Non-Violent Means to Democracy: Gene Sharp

It is not easy to achieve democracy. It is also a struggle at times to maintain one. Here in the USA, we are fortunate that the authoritarian political party, the Republican Party, lies in defeat, a victim of its own irrational and destructive policies. Other countries are not so fortunate. In some countries our democratic brothers and sisters risk their lives and livelihoods to achieve the dream.

A recent news item concerning the post-election protests in Iran mentioned that democratic protesters in several authoritarian countries have relied upon a book by an American social theorist, Gene Sharp, titled From Freedom to Democracy. You can obtain a free copy here.

The underlying idea is a corollary to what I wrote in an earlier post, The Social Cooperative. Since the social group is essentially a cooperative, it relies upon cooperation to function. If the members wish to disrupt it, one thing they can do is stop cooperating!

In his book, Gene Sharp thoughtfully discusses and weighs various strategies and tactics a democratic movement can use to terminate social cooperation with authoritarian management and achieve full democracy. I think one important point was to de-legitimize the regime, by identifying and attacking its “Achille’s Heel.” I would ask, “What do they say is their reason for leading?” They are probably failing at whatever they claim is the basis for their legitimacy. Point that out to everyone, all the time, by all the means available to you. For example, is the Chinese Communist Party truly protecting China’s working class, given its lax pollution and manufacturing standards? Are the ayatollahs in Iran truly upholding Islamic ideals, or just their personal power? What good are the generals of Myanmar?

Of course, members of the national military establishment play perhaps the most decisive role. I would think that members of that establishment would have to be at least sympathetic to the democratic movement for the democratic movement to succeed.

But I will give the final word to Lech Walesa, leader of the successful Solidarity movement of Poland:
"Lead your struggle in a wise way but do not hit your heads against the wall...If not this time, you will win next time."

World Democracy: Tocqueville

Events in China, Iran and Myanmar remind us that the will to democracy is alive around the world. It does not need the support of American weapons. It needs the support of the people living under those authoritarian regimes. That support is growing, as the people come to see that authoritarian governments are not ultimately concerned about the general welfare of the people. The allegiance of an authoritarian government is to individuals, dogma or tradition. To protect these things, authoritarian governments set aside the needs and aspirations of their people.

This state of affairs cannot last. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that:

• “Variety is disappearing from the human race; the same ways of acting, thinking, and feeling are to be met with all over the world. This is not only because nations work more upon each other, and are more faithful in their mutual imitation; but as the men of each country relinquish more and more the peculiar opinions and feelings of a caste, a profession, or a family, they simultaneously arrive at something nearer to the constitution of man, which is everywhere the same. Thus they become more alike, even without having imitated each other. Like travelers scattered about some large wood, which is intersected by paths converging to one point, if all of them keep their eyes fixed upon that point and advance towards it, they insensibly draw nearer together--though they seek not, though they see not, though they know not each other; and they will be surprised at length to find themselves all collected on the same spot. All the nations which take, not any particular man, but man himself, as the object of their researches and their imitations, are tending in the end to a similar state of society, like these travelers converging to the central plot of the forest.” [Democracy in America, Volume II, Part III, Ch.17]

• “The nations of our time cannot prevent the conditions of men from becoming equal; but it depends upon themselves whether the principle of equality is to lead them to servitude or freedom, to knowledge or barbarism, to prosperity or to wretchedness.” [Democracy in America, Volume II, Part IV, Ch. 8]

May the party officials in China apprehend that “democratic centralism” is not democratic.

May the clerics in Iran apprehend that it does not help their religion or their government to insist that their religion and government be combined. [May our Republican leaders in the U.S. apprehend this, too!]

May the generals in Myanmar apprehend that their authoritarian control of the nation is harming the welfare of their people, and the Law of Karma applies. Free Aung San Suu Kyi and all of the people of Myanmar!

Open for Three Years!

Dear Reader,

Jefferson’s Parlor is now three years old. Like a child, it continues to change and evolve. In 2006 and 2007 I laid out what I believed to be the foundations of democratic political philosophy, citing works by philosophers I considered most relevant. My blog posts in 2008 often concerned the election that year, but I also wrote about common issues faced by democracies. This year my posts have been more current and topical, and I have enjoyed writing them just as much.

In honor of the occasion, I will have this kitten sing “Happy Birthday!” to Jefferson’s Parlor. The kitten will conclude with remarks in a language other than English, possibly Chinese, and hopefully not offensive!

Why not Include a Public Health Insurance Option?

As I noted in a previous post, our national Constitution itself declares that one purpose of our union is "to promote the general welfare."

In that regard, our national experience has shown that:
1. We cannot rely entirely on the private sector to insure our access to health care. There are many Americans who are being deprived of health care insurance by the private system.
2. Several forms of optional public health insurance have functioned for decades and remain popular, such as Medicare, Medicaid and the Veteran’s Administration.

I am therefore in favor of having some form of universal public health insurance available in our national health care system. I think it would be easiest to expand the Medicare option to include anyone who wants it, but perhaps experience and investigation indicate that another way is likely to be more effective.

To those who are opposed to having any public health insurance option, I would ask, “What is your opposition based on?” If it is based simply on anti-government dogma, your opposition represents a refusal to consider options, facts and experience, and it is unworthy of consideration in the real world. There are simply too many lives at stake.

Don't Give Up the Fight!

Get up. Stand up. Stand up for your right!

[AP Photo/Jeff Widener]

Bleeding Kansas

About 150 years ago, the topic dividing our country and inspiring violence in Kansas was the question of whether the State would enforce ownership of the bodies of Africans for the purpose of agriculture.

Now the topic dividing our country and inspiring violence in Kansas is the question of whether the State will enforce ownership of the bodies of women for the purpose of child-bearing.

Taliban Drug Lords

From AFP:

“Afghan and international officials say the Taliban earn millions of dollars a year from the drugs trade, including by charging poppy farmers a tax and for protecting poppy fields and trafficking routes from the authorities.”

If I recall correctly, Mohammed prohibited drinking alcohol. I can’t believe he nevertheless encouraged his followers to produce and distribute narcotics. But the Taliban claim to be Islamic scholars, and I am not. They also claim to uphold Islamic morality. Music is bad, but drug trafficking is good?

Parlor Wit

THE REPUBLICAN MARCH TOWARDS FEUDALISM

[Apologies to Gustave Doré]

Parlor Music

Relating to my post below:

"Atomic Heels," by The Secret Machines -



You say, “Let them go on fighting, I guess, as long as there’s some place left to visit.”

Why we go on, fighting like this, when we say, “Maybe it’s time we try something else?”


[I found this while sampling clips of artists playing songs by the Beatles. The Secret Machines, joined by Bono, do a good job on "I am the Walrus." Dana Fuchs does a really raw "Helter Skelter!" She sounds a lot like Janis Joplin.]

UPDATE: Here are some more clips I like from the Secret Machines
Now You're Gone
The Last Believer
Under The Concrete

Thoughts for Peace in Palestine

The conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians has deep roots. Each side believes their position to be just, and previous attempts to resolve the conflict have failed. Always present are feelings of mistrust, and a reluctance to yield territory to the other side, because this is territory which both sides have possessed, at one time or another. Every incident of violence by the other side reinforces the mistrust and reluctance, and the violence continues to occur from time to time. But every pause in violence renews the desire on both sides for a resolution of the conflict. Indeed, if the conflict has lasted for over 60 years, it should be apparent to both parties that the status quo is not to the benefit of either side.

According to the Times Online, President Obama is renewing the push for peace between them:

“Barack Obama is to pursue an ambitious peace plan in the Middle East involving the recognition of Israel by the Arab world in exchange for its withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, according to sources close to America’s president-elect. Obama intends to throw his support behind a 2002 Saudi peace initiative endorsed by the Arab League and backed by Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister and leader of the ruling Kadima party. The proposal gives Israel an effective veto on the return of Arab refugees expelled in 1948 while requiring it to restore the Golan Heights to Syria and allow the Palestinians to establish a state capital in east Jerusalem.”

I offer these thoughts in support of this effort:

• For the sake of peace, both sides must set aside the idea of “Total Ownership” of the territory. There are factions on both sides who believe that they have a right by birth to possess the entirety of Palestine and Jerusalem. It should be clear, after 60 years of armed conflict, that this notion is devoid of possibility and meaning. Continued assertions of total ownership will only lead to continued destruction and mutual suffering. The only solution is a division of the territory, and Jerusalem, between them.

• For the sake of peace, both sides must set aside the idea of their “Right of Return”. Palestinians have often demanded the right to return to their former properties inside Israel as a condition for peace. That alarms the Israelis, who fear that a large increase in the non-Jewish population of their country would mean the end of their Jewish state. At the same time, there are Israelis who insist that they have a right to return to the land they say their God gave them, and to that end they establish settlements outside the borders of Israel. That provokes the Palestinians whose land they are essentially seizing.

• It is shared sacrifice that leads to shared benefits. For the purpose of achieving peace, it must be understood that neither side is “surrendering” to the other side. It must be seen that both sides are accepting certain costs in exchange for the benefits of peace. For example, the Israelis would not be simply “offering land for peace” with the Palestinians, and the Palestinians would not be simply giving away their inheritance to the Israelis. Instead, both the Israelis and the Palestinians would be mutually sacrificing certain perceived claims for the prospect of mutual rewards.

• To wait for the end of violence is to wait forever. There will always be incidents of violence in the Middle East, just as there are incidents of violence in most of the other regions of the world! If Netanyahu wants to see a perfect calm before he will negotiate the terms of peace, he will never achieve peace. He is making peace a pre-condition for peace.

Remember “Private Investment Accounts”?

It was only four years ago that George W. Bush was traveling around the United States promoting the idea of partially privatizing Social Security. Yes, in April 2005, W showed us a government filing cabinet and proclaimed,

“The retirement security for future generations is sitting in a filing cabinet. It’s time to strengthen and modernize Social Security for future generations with growing assets that you can control that you call your own — assets that the government can’t take away.”

What did he mean by that? On April 29, 2005, he gave more details of his vision:

“I believe the best way to achieve this goal is to give younger workers the option, the opportunity if they so choose, of putting a portion of their payroll taxes into a voluntary personal retirement account. Because this money is saved and invested, younger workers will have the opportunity to receive a higher rate of return on their money than the current Social Security system can provide.”

So the plan was that younger workers would take some of their Social Security fund deposit and put it instead into some personal financial account, like stocks or bonds, to prepare for their retirement. What would that mean when they retire? Their Social Security checks would be reduced, “because it is expected that some of their retirement income would come from these funds.”

I mention this because the first year for participation was supposed to be 2009, when workers born between 1950 and 1965 could open their private investment accounts. So, how is the stock market today? Don’t you wish you could bet your retirement on it?

Personally, I think we avoided having yet another W disaster. W neglected to mention that it was also possible, under his plan, that future retirees would receive a lower rate of return on their money than the current Social Security system can provide.

[By the way, John McCain liked W’s plan, too. He even had a “little straight talk” for the AARP about their opposition to it.] Alex Budarin

Parlor Wit

Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber

Saturday Night Live, Season 3: Episode 18

A woman brings her sick daughter to Theodoric the Barber for medical treatment. Theodoric tells the woman,

"You know, medicine is not an exact science, but we are learning all the time. Why, just fifty years ago, they thought a disease like your daughter's was caused by demonic possession or witchcraft. But nowadays we know that Isabelle is suffering from an imbalance of bodily humors, perhaps caused by a toad or a small dwarf living in her stomach."

The daughter dies, and her mother calls Theodoric a charlatan. Theodoric considers this:

"Wait a minute. Perhaps she's right. Perhaps I've been wrong to blindly follow the medical traditions and superstitions of past centuries. Maybe we barbers should test these assumptions analytically, through experimentation and a "scientific method". Maybe this scientific method could be extended to other fields of learning: the natural sciences, art, architecture, navigation. Perhaps I could lead the way to a new age, an age of rebirth, a Renaissance!...Naaaaaahhh!"


Next: Newt of Georgia, Medieval Prince

The President as Physician

Back when George W. Bush was President, it seemed to me that his Christian fundamentalist supporters wanted and expected him to act like a “Pastor-in-Chief,” someone who spoke for and enforced the country’s “traditional” religious standards.

I objected to that conception of the Presidency. First, why would anyone look to a politician for spiritual leadership? Second, I hate the stench of theocracy.

I didn’t think again about the metaphorical role of the President until I read the following comment concerning President Obama’s approach to governance:

“While acknowledging public outrage over $165 million in bonuses paid by a financial firm that just months earlier had turned to taxpayers for aid, the administration's economic advisers said President Barack Obama wouldn't ‘govern out of anger’."

What a beautiful expression of wisdom and maturity! What a difference from the Republican philosophy of government! Indeed, anger is not helpful in solving problems. It is a hindrance. A President should not govern on the basis of emotional reactions. A President should govern on the basis of knowledge, reasoning and counsel.

As I thought about it more, I realized that my ideal for the role of a democratic leader would be that of a “Physician-in-Chief.” Ideally, like a good doctor, a democratic leader would:
• use all currently available resources to assess a problem;
• consider the problem based on the latest knowledge and from a variety of perspectives;
• consult with peers and specialists regarding the problem and possible responses;
• evaluate the possible responses without ego, emotionalism, or presumption;
• apply responses on a case-by-case basis; and
• favor the least destructive response whenever possible.

I am happy to see that this is President Obama’s ideal, as well. I do not want my President, or my doctor, to take actions based on selective information-gathering, dogmatism, prejudice, or emotionalism. Only Republicans can look at Bush’s mess and fail to see the lesson.

Mr. Republican's Political Philosophy

The core principle of the Republican Party
comes from the Preamble to the Constitution:

"We the people of the United States,

in order to form a more perfect union,

do ordain that every man is for himself."

Actually, one stated purpose of the Constitution is "to promote the general welfare," i.e., to promote the general well-being of US citizens. Alex Budarin

Mr. Republican & The Ideal Government

I want a Government that is
Small, Cheap, Fights a lot of Wars,
and Gets into Our Private Lives!

Mr. Republican & Social Philosophy

My favorite philosopher is Jesus, who said:
“Love thy neighbor,
if thy neighbor is a heterosexual, conservative, self-sufficient, English-speaking Christian,
like yourself.”

Mr. Republican & The Stimulus Plan

Screw the Unemployed,

my Stocks need a Tax Cut!

Mister Republican & Universal Health Care

If you can't afford health care,
then you don't deserve it!

Parlor Wit

No more CEO entitlements, ‘kay?

Obama Gets Only 1 “Friedman Unit”?

Regarding this story in the Huffington Post:

“Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and nine other Republicans spoke with reporters Thursday afternoon following their House colleagues' unanimous rejection of President Obama's stimulus package Wednesday evening.

"They can cram down a stimulus package without Republican support," said Kyl, "but if that happens, then when, as we believe, in six months or so, when the American people say, 'Wait a minute, we're not better off. In fact, we're worse off than we were six months ago. Who is responsible for this and what can be done to fix it?' Republicans then are going to be in a position to say, 'We didn't have the input in this and that's why it didn't work.'"

Dear Jon Kyl,

You, President Bush and the other Republicans in Congress dug us into this economic pit over a period of 6 years. Six years of tax cut after tax cut, making sure the rich got richer. It was supposed to bring us prosperity. What did we get? A depression. Your solution? More tax cuts for the rich! How does that make any sense? We tried throwing more money to rich people. That didn’t work.

There is no magic fix for the catastrophe you helped to create. We will have to try a number of methods. But we do know one way that will not work, and that is the Bush Republican way. And, thanks to your disastrous economic policies, it will certainly take us more than one “Friedman Unit”* to succeed!


*One Friedman Unit, also known as "one Friedman" or "one F.U.", equals six months in the future.

Parlor Wit

The Best of George W. Bush

Parlor Wit

Robin Williams

“God gave us a penis and a brain, but not enough blood to use both at the same time”

Letter to the Fundamentalists

You seem to think the whole world should worship your God and do whatever you say He wants.

Personally, I cannot worship a God who creates human beings with “free will” and then punishes them for being willful. What is the logic of giving humans a capacity for independent thought, if not for independent thinking? You would have me believe that God gave humans “free will” with the expectation that they “freely” give up that “will” in favor of slavish dependence upon Him. Why would He even create a Thinker, if He really wanted a creature with dog-like obedience? A God who would do this is irrational.

I cannot believe in a God who expects and demands that everyone conform perfectly to His standards, when He obviously created beings who, with few exceptions, are incapable of meeting His reported standards. Did He create humanity knowing that humanity would fail to meet His terms? If that was His design, no one should be punished for failing to meet His terms. If he did not expect this outcome, then He is a God to be pitied, not worshiped.

Moreover, who can meet the desires of a God whose terms have been subject to a variety of interpretations over time? Even among yourselves there have been heated disagreements about His rules and desires. Each of you claims to know the truth, but who can be certain which of you is correct?

I refuse to follow a God who has demanded blood sacrifices, perhaps even the blood sacrifice of His “Son”, in order to give His blessings to the creatures He is said to have created.

I cannot adore a hypocritical God who suffers from jealousy and causes his offspring to suffer if they fail to praise him, and him alone. Jealousy is not an admirable trait in anyone, man or God. Your God supposedly told people not to covet, when He himself is covetous of attention.

Speaking of attention, you would have me believe that God expects his children to routinely praise Him and beg for his help and forgiveness. You suggest that this is what gets His attention and results in your receiving blessings. “Prayer works,” you say. What is admirable about a God who looks for praise and begging from the creatures of His creation? I would say that such a God is vain.

I refuse to worship a God who discriminates. You say he fathered the world and everything in it. Then, you say, He decided to discriminate among the people He created and favor certain of them over others. Would you respect, admire and love any father who decided to treat some of his children better than his other children? I would not.

I refuse to worship a God who condones violence and cruelty, and even demands it for the sake of achieving His will and design. Such is the God you apparently believe in. What kind of father would condone and encourage violence and cruelty among His children? Only a tyrant.

I refuse to adore a God who would allow or inflict natural disasters and epidemics to kill the creatures He supposedly created. This is cruelty. If you could stop an accident from killing your loved ones, would you let the accident happen anyway? If the killing is purposeful on His part, is that not murder? You may believe His purposes justify His negligence and murder, but I do not see such a God as worthy of adoration.

I know you would have me believe and follow your God’s desires regardless of these objections. You would likely argue that God will condemn me to Hell for eternity if I do not. But I would not want to spend eternity with your God, either. The God you believe in is a vain, jealous, irrational, cruel, negligent, murderous, blood-thirsty, hypocritical and discriminatory tyrant. I would not suffer the company of any person with these qualities, much less a God. And, if this is your God, how can the company of Satan be worse?

Having said that, I don’t care whether you choose to worship such a God. What I fear and oppose are your attempts to pass laws, bylaws, rules and ordinances calculated to keep your God happy by forcing all of us to do what you think your God wants with respect to reproduction, education, marriage, etc. Apparently you believe that, if we don’t all do what your God wants, He will punish everyone, maybe even fly into a rage and kill people. Sorry. We may share the same country, but I refuse to share your fantasy, and I will vehemently resist your attempts to make your fantasy govern my life and the lives of others who do not share your religious beliefs.

Parlor Wit

Source

Not “Christophobia”, Theocracyphobia!

Pope Benedict and Pastor Rick Warren have complained that a hatred of Christianity, “Christophobia”, has arisen to threaten their faith. Poor souls. First they declared that their religious beliefs compelled them to condemn millions of citizens who didn’t share their beliefs. They further declared that their individual interpretations of God’s Will obliged them to try to deprive millions of citizens of various rights and freedoms. Then, when the millions of people they condemned and sought to control were outraged, the Pope and the Pastor suggested that their faith was being persecuted.

Pope Benedict, Pastor Warren, you reap what you sow. How would you feel if the government COMPELLED your followers to use contraceptive devices, DENIED them certain medical procedures, and REFUSED to let them marry, based on the beliefs of some other portion of the population? If you would not have this done to you and your followers, do not do the equivalent to the rest of us. Obviously, those of us who do not share your religious beliefs will resent your condemnation and resist your attempts to deprive us of rights and freedoms. Our protests and objections have nothing to do with Christ. Our opposition results only from your failure to follow Christ’s reported advice:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Parlor Wit

We are divided between those who think with their heads and those who know with their heart. --Stephen Colbert

In Comoedia Veritas

The Japanese Credit Solution

The Japanese experienced a banking and credit crisis back in the 1990's. Through trial and error, they found a way out of it:

"In Japan’s case, economists and former bankers say, credit began to flow freely again only after 2003, when regulators adopted a tough new policy of auditing banks and forcing weaker ones to raise new capital or accept a government takeover. Economists said the audits finally removed paralysis in credit markets by convincing bankers and investors that sudden failures were no longer a risk, and that the true extent of problems at banks and other companies was finally being revealed.

…….

Economists and former central bankers said another lesson from Japan’s experience was the importance of consistency. This became apparent in 2000, they said, during one of the bank’s more embarrassing episodes, when it raised interest rates, and lowered them back to zero a year later when the economy faltered.

Former Bank of Japan officials said they learned that bankers and investors would lend in difficult times only if they believed that rates would stay low for a long period, ensuring them adequate profits." [1]

It makes sense to me, because it focuses on what I see as the core problem: expectations concerning benefits.

Point to Ponder:

We are all blood relatives.

Parlor Wit

The Other Loves of John McBush:

Semper Fidelis Ad Se

"Always loyal to himself." That is what I see in the history of John McCain.

When he was a prisoner of war, McCain informed the enemy of his ship's name, squadron's name, and the attack's intended target, in violation of the U.S. [Military] Code of Conduct. Thereafter he made at least one propaganda statement in behalf of the enemy. Such were his needs at that time. 1 2 3
[By the way, what would Republicans say if it was the Democratic candidate who had done this? Hint: They attacked John Kerry over the medals he received for his military service.]

After he returned from Vietnam, he divorced his wife, Carol. But before divorcing Carol he dated another woman, Cindy, and even took out a license to marry her. His wedding to Cindy took place 5 weeks after his divorce from Carol was granted. Such were his needs at that time. 1

He proclaims his disgust with lobbyists, and then relies on lobbyists in his Presidential campaigns. Such are his needs on those occasions.
2000 [A clip of George W. Bush attacking McCain over lobbyists]
2008

He suggests he will conduct a respectful campaign, then indulges in smear attacks when it suits him. That is to say, when it meets his needs of the moment.
2000 [George W. Bush attacking McCain’s use of smear tactics]
2008 1 2

He has sponsored bills to regulate campaign financing, and then acted to manipulate and evade those campaign finance rules during his own Presidential campaigns….based on his personal needs at the time.
2000 [George W. Bush accusing McCain of hypocritically accepting the kind of big money donations he wants to ban]
2008

He made a political name for himself as a moderate opposed to religious bigots, and now he has sought the blessings of religious bigots to support his campaign. It happens to be his need this time.
2000 [George W. Bush objecting to McCain’s talk about religious bigots]
2008 [A clip about McCain cozying up to a religious bigot]


Barack Obama has shown, in a number of his life choices and actions, that he is deeply interested in justice, the welfare of less-fortunate Americans, and the futures of our communities. John McCain’s life choices and actions, on the other hand, lead me to conclude that McCain will do anything and say anything to meet his needs of the moment. For he is a selfish and shallow opportunist.


[Photo source here.]

Parlor Wit

Douglas Adams had a unique and humorous way of looking at life and humanity. Here are some quotations attributed to him:

The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.

We are not an endangered species ourselves yet, but this is not for lack of trying.

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.

All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.

A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.'

I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.

A Community Organizer for President

Barack Obama has precisely the experience that our country and our world need now.

The words and actions of George W. Bush have gravely divided our nation and our world. Led by Karl Rove, W played the politics of polarization on both the national and international stage. He favored Christian fundamentalists, corporate leaders, and militarists. He used trickery, slander, malicious prosecution, and war to achieve his goals. And when his actions provoked criticism, his critics were vilified. The politics of polarization was Rove’s game plan all along. And W played it with pleasure.

John McCain’s statements indicate that he plans to continue the politics of polarization. In so doing he will continue the politics of division, hate, paranoia and fear. He will not help us address the profound problems and challenges we face as a nation and a planet.

Barack Obama will. According to his campaign biography, he moved to Chicago in 1985 and became a community organizer for a church-based group that worked to improve poor neighborhoods. He went to Harvard Law School and returned to Chicago to practice as a civil rights lawyer. He was elected to the Illinois State Senate, where he worked with both political parties to help working families, by creating programs for tax credits and expansion of early childhood education. Since his election to the US Senate, he has worked to ensure that veterans get the disability pay they were promised, and that the Veterans Administration is prepared to receive military personnel from Iraq and Afghanistan. Recognizing the terrorist threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, he traveled to Russia with Republican Dick Lugar to begin a new generation of non-proliferation efforts designed to find and secure deadly weapons around the world. Knowing the threat we face to our economy and our security from America's addiction to oil, he has worked to bring auto companies, unions, farmers, businesses and politicians of both parties together to promote the greater use of alternative fuels and higher fuel standards in our cars. And, realizing the challenges and demands we face in the Middle East, he has undertaken a bipartisan tour of that region, and visited our European allies, as well.

The fruit of his experience, and the promise of his Presidency, can be heard in what he said at the Tiergarten:

"Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century."

Preach it, Barack!


[This Obama photo is not from the Tiergarten, but I think it is one of his best. I got it from Babs. I don’t know where Babs found it.]