Taboo Plaza

Senator Barack Obama is living a dream. 

The first black man to be President of the United States of America.

That's a beautiful dream, but it's not enough. 

The first black man to be President of the United States of America winning an election in America because he's the most qualified candidate.

That's a little better.

The first black man to be President of the United States of America winning an election as the most qualified candidate because he's grounded in the people.

I like the sound of that but let's do a little bit better.

The first black President of the U.S.A. wins an election as the most qualified candidate grounded in the American people and peace ensues in the country following the election with noone in office getting shot.

We haven't proved that to be possible in this country yet! 

There's still uncertainty surrounding that mystery. 

Fifty years ago that old lady could've just told it like she felt.  The word she's searching for is 'nigger' but that word gets no play from whites today.

Arab was the best she could come up with for lack of the word nigger and that's a good sign.  John McCain handled himself well in this forum.  This is the John McCain that I might've considered voting for, but now it's too late.  John McCain looks dead inside, but he had a moment to shine.

When Barack Obama wins the election, would it be appropriate for him to shed a tear?  Should he wait until the end of his first term?  The first black President to survive a full term in office. 

It's cynical I know, but we've never been here before. 

This is a beautiful time to live in America.

This guy has his priorities in order, so far.  I hope he follows through when in office.  The same should be said of anyone running for president. 

Barack Obama is the best man in the presidential race this cycle.

7 Deadly Sins

This could fall under Greed, Sloth, Pride or Envy- I suppose- and this is a statement about America.  However, this is not a statement in the way that I hate America or anything like that, because nothing is further from the truth. 

I love this country and the potential inside. 

This is a statement about existence on the ground in America today.

I have to attribute this entry to Rachel Maddow on MSNBC and the New York Times.  June 5th, 2008 two men separately decided to climb the New York Times building in New York City.  One man climbed the building to promote awareness of global warming.  His name is Alain Robert.  Mr. Robert has done these types of climbs before publicly and he's white.

Renaldo Clarke, a climber of unknown skill, climbed the same building as Alain in order to promote awareness of malaria.  Clarke is a black man.  Both Alain Robert and Renaldo Clarke were arrested for climbing the New York Times building without permission. 

At two separate grand jury trials, two separate conclusions were drawn.  The jurors ruled the black man guilty of reckless endangerment. A separate jury exonerated the white man and issued a disorderly conduct citation.

Pride can sometimes get in the way of best self-interest.
Envy can blind new possibilities in thinking and living.
Desire may overcome common sense.

Slow-to-change is the essence of conservative theory!

Current Affairs

Fundamental problems exist when the government can buy billions of dollars worth of private bank shares and noone says much beyond a week of hand wringing.  However, when a potential leader talks about helping middle class America, "Socialism" is cried from the rafters.



"Political economy begins with the fact of private property; it does not explain it.  It conceives the material process of private property, as this occurs in reality, in general and abstract formulas which then serve it as laws.  It does not comprehend these laws; that is, it does not show how they arise out of the nature of private property.  Political economy provides no explanation of the basis of the distinction of labor from capital, of capital from land.  When, for example, the relation of wages to profits is defined, this is explained in terms of the interests of capitalists; in other words, what should be explained in terms of external conditions.  Political economy tells us nothing about the extent to which these external and apparently accidental conditions are simply the expression of a necessary development.  We have seen how exchange itself seems an accidental fact.  The only moving forces which political economy recognizes are avarice and the war between the avaricious, competition."            -Karl Marx (p 78-79)




Apparently life in Iraq isn't as keen as John McCain might have you believe.  On his website McCain says, "Thanks to the success of the surge, Iraq's political order is evolving in positive and hopeful ways."  Iraqi refugees in Syria might disagree.  The Iraq embassey in Syria is offering free trips back to Iraq.  They're offering returning Iraqi's eighteen hundred dollars, a free ride, a home and $120 per family a month if they go back.  Two days into the Syrian campaign no Iraqi takers were found.  The line running out the door isn't Iraqi's waiting to return home.

Our Nation's Dumber...Thanks for Participating!

During crisis, veneers peel back- if only temporarily- from the glossy sheen of our average everyday goings-on.  The brave are only courageous in the face of conflict and that is the moment they have to prove it. 

America's banking system has a wake up call before it.  Recently, the World Economic Forum released a survey they compiled concerning the stability of banks in different countries.  The World Economic Forum stack ranked countries from most stable to least stable.  The United States ranked 44th most stable on their list.  Canada received the number one spot followed by Sweden, Luxembourg, Australia and Denmark.  Other countries that have a more stable banking system than the United States include: Namibia, Barbados, South Africa and Chile.

From the standpoint of financial systems, the United States of America is not number one and if we intend to move this country forward here's an issue needing address.  In the World Economic Forums' report, one of the top four of fifteen "most problematic factors for doing business" in the USA is an "inadequately educated workforce."

The other top three factors were: tax rates, tax regulations and inefficient government bureaucracy.  Canada shares the same top three problematic factors for doing business as the U.S.; however, their number four factor is "access to financing" rather than the poorly educated workforce.  A single-minded focus on lowering tax rates and cutting the size of government apparently isn't the most important part of the U.S. equation no matter how much attention those topics receive. 

The World Economic Forums' survey gathered responses from business-world executives.  In the top three factors, business leaders said Canada only did worse than the United States with regard to tax rate.  There was a tie on tax regulation and Canada apparently did worse than the U.S. with regard to inefficient government bureaucracy.

The times are changing folks and there's no use getting excited.  It's time to figure out the problem and work around the obstacle.  Richard Heinberg states at least part of the problem nicely when he says,

"Perhaps economic growth could still be maintained by smoke and mirrors—in either a good or a bad way. All that would be necessary is a little fiddling with the definition of “growth.” Just look at how the US government has altered its way of defining “inflation” over the years by largely excluding energy and food prices: if the old rules were still in place, the country would be seeing double-digit inflation. The same has happened with “unemployment.” Why not “growth”?

On the other hand, growth really should be redefined. Many organizations have been pressuring governments and official agencies to measure growth not with GDP, but with a mixture of indicators related to public health, education, environmental integrity, and so on (the Genuine Progress Indicator is one suggested alternative scheme). If world governments decided to redefine growth this way, and then actually funded improvements in public services, perhaps growth could indeed continue."

How do you keep growing?  What in this world gives you the idea that anything will keep growing forever?  Nothing in our frame of reality has any hope of growing forever.  We've yet to build a perpetual motion machine and the Sun will eventually burn out.

Our ideas are only good enough for the moment, but that doesn't mean we don't have good ideas on which to base our future.  We build on what works.  If we do our job well we make the future better than the past, because we're paying attention and we're learning.

It's going to get ugly folks.  You might have to change your lifestyle.  That means everybody.  Economic systems are alive because of women and men.  Men and women are fallible.  Men and women share a probability for err as a defining quality of their character. 

All good things come to an end, but that should not leave us without hope.  The only time there is no hope is when you don't see something positive on your horizon. 

It is your horizon, own it.

Democratic Infliction

In March 2003, the United States of America invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq under the leadership of President George W. Bush.  Initially, President Bush offered security concerns as the primary reason for invasion.  As early as February 26th, 2003, he also offered the argument of spreading democracy into Iraq as validation for the invasion of a sovereign nation.  March 21st, one day after the U.S. invasion began, President Bush linked U.S. objectives in Iraq to “support[ing] a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338.)”

November 2003, the Washington Post reported President Bush portraying the invasion of Iraq “as the latest front in the ‘global democratic revolution’ led by the United States.”  The nature of democracy, as a government of the people, seems antithetical to attempts by foreign nations to impose democracy; however, precedence has now been set.  In my research, and analysis, I will attempt to illustrate that President Bush’s ‘spreading democracy’ communication campaign proved ineffective as a justification for future military invasions as well as ineffective as a model for spreading democracy by invasion into foreign nations.

To study the communicative function of this problem, I’ve selected news releases on the official White House website  from February 2003 to December 2003 and chosen those articles which reference Iraq and/or democracy.  Although a few articles may have been missed in my initial search, 171 sources are available which meet the aforementioned requirements.  To make the project more manageable, especially in this the early phase of my research, I’ve randomly sampled 20 articles from the 171 sources utilizing a random number generator.  Initially, I’ve organized the sampled articles by three general categories: medium, audience and content. 

The medium of communication tells us whether President Bush allowed deliberation on the issue between him, the media and the public.  The news release mediums are: speeches delivered with no record of deliberation; speaking events with a recorded question and answer session and, finally, written reports.  Speeches and written reports, in this context, function as unidirectional communication events.  In these mediums, President Bush delivers information without an opportunity for dissent or discussion from the public.  Speaking events with a question and answer session, on the other hand, allow for dissent and deliberation; however, it must be noted that meta-discourse during these engagements indicate the audience was expected to ask only one question per person with no opportunity for follow up.  Categorized by communication medium, my initial sample breaks down as: ten speeches, six written reports and four speaking events with a question and answer session.  The abilities to deliberate and voice dissent are key characteristics of a democratic society.  Therefore, the primary mediums I’ve sampled tend to indicate an undemocratic nature when President Bush spoke in 2003 about spreading democracy in Iraq because there is little evidence of public deliberation on the issue.

The second general category for these articles involves the nature of the audience to which President Bush was communicating.  Multiple nuances can be uncovered by looking at the audiences; but, there is a definite sense of which articles were intended primarily for an American domestic audience and those articles directed toward an international audience.  My sample includes four speeches delivered to a foreign audience and sixteen articles, comprising written text and speeches, delivered to a domestic audience.  Of the four articles directed toward a foreign audience, in only one of those articles does President Bush mention Iraq becoming democratic and that was during a toast given to the Queen of England.  The other three foreign audiences were speaking events with Iraqi women leaders, Iraqi interim ministers of state and a South African broadcast.

The final general category of these addresses involve the content of what was discussed, specifically focused on the relationship between democracy and Iraq.  Sampled articles suggest five distinct relationships.  First, Iraq and democracy were directly related, characterized by statements such as “Iraq will be democratic.”  The second relationship between democracy and Iraq suggest direct links but prove broader in focus by referring to democracy in the Middle East rather than democracy specifically related to Iraq.  Third, President Bush mentioned Iraq and democracy in some articles but made no direct connection between the two entities.  Fourth, Iraq is talked about with no mention of democracy and fifth, Iraq is talked about in relation to vague notions that are like democracy but the word democracy is never used.

These final statements may prove to be most problematic and interesting for future study.  ‘Democracy-like’ relations to Iraq present the problem of relying on democratic connotations without speaking to democracy’s potential for breaking up elite power structures through the creation of inclusive political systems.  In October 2003 President Bush stated, “[W]e will help [Iraqis] assume more of their defense and move as rapidly as possible toward self-government.”  These words were delivered in a speech to an American audience.  Democracy in Iraq had been dropped from the speech entirely, but it seems that “self-government” might be meant to imply something like democracy.  October 2003 also seems to possibly mark a point at which President Bush significantly decreased mentioning democracy specifically as a primary agenda item for the invasion of Iraq and instead substituted words such as “free,” “prosperous,” “secure” and “self-governing” in place of the word democracy.  From the articles I’ve sampled, it is difficult to ascertain exactly why President Bush left the democracy argument behind; however, by looking at the complexity of democratic society in the words of President Bush and scholars the reason may be revealed.

In the book Political Communication and Deliberation John Gastil rightly states, “Anyone can call his or her country a democracy.”  Just saying the word democracy, however, does not mean environments in the world reveal democratic practices taking place.  John Gastil classifies these aspects of democratic society as: inclusion, participation opportunities and enlightened understanding. 

President Bush’s early articles seem to suggest he looked at spreading democracy in Iraq with at least some of these concepts of democracy in mind.  April 28, 2003 President Bush gave a speech in Dearborn, MI in which he outlined many logistical facets of the problem of spreading democracy in Iraq. lists private autonomy of citizens, democratic citizenship and independent public spheres as three key components in the institutional design of modern democracies.  Among the practical measures he outlined, President Bush said America would help Iraq with: overcrowded and rundown schools; recruiting and training Iraqi school teachers; providing equipment and supplies; supplying reliable electrical power; establishing clean drinking water; and improving health care.  The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 called for assisting Iraqis in the establishment of independent radio and television stations.  These areas of focus indicate that in order to move the Iraqi people toward democracy it would first be necessary to ensure that Iraqi people could focus on issues outside the immediate removal of their head of state and the wide spread violence reported in the region following the U.S. Invasion. 

The task of spreading democracy in Iraq, as set out by President Bush, was inevitably a generational task of citizen education as well as institutional design.  May 9, 2003, President Bush told a South Carolina audience, “We’ll provide resources for the translation of early reading books into Arabic and donate those books to primary schools in the region.”Setting aside the question of the possibility of inflicting democracy upon another, legally securing citizen rights and venues for expression might prove the easiest obstacles to overcome in establishing a new democracy.  The more difficult challenge seems to be ensuring a populace is prepared for their responsibilities within a democratic state.  Although President Bush did discuss these latter challenges early in his campaign to spread democracy in Iraq, it does not appear to be a topic he discussed in much detail after the summer of 2003.  Of the 20 sampled articles I’ve researched, I did not find logistical comments by President Bush concerning how democracy might be achieved in Iraq after May 2003. 

Eight of the twenty articles directly link Iraq with democracy.  However, from September through December, only four of fifteen articles reflect President Bush communicating a direct relationship between Iraq and democracy.  We might conclude Iraqi deliberation closed off the argument for their democracy; or, the time needed to invest for such a democratic project might have exceeded the American public’s will to be in Iraq for generations.  In the early stages of my research, it is difficult to say which of those two conclusions is most compelling.  However, I have seemingly uncovered a pattern of President Bush’s argument for spreading democracy in Iraq waning in frequency as the year 2003 drew to an end.  The problem with President Bush’s argument is not that it was discussed in 2003 and then demonstrated to be inadequate.  The talk track appears to have been relatively dropped in October or November 2003; but, President Bush, and others, continued to selectively utilize spreading democracy in Iraq as an objective of the United States of America in 2003 and beyond. 

In July 2003, Thomas Friedman wrote in the New York Times, “…it is a disturbing thought that the Bush team could get itself so tied up defending its phony reasons for going to war…that it could get distracted from fulfilling the real and valid reason for the war: to install a decent, tolerant, pluralistic, multi-religious government in Iraq.”  In September 2008, when addressing the United Nations, President Bush said, “We should stand united in helping Iraq’s democracy succeed.”  So, rather than discrediting the notion of spreading democracy because the argument wasn’t able to be sustained, President Bush is continuing to establish precedent upon a failed proposition.  These actions are dangerous for the concept of democracy in general as well as for the future of democracy in the United States.  By discussing the creation of democratic society with a flattened vision of democracy, we risk current and future generations being left not understanding democracy’s potential for inclusion of all citizens in political deliberation.  I hope to demonstrate in my research that President Bush’s communication campaign for spreading democracy in Iraq failed because of logistical complexity and a lack of democratic support in the United States.  I also hope to illustrate how this communication campaign reflects negatively on democratic principles under the administration of our 43rd President. 

Belly Laugh

When I lived in San Francisco I had the great pleasure to attend a John Leguizamo one man show.  I can't really call it comedy, because he's deep and emotional.  Don't get me wrong though. 

John Leguizamo is funny.

He seems to tackle the most intimate challenges he's had in his life onstage for everyone to see.  He's got a knack for bringing everyone in on it and making it funny for most anyone.

Ultimately, the reason why I would recommend anyone seeing his show (if you get the opportunity) is that he has a serious message.  He doesn't put out one liners with no thought or feeling behind them simply for a laugh.  He seems to lay his life out there in a way most people aren't capable.