You know
These are things that makes one look at what an administration lines up its
self to do. It always makes me laugh when an administration and any starts to
rant about environment, let it be a Washington administration, a national
administration of any nation, a municipality administration or a province. For
the simple matter remains that we all want a clean environment, we all love to
leave our children with a cleaner future but the bottom line remains that the
environment is not some thing you can gauge, and it is not some thing you can
fight in isolation. You need India and China to fight as well, you need to stop
to cut down the trees in Africa for those trees directly affect the North
American environment, but you cannot cut down the trees of DRC then turn up
here and think the storms will not beat you up. This week end I went through a
rigorous environment testing to my vehicles for they are due for a sticker
license, but we all wondered what part these vehicles play in the environment
disaster. Suppose we shut off all our vehicles in the entire North America, how
much cleaner does our environment become? And the answer is none because these
cars are much better built that they burn better gases at the exit pipe. And
you know what is so funny? If you live in Ontario and you have a car that is 15
or so years old you do not need to take it for testing, so the heads decided
that my car which is a 2004 model burns more gas than an Opel made before the
technology got better.
If the Obama administration is serious, it must start with the most pressing
issues today, a falling dollar, the exit jobs, China Korea and Mexico taking
all jobs from North America, The entire auto industry now posed to die, saving
social security fund, the Palestinian issue, the Iraqi issue, the Afghanistan
issue, Iran and its Nuke program if it has one, off shore drilling and so on.
But these are not going to be listed for they are measurable, you can know if
GM is selling the cars or not, you can know if you are creating the jobs or
not. So no one wants to go there except to lay in the comfort zone, of the
environment that is not measurable. It survives on threats and ambiguities. It
survives as a war on terrorism, it has no plan no agenda and no set marks to
show you that you are winning, but you make every one scared out of his pants.
Just last night I was listening to a talk radio and when they reached the
advertisements a guy went "We will be back after this but don't touch your
dial for if you do, the terrorists will win"
What measurable steps is this new administration going to tackle as we speak?
EM
Toronto
The Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in anarchy"
Groupe de communication Mulindwas
"avec Yoweri Museveni, l'Ouganda est dans l'anarchie"
----- Original Message -----
From: Jean Paul Mivumba
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 11:00 PM
Subject: {UAH} Re: WBK: President-Elect Obama aint no Wimp, Change has come
to America
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/07/60minutes/main4584507.shtml
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 2:18 AM, Steely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Obama Positions Himself to Quickly Reverse Bush Actions on
Environmental, Social Issues
By Ceci Connolly and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a
list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders
that could be swiftly undone to reverse the president on climate
change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues,
according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts
working with the transition team.
A team of four dozen advisers, working for months in virtual solitude,
set out to identify regulatory and policy changes Obama could
implement soon after his inauguration. The team is now consulting with
liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency
chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the most onerous or
ideologically offensive, said a top transition official who was not
permitted to speak on the record about the inner workings of the
transition.
Amen!
Steely
On 8 Nov, 17:47, WB Kyijomanyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steely:
>
> I will let you have the final word.
> I said enough.
>
> Bye
>
> WBK
>
> ===================================================
>
> > Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 01:28:47 -0800
> > Subject: {UAH} Re: Mr Gaburungyi: WBK I told you : Senator Obama aint
no Wimp
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > WBK....
>
> > There was not a suggestion that Dean was a nominee. He is relevant to
> > this context because he is being credited among progressives with
> > perhaps 'leading the way' on internet/grassroots mobilisation/
> > fundraising. As you might know, his primary bid collapsed
> > spectacularly unlike Obama's successful bid. Could there be something
> > else going for Obama rather than just the brilliant fund raising
> > strategy?'
>
> > Did you say candid observations on Obama? I'll tell you what...he is
> > the first one to admit that he was the 'unlikeliest' of candidates. He
> > tells his Kenyan story before you can say pronto….the man is that
> > secure in his identity. Now, of course, the point being that those are
> > the odds he has had to overcame and still he won big! In light of
> > this, could it be that your thesis is ..lazy ..at best? Perhaps. But I
> > do suspect that there is something more sinister going on for you.
>
> > It is difficult to grasp what your take on change is? Karl Polanyi?
> > Obama winning all the red sates? Obama not appointing Rahm Emmanuel or
> > any other old Clintonite? What would consitute change for you both in
> > the postmortem of Obama's electoral win and his presidency?
>
> > Lets look at some specifics. You go on about Red States and Blue
> > States...like that should be the only 'evidence' for change. I have
> > made the point elsewhere that America remains an almost ideologically
> > balanced country if only slightly to the right. Why isn't a big win by
> > a liberal like Obama an indication of a 'shift' of some sort?
>
> > Obama understood that yes there are red states and blue states ... but
> > he could re-configure the electoral map by tapping into that huge
> > independent base.
>
> > Even looking at the electoral college map that you like to mention -
> > Obama forced McCain to defend but ultimately loose previously red
> > states like .. Colorado, Indiana, Nevada, Virginia...why is that not
> > evidence that there was something brilliant/tranformational about
> > Obama's methods? A baramoter for things to come? Does he have to win
> > all the red states/the whole South to meet your threshold? Give me a
> > break here.!
>
> > Now I return to the something sinister in your thesis. You counsel
> > that we shouldnt worship Obama, and rightly so. But you seem to have
> > Clinton up there on a pedestal (your postings are dripping with
> > this...!). Take for example..Gore lost because he abandoned the
> > 'Clinton brand'; ''Ironically, the next administration is likely to
> > depend on several old Clinton hands..who know how Washington works''.
> > Is there something unresolved for you in respect of the Clintons?
>
> > You point to Obama appointing old Clinton hands like Rahm but,
> > conveniently, you do not mention many of those old Clinton hands were
> > responsible for the shambolic Hillary primary campaign! Obama had to
> > beat them square. The big man himself Bill laughed off Obama; the
> > Carville's and Begala's (admittedly yesterday's geniuses) were all
> > condescending towards Obama..now they ant wait to get on board.
>
> > I'll tell you what...Obama makes appointments on the basis that people
> > are up to the task. Period. His superior sense of judgment may mean
> > Rahm is in...but equally, a capable Republican may get appointed. That
> > is the genius of Obama. Superior judgment. Like it not that is
> > 'change' from the childlike Bush and Clinton team petty in-fighting.
>
> > Again as Tim succinctly puts ...''it is only fair that you accommodate
> > the possibility of being wrong again particularly when you analyze
> > President-Elect Obama''
>
> > steely
>
> > On 6 Nov, 21:18, WB Kyijomanyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Steely:
>
> > > You and Mr Gaburungyi are wrong to assume that there is a new
paradigm ala Karl Polanyi in American politics. There isn't. Granted a black
man was elected President but that cannot and should not be equated to a
massive structural transformation in American politics. Look at the electoral
Map and the states-Blue vs Red.
>
> > > Actually my thesis explains why Al Gore and Kerry failed. Dean has
never been a nominee. Gore defeated himself for other reasons. He ran way from
Clinton under the mistaken assumption that Clinton had soiled the Democratic
Party brand. Gore was wrong and lost. Kerry was well something else.
>
> > > On the primary victory, it was the power to harness the caucuses. I
will let you decide if the Democrats had winner take all contests like the
Republicans do who would have prevailed. Party of it also has to do with the
thinking in some Democratic circles about Clinton the former president. They
saw him as a spoiled brand and did everything to keep Hillary out. Like I said
the stars were perfectly aligned for the presidnet elect.
>
> > > Ironically, the next administration is likely to depend on several
old Clinton hands. They are everywhere which must be frustrating to many who
expected 'change' in Washington. But where else can they find competent
democrats who know how Washington works.
>
> > > The reason I 'hurriedly' began to look at governance tasks is for the
reasons you have written. Had I written that about the President-Elect, oh,
boy. In short, you set the stage for what lies a head with your candid
observations.
>
> > > He won and we must celebrate the historic victory, but worship him we
should not.
>
> > > More important, he has to deliver on some, not certainly all the
campaign promises without alienating the swing voters aka independents. We
shall know in just 2 year's time, when voters will make the initial judgment.
And we shall still be here in UAH. I pray that he will deliver on some of the
promises he made because I want him to succeed. For real.
>
> > > WBK
>
> > > > Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:47:12 -0800
> > > > Subject: {UAH} Re: Mr Gaburungyi: WBK I told you : Senator Obama
aint no Wimp
> > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > > WBK
>
> > > > Tim has cautioned you about using old metrics to measure new
paradigms
> > > > but you fail to heed his advice.
>
> > > > Yours is an interesting though curious analysis. Of course Bush
messed
> > > > up and that would affect the electability od his party. Mature
western
> > > > democracies are characterized by an enlightened society who swiftly
> > > > reward good governance and punish incompetence, as you put it. That
> > > > is ..almost...a given and would explain why we have these electoral
> > > > cycles. Republican replaced by a democrat, then republican etc.
>
> > > > What your thesis fails to explain is why the most unlikely of
> > > > candidates ('black' with black wife; black-and-comfortable; '2nd gen
> > > > African Amcan; young, not-much-direct-governance-experience i.e.
only
> > > > 4 yrs in public life....elitist..liberal...etc) burst onto the
> > > > national stage and won the presidency. How do you explain Obama
first
> > > > steamrolling Mrs Clinton (wife of the most successful of Dems - Bill
> > > > Clinton) in the primary and then the mighty GOP, in arguably the
most
> > > > right of centre western society that is the US of A.? Why was Obama
> > > > successful where Gore, Kerry or Howard Dean failed? Internet
> > > > fundraising? Just that?
>
> > > > It appears you would rather not deal with these questions so you
> > > > hurriedly begin to look to the governance tasks that await Obama
i.e.
> > > > democrats 'need to to deliver or else face the same electoral music
> > > > starting in 2010'. I'll remind you of something....the democrats
> > > > 'establishment' at one point did not think much of Obama, he had to
> > > > demonstrate to them that he was the best of the pack!
>
> > > > steely
>
> > > > On 6 Nov, 14:59, WB Kyijomanyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Mr Gaburungyi:
>
> > > > > Change has come to America in the person of who was elected: who
he is. That is the chnage that is obvious.
>
> > > > > The other change you are suggesting is yet to be known.
>
> > > > > My analysis is correct: Democrats won because George Bush the
Republican messed up period. You disagree that Senator Obama won because the
way he campaigned or organized his campaign. That may have been necessary but
not sufficient. The sufficient claim is what I make: Bush messed up and hurt
the Republic brand. That is what flipped over some of the red states. The
voters were fed up with the incompetence of the Bush White House. The key word
word you should bear in mind is competence.
>
> > > > > If President Obama screws up that is runs an incompetent regime,
the Democratic brand will be hurt too. Yes, Once in office President Obama has
to avoid past democratic mistakes. In other words, he cannot afford to govern
like a liberal in the American sense. He must govern as a centrist and risk
alienating the liberal base who expect universal health care-won't happen-and
immediate withdraw from Iraq-wont happen too. The free lunch is over for him.
The trade off begin immediately.
>
> > > > > If you want to name a strategic initiative that helped him, I
cite internet fund raising which allowed him to bypass public funding and to
pour millions on the airwaves in battleground states and hire massive ground
teams.
>
> > > > > Mr Gaburungyi, I hope you are not saying there are no more Red or
Blue states in America. They are still there and will continue to be there. The
only contestable places are FL, the Midwest states (OH, MO, PA, IA, IN) and
some in the Mountain West-NM and CO. The North East is solidly Blue with
perhaps the
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Ugandans at Heart" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Ugandans-at-Heart?hl=en
NO abusive language accepted on this forum.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
_______________________________________________
Ugandanet mailing list
[email protected]
http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet
% UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including
attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way.
---------------------------------------
