One of the many lessons shimmering in the sunlight from stars
such as Gandhi and Mandela is the possibility that popular political protest
really can matter after all. Alternatively, managing (or manipulating) the
crowd could be a mere front dwarfed in influence by that of a rich and power
elite. Although the Ukraine will serve as our case study, democracy itself is
under the microscope here.
The full essay is at "Oligarchs in Ukraine."
A Rasmussen Reports poll conducted in early August 2011 found that “just 17% of likely U.S. voters think that the federal government . . . has the consent of the governed,” while 69% “believe that the government does not have that consent.”[1] Yet an overwhelming number of Congressional incumbents is reelected. Is it that many Americans stay away from the polls on election day, or does the two-party system essentially force a choice? Voting for a third-party candidate risks the defeat of the candidate of the major party closest to one’s views. Such a vote is typically referred to as a protest or throw-away vote. Is it worth driving to the polls to do that?
The full essay is at "A Two Party Duopoly in American Politics."
U.S. President Obama nominated Timothy Geithner to be Secretary of the
Treasury. While president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, he had played a
key role in forcing AIG to pay Goldman Sachs’ claims dollar for dollar. Put
another way, Geithner, as well as Henry Paulson, Goldman’s ex-CEO serving as
Secretary of the Treasury as the financial crisis unfolded, stopped AIG from
using the leverage in its bankrupt condition to pay claimants much less than
full value. At Treasury, Mark Patterson was Geithner’s chief of staff.
Patterson had been a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs. It would seem that the "real change" president put together a Wall-Street administration.
The full essay is at "President Obama and Goldman Sachs."
To lead is to be out in front, pointing the jet’s nose one way rather than another. Leadership is not that which causes drag at the back of the plane. Leadership is not that which holds a society in place or protects the vested interests. Whether envisioning something new or a return to a better time, a leader is not oriented to the status quo. It is significant, therefore, that the Minority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, one of the two chambers in the American Congress, has stated publicly that the Congress is rigged to advantage the status quo. The stunning implication is that members of Congress are actually anti-leaders.
The full essay is at "Congress and the Status Quo."
