04 June 2009: An Important Day for World Peace

President Obama will make a speech at the University of Cairo on June 4. The topic? An attempt to convince the Muslims of the world that the West, primarily the United States, is not at war with Islam.

Former President George W. Bush tried to make that case, but failed to do so. Why did he fail? First, after the September 11 attacks, President Bush said, "...this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile." Second, the fact that his Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, headlined his written war briefings to the President with Biblical quotations, such as, “Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go.” Referring to a "crusade" and then having Bible quotes embellishing official documents kind of wrecks one's credibility concerning the non-religious aspect of the war. I suspect that history will not be kind to President George W. Bush.

The May 9 Boston Herald carried this story about President Obama's upcoming speech in Egypt:


"President Barack Obama will visit Egypt on June 4 to deliver a long-planned speech aimed at convincing Muslims worldwide that the United States isn’t at war with their faith.

Egypt is a strategic but politically risky choice for such a venue. With more than 83 million people, it’s the most populous nation in the Middle East.

However, the Egyptian government, led by 81-year-old President Hosni Mubarak, is widely criticized for its authoritarian rule, corruption and human rights abuses, issues that are likely to provoke criticism of Obama’s choice to speak there, and that will require him to walk a careful line between promoting democratic values and criticizing his host.

President Bush repeatedly said after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks that the United States was not at war with Islam, only terrorists, a message since repeated by Obama.

Obama’s speech is expected to be delivered in Cairo, historically an Arabic center of intellectual thought in the Muslim world, but the location hasn’t been finalized, according to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

Gibbs called Egypt “a country that in many ways represents the heart of the Arab world” and said the speech won’t be aimed at Muslim leaders so much as it will be at the populace.

It represents “a continuing effort by this president and this White House to demonstrate how we can work together to ensure the safety and security and the future well-being through hope and opportunity of the children of this country and of the Muslim world,” he said.

The State Department’s most recent human rights report said that Mubarak’s regime routinely abuses human and political rights, employing torture, detaining hundreds of people without charges or trial, including political opponents, restricting freedom of speech and the press, and rigging elections.

Gibbs acknowledged that “the issues of democracy and human rights . . . are on the president’s mind,” and said “we’ll have a chance to discuss those in more depth on the trip.”

After Egypt, Obama will travel to Germany for a June 5 visit to Dresden and the Buchenwald concentration camp, which a great uncle of his helped to liberate, then on to France on June 6 for the 65th anniversary of D-Day."


I am simultaneously concerned for President Obama's safety, and optimistic that his trip will, at a minimum, plant the seeds of understanding in the minds of Middle Eastern citizens who happen to be of the Islamic faith.

As always, I look for areas of common interest. If his speech goes as planned at the University of Cairo, I can see President Obama reaching out to the students there with some shared concerns that he had, both as a student in the United States, and as a teacher at the University of Chicago. Perhaps a brief comment that students around the world represent this world's future; or a comment in favor of students studying overseas in order to help gain a global perspective on issues. He would then direct his comments to the wider audience.

The shape of the world will be molded, in large part, by how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are resolved. Peaceful and just conclusions will introduce stability and hope for generations to come.

I wish the President a safe and successful trip, and thank him in advance.

Three Reasons To Vote For Barack Obama In 2008

Beginning Friday, October 3, and continuing through Friday, October 24, I intend to be positive, and provide three reasons to vote for each of the four best known candidates for President. Friday the 3rd: Independent candidate Ralph Nader. Friday the 10th: Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. Friday the 17th: Republican candidate John McCain. Friday the 24th: Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

Barack Obama, Democrat

Barack Obama served three terms in the Illinois Senate (1997-2004). He lost a race for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000. As the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate from Illinois, in July 2004 he attracted national attention when he made a dynamic, unifying keynote speech at the Democratic Party National Convention. In November of 2004, he was elected Senator with 70% of the vote. He is the third African-American elected to the U.S. Senate. The first was Republican Edward Brooke from Massachusetts (1966-1978). The second was Carol Moseley Braun from Illinois (1992-1998).

Interesting side note #1: Had Braun been re-elected in 1998, Obama would likely still be serving in the Illinois Senate, as he would not have run against an incumbent Democrat in the 2004 primary. Interesting side note #2: Had Hillary Rodham Clinton not moved to New York to run for Senator in 2000, and had waited to run for the Senate from Illinois in 2004, Obama again would likely still be serving in the Illinois Senate.

Based strictly on data from the Obama for President web site, the following are three reasons to vote for Obama on November 4: click here to read more

#1. Tax relief. Obama's plan provides tax relief for middle class Americans. Specifics include (a) a tax cut for working families and (b) simplified filing procedures: (a) "The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. Barack Obama will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This proposal will eliminate income taxes for 7 million seniors and provide these seniors with an average savings of $1,400 each year. Under the Obama-Biden plan, 27 million American seniors will also not need to file an income tax return." (b) "Obama and Biden will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. Obama and Biden will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that the Obama-Biden proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees."

There is also targeted tax relief for small businesses and corporations. Obama's plan would: "Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation."

I like simplification, and paying less taxes. Seniors especially deserve a break. Although Obama's plan does not make Social Security benefits non-taxable, his plan to eliminate income taxes for seniors earning less than $50,000 per year will go a long way towards helping them live the life for which they worked all of their careers.

#2. The Iraq war. In Chicago, I heard Obama speak against the USA invading Iraq. I had never heard of the man. He was an effective speaker whose sincerity was apparent. Frankly, I wasn't completely convinced at the time. I still felt anger after 9/11, and still had faith in my President, and especially General Powell, when he presented the Bush case before the United Nations. Time has proven Obama's judgment to have been correct.

A small quote from his web site says it best: "Our troops have heroically helped reduce civilian casualties in Iraq to early 2006 levels. This is a testament to our military’s hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics, and enormous sacrifice by our troops and military families. It is also a consequence of the decision of many Sunnis to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq, and a lull in Shia militia activity. But the absence of genuine political accommodation in Iraq is a direct result of President Bush’s failure to hold the Iraqi government accountable."

Unlike Bush, Obama has a clearly defined exit strategy:

- "Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began."

- "Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism."

- "Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that America has both a moral obligation and a responsibility for security that demands we confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis—more than five million Iraqis are refugees or are displaced inside their own country. Obama and Biden will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find sanctuary. Obama and Biden will also work with Iraqi authorities and the international community to hold the perpetrators of potential war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide accountable. They will reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq."

#3. Technology. Obama believes that the USA may be in danger of losing our traditional lead in developing and implementing new technologies. Evidence from his web site includes: (a) "A recent international study found that U.S. students perform lower on scientific assessments than students in 16 other economically developed nations, and lower than 20 economically developed nations in math performance. Only one-third of middle class physical science teachers are qualified to teach in that subject, and only one-half of middle school math sciences have educational background in that subject area." and (b) "As a share of the Gross Domestic Product, American federal investment in the physical sciences and engineering research has dropped by half since 1970."

Obama's plan includes:

- "Obama and Biden will recruit math and science degree graduates to the teaching profession and will support efforts to help these teachers learn from professionals in the field. He will also work to ensure that all children have access to a strong science curriculum at all grade levels."

- "Obama and Biden will address the dropout crisis by passing his legislation to provide funding to school districts to invest in intervention strategies in middle school - strategies such as personal academic plans, teaching teams, parent involvement, mentoring, intensive reading and math instruction, and extended learning time."

- "Obama and Biden will reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act, and increase resources for community colleges and lifelong learning initiatives to ensure our citizens can continue to gain new skills throughout their lifetimes."

- "Barack Obama knows that we need to rely on technology to help solve the critical energy and environmental problems facing this country. As he announced in his energy policy, Barack Obama and Joe Biden will invest $150 billion over the next ten years to enable American engineers, scientists and entrepreneurs to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. This investment will transform the economy and create 5 million new jobs."

- "A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet."

Education in technologies for the future will help the USA thrive. And the time to start the foundation by laying the building blocks is actually yesterday. But it's not too late.

Next Friday: My choice for President in 2008.

Three Reasons To Vote For Bob Barr In 2008

Beginning Friday, October 3, and continuing through Friday, October 24, I intend to be positive, and provide three reasons to vote for each of the four best known candidates for President. Friday the 3rd: Independent candidate Ralph Nader. Friday the 10th: Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. Friday the 17th: Republican candidate John McCain. Friday the 24th: Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

Bob Barr, Libertarian

According to the Libertarian Party's official web site, "The Libertarian Party is America's third largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. Our vision is for a world in which all individuals can freely exercise the natural right of sole dominion over their own lives, liberty and property by building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office, and moving public policy in a libertarian direction." The party is described on its site as "The Party of Principle" and touts three primary goals: "Smaller Government, Lower Taxes, and More Freedom."

Bob Barr was nominated by the Libertarian Party as its nominee for President in 2008. He is a former Republican Congressman from Georgia, who served in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003.

Based strictly on data from his 'Barr for President' official web site, the following are three reasons to vote for him on November 4:

#1. The Iraq War. Barr considers that the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq were "... two separate mistakes, which collectively have cost thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars." He supports a rapid exit, without an announced timetable.

His analysis is that "The Iraqi government has come to rely too heavily on American forces to maintain control of its country, and our U.S. taxpayer dollars to artificially support its economy. A continued U.S. presence in Iraq emboldens both insurgents and terrorists, and discourages the Iraqi government from taking control of promoting peace and prosperity in Iraq."

#2. Foreign Intervention & Foreign Bases. I'll let Barr's words speak for themselves: "America should not be the world’s policeman. The American purpose is to provide a strong national defense, not to engage in nation building or to launch foreign crusades, no matter how seemingly well-intentioned."

#3. Property Rights & Eminent Domain. Barr states that "Private property should not be seized absent an overwhelming public interest, including actual use by the public — and even then only with fair compensation that truly reflects the value of the property. Allowing governments, at any level, to confiscate property without a compelling justification represents a serious attack on fundamental liberty."

Barr refers to the U.S. Supreme Court's 'Kelo' decision in 2005 as one of the worst decisions in modern times. On June 24, 2005, CNN reported on the Kelo v. City of New London (Connecticutt) decision:

"In a victory for cities, a divided Supreme Court concluded Thursday that local governments have the authority to seize private land and turn the property over to private developers for economic development.

Government's authority to condemn land for public use traditionally has been used to eliminate slums or build highways, schools and other public works.

But Tuesday's 5-4 ruling found that local officials can use their "eminent domain" power to condemn homes in a working-class neighborhood for private development in hopes of boosting tax revenue and improving the local economy."

One wonders... if the coveted land had been, say, a private golf course owned by members who lit their cigars using $100 bills... would the developer have been as successful in court... or even have tried to take the land in the first place?


Next Friday: Republican Party candidate John McCain

Iraq's Budget Surplus Raises Questions About Reconstruction Funding

On August 5, the Washington Times ran an article on Iraq's potential total budget surplus at the end of 2008. The article, "GAO: Iraq could have $79 billion budget surplus," went on to report:

"The Iraqi government could end the year with as much as a $79 billion budget surplus as ever-increasing oil revenues pile on top of leftover income the Iraqis still haven't spent on their national rebuilding effort, congressional auditors say.

A report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) made public Tuesday prompted renewed calls from senators that Baghdad pay more of the bill for its own reconstruction, which has been heavily supported with U.S. funds.

The projected Iraq surplus, including unspent money from 2005 through 2008, has been building because of rising world oil prices, increasing Iraqi oil production, the government's inability to execute budgets for spending its money and persistent violence in the country, the GAO said."

The good news is that levels of violence have decreased, and Iraq's oil production is on the rise. So why is the resulting budget surplus not being spent on any number of needed rebuilding projects? Why is the money just sitting there? As the GAO report detailed, this surplus has been building since 2005. The estimated surplus from 2005-2007 was $29 billion. With crude oil prices rising rapidly since 2007, another $50 billion will be added. The GAO report suggested the following reasons for why the money has not been spent:

"First ... (the) relative shortage of trained budgetary, procurement and other staff with the necessary technical skills as a factor limiting the Iraqi government's ability to plan and execute its capital spending," the GAO said, adding that a second problem is the government's weak accounting systems. Third ... violence and sectarian strife remain major obstacles to developing Iraqi government capacity."

Iraqi lawmaker Haider al-Abadi stated that Iraq is pulling its weight in funding reconstruction. However, the GAO also reported that from 2005 through April 2008, Iraq spent just $3.9 billion on reconstruction. How does al-Abadi define "...pulling its weight...?"

The governor of Iraq's Central Bank, Sinan al-Shabibi, said he thought the problem with not spending money on reconstruction was due not to the bulk of funds being spent elsewhere, but because of security problems, and especially the lack of experts in Iraq's ministries.

The Washington Times article also reported that, "Since 2005, the United States has funded a number of efforts to teach civilian and security ministries how to effectively execute their budgets. The efforts included programs to advise and help Iraqi government employees develop the skills to plan programs and to effectively deliver government services such as electricity, water and security."

Have the students in these classes been doing their homework? Has their progress been tracked? Have they been assigned experienced mentors to aid their efforts? I thought the post-Rumsfeld era was going to be more efficient, productive, and professional in all aspects of this war. They got the Surge right. What about the rest? Does anybody care ... or will it just be more expedient to dump it all on President Obama or President McCain?