…….I am writing to you (and to any other American who wishes to share in this) because I, like many Americans, want to help our country get back on track.  Call it a cry for help or a public plea of a distressed citizen, but I digress.

…….My personal situation is hardly the worst it could be: I’m a graduate student living with my parents and partially self-funding my education with my own personal savings (I’m taking out loans for the rest).  On the other hand, I graduated in May of 2010 and have worked a total of only five months since then at a variety of jobs, always for $12 an hour or less.  Compared to other people my age, I consider myself to be incredibly lucky.  Think about that – lucky to have a supportive, loving family that has the means to keep me afloat while I struggle to get out on my own, barely holding down a poverty-wage job.  It’s heartbreaking and discouraging to know that so many others my age aren’t so fortunate, and I wonder how their futures will unfold.

…….Mr. President, I donated to your campaign, voted for you, and have defended your actions to the people that I encounter who disagree with or disapprove of them.  I, and many others like me, were swept up by your lofty rhetoric and cool demeanor.  I genuinely believed that your election would spell slow but steady improvement in our lives.  You campaigned on hope, but since your election Americans have only grown more hopeless.  Our situations are worse off now than when you took office, and as of now, I will be neither voting for you nor donating to your campaign in the next election because honestly, I and many others in my position – the very same people who put you in the oval office – feel betrayed by you.

…….I am very much aware that you did not create the enormous problems that our country currently faces.  You didn’t enact the policies over the past 30 years that triggered an economic collapse that some Cassandras knew was coming.  You aren’t responsible for the way wages have stagnated for 30 years while corporate profits have skyrocketed.  And of course I cannot blame you for the disgusting gridlock in Congress.  But your failure to make any credible attempt to rectify any of our problems has now made you complicit in them.

…….You are now two and a half years into your term and have been nothing but a disappointment.  The way you refused to fight for a public option in the health care debate.  The way you refused to expend any political capital to punish the people whose recklessness and greed caused the collapse (and how your administration, bafflingly so, is resistant to any attempt at holding those people accountable)! The way you cave to John Boehner and the Tea Party every single time a confrontation arises, be it the debt ceiling or the date of your supposed major address on jobs.  The way you allow blatant falsehoods about the economy and policy to circulate like the bubonic plague while refusing to provide your own narrative of what has happened in America.  The way you try to negotiate with those who have made clear their only goal is to bring you down.

…….You do not lead, you preside.  By the same token, you do not compromise, you capitulate.

…….In fact, your governing style (or lack thereof) is mind-boggling.  Mr. President, you refuse to stand up for your supporters while you try to reason with the unreasonable.  The opposition party has made it clear that they have absolutely no interest in working with you.  Don’t you remember when Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor that his primary political objective was to deny you a second term and to not solve our country’s problems?  I understand that good politics is about compromise, but when have any of your priorities not been sacrificed on the altar of bi-partisianship with nothing in return?  You just recently gave away the ability to regulate smog and got what in return?  That’s not a negotiated compromise, that is a giveaway – a sign not of strength, but of spinelessness.  You are actively abdicating your responsibility as President to be a leader.

…….Maybe I should have paid attention to the fact that you voted “present” more times than not in the Illinois legislature – a sign that you were afraid to do anything that might present an ounce of risk.  Maybe I should have thought twice when you tossed to the curb the man who married you and your wife, who was your “spiritual mentor” after a smear campaign comparable to John Kerry’s swift-boating.

…….Now, I have noticed how you stubbornly refuse to take positions beyond vague ovations of improving health care and appeals to a supposed American Exceptionalism.  At a time when the American people needed someone who would stand up for them, who would lead them and be unafraid to take a controversial position that he truly believes in, they mistakenly voted for someone who flees at the first sign of confrontation.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the man who said of the Wall Street banks (your campaign contributors) “I welcome their hatred” is rolling over in his grave.  Not only have you been an ineffective President, but also a failed Democrat – a party I was forced to abandon after years of active support when I felt that they turned on me.

…….I say with complete, unshakable honestly that I take absolutely no pleasure in doing this.  But with my firsthand experience and things I know about the current state of our economy, the trend is dismal, and reasons to be optimistic are harder and harder to find.  Your inability to successfully govern the country coupled with the undeclared war against the average American people by her own elites are causing America to crumble right beneath your feet.  I don’t even know for sure who’s side you’re really on anymore, the side of the people or the enemies of the people? Please be the president that I voted for in 2008. Otherwise, get out of the way.

………………………………………………………Sincerely in Frustration,

………………………………………………………Dave Imbriaco

______________________________

Photo courtesy of projectcensored.org

(http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/22-obamas-trilateral-commission-team/)

I was visiting friends in Middletown, NJ when I saw some protesters in front of the post office. They had photos of Obama with a Hitler mustache, a poster proclaiming, “America needs industry; Obama needs therapy,” and an overall theme of “Impeach Obama.” I pulled over and decided to ask some questions.

I saw, upon closer inspection, that they were supporters of Lyndon LaRouche. All I knew about LaRouche was that he ran for president numerous times, was a convicted felon, and was said to have the power to predict the future. There were two supporters in front of a table full of literature— pamphlets, leaflets, magazines, and even some DVDs. They were both white. One, let’s call him Jim, seemed to be in his late 50’s; the other, Tommy, seemed to be in his mid-to-late forties.

Jim had been involved with LaRouche for over thirty years. He first saw LaRouche speak when he was a student at Villanova. I asked if they were affiliated with the Tea Partiers. “No. They don’t have strong leadership or an articulated plan,” Jim said, “But a lot of the better ones have come over to our side.” I looked over and saw three Democratic candidates for Congress that they supported. I was surprised. It turns out the LaRouchies are in favor of universal health care and regulation. Given that fact, I wasn’t sure why the Tea Partiers would join their camp. “If you’re against Obama, we’re for you,” Jim said.

I told them that the Obama Hitler Stache signs likely alienated a lot of people, but that didn’t seem to bother Jim or Tommy. “We’re not a populist movement,” Jim declared, “We’re trying to raise Gideon’s army.” Gideon being a biblical figure from one of the many stories in which the Jews are oppressed and need a leader to save them. It’s all very Luke Skywalker, Hero’s Journey sort of stuff; except with death panels.

“Obama’s trying to do what Hitler did, which is put in a plan to get rid of all the handicapped and infirm. It’s what Hitler did before he went after the Jews.” I looked over and saw an older pamphlet of George W. Bush with Augusto Pinochet. “Pinochet was the fascist leader of Chile,” Jim said, “Bush tried to privatize social security just like Pinochet did.” The last president the group supported was Clinton, although they disagreed with what he’d done economically in terms of keeping Greenspan on-board and in repealing the Glass–Steagall Act, which, among other things, disallowed bank holding companies to control multiple financial institutions.

Death panels still don’t make sense to me given that the group they threaten most—the elderly— just so happens to populate much of congress and corporate America. I doubt that the over sixty-five crowd at our nation’s capital would be lining up to be euthanized. And while much of what Jim told me was conspiratorial, Jim and Tommy didn’t buy into the 9/11 Truth Movement. “We think it was an inside job,” Jim said, “But we don’t think it was a planned demolition.” Apparently the Bush administration let the towers collapse in order to take advantage of emergency powers in the chaos that followed and push through various reforms.

“What else do you guys do besides this?” I asked. “We do this full time,” Jim said, “We’re like missionaries.” I hadn’t seen them at the post-office during the Bush administration, but they insisted they protested then as well. I brought up the alienating posters again and they told me they had other posters too, but that the Obama ones got the best response. “If they’re interested, “Jim said, “They’ll come over to be educated.”

“So, you like Biden then?” I asked, hinting at the question of who’d be in charge if Obama were out. “We have channels to him,” said Jim. He was unwilling to disclose who those channels were, but he implied that there were people on Capital Hill with connections to Biden that could convince him to do what the LaRouchies wanted.

Regulation, universal Medicare, these are just some of the things Jim and Tommy support. What are they against? Global warming. “It’s a hoax,” Jim explained, “Perpetrated by the banks in order to de-industrialize. They also want to lower the population.” I asked why. “Because they want to go back to a feudal society.” I asked who was doing it and was told it’s a conglomerate of bankers—an Anglo-Dutch coalition. “The new British empire,” Jim said.

“Don’t they already have lots of money?” I asked.

“It’s not about money,” Jim said, “It’s about power.” I wasn’t going to mention the fact that wealth is a form of power because all my questions seemed to be getting on Jim’s nerves. So, I decided to ask one last thing: “Does this have anything to do with the Buildabears?”

“The Bilderbergs,” Tommy corrected, “And yes it does.” He handed me a leaflet.

I went back to my car with quite a bit of literature. I called my girlfriend and she immediately Googled LaRouche. “They think environmentalism is a conspiracy to disenfranchise the poor, especially blacks,” she said.

“How?”  I asked.

“Because environmentalists are against drilling and stuff in places like Africa.”

“That wouldn’t help the poor! If they did that, they’d do it till they extracted everything they could, paying the poor minimum wage—unless they could get away with paying less—, and then they’d just leave after they got everything. It makes no sense!” And suddenly I felt like I found myself trapped in a live action political satire. I knew I had to dig deeper. So, I went to the LaRouche website and found out when and where they had their meetings.

Cut to mid-July. It’s as hot as New Orleans and I’m standing outside a YMCA in Manhattan. It’s just a few minutes until the LaRouche meeting starts. I pass the time by trying to guess which of the people I see going inside are going to the same place I am. Obviously, the guy in a “Glass-Steagall or Die” shirt and his galpal are LaRouchies; and I figure the same for the Korean War Vets.  But who else is one of them?

Apparently that was the spectrum because when I get inside everyone fell somewhere between Veteran and middle-aged. About thirty LaRouchies are sitting comfortably in a longish room. The room, like the rest of the building, seems as sanitized as a hospital: white walls, white tile, and white fluorescent lighting.  The group’s watching a discussion between LaRouche and some journalist.

I only catch snippets; from what I can tell–and I can tell very little because these videos are seemingly impossible to follow for the uninitiated–it’s got something to do with Beethoven. I hadn’t gotten around to hearing LaRouche speak in any form up until then and I’d hoped, although without success, that he’d sound like David Lynch–like a slightly effeminate southerner. Instead, LaRouche has the voice of an older fellow one would never suspect of having countless adherents. He does, however, seem to have a saliva build-up situation and pauses every few sentences to swallow, lick his lips like he’s trying to get away with something, and resume his endless talking.

Before long the meeting gets rolling and it’s not as outrageous as I’d hopped for. Of course, that’s only because the colonization of Mars doesn’t sound as bizarre as anything having to do with the Anglo-Dutch Empire; or as disconcerting as the flier I’m handed on the way in, which proclaims–and boasts!–that the US economy is going to reach Great Depression lows by September.

It seems that the presentations alternate on a weekly basis between historical and science related. This week just so happens to be science. I wonder to myself how people who were brought in by Obama with a Hitler mustache react to lines like: “Mendeleev’s periodic table of elements simple won’t do for the colonization of Mars!” and “What we need is a table of cosmic radiation!” And, yes, such sentences are punctuated by exclamation points because, holy shit!, did you hear what she said about the periodic table of elements?! They all seem pretty into it. I, on the other hand, get up to leave after the fourth iteration of the phrase, “cosmic radiation.”

When I get into the hallway I see a guy who’s name I will say is Hank. He’s who I’ve been talking to on the phone for brief intervals right up until I actually came to the meeting. “I’m an English major,” I tell him, “So when I start to hear science terms like ‘Isotope’ I get lost. I mean, I can tell that they’re making sentences out of the science stuff because they’re pausing at the parts where a period would go. But, beyond that, I’m lost.”

Before Hank can answer, another guy who’s standing right next to him, let’s call him Lance, says something to the effect of, “Listen, Hank, are you going to feed this guy the same old bullshit and let another one get away, or are you going to tell him the truth?” Lance says this in the sort of way that suggests Hank’s inability to bring in new members is single-handedly the reason why grandma’s heading to the death camps.

Lance starts telling me about the futility of political organizing due to the fact that protests are usually ignored by both the government and the rest of the population. The real revolution, Lance suggests, is in education. Lance also thinks that if you’re going to propose any sort of wide spread political change, then you’d better have all the answers to the questions people are going to inevitably ask. “Fair enough,” I say, “Except I don’t quite see what something like the Leibniz vs. Newton relative or absolute space debate has to do with the economy.”

Lance tells me it’s important because knowledge is power and that they don’t teach you that sort of thing in school because they don’t want you to know that there’s no such thing as natural resources. This is a thing, by the way, with the LaRouchies: they will say something outlandish as though it’s common place to everyone when, in reality, it appears ludicrous to most people. Nonetheless, it’s just one node in a web that makes up the LaRouche worldview. Of course, within their own moral framework, which is what Lance is explaining to me, everything connects perfectly.

One might ask, “Why do they choose to believe in balls-off-the-wall bonkers nonsense?” But to say, “The LaRouchies believe in crazy stuff,” is really to say, “I think the LaRouchies believe in crazy stuff.” A lot of people shrug off the distinction between these two articulations, claiming, even, that they mean the same thing. There is, however, a big difference between them. The first iteration is framed as an objective truth while the second is framed as subjective. Even if there was an objective truth its truth value within any given sense-making system would still be contingent upon whether or not it was thought of as true. As a result, objective truth becomes moot. Only subjective truth is relevant by virtue of the fact that truth can only be viewed subjectively. There is, of course, consensus, when people hold the same views to be true. Consensus, however, only indicates agreement, not objectivity.

The question remains, however, “Why do they choose to believe what they believe?” And to that there is no one answer. People believe what they believe for whatever justification they provide if they provide any at all. But the question itself undermines the truth with which one frames belief. I spend a lot of time undermining my own beliefs and trying to get at what’s going on, but how many people want to do that or have the time to? If you lack the desire or the ability, then you’re not going to do it. And, keep in mind, plenty of leaders frame the opposition in such a way that questioning one’s belief becomes undesirable—regardless of what that belief may be.

So, who can blame the LaRouchies? Plenty of people, probably. I can’t; at least not the way I’m thinking about things right now. I see blame as being spread too thin over all the events that constitute our lives to pin responsibility on any one individual. That’s not to say that the LaRouchies are justified in believing what they believe. A close reading of LaRouche’s worldviews and behavior makes me think he’s a paranoid schizophrenic, as evidenced by his conspiratorial nature: he has body guards and claims that world leaders are trying to have him assassinated. But it’s not easy to convince someone to change their beliefs or to throw them into question. Especially while you’re calling them crazy. If you think of yourself as a bastion of truth, then blasting the misguided with pejoratives only alienates them from revelation.

“They just need to do the research!” And so can you for basically any belief you want to hold. “But the mainstream media doesn’t report on the Anglo-Dutch Empire!” Which is why you read blogs instead, right? Because they’re the ones willing to write about how over-regulation will doom us, how corporations are buying our elections, or how Obama’s in cahoots with the Brits. Want support? Google it.

Unfortunately, Google didn’t reveal to me why there’s no such thing as a natural resource. Maybe I’d misheard Lance. That’s part of the problem with believing in something generally accepted as absurd the: when people mishear you and think you said something that sounds outlandish to them, they’ll just assume that was exactly what you meant. “Oh, yeah, broccoli in my pants too.” But one thing I didn’t mishear is that the LaRouchies are running candidates for Congress. I asked Lance why they’d do that if on the way in I was given a flier advertising economic Armageddon and he says, “If there’s a volcano going off and lava’s coming down the mountain and there’s a boat in the water, what are you going to do?”

“Hop in the boat?” I ask.

“Yeah, you’re gonna hop in, but who knows if you’ll make it? You just run anyway and hope that you do.” Who knows? You predicting the marketplace meltdown is who should know! This runs up against the question of, “What do religious folks who believe the Rapture’s coming on Tuesday night do Wednesday morning?” Well, they probably say they messed up and that it’s coming the Wednesday after next. And when that day comes and go, they do it all over again. Just like the Marxist does every time the revolution doesn’t come, like the Kucinich supporter does every time the votes don’t add up in their favor; they just hop in that boat and hope the lava doesn’t hop in a boat of its own.

_______________________________

Photo courtesy of jalopnik.com (http://jalopnik.com/5445634/video-detroit-auto-show-attracts-worlds-worst-protesters)

Today’s submission by Ali Riaz

Daily Editor: Ali Riaz

The Daily Edition, a new addition to the Johnsonville Press, will serve two functions. First, it will give readers a new and thought provoking section filled with diverse content to peruse on a daily basis. Second, it will give readers the opportunity to get to know the staff just a little better. The section will be edited and administered by Ali Riaz, and writers will be asked to provide a Daily Edition every few weeks. This specific issue will be placed for a full week, as a pilot for future implementation. Please take this ample opportunity to field any comments or questions you may have regarding this section in the comment section below. Enjoy!

1. Recommendation of the Day: The Cure- Disintegration
The best band ever.  They are always on my quintessential break-up/dance party playlist.  Not that I get broken-up with a lot (I do dance everywhere though).  Disintegration is fantastic; it is tragic, beautiful, smart, romantic, indie, cool, awesome and truthful.  If you haven’t heard it before, give it a chance, you’ll like it.

2. Quote of the Day: “That’s the whole trouble. You can’t ever find a place that’s nice and peaceful, because there isn’t any. You may think there is, but once you get there, when you’re not looking, somebody’ll sneak up and write “Fuck you” right under your nose.”
-J. D. Salinger, RIP 1/28/10 (courtesy of thinkexist.com)

3. Random Fact of the Day: The first written mention of ice cream in this country can be found in a letter from the 1700s, which admiringly describes the ice cream and strawberry dessert a Maryland governor served at a dinner party. Initially just a treat for the elite (including George Washington, who is said to have consumed enormous quantities), the first ice cream parlor in this country opened in New York City in 1776. In 1845, the hand-cranked freezer was invented, allowing Americans to make ice cream more easily at home.
- drspock.com

4. Cool Online Stuff – Obama Alien Defense (Not border patrol) – Hilariously dumb premise.

5. Random Discussion Item: In F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, has Jay Gatsby attained the American Dream?  If so, how?  If not, how?  Discuss.

6. Photo Series of the Day – More from Berlin…

My opinion here is founded upon the contents of an archived C-Span video I was turned onto by our own Dave Imbriaco, resident liberal. In it, the President fields the questions of a group of predominantly hostile conservative representatives at the House Republicans retreat in Baltimore this month.

The video shows the President in his element: defending his views in front of a group of colleagues. The hostility of the crowd is palpable, and clearly affects the bearing, demeanor and overall body language of the President.  Republican Mike Pence of Indiana, under the droopy Beagle-faced glare of House Minority Leader John Boehner,  begins the questioning with a barely disguised partisan hook about the stimulus package and “the kind of across the board tax relief that Republicans have been advocating for.” What follows is the most candid question and answer session I have ever seen from this, or any President. He skillfully and systematically breaks down and rejects the partisan elements of each question thrown his way, abandoning the party-line talking points and Democrat VS Republican style of debate we all know so well.

Needless to say, I was impressed. For me, this discussion represents more than just a real and worthy demonstration of why this man won the top seat. It also serves as a model for how politicians can speak about and discuss politics frankly, if only they are willing. Even more surprising, the conversation was tense, edgy, and aggressive, demonstrating that true bipartisanship doesn’t mean tiptoeing around issues, making sure we don’t offend our opponents; necessarily, one’s political rivals will almost always be offended by one’s political ideals. True bipartisanship means having enough respect for these rivals to drop the rhetorical facade and speak frankly, honestly, about the truth, as best we can know it.

I assume that this is not the first instance of politicians speaking candidly to each other….if the Bushes and the Clintons can be friends behind closed doors (and they are VERY close friends), I suspect that all politicians can be. But to see this sort of honesty displayed in a public forum, by the President of the United States no less, was more than refreshing: it gave me hope. It reminded me of another celebrity politician, one for whom I have tremendous respect: the most honest man in Washington, Rep. Ron Paul.

I cannot for the life of me understand why politicians can’t seem to open up this kind of dialogue to the public. Not only is it exceedingly healthy for our democracy; it makes for damn good television. If the mainstream media were a bit savvier, it might stop fostering a climate of political one-upmanship and encourage more frankness in political discourse. I will continue to look for this kind of real bipartisanship in the future, and if Obama delivers, he may just end up making a believer out of me…

On Tuesday December 1st, 2009, President Barack Obama made public his intention to send an additional 30,000 American soldiers to the combat theater of Afghanistan.  Though expected, this move was drastic and raised questions about the intentions of his administration regarding the ongoing wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  The decision to add 30,000 troops to Afghanistan is reminiscent of the decision of the Bush administration to bolster the troop levels in Iraq by approximately 25,000.

The obvious parallel to President Obama’s recent decision is the surge in Iraq.  Conventional wisdom holds that the surge has been a great success.  When looking at the numbers, one can see that since 2006, when the surge was implemented, conditions on the ground in Iraq have improved.  These conditions are measured in terms of American lives lost, Iraqi civilian lives lost, output of oil, and access to electricity.  It must still be noted that these measures are still worse than pre-war conditions in Iraq.

Yet, this conventional wisdom begs greater scrutiny.  What the surge has achieved is something commonsense.  With more boots on the ground, coalition forces have a greater ability to project their influence and secure the civilian population.  In my mind, however, the true test of whether the surge has been a success is whether or not such conditions will persist after the approximately 25,000 troops have been withdrawn from operations in Iraq.

By adopting such a metric, we do not yet know whether or not the surge has truly been successful.  The provinces which have seen the greatest improvements in security have been the provinces which are dominated by Sunnis.  This may appear like a great victory.  After all, the Sunni population had been the major force behind the insurgency following the fall of Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath Party.  However, the real reason for the improvement in security conditions in these regions has been the fact that the Sunni minority has needed a protective ally to shield them from the vindictive Shi’a majority.  Many Sunni sheikhs and tribes decided to band with the Americans in exchange for protection and weaponry.  A similar narrative has been occurring with the Kurdish population in Northern Iraq, although there is a longer history of cooperation between the Kurds and the United States.

The parts of Iraq that we find ourselves unable to control or secure are the Shi’a areas.  The Shi’a majority, finding themselves in a position of power, have been exercising that power in a vengeful manner against their former Sunni oppressors.  Large-scale pogroms have taken place in cities and towns across Iraq; much of the drop in violence over the past few years is due to the fact that many neighborhoods have been effectively purged at this point.  There is no need to protect Sunni families in some neighborhoods; they have all been killed or driven out already

The United States has been buying the security and cooperation of the Kurds, Sunni, and Shi’a through firepower.  This is especially true of the Kurds and Sunni who feel threatened by a newly empowered Shi’a majority.  The role of the U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq has been to serve as a buffer between the groups to prevent full-fledged warfare.  A real outbreak of fighting between any two groups would likely escalate into a complete Civil War between the three Iraqi factions.

Despite the many successes enjoyed by the United States Army and Marines in adopting true counter-insurgency tactics and strategy, we ultimately find ourselves at a fork in the road.  The insurgency, as it has been traditionally defined, has been effectively marginalized.  Much of the domestic insurgency has shifted their alignment to the quasi-legitimate Sunni faction.  The foreign insurgency will always remain a problem but one that should be dealt with at the borders.  The vacuum of power left by Saddam Hussein has been filled by three parties, each of which seeks to exert its influence over national affairs.  The government of Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki has shown itself unwilling to effectively incorporate Sunnis or Kurds into the governing coalition.  At this point, it seems like there is little role for large-scale ground operations in Iraq except to prevent a full-blown Civil War.  Thus, the question becomes how long are we willing to keep our soldiers in Iraq to prevent a political and military implosion?

I do not think there is a clear answer to that question.  I believe that we cannot stay in Iraq indefinitely, but that we should also not allow Iraq to fall into a disastrous Civil War as a consequence of our reckless invasion.  Ultimately, I feel the best scenario would be to abandon the idea of Iraq itself; rather, the country should be partitioned into three sovereign entities.  This would be similar in practice to the partitioning of a Muslim Pakistan from a Hindu India.  We could facilitate the creation of a Sunni state, a Shi’a state, and a Kurdish state.  Such a decision would have to emanate from within the Iraqi population.  A significant obstacle to this partition is the negotiation of oil rights.  The Sunni population occupies land that is lacking in oil resources; the Shi’a would want more extensive oil rights as well as political power over the Kurds and Sunnis.  Any partition would have to strike a delicate balance between the royalties each group would receive from oil profits.  Although this would not ameliorate all the tensions and problems that will arise, it would swap a Civil War for minor border skirmishes and political rivalry.

All this brings us back to Afghanistan.  Although there are notable differences between Afghanistan and Iraq, such as a different ethnic composition, more mountainous terrain and less oil, we still find ourselves confronting many of the same questions.

When we send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, what is our ultimate goal?  Is the goal to create a vibrant democracy which will act like a beacon to the Middle East and Central Asian Steppes?  Or is it simply to provide measurable increases in security, drops in violence, and then declare victory and pack up?  What do we understand the long-term ramifications of such actions to be?  Without such goals, any military operation is doomed to fail.

We must also ask ourselves what is truly feasible.  To create a secular democracy that fully supports human rights in Afghanistan would be a noble goal, but an unrealistic one.  To eradicate the poppy industry in Afghanistan would also be a worthwhile goal that could help thwart the heroin trade, but is also unattainable unless we can offer a substitute crop or industry.  We can secure the cities, but it is not feasible to secure every mountain pass that connects them.

The best feasible goal that I have heard suggested is to dramatically improve the condition of women in Afghanistan by means of education.  There is currently a dissatisfied fraction of the Afghani population that wishes to send their daughters to school – something opposed by the Fundamentalist Taliban.  The Taliban, and other Fundamentalist organizations, have attempted to dissuade families and young girls by means of terror and acid attacks.  By making the protection of these schools and young women a priority, the United States can truly better the lives of these women, their families, and their communities.  Educated and empowered women will be better able to stand up for their own rights and the rights of others.  As mothers, they will instill the value of education upon their own children and we may hope to see progressive ideology begin to spread throughout Afghanistan.  Furthermore, such a goal would be just and virtuous in the stage of world opinion; we are not seeking to exploit a natural resource, but instead to protect and promote self-improvement of the local community.  Such protection would also inspire more local confidence in the abilities of the United States and the government of Hamid Karzai to protect them against the Taliban.  Experiences in both Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that people are only willing to oppose Fundamentalist groups once they feel that they and their families are safe from retribution.  Such protection would allow a domestic counter-Taliban movement to foster and effect change from within.  Any other change, such as those imposed externally, would ultimately not be seen as legitimate.

As I have stated before, there is no clear answer to any of these questions.  These question are murky and often require detailed knowledge of the situation that is not made available to a civilian.  That being said, I will now outline my proposal of how to move forward in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Iraq, the United States must begin implementing an exit strategy as we cannot become stuck in the sand indefinitely.  If a partition is feasible and supported by the Iraqi population, then that is how we should proceed.  Each separate state would then have the option of having American forces based there.  An election would determine whether or not we should stay or leave.  However, if the partition is not feasible or popular, then we should hold provincial elections asking the Iraqi people whether or not they want coalition forces to remain.  Different provinces will return different answers; it is likely that Shi’a provinces will want American forces to leave and Sunni and Kurdish provinces will want them to stay.  By doing this, we can leave the areas where we are unwanted and stay behind in the areas where our presence is sorely needed.

In Afghanistan we must concede that it is impossible to conquer and hold the entire country.  It has not earned the moniker “the graveyard of empires” for no reason.  We must focus our efforts on the cities and major transportation routes.  In addition, we must also make the security and education of women a top priority as such an approach represents one of our best options to successfully transforming Afghanistan.  This must also be coupled with an aggressive micro-lending operation that is given protection by the United States Armed Forces.  The infusion of education and capital, coupled with effective security against the Taliban or other Fundamentalist groups, should set the stage for a metamorphosis of Afghani society that erodes support for groups that wield terror as a weapon.

You know, it was not cool to be an American until after November 4, 2008. Before that, I had to be the Great Defender of the Stars and Stripes. Living in Denmark, a socialist country leaning as far left on the political spectrum as possible, I faced a lot of scrutiny for the red-bleeding cowboy, our President George W. Bush. Do you remember those days? They were long ago. For water boarding and the financial collapse, I had to face blank stares and explain it all away. I’ve never been the most politically minded person, so it was tough work. Some of my coping strategies included:

-Pointing out how small and easy to manage Denmark is, compared to the vast expanse of America. Did you know that single country is twice the size of New Jersey with half as many people? And how many states do we have?

-Stating minor issues I was 75% sure of with complete authority. I couldn’t see how it would hurt, especially since saying you’re not sure makes you look a little weak.

-And for the times they caught me dumbstruck, I just admitted I didn’t know. It’s something I’ve had to cope with, admitting when I don’t know something, but it’s extremely liberating to feel the weight lift from your shoulders.

I had to look up and refresh myself on caucuses and the American presidential process. And it isn’t easy. For the record, in Denmark, the media and public were almost as riveted as America was about the campaign. I argued with my social science teacher about the USA having 51 states (no, Tina, Washington DC is not a state for several important reasons). I wrote essays for school and did projects about McCain and Obama’s speeches. It became my job, on the eve of the election, to devise a presentation to my class about the in’s and out’s of a process I did not fully understand until only a few years ago. The electoral college, the popular vote; luckily the Danish electoral process is not simpler.  It was as exciting as it was inescapable for me as well, even though I was so far away.

The week of the election was one of the weeks I most wished to be home for, during my year-long odyssey in Denmark. I remember this especially, because only a few days before the Phillies had won the World Series. Even though I am not especially a sports fan, I love the city’s passion and the sense of unity that comes from finally winning that big one after years and years of being the underdog, season after season choking at the last minute. The pictures from Broad Street the night the Phillies won mirror those taken at Grant Park in Chicago on Election Night. As I sat, a detached observer, an American abroad, I just wished that I could be there. Comparative to the excitement and tears at my nation, 6 time zones behind me, I spent election night glued to the couch, nodding off as American CNN streamed live to my TV. I rolled my eyes at Wolf Blitzer’s crazy hologram machine, but the segments about the lines and lines of voters warmed my heart. This, I thought, is my America. We’re not fat, apathetic losers. We care enough to wait for hours to try and make a change.

I was fast asleep when Obama was officially elected, but before I dozed off, I knew the outcome. Almost all the important states were blue, as well as a considerable number of some of the not so important ones. The day after, I felt a certain kinship and unity with America. All the Americans I knew in Denmark felt it as well. For the first time since my stay abroad, I wanted to shout to the heights that Yes world, I am American and Proud. You could hear hints of it even in McCain’s concession speech. For once, we stood proud of our accomplishments. Even though now our cheeks are reddening at Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, and we are not quite sure if he will be as good as we wanted him to be, we should never forget what his election meant to us at the time. That might well make the whole four years worth it, no matter the outcome.

A few weeks ago, President Obama had dropped to a 45% approval rating, the lowest for any president in history this far into a term. What happened? As a country, America had such high expectations for this administration and what it would accomplish. Was the country just unrealistic before and now angry and disappointed? One tends not to think so. The previous administration was so reviled as it left office, that a certain excitement about the new one was appropriate. Are people genuinely against what he is doing? In fact, Obama is pursing much of the same policies that his predecessor, George Bush did. How are their agendas the same? Let’s look a little closer at the current state of the political union.

After the travesties of the Bush era, it looked as if Republican Party was about to enter an existential crisis. It had lost control of the presidency and both houses of congress. Blame for the economic crises had been laid largely at the doorstep of the deregulationists, and it was widely accepted that Iraq was a fiasco. Despite these potential problems, the GOP has reacted surprisingly well. After a few false starts centered around hopes for a few different up and coming leaders, the Republican party seems to be landing on its feet.

A recent BBC article titled “US Christian Conservatives ‘defiant’”, described a reenergized base, centered on a simplified and emotionally charged new platform. This new right, (neoNeoCons?), is organized around flashpoint issues like “socialism”, “Obama”, and “big government.” They are getting play in the media, and millions are rallying to their cause.

We are forced to observe that this new Republican movement is organizing and mobilizing in spite of tremendous adversity. While their command of politics is impressive, their actions by no means represent a legitimate opposition to the current Administration.

The best method of reducing the effectiveness of a political movement is to take it over and send it in a bad direction. This is precisely what the left has done with the populist Obama opposition. Taking note of the peoples’ promising responses to issues like States rights and limited government, the existing NeoCon infrastructure has shifted its platform towards these populist views, while retaining ties with the old bases. Thus, they have connected the opposition with the entire rest of the right, including the now disgraced conservative Christian movement, and the absurd racism at the fringes of any extremist group.

This creates a climate in which the educated opposition is automatically associated with and connected to the more violent and destructive elements of society. This is incredibly dangerous. American democracy has always been based on the interplay between various interests who eventually come up with policy that is based on the consideration of signals from each respective group. If a strong signal is suddenly interrupted, potential for deviation from a constitutional republic is possible, as the checks and balances that maintained it suddenly no longer function.

The opposition issue that would be most dangerous to disregard is that Obama seeks to fundamentally change the very fabric of our country. True, the past decade has been a traumatic one for America. September 11^th saw the worst attack on the US in modern history, Iraq and the Patriot Act made us question the existence of our civil rights, and the economic collapse has all but decimated American spending power. All this has caused the population to stop and take note as a sense of hopelessness descends, seeming to put the first few nails in the coffin laid out for American pre-eminence. One envisions an America in 30 years without much progress, just an aging generation.

Unless a true opposition presents itself to this Administration, the above may come to pass. The current administration is pursuing the same goals as the previous one. Obama has continued all of Bush’s illegal practices and in some cases, expanded them. Warrantless wiretaps are still common place, while we all now can be the targets of “preventative detention.” Additionally Obama is moving forward with drastic economic legislation in many different fields.

The most visible of these movements is on health care. The administration has said that healthcare is broken due to the fact that the insurance companies are too greedy and that as a result, healthcare costs are too high. He goes on to argue that a government backed insurance company should be created to provide competition to keep the prices lower. There are two problems with this stance.

First, if insurance companies were “honest”, and not making a profit by disbursing an equal number of dollars in medical care as they took in payments, they would become obsolete. In fact they would simply be like quirky banks where people could deposit money to be used later for medical expenses. The management of these entities would invariably soak up some percentage of their economic throughput in salaries and maintenance costs and so would still raise the cost of care.

Second, health insurance is not healthcare. It is unacceptable that in this country, so many people are not able to go to the doctor for vital procedures. This occurs because there is a health care problem, not a health insurance problem. When there is not enough of a commodity to go around, its cost goes up, making it unaffordable for some people. Some may argue that there are many doctors all over the country, but the issue with the healthcare shortage lies in how it is disbursed.

Each healthcare worker provides a certain number of hours per day to the supply of healthcare available for public consumption. Every day, a certain number of those hours are used up on various check ups, procedures, and related activities. These hours are not applied evenly though. Presently, only people who have insurance can afford to obtain care. The exclusion of those who don’t have insurance from the pool of consumers creates an artificial abundance of care for the group that does have insurance. This abundance allows them to go to the doctor for practically anything, whenever they want. If you get a cold at age 16, you can go to the doctor and get antibiotics, whether they are necessary or otherwise.

We are forced to conclude that once again, President Obama is right. Insurance companies are a large part of the problem. They drive up costs, and are often cruel and unusual with their decisions about who to drop and when. So, the President is right on almost all of the issue, just so he can lull the population into a trance to get that tiny piece of wrong by them.

The next issue that the president is pushing is for the ability of the Federal Reserve to control any institutions that interact with our economy. In other words, Obama wants the Federal Reserve to have more complete control over our interactions carried out through the exchange of currency.

This brings us to the alleged Democrat-Republican joint agenda mentioned at the beginning of this article. The eventual goal is the creation of a one world fascist state. Both the Republicans ideal of privatization of everything and the Democrats ideal of regulating the entire economy are necessary for the realization of this goal.

If the government regulates all economic transaction, but there is still interaction carried out in non currency based exchange, then the government can not control a populace. If everything is privatized and valued in currency, but there is no government regulation, then again, the government can not control the behavior of everyone. It is when everything is valued, and when the government has control of the exchange of value that things can approach a 1984 scenario.

Currency is used to exchange for goods and services and as such, accumulates information about the relative values of the different goods and services through human negotiation of price. If everything has a dollar value placed on it, and the government can micromanage the exchange of dollars, then the government gets to dictate to the population the value of different goods and services relative to society. This is analogous to mind control.

The dictation of the value of an apple that does not take into account one’s relative hunger forces an individual to supplant their need for the apple with some other level of need provided to him by a bureau of some sort. When this is applied to all goods and services, such as vacations, an hour of therapy, a college degree, new Adidas, the cost of emitting a pound of carbon dioxide, it becomes obvious how this hybrid public-privatized model allows for the specific engineering of culture within a society.

And so finally, Obama’s approval rating surely reflects the false choice of republican talking points, but the speed it dropped by also seems to represent a waking up to the hybrid model discussed above. If this country can realize that both parties are bought and paid for by the same people, maybe we have some chance of real reform left. If not, maybe a sign depicting Bush, Obama or our next president as Hitler really won’t be that far off…

Since his inauguration in January, President Obama has been contending with a number of crucial issues which continue to affect virtually all Americans. Among the most pressing of these is healthcare reform. It is necessary to note here that, according to an ongoing Gallup trend poll, a sizeable majority (about 60%) of the public still sees the floundering economy as the nation’s “most important problem.” However, this figure has dropped steadily from a peak of 86% since the beginning of the year, while the number of Americans citing healthcare as their foremost concern has risen from 4% to 25% during the same time span. This trend is not at all surprising: as more and more Americans lose their jobs (and, concurrently, their health insurance), the demand for a publicly-funded alternative has increased. To be sure, the President has taken several steps in the right direction (for example, bypassing Washington’s infernal political bickering and taking his party’s case directly to the people and addressing their concerns in a series of town hall meetings across the country over the course of the summer), but his actions – along with and those of the Democratic leadership in congress – have not as of yet gone far enough toward achieving the goal of universal healthcare.

Addressing the AFL-CIO during the organization’s annual Labor Day picnic this past Monday, Obama stated: “I see reform where Americans and small businesses that are shut out of health insurance today will be able to purchase coverage at a price they can afford…Where they’ll be able to shop and compare in a new health insurance exchange — a marketplace where competition and choice will continue to hold down cost and help deliver them a better deal.” While the President has readily and repeatedly stressed the need for an overhaul of how healthcare in the United States is operated, he seems reluctant to definitively state his support for a public option, having been continually put on the defensive by the generally outrageous and untenable criticisms of such a plan being made by the American right. Steve Hildebrand, one of Obama’s former campaign advisors stated recently that the President “needs to be more bold in his leadership.” Like many Americans, Hildebrand is “frustrated” with the lack of assertiveness the administration has shown thus far: “I gave up a lot to elect Democrats, and I expect them to give it up for me.”

Thus far, I have not seen a more pragmatic assessment of the situation Americans face regarding healthcare than Johann Hari’s comments in a recent piece for The Independent: “The US is the only major industrialised [sic] country that does not provide regular healthcare to all its citizens. Instead, they are required to provide for themselves – and 50 million people can’t afford the insurance. As a result, 18,000 US citizens die every year needlessly, because they can’t access the care they require. That’s equivalent to six 9/11s, every year, year on year. Yet the Republicans have accused the Democrats who are trying to stop all this death by extending healthcare of being ‘killers’ – and they have successfully managed to put them on the defensive. The Republicans want to defend the existing system…[b]ut they can’t do so honestly: some 70 per cent of Americans say it is ‘immoral’ to retain a medical system that doesn’t cover all citizens. So they have to invent lies to make any life-saving extension of healthcare sound depraved.”

One of the most incessant of these lies is the right’s assertion that the implementation of a public option will negatively affect the quality of care patients receive, but a recent Gallup “analysis of historical data finds only a slight difference in how Americans with Medicaid or Medicare versus those with private insurance plans rate the quality of care they receive, and no difference in how the two groups rate their coverage.” Many of the other falsehoods being repeated by opponents of a public option (e.g., that Obama and the Democrats wants to set up “death panels”) are so transparently ridiculous that they should require no response. Unfortunately, thanks in large part to a well-funded media campaign spawned by a number of large private insurance companies, a formidable proportion of Americans believe such rubbish, forcing progressive Democrats to waste their time and energy painstakingly clarifying that, in fact, they are not in favor of indiscriminately killing the elderly and the disabled.

This is a crucial juncture in our history and our only options are capitulation or persistence. We elected Barack Obama and then Democratic majorities in Congress last November because they promised us change. It is their duty to overcome the legislative roadblocks in their path and it is our paramount civic responsibility to hold them to their promises, to demand the reform our nation so desperately needs.

This article was also published in the Daily Targum; it is published here with the permission of the author.

“NObama has called for innovations such as a public health insurance plan to compete with private insurers, but he has not insisted on it. It was not clear Tuesday the degree to which he might press for various proposals in a new speech.” AP via Yahoo.

Drudge says that Politico says he’s totally backing down from the Public Option. I knew he was going to crack. TURKEY!!! You should have run as a Republican, you would have gotten more stuff done, honestly.

So, it appears that the new boss is in fact the same as the old one, doing just what the lobbyists want. Kowtowing if you will. This is not what I voted for, this isn’t what I put a magnet on the back of my sweet Moses Jackson Spaceship for (the head and GPS of said spaceship pictured left). This is totally and completely inexcusable Nobama.

It marks a victory for the do it yourself and don’t let the government run your life crowd. But to me, these ideals don’t apply here. We live in a country where if you’re buying more of anything, you get a lower price. Don’t believe me? Go to any buy-in-bulk store. The same applies to purchasing insurance plans—and in the case of the government it is not run for profit. Here you’ll find a quite convincing argument in accordance with my assertion.

An insurance company is already a quazi-governmental entity anyway. It has bureaucrats who answer the telephone and tell you they won’t cover your medication since you don’t have swine flu insurance.[1] They process paper work all day long, just like the DMV, the Post Office, and the legal system. All that reform would really bring to these entities would be a decapitation and a head transplant—except the new head wouldn’t suck so much money out of the rest of the body (GOD I WISH I HAD A PICTURE for this).

At the end of the day, that’s less money you pay for your insurance. PERIOD. Why should I pay for some guy to drive around in a Ferrari and get denied insurance because of a “pre-existing condition.” Guess what America, we ALL have a pre-existing condition called You’re Going to Die. Until they figure out how to harness the power of stem cells and brain regeneration, it’s going to get you. Bill Gates could spend all his money, and maybe he’d get cloned.

It’s a fact that nationalized systems cost half as much per-capita; I ask, honestly, why pay MORE? (Here’s where I get my facts) If we need more doctors, to accommodate a higher surge of new patient populations, build more medical schools. I’m ready to go, Noboma. Why don’t you summon the power of Kennedy and bring that change we can believe in.

That’s wishful thinking. I put $10,000 up that says Wall St. gets another pile of money before year’s out. The FED can print dough for the cats who brought you subprime, but not for the health of the average Joe Six Pack. (Eat it Palin)

So honestly, you should probably get some insurance, because a sudden traumatic accident can produce a hefty bill. Or be really careful…just know that the universe works in strange ways and you don’t always have control. Truth.

Maintain yourself. This is America. Self-Determination is part of our culture and keeping your helf is important. There are several ways to do this, guidelines I find helpful. One is the BMI calculator (found here), this is ok for the average body type, usually, but it is probably not always accurate. Por ejemplo, tu puedes ser completamente de musclos y en esa caja usted sería gordo.

Another helpful gauge of good health is body fat percentage. You need fat, so some is good, but too much in the wrong places can possibly lead to disease. To measure BFP you can get a scale that shoots electricity into your toes. Based on the conductivity of your little piggies, it determines how much of that ass is in fact fat. Or you could go by my badass method of arm-veinage degree. However, Madonna has proven that big veins don’t work for everyone. (This chart should give you some idea…)

Eat well. Walter Willett wrote a great book on diet called “Eat, Drink and Be Healthy.” It presents scientifically backed information on proper diet as opposed to the one funded by the Dairy/Corn/Meat industries. Get a checkup every couple years if you feel you are healthy. Checking basic vitals like blood pressure, the composition of your blood, (specifically how much of it is red blood cells), the content and type of fat you carry, saturated (bad) or unsaturated (good), making sure no weird microscopic blood bathing demons are swimming about, etc.

Get off your rear and exercise—and never stop. The best way to stay alive is to keep moving and shaking. You don’t have to go to the gym, just run around your block, ride a bike, play some kind of sport. Just stay active.

Going forwards, I feel it’s safe to assume our government benefits will get worse if we continue to follow this trend. Your health is your own concern for the foreseeable future, so do all that you can to preserve it, and you may enjoy a long and happy life.

In the meantime, I would like to protest my dissatisfaction publicly. Would anybody like to pick a good spot and go make some noise in the next week?

Dear Mr. President,

I am writing to you in response to your Virtual Town Meeting held on March 26, 2009 at the White House.  Many questions from online members addressed the topic of marijuana legalization.  This topic, as indicated from you was one of the most voted topics from approximately 3.6 million votes, to be discussed in this online event.  From what is indicated on the website http://www.whitehouse.gov/openforquestions, 8 out of the top 10 most voted questions were related to marijuana. 

What was paraphrased by you was, “whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy and job creation”.  The top question with nearly 8,000 votes was, “With over 1 out of 30 Americans controlled by the penal system, why not legalize, control, and tax marijuana to change the failed war on drugs into a money making, money saving boost to the economy? Do we really need that many victimless criminals?”  Yet this question was not displayed on your presentation, or any that were related to the topic of marijuana.

I was completely disappointed, along with many of our fellow Americans, by your passive response.  You had answered the paraphrased question with a snicker saying, “I don’t know what this says about our online audience…the answer is NO, I don’t think this is a good strategy to improve our economy,” without articulating a reason for your position on this topic.  Subsequently, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Secretary was asked to clarify your position on the legalization of marijuana.  Mr. Gibbs indicated, “The President opposes the legalization of marijuana, and I’d say I did that with not even the slightest bit of laughter…he doesn’t think it’s the right plan for America”. Based on previous statements from your campaign, the American People want to know if we hired the right person to carry out this agenda.

Firstly, I would like to tell you about more about your online audience, which includes me.  This group of people is comprised of smart, productive, insightful, and brilliant American citizens who had made the difference in your campaign, and eventual vote into becoming the 44th President of the United States of America.  We are made up of Americans that are just like you.  We are responsible Americans, who work, pay taxes, spend money, and create business in America.    We are Americans who are losing the quality of education and after school programs for our children.  We are young and aging Americans who are need of world class healthcare, but many of Us cannot afford.  We are Americans who are struggling to make a living in a bleak economy, while trying to maintain our composure.  We are Americans that are need of food, clothing, and shelter, where many of Us are losing everyday because of increasing prices and unemployment.  We are Americans who are the highest consumers of fossil fuels in the world, and are looking for clean fuel alternatives. We are Americans who are dying everyday from the war on drugs and terror that is predicated upon the protection of corporate monopolies and cartels, and perpetuated by a pathological bureaucratic system.  We are Americans who are sick and tired of being denied our “inalienable Rights endowed by (our) Creator”; the right to live “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”.   Most of all, we are Americans who love and care about our country, and value the well being and safety for ourselves, our friends, and our families here at home, and around the world.

Secondly, I want address the stereotype and misconception of the supporters of marijuana and hemp.  The common stereotype is of people who are strictly recreational marijuana smokers who are lazy, incompetent, and non-contributors to society.  In actuality, this group can be characterized by the many Americans described above, and is not necessarily marijuana smokers.  Supporters of this position are passionate about having a viable solution to the many issues and challenges that your Administration faces today, vis-à-vis your plan.  This includes the US/Global financial crisis, job creation, affordable housing, education, health care, the fuel crisis, sustainability and environmental responsibility, curbing hunger and starvation worldwide, the war on drugs and terror, etc. Why are We prohibiting ourselves from a plant that dates back use from ancient times, and can solve the underlining problems above?

Overall, the American People deserve a chance to engage in an open objective forum, that discusses the merits of marijuana and hemp. This panel would ideally include experts from around the world, that range from doctors, scientists, economists, sociologists, civil rights and US Constitution experts, and many other industry experts.  The American People would also like your Administration to revisit the Schaffer Commission Report, and continue to analyze these recommendations that the Nixon Administration dismissed in 1972.  Ultimately, the American People are interested in the next steps towards the legalization of marijuana and hemp in the United States of America!

We are looking forward for the leadership, courage, and bravery of your presidency, to lead Us into the HOPE, CHANGE, and PROGRESS that your campaign professes, into a new and promising America.  Thank you for taking the time to hear Us out, and representing Us as the Voice of America!

Respectfully Yours,

American Pot Smoker

“It was the sails and ropes from the Mayflower; the paper, ink, and words from the Declaration of Independence; the will and determination of the American People that set Us free.  YES WE CAN(nibus)!”

— American Pot Smoker

“When I was a kid, I inhaled frequently.  That was the point.”

— Barack Obama, 44^th President of the United States of America