Just so that we're clear...

If zombies should arise, I am heading to Summer Glau's house. Then we're going to meet up with Bruce Campbell. Apparently Bruce likes to sleep in late, but Summer always eats her early-morning bowl of Wheaties.

An Historical Observation

It occurred to me as I began to lie down in bed that we shall be blessed with having a man of color as our commander-in-chief on the 150 year anniversary of the Civil War, assuming that President Obama is still living by that point. Seems appropriate enough that celebration can be shared by all. And as far as I know, I am the first to have noticed this little fact.

Now of course the actual beginning of the Civil War is hard to ascertain. South Carolina declared itself succeeded from the United States on December 24, 1860. Many other states soon followed. Lincoln was sworn in March 4, 1861. But it was the first shot on Ft. Sumter in South Carolina on April 12, 1861. Surely that should be seen as the beginning of the Civil War. Although the last recorded battle occurred on May 13, 1865, it must be Lee's surrender at Appomattox Courthouse which happened on April 9, 1865 that must be seen as the formal conclusion.

I would like to see a national holiday in support of the war that divided us. Not just of celebration, but also remembrance of the glorious causes. Although the dividing issue was of course slavery, we can celebrate the end of such a practice. The Southern cause of state's rights can of course be celebrated, even in acknowledgment of being wrong on the issue of slavery.

So the date of this proposed national holiday? Either April 9th or 12th would be appropriate, although I am in favor of the latter. The only other option might be General Lee's birthday, January 19, which is coincidentally also Martin Luther King, Jr's. (It is not inappropriate that a lot of people already celebrate Lee's birthday in a sort of unofficial holiday remembering a Southern gentlemen.) Perhaps a petition started in Congress, supported by the American people, and signed by the first African-American president might be very appropriate.

Is Obama a Socialist?

As far as Obama goes... I believe its best to let him stand and fall on his own ground. No need to try to pigeon hole him, although I support the political and journalistic attempts to pressure him and his administration to clarify his position(s). I'm thinking quite clearly of the direct question to Joe Biden during the campaign about Obama being a socialist. Much of the ignorance in America over this issue is due to the Obama administration not coherently stating their position in opposition to counter-claims. And that should be more worrying. Are they truly ignorant of the issues, or are they just inarticulate? Or do they not care and just use smoke and mirror techniques to win over the populace? (I guess my bias is apparent here.)

It would be best to understand Obama's position as openly hostile to free-market, private enterprise. He does not believe that those enterprises are productive or provide for prosperity for lower class Americans. So he is willing to replace them with either direct or indirect government control, or with leadership from the lower classes. What we see is the clear expression of liberal control of business that uses elements of both fascism and socialism, but cannot be defined as either. Pressuring Rick Wagoner to step down is indirect control by the government on private business, on the basis of "fairness," which takes its start from national corporatism which is a usual element of fascism. However, the push towards having UAW control majority voting representation is an obvious example of Obama's "fairness" doctrine taking from socialism.

Obama is Obama, and personally to place him in one political philosophy in wrong and gives him too much credit. I don't think he has a thought out agenda on how to shape the American economy, as most things he has proposed/done have looked ad hoc responses which benefit the lower middle class and punish large private entrepreneurs. (By his explanations of the policies, they also seem to come from a third party source as well, which is doubly concerning.) As in an article I read during the campaign, Obama's economic policies are neither supportive of wall street or main street. He is squarely at home on Sesame Street, where lives are simplistic (no coherent government appearance, either Socialism, Fascism, Democracy, or Republic) but there is an universal acceptance of right/wrong and looking out for your neighbor to the extent that they are placed on the same level as you. Perhaps the term "naive utopia" best describes it. American economic liberals, as I understand them, sees this as the goal to be achieved, and I believe they understand themselves as necessary evils to obtain this goal. Once we level the playing field, then our enlightened states of mind take hold, and government can dissolve, or at least lessen to the extent that it does not need to be seen on the national seen. That is where I see Obama falling.

And just to clarify, I don't see Bush, et al, upholding the banks, etc, as elements of fascism or socialism. Capitalism will allow temporary intrusion by the government to support the short term survival of markets. (Whether they needed to this time should have been debated, but oh well.) Bush's agenda seemed to follow in line with this, although aspects of it might be questioned.