In the wake of rising gas prices and greater concentrations of Americans living in metropolitan areas, public transportation usage increased over 5% in the last year. America’s transportation infrastructure is crumbling, and in some cases collapsing, yet many continue to call for the death of that frivolous waste of taxpayer dollars, that model of nationalization’s inevitable failure – Amtrak. Although Amtrak has consistently failed to address problems within its organization, with reform it has the potential to not only be a profitable investment of taxpayer dollars but a vital institution to the United States as well.

Amtrak’s travails date long before it was born out of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970. The private railroad companies that transferred their operations to Amtrak (National Passenger Rail Corporation) were struggling for decades to compete with the proliferation of air and automobile travel. Now, Amtrak still has not made an annual profit but it is not incapable of doing so. The northeast corridor, the track that connects Boston to New York to Washington D.C., actually makes a profit. About 80% of Amtrak’s losses occur on routes that only account for 15% of ridership. These routes are over 700 miles long; they are maintained primarily to provide rural service and to maintain the nationally interconnected system. The policy of maintaining these dead weight routes should be abandoned in favor of a more regional-intensive approach and the provision of bus service to low-ridership routes.

Intensifying regional hubs can be achieved by focusing traffic around Amtrak’s already highly routed cities: San Francisco, New Orleans, Chicago, Denver, and the Northeast corridor. By concentrating service around regional hubs, Amtrak could provide more frequent service as more trains cover a smaller area. As it operates now, Amtrak serves regions like the Southeast, where trains come through as little as once a day. The costs of maintaining service on these tracks hardly justify their preservation over the alternative use of bus service.

In order to maintain a semblance of an interconnected system, the federal government should subsidize the high-speed rail technology long ago adopted in Europe and East Asia. These trains can provide intercity service between the major hubs, and serve as a price competitive alternative to air travel. Maglev trains – those that are propelled by magnetic forces rather than wheels – could also compete with air travel in terms of time efficiency. Not only are these trains markedly more sustainable than the competition, their maintenance costs are only a fraction of their wheeled peers. New tracks would be costly, but building them would create jobs for many Americans during this economic downturn. Ownership of the lines would also give Amtrak trains right of way; Amtrak currently operates on private freight rail lines and most delays are caused by Amtrak trains having to yield to passing freight trains.

As it exists now, Amtrak cannot continue to be subsidized without a massive overhaul. It also cannot be ignored until it becomes a mere vestige of a formerly great American institution. This is an opportunity to restore greatness to the shameful state of America’s transportation infrastructure. We must not let it pass.

Two months ago, after more than 140 years since the emancipation of African-Americans, and more than 40 years after the passage of the civil rights act of 1964, the U.S. House of Representatives, with little fanfare, passed a resolution officially apologizing for the “fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow.” Sponsored by more than 120 congressmen, the apology represented an important first step for the federal government regarding race relations in the United States.

For a moment, let us look past the fact that this legislation was initially sponsored by besieged Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), who represents a majority African-American district in Memphis. Cohen, who happens to be Jewish, was facing bitter primary battle against Nikki Tinker, an African American woman. For a moment, let’s pretend that the apology produced by the House of Representatives was non-political and genuine; that the representatives who sponsored and supported the bill did so due to their nagging moral convictions and not political gamesmanship.

Our naïve assumptions fully in place, we can begin to ask deeper questions. First, why has it taken so long? Many Americans were surprised to hear that the federal government had not already apologized to African-Americans for the wrongs of the nations past. After all, we are an enlightened nation. America is the nation that joyously celebrates Martin Luther King’s birthday every January, other African-American icons such as Harriet Tubman and Malcolm X have gained recognition and we’ve even assigned the entire month of February to serve as Black History Month. Perhaps this is why a recent CBS/New York Times survey revealed that 55 percent of white Americans described race relations as “good” (the same was true for 29 percent of African Americans).

So if we’ve come so far since the dark days of our past, why hasn’t our federal government followed the lead of North Carolina, New Jersey, Virginia, and Alabama in issuing an apology for its role in slavery and Jim Crow? Why are politicians on both sides of the political spectrum so frightened to go near an issue that has so much relevance to the nation that we are today?

Race remains the political third rail. Most politicians, certainly all on the federal level, are wary of provoking a race-based conversation among their constituents. Partisans on both sides of the political spectrum could potentially create an untenable no-win situation for any lawmaker or politician who dares bring up the subject of race or an apology. Activists and extremists on the right will cry “pander”; vocally pointing out that apology in question pertains to events that transpired over 100 years ago. They will loudly and boisterously wonder if the government has anything better to do with its time. Meanwhile radicals from the left, especially those in the black community, might see this as an opportunity to further the cause for reparations (another-political lightning rod).

Why are politicians so frightened of this scenario? It’s already happened. In Virginia, the African-American community was outraged when Frank Hargrove, a white legislator, said “black citizens should get over” slavery (Hargrove was eventually pressured into voting for the resolution). In Maryland, another legislator sparked similar outrage in responding to a similar resolution by saying apologies were just “feel-good superficial measures”. Similar House legislation in 1997 sparked an outpouring of editorials from both sides pressuring the government to go further in its apology and (on the opposite end of the spectrum) to kill the legislation all together. All three incidents sparked uncomfortable and awkward debates that essentially created a political landmine for lawmakers.

So why should lawmakers brave the electoral risks and officially apologize for slavery and Jim Crow? Even today, many Americans oppose slavery apology on various grounds. The taglines are all too familiar: “Slavery happened more than 100 years ago, before my family came to America, so why should I apologize?”, “Apologies don’t really accomplish anything but making people feel better”, “Hundreds of thousands of Americans died to free slaves, isn’t that sacrifice enough?” One conservative even professed that the government’s only job is to “to protect liberty, as long as the government protects the freedoms of African Americans now; the past is irrelevant.”

The first claim represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the American society and the American promise. Any elementary student will recall the American promise that brought millions of immigrants to our shores. Simply put, immigrants did not come to America because of the scenery; they came because “the streets were paved with gold”. They came because of the prospect of economic prosperity and freedom, the promise of a better life. As the general rule of assimilation goes, a prospective citizen accepts all the benefits and drawbacks of the new society. One can’t take part in the glory of America’s past without confronting the shame of it; to do so would be un-American. Whether we’re immigrants ourselves, the descendants of immigrants or the descendants of founding fathers, we all have an equal stake in America.

The next two arguments are also invalid because they rest on a premise that assumes that an apology only serves to appease African Americans. My conservative friend was right, one of government’s primary tasks is to preserve and to protect liberty. More importantly, our government should be accountable to itself and its citizens. This means that when government fails, an apology is appropriate, not to appease the offended citizens but for the sake of accountability.

In this case, the American government failed to live up to the standards set in its own founding document: the Constitution. It stood idly by as millions of its own citizens were enslaved, disenfranchised, imprisoned and murdered. So what are we to tell those politicians, who are afraid to tread the proverbial political landmine that is a general recognition of the government’s own past failures? If we truly believe in government accountability, if we believe that our government has an obligation to be transparent and reflective, then let’s encourage the President and the Senate to live up to our best bureaucratic ideals. Let’s urge the federal government to issue a statement of recognition and apology, not just to blacks, but to all of Americans who put their faith and confidence in the stars and stripes.

Americans serious about keeping abortion legal in the United States probably won’t vote for John McCain. But pro-choice voters shouldn’t rule it out.

Recently, McCain has appeared anything but a maverick in his approach to abortion rights. From his comments at the Saddleback Church Forum to policy prescriptions on his own website, John McCain seems to have embraced his party’s insistence that all life begins at conception and that Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized a woman’s right to privacy, must be overturned.

However, this hasn’t always been the case. During his 2000 primary campaign, John McCain spoke with the San Francisco Chronicle about his then progressive policies. McCain touted his pro-life record in Congress, but opposed overturning Roe in the interest of women who would be forced into dangerous and illegal abortion procedures. In that same breath, McCain made clear his strong opposition to the radical right. He proposed that the Republican platform desert the notion of completely banning abortions and instead work towards eradicating the social problems that make abortion the only option for many women.

While these comments may be thoroughly moderate, it is hard to imagine how John McCain could win a national election on the Republican ticket while openly criticizing the core social ideals of his party. In the eyes of the American public, there is no such thing as a legitimate flip-flop. But for John McCain, the alternative to flip-flopping would mean alienating a core voting block of social conservatives, and therefore, committing political suicide. Voters should recognize that after being backed into a corner by the political interests of his party, it’s unlikely that McCain’s current abortion policies reflect his true beliefs.

Still, it’s understandable why many would not want to bet their votes on an intuitive, though logical, assumption. This brings up the consequences of John McCain’s current commitment to overturning Roe. With five of nine Supreme Court Justices over the age of seventy, the next president may well have the opportunity to appoint a pro-life justice in his first term. Yet the overturning of Roe would not necessarily mean an end to abortion in the United States. McCain currently endorses giving individual states the power to legislate abortion as an alternative to the unlikely ratification of a constitutional amendment banning abortion. Although this policy does not guarantee legalization, in the long run, it would help legitimize abortion rights.

Since our nation’s founding, the validity of the Supreme Court has been challenged. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson warned that the Court, not being subject to popular control, would be manipulated by elites and only vaguely represent the people. In many respects, Roe exemplified the unwarranted authority Jefferson feared the Supreme Court would attain. Roe was based primarily on the right to privacy, a concept never declared in the Constitution. The Court ruled that the “penumbra” of rights granted by the Bill of Rights and the Due Process Clause encompass a general right to privacy. The enforcement of this right, the Court argued, guaranteed the right to abortion.

To this day, this series of inferences seems overly intellectualized and sparsely supported to some Americans, while for others it chips away at the very notion of popular sovereignty in the United States. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a supporter of abortion rights, criticized Roe for terminating an emerging democratic movement towards the liberalization of abortion policy. If abortion legislation became the responsibility of the states, as John McCain is currently proposing, this opportunity for a popular pro-abortion movement would once again be renewed. Truly, if the public rallied and pressured Congress to pass a constitutional amendment legalizing abortion it would be considerably more difficult for anyone to challenge the validity of abortion rights in the future.

So even if John McCain doesn’t follow through on the abortion policies he promised in 2000, abortion rights will prevail in the United States, as long as the people want them to. A vote for John McCain isn’t a vote against abortion. It’s a vote for a long-term solution.

I sat pensively over the page, as I lifted my highlighter at the period, having deemed the words preceding it worthy of my emphasis. It was a line from the diary of Gregorio Dati, a Florentine silk merchant writing in the early 15th century. One line particularly struck me: “In order to ensure the peace and good of my own conscience, I vowed that I would never accept any office, if my name should be drawn, wherein I would have the power to wield the death penalty.” I was slightly taken aback — needing to remind myself that this was written in 1404-- and yet at once dismayed, that we are here, six hundred and four long, difficult years of moral evolution later, about to elect one of two American presidential candidates unwilling to make a similar statement. This is something to be ashamed of.

And I am choosing my words carefully, so I am as precise as my faculties will allow when I say “ashamed of.” For by participating in the upcoming election, I shall be implicitly granting the state the power to decide whether or not I or any other of its citizens may exist. So I see good reason to be rather ashamed of myself. Neither I nor any other member of the human race is worthy of granting such a concession of individual sovereignty, nor is any state or fellow human worthy of receiving it.

I say this regardless of whether or not such a power could be “properly” employed: whether or not the “right ones” were to be eliminated. It is a matter of principle that the state does not have the right to make such judgment-- and potential irreversible error-- in the first place. That is to say, enough of this raison d’être we hear of “determent”-- that we’re being “tough on crime.” I can think of no better way of expressing my opposition to this than by underlining what it is I oppose: that the government ought to be in the business of sanctioning killing in order to send a message.

Furthermore, may we recall legal execution’s lowly origins: stoning, hanging, death by firing squad. Upon traveling further down this noble road of human progress we encounter decapitation, gas chambers, and the recent memory of the electric chair; from there it’s only a short distance later before we arrive at twenty-first century America for what the apologists of the death machine describe as the “humane” means of annihilation: chemical injection. And this is not to mention the institution’s near cousin-- lynching. Forgoing the opportunity to cite any statistics indicating racial bias, I shall merely say this: the scars our country bears need not the aggravation of the debate this repugnant institution provokes.

In an election season replete with references to change and reform, it is high time we abolish this antiquated institution. Unfortunately this doesn’t seem to be the case. While the recent ruling in Kennedy v. Louisiana was what one might call a step in the right direction, by reserving the penalty only for cases of homicide (presumably as if to say the imprimatur of death is only to be given when the slaying is mutual), this incremental abolition of the penalty must nonetheless be criticized: Christopher Hitchens once put it well enough by saying such a gradual abrogation of the system was as if “the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case had upheld the theory and practice of slavery while trying to limit the use of the lash and the shackle.” Instead we should do well to heed Justice John Paul Stevens’s exhortation in his separate opinion to “rethink the justification for the penalty itself.” Howard Zinn once astutely asked what Dostoyevsky’s notable remark that “the degree of civilization of a society can be measured by entering its prisons” said about a society that implemented capital punishment. If now is truly the time for change, here is an area in which it is long overdue.

Did you know that in the last three years global food prices have risen by 83 percent? Or that the food import bills of countries have increased by 25 percent, while wheat has reached its highest price in 28 years, and the price of corn has doubled? The UN recognizes these numbers as indicators of a global food crisis, and its undisputed effects are seen all over the world from grocery stores, to political unrest, to heightened malnutrition.

Lately, the effect of biofuels, especially of corn ethanol, has been a highly disputed cause of the food crisis. Everyone, from reporters at the BBC to heads of state, has cursed ethanol and called for an immediate halt in its production, but are biofuels really the culprit? Or are they simply part of a slew of global problems that need to be addressed on a global level?

Many critics don’t take into account the myriad of other factors involved in this global food crisis. Increasing oil prices, for one, are a monumental issue. Food travels throughout the world, and just as our plane tickets get more expensive thanks to increasing gas prices, the price of transporting these products grows too. In fact, the Government Accountability Office cites that the cost of transportation now represents 65 percent of total expenditures for the U.S. emergency food program. Additionally, modern farming technology requires oil and a multitude of other resources like fertilizers. To combat these soaring costs, the price of oil must go down, and without alternate energy sources like ethanol, analysis at Merrill Lynch predict that gasoline prices would spike another 14.6 percent.

Additionally, increasing populations in China and India demand larger amounts of food. A rising middle class presents a greater demand for meat, which requires 700 calories worth of animal feed to produce a simple 100-calorie piece of beef. Other factors such as severe weather, changing dietary habits, and increased labor costs are all factors that need to be considered before blaming ethanol.

However, there is no denying that biofuels have negative aspects. The main issue that links biofuels to the food crisis is the fact that instead of producing food, farmers produce fuel because of government incentives and subsidies in the U.S. 30 percent of the corn that farmers now produce goes toward ethanol. As a result, less wheat and fewer soybeans are produced, reducing their supply despite growing demand. Scientists additionally cite negative environmental effects of biofuels such as deforestation, further degradation of land, and the fact that producing one gallon of ethanol uses most of the energy that the gallon contains.

Furthermore, Nobel laureate chemist Paul Crutzen has proven that the application of nitrogen fertilizer on ethanol corn produces increased levels of atmospheric nitrous oxide that are 296 times more damaging than carbon dioxide. Sadly, when compared to fossil fuels, the use of corn-based ethanol only reduces greenhouse gas emissions by ten to thirty percent. Global problems demand global solutions. Countries need to come together to invest in alternative energy sources and to develop research on cellulosic ethanol or the use of crops like jatropha.

The world must also double its food production in 30 years. To do this, governments, especially that of the U.S., need to decrease subsidies and increase food production, while very populous countries like China and India need to reduce population growth. Worldwide, countries need to combat poverty and level out class disparity so people can have equal access to food. With problems like these, countries need to collaborate and the U.S. needs to take an active role and participate fully.

This problem is bigger than just ethanol. It not only involves hunger, but also poverty, population growth, the world’s dwindling resources, education, and global warming. We need to put humanity’s interests above a single country’s, come together, and utilize our knowledge for the greater good.

The next President will assume office in one of the least favorable strategic environments in recent American history. From the dusty streets of Mosul to the mountain passes of the Hindu Kush, to the highlands of the Caucuses to the financial markets of Wall Street, the Pax Americana is under siege. The fundamental challenge for the next administration will be to preserve American hegemony while safeguarding our financial institutions and reforming Washington. This is no time for hollow words and empty rhetoric. Over a lifetime of public service, John McCain has proven himself to be more than capable of navigating the treacherous waters of hegemony. Barack Obama, unfortunately, has not.

Managing the Endgame in Iraq

In the Middle East, the United States faces the twin challenges of both Sunni fundamentalism and Iranian messianism. To a large extent, Sunni fundamentalism as exemplified by Al Qaeda is a reaction to Iranian messianism. If Iran can be made less of a threat, the conservative Sunni states which channel funds and support to Sunni radical groups can diminish their support for proxy groups. Consequently, the primary battleground between Iran and the Gulf States-Iraq-looms tantamount to securing any sort of regional stability. If Iraq can emerge as a stable, independent, and moderately representative state, the United States will have secured an enormous victory in its struggle to build a new Middle East. If, however, Iraq were to fall apart and fall victim to Iranian influence or civil war, the floodgates would be opened and an all out regional conflict would materialize between the Iranians and the Gulf States. An independent and stable Iraq will never be allied to Iran due to historic, cultural and ethnic reasons; however, a destabilized Iraq into which Iran can project power would destroy the regional balance of power. While we are very close to the endgame in Iraq, our job is not yet done. Although sectarian warfare is dead, a political conflict has developed between the provinces and the central government. It will take American influence to mediate between these two sides and craft an Iraqi political consensus. This work will not be finished over night and it is easy to see the progress of the past two years evaporating if we fail to manage our endgame properly. Current gains are reversible and we must never abandon Iraq as we did Afghanistan in the aftermath of the Soviet withdrawal.

Given the stakes in Iraq, it is worth more than passing observation that while Senator Obama exhibited a principled opposition to the war against Saddam Hussein in 2003, he has steadfastly refused to adjust his position to align with the geopolitical realities created by the Coalition invasion. It is one thing for Senator Obama to have opposed the war in the March of 2003, but his intransigence in attempting to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is astounding and quite frankly, damning of his judgment. While the Sunni insurgency reached its peak in mid 2006 and sectarian warfare did bring Iraq to the brink of collapse, the insurgency is now all but dead and remaining conflicts are intra-not inter-sectarian. Iraq didn't return from the brink on its own: it took a comprehensive American counterinsurgency effort bolstered by the surge of five additional brigades, mostly into Baghdad, to turn the tide. When most Democrats and many Republicans had given up on the unpopular war, John McCain stepped into the breach and with Churchillian determination, fought to preserve American interests in Iraq when others would have abdicated our responsibility. It is no exaggeration to say that it is only because of the political courage of men such as Senator McCain that Iraq today has a fighting chance to face a future free from fear.

Afghanistan on the Brink

The news is not so good from Afghanistan. The hapless and corrupt Afghani government is powerless to stop insurgent gains and the United States now finds itself facing a similar situation as the Soviets twenty years ago: while we control the major population centers, insurgents are increasingly gaining influence in the countryside and in the rugged mountain passes. While Senator Obama has rightfully called for an increased American troop presence in Afghanistan, troops alone will not solve the problem. At its peak, the Soviet presence in Afghanistan totaled some 118,000 troops. NATO now has 53,000 troops in Afghanistan and Senator Obama's plan for Afghanistan would add roughly 15,000 American troops. While this is clearly a necessary increase, throwing more troops at the problem is not a substitution for proper strategy. The problem is that the United States doesn't have a strategy for Afghanistan that deals with Pakistan, the source of most of Afghanistan's problems. Until we address the underlying causes of instability emanating from Pakistan-the feeble government, the rogue security services, and the porous borders, we will never fix Afghanistan. Senator McCain's Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy not only seeks to empower and clean up the Afghani government through the strengthening of the institutions of state, but calls for the extensive use of local tribal actors in Waziristan in order to hunt down insurgents in much the same way that the Awakening Councils in Iraq drove al Qaeda from Anbar Provence. Afghanistan is in dire, dire straits. However, the situation is salvageable-if we pursue the right strategy and are willing to commit the necessary resources.

The Financial 9/11

The deep and pervasive financial crisis this September was a threat to our way of life. Without healthy financial institutions, Americans simply cannot enjoy the quality of life they have grown accustom to. When the circumstances demanded it, not only did John McCain stand up and meet the crisis head on, but he showed exceptional foresight in trying to prevent the financial meltdown. As early as 2005, Senator McCain and Congressional Republicans tried to pass legislation which would have tightened regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The regulations would have limited the circumstances under which Fannie and Freddie would be able to buy mortgages. More precisely, the legislation would have limited the number of subprime loans Fannie and Freddie would have been able to finance. If Fannie and Freddie had been prevented from purchasing bad loans-a problem which they compounded by repackaging the mortgages and selling them to firms as securities-this entire economic catastrophe probably could have been avoided. Instead, Senator Obama and many of his fellow Democrats blocked the legislation and the proposal fell through. The principle Democratic objection to reform of Fannie and Freddie was that increased regulation and pressure would undermine access to affordable housing. However, many Democrats also had a pecuniary interest in the lack of oversight over Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, who was the second largest recipient on Capitol Hill of campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie, with donations totaling over $126,000. While campaign contributions are a natural part of any democratic process, it is disconcerting to see how Senator Obama freely took from Fannie and Freddie while ignoring their irresponsible financial practices. Looking ahead, it is clear that increased oversight and regulation will be required to put a stop to irresponsible lending. It is equally clear that these reforms must be carried out by an administration which had the foresight to see the current financial crisis years in advance and tried to stop it.

The Reform We Need

In the age of mass media, this election has frequently been analyzed down to experience versus change. However, the ideas of experience and change are not mutually exclusive. Since the early 1990's, McCain has made a career of striking independent views on issues, reaching across the aisle, and not toeing the party line. His experience doesn't oppose his ideas for change, rather, it supports them. And while Obama may have the flashy speech and the snappy slogan to parade his mantra of change, McCain has the actions to back up his words.

Change is working to reform campaign finance laws despite strong opposition from within his party, as McCain did beginning in 1994. Change is not reneging on your pledge to accept public financing. Change is having the bravery to take on your entire party, as McCain did in 1998 when he proposed a bill that would impose heavy taxes on the tobacco industry to support anti-smoking campaigns, and having the bravery to fight for an unpopular idea, as McCain did when almost single-handedly fighting for the troop surge in Iraq. Change is not voting 97 percent of the time with your party, the party that for the last two years has controlled a congress with one of the lowest approval ratings in history, as Barack Obama has done since becoming a Senator. Change is being willing to fight to cut spending by cracking down on earmarks and discussing the unpopular notion of freezing some government spending programs until the budget is in order. Change is not proposing tax breaks while not suggesting any major reductions in government spending. True change will come from the courage to carefully consider each issue and work with both parties for solutions, and John McCain's record shows that he's just the man to do this.

A Leader You Can Believe In

In these perilous times, Americans deserve a President who is willing to buck the political establishment and do what is right and not necessarily what is popular. Over a lifetime of public service, John McCain has risen time and again to the challenge. With the future of American power at stake, the United States needs a leader who can successfully navigate the ship of state through the perilous storms of the future.

So you run a business. It's the year 2000. Your company has just closed the book on a fairly robust decade, your profits are up, debts are down. More importantly, your outgoing project manager has earned the confidence and respect of all the firm's employees and investors.

So now you find yourself at a crossroads; you could stick with the same consulting firm that gave you your current and very successful project manager, or you could go with the new flashy consulting firm that promises to do even better. Their rhetoric is appealing, their promises are hard to ignore. They promise bigger returns, a more transparent process, and lower prices. More importantly, they paint their main rivals as incompetent, bland and unimaginative. It's a pretty contentious decision, but your company decides to go in a new direction; you award a four-year contract to the new flashy firm.

Let's fast forward to November of 2004, the expiration date of the first four-year contract. Revenue and profit are down, and you're involved in unprofitable and potentially harmful business ventures. There are serious questions about the competency of your current consultants.

Still, your hired help insist that this stage is merely a work in progress. Again, they attack their rival firm as unresolved and incompetent. They insist that the next four years will be a period of record growth. They argue that it is dangerous to make a change at such a critical time. Patience is the word of the day. Against your better judgment, your company awards another four-year contract to this firm.

Again, let's jump ahead four years. Its 2008, your company is on the verge of bankruptcy, your business ventures have exploded in your face. Investors are pessimistic and your employees are downtrodden. Unlike their predecessor, your current consultants do not enjoy any confidence from the members of your company or its investors, and unlike four years ago instead of looking to expand, you are looking to stay afloat; you need a savior.

Again, you have two choices, your current consulting firm insists that they can fix the problems, they insist that the best days are still yet to come, yet they also have not changed any of their fundamental strategies. Their rivals, the ones who led during the good old days, also insist that they can fix the problem. Who are you going to go with? Unfortunately, this hypothetical scenario isn't purely out of the realm of fiction.

George Bush and the republicans have broken and bankrupted the American enterprise. They took a 127 billion dollar budget surplus in 2000 and in just four years produced a 400 billion dollar budget deficit that is still growing to this day. The national debt has exploded to unseen levels. Additionally, while insisting on tax cuts, President Bush and the Republicans also hoodwinked the American public into launching an unnecessary and costly adventure Iraq, while loosing focus on the real war against terrorism in Afghanistan.

The bad judgment and selfishness of George Bush and the Republicans are truly breathtaking. In 2006, while the seeds of the economic meltdown of 2008 were blooming, the Republicans were busy pursuing stunts; a constitutional ban on flag burning and a similar ban on gay marriage. In 2005, while Hurricane Katrina made landfall, the administration stood blithely by as hundreds of thousands of people lay in limbo. And when both exploration of energy reduction methods and alternative sources of fuel would have made a difference, the President and Republicans in Congress were busy denying global warming, ignoring the deterioration of our national infrastructure, and giving tax breaks to big oil companies.

In fact, by almost every measure, under the republicans, the American enterprise has regressed in the past eight years.

So now here comes John McCain and the "new" Republicans, dedicated to reform the ways of Washington and to fix up the mess that they have created. Again, they brand the Democrats as tax-raising socialists.

Besides, the Republicans say, why is everyone looking into the past? This election is about the future. John McCain isn't George Bush, and George Bush isn't running for re-election.

Economic boom and bust are inevitable. The market will rebound only sooner rather than later with the proper leadership. An ineffective leader who admits to a lack of economic expertise and fails to understand reality will only compound the crises, turning the cyclical market into a long term doomsday. Barack Obama has shown the proper judgment, temperament and has surrounded himself with advisers not encumbered by ideology. He will change the conservative "you're on you own" philosophy that has dominated Washington for the past eight years and will not burden the American people with misguided beliefs long after his term has ended.

A Permanent Setback

We are on the brink of setting our country back for decades. And not just in the market.
I am sick of hearing how this election is the most important of our lifetime. I get it. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We put country first. But why is this election so important? Simply put, one vote. Not one hanging chad in Florida. Not one "yea" on the Senate floor. Not even one more superdelegate. I'm talking about one more justice in our high court. Many legal scholars, most prominently Jeffrey Toobin, argue that we are one vote, just one Supreme Court justice, away from undoing the progress made over the last 50 years. Miranda rights? So long. Choice? No more. Easy access to the ballot box? Already on its way out.

It is likely that whoever the next president is, four Supreme Court nominations might be at his fingertips. John Paul Stevens is 88, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75, and Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy are both 72. Seventy-two may be the new 50, but none of these four are spring chickens.

This election offers presidential choices with two starkly different judicial philosophies. John McCain, who seemed moderate in his early days in public office, has moved so far to the right on this issue that even Mitt Romney, with his Reagan-as-god rhetoric, seems more like Lyndon Johnson. Barack Obama will maintain the rights we've struggled to attain for over the last half-century.

In the August Civil Forum on the Presidency hosted at Saddleback Church by Pastor Rick Warren, McCain made very clear what sort of litmus test he was looking for before nominating a justice. When asked which justices he would not have appointed to the Court, he listed, surprise, surprise, all of the liberals. Maybe he forgot that it was those justices who ruled in favor of his landmark McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform. It was those liberals who voted to uphold this bill. So McCain reached across the aisle to author the legislation but then opposed those who upheld that legislation?

Which McCain would we be electing? The respected Maverick or Rush Limbaugh? Do we really need a president who is pressured by those around him to assume positions he may disagree with? Isn't W. enough? Can't we have a president who has the intellectual curiosity and desire to question his own logic when simultaneously praising his own bipartisan initiatives and then in the next breath promising to overturn them? McCain has repeatedly said that he would appoint judges who, according to his website, faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat. He is a strict adherent to the philosophy of judicial restraint. This philosophy of convenience is only applied when it suits the conservative cause. It doesn't mean the judges will leave the laws alone. In fact, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, two conservative judges who McCain points to as exemplary, are the two judges most likely to, based on their records, overturn a law. That doesn't sound like leaving major issues up to the people through their elected officials in Congress.

McCain will strap us with these "restrained" legal minds long after he is gone.

We know how much is at stake by guessing which McCain we're getting. Election 2000? Why leave that one vote to chance? Long after he's out of office, we're stuck with him.