Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones, But Words Will Kill Us All

After reading an op-ed piece by Henry Giroux, I'm reminded that I live in a very segmented part of the U.S. While this can tout it's egalitarian and holier-than-thou lines, when it comes down to it, it's just as racist as the rest of America. A great example is the fear that pervades the minds of those that refuse to set foot in the poorest central part of the city, which has a vibrant minority community and some of the best ethnic food in the city. To a different degree, parts of the culturally Hispanic area are similar. It's easy to say that these parts of the city are avoided due to crime, but the crimes that take place are those against property, not random individuals.

In a larger application to all U.S. citizens, Giroux's calls for a stand against the growing separation. He goes back to his language about the invisible people who are disposable. They are exploited and trampled by larger social, political, or economic structures. As Americans search for an answer to the problems they see or are deceived into thinking exist, the framework for their answer results in the disposal of these people.

There are people mobilizing ignorant, and/or stupid, citizens into thinking their problems can be solved by a return to "American" values. It sounds patriotic until you realize American is built upon immigrants. It sounds independent and fiscally responsible until you realize that your tax cut comes at the cost of the suffering and death of the poor. It sounds secure until you realize that your neighbors are afraid to pray in public in a country that was founded upon religious freedom. These words are simply a vehicle for hatred fueled by hatred simple xenophobia. When the issues are analyzed discretely, that hatred is legitimized.

That's a good look at the problem, but what do we do about it? Do we sit contently, reading or writing about the subject in a closed forum, waiting for the problem to solve itself?

We have a responsibility to do something about the problems we see - locally, nationally, and internationally. Apathy is not acceptable.

Time Isn't On Our Side

It's been a long time since I posted something on here. I attribute this to discovering twitter, and posting quite frequently to my public and personal accounts. While the depth of material is in no way comparable, there is something to be said about actually having someone read what I post/write.

I really do miss the chance to write paragraphs, flushing out concepts and tossing links around like a literate lunatic. Today, the insanity returns.

In the last year, I've found myself arguing more and more for an adherence to idealism. Idealism to me isn't an end, but a means. It operates as the struggle that provides an intermediate solution that includes some idealism rather than excluding all of it. While most of my colleagues disagree with this view and espouse a purely economic or pragmatic solution, I think that problems should be addressed with at least a semblance of ethics and morals.

Because of this view, I've found myself with a smaller group of friends and a more defined view of the options that lay ahead of me professionally and socially. Here, we have a wonderful segue into relationships. You can't escape time.

The key question is whether a person should pursue idealism to the fullest of their abilities. This means placing the ideals that a person holds higher than anything. It's the force that drives so many young people in our society - that uncompromising nature that fails to yield to the advice of so-called experience that age brings.

However, as we get older, we change as individuals. No longer are we looking out for our own interests, but we start to incorporate the values of caring for others on a more personal level. I'm not talking about sending gifts to people on their birthday or making sure that the Christmas shopping is done on time. I'm talking about establishing common relationship roles, such as husband, father, or boyfriend. Since I'm male, I view it from a certain perspective, so using a gender neutral list would lend the interpretation of this writing a false property.

Relationships change our priorities - hopefully. The successful relationships I've seen have caused a shift from focus on the self to focus on the other person(s). Soon, the primary goal is no longer to solve literacy worldwide or to solve world hunger. Such goals become secondary.

When viewed from this perspective, age doesn't change our view of the world. Instead, we choose to change our perception as we build intimate relationships. Aging simply occurs simultaneously. This is a slow compromise of those ideals, because supporting those directly around you supplants the loft goals of single youth.

Following this logic, it simply means that as we learn more about life, the way we approach life changes. I don't think there is a judgment call on the shifting the priority of our individual goals. Yet, I do find that it highlights the dangers of an idealistic path.

The idealistic path can be a barren one, with joys few and far between. It's not for everyone, and some find parallel paths that contribute effectively rather than wholly. Garrison Keillor recently wrote an op-ed piece for the International Herald Tribune, addressing this very issue. When it comes down to it, many people take the path of "cheese" because idealism can be quickly forced out when competing with family and comfort.

To end this ill-timed post, I'll say that I find more people these days looking to not take a serious approach to life. I'm not sure if this means that my generation desires to skip the idealism of youth or if it is simply abandoning reality completely. Time will reveal the follies of our choices.

The Cost of Morality

It never ceases to amaze me that supposedly mature individuals of substantial accomplishment and mental ability act like morons, casting aside logic in favor of tactics arising from schoolyard interactions.

In recent situations, I feel that I have been forced to make a decision that compromises my loyalties to individuals and my self-integrity, whether it be a calm approach to life or treating others with respect. For the first time, I have started to understand the cost of loyalty to friends.

I remember getting into an argument over Bill Richardson's support of Obama. Richardson had previously been a member of the Clinton administration, which appointed him to several positions and boosted his political career, eventually resulting in his winning the gubernatorial race for New Mexico. After coming out in support of Obama, many individuals criticized Richardson as a traitor for not supporting Hillary Clinton.

I never understood this. Why should an individual be castigated for doing what is right? Loyalty does not transcend doing the right thing, may it be political or moral. The "betrayal" of a friend should not be considered a sin that outweighs integrity. To accept loyalty as the winner, we justify the oft heard defense of those committing the worst crimes known to humanity: "I was just following orders."

This post was started several weeks ago, and I am only completing it now because I didn't feel as if I was viewing the situation subjectively. Since then, I have lost what I thought I would lose, gaining nothing from my actions. All I can see is that I have maintained the morals I have defined.

One side of me wishes that I hadn't acted. I would have lost nothing but a sliver of my beliefs. However, that small cut would be something with which I would have to live. If I could bear losing that sliver, maybe I could give a bit more.

Walking any path in life starts with the smallest of steps, the tiniest of choices. The person I could become would be the person I am. The person I am would not see a need to go back, or if he did, might not be able to go back.

I do not like the consequences of what I did. I am not happy with what I did. I most likely cannot obtain what I lost.

Now, I understand the issue of loyalty and doing what I feel to be right. I have to live with my choice. That, I can and will do.

The Answer is Blowin' in the Wind

The world is connected in convoluted and insightful ways. The individual filaments that comprise its whole are woven together in an indescribable pattern. To appreciate it, you must see enough to simply understand that it exists.

The beauty captured in the stitch is elusive, requiring a constant and active search. For the past several months, I don't think I have been trying to look for it. I was silent because I couldn't ask the right questions that the world could answer.

I've started to understand why Mary Schmich stated in her column (transformed by Baz Luhrmann into song form) "Advice, like youth, probably just wasted on the young", that you can live somewhere, but "leave before it makes you soft." I think I need to pay attention in some form or another to those words.

This city is wonderful city. It has music, a politically active community, and a combination of many different cultures. These things don't stifle the search for a pattern, but a preoccupation with them does. Aldous Huxley explained the situation well in Brave New World, where Helmholtz Watson expresses the need to go somewhere similar to the Falkland Islands so that his creative side had a chance to unfurl against the stresses of nature.

Sometimes, if you are lucky, creative nature comes to you. The past several months have brought viewings of The Wrestler, Redbelt; readings and re-rereadings of Watchmen and Peresopolis; and an attendance to the inauguration of the 44th President of the United States (I did go to the freezing nature in this case, but the tickets came to me).

I feel urged to look through the lens of a post-September 11 world. Since the crashes, there has been an obsession with heroes. First, it was firefighters and the police. Then, it was the victims of domestic terrorism. But as we moved further away from being victimized individually and our government took over the responsibility of defending our society, I think we as individuals never recovered. Instead of relaxing under the protective umbrella of government, people huddled in fear of a drop of what seemed like terrorism, foreign extremism, international anti-American sentiment, and now economic failure.

The Dark Knight, Watchmen, the Spider-Man series, Hancock (check out the numbers on that one...), the Matrix sequels - all of these films focus on individuals not empowering themselves. Rather, select individuals take on a role to save the weak masses. They become people operating outside of the law, doing that which needs to be done without the restraints of a mundane daily life.

I believe film reflects society. There are smart people in Hollywood, and they know how to play to the crowd's wants and needs. But even if you don't buy the film argument, look at the resurgence of superhero comics. Comic Con has been swarmed the last few years, with people no longer able to buy tickets on-site. Television is going the same way, with shows that start with regular people that are given powers to deal with their lives. Even the many crime shows play on this theme, featuring police that aren't afraid to bend the law to their needs.

The scary part is where this translates over into the political world. Obama seems to be idealized as the savior of American society, the super-man of government. Washington, D.C. was filled with mindless drones at the inauguration, putting all of their hope and energy into our new President. But recent trends, such as the relabeling of detainees and the support of the state secrets argument, beg the now age-old question - who watches the watchmen?

We have the players, we have the problems, but where are the solutions? I think Obama tried to hint at one in his inaugural speech based on responsibility. We must hold ourselves accountable. But Obama himself is far from the words of President Harry S. Truman: "The buck stops here."

I think that the idealism of responsibility can be dangerous. Where do we draw the line as to for what we are responsible? Do we hold it to ourselves solely and completely, singing Sweet Child O' Mine to the end? Do we hold ourselves accountable for all of society in a utilitarian philosophy, telling future generations to "Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair"? Where is the middle ground, and is that ground acceptable?

I think Marjane Satrapi's Peresopolis starts to approach an answer. Our ideals, of responsibility or otherwise, will collide with the world. There is a great cost to maintaining ourselves in the ensuing struggle. Some things can can anchor us pragmatically, like family or friends, providing a framework to balance who we need to be with for what we need to be responsible.

Should the price paid hold us back? I don't think the cost of holding ourselves responsible is ever too high. That shifts the burden to the mythical hero and leads to a mentality of helplessness. We are accountable to ourselves for ourselves. Beyond that, for what are we responsible? To limit responsibility to one's self allows for subjectivism to destroy all benefits of being responsible in a world with other people. Holding to our own path in life shows an integrity to something, but nothing more.

Compromise. It always comes down to that - balancing the ends and the means or choosing one over the other. To each their own? All I know is that I'm finally able to ask the questions again.

Who Are You? What Have You Sacrificed?

Obama won. Why did it feel so anti-climactic?

As I simultaneously watched a station with a clear liberal bias and another with a clear conservative bias, screens came up stating Obama won the requisite number of electoral votes immediately at 8 PM PST. My glance at the screen in the midst of a discussion caused me to state evenly, "Hey, look. He won."

With that calm fact, every history book was outdated and needed a completely new section on the progression of racial issues. It hasn't hit me, and I don't think it will. For many of my generation, the racial issue doesn't matter. The fact that the country elected an intelligent idealist far outweighs the color of his skin.

The gloss of the victory wears off quickly. With the promises and goals he has stated, Obama's work has just begun. Implementation, the real challenge, looms overhead. Even with a Democratic majority, there will be intense battles. The Democratic party does not have a history of unity and teamwork.

The expectation of Democratic control to allow a drastic shift in American policy is unrealistic. The leadership shifted, and that might cause a fundamental change in operation. But, most of the same legislators that voted for attacking Saddam, the Patriot Act, FISA still hold their seats. Many of the members of Congress that appointed Roberts and Alito are still present.

To lay the responsibility of the government's actions over the past several years at the feet of an individual, an administration, or a party is ignorant. Legislation was passed and judges were confirmed, counting more than just Republicans among their numbers. Blaming Bush is a folly, one that ignores the individual responsibilities of all those involved from top to bottom in the democratic process. Our country does not operate only by simple majority, but by a simple majority with the complicity of a sizable minority. If there are actions that faulted, we are all at fault.

We have an individual responsibility to act. Someone I know once criticized the poor quality of public defenders in the United States. I asked him if he was going to change that and become a public defender. His reply was one of shock and disgust that I would even suggest such a thing. What use does the world have for people that simply identify a problem, doing nothing to resolve it?

Similarly, if a government acts in a manner with which people do not agree, there must be clear and immediate action against that action. Many people I know that lamented about the illegality of the war in Iraq or the violations of human and civil rights committed by the government. Yet, most did nothing but talk about the situation. They did not participate in rallies, write to their Congressional representatives, or even fund groups protesting these actions on legal and social fronts.

This strange attitude extends to many levels. Yet, many people ignore them. The change has to start with individuals. There can't be a casual relationship approaching these issues. The responsibility to act starts and ends with the individual, especially those with access to resources. There is no justification. There is only the excuse, the mask of apathy.

Sound esoteric? These events take place in every community. Homelessness, drug abuse, domestic violence - all of these issues need some resolution. Yet, people complain at time lost while helping the homeless while they protest against the people sleeping in doorways. People decry the effects of gang violence, but people don't stop buying marijuana or help fund and run drug abuse clinics. Domestic abuse is condemned, but few individuals become social works or public defenders. Few want to involve themselves with non-profits to fight to change society or the system that suppresses individuals that seek and/or need help. Why?

Part of the problem is liberal laziness. It is the comfortable situation where one knows that many others agree with a certain position, so there is no pressing need to act themselves. Someone else will do it. One of my friends pointed out that this applies to many more people than liberals. I agree to that point, but I think that progressive liberals need to take issue with this problem. They want change. It doesn't come by someone else acting. You don't see conservative groups sitting back on their laurels. Proposition 8 and Amendment 2 passed.

While even these problems may seem somewhat distant, take an issue that I am facing right now. A friend of mine (friend A) is torn between letting her friend (friend B) stay over the week of Thanksgiving because friend A fears that the friend B might distract her from studying that week for her law school finals. Friend B is homeless, living out of a car. The reason friend B want to stay over is to volunteer in the kitchens in the area during Thanksgiving. Friend A will also be gone during Thanksgiving to visit with her family and does occasionally volunteer in a homeless shelter.

To celebrate Thanksgiving by denying a homeless friend a couch to sleep on so that they can help feed the homeless contradicts every fiber of my nature. But when you realize the importance of first year law school grades and the cost of law school, the issue starts to enter a gray area for many people.

Why is there a gray area, in this situation or any other? Why is there a balancing interest that opposes the change you want to see in the world? The responsibility to act does not lie with anyone else but yourself. Ghandi said "Be the change you want to see in the world." Act or shut up.

Through the Night

There are very few good romance films that are big releases in the United States these days. The instant reference I get when I bring up the subject is often The Notebook. It's sad that this movie is actually considered of any worth since it is boring, dry, and predictable. I know that much because I've watched the first 30 minutes three times and have repeatedly stopped the movie at that point for fear I would lapse into a permanent coma.

When I think of excellent romance films, I somehow always run over the bump of Somewhere In Time. The film brings out a forlorn contemplation, tearing away possibilities and replacing them with moribund reality. Strangely enough, the feeling is similar to those last few minutes of 12 Monkey's or Infernal Affairs, tearing our whatever emotion lies inside of you and leaving nothing but a void.

The theme that binds these films focuses on a failure to escape a world constantly pursuing the main character(s). However, in each situation, the situation is one that is chosen - not forced upon them.

Maybe that is why the films are so devastating - they are tragedies in which the characters try to fight a destiny they can feel pulling them deeper and deeper. Self-destruction is far more complete when a person knowingly walks along a path towards it because it is the only choice that can be fathomed.

In that same step, idealism has to be followed through with, despite its obvious failings. Choices must be made in the belief that something good will come of them, otherwise there is no point in moving forward. That step forward, into danger, is what generates hope.

People seem to forget that pushing forward always involves risk. The massive potential for change can only be present because of the darkness of the current situation. The question needs to be placed in the context of what can be lost, not what can be gained. Importance lies in how great the cost is to us and the decisions we make to avoid or minimize that cost.

Placed, in a more concrete example of this election, we face dangers abroad and at home. Fundamentalist religious revivals, declining standards of freedom, increased militaristic tensions, and a precarious global finance and trading market are elements of the day. To see the world plummet downwards from any or all of these is a great cost to bear.

This places the United States at a critical decision point, between McCain and Obama. Both have promised to lead America forward through the darkness. Because of this promise, both must be evaluated in terms of the cost that we face in the future, not the benefit that either may bring. Which candidate can minimize or maybe even avoid the exploding costs of healthcare, social security, poverty, education, military casualties, international instability, worker exploitation and genocide?

There is an excellent quote from Batman: The Dark Knight, where Harvey Dent states optimistically, "The night is darkest just before the dawn." So many people forget that after the dawn the night will come again. Our path out of darkness will be a path into darkness once again.

The rhetoric of the presidential candidates reflects a benefit-analysis, primarily to set the bar low. They characterize themselves as agents of change, deviating from the path that America, not only our President, has chosen for the past two terms. In doing so, both Obama and McCain argue to try to address the present and future costs, but are unwilling to go so far as to say they will solve for them.

The resulting resolve is one that compromised both politicians. Voters admired each of these men for characteristics they thought would help deal with the travails ahead. In response, Obama handed over the idealism of a radical candidate that pushed him so far though the Democratic party. McCain let got of much of his lauded honesty and ethics in selecting his vice-presidential candidate and recent endorsement of smear campaigning.

Done to reduce expectations and increase mainstream support, both candidates established a message that they would try to address the costs - that they would change the current political scene of the United States. But the political scene isn't the problem, it's the impacts of the political scene. When you distill the message of each candidate, we are left with a promise to try to change the costs.

"Do or do not - there is no try," said Yoda. If failure isn't an option, why do our proposed leaders hold themselves back in fear of it? Lead us forwards or don't lead us - failure is not an option.

I Hurt Myself Yesterday

There are profound pleasures and debilitating disappointments in life. As a romantic idealist, it seems that I experience both to the fullest. Maybe one could go so far as to say that such a philosophy of life tears away the thin film that clouds our daily existing, feeling things to a somewhat unhealthy extreme.

I haven't posted in a quite a while. This is partially because of my recent explorations of the city consuming a large part of my day; however, I think most of it revolves around adjusting to the social and intellectual dynamics of law school. It is not extremely relevant to my posting today, but I thought I should inject some explanation, as I have often been annoyed with many a writer that fails to feed me with works on a regular basis.

I've met many people in the past two weeks, while accepting new experiences that I previously held back from. Some of them have been amazingly pleasurable; others have been disappointing. The one thing that ties my recent experiences together is the people.

Everywhere I experience people, I find something redeeming within human nature. From the crack addicts on the side of the street that get up every day to the people who walk by them while ignoring the pleas for change on their way to work, human beings persevere no matter their environment.

In the lost and forgotten part of society, I can find the heart of humanity - the constant suffering that is visible physically and thrown back into the faces of the invisible people. Knowing tomorrow will hold nothing better and still moving on, there exists concrete proof that falling down completely will not stop the soul.

It is easy for most other people to go forward in life. With the insulating advantages of money, education, food and safety, life does not throw challenges that we really have to continually and wholly struggle against in our daily lives. The most difficult things experienced by most of the people around me involve trying to figure out how to pay back loans or dealing with a relationship that is in dire straights. Maybe a dying relative or a loss of personal faith lies at the extremes. These things are part of normal life, and we function with and through them, overcoming the simpler hurdles.

The two sides I have mentioned are commonly stated. It is the connection between them that is not addressed. The person vomiting on the sidewalk and the businessperson that casually steps around to avoid damaging her or his shoes - this connection is the crucial one.

It is a fine line between pretending a person is not in front of you and not seeing the person in front of you. When you glance at the unwashed panhandler and catch their eye, you can see the glimpse of some connection, even if it is simply the person realizing they can target you for monetary sympathy. The slight eye contact that includes revulsion, pity, and wariness preys on the bond that humans hold with one another.

The loss of that contact is dangerous. Allowing such people to become invisible is a separation from the most shameful part of our cities and slums. It indicates an apathy that separates us from our humanity - the shame, the hope, the fear, the pity. Ignoring that frail person hunched over a step is ignoring our soul.

It is easy to exist in ivory towers, ignorant suburbs, hedonistic clubs or spiritual enclaves, making the rest of the world an unfortunate thing with which we are obligated to deal. Losing your soul is not a difficult process - it simply requires looking forward without a wavering glance. Eventually, looking in the mirror reveals the subtle transformation, presenting the question of if anything can be felt. The decision between either keeping our humanity or holding an empire of dirt must be a continual one.

Caught Between A Rock and A Hard Place

This week, I moved to the city to attend law school. This will be my first time living within a metropolitan area, so I am experiencing a culture shock (albeit a soft one).

My apartment is a two-bedroom is located near one of the poorest neighborhoods in the city. When reading about the school, many visitors complains about proximity of this environment to the school, implying that it was a horrific learning environment. Yet, having been to several large cities before, I can honestly say that this area is not a violent area that you have to fear entering at any time of the day.

I've been exploring the area on foot since my parents confiscated my car upon my request. The city is no place for a Subaru. However, it is here with me in spirit as I explore the hills and alleys of the areas around my school, particularly, the wilder sides.

The neighborhood I live in and the government buildings have provided me with a first impression of the city - high culture melded with ethnic variety, dancing side by side in an odd, but functional, pair to provide an extremely rich and diverse place to live. From the multitude of markets and restaurants to the symphony, theater, and museum, the combination revealed to me that I have in fact made the correct decision in attending my current school.

In my explorations, I determined that I needed to get deli meat. Having lived in suburbs, this usually consisted of a quick trip to the local supermarket, meaning the local incarnation of Piggly Wiggly or Safeway. There is a Safeway in city, but it is too far for me to transport meat from efficiently. So, my search for a deli began.

My first hit was to a halal market. I was ecstatic to find a cool Muslim deli not too far from my apartment that served clean meat! A closer inspection of the meat market revealed that they focus on beef, goat, and lamb. Unfortunately, I am not a die-hard lamb sandwich fan. My search for turkey continued...

My next hit was a deli at the edge of one of the more expensive parts of the city. It was a bit further than the Muslim market, but I was willing to make the walk to find something decent in the area. Since my transportation pass was burning a hole into my table, I decided it was time to venture out again for some public transportation.

If my neighborhood was a culture shock, getting off the shuttle at the heart of the tourist area of the city was an even bigger one.

After experiencing what I thought was the vitality of the city in all its multi-cultural glory - I walk into what felt like yuppie central at the moment. It was full of tourists walking down streets with massive commercial stores. Everything was clean and shiny and new - belying an undertone of a much more vibrant city that released its full energy in a couple blocks in another direction.

Starbucks was again present in full force. I'm starting to think that you can't escape it because they have formed an evil alliance with McDonalds, with McDonalds taking over low income environments and Starbucks raising an iron fist over the realms of the middle class.

Apparently the fist extends with British steel and all into the city, gleaming over the shops and tourists. I have heard of the the hotels in the area before; however, I didn't think that a supposed landmark of the city would need to be branded with a green circle, demanding to be service by patrons who tolerated gossiping baristas and slightly overpriced, generic, mass-produced flavors.

This duality of the city that I have been growing accustomed to over the past several days was harsh to my budding understanding of my zone of living for the next, at the very least, three years. Understandably, people desire to live somewhere safe, clean, new, and beautiful; in today's crime-laden world, it is completely justified in most cases. But what is the cost of obtaining that environment? The area was not only gentrified, but was commercialized and sanitized of the multitude of cultures that resided in the vicinity, relegating the cultural experience to global tourism. The creation of a monetary, racial, or ethnic haven functionally lobotomizes the very essence of what a city - diversity with coagulation, not one without the other.

Before coming to the city, I would have loved to live in the richer or tourist areas. But after my experiences in those area, I don't know that I could enjoy it to the extent that I am enjoying living wedged between a diverse neighborhood and the city's center. The clean stone of the State watches over the vomit-stained sidewalks, drawing bare a crucial vein shared with many urban environments around the country and world. With this iconic dichotomy of a gold-encrusted, domed city hall and the addict-addled street corners, I think I have once more fallen into a living situation by accident that fits my nature.

This is a place to think, learn, and change.

McCain v. Obama: Economy

During the last several weeks, I have tried to hold conversations on the Presidential election. However, it seems that people are still in the dark as to the individual stances of the candidates, staking their viewpoints solely on misconceptions handed down by various media outlets and generic, liberal interpretations of stances on issues according to the respective candidate's party, particularly in terms of economics. Let there now be light where there was once darkness. I will address McCain's current economic stance first and Obama's second simply due to alphabetic organization.

If you have been reading my blog, this may seem like a shift away from the usual theme. Deal with it, read on, and learn something.

McCain's Economic Policy Paper
On dealing with the bank closings, McCain doesn't want to help failing companies, but rather homeowners. The primary tool of this will be loans provided from the Federal Housing Administration. For students, McCain wants to extend the loan security for student loans..

McCain also has plans to balance the budget, citing Clinton's similar feat in the mid 90s. This would require limited or no additional spending, removal of earmarks, and an intense scrutiny of current government spending.

In terms of taxation, business taxes would be rolled back, as well as government imposed mandates on insurance. Research and development would benefit by qualifying for a tax credit. A big notable is lowering the estate tax, while providing for a $10 million exemption. McCain intends to suspend the gas tax during the summer.

McCain fully supports globalization and an increase in free trade through multilateral and bilateral agreements, similar to NAFTA and the WTO. In the spirit of reducing barriers to trade, he wants to remove tariffs on sugar-based ethanol remove corn-based ethanol mandates (this is probably referring to minimum production/investment). To deal with shifting jobs in respect to increase competition, McCain wants to bolster access to student education and workforce reeducation, including improved unemployment systems to facilitate the process.

Obama's Economic Policy Paper
Obama's approach to the banking and mortgage crisis deals with legislating a fund to prevent mortgage collapses. Simultaneously, he wants to institute new regulation regarding mortgage fraud. For banks, he wants to remove the ability for banks that file for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 to modify mortgage terms. Over the entire industry, Obama touts a more transparent system, citing EU actions for support.

Obama also wants to make some changes to tax methodology. First, he wants to simplify the tax filing system into something that can be done quickly, without an accountant. He also plans to increase tax credits for college payments and child and dependent filings. For mortgage interest deduction, he wants to expand them to all tax payers, not just those that itemize.

For seniors, Obama wants to remove taxes on those that make under $50,000 a year. For low-income families, he also has a plan to promote investment by matching certain amounts that they invest in retirement plans. For those currently without access to retirement plans, Obama wants to institute retirement plans for all people and automatically enroll them in it, allowing for employees to opt-out if they wish.

Obama also plans to grow manufacturing, through providing tax assistance (the assistance isn't defined) and loan programs. Part of this program includes job training that incorporates clean technology.

Trade programs in Obama's policy follow fair trade rather than free trade.

Technology also seems to be a priority, with Obama supporting an increase in investment and making the research and development tax credit permanent.

Analysis
First off, I would like to state that Obama's policy outlines are better defined than McCain's. This really contradicts much rhetoric about Obama having vague policy measures, opting for egalitarian speech instead.

McCain wants to balance the budget, which Obama has not promised to do. However, while McCain claims to support the individual in terms of tax relief, it seems Obama's tax credit ideas are more flushed out to help citizens. If McCain wants to balance the budget, he cannot hope to cut the spending that he states he wishes to - a one-year moratorium on spending sounds close to impossible. He cannot hope to cut the government's income while attempting to balance the budget either.

Obama, on the other hand, has no commitment to balance the budget, which is a bit worrisome. His promotion of fair trade over free trade does adhere to good ideals to preserve worker's rights and good environmental protection, but it also maintains questionable barriers to trade. This is partially due to "fair" trade not being defined by the market, but by what people believe their product is worth. This leads to all sorts of inefficiencies and possible methods of corruption.

Both candidates have goals to increase market transparency and help out homeowners caught in the mortgage crisis. While McCain stops most of his citizen's benefits at this point, Obama goes a step beyond, citing specific pension and tax credits for individuals. These are clearly outlined in his policy, while McCain's initiative to help students is vague at best.

Between the two candidates, it is clear that McCain is a supply-sider. Obama approaches the matter from another end, helping individuals to cope with the market. This highlights a fundamental aspect of Obama's campaign - he wants to specifically help the disadvantaged. While his actions may be well-meaning, they may not actually help poorer individuals who depend on free trade to lower their daily costs.

Obama also wants to promote manufacturing jobs, which is very strange. The US has a high-tech service oriented marketing, moving away from the manufacturing jobs of the past. Obama's protection of these industries doesn't help these people, it just pushes them further into a job that requires protectionism to survive and will eventually hurt the US economy.

Harsh Freedom or Regulated Nightmares

Government regulation has been a recent topic in the news due to the financial straights of many banking and mortgage firms. However, all of these discussions on air and in in print take place after the fact, trying to evaluate how the loss of money and market strength could have been avoided by government oversight.

This view seems flawed in two ways, twisting arguments to protect the consumer and to help the consumer. At first glance, it may seem that these positions are one; however, the logic behind each approaches from very different directions.

The sometimes glaucoma-ridden eyes of Big Brother are asked to look over specific industries and actions when it seems that consumers are being exploited by the party under regulation. This argument sounds noble at first, working for a suffering citizen often in the face of corporate avarice.

This argument simply further marginalizes the "common" consumer that is being protected in two ways. In context of sub-prime mortgages, many people were obtaining loans above the prime rate because of a poor credit history, making them risky borrowers. These mortgages often had an option to only pay the accruing interest on the mortgage, with clauses that the interest rate stays at a low fixed rate for a short period of time. After this time had elapse, the mortgage rate jumped to a higher adjustable rate, requiring households that utilized these mortgages to pay more per month.

This type of mortgage is looked down upon by many, since it seems to take advantage of the consumer through the shifting rate. Yet, this presumes that the consumer is too stupid to understand that the rate will shift. Gone are the lofty and noble calls of pro-regulation experts, replaced with a gritty view of the world that looks at people as too stupid to understand the contracts they enter. Subsequently, these people should be prevented from ever doing so by government action.

The other part of this argument is even more vital. By preventing these people from obtaining such loans, society benefits from a more stable economy. Thus, regulation is deemed to be for the public interest. This argument loses much of its altruism, as now it isn't the so-called victims of these unregulated actions that will benefit. Everyone else will benefit by preventing their poorly thought out actions, especially by preventing banks from losing funds due to their risky actions.

This facet leads directly into the argument against regulation. It starts out quite egalitarian, assuming that the consumer is smart enough to deal with these loans. If these consumers default on their loans, the lenders that lose their funds to a risky borrower are simply incurring the high cost of their action. All pay a price for risky choices, but it doesn't matter that much as long as the choice is provided, which proves freedom of choice.

Freedom of choice walks underneath the giant umbrella of capitalism. Oh, that wonderful system that exploits workers in the eyes of half the world and provides a progressive, consumer-satisfying society in the eyes of the other half. Free markets provide a flexible system that allows for profit. Sub-prime mortgage loans were made to people with poor credit because banks saw an area to make profit since the cost of funds in the late 1990s and early 2000s was relatively cheap for both lender and borrower (or so they thought). Banks gave these cheap funds at high rates to borrowers, understanding their investment was risky (hence the high interest rates) and making their free choice.

Americans take pride in home ownership. It seems analysts and experts have forgotten the American dream. People with bad credit want homes too, and that is what the sub-prime mortgage allowed - a chance to finally reach the dream under which they were raised. With regulation against sub-prime lending, these would-be-homeowners wouldn't have been able to enter what they called their home each day for the several years they had a home. Should the government regulate by taking away the choice to risk home ownership, especially when banks are willing to provide them the funds to do this?

The issue of regulation is much more complex than people most people are willing to observe. Greenspan's recent book, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, addresses these issues slightly. But even he walks carefully around the issue, failing to go into depth of why the consumer must be protected or why they must be allowed to make their choice. He called for regulation in the cases of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae while simultaneously arguing that the risk of economic duress is worth home ownership. It is a confusing view, especially in light of his high regard for capitalism.

With or without regulation, the losers are those who do not have strong credit. They are either prevented from obtaining homes or they are exploited by high rates. Banks suffer a similar, yet less important, situation; prevented from making additional profits or they lose heavily from the risks they take. There is no right answer here. Every action has costs and benefits.

At the most, any regulation enacted should simply make sure that the costs and benefits of their actions are known. This will not be enough to stop the pitfalls of either situation highlighted above, but people should be entitled to make poor decisions. Without the right to freely make those decisions, we move further away from the dream that seems to drive so many Americans.

When approaching any decision, people must see the world through the other half's eyes. Avoiding such a consideration only leads to the further obstruction of government to positively influence our lives.