Waving Goodbye to Hegemony: No More Superpower

What follows here is an excellent treatise on the new world order. No more superpower for the US. We are heading toward a triumvirate of power: the USA, the European Union, and China.

Parag Khanna, senior research fellow in the American Strategy Program of the New America Foundation introduces his essay on the new world order this way:

"Just a few years ago, America's hold on globalpower seemed unshakable. But a lot has changed while we've been in Iraq [emphasis mine]-- and the next president is going to be dealing with not only a triumphant China and a retooled Europe but also the quiet rise of a second world." Khanna goes on to say:

Turn on the TV today, and you could be forgiven for thinking it’s 1999. Democrats and Republicans are bickering about where and how to intervene, whether to do it alone or with allies and what kind of world America should lead. Democrats believe they can hit a reset button, and Republicans believe muscular moralism is the way to go. It’s as if the first decade of the 21st century didn’t happen — and almost as if history itself doesn’t happen. But the distribution of power in the world has fundamentally altered over the two presidential terms of George W. Bush, both because of his policies and, more significant, despite them. Maybe the best way to understand how quickly history happens is to look just a bit ahead.

read more | digg story

Obama's Blueprint for Change

Full text of Barack Obama's platform and plans to change this country into the democratic roots of its past. This is a full text of Obama's plan, not just the overview from his web site.

read more | digg story

Health Insurance - Clinton or Obama

Paul Krugman, New York Times columnist has a very clear, succinct explanation of the Obama and Clinton health care plans. Just when I thought it was safe to get Obama bumper stickers...again, I have to a pause. Read it Mr. Krugman's column here:

The difference between the health care plans of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage and falling far short.

But as I’ve tried to explain in previous columns, there really is a big difference between the candidates’ approaches. And new research, just released, confirms what I’ve been saying: the difference between the plans could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage — a key progressive goal — and falling far short.

Specifically, new estimates say that a plan resembling Mrs. Clinton’s would cover almost twice as many of those now uninsured as a plan resembling Mr. Obama’s — at only slightly higher cost.

Let’s talk about how the plans compare.

read more | digg story