I'm drunk. I'm lying in bed blogging with Rugby beside me. God I love my dog, he is pretty amazing.

Its funny - I was drinking cider tonight, and cider reminds me of London. I don't know - I drank a lot of cider in London - it was kind of a thing for a while. And London - doesn't remind me of the city - but it reminds me of Chris (Work Boy) and Martin and Juan and Philippe and Evan and Rob and stupid hot boy with abs and I don't know - it makes me feel a little homesick for London. I have said it before - I both loved and hated London. But London is all about the people. The city I loved and hated. The people i just loved. Well my favourite people I just loved. There were some others that I thought I loved, but London taught me that i really didn't.

Its so rare that I hear a song and fall in love with it immediately. Fireworks is so exactly that. I don't know why. But I've got it on repeat - and i'm lying here, just thinking about too many things.

Too many boys have been emailing me and I have so little time. So many boys have no idea what it takes to make a girl like them online. I'm attracted to intelligence and definitely not a large cock. I want somebody who is going to be extremely dirty and open in bed. But then I want someone I can wake up next to - and actually want to have a conversation with. And believe me - that is so hard to find.

I think I'm going to go out tomorrow and buy as much Obama stuff that I can find. I'm still so wholly pissed of at ex-date boy saying I can't have an opinion about US elections, because I can't vote. I hate to think how much tax I pay in this country (too bloody much). But more than most people I know. And I'm not saying that I think I should be able to vote - but I damn well can have an opinion. And lets face it - of course I do :)

I was talking about politics at lunch with my boss, who is a fairly heavy Republican. And he says he won't vote Democrat because they make him feel “evil” because, and I'm guessing, he earns a shite load of money. And I don't agree with that - I don't think that the rich are evil. I dont' think increasing taxes on people who have worked hard (a lot of them bloody hard) for what they earn is the answer. I think the rich support far too much of society. And as I've said - - most work bloody hard for their money, and deserve it. BUT - I could never vote Republican for issues other than financial.

Its so funny given how heavy a National supporter I am back home. I hate Helen Clark and pretty much everything that she stands for. And yet - I'm about as anti-Republican as I am anti-Labour - and sometimes I think that makes absolutely no sense. But politics in the U.S. is so bullshit sometimes. Issues that aren't or shouldn't be important, become very important come election time. And some of those are things that I feel so strongly about - I can't see past them. I'm not saying thats right - but its definitely how I feel. And I don't respect people who vote based on one issue - but I guess thats what I would do here, if I could vote.

But actually - dont' get me started, on how, even if I could vote- my vote wouldn't count for shite. Because in DC - its such a heavily Democratic “State” - that I don't believe anybody's vote really counts. And I dont' really understand how a few swing states - can have such a HUGE impact on who is elected over here.

Ooooh and I'm thinking about how much this post would piss off ex- date boy (except he now refuses to read the blog (other than forwarding it to some of his friends when I talked about how good our sex was) and I'm realising that I'm pretty drunk and probably should actually sleep. But instead - I'm sitting here typing this. And I really want a cigarette but I'm naked and thats so not going to happen. As getting dressed is so overrated.

All eyes are fixed on the Democratic National Convention - and some of our international bloggers are actually in Denver, Colorado, blogging it live. Others are wishing they were there and turning to their television screens and the Internet, to cover it as the news comes in.

Danish-Puerto Rican Solana Larsen, who is covering the event for Open Democracy, says the convention is “totally scripted.”

The Convention itself is totally scripted, and the predictability is partly what makes it more of a ceremony than a real political conversation. I met one of the speech writers, who says they have a team of writers who will be sitting behind the stage in “the pit” editing and writing politicians' submitted speeches before they go on stage. There are strict time limits they must adhere to, and they must submit their speeches in writing for editing first. I imagine it will be somewhat like the Oscar's except the people coming up to give the speeches won't be as drunk.

Despite this, Larsen is impressed with the inclusive nature of the event. She explains:

However, the Convention is making strong ‘gestures' towards democracy and inclusion of the American people, which is nice. Unfortunately it seems less a matter of principal, than something that seems good for publicity, given how Obama is currently on the up and up

She further adds:

I hope once I'm there, my faith in the US political process may be restored, but national politics here generally seem to be more about saying the right thing than doing it. With 5000 delegates and 15,000 members of the press, clearly this whole show is about publicity more than anything. There are so many gross imperfections in the political system that voters simply seem to have come to terms with and lost hope of changing. It's doesn't make it easier that those who could change it, stand to gain by allowing the status quo to persist.

In another post, Larsen says the convention is operating like a “big events company.”

At times it feels the Democratic Convention operates a little bit like a big events company. Witness for instance, the press release they sent out on August 14, announcing the fact that Coca-Cola has been “Named Official Recycling Provider of the 2008 Convention” and will even be donating some recycling bins, energy-efficient coolers, and hybrid electric trucks to the city of Denver.

Cynics will wonder whether Coca-Cola's eagerness to be involved in the greening of the Convention has anything to do with the fact that Obama will be accepting the official nomination at the Pepsi Center.

She concludes her post with much food for thought saying:

A platform for change for some, a money-making opportunity for others. American democracy seems boastful of the fact that it does both simultaneously.

Also from Puerto Rico, Vivirlatino is finally at the event, after initial teething problems with getting her credentials. Once there, she posts the following report:

I missed Hillary Clinton speaking at the Hispanic DNC Caucus because I was dealing with the nightmare that was the picking up of credentials. But our student correspondent, Estevan, was there so he'll be blogging his thoughts later.

I did arrive in time to see Howard Dean, who focused on the need to register Latinos and get them to vote. He also spoke of how the Republicans scapegoat Latinos and how McCain flip-flopped on his own immigration reform plan.

Loretta Sanchez, whom I had never heard speak and has a surprisingly squeaky voice, spoke of how Latinos have earned residency in the U.S. because of our losing blood in Iraq.

I was able to ask Sanchez if she knew about the ICE Raids in Mississippi. She said: “Yo no se nada de eso, señorita” without looking at me.

Yup, she called me girl.

Meanwhile, Crian Padayachee, who blogs at The Political Glimpse from Ireland, wishes he was there. Here's his take on the first half an hour of the convention:

Watching the convention so far, it seems like a pretty good time, I really wish I had bought a plane ticket to go down to Colorado. John Legend is singing as I type this, never liked the guy except for one song whose title leaves me at this moment. Hope you guys are following my Twitter updates, Senator Klobuchar from Minnesota was pretty impressive so far in her Obama speech. If you are watching CNN International for you convention coverage, all they are doing is talking and not focusing on the speakers.

Also click here to follow Padayachee's Twitterfeed.

From the UK, Neil Stockley says the convention will be an opportunity for Obama to show his true colours. He explains:

Leading Liberal Democrats heading to Denver, Colorado for the Democratic National Convention will be able to see how Barack Obama uses his personal story to present himself as the man of destiny, part of America’s unfolding history and, importantly, the man with a vision for America’s future.

And finally David Farrar from New Zealand reposts the “top 10 convention moments” from Real Clear Politics. They are:

1. 1932 DNC - FDR
2. 1964 RNC - Barry Goldwater
3. 1968 DNC - Chicago anti war riots
4. 1948 DNC - Hubert Humphrey in favour of racial integration, leading to Dixiecrats walkout
5. 1976 RNC - Ronald Reagan impromptu speech
6. 1980 DNC - Ted Kennedy speech
7. 1960 DNC - JFK acceptance speech
8. 2004 DNC - Barack Obama
9. 1992 RNC - Pat Buchanan with his culture war speech
10. 1896 DNC - William Jennings Bryan giving a rousing speech arguing against the gold standard

He further comments:

Interesting that most of them are not speechs by the winner, but by others. I suspect the Ted Kennedy speech at the 2008 DNC convention could become historic (and I say this not liking Kennedy). With Obama seen by many as an heir to JFK, a speech by the last surviving brother will have significance. And the reality that Ted Kennnedy is dying, this will be his last convention, and with his death will go that generation of the Kennedys. I suspect it will be very raw and powerful.

Stay tuned for more coverage from the convention.

I'm headed to Denver for the convention tomorrow, and am looking forward to experiencing what promises to be a pretty massive and exciting event. I did apply for press/blogging credentials, but only 120 bloggers were selected to join. So I don't know how much of the official show I'll be able to catch (FYI - there's going to be a live webcast). The real reason I am going, is for the activities surrounding the Convention. Activists from across the country (and around the world) are making their way to Denver, to host and participate in dozens of events, parties, dinners, fundraisers, and at least two film festivals.

Personally, I'm also interested in studying how the use of internet and email for this Convention, which they themselves are calling "the most technologically savvy of its kind". For instance, they've set up a website called America's Town Hall where anyone can submit text or video questions for the Convention. They have apparently also scattered YouTube video recording kiosks around the Denver venue so people can record comments on the spot. Is it democracy in action, or just clever marketing? I think it depends how they use it.

The mood promises to be quite different from the Democratic Convention in 2004 where Boston police struggled to get anti-war protestors to remain inside a fenced area during daily protests. I still remember meeting 4 College Republicans who took turns wearing a giant foam flip flop (remember Kerry the "flip-flopper") who couldn't understand why people were being so mean to them. Of course, the left is still mad about the war and Bush, but Obama's dreamy message of hope and change and Bush's guaranteed exit, has got people thinking more positively.

Cynics will wonder whether Coca-Cola's eagerness to be involved in the greening of the Convention has anything to do with the fact that Obama will be accepting the official nomination at the Pepsi Center.

From the release:

"As Official Recycling Provider, Coca-Cola Recycling, a wholly owned subsidiary of Coca-Cola Enterprises, will help develop, support and manage a system to support recycling efforts at all official Convention venues, including the Pepsi Center, INVESCO Field at Mile High and the Colorado Convention Center."

The release goes on to describe what a wonderful product Coca-Cola is and how much in love the company is with the environment. It is then signed and endorsed by the Democratic National Convention Committee. A platform for change for some, a money-making opportunity for others. American democracy seems boastful of the fact that it does both simultaenously.

In the clip, Ari introduces The Most Powerful Man in Denver (You've Never Heard Of), a man named Steve Farber who is a lobbyist and chief fundraiser for the Democratic Convention. Obama says he is opposed to special interest funding, but he obviously hasn't been able to change how the entire political machine works overnight. The total budget of the Convention must be astronomical.

The Convention itself is totally scripted, and the predictability is partly what makes it more of a ceremony than a real political conversation. I met one of the speech writers, who says they have a team of writers who will be sitting behind the stage in "the pit" editing and writing politicians' submitted speeches before they go on stage. There are strict time limits they must adhere to, and they must submit their speeches in writing for editing first. I imagine it will be somewhat like the Oscar's except the people coming up to give the speeches won't be as drunk.

However, the Convention is making strong 'gestures' towards democracy and inclusion of the American people, which is nice. Unfortunately it seems less a matter of principal, than something that seems good for publicity, given how Obama is currently on the up and up. House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, says in one of the introductory webcasts, that this year's convention is "almost without walls" given how much they will be interacting with the public in Denver and on the internet.

I hope once I'm there, my faith in the US political process may be restored, but national politics here generally seem to be more about saying the right thing than doing it. With 5000 delegates and 15,000 members of the press, clearly this whole show is about publicity more than anything. There are so many gross imperfections in the political system that voters simply seem to have come to terms with and lost hope of changing. It's doesn't make it easier that those who could change it, stand to gain by allowing the status quo to persist.

But I suppose that is the case mostly everywhere, in all countries.

John McCain’s campaign is trying to paint Barack Obama as a big spender. In a new radio ad, an announcer says Obama wants to implement “$863-billion in new government programs - a 23 percent increase in the size of government.”

The percentage-increase claim is so far off base that we’re going to grant McCain several questionable assumptions - and then show that he’s still way off.

<snip>

And lastly, how can McCain argue that an increase in discretionary spending is the same as an increase “in the size of government”? Here’s what Pounder had to say about that: “By size of government, we are referring to government spending outside of mandatory spending. It’s the argument that outside of mandatory spending, this is the most immediate way that Barack Obama will have an impact on government spending and when you include his spending proposals it accounts for a 23 percent increase.”

That’s the equivalent of saying, “By size of government, we are referring to a government with no Social Security, no Medicare, no Medicaid, no food stamps, no federal employee retirement benefits and no interest on the national debt.”

Senator McCain’s 2nd mistake this week is to continue to mislead his base with attacks against Senator Obama’s tax plan however as I have stated in numerous posts, Senator McCain’s tax plan spends more money in his first term not to mention maintains the tax cuts for the richest Americans rather than those who need it the most:

Lastly the Sunlight Foundation is an organization that keeps track of politicians wealth, do you want to guess how elite Senator McCain is? $36,431,099 in 2006 according to Senator McCain’s personal disclosure forms. Senator Obama for that same year was worth just shy of $800,000. For those of you who think Senator McCain understands what it means to be in the middle class or that his policies help middle America, think again.

The Century Foundation, founded in 1919 by the progressive businessman Edward A. Filene, is a nonprofit public policy research institution committed to the belief that a mix of effective government, open democracy, and free markets is the most effective solution to the major challenges facing the United States.

A few months ago I became aware of progressive institutes like the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institute whose policy papers I have referenced in this blog. I became aware of the TCF through their public affairs office and upon inspection of some of the work, I realized that they would be a valuable resource for future blogging. The TCF recently ran a conference entitled: “Billionaires and their Impact” in which various personalities discussed issues surrounding the super rich in America. One such personality is Jeffrey Frieden a Professor at Harvard University whose recent video ties in to both candidates and their policies on globalization:

The audio is not crystal clear so you might have to listen to the video twice but the professor makes some poignant statements. The most interesting statement is his suggestion that governments should compensate people who lose out due to globalization. The problem with this compensation is that it cannot be done through taxation when the wealthier population can just move their money to other countries. I would argue that this movement can be curtailed with the appropriate legislation if not closures of a few tax loopholes. Conservatives might not like this but Professor Frieden states that there is a 1:1 correlation between globalization and the increasing income disparity in America therefore can anyone think of any other solution?

Professor Frieden’s opinions clash with those of Senator Obama who tends to be more protectionist with regards to U.S trade policy which many critics feel would negatively impact the U.S economy. Senator McCain on the other hand openly supports free trade such as the FTA with South Korea and Columbia which the McCain camp argues will benefit the U.S economy. Both sides make good points however what approach will benefit the U.S economy while minimizing losses to the people?

Comparison of the Reported Tax Liabilities of Foreign- and U.S.-Controlled Corporations,1998-2005

I cannot take credit for finding this story as that clearly goes to the folks over at C&L but I felt like they did not make the necessary conclusions. One of the big divisions between those on the left and right, Obama and McCain, liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe Corporations should pay their fair share in taxes while conservatives believe that excessively taxing corporations reduces their competitiveness (something to that effect).  The Tax Policy Center recently released and updated analysis of the respective candidates tax proposals in which they state Senator McCain’s position:

Corporate income tax reductions. Corporations currently pay tax at rates of 15, 25, 34, and 35 percent and are also subject to 3 and 5 percent surtaxes in certain income ranges. Senator McCain proposes to cut the maximum corporate income tax rate from 35 to 25 percent.

The problem with reducing the maximum corporate tax rate by 10% is that 54.9% of U.S controlled corporations offered no tax liability for at least one year between 1998 - 2005. During that same time corporate sales in the USA totaled $2.5 trillion dollars according to Senators Levin and Dorgan who requested the study:

Now let’s pause and think for a moment the amount of money the American government would have lost if the corporate tax rate had been reduced to 25% at that time. The Government would have then recieved 25% of a possible 45.1% of companies whose tax liability achieved the maximum tax bracket.  Given the rising cost of the Iraq war and other possible conflicts, can we afford to give companies and even greater break then the one they already enjoy? What about the oil companies, where do they fit into this, I would personally not be surprised if someone lookes through their financial statements to discover how much of an advantage they have been taking of the tax system.