Shared Sacrifice and Social Responsibility

There are times in history where people are faced with the choices that determine the future of their civilization. The Greeks chose leaders who espoused the ideals of democracy but acted like the dictators they so apparently despised. The Romans fell victim to greed and unfettered expansion that bankrupted their empire. The colonial Americans took arms against the greatest empire the world had ever seen for the sake of ideals and almost nothing else. These choices can can propel people to greatness or doom them to the criticism of historians.

The United States has faced these choices in the past. Astoundingly we have made the correct choices a majority of the time. We abolished slavery, embraced civil rights, and defeated the ambitions of leaders who wanted to conquer the world. And each of those decisions were rooted in the preservation of our ideals. The ideals that were expressed in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution. They were eloquently advocated by our forefathers in the Federalist Papers and confirmed by de Tocqueville half a century later. Each generation's conviction to those ideals have been tested. Except our own, until now.

Electing an African American president is not the endgame in our pursuit of a more perfect union. It may be a testament to how far the Civil Rights Movement reached and how much of a premium our generation has put on merit based achievement, but we haven't had to sacrifice anything on our journey. We've been given everything we want and have been told that we can have whatever we want. Our generation defines success not in leadership, responsibility, or sacrifice, but by the amount of dollars we earn. We define our achievements in terms of the cars we drive, the clothes we wear, and the success of our investment portfolios.

Our generation is starting out with less than our parents. Social security and the welfare system that our grandparents have relied on for financial security is nearly bankrupt. We will have to rely on ourselves more than any American generation in the past. But we can't do it alone. We cannot succeed on individual greed and solitary achievement. We cannot blame the government for all our ills and then shrug our shoulders in apathy at the same time. Change doesn't come merely by casting a ballot. As President Obama said on Tuesday night:

"This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice. So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other."

We must redefine the American dream to fit the strugges of our generation. We cannot be content with living our day to day lives doing something we hate merely to earn a dollar and exist in the limbo of mediocrity. Our generation needs to strive for something more than the 2 car garage house and a 40 hour workweek. We need to realize that the true spirit of patriotism is working to improve the country we live in and the lives of its citizens. As JFK so eloquently put it: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

What use is a mediocre corporate salary when there is no satisfaction that accompanies it? What is life when you help nobody but yourself? The need to survive is understandable, but that need doesn't involve a high definition television or a fancy foreign sports car. It doesn't involve the rampant consumerism and reckless disregard for financial propriety that plague us. It involves the idea that we all have to sacrifice something to make the world we live in a better place. It involves taking responsibility for the shortcomings of our social structure and doing something, anything, to remedy it.

These aren't the tenants of socialism or communism but the basic principles behind the social contract we subscribe to by being citizens of the United States. They are the adhesive that binds us to the ideals of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. President Obama's message isn't that he is some sort of messiah promising to lead us out of the cave and into the light. His message is that we have to take the reins of leadership into our own hands in order to fix the problems that this country faces and that we complain about incessantly. We have to abandon the poverty of ambition that has befallen our generation and take arms to fight for something greater: the idea that we rise and fall together, as one.

That is the choice our generation and our successors face. That is what will propel us into the annals of greatness or throw us to the wolves of historic criticism. We are being tested on the same measure as our forefathers were, on our convictions to the ideals of the founding fathers. Let's hope we don't disappoint.

Thank You Senator, But I Respectfully Disagree

As you've probably figured out by now, I'm pretty biased to the left and there is hardly any love for me to lose for the Republicans. I've supported Senator Obama since the early primary season for president and continue to do so through election day. However, I have some disagreements with two of Obama's policies which I find troubling.

The first, and foremost, is the protection of the free market economy. Although that sentence used "protection" and "free market" in the span of a few words, it actually makes sense. Senator Obama, and McCain for that matter, have both spit the words of populism from the pulpit this entire election season. Its all about the middle class, protecting domestic jobs, and doing what is best for main street. Its one way of getting elected, but not the method of governance that I'd agree with.

With respect to the markets, I'm very confident that an Obama presidency will not create protectionist barriers on its own accord. If the rest of the world, reeling from the global financial crisis, were to engage in protectionism, he may have no choice but to do so as well. However, many developing nations and the EU make a living off the globalized economy and wouldn't dare think about protecting domestic markets at the cost of export sales. The only economic policy I worry about from the Obama administration is providing tax incentives to keep jobs in the United States. In other words, create a tax penalty for outsourcing jobs.

Outsourcing gets a bad name around these parts because we view it as stealing domestic jobs. However, what we don't see is the decrease in prices that outsourcing brings to the consumer. Now, I'm no proponent of trickle down, but when a company finds cheaper labor, they will reduce prices and still make a hefty profit. This is fact. Every industry that has outsourced its product has seen a fall in real prices over the past 8 years. Those that are forced to remain domestic (college tuition, movie tickets, etc.) have gone up in real cost. If we are to advance as an economy we must create jobs that former laborers could perform and high tech jobs that pay better wages.

Senator Obama is completely correct in asserting that government needs to take a role in job creation over the next few years. With recession looming large, it is imperative to run a small budget deficit to institute Keynsian adjustments. The private industry isn't going to fix roads, build schools, or redesign the power grid to send renewable power to population centers. Infrastructure and education have always been charges of the state. The government needs to start programs that rebuild roads and the power grid. These require the type of skills that former auto and factory workers have. We can employ the currently unemployed.

As we provide jobs for the industrial generation that preceded us, we should also foster the service industry that follows. The government needs to take a better role in educating the youth of this country. Senator Obama has placed education at the forefront of his political agenda. He plans to invest in early childhood education so that no child enters elementary schools with deficient skills. He wants to give teachers better pay and hold them to higher standards. This is all very good but Senator Obama also prescribes to the culture of poverty. This is something that needs to fundamentally change in our country's view of education.

The culture of poverty states that people from low income backgrounds don't care about education because there is no value placed on it. Parents don't care because they fail to show up to conferences and students don't care because parents don't show an interest. As a result, teachers stop caring about the educational welfare of their students because they feel helpless. Why should I try to teach these kids when they come to class already not caring? The culture of poverty has been proven as a statistical myth.

Senator Obama wants to be paternalistic and impress upon the families of poor students the value of education. Although this is estimable, it isn't very practical. Most of the time parents in low income neighborhoods don't go to conferences or "don't show interest" in their kid's education because they just don't have the time. These people are usually single parents who work multiple jobs in order to make a living wage. They cannot risk getting fired to attend school functions because the jobs they have are in demand in their neighborhood. If they miss work, there is always someone else to take their spot. The just cannot afford to care.

The government should place stricter guidelines on teachers to meet so that they simply don't give up on teaching children. When low income students are asked what their biggest gripe about school is, they overwhelmingly say that they aren't challenged enough . The teachers just don't teach them anything worth learning. When the teachers take that away, then there is no point in coming to school anymore. If the students think they are wasting 8 hours of their day at school, then they simply won't show up and can end up on the street or in jail. So unless we can enact some sort of overarching socioeconomic reform, the government needs to focus more on teaching and less on values.

Ray Bradbury is Still Relevant

I've recently made it a priority in my life to start reading more fiction. I'm sick of endlessly reading the New York Times and the Economist in a futile attempt to stay up to date on government and politics. Not only is it the reiteration of facts on a daily or weekly basis, but reading the news doesn't necessarily facilitate thought. I never really expected it to, but I expected it to at least keep my brain active. Apparently, that isn't the case. Reading facts, and even opinion, can't stimulate the thought required to maintain a keen mind. The words are either telling you stuff that you should remember or telling you how to think. There isn't any work being done or creative thought being spurned. So I decided to introduce more fiction onto the plate.

I decided to start off with a shorter book. I wasn't going to jump into Joyce or Faulker without something to warm up on. Hell, I'm not sure I could have finished Ulysses in college when my reading skills were at their summit. Anyway, I started with Fahrenheit 451 by science fiction writer Ray Bradbury. It was only about 150 pages and I remember reading it in high school but not really retaining anything. It didn't resonate with me like books such as A Brave New World or The Great Gatsby. Part of the reason may have been that the subject matter wasn't relevant to me then. But the more likely answer is that I really didn't care or was too ignorant to appreciate Bradbury's work.

The first thing that struck me was Bradbury's prose. He has a special talent for presenting writing that is smooth and quick while also being descriptive. The dialogue between characters flows without much interruption and is quite adept at developing the characters. Needless to say, Bradbury is considered a great writer for a reason. But I'm not qualified to critique a novelist, and this wasn't meant to be a book review.

The second, and more important, thing that struck me was the subject matter of the novel. Bradbury constructed a world where people burn books because they have been found to facilitate thought and therefore take away from communal happiness. The people of Bradbury (dis)utopia are constantly entertained and move so fast that thinking is an afterthought. They constantly listen to radio shows through earpieces, drive at excessive speed in order to concentrate on survival rather than wander in thought, and watch TV on their walls. Sound familiar? Depends on your perspective on the world I guess.

The Atlantic Monthly wrote an article this past summer asking "Is Google Making Us Stoopid". Are we so engorged in a culture of instant gratification that we fail to have deep discussions with each other? Does the instant acquisition of information through the internet take away from the depth of knowledge that we attain? All these are pretty fair questions of society at present. Everywhere I go people are playing games, listening to music, talking mindlessly to others, or playing games on little gadgets. It seems like nobody just takes time out to think anymore.

Bradbury assaults this phenomenon directly. Its quite impressive for a novel that was written in the 1950s before the Internet and telecommunications age. His ancillary characters are so preoccupied by stuff that elitists would consider trivial. The main character's wife constantly talks about her TV shows with her friends and refuses to acknowledge anything else. They talk of war like its some distant subject that doesn't affect them (even though one of the characters' husband at war). The society that Bradbury portrays is one of trivial selfishness. They have a false sense of happiness through ignorance of anything but their own lives. They don't worry about others or anything that goes on outside their television parlor. And ultimately, they are nothing more than drones living their lives at the mercy of consumerism and sleeping pills.

Hopefully we aren't falling into Bradbury's world. Sometimes I wonder.
____________________________________________________________________

I found it satisfyingly ironic that my first novel in my fiction renaissance dealt with consequences of society without books and thought. Here I was worrying about becoming stupid because I wasn't reading books and the first book I read told me my assumption was correct. Bradbury's has inspired me to read what are considered the best fiction novels of all time. I'm going to use this list by Random House to determine what those are. The first one? You guessed it...Ulysses.

The Death of the GOP

A few months ago I wrote about the possible death of the Democratic Party due to the divisive nature of the primary campaign. However, the party seems to have coalesced nicely and any animosity has been marginalized. While watching this campaign play out, it has become increasingly apparent to me that the Democrats, in fact, can achieve Jesse Jackson's dream of a rainbow coalition. They have a broad appeal and an inclusive culture that seemingly fights for the everyman, instead of pretending to be the everyman. The latter of which is what the Republicans do.

The McCain campaign this past week has decided to intensify its attacks on Senator Obama by bringing up his relationship with radical domestic terrorist William Ayers. Apparently Ayers held a housewarming party for Obama when the latter was running for state senate. They live in the same neighborhood and have been involved on some educational committees within that community. Ayer's last bombing, or bombing by his group the Weather Underground, occurred when Obama was eight years old.

So the connection is pretty tenuous. Ayers has since become a professor at the University of Chicago and Chicago citizen of the year. Apparently the entire city of Chicago are terrorist sympathizers. However, none of this stops the Republicans from attacking Senator Obama for the association. And in turn, they risk unleashing a culture clash that may ultimately destroy their party.

If you noticed the television during the Republican convention, there was an abundance of one thing. Old white people. And, conversly, the lack of another - minorities and young people. Maybe the young people there looked older because they wore khakis and old man shirts. Anyway, what became apparent is that the GOP is a dying breed. Minorities will outnumber the white majority by 2030 or so. But party association by racial lines is not the Republican Party's direst threat.

This culture war that the Republicans have played since the era of Nixon is finally beginning to catch up with them. The GOP has, for the past 40 years, prospered on the disdain of the elite intellectual class, aka the college educated bunch. They have espoused "small town values" (whatever that means) at the cost of appealing to the educated person. By making smart people look stupid, the GOP has alienated a good portion of its base. Lawyers now donate to the Democrats at a 4 to 1 ratio over the GOP. Doctors and bankers are at 2 to 1. Yes, bankers! How the GOP managed to do that, well I'll tell you.

Every time Sarah Palin talks about Senator Obama hating American because he "palls around with terrorists", she gets an standing ovation from her crowd (along with yells of "Kill Him!" and racial epithets thrown at black members of the press corps). Sure, this may fire up the base and get a positive response from the people who vote Republican because its the party of Jesus, but it makes the GOP the party of the redneck. And that has as much appeal to professional people as going to college has to rednecks. It is self defeating. The GOP has aliented the educated regions of the United States. But they are also alienating another branch of American society.

Whatever populist rhetoric the GOP puts out there this campaign season, it is completely countered by their history and policies. They speak fighting for the common family but only cut taxes for the very wealthy. They talk about providing jobs for "Joe Six Pack" (whoever that is) yet provide tax incentives for outsourcing (which I agree with as sound macroeconomic principle but is still a valid example of hypocrisy). The truth is that the GOP is held hostage to the principles of big business. They adhere to the failed Reagan policy of "trickle down economics" where tax cuts and benefits to the very wealthy somehow will translate into more opportunities for the middle class. With economics such a huge issue in this election, the middle class are paying more attention to these policies and are moving away from the GOP.

The GOP basically disdains the culture of the educated class yet provides policies that are tailored to those same people. They espouse the values of small town America in election years but fail to support their needs when in office. They appeal to prejudice and fear to fire up their base, yet do nothing to allay fears from minorities and "liberals". This is a very dangerous path the GOP and the McCain camp are choosing to walk. By unleashing the tide of a culture war, they not only threaten their very existence, but threaten any racial and civil harmony this country has built during the latter half of the 20th century.

The End of an Era: The Financial Crisis and the Washington Consensus

Since the end of the second world war, the United States has been the primary source of economic and military might throughout the world. The Soviet Union was a worth challenger for a portion of the Cold War but ultimately doomed to failure due to its strict adherence to Communist philosophy. During that time, the United States formulated the policy of Containment which sought to bolster any regime willing to oppose Soviet influence. This, theoretically, would prevent the spread of the Red Scare and avoid direct confrontation with the Soviet Union. To achieve such an end, the United States provided almost unlimited funds to nations in exchange for economic concessions. After the Cold War and into the era of globalization, there were political concessions involved with nation building. This was the Washington Consensus.

The Washington Consensus was a cornerstone of US foreign policy during and immediately after the decline of the Soviet Union. Western leadership believed that open markets would necessarily translate to open politics, also knows and democracy. Essentially, the European Union's path to membership is a successful heir to the Washington Consensus. The goal was to bring developing nations under Washington's umbrella through economic integration. The United States and the Bretton Woods institutions, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), would essential loan nations money on certain conditions. Usually these conditions required low tariffs, free trade agreements, low interest rates, and a transparent political system.

There was no inherent problem with the ideas behind the Consensus. However, its implementation had mixed results. When a nation applied the tenements of the plan, their markets usually grew very quickly. In fact it resulted in hypercapitalism, or, rapid growth with little restraint. This looks great on paper and on government fiscal statistics, but it wreaks havoc socially. The result of this quick capitalsim was that it actually increased the income gap in already divided developing countries. Although the poor were getting richer, they were getting richer at a slower rate than the already rich. So while a poor Argentine could now afford a car, the wealthy class bought planes and influenced politics. This inequity in income led to social movements across many of the nations that implemented the Washington Consensus. The result is the leftist movement, with anti Americanism, sweeping South America.

That was the first knell sounded for the Consensus. The second was the success of economies that rejected Washington's plan. China refused to take part in the trade liberalization that Washington demanded. Instead they devised an authoritarian capitalist model that succeeded on tight corporate regulation and government directed growth. This ran almost completely counter to Washington. The Chinese took their economic growth slowly and carefully integrated their markets in to the world's financial system. Their economy succeeded because the government has absolute power and can direct spending any way it wants. The difference between the Chinese and nationalized movements of the past was that the Chinese understood how to use capitalist markets to make money efficiently. They were brutal in implementation and profitable in result.

This is not an advocacy of the Chinese model of growth. However, it is an example of a nation that has become, in less that 15 years, an economic powerhouse by following exactly the opposite of what the Washington Consensus demanded. A counter to the Chinese model is the Indian model. India actually implemented all the provisions of the Washington Consensus and has succeeded in becoming the fastest growing nation in the developing world. However, their revolution is one that comes from the people instead of from the government. It is bottom up as opposed to top down. The social and political change that hypercapitalism brought upon India has forced the government to listen to the people and adapt to their needs intead of manipulating the people and making them adapt to the will of the government. The enormous beauracracy and slow moving democratic process in India actually helps the country remain stable and adopt to changes as they occur. Success stories like India's are very rare. It only proves that the Washington Consensus can really only work in nations were democracy is practiced and its values are revered. That is why the type of capitalism espoused by Washington works in the United States and India. They share the same democratic values.

The success of China and the petroeconomies (Russia, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia) has given the world another model to strive for: authoritarian capitalism (or, facism). What is interesting is that these models, for the majority, are based on the sale of one commodity, oil. The petro nations are the beneficiaries of the ultimate cash crop. However, their economies are a house of cards compared to the likes of China, India, and Brazil. Once the reliance on oil weakens, or the market price goes down, these economies will face fiscal crisis. They already spend too much of the profits on government spending and not enough on corporate development. This means that while Russia uses its profits from oil to build tanks, Gazprom can't afford to develop new natural gas or oil fields. China uses corporate profits to expand and develop their industries instead of solely bolstering military power. What this all means is that more and more developing countries will use this model for future economic growth instead of a more realistic model. As a result, fewer countries in the developing world will be inclined to implement a democratic model if the authoritarian one can provide financial stability.

In effect, the Washington Consensus was a failure before this financial crises even started. However, the recent collapse of American financial institutions and the contested bailout plan effectively buried the Washington Consensus in the graveyard of history. Now the American model of capitalism, once the paragon of economic development, is now ridiculed as the ultimate flop. Every nation across the world that has been touched by the Washington Consensus or that has no stake in international finance probably feels a bit of Schadenfreude. But what is worse is that America's best tool for spreading democracy was its economic prowess, not its military force. And now we have no justification for our system, no moral authority, and a military that is handcuffed. If our isolation wasn't complete before, it may be now.

Point Proven

Last week, before the Republican National Convention, I wrote a piece (directly below) which espoused the hypocrisy of the Republican Party. It was, admittedly, a biased account of why I personally think the GOP is the party of hypocrisy. However, in watching the RNC and trying to remain as objective as possible, there was no short of grand old hypocrisy coming from the lectern for three nights.

Lets start by going at Mitt Romney. Romney famously declared that "we need change alright. Change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington!" Obviously the crowd was delighted to hear that.

One thing though: the White House has been held by one of the most conservative presidents in modern history and Congress has been dominated by Republicans for the last 6 of 8 years.

In that time the government has ballooned the deficit by simultaneously cutting taxes and waging two wars. It has increased the size of the bureaucracy and has overseen the most extensive truncation of civil liberties in this nation's history with the Patriot Act.

Romney then goes on to espouse the importance of keeping the "Eastern Elite" out of government, effectively starting the culture war that this election is turning into.

The last time I checked, Romney was the governor of Massachusetts and the former CEO of a private equity firm. Not to mention that he was born into a society were his father was a successful American businessman whose friends were hotel magnates. Sure, Romney has a lot in common with the middle class of America.

I could stop there, but no, I have to move on to Rudy Giuliani. He stated "I guess Barack Obama doesn't think Governor Palin's hometown is...cosmopolitan enough." Great jab from a pro gay, anti gun, thrice married mayor of New York City. This is a guy who used city funds to trip weekend getaways with his mistress to the Hamptons. He knows so much about small town family values.

Obviously, it doesn't stop there with Rudy. "He was...a community organizer. What?" And chuckled very smugly afterwards. I guess dedicating a part of your life to making the world around you a better place is laughable. Tell that to the NYPD and FDNY, Giuliani. They stood by him after 9-11 and he milked it politically as far as possible. Too bad they abandoned him after he tried to extend his mayorship by suspending elections due to being in a state of emergency and mongering fear among the citizens of New York. Hitler, anyone?

Sarah Palin echoed these sentiments in her speech. Right after she espoused the importance of family values and small town communities. So, I guess we should place family and community at the utmost importance but...do nothing about it? Yeah that sounds about right.

Senator Obama only graduated from Harvard Law School and turned down a mulit-million dollar career on Wall Street to travel to one of the worst neighborhoods in the United States to help people find housing, get jobs, and an education. Sure, that's very cosmopolitan and elitist. He's definitely out of touch with that community, even though he still lives there.

I can go on and on here, but I think you get the point. These guys will say anything to win the White House and stay in power. They will exploit the deaths of 3000 Americans to scare you into thinking that they are the only party capable of defending this country. This would make Goebbels proud. McCain's advisers recently disclosed that Palin probably wouldn't have been on the ticket had Hillary Clinton been nominated as VP. Really?

So the Republicans chose a candidate, who could potentially be president, based on a political calculation instead of concrete qualifications. They are in it for their own survival and are willing to sacrifice the leadership and future of the United States for it. Country first, huh?

Grand Old Hypocrisy

I'm going to make some disclaimers before formally starting this post that are aimed at mitigating any sort of anti-Republicanism that my respected colleagues might garner from reading what is below. I'm a registered Democrat. My values and politics are aligned most strongly with that party more so than with the Republicans.

This is so even in the face of the fact that I grew up in Ohio, had friends that owned guns, and have voted Republican in the past. Yes, you heard that right. On top of that, I voted for George W. against John Kerry. What makes me Democrat is that I don't cling to religion very strongly and I'm a minority (which some may argue shouldn't matter, but it does realistically).

So, in essence, I'm not some bleeding heart liberal who detests George W. Bush because it is the popular thing to do. Think of me more as a pragmatic center leftist who believes in social equality and the power of the free market. I am, despite my self loathing(but accepting my fate as time progresses), more Bill Clinton than Ted Kennedy. What I am not is some self indulgent populist who thinks the Republicans are evil and should be vanquished across the River Styx.

All that being said, the GOP, for all its tradition and successful leadership of the past (during the Cold War, not the past 8 years) has become a hub of hypocrisy in American politics.

They are the party that has convinced the American people that the Democrats are big government socialists who are willing to take away your rights, mainly Second Amendment ones, at the drop of hat. However, they are the same party that has increased government spending, bloated the deficit, and has overseen the biggest truncation of civil liberties in the history of the United States with the Patriot Act. They allow possession of firearms but allow the authorities to arrest you under charges of terrorism and tap your phone conversations with no evidence.

What choice to the Democrats want to take away from the American people? What rights are they curtailing? If the possession of firearms are on the same fundamental plane as the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, then the people of this nation have a lot more introspection to do. If conservatives want to control the media, then its all right as long as people in rural American can keep their guns? Is it also alright, then, to limit the choice a woman has during an unwanted pregnancy? Is it in the spirit of Democracy to say that a victim of rape or failure of contraception MUST have the child?

And isn't it impressive that the party that always seeks to maintain its images as the one that protects America is the party that has lead to a policy that makes us seem weak and feeble? Sure September 11th was a national tragedy on an unprecedented scale. And sure the war in Afghanistan was completely warranted. But what about the rest of our foreign policy decisions during the Bush years? We've acted more like a cowering bully who was finally confronted by the kid he was oppressing. We took our bloody nose back to our house, cried to our mommy, and came back with a blinding fury.

Hardly appropriate for the nation which claims to be the great savior of a superpower in a troubled world. The "beacon of light" against an "axis of evil", if you will. All this has led to continuous unilateral action that has alienated our nation on the international scene and diminished our relevance in international affairs. Bush's policies have completely ignored history and turned our nation into a tyrant in the eyes of the world instead of the gentle giant that Kennedy, Kissinger, and Reagan had built.

The Republican hypocrisy goes further than policy making. It goes into election battles as well. Why is it alright for Republicans to question the service of a Democratic candidate when their own candidate dodged a draft? And why is it that only Republican presidents would be strong enough to lead in the face of adversity. Both World Wars were presided over by Democratic presidents and during the hottest flash point of the Cold War, a Democrat went toe to toe with the Chairman and bought the world from the brink of nuclear war. Hell, the only nuclear weapons ever detonated in battle were ordered by a Democrat.

They shouldn't have a monopoly on national security because they didn't do anything to earn that reputation. Reagan was a great speaker but his policies were hardly responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. The United States knew, in the 60s with the Long Telegram, that the Soviet model for economic development was unsustainable. Therefore, all that needed be done was contain the empire. But somehow the Republicans ride this false legacy, and the Second Amendment, into making the American people believe in their supposed machismo.

John McCain is running for president on the fact that he was a soldier in the Vietnam war and was held in captivity for five years. The Democrats are too soft to attack this platform (with the exception of General Clark) and the Republicans have become masters at pulling the strings for this type of candidate. Let me ask you conservatives this: what does being a POW bring to the table in terms of being the president of the United States? I'll answer that for you: very little. Sure we should honor his service and sympathize with his imprisonment, but does that mean we should give him the most powerful executive position in human history?

Simply put, getting shot down in battle is not a ticket to the White House. It doesn't give him any of the executive experience he claims to have. Senator Obama doesn't have much executive experience either, but I'd say he has as much as McCain does. But the Republicans always try to bolster these macho attributes in their candidates because they lack any other back story. McCain can't even use the Internet. He has admitted to not knowing anything about the economy. Would it be appropriate, then, to elect him the leader of the free and globalized world? Yes, the Republicans would say, because he spent 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton about 40 years ago learning how to govern his cellmates.

So, America, if you want to be duped again in to voting for the "most qualified candidate," vote McCain. He knows nothing about economics, doesn't know how to use 21st century technology, and still thinks the Cold War is active. But, he'll let you keep your guns, was a POW for 5 years, cut taxes for everyone making over $200,000 a year, and recreate the Cold War for nostalgia's sake with his League of Democracies.

I mean, who wants a top tier Ivy League graduate with a degree in law and international relations who turned down potentially millions of dollars from Wall Street to dedicate his life to service as their president anyway?

Russia One Year Ago

The following is an essay I wrote on Russia and her relationship with the West in June of 2007. Will this be enough to get me into SAIS? Please? S'il vous plait? Min fadlak?

Global Cooling

The United States and a More Assertive Russia

With the Group of 8 Conference in full swing, the majority of public focus is on the issue of global warming. However, perhaps some attention should be paid to the cooling relations between two of the world’s largest military powers. Although the rivalry between the United States and Russia has turned into an uneasy friendship since the end of the Cold War 16 years ago, the two nations have seen their already tenuous relationship take a turn away from progress in recent years. Perhaps this is the effect of Russian assertiveness that has resulted from a recent economic boom or a newfound confidence from a leadership that has seemed to secure domestic power indefinitely. Regardless, the United States and its allies must take affirmative steps to integrate Russia into the global community in an effort to help Russia grow and bring stability to a region of the world that desperately needs it.

The Russian economy has fared well recently due to the increase in the global demand for fossil fuels. This economic success has led the Kremlin to become more aggressive in its foreign policy. Specifically, the Russian government has made a recent push to reestablish its influence in former Soviet bloc areas. Russian military movement in the former Soviet republics is frequent and rarely questioned. For example, Moldova and Georgia have requested that Russian forces be removed from their borders without any action taking place. More concerning is the lack of international objection to the infringement on those nations’ sovereignty.

Yulia Tymoshenko, the leader of Ukraine’s parliamentary opposition, claims that Vladimir Putin is susceptible to outside criticism. He advises that Western leaders take advantage of this sensitivity and speak against developments that take Russia further away from democracy and towards regression. The United States and other Western nations are not doing any favors for the Russian people by abstaining to criticize the Russian government for its recent diplomatic tactics. In fact, by remaining silent, the West is effectively allowing Russia to pursue its imperialist ambitions unchecked.

The United States and its allies need to place counterweights on Russian expansion by helping foster relations between Russia and its European neighbors. The easiest way to accomplish this would be to bolster the independence of the former Soviet block states, such as the Ukraine, so that they may work together with Russia to form some sort mutually beneficial relationship. The more secure Russia feels with its neighbors, the less inclined it may feel to pursue its imperial ambitions. To complement this, Europe and the United States should welcome Russia into international agreements and talks to develop cooperation with the Kremlin. While trying to foster friendship, the Western powers should not be afraid to engage in dialogue with Russia that is frank and asserts the West’s point of view. By doing this, the West can show respect for the Kremlin that has not been seen since the days of the Soviet Union. The Russians will likely understand a policy based on respect rather than one that appeals solely to cooperation and friendship. This sort of policy can make the Russians feel like a respected peer instead of scolded teenager.

The West’s neglect of Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union has led to a nation that has been downgraded in the eyes of the community and as a result has become insecure in its place on the international scene. However, the West and Russia must realize that there can be a mutually beneficial relationship that will provide economic prosperity to both and desperately needed stability for the Kremlin. These two things, prosperity and stability, should focus the Russian government on domestic development rather than foreign conquests and provide the United States with a dramatically more subtle form of “containment” than that employed during the Cold War. Except this time, the United States may gain a powerful ally for the future instead of a crippled enemy left in the past.

Twenty First Century Realpolitik

Otto von Bismark used to quip that foreign policy should not be chained by the cumbersome constructs of ideology and morality. He believed in ruthless pursuit of foreign goals through any means possible. He was, in essence, a poster child for Machiavelli. And as a result, he led Germany to continental dominance in the mid to late 19th century.

Contrast this with the current Republican administration which relies heavily on the neoconservative school of governance. The Bush White House has dramatically shifted the foreign policy paradigm of their party to the other side. They are idealists. They believe in good vs. evil, and right vs. wrong. They split the world into "good" democracies and an Axis of Evil. Idealists fore go practical considerations in favor of value considerations (see Iraq War). This is a sharp break from the Republican tradition of Kissinger, Reagan, and elder Bush who conducted foreign policy based on cold calculation and protection of interests.

But now we have an old enemy turned new ally playing the geopolitical game of the 19th century. By retaliating against Georgian aggression in South Ossetia and pushing their forces into Georgia proper, the Russians are displaying the sort of Machiavellan intuition that led to the rise of Germany in the late 19th century.

Will they be the next troublesome world power? Probably not. But then again, Germany grew in a world utterly dominated by Great Britain, so there's no definite answer to that question.

However, we can draw certain historical parallels and place them in modern context to accurately judge how the United States should approach the problem of a more assertive Russia.

Honestly, it was only a matter of time before Russian petrodollars translated into military force. Many political scientists have recently started comparing post Soviet Russia to the Weimar Republic of the interwar years. Both nations had a shattered economy and a population that heavily resented the fall of their respective empires. Both nations then saw an authoritarian leader take power under the guise of democracy and lead them to economic prominence. It doesn't matter that Russia was more fortunate than Germany because of the high price of oil, all that matters for this comparison is that both nations rose to economic prominence seemingly out of nowhere.

What is even more interesting is that the invasion of Georgia parallels the Nazi takeover of Danzig and the Sudentenland. Hitler justified his actions by saying that he was merely protecting German peoples from prosecution in those areas. Sound familiar? The Russian autocracy's main justification for the use of force was that Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia were killed by Georgian aggression.

A bigger concern is that the citizens of South Ossetia and the breakaway Georgian province of Abkhazia hold Russian passports. Therefore any attack on them could provide a just war justification for the Russians. Sure that may give the Russians justification to drive the Georgians out of those regions, but not to push further into Georgia proper.

However, we're not dealing with a government that bases its decisions on morality. We are dealing with a government that sees the world through the eyes of 19th century power politics and realpolitik. The Russians saw their chance to put an end to a country that has been a thorn it their side for some time now. After this disastrous altercation, there is very little chance that NATO or the EU would risk granting Georgia full membership.

Mission accomplished.

But no. The Russians seemingly want to go further and topple the current democratic regime, not just prevent it from joining the EU and NATO.

So what is the West to do?

Traditionally, negotiating with a power that plays realpolitik and uses force to do so has been considered appeasement. Neville Chamberlain anyone?

Up to this point, the United States and EU have played a pretty even hand with Russia. They have diffused any potential situations be using diplomacy and cunning to keep the Russians content; mainly because they think they need Russian support on a host of world issues ranging from Iran to nuclear non-proliferation. However, this is probably one situation were diplomacy and carrots won't be as effective as some version of the stick.

However, is war with Russia an option?

The EU won't risk its short term energy future to fight Russia over Georgia.

The United States won't risk opening another front for its already battle fatigued forces.

However, the Western allies have to play a little power politics themselves to force Russia to stand down. The Russians currently have everything in their favor. Georgia is a small nation in the center of the Oil Road. It does not have any strategic allies in the region and cannot count on Western forces to aid it effectively due to geographical isolation. Soft power won't be enough to deter Russia.

All of this is setting a dangerous precedent for the region. If Russia can have its way with a neighboring country and effect regime change by brute force, then what's to stop her from pursuing that strategy in other nations. The Baltic states and Ukraine have the most to lose here. They are not only democratic institutions on the path towards EU membership, but also have been outspoken critics of Putin's administration. They have, so far, been an effective check on the territorial ambitions of the Russians. However, depending on how this war ends, they may become more timid in their accusations in the near future.

More important is the effect this aggression may have on the Russian political psyche. They have outmaneuvered the West completely in this conflict. We cannot do anything but sit, watch, and hope Moscow signs some sort of cease fire agreement. By not being able to pursue a military option, NATO has effectively been neutered in the Caucuses area and the United States' military limits have been exposed.

Most importantly, the Russians know that the West is unwilling to challenge them militarily or isolate them diplomatically.

So what is the solution to this mess?

Only time can tell.

One option includes extending NATO membership to Georgia and Ukraine as a deterrent to future Russian aggression. Russia would not dare attack a NATO member and incur the wrath of the entire alliance. And they would have the security of knowing that NATO could not launch a preemptive strike. After all, where would NATO member states get their oil from?

Another option includes defending the right of Georgia to exist. This means that the United States defend the the capital, Tbilisi and force the Russians to make a decision: either turn back or find themselves in open conflict with the United States.

Both of these paths pretty much pave the way for another Cold War. But if Russia favors becoming a 19th century power player over a 21st century global moderator, then there are very few options.

There are a few reasons diplomacy won't work in this situation. First, the Russians really don't offer the West much in the way of being effective world leaders. They've continually refused to place santions on Iran and even provide them with nuclear materials. They also refuse to impose any sort of incursion into Sudan to prevent the genocide in Darfur. So what do we bargain for? Apparently the status quo, and that's not much of a chip. Second, as explained above, the Russians have all the leverage in the situation and no incentive to negotiate.

Whatever happens though, one thing is certain: Russia has finally asserted itself in a manner that we thought extinct. They have resurrected the power politics of the 19th and 20th centuries that many pundits and experts thought long dead. We might be on the verge of witnessing the dangerous rise of twenty first century realpolitik from a nation that has once again found power and is eager to use it.

A Word On InBev and Budweiser

Sure my "independent " blog has Barack Obama propaganda littered throughout it, but that does not mean I formulate my opinion on party lines. My social values are quite "liberal" (in the sense that Americans use the word) and are in tune with most Democratic policies. But my views on economics and finance tend to side with the Republicans (which, ironically, are classically liberal).

During this presidential race the Democrats have played the populist card by bashing free trade and blaming globalization for the ills of the working class. They blame speculators for the high price of oil and immigrants for loss of jobs. This was John Edwards platform in his brief stint and it soon became Hillary Clinton's trump card in the blue collar rust belt states. Demonizing globalization and open borders is a dangerous game for the Democrats to play. Protectionist measures will only accelerate the spiral we are in. This is one path I hope Senator Obama does not pursue.

If we start redacting free trade agreements and impose import tariffs on consumer goods, the greatest suffering will come from the middle class and very poor. Things we take for granted (mainly 90% of the shit at WalMart) will only get more expensive for the average consumer. Sure, you or I may not consistently shop there, but the majority of Americans do. And if we impose import tariffs on foreign goods, then everything in WalMart that is made in China becomes as expensive as the stuff made in the US. Now, you may argue that this is a good thing because it keeps American goods competitive. Sure, it might. But it takes away something fundamental - choice.

The advantage of having a diverse and open economy is that it leaves us with choices. Some people want the cheaper foreign good because, in all honesty, it may perform as effectively as the domestic brand. By taking away that choice, we force everyone to pay higher prices and create a homogeneous market. This will invariably lead to a decrease in quality of domestically made goods as American companies seek to widen profit margins because the government protects them from competition. Basically, the market will be flooded with expensive low quality goods and middle America will bear the brunt. Isn't this exactly what the Democrats are trying to protect against?

Here is a real life example of why globalized trade benefits the blue collar worker. Although high paying labor jobs have been more difficult to find and therefore wage earnings have dipped, the overall price of goods in the market have either remained the same or become cheaper. Think about everything that can be outsourced ie. shoes, electronics, toys, anything. These consumer goods have gained in quality and have become cheaper at the same time over this period of globalization. Cars, flat screen televisions, clothes, are all cheaper than they were 10 years ago. Even if you take into consideration the 3% annual rate of inflation, the prices of consumer goods have remained equivalent numerically to their 1998 cost. DVDs in 1998 cost $20. Now the price is actually lower and the worth of the dollar has decreased. So the real cost of the DVD is actually lower than its numerical price.

And consider this: the price of services that cannot be outsources have gone up tremendously in the United States. Can anybody say college tuition and movie tickets? Movie tickets on average cost about $3-4 dollars more now than they did in the 90s. That is due to the fact that we don't outsource movie making. The same with college tuition. There is virtually no global competition when it comes to a post secondary education. Nobody is going to send their kids abroad for a cheaper education. However, I can get a Benz now for around $30k, which was unthinkable back in the early to mid 90s.

Now lets look at an industry, probably one of the very few global industries, that still suffer from tariffs and government subsidies: food. Food prices have risen dramatically over the past 2 years. There are variety of causes such as an increase in demand from developing nations and various environmental factors, such as an unusually long Australian drought. But one of the biggest reasons food is getting more expensive is because countries are becoming more protectionist. Of course this is only natural because national governments have a duty to provide for their citizens first. Export tariffs keep food in the country for domestic consumption and curb supply internationally, therefore driving up costs. However, I'm not looking to solve the world food problem, but only pointing out that the high price of food can be attributed to protectionism.

Here's an example. If India is the world's largest exporter of rice and puts trade restrictions on its farmers, then less rice will enter the global market. This automatically increases the price of rice because supply has been cut off. In an atmosphere of high demand, this will only make the impact of the restrictions more dramatic. Now other nations who depend on Indian rice exports have to restrict exports on their foodstuffs in order to maintain domestic stocks. So a positive feedback loop has started where less food enters the market and prices skyrocket because other nations who can't find food on the open market restrict their exports.

Now, a lot of people have had reservations about foreign investment in the United States. They cry about China buying a US natural gas company, or Mercedes buying Chrysler. But in a global economy we will have to buy or be bought to survive. InBev's purchase of Anheuser Bush is one in a natural course of events in a globalized world. InBev decided that they needed a bigger distribution outlet in North America and made the decision to purchase AB. However, this is not a one way deal. AB will also have InBev's distribution in Europe and South America. This means that Budweiser can increase its market share globally and increase profits for AB, which will still be based in America. At the same time, we can get InBev's products in North America for less. And InBev will most likely consider brewing their most popular products in the United States to cut costs, contributing to the creation of local jobs (which is even more realistic now because of high transportation costs).

Some may argue that the consumer is duped because the quality of the beer will get worse a la Mercedes Benz after the merger with Chrysler. However, economics doesn't deal with the highest quality for the lowest amount of people. Sound economics yeilds the highest quality for the highest amount of people. After Benz merged with Chrysler, there were reports that the overall quality of the Mercedes brand vehicle declined. It probably did. But what was more important, to the consumer and Mercedes, was that an entirely untapped market was now able to purchase their product. The American middle class could spend their money buying "superior German engineering". And for the rich who wanted to spend $100k on a Benz, they could get the higher end models. But what was important was that more people were enjoying Mercedes vehicles at a lower cost. It provided a quality vehicle to the American people and wider profit margins to Dialmer Chrysler.

In the end the United States will be the crossroads for the global economy, that much will never change. But what must change is how we look at the world and how we operate within it. We have to accept that fact that globalization has put is at the pinnacle of the world economy and is doing the same for other nations around the world who embrace its principles. If we yield to the demands of populists and protectionists, then not only will the world lose its biggest consumer market, but those who the populists and protectionists seek to protect will be the first to feel the wrath of asinine economic policy.

The Clinch

As we've all heard by now, Barack Obama made history last night by being the first minority candidate to win a nomination from a major party for the presidency of the United States. Unfortunately his victory is being slightly eclipsed by Hillary Clinton's lack of grace and unfettered ego. As much as I'd like to vent about her speech last night and pick out every tidbit of boundless narcissism and arrogance from it, I'll leave that to this morning's press. Instead, I want to look at Obama's speech and what his candidacy has stood for so far.

Last night's speech was incredible. He started off slow to congratulate Clinton's effort in the primaries and made a pitch to her supporters (who, by her own doing, have become poker chips in this game). He also complimented McCain before taking a few jabs at the Republican in response that candidate's speech earlier in the night. But the meat of Obama's speech came out at the end where he laid his campaign out for everyone to hear.

This man can do what only few others have been able to do. He makes you look upon him and see yourself and your dreams. He doesn't espouse himself or his ability to make the world a better place. Instead he only asks you to put him in a position where he can help us make America great again. He doesn't resort to waving the bloody flag of 9/11 for political purposes like Clinton did in her speech. Instead he referred to the great leaders of the past who stood for change and kept America at the summit of global prominence. This is important because fear mongering blinds the public from the truth and leads to gaffes like the Iraq war and the Patriot Act.

His campaign is not about himself. He never once referred to himself in the speech. The only promise he made was that neither his campaign nor his party would every "use religion as a wedge and patriotism as a bludgeon." This is powerful stuff. He took aim at everything the Republicans have done in the past 7 years and promised a departure from it. He has effectively given the Democratic Party a new foreign policy that differs itself from the Republican paradigm. John Kerry lost an election partly because he couldn't make this distinction. Obama doesn't merely offer change and leave it as an abstract concept that we can strive for. He put it on the table yesterday and he told us how we'll change.

He wants to use diplomacy as our primary weapons and concentrate on the "good war" in Afghanistan. The Republicans have called this appeasement. But was talking to Libya and getting them off the terror list appeasement? Was talking to North Korea and halting their nuclear ambitions appeasement? The Republican policy of having no policy in the Middle East has lead to America being marginalized in a region where we've committed billions of dollars of resources. The Arab states have no confidence in us whatsoever and even Israel has gone behind our backs to negotiate with Syria (who has sought to negotiate with us for some time now). It has become clear that any solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict will not currently go through the United States but through regional powers such as Egypt, Turkey, and Lebanon.

Obama also understands that outsourcing will never be stopped. As long as we are a capitalist society, every corporation will seek to operate as efficiently as possible. But he understands that we need to encourage jobs that cannot be outsourced such as those in the tech sector and infrastructure reconstruction. He wants to make college education "a birthright" and not a privilege of the bourgeois. Both of these things need to be combined to revitalize the American ingenuity that has kept us in front for the better part of the century.

His entire speech focused on not how great his campaign has been or how great he can be. It focused on how great America can still be. We've fallen from the top a bit and our lead in the global power race has been cut recently. We have no moral authority and are considered the bully of the global theater once again. Our nation has not led the world the way the world wants us to lead them. We refuse to take part in greenhouse gas reduction and global warming. Obama mentioned a carbon tax cap and trade in his speech last night. He clearly knows what the nation needs domestically and what the world expects of us. We are the beacon of hope in this world but the bulb in the lighthouse has been flickering for the past 7 years. Its time to replace it and light the way for the rest of the globe to follow.

A World Without American Moral Authority

Two weekends ago Cyclone Nargis hit the coast of Burma ("Myanmar" but I refuse to acknowledge the name used by the Junta) and caused devastating flooding and wind damage. People's food stocks were heavily damaged and rice rendered inedible. Their homes were ripped asunder by merciless gales and washed away by relentless waters. And it only gets worse from there.

The ruling Junta, an alliance of military leaders, were notified of the impending Cyclone and did nothing to warn the people in its trajectory. They control every Burmese media outlet so nobody was aware of what was on the horizon. As a result, there was no preparation or bracing for the impact Nargis unleashed.

And even that's not the worst part.

After Nargis ripped through Burma and initial media estimates put the death toll at around 15,000 people, the Junta refused to allow international aid workers into their country. However, they acceded to allow international donations of aid supplies. Very gracious of them. In return, the generals showed videos of themselves receiving the aid on the tarmac and shaking hands with the deliveryman. Reports from CNN and the BBC also noted that boxes of aid that were delivered were littered with the names of Junta leading generals and wealthier families that are allied with the regime. Even in crises, this deplorable ruling party promotes itself.

However, people that weren't allied with them were denied from providing any sort of relief effort. Even aid agencies such as UNICEF were denied visas for entry to ease the humanitarian crises. The result has been 3 toilets for 35,000 people. International aid agencies have projected that more than 100,000 people will die as a result of infection and disease that will manifest themselves due to lack of humanitarian aid.

Several western nations are calling on the United Nations to intervene on Burma's national sovereignty by enacting the "responsibility to protect" doctrine. The doctrine was adopted in 2005 by the UN and allows it to infringe on a nation's borders when the government is either unable to provide for the safety of its citizens or blatantly refuses to. The latter justifies international intervention here.

However, due to the deep economic ties that Burma has formed with its immediate neighbors Thailand, India, and China, this will be difficult to pull off. India has an energy deal in place with the Junta and Thailand a logging agreement. China has backed the Junta since its formation and all three nations rely upon Burma for rice exports (The Junta exports all rice grown in the country at the expense of its citizenry, leaving none in reserve.) So those three nations have an economic interest in preserving the Junta's rule and staying in favor with them.

However, the bigger problem comes from the United States and its lack of moral authority in today's global climate. The last 8 years has seen a precipitous fall in the influence the United States has on global issues. From the war in Iraq to the existence of Guantanamo Bay, the United States has seen its influence in human rights wane. Even China has cited Gitmo as a reason the US has no right to speak on Chinese human rights violations. Yes, China has successfully cited American human rights abuses as a diplomatic retort.

Without moral authority, the United States has no leverage to convince nations like Burma to open up to humanitarian efforts or to gather a coalition to force an opening. The war in Iraq showed the world that toppling a dictator can lead to near disastrous results: unexpected civil war, and large division between ethnic groups. No coalition will invade Burma in the name of humanitarianism because they fear the unintended consequences. Furthermore, China will probably veto any measures to do so in the Security Council.

So as more and more people die in Burma due solely to the fact that the government denies them aid in an effort to consolidate power, all we can do is watch and shake our heads. Without moral authority, the United States cannot garner an international consensus to act decisively. The only nation in the world that is powerful enough to help the Burmese is powerless to do so. This is the consequence of 8 years of terrible foreign policy and gradual dismantling of Pax Americana.

$30 for a Vote? Maybe if it Were in Euroes....

Finally, a bone of contention between the Democratic candidates. Even more, one of them agrees with the Republican nominee. Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton and John McCain, suspending the federal tax on gasoline won't do much to stimulate the American economy. And unfortunately for Barack Obama, his intelligent argument against suspension won't win him any friends in the ever so important white middle class demographic. This is one of those issues where a leader needs to take an apparently unpopular stand on an issue for the sake of the economy.

Suspending the gasoline tax for the summer months will cost the federal government about $6-7 billion in revenue. The tax is projected to pull in $30bn in revenue for 2008. And most of this goes to the states in the form of capital for road construction and infrastructure improvement. While at the same time, suspending the tax will only net about $30 per person/family during the period of tax free gas. The question that Senator Obama and economists pose is this: is that $30 worth the suspension of infrastructure maintenance that may cost us even more money down the road? Roads and bridges that are left to decay won't cost us now, but cutting corners to provide people with $30 can cost us millions in future construction and repair costs. And remember, the nation's bridges have already been determined to be in very poor condition.

Senators Clinton and McCain believe that the government can offset the losses of revenue by imposing a profits windfall tax on oil companies. There one major problem with this is that not all of these taxes will go to infrastructure upkeep. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that this tax would pass muster in Congress or even a presidential veto. President Bush is a product of the petroleum industry and oil companies have a huge lobbying presence in Washington. What this seems to amount to by the two Senators is vote pandering. They are essentially trying to buy votes for $30 a head by proposing this. Its even possible that they know it will never pass; so being a proponent can give them a boost with voters and not really cost them any efficacy. Who knows.

The second problem with suspending the tax is that it will cause a positive feedback cycle. All of a sudden gas becomes cheaper and demand increases in a season where Americans like to travel by automobile. What does an increase in demand bring? Higher prices! Economists have suggested that the tax suspension might even increase the price of gasoline in the summer months because more people are encouraged to go the pump to save 18 cents per gallon. Then in the fall, when the tax is reinstated, we'd have to deal with higher prices with the tax! Even if the tax is relatively minuscule, it just looks more expensive and may cause consumers more concern.

It is also interesting to note that this proposal is advocated by Senator Clinton. She has played the populist card throughout the primary process by claiming to bring jobs back to industrial America. Now she is advocated a proposal that will cause her home state of New York to either suspend or cut 300,000 highway maintenance jobs. So we're not going to shift your jobs overseas, we're just going to cut a tax that feeds your families. At least gas will be cheaper! This has to be the height of hypocrisy. In addition to letting our infrastructure decay further, the federal government will cut 300,000 domestic employees in order to provide people $30.

The problem for Senator Obama is that this proposal looks good on paper to all the white middle class "bitter" voters that he has estranged. Senators Clinton and McCain may come out on top in this argument solely due to the fact that the affected populace feels like they are getting something. They will further the image of Obama as just another elitist Washingtonite who doesn't care about the common folk. Where, in fact, he understands that the proposal has no economic validity whatsoever and is just a deplorable attempt to buy votes. Its just an other bandaid on the gunshot wound that is our energy policy. But, appropriately, that is another story for another time.

The Death of the Democratic Party

The Democratic Party in the United States is on the verge of collapse. With Senator Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania last night, the race for the nomination has undoubtedly been guaranteed to go down to the convention. Clintonites argue that their candidate is more battle tested and that this tough race is good for the party. It airs dirty laundry and puts everything on the table for the people of the United States to see. In reality, the Clinton ego is dragging the Party down a dangerous road. At the end of which is a maelstrom waiting to sink the boat of America's Left.

There is no indication so far that the Pennsylvania victory turns the tides in anyone's favor. Instead, it will most likely preserve the status quo. Senator Obama lost a state that is heavily populated by white working class voters. And, as expected, the breakdown shows that he won the areas of the state which were populated with educated and African American voters. But the numbers in Pennsylvania tell a different story. The Democratic voters are increasingly voting along demographic lines. This means that the support for candidates is becoming cemented among certain groups. White working class voters went something like 70-30 in favor of Clinton. Whereas blacks when the usual 80-20 for Obama.

So what happens at the end of the road. Mathematically it is impossible for Clinton to catch Obama in the popular vote or the delegate count. Unless she wins a few states by more than considerable margins, she cannot catch up. Her strategy now seems to be focused on marring Obama's reputation through negative campaign ads and scrutinizing everything he does. Obama has been far from the golden boy recently as well in his responses. This is a fair political tactic in the United States. For a general election perhaps. But it is a dangerous strategy to employ during primary season. It undermines the party's credibility and gives the appearance of petty bickering. The candidates just don't seem to understand that the entire country, not just the Democrats, are watching this. A Karl Rove scorched earth tactic isn't doing the Party any favors.

If Clinton's strategy works and she convinces the superdelegates that Obama's ability to get elected is suspect, then the Party will fracture. Obama has the numbers and popular vote to make a legitimate case for his ascension into the general election. If the superdelegates overrule the popular vote, then they will be essentially be saying that the people don't matter. Something they themselves accused the Supreme Court of saying in the 2000 election. Can this manner of hypocrisy go unpunished? No. If the Party hands the nomination to Hillary, they will alienate a good portion of their constituency. The black base of the Party will no longer have exclusive faith in the Democrats nor will the intellectual elite that has supported Obama. Furthermore, the masses who have donated to Obama's campaign at a grassroots level may sit the election out or vote for the Republican nominee. It is a doomsday scenario for the Democrats.

If the Party, on the other hand, goes with the will of its constituency and nominates Obama, the worse case scenario seems less dire. If we assume that Obama loses the general election, there will be an outcry from Senator Clinton and her supporters in a bout of "I told you so!" However, that is a lesser evil to face than the fracturing of the entire Party. Other people may lose faith in the Democrats' ability to win elections. But those numbers would still be less than the possible defectors of the scenario above. And losing an election due to general incompetence is a wound that is easier healed than one based on disenfranchisement. Therefore, allowing Obama to take the nomination based on the numbers and will of the voters would be a better step for the survival of the Democrats. Regardless of what Clintonites may say (basically that America is too racist to elect a black president), Obama is following an unpopular president and has the charisma necessary to take the White House.

The Doomsday scenario for the Democrats would come to fruition if Hillary Clinton garnered the nomination on the backs of superdelegates and still managed to lose the general election to Senator McCain. Clinton would appear to have bullied the Party into giving her the nomination at the expense of the popular vote winner only to lose an almost certain Democratic White House. This would probably end the Democratic Party as we know it. The Obama supporters would feel disenfranchised and vindicated at the same time. And that is dangerous combination. The would have a legitimate gripe about having their candidate's chances wrestled away unjustly and the gall to take action because the opposition failed to secure the ultimate prize. The sections of the Party supporting Obama would be completely justified in forming a third party. The only thing that could save the party is Obama convincing his followers to remain with the Democrats. Even so, the battle lines will have been drawn and there will be a battle of coalitions within the Party for years to come.

This prolonged race, no matter what both candidates say, is damaging the credibility of the Democratic Party. The Republicans, who may not necessarily support McCain 100%, are at least resigned to the fact that he won the nomination fairly and accept the will of the electorate. Furthermore, they are being unified by the intramural bickering taking place between the Democrats. The dysfunction across the isle gives more credence to the Republican claim that they are more qualified to run the country and it justifies their historic hold on the White House. If the Democrats can't even run their own primary and set up a logical party system, how can they even claim to be able to run the country? The problem is that the Republicans don't even have to explicitly state this about their rivals. Its something the people will consider subconsciously during the general election.

The only way the Democratic Party can dodge the event horizon is if Senator Obama wins the White House. If he manages to pull of the victory, then the Democratic primary system, while still obviously flawed, will have been justified for this election. They would have followed the will of the electorate and claimed victory. The Clintonites would finally be silenced and the party would have, hopefully, 8 years to convalesce. Sure Clinton's supporters will be bitter, but they have no legitimate gripe because the numbers were in favor of Senator Obama and the superdelegates did the right thing. Democracy will have worked. Otherwise, they might as well write You're Welcome cards to John McCain in the oval office.

Food for Thought

An American tourist was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked.

Inside the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. The tourist complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them.

The Mexican replied, "Only a little while."

The tourist then asked, "Why didn't you stay out longer and catch more fish?"

The Mexican said, "With this I have more than enough to support my family's needs."

The tourist then asked, "But what do you do with the rest of your time?"

The Mexican fisherman said, "I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siesta with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine and play guitar with my amigos, I have a full and busy life."

The tourist scoffed, " I can help you. You should spend more time fishing; and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat: With the proceeds from the bigger boat you could buy several boats. Eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor; eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product, processing and distribution. You could leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then Los Angeles and eventually New York where you could run your ever-expanding enterprise."

The Mexican fisherman asked, "But, how long will this all take?"

The tourist replied, "15 to 20 years."

"But what then?" asked the Mexican.

The tourist laughed and said, "That's the best part. When the time is right you would sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions."

"Millions?...Then what?"

The American said, "Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siesta with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos."

Give Them Bread and Circuses!! Well, Just Circuses I Guess...

Riots in southeast Asia and Africa are not really outside of the norm these days. However, rioting because food prices are too high, well, that is definitely hasn't been the norm in the past. Just recently people in these regions have been demonstrating the skyrocketing food prices. Wait a minute, it's all just supply and demand right? Not really. Apparently failed economic policies and attention to the environment has led to rice prices being so high that average people in Asia and Africa are struggling to eat.

Farming is a very subsidy dependent industry around the world. Food prices have traditionally been down because the government pays farmers to raise crops and live in borderline poverty. The United States still maintains high tariffs on sugar and other commodities to protect its farmers from cheaper foreign goods and to keep them in business. This, in turn, has led to the poverty of many Caribbean nations that depend on commodity trading and cash crops to survive. In turn, the farmers push the federal government to lower export restrictions so they can sell more grain at those low prices and make more profit. The net result is that we leave our neighbors impoverished while selling them cheap grain and emptying our reserve stock. Well, it worked for the United States.

Then the rest of the world started using this technique because, hey, why not make money of food exports while protecting your farmers. Remember, a state's responsibility lies only to the people within its borders (or so a realist would have you believe). India and other smaller Asian nations do the same thing with rice. They place import restrictions so that their farmers won't drown in a flood of cheaper foreign rice. At the same time, they sell Indian rice at discounted rates across the world. This worked when Asia was still considered the third world. But economic growth also brings a growth in appetite.

More rice is being consumed and there just isn't enough rice being produced to meet the demand because the larger nations basically protected themselves to the extent that they were the only ones producing rice anymore. The smaller countries hurt by tariffs quit the business because there was no money in it. Sure they could sell domestically, but it would be at a higher price than the foreign goods and it wouldn't even meet internal demand. Additionally, there are many nations, such as Japan and the Philippines, that import a great majority of their food due to their geographical positioning. What happened was basically an extreme version of Ricardo's comparative advantage. Extreme because it was manufactured by tariffs instead of an actual advantage in production.

If this weren't enough, the price of bread, eggs, and meat have also increased dramatically over the past year. The rising middle class of India and China, nations which make up 1/3 of the world's population, has developed a taste for wheat based bread and meat. This due, in part, to bread manufacturers increased advertising in those regions in the past few years and, in part, to the increased income levels. The Asian sector's taste for more meat has also contributed to the rise in food prices because more beef means more feed for the cows. And if you didn't know, cows eat a copious amount of grain. Finally, the rising costs of transportation due to the increase in gas prices has also lead food distributors to increase prices to generate a margin. The net result is that bread in the United States has gone from about $1.25 per loaf to about $3.50.

However, there is another culprit that is garnering attention in Europe and the United States. It's also garnering a good amount of disdain from the rioters in Asia as well. Biofuels. The EU and United States have provided numerous incentives for farmers to plant field of corn that are reserved for biofuel conversion. When this alternative energy source was touted a few years ago we were promised clean burning fuel that originates from a renewable resource. We were on our way to El Dorado. However, what government officials and proponents of biofuels failed to mention was that every liter of the stuff that is created takes nearly 90% of the output it would generate as a fuel. If that didn't make sense, then here's an example. Lets say I convert some corn into 1 liter of biofuel. I'd have to use 900ml of that biofuel to generate another liter of the stuff. Basically, we're netting 10% from corn. The other 90% is a wash because equivalent energy was used to produce it.

That isn't to say that biofuels are worthless. It is only to say that biofuels are worthless right now. Until a more efficient way to produce the stuff is developed, we are basically just growing corn and burning it. And we are growing corn on land that was previously used to grow wheat. The EU has put their 2010 goal of biofuel integration on indefinite hold because of the food crisis that has taken over the globe. They are also considering easing their emissions reduction commitment they made a few years ago after Kyoto. Its time that the United States do the same thing. There's no reason to provide farmers incentive to grow corn that is essentially going in the trash. We should mandate that the land used for biofuel subsidies be turned to wheat production in order to ease international and domestic prices. Demand is only going to increase and cutting supply puts us on the fast track food riots at Wegman's.

What we also need to do is get the Bretton Woods institutions involved. The World Bank needs to develop programs that give aid to struggling nations that will put their land to use. In essence, provide subsidies to farmers in poorer countries to produce rice in order to meet the demand. We should also encourage bigger nations to reduce their import restrictions on certain foodstuffs by providing monetary assistance to their farmers. The Bank should then take a certain percentage of the profits of commodity sales as repayment of the loans given to farmers and nations. We need to stop brutal regimes, like the one in Myanmar, from exporting all its rice for profit while its people starve in the streets.

It was only a matter of time before the rest of the world caught up to the West in terms of eating habits. Food prices are going to rise consistently and are probably going to stay at higher levels for the long haul. The only reason for this current shock is because of poor economic policies by countries that depend on agriculture and the belief in biofuel hype. Sure, hindsight is 20/20 but its not too late to turn it around, yet.

The Trouble With Patriotism Is

Recently, there's been a critical review of Senator Obama's minister Jeremiah Wright and specific sermons he gave that were purportedly "Un-American". First off, labeling anything un-American is, ironically, un-American in itself. Our founding fathers constructed this nation on ideas expressed on parchment made from trees owned by the King of England. And, appropriately, the words declared nothing less than freedom of thought and expression, among other things. How dare anyone decry another for exercising their constitutional rights. And this includes every American flag waving zealot who can't stand an ounce of criticism of the United States from its citizen. Thomas Jefferson shifts in his grave.

We pride ourselves on being the leaders of the free world but denounce and seek to suppress speech that points out our flaws. The United States hasn't risen to prominence by sweeping dirt under the rug, but by confronting our flaws and finding solutions. Self criticism and reflection is what forces us to progress as a nation and people. Without it we'd still have no civil rights, no equal opportunity, and no place on top of the western hegemony. September 11th has somehow given conservatives the excuse of labeling any criticism of our past as unpatriotic and treasonous. We now reject the ideas of The Enlightenment for security from terrorism. We've subtly erased portions of the Constitution and pasted in portions from the so called Patriot Act. Isn't this what the terrorists ultimately want? We have played into their game of fear and now restrict ourselves and abandon our values because we're scared of them. And even more interesting is that we're afraid of the things we had a hand in creating.

One of the sermons reverend Wright is being criticized for was given immediately after September 11th and listed the past wrongs of the United States. Now I have no love or hate for this man, I don't even know him. All I know is that he presented two sermons which have recently garnered media exposure for being "inflammatory". But this sermon in particular has emboldened his critics and has seen them cry out that he's a terrorist sympathizer. But if you read the text of his sermon and actually know the history of the United States, there is truth in what he says and it is important to know why terrorists may hate us. I'm not saying that they are justified in their actions against us, but that there is veritable anger around the world at the United States. Sometimes we tend to forget that the US hasn't been the champion of the world that we believe it to be.

Slavery won't be included as a sin of the United States here because the practice has been around since the dawn of civilization and continues to be practiced in corners of the world. But lets take a look at the First World War. The United States justifiably entered the war on the side of the Allies to stop the Central Powers from taking Europe. However, its actions during the Paris Peace Conference was no different than that of the other imperial powers. We promised the world the ambiguous maxim of "self determination of people" and a League of Nations that would end conflict. We delivered on none of those by allowing the Middle East and Africa to be carved up by Clemenceau and Lloyd George. And we've seen the repercussions of that today in our ordeal with Iraq and the Middle East as a whole.

And we tend to forget the lessons of the Second World War. Again we were thrust into war to save the Allies from their Axis tormentors, this time including Japan. But we forget the xenophobic attitude that spread across the nation after Pearl Harbor and saw to the detention of many United States citizens of Japanese descent. And we tend to forget that the Japanese regiments in our military that fought in Europe were some of the most decorated outfits in the war effort.

America also became the first, and only, nation in history to detonate a nuclear weapon on a civilian population. I forgot, we did it twice. With a drop of two bombs we killed millions of people in the blink of an eye. These were people that were in school, playing with their kids in the park, going to the post office, doctors operating on patients, and people trying to earn a living. These were everyday people living their lives. And we took them from this world on the promise that it would save lives. We accepted that logic because we believed that dropping two nukes would save us the trouble and American lives needed to physically invade the Japanese homeland. And this may very well have been true.

But recent documents and writings by revisionist historians have uncovered that Emperor Hirohito had conceded defeat and was determined to surrender to the United States. He had a recording, on vinyl, that was to be played across the airwaves commanding the Japanese people to put down their arms. There is also documentation that the United States government knew of the emperor's intent. So there is a possibility that we sacrificed the lives of millions of Japanese not to defeat them, but solely to warn the Soviet Union that we had the power to destroy. And this wouldn't be the last time we'd risk American and other people's lives to best the USSR.

The entire policy of Containment, though crucial to the preservation of the Western hegemony, did no favors for the United States' image in the world. In the process we had U2 spy plane shot down over Russian territory, funded the Mujahadeen (later to become the Taliban), propped up pro western dictators (Pinochet and Saddam to name a few), and callously used countless other nations for our purpose. A realist would argue that this is how the new international order worked. However, we mortgaged influence and efficacy for the destruction of our rival. And now we pay the piper with terrorists seeking our destruction and our influence waning at a crucial juncture in our history.

Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Anyone who waves the flag of patriotism and uses it to stifle any portion of the Constitution or to shackle our inalienable right to liberty should be headed as that scoundrel. They shouldn't be censored but the people should be weary of those who seek to advance their own cause by appealing to ignorant love of country. True love of country is only achieved by recognizing what makes our nation great and what makes our nation deplorable. We must remember the lessons of history and realize that the United States of America is like any other nation. It has flaws that must be addressed and a history marred by darkness. It is not perfect, and anyone who tells you otherwise is, to put it lightly, nothing more than a preying scoundrel using a bludgeon to smear the words of our Founding Fathers.