The Obama campaign has refused to release his college transcript, despite an academic career that led him to Harvard Law School and, later, to a lecturing position at the University of Chicago. The shroud surrounding his experience at Columbia contrasts with that of other major party nominees since 2000, all whom have eventually released information about their college performance or seen it leaked to the public. In contrast with the rest of Mr. Obama’s life story, little is known about his college experience. He attended Occidental College in Los Angeles for two years before transferring to Columbia in 1981. The move receives only a mention in Mr. Obama’s 1995 memoir, “Dreams from My Father,” which instead devotes that chapter to his impressions of race and class struggles in New York.

An article in a Columbia University publication, Columbia College Today, reported that Mr. Obama has portrayed Columbia as a period of buckling down following a troubled adolescence. He did not socialize much, he has said, instead spending a lot of time in the library, “like a monk.” He has also stated that he was involved to some extent with the Black Students Organization.

Federal law limits the information that Columbia can release about Mr. Obama’s time there. A spokesman for the university, Brian Connolly, confirmed that Mr. Obama spent two years at Columbia College and graduated in 1983 with a major in political science. He did not receive honors, Mr. Connolly said, though specific information on his grades is sealed. A program from the 1983 graduation ceremony lists him as a graduate.

Duration : 0:9:20

[youtube 5v2HhZ-L-MU]

Duration : 1:0:59

[youtube 6KTIYgo5k3c]

Tuesday January 8th, 2008

Duration : 0:7:34

[youtube vH9SbwSQCk4]

I DISABLED COMMENTING BECAUSE IM TIRED OF GETTING A FULL INBOX OF COMMENTS THAT ARE EITHER RANDOM OR ARE BEING POSTED TO PROMOTE OTHER THINGS
Not trying to hate, its just really annoying.
Video Responses will be added automatically, I didn’t realize that it was disabled.

Duration : 0:2:18

[youtube FdDqSvJ6aHc]

Ken responded by giving an overview of what a truly integral politics might look like, and used that to compare and contrast with the Democratic and Republican conventions, both of which are less-than-integral. We think that this twenty-minute summary is brilliant, insightful, deadly serious, and wickedly funny, all at once. But by all accounts it is an extraordinary account of why all politics today are considerably less-than-integral, along with certain features that almost certainly would have to be included in the future in any truly integral politics.

In this synopsis, Ken focuses on three items that all political theories have attempted to address but none have managed to fully integrate. These are the tension between (1) the individual and the collective; (2) the source of the cause of human suffering: is the individual primarily to blame or is the society primarily to blame?; and (3) the different levels of development that the different political parties tend to represent: any truly integral politics would include and represent all of them, and yet how on earth do you do that?

Due to time considerations, Ken did not discuss two other equally important ingredients in any integral politics. One. In representational democracies, people have a right to be at whatever stage of development they are at, and generally speaking, within free speech, a right to express the values of whatever stage they are at. Traditional-fundamentalist (blue) has a right to be traditional, modernist (orange) has a right to be modernist, postmodernist (green) has a right to be postmodernist, and so on. This is generally modified in practice, to the extent that the center of gravity of a culture will tend to impose its values on others, especially if they are first-tier (or less-than-integral) values. Nonetheless, in democratic societies, there’s a general background understanding that people have a right to be, and a right to express, whatever stage they are or whatever belief system they possess.

Two. They do not, however, have a right to act on those beliefs. This is generally handled in representative democracies by a separation of public and private, and by a similar if more specific principle of the separation of church and state. This means that, for example, in the privacy of my blue-meme mind, I am free to believe that Jesus Christ is my personal savior and that nobody achieves salvation without a belief in Jesus. In public behavior, however, I am not allowed to burn at the stake somebody who disagrees with me. In terms of integral psychology, this means in the interior of an individual (i.e., the upper left), the person can believe whatever they like; but in their public behavior (i.e., the upper right), they must behave according to laws drawn from a worldcentric or higher level of development (lower left), or else they are charged with civil or criminal behavior and removed from society if necessary (lower right).

This separation of church and state, or more generally what Max Weber called the differentiation of the values spheres, is one of the great and enduring contributions of the Western enlightenment, a contribution almost entirely misunderstood by extreme postmodernists, who in fact are operating under its protection while bitterly condemning it.

(The most common version of this is the aggressive attempt to reduce “I” and “It” to “We,’ or the attempt to reduce art and science to a social construction, which can therefore be deconstructed. As it turns out, this reductionism presumes precisely what it denies, but then, deconstructive postmodernism has been little without its performative contradictions.)

A truly integral politics exists nowhere on the planet at this time, principally because not enough individuals have emerged at the integral levels of consciousness, and hence no governments anywhere have integral representatives as members (except rarely and by accident). Its principal challenge is to create some form of governance that allows each stage to be itself within the constraints of not harming others (i.e., to let red be red, and blue be blue, and orange be orange, and green be green, etc—precisely because, as we saw, this is a right in virtually all free societies), and yet to govern from the highest, widest, deepest, and most encompassing levels of development emerged to date (starting at yellow). Most representative democracies do this anyway, except their center of gravity is not yet fully integral, and they do it implicitly, not explicitly.

Duration : 0:17:45

[youtube tQRUu_4W2j8]

PTV TOP 10 is produced by http://PoliticsTV.com. PRODUCER/CREATOR: Dan Manatt
PRODUCERS: Brett DiResta, David Grossman, Bruno Hoffman

HOSTS: Raquel Riley, Clinton Yates, Nicole Grether

Duration : 0:6:42

[youtube PcszvVWJTUg]

Duration : 0:24:47

[youtube n_6IXjUNP84]

Duration : 0:2:0

[youtube do0H4wFq1NA]

Duration : 0:5:52

[youtube kica8hmSdAM]

http://www.InfoWars.com

http://www.PrisonPlanet.com

It is very important for us all to realise that we’re living under a simple but clever system that has been designed to contain revolution whilst projecting the illusion of being a free, fair and open democracy. The 2-party system provides firm support for the elite to implement their agenda from the top down, whilst the ordinary people at the grassroots level squabble between themselves over which political party is the best. In reality, it doesn’t matter which of the two parties you vote for because the same agenda will unfold regardless. Hence, both parties are controlled at the very top by the same force.

Oh yeah, YouTube, please stop censoring the view counters on these videos, it is beyond obvious now and just about every YouTube user knows that you fiddle the view counters to keep videos like this off the most-viewed lists. Why bother when it is just so blatantly obvious?

http://www.InfoWars.com

http://www.PrisonPlanet.com

_

Duration : 0:5:51

[youtube fTahZE4q90U]