A month off

As you can see from my lack of postings I've taken this past month off from posting. No apologies, but look for me to begin posting this upcoming november once again.

Since When Does America Care About It's Global Image?

Many people seem to complain that America's world image has been destroyed under the Bush Administration. But when has America ever cared about its world image before? We've always viewed ourselves as world policeman since the end of WWII. However in doing so the means always met the ends, and therefore there was only peace if we approved of it. How close is world policeman, to world dictator.

For many years we never cared about our global image. We had no problem using napalm in Vietnam, or enlisting puppet dictators in Greece, Iran, and Peru. We had no problem instilling "Democracy" in parts of the world where a democratically elected socialist government was not democratic enough.

As world policeman, our job was always to a) stop the spread of communism (not a bad thing) and b) spread democracy. When did our world image disappear? I would venture to say after the fall of the Soviet Union, when we became the sole Hegemon, and a new unipolar word was created. Once the Soviet Union collapsed who was there for us to paint as evil? Islamic Fundamentalists I suppose which is generally backed by the commoners of the region. Not to mention, that there is no Islamic Fundamentalist nation that holds a nuclear arsenal. Just look at that picture, AK-47's versus the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.

We heavily condemned the Soviets for their invasion of Afghanistan for many of the reasons we went into the war. Not fighting terror, but rather Spreading "Democracy." The only difference is that the Soviets were spreading communism. 

So what do we do once Soviet Russia has fallen? We invade the Middle East under the guise of spreading Democracy. This isn't so different from Soviet Russia now is it? We go in to spread "Democracy" (so long as it's not socialist) and the Soviets went in to spread communism. Are we any different? We are spreading our own interests in capitalism, and the soviets spread their own interests in communism.

Now that we are the unipolar hegemon of the world there is no one to point the blame at, and therefore not only the east, but the rest of the west is seeing beneath the guise of spreading democracy. That it is just away to spread American imperial interests.

Where did our Global Image go? It was never there, the United States just had someone to make look worse. Now that they're gone, the rest of the world sees that we were never so different from the Soviets, and therefore our foreign policy is now seen as what its always been. America's purported Global Image of man in the white hat has never existed, it was merely an illusion, which used a Soviet Scapegoat to distract its audience.

The Roots of Islamic Fundamentalism

In the "War on Terror," the war effort is highly concentrated on Islamic Extremists, who hold the political ideology of Islamic Fundamentalism. 

Islamic Fundamentalism is the replacement for classical conservatism, where rather than having the Nobles obliged to lead, we have the Mullahs obliged to lead their people. This all comes down to, if you think of government as a body, and everyone in it, as part of it, who is the head, and who is the toe?  The Mullahs, are the head, and the people may be the toe. The bottom line is, the head can decide if the toe becomes infected with gangrene whether or not to chop it off.

So how does the Mullah decide if the toe is infected? Well, through religion of course. The goal of this life is not to live happily, but rather to live a better after life which will be determined by what you do here. Sound familiar? Yes, it is reminiscent of medieval Europe. And on that note, you will notice, that civil liberties, and human rights do not necessarily equate to a perfect afterlife, so therefore in many cases the Mullahs are left to wonder; do they matter?

The next question is, why Islamic Fundamentalism? Well it turns out, that this in my opinion brutal ideology, is a direct result of "The West's" (Specifically America's) interests. When many countries of the middle east, were coming out of their Colonial British Rule, we find that they naturally turned towards democracy. Ah what could be better, the establishment of the American Dream in foreign lands.

That was until, they democratically elected socialist governments during the height of the Cold War. Thanks to the Truman Doctrine we couldn't let them choose for themselves, so like in the case of Iran, we instituted dictatorships such as the Shah. 

We left them with despair, that the governments of the west would betray them. That in socialism we would overpower them, and that in capitalism, we would continue to plunder the resources of the region, as had been done under British rule.

So the people turned to something common among all of them. That my peers, was Islam, and in doing so they created a political ideology which they felt was all their own neither western nor, eastern, but uniquely middle eastern and of their own accord. 

So in this sense, the Islamic fundamentalist movement is a result of our own actions. I do not like Islamic Fundamentalism, it scares me a bit. Not for its underlying religion, but rather its lack of human rights, and belief that we are in a temporary stage going to a better place. However it is the lack of human rights, I do not like, and I believe that people should have civil liberties available. 

Islamic fundamentalism on many levels is quite brutal. I do not advocate its spread at all. However when looking for the culprit in the creation of Islamic Fundamentalism, and in many cases our "enemy" in the "War on Terror," we need but look in the mirror.

Cut, or Redistribute?

Government spending. This was the issue preoccupying the minds of our two presidential candidates in a debate on foreign policy. However government spending is in fact a big deal, and a key election issue for both major parties.

Why is government spending such a big issue? The main reason, is that government spending is funded by your taxes, and John Mc.Cain would like to cut them, while Obama would like to raise them. I on the other hand would like to take specific spending, i.e pork barrel spending, and redistribute it to stray away from the special interests, and put them into say public works, or part of the bail out. However by tying these up in pork barrel spending we take away from the tax money going to help the people.

So why should we not cut spending though? It seems like a good idea, lower taxes, more money for you right? Wrong. You see in America, there are literally millions of tax free jobs. These are jobs that are part of the government, part of the bureaucracy. Teachers, postmen, and any federal or state employee is paid through government spending. So to cut government spending in our faltering economy means unemployment, and therefore less liquidity in the market.

Obama would like to expand spending, however as McCain made clear Obama has historically supported pork barrel spending. Thus said, we wonder what Obama will increase spending for. He says, provide health care, and lower taxes for the middle class. Do that, however rather than tax anew, take what's already being spent, and shift funds over.

I am neither for the cutting of all spending, nor the increase of spending. However, the redistribution of spending, may perhaps be a safer long term solution when considering the faltering state of our economy.

When do we talk Politics?

What does it mean to "talk politics?" Generally we think politics and we call to mind pictures of presidents, elections, laws, and parties. I believe that there is more to politics, that perhaps much more is political then we are lead to believe.

A traditional definition of politics courtesy of the new oxford dictionary is, "the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially, the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power "

David Schuman defines politics as: "what will I breathe, how will I make a living, and who will I sleep with."  By this definition politics is not just about elections, it is everything action and inaction we take. Politics is more than just elections and running for office, but is your daily life, and thus everything you do is political.

The definition I tend to side with is that of Schuman, that everything you do is an act of politics. That the very act of someone saying, "I hate politics," or "I'm politically apathetic," they are in fact being very political. This in effect may make them more "political" than a democrat or republican as they are professing their discontent with something in the system even if unaware of it.

I believe there is no escaping politics. That every action or statement you make, is political in some way, not in the sense of elections, but in daily life. The desire to get ahead to do better, manifests itself in your actions or inaction's which are themselves political motives.

Politics is not something that comes around once every four years.  Politics, is what you believe in, and what people make you out to be. It is their perception of you that makes your political views and social status what it is. Politics as Schuman said is everything. It is not something you can ignore, because in ignoring it you are being political. A catch 22 it seems indeed, as seemingly every action one makes is for political motives.

So back to the question, when do we talk politics? The answer is not often enough, however the question when do we act politically is always whether we want to or not,

American Idiocracy

Many of us often refer to the average American. But what is the average American?

According to my father there are three types of people, those who do, those who watch, and those who wonder what happened. By my father’s logic, the average American is the one in the middle, the man who watches what happens, the man who watches and says nothing, and the man who listens without questioning.

My father makes a valid point, I too agree that much of America sits and watches, but at the same time I feel the average American surrenders their will to the "powers above him" and in doing so stands by unconsciously aware of his actions, and the consequences, or lack thereof.

Perhaps it is not that the average American sits by and watches, but feels that life is good as it is and therefore has nothing to strive for. The unconscious American knows what they must strive for, but does little to obtain it. In doing so he allows himself to be made a fool by those he believes in, but does not know or understand. This is manifested by a desire to stay where one is, which is generally just comfortable enough in life to prevent uprising, thus allowing those who watch to remain content. This desire to stay secure allows the average American to be ignorant of not only change, but of new ideas, and logic as well.

This inaction has led us to what I like to call the "American Idiocracy." No longer, does the average American think for himself, he is saturated with media, and is taught to believe what he is told. He is told that if he stays in line, everything will remain secure. The average American does not express his own thoughts, but rather encapsulates them so he may ascertain his security. As De Tocqueville said: "I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America."

Why does the average man stay silent? Why does he believe what the government tells him and remain ignorant for himself. Generally when speaking of the average American, we create a person who is among other things, wholly vacuous, rather harmless, a pawn, who is fine with being manipulated as he is to blind to see it. And it is this manipulated, and doltish man/woman, who we must rely on to choose our future. (Thank you Ohio)

Am I saying that all men are not created equal? Yes, I am. All men are not created equal, all men are men, who do what they know will bring them relative comfort and security in life. It is this comfort and security, which they fear losing, that allows them to be manipulated. And in doing so this manifests the ignorance that once ingrained is a powerful weapon of political repression not by the state, but rather by oneself. It is this inbred ignorance which causes the average American to stay where he or she is, it is this ignorance that prevents one from thinking for himself, and in doing so makes the average American fit the mold of self serving, ignorant, and wholly unaware.

Can the average American become the above average, or even the elite? Yes, but the key is open mindedness, acceptance, and advocacy which as much of a melting pot as we seem to be, is lost in the ignorance of inflamed passion and rage which the proletarian is trained to act on.

The American Idiocracy has the little "power" given to the people, should it stay this way? And where is the mass of the population in their political views? The answer is Democrat and Republican, however the mass views these two as distinctly different ideologies. They are both liberal, but the people have been trained to see them as polar opposites. Power is based off the Average American, however it is not based off the individual, and free flowing thought. It is this political manipulation, and the repression of thought that keeps the average American ignorant, and inactive and thus, average.

What is Human Nature?

To be honest i do not know the answer to this question. There was a time though when I was sure I knew what human nature was. I would have described it to you as, overall bad, that man's goal was self serving, and that the end goal of human nature was to self serve in order to move on into the elite status we all crave.

However this summer, I took a course and know longer necessarily believe that. If we look at what we say about human nature, we would often say, that it is selfish, hedonistic, full of cutthroat ambition, and that we as individuals are not any of the traits previously stated. Who are we to say that humans on a whole are bad, but that we are different, that we are not bad, that in effect we do not share the curses of our society. And if human nature was innately evil, then why would we care that we were not that way, that we are somehow different. If human nature is evil then we wouldn't want to be made separate form it, we would not desire to be viewed as righteous.

So do we know what human nature is, or have we been taught what to believe? "Life liberty, and the pursuit of property. " John Locke said that on human nature, and our founding fathers were directly influenced by that. They were worried that the "tyranny of the majority" might overtake the dissent thus instituting a monarchy. They were not trying to limit the pursuit of property though: perhaps we can best see Locke's impact in the protection of their own property, preventing debtors governments, and social movements. However it is with this thought of human nature that we are not only governed by, but brought up into.

The question I truly ask is not what human nature is, but rather what have you been taught to believe in. Do you really believe that human nature is evil. That we would all kill each other unless governed. That human nature is bad, and that therefore you need government, not to protect you from outside evils but rather yourself. If we look at the period of time before the invention of agriculture, we generally had peace, people lived in a communal setting where egalitarianism was not a desire, but rather a fact. Perhaps human nature is not evil, but rather it is the manipulations in thought and upbringing that have led us to believe so that human nature is evil.

What is human nature? If there was a great flood of the arks proportions, would the remaining humans fight one another or come together? Would we live for one another, or for ourselves? Would we care for our petty desires, or for the group as a whole. I do not pretend to know that human nature is evil. That it is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and nothing else. Is this what you believe or what you've been taught to believe?

The secret Message in Ferdinand the Bull

The story of Ferdinand the bull, is that rather than fight in the bull ring, a solitary bull would rather sit by, and smell the flowers. What does this show us? Several things I feel. Firstly Ferdinand the bull neither initiates nor accepts the provocations of the matadors to fight. Instead he chooses peace, the desire to be one with nature, and to end the bloodshed. The act of not fighting can be seen as an act of symbolic speech wherein Ferdinand in not fighting is a conscientious objector to his societal status as a bull and that his smelling the flowers is really an act of civil disobedience.

Perhaps it is this civil disobedience that is what allows for peace, and the book shows that to maintain peace, occasionally civil disobedience as a desire for peace must be made visible. Ferdinand also shows us that peace allows for a happy ending, as Ferdinand is in fact one of the few bulls who makes it out of the bull ring, thanks to his resistance.

Call me Crazy for distorting this message out of a children's book, but I'll be sniffing the flowers.

Country First?

Up until this point, I have not commented on the campaign or the messages of John McCain. However when watching the Republican National Convention (RNC) I noticed the repeated theme and new slogan of John McCain was "Country First."

To many people they may have thought, what a patriotic, pro-American, positive thing to say. I personally took the motto "Country First," as a very nationalist, not anti-American, but rather perhaps a bit of a fascist thing to say. Yes, that’s right, country first, over its people. Let us sacrifice for the country!

I respect John McCain’s service record. In fact I admire his sacrifice for his country. However we have become a consumer driven country that has thoroughly invested into the military industrial complex. In doing so we no longer feel it is country first, but rather individual first. Perhaps it is the ways of old in "Country First" that McCain finds support for his new slogan.

In his acceptance speech Obama, said that we all put country first. I feel this is an inaccuracy, we have learned to put individual first, and to forget about those who we do not benefit off of. We do not put country first. However our government should not follow a policy of country first, but should institute a policy of people first.

The question may arise; how is country first different from people first? Country first puts the needs of the country above the needs of the people; these needs are not synonymous. The needs of the people ought to be what the needs of the country are. However far too often the people are ignored, and a few special interests are placed above those of the general population.

What is it that really bothers me about "country first?" It's is the nationalist undertone, that no matter how you feel, the betterment of your country should precede the betterment of the individual, and the objectives of the people in mass. In putting country first, we deny our own desires.
Maybe I'm too much of a consumer to see the value in putting my country first. A representative government as ours claims to be, should not chain its citizens in servitude from which they may not break free, but rather our government should be in service to its people. With a slogan of "Country First" on both sides, surely we are left to know that we will continue to represent the interests of a few, while the general populace remains ignored, abused, and in servitude.

What If The Majority Of Citizens Didn't Vote?

What would happen if 51%< of all eligible voters did not vote? Would that, make the government illegitimate as the majority of people did not vote for that government to be  in place?

Is It Really The Oil Companies Fault?

According to John McCain we have become a "Nation of Whiners." Obama has retorted that we are not, and things are genuinely bad at the moment. However is that really true, are we whining? I feel that at least when it comes to gas prices we are.

It is not the oil company’s fault, but rather ours. The main complaint with the oil companies seems to be that they are making "windfall profits." But what defines a "windfall" profit?

It seems that a "Windfall" profit has become a profit that is greater than the revenue needed to keep a business going. However is not the ultimate goal of profit to be able to stay in business? I personally see this as the goal of profit. I find it sad that here in America the land of "equal opportunity" people are complaining about an industries profits when here they should have the equal opportunity to build their own industry if aptly able.

Note that I am in fact not advocating the "trickle down effect." However I am saying that we are complaining over the success of one industry while no longer striving to recreate that success in our own lives. It can be duly noted that the corporate executives in the oil companies have in fact gained personal wealth. However how much of this actually has to do with consumption as it does inflation. Could the prices have been made lower via increased drilling several years ago? Yes, would it have been profitable, no.

If we look at the recent drilling activities in North Dakota, we are left to ask the question; why are they drilling now? Why not three years ago? Very simply as the price per barrel went up the profitability went up. We all know that labor costs are less outside the U.S so why wouldn't they wait until the price was high enough that they could turn a profit off the oil they knew was there. Does it help gas prices now? No, but it does allow the oil companies to maintain profit and thereby giving us one sector of the economy which does not seem prone to an impending recession.

Furthermore I hear of the oil companies funding studies for alternative fuels, and people go well why would we trust them. They say that the oil companies are afraid of alternative fuels, that they know they'll put them out of business.

This is not the case though. The oil companies are not in the business of oil, but rather they are in the business of energy. This means that to continue to make profit they will be the companies to invest and push for the innovation of new alternative fuels.

Are there times when the oil companies policies are a bit sketchy, yes. Do I feel we regulate their business practices enough? No. However I am tired of people complaining over their profit when really if we want to switch to alternative fuels it is big oil that will lead us there. Lower gas prices would be great, however if we look at the "windfall" profits, are they so extravagant when that profit will yes, go to execs, but it will also go into research and development, taxes, and may eventually be the key to seeing lower prices at the pump.

My short views on Trust

Perhaps the reason we do not trust, is not that we are afraid of losing our trust in man, but rather that man will lose their faith in us.

Why Should I Vote?

Why should I vote? In America, we have been taught that it is your duty to vote, that it is right, and that if you do not then you are doing not only yourself, but also your country injustice. But are we really? Where has the injustice occurred, do you even have a choice when you vote? According to the two party system you do, and it's Democrat or Republican. This nicely translates to a choice of Liberal, and Liberal. It denies the possibility that, Fascists, Classical Conservatives, Socialists, and Communists do exist, and therefore limits not only their choice, but prevents them from being able to act on their beliefs.

We have been taught to believe that in not voting, you are giving up your right to do something, to create change, that to not vote is an abdication of your power. We are taught from a young age, that if you want to change the influence government has in your life then you must vote. However is the action of voting itself not an action imposed by the government; the end goal being to make you vote as they desire?

To quote author David Schuman, "Americans have a voting fetish." We feel that we cannot have government without voting, and thereby in voting you show your belief that government is in fact necessary.

By voting what are you doing? I feel that you are not showing your beliefs in what you believe public policy ought to be, but rather that you are fine with the policy in place. That your vote shows belief in a system that gives you no choice, but makes you "empowered." Why could not voting, not be seen as an act of expression, showing not only your discontent with the system but the fact that you've had enough of the politicians telling you what to do?

Voting itself shows your belief in the system, but how are we to know any better. Until this past summer I too believed that not voting was bad. That in not voting, I was accepting my fate, and that in voting I could find my voice. Interesting that we associate vote and voice together. By not voting are you really abdicating your voice? Are you really voicing your thoughts in a private secluded booth, where the only change you’ll make is a ballot that may or may not be counted?

I feel that you aren't, that by not voting on a conscious level you see the system as fundamentally flawed, that voting is in fact taking away your political voice. That it is stifling your thoughts and expression and forcing you to believe that you have a limited voice. Speak up! Not in a voting booth, but in public, make your voice be heard, not whether you’re a Democrat or Republican.

I personally can't vote, as I'm 17. However if I were eligible to vote, I will tell you that my vote would lie with Montgomery Brewster of the novel/movie "Brewster's Millions," and that thanks to this past summer I would in fact vote “None of the above!”

Obama, McCain, and Bush... Different methods for the same product.

I'm not the biggest fan of Obama, even if I do prefer him to Mc.Cain. Although I don't believe in many of his positions, and ideas, I did watch the Democratic National Convention (DNC).

I will say this much for Obama, like Reagan, like Bill Clinton, like Nixon, he is an excellent orator. (Scratch the Nixon.) But what did he actually say in his acceptance speech is what I'd really like to know?

First off he said he wanted change, that he desired social change, that he wants education reform, and healthcare reform. However he did not mention his plans for each item, and when looking at them you will see that the plans he does have are inadequate. He also said that he plans on pulling out of Iraq, and that Iraq is bad. However later in the speech he contradicts that very notion, and I’ll explain that a little later on. Finally he said that McCain is another George Bush, but in reality later in his speech he himself describes the desires of the Bush administration. You may say how, but for the moment, I want you to ask yourself what has he actually said thus far, that Republicans are bad and that he is different.

I'm now going to turn the writing for a bit over to Obama's speech writers, as this is the section where he truly expresses a desire and the knowledge that not only is America an Empire, but that his Administration will keep it that way. Note this is both the goal of McCain and George Bush; it appears it is now the goal of Obama as well. Are they any different now?

"You know, this country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that's not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that's not what makes us strong. Our universities and our culture are the envy of the world, but that's not what keeps the world coming to our shores.

Instead, it is that American spirit, that American promise, that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.

That promise is our greatest inheritance. It's a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night and a promise that you make to yours, a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west, a promise that led workers to picket lines and women to reach for the ballot.

And it is that promise that, 45 years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln's Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.

The men and women who gathered there could've heard many things. They could've heard words of anger and discord. They could've been told to succumb to the fear and frustrations of so many dreams deferred.

But what the people heard instead -- people of every creed and color, from every walk of life -- is that, in America, our destiny is inextricably linked, that together our dreams can be one.

"We cannot walk alone," the preacher cried. "And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back."

America, we cannot turn back..." (Barack Obama accepting the Democratic Nomination)

Many people see that excerpt and think, what a great country we live in, I view it as an admission that we have built an American empire which strives to capture, not only the economic capital, but also the human capital from around the developing world. This excerpt is not only an admission that American empire is a good thing, but that it is right to exist. Many people here will view the "we cannot turn back," line as a landmark for civil rights. However it is really an exclamation that under an Obama administration the U.S will maintain its hegemony, and will remain the empire it is currently. Obama is hypocritical here, as it's finally coming out that the change the Obama campaign wishes you to believe in, is really the preservation of empire.

People often ask of me; how can you think Obama and McCain are the same, that Democrats and Republicans are equal. It's a very simple answer. Both The Democrats and Republicans end goal is to preserve American hegemony, and in doing so assert ourselves as the worlds only superpower. Even George Bush wished to do this, even if through what we may now call preemptive war. (Kissinger would be proud)

The fact that McCain leads to four more years of George Bush is a fallacy, because in terms of preserving hegemony and the "Pax Americana" society we live in, Obama, and McCain are both the equivalent of George Bush.

Why I hate Starbucks.

Many people my age (young adults) seem to love Starbucks; they can't get enough of it. However I personally can't stand them. A lot of this has to do with the fact that I own my own espresso machine, and through the practice of one cap a day, and a latte here and there, I learned that they are a corporate conglomerate that has no quality control. Furthermore Starbucks is a genius of market manipulation, in their "pro-humanitarian advancement" coffee beans. They do such a great job at making you think, that 15 dollars you spent on a pound of coffee is, a) especially delicious and special, and b) that it helps human development in the third world where the coffee is grown. They've also created a cult of customers who prefer their coffee kool-aid flavored concoctions, rather than a consumer base who knows to appreciate a rich crema, a subtly micro-foamed latte, and a silky, smooth cap that you wish would continuously refill itself.

I'd like to start with the more shallow of my complaints against Starbucks. The bottom line, is that their coffee is an inconsistent, overhyped, and overpriced product. The joke that carrying a starbucks coffee cup is a status symbol is not so far off. For those in the know, carrying a starbucks coffee cup means that you know little about coffee, or that you were in a rush and couldn't enjoy a cup the way it's supposed to drank, in porcelain, over a minimum of 15 minutes. However that status symbol is what there selling, not the coffee. Sure they have espresso machines, and you can't order a medium but hey, that's what your paying four fifty for, in a drink that cost at most a dollar to make. 

Starbucks in many ways is credited with bringing specialty coffee (espresso drinks) to America. However that's a fallacy. It was really Alfred Peet who did it in Berkley California, not Seattle. And this brings me to the quality of Starbucks specialty drinks, which are at best abysmal. Sure they create fancy iced whipped concoctions better suited in an alchemists workshop than in a coffee shop, but remember it's spiked with kool-aid. But what I'm talking about is the classic specialty drinks; caps, latte's, straight shot's, Americano's, and lest we forget my favorite mystery drink (changes depending on where you get it) the Macchiato. Yes, at Starbucks, you can consistently get one of these delightful drinks. The price you will pay is whether or not your milk-based drinks will a) be improperly foamed, b) scorched, or c) stiff.Don't forget that this is put in a paper cup which is of course not only bad for the environment, but of course does nothing for the flavor of the coffee itself.

You'll notice that the proper latte (shown above) has a design, when the milk is foamed correctly a good barista can do this consistently in even caps and macchiato. That picture is one of my lattes (forgive me I'm oddly proud I have no life) and the milk was silky and smooth just as it should be. I ask you, have you ever gotten a latte from starbucks where the milk made the latte, where it blended together in harmony with the coffee? I think not, if you have, you'll note it was a once in a lifetime thing. Inconsistency overpricing, and just overall lousy quality have made me despise getting my coffee from starbucks.

The other issue with starbucks is their commitment to "helping their farmers." This can be seen with their Sidamo blends, where they want you to think that a dollar and 35 cents a day is a great wage compared to a dollar a day. Yes its 35% more, but its not enough to conceivably help lift an area out of the third world. However they want the consumer to think that 35 cents is a very big difference and in doing so make us by more, while really allowing for little to no progress actually obtained.

Now, I know I didn't go into much detail, on the last point, but to be honest that’s not my specialty. I'm sorry but when it comes to my coffee I sadly think more of the quality of the bean and roast than of the people behind it. I'm ashamed to admit it, but it's true. The question now becomes do I change my habits, and begin insisting on fair trade coffee. At the moment it’s whoever has the best roast for the price. Perhaps when I'm not a student and can afford the difference I’ll buy differently. Until then I'm happy my family even has an espresso machine, which has allowed me to experience the gift of truly magnificent lattes, caps, macchiato and the like.

I love coffee I really do, but I feel it shouldn't be ruined, that it’s not the image it conveys, that it's the quality of the bean, the flavor, the aroma, the acidity; I love it. However Starbucks has taken what I enjoy, and corrupted it with bad policy in their quality control. We've just been drinking too many of those kool-aid flavored frappuccinos to know that good coffee goes beyond starbucks.

Obama Is not all he's been cracked up to be.

Barack Obama is a candidate for change. Perhaps this is why I have a problem with Barack Obama. Not only has he become the candidate for "change," but in the past he's chosen to shy away from change. Looking at his voting record,(small as it is,) you will find that he often voted "present" essentially abstaining from the vote on controversial issues. This record of voting "present" is even more apparent when he was during his glorious tenure in the state of Illinois state congress.

The word change... What do we associate with change? Generally I feel many people view change as a negative thing. However when presented in the right light, (which Obama's done very well) it can be become positive; this was also done, by a man many "liberals" hate. That man was Ronald Reagan. We can view Reagan and Obama's campaign tactics as nearly identical as they both are positive go get'em attitudes. However Reagan was more specific for the change he desired. The interest rate was at 21% when he took office and the feeling was that America's days of empire were over. Reagan said they were not.

How is Obama's quest for change any different I ask of you? How many times in the DNC have you heard of America's world image, NEEDING TO BE RESTORED? Apparently it does, because all of a sudden we care what other countries think of us. We didn't ten years ago. Obama's promise of change is really a promise to continue on the path of an ever greater imperialist America.

As for Biden, I ask of you to view his voting record on appropriations. You will notice that here he is not so "liberal," that he has continually voted with the Bush administration i the Iraq war, and furthermore is for ANWAR Drilling. His record further shows that for someone who is a "Humanitarian" he has repeatedly supported military action over aid. He in fact called Saddam Hussein a threat before the Bush Administration. As head of the foreign relations committee that's just what I'd want, a war-monger.

If all the above doesn't convince you that Obama, Biden, (hey alliteration!) are not the perfect candidates, than I would like to throw out there also that Biden is a known Plagiarist, and has even been caught lying on his resume. People wonder why this matters. I say it does, because if a man is cutthroat in his personal relations, than what is to keep his love of lying, cheating, and winning at all costs, inside the country once in power? These very qualities, are also backed up in Biden's war voting record, where he's consistently voted for the war, and he's always voted for U.S "intervention" in foreign affairs. Biden is just what we need, an ardent supporter of Real Politik, in his own life, and in foreign relations.

Realists of the world rejoice! Idealists, sadly now is the time to worry most. Will we ever resort to soft power in foreign affairs in lieu of military action? Obama and Biden seem to think not. In fact none of the candidates do. Note that I am not a McCain supporter. However I refuse to believe that Obama is all he's cracked up to be.

Both McCain and Obama have some decent Ideas, however neither truly defines change in the sense they wish to convey it. To me it seems, that were just doing more of the same old “stuff”, presented in a different light. In one way or another, we will either continue Reaganist internal policy, or go back to a quasi version of Johnson's great society. The question is not whether we want change or not, but rather which do you prefer? My fear is not that Americans will vote for one or the other. But rather that they will remain unaware of what they are voting for.