A few years ago, I took a class at ETSU: Biology and Beyond which was a course that dealt with education on HIV and the history of AIDS. I wanted to learn more about the disease so I signed up for the class. It was one that would forever change my life. While taking the class, I was not only able to hear the stories of extraordinary people but I also learned of their horrific, yet heroic lives after discovering they were living with HIV. Today, our global community ignores the fact that HIV and AIDS is on the rise again and as the memory of those lost to AIDS seemingly fades in the eyes of our leaders; their voices should forever be heard throughout the world.

HIV and AIDS are as different as Night and Day, HIV is Life and AIDS is (still) a death sentence.

You can live with HIV but you will die of AIDS. You can fight the battle as hard as your body will allow but AIDS will win the war. While our leaders refuse to spend more money and time on prevention, people continue to die and AIDS is gaining ground on us as a global community.

We haven’t found AIDS to be contained at any point since its first appearance in 1981, when the CDC learned of the epidemic that would later be referred to as AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome). By the year 2000, an estimated 36.1 million people were living with HIV/AIDS and an estimated 800,000-900,000 people were living with the virus in the United States. According to statistics posted at http://www.one.org , 38 million people are now infected by HIV/AIDS. While some say there is progression toward finding a cure, many are blinded by facts that simply don’t exist. While some will convince themselves it will not affect them or their lives, an estimated 2.8 million people died in 2005 and in that same year, an estimated 4.1 million people were infected with the virus (2006 Report on the Global AIDS epidemic, UNAIDS, May 2006). With rising numbers once again, eventually this disease will affect you or someone you know.

The timeline of the disease is staggering and those lives that have been affected by HIV and AIDS include far more than the names we will all remember. I have the permanent stories of Kimberly Bergalis, Elizabeth Glaser, Debbie Runions, and a precious little boy named Ryan White forever in my mind. All of these individuals seemed to live with great bravery yet they have died in vain if this country doesn’t begin to take a stand now.

I really believe that tomorrow will come with a hellish vengeance if today we ignore what we should’ve done yesterday about this disease.

There’s no question about it. When I first signed up for the Biology and Beyond Class, I thought there would eventually be a cure for AIDS. However, by the end of the semester, after I spent time working at a local hospital where there were patients diagnosed with the disease, I saw their vision. There wasn’t one. It’s ironic really, many of those people living with HIV, and later even in the face of death, felt as if they were just the early victims. They knew others would follow and those who died, knew the tomorrow they wouldn’t see held the same for many more victims as they started to battle for their own last days. The reason is apparent now but back then, it wasn’t that clear to me. HIV and AIDS patients knew there was too much of a stigma attached for full awareness to ever be successful. This is thanks to misdirected political agendas and it still exists today.

In 1992, Elizabeth Glaser addressed the Democratic National Convention and stated, “Exactly 4 years ago, my daughter died of AIDS. She did not survive the Reagan administration. I am here because my son and I may not survive 4 more years of leaders who say they care but do nothing.” She later went on to say, “America Wake up. We are all in a struggle between life and death.”

Elizabeth Glaser pleaded with our leaders in 1992 and all who were in attendance heard her but chose to do nothing. Today, we sit at a standstill as our elected and appointed officials decide how to spend more money and more time just to avoid accepting responsibility. I absolutely believe that tomorrow will come with a hellish vengeance if today we ignore what we should’ve done yesterday about this disease. There is no doubt in my mind.

While state and federal leaders spent hours opposing online wagering, ironically, they were gambling with the lives of those who could’ve used their support and would have appreciated the appropriated funds to work toward the fight against AIDS. Instead, our government chose to play craps with human lives and people continued to die.

The fact is, Americans have been led to believe through silence that the AIDS epidemic was on a road that would soon end when in actuality; the spread of HIV has apparently taken a U-Turn when you look at the shocking numbers above.

Let Us Stop This Disease Before It Stops All of Us Who Are Left

While I was a student at ETSU, I had the opportunity to meet Debbie Runions who became an advocate for the education and prevention of AIDS. Debbie, after just one sexual encounter became very ill three weeks later and three months later tested positive for HIV. That was in 1992. She too, addressed the Democratic National Convention in 1996 and she too was heard. Our politicians then simply pushed forward in another direction. Debbie died in October of 2005.

When I heard her speak at ETSU and later had the opportunity to sit down and talk with her, I discovered what her life had been like after she was diagnosed with HIV. She talked openly and honestly about her disease. She surprised me when she talked about the fact that she was thankful she had been given the opportunity to have the disease because of what it had allowed her to do. I learned later that was Debbie. She radiated optimism. Debbie knew her fate was sealed yet she chose to make the most of the life she had to live while she could live it even if it would be within the parameters and limitations of living with the virus.

Debbie’s story will always be imbedded in my mind. I can honestly say after hearing her speak, I was deeply humbled and truly feel she made a profound difference in so many lives. She had a gift to give through her message and her spirit will live on forever but her hope for political intervention may not.

While our politicians have been slinging mud at one another, their efforts could’ve been redirected in a more positive light. Instead of ministers on television running around with an entourage of followers running up astronomical bills on lavish lifestyles, they too could help. Instead of picking up prostitutes on their congregation’s dollars, they could make a choice to spend their money to save a family ridden by poverty and AIDS.

Our country and the entire global community must understand, this disease doesn’t just pick out favorites. It attacks people of all races, young and old, straight and gay. The disease is not interested in what you look like, who you’ve slept with, or what drug you’ve put in a needle. This disease takes hostages and then slowly but surely, begins terrorizing them with the stigma of the disease itself and the fear of dying.

We do have an epidemic on our hands. While our leaders have gone from one issue to another, people have gotten sick. While meetings were conducted to decide something as frivolous as whether or not Americans could have the freedom to gamble online, more people died. While a television evangelist took his body guards out for another four thousand dollar outing, countless people clung to their one dollar a week and still others were left in the epitome of poverty because of the high cost of health care and medications for a person living with HIV.

What have we decided holds value in this country? Does a human life no longer hold any substantial meaning to those in political office with the means to do something to help mankind? Apparently not, but as Americans, we have an obligation to do something to help. This is our world and our problem.

We no longer have the Debbie Runions and Elizabeth Glasers to speak out at the Democratic Conventions. Now it is up to everyone else to lead by their example. Visit ONE and start doing your best to make a difference. Global AIDS and extreme poverty is more important than who’s sleeping with whom. It’s far more detrimental to our society than any online gambling campaign just to prove a political point and it is certainly more important than listening to the ramblings of a television evangelist asking for your money so he can go buy his methamphetamines.

Isn’t it time after all the pleading from those who had their lives cut short that we finally take a stand? Isn’t it time we demand for our government to take the initiative to fight extreme poverty and Global AIDS? Isn’t it time for a day of reckoning? The debt we’ve paid to this global crisis has already been way too high. It’s time this country took a stand on the important issues at hand. It is time for retribution.

About Author

You can visit Susan Smith Alvis at her website at http://www.susanalvis.com

How much do you appreciate your right to vote? Is it something that you truly cherish, or is it something that you just take this for granted? Consider this fact; throughout our American history, many average citizens like you and me fought for this right, and in some cases, even died for the right to vote! This is a patriotic gift from the struggles of many patriotic citizens that we should never be taken for granted.

Did you know that there are no laws for “the right to vote” in our United States Constitution? These rights were added only in the Amendments to the Constitution. Each state’s standards have evolved separately, unless federal laws were passed that applied to every state. When our country was founded, only white men with property were routinely permitted to vote, (although freed African Americans could vote in four states). White working men, almost all women, and all other people of color were denied this right, that some take for granted today.

At the beginning of the Civil War, most white men were finally allowed to vote, whether or not they owned property, due to the efforts of those who championed this cause for frontiersmen and white immigrants, (who had to wait 14 years for citizenship and their right to vote, in some cases). Literacy tests, poll taxes, and even religious tests were used in various states, and most of the white women, people of color, and Native Americans still did not have the right to vote.

Black Suffrage; The patriotic gifts of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were passed following the Civil War, in the later 1860s. Besides outlawing slavery, these Amendments extended civil rights and suffrage (voting rights) to former slaves. Even thought the right to vote for African-Americans was established, there still were numerous restrictions that kept many black Americans from voting until the 1960s Voting Rights Act was passed. Thanks to the pressures of Dr. Martin Luther King and a powerful civil rights movement, the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 banned literacy tests and provided federal enforcement of voting registration and other rights in several Southern states and Alaska. Five years later, the patriotic gift of the Voting Rights Act of 1970 provided language assistance to minority voters who did not speak English fluently. Asian Pacific Americans and Latinos were major beneficiaries of this legislation.

Women’s Suffrage initiatives to promote voting for women have been traced back as far as the 1770s, but the modern movement for a vote for women traces its beginning to the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848, when supporters of a Constitutional Amendment to allow women to vote finally came together. While this movement was slowed during the Civil War years, the two major suffragist organizations united after the war and pushed forward with a movement that culminated, and after many difficult years, the patriotic gift of the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote in 1920.

Native Americans had to become American citizens, and give up their tribal affiliations for the right to vote in 1887, but many did not become U. S. citizens until 1924. Most of the Western states continued to deny the right to vote through property requirements, economic pressures, hiding the polls, and condoning of physical violence against those who voted.

Asian Pacific Americans were considered “aliens ineligible for citizenship” since 1790. Interim changes to naturalization and immigration laws in 1943, 1946, and 1952 give the right to vote to some but not all immigrant Asian Pacific Americans. Because citizenship is a (precondition) for the right to vote, immigrant Asian Pacific Americans did not vote in large numbers until 1966 when the immigration and naturalization laws were changed.

Asian Pacific Americans born on American soil were American citizens, and had the right to vote. When 77,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry were put in American concentration camps during World War II, their right to vote was withheld during there captivity.

Mexican Americans in Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas were supposed to get voting rights along with American citizenship in 1848, when the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo ended the Mexican American war. Property requirements and literacy requirements were imposed in those states to keep them from voting. The Sons of America, founded in 1921 fought for equality and the right to vote, but all Mexican Americans did not receive the right to vote until 1975.

Americans under the age of twenty-one in the late 1960s protested over their lack of suffrage. Many truly felt that if they were old enough to be drafted into service and go to Vietnam, then they should be able to vote. A series of protests ensued, most notably at the Chicago Democratic Convention, where protestors screamed and chanted many slogans of President Johnson’s handling of the Vietnam War, and the right to vote. In 1971, President Johnson signed our patriotic gift of the 26th Amendment granting Americans the right to vote at age eighteen.

I hope you now realize that even in “The land of the Free”, the evolution for the right to vote in the America has cost a heavy price for many, and should always be considered a true patriotic gift from those that struggled, endured and gave their life for this privilege that we have today.

About Author

Family-eStore will try to provide you with articles of interest to a Christian and patriotic way of life.
The articles are written by Steven E Coffman (Owner) of Family-eStore.com (National Essay Contest) winner 1969.

I am a person with strong Christian and patriotic beliefs. Tenacity, faith, and a belief in God, Country and Family are key components to success in life.

The Christian articles are only intended to bring you closer in your relationship to our Father in heaven.

The Patriotic articles are only intended to show pride and patriotism to our “Land of the free and home of the brave”, (The United States of America).

I hope that you enjoy and are enlightened by them.

Please someone win the Democratic presidential nomination! Terry McAuliffe totally changed the priamry scenario for the Democrats, even to the point of denying Michigan and Florida, so that Hillary, his queen be, could have it all wrapped up on Super Tuesday. Now what Terry? What a mess you’ve created, or is it Obama’s fault?

No one know for sure just who has how many delegates because the Democratic party has the most complex and convoluted format imaginable. But, what is for sure is that Obama holds a narrow lead: anywhere from 15 to 125 delegates depending upon which way the wind is blowing for all those super delegates: who change their mind at will. The Democrats are inching closer to smelling victory in November: however, a brokered convetion this summer could kill all of that!

So,former Vice President Al Gore and a number of other senior Democrats plan to remain neutral for now in the presidential race in part to keep open the option to broker a peaceful resolution to what they fear could be a bitterly divided convention.

Democratic Party officials said that in the past week Gore and other leading Democrats had held private talks as worry mounted that the close race between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could be decided by a group of 795 party insiders known as superdelegates. The signs that party elders are weighing whether and how to intervene reflects the extraordinary nature of the contest now and the concern among some Democrats that they not risk an internal battle that could harm the party in the general election.

The issues party leaders are grappling with include how to avoid the perception of a back-room deal that thwarts the will of millions of voters who have cast ballots in primaries and caucuses. That perception could cripple the eventual Democratic nominee’s chances of winning the presidency in November, they said.

A number of senior Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and three candidates who have dropped out of the 2008 race, former Senator John Edwards and Senators Christopher J. Dodd and Joseph R. Biden Jr., have spoken with Mr. Gore in recent days. None have endorsed a candidate, although Ms. Pelosi made comments on Friday that were widely seen as supportive of Mr. Obama when it came to the process the party should use to make its choice of candidate.

“It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided,” Ms. Pelosi said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. Ms. Pelosi said she intended to remain neutral, though some of her closest friends and allies in the House are publicly supporting Mr. Obama. She said the nomination should not be decided by delegates from Florida and Michigan.

Right now the best bet is that Obama wins the Wisconsin primary Tuesday, upsets Hillary in two weeks in Texas and Ohio, and the thoughts of a brokered convention doesn’t have to be a side circus. We’ll know in a little over two weeks won’t we.

Watch the video related to Democratic Convention

Part 1 of Barack Obama’s keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Part 2 is under video responses. www.the-seraphim.com … Barack Obama 2004 DNC Speech Democratic National Convention One America

Help answer the question about Democratic Convention

So how will the Democratic convention delegates from Florida be chosen? Who will choose, and what process will be used? Is the Democratic primary only a "beauty contest", with no effect on the convention delegates?
sunman – your answer seems unlikely to me. I doubt that Florida will simply be unrepresented at the convention. I think the delegates will be selected in some other way. I'm trying to find out what it is.

About Author

ernie@lrchouston.com

1. Introduction

Twenty six to one – that was the result of voting over the establishment of a European Day against the Death Penalty during the September working meeting of EU justice ministers. Poland was the only opponent. Political conflict over the establishment of the Day is a more complex problem, than some commentators make the public believe. I argue that the actions of the controversial Kaczy?ski government should, instead of a mere rejection of Poland’s standpoint, drag our attention towards matters less symbolic than an officially established holiday. In my opinion the intergovernmental battle-lines in this case have little to do with the real conflicts dormant under the surface of the European public discourse.

The first is most obviously the debate on capital punishment as such. Against the idealist wishes of the heads of states, the prohibition of death penalty is hardly a value that all European hold dear. In a number of states DP supporters are a solid majority, in others – a considerable minority. The second problem, put forth by the Poles, is the formulation of a general “right to life”, which calls all other forms of peace-time termination (abortion, euthanasia) into question.

All these issues are in turn directly linked to the problem of EU’s democratic deficit. Abstracting from the normative aspects of this dispute, it is clear that governments, heads of states, Commissioners and MEPs are reluctant to engage in any meaningful wider debate on these problems. They seem to believe that whatever happens on the European level is still insulated from the public, which gives the policy makers a silent “permissive consensus”. This might be true of norms regarding the colour schemes of police cars, but not necessarily the matters of life and death. The paper attempts to be neutral on the question of the death penalty, but has a normative side arguing for the need to introduce more deliberation in the Union.

The aim of this paper is to analyse that conflict “as if it were” a regular policy issue in the EU. I want to describe the standpoints of two governments: the United Kingdom, as an advocate of the Day, and Poland, as the opposing side.

The EU however is a multi-level polity, therefore the intergovernmental clashes do not necessarily have to reflect the structure of interests on lower levels. I intend to provide coverage of the domestic interests regarding the question of the Day, and, more importantly, the DP as such, in these two states. I want to show that there are some common standpoints on the issue, cross-cutting the nation-state borders.

2. The European Day against the Death Penalty – a Political Clash

The “World Day against Death Penalty” is held on October 10. every year since 2003, as an initiative of the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty. The idea to establish a strictly European Day was clearly spoken out during the German Presidency, and taken up by the Portuguese government, who was to preside in the European Council in the second half of 2007, when the Day would be held. On behalf of the European Commission, Vice-President Franco Frattini, Responsible for Justice, Freedom and Security, was the main advocate of the Joint Declaration of the EP and the Council of Ministers, proposed by the EC on 19. June 2007.

Frattini said that: “By creating a European Day against the death penalty we are showing our resolve and commitment to not stop fighting this practice until it is abolished worldwide”. In the words of Benita Ferrero-Waldner: “We Europeans are the number one advocate against the death penalty and for its universal abolition”. The EC’s press release headline read: “Tireless champion for the abolition of the death penalty throughout the world, the EU proposes a European day against the death penalty”. As I will try to show in the coming sections, the Europeans, understood as the citizens of the EU, are not unanimous advocates against capital punishment, nor has the EU been a “tireless champion” to abolish it for long.

Member-state delegations were supposed to agree on the proposed draft on September 6th. The proposal however was blocked by the Polish delegation at the first meeting, the veto was already signaled before, and despite the attempts to persuade the Poles, made by the Commissionaires, other delegates and the MEPs, that was the end of the Draft.

As a justification of their standpoint, the spokesman of the Polish delegation Andrzej Duda, claimed Europe ought to promote a day “dedicated to the protection of all human life” instead. The claim was anchored in a traditional Christian discourse, where all forms of human-inspired termination are wrong. What was clear from the comments, especially made by socialist MEPs and the Portuguese delegation, this was just an excuse, as the real reasons for the Polish veto was Kaczy?ski’s explicit support for capital punishment. Commentators also noted that the League of Polish Families, Kaczy?ski’s coalition party, was planning to reintroduce DP for pedophile rapists. What is more, the critics linked Polish veto with the upcoming parliamentary elections in the country, where the tough play on European arena and defending Christian or alternatively pro-death-penalty values would give Kaczy?ski’s Law and Justice points.

3. The Three Interests and a Disinterest

From this debate we can already differentiate the three positions (interests) that can be found in the EU. First, supported by the 26 states officials, the EC, EP and Council of Europe, is based on the human right to life understood in the narrow sense. Capital punishment is seen as unlawful and unjustifiable barbarism, and “Europe” is said to be the main prophet of its abolition. Secondly, there is the Christian, traditional view, calling for the protection of all life, from conception until natural death. Third is the conservative (in the American sense ) standpoint, opposing the abolition of DP. This form of punishment is seen as effective in deterring most violent crimes, and just. Abortion and euthanasia are not seen as similar to capital punishment (as in the former view), but rather as equal to murder, and in some extreme opinions should also be punished by death.

Apart from the three clear “interests”, we need to mention the fourth logically possible standpoint – favoring death penalty, as well as the liberalization of abortion and euthanasia. I argue this is quite a common standpoint. It arises however, not from deeply held values or from ideology, but rather from superficial reasoning. I therefore call it a “disinterest”, as opposed to the more conscious and better informed “interests”. The support for DP in this group derives from the very basic need for justice and security, and the arguments about its deterring role are appealing. Abortion and euthanasia on the other hand can be seen as private matters – in a way similar to the first interest group. I will argue that this “disinterest” is the main pool of support for the DP in Europe, yet it is often evaded by the European politicians.

In the official EU policy discourse, only the first view is present. It avoids reference to abortion and euthanasia, either by omitting it or by denying any logical link. What the commentators noticed, but chose not to elaborate on, is the electoral gain Law and Justice could achieve by opposing the Day, and thereby becoming the only actor on the European arena representing the second and third viewpoints. The commentators, apart from Terry Davies, Secretary General of the CE, were reluctant to state that such electoral gain is possible, simply because there are many Europeans favoring capital punishment or the right to life in a broader sense.

4. The Domestic Interest Structure on Capital Punishment

In this section I will first briefly try to illustrate the structure of interests regarding capital punishment in Europe with some statistical data. I will then move to the analysis of two cases, where I will more closely look at the organization of interests and their reflection on the political arena.

Contrary to what is proclaimed by the EU officials, “abolition of death penalty” is not a very central “European value”. The Eurobarometer does not pose the question of being for or against DP. The pan-European data is very limited. As for the European law, Council of Europe’s “European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”, imposes the abolition of death penalty. These documents are neither central for the old members, nor conditions for new member’s accession. The Copenhagen Criteria do not mention the necessity of DP abolition.

The public is at least divided on the matter. In Finland, according to the Gallup Polls, one third of the nation supported death penalty in 2006. In France the support was higher – 42%. In the UK, support has dropped in the recent years from some 60% to a still very high figure of 49% in 2005. It is noticed that support is much higher in the new member-states, notably Poland (67% in 2006, 63% in 2007), Czech Republic (57% in 2005) or Romania (Eastern European average is around 60%). The need for justice and security causes instances of mass popular support for the reintroduction of DP – as did the tragic events in Belgium in 1996. 62% of Europeans believe that offenders, especially youths, would commit less crime if the punishments were tougher. 95% of respondents say penalties for child abuse should be tougher. These can be treated as (very weak) proxies of the deterring role most harsh penalties have and of the support for DP respectively.

4.1 Poland

Poland may well be the EU member-state with strongest DP support. Most violent cases of murder after 1989 took place between 1995 and 1997. In those years the support for DP was highest – even 75% in 1997. This support is, I would argue, mostly emotional, and fits the fourth standpoint I enumerated – the “disinterest”. This can be proven by the attitudes towards abortion, not fitting the “Christian” or “conservative” interest patterns. In 1997 65% of Poles agreed that women should have the right to terminate, in 2005 the figure fell to 57%. This however still means that at least 20% of respondents are both in favour of DP and abortion.

Despite such strong support for DP, the representation of interest on the political scene hardly matches their structure in the society. Since 2004 three right-wing parties have advocated for the reinstitution of capital punishment. Most radical voices are usually raised by the conservative and ultra-liberal Union of Real Politics, traditionally receiving 2-8% support. Their arguments are the deterring role of DP and the primacy of the right to life, they are rooted in individual liberty and absolute responsibility of the individual for its actions. Second advocate is the nationalist League of Polish Families , with 12 % support in 2005, and marginal support in 2007. The party is divided between the Christian and the conservative standpoints, mostly speaking of DP for paedophiles. The last party in favour of DP is Law and Justice, which saw a place for capital punishment in its projected harsher penal code. Together the advocates of DP can count on 30-40% of votes, hardly matching the real support on that matter.

The mainstream press’ comments on the Day controversy were emphasising the feeling of shame as Poland is once again treated as a “freak” or a “black sheep” in the EU family, not engaging in a substantive debate on the DP. Right-wing press chose either to emphasise the “Christian” explanation of the Polish veto, or the “conservative” hard-headedness in a clash with the nonsensual, socialist Europe.

4.2 United Kingdom

As already mentioned, the public support for DP in Britain is considerable, and this can be felt in the public discourse, mostly in conservative/Tory sources. Even very some moderate commentators were reluctant to dismiss the Polish veto as “fundamentalism”, choosing instead to support the appealing logic behind the “pro life” explanations of the veto. In that sense, the position of the euro-sceptical Polish leadership was welcomed with some understanding by the large euro-sceptical groups of Britons. The majority however took Straw’s side, and used the pan-European discourse against DP and avoiding putting “a larger context of the right to life” on the agenda.

The Labour Party is clearly falling into the first interest “box”, after all, it was with Tony Blair in charge that Britain finally banned the DP under all circumstances. This policy line is continued by Gordon Brown. With the Conservative Party the case is more complex. David Cameron, describing himself as “modern compassionate conservative” has quite moderate views, not favouring the DP. There are however more radical voices in the party, with some members explicitly voicing their support for capital punishment. The leaders of Ulster Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party in the parliament of Northern Ireland also favour reintroducing of DP.

5. Conclusion: Taking a D-Tour for D-Day in The Council of Europe

Despite the Polish veto, the Day was established and celebrated on October 10th. In order to achieve that, the EU governments turned to the Council of Europe, where on 26.09 the project was acclaimed by 26 of 47 states – a majority sufficient to make it binding for other members. This turn of events was naturally strongly opposed by the Polish Foreign Ministry, Fotyga called the decision a conspiracy and said Poland would treat it as non-existent. One month later however, early election swept Law and Justice from government, and the new coalition soon declared it would support the Day. The process was concluded during the JHA Council meeting on 7.12 where all 27 member states signed the proposal, meaning that 10.10.2008 will be an official European Day Against the Death Penalty in all of the EU.

Although we can argue the Union has chosen the right thing to do, it failed to address in any way the problem of considerable civic support for the DP. Europe is therefore a global advocate of a cause which is internally not seen as unanimously “European”. What is more, after the former Polish government has been shamed for differing, and since the new one is quite reasonably compliant, there is now no voice of dissent, no representation of the three standpoints alternative to the EU mainstream on the European arena. This incompatibility of interests and European policy-making can be treated as some proof of the democratic deficit in the EU. Secretary Davies’ attitude and the fact, that at least to some extent these three viewpoints are present in the EP, can hopefully result in a real debate on the DP and the right to life as Europe would like it to be defined. It would be interesting to see a real moral argument in the European family, one that could lead to the Day Against the Death Penalty being a truly European Day.

Watch the video related to Democratic Convention

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) accepts his party’s nomination for President and speaks to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. … obama barack president nomination dnc democratic national convention 2008 cspan c-span

Help answer the question about Democratic Convention

About Author

Kacper Szulecki is a student of international relations and sociology at the Free University of Amsterdam and the Warsaw University.

I’m ready for something other than a Donkey or an Elephant. What would be a Michael Bloomberg, 3rd party, symbol anyway? Does he need one? The bottom line is that we know all too well how the four leading candidates for the two positions fare in the public eye. Each of the four candidates left standing are just too predictable and only one (Obama) seems to have any chance at uniting the masses.

The Republicans go through the primary season letting whomever wins the majority of the votes, get the spoils. The Democrats go through the priamry season spending tens of millions of dollars only to allow all that to be offset by the Super Delegates who are back room play-makers, and political croonies that can flaunt the will of the people and do whatever they please.

The Democrats are split on demographic lines, between blacks and Latinos, old and young, upscale and downscale. The Republicans are split over attitudinal lines: conservatives vs. liberals. Huckabee caters to the fundamentalist-evangelical crowd. McCain caters to the patriotic and war-oriented. Hillary caters to the “establishment”- the down-n-dirty let’s win at any cost crowd. Obama caters to those that are tired of business as usual.

What would Bloomberg bring to the table?

Harold Ickes was all for kicking Florida and Michigan out of having any delegates (9 months ago). Now that his candidate is behind (Hilalry), he wants them in. It’s hard to find any integrity in politics. The current rules came out of the 1988 contest, in which Jesse Jackson felt his voters were underrepresented. The problem is that the contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has been so close that neither has built a significant lead — or is likely to do so in the contests still to come.

You can hear the cries now, echoing the Florida controversy of 2000. “Count every vote” will be Clinton’s cry — the argument Al Gore’s forces made. “Don’t change the rules after the game is played” will be Obama’s cry — the argument of the Republican lawyers. The Florida fiasco polarized the nation because the arguments that each side made were in line with its basic ideas of fairness. A brokered democratic convention is just what this nation needs. NOT!

Are we ready to do this all over again?

Obama fans will see this as an attempt to steal the nomination from the people’s choice. Clinton fans will argue that denying representation to the nation’s fourth and eighth largest states, both closely divided in the last two elections, would be political suicide. The Democrats’ determination to design a system all their constituencies would consider fair threatens to produce a confrontation whose result, whatever it is, will be bitterly regarded by large and important party constituencies as profoundly unfair.

Ah the best laid plans of mice and men, donkeys and elephants, Democrats and Republicans!

Watch the video related to Democratic Convention

Michelle Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, CO, on August 25th, 2008.

Help answer the question about Democratic Convention

About Author

ernie@lrchouston.com