If you're like me who's been following the presidential election on cable and news sites, then chances are you're grossly irritated by now with all the political dirt tossing which have nothing or very little to do with actual issues in this election.

Attacking McCain's patriotic record in this campaign is not a good strategy. It gives the McCain campaign more talking points and media exposure. At the same time, the McCain fear-mongering strategy is a bad idea. It would only tie McCain even more with the GW Bush administration, which is one of the biggest weaknesses in his campaign. And besides, the American people are tired of the state of fear perpetrated by the government.

As for flip-flopping: Yes, Obama had flip-flopped on some issues. But so is McCain. Keith Olbermann even dubbed this as The McCain Double Talk Express. So let's face it. Both candidates are flip-floppers. The question is: Who's the flip-flopper you can live with?

All in all, however, the real issues (economy, war, health care, alternative energy, foreign policy, etc.) are getting drowned by the sideshows of shallow bickering on non-issues. And the mainstream media, as well as our own propensity for trivia, are accomplices to this. Instead of focusing on issues and educating the masses on the crucial issues, mainstream media continue to feed us nauseating political media circus.

I admit, I am sometimes entertained watching political talking heads from left, right, and center talk their heads off on non-issues, like Obama's religion and McCain's patriotism. But watching this a couple of times make it really old and tiring. I'm just saddened by the fact that these non-issues are the focus of mainstream media. Please! Enough with the freak show!

It's times like these that I'm reminded of Michael Crichton's assessment and prediction on mass-media.

"Crichton believes that we live in an age of conformity much more confining than the 1950s in which he grew up. Instead of showing news consumers how to approach controversy coolly and intelligently, the media partake of the zealotry and intolerance of many of the advocates they cover. He attributes the public's interest in Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to its hunger for a wider range of viewpoints than the mass media provide."

Exactly.

I'm not expecting a change in media coverage anytime soon. But it's enough for me to accept that even if we understand all the issues, we're still slaves of our own political brains. And the people behind the political campaigns understand this more than we do. That's why straight talk in politics is only a pipe dream. 

Here's another case in point that perception is everything.

"OTTAWA, June 30 (Xinhua) -- The U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama surpasses Prime Minister Stephen Harper to become Canadians' favorite politician, according to poll released Monday.

"The survey, conducted by the Strategic Counsel in the United States and Canada, showed that in Canada, Obama was more admired than Prime Minister Stephen Harper and any other national leader." [read more]

And this is true not only in Canada but also in Germany. And I would guess in other European countries as well. In short, Obamamania is a worldwide phenomenon. From a geopolitical perspective, this should count for something. That's why McCain and Obama are campaigning abroad too.

"The McCain-Obama matchup is “not a traveling roadshow to be shared with foreigners,” said David Ignatius in The Washington Post, but the world “cares passionately about where America is heading,” so maybe it should be. The two candidates should consider Dubai’s offer to host a presidential debate. Iraq, Iran, and Mideast policy are a big part of this election, so why not debate them in the region?"

Exactly!

This positive image of Obama is proof that he is looking more of a fit leader (at least image-wise) in a Post-American world. Of course, delivering on his image as a post-american president is another story that we can only look forward to.

To all my Canadian buddies, Happy Canada Day!

Here's a short and insightful post from Deepak Chopra & Family.

"How will belief evolve next? Maybe these believing atheists are showing us the way, along with Einstein, beyond a personal God on to the shores of eternity. Einstein had his sights set on a secular spirituality that, he said, was most closely approximated by Buddhism. He believed that the universe contained a deepest layer of reality that couldn't be rationally comprehended but only witnessed with awe and wonder. He famously said that great discoveries in science need this sense of wonder before the infinite. To me, that implies a shift in consciousness. The rational mind cannot go beyond words and concepts, but consciousness can expand within itself without limits. Whether accidentally or by intent, I hope at least a handful of believing atheists have set out on the journey that begins with the will to believe and ends beyond images, even beyond thought itself." [read more]

Makes sense to me.

Here is another case in point that the 2008 presidential election is not just for Americans alone.

"Here's a crazy idea that's being discussed by the rulers of the Persian Gulf city-state of Dubai: What if they were to invite Barack Obama and John McCain to come to the desert oasis for a presidential debate?

"Yes, I know: This is America's presidential campaign, not a traveling roadshow to be shared with foreigners. And if the candidates can't even agree on a schedule of town meetings out in the American heartland, why should they travel to a sheikdom that's 7,000 miles from Washington -- and a short boat ride from Iran?

"But the idea of a Dubai debate is appealing, not least because it would link the epochal 2008 campaign with a world that cares passionately about where America is heading. The United States is unpopular abroad these days in part because of a perception that we're arrogant -- that we don't care what the world thinks. An overseas debate would help change that perception." [read more]

A U.S. presidential debate in Dubai would send a signal that we're in the midst of a post-American world. Too bad that the chances of it happening are slim. I find the Obama campaign's excuse to be very shallow and disheartening.

"Obama's aides similarly are cautious. They note that the Democratic candidate will be traveling soon to Iraq and Afghanistan and that he'll be doing a lot of thinking about the Middle East. But they worry that a debate overseas might offend some American voters. "While these issues are exactly the sort that ought to be dealt with seriously and comprehensively in the course of this campaign, we think it preferable and most appropriate that they be discussed in front of an American audience," says Obama spokesman Bill Burton."

Granted, some American voters may be offended. But overall this is good for America and the world. Heck, CNN and Youtube could cover this for all American audience, including audience around the world.

What about you? What do you think about a U.S. presidential debate in Dubai?

With its closing of 600 stores in the U.S., is Starbucks on its way to becoming post-American? If this trend continues then it looks like Starbucks would fulfill its prediction.

"Starbucks predicts that by 2010 it will have more cafés in China than in the United States." [via The Post-American World]

My question is a rhetorical question, of course. From the perspective of globalization, BIG business (especially multinational business) is by definition post-American. Why? Because the market is global.

Case in point: Since 2005, Starbucks' growth plan gives priority to China. The Beijing Olympics is opening China's doorway.

Some people who hate the guts and polemics of Christopher Hitchens might be glad to know that he got the waterboarding treatment. But don't worry, he willingly subjected himself to it to test if waterboarding is indeed torture. All I can say is, duhh! At least Hitchens is empirically ballsy.

"The "official lie" about waterboarding, Hitchens says, is that it "simulates the feeling of drowning". In fact, "you are drowning - or rather, being drowned".

"He rehearses the intellectual arguments, both for ("It's nothing compared to what they do to us") and against ("It opens a door that can't be closed"). But the Hitch's thoroughly empirical conclusion is simple. As Vanity Fair's title puts it: "Believe me, it's torture.""

For the sadist in all of us, we can watch the video here.

Thanks to Boingboing for the heads up.

In the spirit of Independence Day I watched a couple of National Geographic documentaries last night. First is, Inside the White House, and the other is, Air Force One. NOTE: You can watch them for free if you have Comcast On Demand.

Very interesting. I'm now updated on the history of the White House. I'm also reminded that Air Force One is not the plane. Check out the documentary on Youtube. Here's the first part.

I don't fault McCain for not being an expert on the economy. Economics is similar to quantum physics. If you think you completely understand it, then chances are you don't. But I wish McCain would just own up to his own words. He'll get more respect for it.

Perception is everything. Right now McCain is not looking good when it comes to economic issues. So it's better to look at his economic advisers. I'm not saying that Obama is an expert on the economy, but at least he's more articulate (or better with rhetorics) and has a better image when it comes to tackling economic issues. Whether Obama's economic plan will work remains to be seen. I'm looking forward their one on one televised debate on the economy. I'll put my money on Obama. Let's see.

That said, it's obvious that MSNBC is pro Obama, while FOX is pro McCain. So I keep flip-flopping between channels to see what's the latest dirt on each candidate. I now feel so dirty as I watch the political media circus unfold. But hey, it's good entertainment. I also watch CNN, Hannity & Colmes, Glenn Beck, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and even Papa Bear. So there. I'm guilty as charged.

Politics on the mainstream media is more entertainment than educational. If you care about issues then go and watch C-SPAN, CNN Issue #1, Charlie Rose, Fareed Zakaria GPS, or fire up your browsers surf and the internets. But surfers, beware. There is such a thing as information overload. Even if we keep up with the issues, chances are we'll be slaves to our political brains anyway. So don't forget to breathe some fresh air and get a life.

"Everybody lies," is a classic House M.D. aphorism. It's scientifically true. Even if we think we're being truthful there's still a chance that our brains are lying to us. This is called source amnesia. And political campaigns are more than happy to exploit this scientific fact.

Read: The neuroscience behind swiftboating.

So let this be a warning to all of us. Our human tendency to categorize (Platonicity) and explain the causes of everything with theories (narrative fallacy) backed up with partial evidence (confirmation bias; fallacy of silent evidence) while concocting models of reality (ludic fallacy), coupled with a brain that lies to us, make us blind to the truth.

Fine. So what is there left to believe?

I don't know. All I know is that I'm aware at this very moment of both truth and lies, and everything in between. Ignorance is sooo underrated.

Will go out tonight and take photos of fireworks by the lake. In the meantime, here's a photo of Jimi playing the Star Spangled Banner on the big screen at Experience Music Project (EMP).

For those who haven't heard or seen it yet, here's Jimi remixing the national anthem from a different angle.

Happy 4th of July, everyone! Stay positive. Change is one its way.

Here are some photos I took during the 4th of July celebration. See slideshow.

My blogging buddy Bill (of Integral Options Cafe) has recently reacted to Jonah Goldberg's views on patriotism. Here's what Bill has to say:

"Goldberg seems to think we are already a great nation. But has he ever lived in poverty, barely getting by with enough to eat while making minimum wage? Has he ever been a minority struggling with intolerance? Has ever been a woman whose right to determine the fate of her own body is continually threatened and reduced? Has he ever been arrested for "driving while black"? Has ever had to join the military to have any hope of paying for college and then be sent to fight a war entered into through lies and manipulations of the American public? Has he ever had to worry there won't be any Social Security when he retires? I could go, but I'm sure you get the idea." [read more]

And here's an excerpt from Golderg's article.

"Definitions of patriotism proliferate, but in the American context patriotism must involve not only devotion to American texts (something that distinguishes our patriotism from European nationalism) but also an abiding belief in the inherent and enduring goodness of the American nation. We might need to change this or that policy or law, fix this or that problem, but at the end of the day the patriotic American believes that America is fundamentally good as it is." [read more]

I don't resonate with Goldberg's view on patriotism either. It's too limiting and too ethnocentric for my taste. Maybe because I don't identify as a liberal or conservative. Maybe because I didn't grew up in the U.S. Maybe because I didn't get my education here. Maybe because I'm not well-versed in American political history as "real" Americans are. Maybe because I don't care too much about politics. Or maybe, all of the above.

But I do have a concept of loving a country and embracing its ideals. I may not wave flags or put my right hand over my heart while singing Star Spangled Banner, but I love (the idea of) America just the same. Otherwise, I won't choose to be a naturalized U.S. citizen.

Fareed Zakaria articulates my point more succinctly.

"...every now and then I get an angry note from someone who adds with ferocious pride that he is a native-born American ("and proud of it!" the last such missive thundered). The idea is that with my "foreign-sounding" name I could not understand the true patriotism of a son of the soil. Actually, it's the other way around. Native-born Americans don't understand an immigrant's love of country. "After all," I've thought of writing back, "what did you do to become an American, other than happen to be born here?" For us immigrants, becoming American was a choice, marked by sorrowful partings and tough new beginnings.

"What keeps an immigrant going is faith in his new country. This might not always look like patriotism because it doesn't take the familiar forms--Fourth of July picnics, the fluttering of the Stars and Stripes. Instead it's likely to show itself in a quiet dedication to work, family and friends. But this is the oldest form of American patriotism--a belief that in this New World you can make your own new world."

Exactly.

Obama may have a patriotism problem for Goldberg. Maybe Goldberg is right from the perspective of his fellow conservatives who look at the world the way like he does. But I hope that Goldberg doesn't forget that there are millions of immigrant (naturalized citizens) voters out there who probably don't care what he is arguing about.

For me, I don't care whether Obama or McCain wear their lapel pins or wave the U.S. flag in front of the camera every time they make a public appearance. That kind of shallow display of patriotism is easy. Anyone can do that. I care more about the issues. I care more about the candidate whose intellect appeals to me and who shares my values. I would guess that's also true for millions of voting immigrants in America. We immigrants vote with issues that are important to us. We vote with our guts. For better or for worse, like all voters, we vote with our political brains.

So, does this make me a liberal or a conservative? Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. I'm an immigrant who sees America as a glass half-full, who believes that America should recapture its greatness by constantly addressing its national problems, as well as its image problems around the world. The day that we become complacent that America is "good as it is", is the day that stagnation and collapse begin.

Remember the anomalous Pew survey which showed that 21% of American atheists believe in God or a universal spirit?

I thought the inclusion of the "universal spirit" screwed up the survey resulting in cognitive dissonance in some of the respondents. Sam Harris has an excellent take on this.

"According to a recent Pew survey, 21 percent of atheists in the United States believe in “God or a universal spirit,” and 8 percent are “absolutely certain” that such a Being exists. One wonders if they were also “absolutely certain” they understood the meaning of the term “atheist.” Claiming to be an atheist who believes in God is like claiming to be a happily married bachelor. Rarely does one discover nonsense in such a pristine state. Still this hasn’t stopped many people from concluding that there is a schism in the atheist community.

"The inclusion of a “universal spirit” might have muddied things for some of these putative atheists, but this would not account for the 6 percent of them who rejected such a spirit in favor of a “personal God.” Granted, it is not clear what the phrase “personal God” might mean to men and women who have wandered so far from the plain meaning of words, but we can only assume that they believe in a God of the sort that 71% of Americans worship: a deity who can hear earnest and blameless prayers—as for the remission of childhood cancer—and fail to answer them, while granting those of far lesser gravity nearly every day (I rely upon the reader to insert here the most mortifying expression of religious awe ever uttered at the Grammy Awards)." [read more]

Exactly. Sam Harris and his team has a better survey that makes more sense. Here's one (not very surprising) result.

(via Sam Harris: Survey Results: Personal Data and Attitudes Towards Science, Journalism, Politics, Etc.)

I once heard a CEO in a panel discussion saying that Climate Change has served as a proxy for a lot of our environmental, technological, sustainability, and ethical problems. How true.

Thomas Friedman in his upcoming book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded take this up a notch and argued that the Green revolution is like training for the Olympics. Makes sense to me.

In the meantime, Freakonomics has an interesting post on Climate Change apocalypse and altruism. When it comes to the potential apocalyptic impacts of Climate Change:

"...the likeliest victims are, once again, the poorest people. Which means that if the relatively rich people who are currently most vocal about climate change are also the people who stand in the least danger, there may come a point where they realize that their concern is not so much an act of self-preservation as an act of altruism. Considering how impure much of our altruism is, that could be the most dangerous news of all." [read more]

Good point.