tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-71307362024-03-07T04:23:03.281-05:00Full DisclosureMy thoughts, and why you should agree.Williamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12980300257473947656noreply@blogger.comBlogger158125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7130736.post-2094012684672685372011-07-13T10:13:00.003-04:002011-07-13T10:29:08.207-04:00Platform X Network Effect = Real business?Hey everyone, been a while since I posted (over a year). Think we're going to undergo a little pivot here as I've been getting more and more immersed in current tech trends, I thought I could use this soapbox as a place to express some opinions and thoughts about what I believe is happening.<div><br /></div><div>First and foremost, I want to talk about the current meme that there is a tech bubble emerging. While there is definitely some reasons to be concerned when you hear of VCs outbidding one another on new businesses with nothing but a powerpoint, a lot of the new companies that are emerging have some solid advantages that I believe will position themselves as solid businesses. That said, some of these companies are smoke and mirrors - and we should likewise be concerned.</div><div><br /></div><div>We're deep into what is known as Web 2.0 or even 2.5 technologies. Companies such as Facebook and Twitter rely on their customers to create content and attract viewers of that content. Facebook and Twitter then monetize the attention that they draw in. These companies benefit greatly from what is known as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect">Network Effect</a>. The Network Effect applies to anything that becomes more valuable as more people use them. For example, if only one person had a telephone, it would be worthless as it couldn't call anyone. The more people with telephones, the more valuable each individual phone is. Sites with User Generated Content (UGC) are a perfect example of Network Effects, as the more people on these sites, the more valuable they become. Since the Network Effect is stronger with more nodes on the network, companies that benefit from strong Network Effects have a huge competitive advantage over future competitors.</div><div><br /></div><div>The other thing that a lot of these sites do is act as platforms rather than conventional programs. A platform creates a set of rules, conventions and tools and then allows the UGC to flourish within that platform. Platforms work very well with the Network Effect (although they can each exist independently) because they create a situation where creative usage of the platform spreads across the network. Companies that act as platforms are able to harness the creativity of their users, rather than be threatened by it.</div><div><br /></div><div>These concepts can seem very basic, but I strongly believe that companies that embrace these two elements are the Microsofts and Googles of the future. The fact that many of these technologies are emergent in the current supposed bubble allays a lot of my concerns.</div>Williamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12980300257473947656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7130736.post-57775560279385721112010-03-22T23:13:00.001-04:002010-03-23T14:44:09.085-04:00Explaining HealthcareSo I realize that many (all?) of you are not nearly as big geeks as I am, and, as such, you may have some questions about the Health Insurance Reform bill that President Obama will be signing tomorrow. I'm going to attempt to explain the main elements of the bill here.<br /><br />Prior to the current recession, over 50% of bankruptcies were caused by health care expenses. Seemingly safe and secure middle class lives were turned upside down - and this could happen to any of us. Insurers had a host of tricks to disqualify coverage from rescission (kicking people off for problems in their original registration - no matter how old), lifetime caps on coverage, annual caps on coverage, not letting people with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">pre</span>-existing conditions join in the first place. This whole class of reasons I'd term as ethically questionable if the real point of insurance is to ensure that people in need get covered.<br /><br />The need to fix these problems and other ideological neutral fixes (such as allowing children up to 26 to remain on their parents policies) was the starting point for this legislation. However, it's not enough to just say you can't discriminate against people with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">pre</span>-existing conditions, because if you did, rates would just rocket. So this bill requires community pricing, among your cohorts you all pay the same.<br /><br />However, if this was all the bill did, rates would still skyrocket as the cost to insurers is undoubtedly going up to cover those with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">pre</span>-existing conditions. The only way to make the cost manageable is to bring new people (often healthy) into the system. If you fail to get insurance, then the government will impose a tax on you comparable to the lowest priced <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">health care</span> option. This is the mandate.<br /><br />However, if you mandate insurance for someone who can't afford it, there's no recourse and it's extremely unfair. To deal with that, they've introduced subsidies. Subsidies will help individuals and small businesses that provide insurance.<br /><br />These three elements work together, to quote Paul <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Krugman</span> 'it's a 3-legged stool': Community Pricing, Mandates and Subsidies. That is the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">topline</span> story.<br /><br />The other major element that is perhaps the most important is the introduction of exchanges. Currently, if you're a large employer you get courted by insurers and can pick the plan that fits you best. However, if you're an individual or a small business - you're screwed. Rates are high, coverage is limited and the plans are very different from one another - making it very difficult to analyze the plan best for you. Exchanges will change that and introduce market economics into <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">health care</span>. The government will set minimum standards and then the insurers will come in and attempt to offer the best plan. This should hopefully inject a great deal of rationality into our health insurance decisions - something that's sorely needed.<br /><br />As we dig a little deeper, some issues with this plan emerge. First of all, how can we afford this?<br /><br />The bulk of this new plan is paid in two halves. The cost of the new plan is pegged at just under $1 trillion over the next 10 years. This is paid almost evenly in taxes on unearned income and cuts to medicare. As we dig into the taxes we find some interesting numbers. Bush rolled back the capital gains rate, this moves it back up about 5% for those making over $200,000. We have an increase in the medicare tax on high earners. We also have a 10% tax on tanning salons (that's why John <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Boehner</span> was so mad!).<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://quearrozconmango.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/090105_boehner_oconnor.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 297px; height: 223px;" src="http://quearrozconmango.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/090105_boehner_oconnor.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><i>House Minority Leader John <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Boehner</span>: Does this look like a natural tan to you?</i><br /><br />The other tax that's gotten a lot of attention is an excise tax on '<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">cadillac</span>' insurance plans. Starting in 2018 there will be a new tax assessed on insurance plans that are <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">extremely</span> expensive. The thing to keep in mind, that this is a great way to lower the cost of health care. Since we don't currently pay taxes on employer provided health care, a lot of salary is hidden by using it to pay for insurance. Since the cost is hidden, we end up getting more insurance than we often need driving the cost of everything up. Many '<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">cadillac</span> plans' have such low deductibles that the patient isn't encouraged to be rational about what care they need. It's all free. Higher deductibles (not high, but higher than they are now) will have a very stabilizing effect on the cost of care.<br /><br />Additionally, there are about $500 billion in Medicare cuts. The highly ineffective Medicare Advantage (where private insurers provide Medicare instead of the government at a cost of 15% more than it costs the government) will receive cuts. The pharmaceutical industry has lowered some of the rates it charges Medicare. And several other changes I'm not too familiar with.<br /><br />This is the real simple story. Also contained within the bill is funding to create pilot programs to control costs, funding for community centers, savings from not having the uninsured clogging up and abusing the emergency room system...and much much more.Williamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12980300257473947656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7130736.post-54406082209276085922009-12-22T10:14:00.004-05:002009-12-22T10:41:06.724-05:00In Response to L and C Re: Healthcare...I'm responding to a facebook discussion (on the eve of the Health Reform bill passing) with a couple of friends (at least they were friends until I posted this!)here so that I could really answer their questions, if they'd like to respond I'll post the answers here (I've left their full names off until I get permission from them):<br /><br /><b>L:</b> you think what is happening right now is good politics? you know as well as I do that these senators are pushing it because they want a big pat on the back from the president. And those rich republicans/dems are paying so much in taxes it is not our fault that the government couldn't allocate a freaking nickle appropriately. It is not a democrat/republican issue it is a socialist vs. capitolist society issue!<br /><br /><b>C:</b> Quick question .... why does this need to get done before Christmas? Why are we not taking the time to do this right? And people say - oh it is a start. Here is the issue, once money is appropriated they will never cut that spending or give it back. Look at TARP. What is happening now is a joke. How come NATIONAL healthcare is being determined by STATE specific considerations? And dont make the pharma lobby a partisian issue. The Dems and Rebuplicans both take a ton of money from them. Check <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2009/12/pharma_friends_an_analysis.html"> here</a>. Please note Lieberman, Dodd, and Specter.<br /><br /><b>For L:</b> Good government is fixing problems that exist! Democrats have run on reforming healthcare since at least 1968 and it has consistently becoming a larger problem in that time. Moreover, we have been discussing the need for universal healthcare all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt. Democrats won with a substantial majority all running for healthcare reform. They’ve tried to pass it before with sizable majorities and failed. I don’t see how this has anything to do with the president’s approval of them. There are over 30 million uninsured Americans, healthcare costs 16% of gdp and medical emergencies caused over 50% of bankruptcies in this country (at least prior to the current recession). This is a real problem that needs solving and the Democrats are committed to solving it.<br /><br />Moreover, it is well established that the cost saving measures in this bill will mean that WE SAVE MONEY. This is a perfect example of allocating resources properly, saving money in medicare to help pay for needed reforms. It’s nice to say that it’s not Democrat or Republican when the Republicans made a mess of our federal government and then blame Democrats for trying to clean up their mess. Republicans were content to ignore the real problems in our country (such as healthcare) and leave it to the Dems. Instead, they did things like declare unfunded wars, pass new entitlements that were unfunded (medicare advantage) and taxcuts that were unfunded. It’s easy to give away money to the rich when you just increase a deficit. Now that we’re trying to clean it up, they just stand on the sidelines shouting nonsense. Like ‘Socialism’, or (segue):<br /><br /><b>For C:</b> ‘Why are we not taking the time to do this right?’ What the heck does that even mean? We have been discussing healthcare reform since Teddy Roosevelt. We tried to pass this 16 years ago. The entire presidential campaign discussed this! We’ve been working on it all year! We even slowed it down so that Olympia Snowe could take her damn time deciding not to vote for it! Now, Republican senators are slow walking every single Senate procedure to delay the bill being passed and accuse of rushing it? They voted against funding for the troops just to slow us down! ‘It’s going too fast’ is not a substantive critique when the people who are actually willing to discuss how to make it work are all in agreement. Five years from now will be too fast for the GOP.<br /><br />The bigger point being that Republicans refuse to even discuss reforms in good faith. When they do that, they force Dems to get every single Democrat vote on board and you need to horse trade to get everyone on board. Then you can pretend that you actually give a damn about how these votes were gotten when you’ve never cared before about how Republicans passed bills. More to the point, do state specific considerations make this bill bad?<br /><br />I beg you, do not say that the bill is too long or my head might explode!Williamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12980300257473947656noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7130736.post-44505999870469723592009-07-29T13:38:00.004-04:002009-07-29T14:35:14.680-04:00Understanding What's Going on with HealthcareThis post is going to examine in shallow depth a lot of what's going in with Healthcare reform right now. I feel like the confusion that a lot of people are feeling is making them risk-averse (at least that's my impression among friends and family), so I'd like to take a stab at explaining things.<br /><br />There are two major issues with healthcare in this country that Washington is attempting to fix. 1) Healthcare costs 16% of every dollar made in America and the cost is growing faster than inflation, which is unsustainable and too expensive already and 2) we're the richest country on the planet and many people in this country can not afford sufficient healthcare. Since the lack of coverage problem appears to be less present to people than the financial issues, it is useful to reformers to note that getting universal coverage will help to reduce the cost of the system.<br /><br />Healthcare costs are increasing for many reasons. High priced and cutting edge treatments is just one cause. The system is tilted toward doctors spending more money (since they get paid for each test they run, rather than for successful results, quick fixes are discouraged even if they're the better treatment). The insurers take a large percentage for profit. Every service essentially has a tax built in for the uninsured as we need to subsidize the costs of emergency room treatments.<br /><br />It is known that a large number of people are uninsured. The White House claims it is 46 million people, reform opponents say it is much lower - but that entirely misses the point, I believe. This is the United States, richest country in the world and in all of human history; and we are not the top in the world in providing care for our citizens? The Declaration of Independence does state: <i>"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."</i> However, even beyond the general understanding that there is a problem, people always think it's someone else's problem, since most of us do have insurance. However, that's because most people don't realize how easily they could lose their insurance. Whether being fired or changing jobs, we can easily find ourselves without insurance and excluded due to a pre-existing condition.<br /><br />So how can we solve these issues... There is much saving that could occur if we bring uninsured people into the system. Emergency care is the most expensive type of care, but the only type available to the uninsured. If we get everyone insured, emergency costs will decrease greatly. We can also save money by taking away doctors' incentives to order extra tests. Certain institutions (like the Mayo Clinic) have gotten great results putting doctors on salaries so that they are not rewarded based on the number of tests they order, but instead by healing their patients. However, this is only going to amount to some of the cost (estimated at $100 Billion a year) required to fund the new covered people. We'll need to raise more money from some other sources, possibly 1-3% taxes on earners making over $1 million a year. However, the way the system is currently designed, if we institute reforms the savings will just disappear into the insurers pockets, costing citizens the same amount. That is the purpose of the public option (explained below).<br /><br />Under the reform plan, all citizens will be required to have insurance. If you can't afford it, then the government will pay for it for you. You can choose any plan that is available for the value of the government subsidy, whether public or private. The public option will be based on Medicare. Medicare guarantees all seniors in this country a minimal level of coverage. If you (or your employer/former employer) can afford more or better coverage you are welcome to it, and many people do. However, if all you can afford is Medicare, then that is usually sufficient. If you can afford insurance and don't have it, the government is proposing penalizing you. The current penalty appears to be half the cost of the public option (likely around $2,000).<br /><br />One of the most common arguments I hear against government involvement is that this threatens the free market, the driver of all innovation. The first point is, if the free market is more efficient than the government plan, then people will stay with private providers and there won't be an issue. However, if the government is more efficient then that undermines the argument. <br /><br />And that is the bigger point here. We use the government's size and reliability to do many things in this country where they are more appropriate than private business. Public transit, roads, army, the courts. Just because healthcare has been a non-governmental function in the past, doesn't mean that's appropriate. Moreover, free markets don't really work for healthcare. For one, most people never think of the cost of healthcare, especially those that spend the most on it. People have their workplaces take care of all or part of it and rarely if ever choose employers based on healthcare. Also, humans are very bad at rationally understanding large numbers.* Free markets only work when there is full information available to all. Since citizens can't really conceive of healthcare's value to them until they actually need it, they are not rational actors when they purchase healthcare - making an inefficient market, exploited by healthcare companies.<br /><br />The bottomline here is that the system is unsustainable as is and we know this. The current proposal will address the need for cost controls, give universal coverage and not alter most people's coverage. Ignore the fearmongering, it's simple and it's needed.<br /><br />Please comment on this post if you'd like me to clarify or explain anything further.<br /><br />*I'm currently at home with a knee healing from an ACL reconstruction. My surgery likely cost my insurance company $40,000. What are the odds that you'll tear your knee in the next month? (I have no idea what the answer is, but it's pretty low) Now how much would you pay to insure against that happening?Williamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12980300257473947656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7130736.post-68029009428016482762009-04-17T11:27:00.003-04:002009-04-17T11:54:35.919-04:00No More TortureYesterday, President Obama released four memos outlining the legal jujitsu and gymnastics the lawyers in President Bush's Office of Legal Counsel came up with to justify turning our CIA agents into torturers. You can <a href="http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/olc_memos.html"> see the memos obtained by the ACLU here</a>.<br /><br />And you all should take a moment to look at them for a second. Lawyers for the President explain how 'extreme pain or suffering', as forbidden by international treaties, does not apply to our techniques because our torture doesn't take too long, or cause permanent physical impairment. So, it's ok for us to throw people into walls, slap people around, put them in stress positions and (yes) waterboard the terrorists.<br /><br />There's nothing particularly newsworthy here, we've just kept our heads in the sand for so long about what really happened that I'm interested to see if documentary evidence of the depravity that took place will raise peoples' consciousness.<br /><br />It seems like the consensus in this country is to leave the past in the past. This is bullshit. Just this week, the US agreed to <a href="http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/10/Alleged-Nazi-loses-deportation-appeal/UPI-89231239395614/">deport a purported Nazi war criminal</a>. Yet, we have no need to look into the mirror at ourselves and our countrymen at the atrocities they committed?<br /><br />For all of our country's shortcomings at taking the moral high ground, we are different than others, have been different than others, and should remain so. Papering over this incident is despicable. But, I'm spitting a lot of strong words here, so let me explain:<br /><br />1) We broke international laws and treaties, blatantly. There's no excuse here, the international law is clear, we've attempted to judge others by this standard and reestablish an international community following the Bush debacle. We need to stand up for what we allowed to happen.<br /><br />2) Torture is ineffective, any experienced interrogator will tell you so. Moreover, these memos lay out the fact that these aren't some Jack Bauer wannabes. The torture outlined here was not about obtaining information. It was about abusing our enemies. Abu Ghraib is a direct consequence of behavior like this, and it blows my mind that most of these memos were issued after Abu Ghraib. How was the lesson not learned?<br /><br />3) Moving forward is not an option. We will not defeat Islamism without international support, however we have minimal international credibility. Showing that we are addressing our past will bring our allies with us. As proof, as recently as Tuesday, Spain was vocally investigating war crimes charges against some of Bush's lawyers who authorized this. When it became clear that these memos would be released, Spain backed off and let us handle our own business.<br /><br />4) Ever since Ford pardoned Nixon there has been a complete dereliction by the American public to hold our executive officials to the legal standards they are meant to defend. First Nixon gets pardoned. Then Bush pardoned the Iran Contra operatives. Then Scooter Libby. Meanwhile, anyone with half a brain knows that the Bush administration broke many laws in their singleminded pursuit of the war on terrorism (you can claim that they were worth doing, but you can't deny that they were breaking laws left and right - at least you can't deny it credibly as shown by how outlandish these memos are), yet we are even considering letting everyone off the hook, except the frontline soldiers who got caught?<br /><br />We need to begin to believe in ourselves again, and we can only do that by addressing our failures and proving ourselves better than it.<br /><br />John Yoo who is the most well-known of the Bush hacks who authorized torture is today a teacher at Cal Berkeley. Teaching law each and every day. This is outrageous and depressing and shows our nation's failure to confront these criminals and make them pay for their crimes.<br /><br />I know everyone wants to move and forget the past, no need to stir up confrontations. That's bullshit, our country can never heal unless it addresses its failings and I fear we'll fail ourselves again.Williamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12980300257473947656noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7130736.post-91640472429669779202009-04-04T10:35:00.001-04:002009-04-04T10:36:53.839-04:00An Open Letter to President ObamaMr. President (and staffer),<br /><br />I am a strong supporter of yours. I rented my own buses to Pennsylvania to bring volunteers to your campaign and spent a week working in Pennsylvania.<br /><br />That said, I believe you need to seriously consider letting Mr. Summers resign. You fought against the corruption of the revolving door in your campaign. Mr. Summers defines that. I understand that he is intelligent and a confidant, but you need someone who is untainted.<br /><br />I believe that there has been too much focus on preserving the institutions on Wall Street for their own sake, rather for the sake of the economy. This also extends to our behavior with AIG. We don't NEED AIG or Citi, we need them not to collapse and damage those affected. However, there is no implicit need for these companies to exist. <br /><br />I believe this gets back to people in your administration having preconceived notions of the permanency of the financial system as it is now. It is outsized to our economy and therefore exerts an outsized influence on you and your administration. Having someone with such clear conflicts as Mr. Summers does (as shown in the Washington Post article today), inhibits him from making truly neutral observations. He is not a bad man, but he is compromised.<br /><br />Furthermore, having these types of figures around you only gives opportunities to those who oppose you. Don't give them the opportunity. I also reject the notion that everyone who is qualified may be compromised. That is a cop out. You're the President, millions would jump at the opportunity to advise you.<br /><br />I also wanted to note that this is the first time I've emailed you with a complaint since you capitulated on FISA immunity last summer. I am not one to write about every issue of the day, but your own reliance on the people and institutions that brought us this mess concerns me greatly.<br /><br />I hope you are able to broaden your circle of advisors in light of this conflict and recognize that I am not some partisan attacking but a concerned citizen.<br /><br />Thank you,<br /><br />William FinkelWilliamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12980300257473947656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7130736.post-56422667648846764452009-02-03T12:55:00.001-05:002009-02-03T12:57:03.695-05:00My Thoughts on Tax Situation (late breaking, Daschle withdraws -phew)I have a few thoughts on the 'tax situation'...<br /><br />1) Nancy Kileffer - Doesn't this sound like Bernard Kerik? Fess up to a smaller crime and withdraw when no one is paying too much attention? I know it's pure speculation on my part, but her offenses hardly seem worthwhile to withdraw over - so I assume there's something we don't know.<br /><br />2) Geithner - I understand why one could say his transgressions are more serious than Daschle given his standing as chief enforcer (and overseer) of tax collections. But in his case, I think this actually does show how complicated taxes can be and might help the case for simplification (which I firmly believe could and should be a nonpartisan issue, however, if you think the debate over social security is considered the 3rd rail, wait till they take away deductions for interest on home equity loans).<br /><br />3) Daschle - This is where I have a problem. I can (kinda) understand that he is given a corporate car and driver and fails to recognize that as income. <br /><br />However, the problem is that he was accepting a car and driver as a consultant. There is no meaningful distinction here with the forbidden class of 'lobbyist' and he's been involved in this game for years (his wife's been a consultant for decades). Obama's loyal to Daschle as Daschle has been a mentor to him, but exceptions to rules need to be meaningful - and I don't see a reason why Daschle NEEDS to be the pick for HHS. Is he the only one who can get health care reform passed? <br /><br />With the person given the waiver in DOD, I can understand saying that he is the ONLY man for the job - Daschle is not the only man for the job and he is tainted by the revolving door. Barack doesn't need him, but apparently his talk of cleaning up DC ends when his friends are the topic. I'm embarrassed. (and now I'm relieved he's gone...)Williamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12980300257473947656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7130736.post-58105728866590558312009-01-15T09:28:00.003-05:002009-01-15T10:06:42.087-05:00How Obama LeadsSo I've been gone a while...I trust most of you know what I was up to during the election (running my own buses down to Doylestown, PA to help the Obama campaign), maybe one day I'll feel up to writing more fully on the experience. In the meantime, I've noticed something very interesting in the way that Obama has chosen to lead, and I felt compelled to share it.<br /><br />Quite simply, Obama leads from the center and as someone who admits his own limited information. Given his own limited information, he expects to be lobbied by the citizens to correct flaws in his actions. This is a marked difference from the Bush administration and (from what I recall) the Clinton administration. Obama isn't concerned with being first and being right, he is concerned with being right at last...<br /><br />There are three incidents in the past week that back up my belief and show the importance that citizen engagement is going to have on the Obama administration.<br /><br />1) In early December, Obama announced that Pastor Rick Warren would give the convocation at his inauguration. Warren is one of the biggest names in evangelism and marks a significant conciliatory shift from the fire and brimstone of previous leaders such as Jerry Falwell. However, he is an evangelical leader and embraces many views that I (and liberals generally) oppose - in this case, most notably he opposes gay marriage. Obama supporters smarting from the passage of Prop 8 in California (which made gay marriage illegal) and Warren's role in the passage were outraged. Obama held to his guns, defending his politics of civility to those with different opinions. However, the attacks and howls of betrayal continued. <br /><br />Just last week, Obama announced that he would be having Gene Robinson a gay Episcopal bishop give the commencement address at his inauguration. In doing so, Obama showed that he was susceptible to citizen pressure and that the rules applied for everyone. As much as us liberals and progressives were opposed to Warren, so too are conservatives against Warren's participation. The President-elect is showing that his rhetoric of a United states is not just rhetoric, but that he may need to be kept honest.<br /><br />2) Over the past few weeks, the administration announced its plan for a recovery program. It's plan was smaller than most economists called for and included tax cuts that did not seem to have much impact on the short term economic needs. Fears spread that Obama was ceding the debate to Republicans by coming in with a plan aimed to placate them, but lacking the teeth needed to save the economy. Senators Harkin and Kerry (both Democrats) publicly expressed their concerns. Liberal economists chimed in. People began to worry whether the President-elect would fight for what's needed over what's politically expedient.<br /><br />However, the President-elect was not done. He stated during an interview that he was open to anyone with a plan that might work. He also stated that this was a starting point as he expected the bill to grow. Then a few days later, he announced that due to overwhelming opposition, he was removing his plans for a business credit for each new job created (apparently the program would have been ripe for abuse and impossible to oversee). This proposal had been his alone, and he has let it go in response to the opposition from his OWN PARTY.<br /><br />Since Obama had to cede ground to his own party, he was there representing the opposition to his party. By being the target of democratic doubts, he marginalized the true opposition.<br /><br />3) Just last Sunday, Obama appeared on ABC and was asked about closing Gitmo, a promise he made during the election. Apparently, the transition process has revealed many of the difficulties in just shutting down the installation immediately, although he remains committed to doing so. In the interview he stated that he can not promise that it would be closed in 100 days.<br /><br />A cry of outrage went out from various bases all opposed to our mistreatment of prisoners and abuse of international law that took place there. On Monday, the transition office made a statement that an executive order will be issued on Inauguration Day ordering gitmo closed. Another victory for our right to speak back to the President.<br /><br />And all of a sudden, these pieces came together for me. I'm here in New York struggling to keep interest and support going among the people who volunteered with me in Pennsylvania. And I keep wondering, is the Obama team ever going to come up with a plan for us? Then it comes to me, keeping the President honest will not be opposed to what he wants, it is what he wants. <br /><br />During the transition, many entrenched DC folks have taken on prominent roles in his cabinet. I'm not opposed to this, the President-Elect has recognized that they are the technocrats but that their thinking can be stale. He intends for us to pay attention to what is happening in his administration and let him know when the insiders are wrong. This isn't second guessing him, this is helping him.<br /><br />Also, another interesting aspect is how the President has seemed to take a centrist position but is in fact taking a watered down liberal version. The spending bill, more progressive churches (such as Warren's) and closing Gitmo are all to the left of traditional discourse in this country. If Obama had fully embraced these issues then he would be seen as ruling from the left. Instead, he cedes a little to the right to rule from the center. Then, when his base opposes him on it, he is forced to move to the left to placate them, making it still appear as if he rules from the center, as he has embraced the left's views. He has made himself the leader of the rational right and put himself in opposition to the left - essentially cutting the entire far-right out of the debate. I don't know if it was done on purpose, but it's brilliant.Williamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12980300257473947656noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7130736.post-17531809337796450152008-07-07T14:29:00.000-04:002008-07-07T14:30:11.006-04:00So, how gullible are we?<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eWYynwrUpSw&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eWYynwrUpSw&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Williamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12980300257473947656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7130736.post-15881656022576993702008-06-14T19:58:00.002-04:002008-06-14T20:13:55.216-04:00Why I believe Obama will winSome people ask if I really believe Obama can win. Maybe they're worried about entrenched racism being too much to overcome. Or perhaps they bought into the Hillary line about him not being able to win the swing states. Either way, I feel very confident (though that's happened before). <br /><br />There are two reasons I believe in Obama's potential - substantive and situational.<br /><br />Substantively, Obama has made the right decision to stop running away from Republicans on 'Republican Issues'. Since the late 60s, Republicans have won on foreign issues, while Dems have dominated on domestic issues. Democrats so internalized this divide that a generation of Democrats have been ashamed to speak their mind on foreign policy. Hillary exemplified this by voting for the war in Iraq and attempting to prove her Commander in Chief qualifications by tying herself to John McCain. She would constantly cede the foreign policy ground and attempt to change the subject to domestic policies. However, times have changed and Americans have realized how the republicans have done us poorly in their neo-imperialistic posture. Obama recognizes this and will run on principles. The principle that Republicans royally screwed up in Iraq (from hype, to concept to execution). The principle that being afraid to speak to adversaries will lead us to more wars. Obama has never been afraid to challenge McCain on this, so he is now forcing the media to question their assumptions here as well. Of course, we still dominate on domestic policy (even if Obama has shown weakness in articulating his economic policies). I believe the American public is ready to have a sustained discussion about our role in the world, and by addressing the Republicans assumptions, he can show a Democratic spine - something that's been missing.<br /><br />Situationally, this country is trending Democratic after a sustained conservative strength starting with Reagan's election. There are several pockets across the country that Obama has the power to flip. Virginia and (to a lesser extent) North Carolina both have a large creative class as well as a large blue collar workforce relocated from the Northeast. In the mountain West, the Republicans have disappointed a lot of libertarian small government conservatives and (at the least) Obama can make those states closer (for example, Montana's governor and both Senators are now Dems). Additionally, there is the liberal small government West (New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado - as well as Arizona if McCain weren't running). These states are highly energized by his campaign and may also shift Democratic this time around. <br /><br />So yes, Obama may have problems in Florida and Appalachia, but the new parts of the country that he has opened up give the Democrats to build a new majority, not a temporary reprieve by being Republican Lite. This is exciting and why I think he will prevail.Williamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12980300257473947656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7130736.post-62119378952889520042008-04-17T22:58:00.002-04:002008-04-17T23:00:02.475-04:00Obama Needed To Get The Dirt Off His Shoulder After the ABC Farce<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YjbDKU1ndXs&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YjbDKU1ndXs&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>Williamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12980300257473947656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7130736.post-21802801999911796782008-04-16T20:46:00.000-04:002008-04-16T20:47:09.075-04:00ABC 'Debate'45 minutes, and not one policy question. What a joke.Williamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12980300257473947656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7130736.post-80905241106177041702008-04-15T12:02:00.001-04:002008-04-15T13:59:06.744-04:00McCainCan we be honest for a second…Why would anybody who reads this blog possibly consider voting for John McCain?<br /><br />Seriously.<br /><br />Because he’s a nice guy? So’s the old guy who lives downstairs from me. And he’s a war veteran too! Seriously.<br /><br />There’s a myth around McCain of the straight shooter. Since losing in 2000, he has consistently pandered to the far right (tax policy, religious extremists, compromising on torture), yet people seem to downplay this behavior. Almost as if we should believe that he is unchanged from the straight shooter of 2000. As if he was a straight shooter then when he believed the same stuff as the mainstream media, and now that his actions betray the previous words, they’re gonna choose to believe his older words, not the past 8 years of actions.<br /><br />Let’s understand for a second who John McCain is. During the Keating 5 scandal of the mid-80s, McCain had major ties to Keating and decided that the best way to avoid being marred by association was to be completely open with the press. To his credit, he has been. However, the press gives him way too much credit for talking to them and so act as editors and collaborators in defining him as someone who does no wrong. <br /><br />Let’s look at what he has said about the major current policy discussions:<br /><br /><b>On Iraq</b>: he has multiple times said he has no problem being there for 100 years. Of course, he explains that he can see staying there 100 years if there are no American casualties, yet we need to stay until we’ve made sure that there are no American casualties. Head spinning yet? I’ll simplify. We’re going to stay there until the big serious men in DC decide its time to come home, because they have expertise. The same expertise that got us into this mess, but let’s not pay attention to that problem.<br /><br /><b>On the economy</b>: His chief advisor on the economy is Phil Gramm, the same person who pushed much of the deregulation of derivatives that got us into the current meltdown. A month ago he said that he didn’t believe in bailing out individuals (just the multi-billion brokerage houses). Fine, if that’s what he believes then we know. But wait, two weeks ago he came forward to say that some bad mortgages the government will help. Not out of principal mind you, but the grand panderer is at it again. Then today, he seems to have said something about citizens getting 30-year fixed rate mortgages through a simple form at the post office. I think this is what he said, but it seems so nonsensical that out of any other candidate I’d assume I misunderstood it. (And I’m leaving aside his plans to extend the Bush tax cuts).<br /><br />Then again, this is the man who recently said he doesn’t know much about the economy, so he was reading Alan Greenspan’s book. I don’t know about you, but my faith in Greenspan has been shaken a bit.<br /><br />I understand this won’t convince some people, but I really am speechless that there are Democrats who would consider voting for this man. Sure, he seems nice enough, and yes, he was a war hero, but this is your fucking future people. Wake up!!!Williamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12980300257473947656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7130736.post-91488175512719815542008-03-08T14:14:00.004-05:002008-03-08T15:22:40.952-05:00My IdeologyOver dinner the other night with my father, we started talking about suicide bombers, terrorists, and general distaste for the US across the globe. It made me start thinking about how hard it is to get my entire worldview across in any one discussion. It makes it difficult for me to actually be aware of my own ideology, so this is my attempt to explain it. If you disagree with some of my logic, I welcome the feedback, because I think it is very hard to conceptualize one's own ideology and perhaps someone else can highlight flaws in my thinking.<br /><br />A philosopher I'm very partial to, Louis Althusser, wrote that ideology is a false understanding of the relationship between one's self and their society. What that means is that ideology is the way we think things are in order to make sense of what we do within that societal structure. This is inherently a false understanding because we can't objectively see our role in a larger society. Hence, here's my false understanding of my reality:<br /><br />Generally, whatever god there is, she is clearly a hands off force (or being) as there is no provable divine intervention. If she were actively engaged in our affairs, then I don't think she would have quit meddling after Moses (or Jesus, or Mohammed). Since god is not actively engaged in the affairs of earth, our jobs as humans has been to better organize the earth over the generations to better ensure our survival. <br /><br />This is where governments arose. They provided for the things that are needed to make societal life more stable. Traditionally, their main functions would have been mainly to serve the leadership (at least in Western tradition). To this end, they imposed stability through law enforcement and military defense. Law enforcement and military defense were the chief concerns of the moneyed elite, who had the resources to personally survive any other instabilities (without a revolt, they had the resources to personally survive famine, inclement weather, etc.). <br /><br />However, over time power has generally become more distributed as technology advanced (again, at least in the West, but in a lot of nondemocratic countries as well). Distributed power meant that the common people gained rights. This often happened in phases (by race, by sex, by religion), but generally, over the history of time, we have become more pluralistic. Pluralistic societies provide valuable stability to many more people as they now have input into the function of the government. <br /><br />So I have two foundations to my beliefs here: <br /><br /><b> 1) Government exists to help ensure our survival (individually and as a society) <br /><br />2) The extent to which Government is expected to provide for its citizens is tied to their involvement in the government </b><br /><br />So that leaves the question of what our society needs to do to survive in the short, mid and long term. <br /><br />Short term: To my way of thinking, when we see marvels of the modern age such as science and technology there is no way to think that any one entity deserves sole credit for that product. That product is a direct offshoot of the infrastructure and society that government has enabled to flourish. For that reason, it is understandable that the government should a) collect taxes on these items and b) want to provide some of these technologies back to the less privileged in our society. For example, I think that it is okay for the owners of say Johnson & Johnson to pay decently high taxes that help ensure that the destitute and struggling among us are able to afford basic healthcare that J&J got rich on. J&J would never have earned their riches without our roads, utilities and citizens. (This is actually a rich example because Woody Johnson was a big Bush supporter and ostensibly opposed to paying taxes ) <br /><br />There are many examples like this, but bottom line - people who complain about their taxes must fail to see how good we have it. This is the most advanced society in the history of the planet and taxes played a major role in this (WPA, Eisenhower Interstate, NASA, DARPA, etc). Our aversion to taxes have gotten us into a horrible financial hole because we don't always raise taxes to make up budget shortfalls. As such, Bush cut taxes at the same time as launching a $3 Trillion war in Iraq. We are fighting this war on debt and it has destabilized our entire society. This has largely happened because conservatives are so deeply invested in the myth that lower taxes increase tax revenue (the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard). Bottom line, our society has developed an unhealthy relationship with our government where we don't recognize the value we receive from it and so fall for the hucksters who convince us that we overpay for our government. Now we've underfunded it for about a generation (MY GENERATION to be exact) and there are serious financial repercussions that are developing. <br /><br />The point being, there will be income tax increases and those are not bad things. A rich person has much more to gain from a stable society as they live the life of luxury during stability but have more to lose from disasters. Having a working health care system will make us all healthier as there will be less diseases spread. Having paved roads will make us all richer because it will be easier to travel and transport goods. Having educated children will make us all richer as we will have a more valuable workforce. We all benefit from providing for the weakest among us rather than overvaluing the value of property (be it financial, physical, or intellectual). Government's job is to keep this in balance. Unfortunately, since the Reagan Revolution we have undervalued the role of government in our lives and our government has been made unstable because of this.<br /><br />We need to put our government back together because the world we live in was built by a central government and will fall apart without a solid one.<br /><br />Mid Term: (Check back later, but this is my environmentalist/global culture rant)<br /><br />Long Term: (This is my build spaceships rant)Williamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12980300257473947656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7130736.post-45727777944348583962008-03-08T14:07:00.003-05:002008-03-08T14:14:16.716-05:00Thank you, DNC!As we hear the petty posturing by the Clinton and Obama campaigns, reconciling the realities of politics with the media's love for false outrage, it is good for us to remember the big picture here. John McCain is a disciple of President Bush. Just because someone is willing to look you in the eye while they damage the future of this country with outdated, disproved theories of governance doesn't mean they're a good person. A politician who thinks the proper way to deal with our enemies is to bomb, bomb, bomb them is naive and destructive in the modern interconnected world. <br /><br />McCain is Bush's protege, and his theory of leadership is bankrupt.<br /><br /><object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4GPzIrxZ0QA&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4GPzIrxZ0QA&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>Williamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12980300257473947656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7130736.post-32982581925866808162008-02-07T14:22:00.000-05:002008-02-07T20:15:58.496-05:00Me thinks the Automaton Doth Protest Too MuchYou know someone is full of crap when they frequently remind you of their frankness.<br /><br />To wit, the presumptive GOP nominee in 2012, (no, not Jeb Bush) Mitt Romney, withdrew from the race today. Stating: <br /><br />"If I fight on in my campaign all the way to the convention, I want you to know I've given this a lot of thought, I forstall the launch of the rest of the campaign and <b>frankly</b> I'd be making it easier for Sen. Clinton and Obama to win," Romney said. "<b>Frankly</b> in this time of war I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."<br /><br />There's never been a frank word out of this conman's mouth. <br /><br />I'm just disappointed that I wasted $20 registering the domain ceosforromney.org.Williamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12980300257473947656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7130736.post-21857034031706138532008-02-06T19:21:00.000-05:002008-02-06T19:26:55.965-05:00Understanding DelegatesI promised to explain this today, but Josh does it the best, so I'll just let you take it from him:<br /><br /><object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IR0kq9gGTPI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IR0kq9gGTPI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object><br /><br />And for the real geeks, here is <a href="http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/your_election_central_delegate.php">a more detailed analysis of the numbers.</a>Williamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12980300257473947656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7130736.post-78571701247505968892008-02-05T19:08:00.000-05:002008-02-05T19:10:56.909-05:00Visibility for Obama<a href="http://www.observer.com/2008/scene-u-e-s-polling-station">Here's a story about my visibility on 81st and Park Avenue</a> . <br /><br />Get ready for a late night folks, nothing will be settled tonight, expect California's final numbers to come in on Friday. Then again, don't expect any of it to matter, tonight will likely not settle anything.Williamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12980300257473947656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7130736.post-53965672489115635752008-02-04T00:32:00.001-05:002008-02-04T00:44:12.928-05:00Indulge me for Some Giants Goodness!Here are some people jumping on a garbage truck by Union Square about an hour after the Super Bowl. <br /><br />What's that? You're asking, "Which Super Bowl?"<br /><br />Well, SuperBowl 42 of course, you know, the one where the Giants, from New York (by way of New Jersey) upset the undefeated New England Patriots - leaving them with a 18-1 record.<br /><br /><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dyZ4dhiqytklotgj98eClam1i2Ryi2thueyu6CriIJ_8FJDnqPw2g0fJWdZVqwwEYpf1-S_PNYR_UE' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe><br /><br /><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dyEK3xlmuJkcZy9BGFkFLzGHSc2YnGoOcylRHlDXrTnHCrRcLqdcDgsUbwVT9amLOcPTeMJIqVlgxA' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe>Williamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12980300257473947656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7130736.post-75165566579255774132008-02-03T23:49:00.000-05:002008-12-09T19:28:52.042-05:00Young Obama SupporterDid some visibilities today on 86th street, much more support than I expected. Here was my highlight, a young dude holding an Obama flyer:<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpK3ieoK96_X8rAt9FLIZzenQKHNjwnhE4psDRyy45QEWByMHnci2e6YFgcw-ePMA7sCsWvefAyTXb5OwuZ7_5QcrO6l2W_NYTZUvQdy8D4Mi9SEMkOq7Xui0TAA_D3jsqLwNvQA/s1600-h/Photo_020308_001.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpK3ieoK96_X8rAt9FLIZzenQKHNjwnhE4psDRyy45QEWByMHnci2e6YFgcw-ePMA7sCsWvefAyTXb5OwuZ7_5QcrO6l2W_NYTZUvQdy8D4Mi9SEMkOq7Xui0TAA_D3jsqLwNvQA/s320/Photo_020308_001.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5162998620186668178" /></a>Williamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12980300257473947656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7130736.post-48848725590230661372008-02-03T16:35:00.000-05:002008-02-03T16:37:02.618-05:00Yes We CanThis is pretty great stuff, Obama speeches as a song - reminds me of War by Marley - which was based on a speech by Haile Selassie.<br /><br /><object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jjXyqcx-mYY&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jjXyqcx-mYY&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>Williamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12980300257473947656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7130736.post-66131401135066124562008-02-01T07:29:00.000-05:002008-02-01T10:38:51.021-05:00My EndorsementOn Tuesday, February 5th, I will get to vote in the first meaningful presidential primary of my lifetime. I am voting for Barack Obama and I urge you to do the same.<br /><br />Barack Obama is a gifted orator and an inspiring figure. He has crossed this country and found record audiences waiting for him wherever he went. This is important. Our political system is very disempowering and anything that is exciting citizens and bringing new people into the system is a positive development, as Barack has the power to make us a more Democratic nation. But, admittedly, this is only a ‘feel good’ reason. There are also several concrete reasons to elect him.<br /><br />First of all, this country engaged in a war of aggression against Iraq. There is no other way to express this. There is also no way to minimize the impact that it has had on our standing in the world. Barack offers hope that we can regain our standing in the world. I feel that Hillary does not offer the same opportunities. Barack opposed the war, Hillary supported the war. She may try to equivocate that she only supported the authorization, but she never spoke up as we rushed into battle. <br /><br />This isn’t semantical or looking in the rear-view mirror. For one, Barack was always in front on this issue. When we try to re-engage the world following the Bush debacle, we need someone with credibility. Hillary has never overcome her Iraq vote. First of all, she admits that she never read the National Security Estimate in advance of authorizing force. Second, she refuses to admit that it was a mistake, instead she hangs her hat on the fact that she was wrong to expect Bush not to screw up. This is no different than McCain’s position, who believes that he could have done a better job in Iraq. This is important as well. WE DON’T RUSH TO WAR! This is America. We don’t seek war. Among the many reasons why you don’t rush to a war of choice is that there are unintended consequences. Among these, is that things can go wrong. Hillary seems to still not understand this as she has voted to label the Iranian National Guard a terrorist organization, giving Bush the pretense to lead us in to war. She has not learned her lesson, and the world knows this as well. Barack Obama shows the world that we are eager to be part of the world community again, and his name, skin color, and position on the Iraq war are all important aspects of that.<br /><br />On domestic policy, there is little difference between the two candidates – and I believe that credit for this goes to John Edwards, who was the first to talk about climate change, universal healthcare and poverty issues. That said, the biggest strike against Obama may be his stance on non-mandated health care. This is not something that I am happy with as it seems a bit naïve, but it is far from a dealbreaker. One thing that has really impressed me about Obama is that he is not shy in telling Americans that a sacrifice will be required from us to work toward energy independence and a stable environment. This may not make him popular, but politicians should value honesty over pandering. I believe that Barack does.<br /><br />Ethically, I feel very bad for the Clintons. They are vilified, largely through no fault of their own. But their own deafness to this problem cost this nation dearly during Bill’s presidency and will likely cost us dearly during a Clinton II administration. People hate them and will do anything to destroy them – and, likewise, they play in the mud. She has been very unethical in her attacks on Obama and it sours people on politics. Additionally, Hillary takes a lot of money from lobbyists. Her chief advisors are Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson. Google them. These are not progressives, these are manipulators. If you really want to change things, then show it with your actions, not your words. Stop accepting money from lobbyists. Tell Bill to announce the donors to his library. Let us judge whether those donors have given money to curry favor. Hillary plays into our cynicism and tells us to ignore that cynicism – since everyone does it. I reject this answer, because I want more.<br /><br />On hope, this is not a contest – and it is not meaningless. People of my generation are cynical by nature. We’ve stopped believing. We see handout after handout to big business. Policies that are destined to fail because they are handcuffed by giveaways. We don’t believe that there really can be something better. Obama believes this, and he’s already inspired millions to this belief as well. I’m still holding on to my cynicism, but I’m thankful that not everyone is.<br /><br />For all these reasons, and because he would destroy McCain, I support Barack Obama for President and urge you to do the same.<br /><br />PS - I welcome any discussion on this so please share your opinionWilliamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12980300257473947656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7130736.post-87452297189374588432008-01-04T09:34:00.000-05:002008-01-04T09:44:52.363-05:00ThoughtsSo, Obama won Iowa. Think about that. A black dude won the majority of votes in Iowa. And he did it by bringing young people and independents into the process. That's really really cool.<br /><br />The other night my dad asked me about the Des Moines Register Poll that showed Obama up 39-32 on Clinton. I rejected it out of hand because the survey projected for 60% of caucusers would be new voters. In reality, the number was in the 40s. That's still incredible.<br /><br />One thing to note was that 20% of voters were independent (they're allowed to caucus if they register at the time of the caucus) and 4% were Republican, and Obama won these groups overwhelmingly since he only won 32-31 among Democrats. Hillary will try to spin this as non-democrats directing our direction. I say, who cares? He's bringing new people to the table, and that's powerful. Additionally, the next event is New Hampshire which also allows independents to vote in the democratic primary, so his model still works. Then comes Nevada's Primary, which is dominated by the labor unions and may not go fully for Obama, but after that is South Carolina, and I doubt that a 50% black electorate will get in the way of the first black nominee for President.<br /><br />It's not a done deal, but unless there's a real game changer, Barack can really win this thing. <br /><br />It's look like the revolution is here, I was hoping it would be a bit more radical, but I'll take what I can get.Williamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12980300257473947656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7130736.post-1541702870745888512008-01-03T21:41:00.000-05:002008-01-03T21:44:35.404-05:00Shocked, ShockedObama and Huckabee win.<br /><br />After all, it's really just Iowa. <br /><br />The press is loving the chance to kick Hillary and Edwards got some real concerns about being forgotten. However, kudos to Obama.<br /><br />Huckabee, wow. I still can't believe he makes it to the nomination, much less the Whitehouse - but he makes me worry about McCain or (shudder) Giuliani making it through.Williamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12980300257473947656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7130736.post-19202175054991009132007-12-21T08:39:00.001-05:002007-12-21T08:39:54.550-05:00What we're not hearing...It seems like everyone I know in New York can't understand the rise of Mike Huckabee, the popularity of Ron Paul or the sustaining polls of John Edwards in Iowa. People are fed up with the way our government works. All they see is corporate policies destroying this country and want someone who will represent that in DC. <br /><br />Huckabee comes across as someone like them and he always talks of his values. Ron Paul responds to the impotency the average person is faced with in the global world. John Edwards wants to fight the powers that be to fix things. Each of them represents a rebellion against the dominant paradigm. They're all somewhat damnations of the centralization of power on the coasts and in their cities across the country, and that's hard for the media (and us) to get our heads around.Williamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12980300257473947656noreply@blogger.com0