Today is July 4, 2008. 

This is not a complete list, so if you or someone you know needs good vibes or prayer, please add them to the list in your comments and update us on their progress.

Today is our country's birthday.  We have two wars going on. 

THANKSGIVING:

We are thankful for our country, as imperfect as it is, it is the shining becon of hope for the world.  We commit ourselves to working together to make this union more perfect every day.

We are thankful for those who are serving in the military and their families who are serving at home.

We are thankful to our government servants, including our politicians, our career professionals, our diplomats and others, for their tireless, and sometimes thankless, service to our country and to ourselves.

We are thankful for our friends and allies throughout the world who work together with us to make the world a better place.

PETITIONS:

We ask for peace with honor, so that our fighting men and women can come home to the families they love.

We ask for a full and speedy recovery for all those who are injured in body or spirit from their service.

We ask for the continued safety of our loved ones who are sound and fighting or serving abroad.

We ask for the citizens of the war-torn countries of Iraq and Afghanistan to live in peace and safety with hope of a better future.

We ask for comfort and aid to all those in the world who are suffering from oppression, starvation or disease.

We ask for the continued health, safety and well-being of our candidates, our leaders, our members and their families.

My new hero is Judge, Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge for the Northern District of California. 

Now that it seems apparent our Democratic-led Congress will roll over and let Bush have his way with the Constitution, the judicial branch may be our only hope to save the Constitution.  Please read the article that Deb provided the link for below:

http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/deborahwilliams/CRbQ/commentary#comments

FROM THE NYT:

--------------------

"Judge Rejects Bush’s View on Wiretaps

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in California said Wednesday that the wiretapping law established by Congress was the “exclusive” means for the president to eavesdrop on Americans, and he rejected the government’s claim that the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief trumped that law.

The judge, Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge for the Northern District of California, made his findings in a ruling on a lawsuit brought by an Oregon charity. The group says it has evidence of an illegal wiretap used against it by the National Security Agency under the secret surveillance program established by President Bush after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Republicans love slogans -- they're short and they, therefore, cannot be substantive.

John McCain has resurrected the "liberal" and "tax and spend" slogans in this campaign.  We cannot take this lightly.  These are ingrained in the consciousness of middle Americans -- and much of it is our own fault (see my blog entitled "Elephantizing").

So, how do we frame the truth in slogan form -- something, as Jack Sparrow would say, "It's short, it's easy to remember...." 

What is the truth?

Elephantizing refers to the process of training a baby elephant to stay tied to a stake with a rope. 

When they first do this to the baby elephant, they use a thick, heavy chain.  The baby struggles and struggles, but can't break free.  He finally gives up in exhaustion, convinced he cannot break the chain. 

Over time, they replace the chain with smaller and smaller chains and ropes, until the elephant will stay tied to a stake by a very small rope.  By the time he is an adult, he could easily break the small rope, but, because as a baby he was convinced he could not break free, he accepts his confinement without question. 

That is what they call elephantizing.  Convincing someone they are powerless to break free of the chains that bind them.

How does this apply to us today? 

We have at least two people on this blog who have family that are suffering that I know of. 

How do you guys feel about publishing the equivalent of a prayer list daily so that we know who is needing our support on special issue?  It does not have to exclude those who are not religious, that is why I chose not to call it a "prayer list."

What do you think?

http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/deborahwilliams/CRbQ/commentary#comments

My new hero is Judge, Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge for the Northern District of California. 

Now that it seems apparent our Democratic-led Congress will roll over and let Bush have his way with the Constitution, the judicial branch may be our only hope to save the Constitution.  Please read the article that Deb provided the link for below:

FROM THE NYT:

--------------------

"Judge Rejects Bush’s View on Wiretaps

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in California said Wednesday that the wiretapping law established by Congress was the “exclusive” means for the president to eavesdrop on Americans, and he rejected the government’s claim that the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief trumped that law.

The judge, Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge for the Northern District of California, made his findings in a ruling on a lawsuit brought by an Oregon charity. The group says it has evidence of an illegal wiretap used against it by the National Security Agency under the secret surveillance program established by President Bush after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

It's all far more dramatic sounding than it actually was, but it was real and a real eye-opener, as well. 

In 2000, I was an IT consultant troubleshooting a project for Asian Development Bank in Manila.  I went in November and left at the end of April of the following year.  The year I was there was marked by a terrorist attack and hostages taken by Abu Sayyaf, a Filipino terrorist group linked with Al Qaeda.  The first was in May 2000 before I got there and the second was in May 2001 right after I left.

While I was there, Philippine President Joseph Estrada (nicknamed "Erap") was deposed and the current president, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who was Vice President at the time Erap was deposed took over.

Estrada had started out as an actor who was supposed to be the "man of the people."  He ended up being corrupted by the power and money, getting in bed with organized crime and stealing billions from the poor people of the Philippines.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

The closest we have ever come to a global thermonuclear war that could pontentially destroy all life on earth happened during the Cuban Missle Crisis and Blockade of 1962.  JFK was president and RFK was his attorney general.  The Bay of Pigs fiasco in April 1961 (that was planned by the Eisenhower administration), had elevated tensions between the U.S. and Cuba.

There has been much ado about Lieberman's comment regarding the possibility of a terrorist attack in the early part of the next president's term.  Historically, it has indeed happened that way with Clinton and with GWB. Regardless of who wins the presidency, this remains a strong possibility, if history does predict the future.  We must hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst.

Sound like a paradox?  Well, it's not.

Republicans found out several decades ago that they could perpetuate the myth that they lowered taxes by simply accomplishing what I call "back door" taxes.

These back door taxes include raising other fees and licensure, taking away deductions or raising the requirements for deductions, raising earmarked taxes like FICA and Medicaid (not "technically" considered income tax), making other income subject to taxation (like unemployment insurance, social security benefits and disability), taxes on energy, communications and other "luxury" or "use" taxes, passing on most Federal taxes that would be required to finance Federal programs to the states in unfunded mandates, and borrowing money to pay for programs, increasing the national debt and its corresponding interest, which takes up a huge chunk of the Federal budget.

The Gold Standard is where our currency is backed up by actual gold (remember Fort Knox, where we used to store our gold?).  Inflation is the difference between the actual amount and value of gold we have in comparison to the amount of money we have printed and in circulation.  If we have more money printed and in circulation than gold to back it up, we have an inflated dollar (one that is not actually as valuable as it, on its face, is supposed to be).

We abandoned the Gold Standard in the 1960's.

Johnson abandoned the Gold Standard during the Viet Nam war.  What happened is that the administration printed money trying to keep the economy going without us really knowing how much money was being spent in Viet Nam (because of all the opposition to the war).  Hiding the expense of the war worked temporarily, but, just like charging the payment of one credit card to another credit card, it catches up with you eventually.

By the time Nixon took office, inflation was so high until there was no way to correct the problem (by the government "buying" back the dollars it had circulated and destroying them to even out the rate of actual dollars circulated to the value of the gold we held in Fort Knox) without sending our economy into a major recession or depression.  So, Nixon abandoned the Gold Standard permanently.

Since then, we have been on a market standard, where currency markets determine the value of our dollar.  The problem with this is that other nations can manipulate the value of our currency by not purchasing it at fair rates of exchange.

This is how the Chinese inflate our debt to them.  We borrow X amount of dollars from them at a lower rate of exchange, then they manipulate the currency so that we have to pay X + % more dollars to them for the same exchange.  The rate of exchange changes, and, as a consequence, it changes the value of our money.

That's why our national debt is so dangerous.  That's why abandoning the Gold Standard was in some ways the beginning of the end of our stable economy.

I have watched some of the Obama supporters try to make their case for Obama to the Hillary supporters.  Some approaches work and some don't.  Let me make some observations.

Making the case to Hillary supporters that they have to support Obama because they have no other real choice may be, essentially, true, but it is a negative approach, and therefore doen't work to inspire enthusiastic support.

Telling them they are trolls or stupid doesn't work for obvious reasons.  If you tell someone you think they are an idiot because they don't believe what you believe, all you do is reinforce their opinion that it's YOU who's the idiot because you can't see what they see.  And it goes on and on..... in that negative spiral I spoke of in the preceding blog.

Writing blogs that sound like high school cheerleaders cheering on the quarterback of the football team or teenyboppers fawning over their favorite rock star is very superficial, and does not appeal to the substance of why they should support your guy over theirs.  To be honest, I didn't feel that way about Hillary either, as much as I like her.  It's just not my nature.

Kissing their butts or condescendingly telling them you understand how they feel doesn't work either, Why?  Because, in their eyes, if you truly understood how they felt, you would agree with them.  And you don't.

So, if these approaches don't work, what does?

Concentrating on substantial issues.  Last night someone complained that the blog site was doing TOO MUCH OF THAT.  Which, frankly, I found amusing.

Why does this help?  Because it emphasizes what we have in common.  It brings us together in a non-confrontational, non-threatening way to discover how much there is for us to work on together rather than emphasize the fact that all of us are not equally on board the same kool-aid train.

Real enthusiasm is contagious.  What makes enthusiasm real or superficial?  Whether or not it is based on ACTION, not just words.  Give people something concrete to do and get them involved.  When you get them involved, they become a stakeholder in the project.  Over time, this will inspire them to feel a sense of belonging and produce the level of enthusiasm you desire to see from them. 

To be honest, as an avid Hillary supporter, I felt a real sense of enthusiasm, just as Obama supporters did and do, but my enthusiasm for Hillary was primarily based on a sense of purpose.  It was about her qualifications and experience, but it was also about what she could do to forward my political agenda:  healthcare, education reform, improving the economy, fair tax structure, creating jobs, reducing the debt, a comprehesive immigration policy, securing our borders without scapegoating immigrants, getting us out of Iraq, winning Afghanistan, and opening a dialogue with Iran to prevent another war and to prevent them from becoming a nuclear power;  And there's other issues as well.

These are all things that both sides have in common.  How do you build consensus?  By finding commonality between the groups.  This is the place to start.

So, in effect, I disagree with the attitude that discussing issues isn't what we should be doing.  If the evidence indicates anything, it indicates that, when we have done this, the tension between the two groups has lessened and we have come together.  When we get distracted into the "power" game of whose group is controlling the agenda, we fall into the "us" against "them" negative spiral and do worse than get nowhere, we drive ourselves further apart.

I must add a word about the Republican Party here.  Have you heard the statement that "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line"?  There is a certain truth to that.  The nature of the Democratic Party, as Will Rogers said:  "I don't belong to an organized political party.  I'm a Democrat!" is substantially true.  Why?  Because we are the party of the people.  We are the Big Tent.  We tolerate many diverse peoples and views.  That is part of what defines our party.  It is also what makes party unity more of a challenge for us than the conformist GroupThinkers that Republicans are.  But because it is more difficult for us, doesn't mean it is impossible.

Let's achieve unity by actively seeking common ground.  Let's focus on what works.  Let's do our jobs and focus on our agenda in positive, productive ways. 

So, here's to party unity through finding common ground.  Go Democrats!