Meandering Musings

"Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met {...} we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals {...} And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity..."


Let us hope -- and work -- for this to be true.

"Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met {...} we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals {...} And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity..."


Let us hope -- and work -- for this to be true.

The election is tomorrow and my fingers are crossed that Barack Obama wins.

Why do I choose to vote for Obama?

Because I believe that he's smart. That seems like a really good thing to be though it isn't always high on the menu with political candidates. Obama graduated a prestigious university with a BA in Political Science with an emphasis on International Relations, which, I believe provides a good foundation upon which to build.

After working as a research associate for a business corporation he moved to Chicago and worked as a grassroots community organizer, working with people one-on-one, on the bottom rung of the political ladder, doing what politics can do at its very most local level.

He attended Harvard Law, becoming the very first African-American President of the Harvard Law Review and graduating Magna Cum Laude. And, while education isn't everything, I do think showing intellectual dexterity and curiosity is a plus. ( Read more... )

As a lawyer he worked on voter rights and employment litigation and served as general counsel for a variety of clients ranging from health clinics to charter schools.

He also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. As Wick Allison, the conservative former editor of The National Review wrote, it is comfort to think that we could have, for a change, a President who has actually read 'The Federalist Papers.' (To be fair, I'm sure that Hillary has as well. Sarah Palin on the other hand...)

He has also served 12 years in state and federal elected offices. Certainly, there can be more experience in office, but... FDR only had 6. Lincoln had 10. Bush only 5. JFK only 14. So, while certainly he hasn't had the most experience, he isn't exactly busting the grading curve. Also, (despite the naysayers)he has done his job in the Senate

No, I do not buy wild-eyed conspiracies of Manchurian Muslims (I mean, Occam's Razor, people), mis-defined socialist and/or Marxist ideology (have we all forgotten the definitions we learned in Civics class? And when did the progressive tax become re-defined? We talking about the tax rates that we had in the 1980s, for goodness sakes!) And, I'll be honest, the Ayers/Annenberg Foundation thing bothers me not at all (and not just because Obama was eight when Ayers did his batshit, but because the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) was a grant from the Annenberg Foundation [Annenberg being Walter Annenberg, an American of Jewish descent who was the U.S. Ambassador to the U.K. under a Republican president and whose wife Lenore was the Chief of Protocol under Ronald Reagan... and she is currently a McCain supporter] ( more on the CAC ) So, in sum -- for me -- this is so not an issue.

As far as a "we don't know him" argument, he's been running for President for two years. His background is readily available to anyone with internet access (and I don't mean strange conspiracies). I rec the Time Magazine article on his mother . She was an interesting woman.

I don't think he's perfect. I don't think he's a Messiah (of any sort). I don't think he's a panacea for all of our nation's (or the world's) woes. I do think he's an intelligent, energetic, focused human being with contemporary ideas, excellent organization skills, and who looks towards the future.( More )

Barack Obama isn't perfect. But I do sincerely believe of our presently available choices, he's the one with the most to offer our future, and that's why I'm voting for him tomorrow.

Anyone else have that... well, it's not really a problem, is it?  I suppose it's independent thought and forming one's own opinions.  Still it's very rare that I read something and agree entirely.  This is no exception.  There are plenty of areas where I do not agree, lean towards disagreeing, and/or agree but not completely.  That said, there were parts of this article that I liked.  Quotes:

Well, that's a pretty tall order.  No pressure or anything.  ;)

However, I agree with the writer about many of the problems we face and, yeah, agree with the endorsement as well.

The Financial Crisis
 

The financial crisis we face today is a damning indictment of a philosophy that insists that the market is always right, that government only gets in the way, and that unfettered capitalism is the best system. Left to themselves over the past eight years, Wall Street bankers have feathered their own pockets at the expense of customers, shareholders, and the public. Meanwhile, investments in the real economy have faltered, been diverted to artificial wealth creation using obscure financial instruments that, in retrospect, turned our banks into willing participants in a giant  Ponzi scheme. {...} I also know that markets, like games, depend on clear rules of fair play.  It's not going to be easy for anyone to unwind the enormous mess that has been created as a result of the mismanagement of the economy. It will take great insight, intelligence, and an about-face in our attitudes towards regulation.  {...} making the right decisions, coming up with the right regulations, will take insight into the nature of networks, the nature of markets, that can be profoundly informed by what we've learned from the internet over the past decade {...} It will take a president and presidential advisors with enormous technological sophistication to understand, let alone design the regulatory regimes we will need for increasingly automated markets...
 

Oil

...it's clear that investment in green technology will provide an enormous boon for our economy and a long term strategic benefit for our country. If global warming doesn't get us, oil depletion will. It's easy to forget that the US was once the world's biggest oil producer. Our oil fields are now mostly gone, providing only 3% of the world's supply and only 10% of our own needs. It takes someone very short-sighted not to realize that the same fundamentals that marginalized our domestic oil industry will one day do the same to other nations whose oil supplies we depend on today. {...} the need to secure oil supplies around the world will hold our economy hostage to the whims of countries who have no love for us.

Given how long it takes for new forms of energy production to come onstream, we need to make investments today {...} But once again, this crisis provides huge opportunity. Reinventing the energy economy will require enormous technological innovation {...} If we do not invest in these technologies, we face the real danger of becoming a second class nation, as those nations that do make the investments reap the rewards. {...} Given a free rein by the hands-off attitude at the highest levels of government, oil companies have reaped record profits while making only token investments in alternative energy, independence from foreign oil, and the strategic interests of our country. {...}  I'm not saying that any multi-national company is likely to put national interests ahead of self-interest, but it's clear that it is a foolish ideology that opens the sheepfold to management by wolves.

Internet Neutrality
 

I love the internet. It's been one of the most fertile grounds for technological innovation, wealth creation, and social change that our country has seen in my lifetime. I believe passionately in the "small pieces loosely joined" model that allows anyone to invent a compelling new service, find other people to use it, and grow a business without having to ask anyone's permission. It's essential that we preserve the architecture of the internet. Under the guise of free market experimentation, big companies with monopoly positions in local markets are asking us to change the fundamental rules that have served the internet so well {...} Barack Obama supports net neutrality;

A Connected and Transparent Government

Web 2.0 has shown the power of what I've elsewhere called harnessing collective intelligence. Despite the claims of critics like Nick Carr and Andrew Keen, Google does make us smarter. So does Wikipedia, and Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, the blogosphere, and Twitter. Our access to information today is unprecedented; the ability of individual citizens to discover and share important new ideas is greater than it has ever been in our history; important ideas are able to bubble up and become visible to those who need to know them. Barack Obama understands this. His campaign has demonstrated his ability to harness the internet not only for fundraising, but also his comfort with its decentralized nature. my.barackobama.com is not a one-way fundraising machine, but a platform that has enabled his supporters to act independently, while coordinating their decentralized, bottom-up activities in a way that adds to their effectiveness. What's more, it is a platform that has allowed supporters to disagree with him, and so to shape his policies - a far cry from the current administration's belief that disagreement is equivalent to disloyalty...
 
 

Anyway, while I don't agree with everything this guy has written on his blog, I did find things of interest in his article and points with which I agree. 

 

 

Anyone else have that... well, it's not really a problem, is it?  I suppose it's independent thought and forming one's own opinions.  Still it's very rare that I read something and agree entirely.  This is no exception.  There are plenty of areas where I do not agree, lean towards disagreeing, and/or agree but not completely.  That said, there were parts of this article that I liked.  Quotes:

Well, that's a pretty tall order.  No pressure or anything.  ;)

However, I agree with the writer about many of the problems we face and, yeah, agree with the endorsement as well.

The Financial Crisis
 

The financial crisis we face today is a damning indictment of a philosophy that insists that the market is always right, that government only gets in the way, and that unfettered capitalism is the best system. Left to themselves over the past eight years, Wall Street bankers have feathered their own pockets at the expense of customers, shareholders, and the public. Meanwhile, investments in the real economy have faltered, been diverted to artificial wealth creation using obscure financial instruments that, in retrospect, turned our banks into willing participants in a giant  Ponzi scheme. {...} I also know that markets, like games, depend on clear rules of fair play.  It's not going to be easy for anyone to unwind the enormous mess that has been created as a result of the mismanagement of the economy. It will take great insight, intelligence, and an about-face in our attitudes towards regulation.  {...} making the right decisions, coming up with the right regulations, will take insight into the nature of networks, the nature of markets, that can be profoundly informed by what we've learned from the internet over the past decade {...} It will take a president and presidential advisors with enormous technological sophistication to understand, let alone design the regulatory regimes we will need for increasingly automated markets...
 

Oil

...it's clear that investment in green technology will provide an enormous boon for our economy and a long term strategic benefit for our country. If global warming doesn't get us, oil depletion will. It's easy to forget that the US was once the world's biggest oil producer. Our oil fields are now mostly gone, providing only 3% of the world's supply and only 10% of our own needs. It takes someone very short-sighted not to realize that the same fundamentals that marginalized our domestic oil industry will one day do the same to other nations whose oil supplies we depend on today. {...} the need to secure oil supplies around the world will hold our economy hostage to the whims of countries who have no love for us.

Given how long it takes for new forms of energy production to come onstream, we need to make investments today {...} But once again, this crisis provides huge opportunity. Reinventing the energy economy will require enormous technological innovation {...} If we do not invest in these technologies, we face the real danger of becoming a second class nation, as those nations that do make the investments reap the rewards. {...} Given a free rein by the hands-off attitude at the highest levels of government, oil companies have reaped record profits while making only token investments in alternative energy, independence from foreign oil, and the strategic interests of our country. {...}  I'm not saying that any multi-national company is likely to put national interests ahead of self-interest, but it's clear that it is a foolish ideology that opens the sheepfold to management by wolves.

Internet Neutrality
 

I love the internet. It's been one of the most fertile grounds for technological innovation, wealth creation, and social change that our country has seen in my lifetime. I believe passionately in the "small pieces loosely joined" model that allows anyone to invent a compelling new service, find other people to use it, and grow a business without having to ask anyone's permission. It's essential that we preserve the architecture of the internet. Under the guise of free market experimentation, big companies with monopoly positions in local markets are asking us to change the fundamental rules that have served the internet so well {...} Barack Obama supports net neutrality;

A Connected and Transparent Government

Web 2.0 has shown the power of what I've elsewhere called harnessing collective intelligence. Despite the claims of critics like Nick Carr and Andrew Keen, Google does make us smarter. So does Wikipedia, and Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, the blogosphere, and Twitter. Our access to information today is unprecedented; the ability of individual citizens to discover and share important new ideas is greater than it has ever been in our history; important ideas are able to bubble up and become visible to those who need to know them. Barack Obama understands this. His campaign has demonstrated his ability to harness the internet not only for fundraising, but also his comfort with its decentralized nature. my.barackobama.com is not a one-way fundraising machine, but a platform that has enabled his supporters to act independently, while coordinating their decentralized, bottom-up activities in a way that adds to their effectiveness. What's more, it is a platform that has allowed supporters to disagree with him, and so to shape his policies - a far cry from the current administration's belief that disagreement is equivalent to disloyalty...
 
 

Anyway, while I don't agree with everything this guy has written on his blog, I did find things of interest in his article and points with which I agree. 

 

 

There is no hope for the end of partisanship in general (and, I don't have a big problem with that), but maybe... possibly... hopefully there could be an end to intractable, obstinate, counter-productive gridlock.  I have this tiny glint of hope due to articles like this: Conservatives for Obama

A couple of quotes:

Mr Powell is now a four-star general in America’s most surprising new army: the Obamacons. The army includes other big names such as Susan Eisenhower, Dwight’s granddaughter, who introduced Mr Obama at the Democratic National Convention and Christopher Buckley, the son of the conservative icon William Buckley, who complains that he has not left the Republican Party: the Republican Party has left him. Chuck Hagel, a Republican senator from Nebraska and one-time bosom buddy of Mr McCain has also flirted heavily with the movement, though he has refrained from issuing an official endorsement. The biggest brigade in the Obamacon army consists of libertarians, furious with big-government conservatism...

Also:

The rise of the Obamacons is more than a reaction against Mr Bush’s remodelling of the Republican Party and Mr McCain’s desperation: there were plenty of disillusioned Republicans in 2004 who did not warm to John Kerry. It is also a positive verdict on Mr Obama. For many conservatives, Mr Obama embodies qualities that their party has abandoned: pragmatism, competence and respect for the head rather than the heart. Mr Obama’s calm and collected response to the turmoil on Wall Street contrasted sharply with Mr McCain’s grandstanding...A recent Washington Post-ABC poll shows him winning 22% of self-described conservatives, a higher proportion than any Democratic nominee since 1980.

Complete article here

 

I wrote today that I'm taking the last week before the election to break my own rule against posting about politics. There are things that I want to say in regards to the election. Bear with me as I ramble:

"Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object: the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers, the other by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove..." Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams.

I believe in the two party system. I do not believe in a permanent majority. No one is infallible or incorruptible. I believe that the push and pull between two parties is needed both as ballast to help provide stability and as a tool to provide course correction when adjustments are necessary. In a recent editorial, George Will had a quote from a British politician that I rather liked:

"Someday, [the opposing party] will win an election. Our job is to hold on until they are sane."

Like centrifugal force, party politics inevitably pull towards their activists. On the other hand, the general electorate is like gravity, a weak but inexorable force that pulls towards the center. Generally there is balance because when one party is pulled too far afield, the other moves towards the center, gaining the majority and changing the trajectory of the other party. Politics and political parties are not static entities but dynamic forces that, as a whole, create a system. With that in mind...

I believe that there is a need for people and for parties that push new agendas, new ideas, and new ideals -- things that drive us forward and that eliminate relics from the past that we should move beyond. We do not wish to stagnate. We wish to improve, to create, to work toward a better future.

On the other hand, I also believe in the need for people and for parties who pull back, remembering -- and valuing -- our past, counseling against moving too precipitously and to not throw the baby out with the bath water.

(I thought this article in Dallas Magazine gave a reasonably good definition of old school conservatism. Horrible definition of progressive, but a reasonable definition of traditional conservative:

"Conservatism to me is less a political philosophy than a stance, a recognition of the fallibility of man and of man’s institutions. Conservatives respect the past not for its antiquity but because it represents, as G.K. Chesterton said, the democracy of the dead; it gives the benefit of the doubt to customs and laws tried and tested in the crucible of time. Conservatives are skeptical of abstract theories and utopian schemes, doubtful that government is wiser than its citizens, and always ready to test any political program against actual results."

But...I digress.

Anyway, in addition to believing that it's a good idea to have opposing parties, believing that it's a feature not a bug, I also believe in a middle that gives a fair hearing to both sides. When one is passionately devoted to one set of ideals, one is reluctant to give as complete a hearing of the other side. Thus, it behooves the middle to listen to both and to throw their vote with the side that best serves our needs in the current circumstances.

Ultimately, I consider myself to be moderate. Actually, I categorize myself as "fiercely moderate." And, while I know many consider that a wussy position, I believe the middle serves a purpose. Besides, it suits me. That said, throughout my life, I've voted Republican more often than Democratic. So, that's where I started. And, if anyone searches my journal to January, you'll find a post where I lamented being unable to vote in both the Republican and the Democratic primaries. However, in the last eight years or so, I've felt great misgivings with the Republican party. There have been a number of reasons giving rise to that discomfort, one of which is the GOP's growing dependence upon the Evangelical Right.

I'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state. I respect people of faith, but history is full of examples where overreaching religious influence in governance has led to far less than heavenly situations.

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” (I realize the quote has a slightly different interpretation in its original context, but it still has meaning for me here.

As I said, I respect people's religious faith. But, being a history buff, I am leery of marrying any one religion or singular religious viewpoint to our government. I think we need to steer away from paths that lead to theocracy and that puts me at odds with an activist religious faction within the Republican party that seeks to increase their influence within the party, with an eye towards specific policy objectives and legislative agendas. Yes, we all seek (and have the right) to be heard, but when a major political party becomes dependent upon a single activist faction for its survival, I fear that faction is weilding far greater power than I am comfortable with. For this reason and others, a few of which mentioned in the previously linked article, I'll even quote one section because I thought it stated it relatively well:

"...today it is conservatives who are cemented to political programs when they clearly don’t work. The Bush tax cuts—a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war—led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt {...} Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask. Today it is conservatives {...} who say America’s job is to “defeat evil,” a theological expansion of the nation’s mission that would make George Washington cough out his wooden teeth."

Anyway, because of these thoughts and a sense that not only does the nation need a new direction but that the Republican party itself needs to reassess and readjust, prior to the primaries I had given serious, thoughtful consideration to voting Democratic. In fact, by Super Tuesday, I leaned strongly towards doing so. On the other hand, I had lingering affection for McCain. I had voted for him in the 2000 primary, and saw him as a more moderate option to Bush. Plus, I had a mostly positive (though not excessively informed) opinion of him. Still, on Super Tuesday, I had a large degree of indecision. I literally did not make a definitive choice until hours before I voted. But, as time has gone on, I've read, watched the election results, and followed subsequent primaries (as well as researched the candidates in great depth) and the more I've learned, the more confirmed I've become in the choice that I made Super Tuesday when I chose Obama. I can (and at some point will) post the reasons for my decision, in addition to how I became confirmed in my choice. But, for now, what I've written summarizes where I began.

I wrote today that I'm taking the last week before the election to break my own rule against posting about politics. There are things that I want to say in regards to the election. Bear with me as I ramble:

"Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object: the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers, the other by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove..." Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams.

I believe in the two party system. I do not believe in a permanent majority. No one is infallible or incorruptible. I believe that the push and pull between two parties is needed both as ballast to help provide stability and as a tool to provide course correction when adjustments are necessary. In a recent editorial, George Will had a quote from a British politician that I rather liked:

"Someday, [the opposing party] will win an election. Our job is to hold on until they are sane."

Like centrifugal force, party politics inevitably pull towards their activists. On the other hand, the general electorate is like gravity, a weak but inexorable force that pulls towards the center. Generally there is balance because when one party is pulled too far afield, the other moves towards the center, gaining the majority and changing the trajectory of the other party. Politics and political parties are not static entities but dynamic forces that, as a whole, create a system. With that in mind...

I believe that there is a need for people and for parties that push new agendas, new ideas, and new ideals -- things that drive us forward and that eliminate relics from the past that we should move beyond. We do not wish to stagnate. We wish to improve, to create, to work toward a better future.

On the other hand, I also believe in the need for people and for parties who pull back, remembering -- and valuing -- our past, counseling against moving too precipitously and to not throw the baby out with the bath water.

(I thought this article in Dallas Magazine gave a reasonably good definition of old school conservatism. Horrible definition of progressive, but a reasonable definition of traditional conservative:

"Conservatism to me is less a political philosophy than a stance, a recognition of the fallibility of man and of man’s institutions. Conservatives respect the past not for its antiquity but because it represents, as G.K. Chesterton said, the democracy of the dead; it gives the benefit of the doubt to customs and laws tried and tested in the crucible of time. Conservatives are skeptical of abstract theories and utopian schemes, doubtful that government is wiser than its citizens, and always ready to test any political program against actual results."

But...I digress.

Anyway, in addition to believing that it's a good idea to have opposing parties, believing that it's a feature not a bug, I also believe in a middle that gives a fair hearing to both sides. When one is passionately devoted to one set of ideals, one is reluctant to give as complete a hearing of the other side. Thus, it behooves the middle to listen to both and to throw their vote with the side that best serves our needs in the current circumstances.

Ultimately, I consider myself to be moderate. Actually, I categorize myself as "fiercely moderate." And, while I know many consider that a wussy position, I believe the middle serves a purpose. Besides, it suits me. That said, throughout my life, I've voted Republican more often than Democratic. So, that's where I started. And, if anyone searches my journal to January, you'll find a post where I lamented being unable to vote in both the Republican and the Democratic primaries. However, in the last eight years or so, I've felt great misgivings with the Republican party. There have been a number of reasons giving rise to that discomfort, one of which is the GOP's growing dependence upon the Evangelical Right.

I'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state. I respect people of faith, but history is full of examples where overreaching religious influence in governance has led to far less than heavenly situations.

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” (I realize the quote has a slightly different interpretation in its original context, but it still has meaning for me here.

As I said, I respect people's religious faith. But, being a history buff, I am leery of marrying any one religion or singular religious viewpoint to our government. I think we need to steer away from paths that lead to theocracy and that puts me at odds with an activist religious faction within the Republican party that seeks to increase their influence within the party, with an eye towards specific policy objectives and legislative agendas. Yes, we all seek (and have the right) to be heard, but when a major political party becomes dependent upon a single activist faction for its survival, I fear that faction is weilding far greater power than I am comfortable with. For this reason and others, a few of which mentioned in the previously linked article, I'll even quote one section because I thought it stated it relatively well:

"...today it is conservatives who are cemented to political programs when they clearly don’t work. The Bush tax cuts—a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war—led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt {...} Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask. Today it is conservatives {...} who say America’s job is to “defeat evil,” a theological expansion of the nation’s mission that would make George Washington cough out his wooden teeth."

Anyway, because of these thoughts and a sense that not only does the nation need a new direction but that the Republican party itself needs to reassess and readjust, prior to the primaries I had given serious, thoughtful consideration to voting Democratic. In fact, by Super Tuesday, I leaned strongly towards doing so. On the other hand, I had lingering affection for McCain. I had voted for him in the 2000 primary, and saw him as a more moderate option to Bush. Plus, I had a mostly positive (though not excessively informed) opinion of him. Still, on Super Tuesday, I had a large degree of indecision. I literally did not make a definitive choice until hours before I voted. But, as time has gone on, I've read, watched the election results, and followed subsequent primaries (as well as researched the candidates in great depth) and the more I've learned, the more confirmed I've become in the choice that I made Super Tuesday when I chose Obama. I can (and at some point will) post the reasons for my decision, in addition to how I became confirmed in my choice. But, for now, what I've written summarizes where I began.