Lies That We Hope Don't Matter

Start the revolution without me.

I came across a blog from a former co-worker of Obama during the mid 80's. Please do yourself the favor of reading his short post about what he thought of Obama's book, as well as the introduction to his blog. The guy is not a hater. He concludes the following:

Barack’s story may be true, but many of the facts are not. His larger narrative purpose requires him to embellish his role. I don’t buy it. Just as I can’t be inspired by Steve Jobs now that I know how dishonest he is, I can’t listen uncritically to Barack Obama now that I know he’s willing to bend the facts to his purpose.

That was written in 2005. Look, I understand that Obama will likely be elected on Nov 4th. I really wish him well, it is our country after all. Unfortunately, while he seems like a reasonable and intelligent person, I now know that he feels he needs to lie and cover up a number of things about his past. The best case scenario is that his past alliances and influences don't really reflect what he believes and intends to do as president. OK, let's hope so. But it sure seems like quite a risk for our country.

So on Nov 5th, I see my 'citizen job' as requiring that I am well-informed about about his past lies as a way of not missing potential future lies. Past is prologue, no? I intend to be ready with names, facts, and a searchable on-line database, this blog--most of my linked articles are copied in full at end of post. So let's continue; Who is Rashid Khalidi?

Rashid Khalidi is Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, and director of the Middle East Institute of Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs. He is a supporter of the PLO and a friend of Barack Obama. It was reported by the LA Times that Obama spoke warmly of Khalidi and their friendship at a Chicago dinner in 2003.

Obama would lose the Jewish vote if he were seen as a friend to a PLO sympathizer. So for the umpteenth time this campaign, Obama has apparently successfully made the case that a former alliance will not impact his decisions as president and do not reflect his views. On its own, no big deal, nice political damage control.

But in the case of Rashid Khalidi, the common desires of many Americans and the MSM bias has crossed over into blatant act of partisanship by a major news organization. The LA Times has a video of Obama at that 2003 dinner for Rashid Khalidi which they won't release. News organizations are normally suing this to obtain this kind of news. Why would they do this? Think of the Rev Wright. While people may have been aware of his views, having it on video tape makes a visceral impression, especially on people who don't follow the news closely.

Rashid Khalidi, Rev Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Tony Rezko, Larry Walsh, James Johnson, Michael Klonsky, Frank Marshall Davis, Danny Davis, Edward Said--stop me when you see a pattern.

All articles referenced are copied in full at end of post.

--------------------------------------------------------
Barack Obama Embellishes His Resume

Don’t get me wrong - I’m a big fan of Barack Obama, the Illinois freshman senator and hot young Democratic Party star. But after reading his autobiography, I have to say that Barack engages in some serious exaggeration when he describes a job that he held in the mid-1980s.I know because I sat down the hall from him, in the same department, and worked closely with his boss. I can’t say I was particularly close to Barack - he was reserved and distant towards all of his co-workers - but I was probably as close to him as anyone. I certainly know what he did there, and it bears only a loose resemblance to what he wrote in his book.

Here’s Barack’s account:

Eventually a consulting house to multinational corporations agreed to hire me as a research assistant. Like a spy behind enemy lines, I arrived every day at my mid-Manhattan office and sat at my computer terminal, checking the Reuters machine that blinked bright emerald messages from across the globe. As far as I could tell I was the only black man in the company, a source of shame for me but a source of considerable pride for the company’s secretarial pool.

First, it wasn’t a consulting house; it was a small company that published newsletters on international business. Like most newsletter publishers, it was a bit of a sweatshop. I’m sure we all wished that we were high-priced consultants to multinational corporations. But we also enjoyed coming in at ten, wearing jeans to work, flirting with our co-workers, partying when we stayed late, and bonding over the low salaries and heavy workload.

Barack worked on one of the company’s reference publications. Each month customers got a new set of pages on business conditions in a particular country, punched to fit into a three-ring binder. Barack’s job was to get copy from the country correspondents and edit it so that it fit into a standard outline. There was probably some research involved as well, since correspondents usually don’t send exactly what you ask for, and you can’t always decipher their copy. But essentially the job was copyediting.

It’s also not true that Barack was the only black man in the company. He was the only black professional man. Fred was an African-American who worked in the mailroom with his son. My boss and I used to join them on Friday afternoons to drink beer behind the stacks of office supplies. That’s not the kind of thing that Barack would do. Like I said, he was somewhat aloof.

…as the months passed, I felt the idea of becoming an organizer slipping away from me. The company promoted me to the position of financial writer. I had my own office, my own secretary; money in the bank. Sometimes, coming out of an interview with Japanese financiers or German bond traders, I would catch my reflection in the elevator doors—see myself in a suit and tie, a briefcase in my hand—and for a split second I would imagine myself as a captain of industry, barking out orders, closing the deal, before I remembered who it was that I had told myself I wanted to be and felt pangs of guilt for my lack of resolve.

If Barack was promoted, his new job responsibilities were more of the same - rewriting other people’s copy. As far as I know, he always had a small office, and the idea that he had a secretary is laughable. Only the company president had a secretary. Barack never left the office, never wore a tie, and had neither reason nor opportunity to interview Japanese financiers or German bond traders.

Then one day, as I sat down at my computer to write an article on interest-rate swaps, something unexpected happened. Auma called. I had never met this half sister; we had written only intermittently. …[several pages on his suffering half-sister] …a few months after Auma called, I turned in my resignation at the consulting firm and began looking in earnest for an organizing job.

What Barack means here is that he got copy from a correspondent who didn’t understand interest rate swaps, and he was trying to make sense out of it.

All of Barack’s embellishment serves a larger narrative purpose: to retell the story of the Christ’s temptation. The young, idealistic, would-be community organizer gets a nice suit, joins a consulting house, starts hanging out with investment bankers, and barely escapes moving into the big mansion with the white folks. Luckily, an angel calls, awakens his conscience, and helps him choose instead to fight for the people.

Like I said, I’m a fan. His famous keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention moved me to tears. The Democrats - not to mention America - need a mixed-race spokesperson who can connect to both urban blacks and rural whites, who has the credibility to challenge the status quo on issues ranging from misogynistic rap to unfair school funding.

And yet I’m disappointed. Barack’s story may be true, but many of the facts are not. His larger narrative purpose requires him to embellish his role. I don’t buy it. Just as I can’t be inspired by Steve Jobs now that I know how dishonest he is, I can’t listen uncritically to Barack Obama now that I know he’s willing to bend the facts to his purpose.

Once, when I applied for a marketing job at a big accounting firm, my then-supervisor called HR to say that I had exaggerated something on my resume. I didn’t agree, but I also didn’t get the job. But when Barack Obama invents facts in a book ranked No. 8 on the NY Times nonfiction list, it not only fails to be noticed but it helps elevate him into the national political pantheon.

Posted: July 9th, 2005
Comments: 54
------------------------------------------------------------
National Review
October 07, 2008, 3:30 p.m.

Why Won’t Obama Talk About Columbia?
The years he won’t discuss may explain the Ayers tie he keeps lying about.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

Barack Obama does not want to talk about Columbia. Not even to his good friends at the New York Times, who’ve so reliably helped him bleach away his past — a past neck-deep in the hard Left radicalism he has gussied up but never abandoned.

Why? I suspect it is because Columbia would shred his thin post-partisan camouflage.

You might think the Times would be more curious. After all, the Democrats’ presidential nominee has already lied to the Gray Lady about the origins of his relationship with Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. Back in May, in a cheery profile of Obama’s early Chicago days, the Times claimed (emphasis is mine):

Mr. Obama also fit in at Hyde Park’s fringes, among university faculty members like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, unrepentant members of the radical Weather Underground that bombed the United States Capitol and the Pentagon to protest the Vietnam War. Mr. Obama was introduced to the couple in 1995 at a meet-and-greet they held for him at their home, aides said.

Now look, anyone who gave five seconds of thought to that passage smelled a rat. Ayers and Dohrn are passionate radical activists who lived as fugitives for a decade. There’s no way they held a political coming-out party for someone who was unknown to them. Obviously, they already knew him well enough by then to feel very comfortable. They might have been sympathetic to a relative stranger, but sponsoring such a gathering in one’s living room is a strong endorsement.

And now, even the Times now knows it’s been had. In this past weekend’s transparent whitewashing of the Obama/Ayers tie, the paper claimed that the pair first met earlier in 1995, “at a lunchtime meeting about school reform in a Chicago skyscraper[.]” That storyline is preposterous too, but it is also a marked revision of the paper’s prior account (which, naturally, reporter Scott Shane fails to mention).

Why the change? The tacit concession was forced by Stanley Kurtz and Steve Diamond — whom the Times chooses not to acknowledge but who hover over Shane’s sunny narrative like a dark cloud.

Despite all manner of stonewalling by Obama, Ayers and their allies, these commentators have doggedly pursued information about the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. That’s the $150+ million “education reform” piggy bank substantially controlled in the nineties by Ayers and Obama, who doled out tens of millions of dollars to Leftist radicals — radicals who, like their patrons, understood that control over our institutions, and especially our schools, was a surer and less risky way to spread their revolution than blowing up buildings and mass-murdering American soldiers. As Diamond observes, in a 2006 speech in Venezuela, with Leftist strongman Hugo Chavez looking on, Ayers exhorted: “Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions small and large. La educacion es revolucion!”

Be clear on that much: Whether clothed as a terrorist or an academic, Ayers has made abundantly clear in his public statements, both before and after he established a working relationship and mutual admiration society with Obama, that he remains a revolutionary fueled by hatred of the United States. And while Obama now ludicrously pleads ignorance about Ayers’s terrorism — the terrorism that made the unabashed Ayers an icon of the Left — understand that this rabid anti-Americanism is the common denominator running through Obama’s orbit of influences.

Yes, Ayers is blunter than Obama. As he so delicately told the Times, America makes him “want to puke.” The smoother Obama is content to say our society needs fundamental “change.” But what they’re talking about is not materially different.

Such sentiments should make Obama unelectable. So, when it comes to his own radical moorings, Obama is engaged in classic liar behavior. He changes his story as the facts change — and the burden is always on you to dig up the facts, not on him to come clean. Yesterday, asked to comment on the Ayers relationship, David Axelrod, Obama’s top political adviser, hilariously chirped, “There’s no evidence that they’re close.” Translation: Get back to us when you can prove more damaging information — until then, we don’t need to further refine our perjury.

And then Axelrod gave us still more lies: “There’s no evidence that Obama in any way subscribed to any of Ayers’ views.”

Oh yeah? Well, Mr. Axelrod, how do you explain Obama’s breathless endorsement of Ayers’s 1997 Leftist polemic on the criminal-justice system, A Kind and Just Parent? As Stanley Kurtz has recounted, Ayers’s book is a radical indictment of American society: We, not the criminals, are responsible for the violent crime that plagues our cities; even the most vicious juvenile offenders should not be tried as adults; prisons should eventually be replaced by home detention; American justice is comparable to South Africa under Apartheid. Obama’s reaction? He described the book as “a searing and timely account” — a take even the Times concedes was a “rave review.”

Obama and Ayers shared all kinds of views. That is why they worked so well together at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), funding the likes of Mike Klonsky, a fellow SDS and Maoist associate of Ayers who, as Steve Diamond relates, used to host a “social justice” blog on Obama’s campaign website. With Obama heading the board of directors that approved expenditures and Ayers, the mastermind running its operational arm, hundreds of thousands of CAC dollars poured into the “Small Schools Workshop” — a project begun by Ayers and run by Klonsky to spur the revolution from the ground up.

Precisely because they shared the same views, Obama and Ayers also worked comfortably together on the board of the Woods Fund. There, they doled out thousands of dollars to Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity Church to promote its Marxist “black liberation theology.” Moreover, they underwrote the Arab American Action Network (AAAN) founded by Rashid Khalidi, a top apologist for Yasser Arafat. As National Review’s David Pryce-Jones notes, Khalidi once directed WAFA, the terrorist PLO’s news agency. Then, like Ayers, he repackaged himself as an academic who rails at American policy. The AAAN, which supports driver’s licenses and public welfare benefits for illegal aliens, holds that the establishment of Israel was an illegitimate “catastrophe.”

Khalidi, who regards Israel as a “racist” “apartheid” state, supports Palestinian terror strikes against Israeli military targets. It’s little surprise that he should be such a favorite of Ayers, the terrorist for whom “racism” and “apartheid” trip off the tongue as easily as “pass the salt.”

And it’s no surprise that the like-minded Obama would be a fan. Khalidi, after all, has mastered the Arafat art of posing as a moderate before credulous Westerners while (as Martin Kramer documents) scalding America’s “Zionist lobby” when addressing Arabic audiences. The Obama who decries “bitter” Americans “cling[ing] to guns or religion” when he’s in San Francisco but morphs into a God-fearing Second Amendment enthusiast when he’s in Pennsylvania — like the Obama who pummels NAFTA before labor union supporters but has advisers quietly assure the Canadians not to worry about such campaign cant — surely appreciates the craft.

Obama and Ayers not only demonstrated their shared view of Khalidi by funding him. They also gave glowing testimonials at a farewell dinner when Khalidi left the University of Chicago for Columbia’s greener pastures. That would be the same Columbia from which Obama graduated in 1983.

Khalidi was leaving to become director of Columbia’s Middle East Institute, assuming a professorship endowed in honor of another Arafat devotee, the late Edward Said. A hero of the Left who consulted with terrorist leaders (including Hezbollah’s Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah) and was once photographed hurling rocks at Israelis from the Lebanese border, Said was exposed by researcher Justus Reid Weiner as a fraud who had created a fictional account of his childhood, the rock on which he built his Palestinian grievance mythology.

We know precious little about Obama’s Columbia years, but the Los Angeles Times has reported that he studied under Said. In and of itself, that is meaningless: Said was a hotshot prof and hundreds of students took his comparative-lit courses. But Obama plainly maintained some sort of tie with Said — a photo making the Internet rounds shows Obama conversing with the great man himself at a 1998 Arab American community dinner in Chicago, where the Obamas and Saids were seated together.

Said had a wide circle of radical acquaintances. That circle clearly included Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. When they came out of hiding in the early 1980s (while Obama was attending Columbia), Ayers took education courses at Bank Street College, adjacent to Columbia in Morningside Heights — before earning his doctorate at Columbia’s Teachers College in 1987.

Said was so enamored of Ayers that he commended the unrepentant terrorist’s 2001 memoir, Fugitive Days — the book in which the haughty Ayers brags about his Weatherman past — with this glowing dust-jacket blurb:

What makes Fugitive Days unique is its unsparing detail and its marvelous human coherence and integrity. Bill Ayers's America and his family background, his education, his political awakening, his anger and involvement, his anguished re-emergence from the shadows: all these are rendered in their truth without a trace of nostalgia or “second thinking.” For anyone who cares about the sorry mess we are in, this book is essential, indeed necessary, reading.

Sorry mess, indeed. For his part, Ayers is at least equally enthralled by Said, of whom, even in death, Ayers says “[t]here is no one better positioned … to offer advice on the conduct of intellectual life[,]” than the man who was “over the last thirty-five years, the most passionate, eloquent, and clear-eyed advocate for the rights of the Palestinian people.”

After they left Columbia, both Obama and Ayers went to Chicago: Obama to become a “community organizer” (the director of the Developing Communities Project, an offshoot of the Gamaliel Foundation dedicated to Saul Alinsky’s principles for radicalizing society); Ayers, two years later, to teach at the University of Illinois. Diamond details how they both became embroiled in a major education controversy that resulted in 1988 reform legislation.

Ayers’s father, Tom Ayers, a prominent Chicago businessman, was also deeply involved in the reform effort. Interestingly, in 1988, while Obama and Ayers toiled on the same education agenda, Bernadine Dohrn worked as an intern at the prestigious Chicago law firm of Sidley Austin — even though she could not be admitted to the bar due to her contempt conviction for refusing to cooperate in a terrorist investigation. How could that happen? It turns out that Sidley was the longtime outside counsel for Tom Ayers’s company, Commonwealth Edison. That is, Ayers’ father had pull at the firm and successfully pressed for the hiring of his daughter-in-law.

The next summer, though he had gone off to Harvard Law School (another impressive accomplishment he prefers not to discuss), Obama returned to the Windy City to work as an intern at Sidley. Dohrn was gone by then to teach at Northwestern. A coincidence? Maybe (Diamond doesn’t think so), but that’s an awful lot of coincidences — and a long trail of common people, places and experiences — for people who purportedly didn’t know each other yet managed to end up as partners in significant financial and political ventures.

In short, Bill Ayers and Barack Obama moved in the same circles, were driven by the same cause, and admired the same radicals all the way from Morningside Heights to Hyde Park. They ended up publicly admiring each other, promoting each other’s work, sitting on the same boards, and funding the same Leftist agitators.

You could conclude, as I do, that it all goes back to a formative time in his life that Obama refuses to discuss. Or you could buy the fairy tale that Bill Ayers first encountered an unknown, inexperienced, third-year associate from a small Chicago law-firm over coffee in 1995 and suddenly decided Barack Obama was the perfect fit to oversee the $150 million pot of gold Ayers hoped would underwrite his revolution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,1780231,full.story
From the Los Angeles Times
Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama
They consider him receptive despite his clear support of Israel.
By Peter Wallsten
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

April 10, 2008

CHICAGO — It was a celebration of Palestinian culture -- a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.

A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."

Today, five years later, Obama is a U.S. senator from Illinois who expresses a firmly pro-Israel view of Middle East politics, pleasing many of the Jewish leaders and advocates for Israel whom he is courting in his presidential campaign. The dinner conversations he had envisioned with his Palestinian American friend have ended. He and Khalidi have seen each other only fleetingly in recent years.

And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.

Their belief is not drawn from Obama's speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.

At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."

One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."

Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground. But his presence at such events, as he worked to build a political base in Chicago, has led some Palestinian leaders to believe that he might deal differently with the Middle East than either of his opponents for the White House.

"I am confident that Barack Obama is more sympathetic to the position of ending the occupation than either of the other candidates," said Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow for the American Task Force on Palestine, referring to the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that began after the 1967 war. More than his rivals for the White House, Ibish said, Obama sees a "moral imperative" in resolving the conflict and is most likely to apply pressure to both sides to make concessions.

"That's my personal opinion," Ibish said, "and I think it for a very large number of circumstantial reasons, and what he's said."

Aides say that Obama's friendships with Palestinian Americans reflect only his ability to interact with a wide diversity of people, and that his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been consistent. Obama has called himself a "stalwart" supporter of the Jewish state and its security needs. He believes in an eventual two-state solution in which Jewish and Palestinian nations exist in peace, which is consistent with current U.S. policy.

Obama also calls for the U.S. to talk to such declared enemies as Iran, Syria and Cuba. But he argues that the Palestinian militant organization Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip, is an exception, calling it a terrorist group that should renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist before dialogue begins. That viewpoint, which also matches current U.S. policy, clashes with that of many Palestinian advocates who urge the United States and Israel to treat Hamas as a partner in negotiations.

"Barack's belief is that it's important to understand other points of view, even if you can't agree with them," said his longtime political strategist, David Axelrod.

Obama "can disagree without shunning or demonizing those with other views," he said. "That's far different than the suggestion that he somehow tailors his view."

Looking for clues

But because Obama is relatively new on the national political scene, and new to foreign policy questions such as the long-simmering Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both sides have been looking closely for clues to what role he would play in that dispute.

And both sides, on certain issues, have interpreted Obama's remarks as supporting their point of view.

Last year, for example, Obama was quoted saying that "nobody's suffering more than the Palestinian people." The candidate later said the remark had been taken out of context, and that he meant that the Palestinians were suffering "from the failure of the Palestinian leadership [in Gaza] to recognize Israel" and to renounce violence.

Jewish leaders were satisfied with Obama's explanation, but some Palestinian leaders, including Ibish, took the original quotation as a sign of the candidate's empathy for their plight.

Obama's willingness to befriend Palestinian Americans and to hear their views also impressed, and even excited, a community that says it does not often have the ear of the political establishment.

Among other community events, Obama in 1998 attended a speech by Edward Said, the late Columbia University professor and a leading intellectual in the Palestinian movement. According to a news account of the speech, Said called that day for a nonviolent campaign "against settlements, against Israeli apartheid."

The use of such language to describe Israel's policies has drawn vehement objection from Israel's defenders in the United States. A photo on the pro-Palestinian website the Electronic Intifada shows Obama and his wife, Michelle, engaged in conversation at the dinner table with Said, and later listening to Said's keynote address. Obama had taken an English class from Said as an undergraduate at Columbia University.

Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian rights activist in Chicago who helps run Electronic Intifada, said that he met Obama several times at Palestinian and Arab American community events. At one, a 2000 fundraiser at a private home, Obama called for the U.S. to take an "even-handed" approach toward Israel, Abunimah wrote in an article on the website last year. He did not cite Obama's specific criticisms.

Abunimah, in a Times interview and on his website, said Obama seemed sympathetic to the Palestinian cause but more circumspect as he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004. At a dinner gathering that year, Abunimah said, Obama greeted him warmly and said privately that he needed to speak cautiously about the Middle East.

Abunimah quoted Obama as saying that he was sorry he wasn't talking more about the Palestinian cause, but that his primary campaign had constrained what he could say.

Obama, through his aide Axelrod, denied he ever said those words, and Abunimah's account could not be independently verified.

"In no way did he take a position privately that he hasn't taken publicly and consistently," Axelrod said of Obama. "He always had expressed solicitude for the Palestinian people, who have been ill-served and have suffered greatly from the refusal of their leaders to renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist."

In Chicago, one of Obama's friends was Khalidi, a highly visible figure in the Arab American community.

In the 1970s, when Khalidi taught at a university in Beirut, he often spoke to reporters on behalf of Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization. In the early 1990s, he advised the Palestinian delegation during peace negotiations. Khalidi now occupies a prestigious professorship of Arab studies at Columbia.

He is seen as a moderate in Palestinian circles, having decried suicide bombings against civilians as a "war crime" and criticized the conduct of Hamas and other Palestinian leaders. Still, many of Khalidi's opinions are troubling to pro-Israel activists, such as his defense of Palestinians' right to resist Israeli occupation and his critique of U.S. policy as biased toward Israel.

While teaching at the University of Chicago, Khalidi and his wife lived in the Hyde Park neighborhood near the Obamas. The families became friends and dinner companions.

In 2000, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama's unsuccessful congressional bid. The next year, a social service group whose board was headed by Mona Khalidi received a $40,000 grant from a local charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, when Obama served on the fund's board of directors.

At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. "You will not have a better senator under any circumstances," Khalidi said.

The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.

Though Khalidi has seen little of Sen. Obama in recent years, Michelle Obama attended a party several months ago celebrating the marriage of the Khalidis' daughter.

In interviews with The Times, Khalidi declined to discuss specifics of private talks over the years with Obama. He did not begrudge his friend for being out of touch, or for focusing more these days on his support for Israel -- a stance that Khalidi calls a requirement to win a national election in the U.S., just as wooing Chicago's large Arab American community was important for winning local elections.

Khalidi added that he strongly disagrees with Obama's current views on Israel, and often disagreed with him during their talks over the years. But he added that Obama, because of his unusual background, with family ties to Kenya and Indonesia, would be more understanding of the Palestinian experience than typical American politicians.

"He has family literally all over the world," Khalidi said. "I feel a kindred spirit from that."

Ties with Israel

Even as he won support in Chicago's Palestinian community, Obama tried to forge ties with advocates for Israel.

In 2000, he submitted a policy paper to CityPAC, a pro-Israel political action committee, that among other things supported a unified Jerusalem as Israel's capital, a position far out of step from that of his Palestinian friends. The PAC concluded that Obama's position paper "suggests he is strongly pro-Israel on all of the major issues."

In 2002, as a rash of suicide bombings struck Israel, Obama sought out a Jewish colleague in the state Senate and asked whether he could sign onto a measure calling on Palestinian leaders to denounce violence. "He came to me and said, 'I want to have my name next to yours,' " said his former state Senate colleague Ira Silverstein, an observant Jew.

As a presidential candidate, Obama has won support from such prominent Chicago Jewish leaders as Penny Pritzker, a member of the family that owns the Hyatt hotel chain, and who is now his campaign finance chair, and from Lee Rosenberg, a board member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Nationally, Obama continues to face skepticism from some Jewish leaders who are wary of his long association with his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., who had made racially incendiary comments during several sermons that recently became widely known. Questions have persisted about Wright in part because of the recent revelation that his church bulletin reprinted a Times op-ed written by a leader of Hamas.

One Jewish leader said he viewed Obama's outreach to Palestinian activists, such as Said, in the light of his relationship to Wright.

"In the context of spending 20 years in a church where now it is clear the anti-Israel rhetoric was there, was repeated, . . . that's what makes his presence at an Arab American event with a Said a greater concern," said Abraham H. Foxman, national director for the Anti-Defamation League.

peter.wallsten@latimes.com
-------------------------------------------------

Read more!

The Gamble of Increasing Tax Rates

The gamble is that increasing tax rates on the wealthy will not cause them to alter their behavior to avoid the increased tax expense and as a result, will result in much greater tax receipts. I think most Americans assume that the wealthy are paying less taxes under Bush.


But that's not the reality. While Bush did cut their rates, the effect was to increase the their share of federal tax receipts. In fact, the top 5% are paying a greater share of taxes now under Bush than under Clinton.

Hard to believe right. To paraphrase AMEX commercials, 'populism' [lying to the willfully ignorant], has its rewards. If you still want to believe in Santa, you might want to avoid these US House of Representatives reports on who actually pays federal taxes - top 1% and progressivity of tax system. Also, check out the Bloomberg.com article which also documents how progressive the actual tax system is, as opposed to the populist perception.

Markets are not politically correct. What they care about are the likely tax and spending policies for the next American president. No serious person believes the Obama campaign claim about excluding 95% of Americans from tax increases. So among the many negative factors affecting the market, are the expectations of widespread increases in taxes, which during a recession is considered a mistake. Unfortunately, campaign tactics hold no sway here, i.e. ACORN can't recruit citizen-prostitutes to enhance or alter market results, George Soros notwithstanding.

Read more!

Hard Jobs and Few Willing Workers

Some articles are so useful, you wish you could 'drag and drop' them to a more prominent position in the paper. I found one in Wednesday's Miami Herald's Business section about Perdue Farms coming to Broward County to recruit poultry workers for its Delaware plant. The company was planning to fly 10 people back to Delaware so that they can observe the plant and their possible new home. The jobs pay approximately $10/hour and have no language requirements.

First some unemployment statistics as of Sept 2008 for the two states are as follows:

• Delaware 4.8%
• Florida 6.6%

Delaware is probably a good example of 'full employment,' despite the 4.8% unemployment rate. The term 'structural unemployment' means that those 4.8% are probably not really looking for jobs.

How revealing about the unemployed between Delaware and Broward County. Think about it, Perdue didn't come to South Florida looking for Spanish-speaking workers. They came looking for people who were willing to do hard jobs with little pay. They had to travel 910 miles to find the type of people desperate enough to work those jobs. More exactly, they had to travel 910 miles to find people probably not eligible for public assistance.

During a debate many years ago, William F Buckley was asked if he could imagine what it would be like if there was no unemployment insurance. His response, 'there would be less unemployment.' If any politician ever said that, they would be destroyed as being insensitive. But 99% of us are not running for office, so we can afford to think out loud. Leaving aside compassion, Buckley's answer goes to the heart of the economic problem associated with government assistance. It's not the actual monies expended, it's the type of behavior they encourage.

If someone will be paid $1,000 per month in unemployment insurance and they could earn $1,200 working at a full-time job, few, if any, would take the job. That decision does not make them lazy, it makes them rational, absent a strong work ethic. A work ethic is usually by developed by observing it practiced up close by family. Many lower-income people have never had that example. An aptly named poverty cycle ensues, as the absence of work [or purpose], leads to other social pathologies. It is hard to imagine an improvement in America's 'work ethic' in the current environment, all in the name of compassion.

When the next 'Perdue' is looking for workers, I can't help but think that they will go right past South Florida into South America. Things will get much worse, before or if, they get better. Step up and see the show while you can. It was an amazing show. By the way, how did that goose and those monthly eggs story end?

All articles referenced are copied in full at end of post.

--------------------------------------------------------
Miami Herald

Posted on Wed, Oct. 22, 2008
Perdue Farms lures South Florida workers
BY PATRICK DANNER

Perdue Farms is so hungry for workers at its Delaware poultry-processing plant it came all the way to Broward County.

This week, the company interviewed about 30 candidates at the county's Refugee Services office in Oakland Park for openings in the company's cutting and deboning operations, positions with starting pay of $9.10 an hour.

Among those who applied on Tuesday was Kenson Agenor, 21-year-old refugee from Haiti living in Lauderhill. he has been out of work for six months after he was laid off from a warehouse job at a Miami bathtub maker.

''It is very difficult to find a job'' in South Florida, Agenor said through an interpreter. ``Since there is no job here and they are giving a lot of opportunity, it will be perfect for [me] to move completely over there.''

Agenor has never been to Georgetown, Del., but the prospect of relocating 910 miles away doesn't scare him.

Maryland-based Perdue is going to a lot of trouble to find workers under the pilot program: It will fly 10 of the candidates to Delaware so they can see the plant and the town, company spokeswoman Julie DeYoung said.

PILOT PROGRAM

''It is a high-cost way to recruit,'' DeYoung said. ''That's why we are piloting it. If this works, we would be looking to hire substantially more numbers'' for the Georgetown plant and its other facilities.

Perdue likely will initially offer jobs to five of the candidates.

New hires will be put up in a hotel for 30 days with transportation to and from the plant and one meal a day. They also will receive company assistance in finding permanent housing and transportation.

Perdue employs about 1,420 people at the Georgetown plant. About three-quarters of the work force are either immigrants or children of immigrants.

Most are from Guatemala or Mexico, said Eddie Lambden, Georgetown's mayor.

Two years ago, The Philadelphia Inquirer chronicled how immigrants from Latin America working in poultry processing have transformed the southern Delaware community.

BROWARD SITE

Perdue chose to recruit in Broward because of the size of the pool of applicants. Other cities, including Philadelphia and Bowling Green, Ky., just didn't have a large number of applicants to interview, DeYoung said.

Work-site enforcements targeting illegal immigration have become a priority for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, particularly at meatpacking and poultry-processing plants.

DeYoung said she had no information on whether ICE's efforts have affected Perdue.

ICE spokesman Richard Rocha said he wasn't aware of any large-scale enforcement operations at Perdue's Georgetown plant in the last two years.

New recruits at Perdue's Georgetown plant can earn $10.20 an hour after a 90-day probation period.

Once a worker becomes certified as a cutter, the pay increases to $11.20 an hour, DeYoung said.

The recruitment event in Broward also was unusual for Refugee Services, which generally doesn't place people in jobs outside of the county.

Betty De Soto, a Refugee Services case manager for Haitian refugees, called her 40 or so clients as many as four times to make sure they attended this week's recruitment event.

''They told me, a chance like that, they won't let it go because some of them are working here for $7 an hour,'' De Soto said. ``They see the opportunity.''

Finding work for refugees in Broward has been difficult with the downturn in the economy, De Soto added.

Perdue needs workers because turnover in its processing plants is high -- more than 50 percent, DeYoung said.

The work is hard. Workers are dealing with perishable food; the environment is cold and Perdue uses a lot of water for sanitation.

`TOUGH JOBS'

''They are tough jobs, but they're the kind of jobs that refugees do,'' said Leland Dale Wilson, a manager for Refugee Services.

``They are willing to start somewhere and move up.''

Felix Rodriguez, 27, of Fort Lauderdale, who is originally from Puerto Rico, filled out an application along with his father.

Rodriguez lost a maintenance job at an apartment complex and has been working part-time as a cook.

''You got a family and not working here, you just got to try another opportunity,'' Rodriguez said in broken English. ``It's about your family.''
-------------------------------------------------

Read more!

First Casualty of the Obama Administration

(AP-BHO Newswire) - In what is being referred to as the first casualty of the Obama Presidency, a promising young political cartoonist, Kay Suerte, was found dead today of an apparent suicide. Ms Suerte was 28 years old and had been the Chicago-Hyde Park Tribune's political cartoonist since 2004. She was known as a harsh critic of the Bush Administration and a defender of liberal causes.

Political cartoon industry leader, Creators Syndicate, posted a tribute to her work online and referred to her as, 'a real sparkplug with no conscious, she'll be missed.' Her most famous cartoon depicted a nude President Bush selecting Pakistani orphans to be executed through the use of 'tasers' popularized by the Buzz Lightyear ride at Disney World.

A spokeswoman for the Hyde Park police said Ms. Suerte's sister, Jane Smith, returned home to find that her sister had hung herself using only bio-degradable materials [Ms. Suerte was also known as fierce environmentalist]. Ms. Suerte's father, Nomar Suerte, claimed in an interview on Sunday that his daughter's depression had been job related.

Since Barack Obama's candidacy began, Ms. Suerte had been informed by her bosses that her fellow Hyde Park resident was off limits as a subject for her editorial cartoons until after the election. Details are sketchy, but it is believed that she was informed early last week that the 'special period' would extend throughout his Presidency, including the 2nd term!

A friend who asked not to be identified commented, 'Look we ALL share Barack's dream, but here you have the next president who bears an uncanny resemblance to a beloved children's cartoon character [Curious George], he's from her back yard and she can't go there? Just because some racist pigs tried to hijack the idea! In the hands of a sympathetic cartoonist, it could have been special. Cartoonists live for moments and resemblances like this. She thought she had earned their trust and it was going to be her masterpiece. Their refusal to compromise was just plain cold.'

Through a posting on her Facebook page, the family communicated that in lieu of flowers and especially in lieu of commercial greeting cards, non-denominational, non-ecumenical and non-judgmental prayers were requested. The message was punctuated by a 'HITH [Him or It or Them or Her] will be done' sign-off.

All articles referenced are copied in full at end of post.


Matthew 14:36 - And sought him that they might only touch the hem of his garment: and as many as touched were made perfectly whole.

Read more!

Fund Investors Face Risk of Tax Hit Despite Losses

WSJ Tax article
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fund Investors Face Risk of Tax Hit Despite Losses Many Managers Are Planning Capital-Gains Distributions Before the End of This Year

OCTOBER 22, 2008

By TOM HERMAN

For most mutual-fund investors, it's been an abysmal year. The average U.S. diversified stock fund is down 33% through Monday, according to Morningstar Inc. Foreign stock funds have also posted steep declines, as have funds in most other categories.

And some investors may have to pay hefty tax bills on their losing funds anyway.

At issue are year-end capital-gains distributions. Mutual funds typically pay net capital gains to investors around the end of each year. These payments generally are taxable if the investments are held in a taxable account, rather than in a 401(k) plan or other tax-favored retirement account.

Considering diving back into a stock fund in the coming weeks? Keep these points in mind:

* Contact the fund first to see if it's planning a taxable capital- gains payout.
* If the payout is significant, consider buying another fund or waiting until after the qualifying date.
* You also can invest in the fund in a tax- advantaged account.

Despite the stock market's nose dive, many funds are likely to make year-end capital-gains distributions this year, fund managers and financial advisers predict. That means it may be a good time to consider selling some underperforming funds before they make a taxable distribution. It also means that bargain-hunters looking to get back into the market now need to be careful. Otherwise they could be saddled with a stiff tax bill that could easily have been avoided.

"Many people are looking for a time to step back into the market," says Gary Schatsky, a fee-only financial adviser based in New York. If they're planning on doing so through a taxable account at mutual funds, "they'd better be aware of the distribution dates of the mutual fund -- and either wait to invest until after that date or find an alternative that doesn't have onerous tax consequences."

Most capital-gains payouts are made in December, and some fund families have already published preliminary 2008 payout estimates, based on results through late September, or will do so soon. For example, OppenheimerFunds says its Developing Markets fund, based on results through late September, had estimated short- and long-term capital gains of nearly $7.20 a share, or almost 20% of net asset value.

Why? "Emerging markets as a whole have done extremely well over the past three to five years, and as a result, the manager decided to close out some long-term holdings," a spokesman says. Another reason: A new portfolio manager joined the fund last year, and the fund "underwent a significant reorientation and consolidation of its holdings," he says. The company also says its Global Opportunities fund had estimated gains of around $3 a share, or more than 11% of its net asset value.

At T. Rowe Price Group, the number of funds making capital-gains distributions this year "has not declined very much," says Greg Hinkle, treasurer of the T. Rowe Price Funds. "We had 50 funds that made capital-gains distributions last year." Right now, he estimates that 42 funds will make distributions this year. But the total amount of those payments "is estimated to be less than half of last year's total," he says.

Vanguard Group "doesn't expect more than a handful of capital-gains distributions for 2008, and those distributions will be on the modest side," a spokesman says.

A Fidelity Investments spokesman says it's difficult to give details on capital-gains payouts just yet. "However, broadly speaking, we believe only a few Fidelity funds will pay distributions of capital gains this year, unlike in recent years, and that the amount of the distributions will generally be significantly lower," the spokesman says.

Some of Capital Research and Management Co.'s American Funds are likely to make year-end payouts, says Maura Griffin, a spokeswoman. Among them is the New Perspective fund, a global blue-chip stock fund. Based on Sept. 30 results, the fund estimates a payout of 7% to 9% of its net asset value, according to the group's Web site. The distribution will be paid Dec. 24 to shareholders of record Dec. 23.

Similarly, the company expects its New World fund, a global growth fund, to pay out around 4% to 6% of its net asset value, with the same distribution and record dates as the New Perspective fund, Ms. Griffin says. Most other funds in the family are expected to make much smaller payouts, or none at all, she says.

"Investors may wonder why, in a declining market, capital gains could be possible," Ms. Griffin says. "These realized gains are not short-term but are correlated to stocks we held for several years that had strengthened before fund managers chose to sell them."

Before investing a significant amount of money in a fund in coming weeks, check to see if the fund is likely to be making a year-end payout, and if so, how much and when. Many fund organizations post this information on their Web sites. Then crunch the numbers to see if the payout will increase your taxes significantly. If the answer is yes, consider another fund -- or wait to invest until after the date to qualify for the payment.

This doesn't mean investors should automatically shy away from any fund planning year-end distributions. After all, one of the easiest ways to make a bad mistake is to make an investment decision based solely on tax considerations, instead of investment fundamentals.

"In markets with big daily moves, keep investment considerations foremost," says T. Rowe Price's Mr. Hinkle. "If you stay out of a fund for one day to avoid a 5% distribution, but lose out on a 6% or 7% upward market move that day, you've lost ground."

Nobody knows the exact amount of gains that will be handed out this year, or even how many funds will be making them, since the accounting period for the year isn't over yet. But fund managers say the total number of funds making payments, as well as the dollar amounts, are expected to be far below a year ago, when funds made their largest payouts in history.

According to the Investment Company Institute, mutual funds distributed nearly $415 billion in capital gains to shareholders in 2007. That total, which includes both paid and reinvested capital gains, was up sharply from about $257 billion in 2006. About 36% of the 2007 distributions were paid to taxable household accounts, the ICI says. Stock funds typically account for the bulk of the distributions.

Investors can offset capital gains and losses on a dollar-for-dollar basis, with no limit. If your losses exceed your gains, or if you have no gains at all, you typically can deduct as much as $3,000 of net capital losses ($1,500 if you're married and filing separately from your spouse) from wages and other ordinary income. Additional losses are carried over into future years.

But if you sell and decide to reinvest the proceeds quickly, be careful you don't run afoul of what are known as the "wash sale" rules. You can't deduct losses from sales of stock or other securities in a wash sale, which typically occurs when you sell or trade securities at a loss and buy the same, or "substantially identical," securities within 30 days before or after a sale.

If an investor does sink money into a fund just before a sizable year-end distribution, there is at least one consolation, according to the Ernst & Young Tax Guide 2008. Your higher basis will reduce the amount of any capital gain on a later sale -- or, if you sell the fund at a loss, it will increase the size of your capital loss. However, the guide says, "if you want to limit your current tax liability and lower your basis in the shares, you should delay your purchase of fund shares until after the record date for the distribution."

Many workers will pay higher Social Security taxes next year.

The maximum amount of earnings subject to the Social Security tax in 2009 will be $106,800, the Social Security Administration said. That's up $4,800, or 4.7%, from $102,000 this year. This dollar threshold is adjusted annually to reflect changes in average wages.

Thus the maximum additional Social Security tax that might be collected on an employee earning above the 2008 wage base will be $297.60, says Avram Sacks, Social Security law analyst at CCH, which provides tax and payroll information and software and is part of Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.

"Taxes for self-employed individuals use the same earnings base, but the rates are double those of employees, since the self-employed must also pay the 'employer' portion of the taxes," says Mr. Sacks. "This means that high-earning, self-employed individuals may owe as much as $595.20 in additional self-employment tax in 2009. However, they can recoup some of this amount through a deduction on their federal income tax."

Of the estimated 164 million workers who will pay Social Security taxes in 2009, about 11 million will pay higher taxes due to this increase in the taxable minimum, the Social Security Administration said.

The rate for the "hospital insurance," or Medicare, tax stays at 1.45%. This applies to every dollar you earn.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Read more!

Powell's Exit Strategy on Obama

Well at least Colin Powell practices what he preaches. Just as in his advice to President Bush about the Iraq war, his endorsement of Obama contained an exit strategy. I come at this from the following perspective, everything Powell said on Sunday was carefully thought out and executed. If you don't believe that, and assume that he answered off-the-cuff, then I am making too much of this. But remember that this is someone who is used to having his words carefully parsed. Here is what Powell said on separate occasions:

• ... trying to suggest that, because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers
• ... because Mr. Barack Obama had some contacts of a very casual nature--they sat on a educational board--over time is somehow connected to his thinking or his actions

Here is what Powell could have said that would not have made his endorsement of Obama conditional on the depth of the alliance between Obama and Ayers:

• Look Tom, I know that in politics people make all sorts of contacts and associations which don't reflect their beliefs, it's one of the reasons I'm not a politician [chuckle]
• I've read about the Ayers allegations and I don't find them persuasive, what I do find persuasive ...
• Tom, I'm very uncomfortable with the whole guilt by association mentality implicit in the Ayers attacks.

I believe that over time the Ayers alliance will be proven to be much more than casual. Perhaps even at the level of Ayers having helped Obama write his first book [ghost-writers are very common for politicians]. I also believe that practically all who support Obama today will shrug their shoulders when that happens. But it will matter then if he's lying now and I suspect it matters to Powell as well.

All articles referenced are copied in full at end of post.

--------------------------------------------------------
Meet the Press - 10/19/08
MSNBC.com - Oct. 19: Former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell (Ret.), Chuck Todd, political roundtable
Former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell (Ret.), Chuck Todd, David Brooks, Jon Meacham, Andrea Mitchell, Joe Scarborough
updated 12:04 p.m. ET, Sun., Oct. 19, 2008

MR. TOM BROKAW: Our issues this Sunday: He served as President George W. Bush's secretary of state and was once called the man most likely to become the nation's first African-American president. He has been courted by both the Obama and McCain presidential campaigns and said this last month:

(Videotape)

GEN. COLIN POWELL (RET.): I have been watching both of these individuals. I know them both extremely well, and I have not decided who I'm going to vote for yet.

(End videotape)

MR. BROKAW: Is he now ready to make an endorsement in this presidential race? What are his thoughts on the major issues facing the country and the world? Our exclusive guest this Sunday, former Secretary of State General Colin Powell.

Then, with 16 days to go, Decision 2008 heads into the home stretch. What states still are in play? We will hear the latest on some new state polls with NBC's political director, Chuck Todd. Also, insights and analysis on the race to the White House with David Brooks of The New York Times, Jon Meacham of Newsweek magazine, Andrea Mitchell of NBC News, and Joe Scarborough of MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

But first, General Colin Powell, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

GEN. POWELL: Thank, thank you, Tom.

MR. BROKAW: We indicated in that opening, there is a lot of anticipation and speculation about your take on this presidential campaign. We'll get to that in a moment. But in your old business we might call this a tour of the horizon. Whoever's elected president of the United States, that first day in the Oval Office on January 21st will face this: an American economy that's in a near paralytic state at this time; we're at war in two different countries, Afghanistan and Iraq; we have an energy crisis; we have big decisions to make about health care and about global climate change. The president of the United States and the Congress of the United States now have the highest disapproval ratings that we have seen in many years. In all your years of public service, have you ever seen an incoming president face such daunting challenges?

GEN. POWELL: No. I have seen more difficult times in our history. I think about the early '70s when we were going through Watergate, Spiro Agnew, Nixon period, that was not a good time. But right now we're also facing a very daunting period. And I think the number one issue the president's going to have to deal with is the economy. That's what the American people are worried about. And, frankly, it's not just an American problem, it's an international problem. We can see how all of these economies are now linked in this globalized system. And I think that'll be number one. The president will also have to make decisions quickly as to how to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan. And also I think the president has to reach out to the world and show that there is a new president, a new administration that is looking forward to working with our friends and allies. And in my judgment, also willing to talk to people who we have not been willing to talk to before. Because this is a time for outreach.

MR. BROKAW: Given the state of the American economy, can we continue our military commitments around the world at the level that they now exist?

GEN. POWELL: We can. I think we have to look as to whether they have to be at that level. But we have the wealth, we have the wherewithal to do that. (Clears throat) Excuse me, Tom. We have the ability to do that. And so, first and foremost, we have to review those commitments, see what they are, see what else is needed, and make sure we give our troops what they need to get the job done as we have defined the job. We have that ability.

MR. BROKAW: If you were called into the Oval Office on January 21st by the new president, whoever it happens to be, and he said to you, "General Powell, I need from you your recommendation on where I begin. What should be my priorities?" Where would you start?

GEN. POWELL: I would start with talking to the American people and talking to the world, and conveying a new image of American leadership, a new image of America's role in the world.

The problems will always be there, and there's going to be a crisis come along in the 21st or 22nd of January that we don't even know about right now. And so I think what the president has to do is to start using the power of the Oval Office and the power of his personality to convince the American people and to convince the world that America is solid, America is going to move forward, and we're going to fix our economic problems, we're going to meet our overseas obligations. But restoring a sense of purpose, a sense of confidence in the American people and, in the international community, in America.

MR. BROKAW: What's not on the screen right now that concerns you that should be more prominent in the minds of the American people and the people running for president?

GEN. POWELL: I think the American people and the gentlemen running for president will have to, early on, focus on education more than we have seen in the campaign so far. America has a terrible educational problem in the sense that we have too many youngsters not finishing school. A third of our kids don't finish high school, 50 percent of minorities don't finish high school. We've got to work on this, and my, my wife and I are leading a campaign with this purpose.

Also, I think, the new president has to realize that the world looks to America for leadership, and so we have to show leadership on some issues that the world is expecting us to, whether it's energy, global warming and the environment. And I think we have to do a lot more with respect to poverty alleviation and helping the needy people of the world. We need to increase the amount of resources we put into our development programs to help the rest of the world. Because when you help the poorest in the world, you start to move them up an economic and social ladder, and they're not going to be moving toward violence or terrorism of the kind that we worry about.

MR. BROKAW: Well, let's move to the American presidential campaign now, if we can. We saw at the beginning of this broadcast a short tease of what you had to say just a month ago. Let's share with our viewers now a little more of Colin Powell on these two candidates and your position.

(Videotape, September 20, 2008)

GEN. POWELL: I'm an American, first and foremost, and I'm very proud--I said, I've said, I've said to my beloved friend and colleague John McCain, a friend of 25 years, "John, I love you, but I'm not just going to vote for you on the basis of our affection or friendship." And I've said to Barack Obama, "I admire you. I'll give you all the advice I can. But I'm not going to vote for you just because you're black." We, we have to move beyond this.

(End videotape)

MR. BROKAW: General Powell, actually you gave a campaign contribution to Senator McCain. You have met twice at least with Barack Obama. Are you prepared to make a public declaration of which of these two candidates that you're prepared to support?

GEN. POWELL: Yes, but let me lead into it this way. I know both of these individuals very well now. I've known John for 25 years as your setup said. And I've gotten to know Mr. Obama quite well over the past two years. Both of them are distinguished Americans who are patriotic, who are dedicated to the welfare of our country. Either one of them, I think, would be a good president. I have said to Mr. McCain that I admire all he has done. I have some concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years. It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that's a choice the party makes. And I've said to Mr. Obama, "You have to pass a test of do you have enough experience, and do you bring the judgment to the table that would give us confidence that you would be a good president."

And I've watched him over the past two years, frankly, and I've had this conversation with him. I have especially watched over the last six of seven weeks as both of them have really taken a final exam with respect to this economic crisis that we are in and coming out of the conventions. And I must say that I've gotten a good measure of both. In the case of Mr. McCain, I found that he was a little unsure as to deal with the economic problems that we were having and almost every day there was a different approach to the problem. And that concerned me, sensing that he didn't have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had. And I was also concerned at the selection of Governor Palin. She's a very distinguished woman, and she's to be admired; but at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made.

On the Obama side, I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one. And also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor. I think that he has a, a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well. I also believe that on the Republican side over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower. Mr. Obama, at the same time, has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He's crossing lines--ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He's thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values.

And I've also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about. This Bill Ayers situation that's been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign. But Mr. McCain says that he's a washed-out terrorist. Well, then, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that, because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow, Mr. Obama is tainted. What they're trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that's inappropriate.

Now, I understand what politics is all about. I know how you can go after one another, and that's good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign and they trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration. I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.

So, when I look at all of this and I think back to my Army career, we've got two individuals, either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time? And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities--and we have to take that into account--as well as his substance--he has both style and substance--he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world--onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.

MR. BROKAW: Will you be campaigning for him as well?

GEN. POWELL: I don't plan to. Two weeks left, let them go at each other in the finest tradition. But I will be voting for him.

MR. BROKAW: I can already anticipate some of the reaction to this. Let's begin with the charge that John McCain has continued to make against Barack Obama. You sit there, as a man who served in Vietnam, you commanded a battalion of 101st, you were chairman of the Joint Chiefs, you were a national security adviser and secretary of state. There is nothing in Barack Obama's history that nearly paralyze any--parallels any of the experiences that you've had. And while he has performed impressively in the context of the campaign, there's a vast difference between sitting in the Oval Office and making tough decisions and doing well in a campaign.

GEN. POWELL: And he knows that. And I have watched him over the last two years as he has educated himself, as he has become very familiar with these issues. He speaks authoritatively. He speaks with great insight into the challenges we're facing of a military and political and economic nature. And he is surrounding himself, I'm confident, with people who'll be able to give him the expertise that he, at the moment, does not have. And so I have watched an individual who has intellectual vigor and who dives deeply into issues and approaches issues with a very, very steady hand. And so I'm confident that he will be ready to take on these challenges on January 21st.

MR. BROKAW: And you are fully aware that there will be some--how many, no one can say for sure--but there will be some who will say this is an African-American, distinguished American, supporting another African-American because of race.

GEN. POWELL: If I had only had that in mind, I could have done this six, eight, 10 months ago. I really have been going back and forth between somebody I have the highest respect and regard for, John McCain, and somebody I was getting to know, Barack Obama. And it was only in the last couple of months that I settled on this. And I can't deny that it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president. And should that happen, all Americans should be proud--not just African-Americans, but all Americans--that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It will also not only electrify our country, I think it'll electrify the world.

MR. BROKAW: You have some differences with Barack Obama. He has said that once he takes office, he wants to begin removing American troops from Iraq. Here's what you had to say about that: "I have found in my many years of service, to set arbitrary dates that don't coincide with the situation on the ground or what actually is happening tends not to be a useful strategy. ... Arbitrary deadlines that are snatched out of the air and are based on some lunar calculation is not the way to run a military or a strategic operation of this type." That was on February 10th of this year on CNN. Now that you have Barack Obama's ear in a new fashion, will you say to him, "Drop your idea of setting a deadline of some kind to pull the troops out of Iraq"?

GEN. POWELL: First of all, I think that's a great line, and thanks for pulling it up. And I believe that. But as I watch what's happening right now, the United States is negotiating the--an agreement with the Iraqi government that will call for most major combat operations to cease by next June and for American forces to start withdrawing to their bases. And that agreement will also provide for all American troops to be gone by 2011, but conditioned on the situation as it exists at that time. So there already is a timeline that's being developed between the Iraqis and the United States government. So I think whoever becomes the president, whether it's John McCain or whether it's Barack Obama, we're going to see a continued drawdown. And when, you know, which day so many troops come out or what units come out, that'll be determined by the commanders and the new president. But I think we are on a glide path to reducing our presence in Iraq over the next couple of years. Increasingly, this problem's going to be solved by the Iraqis. They're going to make the political decisions, their security forces are going to take over, and they're going to have to create an environment of reconciliation where all the people can come together and make Iraq a much, much better place.

MR. BROKAW: Let me go back to something that you raised just a moment ago, and that's William Ayers, a former member of the Weathermen who's now active in school issues in Illinois. He had some past association with Barack Obama. Wouldn't it have been more helpful for William Ayers to, on his own, to have renounced his own past? Here was a man who was a part of the most radical group that existed in America at a time when you were serving in Vietnam, targeting the Pentagon, the Capitol. He wrote a book about it that came out on 2001, on September 11th that said, "We didn't bomb enough."

GEN. POWELL: It's despicable, and I have no truck for William Ayers. I think what he did was despicable, and to continue to talk about it in 2001 is also despicable. But to suggest that because Mr. Barack Obama had some contacts of a very casual nature--they sat on a educational board--over time is somehow connected to his thinking or his actions, I think, is a, a terrible stretch. It's demagoguery.

MR. BROKAW: I want to ask you about your own role in the decision to go to war in Iraq. Barack Obama has been critical of your appearance before the United Nations at that time. Bob Woodward has a new book out called "The War Within," and here's what he had to say about Colin Powell and his place in the administration: "Powell ... didn't think [Iraq] was a necessary war, and yet he had gone along in a hundred ways, large and small. He had resisted at times but had succumbed to the momentum and his own sense of deference--even obedience--to the president. ... Perhaps more than anyone else in the administration, Powell had been the `closer' for the president's case on war."

And then you were invited to appear before the Iraq Study Group. "`Why did we go into Iraq with so few people?' [former Secretary of State James] Baker asked. ... `Colin just exploded at that point,' [former Secretary of Defense William] Perry recalled later. `He unloaded,' Former White House Chief of Staff] Leon Panetta added. `He was angry. He was mad as hell.' ... Powell left [the Study Group meeting]. Baker turned to Panetta and said solemnly, `He's the one guy who could have perhaps prevented this from happening.'"

What's the lesson in all of that for a former--for a new secretary of state or for a new national security adviser, based on your own experience?

GEN. POWELL: Well, let's start at the beginning. I said to the president in 2002, we should try to solve this diplomatically and avoid war. The president accepted that recommendation, we took it to the U.N. But the president, by the end of 2002, believed that the U.N. was not going to solve the problem, and he made a decision that we had to prepare for military action. I fully supported that. And I have never said anything to suggest I did not support going to war. I thought the evidence was there. And it is not just my closing of the whole deal with my U.N. speech. I know the importance of that speech, and I regret a lot of the information that the intelligence community provided us was wrong. But three months before my speech, with a heavy majority, the United States Congress expressed its support to use military force if it was necessary. And so we went in and used military force. My unhappiness was that we didn't do it right. It was easy to get to Baghdad, but then we forgot that there was a lot more that had to be done. And we didn't have enough force to impose our will in the country or to deal with the insurgency when it broke out, and that I regret.

MR. BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation...

GEN. POWELL: I also assure you that it was not a correct assessment by anybody that my statements or my leaving the administration would have stopped it.

MR. BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation, because we now know that they did not exist, was it then a war of necessity or just a war of choice?

GEN. POWELL: Without the weapons of mass destruction present, as conveyed to us by the intelligence community in the most powerful way, I don't think there would have been a war. It was the reason we took it to the public, it was the reason we took it to the American people to the Congress, who supported it on that basis, and it's the presentation I made to the United Nations. Without those weapons of mass destruction then Iraq did not present to the world the kind of threat that it did if it had weapons of mass destruction.

MR. BROKAW: You do know that there are supporters of Barack Obama who feel very strongly about his candidacy because he was opposed to the war from the beginning, and they're going to say, "Who needs Colin Powell? He was the guy who helped get us into this mess."

GEN. POWELL: I'm not here to get their approval or lack of approval. I am here to express my view as to who I'm going to vote for.

MR. BROKAW: There's a summing up going on now as, as the Bush/Cheney administration winds down. We'd like to share with our audience some of what you had to say about the two men who are at the top of the administration. At the convention in 2000, this is Colin Powell on President Bush and Dick Cheney at that time.

(Videotape, July 31, 2000)

GEN. POWELL: Dick Cheney is one of the most distinguished and dedicated public servants this nation has ever had. He will be a superb vice president.

The Bush/Cheney team will be a great team for America. They will put our nation on a course of hope and optimism for this new century.

(End videotape)

MR. BROKAW: Was that prophetic or wrong?

GEN. POWELL: It's what I believed. It reflected the agenda of the new president, compassionate conservatism. And some of it worked out. I think we have advanced our freedom agenda, I think we've done a lot to help people around the world with our programs of development. I think we've done a lot to solve some conflicts such as in Liberia and elsewhere. But, at the same time, we have managed to convey to the world that we are more unilateral than we really are. We have not explained ourself well enough. And we, unfortunately, have left an impression with the world that is not a good one. And the new president is going to have to fix the reputation that we've left with the rest of the world.

Now, let me make a point here. The United States is still seen as the leader at the world that wants to be free. Even though the numbers are down with respect to favorability ratings, at every embassy and consular office tomorrow morning that we have, people will be lined up, and they'll all say the same thing, "We want to go to America." So we're still the leader of the world that wants to be free. We are still the inspiration of the rest of the world. And we can come back. In 2000, it was moment where I believed that the new administration coming in would be able to achieve the agenda that President-elect Bush had set out of compassionate conservatism.

MR. BROKAW: But it failed?

GEN. POWELL: I don't think it was as successful--excuse me (clears throat)--I don't think it was as successful as it might have been. And, as you see from the presidential approval ratings, the American people have found the administration wanting.

MR. BROKAW: Let me as, you a couple of questions--quick questions as we wrap all of this up. I know you're very close to President Bush 41. Are you still in touch with him on a regular basis? And what do you think he'll think about you this morning endorsing Barack Obama?

GEN. POWELL: I will let President Bush 41, speak for himself and let others speak for themselves, just as I have spoken for myself. Let me make one point, Tom, both Senator McCain and Senator Obama will be good presidents. It isn't easy for me to disappoint Senator McCain in the way that I have this morning, and I regret that. But I strongly believe that at this point in America's history, we need a president that will not just continue, even with a new face and with some changes and with some maverick aspects, who will not just continue, basically, the policies that we have been following in recent years. I think we need a transformational figure. I need--think we need a president who is a generational change. And that's why I'm supporting Barack Obama. Not out of any lack of respect or admiration for Senator John McCain.

MR. BROKAW: And finally, how much of a factor do you think race will be when voters go into that booth on November 4th?

GEN. POWELL: I don't know the answer to that question. One may say that it's going to be a big factor, and a lot of people say they will vote for Senator Obama but they won't pull a lever. Others might say that has already happened. People are already finding other reasons to say they're not voting for him. "Well, he's a Muslim," "He's this." So we have already seen the so-called "Bradley factor" in the current--in the current spread between the candidates. And so that remains to be seen. I hope it is not the case. I think we have advanced considerably in this country since the days of Tom Bradley. And I hope that is not the case. It would be very unfortunate if it were the case.

MR. BROKAW: Finally, if Senator Obama is elected president, will there be a place for Colin Powell in that administration? Maybe as the ambassador at large in Africa or to take on the daunting task of resolving the Israeli/Palestinian issue?

GEN. POWELL: I served 40 years in government, and I--I'm not looking forward to a position or an assignment. Of course, I have always said if a president asks you to do something, you have to consider it. But I am in no way interested in returning to government. But I, of course, would sit and talk to any president who wishes to talk to me.

MR. BROKAW: You're not ruling it out?

GEN. POWELL: I would sit and talk to any president who wishes to talk to me, but I'm not anxious to rule it in.

MR. BROKAW: General Colin Powell, thank you very much for being with us this morning. Appreciate it.

GEN. POWELL: Thank you, Tom.
-------------------------------------------------

Read more!

Why the Amish Don't Have Mustaches

Clearly, I am referring to the men.

Anyways, I was flipping through the Miami Herald yesterday and spot a full-page ad for an Amish 'Miracle' Heater. Their uniformity of appearance triggered my curiosity and within 3 seconds unproductive neurons planted the the mustache question in my brain. The web and my lack of discipline being what they are, within 43 seconds I had my answer. Then the fun began, they have a web site, a toll-free number and a 30-day satisfaction guarantee. This was weird on so many levels;

1. Yes, they can justify the web site because they don't maintain it. I'm sure this distinction was inspired during the Clinton years.
2. I'm hoping the Herald ad was part of a national ad buy, otherwise some black hats will have to roll over pushing the heater idea for the South Florida market.
3. Post Title question - A long beard is the mark of an adult Amishman. Mustaches, on the other hand, have a long history of being associated with the military, and therefore are forbidden among the Amish people.
4. It's hard to see, but in the ad picture, an Amish worker in the background had the following crocheted on the back of her bonnet, 'McCain reminds me of W.' It's been that kind of week for the McCain campaign....

Read more!

Hopkins Win

Miami Herald boxing article by Santos Perez on Bernard Hopkins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hopkins looks like his old self in win against Pavlik

Posted on Mon, Oct. 20, 2008

BY SANTOS A. PEREZ

As New Jersey boxing officials counted the scorecards of Bernard Hopkins' inevitable victory, Hopkins found the appropriate occasion to stand near those who predict outcomes of fights.

Hopkins stared without saying a word. His silent yet forceful glare at media members sitting at press row spoke volumes.

``Never underestimate Bernard Hopkins.''

Given minimal opportunity to win, Hopkins taught Kelly Pavlik a boxing lesson in their light-heavyweight fight late Saturday in Atlantic City. The 43-year-old Hopkins controlled the pace in a convincing unanimous decision.

''I wanted to stop him because [media] have been saying I've been playing it safe because of my age,'' Hopkins said. ``So [Saturday] I wanted to pick it up.''

Hopkins didn't knock out Pavlik but inflicted enough damage on the previously unbeaten middleweight champion. Hopkins' effective and quick combinations left Pavlik bruised, bloodied and bewildered.

All three judges verified Hopkins' near-flawless performance, scoring the bout 119-106, 118-108 and 117-109.

''Styles make fights,'' Hopkins said. ``He is a great fighter but I knew my style and quickness was being underrated.''

And so was Hopkins' future in the sport.

A loss against Joe Calzaghe on April 19 seemingly had Hopkins headed for extinction. Uncertainty about his career further escalated when Hopkins agreed to fight the 26-year-old Pavlik, who had stopped 30 of his first 34 opponents.

But Hopkins was intent on disproving the doubters. With co-trainers Nazim Richardson and John David Jackson, Hopkins prepared for the fight at Normandy Gym in Miami Beach, devising strategy and undergoing an arduous physical regimen for a bout many of the so-called experts expected him to lose.

Hopkins (49-5-1) was far from a finished fighter Saturday. From the opening round, Hopkins set the tone with quick shots to the head. Pavlik (34-1) pursued and sought to initiate action but Hopkins adeptly slipped his combinations or clinched in limiting Pavlik's punch volume.

''I just couldn't get off, I don't know why,'' Pavlik said. ``It wasn't because of Bernard's slickness. There was something wrong with me [Saturday].''

Considered a rising star, Pavlik moved up 10 pounds to face Hopkins. After the fight, Pavlik confirmed a return to the 160-pound middleweight class, where he currently holds the World Boxing Council and World Boxing Organization titles.

Instead of retirement, Hopkins feels energized and expects to prolong his Hall of Fame-bound career. Hopkins now has appealing fight options, including rematches with Calzaghe or Roy Jones Jr. Calzaghe and Jones will fight Nov. 8 in New York.

Before his 10-year run as middleweight champion, Hopkins lost a decision against Jones in 1993.

''I would fight Roy but I'd also go to England to fight Calzaghe,'' Hopkins said. ``I'd fight either one of those guys, but fighting Roy would be huge and that's the one that people would want to see.''

ANDRADE BOUT SET

Demetrius Andrade will be the first member of the 2008 U.S. Olympic boxing team to fight professionally Thursday night in Spokane, Wash.

Andrade will make his debut against Patrick Cape in a scheduled four-round junior-middleweight fight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more!

MTV Speaks, The Miami Herald [Just] Listens

In the Miami Herald's Business Monday, they published an interview with an MTV executive conducted by Douglas Hanks. Below an excerpt:

Q: Is Cuba the only country where you don't have a channel?

A: We talked about it. We were prevented. I talked with [Fidel] Castro directly.

I met him in my AIDS work because he hosted a lot of Caribbean countries at an AIDS conference several years ago. [Cuba] turned the whole epidemic around. They had no deaths one year from AIDS.

(Roedy explained Castro cited two priorities in their conversations: medical care and literacy.)

In China they have a show called MTV English. Where we actually stop the lyrics midstream and go back and put English on the screen. He loved the idea in Cuba because he wanted, a couple years ago, for everyone to speak English.

We didn't [pursue] it any further . . . There's been some talk over the years of music events. But no MTV Cuba.

No deaths attributable to such a deadly disease? Leaving aside the fact that the year was not specified, that is not believable. Where is the interviewer's follow-up or why the lack of editing on that answer? If you are going to print an MTV executive's thoughts about AIDS in Cuba, go the logical next step and follow up. If it's meant to be a puff piece with some corporate mouth-piece, then please avoid serious topics and stick to celebrating MTV's success in ridding an entire generation of superfluous and fatty brain cells.

Since I clearly have the space, let's address that next question here. First, let's assume that the rate of AIDS in Cuba is much lower than other Caribbean countries. The normal--or unsycophantic--question would be to ask why. Is Cuba claiming to have lower rates of homosexuality among its people than other Caribbean nations? I would assume no. How does their treatment of AIDS differ different from other countries? Better medicine? No, the absence of even basic medicine--like aspirin, let alone expensive AIDS medication--has long been a problem for the dictatorship.

It is much more likely that their success in battling AIDS is tied to the absence of freedom in Cuba. Turns out that when you do not have to worry about human rights, the odds of 'success' for government 'campaigns' dramatically improve. Let Reinaldo Arenas describe it:

The system of parameterization was imposed; that is, every gay writer, every gay artist, every gay dramatist, received a telegram telling him that his behavior did not fall within the political and moral parameters necessary for his job, and that he was therefore either terminated or offered another job in the forced-labor camps… the island became a maximum-security jail, where everybody, according to Castro, was happy to stay.

Perhaps that reality is a little too 'real world' for Mr. Roedy, whose pretentiousness is apparently only exceeded by his gullibility. Please see this link from Babalu, which describes a recently canceled gay parade. Mr. Arenas was the subject of the film, Before Night Falls.

[Post-post - Oct 22] - I sent a letter to the Herald based on this post and they printed the following:

AIDS in Cuba

In the Oct. 20 Business Monday article Top MTV exec in tune with Miami, Bill Roedy says that Cuba ``had no deaths one year from AIDS.''

There were no deaths attributable to this deadly disease? Leaving aside the fact that the year was not specified, that is not believable. Where was the follow-up question from the reporter or an editor? If the story was meant to be a puff piece, then it should have avoided serious topics and stuck to celebrating MTV's success in ridding many a child of superfluous brain cells.

Whatever success Cuba may have experienced in treating AIDS is likely attributable to its willingness to quarantine homosexuals. Roedy's pretentiousness apparently is exceeded only by his gullibility.

JORGE COSTALES, Miami

Just another day on the Cuba dilettantes watch.

All articles referenced are copied in full at end of post.

--------------------------------------------------------
Top MTV exec in tune with Miami

Miami Herald - Posted on Mon, Oct. 20, 2008

BY DOUGLAS HANKS

Bill Roedy can tell you about pop videos in Bombay, comedy news spoofs in Holland and educational television in Beijing. He's in charge of all of them.

The head of MTV Networks International has fought on the front lines of the music network's spread around the world, an expansion driven by a ''localization'' strategy Roedy championed in the 1980s. That approach calls for building each foreign MTV operation from the ground up, with local personalities hosting a stream of programs designed for that country's audience.

''It shrunk the margins initially,'' Roedy said during an interview at his summertime residence in South Beach. ``But the basic driving force has been local product, local sensitivity, local attitude. . . . There's no one out there who does it to the magnitude [we do] because we've been doing it for so long.''

Roedy, 59, lives in London, but he's from Miami. The North Miami High graduate got his start in the media as a copy boy at The Miami Herald (in those times of sprawling newspaper staffs, Roedy used to go on coffee runs for 56 people). The West Point graduate (and holder of a Harvard MBA) earned the Bronze Star in Vietnam and went on to command NATO missile bases in Italy.

After the Army, Roedy took a job at the fledging Home Box Office network, eventually rising to a vice president. He joined MTV in the 1980s as CEO of the network's European division, then became its chairman five years later.

Now he's socializing with Bono and mingling with world leaders through MTV's ''Staying Alive'' campaign aimed at HIV prevention. He's also served as the chairman of the United Nation's Global Media AIDS Initiative. (Among the heads of state he's chatted with: Fidel Castro.)

The father of four (ages 5 to 12) sat down with Business Monday in the lobby of the South Beach condo he owns with his wife, Alex. It overlooks the ocean and is about a 10-minute walk from MTV's Lincoln Road office.

The history of that location reflects Miami's diminished relationship with MTV. Once the creative hub for the network's Latin American unit, it now only holds the corporate side of the division. Creative moved to Argentina last year.

And while MTV held back-to-back awards shows in 2004 and 2005, the spectacle hasn't returned after a string of hurricane complications for those late-summer events.

But Roedy says Miami's gravitational pull on the music industry doesn't seem to be waning. Like the music video, he says, Miami has a knack for retaining star power.

Q: What is the state of the music video?

A: It's not like it was in the '80s, or even the '90s.

Over the years, the MTV channel has evolved into a much bigger thing than just music videos, although it's in our name so we still feel that in many ways it's the heart and soul of what we do.

When you combine [MTV and VH-1] with our digital channels, we play more music videos than we have at any time in our history, ironically. The music video is still alive and well. We tend to get better ratings with the long-form youth programming. But we still generate a lot of good ratings from music videos.

You have so many different sources of music videos now. While you may not see a lot of music videos produced in Miami, you see it produced in India -- big time -- and China, never more than now. If you look at it globally, there's probably more music videos being produced now than there ever was.

Q: Is Miami's role as a creative hub for Latin America being diluted? You guys have moved your creative operations for the region out of Miami.

A: I don't think it diminishes Miami. For us, we've always been driven by the premise of staying as close as possible to our audience. In that context, Miami was a bit of an anomaly for us. But it worked because of the whole thing we're talking about: the Latin connection. . . . I wouldn't worry about [MTV's move] too much. All of us will continue to do a lot of 'creative' in Miami.

It's a very friendly environment. And the weather is just among all the great benefits. Plus you have all the [production] infrastructure.

Q: When you talk about the social ills MTV focuses on -- violence, irresponsible sexual behavior, AIDS -- do you see a conflict between the programs that air on MTV, which lots of times do glorify violence and sex?

A: That's a fair question. We deal with it all the time, obviously.

The best answer on that is our success has been to establish an audience that we have credibility with and who trust us for straight talk.

And when you have that connection with an audience, then you have a great opportunity to deliver the message. Because you have the trust.

So yeah, we do push the envelope, no question. We try very hard not to have a point of view.

We don't preach. We can't -- they'll turn us off in a second. We try to give them the straight information.

Q: Is Cuba the only country where you don't have a channel?

A: We talked about it. We were prevented. I talked with [Fidel] Castro directly.

I met him in my AIDS work because he hosted a lot of Caribbean countries at an AIDS conference several years ago. [Cuba] turned the whole epidemic around. They had no deaths one year from AIDS.

(Roedy explained Castro cited two priorities in their conversations: medical care and literacy.)

In China they have a show called MTV English. Where we actually stop the lyrics midstream and go back and put English on the screen. He loved the idea in Cuba because he wanted, a couple years ago, for everyone to speak English.

We didn't [pursue] it any further . . . There's been some talk over the years of music events. But no MTV Cuba.

Q: Is there any international market where the MTV format has not worked, where it hasn't caught on?

A: Uh . . . no.
-------------------------------------------------

Read more!

Faith Informing Our Politics

As the elections approach, today's Gospel is a reminder of that our politics and our faith have a division.

Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 22,15-21.

Then the Pharisees went off and plotted how they might entrap him in speech. They sent their disciples to him, with the Herodians, saying, "Teacher, we know that you are a truthful man and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. And you are not concerned with anyone's opinion, for you do not regard a person's status. Tell us, then, what is your opinion: Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not?" Knowing their malice, Jesus said, "Why are you testing me, you hypocrites? Show me the coin that pays the census tax." Then they handed him the Roman coin. He said to them, "Whose image is this and whose inscription?" They replied, "Caesar's." At that he said to them, "Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God."

With that reading in mind, a local Catholic priest, Rev. Vallee, provides some perspective. He weighs in on how Catholics should avoid putting God in any political party:

We as Catholics must inform ourselves and vote our consciences. We must not do what Jerry Farwell and the Moral Majority did which is to turn our religion into a partisan political party. Such a tactic conflates the place of God and Caesar in society. I am not going tell you who to vote for; don't let anyone else tell you who to vote for. Here is the point. This pulpit is here that we might preach the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ, not the agenda of Obama or the platform of McCain. To use religion in such a cynical way renders everything unto Caesar and leaves nothing for God. That is a decision you must make in good conscience, in your own mind and heart. And remember these issues are not simple. It is not a matter of souls or no souls. It is usually more like 'little souls.' We need to turn down the vicious rhetoric and turn up the wisdom and charity. Which side is right? They are both wrong when they fight like bratty children calling one another nasty names.

I also addressed my confusion over how to properly address a priest.

All homilies referenced are copied in full at end of post.

--------------------------------------------------------
Fr Vallee's 10/19/08 Homily

I. Caesar, elections
As we approach the November elections, Jesus tells us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's, let me attempt to preach the Gospel without making either the democrats or the republicans out there too angry. The best way to do that, I guess is with a story. It is a true story of St. Teresa of Avila. By the end of her life, she was nearly universally acclaimed as a saint.

II. Story of missionary
Anyhow, it came to pass that a missionary had been traveling in Africa. He was a kindly man but not the sharpest knife in the drawer. He had seen so many strange and wondrous things that, one day, while walking on the beach, he saw a flock of very large birds, speaking what he took to be a strange and exotic language. The dim young priest, presuming them to be a tribe of people, with great zeal and little intelligence, baptized the entire flock of birds. When he got back to Rome, they figured out what happened and a debate among the learned theologians broke out. The Franciscans, with their well known love for animals, argued that the birds were infused with souls capable of being saved by virtue of the grace of baptism. The Dominicans, with their well known love of precision, argued that whatever is received is received according to the capacity of the receiver. Hence, the birds did not need and could not receive salvation.

III. Teresa's decision
Things finally got so out of hand that a fist-fight broke out on the streets of Rome between a Franciscan and a Dominican theologian. Finally the pope intervened. He got both sides to agree that they would submit themselves to the binding arbitration of Teresa of Avila. Whatever she decided, they would accept and no more fighting. They gave Teresa hundreds of pages they had written and she took a few weeks to read it all. When she had finished the Dominicans and Franciscans came back to her and asked: “Well, which is it? Do they have souls or not? Teresa sighed a weary sigh and said: “Well, alright but little souls.�

IV. The current debates
I don't know about you but, as for me, political discourse in this country has descended into just such a war of little boys and little girls. So much of what we hear is absolute and fanatical. Let us be very clear. Neither the democrats nor the republicans are on the side of the angels. Even, if I may be so bold, this whole economic mess is the not fault of only one party. Both democrats and republicans are plenty guilty. Where is the nuance and where is the wisdom? Let us be even more clear. There is no one Catholic party in this country. This is because both sides have very serious moral issues they fall on the wrong side of: for the democrats, abortion and for the republicans, just war. Both abortion and unjust war are intrinsically disordered. Don't take my word for it; they both have been explicitly and repeated condemned by the last two popes, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

V. Conscience
We as Catholics must inform ourselves and vote our consciences. We must not do what Jerry Farwell and the Moral Majority did which is to turn our religion into a partisan political party. Such a tactic conflates the place of God and Caesar in society. I am not going tell you who to vote for; don't let anyone else tell you who to vote for. Here is the point. This pulpit is here that we might preach the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ, not the agenda of Obama or the platform of McCain. To use religion in such a cynical way renders everything unto Caesar and leaves nothing for God. That is a decision you must make in good conscience, in your own mind and heart. And remember these issues are not simple. It is not a matter of souls or no souls. It is usually more like 'little souls.' We need to turn down the vicious rhetoric and turn up the wisdom and charity. Which side is right? They are both wrong when they fight like bratty children calling one another nasty names.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more!

Roberto Acevedo

Miami Herald boxing article by Santos Perez on Roberto Acevedo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puerto Rico's Acevedo wins his fourth consecutive fight

Posted on Sat, Oct. 18, 2008

BY SANTOS A. PEREZ

Motivated by new management and encouragement from an older brother who is a former Olympic medalist, Roberto Acevedo increased his victory streak Friday night.

Acevedo, of Puerto Rico, won his fourth consecutive fight with a majority decision over Miami resident Lenin Arroyo in an undercard bout at Miccosukee Resort and Gaming.

''Hopefully this victory opens the door for bigger fights,'' Acevedo said. ``I am very satisfied with how my career is going on right now.''

Acevedo, whose brother, Anibal, won a silver medal in the 1992 Olympics, used effective boxing skills throughout the six-round junior-welterweight bout against a charging Lenin Arroyo.

Judges Mark Streisand and John Ruppert scored the bout 59-57 for Acevedo, and Rocky Young scored it 57-57.

''I was told that he was going to come right at me and initiate the action,'' Acevedo said. ``But I was able to trade as well as box with him.''

Acevedo (9-4-3) controlled the pace early, connecting with combinations to the head. Late in the first round, Acevedo scored with short combinations that temporarily staggered Arroyo.

Arroyo (20-8-1) tried to pressure Acevedo into the ropes but Acevedo slipped most of Arroyo's shots by moving in angles.

In the fifth, Arroyo finally found shorter punching range and pinned Acevedo on the ropes, where he connected with combinations to the body and a right uppercut.

But Acevedo still found openings in the middle of the ring and forced Arroyo to briefly retreat with rights and lefts to the head.

Arroyo again pursued Acevedo in the final round, keeping him on the ropes with combinations to the body.

The card's main event, between Mexico's Jorge Lacierva and Colombia's Feider Viloria for a regional super-bantamweight title, was fought late Friday.

In another undercard bout, Miami resident Sergio Garcia won a unanimous decision against Carlos Pena.

Garcia turned the tight four-round welterweight bout in his favor after staggering Pena with a right to the head. Pena briefly clinched but Garcia kept the pressure with rights and lefts to the head.

A six-round lightweight bout between Homestead resident Orlando Gonzalez and Pittsburgh's Daniel Mitchell was canceled after Mitchell complained of back spasms hours before the bout.

In other bouts: featherweight Daniel Lorezano scored a technical knockout over Jose Martinez at 2:07 of the second round; lightweight Ricardo Reyes won by a unanimous decision over Jesus Garcia; junior welterweights Amaury Torres and Michael Mendez fought to a draw; junior welterweights Devaris Crayton and Jones Petit-Homes fought to a draw.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more!