The Burmese Situation

ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) signed a new landmark charter setting out ASEAN's principles and rules for the first time, which included a commitment to promote human rights and democracy. That's great, but one of ASEAN's members is Burma, a nation whose military dictatorship brutally suppressed peaceful protests by monks less than two months ago. So unless ASEAN wants its new landmark charter to become irrelevant sooner than the ink dries, it needs to finally take tough action on the Burmese regime.

Philippine President Gloria Arroyo had it right when she said that the Philippine Congress would have great difficulty in ratifying this new charter unless the Burmese junta made real progress on human rights, including freeing opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and progressing on talks towards meaningful, democratic reform.

Way to go Philippines, now can we see more of the same from other ASEAN nations?

I've said this a million times before, but the West needs to morally lead on this, because ASEAN, China and India are all morally bankrupt when it comes to Burma. Their response to the situation has been downright deplorable. It's clear that Burma's decline into the abyss threatens to take down ASEAN with it. The junta is clearly trying to buy time and hoping the international attention shifts elsewhere, or perhaps stall until the Beijing Olympics are over so that China loses any interest in resolving this issue. We can't let that happen. Economically, the U.S. and E.U. need to start punishing corporations with targeted sanctions from ASEAN, China, and India that help prop up the Burmese regime. Either corporations from these countries choose to do business with Burma or they choose to do business in the U.S. and E.U. They shouldn't have it both ways.

The E.U. recently ratcheted up its sanctions on Burma, including on Burmese gemstones. Both the U.S. and E.U. need to aggressively move to ensure that Burmese gemstones are blocked even when routed through a third country. The sale of gemstones is one of the biggest source of revenue for the junta. Financial tightening is having a limited effect on the junta and the West needs to tighten that noose as much as possible.

We can't let up on the pressure now. ASEAN, China and India need to know that the world's gaze is still fixed on them.

End of Romance? From Tennessee to North Carolina!

Before former President-elect Gore began to ratchet up his string of accomplishments this year, that started with an Oscar and ended with a Nobel Peace Prize and included a worldwide series of concerns highlighting climate change in between, Donna Brazile, the manager of Gore's 2000 Presidential Campaign, said "I’m dating. I haven’t fallen in love yet" regarding a 2008 bid.

In the months since, horrified by the thought of a Hillary Clinton presidency, thousands of grassroots supporters like me acted to tried to convince him to run again for the Presidency, knowing that he could win again, just like he did last time. We chipped in what we could to run a full page ad in the New York Times last month and run television commercials in key early primary states such as Iowa and New Hampshire. I myself recently volunteered to start collecting signatures to place Al Gore on the ballot for the California Primary.

Well, remember Donna Brazile's comment, unfortunately, it seems like the romance is dead, at least for this year ...

California Draft Gore, the organization heading the effort to place Gore on the primary, received communication from a member of Gore's staff discouraging any efforts to place his name on the primary and subsequently, the group has halted all signature collection and fund raising efforts. This is not the happiest of days, but the Draft Gore movement and its grass roots success will hopefully prod other candidates to take stronger stances on global warming and work with Gore and the private sector to maximize renewable energies.

As for the former Vice-President and President-elect himself, by taking a position in a venture capital firm to promote green technologies, he is obviously trying to tackle climate change from the private sector, where the Supreme Court cannot steal his victories.

Now, who is the next person to get my endorsement for the Presidency? From what I've seen so far in the debates and beyond, I was very impressed with John Edwards and Edwards is my man. Hillary is a disgusting alternative and I really don't see what's so great about Obama, except for the novelty factor that he's black! Obama's main weakness is his inexperience and I think that an Edwards / Obama ticket is the best for the nation at present.

Why Bush-Lite?

With the political winds in this country stiffly blowing to the left and a nation hungry for change, I continue to be astounded beyond belief of why there is such strong support for Bush-lite, a.k.a. Hillary Rodham Clinton rather than for real change.

Iraq:

Barack Obama said on October 26, 2002:
"I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. [...] You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings."

John Edwards voted for the resolution authorizing the war in Iraq, but he's human. On November 13, 2005, he came out and said in the Washington Post, "I was wrong."

On the contrary, Hillary Clinton voted for the resolution authorizing war, refuses to admit she did anything wrong, and turned against the war only when the political winds became overwhelmingly favorable for it. She instead parrots repeatedly,

""Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn't have been a vote," she said in her usual refrain before adding, "and I certainly wouldn't have voted that way.""

As a nation, haven't we had enough of a president who cannot admit to any wrongdoing? Do we really need four ... (or perhaps eight) ... more years of this nonsense?

Iran:

While in the most recent Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton was the ONLY candidate to vote for the saber-rattling initiative of George Bush's planned war on Iran. The question of whether she has learned nothing from Iraq is irrelevant because she is for the war in Iraq. She only says she's against it because it's politically expedient now to say so. In all her actions, including those on Iran, she is as much of a neo-con hawk as George Bush, Dick Cheney, or any of the other thugs in this current administration. What was that word that Edwards used to so succintly yet comprehensively describe Hillary Clinton? Ah yes, double-talk.

Real Change in Washington:

The Money Race:
Democrats Find Favor With G.O.P. Mainstays

"People working for energy and natural resources companies gave 80 percent of their presidential contributions to Mr. Bush in 2004. This year, 59 percent of their money has gone to Republicans. Mr. Giuliani has been the biggest recipient, with $818,000. Mrs. Clinton is second with $569,000."

I guess we can forget about a President Hillary Clinton doing anything about global warming ...

"The health care industry, which had a rocky history with the last Democratic administration, President Bill Clinton’s, has given $6.3 million to Democrats, including $2.6 million to Mrs. Clinton, more than any other candidate. It has given $4.8 million to Republicans."

With more than 40% of the health care industry's Democratic contributions going to Clinton, let's forget any action on her part to reform the health care industry in this country. The pharmaceutical and other giant corporations will continue to pull the strings behind a President Hillary Clinton.

"The construction industry still favors Republicans but less than before. It put about 70 percent of its presidential money into Mr. Bush’s campaign in 2004 but has given just 59 percent of it to Republicans this year; Mr. Giuliani received $1.4 million, and Mrs. Clinton received $1.3 million."

Say goodbye to any major measures to protect American forests from the hands of construction ...

"Likewise, agribusiness, which gave to Republicans by a 3-to-1 ratio in 2004, has only slightly favored Republicans this year, with $3.2 million for presidential candidates. Mitt Romney received the most, $565,000, but Mrs. Clinton was close behind, with $524,000."

Expect more of the same here as well ... gee, so what's the difference between Republicans and Democrats?

I so far haven't been able to figure out how anyone could be apathetic about politics, but if the 2008 general election comes down to Rudolph Giuliani (a bonafide fascist who really believes that he can do whatever he wants, Constitutional-constraints notwithstanding) vs. Hillary Clinton (a money-whore who can be bought by any industry to do their bidding), I'll be sitting at home watching House on Tuesday night, November 4, 2008 rather than any news channels.

If any of you reading this happen to be Hillary Clinton supporters, please please please tell me what makes you support her presidential aspirations? Do you truly believe that she has even an ounce of integrity or that she will be any different from George Bush?