Why Not Mothers First in Biographies?

EVER wondered why it is the case that in reading biographies of great and minor figures, the name of the father is almost always mentioned first than that of the mother? Not counting the cases of one of the parents being lopsidedly famous and powerful or influential over the other, the general trend has been that the father is almost always mentioned first. Notwithstanding if the father is a scum and it is the mother who served as major breadwinner. Even in the case of United States President Barack Obama whose father deserted them, his biographical page in the White House website cites his father first: “With a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas, President Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”

Is such really the natural course to follow? Perhaps, because most human beings carry the surname of the father* it is deemed to be a most natural thing to mention the father first.  Or, maybe, it is thought that God of some patriarchal religion decrees it that way. Perhaps in the days of old when outdated thinking and stiff patriarchy ruled the world, citing the father’s name first was understandably standard operating procedure for historians and biographical writers. Today in a world enlightened by science and humanist philosophy, should fathers still come first?

If it is “natural,” we should abide by, is it not logical that the name of the mother–who carried the infant in her womb for 9 months and risked her life giving birth to the child–instead come first in the biographies of noted humans of this planet? Why should the father, whose paternity is not obvious or readily verifiable be mentioned first?

In the olden times when it was exclusively the men who eked out a living and financially supported the wife and child, such practice of crediting the paternal roots first over the maternal  can be justified. But even that is arguable from an objective, non-patriarchal viewpoint.

In the modern times when women also work, if not actually serve as the family’s main breadwinner, should it not be fair SOP to mention first the mother over the father. I mean, it is the woman, after all, who is the biological source of the child, notwithstanding the genetic contribution of the man. So long as there’s a (valid) witness to the pregnancy and the delivery, the fact of motherhood is always undeniable. It is the woman who suffers the discomfort and extreme pains of pregnancy/labor, and, usually, the responsibility of nurturing the child in the critical early stages of infancy. So why prioritize giving credit to the father whose paternity cannot be perfectly guaranteed unless the mother was under fool-proof eunuch-guarded house arrest for a few months before the estimated date of conception.

In the Philippines, there is a saying that "sigurado ka lang na apo mo ang isang bata kapag yung nanay ang anak mo" (the grandparents can only be certain that a grandchild is theirs if it is the mother who is their offspring). Indeed, the marriage of, say, a son to his wife will not guarantee that any grandchild such a union produces carries the grandparents’ genes. The context of the saying is, of course, the traditional setup where DNA paternal testing was not yet available. However, even such DNA testing does not provide 100% accurate confirmation of paternity. Unless, perhaps, the procedure is repeated multiple times.

I say it is high time that humankind flow with the biological and reverse the patriarchal viewpoint of biography writing. Let the naming of mothers come first before that of the fathers. Mothers not only deserve first credit for all their pregnancy woes but, also, such a practice should provide more accurate, biologically founded biographical information.


*At least one exception is Sweden, as a Swedish friend informed me that couples have the option of choosing which surname (the wife or the husband) they wish to legally carry.

_____________


by Jesusa Bernardo

Images & reference @ BLOG by Taga-Ilog News

Re: Bow Bow Barack

Regarding the bow President Obama made to the emperor of Japan. A friend of mine has a common sense take on the bow with one commentor strenuously disagreeing. Having lived overseas I believe it is important and well received to show respect for a host's culture and traditions. I do agree with my buddy that President Obama was most likely not given adequate or correct briefing on proper protocol.

Now, as to why Americans (mostly those on my side of the political divide) are upset over this is because the bow is viewed as submission to an unelected hereditary ruler. Many believe President Obama is confusing diplomacy with obsequiousness. Of course, petty partisan payback has something to do with it too.

MA

Bow bow Barack

Critics in the US are ballistic on President Barack Obama's bowing to His Imperial Majesty Emperor Akihito of Japan. One video clip shows a series of 47 stills of world leaders calling on the Emperor and none of them bowed to His Imperial Majesty but shook his hand. Of all the world leaders only Her Excellency Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Philippines stood straight with no hint of deference and looked at His Imperial Majesty's eyes. That's because they are almost of the same height!

Word has it even the Japanese are embarrassed. After all the Japanese have stopped prostrating to the Emperor since Akihito's dad, the Emperor Showa divested himself of divinity after Japan's surrender on Sept 2, 1945.

Bowing is a sign of respect not too much of deference in today's Japan. It is more of a sort of greeting if anything else. Sales clerks clad in kimono usually greet the customer with an half- bow. The polite thing to do is to bow back with the same kind of bow or as a gesture of humility, bow lower.

Since I spent some time in Japan, I am quite aware of a few of the etiquette rules but not the whole thing. After all, only the Japanese know all the rules.

Some Filipinos do not get the reason why some Americans are pissed with their Head of State's bowing. Obama did a full formal bow and his host the Emperor just made a slight nod. In Asian cultures this means that Obama is an inferior and the Emperor is a superior. The Emperor should have made a deeper bow as a sign of respect and recognizing Obama as Head of State. But Emperors don't do that. Despite what Japan's Consitution says as him being a "symbol" of the Japanese people, the Emperor for all intents and purposes is Sovereign and Obama is not. To be fair to the Emperor, he seemed to have been taken for a surprise.

Someone ought to tell Barack Obama that he isn't just any politician but a President of a sovereign people and that his office has inherent dignities. But Obama may not be completely faulted. After all he grew up in a very Asian place where people bow, Indonesia.

The only other Western icon that I remember having bowed, no it was a deep curtsy to the Emperor and Empress was the newly divorced Diana, Princess of Wales. However she wasn't officially part of the Royal Family then having lost her HRH and she was definitely of lower rank than the Imperial couple.

Well President GMA may have had it right. Being vertically challenged may have protocol advantages!

Obama-GMA Meeting Reflects US Policy Toward Philippines

Having spoken strongly against those who cling to power through corruption and deceit during his inaugural address, one would think President Obama would somehow reinforce this message during his conversation with GMA, whose waning administration as we know has been beset by serious allegations of corruption and abuse of political power. He made no qualms reiterating this in his disapproval of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya's ouster by the military, although there are still hanging questions on the legitimacy of Zelaya's actions that precipitated his removal. Instead, President Obama steered away from such hot-button issues like charter change, term extensions, martial law, corruption and human rights, despite the fact that these issues threaten the political stability of the Philippines.

To be sure, President Obama was briefed on these issues but policy considerations made them off-limits. That President Obama did not make any reference to them at all, or even a hint, is an indication that the US's only interest in the Philippines right now is regional security. Given the generous accommodation the Philippines provides to US forces, not to mention our history of unflinching support for US foreign policy in other parts of the world, GMA is seen by the US as an invaluable ally in propping up its presence in the Asia-Pacific region in the wake of the North Korean threat and the growing dominance of China. Serious questions about GMA's governance appear to be the least of the US's worries for now.

Such approach to US foreign policy is not something new, where notably corrupt and dictatorial regimes have been supported by the US in the past in pursuing its interests, as in the case of Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War or of Pervers Musharaff of Pakistan in recent memory. Or closer to heart, we have the case of President Ferdinand Marcos who, until Edsa I, continuously enjoyed the support of the US. But the idea that President Obama would resuscitate this reprehensible policy is a big disappointment. After all, President Obama stressed during his inaugural speech that he rejects the false choice between America's safety and ideals; that US foreign policy - when it comes to protecting America - would not compromise its ideals. Although such pronouncement was made in the context of fighting terrorism it is safe to assume that it would also apply in other instances.

What is even disconcerting is that not only did President Obama fail to indicate US disapproval of any totalitarian tendencies and raise concerns on the disturbing corruption and unsolved human rights cases in the Philippines, he also heaped encomiums on GMA for her position on human rights and, in his words, for doing "an outstanding work on a whole range of issues." This is ironical because the human rights record of the Arroyo administration is not anywhere near acceptable. Just last year UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Philip Alston gave the Philippines a failing mark on human rights. And five months ago, the Philippines has been listed as the most dangerous peactime country for journalists in the wake of the numerous unsolved murders of journalists.

I don't know if corruption - where the Philippines notoriously and consistently get a high world ranking - is among the "range of issues" where President Obama said GMA is doing an outstanding work. I am sure he is not unaware of the recent World Bank report on corruption of road projects in the Philippines which are funded by no less than the World Bank, in which the US has a stake; or of the allegations of corruption in the use of military assistance funds provided by the US on the joint RP-US military exercises.

But why would the US put so much value in its relationship with an administration which, although has proven to be an important and loyal ally, is already in its waning days and risk the ire of an opposition that could seize power after the elections, given the administration's sagging popularity? This is a fertile ground for speculation of possible US support, or what amounts to the same thing, of off-hand US policy in case our much-feared apprehension of a term extension for GMA comes true. How we wish we knew what transpired behind closed doors between these two leaders.

SOURCE: Philippine Commentary

Gloria Upstaged by Beer Summit

Following is the Dept. of Foreign Affairs transcript of the 8-minute Press Conference of President Barack Obama and Gloria Arroyo. From USA Today's David Jackson's report it seems most of the eight minutes was really taken up by interest in the BEER SUMMIT held by Barack Obama with Henry Gates, James Crowley and Joe Biden in the Rose Garden. Barack got it right (though he was careless reading the teleprompter)  about the RP-US relationship being historical, cultural, diplomatic, military AND personal. His description, that "it dates back many years" seems a bit off--since it's been goin' on for more than 110 years. And when he said, "The Philippines is not the largest country in the world..." he could not be referring to its population of nearly 100 million, the twelfth largest country in the world. The US President exchanged mutual compliments with the visiting Philippines leader and then launched into an answer to a question about US GDP figures due out Friday.  Naming the Philippines as the "coordinating country" for ASEAN to carry the ball on such clearly long-term projects as human rights, nuclear nonproliferation and anti-terrorism must mean however that even Barack knows Gloria is a Lame Duck now and has begun the long slow descent from zenith to the cliff's edge...

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me express my thanks and appreciation for the visit from President Arroyo. As we discussed during our meeting here and our delegations, the relationship between the United States and the Philippines dates back many years. It is a friendship that is forged not only in treaties and trade relationships and military relationships, but it is also strengthened by very personal ties that exist between our two countries. We are proud to have 4 million persons of Filipino ancestry contributing to our country each and every day, in all walks of life. The fact that we have Filipino veterans who have fought side by side with American soldiers on behalf of freedom — all those things have strengthened the relationship between our two countries.

I am very pleased that President Arroyo has made such good progress on dealing with counterterrorism issues. She has initiated a peace process in Mindanao that we think is — has the potential to bring peace and stability to a part of the Philippines that has been wracked by unrest for too long. We are very grateful of the strong voice that the Philippines has provided in dealing with issues in Asia ranging from the human rights violations that have for too long existed in Burma to the problems that we’re seeing with respect to nuclear proliferation in North Korea.

I am looking forward to my travels to Southeast Asia, and the Philippines will be the coordinating country in the U.S. relationship with ASEAN, the primary organization — strategic organization for Southeast Asian countries. And in addition, the Philippines will be sharing the Non-Proliferation Treaty conference that will be taking next — place next year.

And so we’re going to have a busy agenda together working to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons, improving the multilateral partnerships in Asia that can create greater security and greater prosperity for all countries. And in addition, we continue to be grateful for the outstanding contributions that the Philippines has made with respect to U.N. peacekeeping around the world.

So although the Philippines is not the largest of countries, it, in using a phrase from boxing, punches above its weight in the international arena, and we are very grateful that President Arroyo has visited us here today, and we are looking forward to using this meeting as a way of launching even greater cooperation between our two countries in the years to come.

PRESIDENT ARROYO: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you for inviting me to have this very important conversation here in the White House.

The U.S. is very essential to the economic, diplomatic, and national security of our country. We are very thankful for the U.S. as an important ally in helping to professionalize our military and making it more effective.

Just as important, we are thankful to the U.S. for being such a good ally in our — working on soft power by helping us build bridges, roads, schools, not only in Mindanao but across the nation. And this assistance of the U.S. has gone a long way in helping us to achieve what we have been able to achieve in the peace process in Mindanao in southern Philippines, and also in our fight against terrorism.

I was very happy to let President Obama know that the Muslim secessionists have agreed, together with a Philippine government panel, to work towards a resumption of formal peace talks, and we’re very thankful for the international community, including the U.S., for their assistance in bringing us to this stage.

Internationally, we stand foursquare behind the United States on the position that it has taken with regard to Burma and with regard to North Korea’s nuclear adventurism.

We also applaud President Obama for his leadership on climate change, which is so important to the Philippines because we are an archipelagic country and severe climate change is going to be disastrous for our country. We are already feeling the weather pattern changes in the rising seas.

We are also — finally, may I say that I bring the thanks also of our Filipino veterans for the inclusion of the veterans’ benefits in the fiscal stimulus package, something that we have all waited for as a country for the last 60 years.

So I’m very grateful for this opportunity. We thank the Obama administration for the new engagement in our part of the world, and we look forward to a stronger relationship between the U.S. and ASEAN and, bilaterally, a stronger relationship with our two countries.

Thank you, Mr. President.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you so much.

Okay, we’re going to take two questions, one from a Filipino reporter.

PRESIDENT ARROYO: Yes.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yes. This gentleman right here. Is this a good — (laughter.)

Go ahead.

Q Thank you very much, Mr. President, and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. I am from the Philippine media, sir. It’s noted that you’re the first Asian head of state to be afforded by President Obama this — such an invitation. As much as this is your first time to see President Obama in person and you have talked to him, could you kindly share to us, Madam President, your impressions of the American President? (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’m sure she thinks I’m much younger looking than she expected. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT ARROYO: Well, as a person, President Obama is very cordial, warm, and welcoming. And I’m really very impressed about — of his deep understanding and knowledge of the Philippines and the Filipino people — the understanding of the close relationship within the Filipino people and the American people.

And we — I think we connected very well also on our position with regard to Burma and Aung San Suu Kyi, with regard to North Korea and nuclear proliferation, with regard to human rights and terrorism. And we welcome President Obama’s reaching out to the Muslim world, and also we are very pleased about his — the importance that he accords to engagement with our part of the world.

Q Is it considered to be ungrateful if I will not get your reaction? It will be greatly appreciated if you can also give your impression of our President.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, obviously, President Arroyo has done outstanding work on a whole range of issues. She mentioned the areas where the United States and the Philippines are of one accord, but as evidenced here today, she’s somebody who knows the issues. She has experience leading the Philippines through some very difficult times. She has expressed a great friendship towards the United States, and aside from her great personal charm — (laughter) — we are very appreciative of the concrete ways in which her administration has pursued strengthening ties with the United States. So I’m very grateful for that.

Okay, Jeff Mason.

Q Yes, sir. A double-barreled question for you. First of all, what do you expect to be the main message of the GDP figures that come out tomorrow? And second of all, what do you think will be the main message of your meeting tonight in the Rose Garden?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: On GDP, I don’t have a crystal ball and I haven’t received the figures yet, but I think if you look at the consensus of economists right now, it confirms that we have seen a significant slowing down of the contraction over the last several months. There are a lot of indicators out there that tell us that job losses, although still way too high, are not at the pace that we were seeing in January or February. Housing prices went up for the first time in three years. The credit system, the banking system, the financial markets generally have settled down. You’re not seeing the huge volatility or panic that you were seeing.

And so all of that is a sign that we have stepped away from the precipice. As Ben Bernanke and others across the ideological spectrum have indicated, we were in a position where we could have gone into a Great Depression. I think those fears have abated.

But I suspect that the GDP numbers will still show that the economy contracted in the second quarter, that job loss is still a huge problem. And you don’t have to read GDP numbers to see that; all you got to do is talk to the American people who are still losing jobs, losing homes, and worried about their ability to keep their health care and finance their child’s college educations. So we’re not going to rest until we have seen not just a technical improvement in GDP but until the American people’s job prospects, their incomes have rebounded — and that’s going to take some time.

With respect to tonight, you know, I am, I have to say, fascinated with the fascination about this evening. As you know, this idea was prompted when I was talking to Sergeant Crowley, and he said, well, maybe I’ll have a beer in the White House someday, and I said, well, you know, I’m sure that can be arranged.

I notice this had been called the “beer summit.” It’s a clever term, but this is not a summit, guys. This is three folks having a drink at the end of the day and hopefully giving people an opportunity to listen to each other. And that’s really all it is.

This is not a — this is not a university seminar. It is not a summit. It’s an attempt to have some personal interaction when an issue has become so hyped and so symbolic that you lose sight of just the fact that these are people involved, including myself, all of whom are imperfect. And hopefully instead of ginning up anger and hyperbole, everybody can just spend a little bit of time with some self-reflection and recognizing that other people have different points of view. And that’s all it is.

And so I will be surprised if you guys all make this the lead as opposed to a very important meeting that we just had with one of our most important partners in the world, but the press has surprised me before. (Laughter.)

Thank you very much.

END
SOURCE: Philippine Commentary

Yo! Barack--She's Zelaya in a Skirt

Even as her loyal House allies desperately push Conass at home, President Arroyo leaves for Washington D.C. today and a long-hoped-for personal meeting with US President BARACK OBAMA (whose kids have probably sampled exotic fare like adobo already at the White House). Mrs. Arroyo claims they are going to discuss Nuclear Nonproliferation, Veterans Affairs, Global Climate Change, and the Global Financial Crisis (all in 20 minutes). (I hope he sees Zelaya in a skirt). The Explainer Dialogues with Manolo Quezon analyzes the recent State of the Nation Address in last Monday's episode with Business World's Vergel O. Santos and Black and White Movement's Leah Roque. I was on the panel.




SOURCE: Philippine Commentary

Still Outside the Obama Kulambo

BAMA DID NOT MEET GLORIA TODAY

ABSCBN News is reporting tonight that President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo did not even come close to meeting with President Barack Obama during the latter's First National Prayer Breakfast, despite ever-so-fervent hopes for such a meeting being assiduously stoked by Malacanang Palace. This as the President's party scandalously spent a bunch of the Filipino people's money lolly-gagging around Washington D.C.'s poshest hotel. Meanwhile there is a rumor that Senator Chiz Escudero has been briefing Obama insiders about the situation in the Philippines...(psych!) But he is in Washington D.C. trying to get a hold of that World Bank report on bid rigging corruption in the Philippines. I don't agree with Sen. Miriam Defensor that it is incumbent on the World Bank to supply a SECOND copy of the Report to the Senate. I wish it would, but isn't it a shame the Philippine Senate cannot get a copy from the Philippine Ombudsman?

---

Gloria Should Feel Referred To

From the inaugural speech of Barack Obama, many are picking up this quote [via MLQ3 and John Nery]

To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

Considering that the Philippines is considered the most corrupt country in Asia, Gloria should feel referred to.

America the Corrigible

[Cross-posting at Filipino Voices...]
If I were asked to name the strength or virtue of American civilization that I admire the most, I would immediately say it is corrigibility, the ability to recognize, rectify and learn from one's mistakes. Speaking of which, George W. Bush has reached his last day in office--which began on Saturday, 20 January 2001. By coincidence that was exactly the same day that Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was illegitimately sworn in as President in the middle of a Senate Impeachment Trial by someone wearing the costume of the Chief Justice of SCoRP in front of a graven idol of Mama Mary and the hooting throng of Edsa Dos. Some would say GWB was also shoe-horned into office by SCotUS, but at least that happened in a proper judicial case brought before the honorable court.

Bush Regrets

In his first television one-on-one interview on CNN since the elections, President George W. Bush expressed his regrets over certain things he has said and done during the last eight years. In particular he mentioned "Dead or Alive!", "Bring'em on!" and the incident on a US warship shortly after the Iraq invasion in which a sign became an ironic emblem for the entire progress of the war since: "Mission Accomplished."

I think the remarks above are the closest George W. Bush has come to "apologizing" and his disarming candor will be noted by many, along with his genuine praise for President-elect Barack Obama. There was however, no news at all about how things actually went between Laura Bush (maroon) and Michelle Obama (flaming red)...Bush said he was sorry that "his choice" John McCain lost the 2008 presidential election but did not admit he was one of the reasons for it. (That is painfully obvious anyway.) But Bush struck absolutely the right note by hailing Barack Obama's convincing election victory as an historic moment, a day that "many people never thought they would see." Indeed the ginormity of the victors' mandate makes it absolutely honorable for the losers to concede and accept defeat with dignity and offer genuine congratulations. Bush did more than that by offering and arranging a smooth and effective transition to the incoming administration team.

Asked how the visit between George and Laura and Barack and Michelle went, Bush was firmly tightlipped about "advice on foreign and domestic issues" he might have given the President-elect, but he was quite sincere--almost in shock and awe--in praising Barack Obama as the father of two lovely daughters who was concerned during the visit about how they would take to life in the White House, their surroundings for the next four years. Bush seemed to admire and acknowledge Barack Obama's family values, and opined that this would be an important part of his Presidency.

Bush recalled how the Clintons once welcomed them to the White House in 2000 and he told Bubba, "You didn't have to do this!" In according the same graciousness to the Obamas, Dubya strengthens the American tradition of peaceful, even convivial transitions of power at the top. Moreover, I got the impression that Bush genuinely supports the president-elect and hopes he will be successful.

Martin Luther King would be smiling right about now, not crying like Jesse Jackson, now that even the cynical have seen the Promised Land, and the people have judged a leader, not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.

The triumph of Barack Obama is indeed not a "black victory"--one wag even claimed it to be the victory of white supremacists over their own racism! It is in truth a triumph of the entire American people in overcoming the mental illness of racial prejudice and discrimination, a redemption of centuries-old American ideals which "hold it to be self-evident that all men are created equal."

Such Sincere Conviviality

"A good constructive relaxed and friendly meeting" is how White House spokesperson Dana Perino describes the meeting between George and Barack and Laura and Michelle today, as the Bushes hosted the Obama's at the White House. (No! It is not being renamed the Black House, silly!) The CNN coverage I first watched has Laura Bush glancing down at her watch during the first picture! picture! It was reminiscent of a move her father-in-law, George H.W. Bush once made in a presidential debate, which of course this event was not. Later clips don't contain the small and probably meaningless motion--not on this day of the such sincere conviviality imaginable... A sign of a strong and healthy democracy... Maybe the two ladies discussed the drapes with a serious mien later...President Bush was both generous and gracious in his congratulations to the President-elect...a very warm welcome is always in order to whomsoever you are handing off the Hot Potato! ...Barack himself can't bear Dubya too much umbrage...Bush being the best election argument against John McCain. I noticed a slight Texas swagger to Barack's stride as he and Bush strode past the Roses in the Garden...

---

Laurence H. Tribe, Professor of constitutional law at Harvard, calls Barack Obama "the most impressive student" he has ever taught (possibly next only to Michelle Obama).

Barack Obama's unique ability to explain and to motivate, coupled with his signature ability to listen and to learn, and linked with the calm that marked his nearly flawless campaign, will serve him--and all of us--well as we grapple with as daunting a set of problems as the nation has faced in three-quarters of a century. It is of course true that only time will tell just how successful this brave, brilliant and caring man will be in charting a new course for the country, something that will depend only partly on decisions that Obama will make as president.

The student exceeds the master, eh? We shall see...

---

Obama's victory was everyone's victory, not a "black thing," opines Elizabeth Wurtzel

Of course, Mr. Obama's election to the highest office in the nation is a particular party for the African-American community -- only a moron would miss that point -- but why leave the rest of us out? Anyone still thinking straight after this heady occasion knows that Mr. Obama is to be our next president in spite of race, not because of it. The winner of this contest may finally be Martin Luther King Jr., whose dream is at last realized: We judged Mr. Obama not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. Why minimize the wonder of that by making this into a black thing?

If anything, I guess, Obama's victory was the white majority's victory over a collective demon-- a triumph over a mental illness once pandemic in America, now hopefully on the way to extinction, like polio or malaria or some other debilitating disease. Blacks and "people of colour" should note the transformation, but remember and beware the symptoms, racism being truly an equal opportunity affliction.

---

Barack Obama: "A Mutt Like Me"

Video and transcripts of Barack Obama's first press conference  (courtesy of the New York Times) show that this guy is ready for the job of President of the United States.  He was confident, purposeful and optimistic in his formal remarks, yet circumspect and respectful, when he reminded everyone that we only "have one President at a time" and refused to confound diplomatic signals on Iran, repeating that a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable.

The president-elect was very relaxed with the Press during the question and answer period.  Asked what a new President could do in the first hundred days in office, he responded immediately that he would act to restore confidence as the financial crisis spills out into the rest of the economy.  He said that if the lame-duck Congress did not do it as a final act under the Bush administration, it would be his first accomplishment as President to pass a second economic stimulus package. He stressed the need to create jobs and boost consumer confidence.

Asked what books he was reading and which Presidents he has talked to, Barack Obama said he had been talking to all of the living presidents but mentioned specifically his re-reading of ABRAHAM LINCOLN speeches and writings.

Now regarding the puppy...It seems the Obama's have to get an "hypo-allergenic dog" because Melea is allergic to dogs.  Barack Obama said, he would have preferred they got a shelter dog ("a mutt like me").   Haha, oh well...movin on up...to the East Side...

RACISM: Why Deny the Elephant in the Room?

At this stage of the 2008 US Presidential Election, I think it basically boils down to the very issue that all sides have tried to deny or minimize the existence of, but which has always, in my opinion, been a huge elephant in the room: RACE.

John McCain is of course a white man. His victory would be unexceptional since every president America has ever had has also been white (the claims for Bill Clinton notwithstanding!)

But if elected, Barack Obama would be the first black President of the United States of America and "history would be made" as they say. Even though Barack Obama IS half black (via his Kenyan father) and half white (via his Kansas-born mother), for most everyone he IS black and that's the history that America will be making in November, if Barack Obama wins.

I emphasize "IF" because despite a widening lead in the polls, some percentage of likely voters consistently tells pollsters that Obama RACE will indeed be a factor in their decision on whether to vote for him of McCain.

There is of course no generalization here. America has come a long, long way since the Civil War. Not all, not most, perhaps not even many Americans are true racists, (say in the skinhead mode). But some surely are and it is useless denying, castigating, diminishing, exaggerating, or even rationalizing it. It is simply the truth. Once this is admitted, especially by those who disingenuously or subconsciously go to great lengths to deny both its overt and subliminal presence in the campaign, a great historical opportunity reveals itself--to overcome and transcend this devastating mental disease called racism, once pandemic in America and from which she is still recovering these scores of years later since Gettysburg.

Both campaigns (and their respective blogospheric surrogates and extensions) have been tiptoeing around the issue and DENYING that it even exists or is any kind of major factor. Perhaps, they each fear that it could be an uncontrollable, unpredictable factor, though for very different reasons.

The Obama campaign has been very careful not to let their bet become tarred and feathered with the reputations of racial politicians like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton (both of whom have run for POTUS). They paint him as a "post-racial" candidate, and all must admit, his demeanor (calm, cool, collected, even, aloof) has certainly helped to distinguish him from those folks. Meanwhile the McCain campaign, perhaps in desperation, and disappointingly, has been flirting with a dangerous negativism seen in the provocative jingoism of Sarah Palin (who has made pit bulls look like kitty cats by comparison).

In March, 2008 -- at the height of the controversy surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- Barack Obama himself delivered a speech addressing the Race Issue.
a speech well worth listening to and reading again, now that the elections are entering their crucial last month.


Whoever wins, Barack Obama has already made history. I am so looking forward to America doing the same. Indeed, whether this year or another, I have little doubt that this great country will, for corrigibility is its greatest virtue, and is the reason why America is still humanity's best hope, the shining City on the hill called Mount Improbable.

---

From the Hillblogger: Brigitte Bardot on Sarah Palin!

It's About You

[For the Record]
Senator Barack Obama accepts the nomination of the Democratic Party for President (transcript):

This may be a bit late as the blogosphere goes but I was on vacation last week. It's early enough though to await the competing declamation of Senator John McCain (Gustav obliging of course) some time later this week. The GOP is not having as good a week as planned, though it is yet to unfold. But the Republican National Convention in Minnesota seems to have been walloped by Hurricane Gustav even harder than New Orleans itself. There lies an opportunity in this, as well as a silver lining to the overhanging dark cloud, as one probably pro-Obama tv personality noted, in that neither President George W. Bush nor Vice President Dick Cheney will be making an appearance.

I'm sure Senator John McCain will deliver a strong and compelling speech himself, especially after hearing the Democratic candidate show a flash of passion to tangle with him in the forthcoming US Presidential Debates. I'm looking forward to those decisive moments in a pivotal political struggle.

On substance, this blog will be playing close attention to the positions and ideas of both men on four key issues: (1) the war on terrorism and (2) the future of Science, Religion and Education in America; (3) energy and innovation policy; and (4) immigration reform.

Though their views on all these issues have been made known, I think they've both been scrambling around in the expected mad dash to occupy the Center and court undecideds. In some sense these "recalibrated" positions going into the home stretch of the race will be better indicators of what they will actually do or not do in office.

I think now that either man would make a good President, in his own way. It remains only to decide who would be better for America in these, too-interesting times (for that would surely be better for the world). So, I would like to think that this choice is not for the lesser of two evils, but the greater of two goods. It's a luxury never seen in Philippine elections, unfortunately.

No End But Victory--But What Constitutes Victory?

What constitutes victory in Iraq?

I think this is an important conceptual question for many Americans because I believe that most of them, myself included, do not want to leave in defeat, as it would not only be dishonorable, but dangerous to ourselves, our country and the world, in the long run.

Indeed, a major bone of contention in the 2008 US Presidential election is what to do about Iraq. Should we go or should we stay? Surely, the answer to that question would not be a matter of controversy at all if America believed that it has already won, that it has already achieved "victory" in Iraq. Which leads back to the first question: what constitutes victory in Iraq?

While the original goal of overthrowing the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein was achieved long ago, and Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors, several violent insurgencies against the Iraqi government are ongoing and most certainly pose a threat both to Iraq itself and the coalition forces still present there. It would seem therefore that merely overthrowing Saddam Hussein and neutralizing any malevolent intentions he had against other countries, including America, would be an insufficient quantum of victory, if upon our exit, there were not a viable, independent democratic state to replace the Baathist fascist dictatorship we overthrew with so much American blood and treasure.

And so, what constitutes victory in Iraq at this stage becomes crucial to any decision involving troop withdrawals and disengagement.

The US Army Counterinsurgency Manual [via the Federation of American Scientists], one of whose two principal authors is General David H. Petraeus, presently the commander of US forces on the ground in Iraq, contains a rather sensible definition of the long-term goal of a counterinsurgency operation which is what US and UK presence in that country presently represents.

"The long-term goal is to leave a government able to stand by itself. In the end, the host nation has to win on its own. ... Eventually all foreign armies are seen as interlopers or occupiers; the sooner the main effort can transition to Host Nation institutions, without unacceptable degradation, the better."

Both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates have had a lot to say about Iraq lately, but I must say, Democrat Barack Obama scored a lot of points in this regard in a major foreign policy address just before going on his recently concluded visits to Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Germany, France and the United Kingdom when he said:

"...true success in Iraq - victory in Iraq - will not take place in a surrender ceremony where an enemy lays down their arms. True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future - a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge. That is an achievable goal if we pursue a comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis stand up."

Now, I still agree with John McCain that we ought to stay in Iraq for a hundred years if that is what it takes to achieve what General Petraeus and Barack Obama call a government that can stand by itself and win on its own against threats to its own democratic constitution and future. (After all, it took them almost a half a century in the Philippines, the First Iraq!). But I hope John McCain soon gets over the notion that Iraq is "the central front in the War on Terror," because it just ain't true and even George W. Bush and US Military seem to know it!

In that struggle, victory is still a long way off, and the enemy won't be decisively defeated in the suqs and slums of Baghdad.

Barack Obama: Five Goals of His "New Strategy for a New World"

Democratic Presidential candidate BARACK OBAMA delivered a major foreign policy speech in Washington D.C. on July 15. A complete transcript is here.

Senator Barack Obama’s New Strategy for a New World

As Prepared For Delivery
Washington, D.C.
July 15, 2008

Sixty-one years ago, George Marshall announced the plan that would come to bear his name. Much of Europe lay in ruins. The United States faced a powerful and ideological enemy intent on world domination. This menace was magnified by the recently discovered capability to destroy life on an unimaginable scale. The Soviet Union didn't yet have an atomic bomb, but before long it would.

The challenge facing the greatest generation of Americans - the generation that had vanquished fascism on the battlefield - was how to contain this threat while extending freedom's frontiers. Leaders like Truman and Acheson, Kennan and Marshall, knew that there was no single decisive blow that could be struck for freedom. We needed a new overarching strategy to meet the challenges of a new and dangerous world.

Such a strategy would join overwhelming military strength with sound judgment. It would shape events not just through military force, but through the force of our ideas; through economic power, intelligence and diplomacy. It would support strong allies that freely shared our ideals of liberty and democracy; open markets and the rule of law. It would foster new international institutions like the United Nations, NATO, and the World Bank, and focus on every corner of the globe. It was a strategy that saw clearly the world's dangers, while seizing its promise.

As a general, Marshall had spent years helping FDR wage war. But the Marshall Plan - which was just one part of this strategy - helped rebuild not just allies, but also the nation that Marshall had plotted to defeat. In the speech announcing his plan, he concluded not with tough talk or definitive declarations - but rather with questions and a call for perspective. "The whole world of the future," Marshall said, "hangs on a proper judgment." To make that judgment, he asked the American people to examine distant events that directly affected their security and prosperity. He closed by asking: "What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done?"

What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done?

Today's dangers are different, though no less grave. The power to destroy life on a catastrophic scale now risks falling into the hands of terrorists. The future of our security - and our planet - is held hostage to our dependence on foreign oil and gas. From the cave-spotted mountains of northwest Pakistan, to the centrifuges spinning beneath Iranian soil, we know that the American people cannot be protected by oceans or the sheer might of our military alone.

The attacks of September 11 brought this new reality into a terrible and ominous focus. On that bright and beautiful day, the world of peace and prosperity that was the legacy of our Cold War victory seemed to suddenly vanish under rubble, and twisted steel, and clouds of smoke.

But the depth of this tragedy also drew out the decency and determination of our nation. At blood banks and vigils; in schools and in the United States Congress, Americans were united - more united, even, than we were at the dawn of the Cold War. The world, too, was united against the perpetrators of this evil act, as old allies, new friends, and even long-time adversaries stood by our side. It was time - once again - for America's might and moral suasion to be harnessed; it was time to once again shape a new security strategy for an ever-changing world.

Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11.

We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan.

We could have secured loose nuclear materials around the world, and updated a 20th century non-proliferation framework to meet the challenges of the 21st.

We could have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in alternative sources of energy to grow our economy, save our planet, and end the tyranny of oil.

We could have strengthened old alliances, formed new partnerships, and renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity.

We could have called on a new generation to step into the strong currents of history, and to serve their country as troops and teachers, Peace Corps volunteers and police officers.

We could have secured our homeland--investing in sophisticated new protection for our ports, our trains and our power plants.

We could have rebuilt our roads and bridges, laid down new rail and broadband and electricity systems, and made college affordable for every American to strengthen our ability to compete.

We could have done that.

Instead, we have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats - all in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Our men and women in uniform have accomplished every mission we have given them. What's missing in our debate about Iraq - what has been missing since before the war began - is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq and its dominance of our foreign policy. This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe.

I am running for President of the United States to lead this country in a new direction - to seize this moment's promise. Instead of being distracted from the most pressing threats that we face, I want to overcome them. Instead of pushing the entire burden of our foreign policy on to the brave men and women of our military, I want to use all elements of American power to keep us safe, and prosperous, and free. Instead of alienating ourselves from the world, I want America - once again - to lead.

As President, I will pursue a tough, smart and principled national security strategy - one that recognizes that we have interests not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and London, in Beijing and Berlin. I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

My opponent in this campaign has served this country with honor, and we all respect his sacrifice. We both want to do what we think is best to defend the American people. But we've made different judgments, and would lead in very different directions. That starts with Iraq.

I opposed going to war in Iraq; Senator McCain was one of Washington's biggest supporters for war. I warned that the invasion of a country posing no imminent threat would fan the flames of extremism, and distract us from the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; Senator McCain claimed that we would be greeted as liberators, and that democracy would spread across the Middle East. Those were the judgments we made on the most important strategic question since the end of the Cold War.

Now, all of us recognize that we must do more than look back - we must make a judgment about how to move forward. What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done? Senator McCain wants to talk of our tactics in Iraq; I want to focus on a new strategy for Iraq and the wider world.

It has been 18 months since President Bush announced the surge. As I have said many times, our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence. General Petraeus has used new tactics to protect the Iraqi population. We have talked directly to Sunni tribes that used to be hostile to America, and supported their fight against al Qaeda. Shiite militias have generally respected a cease-fire. Those are the facts, and all Americans welcome them.

For weeks, now, Senator McCain has argued that the gains of the surge mean that I should change my commitment to end the war. But this argument misconstrues what is necessary to succeed in Iraq, and stubbornly ignores the facts of the broader strategic picture that we face.

In the 18 months since the surge began, the strain on our military has increased, our troops and their families have borne an enormous burden, and American taxpayers have spent another $200 billion in Iraq. That's over $10 billion each month. That is a consequence of our current strategy.

In the 18 months since the surge began, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. June was our highest casualty month of the war. The Taliban has been on the offensive, even launching a brazen attack on one of our bases. Al Qaeda has a growing sanctuary in Pakistan. That is a consequence of our current strategy.

In the 18 months since the surge began, as I warned at the outset - Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the purpose of the surge. They have not invested tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues to rebuild their country. They have not resolved their differences or shaped a new political compact.

That's why I strongly stand by my plan to end this war. Now, Prime Minister Maliki's call for a timetable for the removal of U.S. forces presents a real opportunity. It comes at a time when the American general in charge of training Iraq's Security Forces has testified that Iraq's Army and Police will be ready to assume responsibility for Iraq's security in 2009. Now is the time for a responsible redeployment of our combat troops that pushes Iraq's leaders toward a political solution, rebuilds our military, and refocuses on Afghanistan and our broader security interests.

George Bush and John McCain don't have a strategy for success in Iraq - they have a strategy for staying in Iraq. They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down. They refuse to press the Iraqis to make tough choices, and they label any timetable to redeploy our troops "surrender," even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government - not to a terrorist enemy. Theirs is an endless focus on tactics inside Iraq, with no consideration of our strategy to face threats beyond Iraq's borders.

At some point, a judgment must be made. Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don't have unlimited resources to try to make it one. We are not going to kill every al Qaeda sympathizer, eliminate every trace of Iranian influence, or stand up a flawless democracy before we leave - General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker acknowledged this to me when they testified last April. That is why the accusation of surrender is false rhetoric used to justify a failed policy. In fact, true success in Iraq - victory in Iraq - will not take place in a surrender ceremony where an enemy lays down their arms. True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future - a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge. That is an achievable goal if we pursue a comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis stand up.

To achieve that success, I will give our military a new mission on my first day in office: ending this war. Let me be clear: we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 - one year after Iraqi Security Forces will be prepared to stand up; two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, we'll keep a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq: targeting any remnants of al Qaeda; protecting our service members and diplomats; and training and supporting Iraq's Security Forces, so long as the Iraqis make political progress.

We will make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy - that is what any responsible Commander-in-Chief must do. As I have consistently said, I will consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government. We will redeploy from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We will commit $2 billion to a meaningful international effort to support the more than 4 million displaced Iraqis. We will forge a new coalition to support Iraq's future - one that includes all of Iraq's neighbors, and also the United Nations, the World Bank, and the European Union - because we all have a stake in stability. And we will make it clear that the United States seeks no permanent bases in Iraq.

This is the future that Iraqis want. This is the future that the American people want. And this is what our common interests demand. Both America and Iraq will be more secure when the terrorist in Anbar is taken out by the Iraqi Army, and the criminal in Baghdad fears Iraqi Police, not just coalition forces. Both America and Iraq will succeed when every Arab government has an embassy open in Baghdad, and the child in Basra benefits from services provided by Iraqi dinars, not American tax dollar

And this is the future we need for our military. We cannot tolerate this strain on our forces to fight a war that hasn't made us safer. I will restore our strength by ending this war, completing the increase of our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines, and investing in the capabilities we need to defeat conventional foes and meet the unconventional challenges of our time.

So let's be clear. Senator McCain would have our troops continue to fight tour after tour of duty, and our taxpayers keep spending $10 billion a month indefinitely; I want Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future, and to reach the political accommodation necessary for long-term stability. That's victory. That's success. That's what's best for Iraq, that's what's best for America, and that's why I will end this war as President.

In fact - as should have been apparent to President Bush and Senator McCain - the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was. That's why the second goal of my new strategy will be taking the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia. If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned. And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan.

Senator McCain said - just months ago - that "Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq." I could not disagree more. Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That's what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month. And that's why, as President, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.

I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions - with fewer restrictions - from NATO allies. I will focus on training Afghan security forces and supporting an Afghan judiciary, with more resources and incentives for American officers who perform these missions. Just as we succeeded in the Cold War by supporting allies who could sustain their own security, we must realize that the 21st century's frontlines are not only on the field of battle - they are found in the training exercise near Kabul, in the police station in Kandahar, and in the rule of law in Herat.

Moreover, lasting security will only come if we heed Marshall's lesson, and help Afghans grow their economy from the bottom up. That's why I've proposed an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance each year, with meaningful safeguards to prevent corruption and to make sure investments are made - not just in Kabul - but out in Afghanistan's provinces. As a part of this program, we'll invest in alternative livelihoods to poppy-growing for Afghan farmers, just as we crack down on heroin trafficking. We cannot lose Afghanistan to a future of narco-terrorism. The Afghan people must know that our commitment to their future is enduring, because the security of Afghanistan and the United States is shared.

The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.

Make no mistake: we can't succeed in Afghanistan or secure our homeland unless we change our Pakistan policy. We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. It's time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That's why I'm cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda. We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror and radical Islam.

Only a strong Pakistani democracy can help us move toward my third goal - securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states. One of the terrible ironies of the Iraq War is that President Bush used the threat of nuclear terrorism to invade a country that had no active nuclear program. But the fact that the President misled us into a misguided war doesn't diminish the threat of a terrorist with a weapon of mass destruction - in fact, it has only increased it.

In those years after World War II, we worried about the deadly atom falling into the hands of the Kremlin. Now, we worry about 50 tons of highly enriched uranium - some of it poorly secured - at civilian nuclear facilities in over forty countries. Now, we worry about the breakdown of a non-proliferation framework that was designed for the bipolar world of the Cold War. Now, we worry - most of all - about a rogue state or nuclear scientist transferring the world's deadliest weapons to the world's most dangerous people: terrorists who won't think twice about killing themselves and hundreds of thousands in Tel Aviv or Moscow, in London or New York.

We cannot wait any longer to protect the American people. I've made this a priority in the Senate, where I worked with Republican Senator Dick Lugar to pass a law accelerating our pursuit of loose nuclear materials. I'll lead a global effort to secure all loose nuclear materials around the world during my first term as President. And I'll develop new defenses to protect against the 21st century threat of biological weapons and cyber-terrorism - threats that I'll discuss in more detail tomorrow.

Beyond taking these immediate, urgent steps, it's time to send a clear message: America seeks a world with no nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we must retain a strong deterrent. But instead of threatening to kick them out of the G-8, we need to work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert; to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material; to seek a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons; and to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global. By keeping our commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we'll be in a better position to press nations like North Korea and Iran to keep theirs. In particular, it will give us more credibility and leverage in dealing with Iran.

We cannot tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of nations that support terror. Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is a vital national security interest of the United States. No tool of statecraft should be taken off the table, but Senator McCain would continue a failed policy that has seen Iran strengthen its position, advance its nuclear program, and stockpile 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. I will use all elements of American power to pressure the Iranian regime, starting with aggressive, principled and direct diplomacy - diplomacy backed with strong sanctions and without preconditions.

There will be careful preparation. I commend the work of our European allies on this important matter, and we should be full partners in that effort. Ultimately the measure of any effort is whether it leads to a change in Iranian behavior. That's why we must pursue these tough negotiations in full coordination with our allies, bringing to bear our full influence - including, if it will advance our interests, my meeting with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing.

We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives. If you refuse, then we will ratchet up the pressure, with stronger unilateral sanctions; stronger multilateral sanctions in the Security Council, and sustained action outside the UN to isolate the Iranian regime. That's the diplomacy we need. And the Iranians should negotiate now; by waiting, they will only face mounting pressure.

The surest way to increase our leverage against Iran in the long-run is to stop bankrolling its ambitions. That will depend on achieving my fourth goal: ending the tyranny of oil in our time.

One of the most dangerous weapons in the world today is the price of oil. We ship nearly $700 million a day to unstable or hostile nations for their oil. It pays for terrorist bombs going off from Baghdad to Beirut. It funds petro-diplomacy in Caracas and radical madrasas from Karachi to Khartoum. It takes leverage away from America and shifts it to dictators.

This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the long-term threat from climate change, which will lead to devastating weather patterns, terrible storms, drought, and famine. That means people competing for food and water in the next fifty years in the very places that have known horrific violence in the last fifty: Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Most disastrously, that could mean destructive storms on our shores, and the disappearance of our coastline.

This is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis. For the sake of our security - and for every American family that is paying the price at the pump - we must end this dependence on foreign oil. And as President, that's exactly what I'll do. Small steps and political gimmickry just won't do. I'll invest $150 billion over the next ten years to put America on the path to true energy security. This fund will fast track investments in a new green energy business sector that will end our addiction to oil and create up to 5 million jobs over the next two decades, and help secure the future of our country and our planet. We'll invest in research and development of every form of alternative energy - solar, wind, and biofuels, as well as technologies that can make coal clean and nuclear power safe. And from the moment I take office, I will let it be known that the United States of America is ready to lead again.

Never again will we sit on the sidelines, or stand in the way of global action to tackle this global challenge. I will reach out to the leaders of the biggest carbon emitting nations and ask them to join a new Global Energy Forum that will lay the foundation for the next generation of climate protocols. We will also build an alliance of oil-importing nations and work together to reduce our demand, and to break the grip of OPEC on the global economy. We'll set a goal of an 80% reduction in global emissions by 2050. And as we develop new forms of clean energy here at home, we will share our technology and our innovations with all the nations of the world.

That is the tradition of American leadership on behalf of the global good. And that will be my fifth goal - rebuilding our alliances to meet the common challenges of the 21st century.

For all of our power, America is strongest when we act alongside strong partners. We faced down fascism with the greatest war-time alliance the world has ever known. We stood shoulder to shoulder with our NATO allies against the Soviet threat, and paid a far smaller price for the first Gulf War because we acted together with a broad coalition. We helped create the United Nations - not to constrain America's influence, but to amplify it by advancing our values.

Now is the time for a new era of international cooperation. It's time for America and Europe to renew our common commitment to face down the threats of the 21st century just as we did the challenges of the 20th. It's time to strengthen our partnerships with Japan, South Korea, Australia and the world's largest democracy - India - to create a stable and prosperous Asia. It's time to engage China on common interests like climate change, even as we continue to encourage their shift to a more open and market-based society. It's time to strengthen NATO by asking more of our allies, while always approaching them with the respect owed a partner. It's time to reform the United Nations, so that this imperfect institution can become a more perfect forum to share burdens, strengthen our leverage, and promote our values. It's time to deepen our engagement to help resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, so that we help our ally Israel achieve true and lasting security, while helping Palestinians achieve their legitimate aspirations for statehood.

And just as we renew longstanding efforts, so must we shape new ones to meet new challenges. That's why I'll create a Shared Security Partnership Program - a new alliance of nations to strengthen cooperative efforts to take down global terrorist networks, while standing up against torture and brutality. That's why we'll work with the African Union to enhance its ability to keep the peace. That's why we'll build a new partnership to roll back the trafficking of drugs, and guns, and gangs in the Americas. That's what we can do if we are ready to engage the world.

We will have to provide meaningful resources to meet critical priorities. I know development assistance is not the most popular program, but as President, I will make the case to the American people that it can be our best investment in increasing the common security of the entire world. That was true with the Marshall Plan, and that must be true today. That's why I'll double our foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012, and use it to support a stable future in failing states, and sustainable growth in Africa; to halve global poverty and to roll back disease. To send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, "You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now."

This must be the moment when we answer the call of history. For eight years, we have paid the price for a foreign policy that lectures without listening; that divides us from one another - and from the world - instead of calling us to a common purpose; that focuses on our tactics in fighting a war without end in Iraq instead of forging a new strategy to face down the true threats that we face. We cannot afford four more years of a strategy that is out of balance and out of step with this defining moment.

None of this will be easy, but we have faced great odds before. When General Marshall first spoke about the plan that would bear his name, the rubble of Berlin had not yet been built into a wall. But Marshall knew that even the fiercest of adversaries could forge bonds of friendship founded in freedom. He had the confidence to know that the purpose and pragmatism of the American people could outlast any foe. Today, the dangers and divisions that came with the dawn of the Cold War have receded. Now, the defeat of the threats of the past has been replaced by the transnational threats of today. We know what is needed. We know what can best be done. We know what must done. Now it falls to us to act with the same sense of purpose and pragmatism as an earlier generation, to join with friends and partners to lead the world anew.

Mr. Obama enunciates five major goals:

"As President, I will pursue a tough, smart and principled national security strategy - one that recognizes that we have interests not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and London, in Beijing and Berlin. I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century."

Highlights I found noteworthy are these:

Obama defines victory in Iraq as follows:

"...true success in Iraq - victory in Iraq - will not take place in a surrender ceremony where an enemy lays down their arms. True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future - a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge. That is an achievable goal if we pursue a comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis stand up."

Obama locates the center of the war on terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq. This is a point with which I happen to agree: why indeed should there be five times as many US troops in Iraq now than in Afghanistan? Why have al-Qaeda and the Taliban and Jemaah Islamiyah not yet been decisively defeated? I think it will be a key change of emphasis and venue for the US military and that of its allies.

Despite the fact that many on the Left have made a career of ridiculing the absence of an active nuclear development program in Iraq before the war (unlike for example, Iran!) Obama seems to understand the continuing threat of nuclear terrorism as well as nuclear rogue states, and this seems to inform his third goal of getting global nuclear stockpiles under control and preventing the worst case scenario that Mohammed el Baradei warned of when he received his Nobel Peace Prize in 2006--that a terrorist group like al-Qaeda would get their hands on and most certainly use the Bomb.

He sees the US dependence on foreign oil as more than economic problem, but as a national security crisis. He wants to invest $15 billion annually for years to win energy independence.

He wants to rebuild America's leadership in the world, which many believe has been eroded under the presidency of George W. Bush.

It's a long, substantive speech that I expect will be picked over and analyzed by pundits and bloggers in the next few weeks and throughout the presidential campaign.

---

SCORP (Supreme Court of the Philippines) is in the news. First for (correctly) striking down the clearly illegal and unconstitutional creation of "Sharif Kabunsuan province" by the ARMM legislature. It is disturbing however that the decision was passed by a narrow 8-6 margin. This leaves GMA and her peace negotiators some wiggle room when it comes to her hoped for "peace legacy" for Mindanao: a 1000 barangay homeland called Bangsamorostan for all the Long Beards of Waziristan to hide in. Now it seems there is real reason to worry.

On another front, the Supreme Court's "activist" image is taking a real beating that not even Chief Justice Reynato Puno can do much about, as GMA's appointees issue an atrocious ruling on the NBN ZTE contract and are rightly accused of shirking its duty to provide check and balance.

Must Be Like, New Yorker Satire

Check out the cover of the New Yorker Magazine (July 21, 2008 edition) which shows Barack Obama in Muslim garb and head gear, with an Afro-dooed, camo-clothed Michelle Obama slinging an AK-47, doing their famous fist-bump -- in the Oval Office with the American flag burning in the fireplace and a portrait of Osama bin Laden looking on. The New Yorker cover by Barry Blitt satirizes "the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama's campaign," the magazine said in a press release.

Is it incendiary or satire? Or tasteless as both the Obama and McCain camps declare it to be. Both camps want to maintain a high moral tone throughout the campaign. (I think there is a consciousness on both sides that whoever might make the mistake of a sudden or inadvertent descent to gracelessness could actually lose the race thereby!). Now, there are probably some people out there for whom the satiric humor in the New Yorker cartoon might be lost altogether, on both sides of the aisle!

Now whether it is "a change we can believe in" or "the right kind of change", both candidates have been creating a "centrist landscape" out of remarkable agreement on once divisive issues: immigration, nuclear weapons, global warming and stem-cell research.

I'm sure the New Yorker will get around to cartooning John McCain too.

UPDATE:

I don't know about y'all but I guess I like West Coast humour a lil better. Here's the latest monologue from Jay Leno on Barack Obama...

"It was quite a weekend, politically. Yesterday, an estimated 75,000 people attended a Barack Obama rally on the banks of the the Willamette River. ... And if you believe the media, listen to this. After the rally, Barack Obama fed them all with just five loaves of bread and two fish. Amazing!"

Both Left and Right Hate Obama's Move to the Center

ARIANA HUFFINGTON of the Huffington Post writes (and you can hear her chalk-grating-on-a-blackboard voice even without moving your own lips) in a Memo to Obama: Moving to the Center is for Losers. She's very unhappy and wags her long manicured finger at the presumptive Democratic Party presidential candidate for his recent positions on FISA, gun control laws, expansion of the death penalty, and NAFTA? In something as a rare as a planetary conjunction, Fox News Opinion pundits Dick Morris and Eileen Gann wholeheartedly agree and lay out a whole new winning strategy for John McCain, saying that "McCain can do much to force Obama back to the left and cast doubt on his efforts to move to the middle." So the extreme Left wants Obama to stay on the Left, and it seems, so does the extreme Right! Hmm...lucky for both the Democrat and Republican parties none of these prodigious geniuses happen to be their Candidate for President. Now if Barack Obama is Mr. Flip Flop on the above named issues, John McCain is Mr. Flop Flip and has a lot of explaining to do too on the issues of GWB's tax cuts, oil drilling and immigration.

Haha! Let the Games begin! Happy Fourth of July, y'all!

---

PLDT Chair Manny Pangilinan told an audience in Chicago today that "Ethics and Morality are good for business." So, I wonder when PLDT/Smart will quit paying the New People's Army extortion money not to bomb his cell phone towers, a protection racket that seems to have been imitated now by Muslim separatists down south and even the Taliban in Afghanistan.

---

I think the 1987 Philippine Constitution speaks loudly and clearly for itself on the matter of nuclear weapons:

Section 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.

On the other hand, Miriam Coronel Ferrer in her opinion piece today decrying the generous help extended to thousands of Filipinos by the crew and officers of the USS Ronald Reagan, was really talking loudly and clearly for the CPP-NPA, who are high and dry in the Netherlands as their leader continues to face a murder investigation by the Dutch. But he does not lack for surrogates willing to make the silliest arguments against our national interests.

A Pop Quiz of Character for Barack Obama

I first saw the above Japanese cell phone company ad on CNN which said:

(CNN) — A Japanese cell phone company has pulled one of its television ads that used a monkey to portray Sen. Barack Obama.

The commercial opens with a crowd rallying behind a well-dressed monkey speaking from a podium. The supporters are cheering and waving signs that say “Change.” In the ad, the monkey was encouraging users to change providers.

Watch: Cell phone company pulls ad

The company behind the ad, eMobile Ltd., insists it had no idea of any racial undertones and says the ad was just a nod at Obama’s worldwide popularity.

Eric Gan, president of eMobile, points out that their company’s mascot is a monkey – an animal revered in Japan — and has been used in previous ads.

“When we saw the idea for the first time, it was ‘Hey, you're copying the idea from the presidential election in the U.S.’ Yes, but, you know, that's how you make a presentation. How you make an impact. We thought it quite was interesting,” he said.

Bloggers immediately voiced their disapproval of the ad and accused the company of being racist.

Gan says the company was unaware of how the ad might be interpreted, but “now, of course, we know.”

I'm not paying much attention to the statements and reactions of either supporters or opponents of the Democratic Presidential candidate in this November's US Presidential elections because I want to see how BARACK OBAMA himself reacts to it.

Will he ignore it? Be indifferent? Be defensive or outraged? Or will he laugh it off and say something witty, intelligent, stupid?

To me it is an important gauge of his character on the aspect of RACE in this historic election. It has implications too for things like "cultural sensitivity" and even, "foreign policy" and "diplomacy." A pop quiz, a calibration test. Never mind what anybody else says. Not that my one vote matters, but how he reacts will tell me a great deal about him and what I must think of him for the purpose of exercising the precious sacred right of suffrage and in what direction I ought to case my small particle of national sovereignty.

What really is Barack Obama, the Black and White Man, made of?

More on the character issue with respect to the problem of EVIL in the world, with a comparison to John McCain--over at the Volokh Conspiracy.

Barack Obama Tackles Racism--America's Equal Opportunity Mental Illness

Please read the text of the speech or better yet, watch the whole video of Sen. Barack Obama delivering an historic speech on race. Between the seemingly opposed but morally congruent positions of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the yip-yapping pup terrier, Michelle Malkin, there fortunately exists a much broader and thoughtful spectrum of commentary and reaction to it all over the Western world, especially Britain and the rest of Europe. I agree with Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal, who called it "A Thinking Man's Speech"--

I thought Barack Obama's speech was strong, thoughtful and important. Rather beautifully, it was a speech to think to, not clap to. It was clear that's what he wanted, and this is rare.

It seemed to me as honest a speech as one in his position could give within the limits imposed by politics. As such it was a contribution. We'll see if it was a success. The blowhard guild, proud member since 2000, praised it, and, in the biggest compliment, cable news shows came out of the speech not with jokes or jaded insiderism, but with thought. They started talking, pundits left and right, black and white, about what they'd experienced of race in America. It was kind of wonderful. I thought, Go, America, go, go.

For me racism is an equal opportunity mental illness which afflicts people of all races in America. Barack Obama's speech represents a brave diagnosis of a social mental cancer that metastasized from the virus of slavery and discrimination and spread to every cell of the American body politic. As Filipino-Americans we are familiar with such widespread illnesses, how complex they are and how difficult to uproot and destroy.

What is remarkable is that all of these people in America including us, all of these issues that divide and unite and torture the American society and psyche, all of this history and experience are genetically imprinted in the person of Barack Obama.

Perhaps because of that RACE will become, NOT the issue to be avoided or ignored in 2008, but one of the deciding factors of who gets to be America's next president.

Who can rise above the issue the highest and lead America to redemption from its Original Sin? Who can inspire a divided nation to banish the disease that has been exposed at the steps of the temple, into the sanity of the kind of society that will one day unite all of humanity in Liberty and Justice and Prosperity for all?

As Abraham Lincoln once declared, "A house divide against itself cannot long endure...for either we shall all be slaves or we shall all be free."

How will John McCain and Hillary Clinton rise to this challenge. What do THEY have to say about RACE? Can they really afford to say nothing and thus LOSE to the Thinking Man?

IDEAS -- powerful memes -- have always been American's greatest contributions to the world. As Patty Noonan say, Go America, go, go!