Obama - World's Perspective & Trade

The election night left the whole country with proud waves of the red, white and blue. CNN.com had a huge picture of black people and a few whites under a big title: "Change Has Come" while FoxNews.com posted a more boring version of the above with a 100% black people picture as if it was just the minorities that voted for Obama. And of course, MSNBC.com had their picture of all white Obama supporters to cater to the Hollywood liberals and the "liberal elites".

Putting aside the usuals, I was more intrigued in finding out the perceptions of Obama victory by the foreign media. So I went to LeMonde.fr (France) and Donga.com (South Korea) to get started. As expected, the first lines involved America electing the first African American president. But interestingly enough the second major topic inscribed in bold was Obama's trade protectionism. It seemed odd to me for a few seconds that there would be anything but positive news about the victory, but I came to my senses after shaking off that Democratic overjoy.

While being an eminent supporter of his candidacy, I strongly disagreed with Barack Obama's trade policy since the beginning. Barack Obama is anti-free trade. Of course, I'm not accusing him of planning on locking up the US economy Soviet-style. But you gotta know that past presidents coming from both parties have always pretty much supported free-trade. However, Obama has all-too-frequently emphasized his stringent stance on "keeping American jobs" at home.

Nationalist rhetoric used in protectionist stance always sounds nice and feels comfortable, but when it comes down to the ergonomics of international economy, free trade benefits everyone. Maybe in the short-run, people will lose jobs in the steel industry. People will and should lose jobs in the automobile industry. And a lot of manufacturing jobs will be sent abroad. But in the end, the reduced cost in production due to outsourcing provides the American public either with cheaper goods and/or increased rate of return in their 401k or other pension plans via increased value in stocks, from either case of which people across the economic ladder will all benefit.

Obama's nationalist speeches on "there [being] no blue states, no red states, but only the UNITED States of America" has effectively served its purpose in uniting people from different racial and religious backgrounds--as long as they're American. This liberal yet unusually nationalist rhetoric is what's alarming the European countries and the Asian Tigers.

I truly hope that President-elect Obama leaves the protectionist trade agenda merely as election rhetoric that will not come in to play. The last time a protectionist policy majorly screwed America over was right after the Great Depression when the Hoover administration "tried to save jobs" through trade protectionism and ended up only exacerbating the economic turmoil.

Our current recession definitely needs nothing other than free trade. Our financial meltdown triggered other nations' meltdowns, and our recovery can only happen concurrently with other economies due to the inter-locking nature of global economy. For the incoming Obama administration to ignore the free-trade approach would not only be an economic suicide by deepening our recession, but also a political suicide by placing itself on an uphill battle for a second term, and more importantly, by failing to keep the Democratic-majority in both houses of Congress for more than four years.

McCain & Tina Fey

SNL: Palin vs. Biden

$700 Billion Federal Bail-out (Cost of Iraq War = $584 Billion)

Q: Who gets affected if the bail-out passes?
well everyone gets affected either way.

1. bail out doesn't pass = deadlock in the financial industry for next 3-5 yrs at least, which affects everyone's loans, pensions (i.e. 401k and other retirement plans), performance of hedge funds, eventual increase in retail prices due to temporary shortage of production, etc.

2. bail out passes = everyone gets taxed like crazy and the budget deficit gets passed down to us and our children and their children. Not only do middle class and upper class get affected by it but even the lower class and soon-to-be-entry-level-employee college students also have to bear the cost of this $700 BILLION package. (FYI, Cost of Iraq War = $584 Billion)

Analysis:
Either way we're all fucked, but the moral question is should everyone (including the lower class) pay for the messes of the financial industry whose dependees/customers are mainly upper middle class and upperclass? That's the fucking irony of it; rich people and middle class people asking for a socialist government action to patch up their loss. This bail-out is the epitome of the selfish Republican white men's hipocrisy.

They don't want to pay for the unequal educational institutions and the resultant social problems that the racism of their forefathers has created, and label any such government actions as "socialist" or "unnecessary big-government", but when it comes down to their own damn pocket who gives a fuck whether this big government takes over and nationalize the financial industry or not? "That's not socialism, it's merely FOR the people." Suck my dick, I say.

Why should working class people who don't even benefit from this industry all that much be equally responsible for the unethical behaviors of these risk-loving industry? Why should working class people who don't even receive a glance from the suburban Republican Party for education, single parenthood, and basic social welfare suddenly embrace those bastards who can't stop crying that their right pocket just got emptied?

Something to think about.

The Democratic Party and Nancy Pelosi aren't doing that much either. They've yet again proven themselves to be completely incompetent by failing to put the majority membership of the Congress to use and (proven themselves to be) too cowardly to oppose any unDemocratic bills. What the hell are they waiting for? This is exactly why so many people associate the Dems with incompetence and cowardice. As much as I can't believe myself for saying this, I hope, for the sake of progress, the Democrats lose the next Congress.

Something to think about.

Palin & Clinton

RNC: Identity Crisis

Hahaha RNC is the funniest shit ever. Some people come up and say McCain is for change, some come up to say he's the true conservative. Some say they're for low taxes while knowing (or not knowing) that George W. Bush has put us in the worst situation of budget deficit for the government. Former CEO of HP comes up and says McCain is for clean energy then turns around to say we need to drill. Romney comes up and says he doesn't understand why the liberals (democrats) in Congress give Constitutional rights to terrorists in Guantanamo Bay when in fact the very supporter of following the international law regarding POWs was McCain the candidate himself and his buddy-buddy Republican colleague, Lindsey Graham.

Republicans are so hopeless this year. They don't even know who they are. They don't even know who they're voting for and what ideas they're voting for. BALANCED BUDGET! INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS! TAX CUTS FOR FAMILIES! yeah, except not, you fucking morons. But who cares? because.. U S A! U S A! U S A!

The best part is the music break--watching conservative whites trying to dance. just so hilarious.

Three white teens charged in fatal beating of Mexican immigrant

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/25/immigrant.killing.ap/index.html

Story Highlights
* Three white teens charged as adults in fatal beating of Luis Ramirez

* Two of three charged with homicide; all charged with ethnic intimidation

* Ramirez, 25, died from injuries received in epithet-filled beating, police say

* As many as six teens involved; group included high school football players