long campaign, the yes vote narrowly won and Cafta was ratified. Although it has yet to be implemented, the Costa Rican government is pushing for the last implementation law to be approved before the US elections.

The most interesting part about this was the proxy war that the US Democrats and Republicans fought in this country, with visits by US senators.

A 'backseat'

Considering this, the Bush administration's bid to get the US-Colombia free trade agreement ratified, elections in Panama and El Salvador (where leftists are leading), and Russia's military exercises along Venezuela, one would think a foreign policy debate Barack Obama and John McCain would discuss more than the Middle East.

To be fair, the moderator did not ask anything related to Latin America. And Obama did briefly mention the region a couple of times, but I was expecting at least a glimpse of what their policy towards Latin America would be.

I understand that the economic crisis and the discussion about the bailout plan had most of their attention.

But it's too bad, because if this is a preview of what the next administration will be, it certainly means the region will have to take a back seat again.

No-one is expecting Latin America to be the centre of the attention of US politicians, but for more than a decade now, there have been clear symptoms of a break with the so called "Washington consensus", and if more attention is not paid to the region, US politicians will regret their lack of action in a few years.

Latin America is geographically located, after all, in the backyard of the United States.


Victor Ngeny, charity worker/student, Kenya

Here in Kenya, the media is totally slanted towards Barack Obama's candidacy in the US presidential contest.


I expected him to ride roughshod over John McCain, who here has been painted as a "fuddy duddy" whose ideas belong to another generation, one long gone.
So on Friday night I sat up waiting for the debate, it being my first chance to actually listen to Obama take on McCain on national security and economic matters.

From what I had gathered from the campaign, as it has gone on, national security and foreign policy is Obama's achilles heel, it is where McCain beats him.

The first part of the debate interested me a lot - with the US facing tough economic times, the rest of the world will surely follow, most of the currencies are pegged on the dollar while other rely on the US for aid.

In Kenya there are Kenyans working and living in the US whose remittances back home clock up to several billion shillings, so with the economy not being the best there we would almost certainly face the same here.

Development concerns

From the first instance it was clear McCain was trying to portray an experienced, authoritative persona, one who knew what he was talking about and I must say that he almost succeded, this was because at the onset.

It was my expectation that he would more or less be steamrolled but at the end of the debate I had gathered new respect for McCain.

On the policy side, it is clear that Obama's policies resonate with must of the Kenyan public - Most Kenyans think the Iraqi war was ill-advised, unnecessary and just a show of America's might. Obama's programme to withdraw troops from Iraq has a lot of support here.

There being a large Muslim population here and the fact that Obama is open to talk with iran, as opposed to McCain who is all out to bomb Tehran, will also find agreement here.

It was sad that due to the economic situation in the US both candidates had nothing to say about what their policy towards Africa will be. The thinking here is that Obama is the US president who'll prioritise Africa's development matters and many were waaiting for him to affirm this but sadly it wasn't was forthcoming.

At the end of the debate most of the people I was watching it with confessed to a new respect for McCain but they are waiting for Joe Biden, Barack Obama's running mate, to wipe the floor with Sarah Palin, John McCain's running mate during the VP debate on Thursday.

I must say that is one I am looking forward to.

Awab Alvi, dentist, Pakistan

In recent terms Pakistan has come under an extensive scrutiny and was important enough to come into discussion during the first presidential debate.


McCain kicked off by offering a more soft and understandable approach. He suggested taking the people of Pakistan into confidence on the "war on terror" and moving forward hand-in-hand to eradicate the menace of terrorism.
"We've got to get the support of the people of Pakistan ... he [Obama] said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan," he said.

Obama quickly reacted: "Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. If the United States has al-Qaeda, bin Laden [and] top-level lieutenants in our sights - and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act - then we should take them out."

McCain is definitely on the right track to talk about confidence building measures with the people of Pakistan, which at the moment is at its lowest in ages, but contrary to what he suggests, Bush administration has repeatedly failed to do exactly that in eight years, for which he must also accept responsibility.

Might we suspect these to be glamourous words just to win an election? I hope not, but eight years of uselessness will not salvage a sinking boat.

Committed to change?


Pakistan is at the centre of the US
"war on terror" [GALLO/GETTY] Senator Obama on the other hand seems more committed to change, he suggests a strong hand to remove the terrormongers once in for all.
It took the Americans a few months to hunt down Saddam Hussein, but it's been seven years and the mountains in Afghanistan have yet to cough up Osama Bin Ladin and his deputies only to now have them hiding in Pakistan.

If this was not gross mismanagement then I wonder what is.

It was good to see Obama lash out at McCain for supporting a dictator in Pakistan, saying "We had a 20th century mindset that said 'well, you know, he may be a dictator, but he's our dictator' and as a consequence, we lost legitimacy in Pakistan."

McCain responded "I don't think that Senator Obama understands that there was a failed state in Pakistan when [former president Pervez] Musharraf came to power. Everybody who was around then, and had been there, and knew about it knew that it was a failed state."

This was a very lame response by McCain, as it definitely displayed the failures in the Bush administrations, failure to gauge the problem and the wrong decision to support the wrong individuals.

They continued to fork over billions of dollars without proper accountability and supported 'their friend' till he coughed up his last breath and succumbed to democracy.

No clear 'victor'

I must admit that apart from picking apart a few statements from within the debate, I do not come forth with a clear victor in regards to the issues of Pakistan.

Only in an attempt to bring this presidential debate into a wider perspective for the people in Pakistan, one just feels there is a desperate need for change.

Pakistan stands at a fork in the road. If the same old policies are followed, with the same blind-sighted relationship maintained with crooks and dictators running our country, the menacing war on terror will only get worse.

Obama represents a fresh change, as per my neutral review of the debate, it is my understanding that if they both support approximately the same line of action for Pakistan, I would carefully put my eggs into Obama's basket.

He talks with more commitment to the challenges ahead while simultaneously suggesting a "tough guy" approach on Pakistan.

Marco Arnez Cuellar, media producer, Bolivia

The first presidential debate showed no substantial changes in foreign policy beyond the expected.


Among disagreements about insurance, taxes policies, and other domestic issues, candidates showed the structural orthodoxies of American foreign policy.
Indeed, they skipped talk about Latin America. Since there is a financial crisis, and current South American governments are becoming more independent from Washington policies, it challenges United States (US) to deal with a changing context.

Morally, US foreign policy is compelled to shift from an open interventionist approach to a more dialogical, negotiated and diplomatic strategy, as suggested by Obama.

On the other hand, Senator McCain focused on strength security trough UN Security Council, and promoting the continuity of many foreign policies.

Shift to left

Not surprisingly, both candidates lack real change proposals. Since the US pretends to head worldwide politics, we can see only conservative reforms without changing the mainstream of its politics and economy.

"Since Latin America is shifting to the left, candidates must show themselves to be skillful to face this new scenario"

Marco Arnez Cuellar

I think neither McCain nor Obama are looking forward to readdress foreign affairs.
The US leadership consists of establishing relationships with worldwide democracies, but also defining what "democracy" is.

Ironically, a humourist said once: "The US is the main supporter of our current democracies .... as much as of our former dictatorships"

It is possible to foresee that after election the US new government will continue focussing on the main issues that ensures the preservation of power relationships over Latin America: terrorism, dugs control, immigration and trade.

But, since Latin America is shifting to the left, candidates must show themselves to be skillful to face this new scenario.

Indeed, US authority in economy is being challenged due to the breakdown of financial system.

Some Latin American governments as Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, have shown themselves as irreverent towards US policies.

The emergence of UNASUR (South American Nations Union) and the predictable end of unipolarity threats the historical leadership of the US.

I think what is looming is a conflictive scenario in foreign policy between United States and Latin America until the Washington government changes its paternalistic attitude to the world.

Mahardhika Sadjad, student, Indonesia

I believe that there are two important issues that need to be addressed by America’s upcoming president.


The first is the fact non-state actors are playing a larger role in international affairs and thus, America must be able to embrace popular support, not only from governments, but also from individuals and groups around the world.  The next candidate must be the candidate with whom the world can relate to, and who can in return relate to the world.

In an interview with Time Obama said: "I work from a basis that there are some universal hopes and dreams and fear that people carry with them ... we've got to be honest and mindful of the fact that different countries have different cultural histories."

A 'different face'

To many Indonesians who feel that the Western world has often imposed what it believes must be universal values, Obama's background represents a face of America that acknowledges diversity and tolerates existing differences.

Second of all, the US's unilateral actions during the "war on terror" have created doubts regarding US willingness to co-operate for a common interest.


Obama has fans in Indonesia, where
he lived as a child Obama also represents a US that believes in diplomacy and multilateralism, two aspects missing in current US foreign policies.
As he emphasised during the presidential debate, Obama believes that we cannot deal with terrorism or rogue nations by attacking other states.

His view that the US needs to focus on diplomacy to raise support for better co-operation is a view that many all over the world share.

McCain on the other hand during the debate, when stating his views on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran, expressed his belief that the US should continue to display its hard power with the hope that potential allies will follow suit.

Unlike Obama, McCain represents the current administration, and not the maverick he proclaims to be.

For too long, we have seen the US grasping on to a double standard when talking about democracy, peace and co-operation.

I believe the US needs to start listening to what the rest of the world has to say.

The US also needs to understand that while it has extensive influence across the globe, this also means that its interests can be affected by the changes from other places.

Lina Ejeilat, student, Jordan/New York City

It doesn't matter who the next president is; their policy towards the Middle East will be the same.


This was the comment I heard often in Amman months ago, when the wave of Obamamania was beginning to reside and the excitement of the primary season was beginning to wear off.
The unchanging policy towards the Middle East generally means unwavering support for Israel. That issue undoubtedly remains a key concern for many people in the Arab World.

I was a little child when I began hearing about the "lobby" and understanding that the US is always biased towards Israel. And even though I was often annoyed by conspiracy theorists and cynics, I often found that their arguments are not entirely unfounded.

Few 'concrete answers'

I was not blown away by the performance of either, although everyone is saying that Obama did better overall.

"I realised that whether we like it or not, everything the US does affects the rest of the world tremendously"

Lina Ejeilat

It took some time before they finally started addressing each other directly and delivering more concrete answers on issues.

I liked what Obama said about the importance of improving things at home, giving people better education, better health insurance, and a stronger economy.

Obama was continuously focused on the American middle class even in a debate about foreign policy, and ultimately, it's all connected.

You can't but grow tired of McCain's statements like "I know how to heal the wounds of war."

Being here for the past two months got me thinking about things I didn't pay attention to before - I started thinking about all the money the US government gives to my country and many others in aid while the US economy is crumbling down.

I was also thinking of how quick we were in Jordan to adopt the US business and financial model, and how scary it is to think of its proven flaws and their impacts.

Most importantly though, I realised that whether we like it or not, everything the US does affects the rest of the world tremendously.

We cannot say all US presidents will be the same for the Arab world because there's a lot more support for Israel that tips the balance.

For someone like me, even though I'm increasingly interested in how domestic politics here are handled, I guess the most relevant aspects of what was said were inevitably the Iraq-related points, the attitude towards Iran, and oil.

I'm not sure Obama's 16-month withdrawal plan is in the best interest of the region at this point, I'm also not sure how to feel about Iran's growing influence and his approach to it, but I think Obama can do the US image in the world a lot of good at this point.

Zigzagging to Public Opinion on Immigration

The conservative magazine Economist is not my favorite, yet this section of an essay on immigration provides more information than others have...regardless of their position.
---

Blowing in the wind
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12321563

Until recently Mr McCain’s record on immigration was so liberal that the National Council of La Raza has twice given him an award for his political work. He has long fought for “comprehensive” immigration reform—code for any change that would provide a route to citizenship for illegals. This effort culminated in the Immigration Reform Act of 2007, which would have allowed virtually all illegal immigrants to remain in the country on a special “Z” visa. After paying a fine and back taxes, they could apply for permanent residency and, eventually, citizenship.

Although the bill also contained money for border security and was supported by George Bush, many of Mr McCain’s fellow Republicans turned against a measure that opponents had successfully labelled an “amnesty”. It died in June, 2007 following an extraordinary barrage of phone calls by anti-immigration groups. The episode revealed one of the few clear lessons of the politics of immigration: the people who feel strongly about it often feel very strongly indeed.

When Mr McCain talks about the issue these days he sounds chastened. The failure of immigration reform taught him a lesson, he says—that Americans will tolerate a move to legalise illegal immigrants only if they are assured the border has been fixed. The senator plans to achieve that through a combination of walls and electronic surveillance. Only when the governors of the border states say the border is secure, will he do something about America’s 12m illegal immigrants.

Unless the governors are prepared to overlook quite a lot, it is unlikely that a President McCain would ever get around to the second stage of his plan. America’s border with Mexico is 2,000 miles (3,200km) long. It runs through cities, mountains, rivers, desert and Indian reservations. It is possible to slash crossings in a particular area by flooding it with guardsmen or building walls. It is not, however, remotely possible to seal the whole thing. Britain, an island nation with a more centralised government and a far tighter surveillance web, contains illegal immigrants from as far away as China.

Mr McCain’s move rightward on the immigration issue has given Mr Obama considerable room to manoeuvre. He has nonetheless held a fairly orthodox liberal line on illegal immigration. He supports giving illegals a route to citizenship and promises to make it a priority during his first year in office. During the primaries he expressed support for Eliot Spitzer, then the governor of New York, who was trying to grant driving licences to illegals. This is a totemic issue for liberal Hispanics, but unpopular with many others.
Unwelcome guests

Like many politicians with roots in troubled cities, Mr Obama is much less keen on increasing the number of guest workers. This was also part of the immigration bill, but, thanks in part to Senator Obama, it was severely pruned even before the measure died. He backed a measure cutting the number of guest workers from 400,000 to 200,000. He introduced another measure that would have banned companies from employing guest workers in areas of high unemployment and required them to pay prevailing wages. He also supported a move to end the programme after five years. Since the programme was about the only thing many Republicans liked about the immigration bill, this ruined its chances.

Just as a President McCain would have to soften his stance on border security in order to pass an immigration bill, so a President Obama would have to tone down his anti-business rhetoric. Without support from businesspeople it will be extremely difficult to persuade Republican politicians to go along with reform. It is especially important to get farmers onside. They often depend on illegal labour and can be a heavy counterweight to nativist sentiments in rural areas. They also have powerful lobbyists in Washington.

The differences between the candidates’ positions are less striking than the contrast in how they speak about illegal immigration. Mr Obama talks of giving hope to families living in fear of raids and deportation. Mr McCain goes no further than a general expression of sympathy for “God’s children”. But he feels the pain of ordinary Americans who fret that they are being overrun.

Mr McCain’s stance on immigration is closer to that of the average American. Yet Mr Obama appears to have the edge. He can point out, fairly, that his opponent has flip-flopped on the issue. His liberal stance impresses Latinos, who remain angry at the Republican party for caving in to nativist pressure last year. They account for more than a tenth of the electorate in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, New York and Texas. They may decide extremely close races even in states where they are thin on the ground, like Wisconsin.

Immigration is also one of the few areas where Mr Obama’s race helps him. Blacks are more threatened by competition from immigrants, particularly illegal ones. Many fights in schools and prisons are between blacks and Latinos. As a result, a black politician who supports immigration reform comes across as particularly brave.

Yet the issue can turn, and quickly. An effective ad campaign could dredge up submerged fears of immigrants and push the issue close to the top of people’s concerns. As the economy sours, Americans will probably become less tolerant of those who compete for their jobs. An illegal immigrant could commit a horrific, widely-publicised crime. Working-class whites are already wary of Mr Obama. If immigration suddenly rises from the swamp, they may well run straight into the arms of the newly tough Mr McCain.

.

Bilingualism -- only an issue in the U.S. - Part I

The argument about bilingualism is only a big deal around here because the other language we are talking about is Spanish. If it was French it would be a different story.

Did you know that the Department of Homeland Security offers a special pass (if you are able to get security clearance) - the pass lets you go through security check points very quickly. The web page of course is in English, it offers the form in one other language, French!

---

September 28, 2008, 7:57 pm
The Bilingual Debate: English Immersion

By Lance T. Izumi
Series logo

In this installment of Education Watch, Bruce Fuller and Lance T. Izumi discuss the candidates’ positions on bilingual education. Go to Mr. Fuller’s post.

Lance T. Izumi, a senior fellow in California studies and the senior director of education studies at the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, is the co-author of the book “Not as Good as You Think: Why the Middle Class Needs School Choice.” (Full biography.)

Making effective appeals to Hispanic voters is a tricky business. Barack Obama’s education proposals are a case in point.

Mr. Obama’s campaign notes that, “African-American and Latino students are significantly less likely to graduate than white students,” which is true. To combat such achievement gaps, Mr. Obama’s education plan specifically advocates, among other things, “transitional bilingual education” for English-learners. Yet, the question for Mr. Obama is whether his commitment to bilingual education, which emphasizes classroom instruction in languages other than English, overrides his interest in closing achievement gaps.

Take, for example, Sixth Street Prep, a charter elementary school in eastern Los Angeles County. The school’s students are overwhelmingly Hispanic and low income. More than a third of the students, many of whom are recent arrivals, are learning English. Yet, among fourth graders, an astounding 100 percent of the students tested at the proficient level on the 2008 state math exam. A nearly equally amazing 93 percent of fourth graders tested proficient on the state English-language-arts exam. This incredible success was achieved using a different ingredient than the one favored by Mr. Obama.

Sixth Street emphasizes review and practice, constant assessment of skills and a no-excuses attitude. Furthermore, and here’s where Mr. Obama should take note, according to Linda Mikels, Sixth Street’s principal, the school’s instructional approach for English learners is “full immersion.” English immersion emphasizes the near-exclusive use of English in content instruction. Ms. Mikels, who opposes bilingual education, told me, “we’ve had tremendous success with having a student who is brand new from Mexico and you would walk into a classroom 12 months later and you wouldn’t be able to pick out which one he was.” “It’s working,” she observed, “it’s working for us.”

Would Mr. Obama hold up a school like Sixth Street Prep as one model for replication by other schools with large Hispanic and English-learner populations? The school’s achievement results should make the answer to that question a no-brainer, but the education politics within his own party (the National Education Associations has been a long-time supporter of bilingual education) and his own consistent support for bilingual education obscure predicting Mr. Obama’s response.

While he agrees that immigrants should learn English, Mr. Obama recently trivialized the issue when he said that people should stop worrying about “English-only” legislation. Instead, he said, “you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish.”

If Mr. Obama truly wishes to close achievement gaps, he should carefully consider education models that work rather than scorn or trivialize them.

---

Bilingualism- only an issue in the U.S. - Part II

Comments from NYT article on bilingualism.

-

#

It would be interesting to find out how classes are taught in Switzerland, which is tri-lingual.

— Posted by John

-

Our maid had a child within two months of my wife delivering our own second child. Five years later, we managed to get our maid’s child into the same public school to which our child went. But she got kicked out for misbehaving and sent to a local school near where our maid lived. Unfortunately, this was a school that mandated that Spanish to be used to teach the students. 13 years later, our child was headed to an elite college and our maid’s daughter was barely able to finish high school. Do I think that our son was brilliant and our maid’s daughter was stupid? No. But it’s very interesting that our maid’s daughter spoke English with a Spanish accent even though she was born and reared 100% in this country. I think back to the day a decade earlier that our maid cried to us that they were teaching her child in Spanish and that she wanted her to learn English in school so that she could do well in this country. To my limited experience, therefore, it’s a really bad idea to teach students who need to work and compete in English to depend upon Spanish.

— Posted by Gary
-


Speaking as someone who has taught ESL, using very different models in different high schools with different clientele, I am struck by how much the debate about the quantity of English in the class quickly devolves from a sensible search for the best strategy to an ideological war that produces some very silly teaching strategies. With a little common sense, we can quickly dispatch with some of the silliest of these extremes. For example, using the student’s second language when they first arrive makes sense only if the teacher has a homogeneous group and a basic grasp of the languages students bring into the room. I speak Spanish, and when I had a room full of Spanish speakers, I could use Spanish words to compare true and false cognates, to explain which rules are similar and which are different, etc. But when my classes were filled with students who spoke Chinese (I can hardly manage please and thank you without messing up the tones) this strategy was beyond me. Some folks worry that the use of any of the student’s first language is somehow unpatriotic or counter productive. To these folks I’d say, if you went to another country where you didn’t speak the language, as much as you’d want the instruction to center around the new language and move you to a conversational level, you’d certainly hope the initial instructions could be provided in your language, and that you could ask questions, in English, about how to express certain ideas. Those who favor the use of full bilingual teaching often seem to imply that the English-only folks are disrespectful or even downright racist. Though some of the people who espouse these views outside of education may be just that, people who have dedicated their lives to teaching kids (probably, hopefully) aren’t trying to hurt them because of some external political agenda. Because every class of students is different, and because every teacher’s grasp of foreign languages is different, I’m very glad to see that Senator Obama isn’t the type to jump on one example and try to force it on other schools. We teachers don;t benefit from that kind of armchair quarterbacking, and our kids certainly don’t, either. Instead, he’s voiced the principles that all ESL teachers should hold: Teach every child English, and do it in the way that works the best for that child. It’s not racist or evil to admit that our kids will need to be fully fluent in English to be successful in our society, and it’s not unpatriotic to admit that sometimes it can be helpful to use a little of the student’s first language to make that happen.

— Posted by Ben Gorman
-


Just one more thought to add: As someone who predominantly teaches literature to native speakers now, it will be very helpful to have a President Obama who shows my students just what a mastery of the English language can sound like, instead of someone like our current president, who shows them that they can butcher the language (and get mostly C’s in school), but if they have a father who is president and lack a conscience, they can still manage to become president, albeit to disastrous effect. I encourage you all to consider what it has been like, over the last seven years, to try to impart the simple values that education matters, that grammar matters, that using real words matters to high school students who see Dubya on the news each night.

— Posted by Ben Gorman
-


I 100% agree on your belief in the power of English immersion. That faith is based on my personal experience as an exchange student in France, the experience of my daughter as an exchange student in France, and the experience of a number of primarily Asian foreign exchange students who have lived with my family here in America over the years. One school year is enough time to become fluent in an immersion setting. This is especially true for young children who have the greatest facility in learning a new language.

— Posted by ANC


Obama’s not trivializing educational models. Reading the linked article, it’s clear that he was discussing isolationism, not pedagogical philosophy.

The elephant in the room is that most of the arguments for English-only education come not from education experts, but from jingoist laymen. Obama was trying to point out the dangers of that outlook; the world is shrinking rapidly, and kids (and adults) really are at an advantage when they can read and speak more than one language.

While the success of Sixth Street’s program is impressive, as a lay-reader of this article I wonder if there is sufficient evidence that English-only is the cause of their success. I’d be interested to read further research from education experts. (I.e., actual peer reviewed research, not politically motivated pronouncements from people or organizations with an agenda.) If it does turn out that English-only is the path to educational success, then that point needs to be clearly made and not mixed up with positions on isolationism and jingoism.

— Posted by Hopskotch
-


Greetings from a bilingualism researcher in Japan. Bilingual education is a field that should never be politicized, first of all. The bilingualism discipine has an established body of research and theory that proves elusive to sound bites, because the common sense of a given society is insufficient, and rigorous scientific analysis is necessary. Even when academics from other fields enter the debate, the gaps in their understanding are apparent, and it becomes a choice of which values are agreeable. For example, the use of the fine-sounding “immersion” in both articles should be corrected to “submersion,” which more realistically portrays what the learner experiences. “Immersion” in the bilingual education field always means that language majority students, like Japanese speakers in Japan or native English speakers in the U.S., learn regular school subjects 50% or more in a foreign language. There is no danger of majority students losing native language proficiency and being thus submerged, drowning in the unfamiliar, or losing linguistic ties with their families. One charter school cannot be generalized to the more common public school experience. It is true that the school staff members need precisely this correct knowledge of bilingualism that is surrounded by misconceptions and politics. Schools should at least be free to act on their best knowledge and staff abilities. Being against bilingual education is often a politically motivated cutting off of informed choices. Is it not absurd that high school students are struggling to start to learn Spanish and other languages for future international trade and communication while the native languages of immigrants are left to rot along with their cognitive abilities? Sweden manages to teach children in a hundred native languages, and Europeans are generally multilingual, because they prioritize international communication. My half-Japanese younger son was just realizing that a lot of foreigners don’t speak Japanese, and being bilingual in Japanese was another cool thing about his dad. How about the rest of you? There is plenty of unused space in growing and mature brains for multilingualism and multiculturalism if you weed out the propaganda.
(Prof.) Steve McCarty in Osaka

— Posted by Steve McCarty
-


I live in Iowa City, about twenty miles away from West Liberty, Iowa. There they have a bilingual school system that starts in kindergarten. They have a large Hispanic population and ten years ago they started a voluntary bilingual program. About 40% of the district starts the program in kindergarten. Not only do the Anglo kids who opt for the program learn both Spanish and English but the Hispanics kids learn proper Spanish, not street Spanish. The voluntary program continues to expand.

— Posted by tim
-


America is more isolated in the world than she should be, because of the lack of proficiency in a wide range of languages among her citizens. This is ironic given that immigration is the backbone of our nation.

Bilingual education, done properly, will result in students who have a very good mastery of English and who also have academic skills in their native tongue or their parents’. Whether or not their English is as perfect as it would be in a monolingual classroom, I think that there is substantial value in having educated bilinguals in our community, something that gets lost in strictly monolingual classrooms.

— Posted by Greg Shenaut
-
#

Look up look way up, yes that’s Canada up there, and guess what we are Bi lingual. Even if you live in Red Necked Alberta, home of the Calgary Stampede, Yahoo, if you want a trial in French no problem. Canada has spent Billions on making this a priority, to save the French Language is to save the French Culture. Personally I don’t give a s–t about French, but we got it, so if you need help being Bi-lingual, or you just want to study ways we have made teaching a second language to people from all, and I mean, all over the world, check it out.

Lary Waldman

— Posted by Lary Waldman
-
#
23.
September 29th,
2008
10:44 am

If the student who is “brand-new from Mexico” cannot be distinguished from others after 12 months, he or she is probably very adept at accessing peer assistance and hiding what he or she does not know. The difference may not be noticeable to the casual classroom visitor, but for this student academic language competence is years away.

— Posted by Catherine
-


Obviously Mr. Izumi hasn’t done his homework. He claims that support for bilingual education has a detrimental effect on English Learners’ academic achievement. He needs to read the report from the esteemed panel of experts convened by the federal government, the National Literacy Panel for Language Minority Children & Youth (August & Shanahan, 2006). The 12 member panel reviewed 292 scientifically sound research studies over 4 decades that show a clear advantage for English learners who acquire reading skills in their native language, which is accomplished through effective well-implemented bilingual education programs. Prof. Claude Goldenberg of Stanford University quantified the native-language reading advantage, pointing out that bilingual readers have a 12 to 15 percentile point advantage over their English learner peers taught exclusively in English. Izumi either ignores or doesn’t know the research findings on the effectiveness of bilingual instruction, which are among the most robust in educational research. Shame on Mr. Izumi for arguing a position that is totally unsupported by the authoritative educational research. His ignorance of the research findings exposes the ideology rather than the science that drives his opinion about bilingual education. Sen. Obama is right. There is every reason for him to support Latino voters’ rights (and the rights of all parents who want their children to have the bilingual advantage) to establish and choose bilingual education programs.

— Posted by Jill Kerper Mora
=


If the goal is to help the child, Dr. Izumi’s proposal is unquestionably best. The history of my country (USA) show Immersion in the local language works far faster and with clearer understanding than teaching in the language of the childs past. Immersion language instruction does however require Teachers with broader training in languages and culture than usually found in most local elementary schools in the USA. Principal Mikels is right on. On this one, Senator Obama is simply wrong.
-XL

— Posted by Axl


Research in the field of applied linguistics shows that English only education is not necessarily the best method for ESL students, despite the success of this method in one instance. Success in the language classroom encompasses far more than simply language proficiency and is determined by factors other than a high score on a test. The goal of any teacher or ESL program should be to foster the overall academic success and well-being of the students. Using an ESL student’s first language in the classroom enhances cognitive development, offers the student the chance to be fully literate in two languages and functionally bi-lingual (which opens many career possibilities for students in the future) and is beneficial for the student’s self-esteem and cultural identity. Academic articles such as “Reexamining English Only in the ESL Classroom” by E. Auerbach or “It’s not my Job” by Oxelson and Lee support the use of the heritage language in the ESL classroom. The success of a teaching method is highly dependent on the dynamic of the classroom. Because each classroom has students of different backgrounds and skill levels, it is impossible and foolish to say that any one method, such as English Only, will be successful for all ESL classrooms.

— Posted by Charlotte Peterson
-
#

My father remembers getting disciplined and shamed for speaking spanish at school; native american children were stolen and beaten when they spoke anything other than english. My father nearly lost his ability to speak spanish and entire generations of children ended up unable to speak to their parents and grandparents.

What people are afraid of is the isolationist and jingoistic tone (thank you Hopskotch) that frequently infiltrates the discussion on bilingualism. I think that kids should learn as many languages as possible. I’m proud of my little cousin who is three but can converse easily in english or spanish. It is important to teach children english BUT we HAVE to be careful that they don’t lose their native language. unfortunately, I don’t ever hear that concern for balance coming from anti-bilingual education folks.

— Posted by Bernardette
-
#

How many Presidents have been bi-lingual? How many member of the congress are bi-lingual?

Now, how many of them were required to study another language in both high school AND college?

I was just in Barcelona, the waiter at this cheap restaurant spoke three languages FLUENTLY.

I have America friends in Germany. Their two kids spoke three languages fluently by age 8: English, German and French. so did the other kids in neighborhood. They also knew some Italian.

John Kerry studied in Switzerland and downplayed his ability to speak another language. Apparently in America that makes one elitist.

Jackie Kennedy, on the other hand, was treated like a demi-goddess because she spoke French!!!! Imagine that? She took French in school and learned it! Isn’t that amazing??!

— Posted by Mark W
#

f teaching a child in Spanish makes her a maid, and teaching her in English makes her a lawyer, where to we get our bilingual lawyers for NAFTA cases, international negotiations, etc? I am able to be a historian of Latin America because I learned Spanish in high school. Should the children of Spanish-speaking parents also have to learn Spanish in high school if they want to be scholars or executives or diplomats or travel directors or container-ship captains or alpaca-fleece buyers or high-school Spanish teachers with native accents or any of the huge number of jobs where speaking and writing Spanish and English equally well is very important? Shouldn’t we try to preserve and improve all our immigrant kids’ native language skills as a way of helping connect the US to the rest of the world? I’ve seen this point made already here, and I’m glad.
Are some people really arguing that we should intentionally make kids lose their native language so that their English will be better? That knowing a foreign language is too dangerous for immigrants and should be restricted to the native born? I hope not, but it sounds like they might be.
Does anyone on the pro bilingual side really object to using immersion-style classes for teaching English (as opposed to refusing to give any tutoring or content help in a native language)?
Is there no middle ground? No program in which everything is taught in English, but there’s a class in formal Spanish or French or Hebrew or Portuguese or Cantonese or Korean or whatever foreign languages have enough students to justify the class? No program in which the English classes are designed to prepare students to study, say, history in English after a year, math in English after 2 years, geography in English after 3 years, earth science after 4 years, etc? I have advised college students doing poorly because their English classes hadn’t taught them the words they needed for calculus — I assume something similar happens in grade school, and could be fixed.

— Posted by Sam Martland
-
#

Too much of this discussion is either/or, black and white. I grew up in 4 foreign countries where, each time, and have lots of experience with language learning (and being thrown into new environments without much warning as a child). Immersion is great, but children also need some grounding in their own language. If parents are illiterate themselves or not providing Spanish-language reading material and complex language interactions at home, and the kid is in an immersion program, it will be detrimental to the kid.
Immersion is great for some subjects, but in that case children should also have a class in Spanish-language literature and culture, with practice in writing in Spanish. The non-Hispanics could be in a language-learning class of their own at that time.
I’m fluent in 4 languages, but my comprehension for complex content will always be fastest, easiest, and least effortful in English. If I had had to stop learning in English completely while I was growing up, I would have been an intellectually stunted and discouraged and bored person.

— Posted by cls

Bill Clinton is at it again: - positive thoughts on Sarah Palin

The talk has been that the Clintons didn't want Kerry to win so that Hillary could run in 2008.  Now Bill is working on Obama not winning... making it easier for Hillary's  in 2012.  As much as so many Democrats find Palin abominable, Bill thinks she is ok - doesn't think anyone should say bad things about her.  Guess he doesn't feel this way about Obama...

---

September 23, 2008
Bill Clinton Says Americans Can Relate to the Palin Family

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Bill Clinton said Monday that he understood why Gov. Sarah Palin is popular in the heartland: people relate to her.

“I come from Arkansas; I get why she’s hot out there,” Mr. Clinton said. “Why she’s doing well.”

Speaking to reporters before his Clinton Global Initiative meeting, Mr. Clinton described Ms. Palin’s appeal by saying, “People look at her, and they say: ‘All those kids. Something that happens in everybody’s family. I’m glad she loves her daughter and she’s not ashamed of her. Glad that girl’s going around with her boyfriend. Glad they’re going to get married.’ ”

Mr. Clinton said voters would think: “I like that little Down syndrome kid. One of them lives down the street. They’re wonderful children. They’re wonderful people. And I like the idea that this guy does those long-distance races. Stayed in the race for 500 miles with a broken arm. My kind of guy...”

“I get this,” Mr. Clinton said. “My view is, why say, ever, anything bad about a person? Why don’t we like them and celebrate them and be happy for her elevation to the ticket? And just say that she was a good choice for him and we disagree with them?...”

for link to complete AP/NYT article click here

Immigration Roller Coaster for McCain

---

McCain zigzags on immigration
By: Gebe Martinez
September 17, 2008 04:49 PM EST

POLITICO.COM

Republican presidential nominee John McCain is zigzagging again.

On comprehensive immigration legislation, McCain has not been a “straight-talker,” nor has he been a classic flip-flopper. You know the type: “He was for it before he was against it.” No, McCain has chosen a more twisted path.

Well-known is McCain’s co-sponsorship with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.)of the 2006 Senate immigration bill, which proposed combining border security with tougher employer sanctions, temporary worker visas and legalization of about 12 million undocumented immigrants. When Republican voters protested in 2007, McCain backed away from the measure, calling for “border security first.”

Then, a few weeks ago, he asked Latino community leaders to “trust” him on the immigration issue and uttered “comprehensive” — as in “one bill” — for the first time in months. But then came a hard right turn at the Republican National Convention, when the party adopted a conservative platform that rejected McCain’s support for the comprehensive measure. The language was a far cry from what Karl Rove negotiated for President Bush’s 2004 reelection campaign.

A few days ago, in what was clearly an insult to anyone who participated or watched the Senate immigration debates, McCain issued a Spanish-language ad that wrongly blamed his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, and fellow Democrats for blocking approval of the Senate’s broad immigration bill. But the bill fell when only 12 of the 49 Senate Republicans supported it.

The ad is jaw-dropping stuff. It contends Obama is “not ready to lead” because he introduced and voted for “poison pill” amendments — language that, if approved, would have undermined the delicately negotiated bipartisan bill, which Obama supported. As opposed to McCain, who turned the bill over to the White House and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) so that he could go to the campaign trail, abandon his full-throated support of his own measure and talk about border security first?

The ad targeted Latino voters in Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico, leaving Latino political leaders disappointed, frustrated and confused by the zigzagging.

They question McCain’s ability to lead on immigration as president if he cannot stand up to his party conservatives as a candidate.

“Having worked with Sen. McCain for a long time [on comprehensive immigration reform], I truly believe he’s a firm believer on this issue,” said Cecilia Munoz, vice president of National Council of La Raza, the civil rights group that hosted McCain this summer when he appealed for trust and understanding. However, she added, “the fact that the [GOP] platform turned out so differently than Sen. McCain’s position has confused some people as to whether or not he can deliver his party.”

Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, a pro-comprehensive immigration group, is less sanguine. He said conservatives have remained steadfast in their opposition to visa expansions and other parts of the bill, favoring only tough enforcement such as the recent immigration raids that rounded up hundreds of suspected illegal immigrant workers, separated families and instilled fear.

“We may never move legislation even if ‘President’ McCain wants to move the legislation,” Sharry said. Expecting a better outcome after his rhetorical shifts to the right “is like giving an alcoholic a drink and hoping they get sober tomorrow.”

The fear among Latinos is palpable. Harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric often makes no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants or between native-born and foreign-born Latinos. While the issue is not the top concern of Latino voters, according to public polls, it is a “threshold” issue that separates “who the good guys are and who the bad guys are,” Munoz said.

A survey conducted last month in Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Florida for NDN, a progressive group, showed two-thirds of all voters and at least 73 percent of Hispanic voters supporting the broad immigration plan. Republicans fared poorly on their handling of the issue in the poll that was conducted in the days before McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate — a choice that wowed conservatives but leaves a question mark on the immigration issue.

In reaching out to Latino voters, McCain has highlighted his serious, decades-long work on behalf of Hispanics with hopes of overcoming the negative Republican brand. But the party’s tough stance on immigration has hurt McCain. “I think the die is cast when it comes to the immigration issue,” said NDN’s pollster, Sergio Bendixen.

Obviously, McCain tries to sound tough on immigration to avoid further angering his party’s conservative base. With the national media paying scant attention to the issue — a situation that should end when the debates begin — McCain has rarely been called out for playing to both sides.

The closest McCain and Obama came recently to exchanging immigration views occurred last week.

McCain’s campaign released a letter to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute that explained his last-minute decision not to attend their gala. The letter foreshadowed the attack about to be released in his Spanish-language ad.

“My efforts were stymied by ideologues in both parties, including my opponent, who voted five separate times for poison pills by special interests to kill immigration reform, votes that Sen. Kennedy and I opposed,” McCain stated. “I will first convince the American people that we can secure our borders. I will then work to enact a practical and fair immigration policy, one that ensures respect for the laws of this country, recognizes the important economic contribution of immigrant laborers, apprehends those who came here illegally to commit crimes, and deals practically and humanely with those who came here to build a better, safer life for their families, without excusing the fact that they came here illegally.”

Later, Obama reaffirmed his support for the immigration bill and struck back: “You’ve got to ask yourself: If Sen. McCain won’t stand up to opponents of reform at his own convention, how can you trust him to stand up for change in Washington?”

Obama told the 2,300-member, bipartisan audience, “Well, I don’t know about you, but I think it’s time for a president who won’t walk away from comprehensive immigration reform when it becomes politically unpopular.”

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said McCain should have shown up because the Latino vote will matter this year. “He gave in on the Republican platform,” said Menendez. “He certainly has, in my mind, abandoned the [Latino] community.”

If Menendez is wrong, McCain can clear up the ongoing confusion by answering the question posed in his campaign ad: “Which side are they on?”

Gebe Martinez is a longtime journalist in Washington and a frequent lecturer and commentator on the policy and politics of Capitol Hill.

© 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC

Lying Through their pearly white teeth

-----

September 12, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Blizzard of Lies
By PAUL KRUGMAN

New York Times

Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?

These stories have two things in common: they’re all claims recently made by the McCain campaign — and they’re all out-and-out lies.

Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.

And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

for link click here

To go to Harvard is only Uppity if you are Black

BARACK OBAMA
The Trail
Georgia GOP Congressman Calls Obama 'Uppity'
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post
September 4, 2008

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, a conservative Republican from Georgia, let slip today what critics have been saying is the subtext of many of the attacks on Barack Obama: He's "uppity."

According to The Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper, Westmoreland was discussing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's acceptance speech outside the House chamber today when he veered into his thoughts on Michelle and Barack Obama.

"Just from what little I've seen of her and Mister Obama, Senator Obama, they're a member of an elitist class individual that thinks that they're uppity," Westmoreland said.

When a reporter sought clarification on the racially loaded word, Westmoreland replied, "Uppity, yeah."

For weeks, commentators and critics have asserted that the McCain campaign's efforts to portray Obama as a vacuous celebrity smacked of historical efforts to describe African Americans seeking equality as "uppity" or not knowing "their place." The McCain campaign has heatedly denied any such thing, and has accused Obama of having "played the race card" for saying that Republicans would mock him as an outsider. Westmoreland's comments could rekindle the debate.

Westmoreland briefly gained some national attention when he sponsored legislation to post the Ten Commandments in the House and Senate chambers. Asked by Stephen Colbert in 2006 to name all ten, Westmoreland stumbled. "Um, don't murder, don't lie, don't steal," he offered, before confessing, "I can't name them."



link to photo

Affirmative Action for Attractive White Females

Since she is so average, and VP's aren't supposed to be average (unless you look like Dan Quayle) - she can be a great textbook case on Affirmative Action for Attractive White Females.  

Reasons why some people think Palin is a great VP choice

1.    She has a child who is disabled.

2.    She has a pregnant teenage daughter who didn't have an abortion.

3.    She has a son going to Iraq.

4.    She has a working class husband who didn't go to college.

5.    She is very pretty.

6.    Her husband is very handsome.

7.    She knows how to use a rifle.

8.    She thinks is it ok to thin out the wolf population in Alaska, and likes stuffed animals who

       used to be alive.

9.    She will be attractive to heavy meat eaters.

10.  She has good legs.

11.   She will keep McCain entertained, and maybe alive longer.* 

12.  She can be easily convinced to do something irrational -

       since accepting the VP offer with such limited qualifications is egotistical and shows poor

       judgement

13.  Drilling in protected land is ok with her. 

14.  She is so average, McCain won't be jealous of her intelligence.

-----

Archive for Wednesday, September 03, 2008
When average isn’t good enough

She’s not qualified to be president, and in picking her, McCain shows that he has little respect for the presidency.

By Sam Harris
September 03, 2008 in print edition A-21
Opinion
Los Angeles Times

So let us ask the question that should be on the mind of every thinking person in the world at this moment: If John McCain becomes the 44th president of the United States, what are the odds that a blood clot or falling object will make Sarah Palin the 45th?

The actuarial tables on the Social Security Administration website suggest that there is a better than 10% chance that McCain will die during his first term in office. Needless to say, the Reaper’s scything only grows more insistent thereafter. Should President McCain survive his first term and get elected to a second, there is a 27% chance that Palin will become the first female U.S. president by 2015. If we take into account McCain’s medical history and the pressures of the presidency, the odds probably increase considerably that this bright-eyed Alaskan will become the most powerful woman in history.

As many people have noted, placing Palin on the ticket has made these final months of the already overlong 2008 campaign much more interesting. Is Palin remotely qualified to be president of the United States? No. But that’s precisely what is so interesting. McCain not only has thrown all sensible concerns about good governance aside merely to pander to a sliver of female and masses of conservative Christian voters, he has turned this period of American history into an episode of high-stakes reality television: Don’t look now, but our cousin Sarah just became leader of the free world! Tune in next week and watch her get sassy with Pakistan!

Americans have an unhealthy desire to see average people promoted to positions of great authority. No one wants an average neurosurgeon or even an average carpenter, but when it comes time to vest a man or woman with more power and responsibility than any person has held in human history, Americans say they want a regular guy, someone just like themselves. President Bush kept his edge on the “Who would you like to have a beer with?” poll question in 2004, and won reelection.

This is one of the many points at which narcissism becomes indistinguishable from masochism. Let me put it plainly: If you want someone just like you to be president of the United States, or even vice president, you deserve whatever dysfunctional society you get. You deserve to be poor, to see the environment despoiled, to watch your children receive a fourth-rate education and to suffer as this country wages – and loses – both necessary and unnecessary wars.

McCain has so little respect for the presidency of the United States that he is willing to put the girl next door (soon, too, to be a grandma) into office beside him. He has so little respect for the average American voter that he thinks this reckless and cynical ploy will work.

And it might. Palin’s nomination has clearly excited Christian conservatives, and it may entice a few million gender-obsessed fans of Hillary Clinton to vote entirely on the basis of chromosomes. Throw in a few million more average Americans who will just love how the nice lady smiles, and 2009 could be a very interesting year.

Tune in next week and watch cousin Sarah fuss with our nuclear arsenal … .

Sam Harris is a founder of the Reason Project and the author of “The End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation.”

for link to LAT article click here


*don't older men live longer if their partners are much younger?
link to photo