Obama’s race speech-good, but not good enough

Media outlets, online sites, esp. youtube have had explicit sermons of Barack Obama’s pastor Rev Wright looping for several days; a video which has the reverend equating the USA to Alquada , the government inventing the AIDS virus to wipe out the black race, as well as seeming anti-Israeli connections through Louis Farrakhan. For those who were suspicious of Obama’s idelogical allligment with his pastor, the Senators initial response of ‘well I wasn’t there when he said what he said’, didn’t hold much water. The presidential hopeful from Chicago then made a ‘key speech’ on ‘race’, which has been given mixed reviews. So what was wrong with the speech?

As has been said time and time again, Senator Obama has a way with words and in his latest speech, it seems that he believed that, he could say what he liked and that would be enough. His speech was a more or less an exposition of the past and current race issues, he managed to fit himself and his overly told family story-i.e. mother from Kansas, dad from Kenya bio. As a whole, the speech was good-good enough for the campaign trail, good enough for a sympathetic college audience, (and to some beyond his coterie of advisers that sat in the front row in the venue when he spoke). But it wasn’t good enough for those he has been bringing in his ‘rainbow’ coalition, i.e. white middle America.

His speech didn’t resonate as so many of his others have because the issue with rev Wright was an argument wasn’t just about intellect but instinct. When people saw clips of Rev Wright thundering the damnation of America, the intellectual context of what he said was irrelevant-it was frightening to some and appalling to many others on an instinctive level. What they saw and heard, not only fulfilled the stereotype that many do still hold in societies with a sizable amount of black people-i.e. the angry black man- but also crucially, those that Obama has been appealing to, the so-called Regan democrats, independents and a strand of the republican voters. What Obama had been to them , especially to the mainstream media, was a candidate who represented a post-racism and post-racist America. But as seen in Jeremiah Wright and some say Obama’s arrogant-tinged defence of his pastor (who he sees as an uncle), race is still very much an issue to not only America, but to, would you believe it, the great messiah of racial unity himself, Barack Obama.

This incident with Americas next possible pastor, to many, has filled in the blanks concerning Obama in the worst possible way that he and his advisors could even imagine. Now people can say, ‘Oh so that’s who Obama is, we didn’t really know him before, we do now’.

The battle of the third term

Hilary Clinton and John McCain, both candidates for the U.S presidency, (one already has sewn-up the nomination of their party) are both said to not only be fighting to get into the White House, but are also battling for their surrogates; Hilary is fighting for President Bill Clinton’s unofficial third term, and Senator John McCain is fighting for President Bush’s unofficial third term.

Now having a glance over this notion, it can appear quite snide, however, if thought about for than a moment, on some level there appears to be some truth. Personally I don’t believe that either H.R.Clinton’s or McCain’s desire to be in the White House is driven solely for-the-love their surrogates, but there could be a tad more about it than themselves.

Take Senator Clinton for example, her husband Bill, although widely seen to have overseen and in fact took a hands-on approach to a very successful U.S economy in the nineties- making a lot of people well off, plus the relative peace-time feel and other things-he apparently feels, the Lewisnky saga unfairly undercut his legacy concerning the White House. Hilary Clinton as president would then allow him to redress those fears by sewing up an Israeli/Palestinian deal-he arguably, with the Oslo accords and Camp David came closest to closing that deal, and now sorting out the much disliked NAFTA agreement.

On the McCain side, him and Bush, as well ideologue brothers, could help repair damage to the George Bush legacy. Much need not be said, but the Iraq war can be viewed as a minus on the Bush legacy; unresolved immigration issues-border fence etc-and an economy going south are things Bush would quickly like dealt with. Note, John McCain was very quick to (as pointed out by a friend of mine) receive Bush’s ‘endorsement’ at the White House.

Positions that these ideologue brothers are similar on? The key positions are-the Iraq war-Bush started it and Mc Cain is more than happy to finish it-even if it takes ‘one hundred years’, his words not mine. A nice end to the war, what that means, is a stable and democratic Iraq (i.e. less blood-letting) would help tie-up that part of the Bush legacy. Immigration, both are pro-immigration-arguably Mc Cain is more-so than Bush, but again it is an area unfinished under the President so the Senator can again tie that off when he settles into in the Oval Office in January, technically November. And the ‘tax cuts for the rich’ or Bush’s tax cuts, McCain has said that he will make them permanently, again another area where Bush’s theirs term is solidified in a McCain White House.

 

Prince Andrew, and his fantasy about the Iraq War

According to various media outlets, Prince Andrew has criticized President Bush and his administration for not heeding advice of the British, over the look of post-war Iraq. Much was made in the British media, of the prince’s ‘unprecedented’ attack on Bush; the attack seen not only as unconventional but also an apparent ‘split within the alliance’.

This is complete fantasy; Prince Andrew is actually not insulting the U.S political establishment, but insulting the public. How? This comment is arrogance of royal proportions. Iraq has been in chaos since the very day ‘the alliance’ rolled on Babylonia, and to be even more precise, the U.K and the U.S knew of the very issues that Prince Andrew claims to be concerned about, before the invasion happened. So why now, why five years after does the prince ‘exclusively’ need to tell us, and the American political establishment that Iraq is in a mess? It is all about image. The prince is not upset about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died, the thousands of American and the alliance soldiers killed, the suicide bombings, or the death squads that rule parts of Iraq. He is upset about the damage to the pompous image of the British establishment from the latest mid-east fall out.

If I were an American, I would be thinking that the prince’s comments are pretty rich; It is the very same industry-the military/weapons manufacturers-that the prince is so intertwined with, that have profited so well from this war, and now the prince complains slyly about the damage to the image of the Brit establishment. Give me a fucking break. (Don’t bite the hand that feeds you Andy.)

And what can be said of the particular media outlets that not only just carried the prince story but also added in their tuppence? Well, they are just like the prince; they don’t not care about the war dead but damage to their image. Damage, which they helped to bring about.

 

 

 

 

The idealist-realist

“Students go to uni wanting to change the world, they then come out of uni and realize they have to be a part of it”. Or something like that. For the student is the ultimate idealist, seeking to make a society into uptoia, believing the best in people, hoping that tomorrow can always be better than today. And the realism apparently occurs at some point soon after leaving uni.

Prince Charles and Steven Spielberg have in one way or another snubbed the Beijing Olympics; Darfur and human rights issues have apparently been the basis of their reasoning. And what can be certain is, before the torch is finally lit in the Olympic stadium, even more prominent individuals will step away from China’s hosting of the Games.

So what has idealism got to do with it? Well, the idealist, a stereotypical student for example, would hope and believe the international community would have an epiphany and refuse to send athletes to participate in an Olympic games which is being hosted by a country not thought of to be a bastion of democracy, and seems pretty chuffed about what’s happening in Darfur. Now, the realist on other hand believes that money, not principle is behind the hosting of the Games and that no country will refuse to send athletes to Beijing. Yes, it would be ideal for the games to be boycotted and it would be real to assume it wouldn’t. But what can be said however is that idealism and realism need not be seen as being poles apart, diametrically opposed and from different galaxies, but that in fact, they can be two sides of the same coin, complimentary, and inseparable, ying and yang if you will.

 

Blair’s vanity and his fake role as the “quartet’s” front man

Israel, more accurately, the Olmert government (well what’s left of it) had had enough. Hamas and its daily rocket launches needed to be stopped, how? By turning off electricity to the Gaza strip, leaving its one and a half million inhabitants in darkness and powerless, literally.

The reasoning for Mr. Olmert’s tactic was made clear; Hamas should stop its rocket attacks on Israel. The problems and ramifications will be explained in another article, what should be said is this, there is no way Hamas will stop its attacks now, nor will the Palestinians move back to the political center where Fatah supposedly are; Mr. Olmert has in fact strengthened the will of Hamas and seeming it couldn’t get any deeper, further deepened the Palestinians hatred for Israelis and more importantly the recreated state of Israel. This was a flawed decision, from a flawed Premier; as hated by the Palestinians, and respected by Israelis he his, it’s a pretty good bet that the former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would not have done this. One joke doing the rounds in some Israeli circles is that Ariel Sharon’s physical state (he’s has been in a coma for the last two years) shows that ‘the people don’t him, and God doesn’t want him either’. A cruel ‘joke’, and yet the truth is, Sharon seems to be needed more now than ever.

As said before the ramification of the Olmert-electro tactic will be gone into another time, onto another former Prime Minister, the ever-humble Tony Blair. Never a man to shy away from the limelight, he made sure to secure the position as the pr man for the quartet-EU, Russia, UN, US-before he ‘stepped down’ (a really annoying euphemism for resigned) as Prime Minister of the U.K. Specifically his brief was to do with the welfare of the Palestinians through monitoring their economic institutions. When the power was cut off in Gaza, this wasn’t to one house, it was to a region, the consequences of this, it is pretty apparent, will continue for a long while. The economy of Gaza ‘tanked’. What a sight it was, Palestinians going through the damaged border into Egypt to purchase goods, including livestock. Where was the outrage, where was the international condemnation and even more to the point where was Mr. Humility himself, Tony Blair, the man who is meant to be looking out for Palestinian economic interests? ‘World leaders’ and the relevant institutions stayed not only silent, but signaled their approval of the Olmert-electro method, through their silence. Not even a revised version of the tired statement used when flashes of the eternal Israeli-Palestinian incident occurs; “we urge Israel to show restraint, and that Palestinians show their commitment to peace by renouncing violence, so that in the end there is a secure Israel, with a viable Palestinian state, both states living in peace side by side” and so on. No statement at all. Not even a revised one.

Back to Blair’s vanity, he is the quartet’s front man because it was the thing at that time which could do his ego justice; Mr. Blair would probably have said something like “I really believed in it at the time”. You would have thought that the Olmert-electro incident would have been eye-catching enough for Blair to have said at least something. But he, just like the institutions he spins for, was silent. Silent for as long was necessary for people to get this message, they have no interest in the lives Palestinians. If Mr. Blair really was doing the job as described, then not only would he have said something cornering the incident (I know words don’t mean much where politics and politicians are concerned, and what Palestinians need is electricity not words) he would have pressured Israel to not to take that inhumane action. I say because I suspect that Blair was aware of what Olmert was going to do; not a hard thing to believe, as, it is widely known, that the U.K knew of Israel’s plan to go after Hezbollah in Lebanon, before they blitzed Beirut.

The Israel-Palestinian issue, is one that it is way too important for vanity to dictate players on that stage, Mr. Blair should resign, or should I say ‘step down’ and let someone, who is keen doing the given job. An economist would be nice, someone who knows what they’re talking about.

 

 

 

Why choosing Hilary is a vote of confidence in the economy

Talking at dinner with a friend, he remarked on an excerpt of a radio interview, a Wu Tang Clan member had at a New York Radio station. Responding to the question of whom he would support out of Barack Obama or Hilary Clinton, he said, ‘well I made a hell of a lot of money under the first Clinton, and I intend to make some more under the second’. It was Hilary’s husband President Bill Clinton, who popularized the phrase ‘it’s the economy, stupid’. And when the hype of Obama goes down and some of the election hysteria makes away for the inevitable candidate scrutiny, the economy no doubt will feature as it always does in the mind of the voter, including that of the Wu Tang Clan member.

President Bush campaigning in 2004, made a stop to a rally, the beginning of his speech saw him wearing an open collar shirt with rolled up sleeves, and there he confidently jabbed his right arm forward whilst proclaiming, ‘Our economy is strong!’. It was a refrain he used throughout his successful presidential bid. The economy will most definitely be an issue in the primaries right up until the duel between the Democrat and Republican pick.

Barack Obama’s message of change and hope is admirable. However, there is a major caveat. Hope, no matter how audacious it is, cannot balance the budget, or lower the current account deficit, nor will it create jobs. A good economy, cannot be hoped for, it must be worked on.

Hilary Clinton is taking some hits in the polls, some have put it down to a twenty or so point lead facing an inevitable downturn, others says she didn’t fair well in the last televised debate. And then there is the free-trade issue. Hilary Clinton, in contrast to the other presidential hopefuls, does not appear to be a free-trade supporter. As already mentioned, it has been suggested that this is a reason for the downturn in the polls for the former First Lady. I find this slightly curious because Hilary’s apparent free-trade position would surely have a lot more American support than ire; as to many, free trade is seen as attacking the domestic job market (through a knock on effect). Polls are funny thing though, aren’t they.

So as Hilary’s lead decreases and the hype of Obama moves in the opposite direction, the economy is seen, as ever, looming in the background. And just as it appears Obama has cross-cultural appeal, it also seems to others and the rapper in the radio interview, that Hilary has a ‘hell of a lot’ of appeal. For her I am sure, she will hope, that him along with many other Americans will put their money where the mouth is and in that, getting the votes of confidence that she and Bill have been vociferously courting.

Oililtics and the slippery slope

Memories of the 2001 petrol-pump protest have been evoked once again, with the same group of lorries drivers et al threatening action because of the consistent rise in the price of oil. (One litre of petrol is a pound and a penny). And, as all sides of this oil issue complain about the price-the lorry drivers say oil is too expensive, the oil companies say their profits haven’t mirrored the rise in price because of increasing costs of production-the underlying issue floats to the surface, isn’t this dependence on oil setting the world, particularly the industrialized nations on a slippery slope to disaster? Isn’t it time for some cold turkey?

Last week saw unprecedented financial action taken by the central banks of U.S, Canada, Switzerland, U.K as well as the ECB, which involved them pooling money together in aid of financial markets (actually financial institutions) that have been suffering petit mal triggered by the so called ‘credit crunch’. Merits and demerits of this particular policy is for another time, the point to be made is the essence of the collaborative action taken by these nations to tackle a perceived economic/financial threat. The spirit of such collective action needs to be engaged once more, this time in regards to the temperamental nature of the price of oil. This site is not suggesting any form of price controls or similar state intervention, (as a side note however it has to be said that the level of duty (tax) on petrol should be looked at); what needs to happen is another multi-lateral collaboration which would aspire to the general desensitization of economies to oil price fluctuations.

One prong in the attack would be exert more pressure on the individual nations within OPEC, such as Saudi Arabia encouraging them to be more responsive to rises in the price of oil by a mirrored increase in the supply; and in addition to that, the pomp and pageantry she and other countries receive during states visits (and lucrative business and economics links forged on these events) should have the hosts gain a return also. Another prong in the fork, is the use of other known oil reserves, which would mean including drilling in areas that environmentalists (and the Nobel prize winner, Al Gore) may find distasteful; and the final prong would be an aggressive concerted effort of the state and private sector to harness renewable sources of energy as well increased production of electric, hybrid, bio-fuel cars, a sure sweetener for the environmentalists.

So as Christmas draws near along with the festive cheer and the fairly unfestive oil prices, the taste of cold turkey as opposed to the traditional piping hot one, may not be that bad of an idea.

The U.S and the Chinese econo-demoractic threat

Double digit figure growth and a roaring economy is one picture of China, the United States’ sliding dollar and indebtedness to the Chinese, has their political and economic establishment, furiously scratching their heads, and saying ‘what should we do about China’? Yet the threat faced, is not just an economic one, it is also democratic. For the key issue is, how will the U.S and indeed the west deal with a prosperous, independent and a democratic China?

One well-respected academic on international relations, said that yes, even though China’s economics growth rate should be noted, at the same time it should also be recognized that it is not sustainable. The academic continued to say wealth and capitalism are intimately linked with democracy, and that as the amount of money within a society increases so will to the desire to have a say in the political process. In other words, the politics cannot hold down the economics. Not forever anyway.

There’s has been no greater advancement in wealth, technology and overall prosperity than that in the age of democracy. The U.S.A, the primary proponent of this age, has given us security, contemporary culture and currency (dollar reserves) amongst many other things; none would have come about if it had not been for democracy. If the dollar was the seed, then democracy was the soil, for true and sustained success come as a result of freedom-not just the liberty to vote but also the liberty to say where money will be invested.

China may never be the great power it craves, and the one, which the west esp. the US fears, because Chinese politics will not let its economy and economics go far. There are not that many greater examples than that of the Soviet Union. The Soviets in the Cold War, a war of arms-building and spies, annexes and proxies, spent as much as they could but in the end collapsed. Incidentally Vladimir Putin the soon-to-be prime minister but currently president of Russia, blames former president Boris Yeltsin for the economic melt-down and harps back to the ‘greatness’ of Cold War Russia. Yawn. His revisionism is a nice narrative to help cement his power in the Kremlin and its surroundings, the reality though is the American living standard and many other things were far superior to that of an average Russian. I say that to say this. Towards that end of the Cold War, the Soviet Union was out-thought, out-maneuvered, and more importantly out-spent. And with being out-spent the Soviets were defeated in one key area, ideology. The ideology of democracy and the dollar.

Money does make the world go round and the Chinese will soon find that out, it can huff and puff, but the reality and history has shown that countries which are economically self-repressive can only go so far. Which brings to mind a quote concerning economics that Lord Pattern recalled on Newsnight, ‘things that can’t go on forever, don’t’. The U.S and the west should bear that mind when scratching those heads again.