Obama Kids: Sing for Change (Pyongyang Remix)

The folks over at Reason put together a video of a kids choir chanting for Obama while showing clips of a similar use of propaganda being used in North Korea. While I do find the clip funny, I couldn't help shake an uneasiness about the whole thing. I don't like the idea of using kids to promote an issue or candidate on any point of political spectrum. The Kids for Obama site unabashedly states the kids are being used as a propaganda tool:

Do you feel like you want to get involved in the political process but you don’t know how? Do you feel like there’s something important coming up in the Presidential elections? Get involved in KIDS FOR OBAMA! Studies have shown that kids can affect their parents and their siblings’ opinions and even change the opinions of older family members . . . including those of voting age. Are you still with me? Great, Let’s get started!

Do these kids understand what they are promoting, good or bad? Probably not, that is what is so reckless and sad about the whole thing.

The Economists are for Obama

Well, I have to admit that this poll from The Economist (analysis) came as a surprise to me! The Economist emailed a survey to 683 members of National Bureau of Economic Research asking which presidential candidate, Obama or McCain, has a better understand of economics and who has a better economic plan. Of 142 people who replied, 46% identified themselves as Democrats (pdf), 10% being Republican (pdf) and 44% as Neither (pdf). The findings show that economists, on all sides, overwhelmingly say Obama has a better understanding of the economy and a better plan. To take a closer look at the overall data, click here (pdf).

Obama's Iraq Logic

All be it I don't agree with Obama on the issues, I do think he is a very articulate, intelligent person. That is why I was somewhat surprised when I read this in AP News:

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence
of ethnic strife — which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea," he said.

What Obama did was commit the Tu Quoque fallacy. When confronted with possibility of genocide in Iraq, Obama turns the focus to the uninhibited ethnic strife in the Congo as if it where justification to the outcome of his plan. Here is the simplified version of the argument that Obama is making to help point out the fallacy:

American: If the US pulls out troops in Iraq then ethnic strife and cleansing will occur.
Obama: Yes, but the status quo allows for genocide in the Congo.

See how the argument does not make sense, it doesn't address the issue. In other words, when people claim "Obama's plan will cause genocide", Obama responds "you already allow for genocide." That's not a suitable answer.