You Tube

[Jeannie Hall]

Morning all, since I've gotten involved in politics, I've learned all about You Tube -- I never really understood the big fascination with it until I saw this video.

Please take a look and vote:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn-JlfhZy3c&feature=related
--
"I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington . . . I'm asking you to believe in yours."

Barack Obama

[Charles Hurd]

Jeannie,

 

Glad you're digging around in YouTube.  There's a *lot* of stuff out there, good, bad, and terrible, and I've gotten quite a bit of information from there.

 

Since we've opened the political topic in this group, I'd like to ask the entire group a question based on the Obama quote at the end of your post.  I'm watching the Clinton v. Obama race with much interest and some trepidation.  For all that I disagree with Clinton on many issues, she at least is specific about what her positions are, what her experience is, and what she intends to do as President.  I have difficulty finding the same specifics with Obama.  Most of the news stories about his campaign talk about "hope" and "change" and "belief" without being clear, for example, about what he will change, how he will make that change occur, and what is his vision of the the new state of the world.  I'm also concerned about Obama's lack of national experience.  He's a first-term Senator with limited experience in passing legislation who has missed an awful lot of votes while building his Presidential campaign.  Given a straight-up comparison between Clinton and Obama, I would think that the Democratic Party would have nominated Clinton early on.

 

Anyway, for those in the group who are definite Obama supporters, could you share some thoughts about what aspect of Obama's campaign or platform was key to securing your support?  Any specifics, particularly any accomplishments that he has at the national level, would be most welcome.

 

Thanks.

 

-- Charlie

Jeannie Hall <jeannie...@gmail.com> wrote:

---

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

[Jeannie Hall]

Hi Charlie,

I'm happy to oblige as Jennifer Glidden was asking me the same thing.

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.

These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress www.thomas.loc.gov, but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.

During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced

233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law, The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law, The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law, The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.

In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to some who would prefer that this comparison not be made public.

He's not just a talker.

He's a doer.

On the issues, I suggest spending an hour or so on his website (barackobama.com):  Go to the issues tab where he explains his plans in detail.  Also, you can click on FACT CHECK on the right side of the website for any misinformation about him.  I also suggest going into the blog part.  There, feel free to ask questions to other bloggers who will be happy to help you (top info was from the blog).  I love that he has plans for the Peace Corps and others ways for American to serve this country.

In regards to your worry about Obama with foreign policy, I would feel much more secure with him in charge.  Because of his upbringing, he is quite worldly (actually lived outside of the country, plus has family in Kenya), he knows how to listen to other people, is even tempered, and I think amazingly wise.

He inspires people and will unite people as opposed to what we have been subject to for most of our lifetime in politics.  I don't think much can get done in Washington without a little bit of hope and inspiration.

I think his wife can say it better than I, however, so check out this You Tube:  http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid353515028/bctid1137687774.

Further thoughts?

Jeannie

[Charles Hurd]

Jeannie,

 

Thanks.  That's exactly what I was looking for.  I do have some additional thoughts but I'd like to see if anyone else weighs in on this first.

---

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

[Kline, Jeff]

I'll weigh in since I never do and I feel like goofing off a bit (your tax dollars at work).  I tend to share Jeannie's enthusiasm about Obama, although I suspect in truth Clinton and Obama are probably fairly similar in their beliefs.  The reason I am swayed to support Obama over Clinton are the factors Jeannie already mentioned, plus Clinton's failure to anticipate how stupid her support for invading Iraq would be.  I don't want a leader who is so susceptible to the type of group think that gripped much of Congress and the Nation.  It was obvious to me after Colin Powell's speech that we shouldn't do it and I still don't understand why it wasn't obvious to everyone else.  Also, I think we have to ask ourselves whether it is healthy for a democracy to allow just two families (Bush and Clinton) to continuously govern the nation for as long as 24 or even 28 years, if Clinton were re-elected.  The alleged "experience" issue doesn't bother me all that much, because I suspect much of what an administration can do depends on with whom Presidents surround themselves as far as a Cabinet and also whether existing bureaucrats are willing to buy into proposed initiatives (hey, I'm a federal employee).  "If experience were most important," I saw a pundit declare the other day, "We'd elect Dick Cheney."  Lastly, I'd also add that I don't think any of the three remaining major candidates (including McCain) would be the end of the world.  I was much more morose last time around when I viewed Kerry as a poor alternative to Bush (who I never liked).  I wouldn't rush out to vote for McCain, but I wouldn't jump out the window if he won, like I did when Bush was allegedly elected.  Good thing my house only has one story.   

 

Sunny day in Oregon today . . . happy, happy, joy, joy.

 

Jeff

 

---

From: Westt...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Charles Hurd
Sent: Fri 2/15/2008 11:30 AM
To: Westt...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: You Tube

[Charles Hurd]

Jeannie,

 

I poked around a little to try and confirm the info that you sent me and I found some interesting tidbits that should have been mentioned.

 

First, your post is almost a complete cut-and-paste from a blog on Obama's Web site (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/sabrinalamb/CsR2).  That doesn't, by itself, invalidate the information but I would have thought you'd mention that.  Interestingly, the link to the LIbrary of Congress in both places is wrong.  The correct link is http://thomas.loc.gov.

 

I only looked at legislative experience, since that's what the post mostly contained.  If you do a search on the Library of Congress site for sponsored or co-sponsored legislation that was signed by the President, Clinton had 20 such bills in the 109th Congress and Obama had 13.  If you look at the 110th Congress, Clinton co-sponsored 4 bills that were signed into law and Obama co-sponsored 3.  Neither sponsored a bill that became law in the 110th Congress.  I didn't look at the relative importance of each bill (some, yes, simply name post offices) but my quick search shows that Clinton and Obama were equally active and productive in the Senate.

 

Two bills in particular grabbed my attention and I dug in a little more.  Obama did, in fact, work with Sen. Lugar on a Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act.  However, the post misrepresents his effort.  The original Nunn-Lugar Act of 1991 seems to be a bill that targeted nuclear weapons by directing the State Department to devote money to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program which aims to reduce such weapons.  Obama worked with Lugar to extend the Nunn-Lugar Act to encompass conventional weapons, particularly shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.  So the (implicit) claim that Obama worked to reduce nuclear weapons is false.  That had already been accomplished.  Also, the reference to the bill doesn't disclose the fact that this effort was part of a budget bill.  BTW, I got this info from Obama's Senate Web site (http://obama.senate.gov/news/051102-obama-lugar_pro/).

 

The one reference in the post that is flat-out deceptive is the credit given to Obama for the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006.  Coburn was the only sponsor of this act, so the bill should have been called the Coburn Act.  There were 47 co-sponsors to this bill and the list includes Obama (correct) and Clinton (oops).  Obama can't just add his name to someone else's bill and then pitch it as his idea while simultaneously pretending that his opponent wasn't also involved.  This is bad.  Perhaps the original post wasn't written or authorized by the Obama campaign but it is on his campaign's Web site and, clearly, it's taken to be true by his supporters.

 

I'm still not seeing a whole lot of difference between Clinton and Obama.  They both push bills through the Senate with similar rates of success. And they both play the game of inflating their own contributions while trying to hide the achievements of others.  No change here.

[Charles Hurd]

Jeff,

 

Thanks.  These are decent reasons and I like the fact that they actually do draw distinctions between the two candidates.

 

-- Charlie

"Kline, Jeff" <jeff....@oregonstate.edu> wrote:

[Jeannie Hall]

Charlie, I haven't finished reading the email, but I did mention it, read carefully.

[Charles Hurd]

My apologies, you did mention that the top info in your post was from the blog.  I missed that.  Next time, do me a favor and preface your post with "this is from Obama's Web site" or something so I don't make the same mistake again.

 

Sorry.

[Jeannie Hall]

No problem.  Anyway, you have done your research well.  None of the stuff on the blog is authorized by the official Obama people.  Actually, that is one of the nice things about it.  If you try to post on the Hillary site, they check it first, and if it is negative, it doesn't make it on. 

I did not check whether the info was true or not, or perhaps deceptive, so I appreciate you looking into it.  I won't forward it to other people. 

Quite honestly, I'm not that concerned so much about policy.  I'm more excited about the idea of the American people finally having a say in their politics, and I see Obama as a conduit for this process.

[Charles Hurd]

See, this is the thing that bothers me about the emotion surrounding Obama's candidacy.  It feeds on a misperception.  The America people have *ALWAYS* had a say in their politics, they just traditionally have chosen to let others (party hacks, elected officials, whoever) make those decisions for them.  If we really wanted to change Congress, we could replace the entire House of Representatives in 2 years and the entire Senate in 6.  But we choose not to.  Just the fact that people are putting nonsense up on the Web about Obama's accomplishments shows that there's a lack of critical thinking out there (I'm sure there's equivalent nonsense on Clinton's site).  Politics and government are important.  Our Constitution is predicated on an *informed* populace, not an emotional one.  Our country has real challenges facing it, both domestic and foreign.  We as a nation should be having serious discussions about policy and national priorities, not sitting back as politicians snipe at each other over relative voting records or poll numbers.  We as a nation need to demand serious answers from our candidates and we need to know enough about the world we live in and the system of government under which we choose to live to make rational choices at the polls.  Otherwise, our elections become popularity contests and the problems that arise before us get kicked down the road to our children (e.g. Social Security).

 

It all really frustrates me.

---

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

[Jeannie Hall]

I want to continue the conversation, but I currently have six noisy teenagers in the house and my brain has stopped working so I'll respond later -- in a quieter, less hectic environment.  However, I do really appreciate and enjoy the conversation.   Anybody else want to add their thoughts?

Jeannie

[Sandy Sweitzer]

Could we just elect HER?!  Ok, ok, we are all totally hooked in our house now.

Hugs,
Sandy

---

Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:10:25 -0500
From: jeannie...@gmail.com

To: Westt...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: You Tube

---

Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail®-get your "fix". Check it out.

[Jeannie Hall]

That's why they call her the "closer."

[tdeci...@gmail.com]

Charlie -- You've hit the nail on the head. The amount of time our media and candidates spend on the "horse race" aspect of this important election and attacking each other over empty issues takes away from what should always be a civil tone that we all should share no matter our political leanings.

There are times of frustration when I retreat to the notion that voting should be limited to people who can make informed and rational decisions about the process and issues. (I know, who gets to decide--besides me!--who are informed and rational.).Then I return to the reality of celebrity politics as driven by the media.

What we need is a wise Westtonian to lead us in the ways of consensus and civility. I'd have started with Master Charlie Brown, then maybe Master Jan Long. With them we'd all be math whizzes who are in great shape -- a distinct improvement over the present!
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Hurd <churd...@yahoo.com>

Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:40:40

To:Westt...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: You Tube

See, this is the thing that bothers me about the emotion surrounding Obama's candidacy.  It feeds on a misperception.  The America people have *ALWAYS* had a say in their politics, they just traditionally have chosen to let others (party hacks, elected officials, whoever) make those decisions for them.  If we really wanted to change Congress, we could replace the entire House of Representatives in 2 years and the entire Senate in 6.  But we choose not to.  Just the fact that people are putting nonsense up on the Web about Obama's accomplishments shows that there's a lack of critical thinking out there (I'm sure there's equivalent nonsense on Clinton's site).  Politics and government are important.  Our Constitution is predicated on an *informed* populace, not an emotional one.  Our country has real challenges facing it, both domestic and foreign.  We as a nation should be having serious discussions about policy and national priorities, not sitting back as politicians snipe at each other over relative voting records or poll numbers.  We as a nation need to demand serious answers from our candidates and we need to know enough about the world we live in and the system of government under which we choose to live to make rational choices at the polls.  Otherwise, our elections become popularity contests and the problems that arise before us get kicked down the road to our children (e.g. Social Security).
 
It all really frustrates me.
 
-- Charlie

Jeannie Hall <jeannie...@gmail.com> wrote: No problem.  Anyway, you have done your research well.  None of the stuff on the blog is authorized by the official Obama people.  Actually, that is one of the nice things about it.  If you try to post on the Hillary site, they check it first, and if it is negative, it doesn't make it on. 

I did not check whether the info was true or not, or perhaps deceptive, so I appreciate you looking into it.  I won't forward it to other people. 

Quite honestly, I'm not that concerned so much about policy.  I'm more excited about the idea of the American people finally having a say in their politics, and I see Obama as a conduit for this process.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Charles Hurd <churd...@yahoo.com <mailto:churd...@yahoo.com> > wrote:

My apologies, you did mention that the top info in your post was from the blog.  I missed that.  Next time, do me a favor and preface your post with "this is from Obama's Web site" or something so I don't make the same mistake again.
 
Sorry.



 
-- Charlie

Jeannie Hall <jeannie...@gmail.com <mailto:jeannie...@gmail.com> > wrote: Charlie, I haven't finished reading the email, but I did mention it, read carefully.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Charles Hurd <churd...@yahoo.com <mailto:churd...@yahoo.com> > wrote:

Jeannie,
 
I poked around a little to try and confirm the info that you sent me and I found some interesting tidbits that should have been mentioned.
 

First, your post is almost a complete cut-and-paste from a blog on Obama's Web site (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/sabrinalamb/CsR2 <http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/sabrinalamb/CsR2> ).  That doesn't, by itself, invalidate the information but I would have thought you'd mention that.  Interestingly, the link to the LIbrary of Congress in both places is wrong.  The correct link is http://thomas.loc.gov <http://thomas.loc.gov/> .

 
I only looked at legislative experience, since that's what the post mostly contained.  If you do a search on the Library of Congress site for sponsored or co-sponsored legislation that was signed by the President, Clinton had 20 such bills in the 109th Congress and Obama had 13.  If you look at the 110th Congress, Clinton co-sponsored 4 bills that were signed into law and Obama co-sponsored 3.  Neither sponsored a bill that became law in the 110th Congress.  I didn't look at the relative importance of each bill (some, yes, simply name post offices) but my quick search shows that Clinton and Obama were equally active and productive in the Senate.
 

Two bills in particular grabbed my attention and I dug in a little more.  Obama did, in fact, work with Sen. Lugar on a Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act.  However, the post misrepresents his effort.  The original Nunn-Lugar Act of 1991 seems to be a bill that targeted nuclear weapons by directing the State Department to devote money to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program which aims to reduce such weapons.  Obama worked with Lugar to extend the Nunn-Lugar Act to encompass conventional weapons, particularly shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.  So the (implicit) claim that Obama worked to reduce nuclear weapons is false.  That had already been accomplished.  Also, the reference to the bill doesn't disclose the fact that this effort was part of a budget bill.  BTW, I got this info from Obama's Senate Web site (http://obama.senate.gov/news/051102-obama-lugar_pro/ <http://obama.senate.gov/news/051102-obama-lugar_pro/> ).

 
The one reference in the post that is flat-out deceptive is the credit given to Obama for the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006.  Coburn was the only sponsor of this act, so the bill should have been called the Coburn Act.  There were 47 co-sponsors to this bill and the list includes Obama (correct) and Clinton (oops).  Obama can't just add his name to someone else's bill and then pitch it as his idea while simultaneously pretending that his opponent wasn't also involved.  This is bad.  Perhaps the original post wasn't written or authorized by the Obama campaign but it is on his campaign's Web site and, clearly, it's taken to be true by his supporters.
 
I'm still not seeing a whole lot of difference between Clinton and Obama.  They both push bills through the Senate with similar rates of success. And they both play the game of inflating their own contributions while trying to hide the achievements of others.  No change here.



 
-- Charlie

Jeannie Hall <jeannie...@gmail.com <mailto:jeannie...@gmail.com> > wrote:


Hi Charlie,

I'm happy to oblige as Jennifer Glidden was asking me the same thing.

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.

These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress www.thomas.loc.gov <http://www.thomas.loc.gov/> , but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.

He's a doer.

On the issues, I suggest spending an hour or so on his website (barackobama.com <http://barackobama.com/> ):  Go to the issues tab where he explains his plans in detail.  Also, you can click on FACT CHECK on the right side of the website for any misinformation about him.  I also suggest going into the blog part.  There, feel free to ask questions to other bloggers who will be happy to help you (top info was from the blog).  I love that he has plans for the Peace Corps and others ways for American to serve this country.

In regards to your worry about Obama with foreign policy, I would feel much more secure with him in charge.  Because of his upbringing, he is quite worldly (actually lived outside of the country, plus has family in Kenya), he knows how to listen to other people, is even tempered, and I think amazingly wise.

He inspires people and will unite people as opposed to what we have been subject to for most of our lifetime in politics.  I don't think much can get done in Washington without a little bit of hope and inspiration.

I think his wife can say it better than I, however, so check out this You Tube:  http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid353515028/bctid1137687774 <http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid353515028/bctid1137687774> .

Further thoughts?

Jeannie

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Charles Hurd <churd...@yahoo.com <mailto:churd...@yahoo.com> > wrote:

Jeannie,
 
Glad you're digging around in YouTube.  There's a *lot* of stuff out there, good, bad, and terrible, and I've gotten quite a bit of information from there.
 
Since we've opened the political topic in this group, I'd like to ask the entire group a question based on the Obama quote at the end of your post.  I'm watching the Clinton v. Obama race with much interest and some trepidation.  For all that I disagree with Clinton on many issues, she at least is specific about what her positions are, what her experience is, and what she intends to do as President.  I have difficulty finding the same specifics with Obama.  Most of the news stories about his campaign talk about "hope" and "change" and "belief" without being clear, for example, about what he will change, how he will make that change occur, and what is his vision of the the new state of the world.  I'm also concerned about Obama's lack of national experience.  He's a first-term Senator with limited experience in passing legislation who has missed an awful lot of votes while building his Presidential campaign.  Given a straight-up comparison between Clinton and Obama, I would think that the Democratic Party would have nominated Clinton early on.
 
Anyway, for those in the group who are definite Obama supporters, could you share some thoughts about what aspect of Obama's campaign or platform was key to securing your support?  Any specifics, particularly any accomplishments that he has at the national level, would be most welcome.
 
Thanks.
 
-- Charlie

Jeannie Hall <jeannie...@gmail.com <mailto:jeannie...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Morning all, since I've gotten involved in politics, I've learned all about You Tube -- I never really understood the big fascination with it until I saw this video.

Please take a look and vote:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn-JlfhZy3c&amp;feature=related <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn-JlfhZy3c&amp;feature=related>

--
"I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington . . . I'm asking you to believe in yours."

Barack Obama


----------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>

--
"I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington . . . I'm asking you to believe in yours."

Barack Obama

----------------

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ>

--
"I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington . . . I'm asking you to believe in yours."

Barack Obama

----------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>

--
"I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington . . . I'm asking you to believe in yours."

Barack Obama

----------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>

[Jeannie Hall]

Who are you, tdecisions.  No need to be anonymous -- you're amongst friends.

Barack Obama

[tdeci...@gmail.com]

Of course. I'm Kevin Moore, too-long unheard-from in these parts.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----

From: "Jeannie Hall" <jeannie...@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:33:29

To:Westt...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: You Tube

Who are you, tdecisions.  No need to be anonymous -- you're amongst friends.

On Feb 15, 2008 5:27 PM, <tdeci...@gmail.com <mailto:tdeci...@gmail.com> > wrote:
Charlie -- You've hit the nail on the head. The amount of time our media and candidates spend on the "horse race" aspect of this important election and attacking each other over empty issues takes away from what should always be a civil tone that we all should share no matter our political leanings.

There are times of frustration when I retreat to the notion that voting should be limited to people who can make informed and rational decisions about the process and issues. (I know, who gets to decide--besides me!--who are informed and rational.).Then I return to the reality of celebrity politics as driven by the media.

What we need is a wise Westtonian to lead us in the ways of consensus and civility. I'd have started with Master Charlie Brown, then maybe Master Jan Long. With them we'd all be math whizzes who are in great shape -- a distinct improvement over the present!
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Hurd <churd...@yahoo.com <mailto:churd...@yahoo.com> >

Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:40:40

To:Westt...@googlegroups.com <mailto:To:Westt...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: You Tube

See, this is the thing that bothers me about the emotion surrounding Obama's candidacy.  It feeds on a misperception.  The America people have *ALWAYS* had a say in their politics, they just traditionally have chosen to let others (party hacks, elected officials, whoever) make those decisions for them.  If we really wanted to change Congress, we could replace the entire House of Representatives in 2 years and the entire Senate in 6.  But we choose not to.  Just the fact that people are putting nonsense up on the Web about Obama's accomplishments shows that there's a lack of critical thinking out there (I'm sure there's equivalent nonsense on Clinton's site).  Politics and government are important.  Our Constitution is predicated on an *informed* populace, not an emotional one.  Our country has real challenges facing it, both domestic and foreign.  We as a nation should be having serious discussions about policy and national priorities, not sitting back as politicians snipe at each other over relative voting records or poll numbers.  We as a nation need to demand serious answers from our candidates and we need to know enough about the world we live in and the system of government under which we choose to live to make rational choices at the polls.  Otherwise, our elections become popularity contests and the problems that arise before us get kicked down the road to our children (e.g. Social Security).
 
It all really frustrates me.
 
-- Charlie

Jeannie Hall <jeannie...@gmail.com <mailto:jeannie...@gmail.com> > wrote: No problem.  Anyway, you have done your research well.  None of the stuff on the blog is authorized by the official Obama people.  Actually, that is one of the nice things about it.  If you try to post on the Hillary site, they check it first, and if it is negative, it doesn't make it on. 

I did not check whether the info was true or not, or perhaps deceptive, so I appreciate you looking into it.  I won't forward it to other people. 

Quite honestly, I'm not that concerned so much about policy.  I'm more excited about the idea of the American people finally having a say in their politics, and I see Obama as a conduit for this process.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Charles Hurd <churd...@yahoo.com <mailto:churd...@yahoo.com> <mailto:churd...@yahoo.com <mailto:churd...@yahoo.com> > > wrote:

My apologies, you did mention that the top info in your post was from the blog.  I missed that.  Next time, do me a favor and preface your post with "this is from Obama's Web site" or something so I don't make the same mistake again.
 
Sorry.

 
-- Charlie

Jeannie Hall <jeannie...@gmail.com <mailto:jeannie...@gmail.com> <mailto:jeannie...@gmail.com <mailto:jeannie...@gmail.com> > > wrote: Charlie, I haven't finished reading the email, but I did mention it, read carefully.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Charles Hurd <churd...@yahoo.com <mailto:churd...@yahoo.com> <mailto:churd...@yahoo.com <mailto:churd...@yahoo.com> > > wrote:

Jeannie,
 
I poked around a little to try and confirm the info that you sent me and I found some interesting tidbits that should have been mentioned.
 

First, your post is almost a complete cut-and-paste from a blog on Obama's Web site (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/sabrinalamb/CsR2 <http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/sabrinalamb/CsR2> <http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/sabrinalamb/CsR2 <http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/sabrinalamb/CsR2> > ).  That doesn't, by itself, invalidate the information but I would have thought you'd mention that.  Interestingly, the link to the LIbrary of Congress in both places is wrong.  The correct link is http://thomas.loc.gov <http://thomas.loc.gov> <http://thomas.loc.gov/ <http://thomas.loc.gov/> > .

 
I only looked at legislative experience, since that's what the post mostly contained.  If you do a search on the Library of Congress site for sponsored or co-sponsored legislation that was signed by the President, Clinton had 20 such bills in the 109th Congress and Obama had 13.  If you look at the 110th Congress, Clinton co-sponsored 4 bills that were signed into law and Obama co-sponsored 3.  Neither sponsored a bill that became law in the 110th Congress.  I didn't look at the relative importance of each bill (some, yes, simply name post offices) but my quick search shows that Clinton and Obama were equally active and productive in the Senate.
 

Two bills in particular grabbed my attention and I dug in a little more.  Obama did, in fact, work with Sen. Lugar on a Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act.  However, the post misrepresents his effort.  The original Nunn-Lugar Act of 1991 seems to be a bill that targeted nuclear weapons by directing the State Department to devote money to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program which aims to reduce such weapons.  Obama worked with Lugar to extend the Nunn-Lugar Act to encompass conventional weapons, particularly shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.  So the (implicit) claim that Obama worked to reduce nuclear weapons is false.  That had already been accomplished.  Also, the reference to the bill doesn't disclose the fact that this effort was part of a budget bill.  BTW, I got this info from Obama's Senate Web site (http://obama.senate.gov/news/051102-obama-lugar_pro/ <http://obama.senate.gov/news/051102-obama-lugar_pro/> <http://obama.senate.gov/news/051102-obama-lugar_pro/ <http://obama.senate.gov/news/051102-obama-lugar_pro/> > ).

 
The one reference in the post that is flat-out deceptive is the credit given to Obama for the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006.  Coburn was the only sponsor of this act, so the bill should have been called the Coburn Act.  There were 47 co-sponsors to this bill and the list includes Obama (correct) and Clinton (oops).  Obama can't just add his name to someone else's bill and then pitch it as his idea while simultaneously pretending that his opponent wasn't also involved.  This is bad.  Perhaps the original post wasn't written or authorized by the Obama campaign but it is on his campaign's Web site and, clearly, it's taken to be true by his supporters.
 
I'm still not seeing a whole lot of difference between Clinton and Obama.  They both push bills through the Senate with similar rates of success. And they both play the game of inflating their own contributions while trying to hide the achievements of others.  No change here.

 
-- Charlie

Jeannie Hall <jeannie...@gmail.com <mailto:jeannie...@gmail.com> <mailto:jeannie...@gmail.com <mailto:jeannie...@gmail.com> > > wrote:

Hi Charlie,

I'm happy to oblige as Jennifer Glidden was asking me the same thing.

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.

These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress www.thomas.loc.gov <http://www.thomas.loc.gov> <http://www.thomas.loc.gov/ <http://www.thomas.loc.gov/> > , but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.

He's a doer.

On the issues, I suggest spending an hour or so on his website (barackobama.com <http://barackobama.com> <http://barackobama.com/ <http://barackobama.com/> > ):  Go to the issues tab where he explains his plans in detail.  Also, you can click on FACT CHECK on the right side of the website for any misinformation about him.  I also suggest going into the blog part.  There, feel free to ask questions to other bloggers who will be happy to help you (top info was from the blog).  I love that he has plans for the Peace Corps and others ways for American to serve this country.

In regards to your worry about Obama with foreign policy, I would feel much more secure with him in charge.  Because of his upbringing, he is quite worldly (actually lived outside of the country, plus has family in Kenya), he knows how to listen to other people, is even tempered, and I think amazingly wise.

He inspires people and will unite people as opposed to what we have been subject to for most of our lifetime in politics.  I don't think much can get done in Washington without a little bit of hope and inspiration.

I think his wife can say it better than I, however, so check out this You Tube:  http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid353515028/bctid1137687774 <http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid353515028/bctid1137687774> <http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid353515028/bctid1137687774 <http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid353515028/bctid1137687774> > .

Further thoughts?

Jeannie

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Charles Hurd <churd...@yahoo.com <mailto:churd...@yahoo.com> <mailto:churd...@yahoo.com <mailto:churd...@yahoo.com> > > wrote:

Jeannie,
 
Glad you're digging around in YouTube.  There's a *lot* of stuff out there, good, bad, and terrible, and I've gotten quite a bit of information from there.
 
Since we've opened the political topic in this group, I'd like to ask the entire group a question based on the Obama quote at the end of your post.  I'm watching the Clinton v. Obama race with much interest and some trepidation.  For all that I disagree with Clinton on many issues, she at least is specific about what her positions are, what her experience is, and what she intends to do as President.  I have difficulty finding the same specifics with Obama.  Most of the news stories about his campaign talk about "hope" and "change" and "belief" without being clear, for example, about what he will change, how he will make that change occur, and what is his vision of the the new state of the world.  I'm also concerned about Obama's lack of national experience.  He's a first-term Senator with limited experience in passing legislation who has missed an awful lot of votes while building his Presidential campaign.  Given a straight-up comparison between Clinton and Obama, I would think that the Democratic Party would have nominated Clinton early on.
 
Anyway, for those in the group who are definite Obama supporters, could you share some thoughts about what aspect of Obama's campaign or platform was key to securing your support?  Any specifics, particularly any accomplishments that he has at the national level, would be most welcome.
 
Thanks.
 
-- Charlie

Jeannie Hall <jeannie...@gmail.com <mailto:jeannie...@gmail.com> <mailto:jeannie...@gmail.com <mailto:jeannie...@gmail.com> > > wrote:

Morning all, since I've gotten involved in politics, I've learned all about You Tube -- I never really understood the big fascination with it until I saw this video.

Please take a look and vote:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn-JlfhZy3c&amp;amp;feature=related <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn-JlfhZy3c&amp;amp;feature=related> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn-JlfhZy3c&amp;amp;feature=related <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn-JlfhZy3c&amp;amp;feature=related> >

--
"I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington . . . I'm asking you to believe in yours."

Barack Obama

----------------
 Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping> >

--
"I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington . . . I'm asking you to believe in yours."

Barack Obama

----------------

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.  <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ> >

--
"I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington . . . I'm asking you to believe in yours."

Barack Obama

----------------
 Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping> >

--
"I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington . . . I'm asking you to believe in yours."

Barack Obama

----------------
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your homepage. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs> >

Barack Obama

[Kline, Jeff]

Isn't that the original rationale behind the electoral college system--to limit voting to people who could make informed and rational decisions? . . . although it doesn't always seem to work that way anymore, does it.  Historians correct me if I am wrong.

 

Charlie, I share your frustration.  After the last election I was ready to leave the country--less because Bush got re-elected and more because I felt we had such poor candidates generally and a pathetic citizenry. I think a large part of the appeal of Obama for a lot of folks is that he is reminding people that the power is in their hands, and perhaps inspiring people to become more engaged simply because his speaking is more engaging.  Whether or not he'd make a good president, I can't really tell.  But I feel like I know what we'd get with Clinton and McCain, and I'm willing to take a risk to see if we'd get something different with Obama.

 

Jeff

---

From: Westt...@googlegroups.com on behalf of tdeci...@gmail.com
Sent: Fri 2/15/2008 2:27 PM

Please take a look and vote:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn-JlfhZy3c&feature=related <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn-JlfhZy3c&feature=related>

[Kevin Davis]

The founding fathers almost universally had a fear of rule by the mob. This was probably well-founded. They were all students of classical history and they were aware that Rome in the days of the empire was corrupt – the saying was: “He who controls the mob controls Rome”. We are now, I believe, in the equivalent period of our history. The vast majority of our citizens don’t know the issues and don’t care. They also don’t understand the concept of a representative republic (as compared to a true democracy) and the core ideas that created it. Given that it is not surprising that they respond to the media and to candidates they way they do.

 

Hope you are all doing well.

 

Best regards,

 

Kevin Davis

 

---

[Charles Hurd]

Are you seriously saying that with the difficult and complex challenges and threats ahead of us, you're willing to give up known quantities for an unknown risk?  That's quite a gamble.  What happens if that gamble goes bad and we get another Carter in the White House with the attendant foreign and domestic catastrophes (e.g. Iran hostages, gas rationing, inflation, etc.)?  I'm sure Obama is a good man and has the best intentions but you're saying that he hasn't demonstrated clear competence for the job, even to you.  You still characterize a vote for him as a "risk".

 

-- Charlie

"Kline, Jeff" <jeff....@oregonstate.edu> wrote:

[Jeannie Hall]

I disagree.  I think people have really tried to understand the issues more this year than in previous elections.   

[Jeannie Hall]

I have to go, but here is a quote from a blogger and I agree with it so I'll put it out there:

1) Foreign policy judgment - he was against the war from the beginning;
2) Related to 1) above, he will restore trust, credibility and moral authority to the United States;
3) He will keep friends close and enemies closer (Sun Tzu approves) he is willing to engage with enemies in discussion, which is critical;
4) He is not beholden to corporations. He is beholden to us, the more than 650,000 individual donors who have supported this campaign (i.e. the people of the U.S.A.);
5) He thinks deeply, reasons with the other side (which is me, by the way, I am a sometime republican voter), and will not demonize opposition because of earnestly held beliefs;
6) He writes well (read his books, they are instructive as to the kind of man he is);
7) He is eloquent;
8) He is practical;
9) He is transparent (he has disclosed his full tax returns while HRC and McCain have not);
10) Being president means managing crises--Senator Obama has been even tempered and cool throughout the ups and downs of this campaign: he has the right temperament to be president (cool under pressure);
11) Look at how he has managed this campaign and compare with HRC and McCain. He has been flush with cash, his message has not changed, and he is winning.

These are just a few reasons for me. I am sure others have different reasons as well. Hope this helps you decide and thanks for the question.

[Kline, Jeff]

Yes, but do they do so in sufficient depth to adequately address the key issues?  Interesting background and point Kevin.  Thanks.

 

Jeff

---

From: Westt...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Jeannie Hall
Sent: Fri 2/15/2008 3:22 PM

[Kline, Jeff]

No, I think how I am thinking about it is that Obama has not demonstrated to me that he is as incompetent as who we have now, so things likely would be no worse than as bad as they are now, but possibly better.  And I don't mean to offend any remaining Bush supporters out there--I accept that some may still see good qualities there--I just don't. 

I agree, it is not a comforting rationale, which is why I don't campaign for anyone, including Obama.  I really have to stress my sincere disillusionment with the political process in this country.  I feel there are uncertainties with any candidate and the world in which they would govern--call it the "expected values" approach to voting.

 

I feel near the same about the other two candidates.  I think any of the three likely would be an improvement over our current president.  As I implied before, in my mind the three candidates are relatively close as my eye views politicians.  Their comparison to others, such as Carter, I can't tell.  I don't see any saviors in the viable field.  My primary beef with McCain would be the same as with Clinton--he didn't have the vision to foresee the Iraq mess. 

 

But enough about Obama.  Does anyone appeal to you Charlie, more than others?

 

Jeff

---

From: Westt...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Charles Hurd

Sent: Fri 2/15/2008 3:21 PM

To: Westt...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: You Tube

[Jeannie Hall]

O.k.  I'm really disappointed in the class of '79.  I left for a few hours -- I was hoping to come back to my email box filled with a whole class discussion. 

Charlie, Jeff, Sandy, Kevin, thank you.  I guess the rest of you have a life still and get excited about Friday nights. (I'm in that Obama demographic of drinking chardonnay on Friday nights). 

Jay, my first Obama organization party for PA is at your brother's restaurant?  Come on Paul, I know you must be at home -- you have young children.  Roger, did I offend you with my last email and now you're not talking to me.  Rob?

I might have to put Brian back on the list.  At least he answers!

Tons and tons of love to you all,

moi

[Cornelia]

I'm pretty jaded about politics in the US in my lifetime so far. I think I'm interested in Obama because he at least TALKS about not wanting to perpetuate "business as usual" in Washington. Not sure if he means it, though it sounds as though he does. Not sure he can pull it off, though I like to think he might. Worried that he'll get shot for being the kind of populist leader he seems to be, hope it doesn't end that way. I miss hope, I miss energy and positive slogans, positive thinking. Strong cabinet in hand, he might make some good changes in Washington. I detect some change inside me, and I think Barack Obama helped make that happen.  

I appreciate all the thoughts and info so far- I know I should base my vote on hard facts and not just a "good feeling"--maybe in this case there's both.

Cornelia

[Jeannie Hall]

Agreed, Cornelia, I do believe the hard facts can go with the positive feelings.  And yes, my biggest, biggest fear is that he will be assassinated.  I think that is why I have such respect for both Obama and Michelle.  They know that possibility is out there and they have decided to go out there anyway. 

[Cornelia]

yup.

[roger satterthwaite]

Jeannie Jeannie, you KNOW I won't let a political
discussion go without me! And I don't think that
you are capable of offending me although I am
sure the opposite it quite possible!

I'm on that West Coast time and had a busy clinic
today, had to round at two different hospitals
and then, you know, do the parenting thing. With
Tomey Andrew in bed (although not asleep) I tuned
into my e-mail just a few minutos ago.

Politics aside, I finally had dinner with
Courtney McDonald last Sunday (we live about two
miles apart and have been yapping occasionally on
the phone and exchanging e-mails for about two
years). I sent him a link to Google site and
Jeannie his current e-mail in
Courtney...@yahoo.com if you want to plug
him in. I had forgotten or didn't realize that
not only was he two blocks away from the WTC on
9/11 but ALSO worked in the sub basement of WTC
that got bombed in 1993 - in fact, he walked
through the parking garage 30 minutes before the
bomb went off.

AND, Jackie Butcher Brown will in Pasadena in a
month for her sorority meeting (AKA Western
Section) from Vegas (baby). So we'll have a
little mini-reunion out here.

So - I voted for Obama in the California primary.
I'm not worried about his supposed inexperience
and I'm with Jeff that I think the current
administration is so god awful I'm not sure
anyone can make it worse - okay, Bush didn't nuke
anything (yet) - it could have been worse. But
really - how many billions of dollars down the
drain in iraq, 1 million Iraqis dead (yeah, maybe
it is less but does a zero really change things)
4000 US, Brit and Coalition troops dead, tens of
thousands more wounded, disabled and returning to
a totally overwhelmed healthcare system.

I don't recall any of that happening during
Carter's administration and by the time the
credit crunch finishes the inflation that plagued
the late 70's might look like child's play.

Bill Clinton did a decent job and he was governor
of a pretty small state - incidentally, i
remember HIS mantra being "change" as well.

I am deeply worried that Obama WILL be
assassinated either by a nut or by an agent of
the vast right wing conspiracy (and I believe in
that conspiracy) or a nut who is an agent.

I don't believe there is a country in which the
population ISN'T deeply cynical about its
politicians (maybe Singapore). I frankly think
that Bush/Cheney head a conspiracy that cynically
manipulates economic conservatives and
evangelicals in the name of God and country with
the ulterior design of profiting a plutocracy
that benefits from ... war and oil? You bet. I
watch where the money goes and that is where the
money goes.

I like Obama, I actually like HR Clinton and I
even am okay with McCain, despite his support of
the war then and now. I agree with Jeff that
Hillary's mad rush (along with Kerry's) to
support the war smacked of bandwagonism. She
should have at least apologized like Edwards (who
I also liked). Her inability to admit that she
was wrong is a character flaw that will haunt her
I fear. And our national inability to remember
some pretty simple things about war was
saddening, depressing and all to predictable
(takes a generation for enough people to forget
or have never seen body bags).

For me, three equations were very clear:

Iraq = Vietnam
Iran = china
Syria = laos/cambodia

Oil made things a little more interesting.
Asymmetric warfare is all over current military
thinking and Shinseki (the Hawaiian born general
that Rumsfeld (what an asshole) fired), predicted
that Iraq would require about a half million
boots on the ground to properly occupy it - guess
what, he was oh so right.

One thing to start a stupid war, another to
conduct the war even more stupidly.

I also think that Obama's international sense
will be quite different (and better) than most of
our previous presidents with his international
parentage and up bringing.

So, Tomey Andrew finally sleeps. Being his father
is wonderful! He is now at that stage (can I bore
all of you?) where he is pushing chairs, boxes
etc around to facilitate his walking. We had to
fill out an app for day care for him which at
least in Pasadena is quite competitive. We are
listed as "biracial" and went through the whole
thing about bringing him up in a multi cultural
society which sounds to us like blah blah blah of
course except that then we hear some evangelical
going on about this Christian nation and
Christian values that just makes me wanna puke.

So that is how people like W get elected and,
yes, Charlie is right, if we weren't out like
Jeannie fighting every step of the way, we just
got what we deserved. Know what, those miserable
people in Mississippi and Louisiana got what they
deserved from Katrina - didn't the whole South go
Bush both elections?

So, Jeannie, I hope I am no longer a
disappointment to you and thanks for being a
great de facto class leader.

Roger
--- Jeannie Hall <jeannie...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* Westt...@googlegroups.com on behalf
> of Charles Hurd
> > *Sent:* Fri 2/15/2008 3:21 PM
> > *To:* Westt...@googlegroups.com
> > *Subject:* RE: You Tube

> >
> > Are you seriously saying that with the
> difficult and complex challenges
> > and threats ahead of us, you're willing to
> give up known quantities for an
> > unknown risk? That's quite a gamble. What
> happens if that gamble goes bad
> > and we get another Carter in the White House
> with the attendant foreign and
> > domestic catastrophes (e.g. Iran hostages,
> gas rationing, inflation,
> > etc.)? I'm sure Obama is a good man and has
> the best intentions but you're
> > saying that he hasn't demonstrated clear
> competence for the job, even to
> > you. You still characterize a vote for him
> as a "risk".
> >
> > -- Charlie
> >

> > *"Kline, Jeff" <jeff....@oregonstate.edu>*

> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* Westt...@googlegroups.com on behalf
> of tdeci...@gmail.com
> > *Sent:* Fri 2/15/2008 2:27 PM
> > *To:* Westt...@googlegroups.com
> > *Subject:* Re: You Tube

=== message truncated ===

____________________________________________________________________________________

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[roger satterthwaite]

Dude! I haven't heard from you in so long! Are
you still in North Carolina?. And did you even
look at the original video of your favorite
Westtown english professor doing the Ray Charles
thing?

Rog

--- Kevin Davis <davi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> The founding fathers almost universally had a
> fear of rule by the mob. This
> was probably well-founded. They were all
> students of classical history and
> they were aware that Rome in the days of the

> empire was corrupt - the saying

> was: "He who controls the mob controls Rome".
> We are now, I believe, in the
> equivalent period of our history. The vast
> majority of our citizens don't
> know the issues and don't care. They also don't
> understand the concept of a
> representative republic (as compared to a true
> democracy) and the core ideas
> that created it. Given that it is not
> surprising that they respond to the
> media and to candidates they way they do.
>
>
>
> Hope you are all doing well.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Kevin Davis
>
>
>
> _____
>

=== message truncated ===

____________________________________________________________________________________

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[dan nick]

Charlie:

First of all, thanks for teaching me how to do the sword dance in "Brigadoon" about thirty years ago.

I agree with a lot of your concerns, but here is my $.02:

You are urging us to make "rational choices" about our leaders.

I recall a while back in an email you urged us to "pray... it works" or something to that effect.

I hope you did not mean that if we pray to a deity that the deity will alter the outcome of an event. If that were the case, I would dismiss it as extremely irrational and ignorant of proven scientific fact. It would be the same as saying "hey folks, perform voodoo, it really works" or "you guys really should be reading your tea leaves".

People who pray and are prayed for get divorced and get cancer at the same rate as atheists surrounded by athiests.

If 300 million Americans prayed really hard while sitting in traffic jams in their SUVs, there would be no slowing of global climate change or fewer deaths in the violent occupation of Iraq.

Saying that prayer "works" in this manner is the very definition of irrational.

Maybe you meant that prayer "works" as a kind of meditation of concern for the well-being of people. That, I would argue, is a rational idea because our thoughts really do have a way of becoming our reality.

Obama's campaign may be more emotion-driven than rational, but I for one feel good about the amazing potential of 300 million Americans meditating on positive thoughts on what they can do for others in this country and the rest of the world.

What does our born-again-Christian president do? He gives us $600 and prays that we will go shopping.

-Dan

________________________________
> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:40:40 -0800
> From: churd...@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: You Tube
> To: Westt...@googlegroups.com

>
> See, this is the thing that bothers me about the emotion surrounding Obama's candidacy. It feeds on a misperception. The America people have *ALWAYS* had a say in their politics, they just traditionally have chosen to let others (party hacks, elected officials, whoever) make those decisions for them. If we really wanted to change Congress, we could replace the entire House of Representatives in 2 years and the entire Senate in 6. But we choose not to. Just the fact that people are putting nonsense up on the Web about Obama's accomplishments shows that there's a lack of critical thinking out there (I'm sure there's equivalent nonsense on Clinton's site). Politics and government are important. Our Constitution is predicated on an *informed* populace, not an emotional one. Our country has real challenges facing it, both domestic and foreign. We as a nation should be having serious discussions about policy and national priorities, not sitting back as politicians snipe at each other over relative voting records or poll numbers. We as a nation need to demand serious answers from our candidates and we need to know enough about the world we live in and the system of government under which we choose to live to make rational choices at the polls. Otherwise, our elections become popularity contests and the problems that arise before us get kicked down the road to our children (e.g. Social Security).
>
> It all really frustrates me.
>
> -- Charlie
>

> Jeannie Hall wrote:
> No problem. Anyway, you have done your research well. None of the stuff on the blog is authorized by the official Obama people. Actually, that is one of the nice things about it. If you try to post on the Hillary site, they check it first, and if it is negative, it doesn't make it on.
>
> I did not check whether the info was true or not, or perhaps deceptive, so I appreciate you looking into it. I won't forward it to other people.
>
> Quite honestly, I'm not that concerned so much about policy. I'm more excited about the idea of the American people finally having a say in their politics, and I see Obama as a conduit for this process.
>

> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Charles Hurd> wrote:
> My apologies, you did mention that the top info in your post was from the blog. I missed that. Next time, do me a favor and preface your post with "this is from Obama's Web site" or something so I don't make the same mistake again.
>
> Sorry.
>
> -- Charlie
>

> Jeannie Hall> wrote:
> Charlie, I haven't finished reading the email, but I did mention it, read carefully.
>

> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Charles Hurd> wrote:
> Jeannie,
>
> I poked around a little to try and confirm the info that you sent me and I found some interesting tidbits that should have been mentioned.
>
> First, your post is almost a complete cut-and-paste from a blog on Obama's Web site (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/sabrinalamb/CsR2). That doesn't, by itself, invalidate the information but I would have thought you'd mention that. Interestingly, the link to the LIbrary of Congress in both places is wrong. The correct link is http://thomas.loc.gov.
>
> I only looked at legislative experience, since that's what the post mostly contained. If you do a search on the Library of Congress site for sponsored or co-sponsored legislation that was signed by the President, Clinton had 20 such bills in the 109th Congress and Obama had 13. If you look at the 110th Congress, Clinton co-sponsored 4 bills that were signed into law and Obama co-sponsored 3. Neither sponsored a bill that became law in the 110th Congress. I didn't look at the relative importance of each bill (some, yes, simply name post offices) but my quick search shows that Clinton and Obama were equally active and productive in the Senate.
>
> Two bills in particular grabbed my attention and I dug in a little more. Obama did, in fact, work with Sen. Lugar on a Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act. However, the post misrepresents his effort. The original Nunn-Lugar Act of 1991 seems to be a bill that targeted nuclear weapons by directing the State Department to devote money to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program which aims to reduce such weapons. Obama worked with Lugar to extend the Nunn-Lugar Act to encompass conventional weapons, particularly shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles. So the (implicit) claim that Obama worked to reduce nuclear weapons is false. That had already been accomplished. Also, the reference to the bill doesn't disclose the fact that this effort was part of a budget bill. BTW, I got this info from Obama's Senate Web site (http://obama.senate.gov/news/051102-obama-lugar_pro/).
>
> The one reference in the post that is flat-out deceptive is the credit given to Obama for the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006. Coburn was the only sponsor of this act, so the bill should have been called the Coburn Act. There were 47 co-sponsors to this bill and the list includes Obama (correct) and Clinton (oops). Obama can't just add his name to someone else's bill and then pitch it as his idea while simultaneously pretending that his opponent wasn't also involved. This is bad. Perhaps the original post wasn't written or authorized by the Obama campaign but it is on his campaign's Web site and, clearly, it's taken to be true by his supporters.
>
> I'm still not seeing a whole lot of difference between Clinton and Obama. They both push bills through the Senate with similar rates of success. And they both play the game of inflating their own contributions while trying to hide the achievements of others. No change here.
>
> -- Charlie
>

> _________________________________________________________________
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008

[Weigel, Molly]

Jeff (and others, especially those working in the environmental sector)--what about global warming and these candidates? As a campaign issue this has been underreported by the media and only a very few debate questions have focused on it, yet it may be the most important issue currently facing us.

What do folks think about Obama, Hillary, and yes, McCain, on global warming?

Molly

________________________________

________________________________

"Kline, Jeff" <jeff....@oregonstate.edu> wrote:

________________________________

First, your post is almost a complete cut-and-paste from a blog on Obama's Web site (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/sabrinalamb/CsR2 <http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/sabrinalamb/CsR2> ). That doesn't, by itself, invalidate the information but I would have thought you'd mention that. Interestingly, the link to the LIbrary of Congress in both places is wrong. The correct link is http://thomas.loc.gov <http://thomas.loc.gov/> <http://thomas.loc.gov/> .

________________________________

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ>

--------------------------------------------------
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information.
It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly.
If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute,
or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from
your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.

Thank you for your compliance.
--------------------------------------------------

[Steve Coleman]

Who knew Andy Crichton could ignite such a firestorm?
Ok Jeannie-- I'll bite.

I have met, supported, and been honored by both
Hillary and Bill Clinton. But I am sickened by their
win-at-any-cost attacks against Obama. It really went
beyond the pale for the two of them to launch that ad
campaign tarring Obama as a Reaganite for having the
audacity (and honesty) to acknowledge that the
Republican Party under Reagan got the upper hand in
defining the compelling (and ultimately failed) ideas
and agenda of an era. For me, this has illuminated
just how narrowly partisan the Clintons (and the
nation) have become, and how urgently we need a very
different approach to the way that our country is
governed.

After the 2004 election, Elisa asked us all to ponder
whether there was any way that we could get beyond the
sharp divides in our country. Looking at the attached
thoughts about "the color purple" that I wrote in
response, I am struck by how much Barack Obama is the
answer to the questions we were raising four years
ago. His post-partisan transformational campaign is
demonstrating the possibilities of a new kind of
public politics that dumps the idea that we must tear
people down in order build a better future for our
nation and the world.

As discussed in the LA Times editorial I sent around a
couple weeks ago
(http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-dem3feb02,0,3530861.story),
the overriding distinction between Hillary Clinton and
Barack Obama is one of judgment and principle: Barack
showed both -- and Clinton sadly lacked both -- on the
fundamental question of whether to authorize the
unending war in Iraq that is killing so many people,
destroying our standing in the world, and bankrupting
our children's future. On her recent contention that
she had thought that this vote was just a bargaining
chip, the legislative record is very clear that she
specifically voted down the Levin Amendment that would
have let Congress reserve the power to prevent the war
from going forward.

But there are many other distinctions:

1. Obama will dramatically move the country forward.
We have never seen a Presidential campaign galvanize
anything approaching the diverse numbers of people
with the depth of commitment already seen in the Obama
campaign. If he can lead the country anything like
the way he is leading his campaign, our nation and
world are in for a rare treat.

2. Obama is a fighter, but he is also a leader who
can bring us all together. His 11-year track record
as a state and U.S. senator bears out his commitment
to forging serious and thoughtful bipartisan
collaboration, without compromising ethics or
progressive principles, for the public good. This is
in marked contrast to the sharp-elbowed partisanship
exhibited by the other current and recent contenders
for the Presidency.

3. Obama will be the first President in 100 years
(since Teddy Roosevelt) to come to the office with
substantial urban leadership experience. With 70% of
Americans now living in urban areas, major aspect's of
our country's future will depend on the federal
government having at its helm someone steeped in the
challenges and opportunities of building just,
sustainable, living cities for all. Obama will be the
first professional community activist to become
President, with decades of experience in combating
poverty.

4. Obama has deep knowledge and respect for the
Constitution. The time has come for a President who
truly understands what it means to commit to the Oath
of Office to "preserve, protect, and defend" the
defining document of our government. With our nation
led by an honest, experienced teacher of advanced
constitutional law at our pre-eminent law school, the
Obama presidency will mean a decisive change from the
obfuscation, obstruction, and impeachable offenses of
this and previous administrations.

5. Obama gives great speeches. It's strange that
this is somehow being painted as a drawback,
especially in light of the central role that
Presidential speeches have played throughout history
in inspiring the country to unite around common
action. It's no accident that the presidents
generally viewed as having been our best could all
really deliver a speech. One can only wonder what the
course of history might have been had Bush or even
Hillary Clinton been the person summoned to respond to
the world about Gettysburg, the Great Depression, and
Pearl Harbor.

6. Obama is the only one of the three Presidential
contenders who has backed up his commitment to ethics
and transparency by releasing his tax returns. What
are the other candidates hiding?

7. Obama is not old enough to have as much political
experience as others. That's a plus in my (and the
country's) book. While he's far from unschooled in
the minutia of legislative action, he brings a fresh,
uncorrupted view of what we should all be asking for
and getting from our political system. It's
interesting to note that some of our most dynamic
presidents -- Teddy Roosevelt, JFK -- were younger
than Obama when they came into office. When I had the
chance to do a long interview of Rajiv Gandhi for CNN,
I was struck by the perspective of this simple
ex-airline pilot who had vaulted over India's corrupt
systems after his mother's assassination. By assuming
the reins of the world's largest democracy without
having paid his dues through decades of political
wheeling and dealing, Gandhi was able to lead with
broad public respect and impact, just as I believe
Obama will be able to do.

8. Obama has a funny name. That name represents a
heritage at the heart of the multicultural American
ideal. Obama will be the first U.S. Presidential
candidate who has lived in the Third World for any
length of time.

9. Obama is black. I know this isn't supposed to
matter, but the fact that he is the only African
American in the US Senate over a century after
Reconstruction says a lot about what a long way this
country still has to go in putting its long history of
apartheid behind it. Electing Obama president would
send a message to every young person of color in this
country that they can finally be whatever they want to
be, and to every resident of the rest of the world
that the American Dream and democracy are more alive
and real than ever before.

10. Just as the spirit of Camelot lived on long after
and far surpassed the direct contributions of JFK,
Obama has already galvanized millions of Americans to
launch an era of the politics of the possible -- a
sorely needed idea as radical as it is
transformational.

The whole world is watching all of you in Pennsylvania
and the remaining states. And those of us here in DC
will be especially grateful if you send Obama to the
house down the hill from me.

Steve

P.S. Charlie, a few corrections to your posts.
First, Jeannie was correct in using the "Coburn-Obama"
title for the government transparency legislation; he
jointly introduced the legislation, and this format is
the standard, although not official, way of
recognizing the people who introduce legislation.
Second, the non-proliferation Lugar-Obama Act did in
fact tackle both unresolved nuclear proliferation
interdiction (hardly already "accomplished" as you
assert) and urgently needed safeguards on conventional
weapon transfers. Finally, it is unfair, and a bit of
fear-mongering, to tar Jimmy Carter with the Iran
hostage crisis just because it happened on his watch
(and was resolved as the last act of his term). In
fact, Carter's enduring Middle East legacy of bringing
Egypt and Israel together contrasts sharply with the
ways that the present Administration squandered the
chance to use September 11 to unite a lasting
international coalition for peace and instead
alienated us from people all over the globe. And
although far from perfect, Carter's attempts to
galvanize national action around reforming our energy
use now seem far ahead of their time. If only we had
stuck with them, and not abandoned them along with so
many other vital reforms the moment Reagan came into
office.

--- Jeannie Hall <jeannie...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* Westt...@googlegroups.com on behalf of
> Charles Hurd

> > *Sent:* Fri 2/15/2008 3:21 PM
> > *To:* Westt...@googlegroups.com

> > *Subject:* RE: You Tube

> >
> > Are you seriously saying that with the difficult
> and complex challenges
> > and threats ahead of us, you're willing to give up
> known quantities for an
> > unknown risk? That's quite a gamble. What
> happens if that gamble goes bad
> > and we get another Carter in the White House with
> the attendant foreign and
> > domestic catastrophes (e.g. Iran hostages, gas
> rationing, inflation,
> > etc.)? I'm sure Obama is a good man and has the
> best intentions but you're
> > saying that he hasn't demonstrated clear
> competence for the job, even to
> > you. You still characterize a vote for him as a
> "risk".
> >
> > -- Charlie
> >

> > *"Kline, Jeff" <jeff....@oregonstate.edu>*

> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* Westt...@googlegroups.com on behalf of
> tdeci...@gmail.com
> > *Sent:* Fri 2/15/2008 2:27 PM
> > *To:* Westt...@googlegroups.com
> > *Subject:* Re: You Tube

=== message truncated ===

"Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.
Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it."
Goethe

____________________________________________________________________________________

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.

http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

[roger satterthwaite]

I don't believe Bush is born again. I believe
this is another calculated cynical ploy to gain
votes and power.

RWS

=== message truncated ===

____________________________________________________________________________________

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.

http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

[roger satterthwaite]

Nice post Steve.

Give the Clintons a little benefit in that they
did what it took to win. The Karl Rove attack
machine required similar tactics in return. John
Kerry and Al Gore found out what happens when you
fail to respond appropriately. We as a nation
and a world suffered as a consequence. But I
agree that Hillary's tactics this campaign
threatened to lead to the disastrous intra-party
bickering and fragmentation that haunted the Dems
in the 1980's. Seems to have gotten over it.

I'll throw another stick in the fire: health
care. I'll raise my hand and say as a physician
we need a single payor system. It is crazy how
much of my overhead goes to dealing with
insurance paperwork and how hidden and shifted
around costs are. What is even more crazy is
that someone who works must pay taxes for someone
else's Medicare and Medical when that worker
doesn't even have their own health insurance.

Tomey needs a feed. Later.

Rog

=== message truncated ===

____________________________________________________________________________________

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Sug...@aol.com]

Hello everyone!

 

I am struggling with a laptop that  I am not familiar with, thus I have read and remained silent. I am enjoying the discussion. It is nice to hear intelligent discussions about the delegates. I am surrounded by republican Catholics at my office. They are wonderful people, but politically blinded I fear.

 

When the race began, I was suffering from "electile disfunction". I  have gradually leaned towards Obama. Reading the facts about him has helped. There is so much crap flying around about Obama, mostly based on the "terroristic,","Muslim" name. That is when I realized I was surrounded by political idiots at work. I too have many fears about the future of our country and have felt very doubtful about the true reliability and ethics of our often tainted elections.

 

Let us hope that the American people can rally together and finally win with an administration that is Democratic and passionate about bringing some POSITIVE change to our world. The presidency is only one piece of the puzzle.

 

I am not going to ramble on this time.

 

Peace to all and keep up the great discussions!

 

Sulyn

---

The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy Awards. AOL Music takes you there.

[Jeannie Hall]

Thank you all for contributing your wonderful thoughts about this election.  I have one more You Tube Video for you.  Unfortunately, it's not as funny and short as the last one.  It's about 20 minutes long. 

Please, I encourage you to take the time and really sit through the whole thing.  After you see it, I think you'll understand my support for Obama.  For me, it's not so much about the economy, the environment, the education, the taxes, etc., although those are all extremely important issues. 

It's about Peace.

Love and light,

Jeannie

http://accidentalideas.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/lawrence-lessig-explains-his-support-for-barack-obama/

[roger satterthwaite]

Jeannie,

Thanks for the video link. Had tears in my eyes
at the end.

I am almost afraid to have so much hope for us.
The inertia of government and the balances of
power limit what even a president can do. But I
really feel like I see a light. So I will hope.

For my little boy.

Roger

--- Jeannie Hall <jeannie...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thank you all for contributing your wonderful

> > ------------------------------

> > The year's hottest artists on the red carpet
> at the Grammy Awards. AOL
> > Music takes you
>

there.<http://music.aol.com/grammys?NCID=aolcmp00300000002565>

> >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> "I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my
> ability to bring about real
> change in Washington . . . I'm asking you to
> believe in yours."
>
> Barack Obama
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________

[Steve Coleman]

Beautiful, Jeannie. He says it much better than I
ever could.

The one place I disagree with the video (and with
Barack) is that this is about something more
immediate, tangible, and powerful than hope. Thich
Nhat Hanh, the Buddhist monk whose ideas about peace
were shaped amidst the ravages of the Vietnamese War,
says that hope all too often takes us out of the
present, and I agree. What we need in our world, and
what Barack represents, is immediate faith in action
grounded in a world view of not what is wrong but what
is possible. As RFK said, "There are those who see
the world as it never was and ask why. I see the
world as it never was and ask why not." As Thich Nhat
Hanh suggests, we need to live our lives with "peace
in every step." This is what Gandhi meant when he
called for us to "be the change we want to see in the
world." Instead of just hoping, or even just
advocating, for solutions to war, global warming,
famine, poverty, and injustice, there are things that
each of us can do in our own lives to directly bring
about change. Embodied in the powerful Obama quote at
the end of your email, this is the radical and
transformational message at the heart of Obama's
life's work and appeal.

In peace,

Steve

--- Jeannie Hall <jeannie...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > ------------------------------

> > The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at
> the Grammy Awards. AOL
> > Music takes you
>

there.<http://music.aol.com/grammys?NCID=aolcmp00300000002565>

> >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> "I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability
> to bring about real
> change in Washington . . . I'm asking you to believe
> in yours."
>
> Barack Obama
>
>
>
>

"Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.
Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it."
Goethe

____________________________________________________________________________________

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[roger satterthwaite]

Works, not just faith.

RWS

--- Steve Coleman <india...@yahoo.com> wrote:

____________________________________________________________________________________

[Jeannie Hall]

So what do you think, Roger, is Hawaii going to make their native son proud tomorrow?

[Sug...@aol.com]

I enjoyed the you tube. It was very well done.

 

I feel the need to apologize incase I offended anyone earlier when I was writing about the Catholic Republicans. If you happen to be one, I was not generalizing beyond my friends at work. So please do not take offense.

 

I respect and enjoy differences. Believe me, we do have fun at work, although we most often avoid politics. When the subjctt matter does touch on it, we can discuss, debate, and end up laughing still.

 

Anyway...thank God we are free to discuss and debate, no?

 

PEACE,

Sulyn

---

Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living.

[roger satterthwaite]

eh, dat bruddha win da vote.

Hawaii is the ultimate in small town politics.
When people ask you where you went to school,
they mean high school, even if you are the
governor, their lawyer or their doctor. Barack
went to Punahou. I would be very surprised if
Obama doesn't win Hawaii.

Didn't realize that Obama had also gone to
Columbia (he graduated 4 years before I got to
medical school there in 1987 - I think he may
have been there at the same time at Lauryn Hill
from the Fugees)!

And we are the same graduating high school class!
Of course, I've done much more surgery that
Barack has, so he has some catching up to do,
accomplishment wise.

And I gotta respect a man who inhaled.

Obama's Wikipedia bio reminds me of a story you
might enjoy. One of my girlfriends in LA was a
halfie like Barack- her father was from Ghana and
her mother was Dutch. Kwame Pianim (the father)
was sent to Canada on a scholarship which is
where he met his wife. His daughter, my
girlfriend Nana was two years ahead of me at
Columbia and then moved to LA for her residency
in surgery and I later caught up with her when I
did the same.

I met Kwame Pianim once in LA (at a dinner with
Rupert Murdoch, that's another story sort of -
Elkin Pianim, a son, married and then divorced
Murdoch's daughter). Pianim was big time in Ghana
- buddies with Kofi Annan and big enough to spend
10 years in jail for being a threat to the
regime. Very memorable person.

So, ten years (and a few girlfriends later). I am
helping my future wife pack up her parents' house
in Pasadena. My now father in law is from Hong
Kong and was sent to U of New Brunswick for his
engineering degree. We come across Corinna's
dad's yearbook and I am flipping through the
pages and my jaw drops, because staring out at me
is Kwame Pianim. So Kwame Pianim and Ching Wong
(my father in law) were at the U of New Brunswick
at the same time in the 1960's! How wierd is
that?

Roger

=== message truncated ===

[Jeannie Hall]

Don't worry, Sulyn, when you said that, I could relate.  I'm also surrounded by Catholics at work, and I love them all, but it's just strange since I spent the first 25 years of my life surrounded by Quakers.  So, there's not a whole lot of discussion going on.  My quote at the end of my email is my only little step into letting them know where I stand.  So far, no one's taken the bait.

And, Roger, yes the guy is brilliant (Columbia and Harvard).  And I love the fact that he was born the same year as most of us . . . and inhaled.  The New York Times actually had an article wondering if he lied about doing drugs because none of his friends remember him doing them.  (I have to say I don't remember any of you all doing drugs :)

Great story of the coincidence with your father in law and former girl friend's dad.

Got to go to sixth grade homework,

Jeannie

Barack Obama

[Charles Hurd]

Roger, what a very Catholic response!  :-)

 

Sue, don't worry about offending us Republican Catholics.  Either label by itself means that most of this country doesn't like us.  Both together, well, it's an opportunity for working on humility.

 

Jeannie & Sue, I'm glad that the Catholics of your acquaintance are friends that you can talk and joke with.  I hope that they are strong in their faith and can make a defense for their beliefs without belittling the beliefs of others.  That doesn't always happen.  I know a *lot* of Catholics who frankly haven't a clue as to what they really believe or why.  It's terrible and it feeds into all of the worst misperceptions about the Catholic faith.

 

Sorry to have gone dark over the weekend.  When I'm home, I'm off the grid as much as humanly possible and I hardly ever check email.  Now that I'm back in the office, I'm reconnected (not always a good thing).

 

I've been reading through the various posts of the last few days and I'm gratified to see so much activity.  Once I get through some meetings, I'll send out some responses of my own.

 

Peace,

 

-- Charlie

roger satterthwaite <satt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Works, not just faith.

RWS

[Wood, Sam]

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” -Ephesians 2:8,9

Besos,

Your cloth-coat undercover former (fallen) altar boy,

sam

 

---

From: Westt...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Westt...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Charles Hurd
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 9:56 AM
To: Westt...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: You Tube

 

Roger, what a very Catholic response!  :-)

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.</a

[Steve Coleman]

Perhaps Catholics with long memories will connect the
discrimination and dismissal directed at Obama and see
echoes of the religious prejudice that many thought
would prevent Kennedy's victory in 1960.

Steve

=== message truncated ===

"Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.
Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it."
Goethe

____________________________________________________________________________________

[Wood, Sam]

I'm not sure if I can remember that. I'd have been negative 1 at the
time.
sam

-----Original Message-----
From: Westt...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Westt...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Steve Coleman
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 10:38 AM
To: Westt...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: You Tube

[Kline, Jeff]

Molly:

 

From my view at Forest Service research, climate change is pretty much priority one right now with all of the federal natural resource agencies as well as state agencies with whom I have contact--I have a meeting on carbon trading with EPA researchers in an hour, for example.  From what I see, the three remaining viable candidates appear to be very similar towards the issue, at least based on information posted in the New York Times election guide:

 

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/index.html#/context=index/issue=climate

 

All three support a mandatory cap and trade program.  The Obama and Clinton platforms appear to be nearly identical on the issue and described in a little more detail than McCain's, at least on the New York Times website.  Perhaps the distinction then between them would be whether either of the three would be more effective at actually getting something passed enacted into law.

 

The one comment I would have about climate change and the candidates is that while it is nice that all three say they believe in climate change and that they would support a cap and trade program, there are many of us in research (mostly environmental economists in my experience) who are somewhat skeptical that a cap and trade program for carbon could really work or would be the best approach.  The US implemented such a program for sulfur dioxide around 1990 and it is widely viewed as a success, but there were several factors that aligned to help make it so.  The difficulties with carbon are more numerous, but can be summed up as: it simply is a much bigger problem with many, many more actors worldwide.  Although cap and trade would be better than nothing, many environmental economists tend to feel that a carbon tax--a tax on carbon-based fossil fuels, for example--would be easier to implement from an administrative view point, and be more effective.  But of course, we tend to hate taxes in this country so politicians prefer talking cap and trade.

 

One last comment: beware of groups who will absolve your carbon sins for money.  Although their intentions may be good, many of them would have difficulty demonstrating that the actions that they say your contribution will fund actually result in net carbon storage. If you support their intentions, by all means, feel free to contribute.  Just don't assume that your personal contributions to greenhouse gases will be fully offset like they say they will.  If you want to contribute to sequestering carbon, drive less, especially fly less, and plant trees.

Jeff

 

---

From: Westt...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Weigel, Molly
Sent: Sat 2/16/2008 6:40 AM

First, your post is almost a complete cut-and-paste from a blog on Obama's Web site (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/sabrinalamb/CsR2 <http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/sabrinalamb/CsR2> ).  That doesn't, by itself, invalidate the information but I would have thought you'd mention that.  Interestingly, the link to the LIbrary of Congress in both places is wrong.  The correct link is http://thomas.loc.gov <http://thomas.loc.gov/> .

[roger satterthwaite]

"talk is cheap", (Keith Richards, 1988)

Praxis and Liberation theology, Charlie!
(Besides, I lived with a Catholic for a
year.....) Being a relativist, my personal
philosophies have no extrinsically imposed
boundries.

RWS

=== message truncated ===

[Charles Hurd]

Faith & works, one of the big theological issues that divides Catholics and Protestants.  The standard Catholic response to this is to quote James 2:14-18:

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.

The difficulty here is that, when the Protestants created their Bible, they chose a different set of books than the Catholic Bible then in use and so the Letter of James isn't even in their Bible.  It makes for a very difficult discussion because you have to first talk about which canon of Scripture to use, by which authority you choose a particular canon, etc.

 

What James is trying to say in the quote above is that while you clearly need faith to be saved (you can't be saved just by ministering to the hungry), you also need to manifest that faith in works.  Faith alone is insufficient.  The quote from Paul that Sam gives below is making the point that our faith comes through God's grace and not through any effort that we ourselves initiate.  We cannot work ourselves into salvation.  We need, first and foremost, the grace from God.

 

-- Charlie

"Wood, Sam" <sam...@phillynews.com> wrote:

[Charles Hurd]

My memory of JFK's campaign is based on what I remember reading about since I (like Sam) was too young at the time to follow events as they unfolded.  Prejudice against Catholic politicians usually centers around whether they are more beholden to the Pope than to the Constitution.  This was brought up again in this campaign against Romney with the questions (raised by Huckabee) about whether his Mormon beliefs would prevent him from serving as President.  I think JFK's election and subsequent service showed that a man's particular spiritual beliefs do not, in fact, impact his ability as Chief Executive.

 

I don't think that the "discrimination and dismissal directed at Obama" that Steve talks about falls into the same category.  We're not talking about beliefs that Obama holds (unless you're bringing up his time in a Muslim school as a child).  I, at least, am talking about his lack of executive experience and relative paucity of national legislative experience.  Very different.

 

-- Charlie

"Wood, Sam" <sam...@phillynews.com> wrote:

I'm not sure if I can remember that. I'd have been negative 1 at the
time.
sam

-----Original Message-----
From: Westt...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Westt...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Steve Coleman
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 10:38 AM
To: Westt...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: You Tube


Perhaps Catholics with long memories will connect the
discrimination and dismissal directed at Obama and see
echoes of the religious prejudice that many thought
would prevent Kennedy's victory in 1960.

Steve

[Kevin Davis]

Hey Roger:

It was great to hear from you. Please email me your contact information.

My email is davi...@bellsouth.net

I will call you later today

-----Original Message-----
From: Westt...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Westt...@googlegroups.com] On

Behalf Of roger satterthwaite
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:16 PM
To: Westt...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: You Tube

[Charles Hurd]

Dan,

 

You're welcome for the gift of sword dancing.  It's been a *long* time since I've done.  Not sure I could get through an entire dance anymore.  Sigh.

 

Praying and rational thought are not mutually exclusive.  Prayer, at it's most basic, is a conversation with God.  It's all about unifying the soul with God, drawing the soul into a comtemplation of spiritual matters, strengthening the will (e.g. praying to avoid temptation), purifying the will (e.g. praying to understand God's will in a difficult situation), or to draw down blessings for another (intercessory prayer).  Prayer, unless it's just done by rote, has the effect of forming the soul into a more-perfect image of God.

 

God doesn't reach down and alter the outcome of elections or tweak with legislation before Congress.  God is in the business of saving souls and He uses prayers, and the graces that they produce, to change hearts.  Legislation is a temporary fix to our worldly problems.  A federal that created and ran food kitchens for the hungry would be one solution for a very real problem but that solution might vanish if Congress failed to continue to vote money.  A popular upswell of concern for the hungy among all U.S. citizens, a change of heart throughout the country, would wipe out hunger forever.

 

I pray for myself that I see the world correctly and that I act correctly.  I pray for others that I know to be suffering, asking that their suffering be alleviated or that they find the strength to push through that suffering (suffering, properly understood, is redemptive and I speak from experience).  I pray for our nation that enough hearts may be changed through God's grace to eliminate the suffering and division that we see daily.

 

Prayer "works" because it taps into and strengthens the soul's connection to God.  Without God, the world is a dark and lonely place that makes little sense.  With God, even desolation and pain have meaning and joy can be found in the bleakest situations.  Again, I speak from experience.  Also, look at the life of Jesus in the Gospels and you'll see a life full of suffering, pain, service for others, and deep prayer.

 

-- Charlie

[Charles Hurd]

And, by the way, I think this $600 "stimulus" package that passed Congress by huge bipartisan numbers is a total boondoggle and a waste of money that Congress doesn't even have.  I'll mention something about this later because I'm working on a reply to one of Jeannie's earlier posts.  Neither Congress nor the President have a clue on how to handle the sub-prime mortgage crisis.  More to the point, Congress doesn't have a *role* in the solution of the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

 

-- Charlie

dan nick <dan_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[Charles Hurd]

Jeff,

 

Of the three remaining (Clinton, Obama, McCain), I'll have to go with McCain.  He wasn't my choice early on for several reasons (e.g. McCain-Feingold, Group of 13 [whatever the number]) but he wins points for not earmarking and for his extensive experience.  One of my biggest complaint against Clinton and Obama is their rush towards a national health care system (this ties in with Roger's elevation of this issue as very important).  I understand that it's very attractive to think of a single system, single set of forms, single payor, etc., etc. but I just don't think that government should be in the business of delivering health insurance and I *certainly* don't think government is capable.  Look at the mess that the VA health system is in.  Now, Roger knows far more about the intricacies of the current system and I defer to him for specifics.  But one of the failings with the current system that I don't believe will be corrected by either Clinton or Obama is the inability of the average patient to "shop around" for the best deal.  When I go to see a doctor and particularly if I have a test or a procedure done, I'm clueless about the actual cost.  I don't know what sort of deal my insurer has struck with the particular provider until after I get the bill.  Posted rates or some pre-treatment disclosure of costs would help immensely and would start to get the various providers to actually compete on cost and performance.  A government program would certainly hide all of that under a different blanket.

 

I also worry about Clinton's insistence on an "individual mandate", by which she means that everyone will be required to participate in the overall system.  She's quoted as saying that there would have to be an enforcement mechanism in place to get universal participation and she wouldn't rule out garnishing wages to pay for coverage.  The government already reaches into my paycheck quite enough already.  I don't want them grabbing funds for coverage that I may legitimately not want.  I don't have many specifics but apparently the universal health care that Massachusetts provides is running up against the problems of (1) not all people enrolling and (2) ballooning costs for that percentage that have enrolled.  Perhaps someone from that area could weigh in with actual details.

 

-- Charlie

"Kline, Jeff" <jeff....@oregonstate.edu> wrote:

No, I think how I am thinking about it is that Obama has not demonstrated to me that he is as incompetent as who we have now, so things likely would be no worse than as bad as they are now, but possibly better.  And I don't mean to offend any remaining Bush supporters out there--I accept that some may still see good qualities there--I just don't. 

I agree, it is not a comforting rationale, which is why I don't campaign for anyone, including Obama.  I really have to stress my sincere disillusionment with the political process in this country.  I feel there are uncertainties with any candidate and the world in which they would govern--call it the "expected values" approach to voting.

 

I feel near the same about the other two candidates.  I think any of the three likely would be an improvement over our current president.  As I implied before, in my mind the three candidates are relatively close as my eye views politicians.  Their comparison to others, such as Carter, I can't tell.  I don't see any saviors in the viable field.  My primary beef with McCain would be the same as with Clinton--he didn't have the vision to foresee the Iraq mess. 

 

But enough about Obama.  Does anyone appeal to you Charlie, more than others?

 

Jeff

From: Westt...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Charles Hurd

Sent: Fri 2/15/2008 3:21 PM

To: Westt...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: You Tube

Are you seriously saying that with the difficult and complex challenges and threats ahead of us, you're willing to give up known quantities for an unknown risk?  That's quite a gamble.  What happens if that gamble goes bad and we get another Carter in the White House with the attendant foreign and domestic catastrophes (e.g. Iran hostages, gas rationing, inflation, etc.)?  I'm sure Obama is a good man and has the best intentions but you're saying that he hasn't demonstrated clear competence for the job, even to you.  You still characterize a vote for him as a "risk".

 

-- Charlie

"Kline, Jeff" <jeff....@oregonstate.edu> wrote:

Isn't that the original rationale behind the electoral college system--to limit voting to people who could make informed and rational decisions? . . . although it doesn't always seem to work that way anymore, does it.  Historians correct me if I am wrong.

 

Charlie, I share your frustration.  After the last election I was ready to leave the country--less because Bush got re-elected and more because I felt we had such poor candidates generally and a pathetic citizenry. I think a large part of the appeal of Obama for a lot of folks is that he is reminding people that the power is in their hands, and perhaps inspiring people to become more engaged simply because his speaking is more engaging.  Whether or not he'd make a good president, I can't really tell.  But I feel like I know what we'd get with Clinton and McCain, and I'm willing to take a risk to see if we'd get something different with Obama.

 

Jeff

---

From: Westt...@googlegroups.com on behalf of tdeci...@gmail.com
Sent: Fri 2/15/2008 2:27 PM

To: Westt...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: You Tube

Charlie -- You've hit the nail on the head. The amount of time our media and candidates spend on the "horse race" aspect of this important election and attacking each other over empty issues takes away from what should always be a civil tone that we all should share no matter our political leanings.

There are times of frustration when I retreat to the notion that voting should be limited to people who can make informed and rational decisions about the process and issues. (I know, who gets to decide--besides me!--who are informed and rational.).Then I return to the reality of celebrity politics as driven by the media.

What we need is a wise Westtonian to lead us in the ways of consensus and civility. I'd have started with Master Charlie Brown, then maybe Master Jan Long. With them we'd all be math whizzes who are in great shape -- a distinct improvement over the present!
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Hurd <churd...@yahoo.com>

Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:40:40

To:Westt...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: You Tube

See, this is the thing that bothers me about the emotion surrounding Obama's candidacy.  It feeds on a misperception.  The America people have *ALWAYS* had a say in their politics, they just traditionally have chosen to let others (party hacks, elected officials, whoever) make those decisions for them.  If we really wanted to change Congress, we could replace the entire House of Representatives in 2 years and the entire Senate in 6.  But we choose not to.  Just the fact that people are putting nonsense up on the Web about Obama's accomplishments shows that there's a lack of critical thinking out there (I'm sure there's equivalent nonsense on Clinton's site).  Politics and government are important.  Our Constitution is predicated on an *informed* populace, not an emotional one.  Our country has real challenges facing it, both domestic and foreign.  We as a nation should be having serious discussions about policy and national priorities, not sitting back as politicians snipe at each other over relative voting records or poll numbers.  We as a nation need to demand serious answers from our candidates and we need to know enough about the world we live in and the system of government under which we choose to live to make rational choices at the polls.  Otherwise, our elections become popularity contests and the problems that arise before us get kicked down the road to our children (e.g. Social Security).
 
It all really frustrates me.
 
-- Charlie

Jeannie Hall <jeannie...@gmail.com> wrote: No problem.  Anyway, you have done your research well.  None of the stuff on the blog is authorized by the official Obama people.  Actually, that is one of the nice things about it.  If you try to post on the Hillary site, they check it first, and if it is negative, it doesn't make it on. 

I did not check whether the info was true or not, or perhaps deceptive, so I appreciate you looking into it.  I won't forward it to other people. 

Quite honestly, I'm not that concerned so much about policy.  I'm more excited about the idea of the American people finally having a say in their politics, and I see Obama as a conduit for this process.


On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Charles Hurd <churd...@yahoo.com <mailto:churd...@yahoo.com> > wrote:
 
My apologies, you did mention that the top info in your post was from the blog.  I missed that.  Next time, do me a favor and preface your post with "this is from Obama's Web site" or something so I don't make the same mistake again.
 
Sorry.



 
-- Charlie

Jeannie Hall <jeannie...@gmail.com <mailto:jeannie...@gmail.com> > wrote: Charlie, I haven't finished reading the email, but I did mention it, read carefully.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Charles Hurd <churd...@yahoo.com <mailto:churd...@yahoo.com> > wrote:
 
Jeannie,
 
I poked around a little to try and confirm the info that you sent me and I found some interesting tidbits that should have been mentioned.
 

First, your post is almost a complete cut-and-paste from a blog on Obama's Web site (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/sabrinalamb/CsR2 <http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/sabrinalamb/CsR2> ).  That doesn't, by itself, invalidate the information but I would have thought you'd mention that.  Interestingly, the link to the LIbrary of Congress in both places is wrong.  The correct link is http://thomas.loc.gov <http://thomas.loc.gov/> .

 
I only looked at legislative experience, since that's what the post mostly contained.  If you do a search on the Library of Congress site for sponsored or co-sponsored legislation that was signed by the President, Clinton had 20 such bills in the 109th Congress and Obama had 13.  If you look at the 110th Congress, Clinton co-sponsored 4 bills that were signed into law and Obama co-sponsored 3.  Neither sponsored a bill that became law in the 110th Congress.  I didn't look at the relative importance of each bill (some, yes, simply name post offices) but my quick search shows that Clinton and Obama were equally active and productive in the Senate.
 

Two bills in particular grabbed my attention and I dug in a little more.  Obama did, in fact, work with Sen. Lugar on a Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act.  However, the post misrepresents his effort.  The original Nunn-Lugar Act of 1991 seems to be a bill that targeted nuclear weapons by directing the State Department to devote money to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program which aims to reduce such weapons.  Obama worked with Lugar to extend the Nunn-Lugar Act to encompass conventional weapons, particularly shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.  So the (implicit) claim that Obama worked to reduce nuclear weapons is false.  That had already been accomplished.  Also, the reference to the bill doesn't disclose the fact that this effort was part of a budget bill.  BTW, I got this info from Obama's Senate Web site (http://obama.senate.gov/news/051102-obama-lugar_pro/ <http://obama.senate.gov/news/051102-obama-lugar_pro/> ).

 
The one reference in the post that is flat-out deceptive is the credit given to Obama for the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006.  Coburn was the only sponsor of this act, so the bill should have been called the Coburn Act.  There were 47 co-sponsors to this bill and the list includes Obama (correct) and Clinton (oops).  Obama can't just add his name to someone else's bill and then pitch it as his idea while simultaneously pretending that his opponent wasn't also involved.  This is bad.  Perhaps the original post wasn't written or authorized by the Obama campaign but it is on his campaign's Web site and, clearly, it's taken to be true by his supporters.
 
I'm still not seeing a whole lot of difference between Clinton and Obama.  They both push bills through the Senate with similar rates of success. And they both play the game of inflating their own contributions while trying to hide the achievements of others.  No change here.



 
-- Charlie

Jeannie Hall <jeannie...@gmail.com <mailto:jeannie...@gmail.com> > wrote: 


Hi Charlie,

I'm happy to oblige as Jennifer Glidden was asking me the same thing.

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.

These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress www.thomas.loc.gov <http://www.thomas.loc.gov/> , but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.

On the issues, I suggest spending an hour or so on his website (barackobama.com <http://barackobama.com/> ):  Go to the issues tab where he explains his plans in detail.  Also, you can click on FACT CHECK on the right side of the website for any misinformation about him.  I also suggest going into the blog part.  There, feel free to ask questions to other bloggers who will be happy to help you (top info was from the blog).  I love that he has plans for the Peace Corps and others ways for American to serve this country.

In regards to your worry about Obama with foreign policy, I would feel much more secure with him in charge.  Because of his upbringing, he is quite worldly (actually lived outside of the country, plus has family in Kenya), he knows how to listen to other people, is even tempered, and I think amazingly wise.

He inspires people and will unite people as opposed to what we have been subject to for most of our lifetime in politics.  I don't think much can get done in Washington without a little bit of hope and inspiration.

I think his wife can say it better than I, however, so check out this You Tube:  http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid353515028/bctid1137687774 <http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid353515028/bctid1137687774> .

Further thoughts?

Jeannie





On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Charles Hurd <churd...@yahoo.com <mailto:churd...@yahoo.com> > wrote:
 
Jeannie,
 
Glad you're digging around in YouTube.  There's a *lot* of stuff out there, good, bad, and terrible, and I've gotten quite a bit of information from there.
 
Since we've opened the political topic in this group, I'd like to ask the entire group a question based on the Obama quote at the end of your post.  I'm watching the Clinton v. Obama race with much interest and some trepidation.  For all that I disagree with Clinton on many issues, she at least is specific about what her positions are, what her experience is, and what she intends to do as President.  I have difficulty finding the same specifics with Obama.  Most of the news stories about his campaign talk about "hope" and "change" and "belief" without being clear, for example, about what he will change, how he will make that change occur, and what is his vision of the the new state of the world.  I'm also concerned about Obama's lack of national experience.  He's a first-term Senator with limited experience in passing legislation who has missed an awful lot of votes while building his Presidential campaign.  Given a straight-up comparison between Clinton and Obama, I would think that the Democratic Party would have nominated Clinton early on.
 
Anyway, for those in the group who are definite Obama supporters, could you share some thoughts about what aspect of Obama's campaign or platform was key to securing your support?  Any specifics, particularly any accomplishments that he has at the national level, would be most welcome.
 
Thanks.
 
-- Charlie




Jeannie Hall <jeannie...@gmail.com <mailto:jeannie...@gmail.com> > wrote: 



Morning all, since I've gotten involved in politics, I've learned all about You Tube -- I never really understood the big fascination with it until I saw this video.

Please take a look and vote:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn-JlfhZy3c&feature=related <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn-JlfhZy3c&feature=related>

--
"I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington . . . I'm asking you to believe in yours."

Barack Obama

----------------
 Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>

--
"I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington . . . I'm asking you to believe in yours."

Barack Obama

----------------
 
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.  <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ>  

--
"I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington . . . I'm asking you to believe in yours."

Barack Obama

----------------
 Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping> 

--
"I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington . . . I'm asking you to believe in yours."

Barack Obama

----------------
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your homepage. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
 

---

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

[Charles Hurd]

I have to agree with Jeff and Kevin, here.  I don't think people, in general, understand the issues beyond a superficial level.  I know that's a gross simplification but let me give some examples of why I say that.  I apologize in advance if this is something of a rant but my frustration of last week is unabated.

 

1.  There have been more debates during this campaign season than ever before but we are not the more informed for that.  Most of the debate formats feature a line-up of candidates who field questions from one or more newspeople with only 2 minutes or less to respond.  After the debates, the news stories are mostly about how the candidates came off to the audience with special emphasis on how they and their messages "played" to the nation.  There's no attempt to actually *debate* issues.  The overriding concern of the candidates is to avoid gaffes or bad soundbites that would then be replayed endlessly.  Many of the questions are "gotcha" questions looking to spark a confrontation.  Digging into the details of particular issues (health care, for example) *never* happens.  Now, these debates are not being organized in a vacuum.  This is the sort of format and the sort of results that the organizers believe people want and there's no push-back that I can detect to prove that assumption wrong.  So we end up with stories of the men ganging up on Hillary or Obama getting snippy or whatever.  We do *not* get stories that compare and contrast the stated positions of two or more candidates based on a live debate.

 

2.  The sub-prime mortgage crisis is a financial meltdown that is affecting most, if not all, aspects of the financial industry both here in the U.S. and abroad.  Banks and security firms are writing down losses of billions (that's billions with a "B") of dollars and stock markets have dropped on that news.  These losses affect your retirement accounts, your mutual funds, your ability to sell your house, your ability to refinance your mortgage, hedge funds, pension funds, you name it.  Everyone, with few exceptions, has been touched by this.  But there has been almost no concrete information about the cause of the crisis nor the effects.  Instead, people are reported to be excited because the U.S. Government is going to refund some tax money to the tune of $600 ro $1000, depending on your situation, so that we can go "stimulate" the economy.  This is political posturing and snake-oil salesmenship of the worst kind but no one calls the politicians on this because no one understands that the government didn't cause the crisis and government can't pull us out.  This is a huge and immediate issue and there's no information readily available and no clamoring from the people for that information.

 

3.  The Democratic Convention in August is shaping up to be a drawn-out, bare-knuckles, political affair and people are just now waking up to it.  The news media has been very slow to describe the issues and, in fact, glossed over critical information back when it would have been useful.  When the Michigan and Florida primaries were held, the most that you'd see in the papers was that the Democratic primaries were meaningless because "no delegates were at stake", failing to mention that the Democratic National Committee had ruled that delegates from those states would not be seated at the convention because the primary schedules had been moved too early.  This is not rocket science, this is basic info for any Democratic voter.  Why didn't Obama's name appear on the Michigan ballot?  Why was Clinton breaking a promise by campaigning in Florida?  The question of whether the delegates from Michigan or Florida get seated at the convention is one of several factors pivotal to whether either Clinton or Obama can amass the necessary delegate count to win the nomination.  For a race so closely watched, it seems that people aren't even aware of the rules by which this race is being fought. And the news media is not helping.

 

Okay, rant off.  I'm not laying the blame for a lack of knowledge about issues entirely on the populace, although they do assume most of the responsibility.  The news media in general fails to provide an objective context for most of the news stories that they report.  To take the sub-prime mortgage issue, I have never seen the percentages of sub-prime mortgages in default or in foreclosure relative to "normal" mortgages.  When a story is written about some piece of legislation, I'll read that spending has been increased x% without any indication as to whether that's a normal increase given historical averages.  You get the idea.

 

Before we can really do our jobs as voters, we need to care enough about the issues to get facts against which we can evaluate the proposed platforms of the various candidates.  When we choose based on appearance or experience or oratory or debate performance, we're short-changing ourselves.  Unfortunately, you can't get the information you need from the TV or printed media.  You need to dig for yourself.

 

-- Charlie

"Kline, Jeff" <jeff....@oregonstate.edu> wrote:

Yes, but do they do so in sufficient depth to adequately address the key issues?  Interesting background and point Kevin.  Thanks.

 

Jeff

---

From: Westt...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Jeannie Hall
Sent: Fri 2/15/2008 3:22 PM

To: Westt...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: You Tube

I disagree.  I think people have really tried to understand the issues more this year than in previous elections.   

On Feb 15, 2008 6:09 PM, Kevin Davis <davi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

The founding fathers almost universally had a fear of rule by the mob. This was probably well-founded. They were all students of classical history and they were aware that Rome in the days of the empire was corrupt - the saying was: "He who controls the mob controls Rome". We are now, I believe, in the equivalent period of our history. The vast majority of our citizens don't know the issues and don't care. They also don't understand the concept of a representative republic (as compared to a true democracy) and the core ideas that created it. Given that it is not surprising that they respond to the media and to candidates they way they do.

 

Hope you are all doing well.

 

Best regards,

 

Kevin Davis

 

---

From: Westt...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Westt...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kline, Jeff
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 5:55 PM

To: Westt...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: You Tube

[Wood, Sam]

Aye, Mr. Hurd.

It may be true. Most people don’t understand the issues beyond a superficial level.

But I find it naïve, offensive -- dare I say sanctimonious -- to blame “the news media” for a citizenry that chooses not to be informed.

Besides, last time I looked, I wasn’t joined at the hip with Geraldo Rivera or Glenn Beck. Neither are any of my colleagues at the Philadelphia Inquirer. If want entertainment, you’re going to look for entertainment. If you look for relevant information, you’ll find that, too.

We are swimming, some say drowning, in a sea of information.

Thirty years ago, we didn’t have access to even a smidgen of what’s available today.

Remember Tom S’s rudimentary telephone hook-up to the West Chester State computer?

Remember when it was three channels and nothing on? Limited access to out of town newspapers? No access to GAO reports, international news services, watchdog organizations, environmental news letters, ready access to court filings…

Uh, Am I ranting?

You can google for anything,  Obama, Clinton and McCain included. If that simple procedure doesn’t get you what you need, there are other services, Lexis/Nexis for example.

My cable company provides C-Span. However, if the Simpsons are on at the same time as a presidential candidate, well then, there’s a choice to be made. Ain’t?

The subprime issue is a doozy. Please don’t tell me there’s no information out there. Don’t tell me there aren’t people clamoring for info on the topic. I assure you, there are.

As you said: “You have to dig for yourself.”

And digging is it’s own reward.

Another alternative: work for a hedge fund. They have huge staffs of former reporters and quants who do nothing but gather information so investors can make a bundle off the foibles of “the general populace” uh, I mean, people like us.

sam

 

 

 

 

---

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.</a

[Charles Hurd]

Sam,

 

I know you work for the Inquirer (which I subscribe to, by the way) and my comments were not intended to be a reflection on your work specifically.  And, granted, the information available in the world is exploding and the work necessary to compress that info into a form that most people can digest is difficult work.  All that aside, though, I stand by my examples.  The Inquirer might have been one of the few papers that mentioned that "no delegates are at stake" in the Michigan and Florida primaries but the follow-up sentence explaining that the DNC pulled the delegates for those states because of the early schedule never appeared.  It wouldn't have been hard to add that but most papers that I checked and even the AP missed adding that info.  On sub-prime mortgages, yes, there's a lot of info out there but the base numbers are not and have not been reported.  Also, no one in the media, either in hard-news stories or editorials, is asking whether the stimulus package that just passed Congress will actually have an effect.  I'm sure that the Wall Street Journal (which I read occasionally) and other financial papers have more but mainstream media mostly passes along raw facts and figures without much attempt to connect things for the average reader.

 

Good reporting is not bounded by the amount of raw data available.  Good reporting, and I've seen it in the Inquirer, is the ability of the journalist to synthesize that raw data and make it understandable to his/her readers.  Much depends on having those good journalists.  Layoffs in the newsroom certainly doesn't help make that situation any better.

 

-- Charlie

"Wood, Sam" <sam...@phillynews.com> wrote:

Aye, Mr. Hurd.

It may be true. Most people don't understand the issues beyond a superficial level.

But I find it naïve, offensive -- dare I say sanctimonious -- to blame "the news media" for a citizenry that chooses not to be informed.

Besides, last time I looked, I wasn't joined at the hip with Geraldo Rivera or Glenn Beck. Neither are any of my colleagues at the Philadelphia Inquirer. If want entertainment, you're going to look for entertainment. If you look for relevant information, you'll find that, too.

We are swimming, some say drowning, in a sea of information.

Thirty years ago, we didn't have access to even a smidgen of what's available today.

Remember Tom S's rudimentary telephone hook-up to the West Chester State computer?

Remember when it was three channels and nothing on? Limited access to out of town newspapers? No access to GAO reports, international news services, watchdog organizations, environmental news letters, ready access to court filings...

[Ben Hartman]

Hoooold on.  I gotta step in before Roger messes us up again.  Let’s not allow his idea of Utopia to confuse the platforms of the Democratic candidates:

 

FACT:  Neither Clinton nor Obama’s plan includes single-payor, (like the VA), but more like the healthcare Congress gets.  They do not advocate the dreaded conservative fear-tactic SOCIALIZED MEDECINE, cue the scary music.  They both start with a plan that you can keep the coverage you have, if you like it.  Then an end to dumping patients if they have pre-existing conditions.  The “mandate” issue is touchy.  Both Clinton and Obama tend to think that it’s necessary in order to make the young and healthy not opt out until they’re sick.  Obama worries that an immediate mandate might force even relatively low-cost healthcare on people who still can’t afford it.  Obama says no mandate to start, but maybe we’ll get to that point later, after 96% of the population is covered.

 

By the way,, on the Catholic issue.  My wife, a practicing Catholic, switched churches to a Jesuit one, knowing my affection for any group that asked questions of everything.  Think Dennis Asselin, who if I remember correctly was on his way to be a Jesuit brother before Westtown.  Let’s not cast all organized religion as bad, rather let’s just make sure we are all keeping our eye on what W’s favorite philosopher would do.

 

Ben Hartman

I think his wife can say it better than I, however, so check out this You Tube:  http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid353515028/bctid1137687774 <http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid353515028/bctid1137687774> ..

 

---

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.</a

[Ben Hartman]

I meant to attach this link to my last post.  Xoxo to all.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19082789

 

Ben Hartman

I think his wife can say it better than I, however, so check out this You Tube:  http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid353515028/bctid1137687774 <http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid353515028/bctid1137687774> ..

Further thoughts?

Jeannie





On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Charles Hurd <churd...@yahoo.com <mailto:churd...@yahoo.com> > wrote:
 
Jeannie,
 
Glad you're digging around in YouTube.  There's a *lot* of stuff out there, good, bad, and terrible, and I've gotten quite a bit of information from there.
 
Since we've opened the political topic in this group, I'd like to ask the entire group a question based on the Obama quote at the end of your post.  I'm watching the Clinton v. Obama race with much interest and some trepidation.  For all that I disagree with Clinton on many issues, she at least is specific about what her positions are, what her experience is, and what she intends to do as President.  I have difficulty finding the same specifics with Obama.  Most of the news stories about his campaign talk about "hope" and "change" and "belief" without being clear, for example, about what he will change, how he will make that change occur, and what is his vision of the the new state of the world.  I'm also concerned about Obama's lack of national experience.  He's a first-term Senator with limited experience in passing legislation who has missed an awful lot of votes while building his Presidential campaign.  Given a straight-up comparison between Clinton and Obama, I would think that the Democratic Party would have nominated Clinton early on.
 
Anyway, for those in the group who are definite Obama supporters, could you share some thoughts about what aspect of Obama's campaign or platform was key to securing your support?  Any specifics, particularly any accomplishments that he has at the national level, would be most welcome.
 
Thanks.
 
-- Charlie




Jeannie Hall <jeannie...@gmail.com <mailto:jeannie...@gmail.com> > wrote: 



Morning all, since I've gotten involved in politics, I've learned all about You Tube -- I never really understood the big fascination with it until I saw this video.

Please take a look and vote:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn-JlfhZy3c&feature=related <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn-JlfhZy3c&feature=related>
--
"I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington . . . I'm asking you to believe in yours."

Barack Obama


----------------

 Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search..yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>

--
"I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington . . . I'm asking you to believe in yours."

Barack Obama

----------------
 

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.  <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo..com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ>  

--
"I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington . . . I'm asking you to believe in yours."

Barack Obama

----------------

 Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search..yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping> 

--
"I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington . . . I'm asking you to believe in yours."

Barack Obama

----------------
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your homepage. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
 

--
"I'm asking you to believe.  Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington . . . I'm asking you to believe in yours."

Barack Obama

 

---

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.</a

[hen...@optonline.net]

Dear Charlie, et al.,

I have enjoyed your thoughtful postings.

I write as I wish to assure you that the Epistle of James does indeed appear in the "Protestant Bible." For what it's worth, I agree with your exposition of James' point.  I find it more difficult to agree with your suggestion that the "Protestants created their Bible" any more than Catholics created theirs.  I think we would both agree that the Bible was was created by the Holy Spirit. 

^"For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."(2 Pe 1:21-2:1).

Sincerely,

Henry Brehm

> "Wood, Sam" wrote:
> v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:*
> {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:*
> {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape
> {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
> st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } "For by

> grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it
> is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." -
> Ephesians 2:8,9
> Besos,
> Your cloth-coat undercover former (fallen) altar boy,
> sam
>
>

> ---------------------------------

> ---------------------------------

>
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo!
> Mobile. Try it now.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> ---------------------------------

[hen...@optonline.net]

[hen...@optonline.net]

Please excuse the error in reference. The verse is 2 Peter 1:21.

Henry

[hen...@optonline.net]

Hi Charlie and Dan,

Please allow me to comment here regarding the suggestion that "God doesn't reach down and alter the outcome of elections..." And then again, not me, but the Bible, which must be our source of knowledge regarding the things of God.  "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

(Romans 13:1)

Sincerely,

Henry

 

----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Hurd
Date: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 1:00 pm
Subject: RE: You Tube
To: Westt...@googlegroups.com

> JlfhZy3c&feature=related> --

> ---------------------------------

[Charles Hurd]

Henry,

 

Very good point.  Yes, the Bible is ultimately created and authored by the Holy Spirit.  The distinction between the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible is that each has a different set of books deemed to be so inspired.  So, I could have used a better term like "compiled" to show that the human activity that "created" these Bibles was a selection from among the available books.

 

-- Charlie

hen...@optonline.net wrote:

[Charles Hurd]

Yes, all earthly authority ultimately derives its power from God.  The founding documents of the U.S. bear this out.  However, this doesn't mean that earthly leaders are God's puppets.  They are called to "submit" themselves to God but, like all of us, they have free will and can choose to act rightly or wrongly.  This is where prayer comes in.  If we deem that our leaders are acting wrongly, we should pray that their hearts be changed so that they act rightly.  In some cases, it's easy to see that their actions are wrong.  In other cases, the issue is murkier.  Part of our prayer must always be for clarity of sight for ourselves, because we may be the ones blinded by lack of insight or knowledge.  Prayer must always come from a humble heart that's open to greater knowledge of ourselves.

 

-- Charlie

hen...@optonline.net wrote:

[Weigel, Molly]

Thanks, Jeff.  That makes good sense to me.

 

Let's keep working to make this issue visible. 

 

Others?

---

From: Westt...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Westt...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kline, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:18 PM
To: Westt...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: You Tube--Molly's climate change question

-------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited. Thank you for your compliance. --------------------------------------------------

[Steve Coleman]

Thanks for the question, Molly.

McCain's web site is pretty thin on this topic, but he
does mention two specific proposals on this issue:
make a massive boost in nuclear energy and continue to
oppose the Kyoto Protocol unless India and China join.
Both are deeply flawed approaches.

McCain's focus on nuclear power ignores more proven
and ready options such as efficiency, America's
biggest single source of power since 1973, and
renewables. He assumes that nuclear energy is ready
for massive expansion, notwithstanding what a recent
MIT study called its "high relative costs; perceived
adverse safety, environmental, and health effects;
potential security risks stemming from proliferation;
and unresolved challenges in long-term management of
nuclear wastes."

In parroting the Bush view that it's not fair for us
to act ahead of other big national polluters, McCain
ignores that we are far and away the biggest per
capita greenhouse gas emitter, and he takes away the
power for us to help lead the world through dramatic
positive example. As with the nuclear proliferation
issue, developing nations are not going to leapfrog
over the pollution-intensive phase of development
until and unless the developed countries demonstrate
the power of doing so through their own actions.

By contrast, Obama's and Clinton's very detailed
plans, although not including the carbon tax that Jeff
rightly points out is needed to build the real cost of
emissions into every part of our economy, go a long
way in the right direction. The key question, as Jeff
says, is deciding who will be best able to lead us in
making the dramatic changes needed in both our
policies and our lives.

Countering climate change demands personal
responsibility, immediate direct action, and
sweeping, innovative reform that finds opportunity for
all in rising to meet the challenge. On these points,
Obama is uniquely positioned to lead the way. His
whole campaign is based on the radical idea that
citizens in our democracy still have power. In
energizing what is becoming the broadest Presidential
campaign in American history, he has demonstrated that
he can inspire, mobilize, and unite us to work for a
better future for our children. This is the kind of
leadership our country and world need.

By the way, here in DC, we've developed a grassroots
model of direct money-saving action against the
climate crisis. It's already being replicated in
cities and counties across the country. It's called
Cool Capital (www.coolcapital.org).

I was prompted to launch the effort after realizing
that my son would reach my age in the year being used
for many of the most cataclysmic climate predictions:
2050. Climate experts agree that our actions in the
next five to seven years will determine the trajectory
of the climate crisis for the next century and beyond.
Our time is now.

Steve

=== message truncated ===

"Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.
Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it."
Goethe

____________________________________________________________________________________

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[Weigel, Molly]

Thanks, Steve. This is very well-put:

"Countering climate change demands personal responsibility, immediate
direct action, and sweeping, innovative reform that finds opportunity
for all in rising to meet the challenge."

I hope Obama and our other national leaders are equal to this task;
local, state, and grassroots efforts certainly offer a lot of hope.
Your "Cool Capital" looks like a great example. I do some with personal
use(compact flourescents, recycling, etc), but hope to do more. Beyond
personal use, I would like to find more opportunities for meaningful
climate-change-related activism (this after focusing the last few years
on working to abolish the death penalty in NJ).

Others?

-----Original Message-----
From: Westt...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Westt...@googlegroups.com]

On Behalf Of Steve Coleman

Steve

[Charles Hurd]

I've been trying to follow the climate change debate over the past few years and Jeff's specifics were very useful.  Since we've been having a very engaged and civil discussion about politics and candidates, I thought I'd raise a few things that I have difficulty with in the climate change arena to see whether anyone in the group can shed some light for me.

 

1.  I have a very difficult time taking people like Al Gore and groups like the U.N. seriously on climate change because, to me, they do not act as if carbon emissions are that big a deal.  Al Gore has a personal carbon footprint (house, jet travel) that is huge.  The U.N. had 10,000 people fly across the world to Bali in December to talk about the issue for a net carbon emission that probably equalled that of an entire small country or more.  I would be more inclined to believe that there is a serious and immediate threat if the people talking about that threat acted as if they believed in the threat.  What about video conferencing for the next U.N. summit or Al Gore speech?  What about holding the next summit in NYC where the U.N. already is?  What do others think?

 

2.  Much of the discussion about stepping away from fossil fuels fails to include any mention of the overall cost to our economy and the impact that will have.  As Jeff points out, politicians hate taxes that will severely affect their constituents, particularly if those voters can clearly trace the taxes back to them.  But I think, for example, that if you're serious about reducing car emissions and fostering public transport, the gas taxes need to be raised dramatically, perhaps high enough that gas is $6/gallon.  That will be very regressive in that the poorest people who require a car to get to work will be hit the hardest.  But when gas first spiked above $3/gallon, people reduced their driving and SEPTA got more riders.  This seems to be a model that works for the immediate purpose of reducing driving.  But what about the overall impact on, say, consumer prices as the cost of shipping goods rises?  Again, can anyone with specific economic info add to this?

 

3.  Biofuels were all the rage last year and we watched Mexico and South America go nuts with creating ethanol from sugar.  So the federal government threw a lot of money at ethanol production from corn only to realize belatedly that food prices are rising, forests are being cleared to plant corn (losing the carbon sinks that Jeff talked about), ethanol doesn't have much of a bang in terms of net energy gain (ethanol takes a lot of energy to create), and ethanol can't be distributed through existing gas/oil pipelines but has to be trucked.  Much of this info was already available but the political push generated by climate change made it difficult to stop and think before throwing money into ethanol.  What guarantees do we have that the "solutions" being hawked today are any better than the drive that put so many eggs into the ethanol basket?

 

4.  Every news article for the past year talked about the scientific consensus that human activity was the primary driver for rising temperatures.  It's clear that human activity is *a* factor in climate change but not clear, to me at least, that it's the *primary* factor.  There are questions about whether that scientific consensus in fact exists.  There are questions about our ability to accurately measure temperatures world-wide and compare against a reasonable historical record.  Alternate explanations for rising temperatures are normal cycles in global weather which we still don't understand or normal cycles in solar activity.  If either of these explanations is the true explanation, we should be spending our time and energy worrying about how we will adapt to the world that will be created by these cycles.  Moving away from fossil fuels will help but can't possibly compete with higher solar output (for example).  In fact, sinking money into alternate energy sources might divert resources that we could use to effect a controlled migration from coastlands in anticipation of rising sea levels.  This issue, for me, ties back to the one on ethanol.  There's only one message that I hear on climate change and that is that humans need to reduce their carbon emissions.  All other possibilities and all other actions seem to get no attention or consideration and, given how badly we misguessed on ethanol, I feel we're collectively missing the boat here.

 

Sorry, that's a lot of a single post.  What can the rest of the group add?  Are there other issues in this space that others have concerns about?  What should I be reading to help me understand the overall picture and the details within that picture?

 

So many questions, so little time .....

 

-- Charlie

Steve Coleman <india...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Kline, Jeff]

Charlie:

 

I am pressed for time this morning, but here are some quick responses to keep the discussion going. 

 

Regarding 1, I agree that there is the appearance of hypocrisy in Gore's carbon footprint.  He'd probably say that it is a necessary bad to hasten our global response to climate change.  Incidentally, the recent U.S. Congress recently tried to buy away their carbon footprint from the Chicago Climate Exchange, with an inconvenient result being a recent Washington post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/27/AR2008012702400_pf.html).  The Federal government recently has started encouraging greater use of teleconferencing among their employees to stem our carbon output, though I'm not sure if we are really doing all that much less travel yet.

 

Regarding 2, one thing about the resulting social costs of reducing our carbon footprint, one commonly cited advantage of a carbon tax over carbon trading is that the tax revenue could be used to compensate the most affected poor who would face disproportionately higher costs for basic needs.  The basic argument is in the Economist at: http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9337630 .  I have not yet come across a good analysis of what the likely economic impact of climate change might be and how fast we'd likely be able to adapt.  There is a report called the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, but I think it is a little suspect.  Part of the problem in doing such an analysis is the significant complexity in the issue--when even the climate predictions have a significant amount of uncertainty.  Most of the predictions I see show western Oregon as drier and sunnier--so I've been looking forward to that.

 

Regarding 3, Ethanol is a bamboozle to benefit US farmers--business as usual.  Only politicians from agricultural regions, farmers, and the uninformed think it is a good idea.  Others generally agree it's a bad idea.  I think the message will get out eventually, however, with higher food prices and when the country starts to see soil erosion at pre-USDA Conservation Reserve Program levels (pre-1985), as we bring more and more marginal agricultural land back into corn production.  An alternative biofuel that is more carbon-neutral is forest-based, but my understanding is that the technology to make it viable is still a ways off.  One example of the types of analyses that get done regarding alternative approaches to addressing carbon, including biofuels, is the EPA report:  http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/greenhouse_gas.html .

 

Lastly regarding 4, it is true that there are natural fluctuations in global climate and that human activity is just one contribution to that.  However, from what I've seen and heard, I think news articles and other popular press tend to play up the notion that there is still general disagreement among scientists about the causes of climate change, more so than is probably accurate.  The scientists I know who think about climate change--many of whom are fairly reserved in the paths they take to reaching conclusions--tell me that near consensus does exist.  Although I don't necessarily view Science as the end-all word on scientific issues, a few interesting observations are cited in the article:  http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 . 

 

Incidentally, from my meeting with the EPA last week, I learned that the Agency expects (and is even beginning to plan for) Congress passing some form of a Cap and Trade program for carbon in 2008 or 2009, regardless of who is president.

 

Jeff

 

---

From: Westt...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Charles Hurd

Sent: Tue 2/26/2008 9:15 AM
To: Westt...@googlegroups.com

[roger satterthwaite]

Just walk out my front door and try to see the
mountains that are 20 miles away in the summer
and you'll know that man has had an incredible
impact on the environment.

So Al Gore has a big house. Ad hominum argument.

Gotta run.

RWS

=== message truncated ===

____________________________________________________________________________________

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Charles Hurd]

An ad hominum argument would be an attack on Gore himself.  My beef is with his actions.  If he wants us to change the way we live so that our impact on the environment is reduced, I expect him to lead by example.  His argument may be valid but it is diminished when he doesn't take his own advice.

 

-- Charlie

roger satterthwaite <satt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Just walk out my front door and try to see the
mountains that are 20 miles away in the summer
and you'll know that man has had an incredible
impact on the environment.

So Al Gore has a big house. Ad hominum argument.

Gotta run.

RWS

[Wood, Sam]

I gotta weigh in again!
Before you make an absolute statement, please do a google search. You'll find this is not true. Perhaps the majority of news articles about global warming said this, but not every one. There are still those naysayers who say global warming is all a lefty delusion, and they have been given plenty of ink and airtime.

sam

Every news article for the past year
> talked about the scientific consensus that
> human activity was the primary driver for
> rising temperatures.

________________________________

From: Westt...@googlegroups.com on behalf of roger satterthwaite
Sent: Tue 2/26/2008 4:56 PM
To: Westt...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: You Tube--Molly's climate change question

[Charles Hurd]

Sorry, I guess I was writing for effect and not complete accuracy.  Yes, I meant to say "most news articles" or the "vast majority of news articles", not "every news article".

 

-- Charlie

"Wood, Sam" <sam...@phillynews.com> wrote:

I gotta weigh in again!
Before you make an absolute statement, please do a google search. You'll find this is not true. Perhaps the majority of news articles about global warming said this, but not every one. There are still those naysayers who say global warming is all a lefty delusion, and they have been given plenty of ink and airtime.

sam
Every news article for the past year
> talked about the scientific consensus that
> human activity was the primary driver for
> rising temperatures.

________________________________

From: Westt...@googlegroups.com on behalf of roger satterthwaite
Sent: Tue 2/26/2008 4:56 PM
To: Westt...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: You Tube--Molly's climate change question




Just walk out my front door and try to see the
mountains that are 20 miles away in the summer
and you'll know that man has had an incredible
impact on the environment.

So Al Gore has a big house. Ad hominum argument.

Gotta run.

RWS

[Wood, Sam]

you may also find that "most climatologists" and "the vast majority of scientists" tend to believe that human activity has contributed mightily to global warming.
of course human activity is just one vector among many.
solar cycles, ocean currents, cow farts, rice paddies all play a role. the evidence that humans are a major contributer to warming seems to have convinced most mainstream scientists, and most importantly, the specialists within those fields.
of course, great numbers of people who believe the earth is flat, that there's a portal to a secret universe within the globe (hint: the front door is near the north pole,) and the earth is the center of the universe. in my book, they're free to believe it.
but the overwhelming number of scientists dont' put much truck in those ideas.
there are other scientists who are vocal about their theories of racial supremacy, who deny the holocaust, and believe we are regularly visited by aliens from other planets. dunno if those ideas hold up. even smart folks can be fooled.
if we're holding a real dialog, may i suggest "the little ice age" by fagan, "collapse" by diamond, and "why people believe strange things" by shermer. hthe hard science can be accessed through sciam.com or any number of other websites.
and above all, use the magic of google. the truth is out there.
;8=)
sam

________________________________

"Wood, Sam" <sam...@phillynews.com> wrote:

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>

[Sandy Sweitzer]

This is a great conversation.  I am so glad to be part of this group of people.  Hugs to you all.

I am particularly interested b/c I started working at the Nature Conservancy in January and one of their big priority areas is Climate Change.  It is one (important) part of "The 2015 Plan" to save 10% of all habitats by 2015, effectively doubling what has been preserved to date.  The information on climate change is daunting, changing and it is hard not to be overwhelmed and want to give up (like my 13 year old daughter says).  However, all of Charlie's points are good ones (except about Gore personally, I think his positive impact more than makes up for his footprint) and I have this argument with people at TNC all the time.  However, that doesn't mean their points are right, just that they might be doing stupid things!

It is also interesting to see people moving away from biofuels and but the idea of raising gas prices is a good one - the impact of rising oceans will be incredibly regressive - millions of people barely make a living off oceans around the world and will have no place to live.  Even here in NC, while few of us will miss the giant beach houses as they fall into the ocean, extreme poverty is just below the surface.  People living in eastern NC will lose their land and their livelihood if we don't start acting now.  Not to mention the millions of people living in NYC, Boston, Honolulu, LA etc. who will be under water in the not to distant future.

As for human impact - whether or not we've caused it, we CAN help slow it down.  Rising oceans will destroy people and habitats of thousands of species that we depend on.  And the weather IS changing, often in ways we don't expect.  Some people call it "global weirding," which I really like.  But increased hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, snowstorms and heat all tend to be "regressive."

The cost of doing something is MUCH less than the cost of doing nothing! 

I will forward some environmental information about the current candidates, but the fact is that any one of the three will help move us forward dramatically.

Love to you all,
Sandy

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.</a

---

Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. Get it now!

[Sandy Sweitzer]

Really? You don't think shopping will solve the economic crisis?  Maybe end the war?  Do something good?  My 13-yr-old daughter will be SO disappointed!

Seriously, it is stunning and embarrassing in it's stupidity.  At least we can all agree to that!  Hard to write a letter saying, "don't send me money" however, which is why it passed.

As for the previous discussion about democracy.  I find myself increasingly outraged by our "process."  Primaries are ok, but Caucuses are insane.  3% at most show up?  Walking corner to corner in front of neighbors to vote?!  Seriously flawed.  Then the FL and MI votes not being counted by the Dems because they didn't like the date?  I was furious, appalled, sick to my stomach.  Then we have the electoral college.  Don't even get me started on that one.  It could not be more UN democratic.  I really think we are a mature enough nation to "allow" all votes to count equally.  Especially since so many disenfranchised people can't/don't/won't make the effort to vote!

As a working parent (single this week) who tries to follow the news via NPR and scanning newspapers (on a good day I get to scan them, on a bad day I see them on the table), but who only sees TV when forced to in public spaces (gym, airport, etc.), I can say that I know very little about the issues, but nothing said so far has been new.  This has been one of the best "conversations" I've been involved in.  But I'm having trouble keeping up with you guys!

Finally, I think and thought Jimmy Carter was the best president we have had in my lifetime.  Don't get me started on the hostage crisis that actually ended when he was still in office.  Gas rationing would be a good thing right about now.  And how ABOUT a President who cares about issues and people and it is honest with the electorate?!  SOLD.

Love you all,
Sandy

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:59:13 -0800
From: churd...@yahoo.com

Subject: RE: You Tube
To: Westt...@googlegroups.com

And, by the way, I think this $600 "stimulus" package that passed Congress by huge bipartisan numbers is a total boondoggle and a waste of money that Congress doesn't even have.  I'll mention something about this later because I'm working on a reply to one of Jeannie's earlier posts.  Neither Congress nor the President have a clue on how to handle the sub-prime mortgage crisis.  More to the point, Congress doesn't have a *role* in the solution of the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

 

-- Charlie

---

Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. Get it now!