A Super Fat Tuesday: Picking A Candidate before Lent???

I am not a practicing Catholic, so don't go thinking I have "found Jesus." (I didn't know he was missing...)

With the super pre-election process coming to a frothy end, at least on the Republican side, I guess I'll step out on the plank and pick a candidate: Barack Obama.

I believe all the candidates have "their diseases" not revealed to their wives or husbands, in the case of Hillary. But I also think it is not sound to just ignore it, or not "change it", or otherwise, not vote for it.

I think Barack Obama can and does stand for a change in the policies that have decidedly led the United States into a pit of delusion, mediocrity and rabid preachiness at the cost of its soul.

Among other things, I believe he can see the Environment Issues in a whole new light, if directed well. He comes from a state that uses Nuclear Power heavily, which, even give a skeptics point of view, is more ecologically friendly than coal, oil or other means devised currently by man. (And he did not rule it out in the Nevada debate, unlike Senator Edwards who took the easy route on Yucca Mountain.)

A book about this subject, written by a former, anti-Nuclear proponent is currently in my possession. Power to Save the World:The Truth About Nuclear Energy by Gwyneth Cravens tells of the fallacies spread about Nuclear Power Industry and Radiation Scares that are overblown. The extremely efficient nature of the beast - and why even the Sierra Club, once a supporter, became anti-nuclear and spread misinformation.

But back to Barack.

He has more than "energy" that I like. I think he could be great president. He seems geniune about his feelings toward people. And his gravitas can make up for inexperience that Hillary & McCain will attack like a pit bill.

In one interview on BET, he actually spoke logically about the criminal justice system and the propensity to put a disproportionate number of African-Americans & economically-poor people behind bars. And more to the point, the inability to educate or improve their lot before they are released again. (His website buttresses this idea.)

Iraq. He wasn't at the front of the line or willing to let his political party's weakness deter him from opposing the war from day one. Having those instincts, as we have faithfully come to realize, are apart of becoming a good President. If due diligence had been done by the alphabet Agencies, Congress, "The Media", we might all be more secure today than we are under the Bush administration.

Barack Obama: "I made a different judgment. I thought our priority had to be finishing the fight in Afghanistan. I spoke out against what I called "a rash war' in
Iraq. I worried about, ‘an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined
costs, and undetermined consequences.’ The full accounting of those costs and
consequences will only be known to history. But the picture is beginning to come
into focus.”

Foreign Policy. Diplomacy. This is a word that can mean many things, and in the case of Bush, nothing at all. I do believe you have to talk to people, friend or fiend. If anything as Barack's message states:

"Not talking doesn't make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant, it denies
us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally
international support for our leadership. On challenges ranging from terrorism
to disease, nuclear weapons to climate change, we cannot make progress unless we
can draw on strong international support."

In all, I think Barack is a way to the future. Not without flaws, or policy deficiencies, but at least a vision I can get behind.

(Note: He wouldn't want my support if solely on the basis of my personal flaws, background and shortcomings. But I hope that does not deter him in receiving my endorsement, such as it is.)

Global Paradox?: A passage from a futurist in the Googleopoly, Ipodosphere or Youtubedome of Life

I picked up Mr. John Naisbitt book, Global Paradox (1994), at the Lowell Library for a $.25. So it was a decent investment to see what this 2-time #1 New York Times bestseller had to spew out. At least, it gives me something to look at on the toilet. (Yeah, I do that. Women: it's a guy thing. If I could have a TV set in my bathroom, or a versatile computer that would drop down in front of me, that would be ideal. Instead, it's a book - maybe a Playboy or two in a lifetime of learning...)

Anyways, back to the book. I was perusing this passage (pg. 24-25), and felt it had some today value:

The new surge for tribalism has resulted in an escalation of conflicts in many parts of the world. There are many places where ethnic or religious groups are being suppressed rather than celebrated. Some of those places, in addition to Bosnia-Herzegovina are:

• Iran. The Islamic government is trying to do away with Baha'i minority by
  denying them education and jobs.
• Sudan. The Muslim government in the north is brutally fighting rebellious black animist and Christians of the south rather than deal with their grievances. About 40,000 killed.
• Tibet. 40 years of military occupation by the Chinese.
• Iraq. Baghdad government's massive huma-rights violations against Kurds.
• Papua New Guinea: The separatist movement...5,000 killed.
• Bangladesh. Buddhist Chakmas have fought for seperation from this officially
  Islamic country for almost 20 years.
• Fiji. Ethnic Indians vs. ethnic Fijians.
• Burundi. thousands have been killed as a result of ethnic clashes...Hutus
  and... Tutsis.

Some people insist that the forces that are making the world into a single economy have seperated people from longstanding identities and have, at the same time, weakened the nation-state. Hence the violence in these troubled "hot spots." And that in the future, most armed conflict will be ethnically or tribally motived, rather than politically or economically motivated.

In fact, these economic and technological forces of change have weakened the nation-state, but they have strengthened, not seperated people from, longstanding identities. Language, culture, religion, and ethnic heritage reinforce people's sense of belonging. These are the bonds out of which will be created new communities. At the same time, the global community has embraced, at least in concept, the notion that there are basic human rights - although the East and West may well continue to argue over exactly what those rights are - that must be protected.

...War and other forms of aggression against fellow citizens will become, if not obsolete, at least increasingly intolerable. When the world is watching, a community's behavior is influenced by the anticipated reaction of its economic allies.

As you can see, Iran, Iraq and Sudan are still hot spots, 13 years later. The recent and prolonged entrenchment of the United States (The West) into Iraq (The East) has done very little toward obsolence of war...since of course, we are the most powerful nation-state in the World.

The Economic pressures are what we do...to get other countries to obey. (North Korea and Iran.) The backlash (against war) has happened; but with little ado really to the U.S. Economy directly.

China now is putting on the next Olympics, overlooking years of civil rights abuses, their complacent and complicit attitude toward Myanmar and current failures to make safe goods for people. (Meanwhile, their economy is overheating (10-15% growth per year) and their currency is depressed intentionally, while they hoard U.S. currency.)

The concept of basic human rights is just that: a concept. There is little movement toward a fundamental understanding of what accounts for human rights. The conversations recently about waterboarding (and torture) by the new Attorney General Michael Mukasey and potential U.S. President have been in a word, laughable. It is when these Western philosophies are as skewed as the Muslims (with the recent outrage over Gillian Gibbons, a British teacher, being jailed, threatened with death by extremists), that one must realize that we are no closer to working viewpoint on what people should be treated like, or the leaps of understanding needed to close this longstanding cultural gap.

The "new communities" that Naisbitt talked about are what I'll call the Googleopoly, Ipodosphere or Youtubedome. These techcenters are creating communities of vast proportions - founded on technology, email, blogging, chatting and all things communications related. But these places have only so much structure to them; people are constantly moving around in them to other communities. They are as transient as a homeless guy.

The real power only comes from the mega corporations that combine and collect data on us, the bottom feeders. Take today: News Corp. (Ruppert Murdock) is buying another social networking site in Linked In. (Another link to this pending deal.) This after owning Myspace.

Another Hong Kong billionaire (Li Ka-shing) took a $60 million dollar interest in Facebook, another large social network venture just recently.

Meanwhile, Yahoo 's Jerry Yang "felt sorrow" but has allowed the Chinese access to your personal correspondence to the result of the jailing of a journalist. Because Yang and Yahoo, "believe it's better to operate in that market and cooperate with authorities than not be there at all."

These capital ventures and pliable policies of top men, from various political and social fronts, reflect they aren't assisting you or me, the bottom feeders of technology and life, but instead, they are herding us up into a conglomeration of people to know all, see all and tell all about whenever WE (or I or You) get out of lockstep. Freedom and Rights are far from their thoughts.

Sure, we can blog about it. Or send up a Youtube video expressing our displeasure - like the Britney Spears freak. Or email our 100 closest friends on Myspace. But that chatter is just that: chatter. The plug can be pulled; the outrage silenced; the comments pulled; and we can be investigated, deemed "crazy", and no one really will get too fussy. (Look at how quickly the man in Florida, who said, "don't tase me bro!!!" disappeared.)

We can only try - but in the end, when I it's all been swell, and we've "towed the line", for the idea of Democracy, Capitalism and the American Way, we will soon see the greater damage done in allowing a few too many tyrants tells us what to do, when to do it, and how to be conformists to their world view.

That's my rant!

The Perfect Storm: Iraq and its affects on us all

I don't know if The Perfect Storm title is appropriate, but it got your attention...I hope.

It seems since 9/11 that people are more afraid to express the idea of regret, wrongheadedness and blunders about the way America is going. If you attack (or critique, a better word) the way the United States has decided to take on issues, such as Iraq, then you somehow have betray the flag, apple pie and the spirit of our country.

On the contrary, I think you are expressing a sharper focus on the things we should be doing better. Because a nation of similar attitudes, biases and blindspots is doomed to miss opportunities, to advance, to improve and to foster better equality.

We lose perspective daily in this country. Between the media drowning us with frivolity, the message from leaders staid and the isolation we have driven to have amongst ourselves, no one has brought forth a coherent thought that people do not dismiss automatically due to some inherent value judgment made inside thirty-second time frame: the typical time we give all major decisions in our lives, just because it has become in vogue to do so. And with that, the objective amount of time, to fair review and to process of information has been shuffled away. No one thinks very long about it.

As an example, Iraq, an issue I can barely stand to talk about, seems to be a quagmire much like the Vietnam War. We are not welcome; our ideas are easily dismissed by Iraqi people; we are fighting a guerrilla war; even the alleged allies in the government are suspicious of future intents and have made alternative plans for our departure. And billions upon billions are being spent to what unfortunate end?

To further this problem, the enemy has our troops' unethical actions to prisoners as fuel. It has the Media's morose reporting to foster recruitment efforts of future enemies. It even has America's broadcasting of all our country's ills, decaying morality and dispicable behavior to reflect what "goes on" in our country. We provide the perfect propaganda to feed a willing young terrorist.

But we also forget this is a region that has long foster negative feelings due to our spread of Capitalism, Democracy and Christianity. The Middle East (aside from Israel) has had little positive actions since World War II ending. No matter how we approach the region, pitting one group, or country, or sect against those that refuse us - and our way of life - we soon find this particular side turns on us. We lose control of, or influence of, the side chosen.

It happened in the late 1970's in Iran. And we did support Osama in the 1980's against the Russians. Add to those missteps, the sole ally, Israel, has zero support from other Middle East nations, making us a very unwelcome visitor.

Lately, I find our stances, foreign or domestic, are in such chaos to what this country was built on, even through tumultuous times and circumstances, that most people are repressing their outrage, anger and dispair, only to soon release it in ways that are not healthy. (I have - and it isn't completely about direction of the country - but it is apart of it. Mine started even before 2001.)

We are becoming a virtual product of a fast-food, fast-talk, micro-computerized society, with video clips and TTYL attitudes. It seems fun until it become the standard to which we aspire, never (or barely) to reach anything higher. Within it, we function solely for ourselves. Outside of it, we barely conceptualize anything beyond a brief smile and appointment made to meet someone, or something else, probably a computer.

As an average blogger, I am as guilty of it as anyone that makes his living from the editoral pages ran for profit. But what has happen to solid discourse? Is it lost because we've gone too generic - too easy to make an opinion, post it or video tape it, and therefore, the totality has become a sea of sinking ideals, constructs and values?

Has our ability to empathize disappear? Are we just interested in our entertainment? Is our ability to care tied to how much profit can be found?

I am tired of using the word "hope" to describe what I surmise could be. I'd rather use, "it shall happen." But I am not confident in that hope.

To add to the morass, a pop song that sounds about like today's culture: Timbaland's "The Way I Are" (I actually like the backbeat keyboards...) The first words resonate: "State of Emergency..."