Blagojevich: Not the Real Problem!!!

When Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich was recently arrested by the F.B.I., I thought it was a sign of progress in our government’s anti-corruption campaign. Finally, the government is really nailing someone who did something wrong. Unfortunately, a recent New York Times article has shown me that Blagojevich is really just the tip of the iceberg in terms of government officials involved with fraud and corruption. While people may see our governor’s arrest as a step forward, the truth is, we are focusing on the wrong person.

The real criminals in our country are the ones that haven’t been caught yet. According to the article, George Bush is the biggest example of a man who has greatly damaged our country, but is not being held accountable for his actions. He lied to his country about the reasons for invading Iraq, and he also failed to take action upon large corporations and banks that were making very risky, and ultimately catastrophic, business decisions. These huge blunders by the president were made even worse by Bush’s post-presidential interview, where he said that he was only a “passive witness to disastrous events.” He took no responsibility for his actions, and he is not getting in any trouble at all. Compared to Bush, Blagojevich looks like a shoplifter.

If George Bush had any help flushing our economy down the toilet, it was from the C.E.O.s and other executives at large companies and banks. These people, out of carelessness and greed, drove their corporations into millions upon billions of dollars in debt. The company owners said the debt was unanticipated, and that they didn’t know what bad shape their business was in until it was too late. But these greedy C.E.O.s had been warned for almost a decade that their risky business investments, called derivatives, would lead to financial collapse. As Warren Buffet said in 2003, “derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction.” But the corrupt corporation leaders didn’t listen, and now our country is trillions of dollars in debt, and who is paying for the revitalization of the economy? The taxpayers. Although Blagojevich’s crimes were sleazy and corrupt, his crimes didn’t put our entire country into economic disrepair like the underhanded bank and corporation executives.

The government’s use of wiretapping surveillance on Blagojevich could be seen as progress in the fight against corrupt politicians. The governor was a greedy criminal, and he deserves to go to jail. But if you look at the big picture of our country’s welfare, Blagojevich is not the person the United States needs to go after. President Bush and the leaders of the banks and companies that drove us into an economic recession should be the targets of the technology used to convict our governor. America needs to take a step forward and start coming down hard on the people who cause the real problems in the country. When that happens, we will finally make progress.

American Colleges: Chill Out

The long, exhausting journey towards college is underway for juniors, and we all know that the pressure’s on. We had better step up to get the grades, test scores and extracurricular activities needed to get into a “good” school. We all know that applying to college is a laborious, time-consuming process, with applications, essays and college visits that there just isn’t time to fit in. But a recent New York Times article has a solution to the complicated, expensive process: going to college in Europe. Over the past decade, more and more American students are finding a refuge in some of the top Britsh and Scottish colleges.

These international universities have a few advantages over the top American schools. Colleges in Europe that are at the same level of prestige as the Ivy League schools are only a fraction of the tuition cost. Also, these transatlantic schools are much easier to get into than American colleges of the same stature. But one of the best things about the European colleges is the simplicity of applying. As Rebecca Gaukroger, a recruiter from Edinburgh University, says in the article: “The fluff is irrelevant.” The only things these colleges require is good grades and test scores. There are no 600-word essays or huge résumés required. It is a straightforward and realistic process in which a student doesn’t have to try to hide any weak areas he or she may have in school. As Gaukroger says, “It’s built into the U.K. system that students will have strengths and weaknesses, and if a student wants to study chemistry we don’t need to know if they’re good at history.”

So as I read about the simplicity and streamlined nature of getting into a European college versus an American school, I wonder if our colleges are really making progress by raising their standards and admissions requirements so high that it almost kills students to get in. Getting into college in the United States was a lot less complicated thirty years ago, but now kids have to write dozens of essays on random topics and take every course imaginable just to get an education. With college’s requirements raised so high in this country, is our education system progressing, or is it actually moving backwards? By forcing students to be perfect instead of just being themselves, American colleges have lost sight of the student’s needs and weaknesses, and the schools are only focusing on their own success.

Maybe college is one issue where the United States needs Europe’s guidance and example.

A President Unplugged

On a recent episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, writer Jon Meacham was the featured guest. Does that name sound familiar? Meacham is an editor for Newsweek and the author of The American Lion, a non-fiction book about Andrew Jackson’s revolutionary presidency from 1829-1837. We recently read Meacham’s summary of his book in class from a Newsweek article titled “The Change Agent.” While the artifact for AIS mostly talks about Andrew Jackson and the changes he brought to the United States, Meacham’s interview with Jon Stewart brings up some interesting parallels between Andrew Jackson and today’s politicians.

In the interview, Meacham describes Jackson as “our first populous president, a man of the people.” Jackson was the first president to be a direct representative of the common voter, rather than the well-educated aristocrat. He was really the first “Joe Six-Pack” president. As a Tennessee man from humble beginnings with few political connections, he earned the enthusiastic support and backing of Americans who saw themselves in him. Jackson rose from the bottom of society to the top, and gave people hope that they could be anything they wanted to be.

Based on this, I think that Andrew Jackson is the perfect mix of Senator John McCain and President-elect Barack Obama. Like John McCain, Jackson was a war hero who later aggressively campaigned as a maverick politician. Jackson wanted to revolutionize the position of President of the United States, just as John McCain strove to do if elected. Both were tough men who didn’t take no for an answer.

But Jackson is also similar to Obama in a way that helped them both win. Jackson’s presidency gave hope to millions of Americans who weren’t rich or well-educated. He inspired them to believe that with hard work, anything was possible. When Obama won this year’s election, he gave that same hope to African-Americans, first-time voters, and other minorities. Meacham adds that Jackson is similar to Obama because “he had a core group of supporters who firmly believed that he would do anything for them…” He also cites Jackson’s “amazing connection to people” that Obama shares.

But Meachem does lament one big change in American politics that makes the Jackson era very different from Obama’s. “It’s frustrating we’ve allowed politics to get as ‘scripted’ as it is today,” Meacham told Stewart, citing about eight scandals that Jackson managed to survive, any one of which would have quickly ended a current politician’s career. Today’s scrutiny, he explains, is just too harsh, and the soundbites too scripted.

No doubt that’s one big reason why Meacham’s book on Jackson will be a best-seller. Call it President Unplugged.

ObamaTube

Barack Obama is taking the next step in the Franklin Delano Roosevelt tradition of finding new ways to connect and communicate with Americans. Roosevelt was the first President to make regular radio speeches that all Americans could listen to. These “fireside chats” revolutionized the President’s relationship with Americans through his personal, inspiring talks that made people feel like he was speaking just to their needs, rather than the whole nation.

Over the years, Roosevelt’s radio-talks have evolved with the personalities of different Presidents. Ronald Reagan initiated weekly Saturday radio addresses, in which the President gives updates and announcements. The party out of power (in this case, the Democrats for the last eight years) then gives a talk in response to the President’s address. But these Presidential discussions have become so commonplace in our country that hardly anyone listens to them anymore, or even knows what frequency they’re on. Barack Obama, however, is about to solve that problem.

Obama will be the first President to use videos and the Internet to release his weekly addresses. The President-Elect launched his first Democratic response speech on November 15th on YouTube, a video that has already received more than 600,000 hits. Obama’s goal is to revive the Presidential radio talk’s popularity by attracting millions of YouTube and Internet users who can access the videos easily at any time. Just as Roosevelt revolutionized the way the President communicated with Americans during the Great Depression with his “fireside chats,” Obama is doing the same with his YouTube addresses.

But this makes me wonder: does this change in communication for the President mean progress? Obviously, this is a breakthrough in terms of technology. Today, the Internet and television are the fastest ways to get the news, while in the thirties there was only radio. But have we made progress in terms of our President connecting with Americans? I don’t think so. Obama has simply gotten our country’s attention back up to the level that Roosevelt enjoyed during the Great Depression. But why has there been a sixty-year gap? Are we as a country guilty of tuning out the President’s messages after the “newness” has gone? Is that why other Presidents have failed? Or is technology moving so fast, our Presidents haven’t been savvy about keeping up? The truth is, progress and innovation aren’t enough. If you’re not a great communicator, nobody’s going to listen, no matter how advanced the technology you use. What our country needs today is a tech-savvy leader with the charisma and communications skills to connect. Let’s hope Obama breaks through again, in the tradition of FDR.

Barack and Rahmbo

Rahm Emanuel is about to be the first New Trier graduate to work in the White House as the Chief of Staff for the President of the United States. Emanuel, who’s from Wilmette, was the first cabinet member selected by President-Elect Barack Obama. He served as an assistant to the Chief of Staff under Bill Clinton, and is a Congressman from Illinois. But Emanuel is best known for his toughness, and he has a track record of being a strong, liberal Democrat. Even Obama is well aware of Emanuel’s harsh personality, as shown in this “roast of Rahm Emanuel” at a charity event in 2005.

But many people wonder: if Emanuel is so well known for being a tough liberal, and Obama wants to unite the country and get conservatives on his side, wouldn’t the Wilmette native be the wrong cabinet pick? Wouldn’t this crazy Democrat drive Republicans away from Obama? The new Chief of Staff explained why he was the right man for the job in a Wall Street Journal article on Saturday. Emanuel explained that during Obama’s Presidential campaign, one thing that gave him an edge over John McCain was his focus on the big picture for his country and idealistic goals for America. As the article stated: “We have an energy crisis, a health-care crisis…Mr. McCain tried to make this about small things like Bill Ayers. Barack made it about health care. The American people penalized the candidate who talked about the small things and rewarded the candidate who talked about the big things.” Obama wants to continue to stay focused on the big, idealistic picture, but his job as President-Elect requires a pragmatic decision-maker behind the scenes.

That’s where Emanuel comes in. With his no-nonsense, pragmatic personality, Emanuel can be Obama’s reality check when it comes to shaping each day he spends in the White House. Emanuel can work quietly behind him, making tough decisions about who the President sees, and who he doesn’t. Obama, in the meantime, can maintain his image as an idealistic man with big dreams for America. It’s a good match. Obama the idealist is well-served by a man who believes, “The American people are unbelievably pragmatic. Have confidence in their pragmatism. It’s the operating philosophy of our country.”

Freedom of Speech: Joe Takes It Too Far

When I think about the Constitution, the first thing that pops into my head is the First Amendment: freedom of speech, religion and ideas. Everyone over the age of six knows about this right. It’s a right our country holds in the highest esteem. But even though the freedom of ideas is crucial to the United States’ identity as a country of liberty, some people take advantage of this right by spreading lies and damning comments about others that aren’t true. Such was the case with Joe Wurzelbacher, a.k.a. Joe the Plumber, during a Fox News interview with anchor Shepard Smith.

Smith began by questioning an accusation made by Joe that Barack Obama’s presidency would mean “death to Israel.” The plumber from Ohio stated that he had said this because of the "shady" people that Obama hung around with, and things he said in the past. But Joe couldn’t name any of these anti-Israeli people. Partway through the interview, Shepard Smith directly quoted Obama, saying that Israel will always be an ally of the United States during his presidency. Joe took advantage of the First Amendment in order to send an untrue, dangerous message to all Americans. This makes me wonder: when does freedom of speech go too far, and should it ever be restricted?

At the end of the clip, after Wurzelbacher leaves, Shepard makes this point: “I just want to make this 100 percent clear. Barack Obama has said repeatedly that Israel will always be a friend of the United States no matter what…the rest of it, man, it just gets frightening sometimes.” Fear was not the goal of the men who wrote the Constitution and the First Amendment, but Joe the Plumber’s untrue, incendiary statement has degraded our country’s most precious right into something that is manipulated and distorted. And that’s a scary thought.

The Three-Fifths President

I’ll bet our Founding Fathers never expected this. A black man, a man they counted as three-fifths of a person in the Constitution, is on the verge of becoming President. It’s been 232 years since the Constitution was written, and it has taken that long for an African-American to come this close to leading our country. Barack Obama is a longtime advocate for equal opportunities for blacks in America, as shown in a recently surfaced NPR interview! from 2001. The interview took place with Chicago Public Radio when Obama was at the University of Chicago law school as a part-time professor of Constitutional Law. During the interview, he talked about his view of the Constitution as a “charter of negative liberties,” stressing the fact that blacks were not counted as full citizens and slavery was not outlawed in the famous document. Barack went on to say that, although great strides have been made in the civil rights movement since 1789, blacks are still at a disadvantage in this country. “If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement….” he said, “I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.” He goes on to say, however, that blacks still have a long way to go. The Constitution, in his view, never went as far as to address “political and economic justice in society,” which seems to mean the poverty so many blacks still face today. Because of that, Obama described the Constitution as ”…a charter of negative liberties. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted….”

The interesting thing is, this Obama interview has set off a firestorm among critics like Rush Limbaugh. He accuses Obama, when he talks about “a charter of negative liberties” of wanting to undo the limits the Constitution places on the federal government so he can create a socialistic society where government is all-powerful, and wealth is evenly spread among everyone.

But I’ve been thinking, as we talked about the Constitution in class this week: is that what Obama---one of those three-fifth’s guys who had to earn his rights the hard way--really meant? If you listen to Limbaugh, Obama wants our society to become like the world Kurt Vonnegut described in “Harrison Bergeron:” a socialist country where free enterprise is obsolete and everyone is forced to be equal in every way.

But is this really what Obama wants? I think you have to look at his words from the viewpoint of someone whose race has struggled with limitations and constraints the rest of us can only imagine. You really have to go back to the Founding Fathers to remember how tenuous the black population’s rights were—and what a struggle lay ahead of them. As Cullen, in The American Dream, explains, “…our founders were willing to use democratic means, like elections, to realize their republican ends—but only among people they felt confident were capable of exercising such morality and wisdom…it was clear to them that many of the people who lived in the United States—slaves, women, Indians—lacked this virtue, and that is why they were excluded from what became a democratic republic…Whether or not others, like slaves, were also created equal…was a matter of some uncertainty (and less debate.) It was the obvious common ground, in any case, not the ambiguity of those on the boundaries, that was their focus.”

Maybe guys like Limbaugh need to think about the struggle of people “on the boundaries” like Obama who have tried to make the ambiguities of the Constitution more clear. Maybe it’s his job as the potential President of the United States to remember the struggles his race has gone through since the Constitution was written. Maybe that’s the legacy of a three-fifths guy.

Patrick Henry, meet Joe the Plumber

Joe Wurzelbacher, a.k.a. Joe the Plumber, went from zero to hero in his hometown of Toledo, Ohio, last week when Barack Obama crossed his path. Joe, an average plumber about to buy a local plumbing business, confronted Obama when the Presidential candidate was campaigning on Joe’s street. Wurzelbacher asked Obama if his policies would raise taxes, saying, “Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” according to the New York Times article, “Real Deal On Plumber Reveals New Slant.”

Joe the Plumber is lashing out at the possibility of Obama raising his taxes. More than two centuries ago, Patrick Henry gave a speech opposing the taxes England was forcing upon the American colonies, stating that the taxes inhibited the liberty of the colonists. Both men felt that higher taxes conflicted with their natural rights as Americans: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As Joe stated, “I’m being taxed more and more for fulfilling the American dream.”

But America’s economic situation has changed since the late 1700’s. The United States is in deep debt because of the Iraq War and the failing economy. Prior to the American Revolution, England was also in debt following the Seven Year War with France. England imposed taxes upon the colonies to help pay these debts, but the Americans refused to pay them. The colonies claimed that they could not be taxed because they did not have a place in Britain’s government, Parliament.

But today, when it is our own American government raising taxes in order to get out of debt, citizens like Joe Wurzelbacher are still fighting these tax increases. The American people need to understand the fine line between their liberties as Americans and the realities of a country in debt. Ironically, the U.S. government is following the lead of Britain’s bailout plan, which is using tax revenues to invest billions of dollars into the nation’s banks instead of buying their faulty mortgages. For the first time in over two centuries, England is setting an economic example for the United States, not the other way around. Patrick Henry was fighting for an America that may not exist anymore for Joe the Plumber.

The Truth About Alan

The New York Times recently wrote an article about the legendary Alan Greenspan, aka the Oracle of the economics world. The article, titled “Taking Hard New Look at the Greenspan Legacy,” discusses Greenspan’s contribution to the economic collapse of our country. Greenspan has been the Federal Reserve chairman since 1987; that’s four different presidents and both political parties.

For two decades, he was the most influential man in the economy, and his job at the Federal Reserve made him the voice of Wall Street in the White House. In his twenty years in Washington D.C., Greenspan always fought for an independent financial marketplace that had little government regulation. He guaranteed the market could always balance itself out without intervention, and government oversight would be a waste of time and money.

But Greenspan had one flaw: he thought so much of his own opinion and reasoning about the economy, he didn’t listen to warnings other economists were giving him. In 2000, the economy began to steadily decline, and many people believed the market needed government-enforced rules to end companies’ impulsive, high-risk deals. But government officials who believed in the oversight of the economy were either overruled by Greenspan or were too afraid to argue with him. No one could take away Greenspan’s influence and power in Washington D.C., and he continued to maneuver the government away from regulating the economy. Greenspan could not be removed from his place in the Federal Reserve until 2006, but by that time it was too late for our economy. The quirks in the market Greenspan said would solve themselves plunged our nation into the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.

Greenspan’s theory of a totally independent market contributed to the recession we’re having today. Eighty years ago, another famous political figure took our country down the scary path of economic collapse with his ideals of government withdrawal and free enterprise. His name was Herbert Hoover, and he was the President when the Great Depression hit in 1929. The way Hoover saw it, the crisis would solve itself, and government loans would not bring a solution. As Hoover said, “Prosperity cannot be restored by raids upon the public treasury.” Hoover’s lack of support for funding and government regulation left the American people with no strong leader to turn to in the dark times.

Although Hoover and Greenspan both contributed to economic collapses in our country, Greenspan’s position was almost more dangerous to our country than Hoover’s. This is because Hoover was voted out of his position as President after four years of serving. The people were tired of his passive, ineffective policies and elected a more vigorous President. But Greenspan’s position is not controlled by the voters, but rather by the President himself. Greenspan’s influence on our country couldn’t be monitored because people had no say. So for the first time in over 20 years, our country is beginning to understand the truth about Alan Greenspan and his economic theories. This is one time the structure of our democracy seems flawed.

Palin Strikes Again!!!

I was looking through the Saturday New York Times when an editorial titled “Dick Cheney, Role Model” caught my eye. No way. Who could possibly view Dick Cheney as their role model, after his reign as the most controlling, power-hungry vice president in American history? Sarah Palin, of course! This year’s Republican vice presidential nominee stated at the vice presidential debate that she is “thankful that the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president also, if that vice president so chose to exert it.” Palin said she agreed with Dick Cheney that the vice president should have much more “flexibility” (a.k.a. power) in the Executive branch. But the Constitution does not provide a bit more authority, nor does it allow flexibility in that job. The vice president’s job is to carry out orders given by the president and be the tiebreaking vote in the Senate if one is needed. That’s it. Since Cheney has been vice president, he has worked to bend the rules of his job according to the Constitution, hoping to gain more of a voice and a leadership role in our government. This was a bad move for our nation, especially since Cheney had a large influence on our invasion of Iraq in search of WMDs. Some say Cheney was the cause of the war in Iraq. In any case, there should only be one Commander in Chief, not two. This story made me think about FDR in the 1930’s, bending the rules of the Constitution in order to gain more power for the Executive branch. Roosevelt did this by attempting to “stack” the Supreme Court in his favor by adding six new justices he knew would always vote for his bills. Just as Cheney and Palin attempt to turn around the Constitution in favor of the vice presidential seat, Roosevelt tried to place the judicial branch under the control of the Executive branch, a clear breach of the “checks and balances” system of our government. Although Roosevelt was one of our nation’s greatest presidents, he went against the Constitution by trying to stack the Supreme Court with justices that were all on his side. If Sarah Palin ignores the Constitution as well and over-steps her power as the vice president, we could see a major change in the way our country is run and the decisions the Executive branch makes.

Don't Blame Greed!

The editorial I am analyzing is titled "Scapegoating Markets," and it was published in the Chicago Tribune on September 28. The editorial discusses the causes of the recent economic crisis, and it takes a road less traveled in explaining what went wrong with the U.S. financial market. Unlike the majority of opinions, the article dismisses greed as a main cause of the crisis, stating that "greed is ever-present. Wall Street traders are not more or less avaricious today than they were 10, 20, or 50 years ago." In other words, greed is a fact of human nature and an underlying fact in our economy, and it has always been that way.

The article then goes on to explain why the crisis was caused by too much government intervention, not too little. This is a radical claim, as most critics believe the government should have had more involvement when there were signs the market was going to crash. But this editorial has clear, well thought-out support for its unique argument. To prove its point that too many government regulations were part of the problem, the editorial explains how the government pushed to "expand home ownership to borrowers who were once considered too risky." This only increased the number of faulty loans and the debt of the mortgage companies. Also, the editorial explains how the failure of government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shows "the dangers of mixing public and private enterprise."

This editorial gives readers a fresh perspective and a new way to think about our economic crisis, and in that way it is very well constructed. The editorial makes its unique argument clear from the start, making readers want to read the evidence and reasoning behind its novel idea. Because the reasoning behind the argument is clear and logical, the reader has an incentive to rethink his or her current view of the cause of the market crash.

One example of how the authors use logic in their argument is the following: "Blaming greed for economic dislocations is like blaming gravity for airplane crashes: Greed and gravity are both ever-present." This analogy expresses the idea that greed cannot be blamed for the economic crisis because greed, like gravity, is everywhere and cannot be avoided. Most airplanes do not crash despite gravity, and the stock market can be stable for decades despite greed. This shows readers that the logic behind this argument is legitimate.

The reader must also keep in mind that this is an editorial from the Chicago Tribune, one of the most prominent newspapers in the nation. This means the reputation of the editorial authors is high, adding one more motivation for a reader to stay with their argument. Also, the authors of the editorial gain the reader's trust by citing multilple experts on a complex topic. The editorial cites economists like former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Stan Liebowitz of the University if Texas at Dallas, and Megan McArdle of the Atlantic Notes. With this range of sources, the reader can be reassured that the authors are trustworthy and all facts and opinions are not from a single individual.

Although the emotional support of this argument is the weakest of the three, the authors still make a statement that could make a reader think about the issue from his or her own perspective and how the economic crisis affects his life personally. While describing the government's mistake to fund mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the editorial states: "Conservatives had long warned that the government's implicit backing of these companies would someday mean a big bill for taxpayers. Guess what? They were right." This statement is a slap in the face to the reader, saying that because of the government's involvement in our economy, he will have much higher taxes. Although this may not reach the heart or sensitivity of the reader, it makes the issue a lot closer to home.

Before reading this editorial, I wrote a blog on how our economic crisis was caused by lack of government intervention. My blog was based on an editorial from last week's New York Times. However, after reading this editorial, my view and perspective on why our economy is so bad has changed. Because the argument in this editorial was logical, cited multiple economic experts, and brought the issue down to a personal level, I now believe that the government was too involved in our economy, and this helped cause the collapse. This editorial has turned my opinion around 180 degrees, and now it's my turn to spread the word. Obviously, this article succeeded.

Government Control: All or Nothing?

This past week, our country has been through one of the worst economic explosions since 1929 and the Great Depression. The cause was high-risk mortgage loans, C.E.O. greed, and a lax government that watched this and figured the market would fix itself. It didn't. Now, as three major companies, AIG, Lehman Brothers, and Bear Stearns, plus Fannie May and Freddie Mac, are on the edge or in bankrupcy because of their high-risk business deals, the government has come full circle. Congress has made the decision to help rescue four of these financial entities, plus throw in another 700 billion dollars for all other mortgage-related banks and Wall Street firms. Although the government is now beginning to take complete control of our economy, in the past decade its philosophy has been the exact opposite. When banks began offering high-risk loans to unqualified homebuyers, the government should have stepped in and regulated the amount of money going into invesments that depended on people who could not pay back their loans. Instead, the government looked the other way because of the strong Republican belief in free markets. Another example of our government being too lax towards Wall Street comes in the form of a greedy C.E.O. Richard Fuld, the C.E.O. of Lehman Brothers from 1993 to 2007, recently witnessed the bankrupcy of his company. Fuld, over the last 14 years, has been calculated to have made about $17,000 dollars an hour. An hour! Again, the government failed to control this outright reckless spending of investor's money. But Lehman Brothers is not going to get off easy, as the government has decided not to pay off their debts. This lack of government regulation and order contrasts greatly to the system of controls used by the Puritan society in the 17th century. The Puritans believed in strict rules and limits to their behavior and free choice. However, the Puritan policy of constant control eventually led to a society of fear, unrest, and eventually rebellion. So how much should a government influence and control its citizens? How much rule is too much? After the events in our economy this past week, it is clear that while our government should never exhibit as much force and dominance as the Puritans, we must find a comfortable medium. A recent poll of American voters shows that about 60% are looking for greater government involvement. This compares to the same poll taken in the mid-1990's, showing about 60% who wanted the government to have less control and back off. Our country is changing, and it won't be easy to find the correct balance of freedom and restriction. What will work? It's going to a bumpy ride.

Stubborn governments

Recently, while scanning The New York Times editorial section on my way to the sports page, a particular article caught my eye. The editorial, titled "Help for Cuba and Haiti," discusses the role of the United States in helping these small countries after hurricanes Gustav, Hanna, and Ike ripped through them, destroying "hundreds of thousands" of homes. This is a big deal for me on a personal level because this summer I traveled to Havana, Cuba, on a mission trip with my church. I saw how most of the buildings there were old and in disrepair, and I can't imagine many of these homes being able to stand up to a massive hurricane. But as Cuba begins to rebuild from these catastrophic storms, one fact is clear: the country will need help if it wants to get back on its feet. According to the editorial, Cuba does not have the resources or food supplies necessary to function in the immediate weeks after the hurricanes. Although the United States is the most logical country to provide aid to Cuba, being only 100 miles away, the Cuban and U.S. governments are locked in a stalemate based on "outdated cold war politics." The U.S. decided to send resources only if Cuba allowed an "America team to assess the damage." Cuba stupidly refused this offer, and now the United States is not allowing Cuba to buy American construction materials or food because of a trade embargo established when Fidel Castro took over and Cuba became a Communist country almost 50 years ago. I see this situation between the two stubborn governments relating to the Puritans of the 17th century. While the United States and Cuba are both making illogical decisions based on old feuds and embargoes, the Puritans made irrational decisions in their lives based on their utter devotion to their religion and God. For example, when Mr. Hooper makes the decision to throw away a happy life to wear a black veil that drives him into isolation, it seems like an illogical thing to do. However, Hooper finds this irrational action neccesary because his belief and faith in his religion is very strong. Although the same principal of ideals over the basic needs of people applies to the United States and Cuban governments, it is not fair for us to sit around stroking our ego while the Cubans, if not their government, are crying out for our help.

Yo McCain what's your prob baby?

The Republican National Convention ended on Thursday with presidential hopeful John McCain giving the final keynote speech--a speech in which some parts sounded oddly like this other guy I've heard of...the dude from Chicago who wants to tear down the White House bowling alley and make it a basketball court...oh yeah, Barack Obama. Maybe you've heard of him. Well, on September 4th McCain attempted to bring down the house in the Twin Cities with a speech that used more than one of Obama's campaign lines. Most notable was McCain's repeated request for "change in America," which is Obama's theme for his Democratic campaign. Another Obama phrase used by McCain was, "This election is not about me, it's about you." While Obama has been using these powerful statements since his run for the White House began, McCain has been flip-flopping on what direction he wants to take our country. When John McCain basically steals lines from his competitor to use in one of the biggest speeches of his career, it freaks me out. Does this guy have any plan of his own? Have any of his speeches had meaning, or are they all just buzzwords they think will play to a crowd? It reminds me of the historians we've been talking about in class, who omit certain facts to twist history into the way they think it should be. They are almost lying to us about what happened because critical points in the story are left out that could make us see the event differently. Does John McCain really agree with Obama's vision of change, or is he omitting from his speeches what he will truly do if he becomes president? It's weird he's suddenly echoing the exact words of his opponent. Is he for real? It's up to America to decide, but hopefully if McCain is elected president, we will see that he is not hiding anything and he stands by what he said in Minneapolis on Thursday.
Peace.

Yo sup g

Yo baby baby best blog I've ever made