NY Brit Dan Spencer's 2nd note (WARNING: This post makes use of extreme profanity)

Hey, Democrats!

Hear that sound?

Yes?

No?

Listen carefully now

That slightly nauseating, rasping noise?

You hear it?

You do? Yeah?

Know what it is?

I'll tell you:

It's the sound of Republican Party mandarins rubbing their greasy, bejeweled, oil-stained, blood-stained hands together in glee you FUCKING MORONS

This infighting has GOT TO STOP now

RIGHT FUCKING NOW

Why are you doing the Republican Party's work for them?

Huh? Huh?

Worse, why are campaigning like the Republican Party -those evil motherfucks!

Why do you want to become your enemy?

It just goes to show how far you Democrats have lost sight of the real objective here which is to (let me put it in a super large font so we're all absolutely clear on this):

GET THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OUT OF POWER BEFORE THEY DO ANY MORE DAMAGE TO THE UNITED STATES, THE REST OF THE WORLD, AND THE UNITED STATES' STANDING IN THE REST OF THE WORLD

Clear enough for you? Crystal?

It should be the “mission statement” written over the doorway of every regional Democratic party headquarters

I was pretty pissed off about the latest Obama smear

The “Obama-is-really-a-Muslim” bollocks

And those pictures that “proved” it, supposedly leaked by a Clinton staffer

But i'm over that now -in fact, I think it was a GOOD thing

Here's how:

If Hill's team had those pictures, do you really think McCain's DIDN'T?

Of course they did, and they were holding them in reserve, to be used if Obama wins the primaries, as a PRESIDENTIAL election campaign smear

I bet they had a whole plan ready to roll too

some kind of fake “terror alert” orchestrated by the current administration

(a thousand curses be upon them!)

then when the country and the right-wing media are all stirred up again by the so-called “War on Terror” the pictures get leaked

All timed for a crucial juncture in Obama's campaign -maximum damage

But now the pictures are “out there”, and by the time the actual election comes around they will be forgotten

The power of images fades fast -just look at 9/11

When that atrocity was played out before our eyes it seemed impossible that it could ever lose its power -but it has, through repetition

(That's not immoral, just human nature)

And a smiling Obama in a turban is not exactly comparable is it?

So good on you Clinton campaign staffer! (should obama win)

It makes me laugh to think that somewhere there is a Republican campaign staffer banging his or her head against a desk, crying: “I had this planned for months! Months! All for nothing! Nothing! Waaaaaah!”

Ha ha ha ha! I love it

Yesterday [2^nd March] the governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, said one of the first sensible things re. this dumb internecine warfare:

“I just think the D-Day is Tuesday [4^th March]. We have to have a positive campaign after Tuesday. Whoever has the most delegates after Tuesday, a clear lead, should be in my judgment the nominee.”

Thank you sir!

An admirable statement

But also naïve (this tit-for-tat, he-said-she-said stuff has gone too far now; there's too much playground pride at stake)

and, in a weird way, un-american:

In your culture, there's no room for second place

That's why the loser -especially after this bitter campaign- could never brook running as vice-president

(and why obama and hill could never cut a “Granatia Deal” [so named after the restaurant where it was apocryphally brokered] as Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did when they were in contention for leadership of the Labour Party in 1994. The deal was that Brown would stand down in agreement to being chancellor of the exchequer [the de facto second highest office in british politics, more powerful than being deputy prime minister] and blair would, after a certain length of time, hand over the reigns of power to brown. Blair eventually made good on his promise, 10 years later. But I digress.)

Just look the NFL season just gone

Who cares now that the patriots won every game of the season, after they lost the superbowl to the giants?

Look at football (or soccer, if you must) in england

Our national team are lionized, household names and role-models -and we've never won anything since... 1966!

And it's not like we've ever even made it to a world cup/euro [this year we didn't even qualify to compete!] final/semi-final since

LLLLLLLoooooosers!

And then you've got Tim Henman, british tennis player, and “people's champion” -he's never won ANYTHING

LLLLLLLoooooooser!

(i'm not even going to mention specific american tennis players and their groaning trophy cabinets)

This speaks volumes about the difference between our two cultures -i have my own pet theories as to the reasons/causes of that, but i've digressed waaaay too much already

What i'm trying to say is it's GOT to be either Hillary OR Obama

There's no room for compromise

But situations that leave no room for compromise -extremist positions, you might say- are bound to descend into “ends justifying the means territory”

“winning isn't everything -it's the only thing” blah blah

I guess I'll have to grudgingly concede that this campaign is going to be dirty, and will stay dirty, till the bitter -and I mean BITTER- end.

But here's the thing

There will -eventually, finally, thankfully- be a winner and a loser, unequivocally

And when that day comes -god willing it will be wednesday!- this is what you've got to do:

If your guy/girl wins get incredibly drunk

If your guy/girl loses get incredibly drunk

Next day, put on the pin badge of the winning candidate, go outside -i don't care how hungover you are, the fresh air will do you good- and start campaigning for them

Obviously this will be a lot easier for the “winner” to do than the “loser”

(they will already have their own badge for a start)

But if your candidate did lose -don't be bitter

don't break out of the mission (if you've forgotten what the mission is, see above; it's in VERY large type)

Don't feel hypocritical -it's just politics, thats how politics is; “strange bedfellows” and all that

But above all -don't feel like a loser

Because, either way, you win:

I realized something the other day -it hit me like a bullet, in fact- and maybe you Democrats haven't truly realized it either, busy as you are with ripping out each other's throats

You are one of the luckiest electorates in american history -in fact the most fortunate since the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964

and before that... the first presidential election, in 1789.

(Doesn't that make the hairs on your neck stand on end?

It does mine and i'm not even american!)

No matter who wins the primaries the presidential candidate you will be supporting (MUST BE SUPPORTING) will be a person who could be the first BLACK president in american history or the first FEMALE president in american history

I'm sure I don't need to spell this out -but there's a lot of things I thought I wouldn't need to spell out, so I will:

EVERY PREVIOUS PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY HAS BEEN A WHITE MAN

And all too often a “Stupid White Man” (thank you, Michael Moore), typified by this McCain bozo standing in opposition

(but i'll save my fire for McCain till after the election campaign gets underway and the battle can truly be joined)

God, i'm so jealous of you

(this is why i'm sitting writing this tedious shit, when I have all the fun that new york city has to offer at my disposal)

And why once the winner FINALLY emerges I will read his/her book and then make my way to the local Democrat Party office and report for duty (sir!)

I may not be able to vote in this election, but i'm sure as hell going to make sure as many of you lucky, lucky bastards do -and for the right candidate too: the DEMOCRAT candidate, whomever that may be

I love america, and I love americans

but you do have your faults

oh yes you do!

And one of those is a tendency for hubris, and for thinking battles have already been won that are not -not even nearly- over

(the most obvious contemporary example is Bush's disgustingly triumphant “Mission Accomplished” address from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, in 2003. Five years ago, people. Five years.)

I've just started reading a book about the Founding Fathers and the so-called “revolutionary generation” [Founding Brothers, by Joseph J Ellis]. I found this on page 4:

“Though it seems somewhat extreme to declare, as one contemporary political philosopher [Francis Fukuyama, in his essay The End of History and the Last Man] has phrased it, that “the end of history” is now at hand, it is true that all alternative forms of political organization appear to be fighting a futile rearguard action against the liberal institutions and ideas first established in the United States in the late eighteenth century. At least it seems safe to say that some form of representative government based on the principle of popular sovereignty and some form of market economy fueled by the energies of individual citizens have become the commonly accepted ingredients for national success throughout the world.”

Immediately after reading that, I flicked to the front of the book to see the copyright: 2000. One year before the Islamists demonstrated -in blood- that history is certainly NOT OVER

I bring that up now -and i'm nearly done now, honest, I need to go to bed- because all this infighting is the result of the tacit assumption that you Democrats cannot lose the election, and the real ground to be fought over is which candidate has the best “vision” or whatever to be president

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

You CAN lose this election; more than that you WILL lose, if you fatally split the party

(trust me, I know of what I speak -this is why the conservative party in england have never managed to offer a serious alternative to Labour -too busy sinking the knives into each other's backs)

Do you really want to be remembered as the electorate who had the chance to make history, but were so preoccupied with your hands around each other's throats you didn't stop some liver-spotted Republican crony sneaking into the highest office in the land to give the world four more years (at least) of the same?

No, I didn't think so

Don't win the battle and lose the war

Be history's victors, not history's losers

You are, after all, in such an enviable position:

You -yes, YOU- can help save the world

YOU CAN

For more Democratic nonsense visit:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YqOHquOkpaU&feature=related

A message from my NY Brit Dan Spencer

In response to an anti-Obama article posted (and shortly thereafter removed) on Facebook:

"I wrote the following in response to a anti-obama rant an ex-classmate of a friend posted on facebook
the original post has been removed unfortunately
but you don't have to read the post (i didn't) to understand my response
thought you might appreciate:


I don't have much time for bad writing
There's so much good writing in the world it seems a criminal waste of time to read the bad stuff
But I usually make it to at least the end of the first sentence before I want to hurl the offending article across the room in disgust
With this -what would you call it? Harangue? Diatribe? Hatchet job?- I only made it through the first SEVEN words: “There are an infinite number of reasons-”
WHOA!
Hold on there! What the fuck?

OK
This person either:

a) has no idea what the word “infinite” means (and to be fair, most uneducated people don't)

b) is a barefaced liar

c) is a terrible writer

d) is all of the above

People who write as poorly as this should be made to put their money where their mouth is -i'd like to see this person enumerate the reasons they disagree with obama for ten minutes -no, fuck it, FIVE minutes (without repetition)- let alone for all eternity
So normally i'd bin something that started off so badly from the get-go
But today, for whatever reason, I'm feeling generous
what the hell; let's look the other way
I make it as far as line two -we are still on paragraph one, mind- and the phrase “overwhelmingly superfluous”
now I had to laugh out loud
Is this person SERIOUS???
not only is “overwhelmingly superfluous” an adverb modifying an adjective; not only is the TWO-word phrase NINE syllables long -”overwhelmingly superfluous” is in itself an overwhelmingly superfluous expression!
It's irony cubed!
Ha ha ha ha!
OK -now all I need is one more little thing to make me throw this piss-poorly written garbage into the trash
I don't have long to wait -in paragraph 3, we come across the expression “sound byte”
yes, that's right B-Y-T-E
Any politically aware person should know that the phrase is “sound BITE”
(“bite” indicating a digestible political morsel, suitable for the masses)

“byte” is a term used in computing to express a group of eight binary digits
What are you trying to say, that Barak Obama is really a robot?

I'm being facetious, of course, but next time, before you put something like this in the public domain, get one of your college-educated friends to-

Oh! This just in: The person who wrote this WENT to college... at Stanford. That's right: STANFORD. Whose lecturers include two of the best writers in the northern hemisphere -Tobias Wolff and Sam Harris.

Shame, shame, we know your name....

I'd just like to say here that I don't side with obama against clinton. And I don't side with clinton against obama. If I edge slightly towards obama rather than clinton, it's because find it troubling that if hilliary gets in power, then the last two decades of american politics -supposedly the bastion of democracy- will have been dominated by two families: the bushes and the clintons. Bush, clinton, bush, clinton. Political dynasties -that doesn't seem right to me, not in america.

But what i'm really against is bad writing, bad political discourse and, above all, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

It breaks my heart, it really does, to see that internecine warfare in the democrat party has now made the “dream ticket” of an obama/clinton presidency/vice-presidency

(the “top side” of the ticket going to whomever wins the primaries, in accordance with the principles of DEMOCRACY) all but impossible unless the losing candidate is prepared to make an extraordinary volte-face.
And the candidates are as much to blame for this, by their pride, as their supporters.

And now i've heard something even more disturbing
I couldn't read this appallingly written diatribe beyond the third paragraph, as I've said
but a friend who gritted his teeth and worked his way through the whole document told me that whoever penned this tripe would sooner vote mccain or romney than obama
I hope this is just the opinion of one moron and not that diehard obama/clinton supporters will actually vote REPUBLICAN in the election rather than for their erstwhile enemy in the democrat camp!

surely this can't be so
surely
because that means, if it's true, that democrats are prepared to to vote, in the most important election in the world, for the OTHER party... out of spite
SPITE!
oh my god
oh my god
WAKE UP DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF AMERICA!
WAKE UP!
You've thrown away the “dream ticket”, but you MUST be unified behind whoever wins the primaries!
Don't you know that the republican party apparatus, a formidable entity, is right now working behind the scenes, mobilizing, unifying?
Did you learn nothing in 2004?
Right now, in america's “heartland”, there are republican party activists saying: “you better get out there and vote when the time comes -unless you want to see a WOMAN in charge of our great nation.”
Or: “You better go vote this year -unless, of course, you want to see a NIGGER in the oval office”
Anyone who thinks such things are not being said at grass-roots level is dangerously naïve

Unless you stop this ridiculous infighting, there is a very real chance that the republicans could steal a victory -absurdly, when they have never been weaker, or the country has been so yearning for change
If the republicans win there will be no “hanging chads” or voter disenfranchisement you can point the finger at this time
You will have no one to blame but yourselves

And the world -and history- will never forgive you"-Dan Spencer

Vote Green!

Now here's a REAL balanced approach:

"Although it started out as an environmental party, the Green Party of Ontario has developed policies and solutions for a wide range of issues facing Ontario.

We believe in proportional representation so that all votes count.

Greater power and funds to the municipalities so that local decisions can be made by the people who live there.

Greater economic development of our rural areas.

Reduced taxes for homeowners and businesses by implementing a green tax shift off of productive enterprises and onto inefficient and polluting industries.

Early childhood education to ensure all our children achieve their potential.

Reduced university tuition.

Improved health and health care.

All of these policies are based on our key values and our belief that all political and economic decisions should be based on long-term sustainability."

DON'T JUST TALK ABOUT IT, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
No other party is prepared to face the complex crises of sustainability while making it economically profitable at the same time. Just compare platforms. It's easy.

BE AN INFORMED VOTER.
Look under "POLICY" @ greenparty.ca

If the Green Party had a vote for every person who claims they are concerned about climate change... Let's be proud of this country again!

Averting Climate Catastrophe: Green Party lays out roadmap to Canada’s low-carbon future

These ideas are decisive and workable.

OTTAWA – Green Party leader Elizabeth May today unveiled the party’s Environment Day gift to Canada – a comprehensive blueprint for a thriving low-carbon economy and a clean, green energy future that will reinstate Canada as a leader in the global campaign to prevent catastrophic climate change.

Ms. May released the Green Party Climate Plan: A New Energy Revolution to Avert Global Catastrophe, in Ottawa today – World Environment Day – with an urgent message for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Environment Minister John Baird and opposition party leaders:

“Please steal these ideas. They are decisive but workable and they will drive rapid progress towards achieving our Kyoto targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and keeping global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius. There is no time to lose.”

As the Prime Minister joins leaders of the G-8 industrialized nations in Heiligendamm, Germany – with climate change top of the agenda – Ms. May also urged Mr. Harper to reject the defeatist attitude being promoted by the Bush administration and to reaffirm Canada’s commitment to Kyoto and further medium- and long-term emissions reduction targets.

“This is no time to align ourselves with the laggards of the world,” said Ms. May. “It is a time for vision and ambition. The transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy represents the greatest business opportunity the world has ever seen. The federal government’s dogged refusal to recognize and seize that opportunity is a failure of leadership that puts Canada’s future prosperity in great jeopardy.”

The cornerstone of the Green Party plan is an immediate $50/tonne carbon tax, rising to $100/tonne by 2020 if necessary. Experts agree that a carbon tax is the most efficient and effective way to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but some say it is politically dangerous to enact a carbon tax. (See what experts say in the attached backgrounder.)

A $50 carbon tax adds 12 cents to the cost of a litre of gas at the pump. That revenue will be used to progressively reduce other taxes, including income and payroll taxes, and to provide tax incentives for reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

The plan also includes a cap-and-trade CO2 market for Large Final Emitters – the big mining, manufacturing, oil, gas and thermal electricity companies responsible for about half of Canada’s total emissions. Trading of CO2 allocations will be overseen by a non-governmental body.

The Green Party plan also calls for:

* Rapid development of Canada’s renewable energy sources through tax incentives, research funds and new policies, including carbon conditionality clauses requiring provincial adoption of Advanced Renewables Tariffs.
* Tax incentives, regulation and funded programs to cut vehicle emissions 30% by 2015 and 85% by 2040, including incentives for the Canadian manufacture of electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
* A retrofit of all Canada’s buildings to a high level of energy efficiency by 2025 and zero net energy after 2025 using refundable tax credits, tax-deductible Green Mortgages, 100% Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance, revolving federal loans and changes to Canada’s Building Code.
* Regulations requiring all appliances to meet Energy Star rating by 2015 with most inefficient appliances and light bulbs phased out by 2010.
* Adaptation strategies to cope with climatic disruption that is no longer avoidable, including a special task force to prepare area-specific strategies and a Climate Change Adaptation Fund to assist areas hard hit by “natural” disasters linked to global warming.
* Withdrawal of federal funding for programmes such the Pacific Gateway Programme, that encourage urban sprawl and increase vehicle use.
* Removal of all subsidies to coal, oil, gas and coalbed methane production, a cap on overall extraction levels of fossil fuels, and phasing out of coal, oil, gas and nuclear electrical generation.
* Payments to farmers for carbon sequestration in soils within a domestic carbon market.
* A carbon tax or carbon rebate for forest companies to reflect either the net loss of carbon storage or the net gain of carbon sinks from their lands.
* A methane tax on all landfills and mandatory methane capture after 2015.
* Global verification and certification standards for carbon credits and the establishment of a Canadian Carbon Bank along with a federal framework for local and provincial carbon banks to encourage the purchase of local offsets.
* Expansion of the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012 to include international aviation and shipping and commitments to ramp up solar energy, electric vehicles and other low carbon technologies.

Supporting Documents:

* Green Party Climate Plan: A New Energy Revolution to Avert Global Catastrophe (detailed plan)
* Summary Plan and Carbon Tax quotes
* Key Points re Climate Plan
* Carbon Tax FAQ

U of T: Money over MATTER

Did you know about this?

U of T is trying to sell property on which a Canadian national monument coexists with acres of natural land on which employees, animals and plants live- behind our backs.

My dad owns a telescope store called Khan Scope Centre (http://www.khanscope.com) is an avid astronomer and lecturer on the subject, and so this is an issue that is very dear to him. It is shameful for an educational institution of U of T's stature to sell land that not only the historic Dunlap Observatory (which contains Canada's largest telescope) sits on, but is also home to 24 wild deer and other flora and fauna.

The reason you don't know about this is because Dunlap Observatory employees are unable to comment on the situation to any major newspapers, and U of T's board of directors have done a very good job of covering up negotiations.

My dad invited me to attend the FINAL tour of the Dunlap Observatory in Richmond Hill. I was immediately impressed by the 1.88 m wide telescope that was the second largest telescope in the world at the time it was built.
U of T claims that it spends over $800 000 a year on maintenance of the observatory. Discoverer of the brightest supernova recorded (at the Dunlop Observatory) since the telescope was invented Ian Shelton, chuckles at this estimate, saying that they do what they can with the meager $30 000 per year that is actually funded by U of T.

Currently, despite "bogus" (as Shelton puts it) U of T claims that light pollution as a resut of urban sprawl is obstructing views of the night sky, researchers and professors from around the world continue to travel to the Dunlop Observatory to do their research on a continual basis.

I shouldn't even have to mention the employees and hundreds of essential species including deer, native trees, rabbits, birds, rodents, etc. will be displaced if the land is sold to developers. A school that educates about the environment and conservation while simultaneously instigating such behaviour is disgraceful.

Luckily, a few local politicians as well as a concerned astronomer who happens to be the Science Editor for the Globe and Mail showed up for the final tour and lecture (by Mr. Shackleton). Here's his article:

Historic telescope blinded by the light
Encroaching urban sprawl has diminished effectiveness of U of T's observatory, prompting talk of selling the property

PAUL TAYLOR

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

October 16, 2007 at 4:12 AM EDT

Thirty-five years ago, Toronto astronomer Tom Bolton made a discovery that rocked the scientific world: He proved the existence of black holes.

A few leading astrophysicists had predicted that so-called "black holes" could be created when huge stars die and implode under their own massive weight. According to the far-out theories, these super-dense objects would exert such a powerful gravitational pull that not even light could escape their grasp. Essentially, black holes would be invisible - and that would make it extremely difficult to find one.

But Prof. Bolton of the University of Toronto achieved the near impossible by spending many long nights at the David Dunlap Observatory in Richmond Hill. He charted the bizarre movements of a star that appeared to be tugged by an unseen companion. Gases were being sucked off the surface of the star and disappearing into the void of space. He published his findings in 1972, arguing that the only logical explanation was a black hole.

"It took months of work, but it was a gamble that panned out," said Prof. Bolton, who was 28 at the time of his landmark paper. Indeed, the discovery earned him, as well as the U of T's Dunlap Observatory, a place in the history books.

Today, Prof. Bolton's beloved observatory appears headed for the auction block. The university recently announced plans to sell it and the surrounding 190-acre property.

The observatory, in a sense, has fallen victim to the urban sprawl around Toronto. Light pollution from encroaching development has "limited the reach of the telescope in terms of the objects you can actually see," explained Pekka Sinervo, dean of U of T's arts and science department.

When it first opened 72 years ago, it was surrounded by farmers' fields. Now, housing abuts the wooded site that is home to the domed observatory and its stately administrative building.

But the relentless march of urbanization north of Toronto has a silver lining - it's driven up land prices and the university stands to make a tidy profit. The estimated value of the property ranges from $75-million to $100-million.

Prof. Sinervo said money from the sale would be used to create a new Dunlap Institute at the university's downtown St. George campus. Among other things, the institute would concentrate on the design and development of sophisticated equipment for the next generation of huge telescopes being planned for more remote and darker locations around the world.

Yet even before the university could consider the sale, it first had to reach an agreement with the Dunlap family. In 1935, Jesse Dunlap donated all the money for the observatory in memory of her late husband, David, a mining entrepreneur and astronomy buff. Under the original terms of the gift, which amounted to $28,000, the property would revert back to the family if it were no longer used for astronomy.

After lengthy discussions, the family has agreed to re-endow the university, with the sale proceeds apparently being divided between the university and the Dunlap descendants.

"The university's share will actually be the single largest portion," said Prof. Sinervo, although he would not provide precise details.

The proposal goes to the university's governing council on Oct. 30 for final approval.

Family spokesman David Dunlap said the new Dunlap Institute "is going to be a world-class centre of excellence and I am absolutely certain my grandmother [Jesse] would be delighted with this chain of events."

But Prof. Bolton and other astronomers mourn the demise of the historic observatory, which can still boast the largest optical telescope in Canada, measuring 1.88 metres (74 inches) in diameter. (At the time it opened, it was the second biggest in the world.) "It is a real tragedy," said Prof. Bolton, who is now 64 and one year away from retirement as a professor in U of T's department of astronomy and astrophysics. "The facility has unique capabilities for certain kinds of research and the current powers-that-be don't consider that research important."

Ian Shelton, a Toronto astronomer who is famed for discovering the brightest supernova (exploding star) in 400 years, is another advocate for the observatory's research. He noted that the telescope is actually "100 times more sensitive" today than when it was first built. In the late 1980s, the observatory abandoned traditional photographic plates and switched to electronic equipment that can amplify the light of individual stars while subtracting the effects of background light pollution.

Dr. Shelton acknowledged that a bigger telescope in a darker location would be needed to study the farthest and faintest objects in the heavens. But the old observatory is still useful for examining the "billions of stars" in our own galactic neighbourhood and "quite a few of them are very exciting."

Even so, Prof. Sinervo insists that abandoning the Dunlap Observatory is the right thing to do. "I don't disagree that there is science being done." But that type of "bread and butter [research] isn't going to ... change our understanding of the universe."

By focusing on the development of telescopic equipment, he said, the university might be able to earn a stake in a more powerful observatory capable of looking back to virtually the beginning of time.

"We are working to understand what really happened in the first few thousand years of the universe. That is the kind of thing we can do with the investment, if properly made. It is a different vision for how we should put our resources to play. The reality is that the large majority of our astronomers here at the university are in full agreement with this decision to go forward."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071016.wdunlap16/BNStory/Science/

Vote Obama

I don't want you to think I am a crazy political rally fanatic. Hell, I'm not even American! But just hear me out.

The presidential election campaign is firing up. I had the pleasure of shaking Mr. Obama's hand yesterday at his rally in Boston's Park Plaza Castle. But beyond that, I have never felt more moved by any candidate (American or Canadian) in my entire lifetime. Until recently, my take on textbook politics was a pessimistic one. I have never cared very much about it because, let's face it: there's nothing to care about these days. Everything that I am passionate about, every problem we face, is not being countered. We won't ratify Kyoto, we don't do anything about Darfur. Children are sick and hungry at home and abroad. School is too expensive and so young minds are deprived of intellectual satiation.

It makes me sick, and it saddens me. And yes, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have made it very difficult for every single candidate in the running. The platter of problems that the next president will carry is excruciating in its weight. The country is in debt trillions of dollars, growing by billions BY THE DAY. And it is tomorrow's youth that will be responsible for paying it off.

Oh yes, and though I am not American, I feel strongly about this man. As a Canadian, what happens in America will directly affect me. So yes, I care. Bedfellows of the U.S., we have to care. And though I can not vote, I am doing my best to get Americans to cast their vote for me and for their selves.

Everyone's number one argument against Obama is his lack of experience or his middle name, Hussein. Well as he says, anyone who focuses on a name knows nothing about politics. And experience? Senator Obama, an undergraduate of Columbia University and a graduate of Harvard University, may have only served 2 terms as senator, but his votes agains Iraq and Iran have been consistent (unlike Hillary Clinton who changes her mind on votes at the last minute). And needless to say, "experience" has certainly not given a hand up to any president in the past 20 or more years. "Experience" seems to jade the system of politics, of leadership, of changing the way we see things. Obama has more "experience" than Lincoln, the "great unifier" had. We haven't seen a JFK, a Roosevelt, a Jefferson, a Lincoln, or a Trudeau in ages. Isn't it time to see a real change?

If you listen to this man, and see the passion in his eyes, his voice, his words, his motions, I think you will understand what I mean.

He sets precise dates for when he expects goals to be accomplished. For example, 16 months into his term- the US will be out of Iraq.

He speaks for women, the environment, cultural tolerance, all genders, human rights, peace, security, and a REAL and TANGIBLE approach to accomplishing change. BARACK OBAMA IS THE MAN FOR THE JOB.

Obama speech (this one from Jefferson Jackson dinner):
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/11/10/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_33.php

Oprah endorses Obama:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/oprah-endorses-obama-2/

Obama campaign website:
http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

Obama speaks out for women:
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/12/02/feminist_pitch_by_a_democrat_n.php

Women for Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=10598AB3DAF007E2

Hillary's negative campaign:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CRhV

War Rant

New CIA "Intelligence": IRAN HALTED NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM IN 2003.

WASHINGTON, Dec 3 (Reuters) - U.S. intelligence has determined that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 but believes it is continuing to develop technical capabilities that could be used for building a bomb, a government report said on Monday.

The latest National Intelligence Estimate released by the Bush administration also said Iran would likely be capable of producing enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon "sometime during the 2010-2015 time-frame."

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/WBT008012.htm

Bush supports Russia sending enriched uranium to Iran
17 Dec 2007 17:24:41 GMT
Source: Reuters

FREDERICKSBURG, Va., Dec 17 (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush said on Monday he supports Russia sending enriched uranium to Iran for civilian power use because it meant that Tehran did not need to pursue their own enrichment capabilities.

"If the Russians are willing to do that, which I support, then the Iranians do not need to learn how to enrich," Bush said. "If the Iranians accept that uranium for a civilian nuclear power plant, then there's no need for them to learn how to enrich."

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/WBT008077.htm

Notes:

I am so tired of hearing Republicans and certain Democratic candidates flip-flopping on decisions...and it seems they continue to do so, and probably will continue for eternity. The decisions made by the US affect the entire world. No, I do not want to see a world ruled by China, a rising superpower in the global hierarchy. But I also KNOW that the US can not maintain its influence and supremacy by continuing to be dependant on funds loaned from China and a number of other countries, as the US dwindles in debt amounting to trillions of dollars. These band-aid solutions of borrowing/stealing from emergency relief funds and military defense funds will not support the nation in the long term.

Since 9/11 the fight for global peace and democracy (REAL solutions that do not cost trillions of dollars) has decreased significantly as the US and its unfortunate "supporters" has kneeled down to terrorism and helped Osama achieve his primary goal: to instill fear of black turban-clad, eye-lined Islamic suicide terrorists in the hearts of "God-fearing" Americans (aka "enemy # 1").

If anyone is interested in finding out more about how bombs and war are NOT the solution to ending the infamous "war on terror," read the book "Three Cups of Tea" by Greg Mortenson and David Oliver Relin, go to:

http://threecupsoftea.com/

"Osama is not a Product of Pakistan or Afghanistan. He is a creation of America. Thanks to America, Osama is in every home. As a military man, I know you can never fight and win against someone who can shoot you once and then run off and hide while you have to remain eternally on guard. You have to attack the source of your enemy's strength. In America's case, that's not Osama or Saddam or anyone else. The enemy is ignorance. The only way to defeat it is to build relationships with these people, to draw them into the modern world with education and business. Otherwise the fight will go on forever."
- Brigadier General Bashir Baz of Pakistan

"As the US confronts Saddam Hussein's regine in Iraq, Greg Mortenson, 45, is quietly waging his own campaign against Islamic fundamentalists, who often recruit members through religious schools called madrassas. Mortenson's approach hinges on a simple idea: that by building secular schools and helping to promote education-particularly for girls- in the world's most volatile war zone, support for the Taliban and other extremist sects will eventually dry up."
-Kevin Fedarko, Parade cover story, April 6, 2003

At a Congress presentation:

Q: Californiia Republican Congressman: "Building schools for kids is just fine and dandy, but our primary need as a nation now is security. Without security, what does all this matter?"

A: Greg Mortenson: "'I don't do what I'm doing to fight terror. I do it because I care about kids. Fighting terror is maybe seventh or eighth on my list of priorities. But working over there [in Pakistan/Afghanistan], I've learned a few things. I've learned that terror doesn't happen because some group of people somewhere like Pakistan or Afghanistan simply decide to hate us. It happens because children aren't being offered a bright enough future that they have a reason to choose life over death'..."He spoke about Pakistan's impoverished public schools. He spoke about the Wahhabi madrassas sprouting like cancerous cells, and the billions of dollars Saudi sheikhs carried into the region in suitcases to fuel the factories of jihad. As he hit his stride, the conference room became quiet, except for the sounds of pens and pencils furiously scratching."

"I supported the war in Afghanistan. I believed in it because I believed we were serious when we said we planned to rebuild Afghanistan. I'm here because I know that military victory is only the first phase of winning the war on terror and I'm afraid we're not willing to take the next steps...People in that part of the world are used to death and violence, and if you tell them, 'We're sorry your father died, but he died a martyr so Afghanistan could be free,' and if you offer them compensation and honor their sacrifice, I think people will support us, even now. But the worst thing to you can do is what we're doing--ignoring the victims. To call them 'collateral damage' and not even try to count the numbers of the dead. Because to ignore them is to deny they ever existed, and there is no greater insult in the Islamic world. For that, we will never be forgiven...I'm no military expert, and these figures may not be exactly right. But as best as I can tell, we've launched 114 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Afghanistan so far. Now take the cost of one of those missiles tipped with a Raytheon guidance system, which I think is about $840, 000. For that much money, you could build dozens of schools that could provide tens of thousands of students with a balanced, nonextremist education over the course of a generation. Which do you think will make us more secure?"

Q: US military officer: "Could you draw us a map of all the Wahhabi madrassas?"

A: Greg: "Not if I wanted to live."

Q: US military officer: "Could you put up a school next to each of the madrassas?"

A: Greg: "Sort of like a Starbucks? To drive the jihadis out of business?"

Q: US military officer: "I'm serious. We can get you the money. How about $2.2 millin? How many schools could you build with that?:

A: Greg: "About one hundred."

Q: US military officer: "Isn't that what you want?"

A: Greg: "People there would find out the money came from the military and I'd be out of business."

War funding?

Read the Price of Liberty By Robert Hormats, which explains how past and current US governments have funded the war.

The was in Iraq was estimated to cost $50-60 billion at its onset, but its cost 10x that much. The US spends now $300 million A DAY for Iraq, which doesn't include Afghanistan. What's more, even people in Congress don't know where the money is coming from!

So far, each American family spends $7500/year on the war. Money that could go to health care (at least for kids!), reduce education costs (ie. bribery to get poor students to enlist in the war), and crime reduction. Inflation is on the rise. But where does the government find room for tax cuts? Sure it's pleasing to the public now, but HELLO where is the money coming from to fund the $6 trillion (to date) wars?? Out of the pockets of future generations. The dollar is decreasing, 2/3 of Americans (even Republicans in Bush's own cabinet) oppose the war. Money is being borrowed from emergency funds to pay for the war...And of course Bush will be laughing his way out of office. Good luck to his successor!