Voting For 'True America'

Unfortunately, I don't have the right to vote in the upcoming US Presidential elections in November - but if I am to vote I would vote for the Republican candidate, John McCain.

Many around the globe were talking about the right of the world population to vote in the US elections on the ground that new president's policies affect not only the American people, but the whole world. In fact everybody, from Venezuelans to the Myanmarese, have an opinion now about the next White House inhabitant.

Most of the people in our region would like to see an African-American president, especially if he has got Hussain as a middle name. Actually, the Democratic presidential candidate has got a remarkable full name. His first name is the surname of the most probable next Israeli Prime Minister.

Ehud Barak, who is a current Israeli defence minister, is a Zionist hawk. No need to remind you of what the middle name refers to, as Iraq is still a hotspot. Last name was used by Fox news, early in the election campaign, to mock him as "Barrack Osama", linking him to the Al Qaida chief Bin Laden.

Obama might have been fighting for the White House with slogans opposing President George W. Bush's policies, and consequently John McCain's, on Iraq and other issues.

In fact this is just a campaign tactic to win the votes of those who opposed the war and want their soldiers to return home safely. But Senator Obama voted for the war at the very beginning, and tactically changed his earlier views about containing Iran peacefully when it seemed it was going to cost him votes.

The same applies to all foreign policy issues, from the biased American stance in the Middle East to interventionist policies in Latin America.

All this has nothing to do with me not voting Obama. When it comes to foreign policy, you hardly judge it by the president's view, as it is the whole nonpartisan establishment that sets the foreign policy. My fear is that Obama would lead a policy of reaction rather than initiative.

To distance himself from his so called Muslim roots, he would be harsh Islamophobic. To prove that he is enlightened Christian, he would alienate the religious voters who might bring him to office.

He would always be obsessed by being "President for all Americans", and not a "Black President" or a minority president. So, he is expected to be more "royal than the king" in appeasing the Anglo-Saxon white and blue-collars at the expense of blacks, Hispanics and likes.

John McCain has always been consistent in his views. On the war in Iraq, he voted for it at the beginning, supported Bush's policies up to the last "surge" of troops. He is clear about the need to stay in Iraq and use it as a launch-pad in the fight against what he sees as "Islamic terrorism".

Whenever he visited the region, even as a leading figure of the Senate Defence Committee, he had one focus: Israel security interests. He is a strong believer in the idea that invading Iraq was the best to do for the sake of Israel.

As for the global economic crisis, in which the ills of the American economy play a leading role, McCain is bound to lead the same approach of the current administration. He vowed to extend tax cuts, especially for businesses, and most likely he will spend more, thus aggravating the structural imbalances in the federal budgets.

Most likely, he would help big businesses to get the law changes Bush's administration could not pass through Congress. Big oils will have Alaska environmental reservation opened for them, and the military-industrial complex will get more contracts and create more jobs.

Voting for John McCain is actually voting for the true America now. The Republican Senator's military background and his old age are consistent with the time-frame of the American dream.

He represents all what the world saw as shortcomings of Bush. Moreover, he is an economic liberal, religious liberal, social liberal with a cabal of neo-conservative advisers.

McCain would properly fit the profile with the development of the American empire, while Obama will be an illusive attempt to regenerate the fading American dream. Then, voting for the "True America" means voting for McCain.

Ahmad Mustafa - Arab News

Say Something!

I received a cheerful email from a Sagaynon requesting me to feature and write about our city in my blog site.

Sagay City maintains a website that is being updated on a regular basis. Please visit http://www.sagay-city.com.ph/.

Sagaynons, got one very interesting blog site worth recommending!

http://malditasha.i.ph/blogs/malditasha/2008/05/30/things-familiar-and-not-anymore/

http://malditasha.i.ph/blogs/malditasha/2008/09/03/sagay-urban-legends/

God bless!

The US ‘Lipstick’ Election 2008

It may sound odd, but “lipstick” is bound to become one of the most remarkable words in America’s 2008 general election.

Before the introduction of lipstick a month ago, the GOP’s presidential candidate, John McCain, was an underdog, struggling hopelessly behind Barack Obama, the standard-bearer of the Democratic Party.

But lipstick changed all that. Now it is a new ball game.

McCain shocked his own party and the country on Aug. 29, by announcing his top choice for the vice presidency — governor of Alaska, 44-year-old Sarah Palin. The choice was outright criticized as a joke and an insult to women, because the nominee was practically unknown and inexperienced in national, foreign, and security affairs. Rumors of all kinds have been swirling around her, including an extra-marital affair. The liberal press even pushed for her to drop out. It seemed that McCain’s “hail Mary” pass was doomed to failure. But it was not.

The gun-toting, moose-hunting, pretty mother of five presented herself to the nation on Sept. 3 at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, with a resounding speech that was even praised by her critics as a masterpiece.

She eviscerated Obama as deftly as she would have skinned a deer.

"There are people who use ‘change’ to promote their careers; and there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote ‘change,’” she said.

Describing herself as a “hockey mom,” she said: “The difference between a hockey mom and pitbull is lipstick.”

The audience cheered and roared madly at this pitbull wearing lipstick.

Obama is understandable angry. From the onset of his campaign 18 months ago, he has defined himself as the agent of change and made change the issue of the election. Now, by a sudden political sleight of hand, the target of Obama’s change is becoming the champion of change.

"You can put lipstick on a pig but it’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called ‘change,’ but it’s going to stink after eight years," Obama fumed while campaigning in Virginia.

It’s interesting to see whether Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” would work wonders as the “lipstick on a pitbull” did for McCain.

Whatever the result, the U.S. election this year is weird, but funny. It’s too bad that Obama did not choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate. Otherwise we would be treated to a really exciting show — “duel in the snow” — between a female Rocky and a pitbull… both wearing lipstick.

Sidelights: Road Trip

I can hear the muffled sound of the four wheel drive and the rush of the wind outside, as the driver shifts to high gear and cruise our way to infinity. I pull down the brim of my baseball cap and gaze at the road ahead.

The highway seems to twist and squirm under the scorching midsummer sun. At a distance, the quivering heat wave creates shapes of liquid phantom images shimmering on the pavement. Farther away, the blistering sea of red sand stretches accross the horizon, kissing the clear cerulean sky. There is no house in sight. Once in a while, stifling wind from the desert blows dust across the road. Counting road marks seems to be the only solace I have, to appreciate this otherwise boring monotonous trip.

I am on my way to the airport.

I am on my way home.

The End Of Pax Americana?

Latin America, long regarded as America’s backyard, has recently hoisted the flag of defiance to its northern neighbor. In recent weeks, America’s ambassadors have been expelled by Venezuela and Bolivia, a move that Brazil has supported. Brazil has also objected to the presence of American warships in the region, warning that his nation would put its own warships on alert in response. Argentina’s President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchener said recently with obvious satisfaction that the First World, which had been “painted as a place we should strive to reach, was popping like a bubble.” “The times when one economy and one country dominated are gone for good,” Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev declared recently at a joint Russian-German seminar in St. Petersburg. After the American banking debacle, he said, the world does not want America as a “megaregulator.” A few weeks earlier, Russia had taught America’s protégé President Saakashvili of Georgia a painful lesson when he attempted to retake South Ossetia by force. The United States could do nothing to stop the robust assertion of the Russian version of the Monroe doctrine in the Caucasus.

It may be recalled that the British Empire folded up partly on account of the staggering financial expenditures that it incurred during two world wars. The US financial crisis has erupted with destructive force because for many years America has been living beyond its means. The stalemated wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have no doubt contributed to the US deficit. Instead of raising taxes and restraining expenditures, the Bush administration has been practicing trickle-down economics.

True, the United States is militarily stronger today than it ever was in its 230 years of existence. Its armed forces have overwhelming nuclear and conventional firepower and reach that is unmatched. At the click of a mouse individuals sitting in their offices in Washington, DC can and do destroy targets 10,000 miles away in Iraq, Afghanistan or the tribal areas of Pakistan.

Yet these weapons of war are just as useless in averting financial disaster as the Russian weapons were in preventing Russia’s economic meltdown.

Are these warning signs that Pax Americana is coming to an end? Is the financial crisis the cause of the decline of American power, or is it imperial overreach? Joschka Fischer, a former German foreign minister, recently summed it up brilliantly in Die Zeit:

“Due to Guantanamo and torture, America has lost her moral credibility; Thanks to the Iraq War, Iran has achieved regional supremacy in the Middle East; American military power has become overstretched due to a wrong and unnecessary war; Bush inherited a balanced budget from Clinton and has since acquired a huge mountain of debt; China is now America’s largest creditor; the dollar’s role as the dominant global reserve currency is seriously endangered; the American financial system is threatened with collapse; and the only answer to this crisis, an existential threat to the entire global economy, is nationalization by Washington’s Republican government!”

To conclude, the ongoing financial crisis which has led to the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars in the values of shares and which threatens the life savings of many millions of Americans could inflict lasting damage on the American economy. It could also lead to devastation consequences for the global economy. Its causes are unmistakably clear: imperial overreach and financial indiscipline.

The US must somehow extricate the country from the unnecessary war in Iraq, and accord priority to promoting a just and lasting settlement in the Middle East. Bringing peace and stability to Afghanistan and supporting Pakistan in its efforts to combat terrorism are also extremely important. Lastly, the US has to balance its books by reverting to the old American values of financial discipline, investment in knowledge, and hard work instead of a get-rich quick approach that had become the norm on Wall Street in recent years. Failing that, the recently approved $700 billion plus bailout package will only provide a temporary respite and not a lasting solution to America’s financial woes.
Wikipedia

Pax Americana (Latin: "American Peace") describes a period of relative peace in the Western world since the end of World War II in 1945, coinciding with the dominant military and economic position of the United States. The term was modelled on the Pax Romana of the Roman empire.
During this period, no armed conflict has emerged among major Western nations themselves, and no nuclear weapons have been used, although the United States and its allies have been involved in various regional wars (such as the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Falklands War, the Gulf War, the Yugoslav wars, the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War) and have maintained espionage and covert operations in various other areas.
Pax Americana may be similar to the period of peace in Rome, Pax Romana. In both situations, the period of peace is 'relative peace'. During both Pax Romana and Pax Americana wars continued to occur, but it was, and is, still a prosperous time for both Western and Roman civilization. It is important to note that during these periods, and most other times of peace, the peace that is referred to does not mean that it was complete peace. By peace, it only means that they prospered in their military, agriculture, trade, and manufacturing.