Propaganda, Brought by Your Own Tax Dollars

Former President Obama (2018): "Special interests, foreign governments, etc. can, in fact, manipulate and propagandize." What if at least one of those special interests is your own government? In Peter Richardson's A Bomb in Every Issue (2009), we learn the CIA directly or indirectly funded numerous liberal and conservative organizations, including ones with Gloria Steinem, the AFL-CIO, and William F. Buckley, Jr. 

Problematically, we don't know which cultural change organizations weren't funded by the CIA. In other words, government interference may have cost Americans leaders who could have delivered more honest or less divisive commentary but who didn't have the numbers or influence at the exact time of the CIA's involvement. Funding x rather than y meant anything independent--anything related to y and not x--was at a disadvantage, tilting the media towards CIA-picked cultural leaders. As a result, almost everything you see and read might have been curated for you by a secretive, non-transparent government agency. If that's not propaganda, what is? And why isn't the president of the United States talking about it? 

Bonus: "The agency's goals were to counter similar groups under Soviet control abroad and to recruit foreign students." The only reason we know any of this is because an insider--we'd call him a whistleblower today--hadn't signed an NDA and provided documents to a journalist at an independent publication. The independent publication, The Ramparts, had a distinctive strategy: raise hell and keep on raising it until national media, always late to the game, finally picked up the story. 

Bonus: a world where secretive organizations can manipulate winners requires not just irresponsible funding but online manipulation (SEO, etc.). If the top 25 hits on Google's search engine can be curated for you by one or more intelligence organizations, can you believe anything you see and hear? 

Politics (Total Speculation Edition)

Marco Rubio and Robert Gates. Are they the GOP Dream Team for 2012's Presidential Election?

Total speculation, bonus round: I think Hilary Clinton will be running as the 2012 Democratic nominee for President. One deal might be that if she wins, she would nominate President Obama for the Supreme Court.

President Obama in Cairo, Egypt

From LA Times: transcript of President Obama's speech in Cairo, Egypt:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/06/barack-obama-muslim-speech-text-egypt.html

Scroll down the page for the transcript.

Racial Divide?

Here's an interesting political map about Obama's and McCain's voters, when divided by race:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/how-did-white-people-vote.html

I enjoyed reading the comments. One comment pointed out that the map lacks a control. Without comparing the Obama/McCain map with the Kerry/Bush election, one can't reasonable conclude anything significant. Chances are, the maps might be similar for both elections, meaning there was no racial pattern in the 2008 election.

Obama Delivers

I had a mental orgasm when I read this article on Obama, who just froze the salaries of high-paid aides, instituted a new ethics code, and changed FOIA policy:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090121/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_executive_pay

"For a long time now, there's been too much secrecy in this city," Obama said.

Obama gets it. He really gets it. God bless him, and God bless America.

Obama's Inauguration Address Transcript

For those of you who missed it, here is the transcript of President Obama's inauguration address:

http://www.welt.de/english-news/article3062276/President-Obamas-inauguration-address.html

I didn't hear the address, but reading the transcript, this is my favorite part:

[I]t has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things – some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

In other news, stocks markets are down. The Dow is down 2.6%, and Nasdaq is down 4.2% in mid-day trading. It's got nothing to do with Obama's address--corporate earnings are still coming out, and people are scared.

Good Times for SCU Grads

I graduated from Santa Clara Law School in 2002. It looks like Santa Clara University grads are doing well under Obama:

http://www.scu.edu/news/releases/release.cfm?month=0109&story=Panetta

Leon Panetta will take over the Central Intelligence Agency. He will work with another SCU grad, Janet Napolitano, who is the current appointee for Director of Homeland Security.

You smell that? Yup, that's change in the air.

Update: https://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2018/04/santa-clara-universitys-law-school-dean.html

Politics: Eisenhower and Obama

I just got off the phone with one of my closest friends, who is an Orange County Republican. He is staunchly anti-Obama. Although I am a registered Democrat, I call myself a Barry Goldwater Republican, or (when I'm feeling giddy) an Eisenhower Republican. I miss the days when we had Republicans who refused to sacrifice American lives unless it was absolutely necessary.

August 11, 1954: Eisenhower: ‘I Don’t Believe There Is Such a Thing’ as Preventative War

Q: Mr. President, there seems to be increasing suggestions that we should embark on a preventive war with the Communist world, some of these suggestions by people in high places.

A: All of us have heard this term ‘preventive war’ since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time, if we believe for one second that nuclear fission and fusion, that type of weapon, would be used in such a war—what is a preventive war? I would say a preventive war, if the words mean anything, is to wage some sort of quick police action in order that you might avoid a terrific cataclysm of destruction later. A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn’t preventive war; that is war. I don’t believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn’t even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing.

To those Republicans who are anti-Obama, I ask them to wait until the President-Elect does something wrong. Right now, it appears Americans are pre-judging our Commander-in-Chief, even though he picked Cabinet appointees with moderate views.

Obama, India, and Terrorism

I'm back. Cabo San Lucas was relaxing, and I will write more on that later. For now, I just wanted to share an interesting article on Obama and make some comments about the senseless massacre in India. 

1. The LA Times (Nov 30, 2008) thinks Obama should be sworn in as President using his full name, including his middle name: 

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-oath30-2008nov30%2C0%2C7859834.story 

I like their gusto, but I don't think it's going to happen. 

[Update on December 10, 2008: I was wrong--see Barack Hussein Obama] 

2. The tragic killings in India have resulted in many commentators blaming Pakistan. One specific, recurring comment has been that "ordinary Pakistanis" need to be marching in the street, condemning the violence. Meanwhile, the Indian government is on record saying that they will get information from one of the captured killers and make him "sing like a canary." One Indian official, according to the WSJ, talked about having certain methods that would make the captured killer talk. 

First, India does itself no favors by implying it uses or condones torture as an interrogation tactic. Even hinting that torture is acceptable raises the stakes tremendously, because it implies that India does not comply with U.N. rules or does not take them seriously. This failure to adhere to generally accepted international standards of conduct should concern the world when both countries involved have nuclear weapons. In addition, if India does use torture or provokes an unnecessary war against Pakistanis, even the ghosts of Gandhi and British imperialism will not prevent the damaging hit to India's image as a respectable emerging superpower. 

Second, many commentators--both Indian and American--have lambasted Pakistanis for not protesting the violence publicly and in large numbers. This complaint is similar to the one lodged against Muslims post-9/11--that by not openly condemning 9/11, they were somehow implicitly supporting it or not doing enough to show their true colors. 

This argument has some emotional appeal, but fails due to its unsound assumption that silence automatically means support. This theory of "speak-or-forever-be-suspected" applies primarily to face-to-face encounters on a specific topic--such as when a person refuses to answer a question of, "Did you take that document that had trade secrets to your home?" or "Does this make me look fat?" Such questions fail to elicit any relevance when they are applied to actions or thoughts made by strangers who happen to share a similar characteristic as some other group. For example, Timothy McVeigh had white skin. When he committed his act of terrorism, did the failure of massive numbers of white persons marching in the streets of Canada imply white Canadian support for his acts? Of course not. When an unarmed black man (Amadou Diallo) in New York is shot 19 times by Christian police officers, does the failure of Christians across the United States condemning the NYPD mean they condone senseless killings? Of course not. Such examples can be made ad infinitum, and it should be fairly obvious that an absence of mass protests or vocal opposition has no relevance as an indicator of general support or non-support. 

The reasons for silence among most "ordinary Pakistanis" are simple. Muslims in Pakistan don't know the killers in India and don't feel any connection to them. To the 99.9% Pakistanis who live their lives peacefully, there is no connection to the killers in India and therefore no reason to say anything publicly about their heinous acts. I hate to be dogmatic, but anyone who says differently is a demagogue seeking to incite ethnic and religious violence. Such ignorance is dangerous and may lead to retaliatory killings of innocent Muslims in India. In addition, 40 of the 170+ victims were Muslim, showing that terrorism knows no ethnicity or religion. 

Personally, I feel tremendous sadness for all the victims of the attacks. The story of Moshe Holtzberg is particularly heart-breaking.

How Did You Vote?

This is the Ron Clark Academy presidential debate. Gotta love the token white guy.

Lyrics to “You Can Vote However You Like”

Obama on the left
McCain on the right
We can talk politics all night
And you can vote however you like
I said, you can vote however you like, yeah

Democratic left
Republican right
November 4th we decide
And you can vote however you like
I said, you can vote however you like, yeah

(McCain supporters)
McCain is the man
Fought for us in Vietnam
You know if anyone can
Help our country he can
Taxes droppin' low
Don't you know oil's gonna flow
Drill it low
I’ll show our economy will grow
McCain’s the best candidate
With Palin as his running mate
They’ll fight for gun rights, pro life,
The conservative right
Our future is bright
Better economy in sight
And all the world will feel our military might

(Obama supporters)
But McCain and Bush are real close right
They vote alike and keep it tight
Obama’s new, he’s younger too
The Middle Class he will help you
He’ll bring a change, he’s got the brains
McCain and Bush are just the same
You are to blame, Iraq’s a shame
Four more years would be insane

Lower your Taxes - you know Obama won’t
PROTECT THE LOWER CLASS - You know McCain won’t!
Have enough experience - you know that they don’t
STOP GLOBAL WARMING - you know that you won’t

I want Obama
FORGET OBAMA
Stick with McCain and you’re going to have some drama
We need it
HE’LL BRING IT
He’ll be it
YOU’LL SEE IT
We’ll do it
GET TO IT
Let’s move it
DO IT!

Obama on the left
McCain on the right
We can talk politics all night
And you can vote however you like
You can vote however you like, yeah

Democratic left
Republican right
November 4th we decide
And you can vote however you like, I said
You can vote however you like, yeah

I’m talking big pipelines, and low gas prices
Below $2.00 that would be nice

But to do it right we gotta start today
Finding renewable ways that are here to stay

I want Obama
FORGET OBAMA,
Stick with McCain you gonna have some drama
MORE WAR IN IRAQ
Iran he will attack
CAN’T BRING OUR TROOPS BACK
We gotta vote Barack!

Obama on the left
McCain on the right
We can talk politics all night
And you can vote however you like, I said
You can vote however you like, yeah

Democratic left
Republican right
November 4th we decide
And you can vote however you like, I said
You can vote however you like, yeah

"Yes We Can"

President-elect Barack Obama won the election and delivered an inspirational speech that left Oprah and Jesse Jackson in tears. Prior to Obama, John McCain delivered a speech that confirmed he's one of the most honest ("The American people have spoken...and they have spoken clearly.") and dignified politicians in American history.

98% of the results have been tallied, and the popular vote breakdown is as follows:

Obama 53%/ McCain 46% / Other Parties 1%

I predicted 53% / 44% / 3%, so I wasn't too far off. I overestimated the support the Green Party, Libertarians and Ron Paul write-ins would receive.

McCain's choice of Palin may be viewed as a poor decision by future historians; however, the theory in picking her was sound. Republicans have two competing strains--one is libertarian-ish, wanting lower taxes, fewer earmarks, less government spending, and smaller government; the other is Christian, wanting religion and their version of family values to be recognized. McCain believed he could attract the libertarian side by himself, so he chose Palin because he thought she could steer the Christian side to his camp. Theoretically, it might have worked, but he was left with what many people thought was more of a political Frankenstein than a perfect compromise.

If Palin really does get enough money to run for election in 2012, I predict another eight years of Democrats in the White House. The road to the American presidency goes through California, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida, and/or Illinois. It decidedly does not go through Alaska, Arizona, Oklahoma, Kentucky, or Alabama, most of which are losing residents while the less religious states gain residents. Using this electoral vote angle, Hillary Clinton supporters might admit that choosing Barack Obama over Senator Clinton was a wise choice--New Yorkers would vote Democrat anyway, and Obama would guarantee Illinois. The Republicans are now in a poor position--Jeb Bush is political kryptonite because of his family name, and there are few Republican politicians other than Senator McCain and Ron Paul who inspire Americans.

Let this be a lesson to the Republican party: you have to choose sides. Either you return to the prestige and integrity of Eisenhower, Goldwater, or Jefferson, or you take the American people into a religious era in a country that has wisely favored separation of church and state since its inception. In short, does the Republican party want to be the party of freedom and fiscal responsibility, or a conservative Christian party? It is time to choose.

Update on November 6, 2008: Greg Mankiw has similar thoughts on where the Republican Party should go:

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/11/youth-vote-and-gop.html
___________________

Obama's victory speech:

CNN Transcript (Obama)

McCain's concession speech:

CNN Transcript (McCain)

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/allcandidates/