Obama: Young Messiah, McCain: Old Fart

Well Barack Obama's much anticipated Berlin speech went down today much as expected: a half hour of articulate rhetoric and promises delivered to an audience of thousands of screaming, eager Berliners. Obamamania is already sweeping through Europe as Barack enjoys widespread support in that continent. If only Europeans could vote in American elections..... Overall, I was very impressed with the content of Senator Obama's speech: it was full of his trademark optimism and promises to reshape the world as we know it as president. As opposed to some of Obama's rhetoric towards the beginning of the campaign when his promises of "change" were backed up with little substance, this speech had some real meat. Obama touched on a variety of issues from the economy to the environment to nuclear proliferation and Iran's nuclear ambitions just to name a few. Obama, citing nuclear terrorism as a grave threat to the United States, also solidified his position of taking aggressive action to secure and destroy old Soviet nukes in order to protect America's national security. It was a pretty fucking good speech.

All matters of substance aside, how fucking good did Obama look? I mean, this guy looks and sounds every bit the part: he has to be one of the best, most captivating, inspirational speakers alive. Whether or not you agree with his politics, you have to admit this guy makes a damn good impression with his youth, optimism, and fucking incredible ability to express himself...... And right wingers claim "left wing" media bias when the media flock to covering Obama's foreign tour over McCain's... whatever the fuck it is that he does in between naps. Barack Obama has JFK written all over him: this guy is the real deal: a good Columbia man may I add: he is the embodiment of the multiculturalism and progressive "academic elitism" that the right despises. Put that next to John McCain, headline reads: "Old conservative white male to keep shit the way it is" Fuck that...

Speaking of John McCain, I was watching some debate show with couple conservatives arguing with a couple lefties. One of the dems brought up Senator McCain's age, only to be rebuked immediately by the righties for even bringing up the issue: "ageism" is not cool I guess. Is it really not a legitimate issue though? If John McCain is elected president, he'll be knocking on 80 at the end of a potential second term. Not only is the potential for serious health problems great at that age, but the possibility of mental deterioration is even greater. Take Ronald Reagan: by the end of his second term the guy was so fucking senile that he was absolved of any wrong doing by the Tower Commission investigating the Iran Contra scandal because of his lack of oversight (it is widely reported and believed that Reagan's had early stage Alzheimer's in the White House). Now, with the multitude of problems facing our country, do we really need a senile old fart in the White House? Fuck that...

Obama's Foreign Tour

Well there has been a good deal of media coverage lately surrounding Barack Obama's current world tour that has elevated him to "rockstar" status in the words of some journalists. The enthusiasm of journalists surrounding Obama's trip starkly contrasts with the lack thereof surrounding John McCain's travels. I mean why on earth would a young, attractive, articulate, historically significant candidate like Obama be a more interesting story than some old right wing yawwwn... has been fuckhead hawk who is maybe a 50-50 shot of surviving a hypothetical first term in office? Senator Obama is a press dream and his favorable coverage reflects that plain and simple. John McCain is a boring old fuck who wants 4 more years of Bush... even if Obama's "change" might be a little vague is that not better than McCain's "4 more years of Bush! Let's stay in Iraq for 100 years! Fuck universal healthcare and those other Pinko Communist schemes... wait what's my stance on healthcare again?... So much shit to fucking remember... I'm so fucking old....." But I digress.

True, the press does love to cover Obama and is really hyping up his foreign tour but this seems relevant news to me. In fact, I think it highly important to know that the potential future leader of the free world is engaged in an open dialogue with other world leaders. Obama's demonstrated willingness to look beyond America's borders and work together with its allies will help him regain America's respected status in the world community that George Bush did everything to squander short of personally killing a baby from every country in the whole world. A man criticism of Obama is his "lack" of foreign policy experience that would compromise his judgment. It thus seems to be a highly relevant news story when Obama is using his valuable time to enhance his understanding of international issues. I'm sure the press would flock to covering Senator McCain if the old man could remember what day of the week it is and that we INVADED THE WRONG FUCKING COUNTRY AFTER 9/11 which McCain supported all along. Minor details John....

My only worry about the Obama tour is that his immense popularity internationally (especially in Westerm Europe) could actually backfire at home. Remember, America does not want a president that will take the country as far left as most of Europe. However, I think America should be relieved at having the possibility of a next president who is loved rather than despised by our most important allies... even if those allies include those pinko communist cheese eating french... Kick some ass, Barack!

Book Review: Economics Beaurocracy and Race by Judith Russell

I recently had the pleasure of reading Economics Beaurocracy and Race by Dr. Judith Russell, whose Introduction to American Politics class I had the pleasure of taking this past semester. This book provides a highly detailed, complex analysis of the economic policies of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations that culminated in the ultimately unpopular and ineffective War on Poverty. Professor Russell argues convincingly that the problem of deep seeded persistent poverty in the United States resulted largely from structural unemployment and the inability of male heads of houses in impoverished communities to retain steady, adequately paying jobs. She therefore concludes that a major government commitment towards job training and public works programs during the 1960's could have done much to address this persistent problem of poverty. However, the Kennedy Administration elected instead to implement a major tax cut to stimulate the economy and increase aggregate demand. This tax cut was very effective in stimulating business spending and the stock market but did nothing to alleviate the persistent poverty still felt by many Americans. The Johnson Administration's subsequent war on poverty focused excessively on so-called Community Action Programs that sought to improve communities through a variety of initiatives aimed to reduce a so-called "culture of poverty" rather than directly approaching the problem of unemployment through job training and public works programs. Russell ultimately blames the failure of the war on poverty on the lack of consensus on the cause of unemployment in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, beaurocratic inefficiencies in the Labor Department, and a general lack of commitment towards alleviating poverty in poor, black communities.

Dr. Russell presents her case in a way that provides an excellent background of the economic situation in the 1960's in which structural unemployment kept certain segments of the population (mainly poor urban blacks and rural whites) from sharing in the prosperity of that time. Russell applies relatively simple economic concepts to analyze the highly complex social problem of poverty in a very interesting manner. After reading this book I understand the relationship between unemployment and poverty in much greater depth. It also helped me see how economic prosperity brought on by increased aggregate demand from tax cuts does not necessarily extend towards the lower classes and unemployed.

While Dr. Russell convinced me that certain government programs geared towards jobs could have enhanced the effectiveness of the war on poverty, I am not convinced that excessive government spending towards public works programs would have been the best decision. Dr. Russell advoctes a New Dealesue plan to address unemployment that guarantees every American the right to a job. The cost of such programs would have been extremely prohibitive and would have required a significant tax increase that would have ultimately hurt the U.S. economy. Remember that the New Deal did nothing to end the Great Depression - it only helped ease some of the suffering of those hardest hit by the Depression. Roosevelt's policies placed confiscatory taxes (approaching 100 %) on wealthy Americans that stifled investment. A massive training and public works program during the 1960's could have had a similar effect. While Professor Russell convinced me that some of the money from the Kennedy tax cut could have been better spent on job training and that jobs programs would have been more effective than Community Action Programs in fighting poverty, I cannot ultimately agree with her conclusions. Economics Beaurocracy and Race is a great read for anyone interested in applying economic concepts to social policy and people with a paticular interest in the causes of poverty and unemployment.

Gore's CRRAAAAZZZZYYY Goal

Former Vice President Al Gore challenged the nation today to convert its electricity ENTIRELY to solar, wind, and other environmentally friendly energy sources within ten years. Imagine Mr. Gore's happy country, Midwestern prairies full of windmills, solar panels propping up in the burbs, etc. I guess I could imagine myself having a giant solar panel as a roof but honestly how the fuck are we really going to do this?

I am as strong an advocate for alternative energy research as anybody. Such research will be the key to preserving the world economy as oil prices continue to skyrocket and fossil fuels fade away due to their deleterious environmental impact. But the United Sates as a nation is nowhere near the point where it can realistically convert entirely to alternative sources within the next decade. We are addicted to greenhouse gases as a nation, and that will be hard to break. Solar, wind, and geothermal energy are certainly great alternatives but technology is nowhere near a point where they could produce all of the electricity that we need as a country. While we certainly need to continue pursuing these technologies aggressively, they are not a near term fix by any means.

Fortunately, a relatively inexpensive altenative to fossil fuels is available right now and actually contributes significantly to the grid already: nuclear. I know Americans never trust the French about anything (cheese eating Socialist snob assholes.... moi je n'ai pas de probleme") but the French have enjoyed ample, relatively clean electricity through their extensive network of nuclear plants that provide approximately 76% of the country's energy. The United States, on the other hand, only receives 19% of its energy from nuclear power. With the current technologies available, the only way for the United States to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in a signficant manner would be to build nuclear plants aggressively throughout the country, continue to pursue other alternative sources, immediately enact stricter fuel economy standards for cars and reinstate tax breaks for buying hybrid and other highly fuel efficient cars (that Bush scrapped, fucking asshole got rid of the tax break to buy hybrid cars- why does George Bush hate trees and babies?). Al Gore is living in a dreamworld if he really thinks this country can convert entirely to alternative sources in ten years without increasing nuclear production - even if the technology was available the cost would be astronomical. Come on Al, the optimism is great but stop taking so many fucking crazy pills.

Now check out the new poll question....

One Dollar, One Vote

First off, I want to thank everyone who has been posting great comments in response to my last couple of posts. I have replied to all of the issue oriented comments and will continue doing so until the volume of comments is too great for me to respond to each individually. I encourage everyone reading this blog to at least check out these comments as they are very insightful and also provide well supported opinions that in many cases differ from my own. Also, in the future please post your comments directly to the blog - a couple of you have sent me messages on facebook and asked me to transfer them to the blog which I did but in the future it is easiest to post directly on the blog. Also, I plan to add some new poll questions over the next few days so be sure to keep checking the bottom of the page. Before writing my entry of the day I want to share a little joke that Ian Clunie sent me on facebook that should make you chuckle:

Q: How many Bush Administration officials does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: None. There is nothing wrong with the light bulb; its conditions are improving every day. Any reports of its lack of incandescence are a delusional spin from the liberal media. That light bulb has served honorably, and anything you say undermines the lighting effect. Why do you hate freedom?

Hahahahahahah



The Obama campaign announced this morning that it raised a very impressive 52 million dollars in June, its second best fundraising month of the year and a relief to skeptics who worried that the hype of his campaign was fading after its lackluster fundraising performance in May. The impressive June totals are especially important as they bring Obama and the DNC on more even ground with McCain and the RNC. Currently Obama and the DNC are sitting on a combined warchest of 92.3 million dollars, just shy of McCain and the RNC's combined warchest of 95 million. This is very good news as the right wing war machine has been outfundraising the dems ever since Bush's record fundraising totals in 2000 and 2004. The prolonged fundraising success of the right hardly comes as a surprise as wealthy republicans with their pockets overflowing in Bu$H tax cut money are happy to pay up in order to ensure a continuation of this administration's reactionary economic policies that have created a wealth disparity in this country the likes of which have not been seen since the Great Depression. Fortunately, wealthy Americans with graduate degrees (maligned by right wingers as "elitist, out of touch limousine liberals") overwhelmingly support Democrats, an increasingly prominent trend in this country that is helping level the fundraising playing field. Not surprising that educated people who actually know what the fuck is going on are overwhelmingly liberal...... but I digress.......However, the core of Obama's fundraising comes from small donations, as his average contribution was only 68 dollars. This is a testament to the true grassroots nature of the Obama campaign.


While I am certainly pleased that Obama and the Democrats can now compete financially with McCain and the Republicans, it really sickens me how fundraising has become such a focal point of politicians at all levels of government. It is impossible to run for office in this country without massive amounts of cash, a fact that forces politicians to pander to deep pocketed individuals and special interests in order to acquire the necessary funds to run for office. True, an individual cannot conbribute more than 2300$ to a presidential candidate in a given election cycle but when wealthy individuals can contribute to individual campaigns, national and state parties, PACS, and non-party affiliated "527" groups , clearly the impact of big money on campaigns is far from diluted. This is a phenomenon that affects both parties as each caters to a different sets of interest groups. Not only do politicians need to pander in order to get the dough they need, but they WASTE SO MUCH FUCKING TIME RAISING MONEY RATHER THAN TALKING ABOUT THE ISSUES. Yes, fundraising is such an integral part of any campaign that members of the House of Representatives typically start fundraising for their reelection campaigns shortly after getting elected - it is a never ending cycle.

Look, if we really want democracy (or a fair representative republic) we need to take money out of politics. Period. If every voice is to be heard equally come election day, a person's wealth should have no effect on whether or not politicians listen to them. The best way to take money out of politics would be to provide candidates and political parties with public financing and ban all private political fundraising. "527" groups (with no limits on contributions whatsoever) would still prove a problem but if they are not allowed air time, their impact will be lessened dramatically. Also, with guaranteed public financing, politicans will be able to spend much more time making clear their stances on issues and when in office planning reelection, actually doing their job rather than spending the entirety of their time campaigning and fundraising. America needs to revert to its democratic principles of one person, one vote, rather than putting so much emphasis on the ability of candidates to attract the $$$$$$$$. Both presidential candidates are staunch campaign finance reformers so I have a lot of faith that the problem of money in politics will be addressed during the next administration. Later.
-Artie

Congress.... Sucks

So the U.S. economy is getting more and more fucked every day... in fact, today's inflation numbers showed that inflation in June shot up 1.1 percent from May, the largest month to month increase in 26 years. This news, coupled with the continuing housing crisis and the obscene price of oil will only work to continue fucking the U.S. economy over with a giant pointed stick. So, to whom do we turn in the midst of this economic crisis? Congress, of course! I mean Congress can always be trusted to provide a hastily thought out, poorly designed plan to solve any national crisis, right? Now is no exception.


Congress recently implemented a 168 billion $ "economic stimulus" package in which the government sent Americans checks of up to 600$ in order to give the economy a little boost..... of course the real purpose of this package was to tell Americans, "we know you fucking hate us and the country's going to hell so here's a few hundred bucks in beer money to keep you from going completely bonkers on us and taking a collective national shit on Capitol Hill Lawn." Don't get me wrong: I enjoyed receiving my check of 180 bucks in the mail, which I promptly used to stimulate the economy (the underground economy is still part of the economy). But come on, does anyone on Capitol Hill really think that sending people a few hundred bucks will do anything to solve the country's highly complex, multifaceted economic problems? I doubt it. True, it would be difficult for the Democratic Congress to pass any legislation of substance as it would face an immediate veto from President Bush. But is this really the best they can do? Apparently so....


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced today that Congress is considering implementing another similar stimulus package because the effects of the last stimulus were largely negated by ever-rising energy prices. Don't get me wrong, I'd be thrilled to get a couple hundred bucks more from the assholes in Washington but as a public policy this is just plain DUMB. First of all, the Democratic Congress is following the failed Bush model of cutting taxes during times of both record spending and record budget deficits. The government is in no position to be granting these hand outs right now. And no shit the effects of the last stimulus were cancelled out by rising gas prices - so why don't the boneheads on Capitol Hill actually attempt to formulate a cohesive energy and economic policy that will address the issues of high gas prices and the lagging economy in general? That would be far too much to ask of the morons in Congress who care a lot more about their own reelection campaigns and pandering to the special interests in their districts than in enacting meaningful legislation to address the country's long term problems. SENDING EVERYONE A FUCKING CHECK FOR A COUPLE HUNDRED BUCKS IS A PATHETIC ATTEMPT TO APPEASE PISSED OFF AMERICANS WHO ARE FED UP WITH THEIR GOVERNMENT. Now I beg Congress: sit down and fucking do something!!!!... Later

Bush's Dumbass Energy Policy

First of all I want to thank all of you who have voted in my polls and posted comments on the site. All of your feedback was very helpful. I apologize for the not so reader friendly text - I'm working on presenting my enlightened ideas in a more visually pleasing manner.

So...... I'm reading the headlines and the price of oil just dropped 9$ a barrel today upon President Bush's decision to remove the current moratorium on offshore drilling in the United States. With oil companies permitted to drill in the oil rich waters in the Gulf of Mexico and off Southern California, an influx of oil to the American market should help reduce prices over the next decade or so. I have to give Bushee a thumbs up for this one as I support increased drilling in order to alleviate the burden of obscenely high gas and home heating oil prices on lower and middle income Americans. Sorry Greenpeace - I love the dolphins, whales, spotted owls, even the fucking Caribou, but I care more about people, namely Americans getting fucked by these prices.

And........ Bush's energy policy kind of stops there. Sure, he's paid lip service and meagerly funded some alternative energy research but he made absolutely no commitment towards ending our dependence on foreign oil or making a transition towards alternative energy sources. You put two oil men in the White House and what the fuck do you expect to happen? Cha Ching$$$$$

Now we get to the part the really pisses me off... When asked whether Americans should attempt to conserve energy, President Bush replied: "They're smart enough to figure out whether they're going to drive less or not." Haha, do you really expect Bushy to ask Americans to conserve? Americans conserve = Big Oil takes less money from Americans = Bush's oil buddies get really pissed off, join the Minutemen, and start shooting Mexicans cause they have to wait an extra year before buying their new fucking G5. So we'd better not get Bush's oil buddies upset by.... gasp.... trying to conserve energy. I mean who gives a fuck if Greenland is melting, storms are getting stronger, fires more severe, and heat waves more deadly? Oh yea, and no matter how much we drill oil won't be around all that much longer. But why conserve? Although nobody really listens to anything Bush says anymore.... my call to my fellow Americans is CONSERVE!!! Help us end our dependence on foreign oil and stop destroying our environment. Anybody can use 15% percent fewer resources in their daily lives without inconveniencing them if they really think about it.

It's a sad fact that during 8 critical years during which America could have taken so many steps to reduce its carbon emissions and decrease its dependence on oil from the Middle East, we have done NOTHING.... Just another way Bush has worked to fuck over America and the rest of the world.... psychotic fuckhead...... Bush's environmental policy is so disastrous that one of John McCain's commercials emphasizes how McCain stood up to Bush on climate change... Even his fellow conservative republicans are kind of pissed off how the Bush Administration took a giant shit on the earth for eight years.

How about a simple energy policy that makes sense? Fuck SUVS.... we need substantial increases in fuel economy standards for all vehicles sold in the US NOW. And we need to make a real commitment towards alternative energy research... a Manhattan Project of sorts in which the greatest scientific minds can work together in order to fix the looming energy and climate crisis facing the world... Just another way for Bush to cement his legacy as one of the worst presidents in American history...

Mortgage/Banking Crisis

So the big news of the day is the federal government's plan to bail out some more major financial institutions that have been crippled by the developing mortgage and banking crisis. For those of you who don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, let me give you a little background on this crisis that poses a serious threat to the American economy. During the recent housing boom in which American housing prices skyrocketed over a period of several years, it became increasingly difficult for Americans to afford homes as wages did not keep pace with the price increases. Therefore, the only way for many Americans to afford homes was by taking out ultra-risky mortgages such as interest only loans that would keep their payments affordable. The problem is that these kinds of loans are SO FUCKING RISKY AND STUPID TO TAKE OUT. People with interest only loans could be living in their home for months or even years without paying any principal on their mortgage, meaning they own exactly 0% of their home. So when the time comes to actually start paying the principal down and they still can't afford it, they say, no big deal we'll just sell the thing because it will keep appreciating in double digits FOREVER. Wrong!!!! So when people can't just unload these houses that they could never really afford to begin with they are... fucked, foreclosed. So of course foreclosures are at a record high right now and with prices declining the banks are sure having a fucking hard time getting rid of all these houses that are losing their value and that nobody really wants. So the banks are fucked too, so fucked in fact that the two biggest underwriters of U.S. mortgage debt, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not be able to survive much longer without a multibillion dollar bailout package from our federal government (wait, the federal government doesn't have money either, I mean don't we have a7 trillion dollar national debt or something... fuck it we'll borrow more from China). While I guess the federal government has little choice in bailing out these financial behemoths as failing to do so would wreak havoc on the already beleaguered financial sector. I really question the principal of the government's new policy of bailing out these giant corporations. I mean, nobody forced Fannie and Freddie to offer these dumbass loans to people trying to buy homes they could not possibly afford. It was the typical greedy banker mentality that really couldn't give a rats ass if the loan they were offering Joe Schmoe was probably going bad in a few years as long as the banker got his commission that day. These irresponsible loaning practices created a positive feedback loop of increased housing prices when increased demand from a new class of buyers that could never afford homes with traditional loans forced prices up and up. So now the banks are fucked and the government is bailing them out, how nice of them. So far the government has already bailed out the ex-super sexy master of the universe Wall Street giant Bear Stearns... sure the stock might have collapsed but all the company's bigwigs walked away fat and happy as the company fell apart. The same scenario occurred a few days ago when the government announced its multibillion dollar assistance package to the failing California bank, IndyMac. The feds could never possibly let such titans as these fail.
Now as I previously stated, the government has little choice but to intervene here or the economy would really collapse (imagine where the Dow would go if the two companies owning half the mortgage debt in the U.S. all of the suddenly went bankrupt. Put me on the next flight to Australia...). It seems kind of like a huge crock of horseshit though when the Bearn Stearns' and Freddie Mac's of the world are too big and important to fail according to the government. Look to the passage in the constitution that says: "If you're a major bank the government will not let you fail, we will put the country further and further into debt and save your big fat incompetent asses with billions in free money." That's a couple lines above where it says, "Oh yea and for the rest of you, when the economy goes to shits and everything sucks you can go fuck yourselves. There's a bunch of empty parking spaces outside Best Buy so buy a shitty used van, park it there, sleep in it, eat shit, and shut the fuck up or you'll be "interrogated" wink wink in a CIA prison overseas." This is an unacceptable double standard: major financial giants are given billions in government aid to prevent them from going bankrupt while small business owners who create two thirds of the jobs in this country can eat shit and die when their business fails... God bless America, land of the free, with opportunities for all.
Okay so I've concluded that the government does need to bail out some of these big companies but that's it's hypocritical bullshit... so what now? Now we figure out how the hell we got into this sordid mess in the first place: NO GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT OF IRRESPONSIBLE CORPORATE SHENANIGANS. That's right... Dick Cheney, please make sure your pacemaker is working if you plan to continue reading this. We need to regulate, period. The Great Depression was largely caused by reckless trading practices on Wall Street during the 1920's that created millions in imaginary wealth overnight, only to fuck the whole world's economy up for the next 13 years or so when people realized how overvalued those stocks were. The stock market crash of 1987 was widely blamed on the lack of oversight on Wall Street as that fucking prick Ronald Reagan did everything he could to deregulate the financial industry during his 8 years as warlord. And of course, the tech bubble that burst in 2000 was caused by irrational exuberance on Wall Street and people funneling billions of dollars into these little tech companies that not only had no earnings but I still have no fucking clue what half of them did. But hey, why have the government get in the way of the market? After all, the market represents the will of the people and anyone who wants to interfere is an economic elitist snob, right? WRONG! Capitalism and regulation are not mutually exclusive. The government can and should regulate financial markets in order to ensure a stable economy. The government needed to intervene and stop the banking industry from offering so many risky loans to people that were too ignorant, stupid, or easily manipulated to make financially sound decisions. True, such regulation would have kept housing prices from skyrocketing so much, but it also would have prevented the current meltdown in the banking industry. It's okay for the government to intervene in markets. Period. Capitalism is a great economic system for creating wealth and provides sufficient incentives for people to try and further their own economic self interests. However, as history has shown us time and time again, unrestricted capitalism creates instability in markets and ultimately recession. Hopefully America will learn its lesson this time and do a better job stabilizing its great economy. I'm hitting the gym, peace.