Just Bloggin

Many people in modern society are very politically motivated. They belong to a political group and as a result have strong opinions about most current events and topical issues, not surprisingly most of which are usually shared by all the other people who belong to the same group. Sometimes it’s as though they have to check with the group to find out what they actually think about something.

Does that seem sad to you? Me too. However there are times when being politically slanted can come in handy. It isn’t all just sounding like a clone produced by an idealistic cult. Sometimes those of us who actually think about things before responding have a disadvantage.

This seems counter-intuitive to us normal people who don’t run every single thing everybody says through a political filter. I mean, we actually listen to people and don’t suspect a hidden agenda when the person behind the counter at Denny’s asks us for our order. We think that getting into an argument with the waitress at the point because she didn’t address global warming is a bit nuts. But we are a bit short-sighted, and don’t understand how being a political nut can actually be a benefit in many situations.

For example, let’s say you find yourself in a group of starving people that are waiting for food to be distributed by some government authority. Now let’s say that you are really against the killing of certain sea mammals. OK, so they announce on the loudspeaker that the expected food shipment didn’t come today but a small group of natives managed to club one of these mammals to death and it has been grilled up medium-rare. However there is only enough for about 60% of the people. Because you are so appalled at the whole notion, you know not to bother stampeding with most of the other starving people towards the front.

OK, lets go with a more realistic example. Let’s say a scientist stops by your work and wants to demonstrate a new power source which uses human anger as it’s fuel. None of your co-workers care much about politics and thus are pretty easy going people. When the scientist tries to demonstrate the product, there is no fuel at hand for it. So your boss makes a slanted statement in support of the opposite political party as you, and now you are the one who gets to fuel the new energy source.

All right, all right, here is an even more realistic example. A co-worker accidentally states that she thinks Americans should support whoever happens to be President regardless of which party you belong to. Now you can finally put that person in their place and let them have it. Justice will at least temporarily be done, and no doubt you will gain the respect of everyone in your office.

Basically whenever unwarranted anger is needed, or lashing out at people who don’t deserve it will save the day, your political affiliations will be a needed and much appreciated resource. Don’t bother waiting around for thanks. Just be happy that you are helping to save the world a little bit at a time.

For more twisted looks at social issues please visit http://www.stupidityinsociety.com

Throughout the historic 2008 presidential campaign, much attention has been given to the personalities of the candidates. Many know that John McCain survived a horrific ordeal as a POW in Vietnam. Many know that Obama was raised by a single mother in Hawaii, who sometimes had to go on welfare to support her children. And many are now aware of Sarah Palin’s pregnant teenage daughter and the death of Joe Biden’s wife in an automobile crash over 30 years ago.

However, if you ask many supporters of Obama or McCain, very few can tell you where their candidates stand on such issues as health care. Consequently, 45 million Americans live without adequate health care.

Both presidential candidates plan to guarantee health care for all Americans.

“We now face an opportunity—and an obligation—to turn the page on the failed politics of yesterday’s health care debates…My plan begins by covering every American,” said Obama in 2007. “If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less. If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don’t have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law. No one will be turned away because of a preexisting condition or illness.”

Obama believes not enough money is spent on prevention and public health, citing the obesity epidemic in this country. According to his website, less than four cents of every medical dollar is spent on prevention. His health plan will provide subsidies for working families that do not qualify for Medicaid and Medicare and allow participants to move to different jobs without changing plans.

McCain wants to put the patients in control of their health care plan by encouraging competition among insurance companies with a greater variety, lower costs and like Obama portability of insurance plans. The Arizona senator will allow citizens to remain with their company’s insurance but will give every family a direct refundable tax credit totaling $5,000 and $2,500 for individuals to offset the high cost of health care. He is also encouraging health savings accounts, which would allow families to control what options they pay for.

Senator Obama’s plan would create a National Health Insurance Exchange, which would act as a watchdog group by implementing rules and standards for insurance companies to guarantee fairness and accessibility.

The GOP hopeful will attempt to encourage greater competition within our drug market through a quicker development of generic prescription drugs. The Democratic nominee plans to allow Americans to buy their meds from other developed countries if the prices are lower outside the country. He will increase the use of generic medicine in Medicare and Medicaid and stop big drug companies from prohibiting generic drugs in the marketplace.

Both candidates favor utilizing technological advancements to assist doctors in their daily operations. In addition, both favor reforming insurance to prevent frivolous lawsuits against doctors. And Obama favors mandatory health care coverage for children, allowing young Americans coverage under their parents’ insurance until age 25.

Whether you are Democrat or Republican, young or old, rich or poor, issues such as health care are life or death situation for many Americans. And unlike other publications Regal Magazine will dedicate the next two months to covering the issues that are most important to all Americans, not the issues that will have no affect on providing a better future for Americans.

Todd A. Smith is the publisher of http://www.regalmag.com, an online magazine dedicated to issues affecting African American men. The website tackles such topics as social and political issues, health, relationships, business, sports and entertainment.

During the 2004 presidential campaign, the Iraq War was the hot-button issue separating John Kerry supporters and George W. Bush supporters. The insurgency was raging, and people on the left and the right were adamant about their candidate’s position on the issue.

Fast forward to 2008, and the Iraq War has taken a back seat because of the success of the troop surge, which has quelled the sectarian violence. Nevertheless, the war is still a crucial element of this campaign because the next president will likely determine how long American troops will remain in the Middle East. Regal Magazine looks at Barack Obama and John McCain’s stance on the war and how it will affect the security of Americans abroad and at home.

“Here is the truth: fighting a war without end will not force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future,” Obama said. “And fighting in a war without end will not make the American people safer. So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden—as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer.”

According to Obama’s official website, more than 1,000 American troops have died since the surge began, despite the increased security, and the Iraqi government has not stepped forward to assume responsibility of leading their country. The website goes on to say that more than 1.75 million soldiers have served in the Iraq War or in Afghanistan, and of those troops, more than 620,000 have completed multiple deployments. Furthermore, military equipment is wearing out at nine times the normal rate as a result of wear and tear in the harsh environment of Iraq.

Senator Obama believes the decision to invade Iraq prevented Americans from going after Osama bin Laden and others involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Iraq War has lasted longer than World War I, World War II and the Civil War with more than 4,000 Americans killed and more than 60,000 wounded.

Obama’s campaign says the removal of American troops will be responsible and phased with the consultation of military commanders and the Iraqi government. His website states that military commanders believe combat brigades can be safely redeployed at a pace of one to two brigades per month, meaning all would be removed within 16 months of him taking office.

However, Senator McCain believes a speedy withdrawal of American troops would only lead to instability in the Middle East, making it less safe for Americans at home.

“I do not want to keep troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there,” McCain said. “Our goal is an Iraq that can stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible force for peace in its neighborhood. Our goal is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops. And I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine. But I do not believe that anyone should make promises as a candidate for President that they cannot keep if elected. To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility.”

McCain has been a leading advocate of the troop surge since day one. According to his official website, sectarian violence has been reduced by 90 percent from June 2007 to March 2008. Deaths of civilians and coalition forces have also been reduced by 70 percent.

McCain believes it is imperative that the Iraqi government be able to support themselves before the end of the Iraq War and he believes that is possible through an improved Iraqi economy. He believes that if there are more jobs for Iraqis, fewer citizens will be interested in joining insurgent groups. Until that occurs, he is against ending the War in Iraq.

Todd A. Smith is the publisher of http://www.regalmag.com, an online magazine dedicated to issues affecting African American men. The website tackles such topics as social and political issues, health, relationships, business, sports and entertainment.

Whether Barack Obama becomes the next president of the United States, he and his Republican counterpart, John McCain, have turned the 2008 showdown into must-see television.

The suspense leading up to the selection of Joe Biden as Obama’s running mate created the kind of debate usually reserved for March Madness, with fans arguing why certain candidates would survive to the next round and others would fall by the wayside.

Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention on August 28 was one of the most viewed television events of the year, but was almost immediately overshadowed the next day when McCain picked Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, as his running mate in an attempt to lure disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters to the GOP.

Nevertheless, like Obama’s resounding speech, the pick of Palin and the Republican National Convention was almost immediately overshadowed by coverage of Hurricane Gustav hitting the New Orleans area.

Now that the dust has settled on a dramatic week of events, Obama’s selection of Joe Biden and the “healing” process that took place at the Democratic convention in Denver, should give the freshman senator from Illinois the slight advantage heading into November.

Throughout this election process, conservatives have criticized Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience. However, when he chose Biden to be his running mate, many said the choice only magnified his lack of experience in foreign affairs.

I often say that an effective leader knows his weaknesses and is humble enough to surround himself with people that help him become strong in a weak area. When John F. Kennedy faced the same criticism over his so-called lack of experience and lack of popularity in the South, he sought a running mate that was strong in those areas, Lyndon Johnson.

When McCain showed his vulnerability among evangelical Christians, he chose a candidate that would be able to appeal to conservative Christians on issues such as abortion. Furthermore, he picked a 44 year old, quieting those who believe 72 is too old for a first-term president.

An effective leader must also be humble enough to listen to others and sometimes follow them, because all are weak in some area. Ultimately, Biden gives Obama an outspoken leader who is known for his bluntness and is willing to speak out against his own boss.

According to his official Senate website, Biden has represented the state of Delaware since being elected to the United States Senate at the young age of 29 in 1972. He is recognized by his Democratic and Republican colleagues for his work in foreign policy, terrorism, drug policy and crime, offering an exit strategy for the Iraq War, which was overwhelmingly supported in the Senate by a 75-23 vote.

Biden is leading a Congressional effort to end genocide in Darfur, Sudan and authored The Second Chance Act, which assists federal, state and local governments in providing inmates with tools needed to successfully reintegrate into society after their release. The bill was signed into law on April 9, 2008.

Biden’s adversary, Sarah Palin, became the first female governor of Alaska on December 4, 2006. According to her official website, while in office she has overhauled education funding and implemented the Senior Benefits Program, which provides support for low-income senior citizens in Alaska. The governor also created Alaska’s Petroleum Systems Integrity Office, which provides oversight and maintenance of oil equipment and the Climate Change Subcabinet, which is developing a climate change strategy for her home state.

Palin has also been a role model for her most important job, being a mother to five children, including a pregnant 17 year old and a newborn son with special needs.

However, the fact that the Republicans have a female on their ticket should work in Biden’s favor during the debates. Known for his outspokenness Biden will be forced to tone it down while debating Palin, in order not offend millions of female voters who felt Hillary Clinton was treated unfairly during her campaign. Regardless of who wins, history will be in November and the glass ceiling that Clinton spoke of will be completely shattered.

Todd A. Smith is the publisher of http://www.regalmag.com, an online magazine dedicated to issues affecting African American men. The website tackles such topics as social and political issues, health, relationships, business, sports and entertainment.

In what has been a strikingly bitter and divisive US election campaign, one of the most distasteful forms of personal attack has been left-wing bloggers labeling VP candidate Sarah Palin as bipolar. These commentators apparently believe it is possible to diagnose Governor Palin as a closet sufferer of manic-depressive illness, without ever having met her or going through a formal diagnostic process. Bipolar is actually a specific medical term and the criteria for bipolar is set forth in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV).

For those of us who do have bipolar disorder (also known as manic-depressive illness), or who advocate on behalf of the bipolar community, this is a disturbing development that epitomizes the extent to which bipolar has become synonymous with bad behavior. Increasingly, lay people feel free to sling the term bipolar around as a pejorative, and seem to believe they have, through pop culture osmosis, become experts on this very complex illness. The term bipolar has become contemporary cultural shorthand for anything we interpret as extreme or obnoxious in light of our own personal belief system.

In reality, bipolar is a spectrum of mood disorders, characterized by mood swings between mania and depression.

The symptoms of mania include excessive risk taking, hypersexuality, reckless financial spending, gambling or investments, and incoherently rapid and disjointed speech. Another common bipolar symptom is grandiosity, a grossly inflated sense of one’s abilities and entitlements.

The bipolar community has disproportionately high rates of marriage breakdown, financial problems, substance abuse, obesity, and career under-achievement. During depressive phases, bipolar people may become withdrawn, unmotivated, despairing, or even suicidal.

Governor Palin has a very happy and successful marriage, her personal finances have been scrutinized and found above reproach through the VP vetting process, she has maintained a successful career, and does not abuse alcohol or drugs. Instead of grandiosity, Palin drives herself to work, listed the Governor’s jet on e-Bay, and dispensed with an executive chef. Like many Alaskans, she does use a tanning bed during the long dark winters to fend off vitamin deficiencies and Seasonally Affective Disorder (SAD), a far cry from clinical depression.

Of course, not all Americans are pro-life feminists like Sarah Palin. Some voters disagree strongly with her on the important issues of the day, and will choose to support her opponents instead. It should be possible to go through this process without further caricaturing sufferers of manic-depressive illness. Invoking the specter of mental health disorders to denigrate individuals with a different political perspective is ignorant, hurtful, and childish.

Governor Palin is a hard working, high functioning politician, with views some do not share. Labeling her bipolar in order to express ideological disapproval is taking a medical term already overloaded with cultural baggage, and using it to further marginalize millions of fellow citizens who bravely struggle against this misunderstood disease every day, and who are already subject to a heavy burden of stigma and ignorance.

To learn more, see Bipolar Symptoms. Sarah Freeman is an attorney with manic-depressive illness, and webmaster of Bipolar Lives - one of the Internet’s leading sites on bipolar disorder.

There has been much discussion about Henry Paulson’s Plan to invest $700 billion dollars of the tax payers’ money in US mortgage backed securities. Opinions are divided, some totally oppose it while others vehemently espouse it.

Here is my take on how we got to this situation and why America should adopt Paulson’s Plan.

The present mortgage market crisis was created when interest rates fell in 2002 and made mortgages affordable and available for lots of families who would not ordinarily have qualified for them based on their incomes. Further, many of the originators of these sub prime mortgages, banks and other lenders, had no intention of keeping these mortgages till maturity. They had found a business model of earning profits without carrying the risks associated with lending. What they did was package their sub-prime mortgages in to mortgage backed securities and sold them on to other banks. The executives of the purchasing banks did their calculations and found them quite profitable. This was great for their bottom line as well as their end of the year bonuses and purchasing these poor quality securities was, at that time, probably a no brainer. As rates eventually rose, more and more home owners could not afford the mortgage installments and had their properties foreclosed. This resulted in an over supply of properties on the market with consequent house price crash. The banks that had purchased these securities now had bad debts on their books as they had become non productive assets.

Paulson’s plan envisages purchasing these securities at near maturity rates, therefore, letting the banks off the hook. It also envisages freezing of rates for some home owners to prevent further foreclosures. Those opposed to the plan want the Fed to purchase the securities at the present market rate, which is not much of a help to any body. It would probably mean more bankruptcies in the financial sector as the weakest lenders would not have the liquidity to survive.

Over the past 6 months, 3 of the biggest names in finance, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers have disappeared forever. These were household names with long histories. Can America afford to lose even more such institutions? Granted that the executives running these venerable institutions had made bad decisions, but does that mean that 150 year old organisations with solid brand equity be reduced to nothing? The better route would be to prevent more bankruptcies and force banks and other financial sector companies to be more transparent about their businesses, which is what the Paulson plan is about.

Consider also another perspective on Paulson’s plan.

America has spent 3 trillion dollars on the war in Iraq and some estimate that the final bill, including the health care of mentally and physically injured war veterans, will probably come to 5 trillion. Further, America spends close to 350 billion dollars net every year (after subtracting for exports to these countries) to finance imports from China and Japan. If America can spend so recklessly on countries that are never going to pay back any of that money, is there any reason why it should not spend on its own welfare?

My final argument on why America should support its financial sector is that this is one of the industries in which it is still competitive. Over the past century, America has lost its pre-eminence in many of its labour intensive industries - steel, automobiles, consumer electronics and textiles to name just a few, and eventually losing finance would add to that long list. I do not think that America should lose an industry which is not dependant on labour costs for its competitiveness. What needs to be done is to rescue it now and bring in tougher regulation to make the industry more transparent and accountable.

I would appreciate any comments you have on this article.

Vijay Patel is a mortgage broker and financial adviser. His blog, MoneyInfoBlog, can be found here in which he writes under the pen name of Zeke. He is interested in personal finance, history, nature and wild life, internet marketing and languages.

This year’s Presidential and Vice-Presidential election spotlights the important contributions made by women in our society - be they single or married, mothers or not, young or old, rich or poor, from big cities or small towns, in high-powered careers or down-to-earth jobs. The women in this election season are as exciting and controversial as any male candidates have ever been. Each has found her own unique equilibrium between the passion she contributes to her chosen career and the love she bestows on her family.

Of course, the woman who has initiated the most discussion about this balance is Republican Vice-Presidential nominee, 44-year old Governor Sarah Palin. Palin has been combining a political career with motherhood for the past 16 years. Now with five children, her candidacy brings to the forefront the continuing struggles of working mothers.

Those struggles are not just internal but also for acceptance with society as a whole - and women in particular. Sarah Palin symbolizes different things to different women. To some she is the ultimate ceiling breaker, the first woman on a Republican Vice-Presidential ticket. In her acceptance speech at the convention, Palin said of her place on the Republican ticket it proved that, “Every woman can walk through every door of opportunity.” She was poised and comfortable - a natural - as she stepped into the spotlight of history, a woman showing her toughness, yet with a smile. At the same time, she positioned herself as a typical mother acknowledging, “Our family has the same ups and downs as others.”

But, just as a double standard is often applied to them, not all women themselves agree that she is the right choice. For these, she embodies the ultimate contradiction between family values and personal ambition. They wonder out loud if she can adequately mother her children while carrying on the national responsibilities required of a Vice-President. But is this argument anti-feminist? Interestingly, due to Governor Palin’s political beliefs, the rhetoric comes more from liberals - traditionally feminists - than from conservatives.

The position on women’s rights and opportunities seems to have flipped as far as this issue is concerned. Some of the most liberal feminists contend that Sarah Palin should not be on the ticket whereas conservatives declare she can balance her family responsibilities along with one of the most important jobs in the federal executive branch.

These kinds of questions have not been raised when a father of five takes on enormous challenges in his work life, even today when fathers are more involved in the daily lives of their children. Is this a double standard or justified by the reality of family needs? Do women face unique pulls when they become wives and mothers?

What voters need today is not a criticism of her personal story but a discussion of the real policy differences between Sarah Palin and the other candidates. Tina Fey’s impersonation of her on Saturday Night Live brought more viewers to that show than have tuned in for many years. With Fey as Governor Palin and Amy Poehler as Senator Hillary Clinton, the sketch featured the women joining together to attack sexism in the election, even as they demonstrated the dissimilarity in political beliefs and positions.

Sandwiched Boomer women are looking for role models today as they juggle career and family - and wondering what direction the fight for women’s rights will take now and in the future. Governor Palin, an unlikely kind of feminist, has shown that she is willing to get into the trenches and join the fight for herself, her party and her sex. Let’s judge her credentials on their merits and her positions on their credibility - not on her status as a woman.

The property market in North Cyprus is undergoing serious changes at the moment, with the currently low property prices rising – and looking set to continue rising – at an unprecedented rate. In addition, a new type of property development is beginning to appear in the north side of the island – namely, upmarket and luxury apartments – that are clearly designed for people wanting to buy investment properties in this emerging market.

The reason for this change is, simply speaking, the reunification talks between Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot delegates that are now striding ahead. International optimism regarding, and support for, a successful resolution – which have snowballed since Demetris Christofias’ election victory this February – is heartening evidence that, after years of hampered talks and deliberate stalling, there is now a genuine and tangible attempt to restore the divided island.

Each week Christofias and the Turkish Cypriot Mehmet Ali Talat are meeting to discuss the exactitudes and workings of a blueprint for reunification. This week, Turkish Cypriot delegates outlined the importance of addressing the historical chronology of the Cyprus problem for the current set of talks to be a success, according to the Cyprus Observer’s website.

‘After this point, both sides should negotiate with full capacity and complete responsibility and, ultimately, introduce an agreement which will be submitted to approval of two peoples,’ the Turkish Cypriot diplomats were quoted as saying.

Talat and Christofias, during their weekly talk, were discussing the issue of power sharing in a reunified state, and Greek Cypriot President Christofias caused somewhat of a stir by announcing that the Greek Cypriot side had granted a concession to the Turkish Cypriot side by accepting the notion of a bizonal federation that was devised by President Makarios in 1977.

Christofias rejected the possibility of forming a new state in the north Cyprus through ‘virgin birth’ and also rejected the possibility of a confederation. The only possibility, Christofias maintains, is a ‘federal solution…a partnership of the two communities.’

Both he and his North Cypriot counterpart, Mehmet Ali Talat, are left-wingers who have made it clear that they desire to bring reunification to the island. Seeing them at joint social events, and the fact that they met five times before the historical September 3rd meetings began, highlights how different North-South relations are under these leaders.

Speaking after he addressed the issue of confederation between North Cyprus and South Cyprus, Christofias addressed his counterpart as ‘my comrade and friend Mehmet-Ali’ before adding that ‘the time has come for us to take joint action and to respond to the call of history, to realize the vision of a reunified homeland.’

The new political will that is epitomised by Christofias and Talat is already causing property prices in North Cyprus – where prices are far lower than they are in the South – to shift upwards. With Turkey’s EU membership talks restarting next year, it can be expected that Ankara will be keen to be seen to be assisting the talks, which is another reason for being optimistic about the immediate future of this ancient, idyllic island.

Stay up to date with the reunification of North Cyprus at www.whiterocksbafra.com

You’ll never find a presidential candidate without a large ego. It takes a big ego to be a world leader. Look at the great figures in history, be they heroes or villains, they are larger than life. But the truly great leaders, while possessing big egos, also know the value of humility. They recognize the dangers of ego and have learned how to manage their own.

There are a host of big problems waiting for the next occupant of the White House-– war, economic uncertainty at home, and a tarnished image around the world. This president will need extraordinary relationship-building skills, particularly when dealing with ego-maniacal leaders like Russia’s Vladimir Putin, North Korea’s Kim Jong-il and others. Challenging times lay ahead of us and at the feet of the next Commander in Chief.

Political policies aside, in a perfect world we’d have a president with just enough ego, who is truly genuine, remarkably courageous and determined, and at the same time, deeply humble. Nelson Mandela is the ultimate example of leading with courage. He was driven by a noble cause and endured terrible suffering to find a way to achieve freedom for his people.

How are the current presidential candidates managing their egos?

Barrack Obama is a great orator and clearly thrives on large crowds and applause. He inspires people with his message of hope and the promise of change. He also seems to be buying into his own press that he’s a savior-of-sorts and the next JFK.

Early on in the campaign, Obama’s speeches had an air of genuineness and humility. You could see it in his body language and hear it in his voice. It felt real. After all these months and playing to huge, adoring international audiences is it possible that his humility has shrunk? Today he appears to swagger onto the stage and seems to be speaking more from his head than from his heart. It raises questions as to whether there is true alignment between who he really is and what he says.

John McCain, on the other hand, appears more authentic and less ego-driven. But is this true? It would be important for us to know. His body language is stiff and awkward-– is this because of his war injuries or is it a sign of humility? Or both? Over many months, his stage presence has remained unchanged. He’s focused, has no airs and graces, and enjoys a joke. His style may be less inspiring than Obama’s, but is it because he’s less interested in bells and whistles? Is it that his life experience gives him a different kind of quiet confidence, one that comes from years as a prisoner of war and a man who’s lived a full life? Or is he just simply uninspiring?

We know that McCain has an ego problem– his temper. He’s spoken openly about it and seems to be aware that he needs to manage it. But can he? Once again, these are things we need to think seriously about.

The entire election season has been filled with examples of ego gone awry. Hillary Clinton’s ego got in the way of her achieving the Democratic nomination. Her message was all about “I, me, and mine.” Then there’s her husband Bill, whose ego hurt his own image during her campaign. John Edwards publicly blamed his ego when his affair with a campaign photographer was recently revealed.

So will it be political policies that decide the election in November? Age? Race? I truly believe the candidate who shows the most genuine display of personal authenticity, will be the one who wins. People are smart -– they know when someone is not authentic. They know pseudo realness from genuine realness. And guess what the word for that is? Humility! We want -– and need -– a president who is a visionary, who is confident, courageous and bold. And one who mixes that with a strong dose of integrity and humility.

We absolutely cannot afford a leader whose ego will become involved in the enormous decisions that have to be made and the critical relationships that have to be forged. It’s up to the American public to watch and listen for the signs of ego and the signs of authenticity and vote accordingly.

Sandy Gluckman, Ph.D., teaches

All the way back in January 2004 Sir David A. King, the Government’s then chief scientific adviser, described global warming, and the climate change that it drives, as a greater threat to the world than international terrorism. King, who caused quite a stir with his comments, said that industrialized countries had a commitment to place a serious effort into developing sustainable and carbon capture technologies.

Now, over four years on, the momentum that King called for has not materialized anywhere but in the showboating embroidery from our politicians and in the cynical green-washing from our captains of industry. The Kyoto agreement - which was widely seen as a last ditch attempt to press the greed and stupidity that drive climate change every just as much as the pollutants themselves - failed. Bush, in his enlightened wisdom, decided that further research into climate change was needed before carbon taxes could be introduced. Thus, 4% of the world’s population – America – continued to account for over one fifth of the world’s carbon emissions.

A successor to Kyoto is due to be thrashed out in 2009 amidst the lushly upholstered suites and complimentary coffee lined tables of Copenhagen’s most suitable venue: the greenhouse-like Copenhagen Congress Centre. The centre will, in a completely non-symbolic gesture, be powered by its very own wind turbine. So this time, you know they mean business.

The reassurance of a windmill and some serious political hyperbole and media speculation have not been enough to persuade the UN Secretary, General Ban Ki-moon, to let the international community rest upon their…well, success would be too strong a word, but the little bit that they have managed to achieve, until the Copenhagen climate deal.

General Ban Ki-moon, talking to the diplomats gathered to celebrate the anniversary of the UN climate panel, said that the politicians should aim to make some serious headway before then this December in Poznan, Poland.

The Kyoto Protocol, which will expire in 2012, has been largely seen as a complete failure in terms of reducing carbon emissions. 37 countries, all developed, signed the protocol, but there are some rather serious holes in the thing. For one, America and China have completely failed to impose any limits under Kyoto. For two, the carbon balance sheets ignore certain, little things. Like shipping and air travel. Whoops.

The fear caused by the knowledge that climate change is already affecting us has resulting in an increased impetus in the battle between action and continued inaction. The one hundred months campaign (http://www.onehundredmonths.org) for example, reckons that “We have 100 months to save the planet”, because after that we “could be beyond the climate’s ‘tipping point, the point of no return.’

Talking to Reuters, Ban Ki-moon suggested that the Poland meeting should serve as a “very successful bridge” for the later meetings in Copenhagen. It is encouraging that climate change has stopped being seen as a long term issue, and hopefully the immediacy of its effects will bring about a mature, effectual political response to the problem.

Matt Gammie is a writer for ecoswitch