"In three days we'll choose a new steward for the presidency and begin a new chapter in our history," the Vice President said Saturday morning. "It's the biggest decision that we make together as Americans. A lot turns on the outcome. I believe the right leader for this moment in history is Senator John McCain."
Borrowed from the Russia Blog
While the financial crisis continues around the globe and in Russia, we offer you a joke sent to us by Bohdanna Diduch, a reader from Ukraine. We hope it will help you relax from the financial headaches and enjoy the cultural references. -- The Editors
A lawyer and a Ukrainian are sitting next to each other on a long flight. The lawyer is thinking that Ukrainians are so dumb that he could get over on them easy...So the lawyer asks if the Ukrainian would like to play a fun game.
The Ukrainian is tired and just wants to take a nap, so he politely declines and tries to catch a few winks. The lawyer persists, and says that the game is a lot of fun. I ask you a question, and if you don't know the answer, you pay me only $5; you ask me one, and if I don't know the answer, I will pay you $500, he says. This catches the Ukrainianʼs attention and to keep the lawyer quiet, he agrees to play the game.The lawyer asks the first question. 'What's the distance from The Earth to the Moon?' The Ukrainian doesn't say a word, reaches in his pocket pulls out a five-dollar bill, and hands it to the lawyer.
Now, it's the Ukrainian's turn. He asks the lawyer, 'What goes up a hill with three legs, and comes down with four?' The lawyer uses his laptop and searches all references he could find on the Net. He sends e-mails to all the smart friends he knows, all to no avail. After one hour of searching he finally gives up. He wakes up the Ukrainian and hands him $500. The Ukrainian pockets the $500 and goes right back to sleep.
The lawyer is going nuts not knowing the answer. He wakes the Ukrainian up and asks, 'Well, so what goes up a hill with three legs and comes down with four?'
The Ukrainian reaches in his pocket, hands the lawyer $5 and goes back to sleep.
Don't mess with us Ukrainians.
I have posted this excerpt as a record of a view that nationally, socially and culturally has its origins outside of mainstream American perspectives. Please consider reading the entire post at The Ivanov Report. Once you have done so then take a peek at the author's Bio.
[The Ivanov Report]
Only an incorrigible optimist can find a silver lining in the ongoing financial crisis engulfing the United States and the rest of the world. Yet, if there is one, it is that the gloomy prospects for the American economy will most likely put an end to Sen. John McCain's bid to become the 44th president of the United States.
His rival, Sen. Barack Obama, often charges that McCain's presidency will bring four more years of Bush's. Here, Obama gets it wrong. Bush's blunders notwithstanding, his policies have been driven by Bush's vision, however mistaken, of the country's future ("compassionate conservatism" in domestic politics and "democracy promotion" in foreign affairs).
McCain is different, for he hasn't articulated any comprehensive, forward-looking, political philosophy at all. McCain is a man of the past, and his insistence on "experience" is a subconscious admission that his mind belongs to the times long gone. His repeated references to the K.G.B. (disbanded in 1995) and Czechoslovakia (ceased to exist as a state in 1992) aren't just memory lapses, forgivable for a 72-year-old. Rather, they are bold statements that McCain sees the world not as it is, but as he chooses to remember it.
At the center of McCain's world is the Vietnam War. McCain loves wars in which America fights ("to love your country is to fight for it") and he divides them into those that have been won -- with troops coming home "with honor" -- and those that could have been won had not defeat been snatched from the jaw of victory.
. . .
McCain's current presidential run repeats the major theme of his life. He ran in 2000 and was humiliatingly defeated in the primaries by whom he called back then "agents of intolerance", the religious conservative wing of the Republican party. And since then, he's had scores to settle.
He is not running to promote any particular ideological agenda -- as Bush was and Obama is -- for he's got none. He's running to get even with people who stopped him eight years ago. His selection of Alaskan governor, Sarah Palin-- inexperienced and immature populist -- as his running mate is a clear indication that McCain's goal is to get elected at whatever cost. The very thought of what may happen come January 21, 2009 doesn't appear to have descended upon him.
(McCain's choice of Palin shows that he shares Vladimir Lenin's belief that under right circumstances, every kitchenmade ("kukharka") can "run the state." Just put expensive lipstick on her.)
McCain likes to highlight his patriotism by saying that he'd rather lose the election, but win the war. Well, lose the election he most likely will, and it'll be up to President Obama to win all the wars McCain has helped to start.
But I'm not sorry for John McCain. He has enough wars to fight in his head. He'll be busy for the rest of his life.
In 1985, a U.S. Congressman named John McCain traveled to Chile and met with dictator Augusto Pinochet, among other government officials. The previously unreported meeting was revealed by journalist John Dinges, who published the findings in his blog CIPER [es], as well as in the Huffington Post, where he writes about John McCain “who has harshly criticized the idea of sitting down with dictators without pre-conditions, appears to have done just that.” with “Pinochet, one of the world's most notorious violators of human rights credited with killing more than 3,000 civilians and jailing tens of thousands of others.”
Chilean blogger Juan Guillermo Tejeda writes about some of the details of the meeting [es]:
El senador estuvo media hora con nuestro monstruito, y además conversó con el almirante Merino, cuyo humor sádico conocimos tan bien… El encuentro, organizado por el entonces embajador de Chile Hernán Felipe Errázuriz, no apareció en los medios y el senador se abstuvo de realizar declaraciones.
The senator spent half an hour with our little monster, and also met with Admiral Merino, whose sadistic humor we know all too well… The meeting, organized by the then-ambassador Hernán Felipe Errázuriz, did not appear in the media and the Senator did not make any comment.
Dinges wrote about some of the context of the meeting in the Chilean blog of the Center of Journalistic Information and Investigation (CIPER for its initials in Spanish)
Al momento del encuentro, realizado la tarde del 30 de diciembre, el Departamento de Justicia de Estados Unidos intentaba obtener de las autoridades chilenas la extradición de tres hombres cercanos a Pinochet –el ex jefe de la DINA, Manuel Contreras, y los ex oficiales DINA Pedro Espinoza y Armando Fernández Larios- por un acto de terrorismo ocurrido en Washington DC. Un juicio en Washington determinó su procesamiento por el asesinato en 1976 del ex embajador y ex canciller Orlando Letelier y de la norteamericana Ronny Moffit, quien viajaba con él. La bomba puesta en su auto y que estalló en Sheridan Circle, fue descrita en esa época por la prensa internacional como el más flagrante acto de terrorismo internacional perpetrado en suelo estadounidense por una fuerza extranjera.
En esos mismos días en Chile, la oposición buscaba desesperadamente el apoyo de líderes democráticos de todo el mundo en su intento por presionar a Pinochet a poner fin a la dictadura que ya cumplía 12 años y permitir el retorno a la democracia. Otros congresistas visitaron Chile después de la vista de McCain e hicieron declaraciones públicas contra la dictadura y en apoyo del retorno a la democracia, convirtiéndose en el blanco de violentas demostraciones pinochetistas.
At the time of the meeting, in the late afternoon of December 30, the U.S. Justice Department was seeking the extradition of two close Pinochet associates - the ex-chief of the DINA (National Intelligence Directorate) and DINA officials Pedro Espinoza and Armando Fernández Larios -for an act of terrorism in Washington DC. A trial in Washington determined that they should be charged for the 1976 assassination of former ambassador to the U.S. and former Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier and of U.S. citizen Ronny Moffit, who accompanied Letelier. The car bombing on Sheridan Circle in the U.S. capital was widely described at the time as the most egregious act of international terrorism perpetrated on U.S. soil by a foreign power.
At the time of McCain's meeting with Pinochet, Chile's democratic opposition was desperately seeking support from democratic leaders around the world in an attempt to pressure Pinochet to allow a return to democracy and force a peaceful end to the dictatorship, already in its 12th year. Other U.S. congressional leaders who visited Chile made public statements against the dictatorship and in support of a return to democracy, at times becoming the target of violent pro-Pinochet demonstrations.
At his blog Chile From Within, Chilean-American blogger Tomás Dinges links to the articles written by “document-maven and father” and provides additional links to information, including a response from the McCain campaign that appeared in the Miami Herald's Naked Politics blog.
Many Chilean and Latin American blogs are republishing John Dinges' articles, as a way of spreading the information.
Friday 24 October 2008
by: Matthew Murray, Roll Call
A voter casts her ballot in Ohio. (Photo: Al Behrman / AP)
President Bush is asking the Justice Department to look into whether 200,000 Buckeye State poll-goers must use provisional ballots on Election Day because their names do not match state databases.
The first time I heard Barack Obama speak (as a 2008 primary candidate) I drifted into the childlike dream state of believing in integrity and virtue and altruism and equality and fairness and the innate value of human beings. I believed that Barack Obama embodied those qualities. I knew from that point forward that I would vote for Barack Hussein Obama in the coming primary election.
Moreover, I drifted into the state of believing in the integrity of the American political process. I relished the prospect of civilized discourse and intelligent debate. I longed for dramatic and compelling stump speeches that rallied Americans with visions of the future and acknowledgments of progress and growth. I began to have faith in the American political process.
That is until the final stages of the primary campaign. Then I began to see that pursuit of power corrupts (and the pursuit of absolute power corrupts absolutely.) I began to see that the candidates in attempting to remain PC (Politically Correct - How wonderfully ironic is that?) would not say "Sugar" with a mouth full but their handlers and spokespersons would just as easily use the other "S" word.
So the days, hours and finally minutes ticked off and to some small extent my faith in American politics was restored. Not because a well qualified African-American was nominated over a well qualified woman but rather that the process was allowed to proceed with out artificial encumbrances - like the Democratic Party elite making some backroom decision based on an obscure technical party rule.
My faith was restored at that point for a somewhat more self centered reason as well. Certainly that has to do with the affirmation of my choice. But it more importantly has to do with the affirmation of our choice. I want to have faith in our ability not just as Democrats but as Americans to make good decisions. Now one may argue that had we nominated Hillary Clinton that would have been a good decision but I contend that a.) we did not and b.) the criteria used by the majority was more in line with my views than the minority. The conclusion that I can draw is that as far as the Democrat primary election and subsequent nomination are concerned I can depend on my views as a bellweather for the future of the political process.
Faced now with the field of candidates running for the office of the President of the United States I can without equivication affirm my support for Barack Obama. I can do so because I can have faith in my own person perspective and I can have faith as a bellweather for American voters. I can state that American voters will elect the best candidate. It is my most fervent hope that we are allowed to do so without artificial emcumberances.
