Rule by the Mob

When the Government of the young United States was being created by the founding fathers, a main case against democracy was that it would result in mob rule. Shay's Rebellion made this potential outcome of democracy far too clear. A safe medium was created between anarchy and monarchy, however, and everyone lived happily ever after, well, sorta. Skip forward 230 years or so years, and the threat of a government run by a mob is once again a potential future, just not to the extent of the threat back then. As the nature of the two presidential campaigns comes into clearer and clearer view, it is easy to tell apart the two different type of crowds. Many of McCain's supporters are republicans who are just along for the ride and prefer his running mate to him, essentially being Palin-McCain supporters. The Obama crowd, on the other hand, are incredibly enthusiastic, and for the leader of the campaign as well. In 'What Have We Created',  Howard Fineman assesses what may become of Obamaniacs if their hero is to win next tuesday. The Obama Campaign owes its existence to volunteers, enthusiastic young voters, and grassroots organizing. As Fineman puts it "The bottom line is 3.1 million contributers, 5 million volunteers, 2.2 million facebook supporters... Obama could end up "knowing" 7 million voters by election day, roughly 1 in 10 of Obama's likely total" these masses of people really expect something from Obama in the ways of governing, but they also expect their participation to continue into the White House. These people are extremely loyal to Obama, but if let down they could start to turn on him. Although Democracy means run by the people, Obama has to find a way to control his followers and not let them get power hungry. If he is able to find a way to still include millions in the oval office while still keeping control, Obama could revolutionize American Democracy and make the founding fathers proud.

What ever happened to America's Best Buds?

An article recently caught my attention simply because its title is the same as that of our class, but i suppose thats what titles are meant to do. The article, titled American Studies: Stars and Gripes, talks about lowering interests in american studies abroad and the dismal view many young Europeans have of the good ol' U S of A. When it comes to evidence, it cites the obvious causes to explain the downturn of opinion. But behind the text is the pragmatic sense that whatever happens someone will dislike America, even former bffs. In an ideal situation, the world would work in harmony and everyone would like each other. But an ideal world is just a dream. The focus of the article is the slump of students applying to study America in Europe. Although few idealists about America, if any, exist in europe, there is a move to save the slumping subject. A few pragmatic individuals who still see the good in America are no longer waiting for America to redeem itself (but the author does mention the election is doing just that) and are taking steps towards rebuilding the reputation by focusing on culture and history rather than politics. Students interested in the programs have started to rebound as a result, although it may just be because of the election. But one thing is certain, the efforts and pro-active actions haven't hurt. In any situation idealists and pragmatists are needed to progress, in this case as with many other cases, the idealists were only dreaming and waiting on the world to change. In the end, the pragmatists had to step in to save the day.

Off the Beaten Path- a Step Forward from Idealistic Hype

I recently came across an article that I didnt think of much when I first read it, but later when I was thinking of what to write about as my blog this came back to mind. The article, admittedly a little long at 15 pages, isnt something that makes national news or comes to many peoples attention but I thought that would make it a good thing to blog about. The article explains in great descriptions one of the most biologically diverse places on Earth and the threats it faces. Borneo is a small island near malaysia about the size of Texas. The Island is rich in resources that make it a prime target for deforestation and pillaging of natural resources. The Island is the source for 86% of the world's palm oil, something that is used in everything from Oreos and dessert to perfumes and soaps. The area is also rich in timber and is a very profitable source of logging. As the author says "Mansions have been built from Madrid to Melbourne and New York to Indonesia from the profits of Borneo".  The future looks bleak for Borneo and it's inhabitants. Mel White, the author, takes a very pragmatic approach in the first half of the article. He explains the failed efforts to save the island and goes into detail about the challenges faced when trying to conserve its resources. White doesnt 'dream big' as many conservationists do, but takes a realistic approach on the situation of the island and how to save it. He knows that the future of the island is in the hands of corporations and governments. When I read the article, I wasnt given a sense much hope for the island through Whites pragmatic approach, and it wasnt a very exciting article to read. White, however, suddenly changes course like he were a new writer by the middle. He points to the small malaysian provence of Sabah which provides a stark contrast to the rest of the island. This glimmer of hope that the island can be saved seems to spark Whites mood towards idealism. The province is able to control, as far as a third world country can, the logging and still has a significant amount of wooded forest. The introduction of this little province changes the whole mood of the article. By the end, White gives off a sense of hopeful pragmatism. He writes that there will have to be a balance between money and conservation. A sense of hope for the forrest is given by the end. As White wrights 'if we want to save the forests of Borneo... We need to find a way that offers the villagers a better future without having to turn their forests into plantations or the sterile pits of strip mines." Its no 14 point battle plan, but it is a step up from idealistic hype in an effort to save an island.

The end of Prosperity?

As the Market continues to unpredictably rise and stumble, it is easy to predict perilous times ahead of us. Some, including Sarah Palin, have said there is a possibility of another depression. But to asses the validity of these possibilities, one has to understand what actually plunged the U.S. into a depression in 1929 and if there are any parallels today. Niall Ferguson of Time magazine attempts to do so by checking the parallels between the two. Ferguson links the drop in prices of stocks to the drop in house prices today. But the similarities do not go much farther than that. Fortunately, the Feds learned from history and are taking action today and as soon as possible unlike the Hoover administration. The most obvious difference is that funds rates have been cut repeatedly from 5.25% to .25%. The Treasury is also much more active today than it was in the great depression. Back then it was believed that the government should balance the budget even if it meant raising taxes, which has been said by many to be the farthest from the right thing to do. Famous economists have said that deficits are good in recessions, and with the Bush administrations huge deficit from prosperous times, it wouldnt be unlikely a larger deficit is in the future. Ferguson says there is still hope to save the U.S. from a depression, and the difference between todays government and that of Hoover administration is like black and white. As Ferguson says of the bailout bill, "If nothing else, it would signal to the world that - unlike in 1930 - the U.S. is doing what it canto avoid financial calamity and sidestep Depression 2.0"