Diversify!

It’s an amazement to this blogger that so many people invest all their hopes and dreams in any one person running for the presidential nomination… This applies to many of the supporters of all three of those remaining in the race, Senators Clinton, Obama, McCain (listed alphabetically and not in any particular order of preference!) Note: the remainder of this post will reference Senator Obama, but everything said applies equally to backers of Senator Clinton, and an analogous situation exists for the supporters of Senator McCain.

As with your 401(k), 403(b), and other investments this blogger would recommend that folks do not pin all their hopes and dreams on the success/failure of one candidate, but that they diversify…

So, you believe that Senator Obama can change the tone in Washington. Regardless, diversify, put equal or more effort in selecting and then backing the Democratic party candidates for the Senate and House, and the same for your local elected officials!

First, Obama might not win. Second, even if he does, without gains in these other areas as well your preferred candidate might still be stymied in his efforts to get change. You say that Obama has a track record of reaching across the aisle, working with Republicans, etc., etc. Great, but just getting him elected won’t have everyone singing Kumbaya. You should note that despite any cooperation ‘at the edges’, on the main issues that critically divide the two parties (e.g. FISA modification and telecom immunity, SCHIP, the “war” in Iraq, domestic spying, and a host of other important issues) since the Democrats took over the Senate the Republicans have used the "silent" filibuster over one hundred times derailing a host of Democratic priorities. In all of these critical issues there has not been even one example of Senator Obama being able to bridge differences, or of being able to reach across the aisle to persuade any Republican senators to vote for cloture to defeat the silent filibuster to get the legislation passed.

So, diversify!!

What it takes...

Senator Obama on Reverend Jeremiah Wright on March 18th:

“As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. … I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother...”

On April 29th

“Yesterday we saw a very different vision of America. I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday. I have been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since 1992. I've known Reverend Wright for almost 20 years. The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church.

They certainly don't portray accurately my values and beliefs. And if Reverend Wright thinks that that's political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn't know me very well. And based on his remarks yesterday, well, I may not know him as well as I thought either.

Now, I've already denounced the comments that had appeared in these previous sermons. As I said, I had not heard them before. And I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia, explaining that he has done enormous good in the church. He has built a wonderful congregation. The people of Trinity are wonderful people, and what attracted me has always been their ministries reach beyond the church walls.

But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS, when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st centuries, when he equates the United States wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses.

They offend me. The rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced. And that's what I'm doing very clearly and unequivocally here today.

Let me just close by saying this. We started this campaign with the idea that the problems that we face as a country are too great to continue to be divided, that in fact all across America people are hungry to get out of the old, divisive politics of the past.

I have spoken and written about the need for us to all recognize each other as Americans, regardless of race or religion or region of the country, that the only way we can deal with critical issues like energy and health care and education and the war on terrorism is if we are joined together.

And the reason our campaign has been so successful is because we have moved beyond these old arguments.

What we saw yesterday out of Reverend Wright was a resurfacing and, I believe, an exploitation of those old divisions. Whatever his intentions, that was the result. It is antithetical to our campaign. It is antithetical to what I am about. It is not what I think America stands for.

And I want to be very clear that, moving forward, Reverend Wright does not speak for me. He does not speak for our campaign. I cannot prevent him from continuing to make these outrageous remarks, but what I do want him to be very clear about, as well as all of you and the American people, is that when I say that I find these comments appalling, I mean it.

It contradicts everything that I am about and who I am. And anybody who has worked with me, who knows my life, who has read my books, who has seen what this campaign is about, I think, will understand that it is completely opposed to what I stand for and where I want to take this country.

Last point. I'm particularly distressed that this has caused such a distraction from what this campaign should be about, which is the American people. Their situation is getting worse. And this campaign has never been about me. It's never been about Senator Clinton or John McCain. It's not about Reverend Wright.

People want some help in stabilizing their lives and securing a better future for themselves and their children. And that's what we should be talking about.

And the fact that Reverend Wright would think that somehow it was appropriate to command the stage for three or four consecutive days in the midst of this major debate is something that not only makes me angry, but also saddens me."

So, what changed in the span of approximately one month?? Did Reverend Wright come out with new declarations? Did he say or do anything different from what he has said and done for many years? Did Senator Obama learn anything new regarding Reverend Wright’s views that were not already known to him when he made the first of his two declarations, above?

The answer to each of these questions is an unequivocal “No”. Reverend Wright’s apparent sin was in not keeping a low profile, thereby complicating Senator Obama’s quest for the Democratic nomination. He did this by his Bill Moyers interview, by speaking at a NAACP function, and then appearing before the National Press Club.

Senator Obama couched his denunciation in terms of a) Reverend Wright’s views, which he characterized as “ridiculous” and antithetical to his own beliefs, and, b) Reverend Wright causing a distraction from “what this campaign should be about, which is the American people…. People want some help in stabilizing their lives and securing a better future for themselves and their children. And that's what we should be talking about.” Obama went on to express his anger “…that Reverend Wright would think that somehow it was appropriate to command the stage for three or four consecutive days in the midst of this major debate…”

However, these “ridiculous” views had not estranged them before, and in fact had not been an impediment to an extremely close relationship that lasted over many years. The change from ‘can’t disown’ to ‘disown’ shows that Wright was right about at least one thing, when he said re Obama “…he goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician…”

In fact some have argued that this shows that Senator Obama has the mettle to be president, that he can make the tough decisions when he has to! True, but this entire imbroglio also shows that this ‘agent of change’ who wants to ‘change the tone in Washington’ shares the same one-way notion of loyalty as did/do Reagan, the Bushes pere et fils, and the Clintons!

On a side note, it’s true that Reverend Wright’s comments were incendiary and not very artfully couched, especially for such an evidently erudite scholar with a great facility for language. However, while not a comfortable subject for polite dinner conversation, they were not all totally “ridiculous” and beyond the pale. For example, his comments re 9/11 were not as ridiculous as those of Pat Robertson (see below), and this blogger’s sense is that what he was saying was not that different from what Ron Paul said (and incidentally also was vilified for by very many) that while the responsibility for 9/11 lay entirely with the terrorists, it did not occur in a complete vacuum….

Pat Robertson, about the 9/11 attacks - "We have allowed rampant secularism and occult, et cetera, to be broadcast on television. We have permitted somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 to 40 million unborn babies to be slaughtered in our society. We have a Court that has essentially stuck its finger in God's eye and said, 'We're going to legislate you out of the schools, we're going to take your Commandments from off the courthouse steps in various states, we're not going to let little children read the Commandments of God, we're not going to let the Bible be read -- no prayer in our schools.' We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. And, then we say 'why does this happen?' Well, why its happening is that God Almighty is lifting His protection from us."

Mental Health Break

Needed in Lebanon III (Updated May 6th)

In a June 2005 oped, this blogger listed a number of unfortunate issues with Lebanese electoral rules including:

“Beyond the fact that this arrangement enshrines sectarianism and ensures the perpetuation of religious and ethnic divisions, there are numerous issues with this "democracy" - the last official census in Lebanon was in 1932 (it is too explosive to arrange one); the Christians estimated at 40% of the population have half the seats, as do the Muslims, estimated at 60% of the population; absentee voting is not allowed, disenfranchising the (very many) Lebanese who live outside Lebanon; you can only vote in the village or town your forefathers were born in, thus requiring that people travel to their birth place at least twice during elections - once for voter registration and the other time to vote;, the minimum voting age is 21 (alienating the many in the 18-21 age group); many who have been born and lived their entire lives in Lebanon may not vote as it is extremely difficult in Lebanon to become a naturalized citizen, etc., etc.”

Sectarian Citizenship bemoans the fact that sectarianism is engrained in Lebanon, quote "Last year, when a group of people submitted a request to the Interior Ministry to delete their religious affiliation from official registries, the reply was that no one has the right to be without a religion in Lebanon. This might be dismissed as a quaint tradition if it were not for that fact that, as Sunday, April 13, marked the 33rd anniversary of the outbreak of the outbreak of Lebanon’s devastating 15-year civil war, the specter of conflict, once again, looms over a country still dominated by sectarian allegiance. "

The articles "The syndicate battle. Engineers and architects cast their ballots" and "University elections a political barometer" show how the political divisions and polarization in the country have insinuated themselves into areas that you would not expect to be divided along political lines – elections for the Order of Engineers and Architects, and elections for student government at the Université Saint-Joseph. A sad commentary, the Lebanese need to get beyond this…

See also Needed in Lebanon II

May 6th Update: LF vs. FPM "students", see Christian political rival supporters clash in Beirut

Ugh...

The Telegraph (UK) recently published "The 50 most influential US political pundits."  Ouch!

Needed in Lebanon II

In a June 2005 oped, this blogger listed a number of unfortunate issues with Lebanese electoral rules including:

“Beyond the fact that this arrangement enshrines sectarianism and ensures the perpetuation of religious and ethnic divisions, there are numerous issues with this "democracy" - the last official census in Lebanon was in 1932 (it is too explosive to arrange one); the Christians estimated at 40% of the population have half the seats, as do the Muslims, estimated at 60% of the population; absentee voting is not allowed, disenfranchising the (very many) Lebanese who live outside Lebanon; you can only vote in the village or town your forefathers were born in, thus requiring that people travel to their birth place at least twice during elections - once for voter registration and the other time to vote;, the minimum voting age is 21 (alienating the many in the 18-21 age group); many who have been born and lived their entire lives in Lebanon may not vote as it is extremely difficult in Lebanon to become a naturalized citizen, etc., etc.”

A recent commentary in the Daily Star, “Electoral reform in Lebanon begins with respect for human rights - commencing with a census” elaborates on the districting issues, article reprinted below. Just one of many changes needed in Lebanon for it to move forward...

First person by Muhamad Mugraby

It is hard for foreign observers to grasp that the districting for general parliamentary elections in Lebanon is not guided by any recent population census that draws the demographic map and measures the demographic changes in and between villages and towns on a continuous basis. For what looks today like a heavily populated district could become less populated tomorrow, and vice versa.

It is strange but true: There has not been a general population census in the country since the year 1932. That census was ordered under the law of November 24, 1931, and organized by Presidential Decree No. 8837 of January 15, 1932, signed by President Charles Dabbas. It was carried out house-to-house where the actual residents were counted and then registered. That process gave rise to the population lists in each administrative district. Those lists subsequently became basic to the electoral lists.

After the 1932 census served its intended purpose, no other census was ever conducted, which amounts to a gross violation of human rights for the Lebanese. To begin with, many rules of Lebanese law have been chronically violated, to wit:

1. The rule that the population lists are not static: The names of persons who no longer reside in the village or city quarter must, by law, be stricken off the population list in such quarter and transferred to the list of their new residence.

2. The rule that electoral lists must consist of the names of those citizens who resided in the electoral district for six months or longer: As the population lists are, by law, supposed to be made current, the electoral lists are extracted from the population lists and reflect similar dynamics.

More significantly, the constitutional and human rights rule of equality enshrined in Article 7 of Lebanon's Constitution and Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights requires that democratic representation be directly and proportionately related to the resident population of each district.

The sad truth is that the population lists in Lebanon are not kept current and, consequently, the electoral lists do not reflect the actual residents of the various districts.

As a result of the normal demographic changes that took place over the past three-quarters of a century since the census of 1932, the names of large numbers of Lebanese citizens do not appear on the population (and consequently the electoral) lists of villages and cities where they actually live and work but on the lists of localities where their grandparents and their great-grandparents did. Hence they cannot vote in the parliamentary elections of their natural districts. Furthermore, they are not entitled to vote in local elections and are without say in the conduct of local government.


It is generally thought, in line with a definite trend observed worldwide, that vast demographic shifts have expanded the population of cities and contracted the population of villages in the country side. This has not been recognized in Lebanon, where a largely fictitious distribution of the population continues in general to be based on the results of the 1932 census.

The political, democratic and human rights consequences of this strange state of affairs are far-reaching. For example:

Citizens are denied their legal, constitutional and human rights to participate in the democratic process through voting in the districts where they actually live.

Lebanese citizens are assigned, often against their free will, a tribal-like affinity to the birthplaces of their grandparents and great-grandparents, where they suffer from the feudal-confessional political bosses who thrive on the forced political allegiance they secure through their domination of the local instruments of government.

Electoral districts are based, one way or the other, on administrative districts that were established centuries ago under the Ottoman Sultanate, and, hence, are not necessarily representative of the modern-day demographic map of Lebanon.

It is generally believed that city dwellers may exercise a greater freedom of political choice than residents of the countryside. This may not be necessarily true but a voter stands a better chance of emancipation from domination of the feudal-confessional political bosses if he or she severs their paper link, through the population lists, to the homes of their ancestors.

In all events, the laws and the Constitution of Lebanon, as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, must be fully upheld. The first step to electoral law reform is a general population census to be conducted on a regular basis, in intervals or no longer than 10 years. The results of such census will determine the size of the base and the democratic representation in each electoral district, both for parliamentary and local elections purposes. More specifically, only the names of the actual residents for six months or longer may appear on the electoral lists and be entitled to vote.

04/16/08 Needed in Lebanon
03/26/08 Rogue's Gallery #2
03/02/08 A Rogue's Gallery 

January is back...

At the end of April 2008 the current President of Turkmenistan, Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov, announced that his country would return to using the Gregorian calendar. He abolished the bizarre calendar introduced by the previous leader, Saparmurat Niyazov, (a.k.a Turkmenbashi, or the Head of All Turkmen), Turkmenbashi had renamed January after himself on the official Turkmen calendar, and had named other months after his parents, etc.

Below is a reprint of an oped from September 2002 that this blogger had written about  Turkmenbashi:

OPED27 Turkmenbashi (reprint from 09/06/02)

Who or what is Turkmenbashi? Well, let's see - Turkmenbashi is a Caspian Sea port city, the world's largest rug (three hundred square meters), a 670-lb meteorite, an airport in Ashkhabad (Turkmenistan), a month of the year (formerly known as January), a stadium, an avenue, an estimated 2 to 10 thousand statues, countless portraits.... and a man - Sapamurat Niyazov, "Perpetual President" of Turkmenistan, also known as Turkmenbashi, "Father of all Turkmen".

Formerly a part of the Soviet Union, the Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic declared independence in October 1991, thus creating the nation of Turkmenistan. Niyazov, Turkmen Communist party chief for ten years then elected President of the Republic in 1990, became the President of Turkmenistan. In 1992 he was re-elected with 99.5% of the vote. Then, in a 1994 referendum that passed with 99% of the vote his presidency was extended to 2002. President Niyazov was unanimously approved as president for life by the National Assembly on 28 December 1999. They also gave him the title of Turkmenbashi, "Father Of All Turkmen"

In Turkmenistan the cult of personality has been raised to an art form:

• When a meteorite landed in Turkmenistan in '99 Turkmen astrophysicists demanded to name it after Turkmenbashi.

• After a petition by the "workers of the city", the town of Krasnovodsk was renamed Turkmenbashi.
  

• Turkmenbashi's birthday is a national holiday.
  

• Turkmenbashi's press secretary attempted to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize for his "contribution to world history."
  

• The newly appointed state railway chief said, "Turkmenbashi and the Motherland are indivisible for us. When our president put his highest confidence in me, appointing me to head the railways, I couldn't hold back the words: Allah is in heaven, but it's only you here on Earth."
  

• The Academy of Science of Turkmenistan bestowed a doctorate of political and economic science on Turkmenbashi for his work on "conceptualizing the state's independence."
  

• The parliament awarded Turkmenbashi his third 'Hero of Turkmenistan' in 1998 for "leading in the politics of neutrality, the successful social and economic development of Turkmenistan, and his personal contribution to the fulfilling of the Grain program." (1998 was the first year since independence that the targets for grain collection were met...)
  

• Turkmenbashi's statues and portraits are everywhere.
  

• The drive into the capital Ashkhabad from Turkmenbashi airport goes along Turkmenbashi Avenue, and passes by Turkmenbashi Stadium.
  

• The oath of the Republic of Turkmenistan is "Turkmenistan, my beloved motherland, my beloved homeland. You are always with me in my thoughts and my heart. For the slightest evil against you let my hand be lost. For the slightest slander about you let my tongue be lost. at the moment of my betrayal to my motherland, to her sacred banner, to Sapamurat Turkmenbashi, let my breath stop." Daily at the beginning of the school day, children line up to recite the oath and kiss the national flag.
  

• Turkmenbashi has written a book, the Ruhnama, "to eliminate all shortcomings, to raise the spirit of the Turkmen." It is studied in schools and universities. Teachers are selected and promoted based on their knowledge of its sayings. University lectures are held on "Turkmenbashi's Teachings About Society," Domestic and International Politics of Turkmenbashi,"
  

In spite of all this praise, Turkmenbashi remains a modest man. About the many imposing palaces that have been built for him he has said, "All I wanted was a small, cozy, house but Parliament overruled me." He has criticized journalists for excessively praising him. When Parliament made him President-For-Life he said, "I want to say, honestly, that in Turkmenistan the people respect me so much I can not sleep." Though he begged the parliament not to give him any more medals or titles he eventually gave way and accepted them to fulfill "the will of the people."

The total and utter ridiculousness of this situation makes an observer want to smile. But that is an unfortunate reaction. The buffoonery masks repression and misrule, under which the vast majority of Turkmenistan's citizens live a life of grinding poverty, while the country has vast reserves of natural gas and is the world's tenth largest producer of cotton. While the masses are hungry, Turkmenbashi spends money on grandiose projects (a 10 meter high gold-plated statue of Turkmenbashi atop a 72 meter tall tower surrounded by fountains, ornate palaces, Berzengi - a hotel and business center in the desert outside Ashkhabad that has 22 empty 5-star hotels built completely from imported materials), jails any opposition (some in psychiatric wards), has a tame and muzzled press, etc. As there are shortages of staples and hunger increases, Turkmenbashi has said, "Anyone who complains about going without sausage or bread for a day is not a Turkmen."
Turkmenbashi has said that he will move Turkmenistan towards democracy, but slowly. "Our society is not yet mature enough for a civilized multiparty system. there are no people psychologically or financially prepared to become owners of big factories." This dictator needs to be toppled, as do his statues, for the Turkmen to have any hope of progress.