It's a new day.

With the election of President-elect Obama, there is both a sense of joy and uncertainty. The joy is for the fact that America has put aside race as an issue and voted in an African American. For a country to put aside race and vote in a new person who ran on a campaign that promised "change" shows that the country is ready for change in many ways.

The combination of President Bush and Congress has left a heck of a mess to clean up. Although Iraq has improved over time, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated over time, and now the Taliban has begun to exert political influence in Pakistan. How President Obama deals with Pakistan is quite important. Though he gained his foothold in politics by opposing the Bush-led foray into Iraq, as commander-in-chief, Obama isn't one of the rabble speaking out on the war, he's the face of the United States. His words will now convey America's intentions as a protector of freedom and free trade though the world.

That trade isn't so free anymore. The American economy has been built on dept. While Congress slept, the Federal Reserve had their collective heads up their behinds. People working the night shift at Taco Bell were given home loans for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the banks made the loans even though they were bad. No down payment, no problem. The reason it was no problem is because Greenspan kept interest rates too low while simultaneously flooding the money supply. American consumers built up tremendous amounts of debt. Congress is supposed to regulate the Federal Reserve, but aside from Ron Paul, they all seemed to be kissing Greenspans backside rather than oversight. This "meltdown" that seemed to catch people off-guard was foreseeable.

Thus, President-Elect Obama takes over a country that is in debt, at war, and with a shrinking middle-class job tax base. The new president wants to tax the rich and corporations, but both may opt out of investing in the United States. That would be tragedy for the country.

So, all of a sudden, the keys to the United States will be handed to President Obama. Everyone should wish him well. It won't be an easy job.

Global Warming's a real problem that needs a real president

Last week, a scientist from NASA named James Hansen testified before Congress and said that global warming was a serious threat to Earth. He said that the carbon dioxide level that captures heat is continuing to rise, therefore, a rise in global temperatures should be expected. The thing is, the same scientist told Congress about the problem twenty (20) years ago. The climate data (1988) showed that the average temperature on Earth was warmest year on record to that date. Since the time, 14 of the 20 years have had record temperatures. Hansen said that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were currently at 387 ppm, but he said the Earth needed to lower the level to 350 ppm to avoid severe affects on the planets life.

We missed the boat for the last 20 years? Which presidential candidate is the best to take charge and help improve the Earth's environment? McCain, Obama, or ?

Obama on Iraq - Reality setting in.

It is interesting that Presidential candidate Barack Obama says that he's happy for the progress in Iraq. Is it an indication that he'll say that it's possible to leave Iraq when he gets to office, or will he stay the course in Iraq? His primary campaign promise has been "change," and Iraq has been one of his defining issues. The truth is that invading Iraq was a huge mistake, however, there is also the possibility that a wholesale pullout from of the Middle East will create more problems than the Bush presidency.

If elected, should Obama opt for a quick exit from Iraq, or should we try to stabilize the region?

New York, McCain, and Obama...

This year we have two presidential candidates to choose from: One is McCain, an older candidate that embraces a moderate approach to change; while the other, Obama, is a younger candidate who exposes the need for lots of "change." There are clear differences in styles between the two candidates, but the choice needs to be about substance, not perception. Our perceptions are easily manipulated, and it is important to understand what we're getting. An example of this manipulation comes from my childhood when I was brainwashed about New York City.



While growing up, one of the things I always heard from people was, "I would hate to go to New York City, it's too crowded. Why would anyone want to go there?" Since my parents had been raised in the mid-West during the "Great Depression," the idea of going to New York was frowned upon. Crowds, noise, crime, and money grubbers were all associated with NYC. It was funny, but it seemed my parents grew up with a general fear of the unknown.



This fear of the unknown was also used to paint other places: Mexico was a prime example. The general impression growing up was that it was a place that was corrupt, dangerous, and full of theives. Two months of my life were spent in Mexico and my experience showed me that the people are wonderful, and for most part, it is safe. My distrust of large cities melted away during trips to Boston (which isn't that large) and London, and both are wonderful places to visit. With that in mind, last year's trip to New York was a spectacular success. However, in 1984, a visit to Manhattan revealed a very different place: It was rather sleazy. Due to a concerted effort, Manhattan has changed for the better, was able to survive and even thrive since 9/11.



So, we are faced with a presidential race and one candidate (Obama) calls for change because the current administration under Bush is unpopular. He's running against Bush rather than McCain. There's no doubt that the United States has struggled under the leadership of Bush, but the country will eventually recover. What is sad about Obama is that he campaigns for change, but his efforts as a lawmaker in the Senate were meager. He gives good speeches, but the substance of his words is lacking. In the grist of the legislative process, Obama offers little. Unfortunately, McCain has not articulated how his economic policies will create prosperity for the working people, and he seems spend as much time distancing himself from Bush as he does running against Obama.

In a way, listening to McCain and Obama is like listening to my parents discuss New York City. Both candidates speak of fear rather than opportunity. Obama plants the fear of Bush while McCain speaks of the specter of higher government spending. On the one hand, Bush will be gone no matter who wins, and the government has almost always increased spending. The problems we face at the present time aren't about Iraq: they are related to the current and future economic condition of the United States. The two candidates need to articulate a plan that will determine the best method to move the economy forward. We need to lower inflationary pressures and insure energy independence. Working to secure Iraq and attaining global stability are a part of that plan. The candidates need to tell us how the United States is going to channel its economic resources through legislation, and through influence on the Federal Reserve and Treasury Departments to help the American economy.