I'm sure all of you are aware by now of the infamous emails circulating the dark corners of the internet accusing Barack Obama of everything from being a Muslim, to swearing in on the Koran, to being a one man Al Qaeda sleeper cell. I won't even waste the bandwidth debunking these ridiculous and xenophobic lies, but if you are that gullible and need to be reassured otherwise, click here, here, and here. In addition to the emails, the right-wing blogosphere and talk radio now routinely refers to him by his full name: Barack Hussein Obama, as if this somehow disqualifies him or makes him too dangerous to become president. Recently, it has gotten to the point where one of the official speakers at a rally McCain was appearing at repeatedly referred to Obama by this moniker,which actually means "blessed good" when translated.

Although the fear mongering against Obama has been completely discredited, I did learn some very disturbing facts today about his future opponent. Confidential sources have informed me that John McCain's middle name is actually "Sidney" and that he was born in PANAMA!!!! Yes, it's true. I nearly fell out of my chair in disbelief when I learned the shocking news.

***Sarcasm Alert On*** Is it any wonder Sidney McCain from Panama is against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and for letting all those illegal foreigners have amnesty??? How do we know Sidney isn't a sleeper cell for Manuel Noriega or for those guys from Qu-eer Eye for the Straight Guy for that matter?***Sarcasm Alert Off*** And by the way, isn't it unconstitutional for a person born outside the United States to even become president? Otherwise, wouldn't The Governator be the likely GOP nominee?

Of course I'm not surprised that the mainstream media chooses to ignore these facts, but how can the all knowing blogosphere not have ferreted out this crucial bit of information already, flooded email boxes, and made it known to the entire internet community? The American public deserves to know the truth! Otherwise, we just might end up electing Sidney McCain that crazy old belligerent Panamanian with the girly sounding name!

-Vox "Hussein" Populi

Have you had your ‘Polzoo’ today?

By

Jared Colby

New generation grassroots political editorial and social network gathers attention

As sparks continue to fly on the political stage during this eventful primary season, the cyber world of the pundit blogosphere is pulsing with activity following every debate, election and every piece of gossip. In the past two years, the politicized internet has been dominated by blog sites such as Dailykos.com, popular with the Liberal crowd, and Townhall.com which serves the needs of the Conservative blogger. Other large budget news blogs such as Politico.com and Huffingtonpost.com also cast a long shadow over their share of the blogosphere.

It is in this shadow that a small but tenacious grassroots blog seeks to stake a claim. Polzoo.com bills itself as ‘a social networking center for political participation, debate and action’. Despite a long winded and seemingly banal self-description, the site itself actually offers quite a bit of entertainment for your average political junkie. Launched in early February of 2008, owner Frederick Kuo envisioned a non-partisan site where bloggers of all stripes and colors can come together to discuss and debate issues. “I wanted to combine the traditional online political editorial and blog with the functions of myspace”, says Kuo, a local Sacramento crepe shop owner, enthusiastically of the project. Despite only being in operation for a mere three weeks, Polzoo already has a group of regular contributors who act as featured columnists on the front page. True to form, the political affiliations are divided evenly between three liberals, three conservatives and one independent. The featured columnists were hand picked from the blogosphere by Kuo who reveals, “I was looking for columnists who represented the average joe, rather than those who already had connections… and they also needed to be passionate”. And passionate they are, already some blogs have generated fiery reactions from other members. In response to a liberal columnist who writes that adherence to diversity was what historically made America great, a conservative member argues the opposite and charges “and the Liberals keep fiddling while Rome burns… they were the ones who let the Huns in”.

Free advertising for social causes

In addition to being a full fledged grassroots political blog and social networking site, Polzoo has also begun a program to help non-profit organizations by permanently giving free advertising on the front page for a different cause on a weekly basis. “My goal was to use this site not only to spur political thought and debate, but also to allow important social issues of our day to gain greater exposure”, says Kuo of the Polzoo non-profit organization program. Although clearly, no organization has yet to apply, the program statement advises organizations to submit their banners to be featured and to create a blog detailing the importance of the cause they are involved in.

Navigating throughout the site, I found the setup intuitive and easy to use. However, it is clear that as a young site, there are still a few kinks here and there to work out. The profile function could be refined a bit more in order to create an easier flow for those who want to surf portfolios. The private messaging system is not very intuitive, and could be integrated better with the community database. I am told, however, that these bugs are to be worked out in the coming months as the site continues to grow. “I am focusing on providing quality content and substance first, and then everything will come together”, asserts Kuo confidently on the direction of the site.

So have you had your ‘Polzoo’ today? Perhaps not, but as interest in this grassroots political site grows, growing numbers of individuals will increasingly have Polzoo with their morning coffee.

Time for Hillary to Go Posted by Grassroot Vizir in Untagged

 It is really time for the Clintons to end their campaign. They have no chance of winning. Every new poll shows Obama closing the gap in Texas and Ohio, and some even show Obama overtaking Hillary in Texas. In order for Hillary to even have a slim chance of winning this election, she would need to win Texas and Ohio decisively, generate a tsunami of momentum and excitement of her campaign within days, and have Obama come out in public declaring that he is the long lost cousin of Osama Bin Laden. In other words, unless we are no longer on planet Earth, she does not have a chance.

The longer the Clintons stay in this race, and the more negative their campaign becomes, the more tarnished the political goodwill towards them would be in the Democratic camp. If Hillary was to bow out gracefully and endorse Obama for president, she would appear classy and selfless. If Obama was to lose the general election, Hillary would've set herself up for a strong campaign in 2012. However, by going negative, the Clintons do not smear Obama, but smear their own campaign, public opinion of themselves, and their own political legacies.

 Hillary, get some class, it's time for you to go.

Freedom for Kosovo, but not for Palestine? Posted by mash in Untagged

I think the Kosovans deserve their indepedence. They were mistreated by the Serbs, and were subject to attempted genocide. This is one of the issues where I support the US govt. But I have to wonder why it's ok that Kosovo gets independence, but when it comes to the Palestinians, the US just doesnt care?

 Israel has been conducting a policy of ethnic cleansing on the territories for decades. I mean, the entire country of Israel was Palestine, the whole existance of Israel is based on ethnic cleansing. So why can't Palestinians have their own state yet? Why is it that there is one standard for one country and another for the other?

Maybe if the Serbians had a strong lobby in the Washington, Kosovo would never have seen the day of its freedom. Just a thought.

What is the electorate thinking? The AP tried to find out... Posted by CenterLeftLiberal in Untagged

Ideology:

• Very liberal: 5%
• Liberal: 17%
• Moderate: 42%
• Conservative: 25%
• Very conservative: 10%
• Refused: 1%

To see the survey for ourselve, see this article and click on "Full Poll Results in the box on the upper right-hand corner.

http://polzoo.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=Fiscally-Reckless-The-Bush-Legacy.html&Itemid=41

Fiscally Reckless: The Bush Legacy Posted by CenterLeftLiberal in Untagged

http://polzoo.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=Why-intellectuals-are-liberals.html&Itemid=41

Why intellectuals are liberals Posted by CenterLeftLiberal in Untagged

http://polzoo.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=FDR-on-real-freedom-not-the-fake-kind-advocated-by-rightists.html&Itemid=41

FDR on real freedom, not the fake kind advocated by rightists Posted by CenterLeftLiberal in myblog, debates

http://polzoo.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=Tax-amp-grow-More-evidence-that-taxing-the-rich-doesnt-stunt-growth.html&Itemid=41

Tax & grow: More evidence that taxing the rich doesn't stunt growth Posted by CenterLeftLiberal in Untagged

So, high taxes on the rich bring economic growth to a grinding halt, or at least slow it down considerably, while a decrease will spur growth. I have written on that topic before; indeed two of my last three publications and several of my blog entries have been on the topic. Not only have Scandinavia and Ireland seen as much growth as the U.S. in recent years (graph 2), but the U.S. saw its strongest growth rates when top tax rates were at their highest level - in the 50s & 60s (graph 1). Today consensus is that the Reagan tax cuts did not spur enough growth to pay for them (not even close), while the Bush cuts just plainly failed to considerably affect growth rates (cutting an already low rate isn't going to have much of an effect); simply wasting more than $1.2 trillion so far.

Growth in the U.S. (blue) & top marginal tax rate (pink), between 1950 and 2005.

GDP growth in high tax countries and post-Bush tax cut America.

Did I mention that the top percentile's share of net (after-tax) income is now twice as high as in 1979? (see graph 3 for their share of gross, not net income) Consensus among economists is that they did not "earn" that money through hard work - even libertarian economist Friedrich Van Hayek stated that rewards, i.e. income, "are not distributed according to any recognizable principle of justice" (there is of course some correlation between work, education & earnings, but not regarding the the vast and growing gap between the top 1% and bottom 99% - which includes the hardest working and best educated workers who are falling behind the rich as well). It's bad news for democracy too, since it marks the accumulation of power in the hands of a few. And then there's that beautiful $1.2 trillion price tag! According to a recent New York Times article, $1.2 trillion could have allowed us to double cancer research funding, rebuilt New Orleans, help stop the genocide in Dafur, implement a universal pre-school program and still have funds left over. But that's not going to happen - no, instead Bush decided that the rich are in need of a government handout.

Share of gross annual income of the top 1% (blue), top 0.1% (pink) and top 0.01 (yellow), between 1917 and 2005.

Why Obama will make America a global leader again Posted by Grassroot Vizir in Obama, debates, Clinton, Barack Obama, Barack

Over the past few years, I have grown increasingly concerned with the direction of our nation's foreign policy. I think it is absolutely absurd how the Bush administration has consistently refused to hold basic lines of communication open with states such as Iran, North Korea and the Hamas led government of the Palestinian Authorities. It is no wonder that we have seen little to no progress in these areas and issues of concern. What is truly disconcerting is the level of demonization that has become routine in our politics, that to even entertain communicating with these countries, would be considered selling out our national interests. There is absolutely nothing further from the truth. First of all, while human rights has consistently been used as a bar to judge whether we should speak to nations such as Iran or Cuba, it is a highly inconsistent bar. I will assert now that I do not believe for one second that US foreign policy decisions are concerned with human rights, designed to promote human rights, or based on the human rights situations of the nations or regions in question. Neither are the foreign policy decisions of France, China, the United Kingdom, Russia, Iran, or Cuba. The vast majority of nations on this earth, with the exception of small inconsequential states, do not, can not, and should not base their foreign policy decisions on human rights. Nations operate on the basis of national interest, and not on human rights. If US foreign policy decisions were made with the issue of human rights as a defining factor, the US would not be maintaining amiable relations with states such as Saudi Arabia, or supporting the dictatorship of Mubarek in Egypt, or supporting Israeli policies which denigrate the basic human rights of Palestinians. It is precisely because of these appalling hypocrisies that the condemnations issued by the Bush administration against states such as Cuba or North Korea fall on deaf ears. It is precisely because of these hypocrisies that anti-American sentiment is at an all time high in many regions throughout the world. It is important for Americans to understand these fallacies instead of living in an imaginary, self-righteous world.

True, the United States is a great nation full of freedoms and opportunity. There is no doubt that the rights and liberties enjoyed by the average American citizen is envied by many across the world. But the domestic importance of human rights is not translated into our foreign policy. Neither am I arguing that they should be. The cornerstone of every nation's foreign policy should be that nation's national interests. Human Rights and other lofty ideals are only used as a cloak to justify policies. However, I think it is time to stop the childish and petty practice of demonizing other nations to the extent that we cannot even talk with them. Obama is very clear on this, and this is a primary reason why I support him. If Obama becomes president, he will be willing to meet without preconditions, the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Cuba and a host of many other countries. This attitude will bring a breathe of fresh air and will produce great progress in how America views the world, and how these countries view America. The past 8 years, we have seen the Bush administration maintain a foreign policy which has made America appear arrogant, patronizing and close minded. Obama will present a face of America to the world that says, "We may not agree with you, but we are willing to talk to you". It will be an America that is confident, that is open and is a leader.

 Great changes are in the air. If Obama travels to Cuba, the change will be revolutionary. Obama will be welcomed wherever he goes, because many of these countries are willing to establish normal ties with the US but have never been given the opportunity. Obama will open the door to Cuba, and will create the possibility of change. When America is no longer seen as a threatening force that seeks to destabilize and destroy the existence of the Cuban government, they will have the incentive and security to begin implementing reforms. With small reforms, great changes will become possible. Obama will end the 50 year old failed policy of the Cuba Embargo, which was based on enormous hypocrisy and denial of reality to begin with. The Cuban government in existence today, although not perfect, is ironically far more dedicated to human rights than the Batista regime that preceded it. A regime that was supported by the United States. I predict when Obama travels to Tehran to meet Iran's leadership, he will be welcomed with great fanfare and the entire nation of Iran will make sure not to waste such as a grand opportunity. Obama will open the door on cooperation and friendship that was always there, but locked shut by the stubborn ignorance and arrogance of the Bush administration. When Obama travels to North Korea, he will end the Black and White worldview of the Bush administration and create the opportunity to prod that state into economic reforms that will eventually introduce the seeds of economic opportunity and social change that will dramatically revolutionize that country's society as they did for it's neighbor, China.

When Obama represents the United States in speaking and communicating with nations that are deemed "enemies", Obama is representing an America that can again act like a great leader on the world stage. Under the Bush administration, America refused to speak to others unless they fulfilled narrow and impossible conditions that gave absolutely no room for negotiation or face. America placed itself on a self-righteous pedestal that merely perched on a tower of hypocrisy based on foreign policy contradictions that was so obvious and plain to the rest of the world. It was an America that was petty, insular, small minded. What Obama brings to the table is something that no amount of Washington foreign policy "experience" can ever bring. It is his own life experience growing up in a foreign country, being a minority and coming from a multiracial background. It is an experience that has given him a unique insight into how other nations in the world might view America, rather than simply being limited to how Americans view America. This difference is key, because it allows Obama to build that bridge of understanding even with states that practice policies diametrically opposed to our democratic traditions. This understanding is not appeasement, neither is it tolerance of human rights abuses. This bridge of communication opens a door for influence and the possibility of breaking barriers in order to effect greater change without putting these nations on the defensive. In this way, America will again act as a great leader on the global stage. A leader that is magnanimous, self-confident and understanding. When America acts in this way, many great changes are possible. I believe out of the three remaining candidates, Obama is the only one qualified and only one capable of bringing about these changes.