Back to the top

Barack Obama

Raw Story: Liberal Activists Pledge to Oppose Obama in 2012

What do you think about this article from The Raw Story:

Hundreds of liberal organizers and anti-war activists have signed a petition pledging to oppose President Barack Obama’s renomination in 2012 unless he reverses course in Afghanistan and pushes for significant cuts to military spending.

“We vow not to support President Barack Obama for renomination for another term in office, and to actively seek to impede his war policies unless and until he reverses them,” the pledge reads.

Veteran activist and lobbyist David Swanson “…added that there’s something ‘incredibly dishonest’ about criticizing President George W. Bush’s war and military policies without applying those same standards to Obama.”

Many of these same activists supported Obama’s 2008 presidential bid even though candidate Barack made it very clear that his intention was to shift the focus of war from Iraq to Afghanistan. The argument then was we couldn’t afford another four years of Bush, and that McCain would be a continuation of the same failed policies.

While Obama is different from Bush, and isn’t as bad as Republicans make him out to be, the president’s continuation of Bush era policies – continued domestic spying, no closure of Guantanamo, the sanctioning of torture, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Wall Street bailouts and pandering to corporate America – are indefensible.

But is this a wise move? Certainly there are other candidates who would be more acceptable to liberals (Alan Grayson and Russ Feingold are mentioned), but could they gain the political (and financial) capital needed to mount a credible opposition?

What about the ever present Green Party? Could they make a serious push in 2012 with backing from big name liberals who oppose Obama’s wars?

Is this struggle for the soul of America worth the risk of a President Romney or President Gingrich or a President Palin?

At what point do you sacrifice “standing on your principles” and “doing the right thing” for “political pragmatism and expediency?” Well, ok. Liberals have been doing that for years with support of the Democratic party. When will it stop? If not now, when?

The Raw Story: Hundreds of liberal activists pledge to oppose Obama in 2012

Raw Story: Liberal Activists Pledge to Oppose Obama in 2012

What do you think about this article from The Raw Story:

Hundreds of liberal organizers and anti-war activists have signed a petition pledging to oppose President Barack Obama’s renomination in 2012 unless he reverses course in Afghanistan and pushes for significant cuts to military spending.

“We vow not to support President Barack Obama for renomination for another term in office, and to actively seek to impede his war policies unless and until he reverses them,” the pledge reads.

Veteran activist and lobbyist David Swanson “…added that there’s something ‘incredibly dishonest’ about criticizing President George W. Bush’s war and military policies without applying those same standards to Obama.”

Many of these same activists supported Obama’s 2008 presidential bid even though candidate Barack made it very clear that his intention was to shift the focus of war from Iraq to Afghanistan. The argument then was we couldn’t afford another four years of Bush, and that McCain would be a continuation of the same failed policies.

While Obama is different from Bush, and isn’t as bad as Republicans make him out to be, the president’s continuation of Bush era policies – continued domestic spying, no closure of Guantanamo, the sanctioning of torture, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Wall Street bailouts and pandering to corporate America – are indefensible.

But is this a wise move? Certainly there are other candidates who would be more acceptable to liberals (Alan Grayson and Russ Feingold are mentioned), but could they gain the political (and financial) capital needed to mount a credible opposition?

What about the ever present Green Party? Could they make a serious push in 2012 with backing from big name liberals who oppose Obama’s wars?

Is this struggle for the soul of America worth the risk of a President Romney or President Gingrich or a President Palin?

At what point do you sacrifice “standing on your principles” and “doing the right thing” for “political pragmatism and expediency?” Well, ok. Liberals have been doing that for years with support of the Democratic party. When will it stop? If not now, when?

The Raw Story: Hundreds of liberal activists pledge to oppose Obama in 2012

What We Can REALLY Learn From China

Chinese president Hu Jintao has almost completed his 4-day hang in DC with President Barack Obama. The two of them inked a snazzy little $45 billion trade agreement that won’t do much for working Americans, but will help both leaders improve their image with US consumers and job seekers.

Here’s a great post by former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, that explains exactly why this big deal isn’t a very big deal. Read the whole thing when you get a chance, but here is the part that resonated most with me.

China has a national economic strategy designed to make it, and its people, the economic powerhouse of the future. They’re intent on learning as much as they can from us and then going beyond us (as they already are in solar and electric-battery technologies). They’re pouring money into basic research and education at all levels. In the last 12 years they’ve built twenty universities, each designed to be the equivalent of MIT.

Their goal is to make China Number one in power and prestige, and in high-wage jobs.

The United States doesn’t have a national economic strategy. Instead, we have global corporations that happen to be headquartered here. Their goal is to maximize profits, wherever they can make the most money. They’ll make things in America for export to China when that’s most profitable; they’ll make it in China and give the Chinese their know-how when that’s the best way to boost the bottom line. They’ll utilize research and development wherever around the world it will deliver the biggest bang for the dollar.

Meanwhile, Republicans and deficit hawks are cutting publicly-supported R&D. And cash-starved states are cutting K-12 education, and slashing the budgets of their great public research universities, such as the one I teach at.

The bottom line? China has a national economic strategy that is based in the understanding that education will make them the economic powerhouse of the present and future. The US has no national economic strategy, and is cutting investments in education to the detriment of its middle and working classes.

When are we going to learn that investment in education is our best ticket out of this economic quagmire? Never if we keep closing schools and cutting higher ed spending.

What We Can REALLY Learn From China

Chinese president Hu Jintao has almost completed his 4-day hang in DC with President Barack Obama. The two of them inked a snazzy little $45 billion trade agreement that won’t do much for working Americans, but will help both leaders improve their image with US consumers and job seekers.

Here’s a great post by former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, that explains exactly why this big deal isn’t a very big deal. Read the whole thing when you get a chance, but here is the part that resonated most with me.

China has a national economic strategy designed to make it, and its people, the economic powerhouse of the future. They’re intent on learning as much as they can from us and then going beyond us (as they already are in solar and electric-battery technologies). They’re pouring money into basic research and education at all levels. In the last 12 years they’ve built twenty universities, each designed to be the equivalent of MIT.

Their goal is to make China Number one in power and prestige, and in high-wage jobs.

The United States doesn’t have a national economic strategy. Instead, we have global corporations that happen to be headquartered here. Their goal is to maximize profits, wherever they can make the most money. They’ll make things in America for export to China when that’s most profitable; they’ll make it in China and give the Chinese their know-how when that’s the best way to boost the bottom line. They’ll utilize research and development wherever around the world it will deliver the biggest bang for the dollar.

Meanwhile, Republicans and deficit hawks are cutting publicly-supported R&D. And cash-starved states are cutting K-12 education, and slashing the budgets of their great public research universities, such as the one I teach at.

The bottom line? China has a national economic strategy that is based in the understanding that education will make them the economic powerhouse of the present and future. The US has no national economic strategy, and is cutting investments in education to the detriment of its middle and working classes.

When are we going to learn that investment in education is our best ticket out of this economic quagmire? Never if we keep closing schools and cutting higher ed spending.

Budget Hawks Threaten Job-Based Health Care

We’ll see how all those anti-universal heath care conservatives feel when their employers eliminate health coverage.

From Huffington Post:

Budget proposals from leaders in both parties have urged shrinking or eliminating tax breaks that help make employer health insurance the leading source of coverage in the nation and a middle-class mainstay.

The idea isn’t to just raise revenue, economists say, but finally to turn Americans into frugal health care consumers by having them face the full costs of their medical decisions.

Such a re-engineering was rejected by Democrats only a few months ago, at the height of the health care overhaul debate. But Washington has changed, with Republicans back in power and widespread fears that the burden of government debt may drag down the economy.

The dreamers who believe employers would increase pay if relieved of the burden of health care costs are the same dreamers who believe that trickle-down economics has improved life for Americans over the past 30 years.

Yes, Virginia. We may have lost our best shot at universal coverage with the compromise on Obama’s already compromising public option. We may soon lose our health care coverage altogether if budget hawks have their way and tax credits are eliminated.

Read the article HERE Huffington Post: Job-Based Health Care Threatened

Budget Hawks Threaten Job-Based Health Care

We’ll see how all those anti-universal heath care conservatives feel when their employers eliminate health coverage.

From Huffington Post:

Budget proposals from leaders in both parties have urged shrinking or eliminating tax breaks that help make employer health insurance the leading source of coverage in the nation and a middle-class mainstay.

The idea isn’t to just raise revenue, economists say, but finally to turn Americans into frugal health care consumers by having them face the full costs of their medical decisions.

Such a re-engineering was rejected by Democrats only a few months ago, at the height of the health care overhaul debate. But Washington has changed, with Republicans back in power and widespread fears that the burden of government debt may drag down the economy.

The dreamers who believe employers would increase pay if relieved of the burden of health care costs are the same dreamers who believe that trickle-down economics has improved life for Americans over the past 30 years.

Yes, Virginia. We may have lost our best shot at universal coverage with the compromise on Obama’s already compromising public option. We may soon lose our health care coverage altogether if budget hawks have their way and tax credits are eliminated.

Read the article HERE Huffington Post: Job-Based Health Care Threatened

America’s Imperial Misadventure in Iraq

I have nothing more to say about the war in Iraq that I haven’t said many times over the years. On the eve of the invasion I wrote a piece comparing the invasion to past imperial misadventures by the very powers who sought to divide and conquer the nation.

Now that the US occupation of Iraq is kind of, sort of, almost over, what is there to cheer about? Nothing. We shouldn’t have been there in the first place.

This BBC piece sums it up pretty well.

BBC: Assessing America’s ‘imperial adventure’ in Iraq

“This,” a leading American supporter of President George W Bush wrote in a British newspaper back in February 2003, just before the invasion of Iraq, “is our imperial moment”.

He went on to argue that the British had no right to criticise America for doing what they themselves had done so enthusiastically a century before.

But America’s imperial moment did not last long. And now, seven years later, the US is criticised for just about everything that happens here.

Opinion is evenly divided between those who are glad to see the Americans go, and those who criticise them for leaving too soon and potentially laying Iraq open to fresh sectarian violence.

It is a pattern that every occupying power becomes used to. America, it seems, cannot do anything right – not even getting out.

Read the full article HERE

The Runaway War: Why Firing McChrystal Won’t Help

So I finally got a chance to read the Rolling Stone article that brought down a general.

It is said that General Stanley McChrystal was fired for his contemptuous attitude toward his civilian bosses. However, McChrystal’s conduct isn’t the most damning aspect of the piece.

Michael Hastings paints a bleak portrait of the adventure that is the longest war in US history. The Counter Insurgency strategy (abbreviated COIN) advocated by McChrystal and sold to Obama isn’t working, and isn’t likely to work.

The article leaves me repeating the same question I’ve been asking for years: “What’s the point? Why are we at war in Afghanistan?”

Take this assessment from the article:

After nine years of war, the Taliban simply remains too strongly entrenched for the U.S. military to openly attack. The very people that COIN seeks to win over – the Afghan people – do not want us there.

Our supposed ally, President Karzai, used his influence to delay the offensive, and the massive influx of aid championed by McChrystal is likely only to make things worse. “Throwing money at the problem exacerbates the problem,” says Andrew Wilder, an expert at Tufts University who has studied the effect of aid in southern Afghanistan. “A tsunami of cash fuels corruption, delegitimizes the government and creates an environment where we’re picking winners and losers” – a process that fuels resentment and hostility among the civilian population.

So far, counterinsurgency has succeeded only in creating a never-ending demand for the primary product supplied by the military: perpetual war. There is a reason that President Obama studiously avoids using the word “victory” when he talks about Afghanistan. Winning, it would seem, is not really possible.

And if winning isn’t possible, then why continue to waste American treasure and lives?

When are the American people going to get fed up and demand that our president bring the troops home?

Click HERE to read the full article – “Rolling Stone: The Runaway General”

The Runaway War: Why Firing McChrystal Won’t Help

So I finally got a chance to read the Rolling Stone article that brought down a general.

It is said that General Stanley McChrystal was fired for his contemptuous attitude toward his civilian bosses. However, McChrystal’s conduct isn’t the most damning aspect of the piece.

Michael Hastings paints a bleak portrait of the adventure that is the longest war in US history. The Counter Insurgency strategy (abbreviated COIN) advocated by McChrystal and sold to Obama isn’t working, and isn’t likely to work.

The article leaves me repeating the same question I’ve been asking for years: “What’s the point? Why are we at war in Afghanistan?”

Take this assessment from the article:

After nine years of war, the Taliban simply remains too strongly entrenched for the U.S. military to openly attack. The very people that COIN seeks to win over – the Afghan people – do not want us there.

Our supposed ally, President Karzai, used his influence to delay the offensive, and the massive influx of aid championed by McChrystal is likely only to make things worse. “Throwing money at the problem exacerbates the problem,” says Andrew Wilder, an expert at Tufts University who has studied the effect of aid in southern Afghanistan. “A tsunami of cash fuels corruption, delegitimizes the government and creates an environment where we’re picking winners and losers” – a process that fuels resentment and hostility among the civilian population.

So far, counterinsurgency has succeeded only in creating a never-ending demand for the primary product supplied by the military: perpetual war. There is a reason that President Obama studiously avoids using the word “victory” when he talks about Afghanistan. Winning, it would seem, is not really possible.

And if winning isn’t possible, then why continue to waste American treasure and lives?

When are the American people going to get fed up and demand that our president bring the troops home?

Click HERE to read the full article – “Rolling Stone: The Runaway General”

Tim Wise: Imagine If The Tea Party Was Black

Here’s an interesting and provocative post by our friend, Tim Wise.

What if the Tea Party was Black? Would they get away with half the stunts they’ve pulled at rallies?

“Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black” – Tim Wise

Let’s play a game, shall we?

The name of the game is called “Imagine.” The way it’s played is simple: we’ll envision recent happenings in the news, but then change them up a bit. Instead of envisioning white people as the main actors in the scenes we’ll conjure – the ones who are driving the action – we’ll envision black folks or other people of color instead. The object of the game is to imagine the public reaction to the events or incidents, if the main actors were of color, rather than white. Whoever gains the most insight into the workings of race in America, at the end of the game, wins.

So let’s begin.

Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protester — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose. Continue reading

© Nadir Omowale