Some say….that is impossible to satisfy everyone…and yet we must not forget those that helped us acquire power.
For that reason, it seems to me that Obama is making his appointments based on a “time-to-pay-back dues” mentality rather than picking his appointees for what they may bring to the table. He picked Hillary to satisfy her democratic voters who voted for Obama and Richardson to “payback” the Hispanic community.. the debate now is among Hillary’s supporters and the Hispanics who made the difference by voting and helped win Obama win presidency. It’s no longer a debate of which group made the difference in the elections but instead which group will get repaid better?
Yeah, I agree that by picking Richardson to be part of his cabinet, Obama has helped the Hispanic community make a progress but what are his real motives for his choosing each senator? These answers will remain unknown until we see action.

Obama’s new choice, Ken Salazar is senator with Hispanic background (his grandparents were Mexican-American) represents another progress in the Hispanic community but not a true representative; since although he may have a Hispanic background, a person cannot fully understand the struggles of a community if he hasn’t lived them or learned about them through a close relative.

I’m glad Obama choose another “Hispanic,” I just think it would have meant more to the Hispanic community if this new nominee were a true Hispanic like Bill Richardson.

 I feel as though this article is a in depth look into the Final Exam posted by Dr. Shalan which suggest the United States will be weaker in 2025 due to the emergence of China, Russia, and India, and also the failing climate.  In this article I posted from cfr.org (Council on Foreign Relations) headlined: Getting Along With China’s Military;  Admiral Keating of the US Pacific Command suggest that “it would be a giant leap of faith” to believe the US and China could develop a close relationship militarily.  Keating also touches on how oil consumption and climate change are gonna play as key factors in the Presidency of Barack Obama….

Expanding U.S. Military Partnerships in the Pacific

December 12, 2008

Emma’s Brick Oven Pizza
101 N Union Ave
Cranford, NJ 07016
(908) 497-1881
http://www.emmasbrickoven.com/

Directions and Map

Lewis states that “We’re at the beginning of a recalibration of the role of finance in global economic life.”  This is an interesting point and it definitely gives me a new perspective on this economic crisis.  He goes on to say “ . . the same rule that applies to properly functioning financial markets applies to other markets: There’s a direct relationship between risk and reward. A fantastically rewarding career usually requires you to take fantastic risks. To get your seat at the table on Wall Street you may have passed through a fine filter, but you took no real risk. You were just being paid, briefly, as if you had.”  For the most part, much of what Lewis says hits the nail on the head.  He puts in words things I have thought about, but have never articulated.  I’ll let you be the judge . . .

A Wall Street Job Can’t Match a Calling in Life: Michael Lewis

2008-12-10 05:03:00.0 GMT

Commentary by Michael Lewis

Dec. 10 (Bloomberg) — Recently I received a letter from a young employee of a well-known financial firm, who asked that I not mention his full name, his employer or anything else that might give him away. Though a bit short on self-pity and self-dramatization, this letter was otherwise a fine example of a sort I’ve received often these past few months.

 “I am writing you for advice,” Anthony (let us call him) began. “I graduated in May of 2008 and since July have spent my time entangled in the culture of (his well-known New York bank). I’m thinking about leaving. My dad labored his whole life so I could have the opportunity to do something like this, so leaving isn’t exactly what I want to do. I know if I stay here I could work unbelievably hard and move through the ranks, or maybe move firms… (but) I guess I’m starting to question the whole securities industry.”

The young man went on to concede that what attracted him to Wall Street was the chance to get rich quickly, and the excitement — but that both of these things now seem gone forever.      “So I have this plan to go to Hollywood,” he wrote, but then instantly undermined himself. “I feel confused, a little stupid, but yet somewhat confident. I mean, I read your book, I figured out how to get to Wall Street from a non-Ivy League school, and I got here. The only question now is, if I leave, where do I go?”

Let me try to help sort it out:

Dear Anthony,

On several occasions I have taken my own advice and it has almost killed me, and so I’m a tad uneasy about offering it up to you. But if you promise not to take it any more seriously than I do, I’ll answer you as best I can.

Let’s start by putting your problem into perspective: You still have a job. You work at one of the world’s biggest banks. It’s true: The thrill and money is rapidly being drained from such places. Your big bank, like all the other big banks, seems to be in the process of being nationalized — thus the longer you stay the more you may find yourself in something resembling a government job.      But that’s not all bad: Government jobs are secure. You are also young, in your early 20s, and without a family to support. That is, unlike the vast majority of the people on and off Wall Street, you have the luxury to wallow in your misfortune.

Now let’s wallow. We’re at the beginning of a recalibration of the role of finance in global economic life. The excitement and the money that attracted you to Wall Street will probably not return for a long time. If these really are the only reasons you became a financier you probably should find something else to do with your life.

                          Hollywood Lurch

But before you go lurching into Hollywood let us make sure you aren’t simply repeating the mistake you made by lurching onto Wall Street. That is, let us focus less on your immediate condition — safely employed but disillusioned — to the habits and beliefs that led you into it.

You were never exactly wrong. If you’d been born 10 years earlier and behaved exactly as you have done, your career might well have made you as rich and seemingly successful as you imagined your father wanted you to be. You simply came to Wall Street too late, and are in the strange position of a man who won the lottery on the first day there was nothing in the pot. The mistake you made, in your view, is to have played the lottery on the wrong day. The mistake you made, in mine, was to have played the lottery at all.

There’s a question you might ask yourself: Am I looking for a job, or a calling? On the one hand the importance you attach to your career suggests a desire for a calling; on the other, your instinct to abandon your chosen career the moment it ceases to offer an easy path to fame and fortune, suggests that what you’re really in the market for is a job.

                          Job vs. Calling

The distinction is artificial but worth drawing. A job will never satisfy you all by itself, but it will afford you security and the chance to pursue an exciting and fulfilling life outside of your work. A calling is an activity you find so compelling that you wind up organizing your entire self around it – often to the detriment of your life outside of it.

There’s no shame in either. Each has costs and benefits. There is no reason to make a fetish of your career. There are activities other than work in which to find meaning and pleasure and even a sense of self-importance — you just need to learn how

to look.

Reading between the lines of your letter I sense that some of your anxiety is caused by your desire for the benefits of each — job and calling — without the costs. Perhaps that is what led you to Wall Street in the first place, and why your mind now turns to Hollywood.

                            Doing Well

What Wall Street did so well, for so long, was to give people jobs that they could pass off to themselves as well as others as callings. Such was their exalted social and financial status: Wall Street jobs made people feel special without actually having to be special. You never really had to explain why you were doing it — even if you should have.

But really, the same rule that applies to properly functioning financial markets applies to other markets: There’s a direct relationship between risk and reward. A fantastically rewarding career usually requires you to take fantastic risks. To get your seat at the table on Wall Street you may have passed through a fine filter, but you took no real risk. You were just being paid, briefly, as if you had.

So which is it: job or calling? You can answer the question directly, or allow time to answer it for you. Either way, I think you’d be happier if you stopped thinking of what the world had to offer you, and started thinking a bit more about what you had to offer the world. Real excitement isn’t just in whatever you happen to be doing, but in what you bring to it.

In the end, you have to look for it not on the outside, but on the inside. In my experience, if you find it, the other stuff will take care of itself.

(Michael Lewis, author of “Liar’s Poker,” “Moneyball,”

and “The Blind Side,” is a columnist for Bloomberg News. The

opinions he expresses are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column:

Michael Lewis at mlewis1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this column:

James Greiff at +1-212-617-5801 or jgreiff@bloomberg.net

In the following article, Michael T. Klare, professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hamphire College, and Defense Correspondent for The Nation, responds to the recently released report by the National Intelligence Council, a government intelligence service, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. You can visit the site listed in the article and read the report yourself. But at 90 some odd pages, I won’t ask you to do so.

Rather, drawing on your now deft understanding of Obama’s policies, coupled with your assessment of his cabinet appointments, I’d like you to use Klare’s critical synopsis of the above mentioned report to imagine the United States’ position in the world in the year 2016 as Obama’s second term comes to a close– about midway between now and 2025.

How, for instance, under Obama’s leadership will the U.S. have begun to adapt to what the report identifies as the two key developments: “the decline of America’s global primacy and the growing international competition for energy”? (Klare) How will the U.S. have responded to the rise of powerful new global actors like China, India, and Russia? Will Obama’s presidency have represented significant steps in the right direction? What is the “right direction” in this context?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081215/klare?rel=hpbox

The Fall of Triumphalism

Comment

By Michael T. Klare

This article appeared in the December 15, 2008 edition of The Nation.

November 25, 2008

In a remarkable evocation of the strategic environment of 2025, the National Intelligence Council (NIC), a government intelligence service, portrays a world in which the United States wields considerably less power than it does today but faces far greater challenges. The assessment, contained in Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World (dni.gov/nic/NIC_home.html), was released November 20 and is intended to be read by President-elect Obama’s transition team as well as the general public. “Although the United States is likely to remain the single most powerful actor,” the council notes, “the United States’ relative strength–even in the military realm–will decline and US leverage will become more constrained.”

The report is devoted largely to an examination of the major trends–political, economic, military and environmental–that will shape the world of 2025. Many of these will be familiar to Nation readers: the rise of China and India as major actors in world affairs; Russia’s growing significance as a power broker in Europe; the increasing role of corporations, crime networks and other nonstate actors; and the growing impact of climate change. But two key developments, by the council’s own admission, stand out above all others: the decline of America’s global primacy and the growing international competition for energy.

One can, in fact, read this extraordinary report on two levels: as a forceful indictment of the policies that have governed US foreign and energy policy for the past eight years and as a clear-eyed look at the devastating repercussions of those policies stretching far into the future.

If the Bush/Cheney administration ever stood for anything, it was the perpetuation of America’s dominant international role for decades to come. This vision was first articulated during the Bush I administration, when Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz composed the infamous Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) for the fiscal years 1994-99. “Our first objective,” the 1992 document affirmed, “is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union.” Although this precept was repudiated by Bush I in 1992 after the DPG was leaked to the press and aroused a storm of international criticism, it was later embraced by his son, who declared in a key 1999 campaign speech that if elected, he would strive to preserve America’s paramount position “not just across the world but across the years.”

This vision of enduring primacy was sustained, of course, by a belief that US military power was more than sufficient to overcome any conceivable adversary–with or without the support of allies. And it was with this confidence, this swagger, that the Bush/Cheney team initiated the invasion of Iraq. No plans were made for the post-invasion occupation or the possibility of a persistent insurgency, because it was assumed that the “shock and awe” of American power would produce an aftermath conducive to US interests. Similarly, the reluctance of US allies to join the venture was considered irrelevant, given the overwhelming military advantage enjoyed by American forces and the presumed availability of Iraqi oil to finance the entire operation.

Now, following years of debilitating fighting in Iraq and the systematic depletion of the Treasury, the prospect of extending American dominance “not just across the world but across the years” appears to have vanished for good. “By 2025,” the NIC report suggests, “the US will find itself as one of a number of important actors on the world stage,” forced to share power with other key players, including China, India and Russia. Inevitably, “the multiplicity of influential actors and distrust of vast power means less room for the US to call the shots without the support of strong partnerships”–which will be that much harder to form, given America’s diminished clout and the competing interests of other players, including allies like Japan and Europe.

Another debilitating legacy of the Bush/Cheney years underscored in the NIC report is the nation’s continued reliance on imported petroleum. Along with the epochal shift in political and military power from the United States to its competitors, Global Trends 2025 points to the equally momentous shift in wealth taking place from the oil-importing countries to their major suppliers in the Persian Gulf and the former Soviet Union. “In terms of size, speed, and directional flow, the global shift in relative wealth and economic power now under way–roughly from West to East–is without precedent in modern history.” Much of this largesse is being deposited in so-called sovereign wealth funds, huge investment accounts controlled by governments and used (among other things) to acquire large stakes in American banks and corporations–acquisitions that could, in time, provide major leverage over US political and economic policies.

Our continued dependence on imported oil–actively fostered by the Bush/Cheney team in myriad ways–is also contributing to what the NIC report sees as a period of intense geopolitical struggle over diminishing energy supplies. “Perceptions of energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could lead to interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources to be essential to maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime.”

Not only will the United States be weaker in 2025 because of the hubris of Bush and Cheney; it will face a world of multiplied dangers, emboldened challengers and a paucity of reliable allies.

The following is a series of mostly long excerpts from recent interviews with progressive journalists, academics, and activists on Democracy Now. This is not designed to be “fair and balanced.” Rather, it’s intended as a provocation, and as a follow-up to Leon’s post(s) and last week’s class discussion about Obama’s choice of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State.

I’ve interspersed 12 reading questions below in bold print and upper-case type. Please come to class prepared to discuss these.

The following is from a Democracy Now interview with Robert Dreyfuss on Obama Cabinet Appointments:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/2/change_or_more_of_the_same

ROBERT DREYFUSS: …it is important to point out that the people who are not named, the people were not picked by Obama or the people who were not on the stage yesterday with the president elect. There was nobody there from the anti-war wing of the Democratic party. There were none of the liberal Senators or even people like Jim Webb who spoke out against the war. John Kerry and Al Gore were not there. Bill Richardson was not there. You can go down a long list of people who he did not choose. Instead, he chose what the Wall Street Journal and many other publications are calling a war cabinet. The problem is, in order to fulfill his central campaign promise, which is to get our troops out of Iraq, he is going to have to do some direct hand-to-hand combat with people like Robert Gates and General Petraeus who has political ambitions of his own, Admiral Mullen at the Joint Chief and elsewhere, who are going to be urging him to slow down, to take a step back, to relax, and not mess up the surge that Gates has spent the last two years overseeing. I think he’ll be under a lot of pressure from the national security team that he himself is creating, to slow down the withdrawal from Iraq. He certainly left the door open for that. More generally, he pledged during the campaign to escalate the war in Afghanistan, which I think the rest of his team is fully in support of. Certainly, Robert Gates and general Petraeus have endorsed the notion of adding another 20,000 to 25,000 troops to that failed war, which I think is another catastrophically bad decision. He may find himself turning what had been Bush’s failed war in Afghanistan into his own failed war, especially if he carries it over across the border into Afghanistan. I think the problem here is that the Obama that tilted to the right during the election campaign, supposedly to protect himself against Republican criticism, in fact, turns out to be the real Obama. When he says, change comes from me, we are seeing the kind of change he believes in by appointing this centrist pro-military cabinet. That means, in effect, that it is change that they’re not neoconservatives, certainly they are not going to look like John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feif, but it will look very much like the national security establishment of the Cold War and the post cold war 90’s….

ROBERT DREYFUSS: Well, there are a few things to say here. First of all, there is a connection between national security and energy, and General Jones [Obama’s appointment for National Security Advisor] is at the very heart of that. When he was at NATO as the NATO commander, he did what he could to steer NATO in the direction of taking on responsibility of out-of-area action in regard to securing energy supplies, which points NATO in the same direction that the Bush Administration and of course many other administrations have gone in terms of taking military responsibility for the Persian Gulf and Central Asia, which is really what the aftermath of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is going to be about. To the extent the United States believes and NATO believes that it is responsible for securing that part of the world and protecting energy supplies. It is not necessarily a cooperative approach where we then go to the big energy users like Japan and China and India and talk to Russia as well about a cooperative effort to stabilize that part of the world, but a more unilateral one. That’s a concern.
The second point I would make, is that the people [appointed at] the next levels down at both the State and Defense Department is going to be very, very important. And there is no indication at all the Barack Obama intends to oversee that process. Who Robert Gates keeps on at the Defense Department, including some fairly troubling characters in important posts there, is something that we’re going to have to watch very closely, and as well at the State Department. Whether Hillary Clinton turns to people, including some of the muscular democratic hawks like Richard Holbrooke and in particular Dennis Ross, who is now ensconced at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which is an AIPAC spin-of, and brings these people in to help run the State Department is another big question. So, there’s a lot of aspects of managing a huge foreign policy apparatus that cannot reside in the hands of Barack Obama alone. He is not going to do this; change will not come from him personally except in the broadest outline. The implementation of foreign policy is going to come from the people that he picks.

[Question 1: How does Dreyfuss understand the relationship between cabinet appointments and foreign policy?]

AMY GOODMAN: It’s been interesting watching the networks now. I can’t figure out who is more laudatory in the discussions on the networks, the Democrats or Republicans, of Barack Obama’s choices. There is hardly any debate around this. I want to see what you think of this, Robert Dreyfuss, Steve Zunes piece on Alternet saying Hilary Clinton “allied herself with the Bush Administration and many of its most controversial actions, such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, threats of war against Iran, support for Israel’s 2006 offensive against Lebanon and 2002 offensive in the West Bank, opposition to the International Criminal Court, attacks against the International Court of Justice, and support for the unrestricted export of cluster bombs and other anti-personnel munitions used against civilian targets.”

ROBERT DREYFUSS: Well, it is true that she supported all those things. In part, though, the trauma of 9/11 shifted politics radically toward the right and a lot of people–and I’m not excusing Clinton’s decisions, but a lot of people got caught up in that avalanche period. Obama distinguished himself by not being caught up in it. I think the fact that Clinton supported that long litany of things, is troubling to me and to many other people who are hoping for a clean break, to use a term the Bush Administration got caught up in, to make a clean break with a lot of those past policies. I think its going to be difficult for him to execute that pivot. I think its going to be a battle on many of these issues with Senator Clinton to make sure that she stays on message.

AMY GOODMAN: You have written about it possibly being a moment for Barack Obama to distinguish himself outside of the Cabinet he has chosen, that people could possibly be expecting this.

ROBERT DREYFUSS: I think people put too much faith in Barack Obama the person. I think he is asked us to make the leap of faith in thinking he can be the embodiment of the change of people have been hoping for. In fact, it cannot be done by one person. In fact, it is not clear yet that Barack Obama is the person to bring that change. I think the message of this war cabinet he has named is that critics of the Bush Administration policy and people in the peace and justice movements are going to have to continue to mobilize, that it is not a time to relax. It is a time for demonstrations and letter writing and grassroots of activities to make sure what we hope to be a more responsive administration to those kinds of activities will start to pay attention to them [unlike] the Bush Administration, [where] we were clearly knocking on a locked door….

[Question 2: According to Dreyfuss, what is the message of the foreign policy (“war”) cabinet that Obama has assembled?]

The following is from a Democracy Now interview with Ralph Nader on the same subject:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/5/ralph_nader_and_medea_benjamin_on

AMY GOODMAN: I want to stay with Ralph Nader…. Juan and I have some questions….

Just go through the cabinet picks—again, they have to be approved—of Barack Obama, your, well, former opponent. You ran for president, as well, Ralph Nader.

RALPH NADER: Well, it’s symbolized in an article in the newspapers a day or two ago. The headline was “Obama Turns to Consider Liberals for Cabinet Positions.” I mean, you know, after appointing all the heavyweights, keeping Gates as Secretary of Defense, Hillary Clinton at State Department, and other positions—Treasury, for example, coming from Wall Street—the article said, well, it’s time now to consider some liberal appointees. Well, what’s left? Department of Labor. Now, will David Bonior, who is a genuine progressive and spent many years in the House of Representatives from Michigan, get the job? That remains to be seen. It’s really interesting. As long as liberals and progressives gave Obama a pass during the election and didn’t demand anything in return, he knew that he had their votes and he had their support regardless and moved right, moved to the corporate. And that’s reflected in the appointments that he has been putting in place. Now we look forward to the second level. Who’s going to be Food and Drug Administration head? Who’s going to be the head of the Auto Safety Agency or EPA? Will so-called liberals and progressives get their share of the Obama administration at that second level? It remains to be seen. But the signs are not very auspicious.

[Question 3: What is the connection Nader draws between popular support for Obama during the election campaign and his top-level cabinet appointments?]

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, the New York Times was reporting today that he may name California Congressman Javier Becerra to be the US trade representative, and Becerra has been a critic of free trade agreements in the past. But, in general, have you been surprised by the number of former Clinton administration officials that he has named?

RALPH NADER: Who hasn’t? You know, he defeated Hillary Clinton in a close race, and now he’s reinstalling the Bill Clinton administration. Now, there are two interpretations, briefly, here. One, it could reflect his insecurity. That way, by putting Clintonites all over the government and keeping Gates, he is basically eliminating a lot of potential centers of criticism and challenge to his administration after January 20. The second interpretation is more benign, and that is that he wants to elevate the State Department, so it isn’t dominated by the Defense Department and the security apparatus, and push for a more benign foreign policy, with more vigorous diplomacy instead of brute force, more attention to infectious diseases, environmental issues, land erosion, agricultural cooperatives, etc., which are much cheaper than ballooning a huge wasteful military budget. And if that is his goal, then the fact that he’s put Gates there for at least a year means that there isn’t a new Secretary of Defense to build up a powerful base to dominate State Department, and putting Hillary, who’s a world-recognized figure, regardless of her policies, into State Department, which will elevate the State Department. That’s the more benign approach. But we’ll see how it plays out.

[Question 4: What are the two explanations/interpretations Nader offers for Obama’s decision to “reinstall the Bill Clinton administration?”]

AMY GOODMAN: What about Marine General Jim Jones nominated as National Security Adviser? Interestingly, President Bush’s first National Security Adviser, of course, was Condoleezza Rice. She came from the board of Chevron. That’s exactly where Marine General Jim Jones comes from. Jim Jones comes from Chevron and the board of Boeing and the chief executive of the US Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, which has been criticized by environmental groups for, among other things, calling for the immediate expansion of domestic oil and gas production and issuing reports that challenge the use of the Clean Air Act to combat global warming.

RALPH NADER: Well, Jim Jones is basically the representative of what President Eisenhower cautioned us about, the military-industrial complex. He is experienced. He’s clever. And now he’s in the White House. So the question is, who’s going to run what? Is Obama going to transform Jim Jones? Is Obama going to transform all these establishment appointees? Or are they going to, in effect, transform him, in contrast to his more liberal rhetoric?

It’s very hard to appoint people with fixed opinions, fixed constituencies around the country of vested power, and say, well, we’re going to use these to change America, because if they change, that will give great credibility, and that will offset the corporate power structure from Washington, D.C. You know, that’s never been done before, Amy. Usually, when you appoint people who have fixed positions, who have experience in set ways, who represent the power structure, they’re not about to be steered into a progressive path of hope and change by someone at the top in the Oval Office.

[Question 5: Why is Nader not optimistic about Obama’s cabinet appointments changing their views?]

The following is the link to an Alternet post by Stephen Zunes in response to Obama’s naming Rahm Emanuel his Chief of Staff, which is something we haven’t discussed. Zunes is a professor of politics and the Chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco.

http://www.alternet.org/election08/106189

[Question 6: What are a few of the reasons Zunes is critical of Rahm Emanuel’s appointment as Chief of Staff?]

The following is from a Democracy Now interview with Naomi Klein, Robert Kuttner, and Michael Hudson about Obama’s economic appointments. Kuttner is a veteran economic journalist and the cofounder and co-editor of The American Prospect magazine. Klein is an investigative journalist and columnist for The Nation magazine. Hudson is president of the Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends and Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/25/naomi_klein_robert_kuttner_and_michael

AMY GOODMAN: We welcome you all to Democracy Now! I wanted to begin with the appointments. This is how president-elect Obama introduced the next Treasury Secretary, if confirmed, Timothy Geithner.

BARACK OBAMA: Tim Geithner offers not just extensive experience shaping economic policy and managing financial markets, he has an unparalleled understanding of our current economic crisis in all its depth, complexity, and urgency. Tim will waste no time getting up to speed. He will start his first day on the job with a unique insight into the failures of today’s markets and a clear vision of the steps we must take to revive to them.

AMY GOODMAN: And Lawrence Summers, named the Director of the National Economic Council in the White House.

BARACK OBAMA: One of the great economic minds of our times, Larry has the global reputation for being able to get to the heart of the most complex and novel policy challenges. With respect to both our current financial crisis and other pressing economic issues of our time, his thinking, writing, and speaking have set the terms of the debate. I am glad he will be by my side, playing the critical role of coordinating my administration’s economic policy in the White House and I will rely heavily on his advice as to navigate the uncharted waters of this crisis.

AMY GOODMAN: We begin with Naomi Klein. Your response to these appointments, and what they signify. If you could begin with Larry Summers, the former Clinton Treasury Secretary.

NAOMI KLEIN: Hi Amy, its good to be with you. Well, I have to say it is a profound disappointment. It really does represent a very safe choice, but let’s remember Barack Obama won this election saying that taking the status quo, that staying with the same policies that have been governing the country for the recent past, was actually a very dangerous course. I think in many ways we are paying the price of the frankly intellectual dishonesty of the progressive liberal left during the Bush years. Because Obama said again and again during the campaign that the crisis on Wall Street represented the culmination of an ideology of deregulation and laissez-faire trickle-down economics that had guided the country for the past eight years.

And the truth is, it was not just eight years in which those policies guided US economic policies. They certainly guided them under Reagan and they certainly guided them under Clinton. That is where Larry Summers comes in because Larry Summers was the last Treasury Secretary under Clinton. And he along with Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin were really the key architects of the policies of deregulation that created the crisis that we’re living now. And those key policies, as you know, are the killing of Glass-Spiegel that allowed a series of very large bank mergers that created these institutions that are too big and too intermingled to fail we’re told again and again. The deliberate decision to keep the derivatives out of the reach of financial regulators- that was also a Summer’s decision. And also allowing the banks to carry these extraordinary levels of debt–33 to 1 in the case of Bear Sterns.

Now, in my book the Shock Doctrine I start a chapter with a quote from Larry Summers. The context in which he says it was 1992 and it was when he was making World Bank economic policy as it related to Russia, in the midst of a financial crisis. What he said and this is why I quoted him because it really shows the extent to which he is truly an ideologue, and truly a follower of the very ideology– not just a follower but a propagator of the very ideology that Obama ran his campaign against. And here’s the quote–this is Larry Summers in 1992: “Spread the truth. The laws of economics are like the laws of engineering. One set of laws works everywhere.” And then he laid out those laws a little bit later. He referred to the three “ations”, and those were privatization, stabilization, and liberalization. So he has been preaching the doctrine. He is by no means an innocent bystander. He is a dyed-in-the-wool privatizer, free trader. And he along with Tim Geithner, his deputy, played key roles during very important economic crises in Russia, during the Asian financial crisis, during the Mexican peso crisis. When these countries were suffering a profound economic crisis, created by deregulation, they preached more deregulation, more privatization and –this is key– economic austerity to disastrous results. So I think this is really troubling. One thing that Obama said is that Larry Summers set the terms of the debate for this financial crisis and that once again is very worrying. Because if Barack Obama thinks that these are the only terms, the parameters of the debate, then it’s very, very narrow.

[Question 7: Why is Klein so troubled by the appointment of Larry Summers as Director of the White House National Economic Council and Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary?]

AMY GOODMAN: Naomi’s assessment. But let me ask you something, Bob, William Greider had an interesting piece in The Nation. He said:

“On Monday, Geithner was busy executing the government’s massive rescue of Citicorp-the very banking behemoth that Geithner and Summers helped to create back in the Clinton years- along with Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin, Clinton’s economics guru. Now Rubin is himself a Citicorp executive and his bank is now being saved by his old protégé (Geithner) with the taxpayers’ money. Geithner has been a central player in the deal-making, from Bear Stearns to AIG to Citi. The strategy has not only failed, it has arguably made things worse as savvy market players saw through the contradictions and rushed out to dump more bank stocks.”

And “ultimately,” Mark Ames also in The Nation writes ,“Summers was one of the key architects of our financial crisis. Hiring him to fix the economy makes as much sense as appointing Paul Wolfowitz to oversee the Iraq withdrawal.” Your response, Bob Kuttner?

ROBERT KUTTNER: I basically agree. The only thing I can say, and maybe this is because I am a congenital optimist and because I have some faith in Obama’s own leadership, and intellect–although I have to contradict myself and say if he’s such a smart guy why did he appoint these fellows–I do think Timothy Geithner is a competent technocrat. He is not an investment banker himself. He’s been a civil servant for almost all of his career. And secondly, when he was pursuing these failed policies, he was doing so as part of a threesome that included Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson. And of the three, Geithner was the most inclined to tough regulation as the price of bailout. But Greider is absolutely right about the intense conflicts of interest of which Rubin is both the emblem and substance.

And the question is, whether Geithner and Summers- in very different historical moments- can turn into different kinds of people under the leadership of a president who knows his own survival depends on pursuing a recovery. I certainly wish other people had got these positions. I am not quite prepared to conclude before the man is even inaugurated that this dooms the Obama administration to failure, but it certainly would have been better if he had appointed more progressive people.

[Question 8: How does Kuttner defend Geithner?]

NAOMI KLEIN: Just coming back to what we can expect from Summers and Geithner. I think it is clear there’s going to be a major departure from the ideology of the idea the government cannot do anything. We’ll see major economic stimulus, major investments in infrastructure, as Michael was discussing, and one hopes that there will be a lot of investment in infrastructure.

But the key issue—we also want to be optimistic. Part of what causes it to the situation that seems to be very disappointed appointments is the fact we have not been honest about the legacy of the Clinton years. So much misinformation was spread during the election campaign, because it was a nice message to present the nineties as these wonder years in contrast to the Bush years. That is exactly what created the situation where you could have Summers presented as the wise man instead of going down with Alan Greenspan. When Alan Greenspan’s reputation was raked over the coals, it should have Rubin and Summers along side him. And I think we have nobody to blame but ourselves for that failure. So essentially, it was an electoral strategy and it was an electoral strategy that relied on intellectual dishonesty and now to continue to make excuses for Obama is a real mistake, because he is not running for election anymore. He has already won, so there is no reason to be pandering in this way.

[Question 9: what does Klein See as a popular misunderstanding of the Clinton presidency?]

In terms of the real issue here, yes there will be stimulus. But how will it be paid for? Obama ran an election campaign promising to increase taxes on the wealthy, and Rahm Emanuel has already hinted that he might not do that right away. We are already seeing hesitation about the commitment to not renew the Bush tax cuts. Then there’s a huge fight over capital gains tax and the kinds of taxes paid by hedge funds. Here I think it’s important to remember Larry Summers is coming straight from a hedge fund. He’s managing director of one of the most secretive hedge funds around. So the real question is not whether they will spend taxpayer money, they will on infrastructure, but the point is will they just rack up huge debt and deficits or will they actually pay for this with taxes on the wealthy, which is what they promised to do and what we’re seeing Gordon Brown begin to do in Britain. Because if they do not pay for this in an equitable way, in a progressive way, then what will happen is this huge investment in infrastructure will create huge economic crisis down the road. It will be blamed on Obama. And then there will be a wave of privatizations, these new investments in public spending. There will be a whole new bubble.

[Question 10: What does Klein predict will happen if Obama’s economic stimulus package is not paid for by increasing taxes on the wealthy?]

MICHAEL HUDSON: I think the idea that Obama will change his economic philosophy is quixotic. In Berlin, almost everybody there was sure that Obama would be another Gorbachev, somebody laying low, somebody going along with, seemingly conforming so that all of a sudden when he was in he could do a revolution. Almost everybody was hoping against hope that would be the case. And instead of looking like Gorbachev, now all of the sudden Mr. Obama is looking like Yeltsin. Just the umbrella for these kelptokrats to come back in. The point that Robert Kuttner made, the bottom line for that is the fatal alliance between the American auto industry and the oil industry. It was the auto industry that bought up public transportation in Los Angeles and other cities after the World War II, and tore it down some people would not have public transportation and would have to have oils to drive cars.

[Question 11: Why does Hudson suggest it’s not Gorbachev but Yeltsin who seems to offer a better analogy to Obama at the moment?]

AMY GOODMAN: Naomi Klein, when you were last on, you were talking about structural adjustment programs for banks in the auto industry. But if the U.S. taxpayers are going to bail out the wealthiest corporations and banks in this country, why aren’t demands being made, like, all the boards have to resign, the leadership has to be thrown out, and if the US has to inject money, sometimes the poorest people in this country, there have to be certain rules which include you cannot build another SUV? Naomi Klein.

NAOMI KLEIN: Exactly. The point I made before, when anybody comes looking for a loan, whoever has the money has the leverage. We know that from the International Monetary Fund and you know that from your local bank. They set the conditions for that loan. When you look at deals that have been negotiated, not just by Henry Paulson, but also by Tim Geithner, you know he’s the one that negotiated, really the key person on the JP Morgan-Bear Sterns deal. He was also central in the AIG deal. And what we see again and again, taxpayers have taken on enormous risks from these companies. But they have not been exerting control in terms of reregulating the sector as a whole. When exactly is the Re-regulation going to happen? This is the moment of high leverage. It is not just about firing the boss and seats on the board, it is about re-regulating exactly what Larry Summers and Tim Geithner de-regulated under the Clinton administration. The real question is, do these people have the humility to fix their own mistakes? My question is, is Larry Summers’ ego too big to fail? These guys should not be promoted at this point. Their reputations should really be destroyed by their own track records. All these people are constantly talking about how brilliant they are, despite their dismal track record in this country and other countries in which they have meddled, including South Korea and Russia.

The key issue here, I think, is whether Obama is coming to these decisions because he is under enormous pressure from above, Wall Street. How do you transition from a pro-Obama campaign movement to an independent social movement that puts counter-pressure on him from below? Those are the conditions under which Roosevelt sold the new deal as a compromise to elites. We do not have those dynamics right now. We have a situation where we have super-fans for Obama, constantly apologizing for every decision that he makes versus a gloves-off elite who are putting real pressure on him behind the scenes. And we are seeing the result.

[Question 12: in closing, klein sets up an opposition between Obama’s popular supporters and the elite? What is the basis for that opposition and why is she critical of his popular supporters?]

This is the full speech Hillary Clinton gave on accepting her newest position in the Obama administration. Whether you like Hillary or you don’t, whether you agree with her policies or not, her speech was very heartfelt, and I truly appreciate just how much she is willing to do for this country in crisis. I have to say – I wasn’t really always a fan of her. I became a fan of her about seven years ago during that whole Bill Clinton scandal. It was then when I saw her strength, sticking by a man who humiliated her in front of the entire nation, and making it through the days holding her head up high, despite the pain she was in. I watched as she gave her interviews and my heart really did feel for her, but Clinton has proven herself to be quite the woman, which is why I’m happy for her newest position in this administration. 

It’s almost sad how much harder a woman has to work in order to gain a place in society in comparison to a man. I honestly do think this country would have been royally screwed if Palin became our next vice president, but I wonder how much attention in the media she would have gotten, how much criticism she would have received, had she been a man. I don’t even think John McCain, the actual man running for the presidential office, got as much heat from the media as Sarah Palin did. There are many shallow and ridiculous people that I spoke to during the election, relatives of mine included, who did not know much of her policies or much of anything she stood for, but simply would not vote for her because she was a woman, and “no woman deserves a seat in that White House.” It’s pretty disgusting when I start to think of it. Then again, if people think women are ignorant and clueless, then throwing someone like Palin into the picture is just adding more fuel to the fire.

I believe Hillary Clinton is the counterpoint. She’s different. She doesn’t swallow what’s fed to her. She stands up for herself with a passion that has blown me away over the years. I really hope the media doesn’t give her as much heat as they gave Palin, even though I have no doubt she’d be able to handle it. After all, it’s nothing new to her. They say history repeats itself. In this case, I hope it doesn’t.

1. According to Robert Kagan, what is the source of “American self-righteousness”?

2. Broadly speaking, the Bush administration’s foreign policy was initially guided by what underlying principle(s)?

3. In paragraph 10, Kagan quotes Condoleezza Rice arguing, as Bush’s foreign policy advisor in 2000, that “U.S. foreign policy had to be rooted in the ‘firm ground of the national interest,’ not in the ‘interests of an illusory international community’.” The phrase “national interest” is one that is used loosely, liberally, and typically quite vaguely in political discourse? What, specifically, do you think Rice (and by extension the Bush administration) meant by “national interest?” If you were to use the phrase, what, specifically, would it mean for you?

4. As Kagan points out, the Bush administration’s foreign policy changed abruptly after 9/11. But as he also notes, there were obstacles that prevented the U.S. from “returning to the old Cold War style of leadership in a post-Cold War, post-9/11 world. Kagan identifies what two obstacles?

5. How, according to Kagan, did most Americans misread the world reaction to 9/11? What did many opinion leaders around the world see as a “major cause” of 9/11? What is the “gap in perceptions” between America and much of the rest of the world that Kagan speaks of in this context?

6. Kagan argues that “the war on terror has been by far Bush’s greatest success? What does he attribute as the reasons for its success? On the other hand, why does he see the “war on terror paradigm” as an insufficient basis for U.S. foreign policy?

7. Why does Kagan believe many of our allies were willing to overlook U.S. actions in the Vietnam War but not in the Iraq War?

8. Why does Kagan say Europe perceives the problem of radical Islam differently from the U.S.?

9. Under the “Incompetent Hegemon?” section, why does Kagan say “many could only explain the [Iraq] war as a war for oil, or for Israel, or for U.S. imperialism…?”

10. What does Kagan see as the reasons for the post-war failure in Iraq?

11. What is Kagan’s general view of future U.S. prospects on the world stage? What does he see as the structure of the international system for the foreseeable future?

12. Why does Kagan say it’s more difficult today to have the kind of U.S. leadership and cooperation with alliances that we had during the Cold War?

On an autumn night November 4, 2008 Senator Barack Obama became President elect Barack Obama, in front a compacting crowd of thousands of his supporters in Chicago, IL. He recited a speech of hope and change that touched and invigorated not only his supporters on hand but millions of others abroad this nation. Many cried, many cheered Barack’s win over McCain that night, but was it in fact really a win worth cheering for? Many celebrated this win as if it was like your favorite team winning game seven of the World Series.  After getting past my initial happiness for Obama I now view his win as more of a say game five of a best of seven victory in which you still trail the series three games to one. Yes a victory, yet and still you have to win three more games before you won it all, and might I add do not lose one more game because then it you will be eliminated.  America won a minor victory that night in my opinion. Indeed we have a president whose proposals look to point the country in the right direction, however he has so many issues ahead of him that one crucial mistake could send the country in a catastrophic state. In this essay I will dissect some not all, of the issues Obama will face going into the next four years.  Overseas issues that stem from the current Iraq war, Iran Nuclear Program, the ever growing Taliban in Afghanistan, and the emerging super powers that are China, Russia, and India.  Of course not to be forgotten the enormous quagmire right here on the home front known as the Economy.  We all know the proposed plans from Obama; from the” Iran Sanitation Enabling Act” to the “New Energy Plan for America”.  Also I’m sure we are aware of Obama’s plans to reach out to the Taliban and to Iran in negations rather than use military force. The plans for the economy, and other countless proposals, however in my paper I did not just simply want to write a paper dissecting these proposals and what have and could be’s  instead I want this paper to really reflect and emphasize the issues that Barack Obama really has to face in 2009. This paper will really make you question if indeed it is even possible for one man to solve all if any of the problems this country faces in the coming years, and it will also make you question, is this indeed worth wild victory for Barack Obama?

                Let’s get the traveling out of the way and begin overseas with Iran and its Nuclear Program which is continually growing unpopular with the United Nations by the day.  Lead by hostile Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Iran as we know continues to go forward with their creation of nuclear weaponry despite sanctions and threats already implicated, and the threat of even more severe Sanctions by the UN that would tap into the trade of Iran’s prized petroleum reserve with other nations.  These weapons put not only the likes of India and Israel; our allies in harm’s way but they also endanger America itself as you already gather.  Now Obama has proposed not to use military force against Iran but rather negotiate or enact tougher sanctions a la Iran Sanctions Enabling Act.  Now obviously as we all know sanctions and negotiating has not been effective in this situation.  Having Ahmadinejad speak on US soil about the situation in front of a hostile crowd of Columbia University Students only made the situation worse off than it already was.  I believe the only option is to use military force, however Obama plans to use military force for Afghanistan a perfect segway into yet another issue that should cause eminent military conflict.  The Taliban has been said to have gotten even stronger with the US military shifting focus on Iraq over the past eight years at the orders of President Bush and his administration. Obama plans to root out the Taliban as he claims we should of done in the first place following the 9/11 attacks, however is it wise to use our military personal to attack a group that has not attacked us in over seven years, should we move personal to go after Osama bin Laden, whom has not surfaced going on five years,  and when he does he looks malnourished and as if he is dying, who knows if he is even alive today. This could be Iraq all over again. Another great segway into, yet another problem Obama will face ahead of him.  The Iraq War; a war that has cost us close to 30,000 casualties and near 60,000 injuries, that is a depletion of nearly 90,000 soldiers. We all know that Obama has plans to withdrawal troops at a responsible rate, but what will be the outcome of this.  Will Iraq continue to function as democracy or will the absence of US troops cause a backlash that can be detrimental to not only Iraq itself but the United States.  As I mentioned before Obama plans to use military force in Afghanistan in the future, and should expect to do the same in Iran if he wants Nuclear situation to come to a head, but with a depleted military; near 90,000 soldiers we will have to implicate a draft to enroll more soldiers in the military, because I am sure that 18-29 year old men and women are not rushing to their local military enrollment centers to  sign up to join the Army, Navy, or whichever service branch of the military.  What about Korea and Russia? Korea and there missile ambitions, how can that be countered? How will America answer to Russia brutally attacking Georgia our ally? That cannot go without being addressed.  The issues with Korea and Russia can very well turn into ware fare.  Do we have enough military personal to fight four actually five wars counting the one we are in currently? Is that even possible?

                Now I will shift focus to the home front, if you think those foreign affairs are mind boggling really think about the absolute mess we have here in America, the economy.  There is so many things wrong with the economy right now I am not sure where to begin. I guess I start with the high cost of fuel, with the emergence of the likes of China, Russia, and India, dependence on oil is huge in the world.  It is becoming obvious that there is not enough for everyone, hence why the price of gas has sky rocketed. I remember the days when my parents asked for $5 gas, now $5 gas probably will not even get you home God forbid you stop and get something to eat.  Expect to shell out at least $30 a week in a normal vehicle and upwards to the likes of $60 if you are driving a SUV.  Up with the price of fuel goes food, clothing and the other necessities, but what is worse is that people cannot even pay for such expenses because their out of jobs.  The unemployment rate has gone up to it’s highest in 15 years. Companies are cutting back and laying people off.  Which in turn has the housing market plummeting because without a job how can you make your house payment?  Foreclosure is at a record high, people are losing their houses which mean that, the mortgage companies are not receiving payments which in turn has Real Estate giants going out of business, which now as we see the stock market dropping each and every day. When the market drops people lose money.  401k, pensions, retirement’s savings gone, and savings in general gone and where are all these savings held?  in banks.  No money in the banks, banks close as we have seen. It seems like every day a bank merges or is being brought out.  This country’s economic value is in shambles no doubt.  Yet and still there are people out there still bickering about poor education the price of healthcare and etc. Those issues must take a back seat to the economic woes of today, without money you cannot fulfill the needs of schools in America; books, pay to teachers, lunch, classroom maintenance etc, and into college; tuitions, up to date relevant technology without a strong economy you cannot even have a functioning health care system; Doctors and Nurses, facilities to practice in, equipment etc. Americans need to recognize what is important and learn to prioritize. You cannot build a house without a foundation.  The Economy is this Nations foundation and it sorely needs repair right now ahead of anything else.

                So do you see what President Elect Barak Obama has ahead for himself? It’s amazing to really sit back and take in all the mess that we are in right now. Can one man have the fortitude to fix all of this? One human with the same five to six liters of blood running through his body as you and I; one heart, all together  10 fingers and toes, one brain, a normal individual as you and I.  Do you honestly believe he can fix this? Can any human being fix this problem? In my opinion I don’t think so.  I was and still am a Obama supporter but the phrase having his work cut out for you has just taken a whole new meaning.  Jump for joy cheer Obama won, we did it, and what did we really win? Most likely Obama and his supporters one another chance to fix this the United States of America, with the least amount of lead way for failure as it has ever been before in history.

Remember that eposide of Larry King Live when guest George W. Bush went on and on about how Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 was his all time favorite movie?  Or how about that time the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox each rushed out their dugouts charging towards eachother at full speed just to embrace in joyous hugging and laughter at the mound? Or how about that time you were at Apple bees and you looked over at the booth next to you and saw Batman, Joker, Superman, and Lex Luther on a double man date sharing an appitizer of mozzerella sticks. 

You probably never recall any of these events happening and would not expect them ever to happen, just like I’m sure you did not expect this:

Yes, that is right Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton once fierce political rivals now together as part of the same administration. Who would have ever thought? especially after a debate like this….

As you can see Obama and Clinton clashed on numerous issues in just this short clip. From the likes of it one can assume there is going to be a lot of raised voices and slammed doors in the oval office over the next four year. Do you think that the two can co-exist for the greater good of the country? Will Clinton be able to submit to authority of President elect Obama? Will Obama be able to swallow his pride and take into consideration Clinton’s proposals? That remains to be seen Although Obama critized Clinton’s judgement in voting for the Iraq war, and Clinton stating Obama lacked the experience to be President.  Advisors in the Obama administration, say Obama envisioned Clinton as his top diplomat, and even invited her to Chicago to discuss the job just weeks after his historic victory. Advisors to the Obama camp have even complimented Clinton saying she will bring statue and credibility to US diplomatic Relations.  However Democrats question whether Clinton is too independent and politically ambitious to serve under Obama.  I question the exact same thing. I am still shocked, even more shocked than the time I came up to a red light on my way home and the Incredible Hulk pulled up next to me driving a smart car. I heard it was spacious but wow lol…all jokes aside, I am shocked and eager to see if Obama and Clinton can really make this thing work. Again what do you think?

If you live in a heavily populated Hispanic area I am sure you have heard the phrase “Ay Dios Mio!” Which in English translates to, oh my God.  According to an Article published by Politico (popular Latino news outlet) many Latinos are saying ay dios mio to the recent appointments to the Obama cabinet. The article reports

“Obama promised hope and change, Hispanics hoped for the usual two Latino in cabinet, and…why not three or four…early stage appointments trickle disappointment through the Latino community.”

 The Latino community played a key role in Obama victory over McCain just a month ago. To be exact exit polls showed that 67% of Hispanics voted for Obama, and were the deciding factor of many of Obama’s victories in battle ground states such as Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Florida. Latinos disappoint of Obama’s cabinet selections stem largely from Hispanic Leader of New Mexico Bill Richardson; who seemed to be a shoe in for Secretary of State to Obama being snubbed by non other than Hilary Clinton,  of which whom Bill Richardson had a hand in helping Obama defeat in the primary. In the article Director of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials (who comes up with these titles…lol) Arturo Vargas states

“There is nobody more prepared and experienced for the job than Richardson…he served as energy secretary and ambassador to the US during the Clinton administration and helped free hostages in North Korea, Cuba, and Iraq.”

Since selecting Clinton, Obama has appointed Hispanics to cabinet but to none to any prestigious positions such as Secretary of State. Is this the first sign of Obama reneging on his promises of change, just 30 days after being elected? What do you think?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081130/pl_politico/15967

www.naleo.org/downloads/2008NALEO_Latino_Voter_Survey.pdf

I just had to put this video on the blog to show the bullet this country dodged by voting for Obama. For those who haven’t seen this yet: Sarah Palin appeared in Wasilla, Alaska to pardon a local turkey in anticipation of Thanksgiving. After the pardon she gave a TV interview while some guy was slauthering turkeys and draining them in the background. Palin obviously oblivious to what’s going on keeps talking about her life after the election, future goals for Alaska, Oil,… Than in the end they ask her about her Thanksgiving and she says that she is in charge of the turkey.

I just thought this was very ironic and I just wanted to share it with everybody.

I am thankful for the hope that our new president has inspired in this country.

I am thankful for those who believe in me and who have gone out of their way to help me succeed.

Lastly but not leastly, I am thankful to Union County College a place where I discoverd my potential and abilty to overcome the ghost from my past. A place where I felt at home.

FWF was founded in 1997 and it’s main mission is to positively impact communities by decreasing high school dropout rates. They work on the belief that every child can learn if provided with engaging material, encouragement and support.

“1 out of 3 students who start public education do not complete high school. Every 9 seconds a student drops out of school in the US” (www.freedomwritersfoundation.org).

Here are their main objectives:

• Increase involvement of students and teachers.
• Boost teachers motivation and confidence to avoid them changing professions.
• Encourage acceptance and embracing of diversity among students.

The popular opinion is that “at risk” problem kids can’t learn until problems with society are fixed (poverty, gang violence, broken families,..) àFWF promotes that these problems can be fixed over time by making an effort to educate those kids so they can break the cycle for themselves.

Their main effort goes into training teachers and to “encourages the use of innovative techniques, a teacher support network, and connections between teachers and local businesses and community leaders”.

“It’s time to give students the opportunity to reach their full potential and aspire to higher education. It’s time to remind them that they can deeply impact their communities and the world”.

 I think that their approach is a good one which the government should pick up and further develop. There are many more aspects of the educational system that need improvement but changing the attitude of students and teachers is an important step into the right direction.

• 50% of all adults in America are functionally illiterate by the simplest tests of everyday reading writing and comprehension.
• 60% of American youth have dropped out of school or barely graduated with 7th grade education.
• Average achievement of high school students on most standardized test is now lower than 26 years ago.
• Of the top 18 industrialized nations, U.S. students ranked last on the standardized tests.
• Standard Achievement test scores have fallen 80 points since 1960
• Between 1975 and 1980 remedial mathematics courses in public 4-year colleges increased by 72% and now constitute one-quarter of all mathematics courses taught in those institutions.

Today, nearly 70% of inner city 4th graders are unable to read at a basic level on national reading tests.  Our high school seniors trail students in Cyprus and South Africa on international math tests.  And nearly a third of our college freshmen find they must take a remedial course before they are able to even begin regular college level courses.

Federal policy has strongly influenced America’s schools.  Over the years Congress has created hundreds of programs intended to address problems in education without asking whether or not the programs produce results or knowing their impact on local needs.  This program for every problem solution has begun to add up, so much so that there are hundreds of education programs spread across 39 federal agencies at a cost of $120 billion a year.  Yet, after spending billions of dollars on education, we have fallen short in meeting our goals for educational excellence.  The academic achievement gap between rich and poor is not only wide, but still growing.

No Child Left Behind was implemented to help students achieve higher test scores and be educated to his or her full potential.  It affects what students are taught, the test they have to take, the training of their teachers and the way money is spent on education.  The standard for achievement tests has been reduced to bring scores up.  This rewards students more while the student actually learn less.  Students are actually at a disadvantage.  Under NCLB, standardized test scores are assessed by student’s proficiency in reading and math.  Educators are teaching according to this test.  So much time is spent on the test that the needs of individual children are falling by the wayside.  The focus is reading and computation at the expense of all their other essential skills such as comprehenson, analysis, problem solving and drawing conclusions.  Taking the results of one test is really a disservice to our students.  It excludes students who could succeed or excel in other areas.

NCLB’s advocates say the landmark law holds schools accountable, empowers parents and is helping to close the achievement gap in America’s schools.  Many critics, including those who agree with the law’s goals argue that it is a “one size fits all” approach to education that over emphasizes testing and doesn’t provide enough money to schools to achieve success. As stricter testing requirements and penalties have taken effect, several states have rebelled, challenging the law in legislatures and the courts. In response, the U.S. Department of Education has given greater latitude to some districts and states in satisfying the law’s provisions.  Than, in turn has drawn criticism that the federal goverment has gone too far and weakened the law so much that it can’t achieve its goals.

States are required to set targets for overall achievement and for specific categories of students, such as English language learners or economically disadvantaged students.  these targets determine whether the  school makes adequate yearly progress, or AYP, as measured by state standardized tests.  A school can fail even  if it is making substantial progress for most of its students-if one category of students cannot meet the standards. The goal is for every student in public school to be proficient in reading and math by 2014.  students must be tested annually in reading and math in grades 3-8 and at least once in grades 10-12. Students must be tested in science in a least one grade in elementary, middle and high school.  Schools that don’t meet goals for their overall student bodies or specific categories of students are sanctioned.

Teachers must be highly qualified to teach core academic subjects in every classroom.  Specifically an elementary school teacher must have a bachelor’s degree and pass a rigorous test in core curriculum areas.  Middle and high school teachers must show they are competent in the subjects they teach by passing a test or by completing an academic major, graduate degree or comparable coursework.  Research including a 2006 study of 3 states by the think tankEducation Trust, shows that students in schools with a large percentage of minority and low-income students are more likely to be taught by teachers who are inexperienced and lack a major or minor in the subjects they teach.  The teacher qualification provisions of NCLB are aimed at insuring that schools where students tend to need the most help employ teachers who are qualified to provide it.  states have struggled to meet this goal.  The law covers other teaching staff, too.  Most teachers aids and other paraprofessionals are now required to complere 2 years of college or an equivalent type of training.

The nonprofit independent center of education policy releases annual report cards on NCLB.  The organization which advocates for public schools, surveyed education officials in 50 states and gave the law a mixed report card in 2006.  the center concluded that as a result of the law:

• Districts are better aligning classroom teaching with state academic standards
• Principals and teachers are making better use of test results to improve teaching
• Scores on states tests are higher in large majority of states and school districts
• Teachers report high stress levels and poor staff morale because of the pressure to improve scores
• Most school districts are cutting back on Social studies, science, art or other subjects to make more time for reading and math, the subjects that are tested.
• The effect on achivement gaps between groups of students of different races or ethnicities in unclear.  While most states and districts reported that the achievement gap in test results had narrowed or stayed the same. The centers own case studies did not find the same results.  As a result, the study concluded it is impossible to reach an overall conclusion about achievement gaps.

In a harsher report The Civil Rights Report, formerly  known as the Harvard civil rights Project concluded in 2006 that NCLB is failing to close the achievement gap, won’t make its 2014 goals and has not significantly improved reading and math achievement.  Federal education officials dispute these conclusions.

Sources:

http://www.greatschools.net/egi-bin/showarticle/ca/205

http://downtownweb.com/k-12-education/crisis.htm

http://www.princetonol.com/groups/iad/links/toolbox/nclb.html

http://www.ed.gov.pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html

I believed the NCLB act was a great idea as long as it accomplished what it is set out to do.  I don’t agree with the idea of focusing on a certain area or subject and the expense of another.  All subjects should be addressed and handled with the same dedication and determination.  Early childhood development plays a part and can help make a difference in a child’s learning abilities but it is not always affordable.  NCLB act has a few shortcomings that can be detrimental to our educational system.  A reformed NCLB act is crucial, not just our students are at stake but our nations educational system.  Pres-elect Obama has a great plan on NCLB, including early Childhood Education that begins at birth.  If you have not veiwed Obama’s plan on education and reforming NCLB go to http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education

1.  What are your thoughts on No Child Left Behind?  Is it a help or hinderance?  Why?

2 what do you think are key factors that would improve this nations educational system or educational crisis?

Compared to other nations United States spends more per student; however the average science and math score of U.S. students lagged behind. A number of nations are doing a better job than the US in getting young people through school. The United States is falling when it comes to international education rankings.

See this link for a full report of a study done by OECD.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://mwhodges.home.att.net/science_undergrad_intl.gif&imgrefurl=http://mwhodges.home.att.net/education-c.htm&usg=__NBogDKOOn-0vvxORVwYv7vC1uTA=&h=348&w=437&sz=9&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=c2jJOS39gjMUnM:&tbnh=100&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3Deducation%2Bcompared%2Bto%2Bother%2Bnations%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den

Joe mentioned in his comment that his daughter out performed her classmates in a public school after attending private school for four years. My son also went to private school for a while and then public. The differences between the two are enormous; from the quality of the education, to the way the children are required to dress and attitude of the school’s staff. US education system substantially favors those who can afford the best schools and who can afford to go to college. Then, the US economy holds the largest rewards for those who have graduated from college, and the biggest penalties for those who do not complete high school, providing few outlets or second chances to cross that gap upon leaving school. Other developed countries appear to be rapidly expanding their university-educated, but without the education spending and income disparities of the US.

I believe it’s important to provide quality education to the entire American people and not just a few who can afford it. We’re hearing a lot these days about the coming shortage of skilled workers. The world is changing and we need an education system to produce the knowledge workers needed to compete in a digitized global economy.

Here’s an article on why the US must reform education in order to compete in the world: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_/ai_n21075798

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)

This act was signed by President Bush aiming to improve the performance of US primary and secondary schools by increasing the standards of accountability for states, school districts, and schools their children will attend.

v Each state was to create assessments that measures what children know and learn in reading and math in grades 3-8. Student progress and achievement are measured according to tests that are given to every child, every year.

v NCLB is to empower parents, citizens, educators, administrators and policymakers with data from those annual assessments. The data will be available in annual report cards on school performance and on statewide progress reports. They will give parents information about the quality of their children’s schools, the qualifications of teachers, and their children’s progress in key subjects.

v NCLB offered most local school districts in America the freedom to transfer up to 50 percent of the federal dollars they receive among several education programs without separate approval. NCLB gave local school officials serving rural schools and districts more flexibility and a greater say in how federal funds are used in their schools. NCLB was to create meaningful options for parents whose children are trapped in failing schools and make these options available:

1. Public School Choice: Parents with children in failing schools would be allowed to transfer their child to a better-performing public or charter school immediately after a school is identified as failing.

2. Supplemental Services: Federal Title I funds (approximately $500 to $1,000 per child) can be used to provide supplemental educational services – including tutoring, after school services, and summer school programs – for children in failing schools.

3. Charter Schools: NCLB expands federal support for charter schools by giving parents, educators and interested community leaders greater opportunities to create charter schools.

v In addition to specific funds for teacher quality, NCLB gave local schools new freedom to make spending decisions with up to 50 percent of the non-Title I funds they receive. With this new freedom, local school districts were able to use additional funds for hiring new teachers, increasing teacher pay, improving teacher training and development or other uses.

Link to complete information on the No Child Left Behind Act: http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml

Since the No Child Left Behind law took effect it has had a sweeping impact on U.S. public school classrooms. It affects what students are taught, the tests they take, the training of their teachers and the way money is spent on education.

Debate rages over whether the law is an effective way to improve academic achievement. Click here to see the critics’ arguments: http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/4439

Obama’s views on education

Obama states he plans to reform the No Child Left Behind Act, invest in early education and make college affordable. Listen to what Obama has to say:

Do you think the values and cultures of this country affect the education system? How?

What do you think can be done to encourage higher academic achievement among students?

If we are less competitive educationally, will be become less competitive economically?

What changes would you recommend to the No Child Left Behind Act?

What do you think about Obama’s video on education?

Obama and Iraq by Robert Dreyfuss

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/378887/print

Power Play by Robert Kagan

http://carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=print&id=20438

1. Robert Kagan compares today’s “realists” with the realists of an earlier era. According to Kagan, in what fundamental ways do the two groups differ from one another?

2. With which group of realists does Kagan seem to agree? In other words, which group, according to Kagan, seem to have a better understanding of the basis of international politics and the how and why individual nations relate to one another the way they do?

3. According to Kagan, what was the relationship of the older generation of “realists” to democracy and democratic movements abroad?

4. To what does Kagan attribute the “global shift toward liberal democracy”?

5. Kagan concludes by approvingly quoting the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr from six decades ago: “the world problem cannot be solved if America does not accept its full share of responsibility in solving it.” Kagan, however, does not explicitly state what that “problem(s)” is for us today. Nor does he define what “responsibility” actually means in this context. Can you infer from Kagan’s article what he would identify as the “problem” and how he would define America’s “responsibility” in solving it?

6. What do you see as the “problem(s)” on the world stage, and what do you see as American’s “responsibility” in solving it?

1. Although as Dreyfuss argues, “Obama catapulted over Hillary Clinton in the primaries because he mobilized antiwar voters against her,” he nonetheless suggests that Obama might not have an antiwar mandate now as the new President. What are some of the reasons Dreyfuss offers to support his position? Which of these do you consider most important?

2. What does Dreyfuss suggest Obama could and should have done differently to ensure that he would have an antiwar mandate once he assumes office?

3. Do you agree with Dreyfuss? In other words, do you think Obama still has a mandate to end the war in Iraq? Or did he squander that political capital in the course of the presidential campaign?

Here are some stories of people trying to follow the rules and doing it the right way. http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/share-your-immigration-story/index.html

It almost feels like people are getting punished for playing by the rules. No wonder that there are estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

Both candidates didn’t really talk about the topic of immigration during their campaigns. In the final presidential campaign the word immigration came up only once and not as a topic point. McCain: You’re running ads that misportray completely my position on immigration. So the fact is that Sen. Obama is spending unprecedented — unprecedented in the history of American politics, going back to the beginning, amounts of money in negative attack ads on me.(CNN.com)

But let’s have a look at how the two candidates approach this problem on their websites.

Obama’s policy on immigration:

He wants:

• to overhaul the immigration system and bureaucracy.
• to encourage people to come out of the shadows and create a fair system to do so.
• that illegal immigrants to learn English, pay a fine and start their process of becoming legal citizens.
• to put more resources in securing the boarders.
• to crack down on employers employing undocumented workers (BarakObama.com).

Barack Obama believes that politics have to be put aside for this issue.Everybody, Democrats and Republicans, have to make an effort to fix this situation together. (My opinion: It’s a good thought,but what are the chances?!?)

McCain’s policy on immigration:

McCain has some of the same ideas than Obama. He wants to reform the system with a two-step program.

• The first step for him would be to secure the boarders with fences and more resources.
• Than he wants to “implement a secure, accurate, and reliable electronic employment verification system to ensure that individuals are screened for work eligibility in a real-time fashion.”
• Also part of his plan is to prosecute employers that continue hiring undocumented workers and
• also to ensure that all undocumented aliens either leave or follow the path to legal residence (JohnMcCain.com)

There is also of course the concern of American citizens that the “illegals are taking their jobs away” That is not true. “According to Jeffrey S. Passel, a demographer at the non-partisan Pew Hispanic Center, in 2005 unauthorized immigrants made up about 4.9 percent of the labor force, or about 7.2 million workers out of 148 million” (NYtimes.com). Many illegal immigrants have jobs Americans don’t want. 

1,What is your opinion about immigration- illegal and legal? 

2,What are your thoughts about Obama’s plan for integrating illegal immigrants by making it possible for them to obtain legal residency or citizenship?

Sources:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/ImmigrationFactSheet.pdf

http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/issues/68db8157-d301-4e22-baf7-a70dd8416efa.htm 

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/questions-and-answers-immigration/

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/15/debate.transcript/index.html

More than anything, I think, I feel a sense of relief. Although a McCain-Palin presidency would’ve been stymied to some extent by significant Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, another four years of a socially conservative president whose understanding of economics doesn’t go much beyond cutting taxes on the wealthy and whose foreign policy is informed by the bellicose exceptionalism of the current administration was almost viscerally painful to imagine. As Joe suggested, it feels like a dark cloud has lifted.

But just as the election of a bi-racial president does not itself put an end to racism in our society, the election of this president does not itself guarantee the change he promises. If change, real change, is to come, it will require that those who elected him don’t simply congratulate themselves on a job well done, sit back and let him run the show. Instead, it will require vigilance, organizing, and pressure from below. For despite the right-wing rhetoric of “terrorist” and “socialist,” Obama seems to be very much a centrist in both his economic and foreign policy instincts. In fact, as I’ve suggested before, one need only look at the advisors Obama has surrounded himself with to argue for a brief pause in the collective euphoria. And on that note, I’d recommend the following two Democracy Now interviews, both conducted a day or two after the election. The first deals with the economy (and, in passing, the bailout scam), the second with foreign policy.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/6/president_elect_obama_and_the_future
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/7/can_grassroots_movement_that-propelled_obama

But as I’ve also said before, crises create openings, they create possibilities which seemed unthinkable only a short time before. Obama has stepped into such an opening and he represents such a possibility….

Perhaps that is why, without the stigma and passed down memory of slavery and being brought up by the white side of his family, he was able to convey a more comfortable feeling in much of white America.  These are not card carrying Klan members, but wary nonetheless.  “Is he into blaming us for the black experience?”  “Will he push through a radical ‘black’ agenda and leave us behind?”  Obama never brought up his race, and according to his campaign team, there were no meetings about it either. 

The old black leadership of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan seems out of touch with the new realities of race in America.  They were just what was needed in a different time and much is owed to them.  However, the youth of America, of all colors, voted for Obama in an overwhelming majority.  That is our future, and apparently our present as well.  The old ways and thoughts are literally dying with the older generation.  We should always fight the good fight when needed, but I hope that Obama’s victory puts a nail in the coffin of victimhood.  Progress cannot be made with that mantra.

Obama believes in stronger enforcement at the border and at the workplace of already existing laws.  However, he wants to reunite families wherever possible and to bring in more skilled workers that would benefit our economy.  He believes that the immigration issue has been used by politicians as a divide in our country without really exploring solutions.  This has allowed our economy to become dependant on the millions who are undocumented.  While enforcing our existing laws, Obama wants to “Reaffirm out heritage as a nation of immigrants” (BarackObama.com).  What does that mean as a policy?  It sounds like just more political rhetoric.  He is concerned about the vigilantism of the border towns.  OK, I agree, then what?  Concern and policy are two different things.

To secure borders he supports: 1)Increasing both personnel and technology. 2)Increasing number of legal immigrants for both skilled workers and the reunification of families. 3)Cracking down on the employers of illegal workers 4)Have illegal immigrants pay a fine and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens. 5)Help Mexico’s economy to help stem the need for immigration in the first place.  So, what does he propose to do with the millions of illegals who pay his fine and go to the back of the line?  Do they remain?  If so, how does that help us?  Or, would they have to wait their years back in Mexico?  If so, then there is no incentive for them to come forward.  They could have done that in the first place and didn’t.

John McCain’s policy is, unfortunately, a non-policy seemingly aimed at pleasing a large demographic of voters without actually saying anything.  He wants to secure our borders “while respecting the dignity and rights of citizens…” (JohnMcCain.com).  That is pure blather.  What does one have to do with the other?  We already have laws against profiling, if that is what he means.  McCain states that “Many Americans did not believe [that] we would secure our borders, and so we [Congress] failed in our effort” (JohnMcCain.com).  Hmm… Is he saying that our lack of faith in Congress is the reason for their inaction?  I just knew it was my fault. 

He also continues to confuse the immigration issue with the criminal issue.  McCain wants to stipulate that we “apprehend those who come here illegally to commit crimes” (JohnMcCain.com).  Interesting thought.  Perhaps we should expand that to include apprehending all criminals, illegal or otherwise.  And we could build places called prisons in which to put them.  He also wants to secure the borders first, and only after they are secure, going to part 2, which is to go after the employers.  Since he wants to wait for the borders to be completely secure (an impossibility) and to require that the “Governors of border states…certify that the border is secure” (JohnMcCain.com), we will never get to part 2 of his plan. 

After part 2, McCain wants to “require” all illegal immigrants to “enroll in a program to resolve their status” (JohnMcCain.com).  Criminals would be prosecuted and deported.  Others would be treated as under the Obama plan.  Does he seriously think that anybody would come forward for this program because it is “required?” 

As I see it, neither candidate is addressing the real issues surrounding illegal immigration. 1)The unmanageable and bankrupting medical costs due to: a)Immigrants bringing in serious diseases previously eradicated in the U.S. b)Treating millions of these uninsured immigrants at emergency rooms. 

2)The costs associated with educating the children of non-tax paying citizens and the burden on schools because of the sheer numbers. 

3)The moral issue.  As a nation, are we comfortable with paying millions of workers substandard wages?  If they are made legal, then their wages would legally have to go up, negating the reason for hiring them in the first place and opening up millions more slots for the next wave of illegal immigration.  If their wages go up, why not hire Americans to begin with? 

The one good proposal is Obama’s in which he wants to work with Mexico to improve their economy, making the immigration issue eventually moot.  I am afraid that looking at the individual stories of immigrants and their hardships and reasons for coming here is unfair.  There are untold millions of people who would like to come here and with good reason.  People being persecuted, people in war zones, people who cannot feed their families.  We simply cannot absorb them all.  We are a finite area with great, yet finite resources.  Where do we draw the line?  They all deserve a better life.  The best policy is to work with the various governments of these countries and help their citizens from that end.  It is the moral duty of the industrialized nations to do so. 

1)What do you think about the costs to the American taxpayers? Is this a problem, or do the benefits of illegal workers offset this?

2)Do you think that securing our borders should include the fence?  Why or why not?

3)Do you think we can absorb the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, and the others that will follow?  Why or why not?

The John McCain website no longer has links to his policies, but www.bpnews.net has direct quotes on this issue from both the candidates.

I did consider voting for McCain. I think everyone in the class is an Obama supporter. Because of my Christian foundation I felt I could not vote for Obama based on his views on abortion. I don’t attend church nor am I a religious fanatic and I do live a life of sin according to the church but I grew up taught to follow certain older traditions.

McCain reminds me of my great grand uncle Antonio Rodriguez Baliñas. Antonio fought in the Korean War and was the first Puerto Rican commander of the Office of the First U.S. Army Deputy Command. He is highly decorated and I am very proud of him. I see McCain as this older man set in his ways with the same values and beliefs as my older relatives. McCain appealed to my moral beliefs. His war status allowed me to relate him to my own family.

I first looked at Obama with mistrust. I did not know what his religious beliefs are and the rumors were that he was a Muslim.

I took this class because I wanted to familiarize myself with politics. I felt this election was very important and wanted to learn to make better inform decisions when choosing whom to vote for in this election and in the future. In this class I learned to look at things with an open mind. I learned something from the blog, comments, people in the class and research.

I took a look at Obama’s views on the issues. I felt that he offered more details and what seemed like a more thought through plan. I like the tax cuts he proposes and his plans on stimulating the economy. I like that he wants to invest in early education since I strongly belief that we need to offer better education to our children.

I still don’t like Obama’s views on abortion but feel that this is not an issue I should consider strongly when choosing who to vote for since there are issues far more important. I think that abortion is a very personal issue and I rather keep my distance from it.

At the end the most important issue I felt I should consider is the economy since it affects the entire world and each of us personally. The second most important issue to me is world relations. These two issues were what lead me to my voting decision. I also want to see the war come to an end. I was able to see how Obama brings new hope to our nation.

When your parents and grandparents can tell you their stories and experiences of segregation and as a child you witness the isolation and experience the seperation then racism was really not that long ago and the remnants are still here but a change came, has come and is coming.  I remember being taught that a child can grow up to be anything they put there mind to.  But as a child I new that an Afro-American or woman president was the impossible and the unreachable.  But change has come in such a manner that when I tell my children and grandchildren they can do anything, this presidential election has proven it to be true and no longer just words of encouagement or esteem.  Change at its gradual pace has made history. 

This election has been amazing.  To witness the unity that was displayed by the American people of all walks of life was exhilarating and put me in a state of awe.  We may not agree on everything and have different beliefs and lifestyles but we stood on the common factor that this country needs change.

I didn’t vote for Obama just because he was Afro-American but as a middle-class American whose issues and struggles are his concerns.  Am I happy that the President is Afro-American (an understatement) I’m ecstatic.  This is an accomplishment and an honor that was thought to not have been possible.  This is a day that was long time coming but has been long time doubted.  For the impossible to be accomplished and the unreachable to be reached is astonishing.

We need a president that has the people’s best interest at heart.  The people have spoken, the trust and belief in his promise of change speaks for itself.  I believe he is capable of doing what he has promised.  He shares the values of the less fortunate as well as the elite and has experienced misfortunate for the lack of firsthand.

It is understood that he faces great challenges considering the turmoil he has inherited.  But I am confident that with time and patience the changes that Obama has promised for the American people is gonna come.  We expect change and gradual change has gotten us to this most historical moment and gradual change will award this nation with life, stability opportunity and prosperity. 

My biggest concern is not “is he capable”, but will he be given a fair chance?

God is still blessing America

This post is not going to have any works cited, I just wanted to express how happy I was Barack won, it is 1am right now I just woke up 45 minutes ago after watching coverage of the election all afternoon and night. I even missed the darn speech he gave, I will catch it on youtube, but I am so happy Obama won, I will catch his speech on a rerun on youtube I am sure.

Today was the first time I was  of age to vote, and I will never forget it. I can tell my children one day I voted for a African American President on my first ballot ever. I remember when I was in the 3rd grade my teacher had pictures of all the presidents in the order of their terms in office at that time Bill Clinton was the last picture.

Alot of days I looked up at those pictures and thought…when will I see a African American or  a women.  Now we have some change, I wish I could go to that classroom in January 2009 and see Barack’s portrait up, I think I would actually cry for real. So I do not think Ill go back can’t be crying in front of 3rd graders, not a good look.  I was thrilled to see so many different people come out to vote today in my neighborhood.

I’m going to keep it real, around my district it is a nice area and a little suburban, but where my friend lives it is very urban, i took her to vote and I seen so many demographic of people coming in and out to vote.  From crackheads, drug dealers, elderly wheel chair ridden people, young people, Spanish, Black, White, Chinese, thugs, hip hoppers, rockers I never seen such variety in voters.  Usually when I would hang around the polls years prior, It was not that much variety in the crowd.

It seemed like just regular crowd, like people you would see in Kmart going to vote, but today so many people came out and it just showed in the numbers in the election. It showed. Obama taking Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania; That is people coming out to vote. Well I am tired going to get some sleep, I am glad I was able to see history as it unfolded, I will never forget this day. Ever

Need I say more? I think not, The American People have spoken…God Bless America! I am sure glad the Obama won the white house, cause if he didn’t, I was packing my bags and moving to Austria!

Because this is such an important election, I have been nearly plagued by the fact that I do not have my citizenship, thus do not have the right to vote, but I have to say: even if I did have my citizenship, I would vote for neither candidate. I’d fall under the 50% of Americans who do not vote each year. Of course I’d love to exercise my vote and have a voice, but I am not willing to 1) become a citizen of a country that is not my birthplace and 2) support either of the two candidates who have not intrigued me enough to vote for them. I dislike McCain on a multitude of levels and feel as though it would be the country’s downfall to elect such a man, but on the other hand, I am not an Obama supporter, either.

If I definitely HAD to choose and there was no other way out, of course I’d go for Obama and Biden, who seem to bring a bit more to the table than McCain and that IQ-of-a-napkin woman Palin. But I cannot believe until I see. When my father voted for Bush, everyone in our family, including me, believed it was the best choice. We had faith. I had faith. I saw something in Bush that I did not see in Gore. Needless to say, eight years later, my opinion on Bush and on this country has changed drastically. I no longer have faith in any of these candidates. Until I see actions take place, rather than mouths take words, I will never believe in another candidate, another politician, ever again. Obama’s all about change…. if he gets elected, I WANT TO SEE THAT CHANGE.

I woke up this morning refreshed and renewed my sickness that lasted four long days, was over (just like the sickness of the last 8 years). It felt like Christmas morning I just hope that I was getting the present that I

Election Day 2008

wanted. With my mind clear I headed out the door to the polling place to cast my vote. I thought I was slick to get there early in order to beat the crowds, however about a hundred other folks thought the same thing.

It was chaos and I started to think pessimistically, but I sucked it up, and found the correct line to stand in. It took 20 minutes to get to the front. I showed my ID to the little old lady behind the table, signed my John Hancock, grabbed my voting ticket, and headed to the Voting Booth.

As I am waiting in line for the voting booth I realize that I am going to make history (Nationally and personally).  Another 15 minutes and I am in the front of the line. I anxiously wait my turn, hand my ticket to the Election official and enter the booth.  I take a moment to ponder my options, then immediately select Barrack Obama as my presidential choice, and then the entire Democratic column. I press the shiny red button to cast my vote, and emerge from the voting booth, chest swelled with pride and Hope for the future, not just mine, but for every American. Tonight I am going to celebrate the Obama Victory…

It’s now 2008, a woman and a black man fought for the democratic ticket, a veteran 72 year old past republican primary ticket loser received the nomination, and a female governor from Alaska was given the Republican vice Presidential nomination. Even though my life span and memory traces me back to Bill Clinton, the world has changed and this election has been quite the eye opener even for myself. Barack Obama and John McCain have both had their highlights and certain lows.

In one day we will vote and things either way will drastically change.

This race to the white house is not only striking because for the first time a black man scored a major party’s nomination or because a political veteran is running, it is striking because of all the absurd behavior of both candidates, absurd behavior of most media sources, and because of the intense rallying of youth. My mother has always told me that the young people today just are not merely as passionate as back in the day. Young people are living in their own world like always but I can proudly say this election has sparked my interest in politics. I can rant and rave and support my opinions with facts and my own personal strong beliefs. I am proud to be American and I have always been but finally I can say I have a voice and I am comfortable with raising that voice.

Since I am comfortable with raising this voice even against my own conservative family members and mentors (and not just in this honors class) I am proud to be voting for Barack Obama. It is not because he is black, or because he looks good on a t-shirt, or because as my conservative aunt feels “young people are too liberal today”, it’s because I have faith in his intelligence, his ideas, and his potential plans. I do not support his views and his motives he supports mine. I am not saying I find no flaws in this man because I certainly do. I have questioned and wondered and searched about Obama I have my doubts on Obama about certain issues but not my fears like I do with John McCain.

As I thumbed through the latest editions of Time magazine and Newsweek I stumbled upon some great articles about what the 44^th president of the United States of America will have to face in his presidency; a faltering economy, a war, the threat of terrorism, and a sea of social issues. Every article including one written by the mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg paints the grim picture of what the next president must tackle. Bloomberg goes onto give his personal advice in the article, which some may disagree with, but he successfully emphasizes the great issue of the economy, the next president must be prepared to handle. Another article written like Bloomberg’s is one by the President of the Council of Foreign Relations, Richard N. Haass. Haass focuses on a major issue that has taken the back burner to the economy, foreign policy. Haass talks about the conditions in the Middle East, and his advice for the next president. A quick read of both of these articles did not force me to really analyze these two men’s advice. It painted a vivid picture of the world around me. I began to think about the reality the next president will walk into. Once Obama or McCain is elected president they will have to walk out of the worlds of their campaigns and walk into the reality of the presidency. An article in Time magazine titled How They Would Lead puts what will happen right after the election best;

In an instant, the winner is sucked through a wormhole back into the real world. A world in which Congress, not the President, writes all the laws and gets the last word on the budget. Where consumers decide which cars to drive and how many lights to burn. And where the clash of powerful interest groups makes it easier to do nothing about big problems than to tackle them. Even the strongest, wiliest, most effective Presidents must change shape and shift direction to accommodate these and other forces. An ability to alter course without losing one’s way is essential to presidential success.

I have no faith that McCain will successfully make the transition and I am not prepared to trip and fumble with him.

As I continued with my magazines, Time started breaking down the differences between Obama and McCain.  Time magazine did a great job being fair while highlighting their plans briefly and probably for the last time. These two candidates differ in every which way to a certain extent and even though on certain issues. As I read over a few issues we have already discussed to some extent I reaffirmed my agreement with Obama. A healthcare pullout in Newsweek about their plans reminded me of all of the uninsured and the young people I know in my life that face thousands of dollars worth of debt because they had no healthcare.

McCain does not have my vote because I strongly disagree with his views on abortion, healthcare, education, and foreign policy. Aside from my disagreement with his future potential policies he does not move me, motivate me, or maintain the independence, potential, and intelligence I see from Barack Obama. Barack Obama is the man that Sarah Palin and John McCain have insulted for being that community organizer, and diplomat that intends to talk to our enemies.

That community organizer hopefully will become president. Even if he does not I will still proudly say I casted my vote for Barack Obama.

I wrote this post to share these articles and to post my final bout of support for Obama.

Nuclear Energy- As of ’04 it provided 20% of electricity for the US. No air pollution (France dropped its total pollution by an estimated 80% in the 1980s, when they tripled its nuclear production). Some concern lies in the cost (an average of 13 cents per kilowatt-hour).

Solar Energy- Advantages include non-polluting, conserves natural resources, and technologically available for widespread use. Oh, almost forgot that its UNLIMITED. It is however costly to build a system that stores an adequate amount of energy, therefore a complementary energy system is required.

Hydropower- Harnesses the power of falling water, and US facilities can generate enough power for 28 million homes. Also emits no pollutants into the atmosphere, and dams have other non-energy related advantages (reservoirs, irrigation supplies, flood control, etc.). Dam project do affect the environment in that they can harm ecosystems.

Geothermal- Heat generated from natural processes is pumped out from a few miles beneath the earth’s crust. This clean, sustainable source is not a financial burden because most of the drilling technology has already been perfected for the oil industry. This form is non-renewable, however the fluids extracted can be reinjected into the site.

http://www.energy.gov/energysources/index.htm

McCain and Obama have similar stances when it comes to alternative energy. They look to expand our nuclear energy capacity (McCain by setting a goal to build 45 new plants in 20 years). Obama would like to see 10% of energy come from renewable resources by the end of the first term. Both agree that tax credits will help in developing and producing renewable energy.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/the_idiocy_of_energy_independe.html – Interesting article from Real Clear Politics.

How soon do you think we need to develop alternative energy so that its use is substantial?

Even though both candidates don’t differ a whole lot, who do you think will put more emphasis on the issue?

Hypothetical: If a new, more environmentally safe alternative was readily available but at a higher price, would you switch for the sake of the environment?

The ban was enacted in 1982 after it was determined that there was a significant risk of contaminating areas of the ocean which make up our prime fisheries, and that because oil was just $20 a barrel (compared to over $100 now), the risk to the environment was not worth the reward.

On September 24, 2008, the US House agreed to allow drilling as near as 3 miles off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Lifting this ban, however, is not an immediate remedy. According to the Department of Energy, lifting the ban will have an “insignificant” effect on oil prices and would not produce any oil for almost 10 years.

Currently, there are 68 million acres of offshore leases and we are only pumping on about 20% of those acres. Nearly 80% of all the offshore oil available lies in off shore acres where leases already exist.

Why, if we are not drilling on a majority of the acres leased, would we need more? The oil and gas industry spent $79 million on lobbying this year alone, in what many believe to be an effort to get the ban lifted before George Bush leaves office. Do you believe that the reason oil companies are not drilling on the remaining 48 million available acres is because there is an attempt, by the oil companies, to keep oil prices high?

Are you surprised to hear that In the third quarter, 2008, BP realized profits of 83%, Conoco Phillips profits rose 41% and Shell’s profits increased by 33% over this time last year?

“Wise men profit more from fools than fools from wise men, for the wise men shun the mistakes of fools, but fools do not imitate the success of the wise” Cato the Elder (234-149 BC)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/20/new_offshore_drilling_not_a_quick_fix_analysts_say/

http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/fensec.asp#note2

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/23/news/economy/oil_drilling/index.htm?cnn=yes

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/offshore-drilling-it-s-not-t

http://biden.senate.gov/press/in_the_news/news/?id=B8A133B0-6B34-4B5A-BE39-7F22FB787D1F

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?lname=E01&year=2008

Here’s the message I received from Media Services with the link to the video of Jim Cramer’s talk. If anyone knows what program is used to open and view it, please share that knowledge with the class.

A searchable video of the UCC 75^th Anniversary President’s Lecture featuring Jim Cramer is now available at:

http://mediaserver.ucc.edu:8080/ramgen/stream-091/Cramer Event.rmvb

The continuous loop version will continue on the College’s website – UCC-1

Sorry for the late reminder. But, again, our class is scheduled to meet this evening, Tuesday, at the usual time and place. Dr. Cindy Singer will be there to speak with you about the ongoing economic crisis and related issues. I’ll look forward to hearing your responses when we meet again on Thursday or on the blog before then.

JS

The billions in dollars thus far spent to stop drugs from reaching us would be far better spent in cost effective drug treatment programs.  De criminalizing drugs wuld have a similar effect to the repeal of prohibition.  Violent crime, at an all time high during prohibition, dropped drastically once it was repealed.  And it is well known that drinking continued, as does drug use, regardless of the legal status of the substance. 

The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) states that, “Drug treatment programs in prisons can succeed in preventing patients’ return to criminal behavior.”  Over $67 billion per year is the cost to society, excluding the costs of the war on drugs.  The cost of welfare, police responding to drug related crimes, and incarceration are that high.  According to NIDA, upwars of $7.00 is saved by spending just $1.00 on treatment.  And the success rates for the best programs are upwards of 50%.  With new research and development in the areas of genetic markers and treatments for substance abuse, the rates will go much higher than that.

The fact of 1in 4 young black men having been incarcerated, is a well known statistic.  12% of black men in their twenties are currently behind bars.  Why, then, with so many of our citizens off the streets, is America’s crime rate higher than other industrialized nations? 

According to Katarina Ivenko, writing for “Correction Today” April 1997, “Research data has shown no correlation between the incidence of crime and the rate of incarceration.”  So, despite America’s uniquely high level of incarceration, crime has actually gone up, not down as would be expected.  Obviously, punishment does not work.  55% of all federal prisoners are doing time for drug related offenses stopthedrugwar.org.  The vast majority of these are non violent.  While violent and property crimes have been steadily going down, the rate of incarceration has been going up.  Drug arrests account for this.

A NY Times editorial articulated the wave of drug violence that has beset Mexico, especially on the border region nytimes, October 20, 2008.  It has become so out of control, that schoolchildren are now witnesses to the carnage right across form their schools.  With no end in sight there have been 3,700 drug related killings so far.  A 1,000 person increase over last year.  The effect on Mexico’s children alone should be enough to spur us to action.  The gruesome, mutilated condition of the bodies, on display for all to see, and in such great numbers, is causing the children to become accustomed to this violence.  The next step is acceptance of it as a natural part of life.  Do we want a generation of children inured and accepting of tortuous violence right across the border?  When one society’s fabric is destroyed, it has ramifications for others’.

If we take drugs out of the hands of criminals, it can be better regualted and treated by various agencies of the medical establishment.  The money saved on all aspects of our war on drugs could be much better spent on drug treatment, education, job training and healthcare for the poor.  But to bring this up in an election year would be pure folly.  If pro choice advocates are labelled baby killers, imaging what proponents of this commonsensical approach to drugs would be labelled.  “Drug pushers” would be just the start.

What do you think of de criminalizing drugs?

Do you believe punishment works to reduce crime?

Should we put more emphasis on rehabilitation, job training, and treatment, or should we emphasize a tough stance in the prisons to deter recidivism?

It makes one think, if this is how he thinks of his senate colleague, then what does he think of the majority of Americans? What does he think of us….What does he think of ME?…

It does not look good for the majority of Americans if, McCain becomes the Big Cheese in Washington. I have read several blogs, Liberal and Conservative ones. I noticed a trend among the Republicans/Conservatists commentators and writers on these blogs, they become downright hostile, and violent in their rants about Obama. Hmmm, isn’t that what animals do when they are cornerd, become hostile, or when they are threatend? They are worried and should be.

McCain would make a lousy Poker Player, he has so many “Tells”, ( a Tell is a behavior that reveals an Emotion about the kind of cards one player has to others, usally the person “Telling” is unaware that he/or she is doing so), He TELLS us how he is going to deal with foriegn policy “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran”. He TELLS us how he thinks of us ” I dont agree with what the Majority of Americans want…” his attitude and behavior towards Obama, and he TELLS us that he is for big business, and not for the Majority of Americans just listen to he proposal for the Econimic Crisis or read his Health care Napkin err “plan”.

His judgment is no better, just look at his Vicepresidential choice. Need I say more?

I really personally admire Obama’s response and disregarded McCain towards the end when he spoke of the “pro-abortion” movement. I didn’t know one existed, I haven’t recently attended an abortion celebrations. I found the term “pro-abortion” very insulting and ignorant of John McCain. He also went on to use the term directly after Obama pointed out that no one essentially is for abortion.

Also McCain’s comments about Obama’s view of abortion reminded of an ad that ran not to long ago. I found another video of the ad that ran where a girl who survived abortion stated that she would not be here if Obama had his way (the clip I’ve posted also includes an interview with the star of the ad).

I fact checked the ad and Obama’s supposed support of infanticide. Obama voted against the specific bill McCain refers to because he saw the bill as undermining to Roe v. Wade. I also fact checked on wether or not Gianna Jessen the girl who claims Obama would have ended her life would honestly not survived under Obama. I found that she would have lived under Obama or McCain, either way she would have lived, her life would have been protected by Illinois law.

I also would like to point out I admire the little bit of dignity that “Allen” brings to Hannity’s interview with Jessen, by sticking up for Obama something which seems to be against Fox News code of conduct.

How will my already struggling family keep our house? How will I pay for college? How will my relatives and I maintain our jobs? What will happen to my father’s retirement fund before he even retires? These pressing questions fill the heads of all those Americans that are sitting at those dining room tables that John McCain, Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden all insist that too are sitting at (even though their tables are places under crystal chandeliers).

A couple of other questions I also find myself pondering at the table are how did this supposed great capitalist country of ours find itself in such turmoil? What made this historical $700 billion bailout necessary? And what do I want my candidate for the next President to believe in and fight for to fix this major issue that not only is troubling the United States but as of recent the world?

Before it is time to look at Senators Barack Obama and John McCain’s economy plans it’s time to attempt briefly look at how we got here for those of who view the world of finance as that foreign country you may just have never heard of and can’t find on a map.

Sub-prime Mortgage squats, Credit crunches, Fat Cat sprints

After the attacks on September 11^th borrowing simply became easier. Spending was encouraged when a low federal funds rate was created. For the time being after 9/11/01 the economy slowly began to improve and the economy could prosper, but an outpouring of money, easy to get loans, credit, and mortgages brought us to where we are today. The idea to motivate the American people to spend, spend, spend, and invest began to back fire.

Lower interest rates made it easier for many to purchase homes, and to get credit. Perhaps it became a bit too easy to do so. Soon the sub-prime mortgage crisis everyone keeps referring to was on its way. Banks were making it illogically easy for people to purchase homes. The sub-prime mortgages began to become packaged deals for the mortgage securities companies  that we now see slowly meeting their demise. These sub-prime mortgages began to be purchased by companies such as Fannie Mae and then made it possible for the stock market to get their hands on these “wonderful” sub-prime mortgages. The problem with these companies getting their hands on these sub-prime mortgages was that the mortgages started to default.

While these repackaged sub-prime mortgages were strolling around Wall Street and destroying our economy, those Fat Cats we always hear about have been leisurely jumping from their high rise buildings with those “golden parachutes” and landing on top of jets that swept them away to luxury resorts. Over the past few months fingers have been pointed all directions as who is to blame for the current crisis. Is it the banks that gave out mortgages to the unqualified,  is it those on Wall Street who feel none of the true horrid effects of what is going on and who can be credited for toying with money, or is it the government who sat with their backs turned to Wall Street? The answer is . . . all of the above.

To really in-depth break down the factors which have caused the economy to spiral out of control take a look at the following links.

• About.com: Understanding the Sub-prime Mortgage Crisis
• Investopedia.com: The Fuel That Fed The Sub-prime Meltdown

From both of these links I’ve provided you can follow the yellow brick road of links these individual sites provide. Each site provides good basic insight on the issues that have played a major role in effecting our economy.

The End Result: The Bailout

And bam there you have it a bailout plan that deserves its own movie, holiday, Super Bowl type event. Not that the bailout is a plan to be celebrated but it is a plan that is notably massive. It is a plan that is icing on the United States already massive debt.

The Bailout in simplest dumb down terms is that it’s going to buy up all the bad debts acquired by the banks in order to restore the capabilities of the banks to restore functioning. The Bailout is an extremely important topic to discuss but for once I’d like to take my time to look at the plans that Senators Obama and McCain have come up with pre and post Bailout.

The Candidates

I would like to address only two issues I feel the candidates need to most importantly analyze and address those issues being: Taxes and Mortgages. I have linked their websites so you can read on the issues related to the economy you find most important.

Barack Obama on the Economy

Barack Obama on Taxes

Barack Obama claims he will eliminate some income tax, and cut taxes for working families. According to Obama’s site he would provide millions of American workers with a relief. A “Making Work Pay” credit of $500 for each person and $1,000 per family would be provided under Obama. This would essentially eliminate for certain Americans income tax. Obama would also like to directly eliminate income taxes for senior citizens who make less than $50,000 per year in hopes of them saving a supposed average of $1,400. He would also like to raise taxes on those whose income is $250,000 or above.

As Obama eliminates income taxes for certain Americans he would raise the income tax rates from 33% and 35% to 36% and 39.5%

When it comes to trade taxes, Obama would like to eliminate the tax breaks that companies receive for outsourcing jobs to foreign countries. Along with attempting to maintain and create more jobs by eliminating the tax breaks to companies sent overseas, Obama would along with certain income taxes eliminate all capital gains taxes on new small businesses. Obama would do so in order to promote job creation and a break for these businesses.

Barack Obama on Mortgage Fraud and Credit Practices

Obama would like to give a mortgage interest tax credit. He would like to give a tax cut to many homeowners who make under $50,000 per year a savings of at least $500. Obama in his plans also outlined a plan to prevent the type of fraud and predatory loans that caused the sub-prime mortgage crisis. His STOP FRAUD act would federally define fraud, and would require a closer eye to watch over lenders. Obama would also like to establish a “Credit Card Bill of Rights” the rights would include the banning of unilateral changes, prohibiting interest on fees, prohibiting of universal defaults, and require prompt and fair crediting of cardholder payments.

John McCain on the Economy

John McCain on Taxes

John McCain will keep the tax rate at its current 35%, and he would also keep the 15% rates on the capital gains tax and dividends. McCain would then cut the corporate taxes from 35% to 25%. McCain would also prohibit and ban taxes on the internet and cell phones. Essentially under John McCain the taxes maintained now would essentially remain.

McCain on Mortgages: Maintaining the Home

Under John McCain families will be able to trade in “a burdensome mortgage for a manageable loan that reflects their home’s market value”. If you are in ownership of a sub-prime mortgage from after 2005 you can participate in McCain’s plan.

Obama and McCain as of today.

Both McCain and Obama have made notable additions to their economic proposals.

Within this past week Obama expanded his plans, including a plan to give “Americans penalty-free access to retirement savings” to aide in the hard times many Americans are facing. He also added that he would give businesses a $3,000 tax credit for the next two years during this pressing time.

The New York Times Obama Update

Suddenly McCain has decided as of today that what I just wrote above is going to be momentarily changed. The 15% capital gains tax in McCain’s new proposal would be moved to 7.5% for the time being. He would also allow Americans ages 59 and up access to their retirement funds at a 10% tax rate.

The New York Times McCain Update

Opinion

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have many individual issues their economic plans address. I’ve only highlighted what they plan to do about taxes and mortgages because it’s an important issue constantly thrown around in the media but I never hear exactly what these candidates plan to do. I find some of Barack Obama’s plans for taxes very interesting and am glad I have found the time to find out exactly what Obama would like to do and not just hear from television ads he would like to raise taxes. I also think his plans regarding Mortgage Fraud are legitimate. As for McCain the few lines I have provided is all I could really pull regarding his tax and mortgage plans. As for taxes he seems to find that no reform is necessary. I do though think his exchange of sub-prime mortgages for manageable loans is mildly reasonable.

Overall I feel McCain has danced around the issue of the economy and made it more of a spectacle than a pressing issue.  I admire personally Obama’s persistence in emphasizing a plan rather than putting on a media show as McCain has done the past two months. I also believe that the new developments in both of their new proposals is a little senseless. Yes maybe it does seem convient to get our hands on money right now, but what is the sense in promoting people to take money from their retirement funds, that will simply promote people taking money from the market.

The United States economy has be traveling down a dangerous road and in less than a month it will be time for us to choose a new president who could possibly lead us into better times or into much harder times.  So here are my questions for you:

• How important is the economy as an issue to you personally and will it help determine who your vote for come November 4th?
• Which candidate do you believe has stronger plans and goals for the economy, and why?
• What in your opinion do you think these two candidates need to focus on more heavily pertaining to the economy?
• What do you find troubling about both candidates economic plans?

The primary mistake: lending money to sub-primers, people who couldn’t afford to pay-off their mortgages. Banks began to buy off property they believed would be resold and paid off accordingly. What they didn’t expect was the ski-rocking numbers of foreclosures due to unscrupulous loans’ agreements. Contracts became the predatory practice to attach inexperienced homeowners to a variable interest rate that increased each year and soon exploded, “the balloon contract.” There was no collateral. Thus, banks became unable to lend out money to be invested again. The cycled was interrupted and money was no longer flowing as easily.
As a dependent, what goes on with taxes doesn’t really affect me directly but it does affect my parents. Thus, after researching for hours I still didn’t comprehend how the bailout wasn’t a good idea for the “taxpayer” (which I found a bit ironic since I’m not part of that group). I kept looking but didn’t find anything that fit my shoe until I decided to discuss the subject with someone who understands my situation and the economic as well -I spoke to my father. I finally understood why the bailout plan isn’t that bad after all. 

The Senate passed the bailout law just last Wednesday in which the government agrees to give out 250 billion right away as part of a 700 b rescue plan. Many still don’t agree with it but from my point of view of now, I think it was necessary. 

 Bailout is law: President Bush signs historic $700 billion plan aimed at stemming credit crisis

It is a plan designed mostly to incorporate confidence back into the investors’ head. By giving out money to the banks we are attacking the problem from its roots. We cannot borrow from someone who doesn’t have the capital or is not certain about lending. As a result, the main reason new homeowners cannot buy a house is because banks cannot afford (literally) to lend money. And if they do is not to the average American.  Is necessary that confidence as well as the solvents is restored among lenders and investors in order to jump-start the economy and get back on track.  The outcomes of these past months have been foreshadowing a bigger catastrophe – a major recession. Yet if we keep ignoring this new result (depositors retracting their money form banks and institutions-that is the stock market) it can lead to a major chaos: the cycle of flowing money among businesses, investors and consumers to be disturbingly altered.

Vicious Cycle:
1) Credit market freeze
2) Banks don’t lend
3) Towns Stop Projects
4) Companies Miss Payroll
5) Consumers Don’t Spend

The Bailout Vote: The Scary Side

    My add: 6) Businesses begin to fail.

                  RESULT: We’re all screwed!                 

          While the bailout can “attack a credit crisis that threatens the economy and would free up banks to lend more,” opponents speculate that this new law will “put taxpayers at risk and it [also] rewards bad decisions made by Wall Street.” 

On the other hand, by rescuing major and dependable companies such as Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac and AIG, as the most recent, it has not only relieved the CEO’s from each company but also the employees which were jeopardized of losing their job. Unfortunately, many did lose their jobs but at least it wasn’t all of them. And as we rescue jobs by providing help to major companies which will later provide crucial services to the general public, this job stability can once again reduce the crisis. More jobs leads to more spending which leads to more cash flow. Back to a normal cycle.

Although both candidates are not specific on how each one will deal with the crisis they both do agree that “stabilizing the mortgage market” was needed and that “both want to change the status quo at the agencies once the current crisis passes.”

The decisions has been made. Now what we have to worry is about how our candidates will deal with what is yet to come:

 A Detailed Guide on What Does Each Candidate Think About Major Issues

Here are some questions to consider:

•  What are your economic priorities?

• How would the bailout law affect you, if it hasn’t already?

• Do you agree/ disagree?

• Does being homeowner make a difference in your perspective? And if you are considering becoming one how will this law affect the outcome?

The idea behind Roe v. Wade was to make it a clean and safe procedure. Prior to Roe v. Wade, women were found with hangers inside them, performing this procedure on their own, endangering their life, as well as their child’s. When Roe v. Wade came into the picture, the tables turned: women could now undergo this process safely, and have little to none everlasting consequences.

The following is a link to lifenews.com, where McCain told Glamour magazine, more than once, that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. If elected, McCain said he would “actively seek the demise” of such a landmark decision.

http://www.lifenews.com/nat4296.html

I found the following website quite interesting. While I disagree with McCain’s position on Roe v. Wade, I admire some of the reasons why he is so pro-life. Although as a woman I could probably never see eye-to-eye with him on this issue, I have to admit that he does seem to promote good alternative options, which the media has failed to portray in the entire picture – adoption being part of that picture.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm

With regards to Obama, I could not agree with him any more than I already do regarding this topic. I’ll be honest – I’m not one of his supporters. I am intrigued by him, but not to the point where I will wear his t-shirt or hat and persuade people to vote for him; however, when I hear him speak about the issue of Roe v. Wade, I could turn up the volume a million more notches. These following websites speak for themselves. Obama is pro-choice, clearly wanting to protect a woman’s right to have a choice, to have a say, when it comes to abortion, very much different in terms of McCain’s view.

Take a look:

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/01/22/obama_statement_on_35th_annive.php

http://hyerstandard.com/obama-supports-roe-v-wade-but-cannot-support-late-term-abortions/

Where does everyone stand on the issue of Roe v. Wade?

Will your position impact who you vote for? Why?

Whose stand do you agree with more? Why?

Prior to the very first presidential debate Senator McCain pulled a memorable campaign stunt by suspending his campaign and requesting that the first debate Americans were anticipating be canceled due to the economic situation. This supposed “campaign suspension” is notably quite the unique way to campaign. Before the debates even started McCain in a sad attempt tried to postpone the very first one. Even though it is strictly speculation and a matter of personal opinion McCain’s plan seemed to simply be a ploy in order to buy time and save him from verbally going head to head with a much stronger communicator. McCain’s attempts to suspend the campaign failed and the show went on. McCain decently carried out his responses but refused to make eye contact with Senator Obama.

Moving on to major damage control is the attempts to make up for Governor Sarah Palin’s botched debate before it even occurred. Prior to the debates the media was littered with clips from her interview with Katie Couric which pushed her popularity into much decline with American voters. Aside from her interview the Tina Fey and Amy Pohler mock interview used Palin’s comments word for word and had audiences in stitches. A plan was needed to move the attention of Palin’s tendency to not know anything including the Constitution. So instead of focusing on the candidates the media occupied the public with the potential bias of the debate moderator Gwen Ifill. Ifill a creditable senior PBS correspondent came under scrutiny after the McCain camp claimed they had no idea that Ifill was to be releasing a book titled: Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama which features Senator Obama. Only one day before the debate was such a stir made about Ifill.

To be aware of Ifill’s book was no secretive unavailable information. Ifill even did an interview with Washington Post which disclosed the information about her book prior to the announcement of who would be moderating the debates. Of course it was simply implied that Ifill would have a bias towards Obama because of her book and the fact that she is black. The media frenzy could easily be seen as pre-cleanup for the disaster Hurricane Palin, for that week she was deeply scrutinized for her lack of common knowledge like what is exactly in the Constitution. The winner of the vice presidential debate . . . was Gwen Ifill who unfortunately fairly asked questions but was not answered by Palin.

The past two debates have had an issue exposed or emphasized pre-debate which caused a media frenzy. This debate has been no different. Since campaign suspension and a strategy to attack the moderator were both failed attempts, Palin has brought out the big guns and kicked up old dirt the American public has already had on Obama. The Saturday edition of the New York Times from October 4^th printed an article about the infamous Bill Ayer who is known as America’s own terrorist who had involvement in a bombing of the Pentagon; the article covered the possible relationship between Ayers and Obama and what Obama has said to renounce the relationship. It can be recalled that this is not the first time the American people have heard about Obama’s association with Ayer. And no one will ever be capable of forget hearing about Obama’s reverend Jeremiah Wright or re-watching YouTube videos of his radical sermons. Even though this controversy over Obama is nothing new Palin is a new voice to hear it from and has been stirring the controversy pre-debate about Obama’s associations.

In a telephone interview with Palin by William Kristol of the New York Times published only two days ago, Palin wanted Obama’s relationship with Rev. Wright more emphasized and talked about (as if that has yet to happen). That is a bold thing for Palin to want emphasized since a video of her religious participation has surfaced and made her seem simply foolish. Palin can also be quoted saying that Obama “palled around” with terrorist and claims Obama sees America as “imperfect” and that he does not see the same America the rest of us envision. Palin over the past week has attempted to paint Obama as an outsider who is unlike the rest of us and who is far from patriotic.

Palin would like to help turn the debate towards a high tension smear fest. Palin’s recent comments are a little different from the tactics used prior to the last two debates. She is aiding in molding a debate which takes away from the real issues at hand and focuses on Obama’s character rather than his economic plans which the public appears to be taking more favor to. If McCain finds himself struggling to answer a question on policy Palin has introduced her tactic of avoiding the questions and focusing on irrelevant information. McCain has been given the opportunity to focus on Obama’s character rather than issues. It is a little less damage control than what occurred only days before the last two debates but it is still essentially a tactic to shape or move attention from the real issues.

Anyhow, I use to hate to hear Fox go into politics because it seemed like  they favored McCain all the time, he could do absolutely no wrong, and when he picked Palin as his vp, forget about it, they have not stopped loving her since.  Then I woke up one morning to a show called the morning joe on MSNBC.  The hosts seemed to be strong Obama supporters.  Naturally being a Obama supporter I loved it I felt they spoke the truth, but still there was a imbalance, I wonder wear you can find straight balanced news, I would say Larry King but his mono tone voice puts me to sleep faster that the Cubs lasted in the playoffs. 

This goes to show you how divided this country is right now and has been over that last eight years.  Look at the last few presidential elections Bush controversially defeating Gore by a recount, and agian narrowly defeating Kerry in ’04.  Now we have the news networks divided.  If America ever wants to get back to the way it once was we have to stop debeating eachother and come together, or everything will continue to fall apart.

What does this have to do with he hardship America is facing right now? What does this have to do with Americans retirement pensions going out the window, banks closing, middle class struggling, and the rich getting richer and joe six pack getting even poorer (wink).  At least the dirt that Obama puts out has something to do with current affairs, the Kneating credit scandal is almost if not just as similar as what is going on today in the economy.

I’m so glad to see that the Obama campaign is fighting back, usually democrats are ones not known to sling dirt back and forth, to me democrats always allow republicans to slander them and never come back with anything.  Kudos to Obama for bringing up a strong point with the Kneating scandal. Hopefully Americans will look past all of this nonsense and tomorrow night at the second debate this Presidential race could get back to the issues that matter.

Hear it from Obama’s lips, what his health care plan is about. This is a follow up to my previous post. This should help you answer my the questions that I posted.

    I can’t remember what the inside of a doctor’s office even looks like or recall the last time a doctor poked me with a cold finger and told me to “Cough!”. And the worse part, my health is “Not so good!” (Said with an Italian accent). So if you happened to guess correctly whether Universal health care is on my political shopping list …then DING! DING! DING! DING! You’re a winner, step right up and pick out your prize! 

The 18 percent of uninsured Americans is just a small piece of our country’s’ huge health care mess. Premiums for health insurance have sky rocketed 35% in the last four years (8.5% per year). An individual health insurance policy averages about $4,400 a year, and a family policy costs $12,000 or more a year (the Links are my Sources). The 25 million Americans with health insurance are struggling to pay their medical bills. And here is the kicker, while insurance premiums are going up; the quality of the care is going down. This in combination with higher co-pays, deductibles, and prescription medications has left most Americans (including myself) out to dry. Our next president will have to face several challenges to overcome our nation’s health care crisis: cost, quality, and availability of care. 

We live in a country where we are judged by our past, and our history is used as predictor of future behavior: i.e., when you apply for a credit card, the store checks you credit history, and when you submit an application for a job, the employer checks your references. The same should and must apply to a presidential candidate. One must sort through all the pre-election hype and considers who to vote for in a presidential election. One can usually tell where a candidate stands by analyzing his/her voting records on important issues, watching past interviews with the media, and critically thinking about the choices the candidates have made.

A thousand pardons for going over the allotted “two article maximum,” (I promise that it won’t happen again) but these extra sources are essential to the issue at hand and will help clarify how each candidate’s plan will affect you personally. Because Health care is a personal Issue!

Articles

References

• US vs. Other Nations 
• Who Are the Uninsured? 
• Map: How Many Uninsured 
• Glossary

The debates will begin to heat up as the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees engage in a Tag-Team like match over the important issues facing our country. This election is important for all Americans, the outcome will not only affect our future but our nation’s overall legacy, this election is a turning point in our nation’s history. So with this in mind, it is our duty, as Americans to Vote in this election. Because a Vote not cast is a Vote for the candidate you don’t want as President.

Even though, on occasion, I’ll take a jab at a candidate, or use a joke or sarcasm on positions taken on issues, I am serious about the process. I use this as a way to keep my interest alive and to participate. So with that said, on with the sarcasm…

First up, The McCain/Palin plan:

“In this Corner hailing from the state of Arizona…, the man with more houses that he can remember…, Senator John ‘I was a POW‘ McCain, McCain, McCain… and his very intellectual VP pick Sarah “Caribou Barbie” Palin…..” (Said like a boxing announcer)

The McCain/Palin “plan” (and Kid-glove approach to the insurance-market) promotes individual purchased insurance. To fund this so called “plan” the McCain/Palin team proposed to tax the health insurance premiums that workers currently do not pay. McCain and Palin’s vast economic knowledge guesstimates that the use of the $3.6 trillion, over 10 years, will pay for refundable tax credits for Americans to use to obtain private insurance: $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families.

I am a just a wee bit reluctant to believe that the McCain/Palin ticket is sincere about health care reform (I have my reasons). Their “Straight Talk” is just that… TALK! It sounds as if McCain wrote it on the back of a napkin and decided he would use it as a campaign issue (Oh boy!, I would give my left foot to see that napkin). No thought out plan, or track record to back it up, of course McCain has to appease his true constituency: the insurance and pharmaceutical companies (Which become obvious when you read his plan).

However given the insane cost of health insurance premiums’ many lower income individuals and families, according to the Dr. Epstein of the New England Journal of Medicine, will not be able to afford coverage even with McCain’s propose Tax Credit. And most uninsured Americans would most likely remain uninsured under the McCain/Palin Napkin err “plan.”

Now on to the Obama/Biden plan:

The heart of the Obama/Biden health plan is choice. It requires employers, some small business are either subsidized or exempt, to either offer their employees health insurances or pay a tax to help finance coverage for the uninsured. This plan will create two options both of which would be open to Americans without access to group health insurance, including income based subsidies to help lower-income Americans afford coverage. The first is a government health plan, similar to Medicare, and the second is the creation of a national health insurance purchasing pool, insurance exchange, which would offer a choice of private insurance options. Small businesses that want to buy coverage for their employees are also permitted to participate in these plans.

The Obama/Biden plan prevents private insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions or charging higher premiums to sick enrollees, effectively ending medical underwriting on the basis of a person’s health.

The Obama/Biden ticket plans to finance the $50 billion to $65 billion asking price by repealing the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. And this is where Republicans grumble and complain. It is ironic that republicans are opposing a plan that takes every American into consideration because of a high price tag particularly when you consider their response to our current financial-market crisis. And take in account that we’re spending spending $12 billion to $16 billion per month in Iraq and Afganistan. Funding then seems to be a moot point, and the petty bickering from republicans on something that will improve the quality of life for millions of Americans is political suicide (republicans are losing seats in Washington).

Before I get into the QnA section of this post, I want you to ask yourself these questions with hopes that it will give you a solid foundation to base your choices on:

Are you uninsured, underinsured, or comfortably insured? Do you or someone you know have health issues that need to be addressed but haven’t due to cost, quality, or availability of care? Have you been denied health coverage? If so, Why? This issue personally affects every American, more than any other.

Questions:

Barrack Obama and John McCain both have made a campaign promises to address our health care issues. If you had to pick a candidate based solely on this issue, and take into account their senate voting records, accoplishments, and attitues then…

1. Which candidate would you vote for? Why?
2. Why do you think their plan will work? 
3. What are the differences between Obama’s plan and McCain’s plan that are imprtant to you? 
4. How do think they will intend on paying for thier plan?
5. Do you think that the cost of Universal Health care should be an Issue?
6. Will McCain’s Tax credit or Obama’s plan cover your health care expenses?

The winner of this Tag Team match will be decided in November. The impact will be significant. Are you ready for a McCain or Obama Presidency? I am not a religious person, but (all athiest please forgive me as I put my god-goggles on for a few seconds)  I pray that Obama wins.

In order to impose a little more direction and structure on the course, we’ve agreed to focus on a different issue every week or every couple of weeks, and that you guys will choose the issues and take responsibility, primary using the resources on the blogroll, for posting a couple of pertinent articles and commenting on them to get the ball rolling. The issue you choose and your post will then form the basis for the following week’s classroom discussion.

So, for instance, Joe graciously volunteered to go first and chose the issue of healthcare. He agreed to post two articles with his commentary on them by Monday. We all agreed that we would then read the articles by this coming Thursday’s class, and, if possible, comment on the blog in response to them and Joe’s comments about them, and then discuss the issue in class on Thursday.

Proceeding in this way should make it possible for each of you to get a collective push from the rest of us towards the work you’ll do for your research paper. So think about the issues that are most important to you and that you would be most interested in researching and writing on….

Also, if anyone would like to post their impressions/analysis of last night’s debate, please do. We’ll spend some time in class discussing this as well.

Finally, I mentioned the other night, in response to a question from one of you, that according to a recent New York Times article, the McCain campaign has engaged in far more lying about and distortions of Obama’s record than the Obama campaign has with respect to McCain’s.  Well, a front-page article in yesterday’s Times states that the Obama campaign is now engaging in some substantial distortions of McCain’s record as well.

Now that the D’s and the R’s have come to an agreement (which many speculated they would) I hope McCain doesn’t use this political move (or lack-there-of, depending on your definition of suspension) as a way of saying “I had to focus on the issue at hand, and because I did we were able to solve this.” Not to say he will do that, but there were plenty of people who assumed this agreement would be reached no matter what. McCain’s campaign was the group insisting that it was in trouble as late as wednesday night.

We’ll see how it unfolds as the two nominees go head to head tomorrow night.

By: Leon Wallace (leedanwal)

Can anyone tell me where McCain and Palin are?

I know McCain said he was suspending his campaign to help out with the economic crisis; however word is he has not arrived in Washington yet.  Not even late night comedy host David Letterman could get an appearance from McCain, who just yesterday cancelled his appearance on the Late Night Show.

Palin has been off radar too, I cannot recall the last meaningful interview she’s done since the day she’s been chosen as McCain running mate.  Palin has also declined to reveal her income until the mandatory deadline of October  4^th which happens to be the day after her debate with Joe bidden, so what is she trying to Hide.

Speaking of the debate is there not a debate tomorrow night, which is set to feature McCain and Obama going head to head on the topic of foreign policy? Oh right that’s the one McCain is trying so hard to get out of.  It’s so ironic how McCain has proposed to cancel the debate, to help out on economic issues, Last I remembered McCain’s weakest point was the economy so I wonder how he expects to put meaningful input in the topic he knows little about in the first place.

Sounds like Ducking to me, I reckon he is trying to use the economy as a ploy to get out of this debate. Were not stupid we can all see that, McCain is not the right candidate to become the President of the United States. Like Obama said, He should be able to multi-task, you have to be able to do more than one thing at a time if you are president, there are so many different problems at task you cannot just stop at correcting one problem to rectify another.

No surprise his numbers in the polls are falling to Obama.  If you cannot run a successful campaign all the way through without suspension, how can you expect to run America McCain, This isn’t a videogame you can just hit pause, you got to be a player at all times. The McCain Pain campaign is a sham and hopefully come Friday the world defiantly come to see that during the debate, if McCain shows up that is.

Federal and State Governments should pass laws banning foreign outsourcing of government work. Government should also pass tax laws that take away incentives for private companies to outsource jobs overseas. Outsourcing of work overseas is a double whammy to the taxpaying public. If the work was performed in America the employed person would be paying U.S. taxes and through the job multiplier affect would help support other jobs that would also contribute to the tax base. When the job is sent overseas all that tax revenue is lost. In addition to the lost tax revenue governments now have to pay unemployment benefits to jobless workers. The lost tax revenue and increased unemployment expenses negatively affect government’s ability to fund education and other services for its citizens.

The U.S. Government could change this dramatically by changing the Income Tax code. If a company’s U.S. employees make up 70% of its cost base you exclude 70% of its income from U.S. income tax. If a company’s U.S. employees only make up 20% of its cost base it pays income tax on 80% of its income. This change would help make it economically unattractive to send jobs overseas. It could be quickly implemented and could be very effective in stopping our loss of jobs overseas.

Editorial by Gerod Wattier

I agree with this article I came across while surfing the web. The unemployment rate has greatly increased, I think is partly due (among other things) to the enormous amount of outsourcing of domestic jobs oversees. Many of our jobs have disappeared because of fat cats seeking to increase the size of their wallets by shipping good paying industrial jobs to nations where they can hire cheap labor and avoid environmental regulations. Without any real protections and laws preventing jobs from being outsourced overseas, corporate executives have no reason to keep jobs here in America.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported the U.S. economy lost 84,000 jobs in August as the unemployment rate hit 6.1 percent. So far in 2008, employment has fallen by 605,000 jobs, an average loss of 76,000 per month.

I read that Bush favors outsourcing, and so does McCain.

Obama opposes outsourcing, he states “We have to stop providing tax breaks for companies that are shipping jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that are investing here in the United States of America.”

On this issue, I agree with Obama’s view. I think that our new president should favor the workingmen, and not the big corporations.

http://www.thenetworkadministrator.com/OverseasOutsourcingHurtingTaxBase.htm

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/147848/outsourcing_jobs_is_hurting_americas.html

http://members.sparedollar.com/kate1040/Xmas-Cartoon-Outsourcing.jpg

http://www.rediff.com/money/2006/mar/03bush.htm

http://www.ksdp.org/node/3968

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/60minutes/. This link will lead you to the 60 Minutes Video archive. There are 6 Videos (the whole last nights episode of 60 Minutes) you can watch and see the different opinions of the two presidential candidates.

Just thought it was interesting to watch and wanted to share it with the rest of the class.

I found this clip just browsing the internet, and it touched me, in more ways than one. I support our troops and honor what they are doing for our country. I really do, but despite that, it doesn’t keep me from agreeing with Obama and believing that the war is a tragedy. I also don’t think that by feeling this way, I am causing a disservice to the troops. I love our troops. I support them. What I don’t support is the innocent lives being taken away. How many people have died as a result of this war, and have not even been recognized? How many people come back from the war and don’t even have so much as health care? They fight for their country and risk their lives and their country leaves them stranded. How is the war NOT a mistake?

People think that because McCain fought in a war, he is to be praised and put on a pedestal. I’m getting pretty tired of hearing that he was a prisoner of war, too. I respect him, and I support him like I support our troops, but I still find this war to be absolutely atrocious. My older brother wanted to serve the country in order to pay for college, and I find that to be another misconception. I haven’t heard of anyone who has fought in a war and returned home to find their college tuition paid off; maybe I am wrong, but I have yet to stand corrected on that particular concern of mine. “A war on terror” – are you kidding me? What a contradiction.

I’m not crazy about Obama, but his views on the war coincide with mine: I want our troops home. I want the suffering to end. I don’t want to witness the pain and agony of families losing their loved ones for such an unnecessary cause. I don’t want to have to bury my brother or any one of my relatives for that matter.

As for the man in the video: although I do not agree with him, I support him. I support him because although I don’t know who he is, I know what he stands for, and he stands for this country. I stand for one thing and one thing only: love. I feel love should be promoted and violence/hatred should cease – ONCE AND FOR ALL.

1. According to Robert Kagan, what is the source of “American self-righteousness“?

2. Broadly speaking, the Bush administration’s foreign policy was initially guided by what underlying principle(s)?

3. In paragraph 10, Kagan quotes Condoleezza Rice arguing, as Bush’s foreign policy advisor in 2000, that “U.S. foreign policy had to be rooted in the ‘firm ground of the national interest,’ not in the ‘interests of an illusory international community’.” The phrase “national interest” is one that is used loosely, liberally, and typically quite vaguely in political discourse? What, specifically, do you think Rice (and by extension the Bush administration) meant by “national interest?” If you were to use the phrase, what, specifically, would it mean for you?

4. As Kagan points out, the Bush administration’s foreign policy changed abruptly after 9/11. But as he also notes, there were obstacles that prevented the U.S. from “returning to the old Cold War style of leadership in a post-Cold War, post-9/11 world. Kagan identifies what two obstacles?

5. How, according to Kagan, did most Americans misread the world reaction to 9/11? What did many opinion leaders around the world see as a “major cause” of 9/11? What is the “gap in perceptions” between America and much of the rest of the world that Kagan speaks of in this context?

6. Kagan argues that “the war on terror has been by far Bush’s greatest success? What does he attribute as the reasons for its success? On the other hand, why does he see the “war on terror paradigm” as an insufficient basis for U.S. foreign policy?

7. Why does Kagan believe many of our allies were willing to overlook U.S. actions in the Vietnam War but not in the Iraq War?

8. Why does Kagan say Europe perceives the problem of radical Islam differently from the U.S.?

9. Under the “Incompetent Hegemon?” section, why does Kagan say “many could only explain the [Iraq] war as a war for oil, or for Israel, or for U.S. imperialism…?”

10. What does Kagan see as the reasons for the post-war failure in Iraq?

11. What is Kagan’s general view of future U.S. prospects on the world stage? What does he see as the structure of the international system for the foreseeable future?

12. Why does Kagan say it’s more difficult today to have the kind of U.S. leadership and cooperation with alliances that we had during the Cold War?

McCain-  Wants to reform health care to make insurance more affordable for individuals and families. Would offer tax credits to help Americans pay for health insurance. Proposes lowering the cost of drugs and expanding community health care centers.

Handouts:

Plutocracy Reborn

Dollars for Donkeys

The Social Animal by David Brooks

Read: Handouts and Kagan Essay by next Thursday

Speak your Mind!

I wish I was finished with the quick recap of what has happened. AIG , the American International Group is on a mission to “restructure” their company before they are forced into a fate mirroring that of the Lehman Brothers or Merrill Lynch. As of today AIG may be bailed out with a federal loan of $85 billion. AIG is not just a Wall Street top player they are one of the world’s leading insurance companies. Yes that’s right the world.  AIG simply needs to be saved. The results of the collapse of this company would force many American’s into much disarray. For this company to be in turmoil is a great travesty and a clear screaming sign that our economy is boiling water.

Even though these three companies met their new fates over the past two days these events were a long time coming. Now can we finally move onto important issues right? Our two both articulate candidates and their just as equally intelligent running mates can finally address the hard hitting hot button issues such as the economy? I hope so, no I demand so.

In our 9/11/08 class discussion the economy was rated in our class as among the top two major issues we want to hear the candidates address. So how have they been doing? Between comments about lipstick, family issues and he says, he says, she says garbage we need to talk actual issues.

Senator Obama has jump started his campaign again and tried to steal the limelight the Republicans have held onto since the nomination of Sarah Palin.

Senator McCain is trying to fix his past comments about the economy that have run on a recent (recent as in today) Obama ad. It has been greatly emphasized that McCain is not the strongest on the issue of the economy. McCain has been quoted on saying “I don’t think we’re headed into a recession”. It is clear that this quote was lifted from a much longer response that was delivered to Bloomberg Television from back in January. McCain did go onto to say that this country is hitting a “rough patch”. This is not “rough patch” or something that happened over night and the month of January must not be seen as ions ago.

Aside from being terribly disappointed and simply frightened by comments made by John McCain about this country’s supposed okay economy Obama’s approach to addressing this major pressing issue at hand is just as disappointing. An ad about what McCain has said does not tell me what you are going to do for the voters and this economy. Even though running ads and speaking on what the opposing candidate has said and his views are important and are the unspoken rules of the presidential race but right now the voting population needs to be fed by the media and the candidates their individual plans.

Both of these candidates need to tell the voters what they are going to do to help take this country onto a path which is miles away from a great depression and not just a few centimeters away. The possible collapse of AIG would be enormously detrimental to this society and I will vote based on who assures me this country will not be thrown into a depression that could have been prevented or at least previously addressed.

Who will be this generation’s Roosevelt?

In the past, when it came to political conversation and debate, I had been a passive observer. For the past 13 years, with eyes glazed over, I have attempted to tune out my husband’s tirades about the Republicans and the Republican Party. Although most of my adult life had been spent as a registered Republican, I would more accurately describe myself as the “swing voter”. Yes, I voted for Clinton, Gore, and Kerry, and no, I did not vote for either Bush. Political party affiliation did not deafen me to the messages I was (or was not) hearing – even if what I heard was limited to the editorials of the democrat sitting next to me or those misleading ads on TV. I believe there are three sides to every story (definitely annoying to the partisan); however, as a result of being embarrassingly uninformed, I had absolutely no retort for anything he or anyone else preached about issues. Needless to say, I had nothing to contribute to conversations during Sunday dinners at the in-laws’.

This is the perfect time in our history to uncover the truth about what is being touted to the American voters by both dominant political parties. Although information was available during the election four years ago, the type of information technology now hitting the airwaves makes it easier to be even more informed. So, after weeks of obsessively watching CNN and rushing to factcheck.org during commercial breaks (by this point I’m pretty sleep deprived), I have come to the conclusion that both parties do a fine job of stretching the truth (although one more than the other).

So, when we are watching the ads, filled with cherry picked quotes, it is imperative that we use a “reasonable person’s standard” in our evaluation of the message.

Although many of the messages we hear are barometers for the character of the players and can be used as tools to spark critical thinking, I concede that the speeches and ads are just speeches and ads. Setting that aside certainly leaves more time to research and reveal the next layers. Of course, I will continue to monitor the gossipy he said, she said, liar, liar pants on fire, if for no other reason – it’s fun.

This week, I am fully prepared to participate in Sunday’s dinner discussion.

Palin annoys me on a multitude of levels, and I disagree with 99% of everything that’s come out of her mouth thus far, but her pro-life stand interests me – and not in a good way. She is completely against abortions, even in the case of incest and rape, and she has stated that “an innocent life should not have to pay the price for another’s mistakes.” Really? And what do you call someone who has been raped, taken advantage of, scarred for life? Aren’t they paying the everlasting price for the “mistake” of their rapist?! It is horrible to have to abort an innocent life and have to possibly live with the aftermath, but there are two lives involved – not just one – and people like her seem to lose sight of that. I always said the people who spit up the most get it thrown right back in their faces, and it’s sad that she still hasn’t been at least a little more considerate with this issue, seeing as her seventeen-year-old daughter is now pregnant. Every life is precious. Everyone deserves a chance to live. I get that, Palin. But nobody deserves to get raped and have to be burdened (because that’s what it becomes) with the responsibility of another human life when they did not ask to be put in that situation.

I am also irritated at McCain for agreeing with Palin 100% on that issue. Sorry, but no uterus = no opinion. Maybe that’s ignorant for me to say, but what do men know about carrying a child? What do men know about childbirth? What do men know about the physical, mental, and emotional changes that women go through after having children? Perhaps that’s wrong of me to say, but I look at it this way: I’m not going to tell anyone what to do in a difficult situation if no matter what I say or do, I would NEVER EVER EVER be able to “be in their shoes.” It’s easy for McCain to say he is pro-life – I would be, too if I couldn’t understand firsthand all it entails to be pregnant and go through all the changes and make the endless sacrifices only a mother knows about. Ignorance. I think that’s what it boils down to.

I don’t want to offend anyone or their views. I’m willing to hear everyone out, but this is a topic I am especially sensitive and passionate about all at the same time. Don’t be too hard on me on this blog if you disagree with what I have written – put yourself in my shoes first. It might help to understand where I am coming from.

Fiorella

I think is possible that McCain knew that Palin’s dauther was pregnant prior to choosing her. He probably picked  her on purpose knowing this.  What better way to make a pro-life statement? Any negative comments from Democrats regarding this issue can be viewed as heartless or pro-abortion.

For what I understand, Palin is s strong supported of “Abstinence only” sex education.

A pregnant teenage daughter is a crisis that many Americans families face. How do you think Americans are viewing this issue? I find that Republicans are sending a contrasting message. Palin obviously could not get her message across her own daughter. How can she preach something that failed in her own home?

I just want to make one thing clear. I am not McCain Bashing. McCain is doing a fine job of bashing himself. I actually like the man: like him NOT to be my next president. I feel bad for the guy. I think that maybe, just possibly that John McCain has gone insane. Insane McCain, don’t agree? ok here is the Acid test…Who did he pick for his VP? Do really want another out-of-touch, war-eyed, crazed republican puppet, a half a heartbeat away from kicking the bucket, with Palin as his VP in the white house? If you do, its time to take the little blue pill and chase Alice down the rabbit hole. (apologies if your name is Alice, and to any rabbits out there that I may have offended).

McCain is out of touch with the majority of Americans, he disagrees with us. Don’t take my word for it: hear it from the Elephant’s mouth (five minutes twenty-two seconds in to the above video). He admits that he waffles on issues, (and no not the waffles you eat at Dennys), for the sake of his ambition to be president, “Yes, [I] worse than waffled” (5:47). He will say or do anything for the sake of his ambition to become president. Are republicans being Delusional or Decieptful? or is it both?

You haven’t seen anything yet, the Elephant’s level of lies and deceptions will come to a fever pitch a day or two before election day.

Republicans will perform all types of tricks to be elected, don’t underestimate these peanut munchers, they have a lot to lose this election. (especially in the house and the senate), they are going to lose a lot of seats in Washington this year.

Flip-flopping? you haven’t seen anything yet! this is just the warm-ups. They have more twist and turns than a gymnast. The whales and the dolphins at Seaworld are complaining because the republicans have stolen their act. Folks, get out your cameras, pay attention, because “you aint seen nothin yet”… be ready, and do not be fooled….lets show them, because “eight is enough”, Just say no to Bush 3.0!

In my last post I talked about how John McCain supported Bush 95% of the time, and how the Senator form Arizona has perfected the Art of the Flop. Hey you don’t have to take my word for it, you can hear it from the horses mouth.

After viewing the above video and really thinking about it, you will have to admit, that McCain is more like Bush then he will presently admit, but as you can see for yourself, that he is just in Mid flop trying to win an election.

No matter who you are, or which party you side with, unless you have been unconscious for the last eight years (apologies to those who were actually unconscious for the last eight years), you or someone you know has been affected by the Bush policies, agendas, and misdirections in which John McCain supported 95% of the time. I guess the other 5% is McCain’s Liberal side, which “we the people” will never see again, especially if he wins the election. May God help us all ( all atheist please ignore previous sentence), Just say No to Bush 3.0!

Most Americans are too busy, tired, or dare I say it, lazy to take the responsibility to investigate the presidential choices.  We speak of the candidates’ character with out really differentiating what is and is not an important aspect of it.  Cheating on their wives is not a pertinent issue to determine fitness for office.  To be sure it is a sexy, juicy tidbit more on the order of a National Inquirer article than a NY Times one.  What then, is an important barometer of character?  Perhaps their overarching philosophies on the issues would be a good start.  Do they feel that their opinions and views should be forced on others, or do they allow for the great diversity that is America?

The problem I have always had with the so called “right” is their rigidity on their positions.  A prime example is the abortion debate.  I know of no one on the pro choice side who likes abortion.  What is there to like?  But the reality of the situation is that illegalizing abortion does not work and its sinfulness is largely a Christian concept.  And yet, where is the empathy for women who carry a severely handicapped child?  They are on their own once the child is born.

A more moral, if you will, approach is to work to eliminate the need for such medical measures.  Yet these same right to lifers fight proven techniques for keeping unwanted pregnancies from ocurring in the first place.  This very rigidity has caused Sarah Palin to now face this issue in her own family.  If she had not been opposed to any meaningful sex education in the schools, including contraceptive availability, than her daughter’s pregnancy would and should be off limits.

The “right” has used Christianity as the basis for their arguements, which is patently un American.  We are a pluralistic society, not a Christian theocracy.  The founding fathers were quite clear on this.  As Jefferson wrote in his Wall of Separation letter, “religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God. . .”  In 1797, in the Treaty of Tripoli, with the approval of George Washington, John Adams, and the United States Congress, it is stated that the “Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

One of the greatest issues facing us as a nation today is how to fight terrorism.  As we become endlessly embroiled on several fronts, from Afganistan to Iraq, from Pakistan to Iran, we must take a more nuanced approach.  Again, rigidity is not the answer.  McCain’s philosophy of militaristic might as the sole solution is not a winning or modern approach.  Why must we continually antagonize those with whom we don’t agree?  Be it Russia, Cuba, or the Middle East, we must engage, not overwhelm these regimes to make a safer world.

This is a difficult task and will require someone who is limber in diplomacy.  One who can bend when needed and accept a compromise stance.  The world supported America when we invaded Afghanistan.  We had just cause and the Taliban were universally hated and mistrusted.  There are many points of agreement we can come to with Muslim nations that would preclude our making more enemies than we started with.  Obama wants to explore these options.  Yet when Obama proposes dialogue with (gasp!) regimes considered our enemies, he is ridiculed as hopelessly naive and inexperienced.

As the saying goes, “If it aint broke, don’t fix it.”  By contrast, if it is, do something new.  Our policies are certainly broke.  Those who broke them shold not be rediculing those who propose meaningful change.  Rigidly “staying the course” is one of the main reasons we are in this mess.  In life we appreciate those who say, “I made a mistake and I will work to fix it.”  Why do we not accept, much less demand that in our leaders?

I would vote for a true maverick.  By definition, a maverick should stand up to the big guys.  Go his own way.  It requires no maverick to stand up to the poor and disenfranchised.  To say yes to lobbyists and big business interests.  Obama, by virtue of his policies is more maverick than McCain.  It takes a maverick to be a community organizer.  After all, who are you organizing against?  The powers that be.  I do want a maverick as our next president.  America needs this now.  But who is the true maverick?  One that rigidly sticks to his belief system, even in the face of contrary evidence, and insists on all of us adhering to this, or one who will stand up to the powerful for the benefit of the average?  One who will not punish the powerful, just hold them accountable.  One who is not so rigid, or beholden to those that are, that he cannot look logically at issues and adapt.

This overarching rigidity, stemming from a moral certainty, keeps the conservative base from being able to change, either with the times or because of new facts and information.  Let us leave our candidates room to change their minds on the particulars of an issue with out calling them flip-floppers.  It is how they approach their ideology and their power that is if the greatest importance.  I, too like John McCain.  I just like Obama more.

What really gets me is that some Americans, won’t name any names, (hint:on a 2001 car trip to Florida), spoke about how Bush was going to do this, and bush was going to do that, and how the economy was going to be better. What happened? We started out with a surplus and eight years later were going to end up with the biggest deficit by a president ever recorded in history, and McCain supported Bush 95% of the time.

Our economy has tanked, our Gas Prices have skyrocketed and everything from the cost of food to diapers has gotten insanely expensive. I won’t mention how many Americans lost their jobs, or the tax breaks to companies that ship American Jobs overseas. Maybe those of you that are well off can afford the basic necessities, or have a nest egg to carry you over until the economy gets better, but many Americans, including myself cannot.

We went to war in IRAQ on a LIE, remember WMDs, 4,146 soldiers are dead 30,182 wounded for a LIE .How did Americans get duped into agreeing to spend 12 Billion a month in Iraq for a war that shouldn’t even be? So far we spent $368 billion on military operations, $45 billion more in veterans care, diplomatic services, training with that type of money we could of rebuilt the nation’s Infrastructure, invested in alternative energy and established our own Universal Healthcare.

Come on, be honest, when “W” changed his focus from looking for Bin Laden in Afghanistan to invading Iraq, you weren’t all scratching your head thinking “why in the hell are we doing that?” Intelligent and hardworking Americans such as yourselves?, didn’t have any doubt about that decision? OK, ok, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

What about when the excuse for invading Iraq was proven to be a LIE, WMDs? How about then? Were you outraged? No. no, you just voted him back into office for another four years, with the excuse, “Well,we want him to finish what he started.” What!? Come on, wake up! If that was any other American, he would be in prison.

John McCain has been in Washington for a long time, twenty-six years and nothing’s has changed. He is out of touch with reality. He doesn’t even understand economics and even admits it himself,

“The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should,” McCain said on December 17 in New Hampshire, http://lburl.com/idd0k

I’m astounded, How can smart, Intelligent, hardworking people want McCain for president? Don’t get me wrong, I like John McCain, even after all the crappy things he has done, even after all his flopping around on issues like a fish out of water, I like him, just not as my Next President!

I am 36, and this will be my first election that I will vote in: presidential or otherwise. It’s Time for a change in Washington.

It’s time for a president for the people, from the people, someone who has seen the same hardships that we have, made the same kind of sacrifices we made, and works hard for success, Think about that when you cast your ballot in November.

By Robert Kagan

Note: This essay appears in the September/October 2008 edition of Foreign Affairs.

Securing America’s Future

By John McCain

From Foreign Affairs , November/December 2007

McCain begins his essay by telling us that America needs “a president who can” do what, specifically? What have Americans believed since “the dawn of our Republic”? What have “Americans understood from the Revolution to the Cold War? And how have Americans “changed the world”? What did Harry Truman once say of America? Do any of these ideas find an echo in Obama’s essay?

McCain now enumerates some of the things the “next president” will need to do and must be prepared to do. What are those things that our next president will need to do and must be prepared to do?

In the first major section of his essay, “Winning the War on Terror,” McCain identifies what, specifically, as “the national security challenge of our time”? And what “is this war’s central front”? According to whom? What did the US do “after four years of conflict” that now “gives us a realistic chance of success” in Iraq? What, according to McCain, would be the “horrific” consequences of failure in Iraq? What critique does McCain make of the approach to Iraq of the “Democratic candidates”? And we’ll look in detail at Obama’s approach in upcoming posts.

What has recently been happening in Afghanistan, and what must we do there, according to McCain? McCain says that “success in neighboring Pakistan is just as vital.” Why? And what must we do in Pakistan to achieve success? There have been important changes in Pakistan since McCain wrote this essay. Can anybody name one or two of those changes? We’ll look more closely at both McCain’s and Obama’s current thinking on Pakistan/Afghanistan in upcoming posts.

Iran is also a threat, according to McCain. Why is Iran a threat and what can we do about this threat? What are the similarities and/or differences in Obama’s and McCain’s respective approaches to Iran? How does McCain intend to prevent “a new generation of [terrorists] from joining the fight”?

In the next section “Defending the Homeland,” McCain sketches an ambitious plan to rebuild and revitalize our defense capacities. How does he intend to rebuild our military? But note that he wants also to “transform” the military. We need not only “more soldiers” but also the “necessary skills necessary to help friendly governments and their security forces resist common foes.” What skills are those, and how does he intend to provide them? He also wants to “set up a new agency…a modern-day OSS.” What would be the purpose of this new agency? We must also “enhance our civilian capacity,” McCain says. How? And finally, what must we “revitalize”?

McCain moves on to one of his favorite ideas, the League of Democracies, and we’ll look more closely at that idea and the rest of his essay next time.

In the next section of his essay, “Uniting the World’s Democracies,” McCain talks about one of the signature ideas of his campaign, the League of Democracies, an idea touted by one of his advisors, Robert Kagan, which we’ll look at in more detail in future posts. This League would not be a reprise of Woodrow Wilson’s “doomed plan for the universal-membership League of Nations but “would be similar to what Theodore Roosevelt envisioned.” What did TR envision? And as McCain envisions it, what would his League be prepared to do?

In the next section McCain talks about “Revitalizing the Transatlantic Partnership” between the US and the EU. “The future” of this partnership “lies in confronting” what, specifically? What, according to McCain do we see today in Russia? McCain wants a “new Western approach” to Russia. What are the elements of this “new Western approach”?

McCain now talks about America’s relationship to Asia, Latin America, and Africa. According to McCain, what is “the key to meeting” the challenges posed by North Korea and “ changing Asia”? “In Southeast Asia, what will McCain “seek” and what will he “continue”? Like Russia, China will pose the next president a significant problem. What are some of the “provocative acts” on China’s part to which the US will be compelled to “react”? McCain mentions two “liberalizations” that he would like to see the Chinese undertake. What are they, and why are they important?

Latin America: How does McCain envision our future relations with Mexico, Venezuela, and Cuba?

Africa: How does McCain envision our future relations with African nations in general and with Sudan in particular?

McCain now talks about two pressing global problems: nuclear proliferation and the environment. What, according to McCain, is “the mistaken assumption behind” the NPT? Does he have a specific nation in mind? “The next US president must convene a summit of the world’s leading powers…with three agenda items.” What are those three items”?

What are the elements of McCain’s “national energy strategy”?

McCain titles the last section of his essay “Preparing to Lead.” How will McCain enhance “America’s economic leadership in the globalized world of the twenty-first century”? How does McCain characterize America’s ”unique form of leadership”? Specifically, it is the antithesis of—what? In what resources are “we” (there’s that troubling pronoun again!) especially rich? In what ways are we “a special nation”? “As president, what will McCain “seek”?

What did James Madison, “almost two centuries ago” identify as “the great struggle of the Epoch”? “Many thought that this struggle ended with the Cold War, but it did not,” McCain says. What are the “new guises” this struggle has taken on?

What did Thomas Jefferson say about America? According to McCain, what will be “the surest source of security and peace for the century that lies before us”? McCain ends the essay by assuring us that he is ready to do what?

Renewing American Leadership
By Barack Obama

From Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007

Last year the influential journal Foreign Affairs, published by the Council of Foreign Relations, asked the presidential hopefuls of both parties to write essays in which they set out their vision of what American foreign policy should be, the vision that they would implement should they become president. This essay contains Obama’s vision and this one McCain’s. We’ll look first at Obama’s essay, then at McCain’s and then compare and contrast the two.

In Section I of his essay, Obama says that “At moments of great peril in the last century,” former American presidents such as Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy managed to do two things for the American people. What were those two things? They also, according to Obama, “ensured” something. What? How specifically did FDR, Truman, and Kennedy achieve these multiple goals?

Obama now says that in this century, the threats we face “are at least as dangerous as and in some ways more complex than those we have confronted in the past.” What are those threats? Confronted by these new and unconventional threats we must not “give way to pessimism,” Obama says, but must act, and we must act according to a new vision “that draws from the past but is not bound by outdated thinking.” As an example of outdated, conventional thinking, Obama adduces the response of the Bush administration to 9/11. What, according to Obama, was “conventional” about that response?

According to Obama, what is the “mistake we must not make” after the “thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent” in Iraq? Quite the contrary we must rededicate ourselves to what “mission” specifically? To put the same thing in other words, what is America’s “great promise and historic purpose in the world”?

Obama begins the next section by saying that “in order to “renew American leadership in the world,” we must first do what, specifically? And what must we do to achieve that goal? What else must we do in the Middle East? Specifically, what must we do in regard to the “growing threat” posed by Iran?

IN the next section, “Revitalizing the Military,” Obama sketches a plan for revitalizing and “enhancing” America’s military capabilities. What are the elements of that plan? “Enhancing our military will not be enough,” Obama says. Just as important is the use to which the commander-in-chief will put America’s overwhelming military power. How does Obama intend to use our revitalized military force?

How does Obama intend to halt “the spread of nuclear weapons, material, and technology”? Note his remarks concerning Russia and Iran. In what ways, specifically, must we seek “the active cooperation of Russia”? We must also “prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons”? Why? And how specifically can we achieve this goal?

Obama now talks about one of our truly “global” problems: terrorism. Where, according to Obama, must we focus in our fight against terrorism and what, specifically, must we do in these places? However, he cautions, “vigorous actions” in these places, though necessary, will not be sufficient “to defeat al Qaeda.” What else must we do, at home and abroad? Note especially the last two paragraphs. What are some of the elements that Obama would include in his “comprehensive strategy to defeat global terrorists”?

In the next section, Obama speaks of old alliances that need rebuilding and new ones that need to be built. What old ones does he emphasize and how would he revitalize and reform them? He also speaks of a looming threat other than terrorism that needs a global response. What is that threat and how does he intend to meet it?

IN the last two sections of the essay, Obama returns to the animating idea of the essay: America as a global leader: “Our global engagement…must be guided by a clear sense of what we stand for.” How must America behave in order to “build a better, freer world”? America must, he says, “commit to strengthening the pillars of a just society.” What are some of those pillars, and why must America commit to strengthening them in foreign countries? How will Obama go about realizing this aim? What statement by JFK does he adduce in support of this commitment?

What must the next president do “to restore the Amrican people’s trust,” in his foreign policy goals? Obama now speaks of “the next great American story.” What are the elements of that story? What pronoun does he use repeatedly in this paragraph? The use of this pronoun I find very troubling. Why, do you think, I find his repeated use of this pronoun troubling? Obama signs off by reminding us that “We can be this America again.” What America is that, specifically?