Second Night of Speeches

IMHO the second night was a vast improvement over the first. Arnold's speech was above and beyond anything I percieved him capable of. As uncomfortable as it might make hardline conservatives, I saw some things in his speech that reminded me of another Republican Actor. (Although Arnold can't turn this speech into a springboard for the Presidency by issue of his birth.) Still the California governor hit on all of the issues that Republicans of all shades are immensely proud of, while avoiding the contentious social issues in which the party remains divided. I thought his speech was another example of the "tough love" Republicanism which will win this election for Bush if he wins.
Laura Bush's speech was also excellent. I thought it was humanizing of the President, (often a first lady's main job.) She showed him a dedicated family man, and of course the obligatory reference to the family pet. (Never ever underestimate the power of the First Dog. Checker's should have taught us all that.) I thought she did an excellent job of reiterating the stronger points of Bush's domestic agenda, and I was pleasantly suprised that she didn't shy away from commenting on security, something I thought she would avoid if simply because comments by the FL on security are probably largely disregarded.

I thought the Bush girls were aweful. I didn't think it would be possible to get worse than the Kerry girls and their hamster CPR story, but the Bush girls succeeded in surprising me. I thought they came off vain, ditzy and childish, and a will probably remind millions of potential voters between 18-25 of girls in High School they absolutely couldn't stand.

I also saw legitimate political danger in the twins speech. The fact was that their appearance fell directly into the preexisting stereotypes of the President (i.e vain, ditzy, childish,). Without a doubt that is the worst thing that can come out of any convention, but particularly this one. Any reenforcement of such "popular notions" is problematic. I almost feel bad about being harsh on them, but I think they did their father a genuine disservice. This is particularly true when you realize that increasingly John Stewart provides as much, if not more political news (and certainly the political opinions) for the average citizen than Tom Brokaw.

That being said, I don't think it played that badly inside Republican circles. Since conservatives don't consider Bush vain, ditzy or childish, but rather consider his mood of speech and general attitude refreshing and "down to earth," they expect, or are even pleased to see, the same thing from his children. I think there is a real danger with convention speeches to speak to the audience in the hall rather than the audience in the nation at large. But if you want a good convention bounce, and want to use it to generate a lead for november that you can keep, you have to come out of your convention having offered the best possible face for the country as a whole, not just for the delegates. After all, that's the point of putting on the moderate speakers, like McCain and Arnold.

Opening speeches not quite there

Both McCain and Giuliani were well given and delievered with the appropriate amount of emotion and intensity. But both had some problems.

McCain could simply not find the rhythm of the crowd, which caused constant interference with the tempo and power of his speech. His attack on Michael Moore, while more than worth it, and guaranteed to get a chuckle from every Republican, both those MSG and those at their homes, was a big mistake. Ultimately the one aside is what will catch media attention, particularly the networks, not his fairly powerful endorsement of Bush.

Giuliani on the other hand delivered a very off the cuff speech, littered with personal stories and more than a few attacks against Kerry. Attacking Kerry right out of the gate on the first night of the convention was a big mistake. Especially directly and by name. You know that those attacks will be the only part of HIS speech to catch network coverage or see print. look for "Bush Campaign Goes Negative on First Nite!" if it fits.

The goal of this first night was clear. Remember 9/11, and the President's response. A reasonable calculation when one remembers that Bush's approval rating was around 80%.

The one message that I thought both speechers DID do a good job on was the Terrorism-Iraq connection. Both laid the line very clear that Iraq was a part of the War on Terror, and that only be establishing democratic regimes do we make ourselves safer. I think this was the point Bush was trying to make with Matt Lauer, but that rather backfired.

I wonder to myself some times, why it is that I'm the only one who immediately understands what Bush is talking about when everyone else accuses him of a Faux pas.

"Catastrophic success"= "we succeeded beyond our initial expectations which made post-war planning difficult to impossible.

"Can not win war on terror"= We will always be on guard against terror, because its a method not a political actor. But what's important is that you encourage (or establish) countries which free and democratic, thus reducing the number of areas where terrorism festers.

Both of these things makes perfect sense. I understood them immediately, and I imagine most americans who bother to think for themselve did too. I can't imagine that those in the media (and certainly the Kerry/Edwards campaign) are so incompetent as to not know what he meant. Its a willful misinterpretation, which is the sort of juvenile stunts one sees when campaigns are about personalities not issues (as I've said before).

Either way, I think Bush has set himself up very nicely for a good speech when his time comes. We will see more of the "love in" republicanism that McCain drew upon for his speech, and I think its the right tactic for the Bush camp. If the message stays, "Tough on terrorism and compassionate at home" Bush will deflect much liberal criticism which will be based on deeply held stereotypes of Republicans, and not on the actual substance of the President.

Weighin in on Swift boats

Alright. Despite my efforts to avoid it (hence the lack of posts recently) I've not choice but to comment on the Swift Boat issue, if only because the Media refuses to focus on anything else. Finally having broken down and actually looked at their website, something to me becomes immediately apparent.

These guys don't like Kerry, and it ain't political. It's personal. And, what's more I think they felt misused by Kerry, (they cite numerous times the inappropriate use of their photographs, which apparently seems to have "set them off".) But their real issue is this second Ad. (which most of us who are not in Battleground States have not seen except on the news.)

Now, it maybe true that group shares some donors with the RNC and the Bush Campaign, but this is hardly suprising. The fact is, that the race today is a bitterly contested ideological contest between the left and right wing. And the money men on both sides are spreading the dough evenly around to make sure that no body stays clean in this mess. Its truly appalling, to say the least. But its a fact of American politics, and we shouldn't let it bother us too much. America is full of dirty campaigns for president, all the way back to Jefferson-Adams.

That being said what makes me truly disturbed is why this campaign needs to be about Vietnam. That war ended thirty years ago. The fact is that a lot of people from that era, my father's generation, are looking to fight the conflict over again. On the left they want to use words like "quagmire" and "bogged down." While on the right they see evidence of a campaign conducted like we should have conducted Vietnam. (creating and then backing a strong political leadership in the country and then supporting it.)
I'm sure there are quite a few people out there who are excited about the prospect of turning the Republican Convention into Chicago '69 too. Too many people in my generation are excited about the idea of being the next Abbie Hoffman.

The fact is... THIS IS NOT ABOUT VIETNAM. period. Iraq is a different place at a different time, for a different reason.

We need to focus on today. Today we are in Iraq, not Vietnam, and we have a job to do, and alot of men and women over there who need our support while they do it. Now for me, I look at the swift boat ads, and I make the determination that John Kerry is not an individual who can be trusted to support our troops through thick and thin. But we can't know for sure, like i said its a different war.

As I said in an earlier post, this is a personal campaign, it won't be an issues campaign. And secondly, you can see that both campaigns are heavily invested in insuring that their opponent is drawn as the arch-typical Liberal or Conservative. Kerry is getting out the word now that Bush is a heartless Smear-meister, while the Swiftboat make the case that Kerry is an untrustworthy hypocrite.

Right now I think Bush is getting the better of it, because he's trying to appear relatively compassionate, condemning all 527s, in general. I'm not sure his message is getting out though, but I think it does show that he knows what he has to do image wise to get reelected.

Sorry folks

My apologies on no post yesterday. I spent the day trying to find a menial job that i'm overqualified for. No luck though.

However I'm looking for some good blogging in the next few days. My brother has recently agreed to supply me with pictures and stories of what's going on in Iraq. So I will now have my own source in the area. He should be able to give us a good idea of what the situation looks like over there.

Since we will be relying on his judgement let me tell you a little bit about him. (I'm avoiding the use of his name at this point, because godforbid militants should get ahold of it and decide it might be publicity worthy.)
At the age of 18, my brother entered the Marine Corps. After boot camp he became a Force Recon Marine. He did service in the first Gulf War. After 9 years as a Marine, he left, to begin a Police Office in a major city in the South. There he was part of a team responsible for reducing crime in a major section of the city. This required his being a proactive and assertive police officer. Eventually, in an incident where his life and the life of his partner were put in jeopardy, he shot and killed a suspect.
As a result he was treated harshly by both the city, and a variety of so called "civil rights" organizations, with lawsuits and the like.

At the outbreak of Operation Iraqi Freedom, he joined a Airborne Recon unit of the National Guard, and deployed to Iraq protecting members of the Iraqi Survey Group. It was during this trip that he acquired numerous pictures of contraband weapons from a variety of "Axis of Weasel" countries.

After finishing that tour, he signed up with a Security Contracting firm, and shipped out again to Iraqi. He believes very firmly in what we are doing over there, and In my personal opinion, he's the very epitome of the American soldier.

Anyway, It is my hope that with him on the ground in country, equipped with a digital camera and alot of experience he can help provide us with some real information about what the situation is really like. I will keep you all informed, as well as i can.

Also, the Republican National Convention is coming up. I intend to cover it as well as I can from my couch here in South Carolina. I want to spend the majority of my time reflecting on how they different media organizations tackle the event, and what they spend their time on. But I'll also try to put my thoughts in on each of the major speakers, whether I thought they werre successful at what they were trying to achieve or not. Hopefully it will be a good time for all.
I'm sure, by the way, that there are quite a few people outside the convetion who are all excited about the prospect of turning it into Chicago in '69. There are alot of people my age, and maybe a little older, who are soo disappointed that they weren't able to live in the Age of Aquarius. It's pathetic, in my eyes. Hopefully the NYPD will keep everything in control and out of sight, however I'm expecting some of the news organizations to make as big a deal of it as they can.

Remember that these are not insigificant events, even though the participants have silly hair cuts and smell terrible. If the media identifies with these... anarchists, is what they really are, then they can have a much greater impact then they really deserve.

Poll shows people don't know what they want when it comes to Iraq

According to a new poll (as appearing on Brit Hume's Grapevine) a majority of Americans think that President Bush was too quick to use force in Iraq. However a majority of Americans also back preemptive force as a national security policy.

To me this suggests that the majority of Americans don't really know what they want regarding Iraq. Once you cut through all the spin, the facts are that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous, well armed man in an unstable region, whose very presence undermined the security of our nation. A man who possessed chemical and biological weapons, and had used them. A man who was working on nuclear weapons. And a man with deep associations with terrorists, including contacts with Al-Qaeda. Even if you are willing to quibble over the timeline, all those statements are true, and accepted by both sides, without partisanship. If there was a more clear cut example which required pre-emption, I'm not sure what it was. Anyone who will say Iran or North Korea doesn't understand the issues and the countries involved.

North Korea, even without nuclear weapons (which they probably have) has a million man army. The capital of South Korea is within standard artillery barrage range. Even without weapons of mass destruction, the North Koreans can put a hurting on the South, and us. For that reason containment is the right strategy. Also, the North Koreans are a risk-adverse dictatorship. They aren't going to cross that 38th parallel. It would be disastrous for them, and they know it. (for anyone who'd like more detail about this, please email me for a free copy of my thesis which discusses this problem in a little more depth.)

In Iran you have a different situation. politically the country is divided between reformers and hardline conservative clerics. If you come down too heavily on Iran, you play into the hardliners hands. However if you are too lenient, then they are capable of causing alot of harm. (as witnessed by the arrest of Iranian intelligence agents casing NY landmarks for terrorist actions.)
I'll agree that there isn't a better target for the war on terror than Iran. But you have to choose your weapons very carefully or you will lose any chance of a internal change undermining the hard-liners.

In Iraq however, you have an isolated tyrant, decently armed, and with probable WMD, whose ignored all International Law, and which a coalition of countries has already went to war against to contain about ten years earlier. Your intelligence indicates (as does the intelligence of EVERY WESTERN NATION) that he has violated the terms for peace which ended the previous conflict. It should be a slam dunk. But it turns out that your so-called allies refuse to uphold the coalition which ended the original war (with a little work I can probably post pictures of Exorcet missiles in Iraq that my brother took while he was there, proof that at least our French allies had no interest in upholding sanctions of any kind.)

The trick with Pre-emptive force is that you have to act against an enemy that cannot be persuaded by any means other than force (and with sanctions a joke in Iraq, it was pretty clear that was the case) yet before they are too powerful (which is why North Korea requires containment) Iraq was the text-book case for pre-emption, and I believe it worked.

That being said, let's talk about a little bit about why this confusion exists. In theory American's support pre-emption. why not in fact?

I think that it has largely to do with a concept that is best expressed by a retiring Nebraska Representative by the name of Doug Bereuter (R)

He recently said, "Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess, and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region."

Why Rep. Bereuter, must the solution be easy and quick? It is this kind of one-night stand foreign policy which has gotten American into the trouble she is currently in. The insurgents in Iraq are counting that if they can insure the road is anything but quick and easy we will walk away. Comments like this, from a RETIRING Representative I can simply not understand. It would make sense if he was running for re-election and so felt a need to pander to the anti-war left for a few votes. But since he's leaving his post we have to imagine he's speaking from the heart. How can we expect the populace in this country to stay the course in a tough, but ultimately worthwhile endeavor, when we have irresponsible politicians who apparently honestly uphold the "wham-bam thank you ma'am," school of foriegn affairs. We have made a real commitment to free Iraq from extremists. It is in their best interest, and ours as well. Going into this conflict we found that our allies were those who remembered what it was like to live under dictatorship, and who had recieved American assistance in reaching freedom. Countries like the Czech Republic and Poland came to Iraq with us. Perhaps ten or twenty years down the line, we will see Iraq joining us in coalitions. I'll take a tiny country that remembers what it's like to want freedom over a whole continent of wannabes.

As for America, We have to remember that if the cause is worthwhile, then it is worth more than a quick and easy temporary solution. If pre-emption as a theory is really going to work, then it has to be backed by steadfast determination.

Blogs-for-Bush/Conservative Stereotypes

To keep everyone in the know today I signed up to join the Blogs For Bush blogroll. It was a fairly overdue action. Sort of a "might as well get credit for what one does" move. Anyway, their weblink is http://www.blogsforbush.com, so feel free to check it out. Hopefully it will throw a reader or two my way( raising my readership to one or two.)

I was watching Dennis Miller's HBO comedy special the other night. I think it was called Raw Feed or something like that. Am I the only one struck by the total political turn around this guy has made? I remember watching old saturday night live reruns, and he would just tear into Presidents Reagan and Bush (senior). From what I've seen it is a post- 9/11 reaction. Still seeing the change reminded me of the old Winston Churchill quote, "If you're not a liberal at 20, you don't have a heart. If you're not a conservative by 40, you don't have a brain."

After that thought came to me, I was curious as to when exactly conservatism surrendered the intellectual high-ground, or rather the appearance of intellectualism. I don't think that anyone will disagree with me when i say that the current liberal stereotype of conservatives are those who are either heartless or moronic. I think that it explains the personal animosity that a lot of liberals have for the Bush/Cheney ticket. They think that George W. Bush is a fool, and that Cheney is a vicious power-monger. Alec Baldwin called him a "madman" in his interview with O'Reilly. But perhaps Bill Clinton fit many of our stereotypes about liberals, or at least we percieved him to fit them. I donno about you, but my stereotype would be of a idealistic hypocritical moral relativist.

This election is going to come down to a contest of personalities. The fact is that the majority of people are already decided on the issues of terrorism, Iraq, tax cuts and the economy. The presidency is going to go to whichever ticket can divorce itself of its stereotype. Bush/Cheney have to make an effort (even more so than their last election) to appear idealistic and compassionate. Kerry/Edwards have to do everything in their power to appear trustworthy with strong moral centers. I don't think either side is doing a particularly good job with this right now. Kerry's credibility is under constant fire, and I dont' expect the Republicans to let up any time soon. Bush however has four years of preconceptions (false preconceptions in my view, but the electorate will decide ultimately) heavily entrenched in the minds of many of the voters.

Some thoughts on Biased Media and Economic Spin

Afternoon everyone. I'm gonna start today with my local paper (Anderson Independent Mail http://www.andersonindependent.com) which ran for its front page story an AP wire story headlined,
"Rich get richer as gap widens." To quote the first paragraph for you:

Over two decades, the income gap has steadily increased between the richest Americans, who own homes and stocks and got big tax breaks, and those at the middle and bottom of the pay scale, whose paychecks buy less.
The growing disparity is even more prounced in this recovering economy. Wages are stagnant, and the middle class is shouldering a larger tax burden. Prices for health care, housing, tuition, gas and food have soared.

First off this is a textbook example of media bias in action. if the story opening had read:

over two decades the income gap has steadily increased between the richest Americans and those those at the middle and botton of the pay scale," it wouldn't be so objectionable. But instead you can almost feel the venom with which this article was written, saliva falling on the keyboard, like the acidic drool from the creatures in "Alien."

Take a look at some of these figures: http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/#Head-1.htm

What they show is that between 1977 and 1999 (smack in the middle of the time period which the AP piece is discussing) is that the top 20% of american's paid 67% percent of the US's income tax. In 1999, the top 20% were projected to be paying over 79% of all income taxes, with the those in the second 20% would pay an additional 16%.

And we aren't not talking about Andrew Carnegie here, We're talking about 40% of all americans, paying 95% of income taxes! This wealthy 20% made $143,743 in 2002, and was making $132,000 in 1999.

Now that isn't to say that I don't have sympathy for the lowest 20%. But the AP report implies that the poor are getting poorer. And that was true, from 1977 until 1999. In fact, their total income fell from $10,000 to 8,400. But from 1999 to 2002, their income has increased from $8,400 to $9,990, the highest it's been since 1977.


I'm not going to say that this data can be used to bolster President Bush. I've always been a firm believer that the President has very little control over the economy, and that it's foolish to judge his presidency on that element of American life. But if we aren't going to use it to exonerate him, at the very least, I think the data doesn't provide any evidence which we can attack him with. Yet this is what the AP wire chooses to do. The AP wire, which is the benchmark of journalism, and a standard by which many papers, world-wide, hold themselves.

The thing is, if you asked that upper 20% about their class status, I would give you ten to one odds that over 80% of them define themselves as middle-class. I bet, also, if you interviewed the lowest 20%, you'd find a hefty portion of them, define themselves as middle-class, because, ultimately, America is a classeless society. While its apparent that we have economic stratification (and every country does. I'm gonna look for income differences between rich and poor in some other notable countries around the world, and see how our's stacks up.) I'm willing to bet, yet again, that if you asked that wealthy 20%, at least half of them would tell you, not only are they middle-class, but they actively dislike "upper-class" people.

The truth is that the income gap isn't the real issue. What we should be concerned about is seeing that every American is making more than they were before. Constant improvement is what's important. Focusing on keeping everyone "Equal" means punishing people for pulling away from the pack. If the upper 40% is increasing its income while at the same time being slammed with the burden of all most all of the country's costs, then more power to them.

Troop redeployment from Europe should end Eurocentric security policy... but it won't.

The most recent plan to redeploy around sixty to seventy thousand troops from bases in Europe and elsewhere is long overdue. Everyone knows that since the demise of the Soviet Union, the value of such static defenses has been declining rapidly. The real question though is what will this do for our "alliances" (if we can even call them that any longer) there?
(Edit note: I had originally written 200,000 troops, which is of course insane because the total US troop strengths outside of the current conflict areas is around 200,000.)

Europe for too long has relied on America for its defense. Statistics from 2000 indicate that the United States spends 251.2 billion dollars more on defense then its closest NATO ally (Great Britain, which spent 35.2 billion $ in 2000. NY TIMES 16 March 2002) The fact is that the Europeans simply aren't willing to spend the money to provide for the kind of military which the United States maintains. They lack air-lift, or even air-strike capabilities, they can not deploy troops, or provide those troops with on-site tactical intelligence. The countries of Europe no longer possess militaries which are capable of furthering their interests abroad, or even defending themselves.

Their solution as we saw from the lead up to Operation Iraqi Freedom is to prevent anyone else from doing the same. It's worse than the old adage, "Take your ball and go home." Our so called allies are trying to take OUR ball home with them.

Which makes one wonder exactly what allies Bush has alienated us from, and which Kerry will joyfully reunite us?

It is something of a vicious circle. The less the Europeans are able to participate in essential military actions, (we can debate what those are if you like, provided you are willing to agree that they exist) the more unilateral the United States will appear. The less the Europeans can participate, the more convinced they will be that the unilateral actions of America are at best foolish, and at worse morally repugnant. As a result they will cut funding to their militaries even more, which will, correspondingly make even coalitions of the "willing" impossible, forcing us to rely on a coalition of the "able," namely, ourselves alone.

Ownership Society- As if there was any other kind

Recently the Bush campaign has released a new theme, which they have called the "Ownership Society." Bush says,

"My administration understands the importance of ownership in our society. We've set a great goal: We want every worker in America to become a saver and an owner. And we have an agenda to meet this goal. We will help more people of every background to own their own homes and build their own savings. We will encourage more people to own their own small businesses. We'll help more people to own their own health care plans. We want younger workers to own and manage their own retirement under Social Security so that one day every worker can have the security of a personal account. When people have solid assets to call their own, they gain independence and security and dignity and more control over their future. I believe in property so much, I want everyone in America to have some."
-http://www.georgewbush.com/blog/archives/2004_02.html#000619

What struck me was not Bush's new theme, which seems to be fairly ordinary republican economic fare, but rather the reaction of a certain Paul Krugman. For those of you who are Krugman adverse I'll quote only a little bit, so everyone can get a feel for the article:

"Call me naïve, but I thought all Americans have a vital stake in the nation's future, regardless of how much property they own. (Should we go back to the days when states, arguing that only men of sufficient substance could be trusted, imposed property qualifications for voting?) Even if Mr. Bush is talking only about the economic future, don't workers have as much stake as property owners in the economy's success?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/13/opinion/13krug.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists (you'll need a subscription to the NY times for this one)


a few paragraphs down he continues:

The political problem with a policy favoring investment returns over wages is that a vast majority of Americans derive their income primarily from wages, and that the bulk of investment income goes to a small elite. How, then, can such a policy be sold? By promising that everyone can join the elite.

Krugman has told us a great deal of interest, not about the President's plan of course, but about his own politics, and about Bush's as well, by way of comparison.

Krugman makes a quick jab at the "ownership society" by referring to the ancient practice of only landowners being politically active members of society. This is a juvenile charge, which most probably would dismiss as Krugman simply being Krugman, but I'm gonna stick with it for a moment.

The idea that those with property have more at stake in their society than those who do not, is an ancient but essentially Western one. In the Roman Republic it was seen as natural that only those with property could serve in the legions, since they were the only ones who, the romans thought, had something worth fighting to defend. Traditional liberals (of the 17th century variety) considered private property equally important, indeed defining the purpose of government as the protection of that property. (Locke, John, "The Second Treatise of Government", ed. Thomas P. Peardon pg 49 for instance.)

The reason I'm going into this is because i'm going to make the following statement, which I don't really think should require such support, namely that:

It is the American Dream to own Property.

I don't think Bush is saying much more than that with this Ownership Society. I think, to translate, he's saying simply, "It is the american dream to own property, and I want to help every american realize that dream."

Makes sense to me. It's basic "American Values" stuff.

But it doesn't make sense to Krugman, because ultimately, Krugman is a socialist. He doesn't call himself that, because you can't be a viable public figure in America and be a socialist. But you can tell that Krugman is based on this column of his, which is why I found it so significant.

Krugman is disputing, not Bush so much, as two basic parts of the American philosophy:

1. It is good to own property

and

2. It is possible in America to improve your position in society.

I base the first statement on Krugman's saying the following: "Even if Mr. Bush is talking only about the economic future, don't workers have as much stake as property owners in the economy's success?"

Krugman here is patently suggesting that workers in America don't own property. He's also suggesting that property owners don't work for that property, implying essentially that those with property are thieves, and workers are honest, yet own nothing. Was it Proudhon who said "property is theft"? I can't remember off- hand. Anyway, Krugman is basically suggesting that workers in America ( I don't know why he doesn't use the term Proletariat, since its what he's implying, that American workers are poor, class bound group, with no-ownership or stake in society.)

I don't know how much time Krugman has spent amongst working class people. I don't think its any more or less than I have. But I spent a few months last summer around some factory workers making refrigerators and freezers. And one of the young ladies I met there, (she was twenty-something, high school graduate only, couple kids, and a husband with a police record) told me that they put their incomes, whatever they didn't need for surviving, into acquiring property. They bought land, and harley motorcycles, actually, both good investments, which, if you take proper care of them, can increase in value, (apparently, I don't know that much about Harleys, but this is what she told me.) To me she was proof-positive against the imaginary American worker that Krugman is talking about.

I think that its clear that Americans, of all income-brackets, want to own homes, and motorcycles, or maybe stocks, or farm land. In short they want to own property.

The second point, that Krugman disagrees with the second point, which i said was quintessentially American, can be seen in the statement he makes,

" How then can such a policy be sold? by promising that everyone can join the elite."

Apparently you are part of the elite if you own a piece of property. If you are working towards paying off your mortgage, or if you are purchasing stock.

In short, ladies and gentlemen, Krugman's column here is telling us, essentially, that the American Dream is bunk. You cannot improve yourself or your station in life. And if you think you can you're nothing but an elitist, trying to only profit the rich.

Greetings and Saluations

Hello, and welcome to D.K Republic. I suppose it would be wise of me to begin by describing myself and my purpose. Alternatively, I could do it the old fashioned way and began in medias res, or alternatively, I could simply begin spouting my thoughts at random in stream of consciousness, taking a more 'modernist' approach. While it is undeniable that very structure of the "blog" makes this an attractive option, it also does not fully convey my purpose. So, having come full circle and having made no progress, let me begin again as I intended.

I am David Kyle Shideler. I am twenty-two years of age, and a recent graduate of Boston University's University Professors' Program. At the end of four years, and having spent large amounts of my father and mother's hard earned money I left Massachussets with a degree in Politics and Literature and no job prospects.

My purpose with D.K Republic is three-fold. The first is to put my knowledge to work, (and show certain dismissive friends) that politics and literature belong together, or make a good pair. So within the confines of these pages you should see a great deal of both of those, as I attempt to analyze the current events and cultural phenomena of the day, hopefully providing a little insight to my noble readers in the process( once I've acquired noble readers).

My second purpose is to push my own political opinions upon the rest of you. This is, after all what a good pundit does. You'll no doubt resent this, and I hope you do. There are too many soapbox debaters, and tv, radio and internet pundits as it is. With any luck, I will be the straw which breaks the proverbial camel's back. Everyone will then once again be free to make up their own minds based on available evidence. Because this is my goal, I encourage any and all readers to challenge , criticize, or lambast me whenever the opportunity presents itself (and believe me it will.)

My third, and probably most ignoble purpose is to find a job. This isn't some back handed slap at the President's job creation numbers either, I actually need a job. My hope is that some important, well meaning individual with a big hiring budget will see competence, creativity and hard work, and want desperately to hire me, without even so much as an interview. I know that this is the basically the political equivalent of flying to hollywood to become an actress, and I realize that it is far more likely that I will end up the blog equivalent of Julia Robert's character in 'Pretty Woman" but it is worth a shot.

So without further ado, let us begin D.K Republic. Enjoy.