Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Meet Fred Thompson
With so much repetitive 2008 campaign news, I was caught off-guard by a recent CNN poll placing Fred Thompson as the third most popular GOP potential, behind Giulliani and McCain, and ahead of Mit Romney. Who is this man, somewhat removed from modern-day pop politics?
Fred Thompson is a fixture of a time gone by. He served as co-chief counsel to the Senate Watergate Commission after serving as Assistant U.S. Attorney General. He took his political-legal prowess to the lobbying arena in the years to follow, representing NBC, General Electric and others. He's also a character actor. He's call upon "when Hollywood directors need someone who personifies governmental power," according to The New York Times. His highlight reels include the Hunt For Red October, and In The Line of Fire.
So what does this former senator from Tennessee have to offer the American people? What could his place be in '08?
There's a sprint of very recent answers: A. He's got nothing. "An April 3, 2007 Gallup Poll reveals "...that two-thirds of Americans say that nothing at all comes to mind when they think about 'Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson.'"
B. He's on the come-up. "A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll released Wednesday, April 11th, indicates Thompson, who has yet to announce his candidacy, has risen to #2, ahead of Arizona Senator John McCain. Among republicans polled, 29 percent prefer former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, 15 percent favor Thompson, while only 12 percent prefer McCain, who once led the pack."
C. Well he's not a Christian. Not quite sure how this alters his placement within a pack with Giulliani, McCain and Romney, but Dr. James Dobson had to comment: Dobson said in a phone call to Dan Gilgoff, senior editor at U.S. News & World Report. "[But] I don’t think he's a Christian. At least that’s my impression.”
D. Can someone say VP? This choice is my early prediction. USA Today (albeit not my favorite newspaper) mentioned him as a possibility as a VP in 2000, and I would venture to guess that his stock will rise as a veep possibility as the race wears on.
What Thompson will do with the rising buzz and poll numbers is his call. Will he heed the "Draft Thompson" call to arms? Or wait too long to commit and risk being taking seriously? Keep your eyes here as the season draws on.
Fred Thompson is a fixture of a time gone by. He served as co-chief counsel to the Senate Watergate Commission after serving as Assistant U.S. Attorney General. He took his political-legal prowess to the lobbying arena in the years to follow, representing NBC, General Electric and others. He's also a character actor. He's call upon "when Hollywood directors need someone who personifies governmental power," according to The New York Times. His highlight reels include the Hunt For Red October, and In The Line of Fire.
So what does this former senator from Tennessee have to offer the American people? What could his place be in '08?
There's a sprint of very recent answers: A. He's got nothing. "An April 3, 2007 Gallup Poll reveals "...that two-thirds of Americans say that nothing at all comes to mind when they think about 'Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson.'"
B. He's on the come-up. "A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll released Wednesday, April 11th, indicates Thompson, who has yet to announce his candidacy, has risen to #2, ahead of Arizona Senator John McCain. Among republicans polled, 29 percent prefer former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, 15 percent favor Thompson, while only 12 percent prefer McCain, who once led the pack."
C. Well he's not a Christian. Not quite sure how this alters his placement within a pack with Giulliani, McCain and Romney, but Dr. James Dobson had to comment: Dobson said in a phone call to Dan Gilgoff, senior editor at U.S. News & World Report. "[But] I don’t think he's a Christian. At least that’s my impression.”
D. Can someone say VP? This choice is my early prediction. USA Today (albeit not my favorite newspaper) mentioned him as a possibility as a VP in 2000, and I would venture to guess that his stock will rise as a veep possibility as the race wears on.
What Thompson will do with the rising buzz and poll numbers is his call. Will he heed the "Draft Thompson" call to arms? Or wait too long to commit and risk being taking seriously? Keep your eyes here as the season draws on.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Having a Bad Day? Charlie Rangel Isn't!
Along my walk to work, I couldn't ignore the large color banner at Georgetown' s Barnes and Noble, advertising a guest appearance by a well known New York figure, Congressman Charlie Rangel. The Harlem rep. is promoting his new book, "I Haven't Had a Bad Day Since," which explores his rise from a directionless youth on the streets of Harlem to the ranking Democrat on the House Way and Means Committee.
It got me thinking, boy a lot of politicians sure have books out. The first in my memory stretches to Rep. Peter King's political fiction pieces about terrorism, often linking Ireland's past to the post-9/11 world. Then came Hillary Clinton's "Living History," Bill Clinton's "My Life," and Barack Obama's "Dreams of My Father" and so on.
For a time I limited my perception of these politi-books as efforts by presidential hopefuls to gain alternative press and positive spin, but now it seems that second tier personalities like Charlie Rangel are taking a stab at it as well. Is it a sign of Rangel's hope to move up the ladder? I don't really believe so, it seems he's reached his political ceiling. I suppose time will tell. Thoughts?
It got me thinking, boy a lot of politicians sure have books out. The first in my memory stretches to Rep. Peter King's political fiction pieces about terrorism, often linking Ireland's past to the post-9/11 world. Then came Hillary Clinton's "Living History," Bill Clinton's "My Life," and Barack Obama's "Dreams of My Father" and so on.
For a time I limited my perception of these politi-books as efforts by presidential hopefuls to gain alternative press and positive spin, but now it seems that second tier personalities like Charlie Rangel are taking a stab at it as well. Is it a sign of Rangel's hope to move up the ladder? I don't really believe so, it seems he's reached his political ceiling. I suppose time will tell. Thoughts?
Monday, December 18, 2006
Preaching Green + Criminal Cows
While I know it’s fashionable these days to “think green”, to make our holidays about sustainable giving, to refrain from buying too many things, to live simply… I’ve got news for the organic crazed, anti-industry, save the planet, self-righteous environmentalists …. you’re going to have to add “kill all the cows” to your list of things to do in order to preserve our ailing planet.
A recent report from the United Nations has indicated that the growing herds of cattle are not only posing a threat to forests and wildlife, but can also be held accountable for acid rain, producing deserts, creating dead zones in the ocean, poisoning rivers, and destroying coral reefs. Most importantly, cows are responsible for 18% of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. 18% is more than the combined greenhouse gases of cars, planes, and all other forms of transportation combined- in other words, cow flatulence is killing the planet faster than all of the hummers, city buses, 747’s, and their like, combined.
While most of us are cognizant of the fact that the environment is in danger, it is important to continue to discover the real sources of pollution, harmful gases, and causes of accelerating environmental decline, rather than the alternative, which is to cult-ify a problem by denouncing industry and proclaiming a return to the simplicity of the "natural life", whatever that may be. We're here in the 21st century and industry is not going away.
While the world can't suddenly turn vegetarian as I suspect many of the environmental fanatics would like, new discoveries such as this one with the cows, can help to close in on the problem and develop a rational solution. Any finding such as this is more useful than all the green preaching there ever was.
A recent report from the United Nations has indicated that the growing herds of cattle are not only posing a threat to forests and wildlife, but can also be held accountable for acid rain, producing deserts, creating dead zones in the ocean, poisoning rivers, and destroying coral reefs. Most importantly, cows are responsible for 18% of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. 18% is more than the combined greenhouse gases of cars, planes, and all other forms of transportation combined- in other words, cow flatulence is killing the planet faster than all of the hummers, city buses, 747’s, and their like, combined.
While most of us are cognizant of the fact that the environment is in danger, it is important to continue to discover the real sources of pollution, harmful gases, and causes of accelerating environmental decline, rather than the alternative, which is to cult-ify a problem by denouncing industry and proclaiming a return to the simplicity of the "natural life", whatever that may be. We're here in the 21st century and industry is not going away.
While the world can't suddenly turn vegetarian as I suspect many of the environmental fanatics would like, new discoveries such as this one with the cows, can help to close in on the problem and develop a rational solution. Any finding such as this is more useful than all the green preaching there ever was.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
E-Campaigning in the Present Day
Right Click Strategies, Blue State Digital – emerging political consulting groups such as these, with a bend toward e-campaigning and web-based advocacy, are becoming more commonplace and more sought after. Like it or not, the Internet has become inextricably linked to campaign strategy in the modern day.
No longer can political candidates afford to spend millions in television advertisements alone and expect winning results. Evidence shows that more and more candidates are going digital. The new tactics of the trade are keeping blogs, interactive text messaging and targeted banner advertisements. In 2005, New York mayoral winner Michael Bloomberg offered voters a chance to “Text Mike” by simply following a link on AOL’s highly visited AIM Today site. Innovative tactics such as this are becoming typical.
Blogs are gaining widespread usage both at home and abroad. Australian Prime Minister John Howard has his own blog, as do George W. Bush, John Kerry and House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Text or ‘SMS’ messaging is being used creatively, like in Canada where cellular phone users are given a four-digit number by which they may contact their political party.
The digital shift in the political atmosphere has not gone unnoticed by spin-savvy consultants, who offer expert knowledge on strategy for the contemporary political candidate. For some, this shift marks the end of an era.
Joe Klein, in his new book “Politics Lost” writes that “Consultants have drained a good deal of the life from democracy… Specialists in caution, they fear anything they haven’t tested.” Klein continues by describing the change in “American public life… overwhelmed by marketing professionals, consultants and pollsters who, with the flaccid acquiescence of the politicians, have robbed public life of much of its romance and vigor.”
Klein’s point is well put and valid; the nuts and bolts of e-campaigning do stand in stark contrast to the personal flare and public presence that political figures can offer the electorate. Yet times are changing. Gone is the age of John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address, and that of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Fireside Chats.
The modern era offers a different medium than television and radio. To pine for the era before the internet would be to overlook the reality that the face of campaigning, and indeed communication generally, has permanently changed.
No longer can political candidates afford to spend millions in television advertisements alone and expect winning results. Evidence shows that more and more candidates are going digital. The new tactics of the trade are keeping blogs, interactive text messaging and targeted banner advertisements. In 2005, New York mayoral winner Michael Bloomberg offered voters a chance to “Text Mike” by simply following a link on AOL’s highly visited AIM Today site. Innovative tactics such as this are becoming typical.
Blogs are gaining widespread usage both at home and abroad. Australian Prime Minister John Howard has his own blog, as do George W. Bush, John Kerry and House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Text or ‘SMS’ messaging is being used creatively, like in Canada where cellular phone users are given a four-digit number by which they may contact their political party.
The digital shift in the political atmosphere has not gone unnoticed by spin-savvy consultants, who offer expert knowledge on strategy for the contemporary political candidate. For some, this shift marks the end of an era.
Joe Klein, in his new book “Politics Lost” writes that “Consultants have drained a good deal of the life from democracy… Specialists in caution, they fear anything they haven’t tested.” Klein continues by describing the change in “American public life… overwhelmed by marketing professionals, consultants and pollsters who, with the flaccid acquiescence of the politicians, have robbed public life of much of its romance and vigor.”
Klein’s point is well put and valid; the nuts and bolts of e-campaigning do stand in stark contrast to the personal flare and public presence that political figures can offer the electorate. Yet times are changing. Gone is the age of John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address, and that of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Fireside Chats.
The modern era offers a different medium than television and radio. To pine for the era before the internet would be to overlook the reality that the face of campaigning, and indeed communication generally, has permanently changed.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
A New Russia
It's Moscow or St. Petersburg. I don't think many people could name another city in Russia. And when I think of Russia, I think: Red Square, beautiful domed cathedrals, fortresses, and below zero temperatures.
It appears that since Putin can't transform his struggling country into a vibrant one, the artists and architects are going to try, and the international design competition for "Gazprom City" in St. Petersburg is soon to be decided.
Gazprom, Russia's state-controlled energy company, sponsored the project with the objective of stimulating economic growth and development in the city by bringing a new world-recognizable icon. There are currently six designs under consideration, all of which would tower over the current Petersburg skyline, and all of which would be a significant contrast to the before mentioned monuments.
The stunning designs come from the following international firms:
Switzerland: Herzog & de Meuron Architekten
A strand of DNA on the Neva River
NEW YORK: Studio Daniel Libeskind LLC
It has been called a "lady's shoe"
London: RMJM London Limited
They present a "gas-fueled flame"
France: Jean Nouvel
A Futuristic Fantasy Castle
Rome: Fuksas Associati S.R.L
Up in spirals
Denmark: Office For Metropolitan Architecture
Ice Blocks
FOR PICTURES CLICK ON: MORE PICTURES in the caption. The New York Times.
Although I'm not certain that an innovative set of buildings that will comprise a state-owned "city of the future" is going to stimulate the economy, much less provide the infrastructure that Russia needs to succeed in the 21st century, it is certainly an interesting "ploy" to bring attention to a city that is most remembered for its now impotent nuclear power.
For me, Russia has enough intrique as it now exists, and I think a little more democracy and a lot less state control would seriously lighten things up ... but let them try some art in the sky, and give a new face to the ancien régime.
STUDIO DANIEL LIBESKIN LLC
Gazprom, Russia's state-controlled energy company, sponsored the project with the objective of stimulating economic growth and development in the city by bringing a new world-recognizable icon. There are currently six designs under consideration, all of which would tower over the current Petersburg skyline, and all of which would be a significant contrast to the before mentioned monuments.
The stunning designs come from the following international firms:
Switzerland: Herzog & de Meuron Architekten
A strand of DNA on the Neva River
NEW YORK: Studio Daniel Libeskind LLC
It has been called a "lady's shoe"
London: RMJM London Limited
They present a "gas-fueled flame"
France: Jean Nouvel
A Futuristic Fantasy Castle
Rome: Fuksas Associati S.R.L
Up in spirals
Denmark: Office For Metropolitan Architecture
Ice Blocks
FOR PICTURES CLICK ON: MORE PICTURES in the caption. The New York Times.
Although I'm not certain that an innovative set of buildings that will comprise a state-owned "city of the future" is going to stimulate the economy, much less provide the infrastructure that Russia needs to succeed in the 21st century, it is certainly an interesting "ploy" to bring attention to a city that is most remembered for its now impotent nuclear power.
For me, Russia has enough intrique as it now exists, and I think a little more democracy and a lot less state control would seriously lighten things up ... but let them try some art in the sky, and give a new face to the ancien régime.
STUDIO DANIEL LIBESKIN LLC
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Million Dollar Icon
I've been waiting for the November issue of Harper's Bazaar for about two months now, and it is finally here. On the cover: Natalie Portman as Audrey Hepburn's Holly Golightly in the infamous little black dress by Givenchy. I was originally just interested in seeing the photo recollection of one of the most well-known style symbols modeled by one of my favorite actresses, but as I read the accompanying article I was even more impressed with the reason for the photo shoot and Natalie Portman's own social-political endeavors.The dress will be auctioned at Christie's in South Kensington London on December fifth, and all proceeds will be donated to City of Joy Aid that benefits underprivileged children in India. Natalie's own charitable cause is one that interests me since it seems to be an intelligent and lasting solution to helping impoverished people.
The Foundation for International Community Assistance (FINCA) is a nonprofit agency that helps to provide what is called "village banking" to certain struggling persons, families, and businesses in poor areas. According to their website, "FINCA's mission is to provide financial services to the world's lowest-income entrepreneurs so they can create jobs, build assets and improve their standard of living" (www.villagebanking.org). While many assistance programs are focused on providing substantive food, clothing, and shelter to the poor, FINCA uses a different approach, one that focuses instead on the ability of people to alter their own situation if given the chance. Instead of giving handouts, FINCA provides beginning capital to those without the ability to get it in another way, and thus puts into motion a system that mimicks a working market. In this way, FINCA and its proponents foster a system grounded in the self-directed action of individual persons who will have to produce to succeed with the small loans they are given.
In an historic meeting early in her career, Natalie, the prominent Israeli-American actress met with Queen Rania of Jordan, arguably the most prominent Palestinian woman, to discuss "the hope gap", or the gap between the 1/3 of "haves" in the world and the 2/3rds of "have-nots". Since then Natalie has worked with FINCA in several countries to propel the lowest classes upward by their own volition, with the aid of startup capital.
While the program sounds (and may be) entirely workable and successful, microfinance or microcredit has been the target of much criticism from the right and left, mostly because of its appearance as the perfect combination of "socialist ideals with free market means" (mises.org). Many experts view it as a ineffective attempt to compromise between the two ideologies. Since I'm not an economist myself, and an answer to whether microfinance does or does not work requires some economic analysis, I will provide the links to both FINCA's mission and the main objection and criticism of the program, please comment:
FINCA International
MISES objection to MicroFinance
As for me, I like the overlap between fashion, nostalgia, fame, and social political concerns. I like that it draws entirely new groups of people into thinking about what needs to be done and what can be done. I'm not suggesting that every Hollywood actor or actress needs a cause, but simply that if a million dollar icon can bring intelligent ideas to the table and to the minds of disparate peoples, a little more has been achieved.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
An Inconvenient Response
Bureaucrash scores major points when pointing at the size of Al Gore's Carbon Footprint - which is rather huge for a guy preaching to me about saving the environment... I'll just stick to the subway Al.
BTW a thought just came to my mind. Considering the technological advances of our age, if Al Gore REALLY wanted to save the environment, why didn't he just teleconference his message? I hear teleconferencing doesn't use up oil...
Monday, November 20, 2006
Branding the Herds
The following charts from the New York Times are a good representation of the major blocs within both of our two parties, Democrat and Republican.
Republican Chart
Democrat Chart
The predominant sub-group in the Republican party is formed by the anti-Washington (aka anti-big government) and tax-cutting membership with the traditional values group coming in at a close second. Not surprisingly, the biggest groups under the Democratic umbrella are the social justice advocates and the coalition of blue collar workers. It's interesting to note of late that even though partisan lines have often been drawn around the foreign policy decisions of the Bush administration, it is not primarily foreign policy issues that matter to party orientation in the long run.
America still remains divided into two predominant parties based on the enduring questions : "just" distribution of wealth and property a la John Rawls, the Lockean doctrine of private property in person and things, a general distrust of big government no doubt translated across the sea from the revolutionaries against the King, and the great values divide that seems to have begun with the Puritan communities of the thirteen colonies in contrast to the rather "godless" language of the Constitution.
Are parties necessary to American democracy? That is a question I am not equipped to answer, but I leave you with an excerpt from a statesman who seems to have figured it out:
"I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."
-Thomas Jefferson
Letter to Francis Hopkinson
March 13, 1789
Republican Chart
Democrat Chart
The predominant sub-group in the Republican party is formed by the anti-Washington (aka anti-big government) and tax-cutting membership with the traditional values group coming in at a close second. Not surprisingly, the biggest groups under the Democratic umbrella are the social justice advocates and the coalition of blue collar workers. It's interesting to note of late that even though partisan lines have often been drawn around the foreign policy decisions of the Bush administration, it is not primarily foreign policy issues that matter to party orientation in the long run.
America still remains divided into two predominant parties based on the enduring questions : "just" distribution of wealth and property a la John Rawls, the Lockean doctrine of private property in person and things, a general distrust of big government no doubt translated across the sea from the revolutionaries against the King, and the great values divide that seems to have begun with the Puritan communities of the thirteen colonies in contrast to the rather "godless" language of the Constitution.
Are parties necessary to American democracy? That is a question I am not equipped to answer, but I leave you with an excerpt from a statesman who seems to have figured it out:
"I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."
-Thomas Jefferson
Letter to Francis Hopkinson
March 13, 1789
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Congressmen Charles Rangel Justifies The Draft
If this becomes the consensus of the Democratic Party, they're in for a painful two years: Congressman Charles Rangel, himself a war veteran, actually proposed to reinstate the draft today (his second time in so many years). His logic: having conscription in place deters the President and Pentagon from going to war without very good reasons. I have a problem with this logic, and I especially have a problem with Congressman Rangel suggesting that everyone who turns 18 should have to enlist in the military for two years so to serve "this great republic". There is no greater infringement on our natural liberty than compulsory military duty, despite conscription becoming the norm in many western liberal states - if Israel jumps off the freedom bridge, why should we?I can understand where Congressman Rangel derives his logic: During the Vietnam War there were massive protests because the people felt the war was unjust and they should not be forced to fight in a war they don't believe in. These protests caused headaches for the hawks at the time, and ultimately forced the president to pull out troops and concede the war to the Communists. Congressman Rangel believes that such discontent would place a check on our government, but I disagree with this logic.
Today, although most everyone admits that the Iraq War is a failure and should never have happened to begin with, we are still going to fight in Iraq. It is generally believed that pulling out the troops would be "disastrous", but on the same token we can no longer attain a military victory (these thoughts were also articulated by Henry Kissinger today). If this is the case and we do in fact have to commit troops to Iraq for the long-term, isn't the threat of a draft very real, especially if conflicts escalate in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other unstable regions (like North Korea)? Would this really deter any administration? Furthermore, if the people were duped into going to war, as is the case with the WMD's, why would the government admit failure? To this day the Gulf of Tonkin incident - the purported cause of the Vietnam War - has yet to be admitted as being a cover-up by our government. So why would honesty suddenly become the best policy? I would argue that, in event of a draft, the government would never admit such failure as was conceded by President Bush when the WMD's never materialized. I also believe that the draft would actually encourage the Pentagon in their evaluation of potential war. Conscription gives the military a larger pool of soldiers to tap from and inflates troop numbers to such a degree that, in the event of war, it would give enough confidence to the Pentagon to project military victory. Instead of having only 300,000 troops, they would have millions of troops and even more potential soldiers with the power of the draft. With those numbers coupled with advanced weaponry and training techniques, fanatical Generals and government hawks would scream, "Hell, bring them F&%ker's on!!!" This is not my idea of deterrence. Besides, do you really want to grant the government such a vast power as conscription? So far we have had the comfort of having one of the most stable constitutions in history. But during times of desperation the government can turn on us, as is the case with every government; we are not an exception to the threat of tyranny...Party politics only runs so deep, and if there were a draft and hundreds of soldiers were dying everyday there would be nothing to save elected officials. Sure they want to retain their political offices, but once the wheels of war are turning there is no stopping the commitment. Overall, Americans are a passionate people and we would go to war if we think our security is at stake (think of the timber rattlesnake), so a draft is never going to stop us or the government, although some of us would like to believe so; in short, let us fight for our liberty before the likes of Congress decides to take it away. Dum Spiro, Spero.
