Seasons and motion: News and politics

Obama and Ayers information

Wed, 08 Oct 2008 03:47:27 GMT

Below is an e-mail I received that I edited to make a less screamingly "partisan." I really am only getting involved with this because I don't like elections getting reduced to misinformation on both sides. Raising points are good from either side, but not when answers have already been given.

Here’s the truth: the smear associating Barack to Ayers is “phony” according to the Washington Post. The Associated Press calls the attack “exaggerated at best, if not outright false.”

William Ayers is a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, with whom Barack served on the board of a charitable anti-poverty organization in the mid-1990s. According to the Associated Press, they are not close: “No evidence shows they were “pals” or even close when they worked on community boards years ago …”

Smear groups are trying to connect Obama to acts Ayers committed 40 years ago – when Barack was just eight years old. Here’s what the New York Times reported on the connection:

But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called “somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.”

Barack has publicly denounced Ayers’ radical actions from the 1960’s:

Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous.

Read the refutations from the news sources yourself:

· CNN: Palin’s Claim That Obama is Palling Around with Terrorists is “False.”

· AP: Obama And Ayers Relationship Is “Exaggerated At Best If Not Outright False”

· New York Times: Obama And Ayers “Do Not Appear To Have Been Close.”

· New York Times: Obama calls Ayers “Somebody Who Engaged in Detestable Acts 40 Years Ago, When I Was 8.”

· Detroit Free Press: Ayers Smear, Like Jerome Corsi’s Obama Nation, Is “A Tome Full of Fabrications, Half-Truths, and Delusions.”

· Chicago Sun-Times: Obama ‘‘deplored’’ what Ayers did in the 1960s and ‘‘by the time I met him, he is a professor of education at the University of Illinois. We served on a board together that had Republicans, bankers, lawyers, focused on education.”

Mean St. replaces Main St. - Los Angeles Times

Sat, 04 Oct 2008 13:56:15 GMT

Grounds the whole Main Street-Wall Street banter into reality.

Mean St. replaces Main St. - Los Angeles Times

A view of politics and issues--unabridged

Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:32:32 GMT

I got struck recently with the reality I'd touched on things political, largely in light of this election, but never really explained my reasons for the smattering of responses I've made up to this point. In the event of any confusion or concerns, I thought it fair to sit and just share where I'm at with regards to politics.

First, I need to give credit where credit's due to people I know who've challenged me along the way. They are Ryan Chan, Avi Mechanic, Tom Boeger, and Robert Burns. Guys, if by some random chance you stumble upon this post (I never know who really reads what I write), y'all have helped broaden my response to the issues. Some has been through direct exchanges, and other from just hearing you articulate your views through blogs (Ryan, especially from you; thank you). So, my gratitude to y'all. You're all deserving a Facebook tag to this message after it gets imported. Now, onto the mess . . .

The biggest thing to say is I don't like political parties or the ideologies espoused by them, meaning Democrats being "liberal" or Republicans being "conservative." I've found neither very relevant to understanding the views of either party, and often seems more like a smoke screen to keep people focused on what such "liberalism" or "conservatism" means according to views of one or two issues. That coincides with a practice I find unfruitful, and that is voting straight-ticket. When that's done, it opens up the doors to more problems that accompany neglect of anything, namely either eventual discontentment or numbness to the nominees' accountability to all issues.

From that is my view that issues need to be regarded according to their sum-implications, not simply the specific effect of one or two. An example is that, as much as I wish McCain was less outspoken about the War in Iraq, that issue alone is not a morally-justifiable reason for me not to vote for him. The greatest danger I've noticed to "politics as usual" has been an assumed moral ambiguity toward the lump-sum of the issues, with a tiny handful being relegated as "moral."

Alongside that arises another form of neglect, but this time on the part of politicians. Being "moral" about the "moral" issues does not imply that personal morality is informing the rest of a politician's political decisions. Given how I consider people of all makes and models to be depraved in different ways--withstanding redemption--I cannot put anyone above accountability there. I won't go into my views of the more overt moral issues, except that I feel like an involved and caring community is the best balm to heal societal wounds, not a politician or government. The trouble in the US, though, is such interconnected community and fellowship have so cruelly deteriorated that anyone with a microphone has taken the role I think is better suited for a loving community. At best, the levels of government need to make it possible for such a community to thrive, but not usurp that role.

My final view of politics is what I look for in a politician, particularly one seeking to be elected. I'll begin with what I don't look at: race, ethnicity, sex, geographical region, political party, achievements, or a forgivable past. What I do look for is a sense of vision for his/her constituency and country, willingness to learn, ease in communication, intelligence, a sense of community, demonstrates humility, servant leadership, and regard for the humanity of others--voter or rival politician/candidate alike. I feel like those should be self-explanatory, so I won't insult your intelligence by describing why. What I will say is I REALLY NEED to see all of those in a politician or I'll have serious hesitation about supporting that person. The combined and frequent absence of those things has been the main source of distaste I have towards the game of politics.

If any questions still arise, I don't know what else I could say since I already said much, but I'll do my best! In a nutshell, that's me and politics.

Article reflecting about a candidate

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 07:47:29 GMT

I've been wanting to get a better sense of where McCain had been in the past, and where he's at now. I'd heard on both sides of the political fence through the news that he'd changed since 2000 and was less "maverick." Below is the link to an article written by Elizabeth Drew, who wrote a book supporting him in 2002 called Citizen McCain. This is me purely wanting to get a better perspective of where he was and where he's at. She seems a little disappointed. How McCain was described by her in 2000, I wouldn't have minded voting for him then.

How McCain lost me

Clarifying article about "the bridges to nowhere"

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:20:04 GMT

I try not to get political, though way lean that way a little as the election draws closer. This article is a fairly objective response to the whole "bridges to nowhere" controversy surrounding Palin. Refreshingly objective.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20080909/pl_cq_politics/politics2945424;_ylt=AlvqB9hE1yFKUknzqWwnlONsnwcF

Here Come the Millennials - New York Times

Tue, 13 May 2008 11:12:58 GMT

Once I started reading this article, I realized how clearly it stamped my future. Maybe it's better to work overseas???

Link to Here Come the Millennials - New York Times

"Reprotracted delegislation"

Thu, 08 May 2008 14:54:39 GMT

I know I mentioned I didn't want to post another primaries article, and this really isn't. This is a politics article, but a view towards the need for new politics. On up to the primaries on the 6th (of course I pay attention as a Tarheel), I coined the term for the conventional political process as "reprotracted delegislation." Feels like a fitting term. Try it out. I think it'll grow on you. All the same, good article linked below, and no it's not because "Obama" is in the headline. Hopefully, the way politics gets done will change some as a result of this election year . . .

Link to Obama's Game Changing - Yahoo! News

Obama Delegate Cushion May Smother Clinton Momentum - Yahoo! News

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:27:20 GMT

I must be getting more political the more I pay attention to campaign news. I'm not much for theoretical looks at possible outcomes to things, but this is a curious way of considering the delegate situation between Clinton and Obama. The writer seems a bit soft on Obama, but, besides that, a possible result the primary can take.

***** Just so you know, I'm registered as an Independent. I don't agree with bipartisan politics. That doesn't change its existence, but I don't think two parties should be the only channels used for looking at issues, given you can get a lot of things you disagree with involving either party. There are things I disagree with on Obama's views of some issues, as well as the typical Republican stance (barring McCain's being viewed as more "moderate," whatever that or "conservative" or "liberal" means anymore). Neither party is a "best fit" in my opinion, but it suits the present situation of where the majority of US voters typically base their choices on a deferential model. Be it how they or family always has done it, or according to their in-group trends, it's an expression of self-interest that focuses on expending the least amount of personal time, energy, or commitment (with a few exceptions, obviously). Alright, I'm stepping off my political soapbox now!

Link to Obama Delegate Cushion May Smother Clinton Momentum - Yahoo! News