quick responses

friedman's 'win, win, win, win, win...'

he's absolutely right. it's tough, but the us needs a systemic change. a shift in culture and in lifestyle. our myopic, self-indulging, consume-all mentality needs governmental curbs. in other words, gas taxes, to give a soft push towards necessary change.

that said, i don't think obama will do it (it = "increase the federal gasoline tax or impose an economy-wide carbon tax"). and i'm not sure obama should do it.

as friedman points out, raising taxes in a recession is a "no-no." as much as i think friedman's ideas need to come to fruition, i'm afraid that doing so would be political suicide for obama. raising taxes could handicap obama in making other decisions--his overwhelming public support could wane, and 2010 by elections could shift power back to the gop. in a fragile time where bipartisan action is needed to lift the us our of recession, such a move could really hurt.

i know it's silly that political considerations like this factor in. they shouldn't. but the reality is that they do. and if such a move handicaps the rest of obama's agenda, i can understand pursuing other pro-green policies in the short term and tabling this substantial change for later.

that said, i hope obama finds a way to build public support for friedman's initiatives. friedman certainly has me sold on them.




rich's 'you're likable enough, gay people'

i'm not entirely sure where i stand on obama's choice of rick warren as his inaugural invocation speaker. from what i've read--from juan cole particularly--warren seems like a pretty good guy. as rich writes, "His good deeds are plentiful on issues like human suffering in Africa, poverty and climate change. He is opposed to same-sex marriage, but so is almost every top-tier national politician, including Obama."

so all things considered, the choice of any religious figure is bound to stir up some controversy. rich notes that many religious conservatives are upset with warren for accepting this invitation; they believe it compromises his pro-life preachings and christian values. and many people would prefer that a religious figure wasn't invited at all. after all, why would a secular nation need a religious speaker in the first place? and why would a nation with a diverse population of jews, mormons, muslims, buddhists, and atheists need that religious speaker to be a christian?

i acknowledge that a religious speaker is necessary. and personally, i don't mind it. the inauguration has a lot of symbolism in it, and putting a little spirituality into it is a good thing (even if it's via organized religion).

so, yeah, i'm not too happy that warren has said some offensive things about gay people. but most religious leaders and most americans share his viewpoint. i know that doesn't justify it. but that doesn't mean it should be ignored either. part of bridging the gap is making concessions and opening your ears to other folks, even if it does sound like bigotry. this builds understanding, and from this understanding can come change. i think obama sees that warren shares this desire--this drive to open himself and his followers to dialogue, understanding, and change.

in general, religion seems to be the antithesis of open-mindedness and change, but i think that in this case, warren can represent a change towards greater unity and open-mindedness. as rich points out, warren represents a departure "from the Falwell-Robertson brand of zealots who have had a stranglehold on the G.O.P." to me, the selection of warren isn't a sign of hubris on obama's part--and it isn't a sign of a step backwards towards blind bigotry. to me, warren's selection, reflects the reality of things (as imperfect as they may be), and reflects the unity and open-mindedness that has been the centerpiece of obama's message. it sucks that warren can represent the spiteful bigotry of many americans towards gays, but strangely enough, this is a push in the right direction--as small and frustrating a push as this may be to so many.


herbert's 'stop being stupid'

couldn't agree more. i'll do my best. and i think others will too because we have to. in rebuilding, it's important to learn the lesson of our own self-indulgent, myopic hubris and not make the same mistake again.

'early american echoes in south africa?'

interesting article. on the surface, the similarities between america's nascent democracy and south africa's are certainly there. and i think it's important to point out--as mcneil does--that democracy in any nation takes a while to build and is rarely ever unshakable. maybe one-party rule is necessary for the first decade or two of a democracy. and maybe civil war is inevitable for every growing democracy. these are tough ideas to consider--especially since we're a nation that unquestionably believes that democracy is the best form of government.

that said, i disagree with mcneil. i don't think a split in the anc is imminent. i don't have a whole lot to back this up, except for something a classmate of mine said while i was studying at uct. he was a member of the anc youth league. and strangely enough, he disliked both mbeki and zuma (although he disliked zuma much more). despite his disappointment with these two leading figures in the anc, his support for the anc appeared unshakable. when i asked him if he'd ever vote for a different minority party, he said no. and he gave a pretty good explanation why he, and other young south africans, would not vote for an opposition party. the anc is still connected so much to the liberation movement. most of its leading members were part of the liberation movement--either fighting apartheid from outside of the country or fighting from within the country within the apratheid regime's prisons. my classmate explained that the anc will split, but it'll take time. he guessed at least a decade, maybe two. when the anc becomes distanced from the unity of its liberation struggle, then it'll split. when domestic issues become more relevant than the party's historical legacy, then a split will occur. it's part of the growth of any democracy.

based on my classmates fervent support for the anc, and analysis of rsa politics, i share his view.

but hey, maybe mcneil's right. maybe the past year has shown that south africa's growing towards democracy at a speed faster than the US. maybe south africa's recent political upheaval reflects that they'll reach a competitive democracy in the near future. or maybe it reflects that the south africa is hurtling forwards to fast towards division and violence.