By DAVID ESPO and ROBERT FURLOW, Associated Press Writers

ST. PAUL, Minn. - John McCain, a POW turned political rebel, vowed Thursday night to vanquish the "constant partisan rancor" that grips Washington as he launched his fall campaign for the White House. "Change is coming," he promised the roaring Republican National Convention and a prime-time television audience.

"Fight with me. Fight with me. Fight with me. Fight for what's right for our country," he urged in a convention crescendo.

To repeated cheers from his delegates, McCain made only passing reference to an unpopular George W. Bush and criticized fellow Republicans as well as Democratic rival Barack Obama in reaching out to independents and swing voters who will pick the next president.

"We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us," he said of the Republicans who controlled Congress for a dozen years before they were voted out of office in 2006.

As for Obama, he said, "I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can. My opponent will raise them. I will cut government spending. He will increase it."

 

McCain's wife, Cindy, and ticketmate Sarah Palin and her husband joined him on stage as tens of thousands red, white and blue balloons cascaded from high above the convention floor.

Unlike Obama's speech a week ago, McCain offered no soaring oratory until his speech-ending summons to fight for the country's future. And he seemed to receive a milder audience response than Palin had a night earlier, as well.

But his own measured style left the hall in cheers, and as is his habit in campaign stops around the country, he stepped off the stage to plunge into the crowd after his speech. Palin joined him, embraced by the jubilant throng.

McCain touched only briefly on the Iraq war — a conflict that Obama has vowed to end. "I fought for the right strategy and more troops in Iraq, when it wasn't a popular thing to do," the Republican said, adding that in the months since, the long-suffering nation had been spared from defeat. McCain's appearance was the climax of the final night of the party convention, coming after delegates made Palin the first female vice presidential nominee in Republican history.

"She stands up for what's right and she doesn't let anyone tell her to sit down," McCain said of the woman who has faced intense scrutiny in the week since she was picked.

"And let me offer an advance warning to the old, big-spending, do-nothing, me-first, country-second Washington crowd: Change is coming," McCain declared.

McCain and Palin were departing their convention city immediately after the Arizona senator's acceptance speech, bound for Wisconsin and an early start on the final weeks of the White House campaign.

McCain, at 72 bidding to become the oldest first-term president, drew a roar from the convention crowd when he walked out onto the stage lighted by a single spotlight. He was introduced by a video that dwelt heavily on his time spent as a prisoner of war in Vietnam and as a member of Congress, hailed for a "faithful unyielding love for America, country first."

"USA, USA, USA," chanted the crowd in the hall.

McCain faced a delicate assignment as he formally accepted his party's presidential nomination: presenting his credentials as a reformer willing to take on his own party and stressing his independence from an unpopular President Bush — all without breaking faith with his Republican base.

He set about it methodically.

"After we've won, we're going to reach out our hand to any willing patriot, make this government start working for you again," he said, and he pledged to invite Democrats and independents to serve in his administration.

He mentioned Bush only in passing, as the leader who led the country through the days after the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

And there was plenty for conservative Republicans to cheer — from his pledge to free the country from the grip of its dependence on foreign oil, to a vow to have schools answer to parents and students rather than "unions and entrenched bureaucrats."

A man who has clashed repeatedly with Republicans in Congress, he said proudly, "I've been called a maverick. Sometimes it's meant as a compliment and sometimes it's not. What it really means is I understand who I work for.

"I don't work for a party. I don't work for a special interest. I don't work for myself. I work for you."

Thousands of red, white and blue balloons nestled in netting above the convention floor, to be released on cue for the traditional celebratory convention finale.

Given McCain's political mission, it was left to other Republicans to deliver much of the criticism aimed at Obama.

In the race for the White House, "It's not about building a record, it's about having one," said former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge. "It's not about talking pretty, it's about talking straight."

McCain invoked the five years he spent in a North Vietnamese prison. "I fell in love with my country when I was a prisoner in someone else's," he said. "I was never the same again. I wasn't my own man anymore. I was my country's."

The last night of the McCain-Palin convention also marked the end of an intensive stretch of politics with the potential to reshape the race for the White House. Democrats held their own convention last week in Denver, nominating Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden as running mate for Obama, whose own acceptance speech drew an estimated 84,000 partisans to an outdoor football stadium.

The polls indicate a close race between McCain and Obama, at 47 a generation younger than his Republican opponent, with the outcome likely to be decided in scattered swing states in the industrial Midwest and the Southwest.

Ahead lie the traditional major checkpoints — presidential and vice presidential debates, millions of dollars in ads — but also the unscripted, spontaneous moments that can take on outsized importance in the race to pick a president.

Before he spoke Thursday night, Cindy McCain recommended her husband to the crowd — and the nation. "If Americans want straight talk and the plain truth they should take a good close look at John McCain, a man tested and true who's never wavered in his devotion to our country," she said. She called him "a man who's served in Washington without ever becoming a Washington insider."

Read the rest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/2008
0905/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_convention
_rdp;_ylt=AhJh2vn.zJj7S2iuoIRJCUqs0NUE

A recent post by Irshad Manji on understanding each other has gotten me thinking about the issue of assimilation. What level of responsibility do immigrants assume to fit in and what level of responsibility should the host country shoulder to make immigrants feel welcomed. Her post argues that Muslims, specifically, must make an effort to get to know Americans and their culture. It is not fair, she states, for Muslims to always expect Americans to know everything about Muslim culture. This could be applied to all groups of people. A brief piece from her post:

"...when mainstream Americans fail to fathom traditional Muslims, it's Americans who must change. Full stop. But when Muslims misunderstand Americans, it's not Muslims who must change. It's not Muslims who must take responsibility to educate themselves about the complexity and nuance of American life. Nope. It's Americans who must do all the heavy lifting to improve perceptions about themselves.

That's what you call a double-standard.

Let's be honest, people: Reconciliation between "Islam" and "the West" can't happen without reciprocity. Understanding, by definition, has to be mutual."

Her blog post also reminded me of a conversation I have had several times with my friend's partner, a White American. A bit of background information on him. He voted for Bush twice. He is a self-proclaimed patriot and defends America with all his heart. I can respect that. But when we get into conversations about immigration and immigrants we tend to get into a bit of a verbal tussle. He believes that anyone that chooses to move to the U.S. must denounce not only their previous citizenship but their firmly rooted cultural beliefs as well. Assimilate or be assimilated.

I am thinking there has to be an in between here. Immigrants, I agree should learn about American culture and the ways of life here, especially if they choose to make a life here. But I also would like to believe that this really is a land of immigrants and that we are not a melting pot. I would like to believe that our cultures and identities have not melted or washed away into one amorphous blob of indistinctness.

Even though as separate groups we still celebrate our religious holidays and eat our traditional foods I wonder if in our collective consciousness as as a society we even know why we celebrate Cinco de Mayo, Mardi Gras or St Patricks Day. Holidays like Diwali, Eid, or the Chinese New Year or not part of the mainstream yet. I am not saying every American should have to celebrate these holidays. While, I am a fan of playing Christmas tunes of my piano, I don't think every December all of us should be subjected to the same three Christmas Songs in all the stores, airports and now even public open spaces in a country where Church and State are supposed to be separate.

So maybe the truth is even the pot has melted? Maybe amidst the debates about multiculturalism, identity politics, assimilation, acculturation and all those other heady words, it is those who have been engaging in word games that have lost the real game-the game of daily life.

I am watching the tele, magazines, news coverage, "cultural" events, school programs and all the other mainstream stuff and I still feel pretty left out of the dominant narrative. So for someone like me who wants to be a part of it but who also wants the real me to be represented in those parts, I ask:

What responsibility do we all have to each other as we share these borders of this country called the United States of America? How do we enjoy, understand and gain from each other's differences without killing our collective soul? And where are we headed and how long will we stay in this place called America?

Welcome to the United States and how long will you be staying?

Seems to me that everyday there is a new "health" warning out about something. Just tonight I heard on my local news about drinking coffee combined with a lack of sleep causes some heart problem or other (have to wait for the link to be put up on the site tomorrow).

I've reached the point of just rolling my eyes and begging God/dess to rescue me from all this insanity!

What's interesting is how three countries, known for the freedom and liberty of their citizens seem to be at the forefront of all this.

As I posted on last week, Alabama will be charging its State Employees a surcharge on their health insurance if they do not participate in it's "wellness" program. More if they are overweight or not falling into the "pre-ordained guidelines" they are told to get to.

The State Employees' Insurance Board last week approved a plan to charge state workers starting in January 2010 if they don't have free health screenings.

A recent report on obesity in South England is almost a joke as it was funded by the Pharmaceutical company who just happens to have a so-called "anti-obesity drug". I mean doesn't that constitute a conflict of interest or something? Why is it that any study that receives so much as one-cent from the tobacco companies for funding a study is immediately labeled biased and shoddy, but let a pharmaceutical company fund a study that comes to conclusions that definitely benefit it, no on bats an eye or questions it?

A new "fat map" of the UK shows that obesity may be worsening in spite of efforts to fight it and parts of southern England are succumbing for the first time.

The research was funded by the pharmaceutical company Roche, which makes an anti-obesity drug.

"As part of the strategy, this autumn we will be launching a national movement that will bring about a fundamental change in the way we live our lives.

Yes, we should probably take better care of ourselves, but someone please point out to me where any of our Constitutions state that the government, or any health agencies, are responsible for forcing us to live certain lifestyles that they (the agencies/govt) approve of!!

God/dess did NOT give us free will so that some 'person/s' somewhere could try to take it away. Free will means WE get to make our own decisions, for better or worse.

Canada is into this full speed also. It appears that 'extra weight' is an epidemic of pandemic proportions.

"Obesity is the new Canadian epidemic," Dr. Richard Tytus, McMaster University associate professor and CON member, told CMA delegates.

"The Canadian Obesity Network is ideally situated to help the medical community by providing tools and learning opportunities based on the latest available scientific evidence that physicians need to effectively prevent and treat obesity. The CMA's resolution is a call to action to address this important issue."

To think that all these years I believed that the public health agencies were designed to deal with contagious diseases, and things that were not in the public's control. Correct me if I'm wrong BUT..........isn't eating the responsibility of each individual? Isn't WHAT we eat within OUR control? Since when did overeating become a "health issue" warranting government intervention?

Junkfood Science did a posting about an article in Medscape Nurses which stated the BMI's OVER 25 were considered OBESE.

The Call to Arms went on to report that “obesity can be defined as a body mass index rating of greater than 25” — [thereby, creating a new definition of obesity that now also includes every “overweight” person in the country].

I know they lowered the BMI guides years ago, and created 30 million NEW obese people overnight, BUT even those guidelines state that obesity is a BMI OVER 35 (not 25)!!!

Who's fat? New definition adopted

June 17, 1998
Web posted at: 2:10 p.m. EDT (1810 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Millions of Americans became "fat" Wednesday -- even if they didn't gain a pound -- as the federal government adopted a controversial method for determining who is considered overweight.

It's getting pretty bad when so-called professionals are changing definitions at will.

The real question is: How much longer are we going to tolerate all this bullying, fear-mongering, blame/victim nonsense?

I thought we were living in a free country. I'm sure the British and Canadians are thinking the same thing too. So exactly WHAT is going on that the masses have turned into passive, docile sheep?

If this is the future, then "beam me up Scotty", it's getting too crazy down here for me.

For executives managing global supply networks, the question now is whether or not conditions are moving toward a tipping point. Is this the moment to consider sharply scaling back offshore production plans and bringing manufacturing back or close to the United States? Is there a more measured response that better suits the new circumstances? Before executives change their strategies, however, they must determine the total landed cost of each product produced offshore and better understand the shifting trade-offs between cost savings from offshoring (such as lower wages) and rising logistics charges.

Oil prices, and consequently the cost of shipping, have risen to heights few foresaw even just several years ago. Since 2003, crude oil has soared from $28 to more than $100 a barrel. The economics research institution CIBC World Markets estimates that in 2000, when oil prices were near $20 a barrel, the costs embedded in shipping were equivalent to a 3 percent tariff on imports. Today, that figure is 11 percent—meaning that the cost of shipping a standard 40-foot container has tripled since 2000.

To develop a clearer picture of the changing environment, we analyzed a number of products manufactured for the US market and mapped the optimal region to manufacture them by straightforwardly comparing the wage savings from offshoring with the cost of logistics. Exhibit 2 shows the optimal regions for products with a range of different unit manufacturing costs (all related to the transformation of raw materials into one unit of finished goods in US dollars) and various product weights (which affect logistics costs). We have chosen breakeven curves for China, a traditional low-cost manufacturing location, and for Mexico, a near-shore location.

As an illustration, we studied the total landed cost for a midrange server, comparing scenarios in Asia and the United States (Exhibit 3). Five years ago, in 2003, manufacturing this product in Asia rather than the United States provided a 60 percent savings in labor costs. We have indexed that labor savings to $100. When we calculated total landed costs, however, we found that 36 percent of those labor savings were offset by freight, shipping-related charges, inventory, product returns, and other hidden costs. That gave Asian production a $64 landed-cost advantage. Today, economic conditions have reversed it. After factoring in the higher labor and freight costs, we find that the former offshore savings have turned negative—a burden of an extra $16. The labor savings, $100 in 2003, are now only $45 because of wage inflation. In addition, freight costs have risen by $21 and product returns by an additional $4 because of higher oil prices.

As these examples suggest, changing economic conditions may have undermined your supply chain advantage. This may be an appropriate moment to reevaluate the location of your manufacturing facilities. Take the total landed-cost analysis to the next level of detail and determine if bringing some production back home or to near-shore locations will help counterbalance the higher costs of shipping and freight. At the same time, consider the long-term geographic distribution of demand for your products. In rethinking your global supply chain, you must carefully evaluate the importance of speed, the availability of skilled talent, the potential for further productivity gains in Asia, one-time transition costs, the local import and tax implications, and organizational interfaces.

"People* committed to creative protest against militarism and injustice are CODEPINK.

People who want to influence a shift in the focus of world society and governments from militarism to life-affirming endeavors are CODEPINK.

People who are not ashamed to wear a big pink button, and thereby encourage conversation are CODEPINK.

People who are not afraid to be unreasonable or to be called un-patriotic in the name of peace and social justice are CODEPINK.

People who realize that you must be the change you want to see in this world are.

*People includes all people regardless of their gender. Though initiated by women and composed primarily of women, CODEPINK does not discriminate on the basis of gender, sex, ethnicity, age, religion, or social-economic status.

One note to make, I didn't mind the people who were their chanting" USA, USA..." while the protesters where making theme selves known. But after the protesters were escorted out people continued to interrupt McCain's speech and it got pretty annoying. Maybe from a TV viewers perspective, I just wanted to hear what he had to say and for him to get on with it, without any delays. That could be just my personal impatience on the matter as I often get annoyed with people disrupting whomever may be talking at that moment. It could also be the manners my mother instilled in me on not to talk when someone else is talking.

If strangers you do not know ask you if you are gay, best not tell them. Best to familiarise yourself with self defence and situation evasion techniques.

Till maten drack jag cola. Och eftersom det ar sa varmt sa hade jag is i glaset. Is med citronsmak.

/M

1. Canada loses shelf... not self

Well it seems as if the head of steam being built up here in the US is at last hitting Canada. Yes, the hot air created by the Republicans at the convention seems to contribute to climate change for their neighbors up north. Can't be any other reason now can it? Republicans don't believe in global warming so it must be the hot heads down in St Paul who did this. Or windbags. Poor old Canada. They have so little going for them when it comes to history and now they just lost an ancient ice shelf that is almost the size of Manhattan. Luckily Canada isn't as populated as that little island off the east coast. They suspect only one person died but the nation is in mourning because about 7,286 moose died. That is the same ratio of moose per person in Canada. The Canadian authorities are still counting all Canadians to try and confirm the death of the unlucky fellow. One person is counting every Canadian and is expected to be done by early Saturday. All Canadians was asked to stand in a straight line but there was a delay because the counting guy had to go to a blubber fest first. He'll start counting on Friday evening.

2. "Uncertainty looms in Sudan"

That is the actual headline of the report - "Uncertainty looms in Sudan". WTF? What was there before? Hope? Love? Peace? Stability? Democracy? Ubuntu? Change? Certainty? I think not. Can "uncertainty" be a weather pattern? The Sudan version of a monsoon? It comes in and destroys everything in its path. Or maybe "Uncertainty" is some god we never heard of. You know, like Apollo or Zeus or Atlas. Wonder what "Uncertainty" does? Squash all sense of justice in his path and murder the innocent for breakfast. Sound about right. Also known by another name. President Omar "The Bastard" al-Bashir. No. Sorry. "Uncertainty" would be a step up for most Sudanese. At the moment they only have "Genocide".

3. Obelix with no Astrix?

The great Obelisk of Axum returned home at last. Okay. It's been there for a while already. About 3 years. It was unveiled this week. Come on people, it's African time. You know. "Just now" means anything between within the next two hours and 2 decades. But we should be happy the Axum Obelisk is back. Now if we can only find the great Astrix of Governance somewhere...

4. From Palin to Pale-One

You thought Palin was more than just a pretty face? Think again. The McCain campaign now says that she won't be talking to the media on foreign or domestic policy. Apparently "the American people don't care whether Sarah Palin can answer specific questions about foreign and domestic policy... the American people will learn all they need to know" (and all they deserve to know) from Palin's scripted speeches and choreographed appearances on the campaign trail and in campaign ads. Talk about Hollywood moments and acting like a celebrity. Mr McLame and Pale-one, this is called acting and not leadership. Maybe scared that she can't hold her own? Here is your problem. She might be able to pull the wool over the eyes of (some of) the average American voters out there but you might have a bit of a problem if she travels outside these US borders. Haha! Actually, I wouldn't mind being a fly on the wall. Putin will have her for lunch. Oh man you are in so much trouble with this one. Not quite the PTA now is it?

5. Let's be honest... hum, maybe not

Citibank used to have a nice little racket going. And hardly anyone noticed. What they did was to remove the positive balances on the credit card accounts of their poorest and "deadest" clients. Yes, they targeted the vulnerable (poor) and really vulnerable (dead). But those damn pesky little whistle blowers. Someone thought that stealing money from their clients might be going too far. And that damn liberal State Attorney of California agreed. And won! Yes, poor Citibank lost settled the case and paid all the money back. And a bit of a fine to top it off. The clincher? An executive trying to justify their decision really went all out with the "feel sorry for me" line. With difficulty. He said, "Stealing from our customers is a business decision, not a legal decision." The same executive later said that the sweep program could not be stopped because it would reduce the executive bonus pool. I don't think he gets the humanity part that well. Maybe he was taking a bit off the top because he is missing a bit on top. For some or other reason I don't feel that sorry for Citibank.

See you all next week.

Mi papá siempre me insistió mucho que fuera a estudiar a Estados Unidos; mi mamá siempre me decia que le siguiera el tema para ver que pasaba. (Para los que no saben mis papas se separaron caundo yo tenía 2 o 3 años, aunque luego aparecio Loro que lleno ese espacio, pero eso se los cuento luego).

Yo siempre tuve una excusa, que la novia, que la experiencia en Colombia, que la Universidad, etc. Hasta que un día mi papá me llamó en el momento indicado; estaba yo muy aburrido en el trabajo a punto de renunciar, acababa de terminar con una novia que tuve durante 1 año y me encontraba como en un limbo; ese fue un momento en mi vida que fue fundamental pues habría podido escojer muchos caminos diferentes y no se en donde estaría hoy.

Eso fue en Febreo de 1996; me llamó a Bogotá y lo único que me dijo (como si supiera lo que me ocurría) fue "Jota vente para mi casa este fin de semana y hablamos de tu futuro". Creanme esto fue algo muy raro pues la comunicación entre nosotros nunca fue muy buena; de hecho nos mantuvimos en contacto gracias a el esfuerzo de mi mamá. Esta llamada, como decimos, me agarró cansado y acepte la invitación.

En Agosto de el mismo año el día 28 viaje a Miami con la intención de estudiar Inglés y obtener mi grado de MBA (Master in Business Administration). En Miami conté con la ayuda de la familia Ochoa y de la que ahora es la familia Alonso Ochoa que son unos grandes amigos. Ellos hicieron que la etapa inicial no fuera tan dura. Me invitaban a sus reuniones, me llevaban me traian, etc. Eso lo hizo mucho más fácil - nunca les he dado las gracias personalmente pero seguro que lo haré.

Pasó el tiempo, y yo desde el principio siempre dije "a mí que manden el diploma por correo pues yo presento el último exámen y pa'Colombia papá". Sin embargo varias circunstancias se fueron presentando; primero, conseguí trabajo. La idea era tener un trabajo temporal "mientras me devuelvo". El problema es que fue una de esas empresas que triunfo en el primer boom de Internet. Eramos 4 empleados cuando yo entré y llegamos a ser 85 cuando nos compraron en el 2002. Segundo, Colombia estaba pasando por una mala época; mis amigos me decían que no me devolviera que no era fácil conseguir trabajo y que los sueldos estaban muy malos.

Muchas veces pense "ya, suficiente, me devuelvo", pero cuando trataba de planear el asunto algo pasaba. Además en el transcurso de este tiempo comencé a formar mi vida aquí, conocí a quienes todavía considero mis mejores amigos aquí. En Diciembre de el 2000 me fuí a pasar Navidad en Colombia (como todos los años lo había hecho), pero esa vez fue diferente; la pase demasiado bien; y no hablo solo de rumba y diversión, hablo de acercarme mucho más a mi familia y de darme cuenta de lo que me estaba perdiendo.

En el viaje de vuelta en Enero de el 2001, lloré muchísimo pero como de rabia de no poder tener las dos vidas en una y llegando pense "ahora si me devuelvo". Cuando me bajé de el avión y estaba esperando mi maleta, prendí mi teléfono celular y había un mensaje de Diego, un gran amigo que conocí aqui. El mensaje decía (palabras más, palabras menos):

"mijo, el próximo fin de semana estoy planeando un viaje a Orlando con mi prima y una amiga, se le mide?"

La prima es mi esposa hoy y la madre de mis 2 hermosos hijos.

Putting people first, now that's a big idea Mr. Romney.  Why not spend those billions domestically to help struggling Americans, to invest in education, health care, renewable energy, a crumbling highway infrastructure, conservation measures, support for the arts.  Oh, but that would be putting country second.  How dare we invest money at home.  What was I thinking.  Bring the troops home?  Not a chance.  Not until victory is ours, even if it takes a 100 years!

Last night MITT said it was "time for the party of big ideas, not the party of Big Brother."  When he said that, I thought he had become a Democrat.  Consider the slogans from Orwell's masterpiece, 1984 - War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength.  Right out of the Republican playbook.  Country First.  USA, USA, USA. Service.  Leave the thinking to Big Brother.  Obey and Be Happy.

Guiliani talks about Obama's voting present (neither yes, nor no) 130 times in the Illinois Senate.  And yet Mcain failed to vote at all on legislation providing tax credits for solar and wind investments, known as the renewable energy bill.  He missed all eight votes on this legislation.  See article Eight Strikes and You're Out

McCain also was a No Vote (he didn't vote at all) on the equal pay for equal work legislation - while 6 of his Republican colleagues voted Yes.  Some maverick.

And with all this talk about drilling, let's get one thing straight:  we can reduce our dependency on oil by using less, not drilling more.  Ride a Bike.  USA USA USA.

The guy's teeth are so yellow and hard to avoid, like wet balls that hit you in the forehead. So on this night where the 2008 football season kicks off with a Giants win...we all lose if we watch McCain in high-def.

I do like watching this more than a baseball game though: when a fan runs onto the field they have the camera focus on the moon or something. Here- I think pro-choice people were causing a ruckus in the crowd and the cameras eye balled the entire phenomenon. SO awesome! A dude took one of the protester's shirts and flung it to the ground in anger. McCain's response?

"Please, please ignore the static in the crowd!" Then people cheer. These conventions are so horrible- worse than a WWE wrestling event where the wrestler has to stop every second as the crowd cheers like lunatics.

Any hoo...McCain in high def kills any buzz.

Zudem haben wir den Moundville Archaeological Park besucht. Dort stehen ein paar Hügel in der Gegend rum, war aber trotzdem nett zum Spazieren dort. Eine gute Einstimmung für New Orleans. Ja, wir wollen es noch versuchen. Langsam und vorsichtig den Kopf reinstecken in die Stadt. Ganz wohl ist uns nicht, aber morgen soll es in den Süden gehen, vielleicht mit noch einer Zwischenstation. Die Schwimmsachen sind eingepackt. Hoffentlich brauchen wir sie nicht...

Webalbum

Standing in the center of an arena here, surrounded by thousands of cheering Republican delegates, Mr. McCain firmly signaled that he intended to seize the mantle of change that Mr. Obama has claimed in his own unlikely bid for the Democratic Party’s nomination.

Mr. McCain suggested that his choice of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running-mate gave him the license to run as an outsider against Washington, even though Mr. McCain has served in Congress for more than 25 years.

“Let me offer an advance warning to the old, big-spending, do-nothing, me-first-country-second Washington crowd: Change is coming,” Mr. McCain said in remarks prepared for delivery.

With his speech, Mr. McCain laid out the broad outlines of his general election campaign as he sought to move from a convention marked by an intense effort to reassure the party base to an appeal to a broader general election electorate that polling suggests has turned sharply on Republicans and President Bush. To that end, Mr. McCain tried to return to what had been his signature theme as a presidential candidate, including in his unsuccessful 2000 campaign: that he is a politician prepared to defy his own party.

Hats off to his researchers for finding all that stuff.

Sarah Palin. A due mesi dalle elezioni, sotto di 4 punti rispetto a Barack Obama, John McCain sembra aver azzeccato una mossa molto importante nella corsa alla Casa Bianca: la scelta del candidato vice-presidente. Questa può decidere il risultato di un'elezione: i democratici hanno scelto Biden, un politico navigato, Senatore fin dal 1973, per sopperire alla mancanza di esperienza della quale viene accusato Obama.

I repubblicani, sull'onda di una campagna elettorale basata sulla parola "Change", cambiamento, hanno scelto invece un politico con scarsa, se non praticamente inesistente esposizione mediatica a livello nazionale. La governatrice dell'Alaska Palin viene presentata come svincolata da qualsiasi gioco di potere di Washington, e sembra perfetta per questo ruolo: giovane, indipendente, aggressiva. Ma è davvero così?

Tralasciando alcuni aspetti della sua vita personale, come la figlia diciassettenne incinta e l'arresto per guida in stato di ubriachezza una ventina di anni fa (ma negli Stati Uniti la vita privata viene presa molto più in considerazione nella valutazione di un politico rispetto a quanto accade qui), si può dire che la Palin non è esattamente ciò che McCain stava cercando. Infatti, stando a quanto riporta un articolo del New York Times, il candidato repubblicano avrebbe voluto come suo vice il senatore Lieberman o l'ex governatore della Pennsylvania Ridge. Quando questi hanno rifiutato, a pochi giorni dalla Convention rapubblicana, McCain si è trovato con le spalle al muro e ha scelto la Palin. Ma forse non ha neanche avuto il tempo di controllare se c'era qualcosa nella sua vita privata (e non) che avrebbe potuto essere usato contro di lei.

On Monday morning, Ms. Palin and her husband, Todd, issued a statement saying that their 17-year-old unmarried daughter, Bristol, was five months pregnant and that she intended to marry the father.

Among other less attention-grabbing news of the day: it was learned that Ms. Palin now has a private lawyer in a legislative ethics investigation in Alaska into whether she abused her power in dismissing the state's public safety commissioner and that Mr. Palin was arrested 22 years ago on a drunken-driving charge.

Questa scelta potrebbe rivelarsi controproducente: ad un'analisi più attenta, i media scopriranno ed evidenzieranno il fatto che la candidata non ha praticamente alcuna esperienza di governo: è stata sindaco di una cittadina di 5000 abitanti (dalla quale proviene), ed è governatore da soli due anni.

Ma per ora McCain può ritenersi soddisfatto: è riuscito ad attirare l'attenzione dei media, ha intercettato parte dell'elettorato femminile (quello che era della Clinton), e soprattutto ha tolto la scena ad Obama con questa sua coraggiosa scelta. 

• I più recenti sondaggi sul testa a testa Obama McCain
• I discorsi dei candidati alla convention Repubblicana e a quella Democratica
• I discorsi di Obama e della Palin, analizzati con Wordle, per ricavarne le parole più frequenti (clicca per ingrandire)

Obama

Palin

by Bill Quigley
August 30, 2008 - 4 pm -

In the blazing midday sun, hot and thirsty little children walk around bags of diapers and soft suitcases piled outside a locked community center in the Lower Ninth Ward. Military police in camouflage and local police in dark blue uniforms and sunglasses sit a few feet away in their cars. Moms and grandmas sit with the children and wait quietly. Everyone is waiting for a special city bus which will start them on their latest journey away from home.

Hundreds of buses are moving people away from the Gulf Coast. Hurricane Gustave is heading for the Louisiana coast nearly three years to the day after Hurricane Katrina destroyed hundreds of thousands of homes across the Gulf Coast. Many now face mandatory evacuation. Dozens died in Haiti and the Dominican Republic after Gustave visited. After Katrina, few underestimate the potential of Gustave, now a Category 5 (out of a maximum of 5) storm.

Yesterday marching brass bands led commemorations for those who died and for those who lost so much in Katrina.

Today, Humvees crawl amid the thwack thwack thwack of plywood boards being nailed over windows.

Soldiers with long guns and police of all types are everywhere. Fifteen hundred police are on duty and at least that many National Guard are also here.

One estimate says two million people may be displaced.

In the lower nine, still no bus even after a wait of over two hours. Another mom clutching an infant walks up to the center with a small suitcase and adds another diaper bag to the pile. Children ask for water but nothing is provided. An African American nun named Sister Greta drives up with a few bags of ice and some water and paper cups and everyone happily shares.

This is the first step of displacement. Those with cars drive away. Those without walk to a community center with their children and wait for a bus. The first of many buses they will take in their journey to who knows where. The bus that people are waiting for will take them to the train station where people will get off the bus, be entered into computers, be given bar code bracelets, and then put on other buses for a trip to public shelters in places like Shreveport, Alexandria and Memphis.

New Orleans expects 30,000 people need help evacuating.

Many waiting for this bus were in the Superdome when Katrina hit. One of the men shows a picture of himself on a bridge surrounded by flood waters where hundreds waited for boats.

There are still big problems. A 311 call system for the disabled and seniors never properly functioned, crashed and has been abandoned.

Though the wait for the bus is rough, this appears to be a huge improvement. When Katrina hit, there were no buses and no way out of town for the 25% of the city who had no cars. As a result, nearly 100,000 people were left behind. This time the hospitals and nursing homes are emptying, the prisoners are already moved out, and there are buses to carry out tens of thousands. There are still big problems, but people do have a chance to get out.

Seniors worry about their social security checks, due the first of the month. Others worry about leaving behind pets. (One semi-rural area announced that each person getting on the buses could bring one pet, a dog or cat, no roosters, no pigs). Others worry about the looming 24-hour curfews. St. Bernard Parish promises that those out during curfew will be arrested and immediately transported to Angola, the Louisiana State Penitentiary.

Back at the community center, the bus finally pulls up. No one complains that it is late. Holding bags and children, people line up quietly in the sun to climb into their first bus. A blind man is guided into the bus. Little kids pull smaller children. Forty-three get on the bus. There are three nine-year-old children, one seven-year-old, one six, four three-year-olds, three one-year-olds, one infant is 11 months, a 3 month old, and a couple of young teenagers. All the moms and grandmas and kids and bags and diapers make it onto the bus and it pulls away.

Across the Gulf Coast, another journey starts.
Bill is a human rights lawyer at Loyola University New Orleans and can be reached at quigley77@gmail.com

Action on behalf of justice is a constitutive dimension of the preaching of the gospel.
Justice in the World - 1971 Synod of Bishops

Tenente Coronel Rui Roque

Investigador Instituto Transatlântico

Apontada como via primordial para garantir tanto a segurança interna como a defesa dos interesses americanos no mundo, a necessidade de combater o terrorismo a uma escala global tem sido uma das bandeiras da administração norte-americana desde os trágicos eventos de 11 de Setembro de 2001, prioridade essa que, para além de pautar a política externa dos Estados Unidos, encontrou igualmente um nível de acolhimento praticamente consensual na respectiva opinião pública. De facto, tal base alargada de apoio revelou-se determinante no processo de tomada de decisão relativamente à intervenção militar no Iraque, iniciada em Março de 2003, uma vez identificado o regime de Saddam Hussein alegadamente como uma das principais ameaças à segurança mundial.

Actualmente, volvidos que são cinco anos de operações militares naquele teatro, ainda que os elevados custos envolvidos - sobretudo em vidas, mas também de ordem financeira - não tenham ainda transformado a guerra no Iraque numa questão fracturante no seio da sociedade norte-americana, é evidente a razão directamente proporcional que se verifica entre o crescimento do número de vozes dissonantes e a aparente incapacidade política de, no mínimo, projectar um ponto final para o conflito.

Assim, será perante um eleitorado cada vez mais influenciado pelo lento regresso dos fantasmas de um esforço de guerra sem fim, provenientes de um passado ainda doloroso a apenas quatro décadas de distância, que a temática irá seguramente subir ao palco do confronto ideológico que se avizinha entre os concorrentes à presidência norte-americana. Na verdade, as diferentes perspectivas quanto à abordagem da questão por parte dos Democratas ficaram desde logo bem patentes durante as primárias, enquanto que, assim que os nomes de Obama e McCain se perfilaram como óbvios candidatos ao derradeiro escrutínio, ainda que não formalmente nomeados, logo vieram a lume repetidas críticas mútuas, tanto por acções como por omissões, quanto às propostas de futura gestão do conflito iraquiano.

Neste contexto, não será descabido questionar que papel desempenhará o debate sobre a presença militar americana no Iraque no resultado de uma eleição que se antevê disputadíssima. Determinante ou não, facilmente ombreará com outras preocupações de incontornável relevância para a sociedade americana - e, por extensão, para a plateia mundial - onde pontuam, por exemplo, as políticas económico-financeiras, educacionais e de apoio social.

Relativamente à questão do Iraque, as posições oficialmente assumidas pelos candidatos são apenas inteiramente coincidentes num único ponto, uma vez que ambos colocam em elevado destaque o profissionalismo e abnegação demonstrados pelas centenas de milhar de militares norte-americanos que servem ou já serviram naquele teatro de operações. Contudo, ambas as candidaturas partem também de um mesmo pressuposto para a resolução do conflito: a obrigatoriedade do controlo efectivo da situação por parte das autoridades iraquianas. No entanto, o caminho traçado para atingir esse objectivo, bem como o período de tempo necessário à sua consecução, são desde logo profundamente divergentes.

John McCain advoga uma política de continuidade, enfatizando que todos os sofrimentos causados e os recursos dispendidos não farão qualquer sentido se o desfecho se saldar por uma precipitada retirada das forças no terreno sem que existam garantias de uma completa derrota do ramo iraquiano da Al-Qaeda, condição fundamental de estabilidade governativa, sob a tutela de instituições democráticas - cuja estruturação passará pelo incontornável apoio das Nações Unidas -, capazes de afiançar a prosperidade económica e a segurança das populações. Para o candidato republicano, qualquer cenário substancialmente diferente implicará, mais tarde ou mais cedo, o regresso do poder militar norte-americano ao Iraque, com inimagináveis consequências aos mais variados níveis.

Estamos, pois, perante um projecto de longo prazo. A candidatura de McCain afirma que, do ponto de vista militar, tal propósito começa a vislumbrar-se com o crescente sucesso da estratégia de combate aos rebeldes iraquianos posta em acção pelo General David Petreaus, comandante das forças multinacionais desde o início de 2007. Os números mais recentes demonstram não só uma acentuada diminuição nas baixas das forças coligadas, mas também o decréscimo da violência sectária, sendo esta condicionante apresentada como indispensável ao processo de reconciliação nacional.

Quanto a Barack Obama, como seria expectável, a sua posição face à presença americana no Iraque é radicalmente discordante em relação ao rumo até hoje seguido. O seu programa eleitoral dedica-se a escalpelizar as razões que levaram ao impasse que considera existir presentemente: a total incapacidade da administração Bush de responsabilizar cada vez mais as autoridades locais pelas decisões sobre o destino do seu próprio país, situação que decorre da inexistência de uma eficaz linha de aproximação entre as facções políticas, étnicas e religiosas que compõem o espectro político‑social iraquiano.

Por outro lado, o senador do Illinois também tem chamado a atenção do eleitorado para outros factores que, interligados, reclamam uma profunda alteração da estratégia americana. Na sua óptica, os recursos de pessoal e material destinados a manter o nível de sustentabilidade das forças destacadas no Iraque compromete a possibilidade de enfrentar o terrorismo com êxito noutros cenários, nomeadamente no Afeganistão, onde a ameaça da Al‑Qaeda e as potencialidades bélicas dos Taliban parecem recrudescer de forma clara.

Obama propõe, portanto, a retirada das forças estacionadas no Iraque, a realizar de forma faseada à razão mensal de uma ou duas unidades de escalão brigada, isto é, até cerca de 7.500 homens/mês, o que projectaria uma permanência residual no terreno a partir de meados de 2010. A presença militar passaria então a ser assegurada exclusivamente por forças especiais, especificamente treinadas, equipadas e mandatadas para o desempenho de missões de combate anti-terrorista em apoio ao governo iraquiano e às suas forças. Tal conceptualização deveria constar com clareza no Status-of-Forces Agreement (SOFA), instrumento jurídico fundamental para a definição do estatuto operacional das forças da coligação liderada pelos Estados Unidos face à transferência de soberania para a administração iraquiana. Estranhamente, a discussão dos termos desse documento vai-se arrastando, ainda que, com alguma frequência, surjam responsáveis iraquianos a declarar a conclusão do acordo, correndo a administração Bush a emitir sucessivos desmentidos.

Embora os principais responsáveis militares se tenham já manifestado no sentido da inviabilidade prática do denominado "Plano Obama", tudo indica que este continuará a ser o cavalo-de-batalha do candidato democrata no que respeita à questão iraquiana. Às reservas levantadas, Obama responde com a natural necessidade de criar uma conjuntura regional favorável ao sucesso do seu projecto, complementando-o com uma atitude mais exigente e pressionante no que concerne a um mais rápido domínio das rédeas do poder por parte do governo iraquiano, propósito que passa pela promoção da reconciliação nacional, dando continuidade em simultâneo ao treino e reequipamento das forças armadas e de segurança locais, sem esquecer o incremento, em comunhão com a comunidade internacional, dos esforços tendentes a enfrentar a crise humanitária que grassa em território iraquiano e nos países vizinhos, motivada pela existência de um elevado número de refugiados e deslocados.

Passadas sucintamente em revista as posições defendidas por ambas as candidaturas, facilmente se prevê que o debate será aceso, tanto mais que as acusações recíprocas se encontram já em franca subida de tom: a candidatura democrata aponta o perigoso imobilismo que McCain representa nesta matéria, não se cansando de lembrar a intervenção pública que Obama realizou logo em Outubro de 2002, ainda antes do Congresso ter dado luz verde à intervenção militar, onde terá previsto todas as vicissitudes que o tempo se encarregaria de concretizar nas premissas que hoje afectam o problema. Por seu turno, McCain destaca não só a desadequação do plano de Obama, mas sobretudo a gritante falta de firmeza do discurso do seu adversário sobre o Iraque, marcado por um trajecto de continuadas inflexões, ditadas pela evolução da agenda política do agora candidato democrata, numa tentativa de demonstrar que ao seu rival não restará outra opção que não seja esquecer rapidamente os seus irrealistas compromissos, caso venha a ser o próximo inquilino da Casa Branca. Em contrapartida, tenta retirar margem de manobra ao seu oponente reafirmando a firme convicção de nunca consentir que os seus argumentos voguem ao sabor de pressões conjunturais.

Os dados estão lançados e continuarão a rolar até Novembro...