|
|
|
Letters to the Editor
What's Next in Iraq ...
Jul. 23‚ 2008
To the Editor:
Senator Barack Obama's recent trip to Iraq is a propitious time to ask where we are in Iraq both militarily and economically. First, let's be clear, the United States invasion and occupation of Iraq was and is about seizing and controlling its major oil fields. Those who still believe otherwise haven't been paying attention. (By the way, an invasion to seize natural resources is illegal under the Geneva Conventions.) Thus, it would seem to be the responsibility of the United States to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. We broke it. We should fix it. Remember, Saddam Hussein's regime paid $9 billion to Kuwait in reparations for its 1990 invasion. The ill-advised Iraq adventure so far has cost the United States 4,125 dead and 30,324 wounded and $538.6+ billion dollars. In addition, thousands of Iraqi civilians have died or been displaced by the war.
Instead of fixing the breakage it caused, the United States is attempting to force Iraq to sign no-bid contracts giving 75% of about half of its known oil reserves to a few Western oil companies with Iraq retaining 25%. The U.S. government has even provided advisors to help draft these no-bid contracts.
Why, we ask shouldn't Iraq have 100% control of its oil? No new oil fields need be developed; they are already in production. Why is Iraq different from other countries emerging from colonial rule? Because, so the argument goes, Iraq lost much of its technology through years of sanctions followed by a U.S.-led invasion and occupation. Therefore, Iraq needs to start producing oil to pay for reconstruction, which billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to Western firms have failed to accomplish. And, of course, Iraq is now such a risky place to operate that the oil companies must be paid more to induce them to invest. Thus, the years of sanctions, the invasion, and now the occupation of Iraq has created the argument for its continued pillage. Of course, the planned long-term U.S. occupation of Iraq will ensure the no-bid contracts are enforced. In other words, we broke so now we own it or will own it.
Iraq does not need to continue or create more fast and easy markets for ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, Halliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater, at al, but, rather needs to assert its sovereignty to achieve success on its own terms. The United States must stop using Iraq as a cash cow.
Fortunately, there are some signs that Iraq is grabbing hold of its own destiny. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki now wants U.S. troops out of Iraq "as soon as possilbe." The Iraq government is also having second thoughts about entering into long-term no-bid contracts with a few Western oil companies. Now the plan is to limit no-bid service contracts contracts to one year to be paid in cash, rather than a percentage of oil profits. Without a U.S. in-country presence, perhaps Iraq will begin to rebuild the country with profits from its own oil.
Senator Obama talks of withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq within sixteen months. Then on to Afghanistan, where everyone agrees more support is needed for reconstruction and security. President Obama will have his work cut out for him.
Ralph Stone
San Francisco
You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: feedback@beyondchron.org or by writing to:
Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)
New Yorker Cover; Netroots Nation and the "Racist" Vote ...
Jul. 18‚ 2008
To the Editor:
I just received my copy of the New Yorker with the controversial cover. I must take issue with Anh Lê's characterization of the cover as a "journalistic low." ("Guest Commentary: New Yorker Stoops to Journalistic Low," 7/17) For quite some time the cowardly among us have been spreading disinformation and misinformation about Barack Obama and his wife Michelle Obama. We've heard him called that "boy,""magic negro," "Osama instead of "Obama," a Muslim, equating Muslim with terrorist, and so on. If you repeat these whispers and lies often enough, people will begin to believe them or at least have second thoughts about the target of these remarks. What the New Yorker has done is taken these whispers and lies and co-opted them by saying: "Is this what you mean?" Don't you see the irony?
Ralph E. Stone
San Francisco
Dear Editor:
The New Yorker cartoon depicting Barack Obama and his wife as terrorists has a much darker purpose than satire. It is a shot across Obama's bow by the Power Elite (see C. Wright Mills), of which The New Yorker is a part, warning him not to take all his talk of change too far. Obama, after all, is a charismatic politician and potentially transformational president who is not in tight with the elite circles the way the Clintons and McCain are, and his base makes him even more dangerous. The elite's message to Obama: Beware, we can take you down; the right wing nut jobs may have limited effect, but we can amplify their message to take hold. It is, indeed, a message all the more pointed in coming from the liberal wing of the Establishment.
Sincerely,
Vincent Bonfitto
To the Editor:
How unfortunate, even ironic Anh Le, who's justifiably stunned by The New Yorker front cover, ends up committing rhetorical excesses not unlike those attributed to the notorious cartoon. That is, stereotyping, wildly overgeneralizing, and jumping to conclusions. What the cartoon depicts are sweeping, outrageous stereotypes -- an amalgam of rightwing smears -- that, absent proper satiric framework, make the Obamas the seeming target of the "joke" rather than its innocent victims.
Smart satire must do two things missing here: make the object of outrage clear (that is, the racist smearers, not the smeared) and must imply or establish shared values embracing the sympathetic audience (using a cartoon bubble, for example, like this all comes from Rush Limbaugh's head). Stupidity or incompetence dooms this satire far more than what Anh Le declares -- the full-throated, unqualified indictment not only of a distinguished humor magazine as "racist, anti-black, and anti-Muslim" but all those "individuals and the institutions and corporations they represent" who "don't see themselves as perpetuating racism and hatred against African Americans and Muslims."
Say what? This tsunami of exaggerated protest washes over all of New York and goes far inland. Do we know the editors and cartoonist here are guilty not just of an arguably racist portrait but are bona fide racists who hate groups as ill-defined as "African Americans and Muslims"? It is offensive to me to throw out the entire bathroom with the dirty bath water here. There is over-reaction here to anyone or anything that seems racist, without any corroborative evidence. Thus, Le's indictment inadvertently fits the crime, all too closely, and that's regrettable.
A magazine celebrated for its witty sophistication since 1925 cannot be cast aside by one cover, especially as it publishes the most important anti-establishment critics like Seymour Hersh (unearthing Bush administration atrocities and Constitutional violations) or novelist Salman Rushdie, a notorious public target of extremist hatred and bigotry. I regret this impassioned writer does not make clearer distinctions between bad satire augmented by bad taste vs. genuinely racist tracts by proved racists that go much farther, and do far more damage hidden in the shadows, than one unfunny, perhaps vicious cartoon unclear what it's satirizing and from what angle.
Robert Becker
Mendocino CA
Mr. Hogarth:
Thank you for attending the Netroots meeting & asking for feedback. I would be interested in how the DNC is going to deal with the hidden racist vote, as pointed out recently by Mayor Brown in a TV interview. Spelling out what I (& I think he) meant: people will "talk non-racist" but when the vote is counted, this is not borne out. These same people do not want to be confronted & will say anything, but in the voting booth never vote for a black or non-white candidate. As he said, these are otherwise very nice people, & he had no solution.
Will the meeting confront this issue, any countermeasures possible (other than drowning these hidden racists with non-racist voter registration increases)? Will the DNC people have any useful strategies? Given that IMHO all presidential races really narrow down in the last few days, these 5+% of hidden racists votes can really make a decisive difference and so this is an issue worth working on.
Paul Larkin
P.S.: I think the New Yorker cover was an attempt to directly confront this issue (oops, pun), and I think the timing also was great. Better to face it & disarm it asap than wait till October.
You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: feedback@beyondchron.org or by writing to:
Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)
Jake McGoldrick; New York Times on McCain ...
Jul. 16‚ 2008
To the Editor:
It has been my opinion of late that the best thing Supervisor Jake McGoldrick can do for the remainder of his term is to refrain from introducing any legislation or ballot measures and simply vote present.
Mark Barnes
San Francisco
Randy:
Certainly, corporate mass media gain by ginning up an election race horse, predictably conflating what like "change" and "reform" mean to the lead party nominees. The NY Times is hardly alone. But that hardly supports your claim John McCain has gotten a free ride, from the left and right, "Nobody of any political persuasion is quoted “crying foul” about John McCain."
True, because McCain is a walking contradiction recently, daily gaffes aside, it's a challenge to know whether he's pandering, reversing positions, or displaying some combination of ignorance or dementia. Despite lurching rightward, atypical when moving from primary to general elections, McCain is correctly perceived by ultra-conservatives as less ideological, less evangelical, and less rigidly anti-regulation, pro-corporate than George Bush.
What you devalue is steady press focus on McCain, not only delighting in his (and advisers') bonehead mistakes, but slowly, steadily bringing out how very conservative is his voting record and how cohorts personify unfeeling Republicanism, with Phil Gramm's idiocy the most compelling example.
So, yes, there's exaggeration about leftwing frustration with Barack Obama, but not without context: why in the world did Obama (not under pressure) reverse himself badly on FISA, a needless loser unless he's really, justifiably, nervous about his national security credentials).
There is actually decent coverage, a surprising amount, on both presidential candidates -- and that contrasts dramatically with the total disregard by the press in challenging George Bush's full-fledged, successful assault on the Constitution. We hear nothing about the severity of this damage nor how many decades needed to offset mortal blows during the last eight years. That national violation represents a body blow to our system and what will really matter in ten or 20 years, dwarfing even who wins the next election. About that shame I hear almost no "crying foul" from any political persuasion anywhere, even Obama the former Constitutional Law professor.
Robert Becker
Mendocino CA
You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: feedback@beyondchron.org or by writing to:
Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)
Grassroots.com; More on New College Demise ...
Jul. 15‚ 2008
To the Editor:
The President and CEO of Grassroots Enterprise talked about how his company has developed a thriving business generating grass-roots activity around issues being debated in Washington. He noted that their clients included the Sierra Club, the National Rifle Association and the Republican National Committee, adding, "most of our business has been corporations and trade associations seeking to influence what goes on in Washington."
Recall that the Sierra Club is not a grassroots organization. The "trade associations seeking to influence what go es on in Washington" have worked out very well for progressives.
Marc Salomon
San Francisco
Dear Mr. Shaw,
I was a senior staffer at New College of California for 5 years, and probably one of the people that Peter Gabel would like to blame for the fall of New College, rather than accept any responsibility for his own misdeeds, or those of his cronies, who ran the school as a secret cabal, spent student financial aid on real estate, expensive software, ineffective marketing; - anything but spending to improve the college, its curriculum and the academic investment of present and future New College students.
Although your story lends a sentence or two to the facts concerning the secretive, hypocritical nature of the fake governance structure that Gabel built to appease WASC accreditors and then dismantled it, and that there were many administrative failures that staff, faculty and above all students felt betrayed by, you take the Gabel party line that it was WASC, the DOE, George Bush and incompetent staff were responsible for the decay and eventual destruction of the school, anyone BUT the school's former president, the board of trustees and Gabel himself.
Instead, you invest most of your article fawning over Gabel's visionary status. As a writer and former journalist (an alternative journalist, not a corporate media journalist,) I take extreme issue with the fact that nowhere do you label your views as commentary or editorial rather than objective
journalism.
If you were to take the time to examine the record and consider differing points of view than the "Gabel Cult's" party line you would find that federal financial aid funds were somehow misappropriated and that to this day there are students who never received the full amount of their loans from New College.
You would also find that the WASC accreditation commission spent years giving New College the benefit of the doubt, wanting very much to believe in New College's mission, but in the end felt that they were lied to (they were,) and even then were willing to literally hold New College's hand in a presidential search and the creation of a real, sustainable governance that could have restored faith in the institution and maybe could have saved it from itself. But Mr. Gabel, et. al., would have nothing to do with it, nor would they answer to the Department of Education, who far different than the conspiracy theories pervaded by the school administration, wanted only a reasonable accounting of financial aid disbursement, and after three successive financial aid directors could not provide this information.
There are several statements you make that I think we would both agree on; to me it's the underlying cause and effect that's at issue. The concept and the mission of New College's public interest law school were in fact visionary. Unfortunately, with an open enrollment or even any basic admissions criteria, in practice there were dozens of students accepted based on their eligibility for student loans and not taking into account their passion, motivation or ability to study law. The same can be said of what were vanguard programs in grad psychology, women's spirituality, teacher education and experimental performance.
Unfortunately for New College, its faculty and its students, all of their best intentions were defrauded by an administration some of whose members might have meant well, but in the end were responsible for their own demise.
I encourage you to either report objectively, or, if BeyondChron is more of a pulpit for your own activist beliefs, to label your opinion as such.
Sincerely and respectfully,
Mark Gould
You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: feedback@beyondchron.org or by writing to:
Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)
New College Demise; Eviction Protocol Needed ...
Jul. 14‚ 2008
To the Editor:
Randy Shaw's apology for Peter Gabel falls flat when one reads the documents available on the New College Independent Alumni Association site. Alumni tried to save the school from the corrupt cabal led by Gabel, Hamilton and Wilkes, but in the end the damage done by Gabel's cult was too great.
The evidence contained in these documents makes it clear that oversight agencies had given them more chances and leeway over the last fifteen years than could reasonably be expected. The fact Gabel and his cronies took advantage of this to defraud students as well as WASC and the US Department of Education is both figuratively and literally criminal.
As alumni, we, too, regret the loss of our alma mater, but better that it close than continue abusing power at the expense of innocent young people.
Jay Taber
To the Editor:
I read with interest the story of 72-year old Jerry Kulek's eviction from supportive housing by his landlord, Chinatown Community Development Corp., for failure to pay two months' rent ("Old-timer short $700 on rent evicted, ends up in hospital," SF Chronicle, 7/10/08). This is one more example of supportive housing failing to provide support, resulting in another person living on the streets or in Golden Gate Park.
The article mentioned that a eviction protocol is needed for supportive housing. How about a procedure similar to the the Shelter Plus Care appeal procedure when a subsidy is in jeopardy? In such a procedure, it would be mandatory for a proposed eviction action be heard by an independent panel rather than the courts with an advocate provided for the hearing. Make this a requirement when the City contracts with landlord/management companies for any government-funded public and supportive housing program.
Finally, isn't time for San Francisco to direct an independent audit of evictions of all public and supportive housing management companies? The audit should include those tenants coerced into vacating by threat of eviction. How many homeless stay housed is just as important as how many are housed.
Judi Iranyi, LCSW
San Francisco, CA
You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: feedback@beyondchron.org or by writing to:
Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)
Picking on Jake McGoldrick; Newsom's Raid on Campaign Finance Fund ...
Jul. 11‚ 2008
To the Editor:
I don't understand Paul Hogarth's picking on Supervisor Jake McGoldrick. McGoldrick is only one of four middle-of-the-road Supervisors who have sold out on numerous issues and votes. Sophie Maxwell has sold out far more than McGoldrick. Aaron Peskin, whom Mr. Hogarth's column lauds, sold out on the Home Depot vote, one of the most important votes to come before the Board of Supervisors in many years. And Gerardo Sandoval has sold out almost as many times as Maxwell.
None of this is to say that I in any way support taking money away from the public campaign fund or replacing city cops with even more unaccountable private ones. Public campaign financing especially should have been a priority and should not have had its funds stolen for any reason. But to hold a Supervisor accountable for bad results due to a bad political system makes no sense. McGoldrick's sellout on the 3400 Cesar Chavez condos was far more irksome than this.
Jeff Hoffman
San Francisco
To the Editor:
Make no mistake about it. Gavin Newsom's $5.2 million raid on the public finance fund is about the control of the Mayor's office for the eight years following his term. He proposes to try to return at least some of the $5.2 million in 2011, the year we next elect a Mayor. Even if the funds are returned (a big "if" when one listens to Supervisor Elsbernd), planning a million dollar campaign becomes much more problematic without a guarantee earlier in the year that the money will be there. The system was set up with a lock box of funds so that candidates could make serious plans early in the election year. We all saw Matt Gonzalez's testing the waters last year as early as January. Under the Mayor's proposal candidates not favored by big money will be left adrift. Advantage: Big money wins again.
Joe Lynn
San Francisco Campaign Finance Officer, (1998-2003)
San Francisco Ethics Commissioner (2003-2006)
You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: feedback@beyondchron.org or by writing to:
Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)
Even More on JROTC ...
Jul. 10‚ 2008
Dear Editor:
I would like to know/see where Mr. Marc Norton is getting his statistics from. JROTC is an elective course. It is an optional class. Administrators placing students in JROTC to relieve overcrowded gym classes is an entirely separate issue. It is an issue of reducing classroom sizes and not the fault of JROTC.
Mr. Norton also claims that 15.6% of cadets were forced into the program. I find this hard to believe because students can, within reason and with space, transfer out of any class. Those 15.6% can ask to be moved out. Oh no wait, they can't because administrators are dealing with big classrooms already.
So now that JROTC is gone, we will see an even bigger increase in more overcrowded gym classes. Way to go! Why not deal with the issue of classroom sizes instead of advancing an "anti-military in schools" political agenda. Mr. Norton does not seem to realize time is better spent dealing with more real, pressing issues instead of wasting time and resources on than cutting out proven programs that work. Deal with class sizes first, then to the lesser issues!
Christopher Dionisio
Vallejo, CA
You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: feedback@beyondchron.org or by writing to:
Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)
More on JROTC; More on Obama's "Move" to the Center ...
Jul. 09‚ 2008
Dear Editor:
Petra Meyer writes to Beyond Chron to say that "JROTC is a VOLUNTARY program. No one is forcing any student to take JROTC." This may be the sound bite for the pro-JROTC campaign, but it isn't entirely true.
According to a recent survey of over 800 San Francisco JROTC students, 15.6% of the cadets who responded claimed that they were "placed in the program without my consent." And these are just the students who were willing speak up about being placed involuntarily in JROTC.
There have been reports of San Francisco students being placed in JROTC without their consent back to at least 1995, when a previous school board considered removing JROTC from the public school system. Recently, there have been reports of Mission High staff telling immigrant families that students must take JROTC to graduate.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU): "Students are involuntarily placed in the JROTC program in some public schools. For example, teachers and students in Los Angeles, California reported that 'high school administrators were enrolling reluctant students in JROTC as an alternative to overcrowded gym classes.' Involuntary placement of Los Angeles students has been a continuing problem, with involuntary enrollment surging before the fall deadline that requires enrollment levels of 100 students to keep the program running (federal law requires JROTC programs to have a minimum of 100 students or 10% of the student body, whichever is less, in order to maintain a unit)."
It will be very interesting to see in the Fall how many students choose to join JROTC when it no longer gets them out of physical education (PE) classes, and how many students get placed "voluntarily" without their consent in order to bolster the numbers for the pro-JROTC spinmasters.
In struggle,
Marc Norton
To the Editor:
Exactly because I distrust any premature cheering Barack Obama has already won, I defend your scolding against recent progressive hysteria. Wisdom prevails when you declare, "Before progressives cry “betrayal” at Obama for issues beyond his control, maybe they should wait until he’s
actually in a place where he can do something about it."
In fact, leading in June polls means next to nothing and anointing Obama now is, to be charitable, fanciful. Frontrunners can lose, even this year.
Certainly, Obama's language provides immunization against attack rather than pitching moderates who 1) aren't paying critical attention yet, and 2) are less swayed by policy statements than unknown or irrational factors, such as likability or sounding heroic. Let's not forget a campaign pledge is symbolic, more indicative of a candidate's mindset than predictable proposals.
When Obama says he will "refine" his war strategy based on incoming data, or generals in the field, that in itself sets him opposite to rigid GOP leaders, like Bush or McCain, fixated on fantasies that deny reality, both military (forget winning in Iraq) or political (this war is over for Americans).
We can only hope Obama, unlike Bush, who falsely campaigned as a moderate in '00 (against nation-building, big spending, or foreign belligerence), will govern (if elected) consistent with his record and assumptions. That means hard negotiation, painful compromise, and multiple stakeholders getting heard.
Only if Obama returns us to applying testable information and reliable experts to decisions, not ideology or the next election, will he become a "change agent." He has never proposed anything radical or especially "progressive."
Oh yes, before doubting Obama's political savvy, recall the astonishing results so far, routing the Clinton machine and much of the Democratic establishment. That amazing marvel should win him our patience and trust, not hysteria at the first bump on the road to getting elected.
Robert Becker
Mendocino CA
You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: feedback@beyondchron.org or by writing to:
Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)
JROTC Program; Obama's "Move" to the Right ...
Jul. 08‚ 2008
To the Editor:
JROTC is a VOLUNTARY program. No one is forcing any student to take JROTC. So please be respectful of those of us who wish to participate in this program and stop forcing us to live our lives according to your political views. In other words, give us the same freedom and respect to live our lives as we so choose that we give to you.
Sincerely,
Petra Meyer
San Francisco, CA
Dear Editor:
Paul Hogarth's apologist spin on Obama's recent sell-outs was great! I'm looking forward to reading Hogarth's future dispatches from Gitmo, after President Obama recognizes the national security necessity of locking up lefty bloggers for a few years to prevent those evil Republicans from taking back the White House in 2012. Such an action might make a few of his supporters cringe, but wouldn't create lasting policy damage, so it would be nothing for real Progressives to worry about.
John-Marc Chandonia
San Francisco
To the Editor:
Barack Obama is not a progressive, so Paul Hogarth's column is correct that he hasn't changed his positions significantly. However, Mr. Hogarth erroneously conflates the lack of change with the fact that Obama was never progressive in the first place in order to conclude that "there's little in this recent statement [that he might not pull all U.S. troops from Iraq] that indicates cause for concern." There is indeed cause for concern, but that cause is based on Obama's lack of progressive ideals, not perceived moves to the right (it might be the center in the U.S., but on a global scale it's the right).
Barak Obama has said that he wants to add 100,000 troops to the U.S. military, to attack Pakistan, and to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan. He fully supports the U.S. global empire, so he'll increase the already bloated U.S. military in order to do so. For those planning on holding their noses and voting for Obama in November, remember what you're voting for. For those who expect significant change, you're ignoring who and what Obama really is and not being realistic.
Jeff Hoffman
San Francisco
Dear Editor,
So let me get this straight: Obama clearly and intentionally moves to the right, and progressives are supposed to sit tight and keep their mouths shut until next year when they will suddenly be able to spring from nowhere and "hold him accountable." [Why Obama’s “Move to the Center” Need Not Alarm Progressives 7/7/08] This is a strategy almost certain to fail.
If we don't speak up now, then forever hold our peace. If Obama gets elected after running as a centrist, there will be no mandate next January for things progressives care about. Obama, not to mention the pro-corporate advisors he's now surrounding himself with, will have far less reason to listen to progressives once he's already in office, than now, when he still might need at least some of their time and money to get elected. Furthermore, if there's any hope that our abysmal leadership in Congress will do something of significance next year, they must see the people demanding it at the
ballot box in November. In order for the election to be a referendum on real change, Obama as a candidate must articulate and stand for real change.
And despite the assurances in the article to the contrary, Obama's moves to the right will only hurt his chances of getting elected. Paul, you argue that by flip-flopping on FISA and taking more conservative stances on gun control and the death penalty, Obama is somehow inoculating himself from Republican attacks. This would be naive at best. The Republicans will fabricate whatever they need to attack him. They certainly don't need him to vote against telecom immunity in order to smear his record or swiftboat him. He can make all the moves to the right he wants, but Fox News will never like him. In the meantime he extinguishes much of the enthusiasm in his
base.
The best way for Obama to inoculate himself from the coming attacks, is to actually stand for something, show some genuine conviction and principles, and stop acting like the usual, wishy-washy Democratic presidential candidate. How is the Obama camp's "pre-emptive defense game" substantively different from the play-it-safe cowering we've seen from democratic presidential campaigns for the last twelve years? Will the Democrats never learn that it's impossible to beat the Republicans by trying to become more like them? Are we really talking about this again in another presidential election year?
You defend Obama for recent hints that he may "refine" his Iraq policy. You argue that he's not actually shifting his position. Rather he's essentially always been weak and vague on withdrawing from Iraq, despite what folks may have been led to believe. And we're supposed to be okay with this?
The only "refining" Obama should being doing on his Iraq policy is spelling out the details of an immediate and complete withdraw of troops to be implemented the day he gets in office. Taking a principled, decisive stand on Iraq and other key issues is absolutely the right thing to do, it's the best campaign strategy, and it's the only way his victory would result in meaningful change. Obama will not take these decisive stands in his campaign unless the people demand it now. Six months from now will be too late.
Andy Blue
San Francisco
You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: feedback@beyondchron.org or by writing to:
Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)
Obama and Marriage Amendment ...
Jul. 07‚ 2008
Dear Editor
Having read "Obama's Opposition" 07/02/2008 I agree, there is no NEWS there. Perhaps 'no news' is the real news. Despite Mr Obama's rhetoric to end DOMA, as a Senator, he's introduced NO legislation; as a Senator, he's introduced NO legislation or offered any amendment to any of the many military appropriations bills to overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT); as a Senator he's not signed on as a co-sponsor to the (UAFA) Uniting American Families Act (S 1328.)
Obamalites have to go back to his Illinois days to point to that state's ENDA legislation. In four years, where is the legislative record of leadership on queer civil rights? I'm disappointed that the only response the Obamalites can proffer is he is better that McCain. This 'race for the bottom' is discouraging and this mentality brought Feinstein to confirm Mukasey and Gonzales as Attorney General. Where are the bills, amendments, or at least hearings on the issues? If I did nothing in my job for four years, I'd get sacked, but this is the government, so I guess after eight years of GW Bush, the Washington expectation is that such inaction should result in a promotion.
A quick review at thomas.gov shows that Mr Obama has introduced at least a dozen veteran's related bills, but not one about DADT. Mr Obama's record on queer civil rights is essentially rhetorical. Bill Clinton talked a good talk, but he brought us DADT and DOMA. Mr Obama has given us no reason to believe his rhetoric is anything other than that of any other politician.
He'll get my vote, but I see no reason for any queer to get excited about his (not so much) transformative change.
Respectfully,
Mickey Lim, RPh
San Francisco
You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: feedback@beyondchron.org or by writing to:
Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)
Jul. 21, 2008 -- Out of Public Limelight, U.S.War on Immigrants Intensifies
Jul. 21, 2008 -- Downtown, Realtors Push JROTC Ballot Initiative
Jul. 21, 2008 -- Giants’ Stalinist Approach to Barry Bonds
Jul. 20, 2008 -- LIVE FROM AUSTIN: Newsom Opposes Clean Energy Act
Jul. 19, 2008 -- LIVE FROM AUSTIN: Newsom Courts the Netroots
Jul. 19, 2008 -- LIVE FROM AUSTIN: Wesley Clark a Popular Choice for Veep
Jul. 18, 2008 -- LIVE FROM AUSTIN: Candidates Talk Affordable Housing
Jul. 18, 2008 -- Netroots Focus on the Basics: Win November
Jul. 18, 2008 -- The Dark Knight Returns to the Kabuki
Jul. 18, 2008 -- Busy World: Crushing Love; A New Brain: Fun Filled Romp!; Help on the Way August 08
Jul. 18, 2008 -- New Yorker Cover; Netroots Nation and the "Racist" Vote ...
MAIN ARTICLE ARCHIVE
Copyright © 2005-2008
Beyond
Chron.org. All rights reserved.
RSS News Feed
|
|
July 24, 2008
