Suggestions for the Breakthrough People

I been reading the Breakthrough blog and the Breakthrough Gen blog. The Breakthrough Generation people are certainly having some growing pains trying to figure out what they are trying to do.

I feel the need to weigh in. Here's a letter I am going to send them:

Hello,
I have been following the blog, and I have some observations and suggestions.

First of all, I think Breakthrough is great, and I'm glad there is a think tank that is serious about coming up with a coherent strategy for action. I especially like the posts about urban poverty, Brazil, and strategies for spreading the message.

However, I have some suggestions. It seems that the discussion is pretty unfocused and disorganized. Ideas kind of get tossed out but usually without follow-up. Perhaps there needs to be more vigorous labeling and organizing of posts so that there is a way for everyone to even see what topics you have covered. It may also be a good idea to have a place for links where things are not arranged chronologically but by topic. I just think there needs to be a place to put articles that are "finished" and more like official statements of the Breakthrough Generation as a group. That would also be good because most of the posts can be seen as mainly personal or individual opinions that are works in progress, while these "papers" would be more concise and official. Then it is easier for the public to have an understanding of what Breakthrough Gen really stands for, and also there are papers you can easily refer people to instead of a set of conversations.

This brings me to a more general critique. I understand part of the think tank is figuring out what should Breakthrough stand for anyway. At the same time, your task is also to build a name for Breakthrough as an institution and a school of thought. You are trying to shift the paradigm. Then the way you organize yourselves and present your ideas matters a lot.

In other words, when you decide to critique other people's tactics, you need to understand that offering critique in itself is a strategic decision, and from what you say, people will be forming impressions of Breakthrough even if you think you are posting as an individual. Furthermore, every person has a need to feel that what they are doing is worthwhile. This is especially true for environmentalists since no environmentalist does it for the money although hopefully more of them will soon. :) Then, if you are going to critique people, you should expect people to be very defensive about it, and you need to consider whether critiquing them helps Breakthrough or just makes people angry. But if you commit to posting your critique, you need to be ready to stand your ground, drive your point through, and not get sidetracked.

Everything from how long your posts are to the wording that you choose matters when making the case for Breakthrough. It seems to me that many of you are trying to argue based on logic only. Logic is useful, but when trying to promote a concept, it's more than just about a logical argument. It's about imagery, catchy slogans, the frequency of recurring ideas, and organization of ideas such that it's easy for people to take in and remember.

I think Breakthrough is really about propaganda and advertising. I recommend reading a book called Propaganda by Ed Bernays. He coined the term public relations and wrote this book in 1928. I know Micheal Shellenberger and Ted Norhaus have said that it's not just about coming with a catchy slogan, and I agree with that. However, propaganda itself is not just about a catchy slogan. A slogan is only one of many tools available for making your ideas relevant and seemingly "obvious" to people. The real art would not be to convince people you are right from arguing with them logically, but inducing them to come to the conclusions that you want them to.

I'm not an expert by any means, but I've been running lectures at MIT for a few years as part of the Lecture Series Committee. We helped organize and make posters for Ted and Micheal's talk at MIT. We also organized the Big Picture Panel, a kickoff lecture event for the Focus on Climate Change events. All of our events were very well-attended.

For the publicity for the Big Picture Panel event, came up with two sets of one-liners that we hoped would help everyone focus.

This was one set of them.

Sustainable careers are not just
for do-gooders.

Sustainable energy is not just about
solar panels, wind power, and fuel cells.

And we are not just waiting for the
miracle gadget that everyone can just buy!

The other set

What are the biggest obstacles to sustainable energy?

What is being done right now?

How will this be affecting your career?

Finally, we had a line "Come and hear what the expert professors have to say."





For the Breakthrough lecture, we also had three one-liners

For all the public attention climate change has won, U.S. greens
have failed to achieve national political action on the issue.

Nordhaus and Shellenberger call for a new approach to activism.

It takes entrepreneurs, organizers, engineers, scientists, and YOU.

We also had a slogan "Environmentalism is Dead. Long live Environmentalism."



In contrast, the poster they sent us to use said "Clean Energy Revolution
Creating a Transformational Student Movement." We thought that was hopelessly vague and fluffy. Our messages were very tailored for the MIT audience, who is very tech/gadget-friendly and views environmentalism vs making money as an either-or proposition, etc.




What I would suggest for the Breakthrough Generation is to do more summaries and lists on what exactly are the most important ideas of Breakthrough, lists of criticisms, and what you intend to research. I would like personally like to see more social commentary. For example, why does libertarianism seem to resonate so much with young people these days and what does it mean for sustainable energy? I also notice that many environmentalists love to criticize China and/or otherwise make demands. But there is not enough effort in understanding what is going on in China anyway and the culture and mindset of the Chinese. For this reason, I pretty much cringe every time I hear environmentalists talk about China, and it is clear to me they are not going to get anywhere with any Chinese people. James Fallows from the Atlantic is probably the best China correspondent, and actually Obama's head Asia foreign policy guy Jeffrey Bader is very good as well.

Obama's Announcement

Not doing public finance!!

Personally, I don't really care, but I know it does hurt him a little since he's the "change" candidate. People are like, "so much for change." On the other hand, I sense that these same people would be criticizing him for being "naive" if he did take public finance. I mean, I would, too, although it would be ever more impressive if he still won. Some people just don't like the "change" message and are trying to prove that "change" is either equivalent with being naive or a meaningless buzzword.

The Hulks

I was surfing wikipedia about the Hulk and other characters associated with him. Turns out there is also a Red Hulk, a She-Hulk (who is his cousin), and the Abomination. These characters were created during the 70s, and they were really compelling because at that time, people were getting really scared about nuclear war and nuclear power and effects of radiation. So these characters are really borne out of the Cold War.

Scouring the Internet about Tibet

I found a lot of good blogs and videos, and I even wrote something.

I am so-called "pro China," but I agree that the argument that Tibet always was a part of the Chinese empire is not a good argument. I think actually a lot of Chinese people know this, they have trouble articulating the exact issue. The issue is the level of British and American influence in Tibet and on Chinese politics for the greater part of the past two centuries. The British, in particular, but also the Germans, French, Italians, and Americans forced China, which was militarily weak, into many treaties allowing Western access to its ports, the sale of opium, and "renting" land. You may not know that at some point they even ransacked and destroyed the Old Summer Palace. During the 1911-1949, the country was in turmoil and fought WWII during a civil war. The United States supported the KMT, but they were not popular with the people. One of the main headquarters was in Chengdu, Sichuan, which is east of Tibet, so many KMT ran West to Tibet and India, which was still a British colony until 1950. There is not a good boundary between China and Tibet, and the CCP did not want to risk letting the KMT recuperate there and launch counterattacks. Also, as a result of Western involvement, the Chinese are sensitive to Western demands to "free Tibet" in the name of human rights, especially given that America just "freed Iraq". So that issue is about political power, which is about economics and military.

Political power plays mold public opinion on each side. Of course Chinese people are biased, but they found out what propaganda was during the Cultural Revolution, and the take-away lesson has been, don't trust any media and try to take into account biases. In contrast, Western media has enjoyed much praise in the past 50 years for being fair and unbiased, with Walter Cronkite and other revered newscasters. During the Tiananmen Square in 1989, many Chinese students viewed American democracy and American media as an ideal. Americans felt very proud about this and their free media, and so they never consider that it may be be biased. After the Western coverage of Tiananmen and now of the Tibet protests, and now that millions of Chinese people have access to Western media and internet, Chinese people's idealism of the West has been shattered. Most Chinese know most protesters and journalists themselves act in good faith, but we still get very frustrated, especially when people just accuse you of being "a CCP hack." I already talked about this in my angry post, but just to reiterate in a non-angry way, China has been a rival and even enemy of the US for a long time, and even though the Cold War is technically over, many people's sentiments are ingrained in their beliefs. When you are taught your whole life that someone morally base and not to trust them, and then suddenly they are not really your enemy anymore, it is rare for sentiments to catch on right away, especially when it sells news.

I do think there are lots of problems with China, but the Tibet issue is not so simple. This whole situation hasn't been all bad, though. I think little by little, Chinese people are speaking up and perhaps even being heard.

Olympics

Warning: this post is probably offensive unless you're mainland Chinese.

The ultimate Olympic sport is how much humiliation can China take? Don't worry. It's lots.

Actually, in 1989 (?) Wang Shuo 王朔, wrote a book with this premise called Please Don't Call Me Human 千万别把我当人.

I've had it with the protesters, though. For a while, I've been trying to be like, oh well, it's a good way to publicize issues and for people to put pressure on the Chinese government. But you know what? No. It's offensive, it's ignorant, it's pretentious, it's bullshit. Most of the protesters don't know what they're talking about; they just want to feel good about themselves by ragging on a country that everyone hates anyways.

What bothers me the most is the hypocrisy of it all. People are just so used to the idea of China abusing human rights that China is practically synonymous with human rights abuse at this point. Of course, Western opinion isn't biased at all given that China has been an enemy for the greater part of the previous century. I'm not saying there aren't problems, but how can you say that China is the biggest human rights abuser and it doesn't deserve to host Olympics and it really 'challenges the conscience of the world.' What about IRAQ? Hello? That sure challenges my conscience. The US just invaded that 5 years ago to "liberate" Iraqis, and I'd even venture to say that they've fucked them up way more than the Han Chinese fucked up Tibetans. What about Guantanamo? Overthrowing governments in Latin America? Plight of Native Americans? Violence and oppression in Africa, which of course has nothing to do with the fact that the 'enlightened' Western nations enslaved and colonized black people. And of course, what about Israel? If people care about human rights so much, why the hell are people not more concerned about Palestinians? But no, they're Muslim and terrorists, and we don't negotiate with terrorists. Oh wait, didn't the US create Al Qaeda in Afghanistan to fight the Russians? SHHHHHH America is a beacon of hope, freedom, and democracy, you unpatriotic communist heathen. Behold, our fair and unbiased media, and our democracy which elected George W Bush, TWICE.

Many of the people who protest think they're being sooo brave. Mouthing off about a country across the ocean that everyone already doesn't like is not courageous! Give me a break. Protesting and working to change things that are wrong in your own community is much more difficult, although perhaps less glorious. For example, calling for the US to close bases it doesn't need. VERY complicated. Calling for Israel to compromise to create a Palestinian state already. Suddenly, you're a Nazi. Working to fix a lame system and oil barons for sustainable energy! Working on climate change issues is human rights!

People think that Chinese people all hate the Chinese government. They're right and wrong. In America, if you complain a lot, people think it means you're unpatriotic. In contrast, Chinese people love to complain about their government. But they are still proud that it's come a long way, and they don't want to see China fall. They still get offended if Westerners criticize China and demand things aggressively. It comes off as being hostile to China's security and economic interests. They all saw how happy the US was when the USSR fell. Chinese people don't want China to become like how Russia is today. The US is already in Japan, Korea, and Afghanistan, and they regularly do reconnaissance tours off the southern coast of China. And of course, the US just invaded Iraq. Chinese people would be hopelessly naive if they weren't worried about US aggression. Hello, during the so-called "Cold War" China fought the US in Viet Nam, Korea, and the KMT during the Communist Revolution. Also, China just went through a century of being too weak to stand up to Britain, Germany, France, Italy, and the US so naturally, they are sensitive to complaints and demands from the West. When the Chinese complain about US meddling, the context is that the US was the main supplier of weapons, money, and even food to the KMT during the Communist Revolution, who subsequently got their asses handed to them anyway, and ran away to Taiwan. America, land of the free, home of the brave rich people, was committed to keeping the KMT in power. If either the Democratic or Republican Parties were strongly supported by a foreign country, say Saudi Arabia, Americans would surely object to how much control that country has over American politics.

I'm JUST SAYING

Tibet and China

There is no doubt that Tibetans need more civil rights. At the same time, demanding for Tibet to be independent and demonizing the Chinese government are counterproductive. The main issue is that Chinese people don't believe that Western nations really care about human rights (see Iraq War) and are just making a stink to bring China down. Thus, Chinese people are very offended and alarmed when Western nations call for free Tibet. Western people should know that if Tibet really became independent, Chinese people around the world would protest and riot. These are relatively neutral article from the Wall Street Journal.

article1

article2

Political Commentary

Ok, I am pissed.

It is really sad the way that Clinton is dragging the dialog into the ditch. I really hope that people understand that this is why people are not interested in "politics." It's not that they're not interested in these problems that the country faces. It's just that look at what politics has been reduced to! Well, then who are going to be the next leaders and organizers? You need the best and the brightest young people to be interested in running your country! OBVIOUSLY!!!

I know everyone's been trying to give the Obama campaign advice, and I just want to put out there that the most inspiring things that Obama says is when he redefines our priorities. He did it a lot in the speeches in the beginning of the campaign when he made the policy speeches. It's the stuff when he says why education is so important, not just for upward mobility but for the future of the American economy, why bottom up organizing is so important, etc. I think the campaign should redefine patriotism and seriously redefine what it means to have experience.

Patriotism is not about being proud no matter what your country does. It's about loving your country and being willing to work to make it better.

Experience is important. But it's the experience of knowing how deal with people, knowing how to listen, and get things done that really counts. It's about the experience of growing up poor, and being where you are because of getting a good education. It's the experience of knowing how to motivate other people and rally people to your side. That's something Clinton can never say she has had experience doing. Clinton says she's a fighter. Well, of course we all want a fighter. But what we don't want is a bully.

Obama needs to keep talking about political theory. He needs to keep going with the rhetoric. I know the campaign has gotten a little sidetracked since the other side has been saying "he's all talk." Well, that's his strength, and that's what we need because Americans, especially Democrats, have seriously gotten sidetracked and need to reprioritize.

I watched some old episodes of the West Wing recently, and there was a character running for president named Santos, and he was a lot like Barack. He came from a humble background and talked about the importance of education and was against fighting dirty. He was just like Barack. I was like, this guy is a liberal's dream candidate. And now he's here, and liberals are like, oh I don't know, he's not experienced enough. He's not tough enough. Come on liberals!!!!! What the hell?!?! Seriously. Republicans probably think this is hilarious.

Learning

Yesterday, I was thinking about how I learn, and it seems that I tend not to do well when the teacher uses power points. (Well, unless the power points are all pictures and graphs). It actually really helps to see the words being written out. I think it's because of how memories actually get stored. Seeing things being written out gets the words related to a motion of writing that one is already familiar with. That's also why writing down notes helps instead of just getting a copy of the notes. The notes gets put in muscle memory as well as visual memory, and it helps when recalling the memories. And that's why I think I should get a tablet next.

Clinton... Such a Plagiarizer

If you haven't heard yet, Clinton attacked Obama for plagiarizing because he used Deval Patrick's words, but Deval Patrick is Obama's national co-chair, and he told Obama he could use his words. And Patrick knows that it's not about the words, it's about the ideas and the point of the words. Anyways, it's not like Clinton doesn't recycle old ideas: click me! However memorable her closing statement, it's an age-old line of thought. No one can "claim" it because it's an idea. And Hillary isn't amazingly special because she managed to say that in her closing.

Maybe I'm cynical, but I read that Daily Kos article, and if anyone understands the significance of that article, then everyone would be in support of Obama.

AIDS

I saw this flyer yesterday for an AIDS study. It said, "Would you take a pill a day to prevent HIV?" Or something like that. And had a bunch of phone numbers you could rip off to participate in their study. I thought it was kind of a bad idea. You could be taking those pills every day of your life. I just think pharm companies or whatever should not try to make daily pills all the time. It's not the best solution. It just seems like a way they can make a lot more money, and a way to get people to be more dependent on their stuff. Anyway. I guess it's hard to get around for certain drugs. But it seems like you could have a better HIV prevention method. But I guess each problem is different. Oh well! But I just hope they've thought about the other, non-daily methods as well.

Prejudice

Today I was thinking about how I am prejudiced against white Christians. I think it's because they traumatized me when I was a kid. Haha. Well, they tried to convert me all the time because otherwise I'd go to Hell. When I was little, before I knew what God or religion were, other little kids would ask me if I believe in God. I said 'no' a couple times but people reacted badly so I just started saying 'yes'. Later, in middle school I started telling people I'm Buddhist because people knew about freedom of religion, but you still had to have a religion.

I'm not really prejudiced against black Christians, though, because they don't try to convert me, and also they sing gospel music.

But seriously, I was thinking about recommending this girl to this company but then I saw on her Facebook profile that she was a fervent Christian, and then I didn't want to recommend her anymore because ew. I wonder if it is unfair. She isn't that Christian in person.

San Francisco Chronicle Interview

This is a video of the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle interviewing Barack Obama. The last five minutes are really really good.

He talks about how the problem with the American political system right now is that politicians are not necessarily rewarded for doing good for the nation, emotionally as well as financially. When they stand up to big money, most of their constituents don't know anyway, and then big money funds someone else to run against them and they get voted down. This is something that came up in the studies of Chinese local governments, too. In the towns and villages where leaders of the community were involved with the local government in praising them and giving them moral standing when they do things for the village, those villages did really well. They had the best roads, best schools, etc. In the villages where they don't get moral standing for doing things, those villages were run the worst. And it did not matter whether the village was rich or poor. This is something that Obama gets and nobody else does.

Populism Doesn't Work

Why Krugman (and Edwards) are wrong

I was making some similar arguments about why Edwards' populism won't work and would only create a backlash just as it did after FDR's second term. Even though all liberals love FDR, the fact of the matter is that part of his legacy is the rise of conservatism. Same thing with Clinton, who wasn't even that populist. Part of Clinton's legacy is Bush. The only reason why most conservatives agree that FDR was ok is because he was a war president during a popular war, and people got rich from the war. Krugman might be a good economist, but he's a horrible historian.

Someone on the Barack Obama blog commented
"All the great reformers in history, FDR here, De Gaulle in France, Adenauer in Germany, even Hu Jintao in China today are masters in finding a common ground. They all have a vision and a plan, but was set them apart is their ability to bring people from opposite or diverse backgrounds to translate this vision in to reality. FDR was known for his brain trust. De Gaulle was a conservative who had communists in his government."

There are also many many examples of backlash and the failure of populism in modern Chinese history. Yes, that's right, the Communists were populist.

Articles on Barack Obama

Here are some articles about Barack that were influential for me. Lots of politicians say nice things like about being bipartisan, but this is some proof that maybe he really does mean it.

This one is about his Il Senate days. Not about issues, but about approach to
working with people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

"What if a politician were to see his job as an organizer, as part teacher and
part advocate, one who does not sell voters short but who educates them about
the real choices before them?."


This is about his time as President of the Harvard Law Review. It's also
mostly just about him working with people. Actually, I think the take away of the article is supposed to be that he wouldn't be a good president because of his leadership style, but I disagree.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/us/politics/28obama.html?pagewanted=1


Obama talking about black issues and education. Pretty interesting.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04E0D71E3DF932A3575BC0A9629C8
B63


This is a good article comparing Obama and Edwards' opinions on
poverty.

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/opinion/31brooks.html

But really, for the issues, you have to read his speeches yourself, and then
maybe see what some experts think.

http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/

In particular, I agree with his foreign policy views, poverty, and education,
and government ethics reform issues. I also more or less agree with his
approach to energy and technology although you can kind of tell he's not an
expert on energy. The stuff he says on technology is pretty good, actually,
because he talks about technology policies in terms of encouraging
participatory democracy. I also agree with his approach on health care, but
in that case, I don't really know what's going on, and most people say that
his, Edwards, and Clinton's plans are pretty similar. I haven't really read
too much about what he says about immigration but from what I've heard him
talk about, I agree. He also used to have something on rural america that I
thought was good, but I guess you can probably find a speech on that somewhere
else. And besides having the right opinions on the issues, I think he's got
the right approaches.

I really like that he's not into blaming Republicans and trying to paint
Republicans as the "enemy."

I also really like that he has a lot of literature. He provides reasoning behind his positions, and he provides a vision for what an ideal system would look like. I generally agree with his reasonings and so I trust his judgment more.

Goals

after talking to jenny hu some more, i realized i should elaborate more on what the purpose of the sustainable lecture is, who exactly am i looking for to speak, and what i want them to talk about.

I'm most interested in getting the bigger picture on global sustainable development. China and India combined have a population of more than 2 billion people. Most of these people are not living at first world living conditions. For example, only around 10% of the population in China have living standards comparable to the rest of the developed world. That is, they have refrigerators, computers, air conditioning, gadgets, mattresses, washers, dryers, etc. The exponential demand on energy needs to be addressed and I think it's the next crucial challenge for the human race. I would like the speakers to comment on what needs to be done in their respective fields to sustain this demand. I'm not so interested in having scientists in to talk about the technical details of their research. I am very interested in economists, business-people, and policy makers because they are crucial to the bigger picture.

The two main trains of thought I want to chip away at are
1. Only people who are particularly caring or otherwise do-gooders go into sustainability careers.
2. The main obstacle to sustainability is lack of clean energy technology, and there's not a lot we can do until we get that.

In order to effectively tackle the energy and sustainability problem, it needs to be an attack on all fronts.

My target audience is primarily undergrads or generally people who have not yet decided on their career. Thus, I am looking for influential speakers, preferably someone who runs an undergrad course that is well-liked. The course itself doesn't have to have anything to do with sustainability. It's just so they have name-recognition, and students who respect them and like the way they speak. however, sustainability should be an important issue to them and it's something they're working on in their research.

Sustainable Lecture

so the vision is to make the pursuit of sustainability jobs mainstream. i'm investigating the possibility of having a panel discussion on sustainability, the need, the projects, the business, the industry. we'd like to get one person from each major to talk about their part and how it relates to the bigger picture.

if you guys know anyone who would be good, that would be awesome

amy smith - d-lab
1 - david marks, environ/civil
3 - material science - sadaway (fuel cell)
4 - architecture
5 - chemistry
6 - ee/cs - leeb (power electronics)
10 - chem e - tester
11 - urban studies/planning
12 - earth planetary sciences - (geothermal heating/cooling systems)
14 - economics banerjee and duflo
15 - management/business (s-lab)
17 - political science
20 - bio engineering
22 - nuch e

tell me who to get!

obamamamamama

barararararack

by the way people should go to the comedy central website and watch barack on the daily show.

i been reading and posting on the obama facebook group. i particularly like my answer to the question, would I vote for Ron Paul?

no, i would never vote for ron paul.

personally i think a lot of so-called libertarians don't know shit and just like the word freedumb.

people who believe free-markets solve everything really makes me hate democracy. part of me would really like it if people had to take some kind of test before they vote. democracy only works if people who vote are educated and vote based on things that are true.

to set the record straight.
yo, free market is only efficient if certain conditions are in place. for one, there needs to be competition. second, demand must exceed supply.

for healthcare, often there is not competition because in many towns there is only one hospital or healthcare provider anyway, or at least only one that is a reasonable distance from where you live. also, demand is time sensitive. since nixon, healthcare is mostly privatized and free market is very efficient, in a way. the problem is that there is a conflict of interest. that is, health care providers profit when people get sick and buy their "products." insurance companies profit when people don't get sick but pay them anyway. sure, if you figure out a way for companies to profit when people stay healthy, then free-market economy could work although it's still not like there are competitors in your area.

this is also true for utilities. you do not get to choose what utilities company you want to use. that is why prices are regulated. you also usually do not get to choose what internet provider you use, but it is not regulated, but dammit, it should be. it costs comcast almost nothing to provide internet access, but they charge $60/month. their profits make me tremble with rage.

there are similar problems with free-market education. and obviously things wrong with free-market free speech.

there is also a huge problem with free market agriculture. the problem is that supply easily surpasses demand, driving prices way down. before nixon? the US gov't used to have storehouses of grain, which would buy grain from farmers if there was a surplus, thus keeping prices stable. in shortages, they would sell it again. this is how it was done in china, too, during feudalism and probably many other places. they got rid of that. now, we include grain as part of mexico's wto package, ruining their economy in order to keep ours in tact. (and then we complain about immigrants that the agriculture business and restaurant business depends on.) this is part why agriculture in america is really messed up right now.

SO FUCK ALL YOU FREE MARKET LIBERTARIANS.
ron paul was a doctor not an economist.

on the other hand, i do know a few very intelligent libertarians who are not so much free-market, anti-gov regulations people, but do believe in decentralizing, strengthening state jurisdiction. because it is probably true that the central gov't is bloated right now. it is inefficient. it oversteps bounds. the mechanism that states get resources is almost totally crooked.

there is a case for less federal control of education and more state control. for the states that are lagging, though, my lib friend agrees that the idea would be for the fed to give that state more money and give educated people incentives to go teach there (which obama advocates. that is part of why she is supporting him). but the state ultimately gets to manage the money.

i still think ron paul is the best republican candidate, haha. he believes in scaling back the military, and it's not like anyone would implement his free-market reforms...especially if there is a dem controlled congress.

actually, if it were clinton vs. ron paul, i'd probably vote for ron paul. but he's such a dirty libertarian.

obamareign policy

haha
hey, read/listen to the speech

these are my thoughts about it. I send them a message, hehe

This speech shows how well Obama understands the current state of the world and the fundamentals behind how terrorism and conflicts arise. That is, terrorism is bred out of poverty and desperation. This is also the stance of the Chinese government, and that is why they believe in investing in the development of the rural provinces in China as well as around the world.

On one hand, I understand that many Pakistanis are
concerned about a breech on their sovereignty. It is true that Musharraf's support of the US is very unpopular at home, and it would be bad to aggravate that situation. However, it is my understanding that Obama does not accuse Pakistan of supporting terrorism as a state. Also, he offers to "help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border." Economic and social support can show Pakistanis that the US acts in good faith. I would also hope that the support we provide isn't just US propaganda in the form of "secular education." I think that concern is also what causes Pakistani people and Muslim people in general to distrust US intentions.

We need to remember that the terrorists who cross the border to Pakistan to hide should be deem criminals under Pakistani law and prosecuted. If the state is not strong enough to uphold the law, then it is not an unreasonable request to allow US pursuit into Pakistan.

people aren't catty, they're doggy

so i'm hanging out here with toby taking care of his parents' animals, a dog and a cat. we've found that the dog likes to push our buttons, but the cat is just hungry all the time. the thing is that the dog is a pack animal so it's always trying to leverage for power. cats don't really seem to care that much about whether it is more alpha than you or whatever. they just have things that they want like food or fresh water. so i think dogs are actually more catty than cats. hmmmm

youtube debates

they were good! sort of. watch them!
http://www.youtube.com/debates

toby and I think that barack answered many of the questions perfectly. he has a good understanding of the heart of each issue and is truly a good student of history. and i'm not talking about how he knows lots of facts. I mean he is good at figuring out how we got to the current status of things, and what we need to do to get to a better state of things.

however,
an important question that the democratic candidates are going to have to answer, especially to gain more widespread support is, how are they going to make Americans richer? in other words, how are they going to spur future economic developments in America.

the answer that i will be looking for is a policy that encourages and supports research and innovation. that is what has brought wealth to America, and it is what will continue to bring wealth.