Rauschenberg RIP

Robert Rauschenberg died this week. I don't pretend to know much about the man, but as a devoted post modernist, someone who loves life's complexities, who finds great joy in their expression, his work was certainly a pleasure for me to experience. Things come at you from all directions in the modern world. It can be hard to make sense of it all, to find a coherent picture, an image that rationally and completely captures the sense of what you are feeling. I think Rauschenberg's work speaks to that sense of disorientation, that sense of seeing things in an incomplete, jagged, fractured and broken state, but still beautiful, full of meaning, color, with many layers, some left undiscoverd, some hidden from view by the swirling sea of images floating in the air around us. We no longer live in small towns surrounded by people we have known our entire lives. Modern existence is full of the unfamiliar and the unexplained. Rauschenberg captured that, and is immortal hereafter.

Hillary's Baseless Basis for a Campaign

Two arguments by the Clinton Campaign really bother me.

1) The argument that the delegates they won in Michigan and Florida should count. This argument is absurd for so many reasons. First of all, the Clinton campaign had agreed before the contests were held that Michigan and Florida's delegates would not count, and said so publicly. We have never allowed ex post facto laws in this country, and the same principle applying there applies here. It is unfair, as most anyone could tell you, to change the rules of the game when you're in the middle of playing. Second of all, Obama 's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, so presumably he would get no delegates as a result, and he never got to campaign in Florida. As one has seen in Texas and Ohio, when he gets a chance to campaign he always cuts way into her lead.

2) The argument that it's somehow significant that Hillary has "won all the big states." This argument really only applies if she wins Texas and Ohio, so let's assume she does. Who cares? What possible significance is there in winning the "big states?" America has 50 states last time I checked, and voters in everyone of them. Why do the voters in the "big states" count for more? It's an absurd argument with absolutely no merit and I don't think anyone is really buying it. I guess it just bothers me that significant numbers of Americans support a candidate willing to stoop to this insane level of distortion. These arguments are the proverbial thread holding her campaign together. For all her polish and policy acumen, she stands on the brink of defeat. The absurdity of these arguments attests to her precarious predicament.

Man and his Environment

This article from the Jakarta Post illustrates the challenges that exist for getting environmental reforms passed, but also the potential to change course if the public can be activated.

Every country on the planet is facing environmental challenges at present. Human beings have always attempted to change their environment(s). We want things to work our way. If water runs in the wrong direction we divert it, if mountains are too tall we shorten them, if there's oil in the ground we dig it out. When Nietzsche said that "God is dead, and we have killed him" he could have been speaking not just about the metaphysical deity but also the understanding of god as existing within the essential processes of nature. The basic gods of Greek mythology were earth, air, fire, and water. By the 19th Century the Germans and the rest of the developed world had mastered these elemental forces. They had indoor plumbing and water towers, massive furnaces for making steel and indoor gas heating to keep old man winter at bay, hot air balloons and steam powered ships, and lastly massive civil engineering projects and railroads that vastly altered peoples essential understandings of time and space. In short, the gods of old were dead because man had mastered their powers.

Or so he thought. In the 21st Century humanity is gradually arriving at the understanding that controlling nature is impossible. We cannot make the earth do our bidding without suffering serious consequences as a result. We will have to learn to live in harmony with the earth in order to survive on this planet. Like Faust we do not understand the power before us when we conspire with the devil. Man can never know, see, or understand all. Our talents are vast, but we are not gods. Our future is not self-determined no matter how much we might wish otherwise.

Climate Change

This bears reading. Thomas Homer-Dixon is one of the best voices on the issue of climate change. He is not a scientist, but a political scientist. He understands the ramifications of what climate scientists are saying is happening to our planet as a result of our own mismanagement of mother earth, and he's trying to develop ways to avert the impending crisis of global climate change through policy changes. We have according to him 30 years in which to curb our greenhouse gas emissions or otherwise face catastrophe of the biblical kind. A number of presidential candidates have signaled that they will put policies in place to do this, but the public needs to become more aware of the dangers posed by our continued reliance on fossil fuels for energy production in order to get the kind of immediate changes we really need.

*Update* This report on NPR gives some local perspective on what climate change means for ordinary people. It's on potato farmers in Peru and how climate change is affecting how they practice their profession. Interestingly, Homer-Dixon predicts that the agriculture will be the first area affected significantly be climate change. This anecdote would seem to confirm that prediction.

Obama on Education. God this guy is good.

He just says all the right things, and says them in such an inspiring way. His capacity to lead this country is truly something to behold. Once in a generation type person.

Change v. More of the Same

America is looking for change right now, that's clear when one looks at almost any poll on any issue. As Obama v. McCain seems to be the most likely choice for the general election, it is interesting to ponder this issue of change because while Obama has marketed himself as the change candidate, McCain would seem to lay claim, at least in part, to that same title. McCain has always been a maverick. In 2000 he ran a very anti-establishment campaign based in large part on his bona fides as a straightalker, someone willing to say what made the most sense for the country and not just the most political sense for his party.

But ever since that campaign McCain has hewed more to the traditional line of the Republican party. After initially voting against the Bush tax cuts, he's now for them. After initially denouncing Jerry Falwell and his screed spewing brethren of the religious right, McCain visited Falwell's university to give a high profile speech showing his support for religious conservatives. McCain has been siding more and more with President Bush these days, most prominently on the "Surge" strategy in Iraq. Democrats have already said that they will brand the McCain presidency as essentially a continuation of the Bush years. If this mantel sticks it will be nearly impossible for McCain to win because whatever reservations the public has about Obama's experience Americans seem in this election to be far more worried about the essential question of what the next president will bring them: change, or more of the same?

The majority of American's want at least the beginnings of a withdrawal from Iraq, they want universal healthcare, they want education reform, they want to keep social security as is. On everyone of these issues McCain is in the minority. The American public certainly acknowledges his experience and expertise, but this is a democracy and the people want their government to serve their interests. He can run all the red phone ads he wants, he can trumpet on the highest heights his exemplary record of service to his country, but if he can't promise the American people anything new he won't stand a chance in the fall.

George W. Bush is certainly one of the least popular president's in American history. Nixon didn't even incite this level of personal animus. The hatred that democratic true-believers hold toward their 43rd president will be turned into a massive outpouring of support for Obama in the fall. They have to have this election. The 50 million dollars that Obama raised in February will look like chump-change by November. McCain meanwhile had his best fund-raising month ever and he only netted 12 million. What does this all mean? It means the democrats have the momentum, the passion and the excitement all on their side. When the public wants change can McCain really expect them to turn to the seventy year old who promises little in the way of new ideas? McCain is essentially running the we live in a dangerous world campaign, vote for the experienced old soldier to lead you through it.

But as the calender has turned to 2008 Americans have turned their gaze ever inward to the problems at home. They are weary of the War in Iraq and are facing what could be the beginnings of a stagflationary recession. 47 million Americans are without health insurance, 1 in 100 American adults is now in prison, the environment is in an increasingly perilous state, and this country continues to fall behind the rest of the world in terms of education and infrastructure, suggesting rough days ahead.

This would not be the first time that Ameica has looked to its young leaders in a time of crisis. Jefferson was 33 when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Martin Luther King, Jr. was only in his 30s during the Civil Rights Movement, and Lincoln was only in his 40s when he worked to heal a nation torn apart by war. Obama would be 47 when he assumed office.

It's not just about change. I believe that Obama is a man of incredible talent. His life experiences have lent him a depth of understanding of both national and international issues that I view as potentially invaluable in helping him to repair the damage done by the present president. This is however a country of, by and for the people, and what they want generally goes. They want change in 2008. It's going to be hard for McCain to fight that.

Racism Test

The Debate Wrapup

This was Hillary Clinton's opportunity to open this debate back up again, and I don't think she got much out of it. This was at best a push for her, though I thought her line at the end of the debate was very good where she said that no matter what she and Obama would be fine, they had great families who support them, but that she hoped that she could say the same for the American people going forward.

Commander in Chief Questions

Obama just hit Clinton with the Iraq judgment argument, his strongest possible line of attack against her. He was right on the question of whether or not we should go into Iraq, and she was not, and there were profound consequences that resulted from that.

John King let her off the hook by getting her to respond to his question on whether or not the surge is working. The democrats will be fine on this issue v. McCain. Americans want their troops to come home, and the Iraq issue is now a political issue that only Iraqis can solve. Obama is making the case that he will be stronger against McCain because he was right on the Iraq issue from the beginning, and then launched into a rather wide-ranging attack on McCain that went all the way from the War to the economy.

The Plagirism Issue

Obama just got the question on the Deval Patrick plagirism, and he's hit back well. He's dismissed the whole issue as the absurd two day story that it is (How can he plagiarize from his national co-chair who suggested he use the line).

Clinton is actually pursuing the plagirism issue.

It looks like they are going to get into this. Wow! The crowd actually booed for a second. Does Hillary really think this is the winning attack line? Plagiarism?

Now she's hitting him on Health Care. Then tension is palpable. She really won't let this me against the world theme go.

Obama's speaking now, and you can tell that he's not really excited about getting into a fight with her. He doesn't like that kind of politics. Is this a weakness that McCain, the warrior, can exploit?

He's making the argument now, correctly I think, that Hillary went about getting universal health care the wrong way back when she was first lady. He can keep hurting her on this point because even a number of democrats have made this argument about her. She thinks that she knows more than everyone else, and can't understand how not involving other important political operators in the process of deciding on universal health care will poison them against her.

Now she won't let the Health Care thing go. Their differences on this will not be enough to get her votes. She looks pushy.

More on the Debate

So far the debate's been pretty civil. Hillary has shown no hints of going negative, and Obama certainly hasn't egged her on. She must then be resigned to winning on her own merits, and not by dragging Obama down. I think if she continues with this civil approach she will lose, but I think it is the right approach. She can't win in November by dividing the party

John King basically just begged Hillary to attack Obama. She's refusing to take the bait. Ooohh, wait a minute, she just brought up the Obama surrogate flub from Hard Ball. Obama's now listing his career accomplishments to establish his bona fides. He's now defining their differences on how they think change will come about. He seems a little perturbed by her attacks, and is hitting back in his rather elegant, careful manner that tries to stand above the fray but is underlined with passion, and commitment.

The Dems Debate in Texas

The Texas debate is just starting. Obama is beginning the debate by talking about the War in Iraq and the struggling economy. He's tying his remarks to people he's met on the trail in Texas and Ohio who have been negatively impacted by the War and the housing crisis.

Oooohh, good argument by Obama. He just said that America is not lacking in good ideas, but the problem is that Washington is "where good ideas go to die." What needs to change, he argues is the tenor, the tone, and the structure that Washington operates under that money and special interests pervade. This is an attractive idea to many Americans who see politics as highly corrupt, and because he and Clinton are so similar in terms of their policy proposals, it is a good way to set himself apart as Clinton has clearly stated that she will take money from special interests and lobbyists.

The McCain New York Times Story

Regarding the New York Times Story, "For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk" I think that Jack Shafer's article at Slate.com hits the nail on the head:

Where there's smoke, there's sometimes fire. That the imperfect Times article doesn't expose a raging blaze isn't sufficient cause for condemning it. The evidence the paper provides more than adequately establishes that McCain remains a better preacher about ethics, standards, appearances, and special interest conflicts than he is a practitioner, something voters should consider before punching the ballot for him.

The McCain story, for all its caveats and innuendo is actually an important story for it reminds us of the corrupting power of money in politics. No one, not even the heroic John McCain, is immune from the corrupting influences of money and power.

Talking Points Memo has a story arguing that Vicki Iseman, the lobbyist the Times cites as being at best a little too friendly with McCain, received little in terms of substantive policy favorable to her clients from her close relationship with the Senator. As the article points out, McCain's advocacy on the part of Iseman's clients was in line with his overarching views in favor of greater deregulation for the telecom industry. "The question naturally arises whether anything is remarkable about this "champion of deregulation" responding to the desires of telecoms and media companies. Was it special attention or typical indulgence?"

But that's just the issue. One almost never finds an instance of out and out bribery in politics anymore. The kind of influence peddling that goes on on Capitol Hill is far more subtle, but no less significant from a public interest standpoint. Here is one of the more important anecdotes form the Times story: "In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain’s staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision."

His advocacy on her client's behalf may very well have fit within his own policy preferences, but one has to ask whether he would have drafted such a letter without her prodding. Furthermore, the contents of that letter were shaped by her input as she admits sending "information for drafting a letter" to McCain's office. This doesn't seem that insidious, after all, it's just a letter to the FCC. But it does show hipocrisy on McCain's part. He's supposedly spent the past 10 years fighting against this very kind of influence peddling. Perhaps all those campaign donations don't mean a thing, perhaps all that time spent talking with lobbyists has no effect, but if all that is true then why do these lobbyists do it? Why would they waste their time? Why would companies and other special interests waste their money? Why if it has no effect does it keep on happening?

It is in fact absurd to think that lobbying has no effect, though I don't think Hillary Clinton was fooling herself when she said to a room full of bloggers that lobbyists don't influence her. Contributions don't buy votes, or laws, or anything as clear cut as that. What they do buy is access, and access means an opportunity to shape laws and policies however slightly. Did lobbyists help to sink Hillary's healthcare plan? Absolutely. Such influence is not absolute, nor is it often effective. What it is is constant, pervasive, and directly against the central premises on which our Constitution rests, namely that no interest should have favor over any other. Interest is made to combat interest within such a structure as Publius argues in the Federalist papers. If those interests do not fight on a fair playing field, then one interest will surely win to the detriment of the larger national interest. This is surely what happened when McCain helped Charles Keating to secure deregulation for his Savings and Loan. When that Savings and Loan collapsed due to Keating's overly risky investments that would never have been allowed under the prior regulations, thousands of people lost their savings, and the economy as a whole took a major hit. The question the Times article raises is will McCain let that happen again. He has clearly shown that as with Keating, he is still susceptible to those same old temptations that Publius warned us about from the first.

The Meaning of Change

A lot of people have noted that Obama's definition of change is left undefined in his speeches, and have legitimately argued that this points to a "lack of substance" on his part. But such an argument misses the point of what change means for Obama, and for America more generally. Opinion polls have already made it quite clear that Americans are looking for a change. Bush's approval numbers are locked in the cellar, the Iraq War remains extremely unpopular, the economy is faltering inspiring widespread concern; to sum it all up, Americans generally feel that their country is on the wrong track. A majority want universal health care, a majority want education reform, a majority want to gain energy independence and stop global warming. The list could go on and on as the desire for change is abundantly clear, and on everyone of the issues just mentioned, Obama has come up with a proscription for alleviating it (you can go here to find out more).

But when Obama talks about change he does not want to stress his policies so much as the understanding that change will come not from above, i.e. from him or from Washington, but from below, from the movement bubbling up underneath him. He is merely trying to focus American's desire for change by connecting it with his candidacy, and reminding American's that they need not be despondent any longer. They can have hope for the future, hope that the change they desire, the change they need will come. It will come not from the politicians in Washington, or from Obama himself, it will come from themselves. Americans are the change America seeks. Seek and ye shall find. In other words, in wanting change Americans have the power to change, they need only look to themselves to find the change they seek. The people have already spoken on the issue of change, it is Washington that has yet to register that fact.

A Few More Thoughts on Obama

I'm listening to Obama's speech from Houston Texas right now, and he really sounds like he thinks he's the nominee. He's brought up immigration to try and draw a distinction with Republicans. He's also talking about veterans, maybe trying to preempt McCain, and about serving as Commander in Chief. He's using his judgment argument on Iraq, saying that he has the best judgment of any potential commander in chief because he was against the war from the beginning. He's also playing up the anti-Washington bias, which as a Senator works well for him because he has spent comparatively little time there, especially when you're talking about McCain. All of those arguments are general election type arguments.

Also, with regard to the commander in chief stuff, this exit poll number from Wisconsin really caught my attention. Obama beat Clinton 56% to 41% on who will "Improve relations with the rest of the world." I don't know that anyone necessarily votes on this, but I think it's a big part of his appeal. He's seen as someone capable of connecting with people who disagree with him, of repairing frayed relations. It's probably why he also beat Clinton 63% to 35% on who is "Most likely to Unite the Country."

One last mention about numbers, Obama beat Clinton 63% to 37% on who is "Most likely to win in November." That's huge. If he continues to be viewed at the "most electable" candidate, then no matter the delegate margin, if he's in the lead the super delegates will vote for him.

Oh one last thing. My favorite thing about Obama is that he campaigns with an uplifting vision of the future. He leads not through fear, but through visions of promise and opportunity. It's easy to get people to be afraid, it's a lot harder to convince that they need not be afraid, that there is a better future out there that stands within their grasp. Obama is one of those rare individuals whose words act not as cover and stuffing, but actually serve a purpose. He inspires with his words, moves people not simply to listen but to think.

The Clinton campaign has made the argument that talk is cheap throughout this campaign, but especially of late. But this argument ignores the unassailable point that words in and of themselves are actions, and can often have significant and lasting impacts.

Human societies are held together through words, or through communication more generally. It's why freedom of speech is such an important and basic right. By talking about hope, and change and opportunity Obama is fundamentally altering the basic public discourse in America. He is preparing the way for an administration that first and foremost will look to reestablish that pervading sense of optimism that has long made America great. As Obama often does in his speeches about hope, he references various points during American history when the hope of ordinary Americans helped inspire great change in our land: the hope of slaves singing freedom songs, of settlers setting out for the West, etc. He is calling on American's to hope again, and implicitly to change again. He is uniting past and present, uniting the whole country with a metaphor anyone can understand and relate to. This kind of talk may not put food on anyone's table, but as Obama said neither did NAFTA. Voters don't relate to policies as much as they do people, and Obama's rhetoric allows people to believe in themselves and their country again. Voters want leaders, and in my book the best kind of leader is one who points the way toward a better future, and then takes us there. Think Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, King and Kennedy. Obama has the talent and the vision to join them. I hope he can.

Obama Wins Wisconsin!

Ok, now it actually is over. CNN is calling Wisconsin for Obama. This isn't a surprise, all the polls had him ahead going in, but given the exit poll numbers, and the fact that Hillary actually put up a fight there, this is significant. It is further evidence that her attacks on him aren't working, and that he can siphon off her voters, but she can't get to his.

Hillary is playing defense now. I don't see how she can turn the momentum to her side. This makes 9 wins in a row for Obama, with number 10 likely to follow tonight in Hawaii.

She is facing the longest two weeks of her life. Can she hold onto her leads in Ohio and Texas for two weeks with Obama having won 10 races in a row, placing him firmly in the front-runner position?

Voters like to vote for winners; it's why nomination battles so often turn into routs once someone is clearly ahead. No one has managed to pull into the lead in this race yet, but Obama now stands on the brink of breaking through. It will be interesting to see how the media covers the race in these next couple of weeks, but you can be sure that Texas and Ohio are going to get plenty of attention. A Clinton loss in either, and this race is effectively over. Will the voters in those states respond to the Obamentum? Ohioans especially have been loath to trust Obama as capable of delivering the kind of change they need. Ohio has the nation's second highest unemployment rate, and leads the nation in foreclosures. The steady hand of Clinton has been seen by many Ohioans as the best bet to help guide them through these troubled times. But Obama's wins may signal to them that he is more electable. And with two weeks left to campaign, more exposure for Obama may convince Ohioans that he is more capable than they initially thought.

Whatever the case may be, these are dark days for Hillary. We will certainly find out what she is made of in the next two weeks because I can imagine no more trying circumstances for the once presumptive nominee to face.

Exit Polls Look Bad for Hillary

Hillary can't win the nomination with numbers like these. Wisconsin is a state that she should be able to win, but Obama is just the better candidate. He beats her 2 to 1 with men, and basically ties her (51% to 48%) among women. She needs to be getting a lot more of the female vote if she is going to get back in this race. CNN hasn't called Wisconsin yet, and perhaps these exit poll numbers are off a bit, but what has seemed clear in the last couple of weeks is that Obama has been able to make in roads into Hillary's base while maintaining and even strengthening support within his own. That's a pretty clear recipe for winning the nomination if that trend continues.

Every candidate needs a base of support, a coalition in order to win. What has been so amazing about this race so far is that Obama and Clinton's constituencies are of approximately equal size. Obama has African Americans, upper middle class whites, and men. Hillary has Hispanics, working class whites, and women. But if he's splitting women with her, it's over Johnny.

Ron Burgundy Hilarious!

Obama's Challenge in Ohio and Pennsylvania

America's greatest economic challenge for the foreseeable future will be to give American workers their first raise in real wages in four decades. Wages have been stagnant because middle class industrial jobs are gone and they're never coming back. We have to find a way to get people into careers that have the potential for wage growth. That generally means jobs that require a lot of education and training. This problem is what is preventing Obama from moving ahead in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Those are two states that have been really hard hit, and hard hit for a long time (since at least the end of the 60s) by the collapse of American industry.

Because people in those states have found themselves in such dire straits for so long, they are loath to accept Obama's message of hope and optimism. They need practical solutions because they often face truly dire circumstances. In order to break through, Obama has to be able to convince them that he can deliver and deliver big. It's not merely a matter of talking in greater detail, Obama has to show that he's tough, that he knows how to fight back, that he cares, that he's trustworthy, that he has the energy, the passion, the wherewithal to get people what they need.

He is not merely fighting against cynicism, he is fighting a generation's worth of broken dreams and unmet promises. The working people of Ohio and Pennsylvania were once the epitome of the American dream. Their middle class aspirations were fulfilled by plentiful factory jobs that promised the same ticket to middle class welfare to their children and their children's children. But that social compact was broken in the 1970s by a host of different forces that quickly shipped millions of jobs overseas, and put all blue collar jobs in jeopardy. Pretty soon GM, Ford, Chrysler, et al won't employ any blue collar workers in America. But people have been slow to awaken to this reality. The blue collar jobs are gone, but the workers remain. They have the work-ethic, but not the training or the skills necessary to compete in today's economy. America has to forge a new compact with its workers, or risk losing its middle class entirely. Obama has to find a way to reach this rightly disaffected group because he is the candidate best positioned to get them what they need, programs that will provide them with the skills necessary to compete.

Obama inspiring response to 'Just Words' Clinton critique

Obama is the Best Candidate, and Here's Why

I think so often in life one desires to only show up when it is convenient or easy to do so. But maturity and character demand that we play when the situation does not favor us, that we play when we are not at our best, that we play when it is inconvenient, when it is tough, when we are challenged and put upon. I believe that the best measure of any person is how they perform when they are at their worst, not when they are at their best for it is in these moments of difficulty, in these moments of trial and tribulation that one's truest colors shine through.

If life were full of easy choices would it even be worth living? The hard choices matter most because they are what ultimately come to define our lives. The road less traveled stands as such a powerful metaphor in Frost's famous poem because it makes all the difference to travel where others have yet to tread. It is hard to diverge from the easy path well trod by others who passed before. We know not what the future holds, and it is therefore far easier to follow the paths set before us by those who passed before. But if history teaches us anything it is that the wisdom of the past is not dispositive as regards the the direction of the future.

We are set forth in our journey through life with plenty of guidance from the past about what the future will hold. The past certainly repeats itself. But the future looks beyond the past into yet unimagined territory, and speaks with little certainty about it. We, all of us, must understand that new pathways into the future must be opened up if we are to move beyond our present station. That is why in examining our leaders in this primary season voters must not ask simply where have we come from, but where do we want to go, and how are we going to get there?

I would argue that Barack Obama has shown the greatest capacity of any of the candidates on these two critical aspects of leadership to both point the country in the right direction, and to lead it in that right direction. On the most critical question this country has faced since Vietnam, Obama is the only candidate who showed the strength and the prescience to vehemently denounce the War in Iraq from the very beginning. Obama knew that the War in Iraq was "dumb", that it had the potential to splinter Iraq into warring factions, that it would likely cost the United States greatly in terms of lives lost, debts incurred, and reputation tarnished, and lastly that it was unlikely to advance America's strategic interests much if at all, and could very well harm America's strategic position in the long run.

On every one of these points he has been proved right. But that's still the past, what about the future? Here again I think Obama proves his metal by emphasizing the need to move beyond the divisive politics that have permeated Washington over the past 20 years. It's fine to have disagreements when the stakes are low, but America clearly stands now at a crossroads, and the stakes have never been higher. China and India are ascendant, American industry is faltering, the Middle East is looking increasingly unsettled, the baby boomers are set to retire, globalization is continuing unabated meaning that competition for just about everything is increasing exponentially. America may as yet remain a "super power", but that sure means a lot less than it did 10 years ago. It is clear that we can no longer impose our will on the world, in fact the world seems increasingly able to dictate terms to us.

These enormous challenges necessitate bipartisan cooperation. America doesn't just need a few solutions to these challenges, it needs thousands. We cannot continue to be tied up in knots over every issue that comes our way. That is why Obama is the candidate of the moment because he is able to broker compromise, to work both sides of the aisle to come up with solutions to the myriad challenges we will face going forward. He is a man built for a complex, difficult, international, divisive world because that is the environment he grew up in. At the Harvard law review he was the only person that everyone could agree on as the choice for editor because everyone knew he would listen to them and give them a fair shake. In troubled times, and these are certainly troubled times, unity counts for everything.

There is a right path, it is a difficult one, one that requires hard choices by Democrats and Republicans alike, but it will ultimately lead to a better future for us all and that is the path of bipartisan cooperation. Barack Obama is the only candidate with the capacity to lead us on that path to the future America deserves, a future in which America will still find itself an important leader in a world of increasing complexity, competition and promise.

The Ultimate Team

If I could pick any basketball players from their prime to play on one 12 man team here's who I would choose:

The Starting 5

Point Guard: Ervin Magic Johnson. Best point guard who ever played, period. Also, incredibly versatile. Can play center if you need to win a championship.

Shooting Guard: From North Carolina, number 23 Michael Jordan. I don't know that a lot has to be said about this choice. Cleveland's still suffering from the shot on Eloh, and Karl Malone is still wondering where that ball, and his dreams of winning a championship, went.

Small Forward: Larry Bird. Others may have been better, but no one competed harder. He always got the most out of himself and his teammates. If you ever need a miracle steal, or a shot to win a game, this is your man.

Power Forward: Bill "The Champion" Russell. He won everything there is to win, and did so with grace, class, and an unbreakable will to win. Any team would be lucky to have had him. Boston certainly was, he helped them win 11 titles.

Center: Wilt "the Stilt" Chamberlain. Perhaps the greatest talent to ever play the game. If he had Russel's toughness he would have been unstoppable. But even so he was one of the best ever. His versatility is never given enough credit; he was one of the greatest passing big men to ever play the game.

The Bench

"The Big O" Oscar Robertson. The guy averaged a triple double for a season.! Are you kidding me!

"The Iceman" George Gervin. The nickname says it all, George Gervin was as silky smooth cool as they come. Certainly one of the best shooters the game has ever seen.

Dominique Wilkins. You want your face dunked on? No. Well then get out of Dominique's way!

Sir Charles Barkley. The round mound of rebound was as ferocious as they come. You'd have to be to try and rebound against guys half a foot taller than yourself.

Shaq "Daddy" O'neal, a.k.a. the Big Aristotle, the Big Maravich, the Big Everything generally. When the big man's got it going on, there are few, if any, who can stop him. One of the top two or three best post players of all time.

Dennis Rodman. Great energy guy if he's engaged, and when he's playing with the best he always is. You need guys like Rodman to come off the bench for you and help change the energy and tempo of the game with their full-throttle play. He was a key player on 5 championship teams, was a lock down defender and superb rebounder. There's only one ball, so any successful team needs guys who get other players the ball, and no one was better at chasing down the ball than Rodman.

Bernard King. One of the best scorers ever. Any good team needs guys who can come of the bench and provide instant offense, and King could certainly do that. He could put up 50 on you in a heart beat.

(Those who also received considderation: Pistol Pete Maravich - you gotta love the floppy hair, the slick moves, the passes that came from nowhere. Wes Unseld - You wanna get a fast break started? Just start running down the court, Wes'll get you the ball. Earl "the Pearl" Monroe - Black Jesus floated through the air like Christ walking on water. Isiah Thomas - Horrible coach, but this little man could play. Hakeem "Dream Shake" Olajuwon - Did so many little things well for a big man, and few have ever been as graceful. Just as Shaq had the power, Olajuwon had the finesse. He faked countless victims right out of their shoes. Lastly, Dwayne Wade - I love his game. He's always attacking, attacking, attacking.)

Why I'm for Obama

This video by Lawrence Lessig more or less sums up my views on why Obama is the best candidate for president. Issues are not the issue. In a job of this importance we need a person of character, a person of integrity, a person who can lead us to a better future, who inspires and represents the best in us. That person is Barack Obama.

Weird Hand Ahhhhh!

What College Taught Me, and Why Impracticality Can Sometiems Be Practical

I majored in history in college, and I can't tell you how many times people asked me if I planned on teaching history after I got my degree. To them it seemed like a perfectly logical question, because if I didn't plan on becoming a history teacher why would I be studying it at all? Wasn't it a waste of time to study a subject with no certain career path after graduation. But I was miffed the first time I heard it. I had never thought about what I would do with my degree. I had chosen to study history because it interested me, not because of any practical applications it presented.

I think many adults, and their children as a result, have a rather narrow view of what a college education means for one's career. Parents generally want their children to do well, it's hardwired into their DNA. But often the good intentions of parents, and the narrow-mindedness of adults more generally, have placed practical considerations about job prospects and salary potential above what college is really supposed to be about, finding out what you want to do with the rest of your life, or at least deciding where you want the rest of your life to start. The fact is, no career path is certain. People of my generation are unlikely to end their career where they started it.

Furthermore, every job requires some on the job training, and most of the jobs college graduates aspire to require extensive on the job training. That means that no matter what you learned in college, you're going to have to keep on learning once you get a job. So ultimately, college should prepare its students to become life-long learners, to be good at learning, to know how to think creatively, to know what questions to ask, to write well, to reason and argue well, in short, college should teach students how to learn and apply what they learn to a wide range of problems because that is exactly what they are going to be doing in the workforce.

Majors are essentially irrelevant. The jobs that most college students want require either further graduate study or advanced on the job training. Either way, what counts is adaptability, creativity, problem-solving ability and smarts, which are all traits that can be honed as effectively in the Art History Department as in the Business School.

Frankly, I got tired of being asked whether I would teach history when I was done with college. There is plenty of time to be practical in this life. College is four years where one is free to fully indulge in self-exploration , to examine the limits of the self, the possibilities for the future, and joy of being young. The fact is, the only way to do well in college and in life is to work at something you're interested in and care about. If you want to be an engineer then be an engineer, but don't do it because your parents want you to, or because it pays well. Everything pays well if you're good enough at it and you work hard enough at it and you get a little lucky. I hear those starting salary figures for what engineering majors make coming out of college and it makes me want to tear my hair out. Who cares what you make when you start out? It's what you make when you finish that counts!

As I mentioned before, the reason I majored in history is that history interests me. I can think of no other discipline that quite so comprehensively covers that maddeningly complex and fascinating creature, man. But as an added benefit I graduated college with no predetermined direction. I was free to pursue any avenue of employment that suited me, armed only with the skills I had sharpened through a four-year exploration of the liberal arts. What would all of that ivory tower wisdom mean to me? Everything. College opens your eyes to the wider world, allowing you to find your place within it. At its best college teaches you to question everything, to argue more persuasively, to think differently, to think more creatively, to write better, to read better, to love learning. I can think of no more practical skills than these. They're worth more than a thousand accounting classes, and they're what parents should care about because they are the ticket to a bright and prosperous future.