Yes, its not just McCain who doesn't get it but the whole Republican party who doesn't get it.

And although Obama gave an excellent speech outlining the truth of our collective situation they too need to be change from the status quo. When the Democrat party changes to a leadership of following the demands of the people as oppose to the other way around--then and only then has the US reach its true potential.

Let's bring this nightmare to an end by putting a man who can be reasoned and pushed to bring about a true nation based on its ideas. A democracy and capitalistic nation that is as strong as its weakest member of its constituency.

-->watch the speech using RealPlayer or copy paste the link to VLC player also.

Full Text of Speech with my commentary :)

Barack Obama: To Chairman Dean and my great friend Dick Durbin; and to all my fellow citizens of this great nation.

With profound gratitude and great humility, I accept your nomination for presidency of the United States.

Let me express my thanks to the historic slate of candidates who accompanied me on this journey, and especially the one who traveled the farthest -- a champion for working Americans and an inspiration to my daughters and yours -- Hillary Rodham Clinton. To President Bill Clinton, who made last night the case for change as only he can make it; to Ted Kennedy, who embodies the spirit of service; and to the next vice president of the United States, Joe Biden, I thank you. I am grateful to finish this journey with one of the finest statesmen of our time, a man at ease with everyone from world leaders to the conductors on the Amtrak train he still takes home every night.

To the love of my life, our next first lady, Michelle Obama, and to Malia and Sasha -- I love you so much, and I'm so proud of you.

Four years ago, I stood before you and told you my story -- of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren't well off or well-known, but shared a belief that in America, their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to.

It is that promise that has always set this country apart -- that through hard work and sacrifice, each of us can pursue our individual dreams but still come together as one American family, to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams as well.

That's why I stand here tonight. Because for 232 years, at each moment when that promise was in jeopardy, ordinary men and women -- students and soldiers, farmers and teachers, nurses and janitors -- found the courage to keep it alive.

We meet at one of those defining moments -- a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more.

Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for less. More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can't afford to drive, credit card bills you can't afford to pay, and tuition that's beyond your reach.

These challenges are not all of government's making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush.

America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this.

This country is more decent than one where a woman in Ohio, on the brink of retirement, finds herself one illness away from disaster after a lifetime of hard work.

We're a better country than one where a man in Indiana has to pack up the equipment he's worked on for 20 years and watch it shipped off to China, and then chokes up as he explains how he felt like a failure when he went home to tell his family the news.

We are more compassionate than a government that lets veterans sleep on our streets and families slide into poverty; that sits on its hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes.

Tonight, I say to the people of America, to Democrats and Republicans and independents across this great land -- enough! This moment -- this election -- is our chance to keep, in the 21st century, the American promise alive. Because next week, in Minnesota, the same party that brought you two terms of George Bush and Dick Cheney will ask this country for a third. And we are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look just like the last eight. On November 4, we must stand up and say: "Eight is enough."

Now let there be no doubt. The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and our respect. And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need.

But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time. Sen. McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than 90 percent of the time? I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a 10 percent chance on change. (Awesome point!)

The truth is, on issue after issue that would make a difference in your lives -- on health care and education and the economy -- Sen. McCain has been anything but independent. He said that our economy has made "great progress" under this president. He said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. And when one of his chief advisers -- the man who wrote his economic plan -- was talking about the anxieties that Americans are feeling, he said that we were just suffering from a "mental recession," and that we've become, and I quote, "a nation of whiners." (Obama must continue speaking like this!)

A nation of whiners? Tell that to the proud autoworkers at a Michigan plant who, after they found out it was closing, kept showing up every day and working as hard as ever, because they knew there were people who counted on the brakes that they made. Tell that to the military families who shoulder their burdens silently as they watch their loved ones leave for their third or fourth or fifth tour of duty. These are not whiners. They work hard and they give back and they keep going without complaint. These are the Americans I know.

Now, I don't believe that Sen. McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn't know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under $5 million a year? How else could he propose hundreds of billions in tax breaks for big corporations and oil companies but not one penny of tax relief to more than 100 million Americans? How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people's benefits, or an education plan that would do nothing to help families pay for college, or a plan that would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement?

It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it.

For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy -- give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is that you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. You're on your own. No health care? The market will fix it. You're on your own. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps -- even if you don't have boots. You are on your own. (This is what must be said!)

Well it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America. And that's why I'm running for president of the United States.

You see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country.

We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage; whether you can put a little extra money away at the end of each month so you can someday watch your child receive her college diploma. We measure progress in the 23 million new jobs that were created when Bill Clinton was president -- when the average American family saw its income go up $7,500 instead of go down $2,000 like it has under George Bush.

We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off and look after a sick kid without losing her job -- an economy that honors the dignity of work.

The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great -- a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight.

Because in the faces of those young veterans who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, I see my grandfather, who signed up after Pearl Harbor, marched in Patton's Army, and was rewarded by a grateful nation with the chance to go to college on the GI Bill.

In the face of that young student who sleeps just three hours before working the night shift, I think about my mom, who raised my sister and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree; who once turned to food stamps but was still able to send us to the best schools in the country with the help of student loans and scholarships.

When I listen to another worker tell me that his factory has shut down, I remember all those men and women on the South Side of Chicago I stood by and fought for two decades ago after the local steel plant closed.

And when I hear a woman talk about the difficulties of starting her own business or making her way in the world, I think about my grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle-management, despite years of being passed over for promotions because she was a woman. She's the one who taught me about hard work. She's the one who put off buying a new car or a new dress for herself so that I could have a better life. She poured everything she had into me. And although she can no longer travel, I know that she's watching tonight, and that tonight is her night as well.

Now, I don't know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine. These are my heroes. Theirs are the stories that shaped my life. And it is on behalf of them that I intend to win this election and keep our promise alive as president of the United States.

What is that American promise?

It's a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect.

It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, to look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.

Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves -- protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and science and technology.

Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.

That's the promise of America -- the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.

That's the promise we need to keep. That's the change we need right now. So let me spell out exactly what that change would mean if I am president.

Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.

You know, unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.

I'll eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

I will, listen now, cut taxes -- cut taxes -- for 95 percent of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

And for the sake of our economy, our security and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: In 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East. We will do this.

Washington's been talking about our oil addiction for the last 30 years, and by the way John McCain's been there for 26 of them. And in that time, he's said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil that we had as the day that Sen. McCain took office.

Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.

As president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy -- wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and 5 million new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced.

America, now is not the time for small plans.

Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. You know, Michelle and I are only here tonight because we were given a chance at an education. And I will not settle for an America where some kids don't have that chance. I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American -- if you commit to serving your community or our country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.

Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And as someone who watched my mother argue with insurance companies while she lay in bed dying of cancer, I will make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.

Now is the time to help families with paid sick days and better family leave, because nobody in America should have to choose between keeping their job and caring for a sick child or ailing parent.

Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses; and the time to protect Social Security for future generations.

And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work, because I want my daughters to have the exact same opportunities as your sons.

Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime -- by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less -- because we cannot meet 21st century challenges with a 20th century bureaucracy.

And Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America's promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to recover what John F. Kennedy called our "intellectual and moral strength." Yes, government must lead on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and businesses more efficient. Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents; that government can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility to provide love and guidance to their children.

Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility -- that's the essence of America's promise.

And just as we keepour promise to the next generation here at home, so must we keep America's promise abroad. If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next commander in chief, that's a debate I'm ready to have.

For while Sen. McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats that we face. When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. You know, John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell -- but he won't even go to the cave where he lives.

And today, as my call for a time frame to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush administration, even after we learned that Iraq has $79 billion in surplus while we are wallowing in deficits, John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war.

That's not the judgment we need. That won't keep America safe. We need a president who can face the threats of the future, not keep grasping at the ideas of the past.

You don't defeat a terrorist network that operates in 80 countries by occupying Iraq. You don't protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. You can't truly stand up for Georgia when you've strained our oldest alliances. If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice -- but that is not the change that America needs.

We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country. Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe. The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans -- Democrats and Republicans -- have built, and we are here to restore that legacy.

As commander in chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm's way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.

I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease. And I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future.

These are the policies I will pursue. And in the weeks ahead, I look forward to debating them with John McCain.

But what I will not do is suggest that the senator takes his positions for political purposes. Because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and each other's patriotism.

The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America -- they have served the United States of America.

So I've got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first.

America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices, and Democrats as well as Republicans will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past. For part of what has been lost these past eight years can't just be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits. What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose. That's what we have to restore.

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. You know, passions may fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. But this, too, is part of America's promise -- the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan Horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values. And that's to be expected. Because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.

You make a big election about small things.

And you know what -- it's worked before. Because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government. When Washington doesn't work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it's best to stop hoping, and settle for what you already know.

I get it. I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don't fit the typical pedigree, and I haven't spent my career in the halls of Washington.

But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the naysayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me. It's about you. It's about you. (Yup!  Its about the people, they will put you in office but only with the expectation that the government is theirs to govern -- not you or McCain or anyone else!  This expectation if fulfilled will be the catalyst to true change in our society.)

For 18 long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said enough to the politics of the past. You understand that in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result. You have shown what history teaches us -- that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it -- because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.

America, this is one of those moments.

I believe that as hard as it will be, the change we need is coming. Because I've seen it. Because I've lived it. Because I've seen it in Illinois, when we provided health care to more children and moved more families from welfare to work. I've seen it in Washington, where we worked across party lines to open up government and hold lobbyists more accountable, to give better care for our veterans and keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorist.

And I've seen it in this campaign. In the young people who voted for the first time, and the young at heart, those who got involved again after a very long time. In the Republicans who never thought they'd pick up a Democratic ballot, but did. I've seen it in the workers who would rather cut their hours back a day even though they can't afford it than see their friends lose their jobs, in the soldiers who re-enlist after losing a limb, in the good neighbors who take a stranger in when a hurricane strikes and the floodwaters rise.

You know, this country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that's not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that's not what makes us strong. Our universities and our culture are the envy of the world, but that's not what keeps the world coming to our shores.

Instead, it is that American spirit -- that American promise -- that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.  (I really want to see this USA -- I really do.)

That promise is our greatest inheritance. It's a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night, and a promise that you make to yours -- a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west; a promise that led workers to picket lines, and women to reach for the ballot.

And it is that promise that 45 years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln's Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.

The men and women who gathered there could've heard many things. They could've heard words of anger and discord. They could've been told to succumb to the fear and frustration of so many dreams deferred.

But what the people heard instead -- people of every creed and color, from every walk of life -- is that in America, our destiny is inextricably linked. That together, our dreams can be one.

"We cannot walk alone," the preacher cried. "And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back."

America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend. America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise -- that American promise -- and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.

Thank you, God Bless you, and God Bless the United States of America.

http://www.josephstiglitz.com/

http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1439/1/ Stiglitz Goes To Paraguay: Move Over Chicago, A Cambridge Boy's in Town

Written by Gustavo Setrini

Monday, 25 August 2008

Joseph Stiglitz Among the throng of distinguished international guests drawn to participate in the first democratic transition of government in Paraguay's 190-year history, Joseph Stiglitz, economist and advisor to the Clinton White House, may just prove the most influential. Two days before left-leaning president-elect Fernando Lugo's inauguration, Stiglitz's talk on globalization and equitable growth drew a full house to the Grand Theater of Paraguay's central bank. Elites of various stripes filled the auditoriums plush seats, as the country's largest soy farmers, ranchers, and industrialists, leaders of business and civil-society organizations, and privileged political class showed up for a glimpse of what the new government's economic and social policy might look like.International media outlets' insistence on Hugo Chavez analogies aside, the transition team has given plenty of indication that it aims to provide pragmatic leadership, in particular the naming of U.S.-educated macro-economist Dionisio Borda as Minister of Finance. Broadly respected and considered technically competent, Borda occupied the same post for two years in the outgoing government, where he headed a successful effort to balance public finances and achieve macroeconomic stability before resigning in protest after the failure of more structural reforms of the public bureaucracy. He has arisen as the central figure in the team named by Lugo to execute his expressed goals of public-sector reform, equitable growth, and environmental sustainability. However, despite all attempts to distance himself from South America's hard left, Lugo, as much as Brazilian president Lula on the eve of his inauguration, must confront the elite's deep apprehension over a government that counts among its mandates a directive to reduce the country's grave social and economic inequalities. In this context, advising from such a well respected figure as Joseph Stiglitz represents a valuable tool for diffusing the ideological weapons yielded by the interests that sustained 60-plus years of extremely corrupt Colorado-Party rule. It must have been alarming for certain members of the audience to hear Stiglitz debunk one by one the conservative positions that development authorities and international institutions formerly bolstered and to which local elite groups and media continue to cling. With great authority and occasional cheek, Stiglitz enumerated the flaws and misconceptions that characterized the past decade of development thinking. Stiglitz openly declared that bilateral free-trade agreements almost inevitably favor the U.S. and offer few advantages for poorer, agricultural economies such as Paraguay's, that "trickle-down" economics does not work and has never worked, that land reform was the basis of successful development experiences in East Asia, that privatization is not an automatic or necessarily the best answer to the woes of publicly owned enterprise, that U.S. monetary policy, rather than Latin American industrial policy, was to blame for the region's "lost decade" in the 1980s, and that public investments form the basis for private dynamism in developing countries as much as in advanced countries like the United States. Stiglitz summarized his basic position, pointing toward the current U.S. mortgage crisis and stating that markets alone produce neither efficient nor socially desirable outcomes but instead provoke periodic crises that erase the gains of growth and hit the poor the hardest. Stiglitz's assertions are a far cry from the advice Paraguay's future leaders would have received had they stood at this juncture 10-15 years ago. In 1989, the year the country became nominally democratic, Latin America's economic policy was dominated by the so-called "Chicago Boys". After studying with Milton Friedman, this group of University-of-Chicago-trained economists returned home to engineer the economic recovery of Mexico and Chile from the severe economic dislocations and stagnation of the 1980s. According to the day's thinking, excessive government involvement in the economy was to blame for the region's economic woes. Developing country governments must create the conditions for private investment to generate growth by maintaining a good business environment through the liberalization of trade and finance, privatization of state-owned enterprise and public utilities, and by maintaining low inflation. This resurrection of the classical or liberal economic theory formed the basis of the "Washington Consensus" among the U.S.-based international development and multilateral lending institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the Inter-American Development Bank, that urged developing country governments to focus on fundamentals such as maintaining macroeconomic stability and generally shrink the size of the public sector. In practice, this often meant that government curtailed or abandoned its social obligations in order to maintain a good budget profile just as trade liberalization and unregulated financial flows left citizens exposed to the vagaries of the global economy. Thus, rather than market-led development, neoliberal economic restructuring has unleashed a wave of leftist electoral triumphs around Latin America, as voters responded with frustration to a decade of mediocre growth and the stagnation or deterioration of social conditions. President Fernando Lugo After several decades during which free-market fundamentalism dominated development theory and policy, Stiglitz's visit to Paraguay and the content of his advising demonstrate an important political and ideological shift. Formerly the chief economist of the World Bank, Stiglitz is one of a number of economists whose ideas appear to be forming the foundation for a "Post-Washington Consensus". Stiglitz received his PhD in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and draws from an intellectual tradition with altogether different implications for the proper role of government in the economy. The scholar won the Nobel prize in economics in 2001 for his work showing that markets fail to produce efficient outcomes whenever economic actors do not act on perfect information, a condition that is nearly universally true and that invites and requires a wide set of government interventions into the market and regulation of the private sector aimed at enhancing efficiency. Consequently, Stigltiz argues that the reason that Adam Smith's "invisible hand" seems invisible is because it is often not there to guide self-interested behavior toward socially beneficial outcomes. Moreover, addressing his audience of elite Paraguayans, Stiglitz argued that,even with proper regulation, markets do not produce socially equitable outcomes and cannot address entrenched inequalities in developing countries such as Paraguay. He thus opened wide the door toward social policy and redistributive spending that earlier development thinking had closed off as at least unnecessary if not distorting and counterproductive.Stiglitz expressed his optimism that Paraguay could seek out an alternative path to demonstrate what a "Post-Washington Consensus" would look like and how it could work. Some of the features described by Stiglitz as part of this alternative sound exciting, in particular, helping Paraguay join the global economy by investing in the knowledge economy, closing the technology gap, and establishing research programs at the country's universities. However, other reforms described by Stiglitz as crucial for meeting the challenges of equitable growth most likely sounded harsher to his audience. First, Paraguay must expand its tax base if it is to make the sets of public investments necessary for growth, competitiveness, and equity in today's economy. Paraguay remains something of an anomaly, Stiglitz argued, with no income tax and a total tax burden of only 11% of GDP (the lowest in the region). Even if it curbs tax evasion and improves the efficiency of public spending, the new government will need far more resources than currently available for investments in infrastructure and education. When asked where and how such taxes could be effectively applied given the country's insufficient administrative capacity, Stiglitz implicitly suggested that his audience foot the bill. Taxing the country's beef and soybean exports, he proposed, would generate fewer administrative costs, as the products must pass through a limited number of ports. Stiglitz spared Paraguay's rural elites no responsibility for the country's social problems, stating that, as the country's main engines of growth, the ranching and soybean industries have not generated enough employment and drive inequality. Accordingly, Stiglitz cited agrarian reform as another necessary step for Paraguay, among the countries with the highest levels of land inequality in the world. He explained that land reform lay the foundation for the successful development experiences in East Asia, and that making land and other productive resources available too the poor would enhance both economic growth and equality. Finally, Stiglitz stressed the need for civil service reform to staff the public sector with qualified professionals, hired through competitive exams and employed without tenure. This means dismantling the patronage system that held the Colorado party in power for more than sixty years and ensured elites the support of an urban middle class largely dependent clientelistic access to public-sector employment. Stiglitz's diagnosis of Paraguay's economic and social problems and his prescribed reforms were not new to the country or even the audience; similar proposals have long been part of Paraguay's progressive political discourse and, in large measure, formed part of Dionisio Borda's initiatives as finance minister in 2003-2005. Their novelty comes from their statement by a Nobel-prize-winning economist, rather than priest-turned-president, Fernando Lugo, the country's few leftist political parties, or thousands of protesting peasants as they fill the capital's plazas to demand agrarian reform. Out of the mouths of such political discontents, local media has interpreted these policy positions as radical, populist, and dangerous to the country's development prospects, occasionally dragging out tired references to the failures of Soviet and Cuban socialism. Joseph Stiglitz ideas cannot be as easily dismissed, and, while his words obviously cannot eliminate the recalcitrance of the country's entrenched political and economic elite, they have reframed and renewed a stagnant and outdated debate over the role of government in economic development. By describing progressive tax and land reforms as crucial bases for economic growth, rather than obstacles to it, Stiglitz grants badly needed legitimacy to the newly elected government. In the April 15 election, voters handed Lugo a 42% to 31% victory over Colorado-Party Candidate Blanca Ovelar and a clear mandate for reform. However, the electorate granted congressional majorities to the Colorado Party, and Lugo may quickly find himself squeezed between the unprecedented popular expectations for economic and social reform and conservative groups control of the legislature. Lugo's success will depend on the executives' political savvy and ability to manage the different factions within his own legislative coalition, the Patriotic Alliance for Change, and the opposition parties in order to build a consensus that meaningfully alters the status quo. If Stiglitz remains part of Lugo's advising team, he may prove a valuable ally in this process. Economic ideas, like those shared by Stiglitz days before Lugo's inauguration, do not simply provide a set of policy options that can be applied by governments or their technocrats in search of the best outcomes. The content of economic theories about growth and development provide tools which different groups appropriate in political debates about whose interests should be privileged by policy and whose interests must be sacrificed in the name of progress. Throughout the 1990s, the advocates of social policy and regulation found themselves delegitimized by the neoliberal thought of the Washington consensus. Neoliberal economics provided an account of the world in which the interests of society coincided with those of the private sector and stood in conflict to those of the bureaucratic public sector, leaving little room for the political left. In much of Latin America, as in the U.S., these years proved to be good ones for business and the upper echelons of the income distribution, but poor ones for the rest of society. The view of economic development afforded by Stiglitz and others contributing to a "Post-Washington Consensus," has not yet led to a coherent set of recommendations for developing countries. It is unlikely as well, given its rejection of one-size-fits-all policy. However, scholars like Stiglitz clearly see a much larger role for government in bringing about economic development and social justice than leading development institutions envisioned a decade ago. In theory, Lugo's government stands to do a great deal of good in Paraguay, and Stiglitz laid out many of the tasks that lie ahead. In practice, the new governments' achievements will depend on how well progressive groups can capitalize on Stiglitz's ideas and re-conquer political spaces closed to them for decades. Gustavo Setrini is a PhD candidate in Political Science at MIT. He is currently doing field research on fair trade and organic agriculture in Paraguay.

The rich cinematography and the desperate inner lives of women who endure their fate with docile acceptance, wrapped in religious faith, will make you mourn, cringe and, at times, smile at spirits that cannot be snuffed with oppression.  

Metha shows, with quiet reverence, the Catch 22 that so many women find themselves in: The struggle for survival in an inequitable world that is ruled by financial considerations, but uses social pressures, religion and stigma to keep an oppressive thumb on pressure points. And lest you think men are the sole purveyors of inequality, consider that women, girls like Metha’s girl-widow, Chuyia, learn those rules from their women elders. As Stephen Hunter of the Washington Post put it: "Water" is something pretty rare in the world of movies: an artistic muckraker."

More food for thought: Some 30 million Indian women live with the stigma “widow,” which still can force them into an outcast life. Imagine having no identity or value as a human being, save what a man might bestow.  

Metha’s “Water” trailer below. Article links about the film and India's widows follow.

-Christy

Washington Post article about the film here.

New America Media article about the filmmaker here.

International Herald Tribune article about India's widows here.

Women's e-News article about India's widows here.

If the video does not load, you can watch it here.

This is what the veterans among the protestors had to say:

"We are the veterans! The Iraq War veterans! The anti-war veterans! We are soldiers! Anti-war soldiers!"

Jan Critchfield, 24, of Seattle said he served in Iraq in 2004, and after returning home, came to believe that the war was an "unlawful, immoral occupation."

The protestors held placards that read:

"US out of Iraq!", "Troops out now!" and "No War on Iran!"

Robert Joyet had this to say: "I'm ashamed at the poor turnout here. I'd have hoped more Americans … maybe they're sidetracked by corporate interests. I worked three times in Afghanistan as an engineer and when I was there security was tentative and that was three years ago. The situation there is getting like it was in Iraq. I think it's a lost cause and we should just get out. It's a farce. These politicians go on their "fact finding mission" and don't talk to anybody about it [the situation]. It's disgraceful."

Jean Toth expressed his wish: "I'd love for people to see that not all Americans are all about war."

Judy Gear hates war: "We're very against the war and very concerned about the environment and that's why I'm here to stop all our invasions of various countries."

Daniel Hernandez was clear about the reason for his participation: "Well I'm just here to show my solidarity with everyone else who opposes the war. I want to show the rest of the world that not all Americans supported our invasion of Iraq."

Delaine Novak had this to say: "We're here today because we don't believe in the occupation of Iraq. We need to pull the troops out and spend the money here at home – this war was just about oil. We need to end this war, we didn't ask for this."

War is a filthy, disgusting concept meant for the benefit of a few at the expense of all other Earthlings . . .

Image: www.iranian.com

Three cheers for the truly patriotic American citizens who participated in the anti-war march!!!

Finally had a chance to post my report on the current situation that impoverish women face in the US society.

I also include my 2 part presentations given on the subject.  I examine the micro & macro perspective of the US society from the vantage point of economics.  On the first part of my presentation I talked about what is poverty, what percent are women, what US policies are in place that deal with women and poverty.  The second part of the presentation explains the cause of the economic cycle and the possible solutions that are require to alleviate the current economy.

Poverty US Economy_080810

Cycle Of US Economy_080812

Poverty, Women, & US Domestic Policy

Sociology 1

Summer 2008

Marcelino Pena

Hypothesis & Support

The United States as of 2007 had a poverty rate of 12.3% where 28% of that poverty is composed of Female-Headed households[1], while in 1959 there was 23% of Female-Headed households in poverty.[2] Are women’s social mobility in low socio-economic status (SES) closed? And if true, what are the factors that lead to such outcomes? Are the norms and language within poverty a contributing factor that generate a closed window to escalate out of poverty for the greater number of the group and its future generations? Or are the norms and language of the majority perpetuating the impoverishment of women in the US?

The following two research studies were chosen to begin answering some of these questions. Each focused on single mothers in low SES and the outcomes of being in such social group. The first study titled “MATERNAL WORK HOURS AND ADOLESCENTS' SCHOOL OUTCOMES AMONG LOW-INCOME FAMILIES IN FOUR URBAN COUNTIES”[i] examined the effects caused by the changes in welfare policy in the USA[3] on children's academic performance of single mothers. The women were from four different urban counties Cleveland, Los Angeles, Miami-Dade, and Philadelphia. The second titled “FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE? THE CONSEQUENCES OF MARRIAGE AND COHABITATION FOR SINGLE MOTHERS.“[ii] investigates if the positive effects of marriage also apply to single mothers. Both studies delve on the question of women in poverty and focused specifically on proposals by the US government that had been determined to diminish the increase rate of impoverishment on single mothers.

Findings & Criticisms

The first study was composed of the following data points: Maternal Employment (≤ 30 hours or > 30 hours), children academic participation outcomes (# days late to school last 4 weeks, # days missed school in past 4 weeks, whether children cut classes without permission in the last year) & academic performance outcomes (Maternal assessment based on a sliding scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = “Not well at all” to 5 = “Very Well” on children's current performance for past year and whether or not parent contacted on misbehavior for the past year). As well the characteristics of the children (gender & age), the mother (age, education, marital status, cohabiting status, physical and psychological abuse, usage of hard drugs, birth of origin, race, mental and health condition) and the household (whether other people and non-relative children live in the same house and the total number of children in the house).

The sample groups were analyzed in two different periods 1998 & 2001. The research method utilized was a covariance analysis with the dependent variable being the children's academic outcomes (performance & participation) and the independent variable being the Maternal Employment, and the covariates which are all the characteristics of children, mothers, and households. Covariance analysis adjusts the dependent variable to reduce the heavy influence of non-controlled variables (covariates) and in turn brings out the sought after effects caused by the controlled independent variable on the dependent variable.

The study found the following outcomes on children's performance and participation: women who worked 1-30 hours had a direct effect on children's participation by having more truancies and the women who worked more than 30 hours had the same problem of truancy but also faced effects on misbehavior and ironically improved academic performance.

These were the only effects found in the study out of six possible dependent variables which shows that a lot more work needs to be done. Various factors could have been considered such as environment, occupation, mother's education, and the relationships that the children had with their mother. Each of these factors can only be investigated with more data collection.

Environment would mean not only the natural surrounding of the families which could be measure with the ammount of pollution risk they face but also the level of crime they risk facing everyday. The analysis can also include the schools in which the students attend and the types of workplaces the mother's go to everyday. Finally these factor can be placed together in the covariate analysis to minimize the differences that each county group faces but the groups can be seperated into their respective counties to determine which counties have the harshest environments for the mothers and children.

Occupation would provide the degree of motivation of the mothers in the study. If the mothers occupation are more pretisgious then the mothers as workers would earn more money and would be satisfy continuing their work. On the other hand the less pretigious the work, then likely the opposite will be true. The level prestige can be used to determine the level of motivation, where the higher the prestige would mean the higher the motivation in the mothers. This is turn will have a positve, or negative, motivation effect on the children depending on each of the mothers occupation.

Education can provide the study the needed differiation among the mothers in the group. The differences in education can be clustered to show the possible strong effect of the mother's education on the children's own education. As more of an effect is shown by the mother's education the more focus can be shown that working mothers don't necessarily bring out positive results but instead the negative results are more systemic to the level education and the other factors mentioned.

Finally the mother & child relationship must be taken into account since a significance relationship exist between deliquency and neglicience between mother and child. If the study had brought in a measure on the strong or weak bond that the mother children have then a more robust finding could had been made. Again if the working mother has a strong relationship then the possible outcome would be a positv`e and the opposite could be shown as well.

The second study was composed on the following data points: women who were either single-mothers or childless, the mental & physical well being of both groups of women, type union and whether the relationship endure or not. The characteristics of the women by age, race, and level of education. Also two measures on financial-strain (survey 1 to 5, "never" to "all the time", self evaluation) & marital-quality by three different methods, marital happiness (survey 0 to 6, "very unhappy" to "very happy", self evaluation), marital conflict (survey on 4 x 0 to 6, "never" to "almost every day", to equal total range of 0 to 24 self evaluation), perceived marital instability (survey 1 to 5, "very low" to "very high", self evaluation).

The two groups were analyzed for two time periods 1987/88 (T1) and 1992/94 (T2). The data was then compared between the single mothers and childless women in regards to the following four types of relationships: marriages enduring beyond T2, marriages ending before T2, cohabitation enduring beyond T2, and cohabitation ending before T2.

The results are startling for single mothers as they receive none of the same physical health benefits that childless women do when married. The other major difference between the women is the psychology health benefits received; single mothers only attain the mental health benefits if the marriage endures. Finally cohabitation had no significant effect on single mothers whether the relationships endured or not.

The only criticism that can be raised is the lack of studies conducted by other researchers in the field. The study on the effects of marriage on single mothers is important in establishing adequate effective legislation that will ultimately help this disadvantage segment of our society. More studies will solidify the findings made in this research and can even provide more insights on the overall health on single mother in comparison to other childless women thus bringing attention to the important of other issues such as abortion, government income assistance programs, and the devastating impact of poverty on vulnurable populations.

Conclusions & Questions

Overall both studies illustrate alarming factors on women's impact on their children and the difficulties they face on securing mental and physical wellbeing in the most secure relationship of marriage. The focus on poverty is indeed mired with variables that must be considered collectively and seperately at the same time to fully understand the complexity that poverty brings to female-headed households. The very minimum that must occur in the US government is more funding on developing more and better research on the field of female-households since the two studies discussed are not the norm nor are they in high volume available for the past 50 years.

Women in poverty appears to be in demand as the women are taken off the government assistance programs without adequate understanding of the consequences that such policy will bring to the mothers and their children. This will generate more poverty since the children will be heavily stressed with not being to see their mothers for support but also the very factor of being in an impoverishing income that has no end in sight. These same mothers are not just workers in the lower-rung of the capitalist hierarchy; they are human beings who have hearts and seek partners

All Viewers !

Here I am presenting my thoughts about Love and God !

The title of this article is " Who Loves Us ....." . Everyone on this earth loves and wants to be loved. We all are human beings ,  so this is very natural to think like that , to want love in life. Love is a kind of fuel who gives us the energy to live life. Love is the source of our power, yes it is! Some peoples would not be agree with this that but yes Love gives us power. When we become weak in our life's struggle , we want strength. Who gives us this strength? Obviously  our near one's , our parents , our beloved one's, our spouses. All these gives us strength for fight with our challenges. So  this is love who makes us strong so we can believe more on our dreams to fulfill them , it is love who makes us more strong on our thoughts.We will become more uncomfortable if we will not get Love when needed.

Now have you ever  think who is the source of love behind all human faces, Who makes them able to love us. This is the God ! The source of all pure love. God always loves his children . God makes us able so that we can love to anyone. God helps those who love him . God always Loves us unconditionally but only those can feel his love who try to Love Him. Here I would like to say that God shows his Love for only those who loves Him by Heart. Fake people will never find Him lovely. They will never find Him how sweet and pure his love is ! God is the source  of pure Love. Those Who Will Love Him as their  Beloved  will touch His Love , will taste His Love , will see His Love and will get Him forever. Love for all who Loves God.

I was raised by my mother as a semi-single parent... shocker, I've never met my sperm donor. I say semi-single because I can never remember her without a man of some sort, she was/is a very codependent woman. As a child I had endured severe emotional, physical and sexual abuse. Most abuse came from the men in our lives, some came directly from her. As my age grew barely into the double digits, I was taken from my mother and placed into foster care. Now people have there own thoughts on foster care as these are just mine. I see foster home as most people look at motels, a temporary shelter in which you pay (in a child's case the state pays) to be lodged. To be quite honest foster parents are generally out to get a check and could really care less about who you are or why you're there. On the other hand I have met a handful genuinely good people.

As most young foster kids, I tended to cling to the older kids. I have always looked older because of my height and at the rate in which I developed early on. Since I associated with the older kids, I did what the older kids did and it usually involved some type of substance or illegal activity. As a preteen, I was a full blown drug addict and it progressed from there. By the time I was an actual teenager I had overdosed and had experienced things no one should ever experience. I was a runaway, a drug runner and a junkie. I had witnessed or endured rape, death and more violence that I care to speak of. I don't want to dive too much into my past, I just want to give a brief glimpse of my environment.

Growing up this way one can understand why I may have a skewed perception of life in general, not to mention trust, love, patience... all the things that you are supposed to learn as a child. In my life trust meant that if you started foaming at the mouth someone would drop you off in front of the ER before you quit breathing. Nothing was your own, if someone else wanted it they took it. Men took what they wanted, when and where they wanted it. Adults were worse than the street kids... shit, at least you knew what to expect from the street kids! The rule of thumb is never sit or stand with your back to anyone, sleep with one eye open and a weapon in your hand and NEVER show emotion.

Now for me... this was just the way I grew up, not the person I was. I overcame my odds and got emancipated at 16, graduated HS at 16 and went to college. At the ripe old age of 19 I was making $78K a year and things were lookin up! I had a few major hurdles to overcome as an adult, but nothing I couldn't handle. See, the thing about me is I know I will always be ok, no matter what. The worst thing that could happen to me is death and I lost the fear of dying long ago. To me death is peaceful, no matter how it occurs and since death is inevitable, you'll struggle through life one way or another. I'm a survivor, it's who I am and even though I have a million flaws, I know as long as I am breathing, I will come out the other end of the tunnel.

I shared all this about myself to give you an idea on where I came from and some of the circumstances that have helped mold me into who I am today. When I speak, it's from the heart. I speak honestly and bluntly with no intention of harm. I speak from experience and personal knowledge as well as knowledge that has been passed onto me. I can only hope that at some point something I say or do will impact someone else's life enough to evoke some sort of change for the better. I am damaged goods, but aren't we all in some form or fashion?

I am a person of many flaws

From life my suffering draws

I am no exception to the rule

At times life is mean and cruel

I make no exuses for who I am

As I am no hollow sham

By no man should I be judged

Unless my life you have trudged

I am who I am so let me be

Accept who you are and you'll be free

I do believe that other paths can lead to encounters with the divine. God certainly appears differently to different figures in the Bible. Each Biblical story takes on different meanings and shows many ways to encounter God and many ways God interacts with people. I by no means think that God stopped communicating with Humanity after the crucifixion, nor do I believe that God is only made available to those who hear the Gospel or those who respond to the way that Christian tradition presents itself and has presented itself throughout history.

I would say that I don’t believe in a God that is exclusivist in any sense. I don’t believe that God is revealed solely through the words of one book, solely through the Life of one being, or solely to certain groups of people. The God I embrace is not boxed in such ways. Therefore, I find it irritating when some people place God into a box and sell God, defining and making promises on God’s behalf. I find it androcentric and arrogant, though I understand the motivations of such people and can appreciate their sincerest intent at helping Humanity, even if I strongly disagree with their validity.

recorded 1/20/08

1) 2:39 Radio Essay - short Mp3

2) 3:39 Radio Essay - long Mp3

The Economics of Gangsters

[col. writ. 1/19/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal

As Americans begin to taste the bitter dregs of recession; the economy spirals to the top of primary election rhetoric.  Briefly displacing the issue of Iraq.

Both Republicans and Democrats join in rare bipartisan agreement on an economic stimulus package -- a government dole out of roughly $800 per taxpayer -- which, when received, will be spent, and this spending will stimulate, or boost, the lagging economy.

I don't want to be a downer, but I feel compelled to say, if the economy can be sparked by so modest a boost, are the problems really that serious, or are they far more serious than politicians are letting on?

It seems to me that politicians are skirting the obvious: U.S. economic problems aren't displacing problems in Iraq: in fact, Iraq -- its costs in blood and treasure -- are driving this period of economic instability, recession and job losses.

How?  Well, while the defense industries, and related businesses of oil and mercenary-type outfits (like Blackwater) are making big bucks, this wealth is narrowly distributed.  In past wars, workers were driven into factories to build the weapons of World Wars I and II, and so money was widely circulated, particularly among Blacks, newly arrived from the segregated South, or among women, who entered factories to work machines vacated by millions of white men who were Drafted to man the war front (remember Rosie the Riveter?)

This new so-called volunteer army is largely the product of an economic draft, of poor and working class youth hoping to get a leg up in the rat race of attending increasingly unaffordable colleges.

While this hope and dream is often unrequited, what are the economic prospects of tens of thousands of men and women who return legless, armless-- or mindless -- after repeated tours in Iraq?

And the Iraq war, which will cost perhaps upwards of trillions of dollars before all is said and done, is really designed to economically benefit few -- again, oil companies and their subsidiaries. And, of course, petroleum-based fossil fuels have their own ecological, and social costs - that we've not even begun to tally.

While Bush and the Saudi princes do their sword-dance (ironic given the $20 billion Saudi-U..S. weapons deal Bush brings), the economy - and the ecology -burns.

Housing foreclosures are spiking; manufacturing flees to China; gas prices rise; neighborhoods decline into hellholes for survival; and schools resemble training camps for prison.

And prison?  Perhaps they are America's lone growth industry.

Wars are poor replacements for ailing economies. For they produce nothing, but pain, loss and ultimately -- more war.

This war, started by neo con nitwits and the Texas/Bush Mafia, has produced pain, loss and death on an epic scale.

No politician now running has the barest notion of how to end the cycle -- for they too are trapped in an imperial web, spun by big business.

They promise no solution, just an extension of the same, elsewhere.

--(c) '08 maj

'68 -- Then and Now

[col. writ. 8/19/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal

Ona Move!

Thank you, Re-Create '68, for inviting me to join your efforts in Denver, to practice real democracy in the shadows of the Empire.

When I think of the DNC, I'm reminded of the words of the great French writer, Voltaire, who, when speaking of the Holy Roman Empire, quipped it "was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."

The Democratic National Committee is neither democratic, nor national, nor a committee. If it were democratic why would it reject the voices of the people, who protest against its rule? If it were national, it wouldn't be driven by imperialist and globalist corporate interests. (Let us not forget William J. Clinton - perhaps the best known globalist (NAFTA?) in the country). And if it were truly a committee then anybody could join it - not just the political puppets of corporate power.

In 1968, a Democratic mayor named Daley unleashed brutal and vicious cops on people who dared protest against the Democratic Party's support for the atrocities in Vietnam. Those young people were allegedly protected under the free speech 'guarantees' of the Constitution. Instead, they got the crap beat out them.

It was imperial war then - and it's imperial war now, and only the names and faces have changed (some names - there's still a Mayor Daley in Chicago).

In fact, things are more repressive today than they were in '68, for then, anti-war activists and students could at least march through the streets. They got their asses whipped, but at least they marched. Today, city governments have built cages for protest. So much for respect for the constitution!

Now, as in LA 2000, you can get your ass whipped -- in a cage!

That is what American democracy looks like in 2008.

For another idea, look at what Pakistan did a few days ago. When the head-of-state violated the constitution, the people took to the streets. When he brought out the troops, they continued to protest. And they demanded impeachment!

There, democracy forced a dictator to resign!

There, democracy marches - ona move!

Here, democracy is in cages, hidden in the boondocks, while alleged representatives sell their souls to the highest corporate bidder, to further the interests of imperial war.

Here, politicians take the label of 'democrat', hire the cops to beat you, hire the media to slander you, so that they can send your children to war for oil pipelines, or to protect foreign despots and princes.

Here, democracy is on life-support, while paid-for politicians give mouth to mouth to imperialism, rampant globalization and the ravaging of the poor.

Our revered ancestor Frederick Douglass said, "Power concedes nothing without demand. It never has and never will." Your protests are in that great spirit of resistance.

We only need more!

Ona Move! Long Live John Africa!

I thank you all!

Mumia Abu-Jamal

(c) '08 maj

The Power of Truth is Final -- Free Mumia!

The dictionary describes worry as "mental distress or agitation resulting from concern: torment." Just think about it. Worrying is nothing but distress and agony on the soul. It causes nothing but mental anguish and physical illness. We all know that experiencing worry is a natural part of life and everyone encounters it one way or another. However, what people fail to understand is that although there are many reasons for people to worry, they honestly do not have to put up with it. People can actually choose to confront and handle any problem without having to resort to worry!

I believe there are two things that anyone wishing to overcome worrying must do:

1. Know that God will meet your needs. In the Bible God reminds us that He will always meet our needs (see Matthew 6:25-34). Worry often leads us to ask ourselves all sorts of questions that can't be answered, such as: What if I cannot make my payment tomorrow? What if I am always struggling like this? How am I going to get to my destination tomorrow? What if I become sick? How am I going to provide for my family? How am I going to make ends meet? How...how...how? These questions can linger for days and chances are you will not have the answers to any of them. But as long as you know that the Lord is with you, you can be assured that He has all the answers you need.

2. Increase your faith in Him. The Bible tells us that we should have faith in God (see Mark 11:22). If we have even a little faith in God the size of a mustard seed (see Matthew 17:20) He will give us peace through our storms (see Numbers 6:26). Having this kind of faith means that no matter how bad or extreme a problem is in our lives, we can withstand it because God is with us. This may be easier said than done, but when you honestly look back over your life and see just how far God has brought you, it really isn't at all difficult learning how to develop faith in Him.

Previously published on Suite 101 on September 23, 2007 by Faith S. Redwine.

I know that I love God. While I don’t think I am capable of understanding the mystery of God, I know that God is. In Exodus 3:14, God said to Moses, “I Am that I Am.” There are so many ways of understanding this… but I love it. I love it. God is. God is beyond our descriptions and the limits of language, but I know that there is something beautiful about praising God, something powerful about scripture, something uniting me with the ground that I walk on, the trees which breathe my air, and the people in this world.

Religion, for me, is a continuing exploration. A PASSIONATE exploration. A submerging oneself in the Divine—feeling the Divine, breathing it in, but not necessarily grasping it. God is the joy and pain and connection that we CANNOT communicate, yet burn to be able to. This church lives in that connection. That’s why I love this church; I know that this church is a beacon of hope in the world in its loving appreciation of the mystery of God and its determination to live as fully as it can in connection with God and community.

I study religion in school and, as most of you know, there is a lot of ugliness to study in religion. Our tradition has been brought to us through a history of violence. We look back, shamefully, on a history of crusades and colonization, a history of wars and inequality. The history of religious activity holds prejudice, damaging doctrine, manipulation, lies, hunger for power, forcefulness… Even today, many bodies of religion continue to further violence, inequality, and injustice…

And there are churches like ours.

We are a rare breed and I am grateful every day that I have this church and community, where I don’t need to sign