Rotten Little Girls

Tag: Obama

September 23, 2009

Obama Addresses UN; Fangirls Faint in Awe

by Kelly

I am currently taking a class entitled — quite appropriately — “What the U.S. Does Wrong” (in terms of Foreign Policy). So when I saw this article about Obama’s speech to the UN, I promptly emailed it to my professor and did a small victory dance.

Reasons Why Our NEW Stance on Foreign Policy is AWESOME:

1) It’s realistic – We won’t be a superpower forever (take a look at the historical rise and fall of great civilizations if you don’t believe me) and we can either a) plan for that occasion NOW or b) continue to piss everyone off and get fucked over when another country dominates the world stage.

2) We really DO need help. Americans should not (and cannot) be the only ones paying/working to end terrorism, world hunger, etc,etc,etc. Not only should we recognize the actions of other countries in pursuit of these international goals, but we should pursue more alliances & relationships with like-minded countries.

3) Multipolarity is cool. Policentrism is better. Right now most Americans function under the assumption that America is the “leader” of the Free World. Pssh. Look, we have our world view and self-interests. Other countries have their own world view and self-interests. Who says we should get to decide everything? I am personally in favor of a world order that contains many different centers of power – not separate poles of power competing or threatening each other (i.e. Cold War – Soviet Bloc vs. U.S. & allies) or a unipolar system in which one country is hegemonic.

4) It reinforces UN legitimacy — Let’s be honest, here. Bush kinda fucked up UN-U.S. relations with the whole Iraq war thing. I don’t think the UN has much hard power in general, but without the U.S. backing it/supporting it, it loses a lot of power (soft, hard, or what have you). Hopefully, now, the tides will turn back towards a stronger UN and a more diplomatic U.S.

5) Obama says it himself best:

UN General Assembly

“In his first address to the U.N. General Assembly, Obama sought to set a new tone in U.S. relations, moving away from the unilateralism of his predecessor, George W. Bush. He coupled conciliatory words about a “new era of engagement” with a summons for other nations to shoulder more of the burden.

“Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone,” Obama said.

“Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”

…

“In an era where our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game,” Obama said. “No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed.”

…

“If we are honest with ourselves,” he told world leaders, “we need to admit that we are not living up” to the shared responsibility to meet such challenges.

“Extremists sowing terror in pockets of the world,” Obama said. “Protracted conflicts that grind on and on; genocide; mass atrocities; more nations with nuclear weapons; melting ice caps and ravaged populations; persistent poverty and pandemic disease.”

“I say this not to sow fear, but to state a fact: The magnitude of our challenges has yet to be met by the measure of our actions,” Obama said.”

Well said, man.

- Dollface

When I sent the article to my mom, she had this to say “Very well put. Just wish he’d stop sitting on the fence & be the person he sold us at election time.”

Damn straight, ma.

4 comments
September 25, 2008

Marx Gets the Last Laugh: Is Capitalism Failing?

by Kelly

The past week has been a rough one for the U.S. economy. Several major investment banks went bankrupt and some companies, such as AIG, got bailed out by the government to the tune of 85 billion dollars. (It shouldn’t have to be said that the taxpayers are paying for this). In addition, the government has nationalized major mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.


Now, I’m not a Marxist, but this is sounding awfully familiar. In my economics and government classes, I’ve read excerpts of Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto. One of Marx’s most basic theories is his notion that history has progressed through several stages of class struggle: from feudalism to capitalism, to the eventual failure of capitalism. He claimed that our world would end up with socialism and that this would mark the end of history (since we’d have perfected our society). Now, I’m not really so sure socialism is the answer. However, the past few days have exemplified what Marx warns in his works: capitalism is failing.

Marx believed that capitalism was inherently flawed, so much so that it would lead to its own destruction. He explained this by claiming capitalism operates through a pattern of business cycles. These business cycles are exhibited by relative prosperity for a period of time, then a decline and recession – in other words, boom and bust. Marx maintained that each business cycle would be more and more devastating, until finally culminating in one disastrous collapse. This would then leave the world (or individual countries) ready for socialism as a replacement of the failed capitalistic system. With the recent failure of major investment banks, and the warnings from some modern economists that FDIC-protected banks and other companies/institutions are going to fail next, it appears that Marx might have the last laugh.

Business Cycle

Business Cycle

We cannot afford to let our current recession turn into another depression. We must, as a country, find a way to overcome this financial crisis. And while I’m not saying we should throw in our hats and purchase Communist Manifestos for our school children, I think elements of socialism would be a beneficial addition to our economic practices. Even now we are not a perfectly capitalistic society: our markets are not free from government regulation and intervention. Adam Smith’s invisible hand has left the building, so to speak.

I argue that we should model our economy after those of Sweden, Denmark, and other European countries. These countries have a social democracy, in the sense that they democratically reform their economy so that there is more of a “welfare state,” or benefits provided by the government. Sure, citizens of these countries may pay more taxes, but they have the assurance that their taxes are being distributed more meaningfully and appropriately than Americans do. (Also, for everyone who hears “welfare state” and immediately has negative connotations, keep in mind that many of the stereotypes about welfare programs are unfounded).

So, while I run the risk of sounding like a radical leftist, I’m also just your average citizen, concerned with the uncertain state of our country’s future. I hope that if Obama is the next President, we can see some positive reforms on our economy, though I don’t expect him to single-handedly fix our economic and political institutions. I will say this: if McCain is elected, we are in for 4 to 8 years of the Republican party attempting to prevent the failure of capitalism by any means necessary – no matter how detrimental to our society. If that terrible nightmare becomes a reality, I’ll be the first to apply for a visa to Sweden.

Related links:
AIG bailout: Where does the financial crisis lead next?
U.S. Mortgage Bank Nationalization : Sign of Deepening Crisis
All Over the Board: Capitalism has failed. Period.

What are your thoughts on the burgeoning financial crisis? What should the United States do?

Photo Credits

5 comments
August 4, 2008

The Patriot’s Guide to Hating George Bush

by Kelly

Forget the American flag pin on your lapel, these days you’re not a true Patriot if you don’t support the Bush administration. Yeah I’m talking to you, Liberals! Enough with your legitimate complaints about the Iraq war, the mind-numbingly large deficit (482 billion dollars, baby), or the fact that our country makes the movie Idiocracy seem prophetic rather than comic. Just stop! It’s people like you who are the real terrorists. Instead of checking up on the library records of suspected terrorists we should be locking up Democrats one by one. (Independents, don’t you relax either…you are flip-flopping your way under suspicion as well).But wait! There may be hope for you heathens yet. It seems there is this funny little term called “loyal opposition”. Now, don’t ask me why, but our founding fathers believed that you could disagree with the current administration yet still be Patriotic. I know, I know – blasphemous, isn’t it? Let me explain:

It seems that the original writers of the Constitution didn’t think that everyone had to support the President and Cabinet in power. In fact, one of the basic tenets of the Constitution is that people should uphold and believe in the IDEA of the Constitution whether or not they support its current method of implementation by the government.

“Sweet shitake mushrooms!” you must be shouting. How could I have not thought of this sooner? How come the GOP is trying to paint people like Michelle Obama as unpatriotic for saying she has never been “proud of this country” before? Well, now you know they are misguided. Michelle is safe under the idea of loyal opposition. In fact, Michelle Obama might even be MORE PATRIOTIC than you! She waited faithfully her entire life to see an administration that she could be proud of…now that’s what I call loyal!

So maybe we don’t have to bleed red, white, AND blue to show our faith in the United States. Maybe that American flag you’ve been flying outside your cubicle can be placed back into a drawer (folded neatly of course). Instead, go refuse to put your hand over your chest during the national anthem. Really, I dare you. Seems like freedom of expression is something George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have wanted.

Yours faithfully,
America’s #1 Fan

Photo Credits

3 comments
July 28, 2008

McCain’s Armies of Compassion

by Kelly

The first thing you may notice about Obama’s campaign site is that he has dedicated an “issues” page to Women. In this page he highlights a range of women’s issues, from domestic violence to healthcare. Needless to say, his stance on women’s rights is rather comprehensive.

However, on McCain’s website, there is a glaring deficit. There is no mention of women’s rights as an important issue. In fact, the only mention of women is under the category of “Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life” in which McCain’s pro-life (anti-choice) stance is explained.

McCain's Armies of Compassion

Armies of Compassion?


Interestingly enough, the McCain site claims that,

“The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. “

Armies of compassion? First of all, what is with the military jargon? Is that an allusion to McCain’s stint as a Navy Pilot (he ranked 894 out of 899 in his Naval Class, but never mind that…). Either way, this phrase “armies of compassion” — which in this context is referring to “faith-based, community and neighborhood organizations” such as Family Research Council — makes it seem like other respectable organizations are not compassionate. What about Planned Parenthood, one of the “pro-choice” organizations that has been underfunded and stigmatized by the Bush administration? Are they not “compassionate”?

For those who are unaware of what Planned Parenthood’s mission is, I will direct them to their website. Since many Planned Parenthood facilities are not even equipped to perform abortions, it really seems ridiculous that this organization is persecuted by the pro-life neo-cons. PP provides a much-needed service to those who cannot afford expensive birth control, or who need more information and support. Regardless of whether you support premarital sex or not, it is important to have a place where our teenaged daughters and sons (and anyone else, for that matter) can go to test for STDs, AIDs, and learn crucial methods of contraception. I would argue that PP is more “compassionate” than its “faith-based” pro-life counterparts.*

*I am aware that the McCain campaign is using “armies of compassion” as a euphemism for “pro-life tendencies”. I just think it’s a load of crap.

McCain is not the only one to refer to these organizations as “armies of compassion”. In June 2008, George Bush used the phrase as well at the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives National Conference. Now, I’m sure there are many other ways in which Bush and McCain are similar, but this seems to be a rather blatant way in which McCain is perpetuating the Bush administration’s doctrine – even down to the jargon!

4 comments
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers