(Published in Delaware County Daily Times, on Saturday, October 25, 2008)
By Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi
Times Guest Columnist
What does U. S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., mean when he says “My country first?”
Is he sincere, does he really mean it? Let us see. If one puts his country first, he would listen to his country. How does one listen to a country? Who represents a country? The answer is as clear as a full moon on a pitch-dark sky: The people talk for their country.
So the question that begs a quick and clear answer is, does McCain listen to the people? Hardly. McCain listens mostly to himself and revels in admiring what he hears. He is desperate to win and he makes enemies of his opponents in the process.
The glaring example of him not listening to our country is the Iraqi war. He hasn’t listened to the people of America, and he hasn’t listened to the Iraqis, and he hasn’t listened to our friends and allies. The people want us to pull out our troops from Iraq and spare the lives of our brave men and women in uniform, and the civilian victims of the war, and spare billions of dollars that have been bled from our economy. So his claim that he puts his country first is bogus!
In his current campaign for the presidency of America, he had focused, almost exclusively, on his opponent’s lack of experience and trashed him frequently with the “Not ready to lead” epithet until he selected his own nominee for vice president—a person whose credentials on answering questions are lacking, and whose idea of debate is not to debate, but to blurb whatever she had crammed during the night before the debate.
At his age (72), he can easily pass on at anytime, yet the person whom he had chosen to succeed him lacks real experience in governing much more so than his opponent. What do we call that? How about hypocrisy? His inconsistency and stubbornness is amazing. It seems to me McCain thinks that whatever he does or says is the right thing to do and to say, logic and reasoning could take a hike.
His demeanor and rudeness amaze me. During the first presidential debate he accused his opponent of being naïve. He also slugged him with “he does not understand,” and its derivatives many times. A polished politician does not do that. Instead he would let the listeners come to the conclusion, by putting his experience to action.
Who of the two candidates is better qualified to know the difference between the words "tactic" and "strategy?”McCain thought of these words as military terms only. His opponent must not be allowed to use them. In fact, his opponent was right.
Our strategy is to withdraw from Iraq, and we use tactics, such as sending more troops to the war theater, to support that strategy without further endangering our troops. In McCain’s case we can say we developed a strategy to win the war at any cost, and we use tactics, such as sending more troops to the war theater, to support that strategy.
Here is one more note about the debate. McCain never looked at his opponent (he was perhaps afraid to get charmed) and he never looked at the audience. Instead he looked at the moderator as if he was seeking his approval and his encouragement. That was a poor debating tactic to support a strategy of winning the debate!
Since my high school study of the history of Western Europe and my college freshman study of Western Civilization, I have admired Winston Churchill as the leader who saved Western Europe from the ambitions and travails Germany. But reading “Churchill, Hitler, and 'The Unnecessary War,' "by Patrick J. Buchanan, I came out with a different picture about Churchill.
Churchill was a racist and a White Supremacist. He had been the cause of all evil that beset the World during more than five decades of the 20th century. I know McCain is not racist, but he admires Churchill, and I hope he would not emulate him if he will become our president. The United States can always defend itself; unlike Britain who needed our help for its survival during two world wars. Yet his cry, “Victory at all cost,” worries me because of the language McCain uses when he talks about the war on Iraq, and the wars which he might wage if he becomes our president.
His age is not a problem unless he makes it one. People of his age are usually wise and less vindictive, calculating and less impulsive, steady and less erratic than younger candidates. Nevertheless, McCain, based on my observations, and from reading his book “Worth the Fighting For,” is driven by only one force: a desire to achieve the next higher goal for his life.
I am worried about his way of making decisions. He acts on the bases of instincts and hunches--no further consultation and assessment. Scientists use instincts and hunches too, but they use them as a first step. They move on to prove or disprove their guesses.
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is far from perfect, but he seems more capable than his opponent of looking to the future rather than the past.
Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi, a retired professor of engineering, lives in Clifton Heights
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Bankers as Sophisticated Beggars
The Quotation:
“Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. were told [by the US Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson] they would each get $25 billion; Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co., $20 billion each (plus an additional $5 billion for their recent acquisitions); the Goldman Sacks Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, $10 billion each, with the Bank of New York Mellon Corp. and State Street Corp. each receiving $2 to $3. Wells Fargo will get $5 billion for its acquisition of Wachovia Corp., and Bank of America the same amount for its purchase of Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc..”
--- The Philadelphia Inquirer, Tuesday October 14, 2008
(Based on report in The New York Times)
The Comment:
Let us say that Corporations run the world, and banks run corporations. Wall Street is the playgrounds of the banks. Then, the small business owners and the middle class folks are objects that are screwed on the playgrounds.
Let them fall back to what they had been before the monetary inventions: Bankers. Let them fall back to banking and eliminate the gambling aspect of Wall Street: no financial derivatives, no financial instruments, no manipulating innocent people out of their pants, and no nonsense.
The bankers invented these so called instruments to facilitate sucking it to uninitiated ordinary people. Let them give back the millions they have had collected in salaries and bonuses. The banks that are mentioned in the above stated quote are internationals: they are connected by the rays of the sun as it moves around earth (scientifically speaking the earth moves around the sun) from the morning to the next morning, and on again.
Let banks do banking, and let banking be banking, and not horse race on horse race runs.
As a tax paying concerned citizen of this generous country, I want to know when will the bankers pay us back our money, and what is the interest we would be collecting.
Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
10-14-2008
“Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. were told [by the US Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson] they would each get $25 billion; Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co., $20 billion each (plus an additional $5 billion for their recent acquisitions); the Goldman Sacks Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, $10 billion each, with the Bank of New York Mellon Corp. and State Street Corp. each receiving $2 to $3. Wells Fargo will get $5 billion for its acquisition of Wachovia Corp., and Bank of America the same amount for its purchase of Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc..”
--- The Philadelphia Inquirer, Tuesday October 14, 2008
(Based on report in The New York Times)
The Comment:
Let us say that Corporations run the world, and banks run corporations. Wall Street is the playgrounds of the banks. Then, the small business owners and the middle class folks are objects that are screwed on the playgrounds.
Let them fall back to what they had been before the monetary inventions: Bankers. Let them fall back to banking and eliminate the gambling aspect of Wall Street: no financial derivatives, no financial instruments, no manipulating innocent people out of their pants, and no nonsense.
The bankers invented these so called instruments to facilitate sucking it to uninitiated ordinary people. Let them give back the millions they have had collected in salaries and bonuses. The banks that are mentioned in the above stated quote are internationals: they are connected by the rays of the sun as it moves around earth (scientifically speaking the earth moves around the sun) from the morning to the next morning, and on again.
Let banks do banking, and let banking be banking, and not horse race on horse race runs.
As a tax paying concerned citizen of this generous country, I want to know when will the bankers pay us back our money, and what is the interest we would be collecting.
Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
10-14-2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
For progress, tranquility, and peace, I will not vote for McCain on November 4, 2008
By Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi
(1)
What does U.S. Sen., John McCain mean when he says “My country first”?
Is he sincere, does he really mean it? Let us see. If one puts his country first, he would listen to his country. How does one listen to a country? Who represents a country? The answer is as clear as a full moon on a pitch dark sky: the people talk for their country.
So the question that begs a quick and clear answer is “Does McCain listen to the people?” Hardly. McCain listens mostly to himself and revels in admiring what he hears. He is desperate to win and in the process, he makes enemies of his opponents.
The glaring example of him not listening to our country is the Iraqi war; he hasn’t listened to the people of America, and he hasn’t listened to the people of Iraq, and he hasn’t listened to our friends and allies. The people want us to pull out our troops from Iraq and spare the lives of our brave men and women in uniform, and the civilian victims of the war, and spare billions of dollars that have been bled from our economy. So his claim that he puts his country first is bogus!
(2)
In his current campaign for the presidency of America, he had focused, almost exclusively, on his opponent’s lack of experience, and trashed him frequently with the “Not ready to lead” epithet, until he selected his own nominee for vice president—a person whose credentials on answering questions are lacking, and whose idea of debate is not to debate, but to blurb whatever she had crammed during the night before the debate.
At his age (72), he can easily pass on at anytime, yet the person whom he had chosen to succeed him lacks real experience in governing much more so than his opponent. What do we call that? How about hypocrisy? His inconsistency and stubbornness is amazing. It seems to me that McCain thinks that whatever he does or says is the right thing to do and to say, logic and reasoning could take a hike.
(3)
His demeanor and rudeness astonish me. During the first presidential debate he accused his opponent of being naïve. He also slugged him with “he does not understand,” and its derivatives, many times. A polished politician does not do that. Instead he would let the listeners come to the conclusion, by putting his experience to action.
Who of the two candidates is better qualified to know the difference between the meanings of the words "tactic" and "strategy"? McCain thought of these words as military terms only, and therefore he has ownership of them. His opponent must not be allowed to use them. In fact, his opponent was right.
Our strategy is to withdraw from Iraq, and we use tactics, such as sending more troops to the war theater, to support that strategy without further endangering our troops. In McCain’s case we can say we developed a strategy to win the war at all cost, and we use tactics, such as sending more troops to the war theater, to support that strategy.
Here is one more note about the debate. McCain never looked at his opponent (he was perhaps afraid to get charmed) and he never looked at the audience. Instead he looked at the moderator as if he was seeking his approval and his encouragement. That was a poor debating tactic to support a strategy of winning the debate!
(4)
Since my high school study of the history of Western Europe and my college freshman study of Western Civilization, I have admired Winston Churchill as the leader who saved Western Europe from the ambitions and travails of Germany. But reading “Churchill, Hitler, and 'The Unnecessary War,' "by Patrick J. Buchanan, I came out with a different picture of Churchill.
Churchill was a racist and a White Supremacist. He had been the cause of all evil that beset the World during more than five decades of the 20th century. I know that McCain is not racist, but he admires Churchill, and I hope he would not emulate him if he becomes our president. The United States can always defend itself; unlike Britain who needed our help for its survival during two world wars. Yet his cry, “Victory at all cost,” worries me because of the language McCain uses when he talks about the war on Iraq, and the wars which he might wage if he will become our president.
(5)
His age is not a problem unless he makes it one. People of his age are usually wise and less vindictive, calculating and less impulsive, steady and less erratic than younger candidates. Nevertheless, McCain, based on my observations, and from reading his book “Worth the Fighting For,” is driven by only one force: a desire to achieve the next higher goal for his life.
I am worried about his way of making decisions. He acts on the bases of instincts and hunches. No further consultation and assessment. Scientists use instincts and hunches too, but they use them as a first step. They move on to prove or disprove their guesses.
(6)
I share my conclusion with that of Trudy Rubin of the Philadelphia Inquirer, who wrote on Wednesday, October 1, 2008, U.S. Sen., Barack Obama, D-Ill., “… is far from perfect, but he seems more capable than his opponent of looking to the future rather than the past.”
(1)
What does U.S. Sen., John McCain mean when he says “My country first”?
Is he sincere, does he really mean it? Let us see. If one puts his country first, he would listen to his country. How does one listen to a country? Who represents a country? The answer is as clear as a full moon on a pitch dark sky: the people talk for their country.
So the question that begs a quick and clear answer is “Does McCain listen to the people?” Hardly. McCain listens mostly to himself and revels in admiring what he hears. He is desperate to win and in the process, he makes enemies of his opponents.
The glaring example of him not listening to our country is the Iraqi war; he hasn’t listened to the people of America, and he hasn’t listened to the people of Iraq, and he hasn’t listened to our friends and allies. The people want us to pull out our troops from Iraq and spare the lives of our brave men and women in uniform, and the civilian victims of the war, and spare billions of dollars that have been bled from our economy. So his claim that he puts his country first is bogus!
(2)
In his current campaign for the presidency of America, he had focused, almost exclusively, on his opponent’s lack of experience, and trashed him frequently with the “Not ready to lead” epithet, until he selected his own nominee for vice president—a person whose credentials on answering questions are lacking, and whose idea of debate is not to debate, but to blurb whatever she had crammed during the night before the debate.
At his age (72), he can easily pass on at anytime, yet the person whom he had chosen to succeed him lacks real experience in governing much more so than his opponent. What do we call that? How about hypocrisy? His inconsistency and stubbornness is amazing. It seems to me that McCain thinks that whatever he does or says is the right thing to do and to say, logic and reasoning could take a hike.
(3)
His demeanor and rudeness astonish me. During the first presidential debate he accused his opponent of being naïve. He also slugged him with “he does not understand,” and its derivatives, many times. A polished politician does not do that. Instead he would let the listeners come to the conclusion, by putting his experience to action.
Who of the two candidates is better qualified to know the difference between the meanings of the words "tactic" and "strategy"? McCain thought of these words as military terms only, and therefore he has ownership of them. His opponent must not be allowed to use them. In fact, his opponent was right.
Our strategy is to withdraw from Iraq, and we use tactics, such as sending more troops to the war theater, to support that strategy without further endangering our troops. In McCain’s case we can say we developed a strategy to win the war at all cost, and we use tactics, such as sending more troops to the war theater, to support that strategy.
Here is one more note about the debate. McCain never looked at his opponent (he was perhaps afraid to get charmed) and he never looked at the audience. Instead he looked at the moderator as if he was seeking his approval and his encouragement. That was a poor debating tactic to support a strategy of winning the debate!
(4)
Since my high school study of the history of Western Europe and my college freshman study of Western Civilization, I have admired Winston Churchill as the leader who saved Western Europe from the ambitions and travails of Germany. But reading “Churchill, Hitler, and 'The Unnecessary War,' "by Patrick J. Buchanan, I came out with a different picture of Churchill.
Churchill was a racist and a White Supremacist. He had been the cause of all evil that beset the World during more than five decades of the 20th century. I know that McCain is not racist, but he admires Churchill, and I hope he would not emulate him if he becomes our president. The United States can always defend itself; unlike Britain who needed our help for its survival during two world wars. Yet his cry, “Victory at all cost,” worries me because of the language McCain uses when he talks about the war on Iraq, and the wars which he might wage if he will become our president.
(5)
His age is not a problem unless he makes it one. People of his age are usually wise and less vindictive, calculating and less impulsive, steady and less erratic than younger candidates. Nevertheless, McCain, based on my observations, and from reading his book “Worth the Fighting For,” is driven by only one force: a desire to achieve the next higher goal for his life.
I am worried about his way of making decisions. He acts on the bases of instincts and hunches. No further consultation and assessment. Scientists use instincts and hunches too, but they use them as a first step. They move on to prove or disprove their guesses.
(6)
I share my conclusion with that of Trudy Rubin of the Philadelphia Inquirer, who wrote on Wednesday, October 1, 2008, U.S. Sen., Barack Obama, D-Ill., “… is far from perfect, but he seems more capable than his opponent of looking to the future rather than the past.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
