Guesses At Nothing

Now I am as patriotic as the next guy.  I believe that we have some pretty special things in America.  The right to think and speak for ourselves being one of these things, among others.  Margaret Thatcher said that the difference between Europe and America is that the former was founded on history and the latter upon philosophy.  While that may be an over simplification I think that there is some truth to that.  And you'd think will all that philosophy in our blood we might have some good weighty heads on our shoulders.  In the very least we should be able to engage in discussion with the world.  And I am probably right.  For the most part we are citizens of  the world.  But unfortunately the editors of Time don't think we are engaged in the world discussion and decided to show us a different cover in a recent issue than the cover that the rest of the world sees.  The rest of the world is presented with the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and we are presented another more nationalistic story about the bible in public schools.  While that may not be that bad, you have to wonder why the editors of Time don't think that the American public cares as much about the world stage.  Newsweek did the same thing.  They presented the same story  about the Taliban to their international readers and presented America with a story about Annie Leibovitz's life in pictures.  No offense to Miss Leibovitz, but I don't even know who she is.  What this really indicates to me is that demographic and marketing studies have shown that the American magazine buying public has little concern over world matters or at least that national news is a better seller.  I am just surprised that there isn't a picture of Anna Nicole on both covers. 

I had wondered in my last post  whether it was a single fanatic or a professional firm who had created the Big Sister Hillary Clinton video and it looks like it was a little bit of both.   The creator worked for the company that created Obama's website, but said that he did so on his own.  Whether or not that is true, I guess we'll never know.  If you haven't seen Obama's website, check it out.  It is easily the best of all the candidates that I have seen. 

A bogus Obama campaign video has been generating a lot of hype recently.  It portrays Hillary as Big Brother from 1984.  It was quickly denounced by the Obama camp.  I think it is worth a look.

In spite of its inherit creepiness, it doesn't do any better a job of promoting Obama than it does of bashing Hillary. It would/will be interesting to find out the source of the video. If it is truly user generated content then it is interesting that some overzealous geek with leet computer skills can create perhaps the most emblematic image in the campaign to date. But I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it is propaganda funded by a politically motivated PR firm as was the case with the Al Gore penguin video. Perhaps to stir up the pot a little in what could be an ugly primary campaign.

This Washington Post article reviews a book written by Elaine C. Kamarck, a former Clinton policy adviser and current lecturer at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government who thinks that the government of the future will be smaller, more efficient, and empty of bureaucrats. Picture Washington DC as Colonial Williamsburg, huge federal buildings as tourist attractions complete with historians dressed as politicians acting out the sleazy happy-glad-handling of yesteryear. While this may all be the stuff of social fiction, the idea is an interesting one. In the future an aging population, booming Indian and Chinese markets and the persistent threat of global terrorism may create the need for a government that is efficient highly networked, and staffed by the best and brightest our country has to offer. From the article:

Today's government is a "hodgepodge" that includes old-fashioned bureaucracies, public-private partnerships and outsourcing initiatives, Kamarck writes. But the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks reordered many federal priorities and, along with Hurricane Katrina, underscored why policymakers need to rethink their approaches to government, she says...

... Going forward, policymakers need to better match their goals to appropriate implementation strategies, Kamarck says. The models include:

• Reinvented government, where agencies operate without some of the traditional trappings of bureaucracy and use performance measures to track programs and services. This approach seems suited for routine functions, such as determining eligibility for benefits, or a high level of security, such as airport passenger and baggage screening.
• Government by network, where agencies provide funding to universities, laboratories, nonprofit and for-profit organizations to do the work that the government wants done. This approach serves policies that require innovation, such as developing weapons for the Cold War or collecting intelligence on terrorism.
• Government by market, where the government uses state power to create a market that fulfills a public purpose. This approach involves few, if any, federal employees and little or no public money and typically involves a policy aimed at changing the way millions of citizens behave, such as creating an incentive for people to stop driving gas-guzzling cars.

The article continues that public officials pay scale should be comparable to that of the private sector. Food for thought.

There is a great article in the NY times about cooling the hype that surrounds global warming. The article states that Gore may not have all the details right about global warming, and that there are legitimate scientists out there who dispute some of the "facts" that Gore presents.  Not in dispute, it should be noted, is that man is a contributing factor to global warming and that it is happening.  We just don't know how bad it will be. Gore's depiction was apocalyptic at times and for all the science knows, that may or may not be the case. All in all though the consensus is that Gore did pretty well.  For a politician anyway.  And most importantly he brought a lot of attention to a real phenomenon.

And to be sure, there is a lot of yapping going on on both sides of the spectrum. And while I may be guilty of some yapping myself, all that noise may not be the best for the science, so I say let the rational discussion begin.

Look at what I received in my inbox today:

Dear James,
Become a first time donor. The special-interest industry in Washington has only grown since the last election, and it will spend more money than ever this time to try to own our political process and dictate our policies in Washington. We're not going to play that game. We're not taking any contributions from Washington lobbyists or political action committees. We're going to transform the political process by bringing together hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans to build a campaign responsible to no one but the people -- people like you.

Signed, Barack Obama. It went on to say that when I donate another person will match my contribution. If this guy is for real, this is just what I wanted to hear after my last post. I'll be sure to donate and if you want to too you can do so here.

You know, I wasn't even going to mention this because it really is a non-issue, but what the hay.  It seems that Al Gore has come under some criticism for the energy consumption of his Tennessee mansion.  A conservative think tank looked up his energy bills and reported their findings just after Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth won an Oscar.  Gore has defended himself by saying that he uses florescent bulbs, has recently installed solar panels, partakes in Tennessee's green power program, and runs his business from his home; which requires more energy than your typical household.  Even if Gore doesn't practice what he preaches as best as he could he still has brought a lot of attention to the cause.  It seems to me that the oil companies and naysayers have run out of ammunition and have resorted to name calling and finger pointing.  Which, when you think about it is really indicative of a much larger problem that this country faces.  We are divided. Ever since Bush number two squeaked by in an election where he lost the popular vote, and was basically appointed to the presidency by the Supreme Court the country has been split in two.  An unpopular war and another close and contested election later it is even worse.  And so much is in jeopardy.  American soldiers, Iraqi citizens, the environment, our moral standing on the world stage, the economy... so much.  I don't see any real solution in sight under the current paradigm.   Our elected officials are duplicitous and have their hands deep in the lobbyist's pockets. The media is controlled by a very few.  When the democrats push a bill through the House that purports to clean up Washington's Act it is front page news, but when that same bill gets tied up in the Senate you hear nothing about it.  The money needs to get out of Washington so that good people can pass sensible legislation that helps the country as a whole, not pork fat, pet projects, bridges to nowhere, and unjust wars.  Here is a great site that breaks down just what all that tax money could do for us and the world.  The system is broken.  I don't know maybe a fresh face like Obama could be what this country needs.