Fun with numbers

I suggest you take a look over at the National Priorities Project web site and have fun the the cost of the war numbers. For instance for what we've spent on the war we could have insured 212,183,137 children for a (whoops 212,183,140 children) year. Have a look at this site and see what this country could have done with the money that we spent to "get Saddam".

An "A Man Was Lynched Yesterday" Campaign

I was struck with an idea today. A low cost, high effect campaign to keep people aware of what is going on in Darfur on a daily basis. In the early part of this century Americans citizens who were concerned about the lynching of black, would fly banners in the cities of the U.S. to make people who would otherwise be unaware of what happened. Here's a picture of one such banner.

I think that this kind of campaign, in cities around the world can be extremely effective at a low cost. Activists would need a minimal amount of funds for material and paint and could paint the banners themselves. Beyond that, all that is needed is a willing building owner/occupant from which to fly the banner. and then teams can update the banners with recent news. My brother and I would be willing to work with anyone in NYC who would be interested in this kind of campaign and can even use our uptown apartment as a base of operations.

War on Terror

This is the worst phrase of the 21^st century. It is completely empty and meaningless. What are we going to do next? Fight a war on snipers! Terror is a tactic that is employed by outlaw gangs, militias and small armies as well as nations and governments everywhere. The U.S. uses it every time we bomb a civilian populous. Oh, we can sleep at night because you see, we make the all important distinction of not "targeting" the civilians, but if you know they are there and you drop your bombs anyway, what's the dif? Janjaweed militias use terror when the massacre, rape, and disembowel civilians. Ugandan rebels use it when they abduct children to use as their conscripts, using despicable acts of violence, including murder, to maintain "discipline". My point is that there is terror going on everyday all across the world, so our so-called war on terror is at best selective at worse a thinly veiled reason to go into the Middle East and steal their oil and keep our country in a perpetual state of war. I believe the latter and I hope that over the next two years politicians begin to realize that they can't keep our country constantly at war, it will be the end of America as we know it.

Congressional Support for Darfur Divided on Party Lines

Congressional support for Darfur-centric legislation is divided on party lines according the Darfur scores web site www.darfurscores.org. A cursory view of their map, which is depicted in shades of green (the lighter the better the voting record for that states lawmakers) looks like the electoral map for the '06 elections.

The best states are California, New Jersey, Maine, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. Who has the worst grades? Well pick a red state, or a dark green state, as the case may be. Texas for instance sends 34 lawmakers to congress, 6 have grades of B or better (only 2 As) and of the 6 the only Republican is Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. California is even more starkly divided with only 4 Democrats crossing the line with grades less than a B; Rep. Xavier Becerra, Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, Rep. Jane Harman, and Rep. Joe Baca all have Cs, while 3 Republicans have grades better than C; Rep. Edward Royce (A+), Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (B), Rep. Brian Bilbray (A).

Just for clarity, the legislation that was voted on to create these grades is...

• Senate Legislation
• Darfur Accountability Act
• Darfur Peace and Accountability Act
• Civilian Protection
• No-Fly Zone
• House Legislation
• Darfur Genocide Accountability Act
• Darfur Peace and Accountability Act
• NATO Bridging Force
• Funding Amendment for Protection
• Funding Amendment for Humanitarian Aid
• Presidential Special Envoy
• Extra Credit Legislation
• Clinton Amendment
• Reid Amendment
• Menendez Amendment
• Durbin/Leahy Amendment
• Jackson Amendment
• Lieberman Resolution
• Obama/Reid Amendment
• Peace in Darfur Act
• Federal Divestment from Sudan

It is sad that an issue that so clearly has no political gain for either side be so mired in our 2 party system. It is sad that so many people who claim to be Christian are letting this issue become politicized. We need to do something about this situation before it is too late. One of pres. Clinton's worst failings was not using our power to stop the genocide in Rwanda. If you're Senator or Representative has less than a B, please do what ever you can to convince them they are wrong.

Democrats need to pull the purse

The Democrats should give George Bush just enough money to implement the Murtha plan. It seems obvious that our dictator in chief wants to sell us on more troops, or at the least, drawing this war out for the duration of his presidency. He is making a big show of getting advice and taking his time, meanwhile we know he's going to ask for another $100 billion, none of which will be counted against our national debt, as far as you and I are concerned anyway. We know he is listening to people who think we should increase our troops levels. Meanwhile our troops in Iraq are dying and more and more troops at home are refusing to deploy or are speaking out about this unjust war. We the people must support our troops, who always support us, by putting pressure on congress to use all the powers they have, even the power of the purse, to force George Bush to capitulate to reason.

What's a Democrat to do?

I've played a few hands of poker in my day, but never have I held the royal flush. But that's how I feel as a Democrat looking at our potential field of '08 hopefuls. Don't take me too seriously, I am of the contention that the best person for the highest office in the land, is probably smart enough to know they don't want it! But when compared to the potential Republican field, we could potentially be looking at a royal flush, and then some!

With some much attention being paid to the '08 race and so many polls being taken and so much talk about the various candidates (well, at least the ones we already know about) I, for one am having a hard time making up my mind.

Should we go with a man with impeccable foreign policy and leadership credentials? Well if so the Democrats have a wonderful candidate in Gen. Wesley Clark. Gen. Clark was NATO's supreme commander and has real world experience in dealing with conflicts, something this country has been sorely lacking for, oh at least 6 years now. Gen. Clark is a leader and a man of integrity and would be an immediate upgrade in our international standing.

Of course character and integrity are in abundance when you speak of a statesman like Dennis Kucinich. Rep. Kucinich is a dignified patriot and a man of incredible intellectual capacity. I know, I know, your Pavlovian response is to say "he can't win", and maybe that's true but he is a great and honest man and will at least raise the level of the debate.

Despite Gen. Clark and rep. Kucinich's obvious qualifications they are both dark horses, yet still far better in my humble estimation than the gang of miscreants forming on the right side of this showdown! And I think Clark can beat McCain, what do you think?

Of course two quality candidates a royal flush does not make, that was just the appetizer. We could elect a young bright good looking golden boy from North Carolina who, like another one of our candidates, inspires you and a glance and challenges you to make America better, all of America. John Edwards, and it looks like it's official, is another excellent candidate. He's got that RFK quality in that you get the feeling that he really cares, he's passionate and has some great ideas and can really take our country in a new direction.

There is yet another choice worthy of examination. That is the potential candidacy of Sen. Barrack Obama. Much like Edwards, Obama oozes charm and inspiration and in the same way that Bill Clinton does, Obama electrifies any room. What the MSM is calling "rock star" power, yeah they wish, let's see Barrack torch his hotel room or down a bottle of Jack Daniels while playing the solo in "Stairway to Heaven"! What he can do, I believe, is be an effective leader, what he lacks for in experience he makes up for in intellect. A lot remains unseen about the Jr. Senator from IL, I am eager to discover what it is.

If Hillary runs she is the automatic front runner in the polls. She has the experience; she was in the white house for 8 years. She has the intelligence and she has the political acumen for the job. She has her baggage, lord knows, but again she looks good in comparison to their field and I think will look even better given the chance to campaign.

And finally Al Gore, a man who reminds us of a time when the white house was a place of integrity (despite Monica-gate!), a man who takes the environment seriously and who has all the right experience and ability for the job. Al Gore may take Hillary's front runner status if throws his hat in the ring, it will be interesting to find out.

I have been brief because my intent is not to illuminate anyone about the individuals but simply to reflect on the potential field in contrast to the McCain/Romney/ Giuliani's of the world. I think we are shaping up pretty well and will end up with a ticket that will take back the white house in '08. What do you think?