Mitt Romney's first instinct was to say "No" when he was asked if he would consider a Muslim for his cabinet if he were to be elected President. Mansoor Ijaz who attended a fundraiser for Romney asked him "whether he would consider a Muslim for a national security post in his Cabinet, since he says radical jihad is the biggest threat facing America". I find Romney's response to Ijaz quite hypocritial given there has been controversy surrounding the electability of Romney based on the fact that he is a member of the Mormon Faith which is considered to be a non Christian faith by many mainstream Protestants and Catholics. Read more in depth on the controversy below.
Sharon Raphael
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/1
Boston News
A Muslim in Romney's Cabinet? Probably not
Link|Comments (3) By Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor November 27, 07 11:35 AM
A New York financier calls for a Muslim to be appointed to the next president's Cabinet and relates an interesting reply when he put that issue to Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.
Mansoor Ijaz, who describes himself as an American-born Muslim whose family came from Pakistan, writes in an opinion piece in today's Christian Science Monitor that he attended a private fund-raiser this month for Romney in Las Vegas. Ijaz says he asked Romney whether he would consider a Muslim for a national security post in his Cabinet, since he says radical jihad is the biggest threat facing America.
According to Ijaz, Romney said that based on the proportion of Muslims in the US population, a Cabinet post would not be "justified," though he could "imagine" Muslims serving in lower-level jobs in his administration.
"Romney, whose Mormon faith has become the subject of heated debate in Republican caucuses, wants America to be blind to his religious beliefs and judge him on merit instead," Ijaz writes. "Yet he seems to accept excluding Muslims because of their religion, claiming they're too much of a minority for a post in high-level policymaking. More ironic, that Islamic heritage is what qualifies them to best engage America's Arab and Muslim communities and to help deter Islamist threats."
Romney, interviewed Monday on CNN, was asked about diversity in his inner circle and in appointments.
"Suggesting that we have to fill spots based on checking off boxes of various ethnic groups is really a very inappropriate way to think about we staff positions," he said.
"I'm very pleased that, among my Cabinet members [as Massachusetts governor], for instance, I had several African-American individuals. I had people of different backgrounds. But I don't go in every circumstance I'm in and say, 'OK, how many African-Americans, how many Hispanic-Americans, how many Asian-Americans,' and fill boxes that way.
"I fill responsibilities based upon people's merit and their skill. And, sometimes, it includes many ethnic minorities. And other times, it includes different minorities. But I'm very pleased with my record."
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Is this funny?
Go to http://www.alternet.org/workplace/67680/www.tradewatch.org
to see a discussion of Barak and Hillary's position on Walmart in Peru and a free trade agreement.
Obama or Clinton? Iowa or Bust.
In recent days, the race in Iowa for Democratic contender for President is tightening up between Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton. Obama appears to be ahead. John Edwards is not far behind. Hillary has faulted Obama by pointing out that the fact he lived abroad, in Indonesia, when he was a child is not evidence of foreign policy experience. Barak fired back by saying something like which one of us voted the right way on the War in Iraq and that he never equated living abroad as evidence of foreign policy expertise. Personally, I do not think Hillary did herself any good taking Obama to task on this issue. It seems just plain petty and defensive though I understand the logic in what she is saying.
When I listened to the Dem debate led by Wolf Blitzer from CNN last week, I felt that Hillary made more good points on some issues and looked stronger than Barak, for instance, her rasing the question of how Obama planned to finance his national health care plan by raising taxes (on the top 6% of income earners) on groups of seemingly high earners i.e. firefighters and police who sometimes in some regions fall into the 98,000 a year bracket. These are usually in areas that have high costs i.e. California. Hillary pointed out how she is backed by firefighters union and the like that would be against such a plan. I thought Hillary's quick evaluation of Barak's plan showed she can think on her feet and make points not that easy to explain in a sound bite. The implication seemed to be we should focus on the really rich and leave the middle class alone when it comes to raising taxes.
On the other hand, Barak appears to be getting a very positive response from many senior (over 65 crowd) Democrats living in Iowa as well as young people (under 25). These groups are swayed by Barak's growing reputation as appearing more honest and open than Hillary and more convincing as someone who cares about their interests.
Barak did not make points with the LGBT community several weeks ago when he had a "convert to straightness", a former Gay man who I think is a reverend following Barakand seaking at his campaign stops in S. Carolina. Not sure what to make of this development though it appeared Barak backed away from this connection in a public statement he made on the topic. Barak has mentioned that Oprah Winfrey will help him campaign in Iowa and if that happens I would suspect he will nail quite a few votes down with her help.
The Republicans campaigning for President i.e. Guiliani says only good things about Obama because I think he wants Obama to be his main contender and think that if he is the public will not vote Obama into office. It is a way of using the race card in a backhanded kind of way. No way to really predict the outcome in Iowa and what the outcome will mean in the long run. At this point, I remain an observer knowing I will vote for any Democrat who takes the lead in the end. It would be great to have the first African American President and great to have the first Woman President. I do think Hillary is obviously more experienced though not liberal enough for my taste and too ready to compromise with the Republicans on many issues though she keeps on demonstrating that the other party is not going away any time soon and so compromise is the only way to get anything done i.e. health care or reforming social security.
The more bad news we hear about Bush and his evil co-conspirators in the Valerie Plame affair and the War in Iraq decision, the more Hillary may look as though she has been weak in not attacking Bush or asking for his impeachment, although Barak has not done this either as far as I know. Hillary can continue to raise the fact that she was a victim of a Republican witch-hunt. Not sure how that will play. I am also afraid as the first Black man in office that Obama will lean over backwards to look and act like middle "white" America to the nth degree. He already has done this. At least, Barak has no baggage like Hillary has to carry into the White House with him. The question for me Is Barak ready to lead? I think Hillary is. What a dilemma!!
I hope whoever wins will put an end to the demagogery and move toward a police state that has taken hold in America since and even before 9/11. Both Obama and Clinton claim they will put this country on the right path. This won't happen if either one tries to prove they are more patriotic or more interested in security and fighting the boogeyman "terrorism" than any other contender. I think Hillary does this more than Obama. Obama says he will use diplomacy to solve problems and not stand on ceremony which Hillary implies she will do with States i.e. Iran and Korea. Edwards has been critical of this security conscious I am stronger than anyone else approach and I applaud him for that. Someone has to get off the merry go round and march to the right. Not sure the major two Dem contenders are up for it but we have to make them do it for our sake. Keep driving home the point, we want this country to abide by the rules the founding fathers created which puts checks and balances on tyrants and those who would fail to follow the principles of democratic governance.
Sharon Raphael
When I listened to the Dem debate led by Wolf Blitzer from CNN last week, I felt that Hillary made more good points on some issues and looked stronger than Barak, for instance, her rasing the question of how Obama planned to finance his national health care plan by raising taxes (on the top 6% of income earners) on groups of seemingly high earners i.e. firefighters and police who sometimes in some regions fall into the 98,000 a year bracket. These are usually in areas that have high costs i.e. California. Hillary pointed out how she is backed by firefighters union and the like that would be against such a plan. I thought Hillary's quick evaluation of Barak's plan showed she can think on her feet and make points not that easy to explain in a sound bite. The implication seemed to be we should focus on the really rich and leave the middle class alone when it comes to raising taxes.
On the other hand, Barak appears to be getting a very positive response from many senior (over 65 crowd) Democrats living in Iowa as well as young people (under 25). These groups are swayed by Barak's growing reputation as appearing more honest and open than Hillary and more convincing as someone who cares about their interests.
Barak did not make points with the LGBT community several weeks ago when he had a "convert to straightness", a former Gay man who I think is a reverend following Barakand seaking at his campaign stops in S. Carolina. Not sure what to make of this development though it appeared Barak backed away from this connection in a public statement he made on the topic. Barak has mentioned that Oprah Winfrey will help him campaign in Iowa and if that happens I would suspect he will nail quite a few votes down with her help.
The Republicans campaigning for President i.e. Guiliani says only good things about Obama because I think he wants Obama to be his main contender and think that if he is the public will not vote Obama into office. It is a way of using the race card in a backhanded kind of way. No way to really predict the outcome in Iowa and what the outcome will mean in the long run. At this point, I remain an observer knowing I will vote for any Democrat who takes the lead in the end. It would be great to have the first African American President and great to have the first Woman President. I do think Hillary is obviously more experienced though not liberal enough for my taste and too ready to compromise with the Republicans on many issues though she keeps on demonstrating that the other party is not going away any time soon and so compromise is the only way to get anything done i.e. health care or reforming social security.
The more bad news we hear about Bush and his evil co-conspirators in the Valerie Plame affair and the War in Iraq decision, the more Hillary may look as though she has been weak in not attacking Bush or asking for his impeachment, although Barak has not done this either as far as I know. Hillary can continue to raise the fact that she was a victim of a Republican witch-hunt. Not sure how that will play. I am also afraid as the first Black man in office that Obama will lean over backwards to look and act like middle "white" America to the nth degree. He already has done this. At least, Barak has no baggage like Hillary has to carry into the White House with him. The question for me Is Barak ready to lead? I think Hillary is. What a dilemma!!
I hope whoever wins will put an end to the demagogery and move toward a police state that has taken hold in America since and even before 9/11. Both Obama and Clinton claim they will put this country on the right path. This won't happen if either one tries to prove they are more patriotic or more interested in security and fighting the boogeyman "terrorism" than any other contender. I think Hillary does this more than Obama. Obama says he will use diplomacy to solve problems and not stand on ceremony which Hillary implies she will do with States i.e. Iran and Korea. Edwards has been critical of this security conscious I am stronger than anyone else approach and I applaud him for that. Someone has to get off the merry go round and march to the right. Not sure the major two Dem contenders are up for it but we have to make them do it for our sake. Keep driving home the point, we want this country to abide by the rules the founding fathers created which puts checks and balances on tyrants and those who would fail to follow the principles of democratic governance.
Sharon Raphael
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Terrible Tragedy at Vancouver Airport
This was a case where sending an interpreter would be imperative. Stupid, more stupid and deadly.
Sharon Raphael
Article from Yahoo News Nov. 15th 2007
VANCOUVER, Canada (AFP) - The death of a Polish emigre after police stunned him with a taser at an airport here sparked a diplomatic incident, with Poland demanding full details of the subsequent investigation.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Polish government issued a diplomatic note asking "Canadian authorities to provide us promptly with full and transparent results of the investigation of this tragic accident," Maciej Krych, Poland's consul general in this western Canadian city, told AFP.
Robert Dziekanski, 40, died on October 14 after a brief struggle with security guards and police, who were called after he started throwing things and screaming in the airport's arrival zone.
A preliminary coroner's report Friday showed there were no drugs or alcohol in Dziekanski's body, said the lawyer for Zofia Cisowski, the dead man's mother.
Dziekanski, a construction worker, had flown from Frankfurt to live with his mother in Canada. He spoke only Polish, had never travelled before and was "scared" and "stressed" by the journey, said the lawyer, Walter Kosteckyj.
Dziekanski waited for his mother in the airport's luggage area, but she was not allowed to enter the secure zone and could not find anyone to tell her if her son had arrived, said Kosteckyj. After several hours, she left.
A few feet away from her, on the other side of the security zone wall, Dziekanski waited for 10 hours, said the lawyer.
"It's unbelievable you have a guy sitting in what is supposed to be a secure area for 10 hours ... without immigration or airport authorities at least asking the guy or finding out what the problem is," he said.
When Dziekanski finally emerged into the public arrivals area, there was no one to meet him and it had been 25 hours since he left home, said Kosteckyj.
"He was not a sophisticated traveller... He was a fellow simply lost in an English-speaking world unable to communicate."............
Sharon Raphael
Article from Yahoo News Nov. 15th 2007
VANCOUVER, Canada (AFP) - The death of a Polish emigre after police stunned him with a taser at an airport here sparked a diplomatic incident, with Poland demanding full details of the subsequent investigation.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Polish government issued a diplomatic note asking "Canadian authorities to provide us promptly with full and transparent results of the investigation of this tragic accident," Maciej Krych, Poland's consul general in this western Canadian city, told AFP.
Robert Dziekanski, 40, died on October 14 after a brief struggle with security guards and police, who were called after he started throwing things and screaming in the airport's arrival zone.
A preliminary coroner's report Friday showed there were no drugs or alcohol in Dziekanski's body, said the lawyer for Zofia Cisowski, the dead man's mother.
Dziekanski, a construction worker, had flown from Frankfurt to live with his mother in Canada. He spoke only Polish, had never travelled before and was "scared" and "stressed" by the journey, said the lawyer, Walter Kosteckyj.
Dziekanski waited for his mother in the airport's luggage area, but she was not allowed to enter the secure zone and could not find anyone to tell her if her son had arrived, said Kosteckyj. After several hours, she left.
A few feet away from her, on the other side of the security zone wall, Dziekanski waited for 10 hours, said the lawyer.
"It's unbelievable you have a guy sitting in what is supposed to be a secure area for 10 hours ... without immigration or airport authorities at least asking the guy or finding out what the problem is," he said.
When Dziekanski finally emerged into the public arrivals area, there was no one to meet him and it had been 25 hours since he left home, said Kosteckyj.
"He was not a sophisticated traveller... He was a fellow simply lost in an English-speaking world unable to communicate."............
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Correspondence with PAWS (Performing Animal Welfare Society)
I am sharing this correspondence I had recently with PAWS. See below.
Hi PAWS,
I wonder if you might straighten me out on something. I read where an elephant named 71 came as a small sickly African elephant and was rescued by PAWS. Then later I see 71 is the tallest elephant. What happened? I hope it is the same elephant .
Sharon Raphael
Long Beach
Dear Sharon,
You are correct on both accounts. In the early 1980's, 71 was small and
sickly. Pat Derby and Ed Stewart brought 71 to PAWS and cared for her
twenty-four hours a day, feeding her a special diet, sleeping near her,
and monitoring her health constantly. After a few months, 71 began to
show improvement and thrived. Today, 71 is the tallest elephant of the
PAWS almost-a-herd family.
The best depiction of 71's story can be found in Pat Derby's book, "In
the Presence of Elephants." You can purchase this book online at the
PAWS gift shop. Please click on the following website link to view this
book and other PAWS items
http://pawsweb.org/paws_gift_shop_home_page.html.
Sincerely,
The Performing Animal Welfare Society
Hi PAWS,
I wonder if you might straighten me out on something. I read where an elephant named 71 came as a small sickly African elephant and was rescued by PAWS. Then later I see 71 is the tallest elephant. What happened? I hope it is the same elephant .
Sharon Raphael
Long Beach
Dear Sharon,
You are correct on both accounts. In the early 1980's, 71 was small and
sickly. Pat Derby and Ed Stewart brought 71 to PAWS and cared for her
twenty-four hours a day, feeding her a special diet, sleeping near her,
and monitoring her health constantly. After a few months, 71 began to
show improvement and thrived. Today, 71 is the tallest elephant of the
PAWS almost-a-herd family.
The best depiction of 71's story can be found in Pat Derby's book, "In
the Presence of Elephants." You can purchase this book online at the
PAWS gift shop. Please click on the following website link to view this
book and other PAWS items
http://pawsweb.org/paws_gift_shop_home_page.html.
Sincerely,
The Performing Animal Welfare Society
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
