To President Obama,

Hi,

I have never contacted a president before, but believe it is imperative that I do now. 

1)  You promised energy independence when you ran for president. I applauded this, because I know that energy independence would free us from the Middle East and make the problems of the Middle East of less concern to us. It would create jobs. It could be the single greatest economic boom to our country if we can share clean energy with the world. But, it requires a committment, not an agenda. When is someone going to actually make the committment to get it done. We have been talking about it since the President Jimmy Carter administration when nothing got done. 

Energy independence requires committment. It requires a committment much like President Kennedy made when he decided we would be the first ones to land on the moon. Can you give that kind of committment? Are you going to be known as a president who got things done, or a president who got himself entangled in the Washington special interests and lobbyists, and accomplishes nothing, but perhaps a second term. 

Energy independence could turn the economy around. It could turn the jobless rate around. It could provide the money needed for healthcare. It could provide the money to stimulate all sectors of the economy including the banking industry and the auto industry. It could reinforce the dollar. It could revolutionize the living standards of people not just in the United States but all over the world. 

What could 800 billion dollars in stimulus money do for the clean energy development and research industry. Money that could be spent in every state in the union. Money that would return and investment to every man woman and child in America. Money that ultimately could free us from the damage we do to the planet, whether that is actually permanent or not. Global warming issues would be addressed at the same time. Energy independence and clean energy processes could be sold to all nations of the world so that all nations could benefit from the war on making our planet clean.

Ultimately, clean, cheap energy would provide the backbone to produce any product that we would ever need. It would make it possible for every nation on earth to produce, market and clean up its environment.

 Government should set goals, set policies, set agendas, but it should stay out of getting the job done. Provide the vision and perhaps the stimulus money and let the people provide the ingenuity and the temerity to get the job done. 

Will you sign on to energy independence and job creation? Will you make our nation better, more prosperous, more free, more driven, more of a leader, more of an example setter, and more proud? Will you do what god put you in office to do? Or will you succumb to the pundants who elected you and fall victim to the former also rans who were afraid to vote their own convictions and instead rewarded all the special interests that got them elected? 

Excellence and excellent rhetoric got you elected. Be the leader you showed yourself to be. Don’t let all the special interests all demanding their piece turn your administration into one of mediocrity. Excellence demands results, not rhetoric. Mediocrity demands nothing but your soul. I prefer excellence and freedom to mediocrity and a loss of my soul. What tonic do you prefer? 

Tom Davis

http://www.obamasense.com

As much as I’d like to talk about Jon Gosselin’s appearance on ABC News Primetime: Family Secrets last night, I’m withholding that commentary to discuss what an even more important Dad had to say yesterday.

*Gasp!* More significant than what the most villainous soon-to-be-ex-husband in reality TV decided to get off his chest in complete prime-time-soap-opera-victimhood fashion? Yes, I know. Hard to believe. But, there are more important things going on in the world than the daily tabloid spectacle of Jon and Kate Gosselin’s messy divorce. Though, even I have been known to get caught up in all the marital drama. But, I digress.

I don’t know to who, but it may come as a surprise to someone that the president spoke to our nation’s youth in school classrooms yesterday live via C-SPAN and the White House website.

With all the controversy surrounding the accompanying lesson plans that were to be handed out to classrooms yesterday, many became suspicious of what the speech itself might contain in addition to the education message that was announced. It’s hard to imagine that the president, or his speechwriters and advisers, would be so bold as to put anything political in a speech to school children at a time when he needs to pull the country together to pass his extremely polarizing political agenda. And whether that is what people believed would happen or they just weren’t willing to have their children addressed by a man they so vehemently disagree with, one thing is for sure: the message became overshadowed by the messenger.

I read the president’s speech with an open mind on Monday night. Admittedly, I was half expecting there to be something in there I would disagree with. But, I found nothing. Instead, I thought the speech was inspiring and highly motivational. I imagined myself as a 16-year-old kid listening to this speech and being moved by the historical magnitude of it all. What was the theme? That if I work hard enough, I can achieve anything in this country. That nothing stands between me and my dreams except my willingness to pursue them, regardless of how rich or poor I am. Hardly liberal indoctrination.

So, I was surprised that instead of being pleased with this message, or at least relieved, there still remained many hold-outs who didn’t want their kids to receive it.

After posting on Facebook that I gave the speech an “A+,” I heard from several friends that they weren’t buying it from Obama. I scratched my head for a bit and then… it suddenly made sense. This reaction just confirms what I supposed in my previous post, that the level of distrust for this president has become an overriding factor in the people’s acceptance of any move he makes. If you don’t trust the messenger, you will likely reject the message.

Before he even got to “hello,” it seems the president’s speech may have been dead upon arrival in the minds of many who equate approval of the message with approval of the man and his agenda.

Photo by hebedesign

There is a debate on the Health care proposals before the House and the Senate. No other single issue has captured the attention of the American people as health-care has, since the abortion issue and Roe vs Wade adopted January 22, 1973. 

1) Everyone wants coverage that does not go away when a pre-existing condition becomes apparent.

2) Everyone wants coverage for all Americans.

3) No-one seriously considers cutting older Americans Medicare and Medicaid, do they?

So, why all the controversy? Why all the mistrust of government? Why can’t we have free and open debate in the town hall meetings across America?

The latest news broadcasts and radio talk shows are forecasting a toning down of the Obama single payer health-care plan. Is single payer health-care dead in America, or was it ever really alive?

Sinead O’Connor’s words of wisdom were the first thing that popped into my head when I first saw them.

I think I like this one the best

The controversial Obama Joker Posters have been popping all around my neighborhood in the last few days, enraging the black community and democrats in general and even a few republicans who think they go too far.

I would go ahead and admit that I was and I still am not an Obama fan, I voted for him yes, you have to choose the lesser of two evils and anyone who dares to complain that Obama isn’t evil in some ways, only have to look up the definition of what he is first and foremost: a politician.  All politicians are evil just like lawyers, cops and doctors.

I least we now know who can play the joker on the next Batman, the resemblance is uncanny!

Yes, the posters are a cheap shot, and it isn’t that they *go too far* for people have a right to voice their opinion no matter how wrong, it is just that they are a bit laughable and even blindly desperate attempts to do…..what? What are these posters really going to provoke?  From me? Well laughter and a sort of *awesome, I want one!* kind of reaction but they aren’t going to go make me hate Obama or think that he’s going to bring the country down in flames and most be stop at all cost; the men that needed to be stop were George W and Cheney, something even hardcore republicans know and though won’t talk about it in the open, they secretly know it.  Hell, W and Cheney even got to serve two terms.

Now this is more accurate

Obama hasn’t even been Prez for a year and people are hilariously hellbent on taking him down no matter how they go about it.  Idiots.

Let us now enjoy the silliness/awesomeness of the Joker posters:

Oh see what they are doing here? Reaching for that extra artistry, I love it.

He would have been the greatest President ever.

Oh man, the little button is killing me!!!

WTF??

Last one I promise.

Is Regina Benjamin, Surgeon General Nominee, Overweight? – ABC News.

Who will win, politics or the baseball team? Which will gain the headlines?

Check out this article from ESPN.com’s Amy K. Nelson for an illuminating summary of the interaction between Venezuela’s political issues and its national baseball team, which is competing in the World Baseball Classic for the next couple weeks. Hugo Chavez serves as a point of controversy for Venezuelans abroad, a controversy that infuses and politicizes every player and move made by the country’s baseball team.

Tonight may be the biggest speech in the political career of Alaska Governor and Republican running mate, Sarah Palin. Tonight, Palin will be formally introduced (again) to the nation in a speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota. Also scheduled to speak on Wednesday is former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

Credit: CNN

From Reuters:

Sarah Palin has dominated the Republican convention for days without making a public appearance but on Wednesday she takes the spotlight with a prime-time speech that will introduce her to American voters.

Since John McCain made the nearly unknown Palin his No. 2, the Alaska governor has been at the center of a media storm fueled by disclosures about her unmarried teenage daughter’s pregnancy, a probe into her role in an Alaskan official’s firing and questions about the her political record.

McCain, 72, an Arizona senator, and Palin will be nominated by the convention on Wednesday to face Democrat Barack Obama and his vice presidential running mate, Joe Biden, in the November 4 presidential election.

Palin’s anti-abortion and pro-gun record have excited conservatives and party activists but the appearance on Wednesday will be her first chance to directly tell American voters her life story and philosophy.

It comes just five days after McCain shocked the U.S. political world by introducing the 44-year-old first-term governor as his running mate at an Ohio rally.

From CNN:

GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin took a Wednesday morning tour of the podium at the Republican National Convention, hours before she’ll return to give what will be the most scrutinized speech of her career.

The Alaska governor walked through the nearly empty Xcel Energy Center in downtown St. Paul and spent about 10 minutes checking out the podium where she’ll give her prime-time acceptance speech as Sen. John McCain’s vice presidential nominee.

Palin told reporters that she feels “great.”

“I’m excited to speak to Americans. This will be good. It’s about reform,” she said.

Top McCain staff, including campaign manager Rick Davis and senior adviser Nicolle Wallace, accompanied Palin on her tour.

The governor’s address is sure to generate a lot of attention since McCain surprised many political observers last week with his selection of Palin over better-known contenders such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

This should be a very interesting speech with a very large audience of Republican, Democrat and undecided voters. You don’t normally associate one speech in determining an election, but the importance of this speech could be felt all the way to November. With the controversy of her daughter, Bristol Palin and her “soon to be husband” Levi Johnston, as well as other situations involving her husband and other political questions, it should bring the country together to watch. Thoughts?

During an election year, a potential candidate’s perceived flaws and strengths are put on display for all to see. The public scrutiny is not limited to the candidate alone, but is broadened to include the people closest to the contenders. It reinforces the meaning of the old proverb, “Birds of a Feather Flock Together.”

Throughout this long election campaign, many are interested in the types of birds that flock with our candidates. Hilary is constantly haunted by the professional and personal misdeeds of her husband, former President Bill Clinton, while Barack was called to justify his friendship and respect for militant preacher Jeremiah Wright until that very friendship was fractured under the pressure.

The search for controversy has no statute of limitations as even the bachelor’s thesis of Michelle Obama, which examines the changing attitudes of middle and upper class blacks in Ivy League white academia toward lower class blacks and the black community during various stages of academic attendance, was a target for ridicule and judgment. Understanding the political climate and the inevitable existence of dirt digging and mud slinging, Michelle attempted to reduce the potential impact of her racial research from 23 years ago. It is not unreasonable to investigate to whom the presidential candidates are coupled and Michelle knew her words could have an impact on her husband’s campaign. It is an example of another old saying, “you are judged by the company you keep”. As a result, it has been reported that she requested her thesis be removed from the Princeton library until after the election in November 2008.

In a respected move, the Obama campaign quickly released the thesis upon request of media outlets. Some judged this act as Obama’s attempt to capitalize on the the controversy surrounding the dated words of his wife, the very words she was trying to keep private for the benefit of his campaign.

Upon reading her thesis firsthand, I had trouble detecting the controversy. It became apparent that the point of contention rested in what the thesis might say instead of what it actually said, which explains why the Obama campaign released it. The speculation is always worse than the reality. Once it was made available, some of the silliest remarks were made regarding its validity and its ability to convey Michelle’s findings. I read comments like, “well there are no white history classes” and “that thesis was full of grammatical errors”. I found humor in these meaningless judgments. My first thought was, there’s no white history classes because nearly all history is white history. It makes sense that at a predominantly white academic institution of the 1980s the majority of classes, clubs, and activities would spotlight white culture, placing all other cultures in the dark.

What Michelle’s thesis really focused on is the attitudes of middle class and upper middle class blacks toward the black community and the white community prior to, during and after attending a predominantly white affluent Ivy League institution like Princeton. The sample was compiled of 400 names of black Princeton alumni collected by choosing every fourth name in a list of 1200 obtained from Princeton’s Alumni office. A survey of 18 questions yielded a 22% response rate or 89 respondents, which consisted of 60% males and 40% females. Ms. Obama delved into the lifestyles and the perceptions of these undergraduate alumni, considering their dating and religious practices, their friendships, as well as their comfort level with whites and other blacks. Their economic and educational backgrounds prior to admission to Princeton was also considered. She wanted to discover the following:
• Attitudes of black undergraduate alumni and the intentions between blacks and whites.
• The Ivy League Black’s feeling of obligation to help lower class blacks
• Interaction with white students on campus
• How experience at Princeton changed personal values
• How the obligation to give back to the black community was affected by social practices while attending Princeton
Her research revealed that a black alumni’s loyalty to the black community had a lot to do with whether integration and assimilation took place while attending Princeton. Those from lower class families and neighborhoods felt more comfortable with other blacks and were more likely to participate in separatism, thereby not interacting with whites by choice. As far as giving back to the black community, Michelle determined that benefiting a given group had a lot to do with the time invested in getting to know that group. Those who integrated and assimilated into white culture were more likely to give back to the community of whites and blacks as a whole rather than focus on black society specifically.
Other theories such as the need to band together within the black culture before integrating into white society were discussed. In the introduction, Michelle wrote about her experience as being on the fringes of Princeton academic society but not being welcomed to embrace it.
This study analyzed the affects of the white upper middle class academic experience on blacks and how that experience shaped their evolving views of black culture, the black community and their obligation to contribute to that facet of society during various stages of the academic experience. In the end, Ms. Obama had to derive several new hypothesis models that spoke to the general social climate between blacks and whites which were in effect regardless of economic class.
Finally, social research studies such as this are designed to encourage analysis of society, it’s effectiveness and one’s place in the evolving entity that is our environment. As with any research study, Ms. Obama posed a question that spoke to her own experiences and curiosities while attending a upper middle class Ivy League school as a black woman in the 1980’s and determined based on the responses that her hypothesis had to be adjusted as the outcome was not solely based on each person’s social history or economic status. In fact, Michele Obama’s thesis and the social scrutiny of the presidential candidates demonstrates how a person’s character and value go beyond those in their current inner circle by taking into account their past and present social environments.
Cultural loyalty is affected by the overall social climate of the period. Much is the same in our current political climate, as each candidate’s potential to successfully carry the presidency must be analyzed by their intelligence, a commitment to their values and their ability to convey and personify a sincere message of hope for all those involved both within the United States and around the world.
___________________________________
Reference:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/02/23/michelle-obamas-princeton-thesis-reveals-doubts-about-her-own-integration/
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=1182

 During an election year, a potential candidate’s perceived flaws and strengths are put on display for all to see. The public scrutiny is not limited to the candidate alone, but is broadened to include the people closest to the contenders. It reinforces the meaning of the old proverb, “Birds of a Feather Flock Together.”

 Throughout this long election campaign, many are interested in the types of birds that flock with our candidates. Hilary is constantly haunted by the professional and personal misdeeds of her husband, former President Bill Clinton, while Barack was called to justify his friendship and respect for militant preacher Jeremiah Wright until that very friendship was fractured under the pressure.

 The search for controversy has no statute of limitations as even the bachelor’s thesis of Michelle Obama, which examines the changing attitudes of middle and upper class blacks in Ivy League white academia toward lower class blacks and the black community during various stages of academic attendance, was a target for ridicule and judgment. Understanding the political climate and the inevitable existence of dirt digging and mud slinging, Michelle attempted to reduce the potential impact of her racial research from 23 years ago. It is not unreasonable to investigate to whom the presidential candidates are coupled and Michelle knew her words could have an impact on her husband’s campaign. It is an example of another old saying, ”you are  judged by the company you keep”. As a result, it has been reported that she requested her thesis be removed from the Princeton library until after the election in November 2008.

 In a respected move, the Obama campaign quickly released the thesis upon request of media outlets. Some judged this act as Obama’s attempt to capitalize on the the controversy surrounding the dated words of his wife, the very words she was trying to keep private for the benefit of his campaign.   

 Upon reading her thesis firsthand, I had trouble detecting the controversy. It became apparent that the point of contention rested in what the thesis might say instead of what it actually said, which explains why the Obama campaign released it. The speculation is always worse than the reality. Once it was made available, some of the silliest remarks were made regarding its validity and its ability to convey Michelle’s findings. I read comments like, “well there are no white history classes” and “that thesis was full of grammatical errors”.  I found humor in these meaningless judgments. My first thought was, there’s no white history classes because nearly all history is white history. It makes sense that at a predominantly white academic institution of the 1980s the majority of classes, clubs, and activities would spotlight white culture, placing all other cultures in the dark.

 What Michelle’s thesis really focused on is the attitudes of middle class and upper middle class blacks toward the black community and the white community prior to, during and after attending a predominantly white affluent Ivy League institution like Princeton. The sample was compiled of 400 names of black Princeton alumni collected by choosing every fourth name in a list of 1200 obtained from Princeton’s Alumni office. A survey of 18 questions yielded a 22% response rate or 89 respondents, which consisted of 60% males and 40% females. Ms. Obama delved into the lifestyles and the perceptions of these undergraduate alumni, considering their dating and religious practices, their friendships, as well as their comfort level with whites and other blacks. Their economic and educational backgrounds prior to admission to Princeton was also considered. She wanted to discover the following:

·  Attitudes of black undergraduate alumni and the intentions between blacks and whites.

·  The Ivy League Black’s feeling of obligation to help lower class blacks

·  Interaction with white students on campus

·  How experience at Princeton changed personal values

·  How the obligation to give back to the black community was affected by social practices while attending Princeton 

 Her research revealed that a black alumni’s loyalty to the black community had a lot to do with whether integration and assimilation took place while attending Princeton. Those from lower class families and neighborhoods felt more comfortable with other blacks and were more likely to participate in separatism, thereby not interacting with whites by choice. As far as giving back to the black community, Michelle determined that benefiting a given group had a lot to do with the time invested in getting to know that group. Those who integrated and assimilated into white culture were more likely to give back to the community of whites and blacks as a whole rather than focus on black society specifically.

Other theories such as the need to band together within the black culture before integrating into white society were discussed. In the introduction, Michelle wrote about her experience as being on the fringes of Princeton academic society but not being welcomed to embrace it. 

This study analyzed the affects of the white upper middle class academic experience on blacks and how that experience shaped their evolving views of black culture, the black community and their obligation to contribute to that facet of society during various stages of the academic experience. In the end, Ms. Obama had to derive several new hypothesis models that spoke to the general social climate between blacks and whites which were in effect regardless of economic class.

Finally, social research studies such as this are designed to encourage analysis of society, it’s effectiveness and one’s place in the evolving entity that is our environment. As with any research study, Ms. Obama posed a question that spoke to her own experiences and curiosities while attending a upper middle class Ivy League school as a black woman in the 1980’s and determined based on the responses that her hypothesis had to be adjusted as the outcome was not solely based on each person’s social history or economic status. In fact, Michele Obama’s thesis and the social scrutiny of the presidential candidates demonstrates how a person’s character and value go beyond those in their current inner circle by taking into account their past and present social environments.

Cultural loyalty is affected by the overall social climate of the period. Much is the same in our current political climate, as each candidate’s potential to successfully carry the presidency must be analyzed by their intelligence, a commitment to their values and their ability to convey and personify a sincere message of hope for all those involved both within the United States and around the world.

 ___________________________________

Reference:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/02/23/michelle-obamas-princeton-thesis-reveals-doubts-about-her-own-integration/