Noam Chomsky's take on the election and state of democracy in the U.S.

I must say that I have utmost respect for Prof Noam Chomsky and his insightful opinions. More importantly, I identify with a good number of things which he says.

This is article that I am about to share. He mentions something very similar to what I have mentioned previously. That is about how the democratic election is a great advertising campaign and that we don't really know what the candidates stand for. That creates a weakness of delivering the people the policies that they want.

Anyhow, I won't spoil the fun and I need to write a real paper. Enjoy.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/24/noam_chomsky_what_next_the_elections

I seem to be a Conservative!

After an interesting email sharing from a peer at school I am beginning to find myself classified as a conservative. I've always thought of myself as a merely a pragmatist, believing that government need to govern with some good common sense, regulate when there are issues that free market economies cannot do, let it rest when free market is the best. Educate people if you need, let it rest when people exercise some personal preference and differentiate law from morality (personal only because universal morality is shifting sands).

This author the the below article however tucks all of it nicely into the conservatism tag, of which I'm sure it is what he calls himself. It's unveil satire at its best. Read well and enjoy.

We Blew It

A look back in remorse on the conservative opportunity that was squandered.

by P.J. O'Rourke

11/17/2008, Volume 014, Issue 09

Let us bend over and kiss our ass goodbye. Our 28-year conservative opportunity to fix the moral and practical boundaries of government is gone--gone with the bear market and the Bear Stearns and the bear that's headed off to do you-know-what in the woods on our philosophy.

An entire generation has been born, grown up, and had families of its own since Ronald Reagan was elected. And where is the world we promised these children of the Conservative Age? Where is this land of freedom and responsibility, knowledge, opportunity, accomplishment, honor, truth, trust, and one boring hour each week spent in itchy clothes at church, synagogue, or mosque? It lies in ruins at our feet, as well it might, since we ourselves kicked the shining city upon a hill into dust and rubble. The progeny of the Reagan Revolution will live instead in the universe that revolves around Hyde Park.

Mind you, they won't live in Hyde Park. Those leafy precincts will be reserved for the micromanagers and macro-apparatchiks of liberalism--for Secretary of the Department of Peace Bill Ayers and Secretary of the Department of Fairness Bernardine Dohrn. The formerly independent citizens of our previously self-governed nation will live, as I said, around Hyde Park. They will make what homes they can in the physical, ethical, and intellectual slums of the South Side of Chicago.

The South Side of Chicago is what everyplace in America will be once the Democratic administration and filibuster-resistant Democratic Congress have tackled global warming, sustainability, green alternatives to coal and oil, subprime mortgage foreclosures, consumer protection, business oversight, financial regulation, health care reform, taxes on the "rich," and urban sprawl. The Democrats will have plenty of time to do all this because conservatism, if it is ever reborn, will not come again in the lifetime of anyone old enough to be rounded up by ACORN and shipped to the polling booths.

None of this is the fault of the left. After the events of the 20th century--national socialism, international socialism, inter-species socialism from Earth First--anyone who is still on the left is obviously insane and not responsible for his or her actions. No, we on the right did it. The financial crisis that is hoisting us on our own petard is only the latest (if the last) of the petard hoistings that have issued from the hindquarters of our movement. We've had nearly three decades to educate the electorate about freedom, responsibility, and the evils of collectivism, and we responded by creating a big-city-public-school-system of a learning environment.

Liberalism had been running wild in the nation since the Great Depression. At the end of the Carter administration we had it cornered in one of its dreadful low-income housing projects or smelly public parks or some such place, and we held the Taser gun in our hand, pointed it at the beast's swollen gut, and didn't pull the trigger. Liberalism wasn't zapped and rolled away on a gurney and confined somewhere until it expired from natural causes such as natural law or natural rights.

In our preaching and our practice we neglected to convey the organic and universal nature of freedom. Thus we ensured our loss before we even began our winning streak. Barry Goldwater was an admirable and principled man. He took an admirably principled stand on states' rights. But he was dead wrong. Separate isn't equal. Ask a kid whose parents are divorced.

Since then modern conservatism has been plagued by the wrong friends and the wrong foes. The "Southern Strategy" was bequeathed to the Republican party by Richard Nixon--not a bad friend of conservatism but no friend at all. The Southern Strategy wasn't needed. Southern whites were on--begging the pardon of the Scopes trial jury--an evolutionary course toward becoming Republican. There's a joke in Arkansas about a candidate hustling votes in the country. The candidate asks a farmer how many children he has.

"I've got six sons," the farmer says.

"Are they all good little Democrats?" the candidate asks.

"Well," the farmer says, "five of 'em are. But my oldest boy, he got to readin'??.??.??.??"

There was no need to piss off the entire black population of America to get Dixie's electoral votes. And despising cracker trash who have a laundry hamper full of bedsheets with eye-holes cut in them does not make a man a liberal.

Blacks used to poll Republican. They did so right up until Mrs. Roosevelt made some sympathetic noises in 1932. And her husband didn't even deliver on Eleanor's promises.

It's not hard to move a voting bloc. And it should be especially easy to move voters to the right. Sensible adults are conservative in most aspects of their private lives. If this weren't so, imagine driving on I-95: The majority of drivers are drunk, stoned, making out, or watching TV, while the rest are trying to calculate the size of their carbon footprints on the backs of Whole Foods receipts while negotiating lane changes.

People are even more conservative if they have children. Nobody with kids is a liberal, except maybe one pothead in Marin County. Everybody wants his or her children to respect freedom, exercise responsibility, be honest, get educated, have opportunities, and own a bunch of guns. (The last is optional and includes, but is not limited to, me, my friends in New Hampshire, and Sarah Palin.)

Reagan managed to reach out to blue collar whites. But there his reach stopped, leaving many people on our side, but barely knowing it. There are enough yarmulkes among the neocons to show that Jews are not immune to conservatism. Few practicing Catholics vote Democratic anymore except in Massachusetts where they put something in the communion wafers. When it comes to a full-on, hemp-wearing, kelp-eating, mandala-tatted, fool-coifed liberal with socks in sandals, I have never met a Muslim like that or a Chinese and very few Hispanics. No U.S. immigrants from the Indian subcontinent fill that bill (the odd charlatan yogi excepted), nor do immigrants from Africa, Eastern Europe, or East Asia. And Japanese tourists may go so far as socks in sandals, but their liberal nonsense stops at the ankles.

We have all of this going for us, worldwide. And yet we chose to deliver our sermons only to the faithful or the already converted. Of course the trailer park Protestants yell "Amen." If you were handling rattlesnakes and keeping dinosaurs for pets, would you vote for the party that gets money from PETA?

In how many ways did we fail conservatism? And who can count that high? Take just one example of our unconserved tendency to poke our noses into other people's business: abortion. Democracy--be it howsoever conservative--is a manifestation of the will of the people. We may argue with the people as a man may argue with his wife, but in the end we must submit to the fact of being married. Get a pro-life friend drunk to the truth-telling stage and ask him what happens if his 14-year-old gets knocked up. What if it's rape? Some people truly have the courage of their convictions. I don't know if I'm one of them. I might kill the baby. I will kill the boy.

The real message of the conservative pro-life position is that we're in favor of living. We consider people--with a few obvious exceptions--to be assets. Liberals consider people to be nuisances. People are always needing more government resources to feed, house, and clothe them and to pick up the trash around their FEMA trailers and to make sure their self-esteem is high enough to join community organizers lobbying for more government resources.

If the citizenry insists that abortion remain legal--and, in a passive and conflicted way, the citizenry seems to be doing so--then give the issue a rest. Meanwhile we can, with the public's blessing, refuse to spend taxpayers' money on killing, circumscribe the timing and method of taking a human life, make sure parental consent is obtained when underage girls are involved, and tar and feather teenage boys and run them out of town on a rail. The law cannot be made identical with morality. Scan the list of the Ten Commandments and see how many could be enforced even by Rudy Giuliani.

Our impeachment of President Clinton was another example of placing the wrong political emphasis on personal matters. We impeached Clinton for lying to the government. To our surprise the electorate gave us cold comfort. Lying to the government: It's called April 15th. And we accused Clinton of lying about sex, which all men spend their lives doing, starting at 15 bragging about things we haven't done yet, then on to fibbing about things we are doing, and winding up with prevarications about things we no longer can do.

When the Monica Lewinsky news broke, my wife set me straight about the issue. "Here," she said, "is the most powerful man in the world. And everyone hates his wife. What's the matter with Sharon Stone? Instead, he's hitting on an emotionally disturbed intern barely out of her teens." But our horn rims were so fogged with detestation of Clinton that we couldn't see how really detestable he was. If we had stayed our hand in the House of Representatives and treated the brute with shunning or calls for interventions to make him seek help, we might have chased him out of the White House. (Although this probably would have required a U.S. news media from a parallel universe.)

Such things as letting the abortion debate be turned against us and using the gravity of the impeachment process on something that required the fly-swat of pest control were strategic errors. Would that blame could be put on our strategies instead of ourselves. We have lived up to no principle of conservatism.

Government is bigger than ever. We have fattened the stalled ox and hatred therewith rather than dined on herbs where love (and the voter) is. Instead of flattening the Department of Education with a wrecking ball we let it stand as a pulpit for Bill Bennett. When--to switch metaphors yet again--such a white elephant is not discarded someone will eventually try to ride in the howdah on its back. One of our supposed own did. No Child Left Behind? What if they deserve to be left behind? What if they deserve a smack on the behind? A nationwide program to test whether kids are what? Stupid? You've got kids. Kids are stupid.

We railed at welfare and counted it a great victory when Bill Clinton confused a few poor people by making the rules more complicated. But the "French-bread lines" for the rich, the "terrapin soup kitchens," continue their charity without stint.

The sludge and dreck of political muck-funds flowing to prosperous businesses and individuals have gotten deeper and more slippery and stink worse than ever with conservatives minding the sewage works of legislation.

Agriculture is a business that has been up to its bib overalls in politics since the first Thanksgiving dinner kickback to the Indians for subsidizing Pilgrim maize production with fish head fertilizer grants. But never, since the Mayflower knocked the rock in Plymouth, has anything as putrid as the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of 2008 been spread upon the land. Just the name says it. There are no farms left. Not like the one grampa grew up on.

A "farm" today means 100,000 chickens in a space the size of a Motel 6 shower stall. If we cared anything about "nutrition" we would--to judge by the mountainous, jiggling flab of Americans--stop growing all food immediately. And "bioenergy" is a fraud of John Edwards-marital-fidelity proportions. Taxpayer money composted to produce a fuel made of alcohol that is more expensive than oil, more polluting than oil, and almost as bad as oil with vermouth and an olive. But this bill passed with bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress and was happily signed into law by President Bush. Now it's going to cost us at least $285 billion. That's about five times the gross domestic product of prewar Iraq. For what we will spend on the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of 2008 we could have avoided the war in Iraq and simply bought a controlling interest in Saddam Hussein's country.

Yes, we got a few tax breaks during the regimes of Reagan and W. But the government is still taking a third of our salary. Is the government doing a third of our job? Is the government doing a third of our dishes? Our laundry? Our vacuuming? When we go to Hooters is the government tending bar making sure that one out of three margaritas is on the house? If our spouse is feeling romantic and we're tired, does the government come over to our house and take care of foreplay? (Actually, during the Clinton administration??.??.??.??)

Anyway, a low tax rate is not--never mind the rhetoric of every conservative politician--a bedrock principle of conservatism. The principle is fiscal responsibility.

Conservatives should never say to voters, "We can lower your taxes." Conservatives should say to voters, "You can raise spending. You, the electorate, can, if you choose, have an infinite number of elaborate and expensive government programs. But we, the government, will have to pay for those programs. We have three ways to pay.

"We can inflate the currency, destroying your ability to plan for the future, wrecking the nation's culture of thrift and common sense, and giving free rein to scallywags to borrow money for worthless scams and pay it back 10 cents on the dollar.

"We can raise taxes. If the taxes are levied across the board, money will be taken from everyone's pocket, the economy will stagnate, and the poorest and least advantaged will be harmed the most. If the taxes are levied only on the wealthy, money will be taken from wealthy people's pockets, hampering their capacity to make loans and investments, the economy will stagnate, and the poorest and the least advantaged will be harmed the most.

"And we can borrow, building up a massive national debt. This will cause all of the above things to happen plus it will fund Red Chinese nuclear submarines that will be popping up in San Francisco Bay to get some decent Szechwan take-out."

Yes, this would make for longer and less pithy stump speeches. But we'd be showing ourselves to be men and women of principle. It might cost us, short-term. We might get knocked down for not whoring after bioenergy votes in the Iowa caucuses. But at least we wouldn't land on our scruples. And we could get up again with dignity intact, dust ourselves off, and take another punch at the liberal bully-boys who want to snatch the citizenry's freedom and tuck that freedom, like a trophy feather, into the hatbands of their greasy political bowlers.

But are we men and women of principle? And I don't mean in the matter of tricky and private concerns like gay marriage. Civil marriage is an issue of contract law. A constitutional amendment against gay marriage? I don't get it. How about a constitutional amendment against first marriages? Now we're talking. No, I speak, once again, of the geological foundations of conservatism.

Where was the meum and the tuum in our shakedown of Washington lobbyists? It took a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives 40 years--from 1954 to 1994--to get that corrupt and arrogant. And we managed it in just 12. (Who says Republicans don't have much on the ball?)

Our attitude toward immigration has been repulsive. Are we not pro-life? Are not immigrants alive? Unfortunately, no, a lot of them aren't after attempting to cross our borders. Conservative immigration policies are as stupid as conservative attitudes are gross. Fence the border and give a huge boost to the Mexican ladder industry. Put the National Guard on the Rio Grande and know that U.S. troops are standing between you and yard care. George W. Bush, at his most beneficent, said if illegal immigrants wanted citizenship they would have to do three things: Pay taxes, learn English, and work in a meaningful job. Bush doesn't meet two out of three of those qualifications. And where would you rather eat? At a Vietnamese restaurant? Or in the Ayn Rand Café? Hey, waiter, are the burgers any good? Atlas shrugged. (We would, however, be able to have a smoke at the latter establishment.)

To go from slime to the sublime, there are the lofty issues about which we never bothered to form enough principles to go out and break them. What is the coherent modern conservative foreign policy?

We may think of this as a post 9/11 problem, but it's been with us all along. What was Reagan thinking, landing Marines in Lebanon to prop up the government of a country that didn't have one? In 1984, I visited the site where the Marines were murdered. It was a beachfront bivouac overlooked on three sides by hills full of hostile Shiite militia. You'd urge your daughter to date Rosie O'Donnell before you'd put troops ashore in such a place.

Since the early 1980s I've been present at the conception (to use the polite term) of many of our foreign policy initiatives. Iran-contra was about as smart as using the U.S. Postal Service to get weapons to anti-Communists. And I notice Danny Ortega is back in power anyway. I had a look into the eyes of the future rulers of Afghanistan at a sura in Peshawar as the Soviets were withdrawing from Kabul. I would rather have had a beer with Leonid Brezhnev.

Fall of the Berlin wall? Being there was fun. Nations that flaked off of the Soviet Union in southeastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus? Being there was not so fun.

The aftermath of the Gulf war still makes me sick. Fine to save the fat, greedy Kuwaitis and the arrogant, grasping house of Saud, but to hell with the Shiites and Kurds of Iraq until they get some oil.

Then, half a generation later, when we returned with our armies, we expected to be greeted as liberators. And, damn it, we were. I was in Baghdad in April 2003. People were glad to see us, until they noticed that we'd forgotten to bring along any personnel or provisions to feed or doctor the survivors of shock and awe or to get their electricity and water running again. After that they got huffy and began stuffing dynamite down their pants before consulting with the occupying forces.

Is there a moral dimension to foreign policy in our political philosophy? Or do we just exist to help the world's rich people make and keep their money? (And a fine job we've been doing of that lately.)

If we do have morals, where were they while Bosnians were slaughtered? And where were we while Clinton dithered over the massacres in Kosovo and decided, at last, to send the Serbs a message: Mess with the United States and we'll wait six months, then bomb the country next to you. Of Rwanda, I cannot bear to think, let alone jest.

And now, to glue and screw the lid on our coffin, comes this financial crisis. For almost three decades we've been trying to teach average Americans to act like "stakeholders" in their economy. They learned. They're crying and whining for government bailouts just like the billionaire stakeholders in banks and investment houses. Aid, I can assure you, will be forthcoming from President Obama.

Then average Americans will learn the wisdom of Ronald Reagan's statement: "The ten most dangerous words in the English language are, 'I'm from the federal government, and I'm here to help.'?" Ask a Katrina survivor.

The left has no idea what's going on in the financial crisis. And I honor their confusion. Jim Jerk down the road from me, with all the cars up on blocks in his front yard, falls behind in his mortgage payments, and the economy of Iceland implodes. I'm missing a few pieces of this puzzle myself.

Under constant political pressure, which went almost unresisted by conservatives, a lot of lousy mortgages that would never be repaid were handed out to Jim Jerk and his drinking buddies and all the ex-wives and single mothers with whom Jim and his pals have littered the nation.

Wall Street looked at the worthless paper and thought, "How can we make a buck off this?" The answer was to wrap it in a bow. Take a wide enough variety of lousy mortgages--some from the East, some from the West, some from the cities, some from the suburbs, some from shacks, some from McMansions--bundle them together and put pressure on the bond rating agencies to do fancy risk management math, and you get a "collateralized debt obligation" with a triple-A rating. Good as cash. Until it wasn't.

Or, put another way, Wall Street was pulling the "room full of horse s--" trick. Brokerages were saying, "We're going to sell you a room full of horse s--. And with that much horse s--, you just know there's a pony in there somewhere."

Anyway, it's no use blaming Wall Street. Blaming Wall Street for being greedy is like scolding defensive linemen for being big and aggressive. The people on Wall Street never claimed to be public servants. They took no oath of office. They're in it for the money. We pay them to be in it for the money. We don't want our retirement accounts to get a 2 percent return. (Although that sounds pretty good at the moment.)

What will destroy our country and us is not the financial crisis but the fact that liberals think the free market is some kind of sect or cult, which conservatives have asked Americans to take on faith. That's not what the free market is. The free market is just a measurement, a device to tell us what people are willing to pay for any given thing at any given moment. The free market is a bathroom scale. You may hate what you see when you step on the scale. "Jeeze, 230 pounds!" But you can't pass a law making yourself weigh 185. Liberals think you can. And voters--all the voters, right up to the tippy-top corner office of Goldman Sachs--think so too.

We, the conservatives, who do understand the free market, had the responsibility to--as it were--foreclose upon this mess. The market is a measurement, but that measuring does not work to the advantage of a nation or its citizens unless the assessments of volume, circumference, and weight are conducted with transparency and under the rule of law. We've had the rule of law largely in our hands since 1980. Where is the transparency? It's one more job we botched.

Although I must say we're doing good work on our final task--attaching the garden hose to our car's exhaust pipe and running it in through a vent window. Barack and Michelle will be by in a moment with some subsidized ethanol to top up our gas tank. And then we can turn the key.

P.J. O'Rourke is a contributing editor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

Bravo! The power of adaptive management endorsed by the President-Elect of the United States of America

I am a firm believer of adaptive management. If there is such a term in the firm place. This concept or notion stems from the fact that there is no silver bullet in life, no panaceas.

Nations grow strong, companies survive competitions, individual thrive in the rat race, not by some magic formula or some harden idealogy. It comes instead from a rational and open mind, entrench in the believe that only constant in the world is change. Even as we apply solutions, we change and redefine problems.

A case in point. Even when we thought that Bush was erroneous, I've learnt that it was his powerful conviction that create a new branch with the Salafi's that contest and challenge the notion Osama bin Laden's notion of a violent Jihad against the West. Apparently, the notion of them destroying a few buildings and the retributive action of them having a Muslim nation destroyed and many more Muslim lifes lost was too much and was not proportionate and logical to them. It is with this hope that the pure unfeasibility and logic would triumph in these radical non-state actors who often abandon any sense of risk because they feel they have little to lose.

Here, I have just read President Obama's Post-election speech. It was just laced with so much character of adaptive management that just confirms why he has the potential and making to be a great leader.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/11/change_has_come_to_america.html

Adaptive management needs
1) Leaders who listen because only when your feelers are on the ground can you adapt and respond
2) Leaders who acknowledge that mistake can happen and we can adjust and make good
3) Leaders who know it need everyone to pull their weigh and work collaboratively
4) Leaders who believe in change

He is certainly the One.

The American Idol

Congratulations to Senator Barack Obama!

He has ran an awesome and inspiring campaign that has not only enraptured America but truly the world. For me, as a thinking and pragmatic student of international relations and political sciences, popping out the bubbly now is certainly way to early.

It has been wonderful the be inspired by the message of hope and change but now is where the rubber meets the road. The world is certainly watching what the most significant and popular U.S. president in recent times is going to do next. How is he going to embark on creating that change he promised?

The weight is enormous and already we have letters from former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (though this was not target at Obama specifically) and even from the Russian activist and chessmaster Gary Kasparov.

For me, my call is not too different. From my part of the world, it is our great desire to continue to see a strong and influential America. It's presence is the anchor of stability of the region even though people might not realise it. This strength and security provided is like oxygen and you know it's important only when you lose it.

To counter the American decline, the immediate task is to place the U.S. economy on recovery and to return to the roots of its original success. This is certainly not achieved by become a socialist and a welfare state because that will encourage government dependency and create a negative spending spiral. America needs to reinvent the American Dream and push its people to the leading edge of innovation by bold reforms in education to allow meritocracy and equal opportunity and ensuring standards. Given people fish instead of teaching them how to fish would turn "New England" to the problems of England itself.

The industries of the U.S. should continue to push ahead with more R&D, abandon low productivity, low tech and failing assembly line industries that can be easily copied and done at even lower cost by China, Vietnam and other emerging economies. Funds used for protectionism should be diverted instead for focused job retraining and to move American people to the higher level jobs. Promote enterprise and create a vibrant and entrepreneurial business environment with lower taxes, aids to SMEs and funds for research. It must also address what is known as the reverse brain or "Flight Capital" as described by David Heenan.

In international affairs, it must co-opt China, Russia and India to share the weight of the world. It must heal the divide between the West and the Islamic World and continue to encourage them to embark on the march to modernity. In Iraq and in Afghanistan, it must understand the need for these countries to manage and learn, despite failures. It must then use strategic and limited successes as useful points of exits. It must however, not fail to demonstrate resolve in dealing with the inhumane acts of terrorism.

The list of task is not exhaustive and the enormity of the task is unmeasurable. This requires a Herculean effort of good governance beyond a mere popularity contest. The real test of the Presidency has just begun.

Wall Street Journal's Barrage against Barrack

Yesterday, I was pretty surprise to find so many editorials in the WSJ that were targeted at Senator (or can I claim President) Obama. One of the key reason is because of the assumption that he is going to win. Hence, it is time for him to move beyond politics and really start doing the right thing.

Here one on the meeting expectations of the crowd
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122533157015082889.html

This one projects hope that the dominance of democrats do not change the judiciary and that it is still center and not extreme left
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html

This one projecting the hope that this election will not turn America to become protectionist or isolationist.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122533132337982833.html

This one to urge that he would address the causes of problems and not mere positioning to mitigate effects.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122523804578478175.html

Last but not least, one which exhorts him and his party to start putting their foot down and not be so cryptic because this is where the rubber meets the road.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122523845602478211.html

So what should we make of all this? Some questions for thought

Firstly, what is the alternative? Does Senator McCain have his failing? Because he is losing the fight, we no longer hear his critics.

Secondly, can the people get what they expect and project on Senator Obama? Will the fears expressed above materialise? Will he be able to truly govern from the center and take the best ideas from both sides to move the country forward? Will he truly move above the politics?

I think the two segments of questions should be consider before exercising the sacred vote.

The Power of Media, Money, Movement...

I think I have mentioned that the U.S. Election on 4 Nov as being sealed. This continues to be the case. I think Senator Barack Obama has run a superb campaign and seriously, Senator John McCain is outclassed on all aspect. There was simply no way it could have worked out any other way.

Does issues matter? Hardly. Perception is everything.

So how does one create at that perception? Firstly, you need a excellent personality so that you can create a cult movement, with that you can then raise money and with money you can buy plenty of media. Of course, then we are thrown into a chicken an the egg problem. How do you create that cult movement in the first place? Well, you need media but media needs money.

The force multiplier here is therefore the Internet. It is the greatest leveller of playing field and it is also the greatest unbalancer of the level playing field. If you conduct an excellent internet PR campaign you can work wonders and this example should really go down into the history books for revolution of political activism.

I'm dismayed by the whole sound biting and piecemeal internet videos and TV media showcase because it really deflects any real thinking and considerations. It is also the known difference between 'cold' media like the television and 'hot' media like the papers. Yet if you succeed in using 'cold' media you can eventually dominate 'hot' media. It's extremely strategic and it is just like warfare.

Here is a nice video to break it down for you.
http://online.wsj.com/video/obama-money-blowout/EC57E98C-EC4F-469A-BAF5-D28DF72700EB.html

So what is it's implication for the country that I hail from? Plenty.

I like the fact that currently, there are some real caps on electoral media so that people are not detracted by soundbites and media onslaught but having an honest consideration on issues and candidate qualifications for office.

However, I think that the lack of coverage on the opposition by the local media outlets are just not leveling the playing field. We certainly need a stronger focus on issues and understanding of the hearts of the leaders that we are to elect.

Last but not least, I think the notion of mandatory voting is so vital. The ability of people to choose just opens people to a whole lot of cajoling and voter management.

Obama as Beacon on the Hill

May be some people in their preferrential reading has concluded by my previous post on the US Presidential Elections that I am a McCain supporter. I am not.

I think I would like to correct that view as I have earlier mentioned that I was bipartisan in this whole affair and simply looking at the facts of this election.

In fact, I like the majority of the world, have a vested interest to see Obama elected. Here is a good Op-Ed piece by Nicholas D. Kristof of the The NY Times. The specific article I am referring to is http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/opinion/23kristof.html?_r=1&ei=5070&emc=eta1&oref=slogin

In concurrence with a previous editorial written by Kishore Mahbubani, Obama is a picture of the future of the U.S. and the healing of the great divide between the East and the West and also Islam and the West. His presidency may well help the United States reverse course in its declining soft power. This is the representation of the sheer potential of change that he is able to bring and I certainly hope he will be able to do it.

I however stand by what I have said in my previous post. As the man who can possibly bridge the divide between the West and Rest and repair US tarnishing image, he cannot become an isolationist nor allow the US to become a paper tiger. The world will inevitably become a more unstable and dangerous place.

Of course my personal preference would be for China to take an increasingly large role in world leadership but that is a far away dream if I understand Chinese mentality and psyche well enough. Not only that, Chinese leadership has already expressed a clear doctrine to avoid being the leader but merely being the cheerleader or supporting cast. Hence, all our hopes are still pinned firmly on the United States of America.

The Presidential Race is Sealed... but there are some concerns..

This post is late and was meant to be out right after the final presidential debate. It was a gallant effort by Senator McCain to save his sinking presidential bid but unfortunately, he has been outplayed and conducted too many strategic errors.

The Obama campaign engine was too formidable to beat. It utilised a populist movement otherwise known as 'grassroot' action to catalyse the political momentum, plus it was an powerful electoral campaign funding generator. It commits people to acting on their choice in every conceivable means and it only makes them an even more staunch defender of their political choice.

The McCain campaign was flawed from the start, right from the point of selecting who he wants as a VP on his presidential ticket. Choosing to capitalise on the relating to regular people in hopes that regular people would like a regular VP was a bad choice. At the end of the day, as much as people want their leaders to be able to emphatise and relate to, they want their leaders to be capable and competent to lead. Colin Powell who has now endorsed Obama would have been a much better choice. Plus, he ignored the signs. The economy has been flagging all this while and it was inconceivable that he did not see it coming. Maybe it was a strategic decision to avoid such a difficult issue but like common saying goes, "You've got to face the music" eventually. Hence, the whole initiative was lost and the strategy of the campaign was just purely tactical discrediting of the opponent.

I'm not an American and I have no political affliation and hence I consider myself to be pretty bipartisan. It is therefore in my humble opinion that the race is sealed. We can be certain of a Obama victory.

My bigger question however is, "What's next?" From the onset, I have always believed that it was a choice between the lesser of two (evils). Both did not have a clear plan to save the declining economy.

I have however some deep reservations of Senator Obama for several reasons. Firstly, was his extremely misleading and protectionist showing. In the third debate, he gave an example of contrasting cars sales of U.S. cars in South Korea and Korean cars in the U.S. Because America was unable to sell more cars to South Korea as compared to the the sales in the other direction, he asserts that it was not 'fair' trade and wanted to fix that. Also, he reiterated the policies of punishing U.S. companies for 'shipping jobs overseas' and incentivise companies keeping jobs in America.

The problem of that argument is that it is flawed on several counts. The reason for the trade imbalance was not due to trade protectionism nor dumping by the Koreans. It's just simply because Hyundais are selling better than Fords (I own Ford stock by the way, sadly. But I believe in Mullaly), beating them in price, design, fuel consumption and just every other sales inducing metric. American cars are stuck being nowhere because they cannot compete on the lower end which is dominated by the Japanese and Koreans and yet they are outclassed on the high ends by the BMWs and Mercedes. The U.S. automobile industry therefore needs to pull up their socks and regain some innovative ability to sell cars and if not they will certainly face the reality of failure. Protectionism won't save it.

The same argument holds true when you create policy restrictions to prevent firms from finding the most cost effective means to conduct business. The real solution is really to bump up education and push for job retraining to shift your workforce to niche areas areas that developing nations are not able to compete and take your jobs. Over protection of trade unions are also extremely harmful for businesses and eventually hurt the unions themselves when companies shut down. I might be biased but I have seen how limiting these unions and being pro-business have benefited by country. Basically, protectionism destroys the spirit of enterprise.

The second problem I find is the liberal use of money. Sure, throwing money (especially obscene amounts) can often get the job done. Unfortunately, it is something that the U.S. government needs to conserve more of. The details of the U.S. Federal programmes really needs to be looked into so that they can get more bang for their buck. Cost cutting by centralising certain redundant functions across state departments, instituitionalising cost effectiveness programmes, etc. So sure, use a scapel and make the incisions but please bring the sucking tubes because this is a liposuction that we're doing here. I know I make it sound easy here but what I am proposing is not THE solution because there isn't such a thing as a pancea. All this means is simple to take a step in the right direction and to adopt an adaptive management of government programmes that would continually calibrate itself on KPIs that measure effectiveness.

Last but not least, taxes. I think redistribution of wealth always goes down well with the people and gets you elected, but I think at the end of the day, if you can lower taxes overall it will be even better. More importantly, you want to make sure that your taxes are favourable for businesses. They pull in FDIs, create jobs and of course their prosperity adds to the tax coffers. Taxes of course are important because they pay for your programmes so unless you apply point 2 above, you cannot work on this.

Interestingly, there is a trick or two which Obama can take from the McCain play book (pro-business ideas) and should remember that it's not big government but rather good governance that the U.S. needs.