Econocracy

<!– @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } –>Here we are, just as we began, on the topic of the Sarah Palin. In an interview with Sean Hannity, Palin oh so eloquently describes how “[she] told ya so” forecasting the failure of Obama’s economic policy. When asked whether she thinks such policies are leading to socialism, she gracefully responded “here is what America could potentially become if we grow government to such a degree that we cannot pay for it and we have to borrow money from other countries, some countries that don’t necessarily like America.’”

Ironically, number recently released show that the job losses in Virginia and the overall contraction of the economy slowed in the first quarter of 2009, insinuating that the slowdown may really be slowing down.

Roland Burris, who swore that he “never engaged in any type of pay to play talks” with Rod Blagojevich was recently ousted by wiretapping Blago’s phones. His conversation included the line “You’re gonna make me King of the World”. I still have no idea why they let Blago appoint someone to the Senate to fill his seat, but here is a prime example of why that was a terrible call on the part of the state of Illinois.

To mark the democratic primary here in Virginia, I also saw an ad produced by Terry McAuliffe which explains how the pass rate of third graders is used to estimate the prison budget in Virginia. This ad gives a terrifying insight into the value of education in Virginia, which reaffirms McAuliffe’s call for increased preschool and elementary school spending to help prepare Virginia’s children for a better future. That all sounds well and good, save for the fact that it isn’t even true. Totally compelling, and completely bogus.

This course has taught me a great deal about the role and function of government. But what I learned throughout this is the necessity of citizens to remember the first three words of the preamble. The “We the people…” which commences the foundation of our government is a constant reminder that government’s immense power; to ring up $11 trillion deficits, to wage war across the world, and imprison masses, is only granted by the citizens of the United States. After all of the corruption and scandal I witnessed, all I have to say, in the words of Alastor Moody “Constant Vigilance!”

With the Democratic Gubernatorial Primary tomorrow in Virginia, candidates Deeds, McAuliffe, and Moran all push to secure a spot to challenge Republican Robert McDonnell in November. In the home stretch, all three have worked tirelessly secure a bloc of voters that Obama worked so hard to secure in the 2008 election; African-Americans. All three attended massive black congregations Sunday, with McAuliffe and Deeds giving short speeches during the service, touting their efforts to strengthen gun control laws, create jobs, and restoring voting rights to convicted nonviolent felons.

With the black vote making up 30% of the Democratic vote in 2008 primary, all three candidates have adopted a new mentality to campaigning since Obama’s victory among black voters. Terry McAuliffe, who lacks the “good ol’ Virginian” credentials, has campaigned not in town hall meetings in Arlington, but in churches in places like Portsmouth and Norfolk throughout his entire campaign, hoping to make the black vote his edge over the other candidates.

Brian Moran has been touting his endorsements from black leaders, such as Richmond Mayor Dwight Jones to get his name in the minds of voters. Another tactic he has been relying on is reminding the people of Virginia that Terry McAuliffe, current front-runner, was chairman of Hilary Clinton’s campaign, and he campaigned against Obama in Virginia.

Creigh Deeds, from Bath County, has spent the final weeks securing and promoting endorsements from civil rights lawyer and State Senator Henry L. Marsh III, and State Senators. L. Louise Lucas and Yvonne B. Miller who represent traditionally African-American districts. Deeds’ biggest drawback is his voting record supporting gun control, which has hurt his campaign in the African-American community.

Current polls show Deeds leading the pack, up as much as 14 points, with McAuliffe and Moran neck and neck behind him.

We’ll know soon enough, yet turnout forcasts look painfully grim.

After Obama’s speech in Cairo last week, where he explained the great lengths the United States would go to in efforts to insure the world’s 1.5 Billion Muslims that “the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.” The effect of the speech has yet to be seen on a grand scale, but an article released this morning suggests that the “change” may be coming to the middle east too.

In the aftermath of the speech, there seems to be a divide in responses; A militant leader in Egypt called on the Taliban to respond positively to Obama’s speech, and Hamas militants in Gaza say they are ready “to build on this speech.”, while two influential fundamentalist groups, Lebanon’s Iranian-backed Hezbollah and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood accused Obama of trying to manipulate the Muslim world. They said he “offered soft words to hide unchanged anti-Muslim positions.” But, as the article points out, that could be a sign of  their fear that Obama’s outreach could hinder their calls for extremism.

One other litmus test was the election held Saturday in Lebannon, where the Hezbollah organization worked to challenge the pro-Western government currently holding power. Reports released today indicate that the March 14 party, which is a Western supporting party retained control in Parliament.

Robert Malley, with the International Crisis Group said that Obama’s speech was enough to “plant the seed of doubt in some minds. There was enough…that represented openings for those who wanted openings”. Despite this intial positive reaction though, Obama’s stance on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict will still be the do or die moment for United States-Muslim Relations.

The majority of the calls that are sounding now ask not for benevolence, but for an unbiased approach to the Middle Eastern conflict. Traditionally, the United States is perceived as very biased in Israel’s favor, a tactic which has made positive relations in the Arab world few and far between.

Obama’s stance on the conflict is that he believes in the formation of a Palestinian State, and the Israel must comply with a settlement freeze. These actions would show an abrasiveness to Israel never before seen.

Now we just have to worry about upsetting Israel…

Today, the Supreme Court threw out the case of 12 veterans suing the army for dismissing them from duty after they openly admitted they were homosexuals.

The move comes following calls from President Obama for the court to not hear the case. Obama had said they disagreed with the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy on the campaign trail, but has yet to make an moves to change protocol. Furthermore, the Obama Administration said they “don’t object to kicking homosexuals out of the army”.

Although this move by the Supreme Court seems passive in nature, in reality, it has huge implications on the standing of homosexuals in this country. By supporting the notion (through their submissiveness) that openly gay soldiers cannot serve in the military, the fight for civil liberties is further contested, in determining exactly who such civil liberties apply to.

The “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy was formed in 1993 under Bill Clinton. This came as a compromise between his stance on the issue, which was to allow openly gay soldiers to serve, and that of many members of Congress, and they Defense Department, holistically against homosexual service-people.

The kink that is found in the support for openly gay soldiers is that the Defense Department, as well as Obama’s Administration believes that the policy is “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.”

The question then presents itself, to what extent is this an aversion from the real issue. As pointed out by Kevin Nix, of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, there has not been a study to show if open homosexuality in the military does indeed result in a lack of unit cohesion, as the Defense Department states.

This worries me, not in terms of a support or disapproval of gay rights, but the mentality that a law can be used to oppress a people, but have it be blamed on something other than the real prejudice. The same was said about school segregation; having black and white children together will create a less effective learning environment, but today we look back and see that as blatant racism. What’s the difference?

TERRORSTORM

This film, by Alex Jones, highlights are myriad of murky details surrounding a variety of this decades terrorist attacks; the Madrid Train Bombings, The London Bombings, and 9/11. Before exploring these though, the pretense of a “false flag” is offer. A false flag is a operation a country perpetrates then blames on another organization. It comes from the idea of flying a flag that is not your own on your ship as a mean of deception.

Jones begins by extrapolating on some of the deception that has taken place this century; Hitler used a false flag in the Reichstag Fire to seize a National Socialist Majority by placing the blame on the German Communist Party. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident also serves as a false flag. Originally, 4 North Vietnamese Patrol Boats were blamed for firing on the USS Maddox, but in 2005, a NSA declassification revealed that this report was fabricated to help pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Finally, in Iran, the CIA and MI6 helped overthrow democratically elected Mohhammed Mosaddeq in 1953, by placing the blame for CIA and MI6 murders, bombings, and arson on Mosaddeq, allowing the Shah Pahlavi to take control, starting the pathway of religious extremism in the country that we are currently fighting a war against. Operation Ajax, as it was called, allowed for British Petroleum (BP, currently) to take the control of Iranian oil.

This really makes me question how common place all of this is in the world. Transparency and Oversight seem less important when “the good guys” are starting wars over oil. The worst bit is, it isn’t these few instances. The Bay of Pigs was a false flag! It happened all across Asia, The Middle East, Africa, and Latin America.

So my question is what can we expect from politicians, if this is the way in which the political machine works. The players are transitory, but the game remains the same…right?

In politics it seems that a single slogan, sentence, or even word can define your career, for the better or worse. As Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings begin today for her appointment to the supreme court, many question the usage of the deeming of someone to be a racist, as she was by Newt Gringrich and Rush Limbaugh.

The case that I have seen this related to was the appointment of Judge Charles Pickering to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002. Here is a man who hired black staffers in Mississippi when most white judges didn’t. He sent his children to integrated public schools. He even testified against an Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, endangering his career and more in 1967.

Nevertheless, Tom Daschle made comments on his “insensitivity to civil rights, to equal rights, especially to minorities” and John Kerry viciously added “Here we are, on the weekend before a national holiday when we celebrate Martin Luther King’s birthday, and George W. Bush celebrates it by appointing Charles Pickering, a known forceful advocate for a cross-burner in America, to the federal court of the United States.”

Some cried out, such as the African-American chairman of the city council from Pickering hometown, but it was too little too late, the damage was done, and Pickering’s career and persona had been destroyed by casually tossing around a devise term, re-opening the still fresh wounds of prejudice in America.

Just look at the ’08 election. Joe the Plumber. Change. Palin not reading news. All of these things, no matter how insubstantial manage to seem like the headlines of the election.

Not that I’m defending Sarah Palin, but the fact that some of her less that stellar comments became what defined her during the course of the election seems somewhat unfair.

In an era where I must admit that I question the ability of the general population to elect a president, it is somewhat unsettling that I fear more people can name Bill Clinton’s favorite intern, and not what NAFTA stands for.

As I mentioned, I feel that there is a divide shaping in the Republican Party, and to add some legitimacy to my claim, this CNN article supports the idea.

A moderate Republican, Chris Christie, faces off with a much more hard line conservative, Steve Lonegan, in the primary polls in New Jersey today. New Jersey is a state that hasn’t had a Republican victory since 1997, but has had moderate and far right challengers lose the gubernatorial contests in November since.

In the fight for the nomination, it seems that Christie has the largest possibility of coming out on top, with his numerous endorsements, and his immense personal wealth, which gives him the ability to put up a fight in the very expensive advertising market that is New Jersey.

The reason this is seen as a potential turn state for the GOP is not the strength of the challengers, but rather the weakness of the incumbent. As mentioned, Jon Corzine, the Democratic governor, has faced huge hurdles with the state budget, which has pushed his approval rating into a free fall.

More and more though, the question is raised; can a Republican win? I really question whether the face of the Republican party, and the name attached therein has become a plight for every candidate to overcome, only accepting this burden to avoid being a rouge candidate running as an independent.

Historically, there have been a multitude of party splits and branching off of political parties to fit a more fitting agenda. Ultimately, these seems to lose the ability to gain votes for lacking attention, which can often be attributed to lack of money, and lack of candidates. Currently, if every moderate Republican broke off into a new party, with a similar, yet still substantially different platform from that of the hard line conservatives, I wonder whether any sort of traction could be gained in an election in the next 10 years.

Thoughts?

Public opinion polls help offer insight as to how the government should be acting. They offer insight into issues, and furthermore, give an unparalleled level of representative-constituent communication on the large scale, in a way that letters and emails never can.

Such polls make it easy to guide the actions of elected officials, to guarantee they stay elected next term. Which is all well in good, except for when the public opinion polls indicate troubling news.

In a recent poll, 20% of Americans said they maintain “a favorable view” of Muslim countries. Although only 46% said they maintained an unfavorable view, that is still up 5% from 2002, which most considered to be the height of the Anti-Islamic sentiment. Does that mean that Americans are holding onto these beliefs, as the fear mongering continues to subside?

In gradient, during the days of the 9th-12th of January, 2009, George W. Bush had a favorable rating of 31%, and as we all know, most people weren’t feeling so good about him at that point.

So with only 20% of Americans holding a favorable view of Muslim nations, does that mean that there is a nescessity for action on the side of the elected officials, to act in accord with the beliefs held by the people?

-E. Buckminster Fuller

In the deadlock political situation between the United States and North Korea, many have questioned the United State’s response to the rouge North Korea’s missile firings and nuclear testing recently. Up to this point, the United State’s has been unwilling to make any sort of meaningful response to the saber rattling that North Korea and Kim Jong Il seem intent on maintaining.

At the core of the situation is North Korea’s initial willingness to halt nuclear programs in return for economic aid, yet later unwillingness to allow inspectors to verify the halting of said programs. Needless to say, the nuclear tests last month seem to indicate that the programs were resumed.

As talks are resumed, it seems no real traction can be gained, due in part to the fact that the communist nation and the United States do not maintain formal diplomatic relations, with the ambassador from Sweden being the closest thing to an ally that the United States maintains within the hermetically sealed nation.

Here exists the paradox I saw within the War in Iraq. How can one initially support a war, as the majority of Americans did before the invasion, then over time lose faith in the fight. It was as if the entire drive from 9/11 was lost. The fear I think that exists within the Obama administration is that, despite the pushes for action now, eventually any sort of steps the government takes will eventually lose popularity, undermining the fight for the economy that Obama fights at home.

How can we time a war to be successful, while also being supported. The fight in Iraq has recently been re-evaluated to require much more time than the Obama administration hoped for in the days of the campaign, while the stability in Afghanistan continues to erode.

Call it a silly hypothesis, but I think there may be a 4 year rule with wars. 1861-1865. 1914-1918. 1941-1945.

The “good wars” that we fought all took 4 years to be won, and put away. We’re 6 years deep in Iraq, and 8 in Afghanistan, and people have grown tired of it. So it is that simple!

Currently, my place or work is filled with people who simply don’t do their job very well. I come into work Saturday to see a big note left in the back room; our customer satisfaction was down from the month before, and has been falling for a while now.

Our manager rails on us, but isn’t willing to face the source of the problem. When you have bad employees, you have bad service. Yet, she is painfully unwilling to fire people.

GM filed for bankruptcy today, signaling the fall of 2 of the Big 3 automakers. By all accounts, the reason for this collapse is the downturn economy, but the this economy really was only the last straw that broke the camels back. For years, GM has elected to maintain mediocre standards of automobile production, and as a result lost customers to more fuel efficient and reliable auto manufacturers such as Toyota and Honda.

The issue in both of these cases has been an inability to make change. It seems, in these microcosms of economy, that change is inevitable, but the nature of the change is what decides the fate of business.

16%-23% of employee turnover annually is supposed to be a healthy amount of change within a company. More, and the company loses the experience, less and the company becomes stale. It offers a survival of the fittest complex for companies, while encouraging harder work, and better results.

The Bernstein Financial Analysis Group stated the reason for GM’s collapse to be the result of cutting prices to increase sales, thus bringing profit margin to that of a break-even level. They suggested that a solution of decreasing product line, and manufacturing capacity would have offered the capital to re-energize the company. The chapter 11 filings made this morning suggest that this is the path the company will take to re-organize in a few months.

Personally, I haven’t seen any real change in the company or its actions since being loaned $15 billion by the US government. The radical change for prosperity was unaccomplished, thus the detrimental change of bankruptcy became the only option.

I dare say, as important as employee turnover is, as part of the life cycle of the economy, industry turnover is just as important, for the success of the economy as a whole. In an effort to revitalize the economy in this financial slump, opening the door way for new businesses to emerge and lead the industry in new and better methods seems to be a great idea.