This is a great article by Michael Lewis on the current financial crisis that my friend sent me.  It has a great analysis of what’s going on told from the point of view of someone who saw it coming. It’s long, but I’d highly recommend reading the whole thing. In very very short form: the people at the financial companies at the center of this crisis had no motivation to actually understand what they were doing as long as the money kept coming in, since the shareholders (and now, apparently, the US government) were the ones taking on the actual financial risk. None of the people at these companies cared or understood what they were doing.

Tomorrow is election day!!!!  I’m going to follow the lead of some other blogs and make my predictions. I’m predicting Obama will win the election and become the next President of the United States!

Let’s take a look at the states and try to predict who will win which.  According to the New York Times, there are 14 solid Obama states totaling 196 electoral votes and 17 solid McCain states totaling 137 electoral votes. There are then 10 states (Washington, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Hampshire) leaning towards Obama worth 95 electoral votes. There are 4 states (Montana, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Georgia) leaning towards McCain, worth 26 electoral votes. Finally, there are 5 states (Florida, Ohio, North Carolia, Missouri, and Indiana) that are toss-ups, worth 84 electoral votes. So the election could go anywhere from McCain winning all the leaning and tossup states and winning the election with 342 electoral votes, to Obama winning all the leaning and tossup states and winning the election with 401 electoral votes.  If the leaners go their ways and Obama takes the tossups, he wins with 375 electoral votes, if McCain gets the tossups in this case, Obama still wins, but with 291 electoral votes.

I’m going to predict that Obama wins all of the leaning Obama states: Washington, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and New Hampshire.  Out of the toss-up states, I’ll predict that Obama takes Florida, Ohio, Missouri, and North Carolina, while McCain wins Indiana. Finally, I’ll predict that McCain takes Georgia, West Virginia, and Montana, while Obama takes North Dakota.  This would mean that Obama wins the election with 367 electoral votes.  I’ll also guess that Obama gets 54% of the popular vote, which would be the most of any President in ages.

In the Senate, the Democrats currently hold a 51 to 49 advantage (if you include Lieberman). There are 15 Senate races that are considered to be competitive, of these, 14 are Republican seats and one is a Democratic incumbent. I’m going to guess that the Democrats will win in Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Alaska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Oregon and hold their seat in Louisiana.  The really close races are in Minnesota, Georgia, and Kentucky.  The Democrats have a good shot in Minnesota and Georgia, but I’m going to stick with the previous 7, and say they end up with 58 seats in the Senate.

In the House, the Democrats currently hold 235 seats to the Republicans 199. I haven’t really looked at these races at all, I’ll predict that the Dems will pick up 24 seats to go to 249.

So there it is.  A historic election (very long, the most money, the first to take real use of the internet, the first to be on YouTube, a financial crisis, two wars, and a chance to elect the oldest President or the first African American President) all comes down to tomorrow.  Crazy.

I’ve really been hoping that this election is going to move the country leftward. Bush and the Republicans have been in control of the country and I think you couldn’t get a clearer demonstration of the failures of their policies. From Iraq to the economic meltdown, it’s been nothing but disasterous. Why would you think that tax cuts for the rich and de-regulation of everything would be a good idea in the first place? But I digress, hopefully with this demonstration that these are bad ideas, combined with their extra divisive politics this year, we’ll see a change. If the Democrats win big next week, then they’ll have a chance to change the policies of the country and show that in comparison to what we currently have. Although it will take a long time to come out of this economic mess. One of the most drastic movements I’ve seen was Alan Greenspan’s statements in Congress last week. He essentially said his ideology was wrong and his policies had failed:

“Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?”

Mr. Greenspan conceded: “Yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.”

“I was shocked because I’d been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.'’ Greenspan added he was “partially'’ wrong for opposing the regulation of derivatives.

“I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms.”

I found this article about John McCain’s campaign to be very interesting. It starts out discussing a meeting they had about how to respond to the financial crisis. What’s interesting is that his campaign’s emphasis appears to be on what will be best for his political prospects and his election, instead of what’s best for the country. It’s the start of a huge financial crisis, the country needs leadership and a good solution, and McCain, whose campaign slogan is ‘Country First’, is trying to make the decision that will best help his campaign instead of his country. Here’s part of the beginning of the article:

The meeting was to focus on how McCain should respond to the crisis — but also, as one participant later told me, “to try to see this as a big-picture, leadership thing.”

As this participant recalled: “We presented McCain with three options. Continue offering principles from afar. A middle ground of engaging while still campaigning. Then the third option, of going all in. The consensus was that we could stay out or go in — but that if we’re going in, we should go in all the way. So the thinking was, do you man up and try to affect the outcome, or do you hold it at arm’s length? And no, it was not an easy call.”

Discussion carried on into the afternoon at the Morgan Library and Museum as McCain prepared for the first presidential debate. Schmidt pushed for going all in: suspending the campaign, recommending that the first debate be postponed, parachuting into Washington and forging a legislative solution to the financial crisis for which McCain could then claim credit. Exactly how McCain could convincingly play a sober bipartisan problem-solver after spending the previous few weeks garbed as a populist truth teller was anything but clear. But Schmidt and others convinced McCain that it was worth the gamble.

Schmidt in particular was a believer in these kinds of defining moments.

I just wanted to re-iterate and clarify my reasons why I believe Obama should be the next President of the United States (I already wrote about it during the the primary). Here are my reasons:

Policies

I agree wholeheartedly with Obama’s stance on the issues and his policy proposals. Getting out of the financial crisis is going to require economic help for the middle class (tax cuts), and government spending to create new jobs. We need to invest in alternative energy, not just to reduce dependence on foreign oil, but to create new American jobs and make America a leader in this industry. We need to invest in education and innovation so the American economy is strong for generations to come. And we need to end the war in Iraq, so we can focus on our real enemies hiding in the caves of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Judgement

Barack Obama’s judgement is one of the key reasons I support him for President. He listens to people from both sides of the debate and tries to collect as much information as possible. He is actually curious about how things work, unlike our current President. In a recent article about his economic policies, one Professor said Obama was more interested in research than any other political candidate he had talked to. It’s clear that Obama is interested in making the best, well-informed decisions possible, rather than just towing the party line or doing what is best for re-election. To have a President that is actually curious again, one who wants to understand how the economy works, will go a long way towards having one that understands how it can be fixed as well.

I thought this quote from Michael Cohen of the New York Times to be pretty interesting: “One gets the sense that during the last 18 months, Mr. Obama has thought long and hard about the direction he wants to take the country and the policy initiatives that would form the basis of an Obama administration. Mr. McCain has not; a view that I would imagine even the most hardcore G.O.P. partisans would have a hard time disputing.”

Understanding

Obama understands that the people on both sides of the debates have America’s interests at heart. They just disagree about how to solve the issues at hand. This is the opposite of what McCain and his supporters have been doing lately. Instead of talking about their disagreements on the issues, they have been accusing Obama of being anti-American or a terrorist. I think its completely ridiculous to question Obama’s motives or suggest this is all fake so he can become President and destroy the country. What an absurd way to run your campaign.

Obama knows that he needs to be President for everyone, not just those who agree with him. He has talked about not wanting to be a 50+1 President (with the support of 50% of the electorate plus one), but a Preisdent for everyone. He understands people’s concerns and I believe he will strive to do whats best for everyone and listen to everyone’s ideas.

Nation over Politics

Barack Obama understands how broken Washington is. To face any of the crises we’re at today, we need Washington to work for us. Recently its been too much partisan bickering to accomplish anything. Instead of trying to do whats right for our country, too many of our politicians are worried about what will get them re-elected, what will get their party more seats, and what will make the other party look bad. Obama will hopefully change some of this in Washington, by being pragmatic and listening to both sides. It has even been said that he will pursue his agenda of re-building the nation, even at risk of being a single-term President. While McCain’s campaign slogan is “Country First”, he seems to be putting himself first instead. He selected a VP candidate that is totally unqualified to be President, because he thought it would help him politically, while Obama selected a candidate based on who he thought would help him govern the most.

Summary

I think Obama should be President because he is right on the issues of our time and has the judgement to face any new events that appear. His intelligence, curiosity, and understanding give me confidence that he will make the right decisions on any crisis that arises.

I just read Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein. Some of the most interesting parts of the books are the descriptions of the main character’s classes in “History and Moral Philosophy.” This takes place in the future and looks back at the “failures” of our society and compares them with their solutions in the future. Some of the most interesting parts are about morality, the survival instinct, and how it relates to democracy.

The teacher in the book, Mr. Dubois, says “Man has no moral instinct. He is not born with moral sense. … We acquire moral sense, when we do, through training, experience, and hard sweat of the mind.” This is an interesting concept. Certainly when you look at animals you don’t think they are born with a moral sense. What’s more interesting is where he says our moral sense comes from. “What is ‘moral sense’? It is an elaboration of the instinct to survive. The instinct to survive is human nature itself, and every aspect of our personalities derives from it.” Where the moral sense comes in, is whose survival is imperative to you: “survival can have stronger imperatives than that of your own personal survival. Survival of your family, for example. Of your children, when you have them. Of your nation, if you struggle that high up the scale.” He claims that their theory can solve any moral problem, on any level: “Self-interest, love of family, duty to country, responsibility to the human race.”

This discussion of morality gets really interesting when he ties it in with their political system. In their system, you must serve your country (in some capacity: military, science, research, engineering, etc) before you are allowed to vote or run for office. But this service is not required, moreover it is done on a volunteer basis and discouraged so that only those who are truly committed accomplish it. Mr. Dubois explains that “Under our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage. And that is the one practical advantage. He may fail in wisdom, he may lapse in civic virtue. But his average performance is enormously better than any other class of rulers in history.”

I’m not advocating this system of government, but this argument makes a lot of sense to me. I’ve argued in previous blog posts here that one of the biggest problems with our government is that people are too concerned with themselves than the best interests of the country. Politicians are more concerned with raising enough money to keep their jobs than serving the country well. Many voters are more concerned with how the policies affect them than what it means for the country or for future generations. Restricting the decision making to only those who actually put the best interest of the country ahead of their personal interests would make the system more successful. I’m not quite sure how to do that. Even when we have candidates who put the country ahead of themselves, they don’t necessarily get elected because there are enough voters who don’t do so. Certainly some interesting questions to think about.

Here’s a quote that sums up how I wish the government (and its voters) operated: “In every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations.” — The Iroquois Confederacy

The editorial board of toddhester.net (members: me) has decided to endorse Barack Obama for Presidency of the United States. There are a good number of reasons for this as I will explain below, including his stance on the issues, his experience, his vision, and his electability.

Issues

In the democratic field, there are actually three very good candidates who are very similar on the issues. They want to bring the troops home from Iraq, they support lowering taxes on the poor and perhaps raising them on the rich, they want to all Americans access to health care. So they’re all very good on the issues, and I don’t think Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John Edwards really separate themselves here.

Fixing the System

The governmental system in America is broken, because instead of our politicians representing the interests of the citizens of this country, they represent the interests of the corporations and lobbyists that donated to them. Both Edwards and Obama have harped on this issue and talked about the importance of turning this around. Obama has repeatedly said he has not taken money from PAC’s, lobbyists, and special interests.

Experience

Hillary Clinton keeps talking about her experience as the reason she should be elected over Obama, but personally I prefer Obama’s experience to hers. She’s been a Senator 8 years to his 4 years, is that a very big difference? Hillary says she’s the candidate who can make change and will be ready on day one. Once you get into office, any candidate is going to surround themselves with smart people (and they’ll have the backing of their party) to get things done. Experience isn’t the question there. The question is, “Who will get the right things done, the important things done?” On this point, I have more trust in Obama. He has a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas. He went to elementary school in Indonesia, he’s gone to Columbia and Harvard law. He’s worked on the streets of Chicago organizing and helping people. I think this broad experience gives him a better perspective on what’s important to this country that Hillary’s experience as first lady and US Senator.

Vision

Obama’s vision for this country is great. Whether he can bring it about or how he could do so is another question, but I don’t think you can argue with his vision of hope for this country and uniting us together again (although Hillary did claim it was just “false hope”). It’s important that we have a leader who actually wants to unite us together rather than just rally their base of support and piss off half of the country. It’s important that we have a leader who campaigns on the politics of hope rather than the politics of fear. You also get the idea from listening to Obama that he actually has a vision of what needs to be done in this country, while Hillary seems to just have a vision of whatever the polls say she should do on an issue.

Freshness

This goes along with the experience thing, but Obama brings a freshness to the political scene. Instead of the usual waffling of our candidates, whose views on the issues seem to be simply whatever is most popular in the country, Obama actually has his own views and convictions that he stands by. He was against the Iraq war from the start, while Hillary was for it and has since changed but refuses to admit her mistake and apologize for her original vote. We need someone like Obama to bring a fresh perspective and change the political system from being under the control of lobbyists and fear to the control of its citizens and hope.

Electability

In the case of selecting a democratic candidate that can win in the general election, I think Obama is it. Hillary would have a tough time in the election. Do we want 24+ years of rule by just Clintons and Bushes? She inspires the democratic base but is a polarizing figure for Replublicans. Edwards would be a viable candidate and I think would be pretty successful in a general election. But Obama’s vision and unifying message of hope would give him a shot at winning a landslide election over the Republican candidate.

Summary

In summary, I’m endorsing Obama because of his experience and vision for this country. His experiences on the streets of Chicago and in Indonesia give him a fresh perspective that this country needs. He has a message of hope and unity, instead of the recent politics of dividing the country into red and blue states. He has the ability to overcome the problems in this country and lead us back towards success.

I recently read Republican Presidential candidate Sam Brownback’s op-ed in the New York Times explaining why he doesn’t believe in evolution. I have so many problems with it that I don’t know where to start. I think this whole evolution debate is very similar to the debate over whether the Earth revolved around the sun in the 1500s. It’s so important to some people that we be “special” and have a place at the center of the universe. In the previous debate, hundreds of years ago, they literally believed that we were at the center of the universe. And no matter how much evidence there was, people wanted to believe we were at the center of the universe. The same thing is going on today. It’s very hard for some people to accept that we’re not “special” and that we weren’t place here by “God” for some special purpose. I’m not really sure why people think this takes so much away from us. So we randomly evolved. Is that so terrible? We should just enjoy the fact that we’re here and savor every instant of our lives.

To go specifically into Sam Brownback’s op-ed, he makes a number of points that bother me. First he claims that “Faith supplements the scientific method by providing an understanding of values, meaning and purpose. More than that, faith — not science — can help us understand the breadth of human suffering or the depth of human love.” So apparently without faith we can’t understand suffering, love, values, meaning, or purpose? I’m not sure why believing that we evolved instead of being created by some God would prevent us from understanding these things.

Then he goes on to say that evolution isn’t science but philosophy and that any “theory” that says we weren’t created by some guiding intelligence must be false.  Basically Brownback wants to reject the institute of science any time it conflicts with his pre-assumed beliefs.  Science is fine, but if it disagrees with what he believes, then its just “atheistic theology” instead of science.

Finally, Brownback gets the point that I brought up at the beginning of this post, that we must be unique and special. Specifically, he says “The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded. I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man’s essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos. I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose.” Evolution does not undermine our dignity or uniqueness. We’ve evolved into what we are and we will continue to evolve and I don’t see anything wrong with that. If we were “willed into being and made for a purpose” what was that purpose? I understand how difficult it can be to accept reality and understand that we evolved. But it doesn’t make us any less special or mean we have any less capacity to love or suffer or find meaning in life. I would much rather believe and understand the truth of life and enjoy the great luck we have in being here than believing in a creation by some superior being for an unspecified purpose.

There was a very interesting article in the New York Times on “cumulative advantage.” Basically some research was done showing that a major cause of different things becoming popular is their popularity. People are more likely to like a song or an artist if lots of other people already like it. The researchers in the article did experiments where they set up separate music downloading communities that showed counts of how many times each song had been downloaded and played. Different songs became hits in the different communities depending on which ones just happened to hit the right peak at the right time. In communities where download and play counts were not listed, the differences between hit songs and other songs were not as extreme.

So what does this mean? All the music industry executives and others who are out looking for the next big hit may be going about it all wrong. Instead of looking for the band with the perfect sound or perfect look, they may be better off trying to come up with new ways of marketing the bands to make them popular quickly and thats what will lead to even more popularity. This also means that the bands that do make it are not necessarily any better than the ones who don’t (although they are more popular).

This research is somewhat concerning in a sense though. Why is the popularity of a song or artist so much more important to us than the actual quality of the song? Can we not judge songs on our own? Do we feel the need to be the part of some herd mentality? How does this affect our views on other issues such as politics? This effect would seem to make it even harder for someone to stray from the majority, or to make their own decisions on the issues rather than just go with the crowd.

Here is a great article from Rolling Stone by Paul Krugman on the great inequality of wealth in our country.  It’s scary how unequal the wealth distribution in our county has become and how much Bush has been able to widen it and institutionalize it.  The problem is, if it continues, it could be pretty crippling to our country.  Already our country is one of the worst in the world to try to achieve the “American Dream”, that is, making it rich after being born poor here is harder than almost anywhere else in the world.