Democracy 2 pOintzero

Scroll down the screen and you will see a post nearly four years old observing a swing of the political pendulum; amazing that toggling 'left' with 'right' allows that post to be as relevant and accurate today as it was then.

The lesson here is that American politics, indeed, has a rhythm which is generally consistent and disturbed on the rarest of occasion.

The composer, of this rhythm, are politicians and the principle of cause-and-effect.

'Throw the bums out' sentiment elects those in the minority to form a new majority who ultimately seek to exercise, accumulate and preserve political power. And this repeats. And repeats.

Do not be surprised if we look back, four years from now, at October 8, 2010.

Cash seems to be the ultimate contagion in Washington D.C. these days. A contagion which seemingly attacks logic and fiscal reason, leaving its victims with a lone impulse of rewarding failure while neglecting root cause.

No, I am not an economist. No, degrees in finance or accounting are not in my coffer. Yes, it is entirely possible that these matters may just lie beyond pragmatism and common sense for ordinary people to grasp. But with these disclosures out of the way, here is why I think the whole federal bailout concept is bizarre and absurd if not worse.

Forget the Symptoms, Treat Root Cause
Forgive me if I am wrong, but isn't this how we got here?

1. Easy mortgage and credit access to folks who lacked genuine means of repayment
2. Big banks, investment firms and insurers buy up pools of mortgages at a discount and expecting repayment
   
3. Shaky borrowers start defaulting on mortgages, properties go into foreclosure
   
4. Foreclosures drain the treasure chests of big banks and investment firms who bought the loans
   
5. Big banks, investment firms and insurers take huge losses, tighten lending
6. Consumers and businesses find it tougher to get loans, spending declines and employers cut costs and layoff employees
   
7. Spending declines lead to economic slowdown, employers layoff more
   
8. Layoffs lead back to Step #3 (which then leads back again to #4, #5, #6, #7 and #8)

It's All Backwards
So let me get this straight, for years now we've heard that it is the 'resilient consumer' who has kept our economy afloat...and yet, is anyone in Washington talking about stabilizing the consumer? Nope. So Steps #3 through #8 can (and will) continue.

Instead, we are rewarding failure. We are rewarding poor management. We are rewarding predatory business practices. And oh, by the way, we the tax payer will foot the bill on top of the already staggering debt our country is saddled with.

This bailout plan has got it all wrong, it's not top-down declines which got us here, and it won't be top-down bailouts which will dig us out either.

So What to Do?
NBC has a show you may have heard of, Heroes, and it used to have a tagline: "Save the cheerleader, save the world." Well a different spin to that might include replacing the word 'cheerleader' with 'consumer'.

And yet, not all consumers are created equally. Some simply can't handle money, some simply saw a red-hot housing market and were looking to flip properties in the pursuit of profit while gambling with family savings. In other words, some consumers have been sterling assets for the economy, whereas others have been detriments.

Here is what D.2.0 recommends:

• Let irresponsible companies fail, responsibly -- let nature take its course with The Big 3 car companies suppliers and dealers, then provide a mixed package of job re-training and extended unemployment benefits to folks (earning less than $250,000/yr.) who are let go as a result. Why the special treatment for just this industry? Because of the deep and wide impact to the consumer economy which would otherwise result (see Steps #3-8 above).
• Extend unemployment benefits -- this stabilizes the responsible consumer, the one who has simply been an innocent bystander.
• The rest -- and what about those who simply were not credit-worthy to sustain a mortgage but long for the dream of home ownership? Pool at-risk mortgages, apply common sense criteria for income and FICO scores (etc.), and for those borrowers who would no longer qualify renegotiated the mortgages' terms so that the monthly payments become rationale over longer terms.

What Say You?
How do you feel about the federal bailout plan as it's been announced thus far? D.2.O would love to hear from you. And by the way, just in case you're interested in how much the government's vision for economic recovery costs, check out this link for historical perspective.

So what does the election of Barack Obama really mean?

What it means is that America has finally turned another one the ugly pages of its history to move forward. Our nation can at long last say that just as gender discrimination before it, race discrimination is seeing its last few days.

It also means that neighborhoods, cities and regions which have traditionally argued that success for its inhabitants was simply 'not possible, not realistic' can no longer credibly do so. The humiliation, the hurt and yes the anger of generations gone by can (and should, and must) be offset by the ambition and enthusiasm of tomorrow's generations.

D.2.0 is encouraged but by no means surprised at the election's outcome. It was foreseeable and attributable based on fairly obvious signs:

• presidential approval ratings at record-lows
• right-track/wrong-track numbers at record-lows
• party registration and fund-raising statistics dramatically lopsided
• an unpopular war
• a once-in-a-lifetime financial crisis

Regardless of who ran in this election, the winner would not have been a Republican, as evidenced by the loss of John McCain. Despite intellectual vigor, independence and public service effectiveness his campaign's outcome was inevitable in this election cycle.

The political pendulum has swung back, just as it has with near clock-like accuracy since the 1960s. Let us all hope that the Democrats avoid mistakes made by the Republicans. Let us hope that they seek to move the country forward with a centrist agenda, with measured dialogue and pragmatic decisions based on objective information.

D.2.O is indeed encouraged. Note the left-hand pane of this blog, called D.2.O Faves, has displayed many of the names who were integral to this election cycle all the way back to this blog's inception (back in August 2005).

Was D.2.0 on to something?

June 2007 was the last time since D.2.O has been updated, why?

Quite honestly, the 2008 presidential election has taken all of the 'oxygen in the room' as they say, and it has largely been predictable -- we have two candidates with remarkably similar positions.

Does anyone genuinely question however, which of the two will be elected as our next president? After 8 years of the current administration, America hungers for what's new. Political party registration numbers, campaign contributions, midterm congressional elections all point to a landslide this fall for someone D.2.O long ago identified as one of its favorites (see the left pane of this site).

Here are, however, some developments of interest:
-Iran's rejection of dialogue with senior U.S. diplomats over its nuclear activities
-North Korea's compliance with suspending its nuclear activities
-Iraq and Afghanistan (again) taking turns being the most volatile areas for U.S. troops
-Gas topping $4 per gallon for the first time ever, and, why it surprised anyone as though the basic law of supply and demand is somehow new

Fluff pieces are not this site's specialty, regular posts will resume as we approach the fall presidential debates and as world affairs warrant.

Substantive, but, no sparks.

In contrast with the June 3rd Democratic debate, tonight's debate was more equitable with questions (quite a feat considering there are more candidates running!) but far less controntational. Duncan Hunter aside, there were no direct knocks on rivals.

Winner: Mitt "Made-for-TV" Romney, Mike Huckabee (tied)
Why? Romney, at least thus far, embodies all of the telegenic qualities which (unforunately) modern elections tend to come down on. More about style than substance, always managing to appear optimistic no matter the subject Romney did not fumble. But if 'winner' is defined as who gained the most from tonight's debate, the winner is Governor Huckabee. Sincere, warm, uniting compassionate and articulate. Were it not for the attention that Fred Thomson's likely candidacy is drawing, Huckabee's debate performance might otherwise get media coverage and public attention. Governor Thommy Thompson did much better than last time, with crisp answers for healthcare and Iraq. Congressman Paul was far more substantive than sensational in this debate, and likely resonated with Libertarians. McCain was more assertive and engaged than previously and Guiliani seemed more comfortable in his own skin than in prior debates. Hunter peppered the top-tier candidates by name which may or may not attract him some attention. In fact, it was really a solid performance for all but. . .

Loser: Tom Tancredo
Why? A single-issue candidate, unable to elaborate, he has permenantly etched himself into having 0 (zero) probability of being the nominee. Right behind him, Governor Gilmore. Far less engaging than he was in the prior debate, and like fellow second-tier candidates, 'breaking through' is priority #1 and tonight he did nothing to further himself.

D.2.O will provide continued analysis of presidential debates, so now what say you?

Getting interesting!

This debate marks a departure from the extended press conferences that we've really seen thus far, and thankfully we saw more direct engagement between the candidates.

Winner: John Edwards
Why? Not because his arguments were 'better' than his rivals, but rather he scored a technical win by successfully inserting himself between the two front-runners (Clinton and Obama). Senator Dodd projected himself in a very presidential manner and had he succeeded as Edwards did in inserting himself, he would be tonight's winner. Biden deserves credit for providing honest and passionate answers on how to attack earmarks. Obama was sharper this evening including his exchange with John Edwards on being "four and a half years too late" for opposing Iraq.

Loser: Bill Richardson
Why? Unfortunately for Richardson, it is clear he has already peaked. Circular answers were in abundance, and contrary to buzz about him breaking into the top tier, tonight's performance (along with his recent and poor performance on Meet the Press) has effectively halted his campaign. Clinton had a very interesting tactic, trying to soften the contrast that her rivals have been painting between her legislative record on Iraq versus others'.

D.2.O will provide continued analysis of presidential debates, so now what say you?

Continuing D.2.O's coverage of the series of 2008 presidential debates. . .

Winner: Mitt Romney
Why? Romney attached himself effectively to the legacy of Ronald Reagan, and was extraordinarily telegenic and articulate. Among the second-tier candidates, Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter stood out. Huckabee was quick on his feet, and Hunter showed mettle.

Loser: Thommy Thompson
Why? While Thompson gave (by far) the most detailed and coherent response to the issue of Iraq, he also said businesses have the right to discriminate based on sexuality. Let me be clear, although the vast majority of Americans dislike alternative lifestyles, I do not believe they are willing to embrace discrimination. All of the other second-tier candidates except for Huckabee and Hunter were entirely forgettable and unprepared.

No spin, no partisanship...just the facts. Stay with D.2.O for continued coverage of presidential debates!

And we're off!

The first nationally televised presidential debate took place this past Thursday, with well-known and less-well-known hopefuls each sharing their vision for America.

So now that we've seen everyone standing beside eachother on the stage...who won and who lost?

Winner: Joe Biden
Why? Because he was the most presidential and pragmatic of the bunch. He was also the only one who was able to articulate (in specific detail) a strategy for Iraq. Let's not also forget the fact that he is a long-shot lacking the machinery and the money of his better-known rivals. Hillary Clinton also earned praise, but for an entirely different reason. While Joe Biden did well because of what he did, Hillary did well for what she didn't do -- she did not raise her voice, she didn't come across as a bitter partisan.

Loser: John Edwards
Why? The man of "two Americas" was already damaged coming into the debate by reports of his $400 haircut bill, so this was his chance to repair himself and raise himself into the top-tier. John failed on both accounts. He was uncharasmatic, unmemorable and calculating every single answer. Barack Obama did not stumble, Bill Richardson was too manufactured, Chris Dodd and others did no harm.

Don't over-estimate the importance of this so-called "debate". The fact of the matter is that this was more of a press conference than anything else. 100% of the questions originated from someone other than the candidates, so this was more about the second-tier candidates than about anyone else.

D.2.O will provide analysis of every presidential debate, so now what say you?

We are all no doubt familiar with this often-used phrase:

Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely

Rarely however is the phrase's origin provided: (An observation that a person'’s sense of morality lessens as his or her power increases. The statement was made by Lord Acton, a British historian of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries).

Ever since the 1992 presidential campaign of Ross Perot, I have been infatuated with the idea of an independent-minded third party to take serious issuess above the traditional, two-dimensional political fray. Twelve years later (2004) I tentatively concluded that starting such a movement was institutionally impossible, and three years later (just moments ago) I have also concluded that sustainingg a movement in a way that is both genuine in intent and consistent with its founding is also not possible.

This post began with an observation about human nature, and it is indeed human nature which flattens the vision of a third party that I hold so dear. Because it is my belief, that once a third party finds power, its founders and its leaders and its participants will individually (and ultimately) succumb to placing self-preservation over policy. That will either lead to calls for a 'fourth' party, or reinvigorate one of the traditional parties.

Democracy 2 pOintzero is about solutions, not problems. If nothing else, the 'agitation' of a third party will compete for resources and mind-share thus forcing the traditional two parties to either posture or legitimately approach issues differently. This is a limited (albeit positive) effect.

Instead, I now believe that we look no further than history to understand that the way to address big issues in the most powerful of ways, is through the powerless. In other words, domestic politics have relied upon so-called 'Blue Ribbon' commissions when the traditional politic is either incapable or overwhelmed (or both) to take on an issue.

Some examples:
The National Commission on Social Security Reform
President's Commission on Strategic Forces
Commission on Federal Election Reform

And so I'd propose the establishment of a permanent body called "The Emerging Opportunity and Threat Commission". The panel would be staffed with representatives from think-tanks linked with universities (not industries) to total 75%, and private (non-executive) citizens who demonstrate 'extraordinary' interest or expertise. It would be tasked with tackling issues which have horizons of 10 or more years into the future and be prohibited from working on 'current' events or issues regardless of magnitude. Funding would come from the federal government, and issues to be studied would require a unanimous vote from the President and congressional majority and minority leaders.

The scope, composition and mandate of this commission would significantly insulate it from falling prey to politics-as-usual, and not detract from neitherr the resources or unflinching focus that large issues require.

Think about some of the potential issues:
Energy Independence
Medicare
US-China Relations
Campaign Finance Reform
Retooling of Domestic Education Curriculum

Sounds crazy? All feedback and thoughts are welcome!

2008 is racing towards us at full speed.

There are of course the partisans (e.g., Clinton, Edwards, Brownback, Hunter), and there are those who are constructive centrists with which D.2.O adamantly embraces.

It is here and now that the least likely, but most forward-thinking ticket is proposed: Obama-Gingrich.

Get back up from the floor and into your chair, these are not typos. And nor are the reasons why this ticket would truly launch a new politic, a Democracy 2.0:

Barack Obama
Media darling, man of the people. Get past the hype and you're left with a very serious individual who is very serious about improving America.

• Steers clear of partisanship
• New, fresh perspective
• Life experience has ingrained perceptions and values never-before held by any candidate for president
• An inspirational figure for all Americans across all generations

Newt Gingrich
Media target, a man who has changed. Newt in the 1990s was as partisan as one could get, even bitter and at times aggressive. But the past several years have revealed a person deeply committed to solving large issues in a non-partisan way.

• Praises those of different political views, Hillary Clinton is a specific example
• Launched not-for-profit, non-partisan grassroot organizations to tackle big issues such as healthcare
• Experience in government provides an understanding of how to mobilize resources (normal or crisis circumstances)
• A person who is looking to advance concepts and issues important to the next generation and those after it

Still not convinced? Then by all means undertake some of your own research and then decide. Both individuals are already D.2.O favorites and are linked along the left pane of your screen.

With Obama as president, American pride and optimism will be reborn and the faith of our allies renewed. With Gingrich as vice president, "third-rail" issues such as healthcare can be solved in a fundamentally different way.

Democrats retake both houses of Congress and set sights on the 2008 presidential election.

The political pendulum has once again swung, unseating those in power in a rebuke to how the situation in Iraq is deteriorating, homeland inaptitude in the handling of Katrina, and corruption a la Abramoff.

D.2.0 is mindful however, that the mid-term elections which handed the 'keys' of Congress back to the opposing party did so not because of overwhelming support but rather frustration with the status quo.

In other words, Democrats need to be mindful of the newfound power. They can no longer simply complain about Iraq but refrain from putting forward alternatives. By they I mean congressional leaders Reid and Pelosi. They should also put aside politics.

True, that last comment is like asking for a miracle for any politician. But each day they show up for work, they will balance an obligation to pass helpful legislation at the expense of improving popular perception of President Bush. Should bills start to get passed and consensus emerge, Bush too will benefit thanks to Rose Garden signing ceremonies.

So as we look back at the election that was, and the election that will be. . .Democrats who are sincere will put aside ambition and know that we the people will be smart enough to applaud it. The same holds true for the Republicans and their crop of would-be 2008 hopefuls.

The country will continue to go through political cycles as it has since its inception. Which is why this mid-term election is not politically unique. Which is why the challenges and opportunities in front of both parties are not politically unique.

Commentators would like to hype events to sustain interest. But the fact is that the mid-term election may wind up proving that the more things change, the more things really stay the same.

Say what you will about Connecticut's three-term senator, but Joe Lieberman is someone who clearly demonstrates his commitment to political sincerity.

Watch the entire debate (linked to above, courtesy of C-SPAN), and then ask yourself who among the two participants is genuine, who among the two is resolved, who among the two doesn't chase political polls or change with a given day's prevailing wind?

Make no mistake, we do not agree with the senator on a great many issues...but that doesn't prevent us from recognizing and applauding his willingness to engage, to have substantive dialogue -- in essence, to lead by example.

Joe Lieberman is a 'D.2.O. Fave', and along the left pane of our site is a link to his homepage.

Happy Birthday...America, and a happy 4th of July to D.2.O's readers.

What a day it has already been:

1. NASA successfully returned to space with the launch of Discovery -- the first time a manned launch has ever taken place on this date, designed to test fuel tank modifications and service the international space station.
2. North Korea test-fired a total of 4 missiles -- one of which is the Taepodong-2 which is thought to have capabilities such that mainland US could be struck and seen world-wide as a provocative action.

On this day, it is interesting to look at the contrast of these two events. One looks to the promise of the future and celebrates international collaboration, whereas the second provokes the international community and threatens to take its neighbors back to a time of military conflict.

Newt Gingrich appeared on NBC's Meet the Press program and offered:

1-pragmatic, and refreshingly civil debate
2-innovative solutions
3-genuine tactics for deflating partisanship and reinvigorating constructive dialogue

This would be an incomplete posting if I failed to also share with you my genuine surprise with the interview.

While I expected Mr. Gingrich to be intellectually stimulating and Mr. Russert to offer appropriately probing questions -- I did not expect Mr. Gingrich to respond in ways which sought to deflate politics and emphasize solutions.

D.2.O encourages you to review a transcript of the program.

Television network NBC has just aired an episode of ER which featured a close-up scene in which a hospital patient gives the middle finger.

In the scene, police come to apologize to a deaf person they'd mistakenly accused of being a gang member and flashing 'gang gestures' at them (when in fact the deaf person was merely trying to communicate using sign language).

Now, the last I heard, the middle finger gesture equates to the F-Word.

Sure, other networks like FX and HBO do worse, but the difference is that people opt to receive those networks and pay a premium to do so.

NBC on the other hand uses public airwaves and is broadcast into every home with a television.

The peacock network has just crossed a discouraging line. . .

Read on for yourselves. . . .

Life is full of lessons, for those people of a keen intellect and an open mind.

I made the point (see my 9/5 post) that Katrina's lesson was this -- that all too often, politicians do not act until after a crisis is in the headlines.

Today, scientific evidence offers us yet another valuable lesson. The lesson is that Democracy 2 pOintzero's thirst for pragmatic and nonpartisan dialogue offers its readers 'food for thought', literally.

Bon apetit, my friends. There are many more helpings of intellectual cuisine yet to be served.

Look no further than the comments made by New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin and Sen. Hillary Clinton to see 'fine' examples of racial tolerance.

Of course I say this with a high degree of sarcasm.

The mayor's comments can at best be described as disturbing, while the senator's comments are a very harmful line engineered for applause.

I always thought progress was made by looking forward, so why would a mayor of a distraught city and a senator speaking in Harlem, NY insist on living in the past?

If the mayor wanted to convey a message of inclusiveness, he should have stressed the value of New Orleans being a diverse community. If the senator wanted to express dissatisfaction with the House, she ought to have provided a constructive alternative.

These are but two examples, on the birthday of Dr. King no less, which simply left me nautious.

Let's be clear, President Bush and his administration have not engaged in thoughtful dialogue regarding Iraq, that is until now.

For months and even years, there was a vigorous and highly-disciplined effort to convey to the public a 'We're right, everyone else is wrong.' message. This has been frustrating to many because it was as though they were holding hands over eyes, ears and mouth whenever the realities of Iraq were brought to surface: flawed intelligence, flawed post-war planning, flawed reconstruction plans and flawed financial assumptions.

But in past weeks, and especially in tonight's national address from the oval office, the President acknowledged the realities I cite above. While simple on the surface, I find this fascinating and extremely curious -- is this a more thoughtful, reflective administration or is this a well-engineered political exercise?

Sure, using the 'victory' word in speeches and on backdrops is obviously a function of political engineering, but I for one think (dare I say hope?) that this new posture represents substantive change. My optimism stems from the reports of a fallout between the President and Vice President in the wake of 'Plame-Gate'.

Perhaps the confluence of the Plame leak and Hurricane Katrina caught Bush's attention, perhaps he may have recognized or perceived a need to take a more hands-on and direct role in setting the tone and substance of debate rather than these things being the exclusive domain of administration officials. I for one have seen some of the best one-on-one interviews the President has ever engaged in take place in just the past few weeks.

Americans have big hearts, and while some may not agree with the direction of the war, nearly all forgive folks who admit mistakes. Taking responsibility and demonstrating empathy goes a long way, Mr. President.

Now let's hope for an imaginitive and visionist State of the Union.

I want Social Security reform to strengthen our solvency, I want our forces that step down in Iraq to be reallocated to Afghanistan, I want the administration to take Senator Liebermann's offer of a bipartisan 'war council' to confer on strategy and monitor progress in Iraq, I want a task force with exclusive focus of following up on the 9/11 Comission's Report and I want a 'Truman Plan' to focus on reducing our dependency on foriegn oil.

Let's see if Santa leaves me these things with a big red bow on top. . .

Consumed by the 'blame game' and unproductive partisan bickering, people are either neglecting or failing to recognize the powerful aftershock born of this tragedy:

-the 10-year sociological and political impact of the storm
-the 5-year environmental and economic impact of the storm
-the near-term geopolitical impact of our inability to crisis manage

10 Years: Sociological, Political Impact
Are we safe? Survivors' lives forever altered. Who's to blame? Was race a factor?

Four years and billions of dollars after the attacks of 9/11, our institutions failed to prepare for, and react to, an event predicted for days.

One has to ask, were there a WMD attack, or if a damn, or levee or nuclear power plant were attacked, how would our government act to protect and assist us? The answer most of us would agree is both depressing and downright alarming.

Action and inaction are quantifiable, but the loss of life and livelihood is not. Our fellow citizens along the Gulf coast have been uprooted physically while battered emotionally and psychologically. Homes passed from generation to generation have been destroyed, simple holidays such as a birthday will now always bring back memories of what was. Children, who perhaps more than any other group of among us require stability to flourish, were separated from their friends, schoolmates, or worse yet family. And for all those displaced, where do they call 'home'? What of the family sit-down dinner? The bedtime story? The arguments that parents might have otherwise had outside of a child's eyes or ears but are no longer the case? It would seem that the additional strains placed on families will either galvanize them, or destroy them.

Would this have happened in a whiter or richer area? As disheartening as the corrosive, partisan finger-pointing is, I am very concerned about the undertow of class warfare that will shape our politics for years to come. Let's be clear, the loss of life and underwhelming government response to the tragedy is mechanical.

In other words, proactive measures such as evacuation planning, prepositioning of assets and levee strengthening did not occur at the extent it should have and that is the result of neglect and failed leadership at all levels of government. Those who are (or were) reluctant members of the poor, suffered because of it. Period.

And yet in spite of this reality, politicians and those who benefit from social unreset will seek to create and exploit result, rather than address root cause. All the while, diverting public attention and government focus from issues such as weapons proliferation, social security and other important matters.

5 Years: Environmental, Economic Impact
The Mississippi & Gulf of Mexico. To rebuild or not to rebuild. Energy supply and refinery capacity.

By now, you've no doubt seen the images of the toxic broth consisting of substances I need not detail, being pumped into the Missippi river. A river which ultimately flows into the Gulf of Mexico. What of the impact to wildlife, some of which may in some way enter our country's food supply? What of the fisheries and beaches along the Gulf coast? I wonder why these issues have not yet been explored by the media. While I have no subject matter expertise on water purification, it just seems to reason that there is some form of technology we could and ought to apply to the reduce the environmental impact to the river, wildlife and our coastline.

In either event, the cost of this disaster and its recovery is staggering. Here are some figures which I've heard repeatedly in the media: $60+ billion dollars in federal relief and $25+ billion in property damage. And already, you and I are paying more than $3.00/gallon for regular gasoline.

Recently, gas prices skyrocketed because of a disruption of supply (oil extraction) and refinery capacity (the transformation of oil into gasoline). But let us not forget, that in the weeks prior to Katrina, gas prices were already surging. Why? Because consumption by other emerging economies is increasing demand, while at the same time there are no new supply discoveries. But the other element is our country's approach to auto fuel. Did you know that gas sold in one state, in some instances can not be sold in another? This is because there are a number of different 'mixtures' which are dictated by different states. And from what I've read or heard in the media, not a single new refinery has been built in more than 20 years. We have an energy crisis, and in an ironic way, Katrina has brought about some good in that it offers us all a preview of energy prices in the years to come. The swell of public outrage offers politicians the photo-op they need to jump all over the issue. Perhaps, now, the pragmatic balance between production and conservation, combined with innovation will give birth to a viable long-term plan for our country's energy independence.

Near-Term: Geopolitical Impact
Lost prestige. Perception of vulnerability. Study guide for terrorists?

We all know the saying, 'perception is reality'. And to so many around the world, the term 'superpower' meant just that -- that America was a nation capable of nearly anything it so chose to pursue. And yet 9/11 turned our freedoms against us, and exposed a tender underbelly. The attack upon us, inspired other attacks on our allies including Spain, Saudi Arabia and (most recently) Great Britain.

And so it is quite possible that another form of damage Katrina has yet to impose upon us, is to create and/or reinforce a perception around the world that we are ill-prepared to handle damage to our infrastructure. The great blackout of 2003 demonstrated that, just as the horrific flood of 2005 has.

Aftershocks can sometimes rival the magnitude of the initial quake. I fear the aftershock of Katrina and 9/11 may do much the same.

Hurricane Katrina has inflicted tremendous pain upon Gulf Coast residents, as well as their loved ones.

And while subsequent events have raised more questions than they have produced solutions, there is a powerful lesson in all of this:

"There's plenty of blame to go around -- the White House, Congress, federal
agencies, local governments, police and even residents of the Gulf Coast who
refused orders to evacuate. But all the finger-pointing misses the point:
Politicians and the people they lead too often ignore danger signs until a
crisis hits."

source: AP

I absolutely, positively, could not have said it better. This is exactly the kind of straight-forward, pragmatic, analysis that Democracy 2 pOintzero embraces.

Equality isn't just some abstract concept, it is one of life's few genuine entitlements -- it's something we all deserve. So why is it that those with the most influence and of the greatest means are racism’s top peddlers? I am speaking of many (but not most) of today's rappers. Doubtful are you? Just have a listen for yourself. Why would people promote crime, 'dead end-ism', and the abuse of women when they could instead talk about the happier and healthier lives they now enjoy? Think about it. For many, rap and gangsta rap offer an only escape from broken families, broken schools, the daily task of surviving instead of living. More than escapism though, rappers are idols of excess. Big everything -- big TVs, big cars, big jewelry. And you know what, they got everything by living the same life as those who look up to them.

You'll note that earlier I made sure to say that not all rap (or rappers) is bad. Some artists go out of thier way to give to local charities, get involved with communities and promote a better way of life. The sad thing is that if someone like you or me were to publicly praise them, they'd instantly lose street credibility. So, what to do? It's not rocket science, it's pragmatic. Meetings, private meetings, between community leaders and members of the rap community who genuinely hope for a better way of life for the less fortunate. Establish community programs that emphasize self-esteem, promote equality, and above all else inspire. Where there is celebrity, there will be enrollment, nuff said. The challenging part is whether a politician could resist the temptation of plastering his/her name all over the place in the next election cycle. The second that a disclosure such as that takes place, is the second that the bad guys would say the good guys are no longer 'street' or 'thug'. That by showing folks a better way of life, they've somehow turned thier backs. Am I saying that these programs would be soaked in cavity-inducing, rated-G sweetness? Of course not. But simply by getting kids to value themselves, by getting kids off the street, by offering kids role models which may not otherwise exist -- the cycle will be broken.

The 10 or 20%+ who go on to enjoy life will give back to the community. Whether it's in dollars, time or perhaps lending celebrity that they themselves achieve. Best of all, they'll raise thier kids to do the same. This, my friends, is how to promote equality and a better way of life. So people of influence, those in the rap industry and those in government, step up. What's at stake is far more than anyone's ego or album sales, what's at stake are lives. The ripple effect of higher living standards, lower crime, better schools, and half the population (women) being valued and part of this noble struggle offers all unlimited potential. Racism, Inc., built on hate and hopelessness, would close its doors forever. Here's to hope . . .

Democracy 2 pOintzero is the constructive exchange of ideas in an honest pursuit of solutions. The current state of politics is so far removed from what we citizens deserve, and indeed from what our future demands. Imagine if you would our leaders engaging in solutions-oriented debate, instead of the two-dimensional sound byte circus we are reduced to dealing with. Imagine if you would, what things would be like if people like you and I were heard?

While we may not have the pedigree, nor the money, nor the influence we are still convinced of America's potential and committed towards improving its future. Welcome to the roundtable, welcome to Democracy 2 pOintzero.