In my last entry I forgot to mention that Nader is running without the backing of a third party. Probably no third party wants to base its mission on pissing off Democrats, but agitating the political system is an honorable vocation, and shame on Nader for abandoning the Green Party.

To change the 2 party system we need a persistent threat of "spoiling" and "stolen votes" not an occasional surprise candidate. The two parties should expect a Green candidate and a Libertarian candidate who mess up their pretty little duopoly, not the current "aww crap, Nader's running again". The only way the system will change is if it's in the Democrats and Republicans self interest to change it. A determined third-party can accomplish this, an individual can not.

So even though I may defend Nader's candidacy, he is a jerk for failing to inspire a third party to agitate the system in the long run. The Greens should run a candidate every year, and embrace the anger of Democrats, tell them if they don't like it, do something about it, because there are a lot of people out there who don't believe in either of the 2 parties. For example, 90% of the people who will read this. Carolinian, Jason, Josh, James, Jim, Terry, Metalpeter etc etc


About fixing the electoral system, (e:metalpeter) commented that we should have each state divide its electoral votes based on the percentage each candidate receives. Good idea, but it doesn't fix the Ralph Nader Spoiler problem though. If some third candidate goes through the election with 5%-20% of the vote from all the states combined, it's similar to "spoiling" Florida or Ohio except Nationwide. We could end up with neither of the two popular candidates receiving a majority of the vote (ie. winning with 44%), so we still don't know who the majority of Americans actually prefer. In order to find out who would have beaten all other candidates in a 2 way race, we would still need a runoff election, or IRV to figure out the majority candidate.

It does however make my vote count here in Blue NY, and it eliminates the "swing state" garbage. I'm pretty sure at least one state does it that way (can't find a reference source). I do like that Democratic Primaries are done this way, makes a lot of sense, but it still pushed Edwards out and gave us only two. (It's a start Sign a petition to support this )

The solution I recommended is to have each state do their own Instant Runoff Election. Voters rank candidates so that even if there are more than 2, we can still find out who the majority of the voters in that state support. If you voted for Nader you also put down a second choice. if nobody gets 50% your second choice is counted and Nader's votes are reallocated. This should be done nationally but it would require a constitutional amendment. States could either give the majority winner all their electoral votes, but a better system would be to divide the votes by percentage after the runoff is complete.

Instant Runoff Voting explained


Healthcare - going to make this quick -
I'm starting to see a system like Social Security. The government guarantees some basic insurance, and it is paid for through a percentage of your taxes automatically. With Social Security you can still invest in additional retirement accounts, or if an employer is trying to compete for skilled workers by offering a hefty retirement account they can do that too.

Same with Universal Healthcare, you won't get screwed if you break your arm no matter what, you can go to the hospital and they will help you. You won't end up a cripple who can't work just cause you couldn't afford the hospital bill, and you tried to deal with it on your own. If you have money, or a good job, you may get some fancier service, but everyone is at least covered.

And it would be cheaper, because of less paperwork, and a more purchasing power. I paid $1000 in healthcare this year, you bet your uninsured ass my healthcare tax would be less than that.

Please spare me the criticisms of Social Security going bankrupt, etc. Those problems come from our lazy and corrupt politicians not following the rules. And I said "like" Social Security.

We need a new system, and yes it will include the private sector, no matter who calls it Socialized.

Just started watching the MSNBC Debate from last night. First Topic is Healthcare. They spent a bunch of time on it. They both want universal healthcare, the specifics of their plans differ slightly. But I realize that the nitty gritty details will be worked out as the bill moves through the House and Senate.

The question in my mind, is who can get the job done, who can go beyond the smear politics of "socialized medicine" and convince the 100 senators and 435 house members to move on, and finally get down to business. Americans have been demanding Healthcare for years, it is literally embarrassing that this wealthy and educated nation cannot provide this basic need for its people. The process in Washington has gone nowhere. Which candidate can get the congress and the people to move past the turf wars and smear tactics and get results?

Watch the video for yourself, you'll see Hillary slander her opponent, call him stupid, misrepresent his remarks, and mock his approach. This may be par for the course in Washington, but you're not going to get people to agree with you. Obama is better at getting people to see where he's coming from and see eye to eye. You need to reach agreement with other people to get things done. Especially if you want to transcend buzz words like "socialized medicine" and "Islamofascism". Hillary is divisive, and Obama can get people to move beyond petty politics.

Watch It


Ralph Nader

I guess I'm one of the few, who don't blame Ralph.
Our election system is broken. We call ourselves a democracy, but we can Only have Two choices. And most of the time, one candidate has 5x-10x more money and airtime as the other candidate. In fact, the battle is so difficult over 90% of US House races only have one choice. It's not Ralph's fault.

Here's a quote I hear all the time, but this really bothers and amazes me. "This election is too important to have a third party." Stop, think about it. You're really saying, "This election is too important, we need fewer choices, fewer ideas, less diversity of opinion, fewer solutions, fewer voices, less discussion, less involvement, please... only two." This is our problem. Important decisions deserve robust discussion, and important elections inspire many candidates and voters to voice their opinion. That is a good thing, why do we think it's ok to limit the debate? Why do we think it's ok to throw out candidates with passion and ambition? Someone decides to run for office because they are so moved and inspired and determined to make a difference in their community. But we think it's ok to get rid of them as quick as possible, just to make the election fit nicely into an ancient and broken electoral system.

So, Ralph, go on with your bad self. And if it pisses off the Democratic Party good!! Change the system to allow more than two candidates, without "spoiling" the election or "Stealing" votes from the better candidate. There is a nonviolent way to keep Nader, and Bloomberg, and Steve Calvenesso, and every third party candidate in history from ever "Spoiling" another election, change the system. If the Democratic party is pissed off and scared of Ralph, they had better do something about it.

Solution. In the constitution, States decide independently how they award their electoral votes. They can split them up or do winner take all. Also the vting process is up to them, as long as it is an open fair election.
Get all the Democratic Governors together, and have each state agree to do Instant Runoff Voting (aka. Ranked Choice Voting). In this method we voters rank our candidates in order of preference, (Nader first, Kerry Second). If nobody gets 50% you get rid of the loser (Nader), and his votes are redistributed to the voters second choice (Kerry). Bingo, no constitutional amendment, everyone's vote counts, there is no spoiler candidate, and we don't have to blame people for voting for the person they actually believe in. And we get to rank our choices, which is what we do in our head all the time. (Kucinich, Obama, Edwards, Dodd)
IRV Explained




We can speculate about 2000 and 2004 elections, What if, Ralph didn't run, what if black areas had adequate voting machines, what if Jeb Bush wasn't the Governor of Florida...

Let's think about a different set of What ifs. What if this year, we had a stage full of candidates, Ron Paul, Kucinich, Edwards, Blomberg, Lieberman, Nader, McCain, and Obama. There are a lot of Republicans who will be staying home, if Ron Paul was out there taking the party back from the neo-cons, you know he would get a couple hundred-thousand votes. And you'd have Kucinich calling out hypocrites and sticking to real progressive values as always.

You'd have a real discussion of critical issues. The most public discussion of ideas in the nation is the presidential election, let it be a marketplace of ideas, where people present real and diverse solutions to problems. We'd have near 75% voter turnout, and an informed electorate. If this is truely an important year, and a crossroads for the country, let's have democracy. Government would once again be more engaging than sports and Hollywood.

My Guess, Nader gets at least a few people out to vote who would stay home otherwise, so do Kucinich and Edwards and Ron Paul. Let them participate. I hope Nader Scares the crap out of Democrats, go fix the system, you have the power. I am loyal to no party, I only seek what is best for the American people in the long run.

(Disclaimer, I am not loyal to any party, in fact I think the 2 party system is one of Americas biggest problems. I am a patriot, not a party loyalist. But the democratic party is on the verge of something important.)


The Democratic Party has finally started to figure out that it needs People, more than anything else.

Not money, or TV ads, or fliers, not consultants, patronage, or polls, just People.

Since the dawn of color TV, advertising and packaging has been the main concern of a campaign. Usually about 80% of a candidates budget was spent on TV advertising. Lots of attack ads, and focus group tested soundbites for 30 second commercials.

Now, move on to the internet, Howard Dean, Barrack Obama, and a Democratic Party that is finding its Grassroots.

The power behind Obama's campaign is its volunteers. Real People, voters who usually sit at home on election day, now have decided to go door to door asking people to vote.

I say it every election. Inspire people to get off the couch, stop fighting for the ambiguous middle that makes up their mind on election day. Now the benefits of that strategy are finally coming true.

There's a technical side and an emotional side to this revitalization of American Democracy. Howard Dean, as current Chair of the DNC, helped lay the groundwork, and create an organized network to coordinate volunteers. Standardized databases, and intra/internet systems, to help connect with interested volunteers and put them to meaningfull work.

Barrack Obama, is the emotional side, he gets volunteers energized because he actually believes in us, he believes in the public, and he believes in democracy.

Other candidates have tried to dumb down the debate with wedge issues like flag burning, haircuts, and fear. Obama insists on rising above that, and treating the public like a collection of concerned individuals, not a heard of sheep who can be fooled and manipulated into giving you their vote.

I have been waiting for a candidate like this, one who can stand on principle and speak openly and honestly. A candidate who has little tolerance for divide and conquer political games. Someone who doesen't have a hidden agenda. One who has faith in the beautiful chaos of an informed democracy.

Systematic, organized word of mouth, has become the most important tool of the Democratic Party. Thank You Barrack, and the Internet. If the youth stay involved, the political games of 2000 and 2004 will be forced into extinction.


One Quick Note, about Obama's position on the war.

Some people say that since he was not a senator at the time, and he didn't have to vote on the Iraq War resolution, it is easy for him to say he opposed the war from the start. That argument really bothers me, anyone who agrees with it does not remember 2002.

Or maybe in 2002, you agreed with war in Iraq, maybe you were like 70% of the country who were convinced by Bush Cheney propaganda that Saddam Hussein was 'Directly responsible' for the attacks of September 11( ). Maybe you believed that Saddam had links to Al Qaeda, like Hillary Clinton who spoke on the senate floor about her vote, and specifically mentioned ties to Al Qaeda. If you know anything about the Middle East, you know Al Qaeda and Saddam were enemies, that the terrorist group had tried to overthrow Saddam, If he gave them any WMDs they would bomb Baghdad, not NYC.

In 2002, I was protesting on the streets of Washington, NYC, Buffalo and Fredonia, I was passing out fliers, planning events, and sitting behind an anti-war information table in the Campus Center. And I can tell you for a fact, that it was not easy, or popular to be against Bush and his war. There were ribbon magnets and flags on all the cars, we were shouted at, demonised, and threatened. Our protests were marginalized, the media and 3/4 of the government never gave us the time of day. Obama's opposition to the war was courageous. And he was right about the consequences.


Obama on War


Clinton on War



PS, The Nation is now endorsing Obama

Holly crap, I just found a video of Hillary Clinton on Dave Letterman''s show, from like 2 days ago,

And when Dave asked how much money she raised for he campaign, she said 100 million dollars, and said it's not a good way to run campaigns, and we should we should go to public financing of campaigns!!! That's beautiful, she gets a giant gold star for that one.

Campaign financing is my biggest issue, if everyone got pissed off about that one thing and went out and changed it, we would be saved. seriously, the whole country would be saved, from the corruption and greed that led us to this point. no middle class, huge poverty, insecurity, devastated cities, and bridges falling into the Mississippi river. Public financing would do the most good for our country over time.

One thing letterman said, when they talked about the supreme court saying "money = free speech", essentially that means people who can't afford to contribute money to campaigns have less speech. That's key. Equal Influence. People united as a group should have a bigger voice, but as individuals we shouldn't have to pay for access. It's like a reverse of the poll tax, income based influence.

Anyway, here's the video... maybe I'm starting to see that dream ticket after all.



____________________________________________________
And here's Barrack's speech from yesterday, this man speaks plainly and honestly. You can tell he's for real, he's not just saying what you want to hear. It's easy to see how he could unite the country around a progressive agenda. Obama will get the results by having public support. And his agenda is boldly progressive.



PS
The key for the Democratic party is to get people off the couch to vote. So many don't vote because they don't have faith in government. Restore that faith.
____________________________________________________

Time to share voting stories,

I went to my polling place on Rhode Island at about 1:30, I go a little late so I can see how many people voted before me. I was voter #148 But the interesting thing is that about 120 of those voters were Democrats. I know I'm on the West Side, and there are more democrats around, but I thought that was an interesting contrast. Nationally far more Democratic voters are showing up to the polls. And I'm glad the democratic candidates are keeping the dialogue relatively civil, unlike the Republicans.

I like voting, I vote every year. Even when the 2 party candidates are lame, I proudly vote third party, and get great satisfaction from it. Voting third party is definitely not a wasted vote, especially in NYS which is not a swing state. I feel like my 3rd party vote means more than voting for some Democrat. and even if I do vote for a Democrat, I vote on the Working Families line.

Anyway this year, I voted in my first primary, and I dig it.

PS, my firefox spellcheck never heard of Rhode Island, WTF?

Obama, Clinton, and The Election

Why Vote:

This is the first time I'm voting in a primary. I have always been registered as a Green, but I switched to Democrat just for this primary election. The government has not been serving the people. We have been taken advantage of by those with power and money, and the government let it happen.

I'm tired of politicians who don't stand up and challenge the corrupt system in Washington. Many people are fed up and that's why we don't vote. The politicians don't represent us, they represent corporations and the people who fund their campaigns.

But in the end, they need our vote. We still hold that power over the government. Sometimes candidates aren't that different. It's usually down to two, which is not much of a choice for a democracy. But sometimes you get a candidate with vision, leadership and the will to rock the boat. I think there are big differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Why Obama

One thing about Obama, he gets young people out to vote in record numbers. We need to stop letting Washington run itself, and realize our power to determine our own future. Social Security, Healthcare, Student Loans, Job Security, the Environment, we have a lot of work to do. My generation is starting to realize that politics affects our lives, now we need to have the confidence to go and change politics.

On the Iraq War, Obama has been right from the beginning. In 2002, it was very unpopular to speak negatively about Bush, and despite the risk, Obama spoke publicly and candidly in opposition to the war. Solid judgment led him to speak out and put his career on the line to oppose a policy doomed to failure.

The problem with politicians, is that they have a hidden agenda. They are thinking of campaign contributions instead of doing what is right for the public. They think that deceiving the voters, and obeying wealthy corporate interests, will get them elected. Obama however, believes in honesty, democracy, and openness.

Obama relies more on voters and small donations, than he does on corporate contributions. He doesn't have to promise as many favors to his corporate connections. Clinton is part of the old system, the system that got us here. Sure nobody's perfect, and any democrat would be better than a republican, but I want this president to make real changes. Not just changes in policy, but changes in the Washington system of secrecy, power, and corruption.

My issues are Campaign Finance, the Electoral System, Inequality, Poverty, Diplomatic Foreign Policy, Healthcare, Political Corruption, crumbling cities and infrastructure, and our loss of community. I think these issues are best handled by a political outsider with confidence, vision, and a working class background, who can lead.

I liked a lot of the democratic candidates. Our election system forces us to narrow it down before we even get a chance to vote, and that's a problem. There are more than two types of people in this country. And we should be able to rank our choices so that there are no more 'spoiler' candidates who 'steal votes'. Here we are again with two, but if we vote for Obama now the decision in November will really mean something. And voter turnout will be record breaking.

If there is any election where you don't have a candidate you believe in, show up and vote third party as a protest. Voting third party is a strong statement, staying home is not.

I am a skeptic, who believes in Barack Obama, I think he is a good candidate who is very different than Clinton and the past 30 years of problems in this country. And I think it's so important to vote and participate, that I wrote this letter, and urging you to go out and participate.


Thanks



Here's Obama on the War, starting in 2002


more Obama Videos on YouTube

There was a primary in Michigan Yesterday. Republicans chose Romney, and Democrats chose Clinton. But unlike Romney who is fighting for his life to stay viable by winning something, Clinton had no serious opposition. For some reason Michigan doesn't get any electoral votes in the Democratic primary this year, so few of the other democrats bothered to get on the ballot. Kucinich got about 4% of the vote.

But mostly, this primary was Hillary vs 'Not Hillary'. And that actually made the results pretty interesting. Hillary won by 15%, meaning about 40% of people would rather vote for 'Nobody' than vote for Hillary.

According to this election and the exit polls Hillary's supporters are people who are over 45, uneducated, poor, white, and female. The biggest difference was among blacks 70% voted for anybody but Hillary, the next biggest difference was among people under 30.

You can read a brief analysis here
and see the exit polls here


If Hillary is the nominee, I am worried that we might end up with another Republican in the whitehouse. She will inspire the Republicans to come out and vote against her, and the Democrats won't bother voting at all.

The Democrats fail because they don't get people up off the couch. People don't vote because they don't see anyone worth supporting. They don't trust either of the 2 politicians in the presidential race. They don't think anything will change. Democrats and Republicans are part of the same corrupt system, and their campaign promises are a bunch of crap. So why bother to vote.

Democrats are supposed to be the party of the people, and the republicans are supposed to be the party of the wealthy. But the people don't vote, cause the democrats sound like republicans. And the republicans do vote, because they are protecting their assets. Meanwhile the candidates are just rephrasing the same BS and trying to be a better salesman to those ambiguous people who haven't made up their mind yet.

If a candidate stood up for the middle class, and spoke honestly, there would be no contest. We need someone honest and confident who can stand up for single-payer healthcare. And when someone shouts 'socialized medicine', tell them to take their HMO and shove it, because there's no such thing, and they are trying to scare you with bogymen.

Democrats usually try to steal voters from the republicans, by acting like republicans. The presidential race is usually a competition for the middle. Instead Democrats should inspire people to get off the couch, go to the voting booth, and demand to have their voices heard.

Clinton is not that candidate. If she gets the nomination, November will be too close to call, most Americans will stay home, and I will be voting for a third party again.

I'd like to see an Obama Edwards ticket, with Kucinich, Biden, and Dodd, as secretary of something in the cabinet.

I am excited by Obama. he gets young people to vote, and he gets record numbers of people out to the polls, and because he has that popular support he doesen't need to sell out to make money for his campaign as much as other people.

I'm a registered Democrat this year, and I will be voting in the primary on February 5th. This is my way of pretending we have a runoff election. Depending on the nomination, I might go back to being Green real quick.

I took a good look at my college loans yesterday. It kinda made me feel like a slave. Maybe not that extreme, but the Worker-Master relationship started to become apparent to me.

I pay $200 per month, I've paid about $6,000 so far, and I've only paid off $2,500 of my principal balance, which was only $27,000 to begin with, because I was part of the most generous government program I've seen for poor people like myself, EOP.

So let me get this straight, I'm paying double?!?! These assholes Own me.

There was no question in my mind about going to college, and living in Buffalo I'm glad I did. A lot of my friends have a high school diploma or less, and it is a real pain in the ass for them to find a job. My one friend went back to Boces for a trade, he's still only making $10 per hour, and he's driving all over the county in his own truck.

If you're in the lower middle class in this country, they basically grab onto your nuts and squeeze. Your part of the Worker class, and they Own you. Same for women, they're squeezing your nuts too.

Let's compare my situation to my fiance, who was born a little above my class. her parents could afford to pay her college in full, no loans. She went to a SUNY school with me, not too expensive, if you call $50,000 a bargain. But still, no loans, that means she can keep her money. I had to sell my body to start making more than $10 per hour.

Here's the kicker, She puts $200 into her retirement account each month. I take that same $200, and flush it down to toilet. Or to be more specific, I give it to my masters at the student loan company.

Meanwhile, you know what the government is trying to do with my retirement account? You know Social Security? They want to give it away to the same blood-sucking companies that are already squeezing my nuts. They're trying to convince me that Social security is going to run out, and all that money I already paid into the system since I started working at 15, belongs to them, not me.

Ironic, they call this the "Ownership Society" all I own is hand-me-down furniture and a bunch of electronics. but THEY own ME.

Here's a pleasant thought, I don't have health insurance either. I had Healthy NY, that super affordable government program which costs $270 per month, and is somehow tied to the SCHIP federal program which the Republicans refused to expand a couple months back. Yea, I had that for about 4 months, and I still had to pay $40 for a doctor to look in my ear and tell me to take claritin D. that probably would have cost about $80 without my budget ass Healthy NY.

No health insurance. That means I'm one broken arm away from being better off in jail. Isn't that a peachy little thought. Maybe that's why we have more violent crime than any other nation in the world, besides some of those that are in a state of civil war. People are so fucked, that jail doesen't seem much worse than 'freedom'.

Yes, America, this is what we have become. We have betrayed our country. FDR is rolling over in his grave.

You know... I didn't learn much in my social studies classes growing up. But there's one thing that sunk in, they told me this is a land of opportunity. You can't control what class you're born into, but if you're smart, and you work hard, you can have a good life, and maybe even become the president.

They also told me I'd be better off if I went to college. They didn't mention the fact that I'd be paying double, because I was born in the lower middle class.

What happened? When did we become a nation of Masters and Workers? This doesn't look like the America they told me about.

But this isn't about my story. This is the story of America. I don't even have credit card debt, and I have 4 times more savings than my mother. How many Americans have $2,000 in the bank, and are making minimum payments on over $10,000 worth of credit card debt?

You know that the top 1% of Americans own 40% of the wealth? and the bottom 80% of people own a pitiful 8%.
What the hell is going on here, and why aren't we more pissed off about it?

We have been fooled.

How long will it take for us to realize that they lied to us about opportunity, they lied about freedom, lied about equality, lied about fairness, lied about justice, and they lied about America being a society of upward mobility, withouth classes. They lied about the American Dream. They made us thankfull to live in the most just, fair and democratic society on earth. And it is all bullshit.

I'll tell you how we can get our country back. I hate leaving people pissed off, without a solution. That ultra rich 1% is buying more than just resort homes, helicopters and private islands.

They have bought our government. Our representatives care more about money, than they do about the public. Because it takes so much money to get elected, donations are more important than votes. Elections must be free and fair. When I say free, I mean no cash.

I don't care how we do it, but the bottom line is that money has corrupted our political system. That is the one issue that is more important than everything else. We are divided... global warming, war, security, national debt, health care, these are real issues. Why aren't politicians addressing them, when they talk about them in campaigns all the time? Because if they act, it will change the system, and the system is making some people a lot of money, they don't want change, they don't want uncertainty. Change won't hurt the economy, but it could hurt individuals who are making a lot of money in the current system. That's why we get such minor changes in policy, they're trying to appease us, and obey their masters, our masters.

Here's to having a debate about campaign finance in 2008, instead of flag burning.

Just wanted to share a video I made for the West Seneca Music Center. I created their website last January,

They wanted to update the photography on the website and add a video sideshow. Their inventory has improved quite a bit since the last photoshoot I did for them.

They have tons of guitars! they've just about run out of room to store them. If you know anyone in a band, they have some really stylish stuff, classy designs, and realy loud designs. You can see a bunch of stuff in the video. I was pretty impressed.

The video is pretty fun. I just created it from the photos I took, and animated the slides together. Youtube degrades the quality a little bit, it will look more crisp on their site..

I read the news with disbelief.

Pakistan suddenly jailing thousands of Musharraf's political opponents. Arresting members of the government and the courts, for no reason, other than their political opinions. He shut down the Supreme Court, and All independent news and TV stations. As of yesterday around 2,500 people had been arrested.

The US has given this asshole $10 billion dollars since 2001. And don't worry, we've agreed to continue funding his tyranny, regardless of the whole martial law thing.

The short explanation is that, Pakistan has no term limits for its prime minister, Musharraf has been in power for two 5 year terms. There was a recent amendment to Pakistani law that the Prime Minister could not simultaneously be a Military Leader. So General Musharraf was supposed to make a choice, Prime Minister OR head of the military. He said, Fuck That. He was reelected, and even though he promised to give up the military if he won, he kept both of his roles, and awaited the consequences. A few months back, he removed the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but that didn't do the trick.The Supreme Court was about to hear the case, and determine whether or not this was legal (it's not) so a week before the Supreme Court was scheduled to rule on the issue, he shut the motherfucker down. Shut the whole country down.

One self interested Power hungry asshole terrorizing the entire population.

Luckily I don't have to research and summarize the whole thing for you, because there's a great synopsis on Huffington Post which gives a bunch of sources like I usually do.

Oh, almost forgot to mention, Musharraf says it's about terrorism. what a load of horseshit. That makes me hate him even more. A poor excuse for the rest of the world and America in particular. Were fighting terrorism, just like you, so were abandoning the constitution, just like you. Fuck off.

Yea, and the US, still giving him funding, no worries. Condi Rice said we're "disappointed" in what he has done.. wow, tough words. I'm disappointed when the Bisons lose. And the Whitehouse is disappointed when a tyrant abandons democracy and arrests thousands of political opponents. nice.

I'm going to write a letter to the foreign relations committee and call my representatives. This has to stop.


If you're interested, don't forget to read the article from the Huffington post, Tyranny and Terror in Pakistan, by Ali Eteraz


Joe Biden talks about it too.