On...The Congo

If you've missed this bit of news since our media is very preoccupied with the election.

Violence in Congo

Falling apart, again

Oct 31st 2008 | KIGALI
From Economist.com

Another humanitarian disaster is unfolding in eastern Congo

From...Political Cartoons

Instead of sharing candy I thought I'd share a few political cartoons with you all.

I really like the first one.

On...Can Obama Deliver?

Can Obama Deliver?

I mean this in a couple of ways.

1) Can he close? Can he not be like other Democrats gunning for the big show and actually win down the stretch? We'll see.

2) Can he live up to expectations once elected? There are pockets of Americans who are ready to explode in a joyous orgasm at his victory. They do understand this is only one guy right? They understand we are not electing a King with absolute powers, right? Yeah, he's got Hope and he's got Reform, but it is so vague even the pundits don't know exactly where he stands. Is he a unity centrist or a dividing leftist or will he try to be a uniting leftist? Who knows? He has done little and says less. He's not Bush and that seems to be enough. He still (miraculously) has that new car smell. I can't believe it has lasted this long but it can't last forever. Can it last until Tuesday?

Obama can still be anything to everyone, that's his cool genius. He is still the enigma. However you can't govern as an enigma. You can't vote present in the White House. Obama needs to be someone finally and when he finally comes out of his cocoon the people expecting him to be a butterfly will be shocked he's a moth (or vise-versa). He can't be all things to all people. There is going to be disillusionment from somewhere. It is inevitable. Does he go to war to defend Israel from Iran? Does he widen the war in Afganistan into Pakistan? Does he demand a renegotiation of NAFTA even though our partners don't want it? Does he raise taxes? Will he actually cut middle class taxes? Can he deliver Health Care? Will he be pushed around by Pelosi and Congress? Will the economic crisis hobble him? Voters may want fantasy and superman but they are going to get a big dose of reality.

Maybe we are ready for intellectual aloofness but I feel the public will tire of him if doesn't descend from Olympus (then again if he does come down others will dislike him for not being a god.)

The Presidency

Why anyone would want this job is beyond me. The American Presidency and Democracy in general grinds you up and spits you out. Look at Clinton and Bush after 8 years. In my historical estimate only 3 presidents in the last 100 years have left the office alive with their reputation intact or enhanced and only barely. 2 were Eisenhower and Reagan and they bore major wounds. The last was Coolidge and he only escaped because he didn't seek reelection so he avoided most of the blame for the Great Depression. We'll give him a 1/2

Let's take a look shall we?

1901--McKinley beloved but shot. Reputation pretty intact, but dead.
1909--Teddy Roosevelt leaves the White House in good shape, but sullies it with a Party splitting run in 1912 that allows Wilson and the Democrats to take over.
1913--Taft is denied reelection with a sorry 3rd place finish.
1921--Wilson, stroke and all, has no political pull left after the Treaty of Versailles defeat and his strong-arm tactics during the war (nationalization of the Railroads, the Creel Committee, & the Espionage Acts among many others). His party is creamed in the 1920 election by Warren "Normalcy" Harding.
1923--Harding dead. Reputation ruined by all the corruption scandals that came to light after his death.
1929--Coolidge escapes the Great Depression by retiring back to Vermont. Smart move.
1933--Hoover, Great Depression, nuff said.
1945--FDR, beloved but dead.
1953--Truman, would have been crushed by Ike, retires with Bush-like approval ratings after the Korean War turns stalemate.
1961--Ike survived the slings and arrows but his VP Nixon is defeated in a close election. Probably would have won a third term if that had been possible.
1963--JFK, dead.
1969--LBJ doesn't seek reelection, trapped in the White House as Vietnam and the Great Society leave a real bitter taste.
1973--Tricky Dick, Watergate, Smoking Gun, Resigns
1977--Ford, Pardons Nixon, S Vietnam falls, defeated by unknown southern governor.
1981--Carter, Iran Hostage, Stagflation, Energy crisis, Panama Canal giveaway, denied reelection in landslide.
1989--Reagan, Iran-Contra Aside and a massive debt would have been reelected had that been possible and he was younger. VP wins.
1993--Bush, Cold War ends, Gulf War victory, but Recession, Tax-hikes, and Perot deny him reelection.
2001--Clinton--Impeached--a black mark if there ever was one, though I hate to say it may have been reelected for a third term.
2009--GW Bush--you get the idea.

This is what Obama has to look forward to. Hey, 2 1/2 out of 19 ain't bad!

On...Random Thoughts

Random Thoughts

Simply put, Republicans (for various reasons) typically buy into the system. They tend to believe the system works and they can be successful and happy and safe within the system. They feel a part of the system. They understand that the system is not perfect and it can always be tweaked, but fundamentally it is sound. A Republic of Liberty supported by Free Markets and protected by individual duty and an overwhelming military is about as good as its going to get. Yes, there have been problems in the past and nothing is perfect but we should always be moving forward, in small, thoughtful ways. But for the most part if it's not broken leave it alone. They get mad or frustrated when they see the system being tampered with or unfairly criticized or pushed to its limits or reconfigured. Government should be under the people, not above it. The citizens are the adults and not the children of the government. The government should not "take care" of the people.

Democrats (again for various reasons) tend to believe in the system to a point, but believe it is broken and needs to be fixed or that it has been corrupted by larger than life forces (be it Big Oil or Wal-Mart or Karl Rove or Dick Cheney). Or they believe they are not part of the system. They feel like underdogs or outsiders. They are invited to the party but not really accepted. This is either real or imagined. Some are part of the system, but don't like the fact that others are not apart of it. They feel guilty about a whole collection of injustices, again some real and some exaggerated and some purely imagined. That's why they seem to want to change everything all the time. There is also the sense that we as a nation missed a turn a few decades ago and if could just get back on the highway things would be better. They have a sense of uneasiness about the system--that it could be better, much better, only if people would just work together and help out the little guy we could create the ideal system, one where no one was a loser or poor or had their feelings hurt. If we just embraced hope and change we could still be that city upon a hill. Everyone would be liked and the dirty, cruel aspects of being human could be eliminated or at least lessened. Democracy is fine but it could be better. Free markets are okay if we could only remove the hardship of failure. Equality of opportunity is fine, but equality of outcome is better. If only people had more civic virtue and were willing to sacrifice more for the common good. If only people listened to them since they have all the answers.

Of course both parties have cranks or followers who are just in the party because they are.

Theorizers

The problem lies in human nature. Humans are selfish creatures. When that selfishness can be harnessed it can create a better world. When the selfishness is caged, people will seek an outlet. There are never enough good, wise people to oversee every aspect of an amazingly dynamic nation/economy/government. Some people however think that people are or should be selfless martyrs--they should be alturistic.

A problem with the theorizers of a better system, according to Adam Smith was that

the man of system...is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamored with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it.... He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board.

From Theory of Moral Sentiments

As the state grows it is infected with this notion--that we can make things so much better. Obviously this doesn't mean you stop trying new things, but dictating every move is impossible. The greater control you weld over more people, the greater the problems will manifest themselves. Spontaneous order is often more effective. Give people the rule of law and allow them the opportunity to live their life as they see fit, not as someone else believes they should live. If they are self-destructive, teach them. Do not use the rod of coercion to instill your plans. They will hate you for it. Some people (especially Americans) are stubborn and do not like being told what to do.

From...Michael S. Malone

Media's Presidential Bias and Decline

Columnist Michael Malone Looks at Slanted Election Coverage and the Reasons Why

ABC'S Bio of Michael S. Malone is one of the nation's best-known technology writers. He has covered Silicon Valley and high-tech for more than 25 years, beginning with the San Jose Mercury News as the nation's first daily high-tech reporter. His articles and editorials have appeared in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, the Economist and Fortune, and for two years he was a columnist for The New York Times. He was editor of Forbes ASAP, the world's largest-circulation business-tech magazine, at the height of the dot-com boom. Malone is the author or co-author of a dozen books, notably the best-selling "Virtual Corporation." Malone has also hosted three public television interview series, and most recently co-produced the celebrated PBS miniseries on social entrepreneurs, "The New Heroes." He has been the ABCNews.com "Silicon Insider" columnist since 2000.

On...Clint Eastwood

Is Clint Eastwood the man or what? 78 and still churning out movies. Changeling opens next week and Gran Torino in December. And I tell you what he's still a bad-ass at 78. Check out the Gran Torino trailer to see for yourself.