Mmm, each of us has a different perspective here on this board. For me, the republicans in congress are holding up the works--filibustering on whatever.

You must have missed Obama's economic policy speech given in Michigan. I heard a number of specifics--perhaps they will run it again. Guess I should have taken notes, but I didn't, so with my med brain, I can't give you specifics.......well, even if I did, they would be my perspective.......and you should form your own.........or perhaps make a change........this country is on the move!! 

Rosemary, you are a saint.  I can no longer listen to Obama.  His "perspective" changes everyday.

You're right.  We better buy all the grains we can.  And, if you eat beef you better buy it now. 

I have heard dem senator after senator on Cavuto's show playing with our livelihood day after day.  Cavuto, just like the majority of Americans, is for drilling and alternatives.  But now, the dems keep say, we need to get away from our dependance on oil.  We will ALWAYS need oil.  And over there in Cape Cod...they don't want "windmills" out there in their purtty waters.  They need to maneuver those boats that run on gas and needs oil.  And those big yachts and private airplanes...where they gonna get the "energy" to run them?

What I see is the politicans, especially the dems, our really, really playing with us.  I too, for the first time, will pull a straight ticket.  I am sick to death with what's going on in this country.  Everything's Bush's fault.  EVERYTHING!

Shirley

Some comments on recent posts:

Bessie--as always, a thoughtful post!

Marilyn--on the sexist video.  The main press was most definitely involved, including Tim Russert.  NBC journalists, in fact, were the biggest offenders although plenty of others were also guilty.  Now, of course, most of them are in denial. 

It's not true that the U.S. is wonderfully generous in giving to the world.  We are far down on the list of countries who help others, and most of the countries that give more than us have less.  I don't know why this falsehood manages to stay alive;  I've posted the actual statistics on which countries give the most on at least two earlier posts. The U.S. is no where near the top.

Grace--Not sure why the U.S. should reestablish its reputation as a world power.  Isn't the desire to dominate the reason we're in so much trouble? That view--that we should be a world power--is rather egotistical as well.  If you think of it most of us dislike those individuals who must always be first, always number one. Why isn't this true of countries as well?  Something to think about anyway.  I thought you were always for Obama over Hillary.  I guess I misread your posts. 

Shirley--yes, Bush is at fault.  It's difficult for me to comprehend how he managed to get elected twice but considering how poorly our students measure up against students in other parts of the world, I suppose it's understandable.  People who don't read and analyze are easily swayed by rhetoric.  It's taken a while for the Democrats to realize that rhetoric elects presidents, which I suppose is the reason that we now have Obama as our candidate.  I'd think those of you who voted for Bush (the compassionate conservative; the uniter, not the divider) would be delighted with Obama. Apparently not!

Do you really think that little Cape Cod is responsible for the world's oil problem?  And all those Texas oil men have nothing to do with it!  How very droll. 

People die to get into this country because of its wealth.  And just as many people die to get into Spain (and many other countries) every day as die trying to cross our borders. And not because of freedom but because they're poor and no longer want to be.  Makes sense to me.   At the rate we're going, it won't be very long before our workers are going south (or north) looking for work.

And speaking of the Spanish (and most other Europeans), they don't want to be the greatest power in the world--they want to lead quiet lives of fulfillment for themselves and their children--and they don't routinely invade other countries and kill innocents so their citizens can get cheap oil for their massive cars and massive homes.  No doubt, they've learned from all their previous wars.  Hopefully, we'll get on that learning curve before it's too late.

Plenty of our students go abroad to study--what does that mean, if anything.  We have some great universities and some very smart students, as do most countries.  So what.  I'm speaking of the majority of students; and we fall way below other countries in terms of the knowledge of our students.  Stay in denial, and we'll continue to fall, not rise. 

Empire building is one of the  uglier of human endeavors but then all empires die, given time, although with a president like Bush the end of our empire is coming a bit faster than one would have expected.  At least for that, I'm grateful.  I don't like empires!

No, I don't want us to win this war.  Wars are horrible and I'm ashamed that my country has, of late, such a propensity to start them.  And, yes, I am a cynic; can't imagine how anyone can not be considering the state of our country and the world.   

I don't blame Bush for the Salem witch trials but that's only because he wasn't born yet.  For everything else--bad--that's happened in the world in the last eight years, I do blame him.  Even the weather is partly his fault; and the  reaction to it (Katrina), all his fault. 

Can you really continue to defend this man? That's not at all droll!

I am aware that this is the "respectful" thread but I'm not feeling very respectful these days, and apparently from reading some of the other posts, many of you are also feeling less than respectful.  Speaking of, does anyone know how Amy is faring--did she find all her cats.  Hopefully, she did. 

When we should have wiped out a town in Somalia, we didn't. We began to look weak as one attack after another was happening while we sat and watched from afar.  Dragging our dead marines through the streets of Somalia went unanswered.  Our embassy being blown up, went unanswered.  It was thought that Iraqi's were the insurgents. 

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9808/10/embassy.bombings.04/index.html

Then our ship being blown up, same thing, no reply from us.  So no, I do not believe Bush was after cheap gas by starting a war in Iraq.  The weapon of mass destruction he was seeking was Saddam himself.  Mission accomplished.  We have to stop looking weak to our enemies.  Words don't seem to work with animals who can strap bombs on their own children.

Nor do I want anyone who appears weak in the office of President of these United States.

From the non-partisan AP service:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks pursued abusive interrogation techniques once used by North Korea and Vietnam on American POWs despite stern warnings by several military lawyers that the methods were cruel and even illegal, according to a Senate investigation.

The findings, detailed in a hearing Tuesday, brought rebukes of the Pentagon effort from Democrats and Republicans alike.

"The guidance (administration lawyers) provided will go down in history as some of the most irresponsible and shortsighted legal analysis ever provided to our nation's military and intelligence communities," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., an Air Force Reserve colonel who teaches military law for the service.

The hearing is the Senate Armed Services Committee's first look at the origins of harsh interrogation methods and how policy decisions were vetted across the Defense Department. Its review fits into a broader picture of the government's handling of detainees, which includes FBI and CIA interrogations in secret prisons.

The panel is expected to hold further hearings on the matter and release a final report by the end of the year.

Among its initial findings is that senior Pentagon lawyers, including the office of general counsel William "Jim" Haynes, sought information as early as July 2002 regarding a military program that trained U.S. troops how to survive enemy interrogations and deny foes valuable intelligence.

Much of the training program, known as "Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape," or SERE, is based on experiences of American prisoners of war in previous conflicts, including those in Korea and Vietnam.

In response, SERE officials provided Haynes' office a list of tactics that included sensory deprivation, sleep disruption and stress positions.

Haynes, who resigned his post in February, testified that he remembers receiving the information, but that he did not recall requesting it personally.

Several of those techniques, including stress positions, were later approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in a December 2002 memo for use at Guantanamo Bay. Rumsfeld and Haynes agreed to the methods, despite objections by military service lawyers that they might be illegal.

"Whatever interrogation techniques we adopt will eventually become public knowledge," wrote Col. John Ley of the Army's Judge Advocate General office in November 2002. "If we mistreat detainees, we will quickly lose the (moral) high ground and public support will erode."

Haynes said he too had misgivings, but that he was unaware of the legal objections in the military services. He said he was doing the best he could to help prevent another major terrorist attack.

"There was a limited amount of time and a high degree of urgency," Haynes said of his decision to cut short at one point a department-wide review of the legality of the interrogation methods.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said Rumsfeld's endorsement paved the way for abuses to occur in Iraq and Afghanistan and makes U.S. troops more likely to someday be tortured if captured by the enemy.

"If we use those same techniques offensively against detainees, it says to the world that they have America's stamp of approval," said Levin.

The committee also released previously secret and privately held documents on Tuesday. According to minutes from an October 2002 meeting, a top military lawyer at Guantanamo said prisoners were exposed to previously forbidden techniques, such as sleep deprivation, but that such treatment was hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

"Officially it is not happening," Lt. Col. Diane Beaver said in the meeting. "It is not being reported officially. The ICRC is a serious concern. They will be in and out, scrutinizing our operations, unless they are displeased and decide to protest and leave. This would draw a lot of negative attention."

A senior CIA lawyer at the meeting, John Fredman, explained that whether harsh interrogation amounted to torture "is a matter of perception." The only sure test for torture is if the detainee died.

"If the detainees dies, you're doing it wrong," Fredman said.

Beaver wrote a now-infamous Oct. 11, 2002, memo that determined abusive methods could be used against detainees at Guantanamo Bay prison because they were not considered prisoners of war. Her proposed methods included extended isolation, 20-hour interrogations, death threats and waterboarding.

On Tuesday, Beaver told the committee that she was "shocked" that her memo became the primary justification for Rumsfeld's approval to use harsher methods.

She had asked her superiors for input because those working at Guantanamo and engaged in the interrogation program "don't always have the best perspective."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said the administration does not review every legal opinion, but that its position has been "to deal with these detainees humanely" and "get the information from them that we can to protect this country."

Notably absent from the hearing Tuesday was the Senate's biggest champion of detainee rights and the top Republican on the committee, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. A former prisoner of war, McCain has become less visible on the issue of detainee treatment since becoming a presidential candidate.

McCain was in San Antonio on Tuesday giving a speech on energy and attending campaign fundraisers.

All the woes on Bush?  Did I do that?  Surely--don't call me "Surely"--I didn't blame him for Obama's nomination.  That I'll give to Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy--MCP's that they are.  Of course, I'm bitter over Hillary's loss.  I'm so tired of the gender bias in this country, and frankly I blame women for permitting it to happen.  I think every woman who voted for Obama in the primaries should examine her conscience and ask herself why?  What excuses did she give herself for preferring Obama over Hillary and after she writes them down, and if she's honest with herself, I'm quite sure she'll find the sexist aspect within that decision.  They're like all those silly girls in high school who resented every other girl who was smarter or more popular; when will we as a sex stop resenting other women and start helping them?  Sad state of affairs.  (I'm sure I'll get a lot of responses to this post!)

I've never considered voting for a Republican, no matter how much I disliked the other candidates, but today I listened to one that might change my mind.  Ron Paul was on one of the morning shows and his comments on the United States foreign policy made more sense to me than anything I've heard in years.  Of course, I don't know his other positions and I assume there is some reason he's a Republican (against choice, for example), but for now I'm a bit in love with him. 

And here's one for the Obama "Change" supporters.  Nice change.  Maybe, we could stick the Muslims in concentration camps until after the election. Keep them away from the public eye.

The campaign has apologized to the women, all Obama supporters who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally.

"This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama's commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers."

Building a human backdrop to a political candidate, a set of faces to appear on television and in photographs, is always a delicate exercise in demographics and political correctness. Advance staffers typically pick supporters out of a crowd to reflect the candidate's message.

When Obama won North Carolina amid questions about his ability to connect with white voters, for instance, he stood in front of a group of middle-aged white women waving small American flags. Across the aisle, a Hispanic New Hampshire Democrat, Roberto Fuentes, told Politico that he was recently asked, and declined, to contribute to the "diversity" of the crowd behind Sen. John McCain at a Nashua event.

But for Obama, the old-fashioned image-making contrasts with his promise to transcend identity politics, and to embrace all elements of America. The incidents in Michigan, which has one of the largest Arab and Muslim populations in the country, also raise an aspect of his campaign that sometimes rubs Muslims the wrong way: The candidate has vigorously denied a false, viral rumor that he himself is Muslim. But the denials seem to some at times to imply that there is something wrong with the faith, though Obama occasionally adds that he means no disrespect to Islam.

"I was coming to support him, and I felt like I was discriminated against by the very person who was supposed to be bringing this change, who I could really relate to," said Hebba Aref, a 25-year-old lawyer who lives in the Detroit suburb of Bloomfield Hills. "The message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters."

In Detroit Monday the two different Obama volunteers – in separate incidents– made it clear that headscarves wouldn't be in the picture. The volunteers gave different explanations for excluding the hijabs, one bluntly political and the other less clear.

In Aref's case, there was no ambiguity.

That incident began when the volunteer asked Aref's friend Ali Koussan and two other friends, Aref's brother Sharif and another young lawyer, Brandon Edward Miller, whether they would like to sit behind the stage. The three young men said they would, but mentioned they were with friends.

The men said the volunteer, a twenty-something African-American woman in a green shirt, asked if their friends looked and were dressed like the young men, who were all light-skinned and wearing suits. Miller said yes, but mentioned that one of their friends was wearing a headscarf with her suit.

The volunteer "explained to me that because of the political climate and what's going on in the world and what's going on with Muslim Americans it's not good for her to be seen on TV or associated with Obama," said Koussan, who is a law student at Wayne State University.

Both Koussan and Miller said they specifically recalled the volunteer citing the "political climate" in telling them they couldn't sit behind Obama.

"I was like, 'You've got to be kidding me. Are you serious?'" Koussan recalled.

Shimaa Abdelfadeel's story was different. She'd waited on line outside the Joe Louis Arena for three hours in the sun, and was walking through the giant hall when a volunteer approached two of her non-Muslim friends, a few steps ahead of her, and asked if they'd like to sit in "special seating" behind the stage, said one friend, Brittany Marino, who like Abdelfadeel is a recent University of Michigan graduate who works for the university.

When they said they were with Abdelfadeel, the volunteer told them their friend would have to take the headscarf off or stay out of the special section, Marino said. They declined the seats.

Abdelfadeel, after recovering from the shock of the incident, went to look for the volunteer and confronted her minutes later, she said in an email interview with Politico.

"We're not letting anyone with anything on their heads like baseballs or scarves sit behind the stage," she paraphrased the volunteer as saying, an account Marino confirmed. "It has nothing to do with your religion!"

In most work and school settings, religious dress – Jewish yarmulkes, Sikh turbans, Muslim hijabs – is permitted where secular clothing like baseball caps is not.

"The scarf is not just something she can take off – it's part of her identity," said Marino.

Photographs of the event also show men with hats in the section behind Obama and Gore, though not directly behind the candidate.

Abdelfadeel, like Aref, felt "disappointed, angry, and let-down," she later wrote.

She was "let-down that the Obama campaign continously perpetuates this attitude towards Muslims and Arabs — as if being merely associated one is a sin."

The two women's friends who witnessed the incidents were disappointed too. Aref's friend Miller said he was "shocked" by the contrast between Obama's message and their experience.

"He was the one candidate who you would expect to stand up for something like that – and behind the scenes you have something completely contrary to what he was running on," said Koussan, Aref's other friend.

Aref and her friends complained to the campaign, and after those complaints and an inquiry from Politico, Obama's director of advance, Emmett S. Beliveau, called her to apologize.

An Obama aide also noted that the campaign has no policy against the candidate's appearing with women in headscarves: The next morning at Wayne State University, Obama posed for a picture with a student wearing a hijab.

Photographs from a Seattle rally earlier this year also clearly show a couple in Muslim clothes behind the candidate.

The administrator of the "Muslims4Obama" group on Obama's website, which is not formally part of the campaign, also said she had "not heard anything regarding Muslim supporters being steered away from sitting behind Sen. Obama at the event," and noted that he'd had Muslim supporters present at events in Minnesota, including one at which he stood with a Muslim member of Congress, Keith Ellison.

Aref said she was glad Obama had apologized, but not entirely satisfied.

"I think this is a much bigger deal than maybe they're perceiving it as," she said, noting that Obama had placed a personal call to a television reporter he'd dismissively called "Sweetie."

"An apology from him personally would be better," she said, then reconsidered. "If they are true to their word, I think it would suffice to have an invitation to their next rally and have seats behind him and show up on TV."

Hi AnneShirley,

Perhaps I was using the wrong word to describe what I would like to see, be the future of the United States in this world. When I used "power" I didn't mean it in the sense of telling every other country in the world what to do, when to do it, or how to do it, or we will bomb the h*** out of your country......I didn't mean it in the sense of assuming that we know what is right, and what is democracy, and that every other country in the world wants our "democracy," which isn't a democracy at all, but a meritocracy......I didn't mean it in the sense of invading any other country we feel we have the right to invade and with false information given to the American citizens of this country........no, I meant it in the sense of our ability to do good things in the world, in our ability to teach the citizens of the world and of the United States that we are one nation, one world, and only have one chance to get it right! I meant it in the sense of our  ability to provide humanity and basic rights to others, to support nations trying to feed their citizens and provide them with clean water, our ability to be green (greener than any other country in the world because we have the technology to do this); and I admit that I believe in a power that is good, spiritually motivated (and I don't mean organized religion), and not out to gather as many of the world's natural resources as possible so others go without. It is altruistic, but if we do not rise up to this bar set in this time of our nation, I agree with you, our empire will fall. It doesn't matter how much oil we pump out of the earth--we will fall. The attitudes of the Bushes' and Cheneys' of the world is way past the prime........those are archaic and need to be driven from our future before we move forward. I think we need a better definition for world power. It should mean something more responsible, rather than just the meanest or quasi-biggest bully on the playground. I can think of a few who need some sand kicked in their faces. LOL

We must not drill for oil. We must not rely on drilling to solve our need to be independent of oil. Historically, this country has pushed for more and more oil production, and it never, I mean never, ever reduced our need for oil. We need alternative energy sources, and we need them now. We need to give tax breaks to car companies willing to step up to the plate and put into production cars that do not require oil and gas to run. We need to give incentives to people to purchase cars that run on biodiesel, ethanol, electricity, hydrogen and solar energy sources. We need to stop producing plastic water bottles and all the other plastics we use once and throw away. We need to reward people for recycling, really recycling. We need to push for people to compost, to stop planting lawns and fertilizing with chemicals that leach into our drinking water. We need to grow more crops close to our homes so we can buy locally and stop the cross country transportation of foods to huge markets and superstores that put small business out of business. And on and on and on the list goes. Forget drilling for more oil, and spend that money really producing alternative energy resources. Stop this shameful, illegal war and use that money to bring us through the next 100 years and beyond independent of these Middle Eastern oil companies.

So, we don't drill, and because Congress won't pass a drilling bill, it's the democrats fault. I say so what. It's time for a change. Perhaps it's time for Bush, Cheney and all the other oil men making big bucks off us poor schmucks to lose, yeah, lose those millions they have tied up in oil. Time for old Bushy boy to get back to the farm and grow some corn or wheat to get his machinery moving. Time to get behind that plow and till that soil and grow crops locally for all the minions that live around him.

And it won't be the dems riding their bikes to WH, Shirley, it will be the repubs too. Their fancy suits just won't look the same when they get to the job! 

Something tells me as the price of oil goes higher and higher, Bush & Co won't be getting any poorer.  Nor will those who own oil stocks be getting any poorer. 

Just the threat of us expanding our domestic drilling might bring down the price per barrel.  If we do nothing, then welcome to the world of $8 a gallon as they have in Europe. 

Singapore is a small country which has to import all its food.  There is no land to grow a thing.  All the people live in highrises.  In Manhattan they have the same problem.  No victory gardens for them.  Getting food in by trucks and trains might be the only way they'll be able to eat. But at what price?

Well if the dems do nothing, we can fight back.  Buy Exxonmobil stock and the dividends might offset the losses we have to endure because we need to eat.

I don't quite understand the issue of not taking public financing yet.  Does it mean he can take in as much money as he wants without having to report where it's coming from?  Or, he can take in over a certain amount?  I don't see the advantage.  There must be one that's for sure.

Anneshirley,

Don't you understand that it's okay that Obama has lied, uh, sorry, changed his mind about campaign financing because it's all for the greater good?  It's like really really important that he have gobs more money than McCain because otherwise he could maybe even lose this election.  The extra money will go to good use, with lots of advertising everywhere explaining Obama's important positions on the key issues, such as that electing McCain would be like voting for a 3rd Bush term and that McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years, which is like, just terrible, you know?  If this decision on campaign financing helps get Obama elected, really, that's all that counts, isn't it?

By the way, you're right that Obama claims to be an agent of change.  He is an agent of change!  How better can he show this than by his willingness to so frequently change his mind and his positions?  After all, one of the big concerns with Bush is that he wasn't willing to re-evaluate and reassess his decisions.  He wouldn't admit when he was wrong.  Well obviously Obama is wrong all the time and he's willing to admit it by changing his positions.  It's a breath of fresh air! 

Isn't this like all so clear?    

Rosemary....here's an article today that fits with your comment about oil prices and who benefits.

(TOTTOTTOT)

Sensitive to the appearance that they are profiting from the war, senior oil company officials point out they are helping Iraq restore its run-down oil industry, which fell into neglect under the many years of war under Saddam Hussein and afterward.

Marilyn,

How do you see it as we take whatever we want, whenever?  Iraq asked those companies in to help them.  And they've been helping them for the last 2 years.  I don't think we can take what we want from them unless they award contracts.  The oil is Iraq's.  I just don't get your comment?

To add to Marilyn's comment.  Iraq, under Saddam, had no problem getting its oil out of the ground and onto transports, without U.S. help.

Really, folks, do any of you continue to insist that we didn't attack (and destroy) the Iraqi people for anything else, but their oil?  I say insist, because in your heart of hearts you know it's true.  I suppose pretending makes it easier on the conscience. 

And the other great pretense is that it's all going to change when we get a new president, a new administration, a new whatever.  The world has changed, the "horse is gone" and oil will continue to rise in price until it reaches its natural level, balanced against supply and demand, as it has in other countries for years.  We're not going to have cheap oil again, so it woud be best to stop pretending and start conserving. You can't live on principal forever, although we've certanly given it a good run.