A Huffington Post

Will The Madoff Debacle Finally End The "Who Could Have Known?" Era?

by Arianna Huffington

See if this sounds familiar:

An ambitious and risky undertaking carried out with hubris, and featuring the weeding out of anyone who raises alarm bells, little-to-no transparency, an oversight system in which no central authority is accountable, and the deliberate manufacturing of ambiguity and complexity so that if -- when -- it all falls to pieces, the excuse "who could have known?" can be used....

Is it Iraq? Fannie Mae? Citigroup? Bernie Madoff?

The correct answer is: all of the above.

When you look at the elements that were crucial to the creation of each of these debacles, it's amazing how much in common they all have. And not just in how they began but in how they ended: with those responsible being amazed at what happened, because...who could have known? Well, to paraphrase James Inhofe, I'm amazed at the amazement.

In fact, when historians look for a name that sums up the Bush II years, they could do worse than calling them The "Who Could Have Known?" Era.

Each of the disasters listed above was entirely predictable. And, indeed, was predicted. But those who rang the alarm bells were aggressively ignored, which is why it's important that we not let those responsible get away with the "Who Could Have Known?" excuse.

Let's start with Iraq -- specifically the reconstruction of Iraq. This weekend the New York Times got its hands on the unpublished 513-page federal history of the reconstruction. It's not pretty. As the Times puts it: it was "an effort crippled before the invasion by Pentagon planners who were hostile to the idea of rebuilding a foreign country, and then molded into a $100 billion failure by bureaucratic turf wars, spiraling violence and ignorance of the basic elements of Iraqi society and infrastructure." As a result, almost six years and $117 billion later, many essential services are only now reaching pre-war levels.

The report quotes Colin Powell on how the Pentagon, to cover up its failures, "kept inventing numbers of Iraqi security forces [that had reached readiness] -- the number would jump 20,000 a week! 'We now have 80,000, we now have 100,000, we now have 120,000.' "

Hmm, making up numbers to realize a short-term gain, but which end up making the inevitable long-term reckoning much worse? Sounds a lot like what was happening at Citigroup at around the same time.

In late 2002, Charles Prince was put in charge of the company's corporate and investment bank. The banking giant was already knee deep in toxic paper and aggressively looking the other way.

He was so successful at averting his eyes that when, five years later, as Wall Street began to feel the initial shocks of the mortgage meltdown, he was told that the bank owned $43 billion in mortgage-related assets -- it was the first he'd heard of it. Isn't that something he should have known? Or did he prefer not knowing?

Prince had plenty of help ignoring the obvious, particularly from Robert Rubin. According to a former Citigroup executive quoted in the long New York Times analysis of Citi's downfall, despite ascending to the top of the Citi food chain, Prince "didn't know a C.D.O. from a grocery list, so he looked for someone for advice and support. That person was Rubin."

When it all came tumbling down, both Rubin and Prince portrayed themselves as helpless victims of circumstance, because...Who Could Have Known?

"I've thought a lot about that," Rubin said when asked if he made mistakes at Citigroup. "I honestly don't know. In hindsight, there are a lot of things we'd do differently. But in the context of the facts as I knew them and my role, I'm inclined to think probably not."

What he means, of course, is the facts as he chose to know them.

Prince's head is even higher in the clouds: "Anything," he said, "based on human endeavor and certainly any business that involves risk-taking, you're going to have problems from time to time."

Sounds like he's reading from the same damage control playbook as former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines. According to Raines, he can't be blamed for what happened at Fannie Mae because mortgage stuff is so, well, complicated. In fact, he can't even understand his own mortgage: "I know I can't and I've tried," Raines told a House committee last week. "To this day, I don't know what it said... It's impossible for the average person to understand" mortgage terms such as negative amortization. In other words, Who Could Have Known?

Committee chair Henry Waxman wasn't buying it: "These documents make clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac knew what they were doing. Their own risk managers raised warning after warning about the dangers of investing heavily in the subprime and alternative mortgage markets."

Ignoring warning after warning is an essential element of the "Who Could Have Known?" excuse, as are rewriting history and shamelessly disregarding the foresight shown by those who sounded the alarm bells.

We're seeing the same ingredients in the Madoff affair. "We have worked with Madoff for nearly 20 years," said Jeffrey Tucker, a former federal regulator and the head of an investment firm facing losses of $7.5 billion. "We had no indication that we...were the victims of such a highly sophisticated, massive fraudulent scheme." It's a sentiment echoed by Arthur Levitt, the former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission: "I've known [Madoff] for nearly 35 years, and I'm absolutely astonished."

Who Could Have Known?

Well, Harry Markopoulos, for one. In 1999, after researching Madoff's methods, Markopolos wrote a letter to the SEC saying, "Madoff Securities is the world's largest Ponzi Scheme." He pursued his claims with the feds for the next nine years, with little result.

Jim Vos, another investment adviser who had examined Madoff's firm, says: "There's no smoking gun, but if you added it all up you wonder why people either did not get it or chose to ignore the red flags."

The answer comes from Vos's cohort Jake Walthour Jr., who told HuffPost blogger Vicky Ward: "In a bull market no one bothers to ask how the returns are met, they just like the returns."

Hasn't the "Who Could Have Known?" excuse been exposed as a sham enough times to render it obsolete?

Apparently not. Here come the Bush Legacy Project's revisionists expecting us to believe that everyone thought Saddam had WMD -- even though many were on record saying he didn't.

In the wake of 9/11, Condi Rice assured us nobody "could have predicted" that someone "would try to use an airplane as a missile." Except, of course, the government report that in 1999 said, "Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House."

After Katrina, the White House read from the "Who Could Have Known?" hymnal: No one could have predicted that the storm would be a Category 5, and that this could result in the levees being breached. We now know, of course, that plenty of people knew that the levees could be breached and said so before the storm hit.

Then there is Alan Greenspan, who, looking back in October of this year on the makings of the financial crisis he helped create (I mean, that just happened to come out of nowhere) delivered this "Who Could Have Known?" classic: "If all those extraordinarily capable people were unable to foresee the development of this critical problem...we have to ask ourselves: Why is that? And the answer is that we're not smart enough as people. We just cannot see events that far in advance."

The only problem is, many people did see events that far in advance.

Unlike Greenspan, I don't believe the problem is that we are "not smart enough as people." As we've seen time after time, smart enough people are all too willing to ignore facts they don't like. Or, even worse, they construct oversight systems designed to be ineffective -- and unable to provide to those in power information they don't really want to know.

Much has been made of the smartness of Obama's new team. But I'm hoping that their defining characteristic won't be their IQs but their willingness to confront reality and take responsibility for their decisions.

It's time to say goodbye to the "Who Could Have Known?" era. It's time to know things again. And to know that you know them.

Why I Haven't Written this Week

Ergh!! This week has been pretty crazy for me and millions of other students in a like situation. But rejoice, the week of finals and final papers is coming to an end. I've pulled 2 all-nighters this week to make sure everything got finished, and now I am easing my way through the last act of the semester.

The easy answer as to why I haven't posted this week is because I've been too busy. But this theory is not entirely accurate. In fact, I normally post when I definitely should not (maybe the subconscious purpose of this Wire is to distract myself from the studies). Actually, I think it is because I have been in such a hyper-drive mode, that it's been difficult to think critically for long periods of time. Yes, I am saying that too much schoolwork can actually limit one's thinking.

We live in such a fast-track world... one that cannot be fully compared with those of the past. There seems to be, at least in my experiences, a model for success in society. That is, you take the classes, you get the grades, you get a quality internship, and then you are supposed to go to grad school so that you can eventually get the well-paying job, which becomes a career, which is supposed to get you the money you need to be happy. This is simplified, but to many this is true... to many parents, if their child diverges from this "plan" it is a sign for serious concern.

Look, I'm not saying that people shouldn't go to college, but I think this way of thinking is inherently flawed. There is no final happiness, and I imagine that the "mid-life" crisis is partly a realization of this fact. It sounds generic, but the journey is the happy part. It is the process of a thoughtful life that make things worth it--that make it all enjoyable and fullfilling.

But the key is to have the ability to stop and think about things--everyday things, boring things, future goals, and dreams. You don't have to be a philosopher to question norms and think about who you are as a person. Live life, reflect, accept that there are lows, but things keep going, and rebounds are inevitable if you want them to be. If you are unhappy, admit it and change things up. Be spontaneous and humble and honest. Self-reflective, not self-conscious. Realistic, optimistic, celebratory and content.

To future lessons.

Obama Must Lead the Fight on Climate Change

I've noticed that there has been very little coverage of climate change on the SkyeWire, which is odd because it is certainly the most significant impending disaster that the world faces--and we are not doing enough to stop it. There is a lot of talk about governments, politics and social issues on here, but I want to bring to light the climate issue with a somewhat disheartening article from the Guardian, which showcases a very interesting study.

The survey, "supported by groups including the World Bank, the United Nations Environment Programme and the Pew Centre for Global Climate Change, questioned 1,000 senior figures across governments, pressure groups and companies in 115 countries over the last few weeks." The results conclude that climate experts have lost a significant amount of faith in the effectiveness of alternative energy sources against climate change.

One answer to this perplexing dilemma: "As the climate crisis deepens they could be becoming less optimistic that individual technologies may be able to solve the problem" (Eric Whan). 44% of respondents also agreed that the economic crisis will significantly set back efforts to act on climate change.

The world is in agreement that something must be done--for the lives of a billion hang in the balance--but in this time of confusion, Barack Obama must set an ambitious path towards completely sustainable society, while also addressing the drastic economic situation--in fact, he ought to set the framework for a plan that will help solve both.

We need his charisma and his wit to not only lead the United States, but to bring all powerful nations into the fold for the "green" economy of the future. I am talking about a Green Revolution led by the United States and executed by the global economy. Scientists are losing hope ... it may already be too late according to many ... but we must not wait for the final proof ... we must change the way we live now, so that we may live another day.

Yes we must. Yes we can.

Bill Ayers: Terrorist? Seriously?!

Watch this Hardball interview with Bill Ayers, and THEN you can tell me that he is a terrorist.

How to Break a Terrorist

I just watched a good interview on the Daily Show with a guy named Matthew Alexander who wrote the book "How to Break a Terrorist." This guy was an interrogator for the U.S. military and has been a part of hundreds of hundreds of interrogations, but now he is speaking out against the torture techniques.

Basically, he is saying that the best way to extract information from a prisoner is not to demonize them--by treating them like animals and putting them in pain (both psychological and physical)--but to understand them. Alexander is advocating that by coming to terms with insurgents, you can work to establish an agreement with the goal of helping Iraq in the best way possible.

In fact, he explains that the insurgents aren't ideologues like Al Qaeda; they are mostly regular people who fight for community or for money--suggesting that they would be much more than willing to cooperate if you build a bond of trust.

Alexander says that these methods are proven in many interrogations, but that the Department of Defense does not wish to concede that point--going as far as trying to stop the book from being published. He says to Jon Stewart: "I never saw coercive methods pay off..."--but rather rapport building and relationships yielded the results.

I think it's time that we find a better way. Isn't it obvious? We as a civilization are more advanced than any that has preceded us. Of course there is another way. We know what is right, so let's just do it.

Here is the interview:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Matthew Alexander

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

The Truth in Bulworth's Rhymes

Bulworth, the 1998 film directed by and starring the great Warren Beatty, tells the story of the last days of campaigning for incumbent Senator Jay Billington Bulworth--a liberal Democrat of California. The Senator, apparently depressed, orders a hit on his own life after arranging for a hefty life insurance policy to support his family. In his final appearances as Senator, Bulworth embarks on a crusade of truth--abandoning the trust of his wealthy contributors, Hollywood moguls, and shady insurance lobbyists by speaking of the game that has been played upon the American people.

Bulworth seems on a spiral of madness as he adopts "ghetto" slang, dress and rhythm to the utter bewilderment of his top campaign advisors and a C-SPAN crew. But in the course of his sensational journey, the Senator finds a renewed calling for service from a wise hobo who calls out: "Bulworth, don't be a ghost, you got to be a spirit!" And so he does, with a revamped campaign strategy, which consists of rapping the truth of the system and tearing down the myth of "honest" media during a televised debate. Drawing more and more public fascination, the incumbent raps during his primetime interview:

The rich is getting richer and richer and richer while the middle class is getting more poor/ Making billions and billions and billions of bucks/ well my friend if you weren't already rich at the start well that situation just sucks/cause the richest mother fucker in five of us is getting ninety fuckin eight percent of it/ and every other motherfucker in the world is left to wonder where the fuck we went with it/ Obscenity?/ I'm a Senator/ I gotta raise $10,000 a day every day I'm in Washington/ I ain't getting it in South Central/ I'm gettin it in Beverly Hills/ So I'm votin' for them in the Senate the way they want me too...

It's funny and revelatory, but where the film really shines is in Bulworth's discovery of the truth of the African American condition-- specifically from a drug boss (played by Don Cheadle) who recruits the neighborhood kids to do the hustling because it's the only way to make it in a world where politicians cut the funding to the jobs programs and education. Explaining the reality to Bulworth, Cheadle's character lays it straight: "How a young man gonna take care of his financial responsibilities workin' at motherfuckin' Burger King? He ain't. He ain't, and please don't even start with the school shit. There ain't no education goin' on up in that motherfucker."

And so the rogue politician finds new life in breaking free from the bondage of the corporate establishment--waging an all out crusade against the cancerous power that continues to strangle America the Beautiful. Within the fantastical rhymes of Senator Jay Bulworth lies the truth of the state of this union: that we have been deceived by the great nexus of misinformation into believing that the noble and virtuous will rise for our cause, and that this civilization is better than the great realities that our universe might have us believe in. Perhaps this is excessively cynical, but we must ask ourselves if it is indeed? Have our leaders not won time and time again upon the same promises of change and a better day? Do intelligence and extraordinary talent make the true difference, or does fundamental change arise from a rare kind of passionate courageousness?

Can a leader with the guts and vision rise to a level of true influence? ...Has he already?



Would they let him get away with it?

The Military-Industrial Complex: It's Real

The "Military-Industrial Complex". It characterizes one of the most influential (and terrifying) undercurrents of power in the United States government, and conceptualizes the fusion of government and military business. The term, immortalized by President Eisenhower in his farewell address, refers to the dangerous relationship between government and "for-profit" business, which fuels "for-profit" conflicts and wars. And what a perfect example we have in front of us!

On the Iraq war, author and journalist Naomi Klein said on Democracy NOW:

And one of the things that I think is most important for progressives to challenge is the discourse that everything in Iraq is a disaster. I think we need to start asking and insisting, disaster for who [?], because not everybody is losing. It’s certainly a disaster for the Iraqi people. It’s certainly a disaster for US taxpayers. But what we have seen—and it’s extremely clear if we track the numbers—is that the worse things get in Iraq, the more privatized this war becomes, the more profitable this war becomes for companies like Lockheed Martin, Bechtel, and certainly Blackwater. There is a steady mission creep in Iraq, where the more countries pull out, the more contractors move in...

Do you know how many American troops are currently stationed in Iraq? Answer: 160,000

Do you know how many Blackwater-soldiers-for-hire (aka mercenaries...not all BW) there are in Iraq? Answer: 180,000 (highlight to see answer... so you can guess) ...source.

And guess how many Blackwater mercenaries have been prosecuted for crimes in Iraq? Answer: 0!

Moral implications aside (like how the war has cost probably over 1 million Iraqi lives), let's try to bring this back to the economy. Francis Ferguson, phD economist, explains his view:

As the US slides into recession, economists wonder why the massive government spending on Afghanistan and Iraq provides so little economic stimulus. World War Two brought an immediate end to the Great Depression, yet a current $600 billion dollar defense budget (not counting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) does little to stop the emerging recession. Part of the minimal effect results from the fact that we were already spending well over $300 billion on the military prior to 9/11, whereas the US defense budget was trivial prior to the beginning of World War II. The other reason for the minimal economic stimulus lies in the fact that so much of the expenditure goes to fund wages and corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so much flows as excess profits to American corporations rather than into the pockets of American workers who would have a greater tendency to spend those earnings here. Finally, even the portion of war spending that does flow to American workers has, today, a very high probability of being used to buy imported consumer goods, providing stimulus, ironically, to our friends the Chinese—the very people who fund our wars (but that's another story).

So why do I bring this up today? Well it's still quite relevant, and I think people should be concerned about it and the effects upon the country and world. But the New York Times actually brought me back to this important issue in their 11/29 article entitled "One Man’s Military-Industrial-Media Complex"--which places special emphasis on the media's role is fueling the MIC. It's long, but important... please read. Thanks.

Eric Holder: Legit Attourney General for Once?

Last semester, John Ashcroft spoke at Denison--he was the former Attourney General under President Junior, and a big supporter of the War on Terror, warrantless wiretapping, torture, etc. He spoke the typical rhetoric of spreading "freedom" and protecting Americans at whatever cost. I found him to be naive in his assumptions, and heartless in his justifications for revoking civil liberties. A Jordanian classmate of mine asked him what "freedom" truly meant, and if it was indeed democratic to impose our values on another people. He dodged the question.

And of course, our next AG was Alberto "I cannot recall" Gonzales--and because my words can hardly do these guys justice, I'll hand over the reigns to the Daily Show team:



It will be vital for the integrity of the nation that President Obama restore the justice to the Justice Department by appointing a passionate, honest, and talented Attourney General. One that will restore law and order, and resurrect Habeas Corpus. One who will lead the charge for human rights and end torture. One who will hold our leadership accountable. Eric Holder is the man President-Elect Obama has chosen, and I think he could be the man for the job--though I shall reserve my judgment until he proves himself as the nation's lawyer. There are critics of the man--in particular, Progressive critics on the left--but I'd like to show you an excerpt from Glenn Greenwald's reaction to the nomination:

The bulk of what I've read about and from Holder suggests, with a couple of ultimately marginal exceptions, that this appointment would be a very positive step. Digby yesterday quoted at length from an impassioned speech Holder gave in June of this year in which he condemned Guantanamo as an "international embarrassment"; charged that "for the last 6 years the position of leader of the Free World has been largely vacant"; complained that "we authorized torture and we let fear take precedence over the rule of law"; and called for an absolute end both to rendition and warrantless eavesdropping. He proclaimed that "the next president must move immediately to reclaim America's standing in the world as a nation that cherishes and protects individual freedom and basic human rights."

What's notable about this speech, in my view, is that the points he's making go well beyond standard Democratic Party boilerplate on these issues. More revealingly, the rhetoric he used is rather unconstrained for Washington, suggestive of actual passion and conviction on these matters.

Sound promising to me. But we shall see.

For more on Holder (positive and negative reactions) see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/19/reaction-round-up-eric-ho_n_144996.html

It's About the Kids

As I read and watch the crazies who vehemently supported Proposition 8, the most overwhelming reasoning is that we must ban same-sex marriage for the sake of the children. Because kids with two dads or two moms will have "dysfunctional" upbringing. Well here are some of the Prop 8 campaign commercials... do you think these kids are being used (the young ones)?



To put such a cozy and innocent spin on a Proposition of Hate just seems wrong... this girl surely has no idea of what she is really doing... hopefully she'll look back in disgust of her parents:



I was going to let the Mormons get by this time without mention, but when I found out they used a theme song from the show LOST to put as the background of a loony Prop 8 commercial (loony because of the scripture... and because the LDS Church believes in magic underwear... and a man in the sky) I just had to rip on them:



Oh please, your scriptures are silly. And by the way, marriage was around long before religion was... and it's been changing throughout history. Religious people don't have a monopoly on social concerns of others, and they should have no say on state constitutions.

And to think, in England, it's actually an embarrassment for politicians to speak about their religion. Why? Because them Europeans actually understand that religion is insane!

PS: where's that black dude we just elected?

Wise Words

Dante once said that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a period of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.

-JFK


You're afraid of making mistakes. Don't be. Mistakes can be profited by. Man, when I was young I shoved my ignorance in people's faces. They beat me with sticks. By the time I was forty my blunt instrument had been honed to a fine cutting point for me. If you hide your ignorance, no one will hit you and you'll never learn.

-Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451


The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

-MLK

About Prop 8...

Those of you who read my 11/6 post know how revolutionary I believe the election of Obama is for the civil rights movement. The most white position of power in the world has gone black, and history has been... well you know. I've heard several black people on the news talk about how amazing it is to be able to say to their children: "Today, you can be anything you want to be." And this truly is amazing. But lest we forget, that on November 4, 2008, the gay community was told by mandate of the people, that they are to be society's lesser humans.

Why is it that the United States rejoiced in the glory of breaking such a monumental race barrier, yet largely ignored the passing of Proposition 8--the ballot initiative, which called for the banning of gay marriage in California? Furthermore, where was Barack Obama to promote this basic civil liberties cause? He could have reached out to those black and Hispanic communities that voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8--but he didn't. Obama should not be blamed, but he should have been there.

Not only did the most progressive state in the union vote against the rights of an entire people, but so did Florida, Arizona, and Arkansas. In fact, Arkansas banned gays from adopting! But what conclusions can be drawn from these staggering civil rights defeats? I am confident that the day will come when gay marriage is legalized once again (perhaps sooner rather than later), but it is quite clear that the nation is still overwhelmingly homophobic, and too many gays are fearful of advocating for their own cause (the No On Prop 8 campaign rarely even used the word).

What is good about Prop 8 is that it has sparked a bit of a national dialogue--not a very big one, but significant nonetheless. Protests in California are growing, and outrage amongst many prominent people in the straight community are voicing their opposition (see Keith Olbermann). The campaign against Prop 8 was poorly organized and largely ineffective in many communities (particularly black and Hispanic ones). But the proposition has also exposed another dastardly foe to civil rights: organized religion.

What organization provided the most support for Prop 8? The Mormon Church, of course. Perhaps the most discriminated religion in American history (the ironic part) has disregarded the plight of fellow human beings, and ensured the passing of this mandate of intolerance (providing nearly half of the funds). Organized religion claims they must protect the "sanctity of marriage," but we must remember that this "sanctity" once prohibited inter-racial marriage. It should be clear who is on the wrong side of this issue.

So what is the big deal about marriage exactly? Do gay people really "deserve to be miserable like the rest of us" (Bill Maher)? Well this issue really is not about "marriage" per se. It is about taking away the freedoms of people who are different. The ferocious campaign to take away given rights ought to disgust any decent person--and the hateful "Pro-8" celebrations that took place should be condemned by our society. But in the words of Kevin Sessums: "Race has always—up until this point—trumped sexual orientation as a socially accepted civil rights issue." This, I believe, will be a turning point of the LGBT rights movement--when the word "gay" entered the national conversation of civil liberties.

I heard Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (an opponent of Prop 8) say that the "people of Cali-forn-i-a have spoken"--that this is the nature of democracy, and the will of the majority. Well, is our court system not designed to protect the interests of minorities? If we operated under mob rule, how many millions would be disenfranchised? In this instance, it will be up to the courts to re-establish that majorities cannot determine the limitations of liberty upon minorities. Example: Brown v. Board of Education (the controversial ruling to desegregate schools).

But in closing, I have a question for those who believe in equality: are you a true advocate for the cause? To the minorities who have suffered throughout history, but have gained significantly in the past 50 years: do you feel no responsibility to stand with your brothers and sisters in their own quest for the Dream? Who are we to sanction freedom? Who are we to treat others as lesser beasts who must adhere to the law of religion and prejudice? I do not believe that I have been a good enough an advocate, but now is the time to endure... to pursue what is right and noble; for we must come together for the pursuit of happiness of all.

Do not be afraid. Be human.

Change.gov: Your Administration?

I know that I just posted something new, but something ELSE has just come up that ties in very nicely to what I was saying!

My post-election theme is grassroots organization and how important it is that we form a progressive coalition for true change.  Well, there is already a massive coalition in place--that being the Barack Obama campaign.  What I have just seen is change.gov-- a President-elect Obama site dedicated to citizen involvement and transparency on the transition.  This is extremely promising.

Here are some of the site's objectives:

• up-to-the-minute updates and information about all aspects of the transition
  
• offers an opportunity to be heard about the challenges our country faces and your ideas for tackling them
  
• people united around a common purpose can achieve great things
  
• innovative approaches to challenge the status quo in Washington and to bring about the kind of change America needs
  
• The story of bringing this country together as a healed and united nation will be led by President-Elect Obama, but written by you

The potential this has to truly change the face of democracy is staggering... I'm very excited.  We must keep a careful eye on this form of communication, and see how it develops.  Could this be the end of government secrecy?  Will this be the medium for progressives to push our vital agendas?  Will this be a way for the people to overpower the lobbyists and corporate power-hold on government?  Is this the next revolutionary step to create our perfect union?

We shall see.  The SkyeWire is on the case.

Unity, Organization, HOPE

Two months ago, Ron Paul appeared alongside Ralph Nader on CNN to discuss their plans for a third party/independent presidential debate.  The debate is irrelevant at this point, but I want to convey the united message that the two shared as a continuation of the message from my last post.

They agreed that immediate action must be taken on the following issues:

A.) Foreign Policy

-We do not want the empire! 

-We cannot afford the empire!

-No more unjust wars!

-Cut the outrageous military budget!

-The President cannot declare war without congressional approval (see Constitution)!

-Bring our military home!

B.) Civil Rights

-Abolish the Patriot Act!

-No more torture!

-Appeal FISA!

C.) Federal Deficit ($56 trillion)

-Stop using the deficit for reckless government adventurism!

-Control the spending!

D.) Reform or Abolish the Federal Reserve

-It is funded and controlled by the banks!

-Totally out of control!

So these are 4 issues that are critical to the survival of our country, and activists on all sides need to come together to push them into the Obama agenda.  Somehow the millions of activists around the country MUST come together for common cause.  People need to be thinking about this and leaders must begin establishing the framework for grassroots organization.  The Congress is only 535 people... they have lives and personalities just like you and me... they can be persuaded. Imagine the possibilities.  

But this week we rest to admire the remarkable history that has been made.  By electing a man whose ancestors we once called "slave," we have proven once again that the American Dream is real.  The age of cynicism and fear has come to an end, and the world can once again look to the United States as a beacon of hope and leadership.  We must remember that in no other place in the world could this have happened.  It is like the French electing a citizen of Algerian descent to their highest office!  Ce n'est pas possible!

Coming of age during perhaps the most cynical period of American history prevented me from recognizing why our country truly is special.  It is because of this nation's ability to change that gives me newfound hope.  Today let the world know that the United States can be better, and I believe will.  

And to the Americans who have been disenchanted by our nation's failures and betrayals: I ask you to believe once more in the Dream that is our legacy, and in the government that we cherish so deeply.  Do not let it fail.

Much work is ahead of us, but it can be done.

Next Steps: the November 5th Plan of Action!

November 4, 2008 is past, today is a new day with new challenges.  If you think that electing Barack Obama was the ultimate goal, you are so wrong.  Today ought to be a day of celebration, for history has been made.  Yes, just 7 years after the attacks of 9/11, we have elected a black man with the middle-name of "Hussein" as President of the United States.  What a monumental declaration!  But the game board has only been reset... now we must change the game altogether.

The purge of the Republican extremists and the Neo-Con philosophy has nearly come full circle.  No more Cheney.  No more Rove.  Bush will eventually be gone.  Today the progressives of America must begin the massive organization that will be necessary to enact true change.  For change is merely a political device if there is no pressure on the promises.

It is time for the millions who share common goals to unite and show how people can put democracy to action.  Yes, I am calling out to the democratic idealists, the environmentalists, the peace advocates, and the anti-imperialists to rise up together!  To the Ron Paul Revolutionaries and the Ralph Naderophiles, today is your day!  To the consumer advocates who fight the abuses of corporate power, the time is now!  To every single person who understands that our nation must radically reform our way of governing for there to be a future United States of America, it is time for your voices to be heard!!

What I am saying is that the energy of this amazing election must continue into a new era of populist activism.  If Obama doesn't have the mandate and the external push for change, he will not succeed as we all want him to--as the country needs him to.  Do not be fooled, readers of SkyeWire: there are very powerful forces that are against a new progressive era.  They supported Barack Obama because he ran an extremely moderate campaign... he was a safe bet.  But this must not stand.  Barack Obama promised MAJOR CHANGE, but he cannot do it without the political capital.  In other words, it is up to powerful and clever organization--based in grassroots--to come together on major issues and demand change.  The country has given the Democrats one last sweeping leap of faith--to let them try, once last time, to make good on their failed promises of the past 40 years.  Now we must hold them accountable.

So what to do?  I have some preliminary proposals, but these will obviously develop in the coming months and years.  

A.) Join the Revolution: yes, I am talking about Ron Paul's "Campaign for Liberty" ... You do not need to be a Libertarian to understand that the American Empire must come to an end, the tax system must be radically reformed, and civil liberty must take precedence!  Ron Paul's dark horse campaign showed that millions (liberals, conservative, moderates, etc.) are dissatisfied with what our nation has become, and to support this cause is noble.

B.) Join the November 5th movement: The final presidential campaign of Ralph Nader has become a major advocacy group dedicated to urging the Congress to pursue a progressive agenda and to fight the corporate stranglehold.   Based on the powerful idea of grassroots organization, November 5 calls upon citizens in the 435 congressional districts to fight for the next 100 days for major reform within the country's most powerful institution: the Congress.

C.) Be well informed: this does not mean CNN or FOX News This does not mean just CNN and FOX.  I am talking about developing a broader understanding of issues, which means expanding from your primary sources.  As citizens we must train ourselves to rely on solid and independent news sources in order to make sound judgements, while also keeping up on what the mainstream networks are saying.  Readers will see that to the left of the page, I have listed some of my favorite news sources... independent, liberal, conservative, and moderate ones alike.  The point is to have an open mind and not to dismiss certain sources based on bias.

D.) USE THE FRIGGIN INTERNET: Don't take my word for anything!  Solid information and organization is available on the internet if you are will to seek it out.  Connect with those who share your plight, communicate, and plan for action.  If people use this revolutionary resource to its fullest potential, they will discover that there are millions of like-minded activists.

There will be more in the coming days, but the main idea is that we mustn't relent from this grand opportunity to change the country and determine our future.  This thing ain't over!  We can still take back our country...it is within reach!  We now have an administration that is receptive to change... now we must follow through.  The fight will be long.  It will be demoralizing at times.  No one said democracy is easy, but in the words of Winston Churchill:

Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense.

With optimism and resolve.

I believe in Barack Obama, and I hope you can too

Today I want to specifically speak to those voters who are undecided or who feel fearful of an Obama presidency.

First of all, I do not know what will happen if Barack Obama becomes the next President of the United States. I do not know what his agenda will become, and I cannot tell you how his administration will unfold. As I wait for the impending day of final decision, the anticipation is incredible--the butterflies are swarming. How will the next President be able to set a new course for America? Renew the economy. Improve our moral standing in the world. Ensure domestic and human rights. Civil Liberties and safety. Inspiration and hope. The American Dream.

The American people have a mountain to climb as we attempt to find our place in this 21st Century. We must come to accept the fact that we will not forever be the global superpower. Concessions will have to be made. The world is getting smaller, and we must adjust. How will will rally to convert our carbon-based economy into a renewable green one? How will we bring a hault to U.S. aggression in foreign lands? And how can we make these changes while still maintaining our strength as a nation?

It is clear to most that a new direction is necessary. I cannot promise that Barack Obama is the one, but I will attempt to put this into somewhat of a historical perspective. People keep saying that "this election is the most important election of any of our lives." Is this true? Perhaps it is. I tend to believe it is. The costs have never been higher. The economic crisis, the climate crisis, and the foreign policy crisis have come together to create a desperate climate. But as the great leaders of the past have told us time and time again during desperate times: fear not. And the man telling us to have courage happens to be a skinny black man named Barack Obama.

On November 4, 2008, the American people will make the decision, and will determine the next chapter in the Amercan Legacy. People will look back on that date as a turning point--for better or for worse. I ask you all to consider: who is the man most likely to take us safely into the future? What side of history will you be on when this is all over and done with? 

Americans are a conservative people, in general.  By this I do not characterize a political persuasion, but more of an unwillingness to change unless change is truly necessary.  92% of the American people believe the country is on the wrong track.  Ron Paul ran on the platform of the "anti-Empire" and sparked a Revolution.  People are angry and ashamed.  They know we have gone off-course.  We have the desire.  We have the drive.  The candidate we need may be in front of our very eyes.  

Now we must take the leap of faith. 

No Takers? Well, I was on C-SPAN

Since there doesn't seem to be much interest in the questions posed in my previous post, I suppose I will move on, but I thought I'd show you my little spot on CSPAN from last week (below).  You see, this  important Ambassador came to Denison (my school), and spoke about the recent 6-party talks with North Korea (Christopher Hill--the leading diplomat to the Republic of Korea).  He said that much progress has been made--just this month, the North Koreans have agreed to replace the nuclear seals and continue the dismantling of their nuclear facilities.  

His talk gave me more optimism in our diplomatic skills--Hill spoke not as a politician, but as someone who has invested himself into the success of these talks.  To further this idea, I asked his what it meant to be and "enemy" of this country.  He begins his answer with "I think I know what you're getting at"--and I believe that was his way of acknowledging the "Axis of Evil" rhetoric that does not seem to help diplomatic efforts.

My hope was to get a little conversation started on the topic of enemies and evil before showing you the video... but perhaps Hill's response to my question will spark some critical thinking.  I'm working on cutting the clip onto YouTube, but for now you can see it here... just skip to the 33:34 timecode, and ignore my stuttering.

Here's a Question: I'd like to hear your thoughts

The terms "enemy" and "evil" are used quite often by government (and citizens) to characterize certain rogue elements and sovereign states.  During World War II, Nazi Germany was our (America's) enemy; the Cold War pitted us against the Soviet Union.  Today the world is a much different place, so perhaps some distinctions ought to be made to better understand it.

Some questions for readers: Who are our enemies today and why?  What is an enemy by today's standards versus those of the past?  Is this terminology the best way to approach

 international relations?  Is there a such thing as good and evil, and if so, what characterizes each?

Give your feedback on the discussion board, and after I get enough points of view, I'll draw some conclusions and post an analysis.

Please contribute (anonymously if you wish)!

Tragic W.

In his new film W., Oliver Stone has provided the world with a haunting portrayal of the 43rd Presidency of the United States and the man at the forefront of it.  It is tragic in the strictest sense, not only of the man who rises to greatness only to destroy his own family name, but also of the nation whose highest and most revered office has been ravaged by the forces that be.

As a young man Bush was a reckless party fiend who lived in the shadow of his father and brother.  Jeb was supposed to be president, but George, Jr. stepped up to the plate to prove he could be everything that his father said he could not--or so the film suggests.  It is hard to believe that George W. Bush's sole motivation to do what he has done was to prove something to his father (and in fact to be better), and perhaps no one will ever know, but these thoughts are surely an important part of the complexity of this man.  W. made me think of Bush as less of an idiot--he is not stupid; however, his ideology and arrogance make him simple-minded.  Bush has not expressed regret for his blunt policies, and does not seem to possess the sensitive reflections of an intellectual.  He is a blinded man who successfully surpassed his senior's legacy, but tarnished the Bush name and divided the country in the process.

There was a time when American presidents--popular or not--were respected for the sake of the Office. But something has changed. Perhaps it was the rise of 24 hour cable or possibly the growth of online media. I for one believe that it is more a matter of trust. Citizens no longer believe in the president as they have before. Too many of our leaders have disgraced the Office--lying to the public and engaging in disingenuous acts. While watching W. it was truly chilling to witness the meetings that took place in the lead up to the War in Iraq.  The Vice President's justification for the invasion was purely for geo-political gains--control over the world's oil, not terrorists or WMDs.  And when a skeptical Colin Powell asks to know the exit strategy, Cheney simply says, "There is no exit strategy."

W. is empathetic in its portrayal of Bush, and Stone's script and dramatic film techniques make it more that just a biopicture.  This is an epic tragedy in the tradition of Oedipus and Hamlet.  It is the story of a man who captured the American imagination and divided the country.  Nothing will ever be the same after George W. Bush--no matter who is president.

I Saw and Talked to Biden: Here's Proof!

Yes, that is me with Senator Joe Biden, candidate for VP of the United States.  Very cool moment!  

Shortly after I had him take the picture with me (this is in Newark, Ohio btw) he said to another person who wanted a pic: "Tell this guy to take it."--referring to me.  

As I was taking the picture, I knew I had to ask a question... I had prepared an in depth and broad question to ask if given the opportunity with a microphone.  Unfortunately, it wasn't that kind of town hall meeting, so in the midst of the bustling crowd of Democrats, I spontaneously said: "Joe!  Please tell me you're gonna end American Imperialism!"

He answered: "Well, I don't think we're imperialist, but we will get out of Iraq."  

Okay, decent answer, but I regretted how I phrased the question.  I should have asked: "Joe, please tell me you're gonna end American militarism."  Because a.) Imperialism is too loaded of a word and debatable, and b.) militarism directly refers to the military-industrial complex, which is more of a tangible phenomenon (the one that Eisenhower talked about).  

But I was satisfied enough.

Cynicism for Obamanation

The Obama fervor is fairly strong here on campus, so I thought I should inject a little realism into the conversation by posting the following in our school paper (you may recognize the quote):

Former New York Times reporter recently wrote this forward thinking and realistic assessment of our current political predicament:

"I place no hope in Obama or the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is a pathetic example of liberal, bourgeois impotence, hypocrisy and complacency. It has been bought off. I will vote, if only as a form of protest against our corporate state and an homage to Polanyi's brilliance, for Ralph Nader. I would like to offer hope, but it is more important to be a realist. No ethic or act of resistance is worth anything if it is not based on the real. And the real, I am afraid, does not look good."

I am voting for Barack Obama, but I know that I should be voting for Nader. I suppose it is the fluffy hope that Obama speaks of in his carefully crafted speeches... the idea that Obama could be a third party in disguise. If the fact that Nader is on 45 state ballots and was STILL restricted from the debates does not set off red flags in your mind, you must be truly blinded. But if there is not radical reform of our government, then this country is going to become a lot more pathetic... maybe even dangerous. The corruption has permeated all aspects of the legislative, executive and judicial. The empire is out of control.

Eventually there will be a call to arms to end the corporatocracy and dismantle the military industrial complex (look it up)... to restore the integrity of the Republic. The people forgot Vietnam and did not feel the Iraq War, but they will feel the next one, and when they start to suffer, they will cry out for another Ralph Nader, Mike Gravel, or Ron Paul. Till then and beyond we must take after the Founding Fathers and be skeptical of those who rule, and take action when they become incompetent.

Later today I'll be seeing Joe Biden speak in Newark, OH... hopefully I'll get to ask him a good question.  Will report later.

Just a Quote

Today I will leave you with just a quote as food for thought.  It was written by former New York Times reporter Chris Hedges:

"I place no hope in Obama or the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is a pathetic example of liberal, bourgeois impotence, hypocrisy and complacency. It has been bought off. I will vote, if only as a form of protest against our corporate state and an homage to Polanyi's brilliance, for Ralph Nader. I would like to offer hope, but it is more important to be a realist. No ethic or act of resistance is worth anything if it is not based on the real. And the real, I am afraid, does not look good."

Absorb and reflect.

Intellectual Elitism is Bad?

Since when did being an "intellectual" become such a negative aspect of our leaders? When I have surgery done, I want the best and the brightest--not just some guy or gal who is likable.  The same should go for running the country, right?  But John Kerry was lambasted for being too much of a "liberal" intellectual, and the cowboy ended up winning that one. In David Brooks' NYT Op-ed, he explains that:

The Republicans have alienated whole professions.  Lawyers now donate to the Democratic Party over the Republican Party at 4-to-1 rates. With doctors, it’s 2-to-1. With tech executives, it’s 5-to-1. With investment bankers, it’s 2-to-1. It took talent for Republicans to lose the banking community.

Yes, the smart people are now with the Democrats, but only because the Republican party alienated their intellectuals.  Republicans have sought out to capture the "average Joe" voter by nominating very "average" people.  Social-conservatism is not progressive or forward thinking, but it is what many people cling to.  Obama was correct when he saidthat people turn to "guns and religion" largely due to economic woes--after all, religion is the "opiate of the masses."  But Obama was slammed for the remark, and was portrayed as someone who worships his own superiority and wisdom, and looks down on the common man.

It's really too bad that intellectualism has been given the cold shoulder because there are many brilliant conservatives--I know some myself.  But they have been abandoned by their base, and now grudgingly trot along behind their mediocre ticket.  

If you look back

 at some of the greatest American statesmen, you will find that they were men who were well informed, well educated, and well versed in literature.  They were philosophers and visionaries.  From the Founding Fathers to Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR.  They were masters of policy and diplomacy.  Their wisdom celebrated the dynamism of knowledge, and was their source of strength.  

Now we have Sarah Palin. 

Closing the World Markets?!

Berlusconi Says Leaders May Close World's Markets (Update1)
By Steve Scherer

Oct. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said political leaders are discussing the idea of closing the world's financial markets while they ``rewrite the rules of international finance.''

``The idea of suspending the markets for the time it takes to rewrite the rules is being discussed,'' Berlusconi said today after a Cabinet meeting in Naples, Italy. A solution to the financial crisis ``can't just be for one country, or even just for Europe, but global.''

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell as much 8.1 percent in early trading and pared most of those losses after Berlusconi's remarks. The Dow was down 0.5 percent to 8540.52 at 10:10 in New York.

Group of Seven finance ministers and central bankers are meeting in Washington today, and will stay in town for the International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings this weekend. European Union leaders may gather in Paris on Oct. 12, three days before a scheduled summit in Brussels, Berlusconi said today, while Group of Eight leaders may hold a meeting on the crisis ``in coming days,'' he said.

Berlusconi didn't give any details about what kind of rules leaders were looking to change, except to say that leaders are ``talking about a new Bretton Woods.''

The Bretton Woods Agreements were adopted to rebuild the international economic system after World War II in a hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. The aim of the agreements was to establish a monetary management system, initially by pegging currencies to gold. The IMF was set up later to help manage the international financial system.

To contact the reporter on this story: Steve Scherer in Rome at scherer@bloomberg.net

Information Overload!!

While I love how far technology has come in this digital information age, it has also become one of the greatest distractions of our time.  Social connectivity and the infinite wealth of knowledge can really take people away from their work (for me, studying).  For anyone struggling with this issue, check out this article, which has some strategies on how to train yourself to balance work with distractions.

There is also an official Information Overload Research Group, which seeks to help businesses fight information pollution.  Pretty interesting.  

But now I'm shutting off my email, Facebook, IM, and blog... got to work.  Peace.

UPDATE: Just found out that Cousin Max blogged on this very subject!  

Drudge: "BORING"

Immediately after watching the second hum-drum presidential debate last night, I checked out Drudge Report to see if Matt Drudge felt the same way; sure enough, the headline simply read: "BORING."

Why in one of the most turbulent and terrifying times in this country's history can our presidential hopefuls be so uninspiring? It is clear that the public debate format has been carefully crafted in order to keep the candidates within their safe zones, but that is not what we need right now.  We need rules and moderators who will push the candidates and call them out.  We need to break the barrier of generality, and delve into the heart of such important affairs.  But most of all, we need a different perspective.

Yes, I'm back to the third party rant, but after seeing these establishment candidates "duke it out" once again, I do not believe anyone would disagree that there must be another side to these issues.  Independents and third party candidates provide much needed insight, and keep the others on their toes.  It is truly tragic that the rules of the system prevent such a dynamic.  Don't Americans want more choice?  Or does it just not matter?

More Voices, More Choices!

What Palin Proved

Tonight I had the pleasure of having dinner with Norman Ornstein, an esteemed fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (a conservative think-tank in Washington). His conversation at dinner was interesting, and he provided some good insight on my questions for him, but I'd like to talk a little bit about what he had to say about the first presidential debate, and what he had to say after watching the VP debate tonight (after his lecture with another Political Scientist named Thomas Mann, he watched the debate with us).

He explained that the pundits got it all wrong in their analysis of the first debate. The media's narrative was about who won the most 'debate points.' Many argued that John McCain was a stronger debater, particularly on foreign policy, but that Obama held his own. Ornstein explained that the debate wasn't about John McCain at all in fact. It was all about Obama proving to voters that he could be presidential, and he succeeded. No one doubted John McCain's knowledge on the issues, or even his experience. But Obama had to provide the image that he could be the man to lead the country.

In that respect, Obama won the debate.

Tonight, however, the tables were turned as all eyes turned to Sarah Palin--the great big question mark of this campaign. What Palin had to prove tonight had nothing to do with her in actuality. It had to do with John McCain and his judgment. Did McCain take a reckless risk in choosing the governor? In this respect, John McCain won because Palin held her ground, and even when she was clearly dodging the question, did it with a certain grace. The point is that Palin didn't screw up. She didn't give us that moment we had all been waiting for. Tonight Palin strongly defended John McCain's judgement (by performing well), and certainly provided much relief for the campaign.

However, both Mann and Ornstein projected a handy Obama victory unless something catastrophic happened. There are only 32 days left until the election, but something could easily happen in that amount of time.

With all that said, I'll just point out that the real winners of these debates are the military-industrialists and militarism, nuclear power, corporate crime and the bailout. The losers?

The Bailout Passed, but Check this Out!

Yes, the new bailout passed in the Senate, and tomorrow it goes to the House for a vote. My uncle brought my attention to this petition ... basically a bunch of the nation's leading economists came together to say that the bailout is a terrible idea: that is, it will disrupt the markets long term, it is unfair to the taxpayers, and it's really shady (they say ambiguous). Essentially what I said before (I think), but this time from experts!

But those in power will do what they want. If they want to go to war against a random country for trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives, they will. If they want to give $700 billion to their Wall Street friends and co-workers, they will. If those from within commit crimes, the investigations (if any) will be insufficient and false. This is the age-old story of government.

PS: Obama, McCain, and Biden all voted for the bailout ... I think we all know why.

PPS: Palin showed up to vote, but was told she couldn't.

My Thoughts on the Bailout

Full disclosure: I don't understand the economy like I should (though I'm working on it), but I have been carefully listening to various explanations of what is going on, and what should be done--in fact, the more I read about it, the more I understand that most people don't get it either.

I was watching C-SPAN the other day (we had to for class... seriously), and this Senator from ND named Byron Dorgan was talking about this thing called the Glass-Steagall Act, which was repealed in 1999 (when the Senate voted for the further deregulation of the banks and end of GS, Dorgan said: "I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this, but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past... and that that which is true in the 1930s is true in 2010.")

In response to the Wall Street crash of 1929 and the resulting banking failures of the Depression, the U.S. government implemented a series of bank regulations within the Glass-Steagall Act. It created the Federal Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and introduced reforms that were to control speculation. Basically what it did was separate "banks that did risky investing from those that did basic lending" (NYT). Without the regulations, firms began taking bad mortgages and risking lenders' money. When the value of houses went down, the banks were stuck with all these mortgages, etc. etc.... And my understanding quickly dissipates from there (it's much more fun to discuss foreign policy!).

But essentially Glass-Steagall divided the banks into the safe banks that the public could depend on to be consistent, and the risk-taking banks who were allowed to make reckless investments. When this divide was eliminated, all the banks started taking huge risks with your money, and now it's all going to hell.

So the first bailout plan was 4 pages long and called for the Congress to hand over $700 billion to the Wall Street honchos to save their tails, no questions asked--thereby rescuing "Main Street" (what they are calling the common folk). The second one was longer, but still involved giving $700 billion to the same guys who got us into this mess. Granted I don't have a great grasp on all of the technicalities, but this seems REALLY SHADY. I really think that the federal government is being exposed for what it truly is: the Wall Street government. They reap in billions as a result of the criminal and disastrous Iraq War, and now they are trying to make out like bandits by getting a free pass for their reckless actions. When the Treasury Secretary is a former Golman Sachs exec, and the EPA is headed by energy company execs, something has gone terribly wrong.

When did our government become dominated by the selfish elitists? How did they take it from us? More importantly, what happened the last time Americans were abused by their rich minority leadership?

The Bailout: Corporate Socialism?

I'll be posting an essay soon (later tonight or tomorrow). In the meantime, check out these pieces on the bailout:

Watch this informative report ... I had imbedded it, but it would continuously play automatically... quite annoying.

Then watch Nader below!

Nader on the Corporate Bailout

Here is some interesting insight on the corporate bailout plan from our good friend, Ralph Nader:



What do you think?

Religion: Update and Reflections

UPDATE AND REFLECTIONS on Religion Post (9/08/08):

This post certainly stirred some debate and controversy, which I believe is part of healthy discourse. After several days of reflection, however, I'd just like to bring my thoughts back to earth.

Let me be clear: the fact that I find religion silly, does not mean that I don't respect an individual's choice to subscribe to a particular belief. I was a believer for a long time, and I am far from certain that there is nothing out there. But I will say that even if there is a higher being of some sort, is there not some point where everything just is? In other words, even if there is a god or Flying Spaghetti Monster, isn't there a line where there is nothing higher, and everything just exists for existence's sake?

Who knows, really?

Furthermore, while I am happy that I shared my opinions on religion, I should have emphasized the more important and vital aspect of it: that religion is being used by the powerful to influence the masses into going along and supporting their plots for increased (albeit short-term) power and wealth. The masterminds of the Bush Administration are not motivated purely by zealotry (though they may be in part), but by gaining strategic power and economic supremacy in the world.

Why Obama? Answer: Ending the Empire

Those who know me, know that the presidential candidate whom I supported has long been out of the competition. I'd say that I now align mostly with Ralph Nader (on the ballot in 45 states, by the way), but despite my inner urges, I will not be voting for him come November.

First, however, allow me to give an overview of how broken our electoral system is. First of all, 2 presidential elections have gone against the popular vote--in other words, the minority electoral college decides who wins, not the people. But the most important aspect of any election is the visibility of the debates. When Jesse Ventura was polling in the single digits during the race for governorship of Minnesota, there didn't seem to be much hope for the former pro-wrestler. Then he got into the debates, and bingo! Ventura connected with voters and ultimately won the race. Why was Nader forbidden to be a part of the debates of 2000 and 2004? Because the Commission of Presidential Debates is run by former Party heads--the Dems and Republicans. If you get into the debates, you have a real shot at winning, and the 2 party monopoly is not going to allow that to happen.

Despite Nader's efforts, I am confident that he will not be speaking at the debates, which is why I turn to Barack. As his public platform currently stands, Obama will be another status quo president who sold out to the military-industrial complex, which Eisenhower warned us so direly to avoid. His plans to increase military spending, grow the armed forces, and revamp efforts to develop new military technology simply feed into the United States Empire, and will be our downfall.

It is my hope that Obama is lying that I will be voting for him. That sounds really sad, actually ... that we are in a situation where we vote in anticipation for deception. Watch this video from early on in the Obama campaign (before he started going "centrist"):

This is promising, but I don't hear that anymore. If you check out his website, you can read all about his imperial policies. But I get it.  He has run with these kinds of policies.  After all, candidates who try to appeal more to the left tend to lose elections (though I would argue this is not a 'left' issue).  But I just pray that Obama has not lost himself in this campaign.  That he won't be like the others, and will scale the empire back.  The American people did not feel the Iraq War, but they are starting to.  And they will feel the next one.  If Obama is like the others (i.e., almost every president after WWII), I will be done with this sort of politics.  I will not throw my vote away ever again, and I will go the other way.

Americans will start to get it eventually.  The responsibility for change lies in government and the people.  When government fails, the Founding Fathers charged the people with fixing it.  Let me remind you:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

--The Declaration of Independence, 1776

The Conclusion: Iran, Iraq, and the United States Post 2003 part 7

For those of you who have been following this paper, thanks! It took a long time and a lot of research. If you'd like to read the whole thing, or to look at my Works Cited, go HERE. Also, I'd like to know how people liked the essay. Was it interesting enough? Did it help broaden your understanding in any way? Give it a rating and a comment if you want! Well here it is... the conclusion:

...With respect to the United States’ position towards Iran and its affairs with Iraq, the situation is quite complex. The neoconservative mission to establish regime change in Iran is certainly coming to odds against the idea that Iran is going to be a prolonged and even vital part of the future of Iraq. It seems as though the neoconservatives did not anticipate that the regime change in Iraq would drastically change the regional situation and make Iran more of a necessary force. Whether or not this fact will put a hold on the agenda is another matter.

It seems that Iran would not have much of a purpose to support insurgency efforts directed at undermining the Iranian-backed Iraqi government, no matter what U.S. officials may say—there is no solid evidence, and it is not a reasonable assumption. It is true that Iranian weapons are being used by people outside the “circle of Iranian and U.S. allies, but that doesn’t prove people’s loyalities. Saying that al-Sadr is loyal to Iran because his militias had some Iranian missiles is equivalent to saying that … [he] is loyal to the Soviet Union because they had some AK-47s.”[41]

But even if the Iranians were supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents, on what basis does the United States have the right to criticize? The U.S. preemptively invaded a sovereign nation, and is now an occupying force—Noam Chomsky says that in that situation, “you can’t have a serious discussion on whether or not someone else is interfering.”[42] It is a matter of imperial arrogance that drives this policy—the neoconservative belief in a new Middle East that is pro-United States. As a neighboring country, Iran certainly has more at stake in the future stability of the region—and that is a fact that should be respected. Iran will continue to be a vital presence in the future of Iraq, and the United States can either maintain its drumbeat towards another war, or it can turn to Iran for help in re-stabilizing the region that it so disrupted.