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?