Sugar, spice and everything nice

Well, I'm no Democrat but I must say, they have had two Broadway smash nights.

Like "The Producers," they were all set up to fail - the Republicans laying out a red carpet of doom, soaked in rumors, banter and attacks. As CNN put it, "The GOP succeeded in lowering the bar so much that the only thing Democrats had to do Tuesday was look into the camera without drooling."

They didn't just look into the camera - they blue steeled it, and everyone watching.
Let's start with Tuesday...
It might be hard to argue with an empty chair, but it is impossible to argue with the ghost of Ted Kennedy.
Ted's nephew Joe introduced the Ted Kennedy video as an almost noble knight-like saga of passing the torch from one Democratic behemoth to a budding young senator "who embodied the change our country sorely needed."
The video went on to show footage from a Kennedy/Romney debate in 1994 where Romney claims to uphold a woman's right to abortion based on Roe v. Wade. Kennedy retorts with a well known present day complaint: that Romney's just "pandering for votes." He went on to say that he was pro-choice, his candidate, "multiple choice."
Granted, a debate from 1994 isn't exactly current events but as anyone holding or running for political office will tell you, a debate you had in 4th grade is just as 'up-for-grabs' as what you said yesterday.
And tying a memorial into the Republican debasing task at hand was a brilliant draw.
It put Romney's shortcomings in the harshest of light without dirtying any current players. It wrapped the whole accusatory game in a nostalgic haze that placed Democrats on a gentlemanly pedestal while further amplifying Romney's weak points - like a sugar coated dagger...

Tuesday wasn't all sequestered to sweet looks back. In fact, Strickland showed that the old can out-rock the new on this political stage.
Slightly reminiscent of a wily grandfather who says what he wants, Strickland accused Romney of just outright "lying" about Obama and turned the mirror on the out-of-touch high roller.
Centering much of his pointed poison on the economy, Strickland boomed, "Mitt Romney has so little economic patriotism that even his money needs a passport. It summers on the beaches of the Cayman Islands, and winters on the slopes of the Swiss Alps."
Burn!
And as any grandfather, he threw one in for the kiddies: "if he [Romney] was Santa Claus, he'd fire the elves and liquidate the inventory."
And there you have it. The arena in Charlotte went nuts - it was just the kind of spice the Dems needed to avoid yawn-worthy, spineless rhetoric.

But the appearance of the night that everyone is talking about came from First Lady, Michelle Obama. Quotes from her speech last night cascaded over Facebook and Twitter, earning her more than just female brownie points. In fact, unlike Ann Romney, much of her speech was focused on the humble beginnings of her husband and how he won't give up on the American dream, "because he lived it."
She put Obama's life in sharp perspective, allowing people to relate to him as a person, something most Americans eat up. Even though I don't, I have to say, it was a great speech, and it seemed to come from the heart - something Romney's camp has a really hard time with.
Saying that Barack stays up late to read letters from struggling Americans, she painted a picture of Obama that people wanted to see, and she did so with grace and eloquence.
She did of course, have to mention the "women's vote" and did so with more personal anecdotes about Barack's relationship with his two daughters and his avid belief in protecting their rights, as well as all women's.

As for Wednesday, well, it was all about Bill. The two have a speckled history at best but last night it was all in for Bill and he rocked the house. I'm actually bummed that he can't ever run again. He has the air of confidence, almost arrogance, knowing how much power he still wields, but at the same time, a leader-like calm that draws people in, even with the thick Arkansas drawl.
He was entertaining but a fact-filled powerhouse, including stirring numbers on job growth since the 60s (that check out with fact checkers). As the BBC put it, "he excites Democrats, informs and attracts independents and undecideds, and infuriates Republicans."
Bill did what you'd think most campaigning politicians need to do: avoided the choir. He spoke over the heads of the already staunchly Democratic delegates and into the living rooms of America, explaining without patronizing, what the issues were and why Obama needed to take them on.

Today, media is saying, with this foundation, Obama needs to close out the night tonight with a strong, spirited speech and he will be "on the road to re-election."
It seems that game of golf really smoothed out the rough edges around Clinton and Obama's relationship history.
Some memorable quotes from Bill's speech:
"We focus on solving problems and seizing opportunities and not fighting all the time."
"Poverty, discrimination, and ignorance, restrict growth."
"Unfortunately the faction that dominates the Republican party ... they think the government is the enemy ... and compromise is weakness."
"We simply can't afford to give the reigns of government to someone who will double-down on trickle-down."

After these past two nights, viewers and delegates alike left with a sweet and savory helping of politics - a balance between the bitter left/right banter and the sweet glaze of entertainment coupled with looks back and nostalgic musings.

Again, I'm no Democrat, but if today goes the same way, Romney will need more than that one point jump to counter the swell from the DNC.
For Dems, it would be well worth a fist bump or two...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For people like me, well, I enjoy the show, but know, once the curtains close, it's more of the same, a tired two-faced game.
But don't let me rain on the parade - the confetti and sparkle will fade, in time - and down the line, maybe all of this sugar and spice - will be more than money can buy...

Is who better off?

The Democrats are just about to kick off their convention, and the Republicans have just ended theirs. In this lull between the powerhouse events, the question continuously asked is: "Are we better off now than 4 years ago?"
It's the question Republicans are asking constituents as they press for votes in swing states such as North Carolina - and it's also a question asked by Democrats looking to highlight the progress made under the Obama presidency.
As Biden put it in a speech in Ohio today, "We are better off because Osama Bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive."

My brain glitched as I read this. Really? This is what you're handing the nation as enough of a reason to hunker down for four more years?
This sounds more like a cheesy catch-phrase for middle school class elections than a legitimate argument for Presidential re-election.
And of course Republicans are jumping on everything from broken promises about Gitmo and Afghanistan to joblessness and taxes to prove that the starry eyed hope campaign of four years ago manifested into a hopelessly lackluster reality.  

Meanwhile, as I watch footage of David Koch listening intently at the RNC last week, I can't help thinking...who is the "we" they are talking about when they ask that question.
I know Koch can't complain. He hasn't suffered serious set backs under Obama. But Obama's talk about corporate restraint (granted, it's just talk) makes him all the more happy to chant "I built this" and gaze at Romney like a director his new favorite actor.
He's funneling so much money into the Republican campaign, you might think with each blink, he triggers a direct deposit to Romney/Ryan 2012 Inc.

Four years ago, Obama campaigned under the guise of changing the way "old politics" worked and fixing the broken process of today's political environment.
Well uh...that mission was just about as accomplished as the one Bush rented an aircraft carrier to announce.
Obama has done more than his fair share to protect the corporate interests that run this country.
Maybe that's why he's not keen to mention the overwhelming evidence that bigger government provides a better economy and a better infrastructure - which was his original campaign message.
As Julian Zelizer wrote on CNN, "One can't run a successful store if police don't protect the shop from thieves, if roads are not built and paved so that customers can reach their destination, if tax incentives are not in place to alleviate some of the costs that the owner must shoulder."
This metaphor should be the keystone of the Democratic Convention and their overall campaign.
The fact that Bin Laden is dead and GM is still pushing out cars still worse than Asian ones are little tid-bits. It doesn't say anything about the Democrats in general. Four years and all you can give me is one dead terrorist and more cars?
Doesn't that do more for flag waving GM shareholders than for the average American?
What about new jobs? What about the health care bill you championed? What about social security? Education? Foreign policy (outside of Bin Laden...oh and the drones...)?
If we're gonna cling to party ideologies, might as well hold on to the sturdiest of foundations, and for Democrats that's bigger government.
And polls show that when asked about government in terms of specific programs and works, most Americans are in favor. But in the abstract, "big government" sounds scary. It sounds a little too 1984, and Republicans capitalize (pun intended) on that comparison. It's almost like they get paid extra every time they use the word "socialist."

My stance about the broken two-party system is obvious. I hesitate to hope for any amount of legitimate change so long as it's right, left and Big Brother Buck heading up our government. But I think it's worth the mention that if Democrats did stick to their ideological base, people like Koch wouldn't be able to pay for that seat on Romney's shoulder, and people like me and you would be answering yes to that weighted question.
So the question shouldn't stop there. Like in high school essays, there should be a follow up. "And why do you think so?"
Why are the majority of Americans fiscally debating a $2 cup of coffee? Why didn't Obama deliver on so many promises? Why would Romney be different?

I think if we, the people, sought to answer more of these questions, the path to solidifying "we" as better off may brighten, and consoling comments about Bin Laden's ocean grave and GM's resurrection wouldn't be enough to secure re-election. Vapid playground put-downs and come-backs wouldn't pass for political debate. And David Koch wouldn't sit comfortably at any political event, pulling strings and trading favors.

It's a two way street. They've gotta do better but we gotta push them to.
Are we better off? You tell me...and why?

Paul Ryan: just right.

In my early morning daze, the push notification on my phone read Paul and I damn near fell out of bed. "Holy shit! Romney picked Ron Paul to be his VP!"
Oh wait, no. Paul RYAN...the name wound its way through my groggy brain, pushing through cobwebs and tannins til it landed in its familiar file of "Economic disaster."

The sun light filtered through the shades - outside, grapes ripened on vines cascading over rolling hills. Paul Ryan trickled out of my mind.
His nomination just wasn't that interesting to be honest.

He's just right - not too hot, not too cold - for the Republicans and their corporate keepers.

He's not an extreme choice like Sarah Palin was. He's what I like to call an "econ-con," a double entendre I chuckled over in my simultaneous dismay.
He's a business-friendly, economically motivated Republican, as opposed to Tea Party evangelical loony tunes like Bachmann.
He fills in a lot of holes in Romney's personality and campaign.
He doesn't have a history of see-sawing, he has no experience in the financial sector which will take some heat off of Romney for being viewed as a heartless millionaire.
Of course, let's just disregard the fact that just a few months ago, Romney said that anyone without business experience shouldn't be allowed inside the White House...ahem, ahem, cough, cough.

Well, if you've been following Romney, you'll know that flip-flopping is not something he's afraid to do - the man practically has springs on his feet, and now he'll have to jump again.
Remember Romney-care? Yeah, tricky one. Particularly when your new VP sliced and diced any semblance of socialized health care like a horror movie surgeon (which by the way, you'll have to pay top dollar for). Not to mention Romney's relaxed view on abortion - Ryan? Well he wants to ban many forms of birth control - I hear the problem with abstinence is people just aren't giving it a fair shot.

Ryan's economic plan takes the rug out from middle and lower class Americans (not that there is much of a middle anymore) and then proceeds to beat them with it.
While some have claimed that he's the compromising kind, that's about as true as Obama being a beacon for hope and change.

What he is, is again, just right (pun absolutely intended).

During the debt ceiling debates, Ryan made it a point to personally visit Cantor and Boehner, dissuading them from signing any agreement that would raise taxes and not make sufficient cuts to entitlement and other federally funded programs, such as Social Security. Basically, don't compromise with Republican ideologies.
Well golly gee, doesn't that just sound all bi-partisan and cozy?
No. Of course it doesn't.
Romney is gelatinous enough on his own. Granted, he doesn't gel over to the center but he's not the straight up and down conservative that the GOP wants to neatly niche out their party.
Ryan is.
And that's how this works. The right needs to stay right. The fact that much of Romney's history shows him flirting with centrist notions makes no difference now. He can't say that he's in favor of gun control at this point - he's got the NRA up his ass with a .45.
He can't say he's OK with birth control - he's got a religious right wing flapping at him.
The fact of the matter is, is that so long as elections run this course: right vs. left, no one on either side will be allowed to tickle the line between their side and center side. It has to be us vs. them, we're righteous, they're evil. Because after all, it's really about conservative and liberal, not about one nation - for the people, by the people and of the people. Ha - pipe dreams!

So, I'm not super bummed or super excited about this choice. Romney will win some and lose some based on his running mate. Florida will probably move a few points further away, while conservative swing states that don't favor Romney's swing, will pendulum over to the right.
Corporate funds will bolster as per usual, happy with Ryan's favoring of lax regulations and taxes.

So, in reality, it's business as usual. The right stays right, the left stays left and in between, the no man's land of a quiet center simmers in the final months before election.
And the pipeline of the majority of Americans between left and right will continue to shoot out pipe dreams of progress until simmer turns to boil.

It's a small world, after all

The world is getting smaller. No developed nation can cling to isolationist ideologies and no developing country (with resources) is allowed to.

Our differences are both peaked and dulled by this interconnection. Our similarities are either used for kumba-ya campaigning or shoved under the rug of coincidence.

You won't hear a lot about it in this country, but many of our plights are shared on this stage of global politics. And many of our decisions and stances make marks on other cultures, countries and governments, good and bad.

So, on this platform of continuous globalization, I'd like to share some news stories about us, from parallels and points of view outside of our own.

Have a great weekend, Revolutionaries!

Deja-vu in Poland: Jacek Zakowski could easily be talking about us, but he's not. In a recent article in Gazeta Wyborcza, Zakowski scolds his country for giving up the liberties it fought so hard to gain. “There was no coup, no fanfare, no lofty ideas or slogans,” he says, but slowly and systematically, the Polish government has been restricting the rights and freedoms of its people by passing laws eerily reminiscent of pre-1989. Just in the past six months, Poland has passed a handful of laws that allow invasive government surveillance coupled with restricting public demonstration. Of course, just as in the US, each law comes sugar coated and tied off with double speak logic and a sprinkling of fear. Zakowski sees this as an ominous trend and eerily finishes off his article: “No huge external threat menaces us ; instead, the threat comes from within. A quarter of a century after the overthrow of communism, we have forgotten why it had to be overthrown. We remember the censorship, the empty shelves and tanks in the streets, but we forgot that these were only symptoms. The disease was the arrogance of power. And that rot can set in even in a democracy.” Don't we know it...

Compare and contrast with a .45: I abhor mindless regurgitation of news, particularly tragic, mindless acts of violence. That's why it was so refreshing to read an article by a Brit on the events of July 19^th in Aurora, Colorado. Needless to say, all of Europe was shocked, but in a way, not surprised. It's hard to be surprised when you look at our gun toting culture. In 1996, Britain banned all handguns after a school massacre in Dunblane, Scotland when a man, armed with 4 pistols, killed 16 children and an adult. Assault rifles and automatic weapons have been banned since the 1930s. Last year, 51 Brits were killed with guns. In 2009, 31,347 Americans were killed with guns. Kind of makes the adage, “Guns don't kill people, people do,” a mockery of 30,000 cadavers. One man argued, on the site, Reason.com, that if people in the theater had been allowed to carry guns, this mad man could have been stopped before killing 12 people. Ummmmm...I can't grasp that logic. Oh wait, because it isn't logical! Adding guns to a lethal situation doesn't make it any safer. It seems we suffer from “add-it-on-itis,” thinking that we can cover up a bullet wound with a bandaid and call it a day. The truth of the matter is, that bullet hole wouldn't be there if guns weren't floating around neighborhoods like runaway balloons at a Fair. But as we all know, the NRA has the nuts of government between a rock and a salad shooter. Even conservative Romney had originally campaigned to ban certain guns in 1994 to now of course stand firmly behind the “out of my cold dead hands” slogan. Unfortunately, that slogan is all to real for more than 30,000 Americans a year.

No doot aboot it: Say what you will about their funny accents and cops on horses but money talks and the Canadians are getting loud. For the first time in history, the average Canadian makes more than the average American. Personally, I'm surprised it's taken this long to surpass us. Through the economical twists and turns of the past decade, Canada has remained relatively even-keeled, due in large part to a firm set of banking regulations and a government active in social programs such as health care and education. They're certainly not perfect but they seem to get that free-market capitalism, particularly as a governing faction, doesn't quite cut it. As Stephen Marche wrote in Bloomberg.com, "The Canadian system is working; the American system is not."

Outsourced: Any businessman will tell you: it's a global economy, and times are rough. Outsourcing is nothing new yet most Americans choose to cling to the ignorant naivete that jobs on American soil are always a better option. That's just not the case. As Michael Tanner said in NationalReview.com, presidential hopeful Romney knows from previous experience that outsourcing allows a company to be more "efficient and dynamic" in a global economy, allowing companies to grow and consumers to consume. He calls on Romney to make a "full-throated defense of capitalism" via outsourcing, and to stand up and tell it like it is. Only problem is, it's election year. Romney has backed up on a lot of issues such as health care and gun control, and he's not about to lose swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania just so he can come off as a cold but honest businessman.

So there you have it. The truth of the matter is this: you won't hear the truth. Romney won't back anything that might lose him votes regardless of how he really feels. 

He has to represent the Republican party and all the ideologies that go with it. 

And one of those ideologies is based on the needs of lower/middle class working families who rely on those outsourced jobs. 

The funny (ironic, not haha) part of it is, outsourcing will continue, probably even increase, regardless of what Romney has to say. 

It's a global economy and the figureheads of government have little to do with that.

The Buddy President

National Review is a “conservative commentary on American politics, news and culture,” and I make the journey to the right from my center soapbox about twice a week to read about what stereotypical conservatives have to say about what's going on in the good ole US of A.

Two days ago I happened upon an article by Rich Lowry on how Obama is tricking young voters entitled “Obama's Dupes.”

Expecting to hear about another Bachmann-esque conspiracy rant and rave, I skimmed through the first few sentences.

Skimming turned to reading and I finished up the one page article feeling inspired.

Inspired and pissed off.

Now, I have no problem with a conservative having a point - I would be just as inspired and pissed off if it was a leftist that brought this up again.
I have a problem with the fact that his point is even an issue.

In short, he makes the argument that young voters flocked to Obama in '08 because of his promise of hope and change. Fine - they were duped just like any other constituent who honestly believes anything a potential President (or in office one for that matter) has to say. 

But the unsettling argument continues on to point out that it'll just happen again - why? Well, because Obama has that "cool and cerebral style," because of the "slow jam" on the Fallon show, because he's like their buddy.

AAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Their buddy?!?!

I can remember the first time I heard about this - when Bush was first elected. In interviews, people said they voted for him because he seemed like a good guy, someone you'd want to grab a beer with. 

Why the fuck would you want the President to be someone you'd grab a beer with?

Wouldn't you rather he skip the beer and spend some time...oh I dunno...running the god damn country?!

While Lowry's post focused on young liberals, this phenomenon is not cloistered in the leftist lair. It's a widespread factor in deciding who to vote for. 

And this kind of thinking points to something that I have long wrestled with: the cultural politics of my generation. 

In other words, my generation (I'm 25) does a damn good job of avoiding politics. And when we do encounter it, we treat it like a Facebook event - something we can ignore or pay attention to based on who's gonna be there, how much fun we think we'll have and whether it happens at the same time as Glee or not. 

Well shit people, it's not a frat party. 

Politics happen whether you RSVP or not - the only thing is that if you don't show up, or possibly even worse, if you show up with a punch bowl blend of ignorance and arrogance, the downfall of our future economically, socially, politically, globally and yes, culturally, will catch up with you quicker than that 5th gin and tonic.

Politics can be culturally stimulating - but we as a culture, our generation, has to make it so. And that does not include having a beer with the President. The President should be chosen based on his ability to work for you, for the issues that effect you and will effect you. 

But since most people my age don't know what those are, we fall back on how likable a guy is. 

Groan....

Make politics part of your cultural existence - educate yourself on the things going on around you outside of fashion, fucking and Facebook. 

Create culture that mirrors politics and you'll see that through the creation of a culture that is tied to politics, the political trajectory can be moved. 

We can't change politics through a few non profits and a few rallies. We have to change it through the cultural lens we use to see it. 

Only then will we honestly appreciate the realities of our nation's issues. 

So, put down the Bud Light and get to know Obama as a President, not as a buddy. 

And get to know the system he's a part of. 

Pretty sure once you do, you won't want to have a beer with any candidate.

Rant, rattle and roll

My guitarist and best friend Brian is the catalyst for today's rant and roll - followed of course by some news bite munchies...enjoy!

The latest from the campaign trail: he's a shifty asshole, vote for me! Not that that's really news - it's a sad recurrence that is now all but synonymous with political elections. When my guitarist asked what I thought about it, I shrugged. I don't really. With the hours in my day, political attack ads rank right there next to root canals and Reality TV. If I wanted to listen to unfounded, juvenile aspersions, I'd just open my window and let the bickering bums serenade me for a while. At least they're mildly entertaining. However, as Brian pointed out, this has become the norm. We expect it, and this expectation shapes how we react on voting day. For example, how many people do you know that vote "against" someone?
Now that I think of it, most of the people I know are negative nancies when it comes to politics - they very rarely seem gung-ho about a candidate, and more often than not say something like, "Well, I can't imagine seeing him as President so I'll just vote for the other guy," regardless of who that is! We are now overwhelmingly concerned with the negative aspects of the campaign as opposed to the positives. Now, you could certainly argue that the ratio of bad to good is overwhelmingly in favor of the former, but it's interesting to take notice of these details.
For example, what would happen if someone ran for office with no attack ads? If everything they put out was an affirmation, an opinion as opposed to piss and vinegar attack...
I mean we tell kids to ignore the "mean people" at school - we tell our friends to ignore their bosses cut-downs, if anything apply a formidable blend of sarcasm and wit as a retort.
What if we could apply that same logic? It has long been a belief of mine that politics are so detached from how we really think and how we really live that it's no wonder our government holds no parallel to modern day or modern ways. And yet, because it is our government, it effects our daily lives at every turn. It's a mind boggling anomaly - like living with a slob that wrecks your house but pretending he's not there.

Well, the slob is here. Doing away with attack ads is not the be-all, end-all of course, it's just a small detail in a system rife with corruption and detriment. However, maybe thinking about these attack ads, how they effect our choices, how they effect our system, will spur some other thoughts...some other musings. It did for me...and as I like to say....Think. React. Do Something.

And now, for a quick news bite:

• Home Sweet Greece: Many young Greeks are facing a dilemma - maybe some Americans can relate. The economy is shit! Known as the post-junta generation, these Greeks have to consider whether to stay - hope and help rebuild this broken system or flee for better opportunities. The dilemma is one that I have often pondered as well - stay because you love your country (or the idea of it) or leave because you know a better life exists, with more opportunities and more money. More than 50% of Greeks under the age of 26 are jobless, and with many smart, young professionals emigrating, the cycle deepens. One 23 year old soldier wants to go abroad to study political science but then return to, as he puts it, break his generation's "consciousness of dependency."

He says Greece needs to "rise up and develop its own power, to protect our people's benefits. Economically and politically, we need to rise up."

Although the current crisis hits him and his family hard, he is optimistic in that it represents a chance "to change people's minds.... to abolish the mentality of dependency."

A few words of wisdom we could all learn from...meanwhile, the Kardashians are on...

• Secretary of State Clinton in Cairo: Hillary Clinton met with newly elected President Mohamed Morsy in Cairo to urge him to "assert the full authority of the presidency." As in, get the military back in its place as a national defense organization, under the yolk of the presidency. Morsy as of now, has no parliament and no cabinet. There is no official constitution. Clinton re-iterated her support for a "full transition to civilian rule, with all that it entails." Morsy expressed his happiness in seeing Clinton and having her visit Egypt. So, looks like we can begin to breathe a sigh of relief - Egypt is in our pocket once again.

• al-Assad staying power: Many have asked how long al-Assad can hold out. It's been about 16 months, and the latest shows aerial attacks blasting his civilians. A senior general defected earlier this week but before you get all optimistic, this general had been under house arrest for over a year. The inner circle of generals and political high-ups is 80% Alawites, a faction that makes up only 20% of Syria's population. Needless to say, it's a tight-knit group and one that's proving hard to crack. With his go-to guys still close and loyal, al-Assad shows no significant signs of backing down. But, rollercoaster up - don't lose all hope. As with any dictatorship, there are a fair share of silent objectors, mostly Sunnis, who make up a good deal of the military. Beyond that, inflation is up 30% and can't finance al-Assad's mayhem forever. Sources say that al-Assad and company are now freely printing money like garage band tickets. And lastly, neighbours are beginning to tire of the ruckus. Last week an Iranian ambassador criticized his government for their support and suggesting that al-Assad's days are clearly numbered. It's no surprise - this isn't exactly a war effort. And unlike other dictatorial regimes that have deep pocketed financiers in various crevices of the world (or CIA, ahem ahem), al-Assad is pretty much on his own, like a psychopathic candle in the wind, if you will.

Politics and Poetry 1

Hey Revolutionaries,

Reading these posts, you may think I suffer from extreme indecision and wavering dedication. Although those are both sometimes true, I have been trying to figure out the best way to use this blog, and now have a new idea: Politics and Poetry.
Without getting too into specifics, suffice it to say, that those two things are the meat of my writing.
Now, instead of writing whole posts dedicated to one political topic, I'm going to do bullet points of a few - the news, my take, etc. At the end, I'll have a poem to close it out. Without further adue...politics and poetry, entry 1:

• Birthers: Members of the extreme right, aka, much of the right, just won't let go of Obama's eligibility as president. Although his birth certificate was released by the White House last year, that's just not good enough, it seems. Some harp on the fact that because Obama's father was Kenyan and not a US citizen, it negates his citizenship...um...since when? My mother didn't become a citizen until I was 20 but I'm sure as shit an American citizen. Go back far enough and even the guy holding a "President Jihad" sign is no more American than Kim Jong Il. Still others are convinced that the certificate was a fake. Needless to say, this isn't doing wonders for candidate Romney's campaign. While he tries to focus on the economy and the shortfalls of Obama's term, many of his constituents pull the spotlight towards the entirely superfluous and ridiculous subject of citizenship. It's working on convincing many swing voters that the right is ripe with extremist nut jobs that care more about conspiracy theories than fixing this country. Well...judging by Romney's comment on our wonderful "safety net" for the very poor, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say he's out of touch. However, if you know anything about me, you know I feel that both sides are out of touch with anything but corporate bottom lines and career politics. But I digress...Iowa Republicans have now written into their party platform that all presidential candidates, starting this year, must "show proof of being a natural-born citizen."
In Arizona, Secretary of State Ken Bennett announced that he may keep Obama's name off of the ballots if he does not receive valid proof from Hawaii on Obama's citizenship.
I wonder if anyone has noticed the tumbling world market or the drone controversy...

• European Ties: We may not give much thought to the fact that Europe's economy is faltering, but we should. We are linked inextricably to the fate of the Eurozone. We may not have much stock in Greece but if Italy, Spain and Ireland follow suit, many of our exports would falter, thus hitting our domestic economy hard. Not to mention the slowdown in China - all in all, it is a dangerous time in the global economy and while we focus our energies here, it is vitally important to stay up to snuff on the goings on outside of our own borders.

• Egypt Election: Today was election day in Egypt. A 70 year old woman remarked in joy at this being the first time in her life that she has ever voted. The polling will take place over two days and tens of thousands of monitors are patrolling to make sure that the election is fair. It is the first time Egyptians will not know the outcome of a presidential election until the ballots are cast. This is a huge step for Egypt - being that they are the largest and arguably most powerful nation in the Arab world, this election will set the tone for others in the region. By wednesday afternoon, monitors mentioned only minor violations such as voters trying to convince others before heading in to vote. On the ballot are 13 candidates, including a representative from the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohamed Morsi, Amre Moussa, who served as foreign minister under Mubarak and headed the Arab League; Abdelmonen Abol Fotoh, a moderate Islamist running as a respected independent; Ahmed Shafik, who was Mubarak's last prime minister; and Hamdeen Sabahy, a leftist dark-horse contender.
While tension rides high that the interim military government will try to hijack the elections, loudspeakers atop tanks broadcast to the contrary, assuring voters that as soon as elections are over, power will be handed over to the president-elect.
Having followed the uprisings last year, and watching the 16 month interim, where reform was slow but dedication was unwavering, I hope for the best.
We could learn much from Egypt and the Arab Spring.
I'll leave you with this thought: if the people of a dictatorship can create, in 16 months, the first democratic presidential election in the history of that nation, why can we not find our way back to it?


Fool's Oasis:

How many men have you heard lying
as they dropped the ball?

And how many flags did you see flying
when the bombs fall?

How many friends would you hear dying
before you hit the wall?

Is it strange that they despise?

Oh this fool’s oasis...
this
fool’s
oasis.

Ever seen your hands stained red?
How does it feel when you go to bed?
A baby dies, a soldier cries -
we look with apathetic eyes...

Is is strange that they despise?

Oh this fool’s oasis...
this
fool’s
oasis.

Into the bomb,
into the bomb,
into the bomb
shelter.
Into the bomb,
into the bomb,
into the bomb
shelter...