Friday, February 8, 2008

Yes We Can Obama Song by will.i.am

a little shameless propoganda for the candidate - i think should be in office next January - - I think the patriotic idealism referred to in this video is an interesting notion juxtaposed to the last video...

9 comments:

jc said...

I guess he is the least worst Democrat. So if we have to have one I guess I hope he wins. If McCain is the Republican nominee I guess I would even consider voting for him in effort to save the Republican party from ruin.

Lounge MD said...

yes it is shameless propoganda.....but considering all the usual negative ads that permeate American campaigns, I would much rather see this than the alternative.

I do hope Obama wins....he would probably be good for the states. And from a Canadian perspective it might be nice to have a more amenable President for a neighbour...:)

jc said...

Lounge MD, I agree with you about the difference between this ad and the usual ads that pop up during an election cycle. This ad is somewhat inspirational but I think it highlights the problem with the Obama campaign. I think attempts a positive sense of life or outlook that a lot of people share but it is intellectually bankrupt. There is no substance here. Just sort of feel good stuff that you get from watching Oprah. The candidate I was possibly going to vote for, Ron Paul, does not have near the public speaking talent of Obama. I think he does have most substantive policies I have seen from a candidate from either party for a long time.

I think if Obama does get elected you will see all of this puffy idealism disappear and the ineffectiveness of his policies. I think He will have two years to try and pass whatever policies he can and then a republican house and senate will be elected( like in 94 for Clinton ) and nothing will get done. Which will be perfect. The second best thing to a government which tries to shrink itself is a do nothing government.

That`s my opinion, but what do you see in Obama beyond the feel good politics that surround his campaign.

Lounge MD said...

The main thing that excites me about the Obama campaign is his refusal to take money from corporate lobbyists. Ultimately, I feel that any candidate that takes money from a corporate lobbyist is suspect to me. I just feel that the business sector has successfully co-opted almost every election.
I'm not a fan of either the Democrats or Republicans. I would rather see a n independent candidate win, someone without the decades of baggage that both parties are weighed down by.

jc said...

Obama may refuse to take money from corporate lobbyists but I think this is more dealing with a symptom than dealing with the underlying problem. The problem it seems to me is that the government has too much control. It tries to control the marketplace by taking peoples money away and redistributing it as it sees fit. So then you have all of these vultures[lobbyists] fighting over a piece of the pie. So maybe Obama doesn't want to take money from so-called corporate lobbyists but he sure is going to listen to the farm lobby when they ask for money.

http://obama.senate.gov/press/071025-obama_statement_96/

He is going to listen to lobbyists from corporations and not eliminate tariffs on imports. He'll probably listen to Bono[The foreign aid lobbyist rockstar] and give a bunch of taxpayers money to Africa without their consent. There is a huge list of lobbyists that I could go through here that Obama will be sensitive to. It's the nature of expanding government control so that there is more of the pie for special interests to fight for.

If we want to eliminate the influence of lobbyists we have to give autonomy back to the people. Let them decide what to do with their money. If they want to donate money to farmers... let them or give money to Africa if they feel like it. If they do give it will have to be because they decide to. Obama will not increase people's freedom but decrease it. In my opinion Ron Paul was the only one who was committed to increasing freedom for individuals and there is no chance of him winning.

Outgoing... said...

Interesting discussion here boys. I think there are a few interesting places to take this: we could talk about big or little government and how it reflects on our ideological position. We could talk about political influence – lobbies, special interest groups, party affiliations, patronage etc. and their legitimacy in government policy and legislation. I’ll comment briefly on both…
First with regard to the issue of big versus little government, I think it is imperative to define what one sees as the essential role of government. As one of the highest socio-ideological forms of control it has purview over things like the economy, rights and freedoms, morality, international relations and policy, national identity, etc. Typically, as I see it, proponents of small government argue that the government should extract itself from one or several of these areas of control – or at least severely limit the scope of its function. So jc according to your example you would suggest that the government should extract itself almost completely from the control of the economy. My view is that government that is too small is pointless because all of these areas of control are interrelated. Economy plays a role in every other facet of government. Without economic control the government cannot actually have international policy – and even not having an international policy becomes an international policy and not an acceptable one I would argue. What I am saying is that you cannot extract the government from these areas of control without severely altering the essential fabric of that society. I think there is a legitimate concern that government is getting too big. And I would say that finding a balance is what good government should be about.
Second with regard to political influence, it cannot be extinguished. As soon as someone in any political construct – democratic or otherwise, is elevated to a position of authority over others there will be a vested interested in keeping that person there from the people who support that person. The chief, president, prime minister, mayor will act to support the people who keep him in control. If he is smart he will try to get those who did not support him to join his cause. The political interest will reflect the desire to remain in power. This might seem too basic to state but I think sometimes we act as if there could be such a thing as a position of authority that does not act in someway to support the factors that enable prolonged power – it’s the Viagra of the system. As such then I think we are left with evaluating which of the political interests are more worthy than others. Is it a good thing for the president to listen to Bono? Is it a good thing for the prime-minister to listen to homosexuals? You get the point.

jc said...

Mr. Outgoing,
I think you accurately described the underlying issues involved in this discussion. The first issue of what one believes governments role is seems to determine the one's view on the second issue. My belief is that the government exists to protect people from being physically harmed by others. So we have the military to protect us from foreign threats and a police force to protect us from homeland threats. I don't think the government should be in the business of managing the economy. I think the free market does a much better job then any committee of so-called experts could. A managed economy is "The Road to Serfdom" as Hayek's book illustrates. I don't understand your point about not having a managed economy results in a government having an international policy. Maybe you could expand on that point for me. I think a good international policy for a free market society should be to only act if there is a foreign threat against itself. No country has the moral responsibility to be the policeman of the world. If citizens of a certain country voluntarily join together to solve a problem that exists in a foreign country, under certain circumstances they would be free to do so. I think it is immoral for a government to extract money from individuals to give to a cause the individuals do not believe in. If giving to certain causes is not voluntary then essentially we end up with a system of mob rule. If enough people in the right places or a majority of voters think its a good idea to spend loads of tax dollars on a such and such project then some people are forced to give up their own property to support something that under their own reason is not worthy of their money. This is our current system in Canada and the States. The issue should not be "should the government listen to Bono," it should be "should individuals listen to Bono."

Outgoing... said...

you can't actually have a military or police force unless you demand taxes from the people you govern. Once you have money coming in you have at least partial control (maybe small) of the economy. that economic control is then used to dicide when the police and military are to be deployed and paid to protect us. but then who gets to define what protected means or who is seen as a threat to be defended against. to figure all that out you are going to have to demand more money. and so goes the circle in ever widening ripples.
(here's an aside: jc would you be averse to seeing a military dictatorship as the ideal form of government?)
My arguement is that you can't have a government that only has one dimension or job. Controlling the economy is still in the best interest of government who sees its primary role as military and policing in that it is able to call on the financial resources to amass defenses and deploy them in time of need.
And you even if you just collect taxes for police and military there will still be people who think you are spending the $ on the wrong priorities...

jc said...

"you can't actually have a military or police force unless you demand taxes from the people you govern."

I don't entirely agree with this premise. I believe a government could function under system of voluntarily taxes. People will pay for what they need. A government just interested in protected people from from the physical harm of others would be a lot cheaper than our government today. I would happily give a portion of my money to live in a country like that. It's not something that could happen overnight but possibly could be attempted over a couple of decades of slowly shrinking government. In a time of war[threatened existence] I am fairly certain that people will volunteer or donate time, money and labor to survive. Watch the Ken Burns documentary about WWII and you can see the lengths people will go to preserve their way of life and existence.

I would be adverse to the idea of a dictatorship. I think what is needed is democracy with a very strong constitution.