A couple days ago I watched Thomas L. Friedman having a passionate conversation with Charlie Rose while promoting his latest book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded. It was a very insightful discussion. Forget for a moment that Friedman supported the Iraq war. People change. Friedman’s change is for the better. I think his new direction is spot on. I’m very much in agreement with what he has to say on Energy Technology (ET). See for yourself. Watch the video.

Friedman’s thesis sounds like a fleshed out continuation of the books Hot Topic and The Post-American World. As a technophile, I could relate to Friedman’s enthusiasm for technology. I also groove with his attitude on Climate Change. Here’s what Friedman said on his keynote address at BookExpo 2008:

People say to me: How can we afford to transform our whole economy in order to prevent climate change when climate change could turn out to be a hoax?

To which I say: If climate change is a hoax it is the most wonderful hoax ever perpetrated on the United States of America because transforming our economy to clean power and energy efficiency to mitigate global warming is the equivalent in training for the Olympic triathlon. If you make it to the Olympics you have a much better chance of winning because you have developed every muscle. If you don’t make it to the Olympics you’re still healthy or stronger, fitter and more likely to live longer and win any other race in life. And like the triathlon you don’t just improve one muscle or one skill but many which become mutually reinforcing and improve the health of the whole system.

Exactly. Environmentalists are instrumental for pushing legislation and raising consciousness. But ultimately, it’s the innovators and engineers who will solve our energy problems (with the right balance of government regulation and free market). At least, that’s the ideal scenario.

To appeciate Friedman’s thesis even more, it would be ideal to elevate our perspective to a post-American worldview, as written about by Fareed Zakaria. Serendipitously, Friedman and Zakaria had a dialogue over at Omnivoracious. Here’s a key quote.

Zakaria: I’m struck by the point you make about energy technology. In my book I’m pretty optimistic about the United States. But the one area where I’m worried is actually ET. We do fantastically in biotech, we’re doing fantastically in nanotechnology. But none of these new technologies have the kind of system-wide effect that information technology did. Energy does. If you want to find the next technological revolution you need to find an industry that transforms everything you do. Biotechnology affects one critical aspect of your day-to-day life, health, but not all of it. But energy–the consumption of energy–affects every human activity in the modern world. Now, my fear is that, of all the industries in the future, that’s the one where we’re not ahead of the pack. Are we going to run second in this race?

Friedman: Well, I want to ask you that, Fareed. Why do you think we haven’t led this industry, which itself has huge technological implications? We have all the secret sauce, all the technological prowess, to lead this industry. Why do you think this is the one area–and it’s enormous, it’s actually going to dwarf all the others–where we haven’t been at the real cutting edge?

Zakaria: I think it’s not about our economic system but our political system. The rhetoric we hear is that the market should produce new energy technologies. But the problem is, the use of current forms of energy has an existing infrastructure with very powerful interests that has ensured that the government tilt the playing field in their favor, with subsidies, tax breaks, infrastructure spending, etc. This is one area where the Europeans have actually been very far-sighted and have pushed their economies toward the future.

Exactly. It’s the brain-dead partisan politics that holds America back from being a leader in alternative energy development. One only has to look at the sorry state of the on-going election campaigns.

Where there is no vision, the people perish. Will America eventually perish or continue to flourish? The answer lies in our collective hearts and minds as we go to the polls this November.

See also the following videos:

Verdict: Interview with Jane Mayer Author of The Dark Side

Terror, Torture, and the Dark Side

Jane Mayer on Democracy Now

Looks like the war crime allegations on the Bush administration just keep on piling. And we’re not even talking about Bugliosi’s, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, yet. I wonder if Letterman (and CBS) would be courageous enough to put Bugliosi on his show.

Anyway, speaking of war crimes, there will be a "Imperial Presidency" hearing tomorrow (July 25). Let’s see how far will it go. But as Hot Potato Mash had pointed out to me, this is really really sick stuff.

UPDATE (07/25/2008) – I’m watching the "Imperial Presidency" hearing on C-SPAN. Bugliosi is presenting his case. According to him, Bush has no immunity once he leaves the office. We’ll see. You can follow the details of the hearing on The Raw Story. Vincent Bugliosi is kicking ass! Here’s to taking the Iraq war debate back into first principles.

discussing the Obama phenomenon in Berlin with a German online buddy. http://bit.ly/2Io4MW

UPDATE: I can’t help but notice that Obama’s historic speech in Berlin is closely aligned to the vision of a post-American world. And rightly so. If you’ve read the book then you’ll know what I’m talking about. Now let’s see how the Obama and McCain camps would spin this. As of now, it’s a no-brainer that Team Obama has the advantage on many (if not all) levels. You don’t have to be a political pundit to figure that out.

UPDATE 2: The video is now up on Youtube (read transcript here). And here’s a mindblowing photo. 200,000 people?! Not too shabby.

UPDATE 3: As expected, the McCain campaign is spinning, whining, and sour graping. Can’t blame them. This is a tough act to follow. It seems to me that the McCain campaign is now reduced to a self-sabotaging, Obama-loving, thrash-talking, fridge-nuking political machine. Ah, well… Mahna Mahna.

UPDATE 4: Germans react to Barack Obama via Atlantic Community: "The majority of Germans support Barrack Obama for the US presidency, not because they believe he will radically change US policy, but because he is expected to return it to the familiar pre-Bush trajectory." Exactly! See video interviews.

Case in point: Robert Reich compares McCainomics and Obamanomics using plain English. Reich’s conclusion: "in a global economy, bottom-up economics makes more sense." [read more]

The keyword here is global. That’s why the whole world is anxiously watching the U.S. Presidential election.

via SPIEGEL’s interview with Iraqi Prime Minister, al-Maliki

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. U.S.
presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That,
we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with
the possibility of slight changes.

SPIEGEL: Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election
in November? Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately
have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?

Maliki: Those who operate on the premise of short time periods
in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the
tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by
no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is
the Americans’ business. But it’s the business of Iraqis to say what
they want. And that’s where the people and the government are in
general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be
limited.

I’ll leave it to Keith Olbermann to drive the point across.

Checkmate! And we’re not even talking about first principles, yet! Next issue please!

The TV networks and mainstream press jumped all over Scott McClellan’s memoir, but mainstream media continues to ignore this book. Talk about spineless.

And so I’m putting my money where my heart is by ordering this book.
All the debates about the Iraq war and foreign policy in this
presidential election are political distractions. Let’s go back to first principles.

No matter how Bush/McCain spins this, "time horizon" is a euphemism for timeline. Whatever. Let’s just go back to first principles.

For example, the Left and the Right are going at it debating over Obama’s alleged"flip-flop" on his Iraq policy and troop surge. Fine. But based on my own moral compass I agree with what Richard Wolffe said on Countdown with Keith Olbermann (watch the video here).

"But when you look at the bigger sort of political issue, how does Obama deal with it? He’s really got to try and take this back into first principles. Who is responsible for going into the war in the first place? Invading Iraq, President Bush supported very actively, and even before Bush got on board, by John McCain. That’s where he gotta shift this, not a debate about the surge, but about the war and the diversion from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda."

Exactly.

The Iraq war and foreign policy are the main reasons I cannot in good conscience vote for McCain. This is not necessarily a put down on McCain. It’s more about my own values and personal beliefs on the Iraq war in particular, and foreign policies in general. In short, it’s what my political brain tells me.

McCain may know "how to win wars." But from a geopolitical perspective, what’s missing from the McCain campaign (and Bush administration) is legitimacy on the Iraq war. Fareed Zakaria has an excellent passage on the issue of legitimacy in his book, The Post-American World.

"Legitimacy is power. The United States has every kind of power in
the ample supply these days except one: legitimacy. In today’s world,
this is a critical deficiency. Legitimacy allows one to set the agenda,
define a crisis, and mobilize support for policies among both countries
and nongovernmental forces like private business and grass roots
organizations."

Legitimacy is what’s lacking from the Bush/McCain foreign policy. That’s why Obama has a more favorable rating around the world, particularly in Europe. So what? Well, it does have a crucial impact. No nation, not even a super power, is an island.

Case in point: In a recent NYTimes op-ed Thomas L. Friedman defended the U.S. while criticizing China and Russia for vetoing the American-led U.N. Security Council which calls for sanctions on Robert Mugabe’s government in Zimbabwe.

"Perfect we are not, but America still has some moral backbone. There
are travesties we will not tolerate. The U.N. vote on Zimbabwe
demonstrates that this is not true for these “popular” countries —
called Russia or China or South Africa — that have no problem siding
with a man who is pulverizing his own people.

"So, yes, we’re not
so popular in Europe and Asia anymore. I guess they would prefer a
world in which America was weaker, where leaders with the values of
Vladimir Putin and Thabo Mbeki had a greater say, and where the
desperate voices for change in Zimbabwe would, well, just shut up."

This is what happens when legitimacy is lost. The Bush administration squandered this legitimacy, add to that the current state of a deteriorating economy and the result is an all-time low approval rating. The United States needs to restore its image around the world if it is to continue to exert geopolitical influence.

Obama may lack experience on foreign relations, but "legitimacy" (not winning wars) is the promise of Obama’s foreign policies. I ride with that.

– Interview with Fareed Zakaria on GPS
– Op-ed on NYTimes
– Major speech on Iraq tomorrow (Tuesday)
– Interview with Glen Ifill on PBS
– Obama on Larry King Live
– and Obama’s upcoming trip to Iraq

I’m looking forward to John McCain’s media round (if he’s doing any) about his foreign policy. I prefer comparing candidates policies in their own words rather than hearing from their surrogates.