“Without Freedom of thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of speech” ~ Benjamin Franklin
John Zenger ~ 1736
"No nation, ancient or modern, ever lost the liberty of speaking freely, writing, or publishing their sentiments, but forthwith lost their liberty in general and became slaves."
Andrew Hamilton ~ 1735
"The question before the Court and you, Gentlemen of the Jury, is not of small nor private concern nor is it the cause of a poor printer, nor of New York alone. No, it may affect every Freeman to deny the liberty of both exposing and opposing arbitrary power by speaking and writing truth."
My previous post here on The Zenger Decision was about the generous bonuses Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are paying out this holiday season. Amazing considering both were going under until the government stepped in and gave them tax payers money to stay afloat.
Now hot off the presses this morning is a great article by associated press writer Matt Aupuzzo. It appears from his research that no one really has any idea how the money is being spent by the banks. Well, we know about the 100k plus bonuses, but that appears to be about it. Absolutely amazing and shocking. Here is the story in its entirety:
By MATT APUZZO Associated Press Writer Mon Dec 22, 9:52 am ET WASHINGTON –
It's something any bank would demand to know before handing out a loan: Where's the money going?
But after receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nation's largest banks say they can't track exactly how they're spending the money or they simply refuse to discuss it.
"We've lent some of it. We've not lent some of it. We've not given any accounting of, 'Here's how we're doing it,'" said Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, which received $25 billion in emergency bailout money. "We have not disclosed that to the public. We're declining to."
The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in government money and asked four questions: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings, and what's the plan for the rest?
None of the banks provided specific answers.
"We're not providing dollar-in, dollar-out tracking," said Barry Koling, a spokesman for Atlanta, Ga.-based SunTrust Banks Inc., which got $3.5 billion in taxpayer dollars.
Some banks said they simply didn't know where the money was going.
"We manage our capital in its aggregate," said Regions Financial Corp. spokesman Tim Deighton, who said the Birmingham, Ala.-based company is not tracking how it is spending the $3.5 billion it received as part of the financial bailout.
The answers highlight the secrecy surrounding the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which earmarked $700 billion — about the size of the Netherlands' economy — to help rescue the financial industry. The Treasury Department has been using the money to buy stock in U.S. banks, hoping that the sudden inflow of cash will get banks to start lending money.
There has been no accounting of how banks spend that money. Lawmakers summoned bank executives to Capitol Hill last month and implored them to lend the money — not to hoard it or spend it on corporate bonuses, junkets or to buy other banks. But there is no process in place to make sure that's happening and there are no consequences for banks who don't comply.
"It is entirely appropriate for the American people to know how their taxpayer dollars are being spent in private industry," said Elizabeth Warren, the top congressional watchdog overseeing the financial bailout.
But, at least for now, there's no way for taxpayers to find that out.
Pressured by the Bush administration to approve the money quickly, Congress attached nearly no strings on the $700 billion bailout in October. And the Treasury Department, which doles out the money, never asked banks how it would be spent.
"Those are legitimate questions that should have been asked on Day One," said Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., a House Financial Services Committee member who opposed the bailout as it was rushed through Congress. "Where is the money going to go to? How is it going to be spent? When are we going to get a record on it?"
Nearly every bank AP questioned — including Citibank and Bank of America, two of the largest recipients of bailout money — responded with generic public relations statements explaining that the money was being used to strengthen balance sheets and continue making loans to ease the credit crisis.
A few banks described company-specific programs, such as JPMorgan Chase's plan to lend $5 billion to nonprofit and health care companies next year. Richard Becker, senior vice president of Wisconsin-based Marshall & Ilsley Corp., said the $1.75 billion in bailout money allowed the bank to temporarily stop foreclosing on homes.
But no bank provided even the most basic accounting for the federal money.
"We're choosing not to disclose that," said Kevin Heine, spokesman for Bank of New York Mellon, which received about $3 billion.
Others said the money couldn't be tracked. Bob Denham, a spokesman for North Carolina-based BB&T Corp., said the bailout money "doesn't have its own bucket." But he said taxpayer money wasn't used in the bank's recent purchase of a Florida insurance company. Asked how he could be sure, since the money wasn't being tracked, Denham said the bank would have made that deal regardless.
Others, such as Morgan Stanley spokeswoman Carissa Ramirez, offered to discuss the matter with reporters on condition of anonymity. When AP refused, Ramirez sent an e-mail saying: "We are going to decline to comment on your story."
Most banks wouldn't say why they were keeping the details secret.
"We're not sharing any other details. We're just not at this time," said Wendy Walker, a spokeswoman for Dallas-based Comerica Inc., which received $2.25 billion from the government. Heine, the New York Mellon Corp. spokesman who said he wouldn't share spending specifics, added: "I just would prefer if you wouldn't say that we're not going to discuss those details."
The banks which came closest to answering the questions were those, such as U.S. Bancorp and Huntington Bancshares Inc., that only recently received the money and have yet to spend it. But neither provided anything more than a generic summary of how the money would be spent.
Lawmakers say they want to tighten restrictions on the remaining, yet-to-be-released $350 billion block of bailout money before more cash is handed out. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the department is trying to step up its monitoring of bank spending.
"What we've been doing here is moving, I think, with lightning speed to put necessary programs in place, to develop them, implement them, and then we need to monitor them while we're doing this," Paulson said at a recent forum in New York. "So we're building this organization as we're going."
Warren, the congressional watchdog appointed by Democrats, said her oversight panel will try to force the banks to say where they've spent the money.
"It would take a lot of nerve not to give answers," she said.
But Warren said she's surprised she even has to ask.
"If the appropriate restrictions were put on the money to begin with, if the appropriate transparency was in place, then we wouldn't be in a position where you're trying to call every recipient and get the basic information that should already be in public documents," she said. Garrett, the New Jersey congressman, said the nation might never get a clear answer on where hundreds of billions of dollars went.
"A year or two ago, when we talked about spending $100 million for a bridge to nowhere, that was considered a scandal," he said.
Associated Press writers Stevenson Jacobs in New York and Christopher S. Rugaber and Daniel Wagner in Washington contributed to this report.
Greed denotes desire to acquire wealth for possessions beyond the needs of the individual, especially when this accumulation of possession denies others legitimate needs or access to those or other resources.
I started contemplating the concept of greed after reading an article this morning about how the financial companies, who received bailout money from the United States Government (which equals taking money from the American people), were still giving out bonuses to their employees this year. How is it that anyone could rationalize giving bonuses when their companies were almost bankrupt and are being propped up with money given to them so that they wouldn't collapse?
The one word that came to mind was GREED. How can they be so incredibly irresponsible and greedy?
Here is one article that was written about the bonus payouts fromtheTrumpet.com
Banks Using Taxpayer Bailout Money to Pay Bonuses October 28, 2008 by Robert Morely
"If there was any doubt America's financial system is broken, a news item from Bloomberg just shattered it.
In a stunning revelation, Bloomberg is reporting that despite the fact that taxpayers will be spending hundreds of billions of dollars bailing out the banking industry, banking insiders are still on track to receive tens of billions in bonuses. Even more incredible is the fact that these bonuses are coming at a time when shareholder pensions have been crushed, and many of the firms are laying off thousands of employees.
According to the report, both Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are scheduled to pay out bonuses of $6.85 billion and $6.44 billion respectively. That equates to an astounding $210,000 per employee for Goldman and $138,700 per person for Morgan Stanley. And that is despite the fact that Goldman's profit has fallen 47 percent this year, and the share price is down 53 percent. Morgan Stanley?s earnings have tumbled 41 percent and its shares have shed 69 percent of their value.
But get ready for the real kicker.
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are each receiving $10 billion from the government as part of the effort to help prop up the financial system.
It is beyond reason that the government would devote so much money to these firms when they are going to turn around and pay out the equivalent of more than 64 percent in bonuses.
Does this make sense? Since when has the government been in the business of funding bankers? bonuses with taxpayer money? Wall Street's bankers already receive salaries that range from $80,000 to $600,000 a year."
So let me get this straight. People making $80,000 to $600,000 a year are still going to get bonuses that will average $138,700 to $210,000.
Let's take a look at what an average American household income looks like these days. According to Wikipedia, in 2007,the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau. The real median earnings of men who worked full time, year-round climbed between 2006 and 2007, from $43,460 to $45,113. For women, the corresponding increase was from $33,437 to $35,102. The median income per household member (including all working and non-working members above the age of 14) was $26,036 in 2006. In 2006, there were approximately 116,011,000 households in the United States. 1.93% of all households had annual incomes exceeding $250,000, 12.3% fell below the federal poverty threshold and the bottom 20% earned less than $19,178.
So it appears that the majority of American households who live on an average of $50,000 a year are the ones who have helped out the financial gurus making $80k to $600k a year so that not only would they not lose their jobs, but they will also get their 100k plus bonuses this year. Merry Christmas to Wall Street!
Kind of hard to then drive home on a cold day and see the throngs of people at the food shelter. On Thanksgiving alone the Rescue Mission in Redding, California served 1,000 meals. There were 250 volunteers giving of their time and energy to help feed everyone.
There are times where anger is so very appropriate. Anger lets us know when something is not right. When someone has wronged us. We average Americans, working hard, raising our families, making average salaries, should be angry. The question is what do we do with this anger? Rather than sit and stew, I suggest everyone begin writing and calling their representatives in government. Let your voice be heard. Let them know that we are not clipping coupons, rolling quarters, shopping at thrift stores, skipping the lattes, keeping the thermostat set a bit lower than is comfortable, and telling our kids that Santa won't be bringing many (if any) gifts this year in order to support a segment of the population that just doesn't seem to get it.
If your company not only didn't make any profits this year, but is at risk of going under, no one, NO ONE, should be receiving a bonus. Not only have you mismanaged your company, but you've asked the American people for a loan to bail you out. How DARE you! How DARE you!
Please write to those who represent us. Click here to find contact information for your senators. Click here to find contact information for your representative.
This brought tears to my eyes. Just dance and remember that we are all more alike than different. Facts about this video: 14 months in the making, 42 countries, and a cast of thousands.
TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design. It started out (in 1984) as a conference bringing together people from those three worlds. Since then its scope has become even broader. The annual conference now brings together the world's most fascinating thinkers and doers, who are challenged to give the talk of their lives (in 18 minutes). TED.com makes the best talks and performances available to the public, for free. http://www.ted.com/
There is also something called the TED Prize. It was designed to leverage the TED Community's exceptional array of talent and resources. It is awarded annually to three exceptional individuals who each receive $100,000 and, much more important, the granting of "One Wish to Change the World." After several months of preparation, they unveil their wish at an award ceremony held during the TED Conference. The TED community then steps up and participates in the granting of the wish. These wishes have led to collaborative initiatives with far-reaching impact.
One of the winners this year is Karen Armstrong, who is one of the most provocative, original thinkers on the role of religion in the modern world. Armstrong is a former Roman Catholic nun who left a British convent to pursue a degree in modern literature at Oxford. In 1982 she wrote a book about her seven years in the convent, Through the Narrow Gate, that angered and challenged Catholics worldwide; her recent book The Spiral Staircase discusses her subsequent spiritual awakening after leaving the convent, when she began to develop her iconoclastic take on the great monotheistic religions.
She has written more than 20 books around the ideas of what Islam, Judaism and Christianity have in common, and around their effect on world events, including the magisterial A History of God and Holy War: The Crusades and Their Impact on Today’s World. Her latest book is The Bible: A Biography. Her meditations on personal faith and religion (she calls herself a freelance monotheist) spark discussion — especially her take on fundamentalism, which she sees in a historical context, as an outgrowth of modern culture.
Below is the video discussing her TED Wish - the creation of a Charter for Compassion. There is a web site for the project that provides more details. Everyone is also invited to offer their views and ideas for the charter here. The Charter will be written in stages. The first section The Preamble is open for commentary for 4 weeks. The web site actually show a clock counting down. Once that section closes they will move on to Affirmations on November 20th, following by Actions on November 27th and then a Final Declaration on December 4th.
This second video is the talk Karen Armstrong gave at TED, which includes the announcement of her wish.
Psychologist Jonathan Haidt studies how -- and why -- we evolved to be moral. By understanding more about our moral roots, his hope is that we can learn to be civil and understanding of those whose morals don't match ours, but who are equally good and moral people on their own terms.
Haidt studies morality and emotion in the context of culture. He asks: Why did humans evolve to have morals -- and why did we all evolve to have such different morals, to the point that our moral differences may make us deadly enemies? It's a question with deep repercussions in war and peace -- and in modern politics, where reasoned discourse has been replaced by partisan anger and cries of "You just don't get it!"
He asks, "Can't we all disagree more constructively?" and suggests we might build a more civil and productive discourse by understanding the moral psychology of those we disagree with, and committing to a more civil political process. He's also active in the study of positive psychology and human flourishing.
Learn more about his drive for a more productive and civil politics -- and sign a pledge to to engage in civil politics -- on his website CivilPolitics.org. And take an eye-opening quiz about your own morals at YourMorals.org.
Last night it was so moving to watch crowds of people in all corners of this nation celebrate and share in such a momentous historical event.
It was emotionally touching to take in all the faces of all colors expressing joy and shedding tears. So many people had a look of hope shining in their eyes. Through their smiles and tears and shouts of "Yes We Can" or "Obama" there was such a sense of pride.
This is such an extremely proud moment for this country.
Throughout this election the words of Martin Luther King have played in my head: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
I was so moved by the African American newscasters who spoke last night. Several shed tears as they shared some personal story. I reflected on how there are already African Americans who have reached positions of power, wealth and great success in this country. Yet it is clear that there were still deep rooted beliefs in limitations and inequality. This election gave so many young people hope and it inspired older generations who never thought they would live to see this day.
All I can think is that a Barack Obama victory is so incredibly and powerfully good for the soul of this nation.
This country has shown that we are moving past the old stories of inequality. We are moving past an outdated era when people were judged by the pigment of their skin. We are moving past a time of discrimination. We may not be there completely yet - but we are on our way!
Obama has stated that he is not a perfect man and that he will not be a perfect president. Asking for perfection from anyone is too high an expectation. But I have believed, since I first read his books a couple of years ago and as I've heard him speak over the course of the last two years, that he does have a very special ability to bring people together and to inspire a nation to be the best it can be.
The thing is - it isn't just up to President Obama to solve all of our problems. I don't expect him to be a "savoir" who can solve all the worlds ills. I don't expect him to do everything right. Yet I have been listening when he has emphasized in speeches and debates the things he values. He consistently has shared how he values education, how he values the environment and how he values the people of this country having access to the health services they need.
These three values represent for me three basic needs of all people on this planet. 1) Anyone who has been really ill knows that one's health is often taken for granted and that a quality life is dependent on good health. 2) If we don't tend to our environment this planet we all call home will suffer and in turn our lives will suffer too. 3) Lastly if we don't value education and make sure everyone has the opportunity to receive a good one, the consequences of ignorance are incredibly complex and lead to such things as unemployment, poverty, crime, extremism and violence. As my wise and longtime friend Karin put so well "Where there are no jobs and/or opportunity for a nation's young, you find hatred and intolerance."
Responsibility lies with each and everyone of us. It is also up to us to make a difference in our own communities of family, friends, city, county and state.... And that is the power of inspiring people to believe that "Yes We Can!"
Winston retired this week after 75 years of cleaning and then supervising the maintenance of first, Los Angeles trolleys, and then buses. He never took one sick day and only missed one day of work — when his wife passed away.
“He gets here before I do,” says Winston’s boss, Alex DiNuzzo, the Metro Transit Authority manager, adding, “And I get here at 5 in the morning.”
Winston was born in 1906 — when Teddy Roosevelt was president, when corn flakes were introduced and when finding a job wasn't easy for a black man.
But he distinguished himself with his professionalism and stamina, outlasting all of his co-workers including his buddy, Steve Hearn.
“You talking about the bunny rabbit, the energizer,” says Hearn. “That's the energizer in there!” What’s Arthur Winston's recipe for success?
“I don’t smoke and don’t drink,” Winston says. “Never did.”
And, he advises, stay away from credit cards.
Arthur went about his work without much fanfare until Wednesday, when the media crashed his retirement party.
“I guess I’m a star!” he says.
The 100-year-old surprised nobody by announcing that during his retirement, he'll stay busy — volunteering, he says, helping old people.
The follow up story is that Mr. Winston passed away a month later from congestive heart failure. A wonderful article was written about him in the LA Times.
Arthur Winston, who set a remarkable personal record by missing only a single day in 76 years of work, died of congestive heart failure Thursday as he slept in his South Los Angeles home. He was 100.
Many of his colleagues and friends honored him by calling him Mr. Winston. He cleaned Los Angeles buses and trains for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The only shift he missed was the day in 1988 that his wife died. Otherwise, his bosses at the MTA said, they had never known him to arrive late or leave early. He retired March 23, one day after he turned 100.
Why then?
“Oh,” he said with a shrug, “100 years seemed like enough.”
Mr. Winston’s great-granddaughter, Brandii Wright, said Friday that working until he turned 100 was a long-sought milestone. “He accomplished his goal,” she said. “After reaching that, he felt like he did what he had to do in life. It was OK to move on. I’m just really proud of him.”
Mr. Winston was slender and well-groomed, a tan-skinned man who liked to step out of his house each morning with his shirt freshly pressed.
Even in his last years, he walked with the upright dignity of a man utterly confident in himself and what he stood for. His chin rose, and his almond-shaped eyes sparkled when he ticked off what he considered his greatest accomplishments.
They were confronting the racism he experienced as a black man, living long enough to see his great-great-grandchildren, and being a witness to so much history.
Still, he did not consider himself particularly special. “I’m just a working man,” he said in a 2005 interview, five months before he died. “Nothing more, nothing less. My daddy taught me the right way to do things. I just tried to follow what Daddy said.”
Urban Storyteller
Never shy about making his feelings known, Mr. Winston was something of an urban storyteller. At work, at home and in his neighborhood, youngsters, including people in their 60s and 70s, hovered around when he gave advice. He spoke on everything from politics to finances to the importance of work.
Foremost among his beliefs was that a person should stay active as long as possible. “Stop in one place too long, you freeze up,” he would say. “Freeze up, you’re done for.” The best way to keep from freezing up? That was simple, he said. “Keep working. Work and work some more. That’s all there is to this live-a-long-life thing.”
There were other nuggets. In his bluesy, scratchy voice, Mr. Winston often opined on the dangers of racking up debt and buying things that are not needed – “fancy cars and such.” And he warned about the dangers that came with too much alcohol, too much fried food, too much exercise or too many pills.
At work on a winter day in 2005, he told a group of colleagues that one of the reasons he had lived so long was because he opted for a few tablespoons of castor oil whenever he felt sick. Over-the-counter medication, he said, was something to avoid. “Pills are one of the biggest problems people face today, especially these old people you see out there,” he said. “I’ve never in all my life seen so many people taking so many pills. And at the same time it seems like people are nothing but sicker than ever. It’s a shame, all these old people dying over the pills they take.”
No matter what contributed to his spunk and longevity – good genes, an aversion to modern medicine, or just sheer determination – the results were evident. A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Labor said that he had never heard of anyone who had worked as long and as continuously as Mr. Winston. In 1997, MTA officials named the bus yard where he worked after him.
Like Clockwork
Even as he neared 100, Mr. Winston kept at it. Like clockwork, 15 minutes before each shift, he pulled into the Arthur Winston Bus Division. He parked in a spot reserved for him, checked to be sure his blue uniform was tidy and marched off to clock in.
He did slow down. In recent years, he took longer breaks. He sat in the warmth of the second-floor break room, watched CNN and offered up a steady stream of commentary on current issues.
He grew angry at the Bush administration, the war in Iraq and the state of black America, which he considered to be in a shambles.
Nonetheless, he kept doing what he was asked. “Puts in his eight-hour days,” said his boss, Alex DiNuzzo. “He never complains. He’s always willing to adjust to do what is needed. Works faster than a lot of guys. And does it with the best attitude out there.”
Each morning, he eagerly walked the sprawling South Los Angeles bus yard. He cleaned grime off bus floors, wiped down bus windows and supervised a small crew of workers.
Following his lead was easy, his co-workers said. They held him in too much awe to question him. “You see him and you think to yourself, ‘That man, after all he had seen and done – why, he’s better than a history book. Look, he’s still at it,’ ” said Roy Turner, a bus mechanic. “I think about him when I get tired. It’s like, how can I be tired? Look at this man, almost 100, and he’s not tired.”
Mr. Winston grew up on a farm in Oklahoma, the son of a sharecropper who lived until he was 99.
In 1924, when Mr. Winston was 17 and fresh from the Midwest, he took a job cleaning trolley cars for the Los Angeles Railway Co., a predecessor to the MTA.
He worked for four years and then quit, partly because he was frustrated. He wanted to be a driver. But the company did not allow black drivers.
On Jan. 24, 1934, he decided to come back to work. When the transit agency finally let blacks drive, he was well into adulthood – he and his wife, Frances, were busy raising kids. “It just seemed too late to change,” he said.
He remained a transit janitor. From the vantage point of his bus yard, he witnessed the city’s growing pains. He saw whites leave South Los Angeles, saw blacks become a majority, then saw blacks begin to leave as Latinos came in larger numbers. He witnessed periods when people got along and moments when the city exploded in riots.
To his chagrin, he watched the destruction of the dense network of trolleys that connected parts of Los Angeles. Then, over the last two decades, he saw the slow rebirth of commuter rail. Keeping Positive
Mr. Winston took constant change in stride. He said he tried hard to be sure that bitter times did not defeat him. He used moments in history as touchstones, reminders of his good fortune to live so long.
From the 1940s until the day he died, he lived in a small white house just south of the Santa Monica Freeway. In his last years, he shared the home with his great-granddaughter and his great-great-grandson.
“I guess, if you live long enough, you’ll see everything,” he said one day in 2004, as he sat on the steps of his house and looked out at his street. “Sometimes you see things come around twice. I don’t mind. I like it.
“My daddy taught me how to work, and he also taught me that, no matter what’s going on around you, just stay strong on the inside. Don’t bother nobody. Don’t let nothin’ destroy you. No matter how things are going in the outside world, just keep going. Keep going, and learn from what you see in front of you.”
Mr. Winston is survived by his brother, North Winston, 98, his great-granddaughter Brandii Wright, 29, and his great-great-grandson, Kenny, 4. A memorial service will be held at 11 a.m. Friday at Faithful Central Bible Church’s Tabernacle, 321 N. Eucalyptus Ave., Inglewood.
A painting of Barack Obama by artist David Choe. (Photo: Getty Images)
Hope is not blind optimism. It's not ignoring the enormity of the task ahead, or the roadblocks that stand in our path. It's not sitting on the sidelines or shirking from a fight. Hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it, work for it, and fight for it. - Barack Obama
Hope was personified in Greek mythology as Elpis. When Pandora opened Pandora's Box, she let out all the evils except one: hope. Apparently, the Greeks considered hope to be as dangerous as all the world's evils. But without hope to accompany all their troubles, humanity was filled with despair. It was a great relief when Pandora revisited her box and let out hope as well. It may be worthy to note that in the story, hope is represented as weakly leaving the box but is in effect far more potent than any of the major evils. In some faiths and religions of the world, hope plays a very important role. Buddhists for instance, believe strongly in the concepts of free will and hope. Hope can be passive in the sense of a wish, or active as a plan or idea, often against popular belief, with persistent, personal action to execute the plan or prove the idea. Consider a prisoner of war who never gives up hope for escape and, against the odds, plans and accomplishes this. By contrast, consider another prisoner who simply wishes or prays for freedom, or another who gives up all hope of freedom.
Hope is a belief in a positive outcome related to events and circumstances in one's life. Hope is the feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best. [1] To hope is to wish for something with the expectation of the wish being fulfilled, a key condition in unrequited love. [2] Hopefulness is somewhat different from optimism in that hope is an emotional state, whereas optimism is a conclusion reached through a deliberate thought pattern that leads to a positive attitude.
When used in a religious context, hope carries a connotation of being aware of spiritual truth; see Hope (virtue). In Catholictheology, hope is one of the three theological virtues (faith, hope, and charity), which are spiritual gifts of God. In contrast to the above, it is not a physical emotion but a spiritual grace. Hope is distinct from positive thinking, which refers to a therapeutic or systematic process used in psychology for reversing pessimism. The term false hope refers to a hope based entirely around a fantasy or an extremely unlikely outcome.
An organization called Jewish Voice for Peace has created a campaign that takes a stand against anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigotry. They are asking people to send in their photographs and messages of support to the web site WeStandWithYou.org.
Starting today, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) will send the messages to tens of thousands of their members across the country. Let them know we refuse to be enemies!
You can see the photo and message I contributed by clicking here.
MR. TOM BROKAW: Our issues this Sunday: He served as President George W. Bush's secretary of state and was once called the man most likely to become the nation's first African-American president. He has been courted by both the Obama and McCain presidential campaigns and said this last month:
GEN. COLIN POWELL (RET.): I have been watching both of these individuals. I know them both extremely well, and I have not decided who I'm going to vote for yet. (from videotape)
MR. BROKAW: Is he now ready to make an endorsement in this presidential race? What are his thoughts on the major issues facing the country and the world? Our exclusive guest this Sunday, former Secretary of State General Colin Powell.
Then, with 16 days to go, Decision 2008 heads into the home stretch. What states still are in play? We will hear the latest on some new state polls with NBC's political director, Chuck Todd. Also, insights and analysis on the race to the White House with David Brooks of The New York Times, Jon Meacham of Newsweek magazine, Andrea Mitchell of NBC News, and Joe Scarborough of MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
But first, General Colin Powell, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.
GEN. POWELL: Thank, thank you, Tom.
MR. BROKAW: We indicated in that opening, there is a lot of anticipation and speculation about your take on this presidential campaign. We'll get to that in a moment. But in your old business we might call this a tour of the horizon. Whoever's elected president of the United States, that first day in the Oval Office on January 21st will face this: an American economy that's in a near paralytic state at this time; we're at war in two different countries, Afghanistan and Iraq; we have an energy crisis; we have big decisions to make about health care and about global climate change. The president of the United States and the Congress of the United States now have the highest disapproval ratings that we have seen in many years. In all your years of public service, have you ever seen an incoming president face such daunting challenges?
GEN. POWELL: No. I have seen more difficult times in our history. I think about the early '70s when we were going through Watergate, Spiro Agnew, Nixon period, that was not a good time. But right now we're also facing a very daunting period. And I think the number one issue the president's going to have to deal with is the economy. That's what the American people are worried about. And, frankly, it's not just an American problem, it's an international problem. We can see how all of these economies are now linked in this globalized system. And I think that'll be number one. The president will also have to make decisions quickly as to how to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan. And also I think the president has to reach out to the world and show that there is a new president, a new administration that is looking forward to working with our friends and allies. And in my judgment, also willing to talk to people who we have not been willing to talk to before. Because this is a time for outreach.
MR. BROKAW: Given the state of the American economy, can we continue our military commitments around the world at the level that they now exist?
GEN. POWELL: We can. I think we have to look as to whether they have to be at that level. But we have the wealth, we have the wherewithal to do that. (Clears throat) Excuse me, Tom. We have the ability to do that. And so, first and foremost, we have to review those commitments, see what they are, see what else is needed, and make sure we give our troops what they need to get the job done as we have defined the job. We have that ability.
MR. BROKAW: If you were called into the Oval Office on January 21st by the new president, whoever it happens to be, and he said to you, "General Powell, I need from you your recommendation on where I begin. What should be my priorities?" Where would you start?
GEN. POWELL: I would start with talking to the American people and talking to the world, and conveying a new image of American leadership, a new image of America's role in the world. The problems will always be there, and there's going to be a crisis come along in the 21st or 22nd of January that we don't even know about right now. And so I think what the president has to do is to start using the power of the Oval Office and the power of his personality to convince the American people and to convince the world that America is solid, America is going to move forward, and we're going to fix our economic problems, we're going to meet our overseas obligations. But restoring a sense of purpose, a sense of confidence in the American people and, in the international community, in America.
MR. BROKAW: What's not on the screen right now that concerns you that should be more prominent in the minds of the American people and the people running for president?
GEN. POWELL: I think the American people and the gentlemen running for president will have to, early on, focus on education more than we have seen in the campaign so far. America has a terrible educational problem in the sense that we have too many youngsters not finishing school. A third of our kids don't finish high school, 50 percent of minorities don't finish high school. We've got to work on this, and my, my wife and I are leading a campaign with this purpose. Also, I think, the new president has to realize that the world looks to America for leadership, and so we have to show leadership on some issues that the world is expecting us to, whether it's energy, global warming and the environment. And I think we have to do a lot more with respect to poverty alleviation and helping the needy people of the world. We need to increase the amount of resources we put into our development programs to help the rest of the world. Because when you help the poorest in the world, you start to move them up an economic and social ladder, and they're not going to be moving toward violence or terrorism of the kind that we worry about.
MR. BROKAW: Well, let's move to the American presidential campaign now, if we can. We saw at the beginning of this broadcast a short tease of what you had to say just a month ago. Let's share with our viewers now a little more of Colin Powell on these two candidates and your position.
(Videotape, September 20, 2008) GEN. POWELL: I'm an American, first and foremost, and I'm very proud--I said, I've said, I've said to my beloved friend and colleague John McCain, a friend of 25 years, "John, I love you, but I'm not just going to vote for you on the basis of our affection or friendship." And I've said to Barack Obama, "I admire you. I'll give you all the advice I can. But I'm not going to vote for you just because you're black." We, we have to move beyond this. (End videotape)
MR. BROKAW: General Powell, actually you gave a campaign contribution to Senator McCain. You have met twice at least with Barack Obama. Are you prepared to make a public declaration of which of these two candidates that you're prepared to support?
GEN. POWELL: Yes, but let me lead into it this way. I know both of these individuals very well now. I've known John for 25 years as your setup said. And I've gotten to know Mr. Obama quite well over the past two years. Both of them are distinguished Americans who are patriotic, who are dedicated to the welfare of our country. Either one of them, I think, would be a good president. I have said to Mr. McCain that I admire all he has done. I have some concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years. It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that's a choice the party makes. And I've said to Mr. Obama, "You have to pass a test of do you have enough experience, and do you bring the judgment to the table that would give us confidence that you would be a good president." And I've watched him over the past two years, frankly, and I've had this conversation with him. I have especially watched over the last six of seven weeks as both of them have really taken a final exam with respect to this economic crisis that we are in and coming out of the conventions. And I must say that I've gotten a good measure of both. In the case of Mr. McCain, I found that he was a little unsure as to deal with the economic problems that we were having and almost every day there was a different approach to the problem. And that concerned me, sensing that he didn't have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had. And I was also concerned at the selection of Governor Palin. She's a very distinguished woman, and she's to be admired; but at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made. On the Obama side, I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one. And also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor. I think that he has a, a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well. I also believe that on the Republican side over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower. Mr. Obama, at the same time, has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He's crossing lines--ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He's thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values. And I've also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about. This Bill Ayers situation that's been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign. But Mr. McCain says that he's a washed-out terrorist. Well, then, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that, because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow, Mr. Obama is tainted. What they're trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that's inappropriate. Now, I understand what politics is all about. I know how you can go after one another, and that's good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign and they trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration. I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America. I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions. So, when I look at all of this and I think back to my Army career, we've got two individuals, either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time? And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities--and we have to take that into account--as well as his substance--he has both style and substance--he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world--onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.
MR. BROKAW: Will you be campaigning for him as well?
GEN. POWELL: I don't plan to. Two weeks left, let them go at each other in the finest tradition. But I will be voting for him.
MR. BROKAW: I can already anticipate some of the reaction to this. Let's begin with the charge that John McCain has continued to make against Barack Obama. You sit there, as a man who served in Vietnam, you commanded a battalion of 101st, you were chairman of the Joint Chiefs, you were a national security adviser and secretary of state. There is nothing in Barack Obama's history that nearly paralyze any--parallels any of the experiences that you've had. And while he has performed impressively in the context of the campaign, there's a vast difference between sitting in the Oval Office and making tough decisions and doing well in a campaign.
GEN. POWELL: And he knows that. And I have watched him over the last two years as he has educated himself, as he has become very familiar with these issues. He speaks authoritatively. He speaks with great insight into the challenges we're facing of a military and political and economic nature. And he is surrounding himself, I'm confident, with people who'll be able to give him the expertise that he, at the moment, does not have. And so I have watched an individual who has intellectual vigor and who dives deeply into issues and approaches issues with a very, very steady hand. And so I'm confident that he will be ready to take on these challenges on January 21st.
MR. BROKAW: And you are fully aware that there will be some--how many, no one can say for sure--but there will be some who will say this is an African-American, distinguished American, supporting another African-American because of race.
GEN. POWELL: If I had only had that in mind, I could have done this six, eight, 10 months ago. I really have been going back and forth between somebody I have the highest respect and regard for, John McCain, and somebody I was getting to know, Barack Obama. And it was only in the last couple of months that I settled on this. And I can't deny that it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president. And should that happen, all Americans should be proud--not just African-Americans, but all Americans--that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It will also not only electrify our country, I think it'll electrify the world.
MR. BROKAW: You have some differences with Barack Obama. He has said that once he takes office, he wants to begin removing American troops from Iraq. Here's what you had to say about that: "I have found in my many years of service, to set arbitrary dates that don't coincide with the situation on the ground or what actually is happening tends not to be a useful strategy. ... Arbitrary deadlines that are snatched out of the air and are based on some lunar calculation is not the way to run a military or a strategic operation of this type." That was on February 10th of this year on CNN. Now that you have Barack Obama's ear in a new fashion, will you say to him, "Drop your idea of setting a deadline of some kind to pull the troops out of Iraq"?
GEN. POWELL: First of all, I think that's a great line, and thanks for pulling it up. And I believe that. But as I watch what's happening right now, the United States is negotiating the--an agreement with the Iraqi government that will call for most major combat operations to cease by next June and for American forces to start withdrawing to their bases. And that agreement will also provide for all American troops to be gone by 2011, but conditioned on the situation as it exists at that time. So there already is a timeline that's being developed between the Iraqis and the United States government. So I think whoever becomes the president, whether it's John McCain or whether it's Barack Obama, we're going to see a continued drawdown. And when, you know, which day so many troops come out or what units come out, that'll be determined by the commanders and the new president. But I think we are on a glide path to reducing our presence in Iraq over the next couple of years. Increasingly, this problem's going to be solved by the Iraqis. They're going to make the political decisions, their security forces are going to take over, and they're going to have to create an environment of reconciliation where all the people can come together and make Iraq a much, much better place.
MR. BROKAW: Let me go back to something that you raised just a moment ago, and that's William Ayers, a former member of the Weathermen who's now active in school issues in Illinois. He had some past association with Barack Obama. Wouldn't it have been more helpful for William Ayers to, on his own, to have renounced his own past? Here was a man who was a part of the most radical group that existed in America at a time when you were serving in Vietnam, targeting the Pentagon, the Capitol. He wrote a book about it that came out on 2001, on September 11th that said, "We didn't bomb enough."
GEN. POWELL: It's despicable, and I have no truck for William Ayers. I think what he did was despicable, and to continue to talk about it in 2001 is also despicable. But to suggest that because Mr. Barack Obama had some contacts of a very casual nature--they sat on a educational board--over time is somehow connected to his thinking or his actions, I think, is a, a terrible stretch. It's demagoguery.
MR. BROKAW: I want to ask you about your own role in the decision to go to war in Iraq. Barack Obama has been critical of your appearance before the United Nations at that time. Bob Woodward has a new book out called "The War Within," and here's what he had to say about Colin Powell and his place in the administration: "Powell ... didn't think [Iraq] was a necessary war, and yet he had gone along in a hundred ways, large and small. He had resisted at times but had succumbed to the momentum and his own sense of deference--even obedience--to the president. ... Perhaps more than anyone else in the administration, Powell had been the `closer' for the president's case on war." And then you were invited to appear before the Iraq Study Group. "`Why did we go into Iraq with so few people?' [former Secretary of State James] Baker asked. ... `Colin just exploded at that point,' [former Secretary of Defense William] Perry recalled later. `He unloaded,' Former White House Chief of Staff] Leon Panetta added. `He was angry. He was mad as hell.' ... Powell left [the Study Group meeting]. Baker turned to Panetta and said solemnly, `He's the one guy who could have perhaps prevented this from happening.'" What's the lesson in all of that for a former--for a new secretary of state or for a new national security adviser, based on your own experience?
GEN. POWELL: Well, let's start at the beginning. I said to the president in 2002, we should try to solve this diplomatically and avoid war. The president accepted that recommendation, we took it to the U.N. But the president, by the end of 2002, believed that the U.N. was not going to solve the problem, and he made a decision that we had to prepare for military action. I fully supported that. And I have never said anything to suggest I did not support going to war. I thought the evidence was there. And it is not just my closing of the whole deal with my U.N. speech. I know the importance of that speech, and I regret a lot of the information that the intelligence community provided us was wrong. But three months before my speech, with a heavy majority, the United States Congress expressed its support to use military force if it was necessary. And so we went in and used military force. My unhappiness was that we didn't do it right. It was easy to get to Baghdad, but then we forgot that there was a lot more that had to be done. And we didn't have enough force to impose our will in the country or to deal with the insurgency when it broke out, and that I regret.
MR. BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation...
GEN. POWELL: I also assure you that it was not a correct assessment by anybody that my statements or my leaving the administration would have stopped it.
MR. BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation, because we now know that they did not exist, was it then a war of necessity or just a war of choice?
GEN. POWELL: Without the weapons of mass destruction present, as conveyed to us by the intelligence community in the most powerful way, I don't think there would have been a war. It was the reason we took it to the public, it was the reason we took it to the American people to the Congress, who supported it on that basis, and it's the presentation I made to the United Nations. Without those weapons of mass destruction then Iraq did not present to the world the kind of threat that it did if it had weapons of mass destruction.
MR. BROKAW: You do know that there are supporters of Barack Obama who feel very strongly about his candidacy because he was opposed to the war from the beginning, and they're going to say, "Who needs Colin Powell? He was the guy who helped get us into this mess."
GEN. POWELL: I'm not here to get their approval or lack of approval. I am here to express my view as to who I'm going to vote for.
MR. BROKAW: There's a summing up going on now as, as the Bush/Cheney administration winds down. We'd like to share with our audience some of what you had to say about the two men who are at the top of the administration. At the convention in 2000, this is Colin Powell on President Bush and Dick Cheney at that time.
(Videotape, July 31, 2000) GEN. POWELL: Dick Cheney is one of the most distinguished and dedicated public servants this nation has ever had. He will be a superb vice president. The Bush/Cheney team will be a great team for America. They will put our nation on a course of hope and optimism for this new century. (End videotape)
MR. BROKAW: Was that prophetic or wrong?
GEN. POWELL: It's what I believed. It reflected the agenda of the new president, compassionate conservatism. And some of it worked out. I think we have advanced our freedom agenda, I think we've done a lot to help people around the world with our programs of development. I think we've done a lot to solve some conflicts such as in Liberia and elsewhere. But, at the same time, we have managed to convey to the world that we are more unilateral than we really are. We have not explained ourself well enough. And we, unfortunately, have left an impression with the world that is not a good one. And the new president is going to have to fix the reputation that we've left with the rest of the world. Now, let me make a point here. The United States is still seen as the leader at the world that wants to be free. Even though the numbers are down with respect to favorability ratings, at every embassy and consular office tomorrow morning that we have, people will be lined up, and they'll all say the same thing, "We want to go to America." So we're still the leader of the world that wants to be free. We are still the inspiration of the rest of the world. And we can come back. In 2000, it was moment where I believed that the new administration coming in would be able to achieve the agenda that President-elect Bush had set out of compassionate conservatism.
MR. BROKAW: But it failed?
GEN. POWELL: I don't think it was as successful--excuse me (clears throat)--I don't think it was as successful as it might have been. And, as you see from the presidential approval ratings, the American people have found the administration wanting.
MR. BROKAW: Let me as, you a couple of questions--quick questions as we wrap all of this up. I know you're very close to President Bush 41. Are you still in touch with him on a regular basis? And what do you think he'll think about you this morning endorsing Barack Obama?
GEN. POWELL: I will let President Bush 41, speak for himself and let others speak for themselves, just as I have spoken for myself. Let me make one point, Tom, both Senator McCain and Senator Obama will be good presidents. It isn't easy for me to disappoint Senator McCain in the way that I have this morning, and I regret that. But I strongly believe that at this point in America's history, we need a president that will not just continue, even with a new face and with some changes and with some maverick aspects, who will not just continue, basically, the policies that we have been following in recent years. I think we need a transformational figure. I need--think we need a president who is a generational change. And that's why I'm supporting Barack Obama. Not out of any lack of respect or admiration for Senator John McCain.
MR. BROKAW: And finally, how much of a factor do you think race will be when voters go into that booth on November 4th?
GEN. POWELL: I don't know the answer to that question. One may say that it's going to be a big factor, and a lot of people say they will vote for Senator Obama but they won't pull a lever. Others might say that has already happened. People are already finding other reasons to say they're not voting for him. "Well, he's a Muslim," "He's this." So we have already seen the so-called "Bradley factor" in the current--in the current spread between the candidates. And so that remains to be seen. I hope it is not the case. I think we have advanced considerably in this country since the days of Tom Bradley. And I hope that is not the case. It would be very unfortunate if it were the case.
MR. BROKAW: Finally, if Senator Obama is elected president, will there be a place for Colin Powell in that administration? Maybe as the ambassador at large in Africa or to take on the daunting task of resolving the Israeli/Palestinian issue?
GEN. POWELL: I served 40 years in government, and I--I'm not looking forward to a position or an assignment. Of course, I have always said if a president asks you to do something, you have to consider it. But I am in no way interested in returning to government. But I, of course, would sit and talk to any president who wishes to talk to me.
MR. BROKAW: You're not ruling it out?
GEN. POWELL: I would sit and talk to any president who wishes to talk to me, but I'm not anxious to rule it in.
MR. BROKAW: General Colin Powell, thank you very much for being with us this morning. Appreciate it.
"Diversity is the one true thing we all have in common.
Celebrate it every day."
My response to the anti-Muslim email has drawn out a response from someone else on the mailing list. Here is what this person, who I do not know, sent me:
It's pretty clever of you to send your response to people receiving "London". Now, how about being clever enough to figure out the only fear mongering in this email is coming from those depicted in the pictures. These pictures show an observation of what is happening in our allied country and throughout Europe. To ignore these pictures would be foolish. See, this is part of the problem, muslims are not assimilating to the cultures the move into. It's fine that they keep their religion (providing it is not aggressive to the religious culture they migrate to), the west and U.S. have been more than accomodating to their religious practice. But, if we allow them to move in and push out our culture as they are practicing in Europe, then that puts our values and way of life in jepordy. Just look at England, they are a few short years away from adopting Sharia Law in their laws as stated last year by England's Lord Judge. But you don't want us to observe and question the images we see in these pictures? Maybe your friend should have asked her persian friend if she was now an American or still iranian (assuming this incident occured in the U.S.). God speed. EMG
This was my response:
My first questions to you EMG are "Do you have any Muslim friends?" and "Have you ever spent time with a Muslim?" It is so much easier to be afraid of what we don't know and don't understand.
Visit Snopes (urban legends to read the full story on that email and the photos.) Yes, those are real photos and yes it is extremely disturbing to see anyone promote violent actions and hate as those individuals were doing in those photos. I used the word "individuals" intentionally. Do those individuals represent ALL Muslims? Do you have the audacity to say that these individuals are representative of all Muslims? How could you if you don't really know any Muslims personally? In the Snopes response it includes a statement that "Other Muslims maintained that the protesters were extremists not representative of mainstream British Muslims."
I don't really believe that England is going to adopt Sharia law. There was a controversial suggestion made by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who happens to be a Christian, about adopting Sharia Law. There has been much public opinion against his statement. Even the Muslim Council of Britain insisted that most members of the community did not want Sharia and emphasized that it had not discussed the issue. Click here for the article I am referring to if you want to read it yourself.
Lastly I want to respond to your comment about asking the woman if she was American or still Iranian. The truth is that she could be both. You can't erase the woman's heritage, her genes, her culture from her completely. Should we ever ask anyone to reject the culture they were born into? Our country has an extremely long history of melding cultures. Does the diversity in our country sometimes pose challenges - certainly it does. Yet I believe we are also a better nation because of the diversity.
I received an email that really bothered me a great deal. I knew I couldn't just hit delete. I knew I had an obligation to respond. I actually cried as I responded. The promoting of prejudice and fear against a group of people is so wrong.
I will include the text from the email I received which was also accompanied by photos. Snopes (aka Urban legends) also listed this email on their web site. You can view it by clicking here. It was a real demonstration in London. Other Muslims spoke out against the signs and messages calling for violence and destruction that were paraded around. My response follows afterwards. Email Message: Pictures from London ~ this is beyond scary...
This doesn’t help me be very charitable or forgiving. It is hard to turn the other cheek. Frankly I think our country has gone overboard in accommodating their requests? I think it is because we are already frightened of what they will do.
England today.......America next!! They are on the way!
Atlanta is reported to have 80,000 Muslims and they are building a 46,000 sq. ft. mosque in the city....the largest in America! The population of Muslims is growing by leaps and bounds in every major American city. Get ready for demonstrations to begin early next year.
Makes you wonder doesn't it...can you imagine having a Christian demonstration against Islam in downtown Baghdad ! View the pictures below and decide how you really feel about the future of the Western World. These pictures are of Muslims marching through the STREETS OF LONDON during their recent 'Religion of Peace Demonstration.'
Why would anyone think that we should be at war with such nice, peaceful Muslims?! All Christians need to know. You need to forward this one to everyone! These pictures tell it all! Muslims have stated that England will be the first country they take over!
These are pictures not shown on American TV or in American Newspapers (as they might help Bush's war on terror), but were forwarded by a Canadian who thought All Christians ought to know!
My response:
Greetings,
I am disturbed at such a fear-mongering email such as this being forwarded to people.
I have spent time with Muslims. I call quite a few Muslims my friends. Some I consider very close friends. I have been to Morocco, a Muslim nation twice, and I have had the extreme pleasure of spending time with families there. The kindness and generosity they showed me, my friends and also my father was incredible.
I believe that any time we start to label people or group people into a "them" we create more misunderstanding, fear and distrust. When we group people into a faceless mob we forget that we are talking about individuals - children, women and men.
I for one know that I wouldn't want someone to label me in a negative light just because I am an American or because I am not a Christian or because I am a woman or because I am overweight and so forth.
All people have the ability to do good in this world. All people also have the ability to be unkind and even worse to be violent and intolerant. Muslims do not own the cornerstone of being violent and starting wars.
Ironically, a friend shared a story with me just last night. She happened to be traveling in Greece in 1979. It was during this same time frame when the American hostages were taken prisoner in Iran. My friend said that their travels were interrupted and they were treated poorly at the embassy and they were mystified at first as they did not not know what had happened. Afterwards, she, along with many Americans, developed very anti-Iranian views. Many years later while at work she and several other co-workers were folding brochures together. While chit-chatting about this and that my friend shared with her co-workers that she "hated Iranians." The room went completely silent. Finally one of her co-workers, who she really like and considered a friend, spoke up to say "I am Persian. My family and I all immigrated from Iran. I am full-blooded Iranian." My friend said that she started crying and felt so humiliated because she could see the hurt in her friends eyes. She apologized profusely. There was a coldness in the relationship for awhile after that and after some time has passed they did begin to mend the friendship.
Please stop and think before spreading such messages. What good does it do to promote fear and distrust of a group of people? I believe it promotes prejudice and racism.
I went to an Obama event yesterday. While California is typically quite progressive and liberal overall, I happen to live in an area that is amazingly conservative. Finding other progressives and liberals is always encouraging. I was so impressed that even with the rainy weather a really large group showed up.
We all held up Obama signs and people had signs that read "Honk for Obama and Biden." We had enough people to have groups on all four corners of a large and busy intersection. There were young parents with children in strollers, there was a couple in their 80's, there were several men who were veterans, there was also an exchange student from Japan who held a sign that read "End the War."
It was such a blast! Lots of people honked, waved and gave us thumbs up in support. We all hooted, hollered and waved.
There were also a fair share of thumbs down and sometimes we were flipped off too. We just gave those people the peace sign. In a couple of cases people were stopped at lights that were McCain supporters and after they would yell something we would call back "We love you anyway." It was such a high to be among this positive liberal group of people.
