Dean Meetup

Yesterday (Monday) was the Dean house party, to celebrate Howard Dean announcing his presidency...I had been kinda down on Dean after the Meet the Press interview (bad on abortion, horrible un the dealth penalty...the other issues were not horrible, his military answers were reasonable, and I respected that he made clear that some policies he'd need to see more details before standing behind them), just overall, it left a bad taste in my mouth though:

Meet the Press interview of Howard Dean 6/22/03

...but I did really like his speech announcing his nomination on Monday, he has a little more work to do as an orator, should have practiced the speech more before he gave it, so he'd have more of it by memory, but the speech itself was wonderful...I HATE the Green party, sorry, I was going to vote Nader last time (ended up voting Gore), but never will even consider it after that stunt, how dare they!! It was so distracting, I lost the middle of the speech because of it....

The meetup was nice, we had 50 people there, and had a very good time, one of the more independent guys wanted to discuss all the problems that he had with Dean, but I don't think that supporters really wanted to do that...Dean IS NOT a far-left liberal that the media is characterizing him as...

But as someone in the forum said, since when is "liberal" a bad word?

What is a Liberal? by: John F. Kennedy

I think the race for President is between Dean and Kerry, I'd rather have been, but would also vote for Kerry. I just really don't want Bush again...

I haven't read any more of The Bell Curve, have been distracted by other things that I enjoy doing more...

The one thing I did do today, besides donating to the Dean campaign, was to become a Bronze member of The Guy James Show. The Guy James show is run entirely on contributions, its a live and live feed radio show (Saturdays, 3-6pm EST) that is liberal, and very very good...if people can get the other viewpoint out, IMO, most people that see the other side, will learn (at the very least) to be less closed-minded, ALWAYS a good thing!!

Another day...

Haven't update in a while, been a bit busy with a few things. On Wednesday night, I went to the Howard Dean meeting (we have it two times a month in my city)...we are having a potluck dinner on Monday, June 23, when he announces his candidacy...personally, I think the DLC is behind Kerry, not Dean, and Kerry will win unless Wesley Clark decides to run...if Clark runs, its a completely different story...but, I do like Dean, I like how he excites a whole bunch of people, and I like that he isn't wishy wahsy when he speaks...sigh, I don't think that Kerry would win against Bush...this is an article I'm sending in to my local paper, it still needs some tweaking, but you'll get the idea....


*******

Lately the DLC has been on an all out bashing campaign. Bashing Bush, you ask? Bashing Rumsfield? Bashing Cheney? No, no, and no. It would be way too productive for the Democratic Leadership Council to actually criticize Republicans. No, they have devoted all their recent time and energy to loudly bash the campaign of Howard Dean, a Democratic presidential hopeful from Vermont.

Earlier this year, Howard Dean gained national prominence for his stand against the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. People responded to him enthusiastically because his straight forward honesty regarding international and domestic issues was refreshingly uncharacteristic of most politicians. His website meet-up (http://dean2004.meetup.com) has quickly grown to nearly 35,000 members, compared to his closest competitor John Kerry’s 1500 members. Howard Dean is the only Democratic presidential candidate that has been consistently gaining in the important polls. Right now, he is neck-and-neck with John Kerry in New Hampshire, and is a steadily rising third place in rural Iowa. This is just the type of presidential campaign that the DLC should be supporting.

However, instead of encouraging the excitement that Howard Dean is generating, the DLC is doing its darndest to suppress it by proclaiming that Dean is “unelectable�. They state that Dean is far too liberal to run against George W. Bush, and warn that he would get a 1972 McGovern style trouncing in an election. Ironically, anyone who takes the time to look at Dean’s voting record as governor of Vermont for 11 years will see that he is nothing if not a moderate. Though socially liberal, he is a fiscal conservative who has a successful record of balanced budgets and job creation. He is also a medical doctor, with a workable plan on both health care and education that have already proven successful in Vermont. Dean was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan, and is an ardent defender of the war on terror. He criticized the invasion of Iraq because it was a “pre-emptive� unilateral war of choice, a major shift in American policy. As time has shown, Dean had a right to be concerned.

The DLC seems to think that supporting the invasion in Iraq is the only way that a candidate can be viewed as strong on national security. But, they are making a huge mistake, and they are missing a huge opportunity. In 2002, Democrats tried to make defense a non issue by quickly backing Bush’s Iraq resolution. They thought that they would then be able to campaign on the domestic agenda. But, this move alienated the liberal base, who didn’t show up at the polls to vote. It gave the swing voters no incentive to vote for Democrats. Most importantly, it made the Democrats seem weak, as they dutifully followed the Republican leadership. The democratic leadership was wrong then, and they are wrong now.

Dean is generating the largest grassroots support in election history, and these people are very excited about the campaign. It’s not just democrats; it’s also independents, republicans, libertarians, greens, and people who have never voted before. Excitement spreads fast, and this is an incredible opportunity for Democrats who so desperately want to beat Bush.

It has been shown time and time again. The public does not vote solely on the issues, it also votes on the perceived leadership of a candidate. Realistically, Al Gore should have easily won the last presidential election, most people agreed with Gore on the issues. The reason he didn’t was because he wasn’t seen as a leader. Same with the congressional vote in 2002, the Democrats were perceived as weak, and they lost. Weakness is not a characteristic of Howard Dean. Dean is a strong leader and also has a strong message on both the international and domestic agenda. It is already beginning to reverberate throughout the country. If the democratic leadership doesn’t completely undermine his campaign before it gets off the ground, Dean has a very good chance of actually beating George W. Bush in 2004.

As he announces his candidacy on June 23, I encourage every democrat, independent, non-voter, and disgruntled republican to join the largest grassroots campaign in history, stand up and be counted for Dean. To find out more, just go to: http://deanforamerica.com

Well, next 30 pages of The Bell Curve were all about smart people being better economically for businesses than dumb people no matter what (experience, etc.) cause they can think of things faster...I don't know about that, I waitressed, and I sucked at it, and I have a high IQ, but the other people there were all better than me, I mean, far be it from me to say that they weren't smarter, but still, I just cant believe that smart outweighs other stuff...they say that looking at military tests proved it, again, maybe I just can't relate it to my own experiences...anyways...I'm not reading it tonight, gotta wake up early tomorrow, so can't stay up late tonight, tomorrow, I'm going to a Dean meetup working meeting...we keep creeating meetings and doing nothing, hopefully we'll actually get something done there, I always feel weird when I speak up cause I don't know anyone and yet all the other people know each other from other clubs that they belong to together, LOL, or maybe I'm paranoid...

Saw Dean, Kerry, Edwards, and Kucinich at Take Back America conference in early June. Dean was good, but not the best, he kept getting sidetracked, like he'd be talking, and then kinda pause, I think he needs to work on that, he's very good at being angry at the Bush administration, which I love, I haven't heard him talk policy, but I definitely understand that it wasn't the place to talk policy, and he got the crowd rocking!! BTW, the guy is short, I'm 5'10" so I always notice these things, and he's probably about 5'7" or so? People like tall presidents, so I think he should wear heels or something:)...of the four, he wasn't the best as far as speaking (cause of the pauses) but he got a huge response and said a ton of what I wanted to hear. The crowd responded the best to Kucinich (it was a progressive crowd), he was awesome, but I don't think he is electable....Edwards talked about prescription drugs, which I'm assuming he thought was relevant, because thats what they are talking about in Congress right now, but after Dean's go get em speech, it wasn't comparable (and Edwards, stop flicking your hair to the side, its annoying...but holy cow, that guy has a great smile)...I think he's a big policy guy, which is a good thing, but he needs to know that at a progressive rally (lots of young people) its not the best time to talk prescription drugs...I really liked Edwards, and I think he's so intelligent, I hope that he works on his problems, he could be good!!
Kerry was better than I expected, I just really wish that he would stop being so wishy washy about the war in Iraq and ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ALREADY, and what was up with the This Week interview where he had to ride his "Harley" without a helmet, that was just silly!! Kerry, you gotta bring up the war, Democrats, you gotta set the agenda...stop being wimpy, you are right on this...here is the slogan that I think would be good on a poster:

CLINTON LIED, HILLARY CRIED...
BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!!!

Ok, well, I'm not going on for a whole long rant tonight cause it's almost 3am and I haven't even eaten dinner yet tongiht, and I have to go to bed early(ish!)...will let you know how the Dean meeting tomorrow goes:)

I seem to be trying to do too many things at once, which means that not that much is being accomplished. Ok, so anyways, yesterday I read the first 65 pages of the book The Bell Curve, because a few of the people on my website http://www.understandingpolitics.com have been talking about it, and I don't really know enough of what they are talking about. I'd love to give you a summary after 65 pages, but there is really not that much of one to give. Basically, so far, it seems to be saying that people in the top IQ bracket are more likely to go to top colleges and get the highest paying jobs now then they were at the turn of the centruy...ok...unfortunately, the book is more than 800 pages long, so I'll be updating on that one for a while, am going to try to get through about 50 pages a day, hopefully, so it will still take me a while...after this one, I'm going to be reading Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth, and I have so many more books to read (will keep you updated!!)

What I did today was write to tv station and newspaper in my area to try to get more coverage of the war in Iraq, I'll tell you what inspired it, but get out your hanky first!!
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030614/NEWS28/106140099

It is a MUST READ!!

Anyways, I also wrote to both my Senators (both Democrats) and my Congressman (R), and I also called the offices of the Senators. If you haven't guessed, I don't like all this stuff going down in Iraq, I haven't from the start, and I haven't heard any really good arguments against mine...anyways, I decided to write a little rant on the subject, so here it is:)

Does it really matter? The case for war with Iraq

“We found the weapons of mass destruction” declared Bush during a recent trip to Europe. What a relief, since this was the main reason to go to war with Iraq; that it was an “imminent threat” to the United States and to the world. So, what were these weapons of mass destruction that we found?

Not any nuclear weapons, definitely not any chemical weapons, and no, not a trace of biological weapons. Apparently, it was the discovery of two trucks that the administration claims were used as mobile biological weapons facilities. Surprisingly, there was no trace of biological weapons in these supposed “mobile weapons labs”. How could this happen, you ask? The consensus now seems to be that these mobile labs were not weapons labs at all, but actually mobile equipment trucks used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons. So, was this a lie? If so, it needs to be heaped atop a growing pile of lies told by this administration regarding the rush to war with Iraq.

Does it really matter that we lied to go to war? Does it really matter that Iraq did not have the weapons of mass destruction stockpiles that the administration claimed that it did? Does it matter that Iraq has no nuclear program? Lately, the line from the Bush administration has been that it does not. We got rid of Saddam. We freed the people of Iraq. But it does matter.

First, Iraq was not an “imminent threat” to the United States. It felt great to be able to “win” so quickly. We were so much stronger militarily than the Iraqis, it was almost laughable. But, what this really illustrates is that Iraq truly was no credible threat to our security at all. Colin Powell went in front of the United Nations claiming that Iraq posed a direct and immediate threat to the world. He did not claim that Iraqi civilians were oppressed; he did not claim that Saddam abused his people; he stated that Iraq had massive stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that he was willing and able to use against the world at any time (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/07/international/worldspecial/07TRAI.html). If this is not true, then the administration’s case for war was a lie to the UN, and a lie to the world.

Second, our troops (185+) and thousands of Iraqis died during this war. The given reason for their death was that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States that had to be dealt with immediately. If misleading, selective, or false information was used to back up that assertion, then those American troops, and those Iraqi civilians, died for false reasons. Simply put, they didn’t have to die. We were the ones that didn’t want to give the peaceful weapons inspections more time; we were the ones who said that war was necessary now. If it wasn’t, then the death of thousands of people is our fault. Because we actually went to war, because people actually died, the burden on the Bush administration is much higher then if we had been patient, if we had let the weapons inspectors do their job, and if we had gone into Iraq with the full support of the UN.

Third, this has affected our global war on terrorism. It takes the international community to fight a global war on terrorism. Just look at the number of high ranking Al-Quida officials that were caught overseas. The lies told by the administration have weakened our credibility with the rest of the world. To thoroughly combat terrorism, we must have their full cooperation and support.

Fourth, this war has strengthened Al-Quida. Recent documents have shown that top Al-Quida officials have been saying for months that Osama Bin Laden ruled out working with Saddam Hussein a long time ago. At the same time, the Bush administration stated that there were direct links. While Hussein was in power, Bin Laden might not have benefited from him in any way. But, Al-Quida is benefiting from him now. The war with Iraq and the mid-east fury over it is bound to be a great recruiting tool for the likes of Al-Quida.

Finally, the resources used to fight the war in Iraq had to be taken from somewhere. Turns out, they were taken from Afghanistan. Senior Intelligence committee member Senator Bob Graham claims that we were winning the war on terrorism, but we are not any more because our attention was diverted by the war with Iraq. Right now, Karzai has control of Kabal, and not much else. The rest of the country is run by war lords and remnants of the former Taliban government and Al-Quida. The money and resources promised to them have not been delivered, and they seem to have been forgotten by the Bush administration. If history is any indication, this is a very dangerous sign.

So, does this matter? Yes, it does. Democrats and Republicans should demand a full investigation. If the administration is allowed to politicize intelligence information to start a war, and get away with it, this sets a scary precedent for the rest of the world. This must be investigated, if proven false, fine, and if proven to be true, the administration must be held accountable.

Well, I'm back...here is the rest of my Israel-Palestinian rant...I think the only solution is to work for peace, it's the only thing that has come close to working...not this crazy eye for an eye stuff, that's for sure!!

***********************************
What a Mess: the history of Israel and Palestine
Part I (of II)

By 1974, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed the Palestinian people’s “inalienable right” to self determination, national independence and sovereignty, and called for them to return to their homes and property. The PLO was declared to be the “representative of the Palestinian people” and was granted observer status in the UN. However, the situation continued to decline.

As Palestinians flooded refugee camps in southern Lebanon, a conflict between Israel and Lebanon immerged and quickly escalated. The PLO (led by Yasser Arafat) used southern Lebanon to stage attacks against Israel, and Israel responded by bombing Palestinian refugee camps. In June 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon with the goal of eliminating the PLO. The PLO troops withdrew under a cease fire arrangement, which guaranteed the safety of thousands of Palestinian refugees. However, large scale killings of refugees took place. Meanwhile, radical Shi’a in the Southern part of Lebanon formed the terrorist organization Hizbollah (funded by Iranian fundamentalists), aimed at getting rid of non-Islamic influences in the Middle East. The end of the Israeli incursion led to a permanent Israeli presence in the southern Lebanese “Security Zone” (which remains to this day), a perception in the Middle East that the Israeli goal was to spread into surrounding countries, the formation of the Hizbollah terrorist group, and an upsurge of sympathy and support for the Palestinians from around the world.

In 1983, an international conference adopted the Geneva Declaration on Palestine. The principles established that Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories needed to be rejected the right of all States in the region to exist within secure and internationally recognized boundaries, and the attainment of the legitimate, inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Continuous international efforts during the following years tried to find a resolution to the problem. At the same time, terrorist activities in the Middle East increased, often carried out by Hizbollah or the PLO. The Israeli response usually resulted in incursions into the Palestinian territories.

Nearly 40 years after the UN resolution to create an Israeli and Palestinian state, the Palestinians remained in refugee camps, the promised Palestinian state was far from reality, the territory promised to the Palestinians was ever decreasing due to wars and Israeli settlements, and collective punishments (including occupation, home bulldozing, and community curfews) of the refugee camps were being imposed by the Israelis. The breaking point came in December 1987. The Palestinians declared an “intifada”, a mass uprising against the Israeli occupation, and the terrorist group Hamas was formed as a resistance movement. The goal of the uprising was to end the Israeli occupation and establish Palestinian independence. However, the Palestinian civilians were no match for the Israeli military, and the result was the death of more than a thousand Palestinian civilians and the destruction of their economy. Local Palestinian leadership urged the PLO to engage in peace talks with Israel, to advocate a two-state solution, and to renounce terrorism.

With the end of the cold war, shifting foreign policies of the global powers, and the end of the Gulf War, positive strides towards peace finally manifested in the early 1990s. The Peace Conference on the Middle East occurred in Madrid in 1991 and stressed direct negotiations between Israel and the Arab states, as well as Israel and the Palestinians. The culmination of the Madrid talks was the signing of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements in Washington, D.C., on September 13, 1993. The declaration established a time frame of five years to form a permanent Palestinian settlement. The implementation led to: the partial withdrawal of Israeli forces, the elections to the Palestinian Council, the presidency of the Palestinian Authority, the partial release of prisoners, and the establishment of a functioning government administration in the areas under Palestinian self-rule.

The relationship between the Israelis and Palestinians during the mid and late 1990s remained relatively peaceful. However, as the five year mark came and went, the process seemed to stall, and the situation in the Palestinian territories deteriorated. A final push towards the establishment of a Palestinian state occurred between Ehud Barak, Yasser Arafat, and President Clinton in July 2000. The leaders met for two weeks, but in the end, Arafat refused to agree to the proposed state boundary lines, and the talks failed.

Within months, the second Palestinian “intifada” began. Terrorism and Israeli incursions recurred, and the peace process was at a stand still. More than 1,700 Palestinians and 700 Israelis have been killed during the latest “intifada”. Moderates on both sides are calling once again for a move towards peace. And, most importantly, Yasser Arafat has handed over power to a new Palestinian Prime Minister, a much more moderate, Mahmoud Abbas.

Much of the animosity in the Middle East is a result of the perceived hostile treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis and the unconditional support given to the Israel by the west. Jumping into the discussions is a political risk for any US administration, because so many have tried and failed. But, for the discussions to succeed, the US needs to be involved. With Abbas in charge, real negotiations with the Palestinians should begin as soon as possible. The goal of terrorists is to disrupt, and they can not win here. Once the Palestinians feel hope that they can finally get their long awaited Palestinian state, the terrorist groups will not have the power that they have now, they will not be able to recruit others like they can now. Hope is the key. If the Bush administration really wants to fight the war on terrorism, they must take this risk. They must get fully involved. Unlike the Iraq war, a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis along with the long-awaited formation of a Palestinian state could bring about a real and lasting decrease in the terrorism and hatred, long festering in the Middle East. After the horrors of September 11, we all know how important this is.

BTW, this has absolutely nothing to do with politics, but if you absolutely hate pop-up ads like I do, you gotta try this out, it's free, and if you want to have the pop-up open, you just gotta hold down the Contol key...I love not having the popup ads!!

http://www.panicware.com/process_download.html?prdid=PSFREE

Enjoy:)

I created the website: http://www.understanding politics.com in order to better understand politics (duh!). Each day, each week, I learn something new. In order to keep the memory fresh, I write down what I have learned. The purpose of this diary is to let you see what I have been doing/learning.

I have most recently been learning about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I used to have absolutely no clue about the issue.

I'm still not sure myself what is going on here, there seems to be good and bad about both sides. The one thing that seems to be clear is that war isn't the answer. If Ariel Sharon realizes that then it must be the truth. It also seems to be clear that the US has to be involved, I do credit Bush with FINALLY (about time) getting involved!!

Peace isn't going to be easy, but it starts with getting the settlements out of the Palestinian territories, and letting Abbas have a bit more control over his security forces (i.e. letting them have the opportunity/funding to do their jobs). Anyways, if you want a bit of history about Israel and Palestine, here is what I have found out (trying to keep this as unbiased as possible, but it's hard, if you got any suggestions, let me know!!

I'm gonna separate this into two parts, so that you aren't reading forever...

What a Mess: the history of Israel and Palestine
Part I (of II)


Death, violence, and bloody body parts. For the last two and a half years, this has been the reality of life in Israel and the Palestinian territory. As of March 2003, a documented 1,787 Palestinians and 706 Israelis have been killed and 20,593 Palestinians and 2,344 Israelis injured in the latest series of brutal clashes. During most of his presidency, Bill Clinton tried, and ultimately failed, to create a lasting peace agreement between the two sides. Since the end of the last set of meaningful talks in 2000, a resurgence of violence has resulted in a near standstill to the peace negotiations. While the latest period of conflict can be shocking in the mundane nature of it, the violence in the region has been present for more than 50 years. Only by understanding the history of the relationship between the Israelis and Palestinians during the twentieth century can a lasting peace be a reality in the twenty-first century.

When Turkey was defeated, near the end of WWI, the Turkish Ottoman Empire disintegrated. The territories were put under the management of European countries (Britain, France, Russia, and Italy) in accordance with the Mandate System (League of Nations, Article 22). The mandates were designed to allow the European nations to be “spheres of influence”, to guide the territories towards the creation of independent Arab states. Palestine was one of many territories placed under the control of Great Britain. All territories under British control became independent, except for Palestine. The primary British objective was not that of “administrative assistance” in Palestine, it was instead the implementation of the “Balfour Declaration” (formed between Britain and Zionist leadership), which supported the “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”. At the time, Jews constitutes less than 10% of the population in the Palestine, around 70,000 people, and the two sides were living in relative peace.

During the British Mandate (1922-1947), Jews immigrated to the Palestinian territory (especially in the 1930s, during Nazis persecution). The Palestinians demanded independence from the British, and resisted the Jewish insurgence leading to an Arab rebellion in 1937. The rebellion was followed by years of violence by both the Jews and Palestinians. They fought each other, and both fought against the British occupiers. In 1947, Great Britain turned the Palestinian problem over to the UN.

Under Resolution 181 (II) of 1947, the UN proposed to divide Palestine into two independent states: one Jewish, one Palestinian, and to internationalize Jerusalem. The Jewish state of Israel declared its independence in 1948, and was recognized as an independent country. This allowed Israel to receive assistance from abroad, most importantly, weapons from the U.S. and Britain. At the same time, other Arab countries (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq) were hoping of taking control of some of the territory. War in sued, more then half of the Palestinian people fled the country, and within a year, the well equipped Israeli army declared victory. After the war, Israel occupied 77 percent of the territory set for the state of Palestine, as well as a large part of Jerusalem. Jordan and Egypt occupied the rest of the territory (the West Bank and Gaza Strip). The Palestinian state was never formed, and Israel considered UN Resolution 181 to be void. Israel hoped that the result of the end of the war would be peace and recognition in the Arab world, but it was not.

War came again in 1967 when Israel attacked Egyptian troops, who were thought to be concentrating in the Sinai to mount an attack against Israel. The six day war resulted in Israeli occupation of the rest of the Palestinian territory, and an estimated half million more Palestinians fled the territory. Under Resolution 242 (1967), the UN Security Council called on Israel to withdraw from the territories occupied in the 1967 war. However, Israel maintained administrative control over 52 percent of the land in the West Bank and 30 percent of the Gaza Strip. The most significant result of the war was a more organized movement by the Palestinians towards liberation. As Yezid Sayigh described in his book, Armed Struggle and the Search for State: The Palestinian National Movement, 1945-1993, "This in a sense catapulted the general Palestinian public into the arms of the guerrillas because they'd seen that the people they'd hinged their hopes on -- the Arab leaders and the armies they'd believed in -- had been swept aside in a matter of days.”

These are some of the sources that I reviewed while preparing this:
Resolution 181
Resolution 242
1974 Question of Palestine
The Twentieth Century, Chapter 31, Palestine, Jews, and Muslims, to 1950
UN documented history
Washington Report on Jewish Affairs
The six day war
A Modern history of Palestine
Casualties in latest Israeli/Palestinian conflict
The Mideast: A Century of Conflict