Tips Guides Resources

He may well be the President in waiting, but how much is known in the UK about Democrat candidate Barack Obama? Following his fleeting visit to these shores in July, this article takes a brief look at the rise of the Senator from Illinois.

Born August 4, 1961 to Kenyan-born Barack Obama Snr., and Kansas-raised Ann Dunham, Obama’s early life centred on an upbringing with his mother in Hawaii before relocating to Indonesia following Dunham’s second marriage to Lolo Soetoro. Eventually returning to New York, Obama graduated from Columbia University in 1983, majoring in political science with a specialisation in international relations.

A move to Chicago and the appointment as a community organiser with a local church saw Obama begin working in the public domain, a role that included the establishment of job training and tutoring programmes. A return to education and the gaining of a Harvard law degree was soon followed by the appointment as a civil rights lawyer in Chicago and the role of a tutor of constitutional law. It was also around this time that, as a summer associate of the Sidley & Austin law firm, he would meet and become involved with Michelle Robinson, the two eventually marrying in October 1992. The couple have two daughters.

During his time at Harvard, Obama would become the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, the prestigious journal of legal scholarship that was first published in 1887. The publicity of his appointment led to the offer to write a book on race relations, a work that would eventually turn into a personal memoir entitled ‘Dreams from My Father’ in 1995. (Obama’s second book, ‘The Audacity of Hope’ was released in 2006 and presents more of a personal manifesto for his presidential campaign.)

As the advocacy work and interest involving Obama grew, the decision was taken to run for the Illinois State Senate in 1996, a position he held for eight years. His resignation from the role only came in November 2004 after his election to the US Senate, a result boosted in no small measure by the lauded keynote address given at the 2004 Democratic Convention.

Since appointment to the Senate, Obama has focused strongly on policies that seek to have the widest possible reach of impact, and also restore faith and transparency in the offices of the US government. With the support of heavily-experienced and high-level advisers, the success of Obama’s time in the Senate garnered great media attention and prompted the consideration to run for the Democratic nomination for the US Presidency.

This move was announced before the Old State Capitol building in Springfield, Illinois, and has been followed by vociferous support for the withdrawal of US presence in Iraq, the providing of universal health care and the increase of energy independence. Each of the three policies has been prominent in the presidential primary campaign against fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton, and now the presidential campaign against Republican John McCain.

The history of Barack Obama has certainly shaped him into the charismatic politician we see before us today. But will the charming and determined Senator achieve the goal of becoming president of the United States of America? It certainly appears that he is the current forerunner, but as we have seen with the Bush administration, when it comes to presidential elections, anything can happen.

Max Clarke is a copywriter for holiday services company, Holiday Extras

Everyone knows about the Panama Canal, and how it connects the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. However, not everyone knows that the United States originally wanted to build this canal through Nicaragua, information on which can be found in NicaFSBO. It was only through the efforts of a few lobbyists and the French intention to sell their interests on the Panama Canal that this plan was diverted.

Early Proposals

Like the Panama Canal, ideas for the construction of trans-oceanic canal through Nicaragua had been proposed by Spanish colonial administrations. As for Nicaragua, the Federal Republic of Central America — composed of El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica — made the proposal in 1825 to the United States.

In line with its proposal, the Republic made surveys, which showed that the canal would be 278 kilometers long. The canal’s route would be parallel the San Juan River and enter Lake Nicaragua, after which locks and tunnels would be built in order to link the lake to the Pacific Ocean.

Washington, D.C. was impressed with the proposed canal, which prompted a presentation to the U.S. Congress by Secretary of State Henry Clay. However, the Congress rejected it because of the poverty and political instability of the Nicaragua area. The British’s presence in British Honduras and the Mosquito Coast also played a part in the rejection of the proposed canal.

The Nicaraguan government turned to other means, by entering into a contract with Cornelius Vanderbilt which enabled his company the exclusive right to build a canal for 12 years. Vanderbilt’s company, the Accessory Transit Co., would also solely administrate the temporary overland trade route through the Rivas isthmus. However, the canal was not completed because of the Nicaraguan Civil War and William Walker’s invasion of the region.

The Panama Canal is Built

Two more proposals were pitched forward for the construction of the Nicaragua Canal. The first was in 1897 by the U.S. Nicaraguan Canal Commission, and another one in 1899 by the Isthmian Canal Commission. It should also be noted that the second commission gave the U.S. the second option of continuing the French construction of the Panama Canal, which was failing due to inhospitable conditions and high mortality rate among the workers.

The Nicaragua canal faced yet again several oppositions, although several key figures supported the idea like the Nicaraguan minister in Washington Luis Felipe Corea. The U.S. government even entered into talks with Nicaraguan president Jose Santos Zelaya for a lease in preparation for the construction of this canal.

The Nicaragua Canal proposals ultimately lost to the Panama Canal proponents when a Nicaraguan stamp depicting the Momotombo volcano was printed. Lobbyists led by William Nelson Cromwell made use of the stamp to argue that the Nicaragua canal was exposed to the threat of volcanic activity, although such claims were unfounded as Momotombo was significantly distant from the proposed Nicaragua canal.

However, the die was cast. Panama Canal was chosen over the Nicaragua canal and the efforts of Cromwell — who was under the employ of the French Canal Syndicate — paid off. In 1902, majority of the U.S. senators voted for Panama, driven by the stamps and a volcanic eruption in Saint-Pierre, Martinique.

After failing in getting the United States to build the canal, President Santos Zelaya turned to Germany and Japan for financial support. However, the United States opposed the construction, because it would pose competition for the high successful Panama canal.

Present Proposals

The idea of building a Nicaragua canal has once again been revived in 2004. The Nicaraguan government made pitches to build a canal which could be large enough to accommodate modern ships whose capacities made them unable to traverse the Panama Canal.

The proposals met again fierce opposition. This time the opposition came from the environmental sector, who argued that the canal would most likely damage Nicaragua’s rivers and jungles.

Despite oppositions, Nicaraguan President Enrique Bolanos announced intentions to push through with the Nicaragua Canal plans. According to the official, the Nicaragua canal would work well with the Panama Canal — an expansion of which is also being proposed to answer the new ship capacities — because there is demand to have two trans-oceanic canals to exist in the Central American isthmus.

One of the advantages being cited by Bolanos is that the canal, which is estimated to cost around US$18 billion, can shorten sea travel to and from California and New York by a day. Compared to the Panama Canal’s capacity to accommodate ships having a displacement of only 65,000 tons, the proposed Nicaragua canal can accommodate up to 250,000 tons.

Aside from the Nicaragua canal, there were also proposals to build an overland link made by two companies: the Intermodal System for Global Transport and the Inter-Ocean Canal of Nicaragua. SIT Global’s proposals also call for a combination of oil pipeline and fibre optic cable in addition in addition to a railway.

Attila Z Jancsina is a freelance copy writer. He occasionally writes for Buy Land in Nicaragua. Website offers Free FSBO advertisement.

Hamas is waiting, and hoping, for an Obama victory in November. During the Doha Debates (BBC, May 27, 2008), leading Hamas spokesman Mahmoud Al Zahar categorically implied that the only way out of the current impasse in the Gaza strip would be a neutral and balanced administration in Washington.

Senator Obama can claim that he rejects any endorsement by Hamas; that, however, is not the point. The first relevant question Americans have to ask themselves is this: why are the worst religious extremists in the Middle East waiting for President Obama?

Hamas waiting is not alone in waiting for John McCain to decisively falter. Hezbollah controlled television and radio outlets in Lebanon have been making very sympathetic reference to anti-war speeches made by Senator Obama for many months now. The Ayatollahs in Teheran have not made any serious comment on the Obama agenda for Iraq, but nobody can doubt that any withdrawal of US-led troops at this juncture would only serve as a major longer-term strategic boost for Iran. On that note, it should not be forgotten that Iran has had close historical ties with the leadership of the mainstream Kurdish parties, currently allied with the United States.

The second question Americans must ask themselves relates to the serious security consequences for the West in the event that Islamic fascists begin exercising unrestricted power throughout the Middle East. The related consequences for the oil producing Gulf nations and for Saudi Arabia will be even more immediate, and certainly more dramatic.

Senator Obama rests his thesis of troop withdrawals on the assumption that the fact upon which the Iraq war was predicated have proven to be dubious, at best. That may well be so. That discussion should be left to historians and political analysts who want to write history, or re-write history as the case might be. The point is that more that nearly 200,000-plus foreign troops and military contractors are currently present in Iraq, and that their removal, albeit over 18 months, would be tantamount to an unequivocal victory, politically and militarily, for religious extremists.

Senator Obama wants to direct his focus to the high mountains of the Hindu Kush, to hunt down Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda cohorts. That position is fundamentally flawed on two counts. Firstly, Senator Obama has no idea where exactly Bin Laden is today, and if he is alive at all. Secondly, as American troops are now finding out, many or most of the so-called militants in the Afghanistan theatre are part of robust opium producing and drug smuggling syndicates. Of course, there is no reason for the perpetrators of 9/11 to stay hiding in the mountains if the geographical area stretching from Iran to Lebanon qualifies as an infinitely better safe-haven.

Iraq represents a dual reality: the military reality on one hand and the economic (reconstruction) reality on the other. Both aspects of Iraq deserve high priority. Rather than engaging in discussions on the qualitative nature of the pre-war intelligence, a Washington administration needs to address both challenges.

Given the military situation on the ground, there will be no reconstruction without the presence of 120,000-plus American troops Iraq, at least for the foreseeable future. And, if there is no reconstruction, the dismal state of the Iraqi economy will provide extremely fertile terrorist recruitment windows; the average Iraqi living in the villages and the shanty towns is struggling to maintain a minimum level of human dignity.

An unusually large section of the American media is doing the American voter a major disservice. Rather than repeatedly alluding the wisdom of the pre-war stance adopted by Barack Obama, journalists and anchors must demand specifics which are verifiable in the context of today. Most importantly, what are the facts upon which Senator Obama has concluded that a withdrawal from Iraq will not lead to the absolute domination of Iran for many decades into the future? Nobody should endorse the Democratic ticket without getting an acceptable and verifiable answer.

Rakesh Saxena is a pricing and risk analysis specialist in insurance and derivative products and has extensive deal making in the emerging economies. He can be reached at derivatives@shaw.ca. Home URL: http://www.quoteplatform.com

We all know our Earth is in serious trouble. If there is one person who can really turn around things in our country it is the president. With elections round the corner and a line-up of presidential candidates, don’t all of us want to know who truly supports the green movement? Here’s a run down on the top candidates and their perspective of the environment:

Hillary Clinton
She has been known for citing serious environmental hazards in all of her speeches. However, it wasn’t until late 2007 that she actually drafted a comprehensive solution to the problem. This plan is essentially more like a cap trade mechanism which aims at reducing emissions by as much as 80%! A two-pronged approach focusing on investment and efficiency seems to be the primary strategy as of now. While the efficiency focus deals with elevating standards on vehicles, buildings etc. investment would focus on aspects like hybrids that are pluggable and also ensuring carbon seizures. Plans are also in the initial stages to form a NEC (National Energy Council) of sorts in order to segregate the responsibilities amongst agencies of the federal government. Clinton’s plan is pretty similar to the other presidential candidate lineups. However, it remains to be seen if any real implementation happens.

Barack Obama
Barack has been seen touting the usage of liquefied coal at one point which earned him a black mark amongst the green movers. Throughout his campaign he did not really devote time to focus on aspects about the environment or energy. It was only later during October 2007 that he finally released a detailed plan on energy conservation. In addition to the cap trade system promoted by Clinton, Obama also cited an investment of 150 billion to facilitate more green employment opportunities. His detailed plan also enlists aspects on improving efficiency creating a smarter electricity grid system and promoting public transportation.

John McCain
John McCain has been one of the few presidential candidates to truly voice his opinion on global warming issues. In 2003 he brought out the Climate Stewardship Act which was produced in 2005 and yet again in 2007. This proposal also focused on cap trade mechanisms while also cutting down emissions by 65%. He believes fuel efficiency must be raised in a gradual fashion instead of taking dramatic steps to change the existing system.

Ralph Nader
Ralph Nader is an Independent but has managed to carve a name for himself as far as environment protection measures are concerned. In the initial days of his career he started a movement that aimed at getting consumer protection and environment laws passed in parliament. He was also instrumental in getting acts such as Clean Water and Clean Air passed. Till date Nader has voiced his opinion strongly against the funding in favor of nuclear supplies. In addition Nader is also strongly against industries that pollute the environment. He believes aspects like imposition of carbon tax will help protect the environment to a certain extent. He also advocates the usage of solar power as an alternative fuel source.

Modernecohomes.com, offers a wide range of eco friendly office furniture and certified organic products. To stay up to date with the latest eco-friendly news, please visit this great eco friendly blog.

These words about the use of power by Lincoln had me think of the legacy of power that America had enjoyed during the presidencies of the first President Bush, and also with Bill Clinton.

In a touch of brilliance to push all signatories to sign the Akron Accord for some short peace in the area, Clinton held the meeting at the location of largest fleet of air bombers in the world at Akron. Clinton of course had all enjoy a military review of the entire length of this vast airfield filled to overflow with bombers brought in from all over for the big day.

By the end of the review, and then the return to the room with the papers and pens, after all those enemies had absorbed the force of America, they all sat down among the massive sea of bombers at Akron, and all signed, all signatures. Then I suspect all asked if they could use the washrooms. They all knew that Bill Clinton had it in his power to snap his fingers and lift those thousand bombers warming up as they walked, and be off bombing some factories and homes by nightfall.

This was a clever and very powerful hint of force, to achieve the results Clinton and the world sought, with not one bomb dropped, many heads banged together with the sounds of aircraft engines warming up. Some wise application of power is so long overdue. Here is to hope, wisdom spouting out of the sidewalks in Washington, less provocation and arrogance, more cooperation and humility. That is what Lincoln would have done, as historians describe Lincoln as an emotional genius.

Lincoln insisted that General Robert E. Lee be left to live out his life in dignity and peace on his farm in Virginia, to show all there was now to be healing and forgiveness.

Lincoln did not send Lee to Guatanamo, or hang him by his thumbs, nor mortify his faith or have him blindfolded with wires to car batteries. That legacy belongs to the emotional morons who now jump and leap from chandelier to rafters inside a place some would call Casa Blanca. Spanish for White House, Rick says.

In contrast,the first Gulf War was a masterpiece of diplomacy applied in cooperation with enemies and allies to talk Iraq out of Kuwait. When that failed, and only when President George Herbert Walker Bush, who had worked hard to achieve full amazing cooperation of all key players, not only in the region but all world powers and the United Nations on side. Only then did we all attack and chase home Iraq.

That we stopped at the Iraq border caused many of us to cry that we were only so many miles from taking out that dictator. But a very experienced senior career diplomat who had once called called the Reagan tax cuts “voodoo economics”, had the wise power of a Lincoln to stop at that border. All Arab states on our side in that war had warned this was about respect of borders. And a wiser Bush, unlike little Caesar, did not cross this Rubicon.

Bill Clinton had to complete what the senior Bush had started, which was to undue the voodoo economics that Reagan, and now Bush Jr. have had in placed, hollowing out the treasury and tossing the keys to China and Japan and Arabia. All to ensure his oil subsidies to the barons continue, as America sinks in debt, and the poor get poorer.

Which brings us to the incumbent vice president, who appeared a man of strong resolve in the first Gulf War. But after that cliff hanging flawed win over Al Gore, I was shocked to watch a news reporter asking if since this was such a narrow election and America was so clearly divided, would the winners by finger nails work with those policies of Clinton.

And this sneering man pushed the reporter aside and said why should we, we won. And we quickly saw the Clinton policies which were keeping America prosperous and yet there was finally bi partisan agreement to pay off the debt of America within the decade. And Clinton even was criticized for bombing that Sudan factory, which had been done on false evidence that bin Ladin was in the building. He had apparently, just left the building. As near a hit as ever since.

And while we civilized discussion in Europe about how they may dare become greater, tear down more walls, listen to those are not yet fully friends, and see if we come together. The healing policies of a Lincoln have crossed the pond at last.

It is long past time for the application of some of that wisdom back home. America owes it to her ideals to behave more like a member of civilization again, tear down those Guantanamo mentalities. Time to rebuild. That would be a wonderful change of the application of power. What would Lincoln have done? He would not have done much, if you think of it honestly, of what this wrecking crew have done. Only my opinion, of course.

Derek Dashwood loves the combining of science into the humanities to measure politics, power and bliss. We show more of this in the top right on our site under Health to Wealth, as well as many other topics of concern to us today at Healthy Lifestyles With Your Name On Them

Healthy lifestyles are not even on the horizon for millions around the earth, and nowhere is this situation worse than in Darur, Sudan, Africa.

And now the world has witnessed a rare shaming of a nation as Steven Spielberg has just inflicted on China. This nation that has begun to lecture other nations has found that a very effective way to deflect criticism of some of the inhumane behavior of official China.

The silencing of Tibet and flooding it with coastal Han, the suppression of any meaningful free speech, or pretense of being a democracy, still with the growing purchasing power has most nations look the other way while they all scramble for part of the action.

Until Steven, who may have noticed that the Canadian oil company had felt morally obliged to leave Sudan and put up for sale these rich oil fields and found the quick bidder was China. Now, China supplies the guns to kill in Darfur while it ships the payment in oil to the growing industries of China.

This will be mortifying news to officialdom in China, who so want to impress the world that they are now a mighty nation in the nations of the world, and all is beautiful and glorious. It will not be the great extra ordinary and flawless Olympics with this stain on the moral conduct of official China on their five star star studded Olympics.

Already some television comment asks about boycotts of the games as happened when Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1980. That seems unlikely. But it is a very good thing that someone of world renown and respect calls China for not being a good moral citizen of the world.

The spluttering speeches of self defense are being written as we speak. But Steven- the guy in the white hat- may have added one more wedge under the weak side of the leaning tower of self centered immoral Communism. And we applaud that process. Well done, Steven!

This difference between reality and theory has always been a mystery to me: Marx and Engels were determined to defend the little guy against the monolithic monster of capitalism. All would rise, unite, slay the dragons, and run the animal farm all peacefully, all equal.

So much for the theory. We have watched the Canadian Oil Company go through an agony of debate about these rich oil fields in Sudan, realizing it would be blood money as the government was diverting any first trickles of oil profits to guns.

So, this evil western capitalist company put their oil rights up for sale. I and others wondered who would knowingly buy into helping create this horror: it was the democratic Peoples Republic of China! Some how I had felt certain the new buyer would not be an oil giant from say, Sweden, where the same moral question would have arisen as in Canada.

Since then, oil has flowed to China from Sudan and guns have filled the boats, apparently on the return trip, and the genocide in Darfur has taken off during this same time.

Good eye, Steven. And while many of our same thinking voices would not have raised a squeak, you have created a roar that has shamed China. And just before they want to show off to the world how perfect they were with their best ever Olympics. Now some bloody hands have also been waved from the growing crowds.

Derek Dashwood notices how antique history books can give examples of small brave acts that change history. Steven may have shamed China to encourage democracy and peace in Sudan not guns for oil. Allow meditation and contentment in Darfur as well as China, both in autocratic lands that have yet to know true democracy
Healthy Lifestyles
http://www.dashforpower.com