No, I am not doing a somersault on my political opinions. If you read my article about McCain (to which I am thinking about making an amendment) and now you read about Ron Paul you might start wondering. The truth is that as exciting this presidential election is turning out to be both in and out of the U.S. with a black man, a woman and a septuagenarian as candidates, it is beginning to be tiring. At least until we reach the two parties running which does not seem to be happening anytime soon. Let us face it, politically Hillary and Barack don’t offer much to choose between them, except perhaps the developing nastiness among their followers.

Among the Republicans, with the non-expected success of McCain, who managed to eliminate all his opponents, it is time to wait and see how the fight ends in the other camp. And while we Democrats also wait, let me tell you about an ex-candidate for the Republican nomination, Ron Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas, still mentioned in some European papers. He believes that “rights belong to individuals, not groups; that property should be owned by people, not government; that government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth; and that the lifes and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government’s”. Branded by many people as a right wing politician he is certainly not in the mold of Bush, to me he is mostly a libertarian. In 2002 he voted against the coming Iraq war, or more accurately the pre-emptive abdication by Congress of its constitutional right to declare war. He opposed the equally shameful Patriot Act and recently, when the House of Representatives was passing another denunciation of Palestinian violence, Ron Paul refused to support it. He abhorred all attacks on civilians, he said – but on Palestinians by Israelis as much as on Israelis by Palestinians. With these views and running in the Republican platform, it was never any doubt that his quest for the nomination was purely quixotical. Maybe McCain who seems at times to distance himself from Bush, would consider Ron Paul in his cabinet?
But please, this is just trying to wake Democrats about the possibility of four more years of a Republican White House. And no, I am no for McCain or Ron Paul!

I never thought I would agree with John McCain! In the United States this past Wednesday the Commerce Department reported that for the fourth straight month the sales of new homes fell showing that the slump in the housing market continues. This is not good news not only for the economy of the country which is obviously affected but for many families across the land. Families that are facing financial disaster with the ever present danger of foreclosure looming over them. There is no use in pointing fingers about who is at fault, the banks, the brokers, the borrowers. In reality, the blame can be apportioned among all of the above. What is needed now is action on the part of the government.

Last December the Bush administration unveiled a foreclosure relief plan which was too late and too little as it did not reach everyone in trouble. Sensible and well prepared plans are needed and not just plans presented with the possible voters in mind. The country has enough problems, starting with the lack of proper health care, not to squander money among those that for greed or carelessness have contributed to what the country now faces and therefore do not deserve it.

We are in the middle of the presidential campaign and the candidates know that they cannot ignore the situation. Both Clinton and Obama have proposed plans to help solve the crisis. Hillary Clinton has proposed a $30 billion housing stimulus package to allow cities and states to purchase foreclosed properties and improve neighborhoods blighted by foreclosures and Barack Obama has called for a $10 billion fund to help head off foreclosures. All that is great but unfortunately it could involuntarily attract many irresponsible borrowers, speculators, greedy bankers and unscrupulous realtors. That is not what is wanted or needed.
And this is the reason for my agreeing with John McCain and saying that I believe he was right when Tuesday he said “it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.”

I know that it is the nature of the beast. If we want to be read and get good ratings we have not just to have our strong opinions but to be different and aggressive. Specially in the ever evolving world of blogging. For a long time The Huffington Post was a blog I read everyday after the main papers. It was informative, accurate and interesting. It made one think. And then came the presidential elections and something happened.

Of course, papers and blogs have their orientations, that is what distinguishes them. And blogs even more so. So it did not take very long that The Huffington Post was routing for Barack Obama. Fine. Why not? Only, as the days go on and the endless race between the two Democrat candidates stretches The Huffington Post could change its name to Barack Obama Post so incredible biased it has, in my opinion, become. Or maybe you have officially endorsed Obama and I was unaware?
I still read The Huffington Post because among all the Obama articles, there are some quite good ones about other topics which lets me hope that after the election race things will go back to normal and your blog will again be among the top rated ones. By the way, thanks for the Joseph C. Wilson articles though they look a little lost among all the others….

Tibet has become a touchy subject for many politicians. Whatever happens between China and Tibet from now until the opening of the Olympic Games in August will determine how full or empty the official area assigned to heads of state or their representatives will be. Once some governments began expressing their decisions about or against assisting the opening ceremonies it was inevitable that the rest of the first world nations could not remain silent. And so it has been.
Let us start by saying that the Dalai-Lama is against a boycott of the games and he appears to be ready for talks with the Chinese government. I believe that other countries should be very careful until and if these talks really take place. It is not the time for posturing as we are talking about human lives and the well being of the Tibetans. On should not forget that as difficult as it might be for some countries to take decisions thinking of the possible economical damage that dealing in the wrong way with China might inflict upon them, they are not the ones suffering. And of course, we cannot and should not forget the athletes who had been preparing and sacrificing themselves for a long time. It is not an easy decision to make and that is why nations must tread carefully.

As it stands now and according to an interview that Condoleezza Rice had with the Washington Times yesterday “boycotting the Summer Olympics in Beijing would be an ineffective way to address China’s “troublesome policies”. In her opinion the U.S. boycott of the 1980 games in Moscow had been “feckless.” She went to add that President Bush was planning to go to Beijing for the Games.

As he already had stated last week, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, on an official visit to London yesterday, said he would not rule out boycotting the Olympics opening ceremony in Beijing, depending on how the situation would develop in Tibet. But thinking about some possible change in his decision, he added “At the moment of the opening ceremony, I will be president of the European Union, which will oblige me to consult the others (European governments) to know whether I will go or not.”

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, like Mr. Bush, has said he will attend the Summer Games. With London due to host the 2012 Olympics, Brown insisted that Britain would not boycott the opening session of the Games in Beijing.
Germany has found a diplomatic way of excusing the Chancellor Angela Merkel from supporting the opening of the Games The Foreign Minister of Germany, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, has indicated that it was not planned either for Mrs Merkel nor for himself to attend the opening of the games in Beijing.
With other heads of European nations having different opinions, the Europeans are going to try to find a joint position in a meeting of their foreign ministers which will take place this coming weekend.

As I watch how the Democrats are destroying themselves, I think that the race is turning just plain silly and even dangerous. 4,000 American soldiers dead in an unnecessary war, millions of people not able to afford health insurance, great number of people with their homes in foreclosure, unemployment, the dollar tanking, oil over $100 a barrel…. All the woes that are holding and grasping America and all we care about is whether we are racist or not? Of course we are, both blacks and whites, and Latinos and Asians. But that did not happened yesterday and will not finish on election day. A family whose child is hungry can be helped with good government programs and those can start with the next president. A Democrat in the White House can begin to implement the necessary plans to bring and end to the slaughter of our soldiers in Iraq, and on and on. But no, we are just busy looking at our navels at best or oblivious of what needs to be done using our resources to find fault and mistakes in what Clinton or Obama do or say.

In the latest reports, the Obama followers are salivating at Clinton’s fabrication of her Bosnia trip in 1996. “See, -they blog furiously- she cannot be trusted. She lied.” And the media, thinking copy and smelling blood and having more or less nominated Barack Obama, print stories about it or report it in their talk shows non-stop. If we want to be fair, where are the reports and comments of the embellishment of Obama about the speech he gave in Chicago about the coming Iraq war, the speech that he names in his campaign trail relentlessly? He says: “My objections to the war in Iraq were not simply a speech. I was in the midst of a U.S. Senate campaign. It was a high-stakes campaign. I was one of the most vocal opponents of the war.” According to NPR Obama delivered the speech in October 2002; he did not officially declare his candidacy for the U.S. Senate until January.

Of course, let us not forget his denials about some of the utterances in the sermons of his pastor, the Rev. Wright, before he realized he had to come clean and gave “the speech”. But that follows into the race category I wrote above and I don’t think is worthwhile going there anymore.
So, my fellow Democrats, let us unite but in a calm way. Let the nomination of a candidate be made with emotions but mostly with reasonable arguments and weighing the pros and cons, not just dismissing a candidate because he is black or she is a woman and a Clinton. Not everything was that bad prior to George W.Bush, was it?

With his official visit to the United Kingdom that begins on March 26, the French President Nicolas Sarkozy will try to improve his ratings which dipped again last weekend. after his ruling centre-right party was battered in recent local elections in the French municipalities. But prior to this trip he had to do something about the impression of indifference towards the decisions of the government of Beijing of his administration. While several European heads of governments had declare their positions against the Chinese repression in Tibet, the silence of Sarkozy was strange to say the least, specially for somebody like him who loves to express his opinions about everything. Finally, this past Monday the 24, the Elysée found its voice about Tibet. Sarkozy sent a message to his Chinese homologue Hu Jintao letting him know about “his profound emotion after the recent tragic events” adding that he was transmitting his wish for the quick renewal of the dialog engaged for several years between the Chinese authorities and the representatives of the Dalai Lama.

The message was express in a typical French diplomatic way, at which they excel, wishing that “all the Tibetans feel able to live fully their cultural and spiritual identities in the midst of the Popular Republic of China.” It was a message clearly lacking a condemnation of the Chinese politics in Tibet.

One day later, Sarkozy being Sarkozy must have thought of the possible backlash it could happen were the conflict to escalate and asked whether he supported a boycott of the Olympic games in Beijing the next August 8, he said he could “not close the door to any possibility” and added that he had told Chinese President Hu Jintao of “ his concern, asking for restraint, dialogue and the end of violence in Tibet.”

Days after Bush marked the fifth anniversary of the war and said the United States was on track toward victory, the grim news of four soldiers killed in a roadside bombing in Baghdad on Sunday the 23rd, brought the death toll of US soldiers in the Iraq conflict to 4,000.

After the news and as reported by Reuters, “U.S. President George W. Bush is saddened by the loss of 4,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and will focus on ensuring the U.S. succeeds in the 5-year-old conflict, the White House said on Monday.”
Meanwhile, Vice President Cheney wrapping up his nine day tour of the Middle East in Israel, and according to AC Publications, after learning the news said “You regret every casualty, every loss. It may have a psychological effect on the public but it’s a tragedy that we live in a kind of world where that happens.”. And why this specific tragedy of 4,000 soldiers dead happened? No comment.