Don’t get me wrong here, I’m all in favor of confirming well-accomplished and superbly educated individuals to the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States).  And I’m sure Obama’s hand picked candidates are hard working men and women, in this case all women, whose lives showcase the upward mobility possible only in America.  The problem though is that all of that simply isn’t enough.  As David Brooks of the NY Times points out, the recent Supreme Court nominees under Obama lack much when it comes to being a member of the highest court in the land.   He says the biggest issue is the simple fact that both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are ultimately products of professional American meritocracy, a system where only those who are overly cautious about not stepping on anyone’s toes succeed; one where only the submissive, crowd pleasing, and non-risk-taking rise to the top.  Elena Kagan perfectly fits this description; her collegues report her as being very cautious, especially in her dealings with other individuals, and she really is not known for any remarkable or unique intellectual positions she has held in regards to the law and politics.

So the problem is that I fear more and more Supreme Court nominees in the future will be like Kagan or worse.  Sure they got the credentials, such as an Ivy League education and elite positions within the government and academia, but do they have the right personality and set of experiences that can lead the nation to having a dynamic and truly effective Supreme Court?  This I heavily doubt.

We all talk about how “dissatisfied” all Americans are with “Obamacare” and the oncoming socialist/quasi communist takeover within our government, but do any of you obstructionists begin to wonder how frustrated and fed-up many other Americans are at you?! In the end, your dreaded “Obamacare” will pass despite the fact you tried to hold the bill, and the nation, hostage with your promised “filibustering.”

But just to be clear on the whole matter, I have severe issues with the current health care bill, such as how it short changes many states which have great Medicaid programs (e.g. New York). Also, I am kind of worried as to how this whole bill will affect small businesses. (There are plenty more, but these are the ones that pop to mind as of right now…although we shouldn’t forget about all the healthcare lobbyists’ fingerprints on this bill either)  Nevertheless, some of the positives of this bill, such as expanding coverage to tens of millions of more Americans and eliminating all that pre-existing conditions garbage, makes it better than having no bill at all.

As for what Republicans had to say about all of this, listen to Mitch McConnel, the Senate Minority leader, when he says, “They’re making a vigorous effort to try to jam this down the throats of the American people, who don’t want it. We think that’s a policy mistake, and we think resorting to these kind of tactics, to thumb your noses at the American people, is something that ought to be resisted.”

Oh, shut still your quasi-turtle face, Senator McConnel! You’re partly the reason we’re in this mess.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/health/policy/04health.html?hp

            So recently I attended an event where eminent Harvard historian, Niall Ferguson, and senior fellow at Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis, Jeff Madrick, spoke about the current economic crisis.  These two men are both highly regarded individuals when it comes to academic matters, especially when it concerns economic history.  Madrick, it seems, is a liberal Keynesian academic while Ferguson is very much conservative and classical on economic matters; the guy thinks the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression.  Overall it was very enjoyable to see these two intellectuals spar when it came to the issue of debts, Keynesian economics, the outlook of the American economy, and President Obama’s economic policies.

            On debts the two men differed greatly.  Ferguson, the more articulate and charming of the two, lambasted America’s absence of “thrift spending” and called for people to save more out of their income.  He argued, that according to basic economics, saving would in the long run better serve the American economy.  Madrick, in response, said the average American income, adjusted with inflation, has flat-lined and perhaps even decreased since the late 1960s; thus by in large, the idea of there being an overly consumerist American is a myth.  Ferguson shot back saying regardless, data proves debt is increasing when compared to previous decades, and that Madrick’s focus on middle class spending is the wrong way to approach it.  Because in reality, according to Ferguson, the debt is largely from the rich, upper class, and that it is precisely the mishandling of this money amongst the rich that greatly contributed to the current financial mess.  The two men continued to argue over whose data was “more right”, so the moderator moved on to a different topic.

            As for Keynesian economics, Ferguson handsomely critiqued it as mainly a form of economics that has become too politicized and simplified to be efficiently utilized by the government.  But more fundamentally, he believes the long-term effects of intensive Keynesian economics, such as large deficits and debt, eventually hamper and stagnate the overall economy.  He cited the current state of the Japanese economy to support his view.  Madrick, in defense of Keynesian policies and now Obama’s, said the massive intervention and regulation of government both fiscally and monetarily is necessary.  The loss of entire businesses, financial structures, and the economic lives of individuals must be avoided if possible, and it is Keynesian policies that do exactly that.  Both Madrick and Ferguson did agree however that Keynesian economics has become oversimplified and too politicized though.

            As for the outlook on the American economy, both had very pessimistic views, and Ferguson said the Obama Administration’s predictions of economic growth next year were that of “fairy tales.”  They both blamed economists, yet surprisingly not themselves, for being unable to see this financial hurricane coming.  Although on a lighter side, Ferguson remarked that the United State is doing much better than many other countries, especially the East Asian ones, where GDP is expected to fall about 10% and that the U.S. bailout, when proportionately compared to China’s, is relatively small.  The U.S. will instead, in Ferguson view, will have a GDP contraction of only around 2 or 3 percent.

            Now as for President Obama’s policies, both had their criticisms, but it was really Ferguson who had the harshest words.  The man said the main issue now was the incoming collision that would occur between Obama’s monetary policy and his fiscal policy.  Ferguson warned that the tremendous debt resulting from Obama’s massive fiscal increases and the Federal Reserve dropping the interest rate to near 0% would cause very high interest rates in the near future.  The Harvard academic was very concerned about this, because such a future will harm the economy over the long run.

            I must say though, Niall Ferguson, despite the fact he’s opposite me when it comes to economic matters, is a man whom I greatly admire and respect.  His intellectual prowess and charming wit, not to mention his great ability at articulating himself, always leave a deep impression upon me.  Jeff Madrick was great too, but Niall was really amazing; it’s people like him that make me want to become a renowned academic. I recommend all you guys check out Ferguson further; he’s also a great history writer!

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way”

That is how Envision More feels right now, the few days after this historic election, even though we are still united in trying to pursue the advancement of our civilizations. Our ideals still remain divided. We may not be, as President-Elect Obama stated, a collection of ‘Red states, or blue states, but the United States of America.’ However we still remain a nation of independent and open thought, a nation where we can discuss different points of view freely, and where we let the people decide on viewpoint they believe is the correct choice for the nation at that time. The people have spoken in this election as well, and this time they have chosen to push the country to a more liberal direction.

However conservatives should not lose heart, Obama has spoken about and realizes that swinging the pendulum to the extreme left will not solve the problems. As Cicero stated, “Never go to excess, but let moderation be your guide.” I believe Barack Obama agrees with this adage, and will be prudent in all his actions. Many of you will say that with the majority in the congress, the liberals are going to run wild. I tell you, Obama himself won?t let that happen, he will be thorn to be the strong right and a strong left, because he was elected for that reason, he appealed to the independents, a congregation to which I am a proud member of.

I leave you with two pictures that tell two different tales, about two opposite ideals.

One may be a victor, and the other a loser, and this battle may have been lost, but the war for our future still continues. Don?t lose hope conservatives, tomorrow is a new day.

]]> http://www.envisionmore.net/a-tale-of-two-ideals/feed/ 2 http://www.envisionmore.net/vote-early-and-vote-often-the-genius-of-the-obama-campaign%e2%80%99s-use-of-text-messaging-and-other-forms-of-mass-communication/ http://www.envisionmore.net/vote-early-and-vote-often-the-genius-of-the-obama-campaign%e2%80%99s-use-of-text-messaging-and-other-forms-of-mass-communication/#comments Sun, 31 Aug 2008 07:35:39 +0000 Daniel Downs http://www.envisionmore.net/?p=62 The origin of the phrase “Vote Early and Vote Often” is usually attributed to Chicago mayor William Hale Thompson, a highly corrupt Republican politician who ruled the city from 1915 to 1923 and again from 1931 to 1935. The phrase itself described how political partisans could easily game the democratic voting process. As verifying a person’s identity was difficult in an era when people carried no form of identification on their person, astute politicians would urge their loyal constituents to vote starting early in the morning and at multiple polling stations. When thousands of reliable supporters voted for a candidate multiple times in one day, the vote could easily be swayed.

While the Obama campaign is by no means advocating such trickery, the mass communication infrastructure created by the Democratic candidate’s team has an incredible potential, one that has forever changed the nature of national politics. Imagine this: It’s Tuesday, November 4^th. You are a lanky college Freshman waking up after noon following a night of rigorous studying. Leaving the bed, you feel the familiar vibration of the brand-new iPhone that rests in your pocket. You look at the screen and see that there are two new text messages, both from the Obama campaign. The first, sent at 8:00 AM sharp, is a reminder that today is Election Day and that the Obama campaign needs your vote. The second is a follow-up reminder, this one containing a special video message from Barack Obama himself. It’s 12:34 PM and you’re still in bed, but the Obama campaign has turned your mind to national politics and has reminded you to vote. You quickly hop out of bed and turn on your laptop, eager to check your Facebook and MySpace profiles. Besides a few regular updates to your Wall that are just extensions of mundane, circular conversations that have been skipping back and forth between your Wall and the Wall of your distant friend for over a year now, you see that the Obama campaign has sent you reminders. All who are friends with Barack on MySpace get a personalized message; one that is replete with the fancy HTML coding that caused millions to jump ship to Facebook. It’s now 12:40 PM on a cloudy Tuesday. You have received a total of four communiques from the Obama campaign, with two being text-messages, one a Facebook reminder, and the other a colorful MySpace greeting. Although your day schedule was previously clear, you make plans to visit the nearest polling station. You know who you’ll be voting for.

With the advent of high-speed internet connections and instant, worldwide messaging devices, the Obama campaign could have the ability to effectively mobilize a younger and more tech-savvy demographic, one that is usually associated with staying home every November 4^th. The ubiquitousness of such communication devices gives the Obama campaign the capacity to remind potential voters constantly, to rally those students who may support him but didn’t plan on voting.

The McCain campaign had better watch out! While a certain phrase regarding the political process in Chicago is certainly outdated, the spirit it carries, that of mobilizing huge bodies of voters, is alive and well today. In a world of modern marvels and high-connectivity, the Obama campaign can and most certainly will be telling those able to “Just Vote!” on the first Tuesday of November.

Copyright 2008 Daniel Downs

Let?s examine one act of Change that Obama would like to effect. He is the sponsor of S. 2433: Global Poverty Act of 2007, the Senate version of a bill that passed in the House of Representatives last year. As one may infer from the name of this bill, its goal is to reduce poverty across the globe. But at what cost? Obama would like to take roughly seven-tenths of a percent of out gross national product and put it towards this noble goal. Somehow, in my mind, at least, $845 billion seems like a lot of change to be sending out of our country when we are entering a recession ourselves.

On a more personal level, it is a nice thing to know that Michelle Obama, the candidate?s wife, is ?for the first time . . . proud of [her] country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but [because she] think[s] people are hungry for change.? There it is again! Change. What is most striking about this quote by a potential first lady is its insensitivity towards Americans in general. She is proud to be an American because America strives for change? That doesn’t seem like a patriotic statement in any sense of the word.

Obama was placed on a pedestal when he entered the political arena. He was viewed as someone who was beyond reproach, who represented everything that was not existent in Washington, but could be. Now, as the presidential race turns dirty, and as Clinton and Obama fight over precious few superdelegates and the remaining states, Obama can no longer hold himself to the ideological ideal that benefited him in the beginning and still persuade people to vote for him either as their party’s candidate or in the general election.

Perhaps the first sign of a crack in Obama’s ironclad aloofness from the political mainstream came during the recent ABC News debate. Ignoring the unprofessional conduct displayed by the moderators, it is still clear that Obama is not willing to live up to his former deeds. Consider the IVI-IPO General Candidate Questionnaire on gun control. In the debate, Obama denied answering this survey, even when his handwriting appears on it!

The Pennsylvania primaries are in two days, and it stands to be seen whether Obama or Clinton will be victorious in them. However, as the campaign rages on and these two candidates rip each other apart, are they really doing nothing more than destroying their respective electability?

Obama’s Gun Survey (PDF)