Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Bundle Up
I met some friends for coffee on Sunday...it was about 36 degrees that day. That's COLD for Paris! I know, I know. I'm from Minnesota...but in Minnesota we have central heating. It's just not the same thing. When it's 36 degrees in Paris, you know it and you're cold. It helps to say it in celcius degrees...that's only like 2°C. Much more threatening! Anyway, I went to meet friends and I was happily greeted by five faces with rosy cheeks, five heads with matted down winter hat hair and five bodies bundle up with turtle necks and sweaters. C'est l'hiver, quoi! People dressed FOR WINTER! I liked that. It's kinda cold and uncomfortable...but it helps you appreciate a steaming cup of coffee or a hot chocolate, you feel so lucky to get the spot next to the radiator and you bundle up. People in the Midwest like to talk about how much they love "the seasons"... well, what season is it in your heated garage? Paris winters are dark (even an hour less daylight than the northlands of Minnesota!), grey, dreary and cold. Pretty miserable. But we're all in it together :) And oh how much sweeter the spring...
Monday, November 10, 2008
Momma's Banana Nut Bread
I've been baking a lot lately and one of the things I've made most often is my mom's banana nut bread. I've promised the recipe to a few different friends...so I've decided to post it here:
Ingredients:
1/2 cup cooking oil
1 cup sugar
2 eggs beaten
3 ripe bananas, mashed
2 cups flour
1tsp baking soda
1/2 tsp baking powder
1/2 tsp salt
3 Tbsp milk
1/2 tsp vanilla
1/2 cup chopped nuts (I use walnuts)
Steps:
Beat oil and sugar.
Add eggs and banana and beat well.
Add dry ingredients, milk and vanilla.
Mix well.
Stir in nuts.
Pour into greased and floured loaf pan.
Bake at 350° F for 40min.
To be more healthy:
I use 1/2 cup white granulated sugar and 1/2 cup unrefined sugar.
Also when baking I sometimes use 1/2 refined flour half whole wheat flour.
I use cooking oil with Omega 3 and Omega 6.
To be less healthy:
I sometimes add white chocolate chunks. You could also add chocolate chips.
BON APPETIT!
Ingredients:
1/2 cup cooking oil
1 cup sugar
2 eggs beaten
3 ripe bananas, mashed
2 cups flour
1tsp baking soda
1/2 tsp baking powder
1/2 tsp salt
3 Tbsp milk
1/2 tsp vanilla
1/2 cup chopped nuts (I use walnuts)
Steps:
Beat oil and sugar.
Add eggs and banana and beat well.
Add dry ingredients, milk and vanilla.
Mix well.
Stir in nuts.
Pour into greased and floured loaf pan.
Bake at 350° F for 40min.
To be more healthy:
I use 1/2 cup white granulated sugar and 1/2 cup unrefined sugar.
Also when baking I sometimes use 1/2 refined flour half whole wheat flour.
I use cooking oil with Omega 3 and Omega 6.
To be less healthy:
I sometimes add white chocolate chunks. You could also add chocolate chips.
BON APPETIT!
Thursday, October 30, 2008
If you're rich, young and healthy then McCain has to a health care plan for you!!!
I wanted to pick and choose some highlights, but I am just copying the whole article below.
If you or anyone you know is still feeling unsure about voting, YOU SHOULD READ THIS or pass it along.
I know I live in France and now have access to basically the holy grail of health care, so maybe I've become more sensitive on this issue. But I can simply NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE HELL A COUNTRY AS RICH AND POWEFUL AS THE UNITED STATES HAS MORE THAN 45 MILLION UNINSURED CITIZENS. Honestly, it is absolutely disgusting.
Both plans are far from perfect, but the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that the McCain plan would lower the number of uninsured by a mere two million in 2018, out of a projected 67 million uninsured in that year. The Obama plan would cut the number by 34 million, the center says, but still leave nearly 33 million uninsured.
Obama's plan would be at least a modest step in the right direction.
And McCain's plan runs the risk of screwing over elderly and less-healthy people.
So yeah, if you're young and healthy and plan on being young and healthy forever, and also if you don't give a crap about your parents or neighbors... then yeah. You can just go on ahead and vote McCain!
Oh and if you want to vote McCain, you should be rich too, because...
"Despite all the Republican warnings about high-spending Democrats, McCain’s plan could be a lot more expensive than Mr. Obama’s, at least in the early years, and possibly in the long term. This is because the generous tax credits would drain federal revenues faster than the tax on employer policies would replenish them."
This is from the New York Times- Oct 27th, 2008
THE CANDIDATES' HEALTH CARE PLANS
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/opinion/28tue1.html?ei=5070&emc=eta1
The nation’s health care system is desperately in need of reform — as far too many Americans know from grim, personal experience. In this election, Barack Obama and John McCain are offering starkly different ideas for how to fix that system.
There is no shortage of problems:
¶ Some 45 million Americans lack health insurance, limiting their ability to get timely care.
¶ The costs of medical care and health insurance are rising much faster than household incomes, making it increasingly difficult for people to afford either.
¶ People can’t carry their insurance from one job to another, limiting their mobility. Outside the workplace, it is hard to find affordable insurance.
¶ Despite the wealth and technological prowess of this country, the quality of medical care often lags behind that available in other industrialized nations.
Both candidates have largely accepted the prevailing expert wisdom on ways to improve quality and lower health care costs over the long run, such as relying more on electronic medical records and better management of the chronically ill. But they have very different ideas on the best way to make insurance available and affordable for all Americans.
We believe that Mr. McCain’s plan, which relies on reshaping the tax code, is far too risky. It is likely to erode employer-provided group health insurance and push more people into purchasing their own insurance on the dysfunctional open market, where insurers often reject applicants with pre-existing conditions.
Mr. Obama has focused primarily on extending coverage to a big chunk of the 45 million uninsured Americans by expanding existing private and public programs with the help of federal subsidies and mandates. His boldest innovation would be a new federally regulated exchange where Americans not covered at work would be able to choose — as federal employees currently can — among a variety of private group policies. He would also create a new public program to compete with the private insurers.
Mr. Obama’s plan is a better start than Mr. McCain’s. But it is still not likely to help all Americans who need and deserve affordable, high-quality medical care.
As voters weigh their choice for next Tuesday’s election, we offer this detailed review of the two candidates’ plans.
THE MCCAIN PROPOSAL Mr. McCain’s main idea is to change the tax code so that workers would have to pay income taxes on the value of their employer’s contribution to their health insurance. In return, all Americans, whether currently insured or not, would receive a tax credit of $2,500 for an individual or $5,000 for a family to buy health insurance, either through their employer or on the open market.
Mr. Obama has derided this plan as giving tax credits with one hand and taking them away with the other. But the tax credits are initially so generous that a great majority of workers would end up ahead: their tax credit would exceed the tax they would have to pay on their employer-provided insurance.
They could stay in the same health plan at work and have extra money that could be applied to other health care costs. Or they could buy policies in the open market. As good as that sounds, a $5,000 credit would not go very far toward buying a typical $12,000 family policy but might well suffice for the young and healthy, who get preferable rates.
Mr. McCain correctly recognizes that there are disadvantages to linking insurance to jobs — as thousands of laid-off American workers already are discovering — and that there is an intrinsic inequity in the current tax code that favors those who have employer plans over those buying individual coverage.
The great danger is that Mr. McCain’s plan will fragment the sharing of risks and costs — the bedrock of any good insurance plan — by enticing young, healthy workers to bail out of their employers’ group policies to seek cheaper insurance on their own. Their older or less healthy colleagues would be left behind, which would drive up premiums at work. The rising costs could lead many companies to drop their health coverage entirely.
The proposal also offers little protection for older and sicker people forced to buy policies in the open market. Mr. McCain says the federal government would help underwrite high-risk pools like those operated by many states to cover such patients. But the subsidies his aides have talked about — some $7 billion to $10 billion a year — would fall far short of the amount needed.
Mr. McCain would loosen state regulations on insurers by allowing companies to sell across state lines. Some states require insurers to accept all applicants and provide specified standard benefits, and they limit the ability of companies to base premiums on health status. In the name of promoting competition, Mr. McCain’s plan would free companies from those terms. Anyone who lost insurance as a result would have to seek coverage through the high-risk pools.
THE OBAMA PLAN Mr. Obama would do far more than his opponent to address the nation’s shameful failure to provide health coverage for all citizens. He would require all parents to get coverage for their children and expand Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. He would also require large and midsize companies to offer health insurance to their workers or pay into a kitty to subsidize coverage elsewhere — a provision that Senator McCain castigates as a “fine” but that really is their fair share of the burden.
Mr. Obama says the government would provide subsidies to encourage small employers to offer coverage and to help low-income people buy insurance. This is not a government-run program — as Mr. McCain claims — but it does give the government a much bigger role than it now has by expanding public programs and creating a new national plan.
Mr. Obama would also greatly increase government regulation of the insurance industry. He would require insurance companies to take every applicant and meet a minimum standard of benefits, and he would prevent them from charging higher premiums based on an applicant’s health. Some states have similar requirements now and insurance companies still sell policies there.
COVERAGE Some experts estimate that the McCain plan would reduce the number of uninsured only modestly because millions of people would drop or lose employer coverage, and not many more than that would buy policies outside of work. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that the McCain plan would lower the number of uninsured by a mere two million in 2018, out of a projected 67 million uninsured in that year. The Obama plan would cut the number by 34 million, the center says, but still leave nearly 33 million uninsured.
The McCain campaign makes an optimistic prediction that up to 30 million of the uninsured might take out policies using their tax credits. If so, those policies would probably be meager — with high deductibles, large co-payments and limited benefits — and unlikely to provide much help in a crisis.
COSTS Despite all the Republican warnings about high-spending Democrats, McCain’s plan could be a lot more expensive than Mr. Obama’s, at least in the early years, and possibly in the long term. This is because the generous tax credits would drain federal revenues faster than the tax on employer policies would replenish them.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that the McCain plan would cost the federal government $1.3 trillion over 10 years, and the Obama plan $1.6 trillion. Using different assumptions, the Lewin Group, a consulting firm, estimates that the McCain plan would increase federal spending by $2.05 trillion over 10 years, compared with $1.17 trillion for the Obama package.
Neither candidate has persuasively explained how he would pay for his plan. Mr. Obama says he would apply the money saved by rescinding Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy and hoped-for savings from reforming the health care system, but there is considerable doubt those savings will materialize quickly.
Mr. McCain also counts on cost-containment measures but is mostly relying on market forces to reduce the cost of health insurance and health care. He expects that people who buy their own coverage will shop for cheaper policies and make more careful choices about what medical care they really need. Among the dangers is that chronically ill people may forgo needed treatments.
Mr. Obama’s plan is the better one because it would cover far more of the uninsured, spread risks and costs more equitably and result in more comprehensive coverage for most Americans. We fear Mr. McCain’s plan would jeopardize employer-based coverage without providing an adequate substitute. At a time when so many employers are reducing or dropping coverage, that is not a risk that the country can afford to take.
If you or anyone you know is still feeling unsure about voting, YOU SHOULD READ THIS or pass it along.
I know I live in France and now have access to basically the holy grail of health care, so maybe I've become more sensitive on this issue. But I can simply NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE HELL A COUNTRY AS RICH AND POWEFUL AS THE UNITED STATES HAS MORE THAN 45 MILLION UNINSURED CITIZENS. Honestly, it is absolutely disgusting.
Both plans are far from perfect, but the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that the McCain plan would lower the number of uninsured by a mere two million in 2018, out of a projected 67 million uninsured in that year. The Obama plan would cut the number by 34 million, the center says, but still leave nearly 33 million uninsured.
Obama's plan would be at least a modest step in the right direction.
And McCain's plan runs the risk of screwing over elderly and less-healthy people.
So yeah, if you're young and healthy and plan on being young and healthy forever, and also if you don't give a crap about your parents or neighbors... then yeah. You can just go on ahead and vote McCain!
Oh and if you want to vote McCain, you should be rich too, because...
"Despite all the Republican warnings about high-spending Democrats, McCain’s plan could be a lot more expensive than Mr. Obama’s, at least in the early years, and possibly in the long term. This is because the generous tax credits would drain federal revenues faster than the tax on employer policies would replenish them."
This is from the New York Times- Oct 27th, 2008
THE CANDIDATES' HEALTH CARE PLANS
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/opinion/28tue1.html?ei=5070&emc=eta1
The nation’s health care system is desperately in need of reform — as far too many Americans know from grim, personal experience. In this election, Barack Obama and John McCain are offering starkly different ideas for how to fix that system.
There is no shortage of problems:
¶ Some 45 million Americans lack health insurance, limiting their ability to get timely care.
¶ The costs of medical care and health insurance are rising much faster than household incomes, making it increasingly difficult for people to afford either.
¶ People can’t carry their insurance from one job to another, limiting their mobility. Outside the workplace, it is hard to find affordable insurance.
¶ Despite the wealth and technological prowess of this country, the quality of medical care often lags behind that available in other industrialized nations.
Both candidates have largely accepted the prevailing expert wisdom on ways to improve quality and lower health care costs over the long run, such as relying more on electronic medical records and better management of the chronically ill. But they have very different ideas on the best way to make insurance available and affordable for all Americans.
We believe that Mr. McCain’s plan, which relies on reshaping the tax code, is far too risky. It is likely to erode employer-provided group health insurance and push more people into purchasing their own insurance on the dysfunctional open market, where insurers often reject applicants with pre-existing conditions.
Mr. Obama has focused primarily on extending coverage to a big chunk of the 45 million uninsured Americans by expanding existing private and public programs with the help of federal subsidies and mandates. His boldest innovation would be a new federally regulated exchange where Americans not covered at work would be able to choose — as federal employees currently can — among a variety of private group policies. He would also create a new public program to compete with the private insurers.
Mr. Obama’s plan is a better start than Mr. McCain’s. But it is still not likely to help all Americans who need and deserve affordable, high-quality medical care.
As voters weigh their choice for next Tuesday’s election, we offer this detailed review of the two candidates’ plans.
THE MCCAIN PROPOSAL Mr. McCain’s main idea is to change the tax code so that workers would have to pay income taxes on the value of their employer’s contribution to their health insurance. In return, all Americans, whether currently insured or not, would receive a tax credit of $2,500 for an individual or $5,000 for a family to buy health insurance, either through their employer or on the open market.
Mr. Obama has derided this plan as giving tax credits with one hand and taking them away with the other. But the tax credits are initially so generous that a great majority of workers would end up ahead: their tax credit would exceed the tax they would have to pay on their employer-provided insurance.
They could stay in the same health plan at work and have extra money that could be applied to other health care costs. Or they could buy policies in the open market. As good as that sounds, a $5,000 credit would not go very far toward buying a typical $12,000 family policy but might well suffice for the young and healthy, who get preferable rates.
Mr. McCain correctly recognizes that there are disadvantages to linking insurance to jobs — as thousands of laid-off American workers already are discovering — and that there is an intrinsic inequity in the current tax code that favors those who have employer plans over those buying individual coverage.
The great danger is that Mr. McCain’s plan will fragment the sharing of risks and costs — the bedrock of any good insurance plan — by enticing young, healthy workers to bail out of their employers’ group policies to seek cheaper insurance on their own. Their older or less healthy colleagues would be left behind, which would drive up premiums at work. The rising costs could lead many companies to drop their health coverage entirely.
The proposal also offers little protection for older and sicker people forced to buy policies in the open market. Mr. McCain says the federal government would help underwrite high-risk pools like those operated by many states to cover such patients. But the subsidies his aides have talked about — some $7 billion to $10 billion a year — would fall far short of the amount needed.
Mr. McCain would loosen state regulations on insurers by allowing companies to sell across state lines. Some states require insurers to accept all applicants and provide specified standard benefits, and they limit the ability of companies to base premiums on health status. In the name of promoting competition, Mr. McCain’s plan would free companies from those terms. Anyone who lost insurance as a result would have to seek coverage through the high-risk pools.
THE OBAMA PLAN Mr. Obama would do far more than his opponent to address the nation’s shameful failure to provide health coverage for all citizens. He would require all parents to get coverage for their children and expand Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. He would also require large and midsize companies to offer health insurance to their workers or pay into a kitty to subsidize coverage elsewhere — a provision that Senator McCain castigates as a “fine” but that really is their fair share of the burden.
Mr. Obama says the government would provide subsidies to encourage small employers to offer coverage and to help low-income people buy insurance. This is not a government-run program — as Mr. McCain claims — but it does give the government a much bigger role than it now has by expanding public programs and creating a new national plan.
Mr. Obama would also greatly increase government regulation of the insurance industry. He would require insurance companies to take every applicant and meet a minimum standard of benefits, and he would prevent them from charging higher premiums based on an applicant’s health. Some states have similar requirements now and insurance companies still sell policies there.
COVERAGE Some experts estimate that the McCain plan would reduce the number of uninsured only modestly because millions of people would drop or lose employer coverage, and not many more than that would buy policies outside of work. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that the McCain plan would lower the number of uninsured by a mere two million in 2018, out of a projected 67 million uninsured in that year. The Obama plan would cut the number by 34 million, the center says, but still leave nearly 33 million uninsured.
The McCain campaign makes an optimistic prediction that up to 30 million of the uninsured might take out policies using their tax credits. If so, those policies would probably be meager — with high deductibles, large co-payments and limited benefits — and unlikely to provide much help in a crisis.
COSTS Despite all the Republican warnings about high-spending Democrats, McCain’s plan could be a lot more expensive than Mr. Obama’s, at least in the early years, and possibly in the long term. This is because the generous tax credits would drain federal revenues faster than the tax on employer policies would replenish them.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that the McCain plan would cost the federal government $1.3 trillion over 10 years, and the Obama plan $1.6 trillion. Using different assumptions, the Lewin Group, a consulting firm, estimates that the McCain plan would increase federal spending by $2.05 trillion over 10 years, compared with $1.17 trillion for the Obama package.
Neither candidate has persuasively explained how he would pay for his plan. Mr. Obama says he would apply the money saved by rescinding Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy and hoped-for savings from reforming the health care system, but there is considerable doubt those savings will materialize quickly.
Mr. McCain also counts on cost-containment measures but is mostly relying on market forces to reduce the cost of health insurance and health care. He expects that people who buy their own coverage will shop for cheaper policies and make more careful choices about what medical care they really need. Among the dangers is that chronically ill people may forgo needed treatments.
Mr. Obama’s plan is the better one because it would cover far more of the uninsured, spread risks and costs more equitably and result in more comprehensive coverage for most Americans. We fear Mr. McCain’s plan would jeopardize employer-based coverage without providing an adequate substitute. At a time when so many employers are reducing or dropping coverage, that is not a risk that the country can afford to take.
Monday, October 06, 2008
Debate Issue
Hmmm.... I guess someone McCain's age is a little more interested in Viagra than birth control. Understandable, understandable.
But what about the rest of us?
Wouldn't it be nice to have someone leading the country who is at least a little bit in touch with the general population? (Note: the USA is a nation where 98% of women use birth control at some point in their lives)
John McCain has been unable to answer a simple question: Shouldn't insurance companies be required to cover birth control if they cover Viagra?
The questions was first posed months ago, and he still hasn’t answered that question clearly.
Click the link below to see the video and tell debate moderator Bob Schieffer that John McCain owes millions of American women voters an answer on birth control.
https://secure.prochoiceamerica.org/site/Advocacy?id=3323
As recently as 2005, McCain voted specifically against requiring insurance companies to cover prescription birth control.
Maybe Sen. McCain has done his homework and can now give a real answer at the debate. Or maybe he doesn’t want to answer because he knows his record is unacceptable to the American pro-choice majority that will decide this election.
Please watch the video (it's only a minute and a half long) and request that this question be raised in the third deabte!
If you don't like what I am saying here, let's let McCain answer for himself...
But what about the rest of us?
Wouldn't it be nice to have someone leading the country who is at least a little bit in touch with the general population? (Note: the USA is a nation where 98% of women use birth control at some point in their lives)
John McCain has been unable to answer a simple question: Shouldn't insurance companies be required to cover birth control if they cover Viagra?
The questions was first posed months ago, and he still hasn’t answered that question clearly.
Click the link below to see the video and tell debate moderator Bob Schieffer that John McCain owes millions of American women voters an answer on birth control.
https://secure.prochoiceamerica.org/site/Advocacy?id=3323
As recently as 2005, McCain voted specifically against requiring insurance companies to cover prescription birth control.
Maybe Sen. McCain has done his homework and can now give a real answer at the debate. Or maybe he doesn’t want to answer because he knows his record is unacceptable to the American pro-choice majority that will decide this election.
Please watch the video (it's only a minute and a half long) and request that this question be raised in the third deabte!
If you don't like what I am saying here, let's let McCain answer for himself...
Monday, May 19, 2008
The Real McCain
This is a three minute video and I STRONGLY urge you to take the time to watch it.
You think you know John McCain? Here is The REAL McCain.
Please watch this, think about it and get the word out.
Electing John McCain in 2008 would be a DEVASTATING MISTAKE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c
You think you know John McCain? Here is The REAL McCain.
Please watch this, think about it and get the word out.
Electing John McCain in 2008 would be a DEVASTATING MISTAKE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c
Monday, May 12, 2008
You Bring Your Own World
A friend of mine is volunteering in Togo for a couple of years. She is more than half way through her mission and though it is often very difficult and challenging, she is really enjoying her experience.
This is a great story that she recently shared on her blog:
A man came into a town and asked an old woman what the people of the village were like. She asked him what he thought of the village he had just left. He replied, “They were mean, lazy, and disrespectful.”
She replied, “You will find the villagers here to be about the same.”
A second man came and asked the same old woman the same question, but instead insisted that the people of his previous village were hospitable, kind, and hard working.
The old woman replied, “You will find the villagers here to be about the same.”
An onlooker rushed over to the woman and demanded to know how she could say the total opposite thing to the two men yet still be telling the truth.
The wise old woman replied, “Because the truth is, you bring your world. If you find people nice, they will be. If you find people mean, they will act accordingly.”
This is a great story that she recently shared on her blog:
A man came into a town and asked an old woman what the people of the village were like. She asked him what he thought of the village he had just left. He replied, “They were mean, lazy, and disrespectful.”
She replied, “You will find the villagers here to be about the same.”
A second man came and asked the same old woman the same question, but instead insisted that the people of his previous village were hospitable, kind, and hard working.
The old woman replied, “You will find the villagers here to be about the same.”
An onlooker rushed over to the woman and demanded to know how she could say the total opposite thing to the two men yet still be telling the truth.
The wise old woman replied, “Because the truth is, you bring your world. If you find people nice, they will be. If you find people mean, they will act accordingly.”
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
The World Is Watching
Here is excerpt from Obama's remarks in Saint Antonio last night:
"There is a young man on my campaign whose grandfather lives in Uganda. He is 81 years old and has never experienced true democracy in his lifetime. During the reign of Idi Amin, he was literally hunted and the only reason he escaped was thanks to the kindness of others and a few good-sized trunks. And on the night of the Iowa caucuses, that 81-year-old man stayed up until five in the morning, huddled by his television, waiting for the results.
The world is watching what we do here. The world is paying attention to how we conduct ourselves. What will we they see? What will we tell them? What will we show them?
Can we come together across party and region; race and religion to restore prosperity and opportunity as the birthright of every American?
Can we lead the community of nations in taking on the common threats of the 21st century – terrorism and climate change; genocide and disease?
Can we send a message to all those weary travelers beyond our shores who long to be free from fear and want that the United States of America is, and always will be, 'the last best, hope of Earth?'
We say; we hope; we believe – yes we can."
The world IS watching. I was studying in London in the 2000 "election" and living in Paris in the 2004 election...I cannot bear to spend another November abroad receiving puzzled and disappointed looks from the people of France, Spain, the UK, Germany, Japan, Poland, Australia, Norway, etc. and trying to find an answer when they ask me, "Why???"
We can take a new path! We can make a good choice! The whole world is watching, what do we want them to see?
"There is a young man on my campaign whose grandfather lives in Uganda. He is 81 years old and has never experienced true democracy in his lifetime. During the reign of Idi Amin, he was literally hunted and the only reason he escaped was thanks to the kindness of others and a few good-sized trunks. And on the night of the Iowa caucuses, that 81-year-old man stayed up until five in the morning, huddled by his television, waiting for the results.
The world is watching what we do here. The world is paying attention to how we conduct ourselves. What will we they see? What will we tell them? What will we show them?
Can we come together across party and region; race and religion to restore prosperity and opportunity as the birthright of every American?
Can we lead the community of nations in taking on the common threats of the 21st century – terrorism and climate change; genocide and disease?
Can we send a message to all those weary travelers beyond our shores who long to be free from fear and want that the United States of America is, and always will be, 'the last best, hope of Earth?'
We say; we hope; we believe – yes we can."
The world IS watching. I was studying in London in the 2000 "election" and living in Paris in the 2004 election...I cannot bear to spend another November abroad receiving puzzled and disappointed looks from the people of France, Spain, the UK, Germany, Japan, Poland, Australia, Norway, etc. and trying to find an answer when they ask me, "Why???"
We can take a new path! We can make a good choice! The whole world is watching, what do we want them to see?
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
It's 3am....
I saw this response video to the Hillary Clinton "It's 3am..." ad. I think it says a lot. If you are still undecided, this definitely gives you something to think about.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Not So Bad???
"John McCain is not so bad." What is that even supposed to mean? For those of you think that John McCain is "not so bad"...think again. We're all happy to see George W. on his way out... don't we owe it to ourselves, and to the world at large and all of the people who look to America for an example of hope, change and possibility, to elect someone better than John McCain???
Why do people have this idea that McCain's not so bad? Maybe it's because when people think of McCain, they often think of the media portrayal of him as a "maverick" and seem to forget that he is a man who helped George Bush launch the Iraq war.
A memo from VoteVets.org shows that regarding the war in Iraq, John McCain has been the president's greatest ally from the get-go—and most striking is the fact that his plan for Iraq going forward is the same as Bush's: Stay indefinitely.
Furthermore, McCain has voted against a woman's right to choose, against family planning, and against clinic-protection measures. Since 1983, he has voted anti-choice 125 times on 130 choice-related votes!
Here are a few quotes:
"If I am fortunate enough to be elected as the next President of the United States, I pledge to you to be a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement."
[Statement by Sen. McCain read by Sen. Sam Brownback at the March for Life in Washington, DC, January 22, 2008. http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=26539
"I do not support Roe v. Wade. I think it should be overturned."
[Ann Althouse, Rudy & Mitt Hem & Haw on Abortion, N.Y. Times, February 24, 2007.]
Click here for more detailed information.
Also, please check out the information on the VoteVets.org site- but here are some...um..."highlights":
Senator McCain on the war in Iraq:
* January 2003: "But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily." [MSNBC, 1/22/03]
* December 2005: "Overall, I think a year from now, we will have a fair amount of progress [in Iraq] if we stay the course." [The Hill, 12/8/05]
* November 2006: "We're either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months." [NBC, Meet the Press, 11/12/06]
Senator McCain on the future for U.S. troops in Iraq:
McCain: "I believe to set a date for withdrawal is to set a date for surrender." [Charlotte Observer, 9/16/07]
* McCain: "[M]ake it a hundred" years in Iraq and "that would be fine with me." [Derry, New Hampshire Town Hall meeting, 1/3/08]
* McCain on how long troops may remain in Iraq: "A thousand years. A million years. Ten million years. It depends on the arrangement we have with the Iraqi government." [Associated Press, 1/04/08]
During The War:
Senator McCain praised Donald Rumsfeld as late as May 12, 2004, after the Abu Ghraib scandal.
* Asked if Donald Rumsfeld can continue to be an effective secretary of defense, McCain: "Yes, today I do and I believe he's done a fine job. He's an honorable man." [Hannity and Colmes, 5/12/04]
Senator McCain repeatedly supported President Bush on the Iraq War—voting with him in the Senate, defending his actions and publicly praising his leadership.
* McCain maintains the war was a good idea.
At the 2004 Republican National Convention, McCain, focusing on the war in Iraq, said that while weapons of mass destruction were not found, Saddam once had them and "he would have acquired them again." McCain said the mission in Iraq "gave hope to people long oppressed" and it was "necessary, achievable and noble." McCain: "For his determination to undertake it, and for his unflagging resolve to see it through to a just end, President Bush
Senator McCain: "The war, the invasion was not a mistake. [Meet the Press, 1/6/08]
Asked if the war was a good idea worth the price in blood and treasure, McCain: "It was worth getting rid of Saddam Hussein. He had used weapons of mass destruction, and it's clear that he was hell-bent on acquiring them." [Republican Debate, 1/24/08]
You think he's not so bad? Think again.
Why do people have this idea that McCain's not so bad? Maybe it's because when people think of McCain, they often think of the media portrayal of him as a "maverick" and seem to forget that he is a man who helped George Bush launch the Iraq war.
A memo from VoteVets.org shows that regarding the war in Iraq, John McCain has been the president's greatest ally from the get-go—and most striking is the fact that his plan for Iraq going forward is the same as Bush's: Stay indefinitely.
Furthermore, McCain has voted against a woman's right to choose, against family planning, and against clinic-protection measures. Since 1983, he has voted anti-choice 125 times on 130 choice-related votes!
Here are a few quotes:
"If I am fortunate enough to be elected as the next President of the United States, I pledge to you to be a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement."
[Statement by Sen. McCain read by Sen. Sam Brownback at the March for Life in Washington, DC, January 22, 2008. http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=26539
"I do not support Roe v. Wade. I think it should be overturned."
[Ann Althouse, Rudy & Mitt Hem & Haw on Abortion, N.Y. Times, February 24, 2007.]
Click here for more detailed information.
Also, please check out the information on the VoteVets.org site- but here are some...um..."highlights":
Senator McCain on the war in Iraq:
* January 2003: "But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily." [MSNBC, 1/22/03]
* December 2005: "Overall, I think a year from now, we will have a fair amount of progress [in Iraq] if we stay the course." [The Hill, 12/8/05]
* November 2006: "We're either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months." [NBC, Meet the Press, 11/12/06]
Senator McCain on the future for U.S. troops in Iraq:
McCain: "I believe to set a date for withdrawal is to set a date for surrender." [Charlotte Observer, 9/16/07]
* McCain: "[M]ake it a hundred" years in Iraq and "that would be fine with me." [Derry, New Hampshire Town Hall meeting, 1/3/08]
* McCain on how long troops may remain in Iraq: "A thousand years. A million years. Ten million years. It depends on the arrangement we have with the Iraqi government." [Associated Press, 1/04/08]
During The War:
Senator McCain praised Donald Rumsfeld as late as May 12, 2004, after the Abu Ghraib scandal.
* Asked if Donald Rumsfeld can continue to be an effective secretary of defense, McCain: "Yes, today I do and I believe he's done a fine job. He's an honorable man." [Hannity and Colmes, 5/12/04]
Senator McCain repeatedly supported President Bush on the Iraq War—voting with him in the Senate, defending his actions and publicly praising his leadership.
* McCain maintains the war was a good idea.
At the 2004 Republican National Convention, McCain, focusing on the war in Iraq, said that while weapons of mass destruction were not found, Saddam once had them and "he would have acquired them again." McCain said the mission in Iraq "gave hope to people long oppressed" and it was "necessary, achievable and noble." McCain: "For his determination to undertake it, and for his unflagging resolve to see it through to a just end, President Bush
Senator McCain: "The war, the invasion was not a mistake. [Meet the Press, 1/6/08]
Asked if the war was a good idea worth the price in blood and treasure, McCain: "It was worth getting rid of Saddam Hussein. He had used weapons of mass destruction, and it's clear that he was hell-bent on acquiring them." [Republican Debate, 1/24/08]
You think he's not so bad? Think again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
