Archive - Jul 2008

Date
Type

Help Kucinich, Impeach Bush Today!

Dennis Kucinich is the only member of Congress who had the personal courage and the profound respect for our Constitution to stand on the floor of the House of Representatives and exercise his right and his responsibility to bring Articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush.

While The Bush-Cheney Administration continues along its destructive path - in documented violation of national and international law -- the Democratic leadership has failed to assume its Constitutional authority and mandate as a co-equal branch of government to hold the Executive Branch accountable for failing to preserve, protect and defend the rights of the American people.

The Articles of Impeachment state:

WHEREAS, in his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has committed abuses of power.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States and that he be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Support Kucinich and sign the petition by midnight tomorrow.


From Illegal Immigrant to Brain Surgeon

illegal-immigrant-brain-surgeon-01-af.jpg

It is always easier to scapegoat a minority group that can not defend itself. When it comes to illegal immigrants, they are all labeled as criminals or people that come to the U.S. in order to drain our society of its resources. The media plays along and highlights sensational stories that feed the fire and the cycle resumes. It is always comforting to know that there are stories out there that if shown to the masses, would change the way they thought about the issue.

Enter the Reader's Digest story about an illegal migrant worker turn brain surgeon for a prestigious institute:

"Shortly after, he decided to leave Mexico in search of better options. So on his arrival, Quiñones headed with his cousin for the San Joaquin Valley to work in the fields. "I picked tomatoes, cauliflower, broccoli, corn, grapes."

After a year, he had saved $8,000 -- almost all of his pay. "I ate what I was picking," he says. "I wore the same pair of jeans the whole year."

When Quiñones looked up from the dirt, the best job he could see was driving the big tractors. The drivers were skilled, and they supervised crews. He was told it took ten years of fieldwork to land such a promotion, but Quiñones was soon behind the wheel of sophisticated plows and ditchdiggers. He learned how to service the engines and qualified for a temporary work permit. "I had that hunger in my gut," he says.

He moved to Stockton and took a job in a rail yard so he could attend night school at San Joaquin Delta College, learning English. With his English improving, Quiñones switched to the night shift and began full-time studies in science and math. To make ends meet, he also tutored other students.

After graduating with an associate's degree in 1991, Quiñones was accepted to the University of California, Berkeley. He moved to a low-rent district in Oakland, getting by on a combination of scholarships, loans, a small grant and, as always, work. He became a teacher's assistant in three departments and also took a job at a men's clothing store.

Quiñones excelled in the competitive environment of Berkeley, getting straight A's in advanced classes, writing his honors thesis on the role of drug receptors in the brain and teaching calculus on the side -- not that he paid much attention to his standing. In the spring of 1993, his mentor, Hugo Mora, looked over his transcripts and told him he stood a good chance of getting into Harvard Medical School.

Harvard accepted him, and Quiñones moved East in the fall of 1994. "I'm sitting there, ten years after hopping the fence, and it hits me how fast I came up."

Quiñones says he understands why people might resent him for entering the country illegally. His only excuse is that he was a brash and desperate teenager. "The last thing I was thinking was that I was going to break the law," he says. Once he arrived, Quiñones says, the United States "opened its doors to me" -- a welcome, he adds, that would be unlikely today given the heated immigration debate. He offers no solution but suggests it will not come from higher walls. "As long as there is poverty in our neighboring countries, there will continue to be this influx."

This is a heartwarming story that reminds us that anything is possible here in the United States. Barack Obama touched on this point in a speech once and I agree with him. Dr. Quiñones adds his personal insight on his approach of entering this country. What most folks do not understand is that a lot of these individuals do not have the luxury of waiting to be accepted legally in order to enter this country. As long as the U.S. continues to promote despotic government in Latin America, the issue of poverty and illegal imiggration will continue to plague the Americans.

Note: Watch a video of Dr. Quiñones on Big Think.


English as a Second Language

class.JPG

A Federal judge has ruled that Texas has failed its students who are enrolled in bilingual education. This comes as no surprise to me as the Texas public education system is flawed in my opinion. Students no matter if they are enrolled in regular or bilingual classes are not receiving the best education that the state can provide. I do not blame the teachers. I blame the administrators who are pressured to provide "results" that they teach to the test. Students do not learn . . . they are taught how to memorize and apply their new skills on the TAKS test.

I speak English and Spanish fluently. I never once attended a bilingual classroom growing up. My parents believed that the best approach to learning English, since my native language is Spanish, was to be in English only classes. They spoke to me in Spanish at home so that I could practice and maintain a dual tongue. I am grateful that I became fluent in both languages and see it as an asset. Unfortunately, not many Hispanic parents took the same approach. They were sold on this idea that the state would provide  bilingual education but the state did not even know what they were doing. I am not against bilingual education. I think all U.S. students should speak a second language. Western Europe has figured out how to produce citizens that speak multiple languages, perhaps we could learn something.

I have a cousin that lives in Sweden. She speaks Swedish, English and Spanish. Her school curriculum is in Swedish and all students must learn English. Furthermore, Sweden has dictated that students must also learn their parents native language in school and time is allotted for a session each day. I foresee a future when this will be possible in the U.S. but only after nationalistic people realize that a society where people speak multiple languages is not a threat but an asset.

Folks that are against bilingual education claim that students should only speak English. The U.S. it seems is the only developed nation where teaching a second language in school is looked down upon. No one is requesting that school be taught in a language other than English but there are students that do not have any foundation in the English language. What do you do about the elephant in room now? Just because you close your eyes does not mean that the issue will disappear. The same individuals that complain about the people they have to deal with that do not speak English are the same folks that criticize the purpose of bilingual education. In their eyes, students should only learn English in school yet they do not provide a solution on how these students will magically learn the language if it is not taught to them. How can they complain about non-English speaking students when they do not support bilingual education. You can't eat your cake and eat it too. It is the states objective to educate and immerse those students as soon as possible into the general student population. Texas has been failing these students unfortunately. This is not just an issue about "bilingual" education but "education" as a whole. We provide sub-par education and produce sub-par citizens and complain about it. Until we realize the correlation we will understand why everything else does not seem to be working. Our education system is flawed . . . not just the bilingual part of it.


Hispanics will Support Rick Noriega

There is no secret that the Hispanic vote is growing. This in turn also makes our voting bloc much desirable since we are loyal supporters to cause once we commit to it. Barack Obama had trouble with the Hispanic vote when he faced off against Hillary Clinton in Texas in March, but it was the young Hispanic vote that Obama was able to garnish that pulled him through. Rick Noriega on the other hand already benefits from his ties to the community as a Texas House Representative.

One may claim though that Tony Sanchez should have been elected as Texas Governor if that was the case. This is true except Tony Sanchez ran at a time when the emotions and call for change were not as epidemic as they are now. Rick Noriega is in the right spot on the right time by choosing to challenge John Cornyn at a time when his political party's approval ratings are at the lowest. It does not help out John Cornyn either that he was staunch Bush supporter. Hispanics will go out to vote because the younger generation of eligible Hispanic voters are leading the way. The 90's are voting for the first time in an election. Young adults that were born in 1990 are mobilizing their Hispanic parents to vote. They understand and express concerns on college tuition, employment and economic issues. They are also not gullible to the claims of terrorism or the idealistic claims by the corrupt Bush administration in promoting democracy in Iraq. Young Hispanic voters understand that these claims of "exporting democracy" in another country is what caused the turmoil and instability in their parent's home country. We are cynical and wary when the US government claims to be doing benevolent things in a foreign country.

Rick Noriega will not be sitting on the sidelines either. He has actively pursuing the Hispanic vote. He has made English/Spanish versions of television adverts. His blog on wwww.ricknoriega.com can be read in both English or Spanish. He also does not fail to get the support and endorsements from key Hispanic leaders, even those on the other side of the political realm. Massey Villarreal, a Houston businessman, one of the top Hispanic Republicans in the nation claims, "I have decided to support Rick Noriega for U.S. Senate as a Democrat. I just don't think John Cornyn hears my community." In 2000, Massey was named national Hispanic vice-chairman of the Bush/Cheney for President Campaign and deputy vice-chairman of the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia in 2000. He also served on the national steering committee for the Viva Bush Campaign. This is just the type of support Noriega needs to legitimize his efforts.

Marisa Treviño of Latina Lista calls for "Texas Latinos [to] Hold John Cornyn Accountable for His Actions." She points out that John Cornyn employs a two face approach to voting. He tells Hispanics one thing in Texas but votes against their interest in Washington. This has finally caught up to John Cornyn. Treviño states, "However when it comes to supporting issues that resonate with Latino voters like immigration reform or the DREAM Act or Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Cornyn has always chosen to ignore his Latino constituents and vote against all these measures."

Cornyn may have benefited with his relationship with Bush in order to get elected to the U.S. Senate the first time, but that relationship will also be the reason why he makes his quick exit. Noriega will beat Cornyn and depending on the amount of Hispanics that rally out to support him will depend on just how easy his victory will be.


What is a Traditional Marriage or Family?

The first rule in a debate issue is to establish definitions. Republicans are great at not providing definitions or being vague about what they mean. Take for example the phrase "Winning the War in Iraq" repeated as a talking point by right wing talk show hosts . . . it may seem straight forward but there is no definition of winning presented by the Bush Administration. How do you win something if you have not established a clear cut definition on the topic. One may see the same problem when it comes to discriminating against gays on the issues of marriage/adoption.

Americans and the media give Republicans leeway when it comes to this issue. John McCain claims to only support a "traditional marriage" but what the heck is a traditional marriage. Whose definition of traditional are we using? It becomes evident that when one entertains the semantics of the issue it becomes clear how important they are to the issue. 50 years ago, an interracial marriage was not "traditional". Has that changed in 2008? It depends on who is defining the word traditional.

McCain claims to only support adoption of orphans if they are done so by a "traditional" family. He attempts to be sly by claiming that he supports "adoption by two parent families that are of the traditional family." What does this mean? He technically did not say that he opposes "adoption by gay families" but he is quick to add "traditional" as if that some how makes clarifies his statement. I do not know what McCain means by "traditional?" Does that include interracial couples? How old fashion is he? He also states that, "two parent families are best for America." What is he trying to say to single parent families? He only makes it clear that in his opinion a two parent family constitutes a "traditional" family.

Liberals and Democrats should be keen on this manner of spinning the issue by Republicans. If they are to debate and win in this or any other issue they should be clear about what they mean. As for the issue of gay marriage or gay family adoption, one should refrain from using the word "traditional family" because there is no universally accepted definition of the term. If one decides to engage in a debate with conservatives and they have the upper hand on the definition then it is a losing battle. For all we know . . . according to Republicans and McCain, a traditional family is a White, Christian, middle class couple composed of a male and female that lives in the Suburbs. This sort of rules out a lot of folks in America does it not?


Houston Chronicle Advances False Bias Claims

A Houston Chronicle Poll falsely claims that Barack Obama had a choice over the cancellation of a scheduled troop visit in Germany. The biased poll asks, "Did Barack Obama make a mistake by canceling his visit with U.S. troops in Germany?" The choices aren't any better. If one were to think it was a mistake to cancel the visit then you would choose "Yes. It was disrespectful and showed poor judgment." This biased poll is unacceptable and shows poor judgment by the Houston Chronicle.

It is not that the media does not know what caused the cancellation of the trip. ABC News, states, "The senator had decided to cancel visit out of concern that the campaign-funded trip might be seen as inappropriate. The decision was made only after the Pentagon advised the campaign that the trip would be viewed as a campaign stop." The Pentagon told The Washington Post that "political and campaign activity at military installations is restricted, [and] it welcomes all nonpolitical visits by U.S. senators." The Department of Defense has guidelines that must be abided by no matter where in the world it may occur. "We have longstanding Department of Defense policy in regards to political campaigns and elections," states Pentagon spokesperson Elizabeth Hibner. "We informed the Obama staff that he was more than welcome to visit as Senator Obama, with Senate staff. However, he could not conduct the visit with campaign staff."

Yet, it is unfortunate to see the Houston Chronicle fail so miserably on basic journalistic standards. They distorted and advanced false bias claims of the event. A quick Google search or following the latest News & Political developments would have cleared any confusion. Barack Obama made no mistake in canceling his visit. He did not cancel the visit, the Pentagon canceled the visit. It is bias to claim in the question that it was a "mistake" because it implies that the latter would not have been otherwise. The wording of the question and the affirmative answer are far from the objective position a newspaper should adhere to. There was nothing disrespectful or of poor judgment. The question should be, "Should The Pentagon have allowed the scheduled Obama visit with U.S. troops in Germany?" and the choices could have merely been yes or no.

To add insult to injury, the Houston Chronicle embedded a McCain advert that promotes the false claims as if they were a fact. It is a great example of McCain's poor judgment and lack of character (so much for the Straight Talk Express) to air a commerical that attempts to advance decieve its audience. Steve Benen claims that the ad is "demonstrably ridiculous and the most fundamentally dishonest campaign commercial of the cycle thus far." The advert makes the false accusation that Obama has not gone to Iraq in years yet Obama just visited Iraq last week before the ad was made. It was on his visit in Iraq that the Prime Minister of Iraq shocked the world by stating, "the Iraqi government hopes U.S. combat troops can go home by the end of 2010." It then makes the leap of faith by implying that Obama would rather go to the gym then visit with wounded troops. The advert states, "And now he [Obama] made time to go to the gym but canceled a visit with wounded troops." The ad concludes by stating that, "John McCain is always there for the troops." Using their flawed logic we can conclude that this is a lie since he can not always be "there" for the troops. While he is in the United States, he cannot be "there" for the troops when they are in Germany. See how easy it is to spin now take some notes from the Houston Chronicle and make it look like news.


Our Generation vs. Their Generation

The GOP has put all their eggs in one basket with the nomination of John McCain as the nominee but what happens if McCain expires before the November election? Political analyst have not entertained the concept but it is one looking into. McCain will celebrate his 72 birthday in late August bringing him closer to the average United States life expectancy of 75. Should there be a concern about McCain's age or not?

The McCain age concern should be more about how he decides to conduct his administration over the fact that he has reached an old age. It is not that I believe he is more susceptile to death than a 20 year old (which he is) but that he has a different mentality than most of America. He is of a different generation and that is what bothers me more than his "numberical" age.

At age 65,  a male is expected to live 16 more years making their life expectancy about 81 years. That means that McCain, according to statistics, has a good ten years left in him. The reason why the average life expectancy is lower for males in general is that it has to account for those males that expire at earlier ages due to their engagement in high risk behaviors.

There should be concern for McCain's age not because I expect him to perish anytime soon but because he is part of an older genration we need to move away from. McCain is part of the old generation that grew up on the fear of communism. This candidate represents a generation that does not comprehend peace or diplomacy. It is "Our Generation" vs. "Their Generation" of handling foreign and domestic affairs. "Their Generation" thought it was permissible to send Japanese Americans to interminet camps. "Their Generation" commited the same mistake at Guantanamo Bay. "Their Generation" only knows war. They engaged Americans in some type of armed conflict in every decade since World War II. "Their Generation" does not represent what "Our Generation" wants or seeks. There is a paradigm shift and this Novemeber, Americans will dictate where that pendulum will swing.


CBS: Ignorance is Strength

CBS goes against journalistic ethical standards and attempts to deceive the American people by censoring an interview with John McCain where he made a false statement about the Anbar awakening in Iraq.

McCain  likes to toot his horn as a Foreign Policy Expert and someone that “knows how to win wars,” apparently does not even know the timeline of what is going on in Iraq. Steve Benen adds, “The surge has, after all, become the raison d’etre of McCain’s entire presidential campaign. Why would he announce his belief that the surge prompted the Anbar Awakening?” Spencer Ackerman claims, “For McCain to say that the Anbar Awakening is the product of the surge is either a lie or professional malpractice for a presidential candidate who is staking his election on his allegedly superior Iraq judgment.”

What is the bigger issue though? Is it that McCain does not know what the heck is going on in Iraq and makes up events? Perhaps, it is that CBS chose to edit the interview and in an Orwellian fashion they doctored the footage to protect McCain. Steve Benen asks, “Why would CBS News cover-up arguably the biggest candidate error of the entire presidential campaign? Why would CBS News mix-and-match McCain’s responses to make him appear less incompetent? Why would CBS News broadcast a question but not the answer to the question? Why would CBS News post the entire actual interview online, making it easy for us to see their mischief? Why would CBS News deliberately take the most newsworthy element of the interview, and leave it on the editing room floor? Why didn’t Katie Couric hear McCain’s ridiculous answer, and ask a follow-up question seeking clarification?”

Today . . . CBS took a step backwards and unfortunately the United States was forced along for the ride. McCain clearly demonstrated how wrong he is for America. He confirmed his ignorance about U.S. policy in Iraq as CBS did its best to cover it up. What the American people do not know can’t hurt them. Ignorance is indeed Strength!


McCain blames Obama for High Gas Prices

In a new television advert released today, McCain attributes the high gas prices to Obama. McCain would like to persuade the American public that Obama not Bush is responsible for the failed Energy  policy we currently have.

Steve Benen does a great job in breaking down the ad. The ad claims gas prices are high “because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America." Benen quickly notes, "No one is saying no to “drilling in America.” There’s all kinds of drilling in America. There’s drilling in U.S. waters, and on U.S. land. I don’t know of a single U.S. policy maker who wants “drilling in America” to stop."

The ad would like to create the false perception that "drilling in America" (which we already do) will some how lower gas prices in today's market. Alan Stewart Carl of Donklephant gives his two cents on that particular notion. He claims, "If we canceled the ban on offshore drilling today, we wouldn’t be able to add any additional oil/gasoline to market until 2030." Even after that small amount of gasoline hits the market, it would only lower prices by 30 cents for 6 months at the most.

So at the end of the day McCain does not offer any true solution to the high gas prices . . . he just offers a short time solution for a long term problem. There is no secret that oil is a non-renewable resource. It will cease to exist one day. Instead of endorsing a pragmatic Energy Plan for America . . . McCain will rely on the failed antiquated policy of W. Thank you for giving us insight into another reason why McCain does not know what the heck is going on.


No Media Bias on Obama Coverage

Alan Stewart Carl of Donklephant claims not to believe in the “liberal media” myth but cries “liberal bias” when all three major network anchors join Barack Obama on his foreign tour. He claims that John McCain would receive no coverage “if he journeyed to the moon” and such coverage is typically reserved for Presidents. He concludes by stating that Obama will benefit from this trip and he was wrong about thinking that “the media was McCain’s base.”

I find this post and complaints from McCain supporters amusing since this is exactly what McCain did one month ago. Keith Olbermann entertains the claims from the McCain campaign and offers his insight on the issue. McCain staged a foreign tour around Latin America for no explicit purpose other then a photo-op. It was McCain that went to Iraq and then chastised Obama for not visiting the region. It was McCain that ignored law enforcement pleas from Iowa when he wanted to stage a photo-op in the region after the devastation from the rainfall/flood.

Carl may attempt to remind us that Obama’s situation is different. He has three major network anchors along for the ride. I agree that is different because the Obama camp was keen on inviting those individuals. McCain could have but never invited those three anchors. Obama on the other hand did so and they accepted his invitation. Carl would like to paint a picture where these three major network anchors decided to scorn McCain and go on the trip with Obama.

As for the media bias in this election, I will have to claim that it is not liberal. Obama has been scrutinized far more than McCain. In fact, when Obama is not being personally judged, his wife, pastor or supporters are footing the bill. As for McCain . . . racist jokes can slide by, his hot temper is justified, his flip-flopping is ignored and his lack of knowledge on the economy and foreign policy is not examined. Talk about a bias . . . yes there is a bias and it is against Obama. How else can you explain that the amount of people that believe Obama is a Muslim has increased to 12% since January?