Showing posts with label Occupy Wallstreet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Occupy Wallstreet. Show all posts
Monday, May 27, 2013
Remembering Memorial Day
Memorial Day is without a doubt the most solemn of tri-part recognition of the military (the other two being July 4th---Independence Day, and Veteran's Day, November 11th). The focus of Memorial Day is recognize and remember all the heroes who put themselves in harm's way and paid the ultimate price for our freedoms. Some 1,196.793+ have lost their lives so you can live in relative freedom and enjoy everything that goes with it. To that, you can the 3.5 million disabled veterans, of which I am one.
Memorial Day, known originally as Declaration Day, has been around in various incarnations since at least 1861. It became an official day of recognition on May 26th, 1966 when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the proclamation, which also recognized Waterloo, New York as its "official" birthplace. On June 28, 1968, Congress passed the Uniform Monday Holiday Act which moved four holiday to last Monday of the month in which the holiday occurred (the others were Washington's Birthday, Columbus Day, and Veterans Day).
Looking at the current state of our nation, I have to wonder, was it worth it? No one can doubt the most of our wars were just, though some were not (such as the wars---some would say genocide---against the Native Americans) and many were forced on us, but that's not my point. We were a nation born out of revolution. We were the British who Paul Revere warned the citizens of Boston about on April 18, 1775 (he actually said "the troops are coming") along with two other riders, William Dawes and Dr. Samuel Prescott. It was us, as British subjects who rebelled against our mother country, England, over the issue of taxation and yet we've become a nation of unequal and many would argue, unfair taxation. To that, our rebellion against "Mother" England stemmed from our lack of having a voice in Parliament over not just taxes, but over a whole range of issues. Much the same can be said about average Americans today. Washington seems to be about the rich and connected, and especially the powerful corporations, who, thanks to the "Citizens United" misruling by the Supreme Court, has determined the artificial entities--the corporations--have a greater and more influential voice than the citizen voters. Our vote has been watered down to almost a meaningless act thanks to partisan (bipartisan actually) gerrymandering of districts which, in effect, rig elections and a suppression in voter turnouts.
Many of our Founding Fathers, especially Samuel Adams, Jefferson, Washington, Henry, Franklin, Morris, and others, told us that our newly created democratic Republic was a fragile thing; hard fought to win but ever so easily lost without an active and vigilant citizenry. Yet, so few of us bother to vote (usually under 52% in Presidential elections--still controlled by a Electoral College, and under 47% in most Congressional elections ), which begs the outcome as outlined in the above paragraph. Approval ratings for Congress remain under 15% and for most presidents, under 50%. Yet, our vote remains, for now, our most powerful weapon against the creeping corporate fascism of our Federal government. But if we don't use this tool against tyranny, how much longer will we have it to use?
A new crop of patriots have emerged to argue that we must somehow fight back like our Founding Fathers and the Sons of Liberty said we have both the right and duty to do. So adamant were they, they even told us how and gave us the instruments to do it with in Constitution, Bill of Rights, and in their collective writings. Yet, our ambiance and tendency to focus on the moment, has allowed undemocratic or misguided powers to restrict or forbid us from acting as our Founders told us too; making it nearly illegal to criticize the government, be it in the form of government censorship, attempts at increased gun control and restrictions, monitoring and intelligence gathering of the press and average citizens, use of Presidential "emergency power" acts like the Homeland Security Act---Executive Directive 51, the National Defense Authorization Act. There are many indirect tools of intimidation such as misuse of the IRS, the FBI, Department of Justice, or any of the other alphabet federal agencies. Of course, I'm just touching on a few points. Much more can, and should be added, but one wonders what would our Founders say about their creation if they could see it as it is today? How would they act toward it? Would they be proud of what they created, or would they have wished they had simply paid those damn taxes and accepted the dictates of the Mother Country?
Memorial Day, perhaps of all our cherished national holidays, should serve to remind us what a chosen few have given so that every citizen could have a right and a duty to question, challenge, and if necessary, to restore our country so that our children and grandchildren can truly have an opportunity to live and thrive in a nation that could once boast of as "land of the free and home of the brave". Don't let their sacrifice have been made in vain.
American Veterans By the Numbers
myshttp://www.infoplease.com/spot/veteranscensus1.htmlelf
It's Official: Presidency Now a Dictatorship
http://www.infowars.com/its-official-presidency-now-a-dictatorship/
The Modern Presidency is Dangerously Close to an Elective Dictatorship
http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-11-07/ron-paul-is-obama-americas-first-elected-dictator/
What would Our Founding Fathers Think of America Today?
http://american-history.yoexpert.com/eras-of-american-history/when-considering-today-and-our-founding-fathers-wh-2695.html
Monday, December 31, 2012
2012: A Look Back
As 2012 closes and as 2013 dawns, I find myself reflecting back on some of the more poignant stories of the year. After all, our past is often a guide to our future. So, let's take a brief stroll and look at a year that was.
2012 was marked as a year of change. We had the revolutions for democracy throughout the Middle East. Egypt, Libya, and Syria started a massive movements to end their totalitarian dictatorships. Tens of thousands of people took to the streets and protested for weeks. Some of the protests were peaceful, while others degenerated into Civil War. But , here's the puzzlement. If , as in Egypt's case, this was a revolt for freedom, then how did Morsi, a member of the rightwing theocratic Muslim Brotherhood get elected? This is not a pro-democracy, but pro-Islamic oriented government; the exact opposite of what the Egyptian wanted.
Morsi, after promising to support religious diversity and support democracy, declared himself virtual dictator, with more power and authority than the former president, Hosni Mubarak. Then after back off, and again promising to support the concept of democracy, proposed a new constitution essentially wiping out freedom for many Egyptians, especially the Christian minority and women. Again, tens of thousands of angry Egyptians took to the street in protest. It was so bad, Morsi and his Cabinet hide behind palace walls and called in the army to protect them.
But despite two votes, the Sharia oriented constitution is ratified. How is that possible? Well, it shouldn't be. There's no way Morsi should have ever been elected in the first place. Secondly, Egyptians, angry at the outcome make a tactical mistake. In protest, they decided to stay home and not vote, thinking that would make a difference. Stupid mistake. In doing so, with only a 34% turnout, Morsi got his supporters to the polls and pass the constitution they wanted, not the one the Egyptian people wanted. Morsi used every terroristic threat he could, including "rape gangs" to keep women at home and men there to protect them (not unlike what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq previously, and is now happening in India). By the way, by staying at home, Egyptian women may lose their right to vote, and with it, just about every other basic human right.
The Egyptians have to learn that democracy means voting no matter the threat, and it's not just voting, it's who counts the votes the matter. That's the only way Egyptians will rise out of their poverty and backwardness to become a great power again. The same can be said of Libya and Syria, not to mention Iran and practically the rest of the Middle East.
Speaking of Libya, another highlight of the year was the Obama Administration's blunder at Benghazi. Here we had a terrorist attack on a US Embassy resulting in a dead ambassador and three aides. The ambassador had been communicating for weeks about the changing situation in the area, but Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of the State and various government agencies ignored the warnings. Even with the assault underway (including a nearby CIA station), Washington refused to authorize any type of military relief, up to and including relieving US Commander, General Carter Ham, of duty when he said he was moving ahead with relief efforts (Defense Secretary Leon Panetta refused to authorize relief efforts. General Ham, head of military command for the region, advised a second time that he was prepared and going forward. Panetta, within 30 seconds, relieved him of command). Despite the overwhelming evidence, the White House continued to deny this was anything but an ad hoc attack by a random group. Even now, the "blame game" continues. Washington must be a very warm place with all the covering up going on.
In America, Barak Obama was re-elected to a second term despite a full on assault by Conservatives, a failing US economy and foreign policy. For years, the Right had been waging a not-so-covert attack on Obama's character, birth, and his alleged "plans" to turn America into a "socialist" gulag. Yet, all the Republican Party could muster was a uber-rich white dude with no charisma and poor communication skills who couldn't even begin to relate to the average American. There was no realistic plans put forward; no attempt to reach out to an increasingly diverse electorate. Was Romney really the best the GOP could do? Seriously? The result was a narrow victory for Obama. The secondary result was to show how of touch the Republican Party was from ordinary Americans. Like with Egypt, I am perplexed at how what was a seemingly forgone conclusion turned into a continuation of the status quo. Reminds me of an old mafia fixed boxing match.
The Tea Party too showed its weakness. After being formed as a "back to basics" political movement, it's become infested with much of the right wing nutterry that has all but destroyed the viability of the GOP as a national party. While there's little hope for the future of the Republican Party in its present form, the question is whether the Tea Party can reinvent itself into what it once was and carry the banner of the traditional Conservatism. Meanwhile, the Occupy movements have turned into a "tempest in a teapot" to borrow a line from Shakespeare. While there's much to legitimately protest, without organization and a plan of action, it will waste its energy like a storm at sea. With the two key groups for change having thus been nullified, the status quo can carry on without further interference.
Sadly, there's been an increasing number of mass murders in America, with 151 victims for 2012 alone. Some involved only a few people, while others involved dozens. Regardless, all were lives lost needlessly. The most recent, and the most painful was at Newtown where evil walked into a school and murdered 26 children and teachers. However, some good may come out of the tragedy with treatment of the mentally ill back in the limelight. For far too long, the mental ill were basically tossed aside as funding for treatment was cut or eliminated. However, darker forces have been stirred too as talk of "gun control" is back as the hot topic in liberal media.
Now, while I agree that the average person doesn't need incendiary or armor piercing ammo or military oriented weapons, the majority of the guns used in these recent killings were not "assault rifles". They were actually typical hunting caliber with fancy stocks to give them the "look" of being military. Nevertheless, those who wish to disarm Americans for their own nefarious agenda, use these tragedies as an excuse to disarm all Americans of their guns. Does depending on the government and law enforcement to show up after the fact or you being able to defend yourself at the time make you more secure? That's the crux of the argument.
While this may seem hard for others to understand, guns and the right to own them are as fundamental to the American psyche as free speech or freedom of or from religion. It was written into our Bill of Rights expressly to protect us from a tyrannical government; something our Founding Fathers feared. Next to our right to openly express ourselves without fear of government reprisal, it is our most important right. Some individuals have voluntarily turned their guns in, mostly in exchange for cash. In these severe economic times, some value cash more than their rights. Perhaps it's part of some grand plan.
Then there is the looming "financial cliff". In yet another example as how dysfunctional our government has become, both Congress and the White House are still engaged in a game of "Russian Roulette" with the gun aimed at the head of the American People. Of course, neither Congress or the White House have any fear of repercussions. They'll merely find some other crisis to divert the public's limited attention, and there is always gerrymandering to partially guarantee their re-election. But not to worry America, we have the best economy of any second tier nation in the world.
As if to throw salt on the national economic wound, Congress quietly agreed to extend portions of the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978" dealing with monitoring, opening emails, unwarranted wiretaps, and surveillance on all domestic and foreign suspects so long as its intended goal to gather foreign information. In exchange, as if a Presidential "thank you", the White House agreed to a pay raise for Congress of .5%. Yelp, while many Americans are struggling to keep their homes, pay their bills, and afford their healthcare coverage, Congress got a nice pay increase. Wasn't that nice of you America? After all, the pay raise was made possible with your tax dollars, which, by the way, are going up again.
Lastly, this article marks the 200th edition of AO. It's been a pleasure to reach out to each and every one of you over the years, and I hope to do so for many more. I hope I've inspired at least some of you to look up and question what's going on around you. It has been my goal to encourage and challenge you to think for yourselves; to step away from the herd and accept that you are an individual capable of thinking your own thoughts and reaching your own conclusions. Remember, John Lennon told us it was "Power to the People", not "Power to the Sheeple". So, as I ask in every blog, what are you prepared to do?
General Losing His Job Over Benghazi
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/28/general-losing-his-job-over-benghazi/
A Guide to Mass Shootings
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
Congress Extends FISA Wiretapping Act
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/12/28/168220266/congress-extends-fisa-wiretapping-act-to-2017-awaits-obamas-signature
Obama Order Raise
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-orders-raise-biden-members-congress-federal-workers_692223.html
2012 was marked as a year of change. We had the revolutions for democracy throughout the Middle East. Egypt, Libya, and Syria started a massive movements to end their totalitarian dictatorships. Tens of thousands of people took to the streets and protested for weeks. Some of the protests were peaceful, while others degenerated into Civil War. But , here's the puzzlement. If , as in Egypt's case, this was a revolt for freedom, then how did Morsi, a member of the rightwing theocratic Muslim Brotherhood get elected? This is not a pro-democracy, but pro-Islamic oriented government; the exact opposite of what the Egyptian wanted.
Morsi, after promising to support religious diversity and support democracy, declared himself virtual dictator, with more power and authority than the former president, Hosni Mubarak. Then after back off, and again promising to support the concept of democracy, proposed a new constitution essentially wiping out freedom for many Egyptians, especially the Christian minority and women. Again, tens of thousands of angry Egyptians took to the street in protest. It was so bad, Morsi and his Cabinet hide behind palace walls and called in the army to protect them.
But despite two votes, the Sharia oriented constitution is ratified. How is that possible? Well, it shouldn't be. There's no way Morsi should have ever been elected in the first place. Secondly, Egyptians, angry at the outcome make a tactical mistake. In protest, they decided to stay home and not vote, thinking that would make a difference. Stupid mistake. In doing so, with only a 34% turnout, Morsi got his supporters to the polls and pass the constitution they wanted, not the one the Egyptian people wanted. Morsi used every terroristic threat he could, including "rape gangs" to keep women at home and men there to protect them (not unlike what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq previously, and is now happening in India). By the way, by staying at home, Egyptian women may lose their right to vote, and with it, just about every other basic human right.
The Egyptians have to learn that democracy means voting no matter the threat, and it's not just voting, it's who counts the votes the matter. That's the only way Egyptians will rise out of their poverty and backwardness to become a great power again. The same can be said of Libya and Syria, not to mention Iran and practically the rest of the Middle East.
Speaking of Libya, another highlight of the year was the Obama Administration's blunder at Benghazi. Here we had a terrorist attack on a US Embassy resulting in a dead ambassador and three aides. The ambassador had been communicating for weeks about the changing situation in the area, but Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of the State and various government agencies ignored the warnings. Even with the assault underway (including a nearby CIA station), Washington refused to authorize any type of military relief, up to and including relieving US Commander, General Carter Ham, of duty when he said he was moving ahead with relief efforts (Defense Secretary Leon Panetta refused to authorize relief efforts. General Ham, head of military command for the region, advised a second time that he was prepared and going forward. Panetta, within 30 seconds, relieved him of command). Despite the overwhelming evidence, the White House continued to deny this was anything but an ad hoc attack by a random group. Even now, the "blame game" continues. Washington must be a very warm place with all the covering up going on.
In America, Barak Obama was re-elected to a second term despite a full on assault by Conservatives, a failing US economy and foreign policy. For years, the Right had been waging a not-so-covert attack on Obama's character, birth, and his alleged "plans" to turn America into a "socialist" gulag. Yet, all the Republican Party could muster was a uber-rich white dude with no charisma and poor communication skills who couldn't even begin to relate to the average American. There was no realistic plans put forward; no attempt to reach out to an increasingly diverse electorate. Was Romney really the best the GOP could do? Seriously? The result was a narrow victory for Obama. The secondary result was to show how of touch the Republican Party was from ordinary Americans. Like with Egypt, I am perplexed at how what was a seemingly forgone conclusion turned into a continuation of the status quo. Reminds me of an old mafia fixed boxing match.
The Tea Party too showed its weakness. After being formed as a "back to basics" political movement, it's become infested with much of the right wing nutterry that has all but destroyed the viability of the GOP as a national party. While there's little hope for the future of the Republican Party in its present form, the question is whether the Tea Party can reinvent itself into what it once was and carry the banner of the traditional Conservatism. Meanwhile, the Occupy movements have turned into a "tempest in a teapot" to borrow a line from Shakespeare. While there's much to legitimately protest, without organization and a plan of action, it will waste its energy like a storm at sea. With the two key groups for change having thus been nullified, the status quo can carry on without further interference.
Sadly, there's been an increasing number of mass murders in America, with 151 victims for 2012 alone. Some involved only a few people, while others involved dozens. Regardless, all were lives lost needlessly. The most recent, and the most painful was at Newtown where evil walked into a school and murdered 26 children and teachers. However, some good may come out of the tragedy with treatment of the mentally ill back in the limelight. For far too long, the mental ill were basically tossed aside as funding for treatment was cut or eliminated. However, darker forces have been stirred too as talk of "gun control" is back as the hot topic in liberal media.
Now, while I agree that the average person doesn't need incendiary or armor piercing ammo or military oriented weapons, the majority of the guns used in these recent killings were not "assault rifles". They were actually typical hunting caliber with fancy stocks to give them the "look" of being military. Nevertheless, those who wish to disarm Americans for their own nefarious agenda, use these tragedies as an excuse to disarm all Americans of their guns. Does depending on the government and law enforcement to show up after the fact or you being able to defend yourself at the time make you more secure? That's the crux of the argument.
While this may seem hard for others to understand, guns and the right to own them are as fundamental to the American psyche as free speech or freedom of or from religion. It was written into our Bill of Rights expressly to protect us from a tyrannical government; something our Founding Fathers feared. Next to our right to openly express ourselves without fear of government reprisal, it is our most important right. Some individuals have voluntarily turned their guns in, mostly in exchange for cash. In these severe economic times, some value cash more than their rights. Perhaps it's part of some grand plan.
Then there is the looming "financial cliff". In yet another example as how dysfunctional our government has become, both Congress and the White House are still engaged in a game of "Russian Roulette" with the gun aimed at the head of the American People. Of course, neither Congress or the White House have any fear of repercussions. They'll merely find some other crisis to divert the public's limited attention, and there is always gerrymandering to partially guarantee their re-election. But not to worry America, we have the best economy of any second tier nation in the world.
As if to throw salt on the national economic wound, Congress quietly agreed to extend portions of the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978" dealing with monitoring, opening emails, unwarranted wiretaps, and surveillance on all domestic and foreign suspects so long as its intended goal to gather foreign information. In exchange, as if a Presidential "thank you", the White House agreed to a pay raise for Congress of .5%. Yelp, while many Americans are struggling to keep their homes, pay their bills, and afford their healthcare coverage, Congress got a nice pay increase. Wasn't that nice of you America? After all, the pay raise was made possible with your tax dollars, which, by the way, are going up again.
Lastly, this article marks the 200th edition of AO. It's been a pleasure to reach out to each and every one of you over the years, and I hope to do so for many more. I hope I've inspired at least some of you to look up and question what's going on around you. It has been my goal to encourage and challenge you to think for yourselves; to step away from the herd and accept that you are an individual capable of thinking your own thoughts and reaching your own conclusions. Remember, John Lennon told us it was "Power to the People", not "Power to the Sheeple". So, as I ask in every blog, what are you prepared to do?
General Losing His Job Over Benghazi
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/28/general-losing-his-job-over-benghazi/
A Guide to Mass Shootings
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
Congress Extends FISA Wiretapping Act
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/12/28/168220266/congress-extends-fisa-wiretapping-act-to-2017-awaits-obamas-signature
Obama Order Raise
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-orders-raise-biden-members-congress-federal-workers_692223.html
Monday, December 24, 2012
Twas the Day after Christmas
Twas the day after Christmas, and all through the land,
America awoke without a economic plan.
To the streets! To the Malls!
To find someone to blame and kick in 'em in the...
On Ford! On Chevy! On Beamer and Dodge!
To the bank, my complaint I must lodge!
Where's my savings, my retirement, and job?
I've worked hard. I've been robbed!
On to bank I did drove,
Down broken roads and overgrown groves.
Foreclosed homes up and down the block,
On Wallstreet , I wished a pox!
I demand to the see the manager
On him alone will I vent my anger!
I searched and searched all around,
Not a IRA in sight; not a dime to be found!
"I'm not to blame" he did exclaimed
Smiling wryly ; adapt at the game.
"Why, it was someone else. It wasn't us "
"Get it straight. No more of your guff"
"Why you must be mistaken" he said with a sigh,
His mouth was moving, I thought it must be a lie!
"Responsibility here, you cannot hold.
It's Washington's fault we were told.
But if you may, if mus'
You'll have to go elsewhere to fuss".
So, I called my Senator; Called my Congressman,
"Where's my golden years? I had a plan!"
With serious expression and upper lips held stiff,
"We're sorry to tell you, but it's fallen off the cliff".
"Cliff?" I shouted. "Do you think me a fool?"
"I've had it with you. Enough your bull".
"It's all true our naive friend"
"It's the other guy's fault that we've reached the end".
"Who's to blame? I voted for you don't your see?"
"You were to take care of us. You were to take care of me!"
With a smile as charming as a snake, they motioned me closer,
My confidence they now wanted to take
"We promised you promises, and yes we lied,
We promised to take care of you until you died.
You never questioned what we did, and willingly believed every word that we said".
"Do not blame us for what we do. It is to our natures that we must be true.
Wolves in sheep's clothing. Are you surprised?
It was you after all, who pulled the wool over your own eyes".
And with that, down gilded Wallstreet they did stro',
Arm and arm, more friend than foe.
So after all, it's to us to blame
We let them write the rules and we play at their game.
Unless we say no more and get it right
There's will be no Merry Christmas. No more good night.
America awoke without a economic plan.
To the streets! To the Malls!
To find someone to blame and kick in 'em in the...
On Ford! On Chevy! On Beamer and Dodge!
To the bank, my complaint I must lodge!
Where's my savings, my retirement, and job?
I've worked hard. I've been robbed!
On to bank I did drove,
Down broken roads and overgrown groves.
Foreclosed homes up and down the block,
On Wallstreet , I wished a pox!
I demand to the see the manager
On him alone will I vent my anger!
I searched and searched all around,
Not a IRA in sight; not a dime to be found!
"I'm not to blame" he did exclaimed
Smiling wryly ; adapt at the game.
"Why, it was someone else. It wasn't us "
"Get it straight. No more of your guff"
"Why you must be mistaken" he said with a sigh,
His mouth was moving, I thought it must be a lie!
"Responsibility here, you cannot hold.
It's Washington's fault we were told.
But if you may, if mus'
You'll have to go elsewhere to fuss".
So, I called my Senator; Called my Congressman,
"Where's my golden years? I had a plan!"
With serious expression and upper lips held stiff,
"We're sorry to tell you, but it's fallen off the cliff".
"Cliff?" I shouted. "Do you think me a fool?"
"I've had it with you. Enough your bull".
"It's all true our naive friend"
"It's the other guy's fault that we've reached the end".
"Who's to blame? I voted for you don't your see?"
"You were to take care of us. You were to take care of me!"
With a smile as charming as a snake, they motioned me closer,
My confidence they now wanted to take
"We promised you promises, and yes we lied,
We promised to take care of you until you died.
You never questioned what we did, and willingly believed every word that we said".
"Do not blame us for what we do. It is to our natures that we must be true.
Wolves in sheep's clothing. Are you surprised?
It was you after all, who pulled the wool over your own eyes".
And with that, down gilded Wallstreet they did stro',
Arm and arm, more friend than foe.
So after all, it's to us to blame
We let them write the rules and we play at their game.
Unless we say no more and get it right
There's will be no Merry Christmas. No more good night.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Newspaper Endorsements---Back to the Poisoned Ink Well
In my last article, Newspaper Endorsements ---Poisoned Ink, there was a comment accusing me of the doing the same thing our local newspaper does, delete unflattering comments. The writer went to say that my comments on the public board were "garbled and confusing". Interesting that they took the time to read my blog article and post their comment there.
As I responded, I usually post comments, even (or especially) those I disagree with. I don't posted hateful or vulgar remarks, nor those which are obviously meant to harass. I don't know any blogger who does, and I'm pretty certain most newspapers or other media venues have the same restrictions. These are meant as public forums for civil discussion. So, just what was it that the newspaper finds so offensive and, apparently, my reader, found so "garbled and confusing"?
Apparently "someone" takes the time to remove my comments almost as soon as I post them. Of course, I simply repost them. So what is it that I'm writing that is so terrible? Simply this, ignore the editorial board's endorsements. Read the voter guide. Make your own decision, and go vote. Blasphemous isn't it? Why does my mystery commenter (actually, he's no mystery. I have a good idea of who he is) find this so "garbled and confusing"? Well, it's non-partisan. And I'm telling people to think for themselves instead of allowing a very partisan editorial board to tell them how to vote. Shocking isn't it? Can you imagine the fear this must engender? Someone telling voters to learn the facts about the candidates and issues and then show up at the polls and vote? It must keep them up at night.
Our local newspaper's editorial board is liberal...very liberal. It often accused by a large swath of locals on all sides as acting like the unofficial mouth piece for the Democratic Party. Conservatives really need not bother. Personally, I don't care. Every election cycle, the editorial board goes through the motions of interviewing candidates and making their pronouncements daily in the editorial section. In some cases, the conservative candidate isn't even invited to show up for the interview, or even questioned about their position on the issues. Even when they do, facts are dropped or misapplied, edited, and, well, you get the picture (it happened to me personally on two occasions when I ran and to several good friends).
The media often cites the 1st Amendment and some self appointed duty as the public's guardian (a leftover from the Gilded Age of William Randolph Hearst and "Yellow Journalism"). Ok, no problem. I believed the media, be it print or electronic, owes the people fair, balanced and honest reporting. As Dragnet's Sergeant Friday used to said, "Just the facts please". When it comes to editorials, I believe the editorial boards owe the people the facts. Tell us where each candidate stands on the issues. Don't tell us part of the story. Don't feed us journalistic pabulum. The average person is quite capable of understanding the truth. Don't give us edited versions either. That's why I'm such a big fan of voter guides. It give voters an opportunity to compare each candidate's position (in their own words) side by side. So, is that so terrible?
The system is broke beyond repair. No amount of band-aid tinkering is going to fix it. The only way we, as Americans, are going to save our country is to save ourselves. There isn't going to be some miraculous celestial intervention on December 21, 2012, nor is George Washington or Thomas Jefferson going to return from the dead and ride to our rescue. We're in this mess because we've allowed (yes, "allowed") our government to be sold out from under us. Democrat or Republican makes no difference. The transnational corporations own both parties, which are run by extremists on both sides. It really makes no difference to them who wins. They control the levers of power because they control the money, and money makes the rules. You and I merely get the illusion of choice. They're only concern is how to keep the People divided and at each other's throats and not focused on them. This can only change when we take the time to do our own research and show up to vote. It's the one weapon we have left. If we don't use it, I assure you, we will lose it.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Cure Your Democracy: A Contagiously Humorous Book
Book Review
Cure Your Democracy: The Infection, Spread and Treatment of Contagious Opinions by John Cooker, MRI.
Think of political discourse today as a modern disease; a social disease if you well. That's what author John Cooker has done. The diseases, which he has aptly diagnosed, are Democratitus and Democratosis, and both appear to be highly contagious. Both diseases seem to have profound effects on their hosts, such as doublespeak, confused thinking, hearing difficulty, and an inability to comprehend what the other person is saying. Symptoms seemly can range from mild amusement to mouth foaming hysteria according to Mr. Cooker's research.
While these "viruses" are near identical in their symptoms, there are some fundamental differences. For instance, Mr. Cooker cites that what drives Democratitus is the fear of government, while for Democratosis, it's the fear of the People. But what he also found, was that both viruses are equally repellent of the other, and both seem to strive to rid other hosts of the opposing malady and seems to re-infect the host with a replica of itself. And so the book goes.
Mr. Cooker has written an overtly irreverent book which takes a unique and humorous look at the current state of political discourse in America today. We all too often take ourselves to serious when it comes to politics and as a result, fail to appreciate the value of the other person's perspective. As a result, Americans are more deeply divided than at any time since the decade preceding the Civil War. This has led Mr. Cooker to take the rather novel approach of examining this behavior as if it was a contagious "virus" bent on the total subjugation of its host and elimination of its competing virus.
Cure You Democracy is a delightful humorous and timely commentary about today's political landscape. I encourage every political junkie to take a "chill pill" and set back for a healthy laugh. Be sure to check the author's webpage at www.CureYourDemocracy.com
Pages: 263
Sunday, August 26, 2012
A Dirty Little Secret
I'm going to let you all in a secret. It's a secret that many of us long suspected; maybe even whispered among our family or closest friends, but rarely out loud for fear of being label part of the lunatic fringe. Intuitively, we know America long ago ceased being a democratic Republic. Our Founding Fathers set out to create a nation based on the Roman Republican model, which, seen from the eyes of the Enlightenment, was the ideal form of government; a government whereby the citizens would elect representatives from among their fellow community leaders to go to Washington and represent their interests, and that of the nation. There was no intention that these representatives would belong to a political party (which the majority of Founding Fathers abhorred as divisive) nor for the creation of a professional ruling political class (which was hateful to them). In fact some, like Jefferson, thought the representatives shouldn't even be paid and considered it simply as part of every citizen's civic duty. This was to be essentially a middle class nation ruled by citizen legislators with power localized.
Fast forward to the early 21st Century and take a look around. What you see isn't something new. It's been here for decades, if not for most of the last two centuries. It's been out in the open, and it's been hiden away. We had crusader politicians come along to expose the secret, and we've had politicians come along to shuttle the secret back into the shadows. More often than not, most of the politicians were a little of both. So, what's the secret?
I couldn't quite put my finger on it until the Obama, a Democrat, brazenly bailed out failing banks when the American People overwhelming said "no". We've all been taught that we are responsible for our decisions, good or bad. It was how the country functioned economically. But, it was as if our voices didn't even matter. Following additional bailouts of automakers and Wallstreet, it apparently didn't. Congress and presidents Bush II and Obama have repeatedly ignore demands by the public to end illegal immigration and require make English our official language. Again, our voices fell on deaf ears. Once more, Americans asked "what the hell? Who is the employer and who is the employee here"? It didn't make sense that politicians would put their careers on the line by so arrogantly ignoring the voters unless there was something else in play.
Then it hit me. The US Supreme Court, in its "Citizens United" ruling, slammed not just the American voters, but our entire political process by declaring that these artificial entities, designed simply to create money for their owners --- corporations --- had not just the same "rights" as you and I, but those rights were even greater because of their wealth. Whereas you and I are limited by federal campaign election laws as to the amount of money we can contribute to a candidate, "Citizens United" said the corporations were free to donate what their boards of directors wanted. Thus, our First Amendment right, the freedom of speech was equaled to money, and because corporations had more of it, they obviously have a greater measure of that right than flesh and blood people.
With the federal government's bailing out of these same corporate entities, again using our money without our collective permission, the secret became openly apparent. America was now a Corporate Republic. We are no longer citizens of a country, but merely consumers in a global economy. Congressional districts have been minutely gerrymandered as to make it nearly impossible to defeat an incumbent and thus ensure the continuity of the corporate sponsorship. Elections have become so expensive, that unless you're either part of the moneyed elite or sufficiently connected, an average citizen stands little chance of getting elected. But to prevent those rare exceptions or "misguided" crusaders who do, their energy and reformist zeal are siphoned off into various committees and subcommittees. Refusal to participate is unheard of thanks to party whips and enforced conformity. Power to get one's legislation is carefully controlled by committee chairman. As former Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn famously once said, "to get along, you have to go along". Resistance to the political machine is indeed futile.
It was now no longer stage managed. The facade was dropped and the illusion of a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" was dropped once and for all. The role of the federal government was to provide legitimacy, taxpayer money, and the power (read: threat) of the federal government to enforce the needs of the corporations. Their silent errant boys and girls, aka lobbyists, would continue their behind the scenes roles of relaying instructions. Washington would redirect money you and I pay in taxes to serve the needs of corporations rather than our communities. To be sure, PR firms would have to step up their sleight of hand propaganda by redirecting the American People to focus on the supposed "goodness" these parasites were doing, if only we wouldn't look behind the curtain for if we do, the "benefits" they bring could suddenly vanish and reappear in a more appreciative and compliant community or cheap labor country thousands of miles away.
Those who dare peek behind the curtain and speak out are quickly consigned to the realm of "fringe" and every effort is made to condemn and belittle them as "crack pots", "extremists", and simply dismiss them. The most dangerous ones are intentionally ignored. A few a made examples of, such as the recent former US Marine who was arrested for his anti-government posts on Facebook. For the vast majority of the public, however, they are mesmerized with mindless pabulum of so called "reality TV", video games or some other mind numbing stimuli which stifles the will or need to think. Most are too tired and stressed to think anyway. Make it instant. Make it effortless. "News" for those still inquisitive, is filtered, shifted, and feed in baby spoonful sizes. Gerber's for Intellect. Just enough to feel "informed" but not enough to question the official line. Most are just trying to find or keep a job anyway. No one feels secure enough to rock the boat. Even unions tow the corporate line while the rank and file have forced to "donate" to candidates they don't even know through mandiatory deductions. Keep the masses docile and preoccupied, or as they said in Imperial Rome, "feed on bread and circuses".
Perhaps, to paraphrase an expression of my generation, it's time to tune back in and turn off the background noise. Perhaps we need to ask ourselves and each other just what it is we need (not want) government to do. Remember, government doesn't earn money. It produces nothing. It exist only by taking money (supposedly with our consent) and redirects to the cause or function we collectively agree to. Perhaps, given the global world we now live in, we need do this globally. It's time for working men and women to truly unite and refuse to be artificially divided by politicians. The other option is to follow the illusion of choice further down a road to the Corporate State and certain economic serfdom.
Fast forward to the early 21st Century and take a look around. What you see isn't something new. It's been here for decades, if not for most of the last two centuries. It's been out in the open, and it's been hiden away. We had crusader politicians come along to expose the secret, and we've had politicians come along to shuttle the secret back into the shadows. More often than not, most of the politicians were a little of both. So, what's the secret?
I couldn't quite put my finger on it until the Obama, a Democrat, brazenly bailed out failing banks when the American People overwhelming said "no". We've all been taught that we are responsible for our decisions, good or bad. It was how the country functioned economically. But, it was as if our voices didn't even matter. Following additional bailouts of automakers and Wallstreet, it apparently didn't. Congress and presidents Bush II and Obama have repeatedly ignore demands by the public to end illegal immigration and require make English our official language. Again, our voices fell on deaf ears. Once more, Americans asked "what the hell? Who is the employer and who is the employee here"? It didn't make sense that politicians would put their careers on the line by so arrogantly ignoring the voters unless there was something else in play.
Then it hit me. The US Supreme Court, in its "Citizens United" ruling, slammed not just the American voters, but our entire political process by declaring that these artificial entities, designed simply to create money for their owners --- corporations --- had not just the same "rights" as you and I, but those rights were even greater because of their wealth. Whereas you and I are limited by federal campaign election laws as to the amount of money we can contribute to a candidate, "Citizens United" said the corporations were free to donate what their boards of directors wanted. Thus, our First Amendment right, the freedom of speech was equaled to money, and because corporations had more of it, they obviously have a greater measure of that right than flesh and blood people.
With the federal government's bailing out of these same corporate entities, again using our money without our collective permission, the secret became openly apparent. America was now a Corporate Republic. We are no longer citizens of a country, but merely consumers in a global economy. Congressional districts have been minutely gerrymandered as to make it nearly impossible to defeat an incumbent and thus ensure the continuity of the corporate sponsorship. Elections have become so expensive, that unless you're either part of the moneyed elite or sufficiently connected, an average citizen stands little chance of getting elected. But to prevent those rare exceptions or "misguided" crusaders who do, their energy and reformist zeal are siphoned off into various committees and subcommittees. Refusal to participate is unheard of thanks to party whips and enforced conformity. Power to get one's legislation is carefully controlled by committee chairman. As former Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn famously once said, "to get along, you have to go along". Resistance to the political machine is indeed futile.
It was now no longer stage managed. The facade was dropped and the illusion of a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" was dropped once and for all. The role of the federal government was to provide legitimacy, taxpayer money, and the power (read: threat) of the federal government to enforce the needs of the corporations. Their silent errant boys and girls, aka lobbyists, would continue their behind the scenes roles of relaying instructions. Washington would redirect money you and I pay in taxes to serve the needs of corporations rather than our communities. To be sure, PR firms would have to step up their sleight of hand propaganda by redirecting the American People to focus on the supposed "goodness" these parasites were doing, if only we wouldn't look behind the curtain for if we do, the "benefits" they bring could suddenly vanish and reappear in a more appreciative and compliant community or cheap labor country thousands of miles away.
Those who dare peek behind the curtain and speak out are quickly consigned to the realm of "fringe" and every effort is made to condemn and belittle them as "crack pots", "extremists", and simply dismiss them. The most dangerous ones are intentionally ignored. A few a made examples of, such as the recent former US Marine who was arrested for his anti-government posts on Facebook. For the vast majority of the public, however, they are mesmerized with mindless pabulum of so called "reality TV", video games or some other mind numbing stimuli which stifles the will or need to think. Most are too tired and stressed to think anyway. Make it instant. Make it effortless. "News" for those still inquisitive, is filtered, shifted, and feed in baby spoonful sizes. Gerber's for Intellect. Just enough to feel "informed" but not enough to question the official line. Most are just trying to find or keep a job anyway. No one feels secure enough to rock the boat. Even unions tow the corporate line while the rank and file have forced to "donate" to candidates they don't even know through mandiatory deductions. Keep the masses docile and preoccupied, or as they said in Imperial Rome, "feed on bread and circuses".
Perhaps, to paraphrase an expression of my generation, it's time to tune back in and turn off the background noise. Perhaps we need to ask ourselves and each other just what it is we need (not want) government to do. Remember, government doesn't earn money. It produces nothing. It exist only by taking money (supposedly with our consent) and redirects to the cause or function we collectively agree to. Perhaps, given the global world we now live in, we need do this globally. It's time for working men and women to truly unite and refuse to be artificially divided by politicians. The other option is to follow the illusion of choice further down a road to the Corporate State and certain economic serfdom.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Evil in our Midst
It seems evil is always in our midst. It may come in the guise of a political leader; a teacher; a priest or other religious leader; a caregiver, someone's father, mother, or grandparent, or someone else that we would never expect. But one thing for sure, it always lurks where and when we least expect it. It seems to always rely on our basic sense of trust in our fellow human. This time, it came shortly after midnight in a small town in Colorado where a few people gather to enjoy a movie; a movie about a comic book character and his eventual triumph over evil---both personal and societal. Even in fantasy, we seem to have our demons. Evil came in the form of a man with name that I will not dignify by mentioning. It left in its wake terror, fear, and loss. It also left something else. Something evil never intends on leaving. Faith.
I know it's' hard to imagine, especially as close as we are in time to the moment of collective loss, but faith will eventually prevail. Evil survives by installing fear. It lives, spreads, and thrives on fear like a malignant cancer. Fear is a powerful tool, for out of fear comes hate which poisons everything it comes in contact with like a thick black ooze. With hate, comes anger, and with anger all things evil become possible. All things which bring decay of society and eventually decay of our very living souls until only a dark emptiness remains. A black void screaming back at us in a yawning terrifying silence.
We mourn for the loss our loved ones. We miss them; their face; their laughter; their touch; and even their smell. We miss everything that created the essence of them. But perhaps, we mourn the most for ourselves. Funeral are, after all, for the living, not the dead. We, the living, celebrate all that they were by remembering.
In time, the pain eases, but it never goes away. Not totally. Nor do we ever want it to. We will remember all that was good and best about them. Perhaps that's why it is said that time cures all. It is perhaps then, this remembrance of the good, that we begin to see the world in a new light. A light that begins to fill in the hollow void they left behind. We appreciate the fragility and temporariness of life more. We begin to appreciate those close to us more. We take inside of ourselves the little things of life. The sound of laughter is just a little sweeter. The grander of nature is a bit more grand. The feel of grass under our feet feels slightly cooler. The taste of our favorite food and beverage seems to taste just a little better than it did. And from this, our faith begins again.
What kind of faith? For some, it' rebirth of a religious faith. A belief in something greater than ourselves. A renewed sense in a higher purpose. That our loss wasn't simply empty, random or meaningless. For others, it may be a renewed faith in their fellow human. An expected gesture of kindness or compassion. A child's smile. And yet, for still even others, it's a new faith in one's self. What does not destroy us makes us stronger, and indeed such an experience has made us much stronger.
Evil has and will always remain in our midst. Perhaps it's the cruel joke of some incorporeal entity. Perhaps it's part of the nature of the human condition. And perhaps too it is part of the randomness of existence and our interlocking relationships with other beings on a living planet. But whatever our personal explanation, it's how we deal with it that matters the most, and that's where faith come in. Without it, we drift through our lives. With it, we control the tiller of life and give it meaning.
Monday, June 11, 2012
Politics and Age
America is at the crossroads. We've heard it time and again how this or that election is somehow the "most critical" . Such hyperbole is generally used to create an emotional response on behalf of the electorate in order to get them to the polls. But something is in fact changing in America. There has not been such a broad and deep divide between people, and the role of the government since the decade preceding the Civil War. However, this series has examined a number of key topics such as gay marriage, race, and religion and its affect on current and perhaps future party affiliation. Continuing with our series on future trend of politics in America, I'm going to look at the age and party affiliation in this article, but first, let's define some terms.
The "Greatest Generation" are those born after 1929. They are our seniors today. Theirs was the generation of the Great Depression , WWII and the Korean War. Many served in senior positions during the early years of the Vietnam War. "Baby Boomers" are those born between 1946 and 1964., a span of 18 years. The first wave (Peace or Woodstock) was born between 1946 and 1955. The second wave (Protest) was born between 1956 and 1964. "Generation X" (GenX) was born between 1965 and 1979. They were first generation "technies". "Generation Y" (GenY or Millennials) were born between 1980 and 2005.
According to a Gallup Poll from 2009, Democrats do well across all age groups. Their greatest strength seems to be among the second Boomer wave and among those 20 and younger. Republicans, on the other hand, seem to do well among those in their 30s and 40s and among seniors. Independents, interestingly, do well among the younger and middle age groups, but begin to decline in number by age 40. Seniors are slightly more likely to be Republican than Democrat, except among the senior most, those in their 70's and 80's, where the trend is reversed in favor of Democrats.
As for a possible explanation, the younger groups are concerned about the costs of higher education, finding a job, and getting established in life. Therefore, they are looking more to government assistance which has been a Democratic issue since FDR. Among Boomers (which includes yours truly), it's about government's role in society. Boomers, who grew up with the Vietnam War, Woodstock, the murders of MLK, RFK and Kent State, the Chicago Police Riots, and Watergate, are less trustful of government, especially the corporate/government connection. They tend to be fiscally conservative but socially liberal or moderate. They are most concerned with retirement, IRAs, Social Security, Medicare, and other government programs.
On the other hand, you have the GenXers who came of age during the Reagan Years (think Alex P Keaton of Family Ties or Wallstreet's Gordon Gecko), a gorowing economy, small but successful military operations, and the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Warsaw Pact, and, later, of Communism itself in Russia. They later experienced George Bush (41) and a moderate Democrat in the person of Bill Clinton. This was the "go-go" generation of overpaid MBAs on Wallstreet; Newt's Republican Revolution, dotcoms, and an unrealistic real estate boom. Greed was good, for some. Bush's Operation Desert Storm made the world safe for oil producer states like Kuwait. Moderates were driven from the Republican Party and the birth of the Independents was born.
GenYs came started to come of age during Clinton and witnessed George Bush (43) in all his bumbling glory. GenYs did get a sense of patriotism not felt since their grandparent's generation when, on 9/11, America was attacked by cowards and provoked into the invasion of Afghanistan, and later, the ill advised invasion of Iraq while the economy began to tank. This, in turn, resulted in GenYs coming out in droves to support the other party as wars and depressions always do. It is also this same generation which is most disillusioned by their choice of president. However, while they appear to have lost their attraction to Obama, they haven't lost their attraction to the Democratic Party. It has often been said that the current generation is a reflection of their grandparent's generation. In this instance, it appears to be a fair comparison. We witnessed the rise of the Tea Party, the Occupy Movements, the hacker group Anonymous, the faltering of corporate capitalism, the rise of Chinese and Indian economies, and the greatest fundamental division among the American People since just before the Civil War. Perhaps an harbinger of things to come.
If the numbers are any guide, the future for the Republican Party, if it continues on its present course, is one of irrelevance, and finally, political oblivion. Whites, the GOP core, are declining. GOP influence among women, a key voting bloc, continues to decline. In a June 12th Gallup Poll, 41% of women leaned Democrat regardless of age compared to 27% who leaned Republican, which reaffirmed an earlier May 6, 2009 poll. While for the Democrats, its current coalition is doomed to be rearranged into something less familiar. Blacks, long the core of the Democratic Party, are no longer its key minority base. They have been replaced by Hispanics, and perhaps soon by Asians. Hispanics, on the other hand, tend to be socially moderate to conservative, which may cause the Democrats to move closer to the center on at least social issues.
So, what does all this mean? Simply that across the board, in terms of age, the Democrats hold the strongest positions. Especially important are the aging Boomers and the raising GenYs which will box in the more Republican leaning GenXers. When compared to my last two articles (Politics and Race and Politics and Religion), the future isn't very bright for the Grand Old Party, at least as it now stands. Trends across the board favor the Democrats and Independents. If things continue as they are, I could foresee a future where moderately conservative or libertarian Indies have largely replaced the GOP while small conclaves of the Republican Party exist here and there while a center left Democrat Party becomes the defacto party of America.
Obama may lose. I'll be surprised of he doesn't. But his defeat will not signal a victory for Romney or the Republicans, but merely the majority's rejection of Obama's policies. Romney will represent a short breathing space for a return to a Democratic White House. Meanwhile, public apathy toward Congress will worsen to outright contempt, especially among the conservative and predominately white minority (currently Congress has an 84% disapproval rating). It's at that point that things may be interesting.
Suggested Reading:
Gen Dems: The Party's Advantage Among Young Voters Widens
Democrats Do best Among Generation Y and Baby Boomers
GOP face Political ID Deficit Among All Age Groups
Republcians Face Steep Uphill Climb Among Women
Two Corpmen I Knew (anotheropinionblog.com)
Politics of Race (anotheropinionblog.com)
Politics of Religion (anotheropinionblog.com)
The "Greatest Generation" are those born after 1929. They are our seniors today. Theirs was the generation of the Great Depression , WWII and the Korean War. Many served in senior positions during the early years of the Vietnam War. "Baby Boomers" are those born between 1946 and 1964., a span of 18 years. The first wave (Peace or Woodstock) was born between 1946 and 1955. The second wave (Protest) was born between 1956 and 1964. "Generation X" (GenX) was born between 1965 and 1979. They were first generation "technies". "Generation Y" (GenY or Millennials) were born between 1980 and 2005.
According to a Gallup Poll from 2009, Democrats do well across all age groups. Their greatest strength seems to be among the second Boomer wave and among those 20 and younger. Republicans, on the other hand, seem to do well among those in their 30s and 40s and among seniors. Independents, interestingly, do well among the younger and middle age groups, but begin to decline in number by age 40. Seniors are slightly more likely to be Republican than Democrat, except among the senior most, those in their 70's and 80's, where the trend is reversed in favor of Democrats.
As for a possible explanation, the younger groups are concerned about the costs of higher education, finding a job, and getting established in life. Therefore, they are looking more to government assistance which has been a Democratic issue since FDR. Among Boomers (which includes yours truly), it's about government's role in society. Boomers, who grew up with the Vietnam War, Woodstock, the murders of MLK, RFK and Kent State, the Chicago Police Riots, and Watergate, are less trustful of government, especially the corporate/government connection. They tend to be fiscally conservative but socially liberal or moderate. They are most concerned with retirement, IRAs, Social Security, Medicare, and other government programs.
On the other hand, you have the GenXers who came of age during the Reagan Years (think Alex P Keaton of Family Ties or Wallstreet's Gordon Gecko), a gorowing economy, small but successful military operations, and the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Warsaw Pact, and, later, of Communism itself in Russia. They later experienced George Bush (41) and a moderate Democrat in the person of Bill Clinton. This was the "go-go" generation of overpaid MBAs on Wallstreet; Newt's Republican Revolution, dotcoms, and an unrealistic real estate boom. Greed was good, for some. Bush's Operation Desert Storm made the world safe for oil producer states like Kuwait. Moderates were driven from the Republican Party and the birth of the Independents was born.
GenYs came started to come of age during Clinton and witnessed George Bush (43) in all his bumbling glory. GenYs did get a sense of patriotism not felt since their grandparent's generation when, on 9/11, America was attacked by cowards and provoked into the invasion of Afghanistan, and later, the ill advised invasion of Iraq while the economy began to tank. This, in turn, resulted in GenYs coming out in droves to support the other party as wars and depressions always do. It is also this same generation which is most disillusioned by their choice of president. However, while they appear to have lost their attraction to Obama, they haven't lost their attraction to the Democratic Party. It has often been said that the current generation is a reflection of their grandparent's generation. In this instance, it appears to be a fair comparison. We witnessed the rise of the Tea Party, the Occupy Movements, the hacker group Anonymous, the faltering of corporate capitalism, the rise of Chinese and Indian economies, and the greatest fundamental division among the American People since just before the Civil War. Perhaps an harbinger of things to come.
If the numbers are any guide, the future for the Republican Party, if it continues on its present course, is one of irrelevance, and finally, political oblivion. Whites, the GOP core, are declining. GOP influence among women, a key voting bloc, continues to decline. In a June 12th Gallup Poll, 41% of women leaned Democrat regardless of age compared to 27% who leaned Republican, which reaffirmed an earlier May 6, 2009 poll. While for the Democrats, its current coalition is doomed to be rearranged into something less familiar. Blacks, long the core of the Democratic Party, are no longer its key minority base. They have been replaced by Hispanics, and perhaps soon by Asians. Hispanics, on the other hand, tend to be socially moderate to conservative, which may cause the Democrats to move closer to the center on at least social issues.
So, what does all this mean? Simply that across the board, in terms of age, the Democrats hold the strongest positions. Especially important are the aging Boomers and the raising GenYs which will box in the more Republican leaning GenXers. When compared to my last two articles (Politics and Race and Politics and Religion), the future isn't very bright for the Grand Old Party, at least as it now stands. Trends across the board favor the Democrats and Independents. If things continue as they are, I could foresee a future where moderately conservative or libertarian Indies have largely replaced the GOP while small conclaves of the Republican Party exist here and there while a center left Democrat Party becomes the defacto party of America.
Obama may lose. I'll be surprised of he doesn't. But his defeat will not signal a victory for Romney or the Republicans, but merely the majority's rejection of Obama's policies. Romney will represent a short breathing space for a return to a Democratic White House. Meanwhile, public apathy toward Congress will worsen to outright contempt, especially among the conservative and predominately white minority (currently Congress has an 84% disapproval rating). It's at that point that things may be interesting.
Suggested Reading:
Gen Dems: The Party's Advantage Among Young Voters Widens
Democrats Do best Among Generation Y and Baby Boomers
GOP face Political ID Deficit Among All Age Groups
Republcians Face Steep Uphill Climb Among Women
Two Corpmen I Knew (anotheropinionblog.com)
Politics of Race (anotheropinionblog.com)
Politics of Religion (anotheropinionblog.com)
Saturday, April 14, 2012
The GOP Brand --- Is Anyone Buying?
I read an article recently by Juan Williams of Fox News in which he describes the GOP as a "troubled brand", which got me to thinking. Why is the Republican Party so out of touch with the American People? This election should be a slam dunk when you think about all of the stuff Obama has done (and not done). After all, we have still an economy in trouble; bail outs for Wall Street but none for Main Street; the "World Apology" Tour; million dollars vacations; Obama's efforts to "backdoor" laws against illegal immigration; and let's not forget costs reduction in US military preparedness. So, what gives?
Well, first off, the GOP's base was always mostly middle class white Americans, and they're aren't as many as there once was. Whites are no longer the dominate race in this country. It is, however, the largest minority. A close second are Hispanics. For this reason, Obama & Company have been doing everything in their power to circumvent existing immigration laws. Forget "humanitarian" reasons, this is about votes pure and simple. Being the second largest minority, the Left no longer needs white voters, especially if they can carry a plurality of the other minority groups. In fact, Obama's previous election was a clear example of that.
Blacks are now America's third largest minority, and as such, will have to complete with Hispanics for federal and state funded programs. Given the finite amount of tax money available, the group with the largest numbers will be the beneficiaries. In the past, that was black Americans, but that's all changed. Bringing up the rear are Asians, who are closing rapidly and will likely surpass blacks in the next 20 years or so years as the third largest population, if not nationally, then certainly regionally.
If we look briefly at religion, we'll find a continued decline among Protestants (especially Evangelical), which have been the mainstay of the GOP's conservative base. However, the vast majority of Hispanics are conservative Catholic (they also differ from American Catholics who seem to regard Church directives more as "suggestions" whereas Catholics of Latin America take the Churches directives as, well, gospel). Asians remains mostly Buddhist and Hindus. But the largest growing religion in America is none of these. It's Islam. We're seeing mosques going up everywhere, especially in America's heartland---the Midwest.
Now, is this the result of our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq? Could be. It seems that in each conflict America finds itself in, we seem to adopt something of the opposing culture. In recent memory, consider Southeast Asia. American servicemen and women often returned home with new interests (like for Asian food, philosophy, martial arts, and even yoga/Tai Chi following WWII and Korea). Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh became almost a folk hero on American campuses during the latter half of the Vietnam War. Even our music changed with the introduction of various instruments and musical ideas.
But, this is different. We adopted, on our own, much this. There was, of course, a small influx of Asians (especially South Vietnamese), but the changes were largely of our own making. In this case, we're seeing a large influx of Moslem populations, especially from poorer counties; many of whom refuse to adopt Western traditions (like "honor" killings or spousal abuse are bad), as well as dress, etc. Religion also changes mindsets and behavior. I have to wonder if it changes national loyalties too.
Of course, not only has America's racial, ethnic and religious makeup changed, but with so has our economic makeup. America's success has always the middle class. They are the 9 to 5 folks, or the ones pulling the night shift. Some worked in office buildings, but many more worked in factories whose jobs were "outsourced" overseas. It also includes the small business owners who employ more workers than anyone. Now, we have more people trying to get by with less because there are fewer good paying jobs; there are more people willing to work longer for little of nothing with fewer (if any) benefits. Unions, while still a good thing, have often shot themselves in the foot by over demanding. Soon-to-be retirees worry about underfunded pension funds, and whether or not there will be Social Security or Medicare. Most doubt they'll ever retire. Few can afford the "American Dream" of a home in a safe neighborhood with good schools.
College students are DOA in the work force thanks to their debt load, plus the debt thrown on them by the government to cover our national safety net, which increasingly includes illegal aliens who take, on average $5 from the system for every $1 they put in.
This is where, I believe, the Republican Party, and conservative groups are missing the boat. The GOP has gone too far to the Right. It has lost touch with the average American. Frankly, this can be said of both political parties, but it seems to have affected the Republicans the most. The Left has always been about entitlements and making everyone happy. The GOP used to be the party of opportunity. It was the Democrats who wanted to social engineer everyone's lives while the GOP wanted government out of our lives as much as possible, and that included our churches, temples, synagogues, and especially our bedrooms.
If the Conservative Right is to survive, it has to return to its past. It has to become again politically moderate, whose focus is on jobs, education, and creating a balanced economic playing field. Economic opportunity is the ultimate equalizer. It is the nemesis of terrorists--domestic and international..and social. The Right is going to have to accept that, in the end, it will not win on issues regarding gay rights including marriage. For the newer voters--the youth just now entering the social arena--being gay is a non-issue. It is not going to reverse Roe vs Wade; not because of the moral aspect, but because it's a matter of personal choice of the individual over the State's. The answer will have to be found at home; in teaching morality at the family's dinner table.
Religion too needs to reestablish its place. Conservative groups can not prevail by imposing their world view on others. They can only influence by living their faith. We are too diverse of a nation to demand a single faith's prayer in school (as if we ever could). America was founded not as a "Christian Nation", but as a nation of religious acceptance. It was the one place in the world where one was free to worship (or not) as one chooses. It's all a matter of balance.
Finally, the Republican Party, as well as the other conservative groups out there, are going to have to reach out to other minorities. No longer can they depend solely on White America. Not only are the numbers no longer there, it's simply not right. There are many conservative blacks, Asians, and Hispanics (though most are socially moderate or even liberal) who are waiting for an invitation. If the Grand Old Party is going to survive, it has no choice except to adopt these, and other changes. Otherwise, it will become the Grand Irreverent Party.
To read Juan Williams' article, The GOP's Trouble Brand.
Well, first off, the GOP's base was always mostly middle class white Americans, and they're aren't as many as there once was. Whites are no longer the dominate race in this country. It is, however, the largest minority. A close second are Hispanics. For this reason, Obama & Company have been doing everything in their power to circumvent existing immigration laws. Forget "humanitarian" reasons, this is about votes pure and simple. Being the second largest minority, the Left no longer needs white voters, especially if they can carry a plurality of the other minority groups. In fact, Obama's previous election was a clear example of that.
Blacks are now America's third largest minority, and as such, will have to complete with Hispanics for federal and state funded programs. Given the finite amount of tax money available, the group with the largest numbers will be the beneficiaries. In the past, that was black Americans, but that's all changed. Bringing up the rear are Asians, who are closing rapidly and will likely surpass blacks in the next 20 years or so years as the third largest population, if not nationally, then certainly regionally.
If we look briefly at religion, we'll find a continued decline among Protestants (especially Evangelical), which have been the mainstay of the GOP's conservative base. However, the vast majority of Hispanics are conservative Catholic (they also differ from American Catholics who seem to regard Church directives more as "suggestions" whereas Catholics of Latin America take the Churches directives as, well, gospel). Asians remains mostly Buddhist and Hindus. But the largest growing religion in America is none of these. It's Islam. We're seeing mosques going up everywhere, especially in America's heartland---the Midwest.
Now, is this the result of our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq? Could be. It seems that in each conflict America finds itself in, we seem to adopt something of the opposing culture. In recent memory, consider Southeast Asia. American servicemen and women often returned home with new interests (like for Asian food, philosophy, martial arts, and even yoga/Tai Chi following WWII and Korea). Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh became almost a folk hero on American campuses during the latter half of the Vietnam War. Even our music changed with the introduction of various instruments and musical ideas.
But, this is different. We adopted, on our own, much this. There was, of course, a small influx of Asians (especially South Vietnamese), but the changes were largely of our own making. In this case, we're seeing a large influx of Moslem populations, especially from poorer counties; many of whom refuse to adopt Western traditions (like "honor" killings or spousal abuse are bad), as well as dress, etc. Religion also changes mindsets and behavior. I have to wonder if it changes national loyalties too.
Of course, not only has America's racial, ethnic and religious makeup changed, but with so has our economic makeup. America's success has always the middle class. They are the 9 to 5 folks, or the ones pulling the night shift. Some worked in office buildings, but many more worked in factories whose jobs were "outsourced" overseas. It also includes the small business owners who employ more workers than anyone. Now, we have more people trying to get by with less because there are fewer good paying jobs; there are more people willing to work longer for little of nothing with fewer (if any) benefits. Unions, while still a good thing, have often shot themselves in the foot by over demanding. Soon-to-be retirees worry about underfunded pension funds, and whether or not there will be Social Security or Medicare. Most doubt they'll ever retire. Few can afford the "American Dream" of a home in a safe neighborhood with good schools.
College students are DOA in the work force thanks to their debt load, plus the debt thrown on them by the government to cover our national safety net, which increasingly includes illegal aliens who take, on average $5 from the system for every $1 they put in.
This is where, I believe, the Republican Party, and conservative groups are missing the boat. The GOP has gone too far to the Right. It has lost touch with the average American. Frankly, this can be said of both political parties, but it seems to have affected the Republicans the most. The Left has always been about entitlements and making everyone happy. The GOP used to be the party of opportunity. It was the Democrats who wanted to social engineer everyone's lives while the GOP wanted government out of our lives as much as possible, and that included our churches, temples, synagogues, and especially our bedrooms.
If the Conservative Right is to survive, it has to return to its past. It has to become again politically moderate, whose focus is on jobs, education, and creating a balanced economic playing field. Economic opportunity is the ultimate equalizer. It is the nemesis of terrorists--domestic and international..and social. The Right is going to have to accept that, in the end, it will not win on issues regarding gay rights including marriage. For the newer voters--the youth just now entering the social arena--being gay is a non-issue. It is not going to reverse Roe vs Wade; not because of the moral aspect, but because it's a matter of personal choice of the individual over the State's. The answer will have to be found at home; in teaching morality at the family's dinner table.
Religion too needs to reestablish its place. Conservative groups can not prevail by imposing their world view on others. They can only influence by living their faith. We are too diverse of a nation to demand a single faith's prayer in school (as if we ever could). America was founded not as a "Christian Nation", but as a nation of religious acceptance. It was the one place in the world where one was free to worship (or not) as one chooses. It's all a matter of balance.
Finally, the Republican Party, as well as the other conservative groups out there, are going to have to reach out to other minorities. No longer can they depend solely on White America. Not only are the numbers no longer there, it's simply not right. There are many conservative blacks, Asians, and Hispanics (though most are socially moderate or even liberal) who are waiting for an invitation. If the Grand Old Party is going to survive, it has no choice except to adopt these, and other changes. Otherwise, it will become the Grand Irreverent Party.
To read Juan Williams' article, The GOP's Trouble Brand.
Sunday, April 01, 2012
Children of Illegal Immigration
What is America to do with the children of the 12 million or so illegal immigrants? Do we deport them? Do we support them but not their parents? Or do we support the whole family (which often includes extended families)? We've all heard the hue and cry from the liberal media about some little child being separated from one or both of the parents (or, in some cases, their aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, etc.) and the "inhumanity" of it. Some have referred to it as a form of child abuse, and perhaps it is. But on who's shoulders should that nefarious title rest?
The "unpolitically correct" answer is simply this. It's their parents who are criminals. Yes, I know that's considered a "harsh" term to some, but the fact of the matter is that they are here in violation of our national laws; in violation of our national soverenity. Not that we wouldn't normally welcome them. America is, after all, a nation of immigrants. We simply ask that everyone take their turn and follow the legal steps. Is that asking too much? And if someone can't do that, what can we expect of their attitudes will be toward the rest of our laws? Of adopting our culture and language? Heck, by coming here illegally, many are in violation of their own nation's laws!
I understand their desires. I really do. Most of these people in abject poverty and quite often in fear of not only the drug cartels, but of their equally brutal and corrupt governments. They live in an economic world where not only have their governments failed them, but their entire economic and social system has failed them. There are barriers in place and ruthlessly enforce to keep them in their supposed places. Much of it is imposed by their governments (many of whom are military backed dictatorships sponsored by the US Government), and by the Catholic Church, whose aim is to preserve the status quo.
Any amateur historian knows that development of a large middle class in Latin American was curtailed since it would impact on the rich, which gave generously to the Church while an illiterate and politically powerless population made for dependant and pliable followers and workers. After all, power is the name of the game, whether economic and spiritual. Liberation theology, which mashed the socialistic teachings of Jesus and the Gospels with the cause of the poor and was immensely popular in the 1970's and 80's, has largely been suppressed by the Catholic Church. Its avocation carries with it the guarantee of excommunication which is the Church's version of the death penalty. Sure, there has been a few willing to challenge the status quo (Zapata, Villa, and Che come immediately to mind, but their efforts were eventually subverted and often didn't have happy endings. Che vive en nosotros todos mis amigos), but questioning authority has usually been a quick way to purgatory or the morgue.
Corporations, the real power in American politics, have seen to it that lip service is the only thing offered the American People. Why? The logic is simple if you bear but one thing on mind: money. Money equates with power. The more you have of one the more you gain of the other. To make more money, it's necessary to hire people willing to work for little of nothing, and what's better than workers who can't complain; can't strike over money, benefits, or work conditions? Who are they going to complain to? More workers like this, the fewer "legitimate" employees they need. The results, is more individuals willing to work for less; to tolerate more. To survive, these same individuals have to incur more debt. They means they live on a borrowed existence. It doesn't stop there of course, the same strategy applies across the economic spectrum. The result is a decreased middle class and its transformation into a defacto working poor class.
Of course, religion has much to gain too. America has been a beacon of independent thinking, hard working Protestants. American Catholics too are a different breed. They tend to think that dictums issued by the Church are more like suggestions. Their pew companions from south of the border have been conditioned to think that a word from the Church, be it the Pope or village Priest, is like a commandment from God himself. A large influx of these parishioners would greatly increase the Church's political (and thus economic) influence in a heretical land. Thus, we've seen the Church ignore various laws to help "accommodate" in entry and support of illegal aliens into this country (of course, there are others but none with the same resources).
The costs to support illegals in this country are born by the taxpayers, creating a resentment among the classes. The costs, in the multimillions of dollars, are at a near breaking pointing of what our social safety net can bear. Still, an effective strategy to divert attention from the corporate overlords. At worse, it's the politicians, serving as the buffer on behalf of their paymasters, which takes the brunt of the public's outrage. But any successful blow is soften by the revolving door between government and the corporate world. What they fear the most, however, is the public's attention to the (pardon me Dorothy), "CEO behind the curtain". In this, the OWS and Tea Party movement almost had it right. Both saw a government out of control; totally unresponsive to anyone except Wall Street. Their leaders ultimately co-opted or marginalized. However, the energies of both groups were deflected, and easily so, thanks in large part to the media of both ideologies. For theirs is the power to create and influence public perception, and with that, public opinion. "Thank goodness for sheeple with attention deficient!" could be on countless plaques in boardrooms across America.
The children of the illegal immigrants in this country are but one, perhaps the most vulnerable, casualties. No one wants to see children suffer. It's not their fault in any sense of the word. They are true victims here. They are the victims of their own countries, which has failed them; of a Church for supporting a repressive status quo; of a crime of necessity committed by their parents; of government sanctioned corporate greed which funnels them into an economic serfdom, and by an economic and social system which failing all of us.
The "unpolitically correct" answer is simply this. It's their parents who are criminals. Yes, I know that's considered a "harsh" term to some, but the fact of the matter is that they are here in violation of our national laws; in violation of our national soverenity. Not that we wouldn't normally welcome them. America is, after all, a nation of immigrants. We simply ask that everyone take their turn and follow the legal steps. Is that asking too much? And if someone can't do that, what can we expect of their attitudes will be toward the rest of our laws? Of adopting our culture and language? Heck, by coming here illegally, many are in violation of their own nation's laws!
I understand their desires. I really do. Most of these people in abject poverty and quite often in fear of not only the drug cartels, but of their equally brutal and corrupt governments. They live in an economic world where not only have their governments failed them, but their entire economic and social system has failed them. There are barriers in place and ruthlessly enforce to keep them in their supposed places. Much of it is imposed by their governments (many of whom are military backed dictatorships sponsored by the US Government), and by the Catholic Church, whose aim is to preserve the status quo.
Any amateur historian knows that development of a large middle class in Latin American was curtailed since it would impact on the rich, which gave generously to the Church while an illiterate and politically powerless population made for dependant and pliable followers and workers. After all, power is the name of the game, whether economic and spiritual. Liberation theology, which mashed the socialistic teachings of Jesus and the Gospels with the cause of the poor and was immensely popular in the 1970's and 80's, has largely been suppressed by the Catholic Church. Its avocation carries with it the guarantee of excommunication which is the Church's version of the death penalty. Sure, there has been a few willing to challenge the status quo (Zapata, Villa, and Che come immediately to mind, but their efforts were eventually subverted and often didn't have happy endings. Che vive en nosotros todos mis amigos), but questioning authority has usually been a quick way to purgatory or the morgue.
Corporations, the real power in American politics, have seen to it that lip service is the only thing offered the American People. Why? The logic is simple if you bear but one thing on mind: money. Money equates with power. The more you have of one the more you gain of the other. To make more money, it's necessary to hire people willing to work for little of nothing, and what's better than workers who can't complain; can't strike over money, benefits, or work conditions? Who are they going to complain to? More workers like this, the fewer "legitimate" employees they need. The results, is more individuals willing to work for less; to tolerate more. To survive, these same individuals have to incur more debt. They means they live on a borrowed existence. It doesn't stop there of course, the same strategy applies across the economic spectrum. The result is a decreased middle class and its transformation into a defacto working poor class.
Of course, religion has much to gain too. America has been a beacon of independent thinking, hard working Protestants. American Catholics too are a different breed. They tend to think that dictums issued by the Church are more like suggestions. Their pew companions from south of the border have been conditioned to think that a word from the Church, be it the Pope or village Priest, is like a commandment from God himself. A large influx of these parishioners would greatly increase the Church's political (and thus economic) influence in a heretical land. Thus, we've seen the Church ignore various laws to help "accommodate" in entry and support of illegal aliens into this country (of course, there are others but none with the same resources).
The costs to support illegals in this country are born by the taxpayers, creating a resentment among the classes. The costs, in the multimillions of dollars, are at a near breaking pointing of what our social safety net can bear. Still, an effective strategy to divert attention from the corporate overlords. At worse, it's the politicians, serving as the buffer on behalf of their paymasters, which takes the brunt of the public's outrage. But any successful blow is soften by the revolving door between government and the corporate world. What they fear the most, however, is the public's attention to the (pardon me Dorothy), "CEO behind the curtain". In this, the OWS and Tea Party movement almost had it right. Both saw a government out of control; totally unresponsive to anyone except Wall Street. Their leaders ultimately co-opted or marginalized. However, the energies of both groups were deflected, and easily so, thanks in large part to the media of both ideologies. For theirs is the power to create and influence public perception, and with that, public opinion. "Thank goodness for sheeple with attention deficient!" could be on countless plaques in boardrooms across America.
The children of the illegal immigrants in this country are but one, perhaps the most vulnerable, casualties. No one wants to see children suffer. It's not their fault in any sense of the word. They are true victims here. They are the victims of their own countries, which has failed them; of a Church for supporting a repressive status quo; of a crime of necessity committed by their parents; of government sanctioned corporate greed which funnels them into an economic serfdom, and by an economic and social system which failing all of us.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Rebels In Search of A Cause
Not surprisingly, over one third of the Americans support the Occupy movement according to a Huffington Post poll, and why not? Americans are sick and tired of being sick and tired of a broken politicial and economic system which appears to be dominated greedy corporate bosses; the nasty one percenters. Of those surveyed, the majority were Democrats (64%), followed by Indies (22%) and Republicans (14%). But, before they start burning the likes of Murdock and Trump in effigy or reciting Sergi Nechayev's "Revolutionary Catechism ", I think the Occupy movement might want to take a step back and reevaluate for a moment.
There's no doubt that greed and corruption runs amuck on Wall Street, the banking industry and plenty of other industries. But, greed ain't doing too shabby on Main Street either. No one forced the tens of thousands of homeowners to jump into mortgages they knew they couldn't afford (granted, some were mislead by some crooked mortgage lenders), but that doesn't waive our own responsibility for knowing our personal financial situation. No one made thousand upon thousands to run up debt on credit cards they knew they couldn't afford., or for that matter, buy the latest gadgets, vacations or whatever. To be sure, I'm not letting the Lehman Brothers' or Goldman Sachs' of the world off the hook, or even Obama for bailing out the rich crooks while leaving Main Street largely high and dry.
What I am suggesting, however, is that we are responsible for keeping our own financial houses in order. No one is going to do that for us (not should they), although I'm sure some government bureaucrat somewhere is hard at work trying to figure out how government can. What I am hearing out of the Occupy movement right now is that someone else is somehow responsible for their troubles when, in fact, there is plenty of blame to go around. If we truly want to fight back against the one percent, our best weapon is using financial commonsense such as buying within our financial means. Don't incur debt unless you're able to pay it off within 90 days...tops. Second, we need to buy American every chance we get. Odds are that it's not going to be that much more than something made overseas, and the job you're helping to keep in America might just be yours. Buy local. If you can't, buy regional. If that doesn't work, buy national, and as an absolute last resort, buy globally.
With that said, the Occupy movement needs to focus. It has no leadership and no sense of direction. This is what ultimately imploded the "old" Left of the 60's and 70's. Historically, the lack of direction has lead to the failure of many a Leftist movement whereas the Right, though usually smaller in number, has tended to be better organized and focused, and, thus more successful. They need to redirect their attention back on Washington. They are the ones who make the rules that allow the one percenters to do what they doing. How about an election cycle where no one votes for incumbents just to shake things up? How about demanding that every candidate you support guarantee...in writing...to term limits. If they renege, take them to court, start a recall campaign, or protest at the offices, in their neighborhood, and in front of their home. The Occupy movement also need to take into consideration what is "greed" and what creates growth (ie: jobs). Not everyone who is wealthy is a "fascist tool" as I recently heard someone call a company CEO.
There is no doubt that our political system is broken, as is our economic system. Perhaps they're broken beyond repair. But before we tear it asunder, we need to have something to put into its place. Like them or hate them, the Tea Party came together with clear vision of what they wanted and to accomplish their goals. As a result, the Tea Party has achieved many of their objectives and is still evolving and growing. Perhaps it's time to address an entirely new tax code or increasing government restrictions based on company size (small companies = few restrictions. Large multinational companies = heavy restrictions). Maybe require all meetings with corporate lobbyists to be made public; no corporate money in public campaigns; mandatory waiting period of 5 years before an ex-government official can become a lobbyist. Unless the Occupy movement can decide what it wants to be when it grows up, they'll burn brightly before fading into yesterday's news.
If you would like to read the results of poll mentioned above, here's the link to the Huffington Post article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/23/occupy-wall-street-poll_n_1027109.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk1%7C106703
While you're at it, I recommend you read this article on the Occupy movement from the National Post as well:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/reaping+what+they+sowed/5564849/story.html
There's no doubt that greed and corruption runs amuck on Wall Street, the banking industry and plenty of other industries. But, greed ain't doing too shabby on Main Street either. No one forced the tens of thousands of homeowners to jump into mortgages they knew they couldn't afford (granted, some were mislead by some crooked mortgage lenders), but that doesn't waive our own responsibility for knowing our personal financial situation. No one made thousand upon thousands to run up debt on credit cards they knew they couldn't afford., or for that matter, buy the latest gadgets, vacations or whatever. To be sure, I'm not letting the Lehman Brothers' or Goldman Sachs' of the world off the hook, or even Obama for bailing out the rich crooks while leaving Main Street largely high and dry.
What I am suggesting, however, is that we are responsible for keeping our own financial houses in order. No one is going to do that for us (not should they), although I'm sure some government bureaucrat somewhere is hard at work trying to figure out how government can. What I am hearing out of the Occupy movement right now is that someone else is somehow responsible for their troubles when, in fact, there is plenty of blame to go around. If we truly want to fight back against the one percent, our best weapon is using financial commonsense such as buying within our financial means. Don't incur debt unless you're able to pay it off within 90 days...tops. Second, we need to buy American every chance we get. Odds are that it's not going to be that much more than something made overseas, and the job you're helping to keep in America might just be yours. Buy local. If you can't, buy regional. If that doesn't work, buy national, and as an absolute last resort, buy globally.
With that said, the Occupy movement needs to focus. It has no leadership and no sense of direction. This is what ultimately imploded the "old" Left of the 60's and 70's. Historically, the lack of direction has lead to the failure of many a Leftist movement whereas the Right, though usually smaller in number, has tended to be better organized and focused, and, thus more successful. They need to redirect their attention back on Washington. They are the ones who make the rules that allow the one percenters to do what they doing. How about an election cycle where no one votes for incumbents just to shake things up? How about demanding that every candidate you support guarantee...in writing...to term limits. If they renege, take them to court, start a recall campaign, or protest at the offices, in their neighborhood, and in front of their home. The Occupy movement also need to take into consideration what is "greed" and what creates growth (ie: jobs). Not everyone who is wealthy is a "fascist tool" as I recently heard someone call a company CEO.
There is no doubt that our political system is broken, as is our economic system. Perhaps they're broken beyond repair. But before we tear it asunder, we need to have something to put into its place. Like them or hate them, the Tea Party came together with clear vision of what they wanted and to accomplish their goals. As a result, the Tea Party has achieved many of their objectives and is still evolving and growing. Perhaps it's time to address an entirely new tax code or increasing government restrictions based on company size (small companies = few restrictions. Large multinational companies = heavy restrictions). Maybe require all meetings with corporate lobbyists to be made public; no corporate money in public campaigns; mandatory waiting period of 5 years before an ex-government official can become a lobbyist. Unless the Occupy movement can decide what it wants to be when it grows up, they'll burn brightly before fading into yesterday's news.
If you would like to read the results of poll mentioned above, here's the link to the Huffington Post article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/23/occupy-wall-street-poll_n_1027109.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk1%7C106703
While you're at it, I recommend you read this article on the Occupy movement from the National Post as well:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/reaping+what+they+sowed/5564849/story.html
Sunday, October 02, 2011
The Gale Winds of Change
The gale winds of political change have begun to blow. These winds come every so often. They are born of idealism and anger and when they pass, the political landscape is altered; sometimes beyond recognition. The first of these winds was the Tea Party. Comprised mainly of older, well educated, and mostly conservative remnants of the middle class, they burst on to the scene to protest the government excess, corruption, and the revolving door of the corporate/government complex. They opposed the bailouts of Wall Street and the bank industry and the abandonment of the Middle America. Their mass movement was at first ignored by main street media. After it became apparent that the winds of change were going to be sustained, corporate media jump into action to ridicule the Tea Party as "fringe", "radical", “extremist” and full of the "crazies". The majority of Americans ignored the commercially sponsored organized propaganda from the talking heads of corporate media and pursued their own investigation and discovered a different truth.
Now, another, perhaps most telling wind has begun to blow. This wind calls itself "Occupy Wall Street", and like the Tea Party, it has spun off hundreds like itself. This wind condemns much of what the earlier tempest did---corporate greed, government ineptitude and corruption, destruction of the environment, unfair taxation, and outsourcing of jobs. But the key difference is that this storm brings with it the energy of youth. The Tea Party never contained much of the youth. The "Occupy Movement", if one is to call it that draws its strength from the younger crowd, as well as the unemployed and underemployed blue collar; the working poor; the lower middle class; as well as many others.
Thus far, the corporate media has largely ignored or under reported what's happening in places like San Francisco, Chicago, and, of course, New York City. These protests against governmental, if not societal failure are spreading like wildfire. There are literally hundreds of similar groups springing up across the nation. At its heart, are the failure of both political parties and the capitalist model of economic pillage and imposed serfdom. The "99%" of Americans, who received no government bailout; who received no loans; who received no relief from toxic mortgages and foreclosures. But corporate America did, and the American taxpayers paid for it while Washington listened to their K Street paymasters. We've seen no curbing of illegal immigration. There's been no fence built, yet we've told the federal government to build one dozens if not hundreds of times. We still have to request to hear our own language.
We are seeing the first effects of global climate change. Does it really matter if it’s man made or part of natural cycle? What no one can dispute is that something is happening. The results are the same. We must take steps to alter our societal behavior, if only to slow global warming down. Corporations have done much to stall or derail any serious efforts to create cleaner energy sources like solar or wind. On the other hand, they've given us "feel good" media about all they've done out of a sense of corporate citizenship, so why blame them? Gotta love public relations and clever folks in marketing.
So where does that leave us? We have two distinct groups basically seeking the same goals. One is the Tea Party, who tend to be older, better educated, and slightly more affluent. The other is the Occupy groups, who seem to include more college age students and blue collar individual. Together, they represent what’s left of the middle class, blue collar workers, and lower income individuals. Their object of their combined frustrations is Washington, including both political parties, and the corporate elite who run Washington. Yes, there are differences besides their demographics. The Tea Party is more conservative, though not as extremist as the media portrays. For instance, they would like to see a small federal government. The other appears to be more liberal leaning. They would like to see a more responsible though not necessarily smaller government. But there is common ground and common cause between them. I urge both groups to explore ways to combine, if not coordinate their efforts. I urge you dear reader to plug in to which ever group you feel most comfortable with and work for the change we need to save this country for our children and their children. The time is now.
Check these Out:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/30/occupy-wall-street-protests-new-york_n_989221.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl3%7Csec3_lnk1%7C100783
http://www.thedailyactivist.com/
http://www.occupytogether.org/
http://www.teaparty.org/about.php
Now, another, perhaps most telling wind has begun to blow. This wind calls itself "Occupy Wall Street", and like the Tea Party, it has spun off hundreds like itself. This wind condemns much of what the earlier tempest did---corporate greed, government ineptitude and corruption, destruction of the environment, unfair taxation, and outsourcing of jobs. But the key difference is that this storm brings with it the energy of youth. The Tea Party never contained much of the youth. The "Occupy Movement", if one is to call it that draws its strength from the younger crowd, as well as the unemployed and underemployed blue collar; the working poor; the lower middle class; as well as many others.
Thus far, the corporate media has largely ignored or under reported what's happening in places like San Francisco, Chicago, and, of course, New York City. These protests against governmental, if not societal failure are spreading like wildfire. There are literally hundreds of similar groups springing up across the nation. At its heart, are the failure of both political parties and the capitalist model of economic pillage and imposed serfdom. The "99%" of Americans, who received no government bailout; who received no loans; who received no relief from toxic mortgages and foreclosures. But corporate America did, and the American taxpayers paid for it while Washington listened to their K Street paymasters. We've seen no curbing of illegal immigration. There's been no fence built, yet we've told the federal government to build one dozens if not hundreds of times. We still have to request to hear our own language.
We are seeing the first effects of global climate change. Does it really matter if it’s man made or part of natural cycle? What no one can dispute is that something is happening. The results are the same. We must take steps to alter our societal behavior, if only to slow global warming down. Corporations have done much to stall or derail any serious efforts to create cleaner energy sources like solar or wind. On the other hand, they've given us "feel good" media about all they've done out of a sense of corporate citizenship, so why blame them? Gotta love public relations and clever folks in marketing.
So where does that leave us? We have two distinct groups basically seeking the same goals. One is the Tea Party, who tend to be older, better educated, and slightly more affluent. The other is the Occupy groups, who seem to include more college age students and blue collar individual. Together, they represent what’s left of the middle class, blue collar workers, and lower income individuals. Their object of their combined frustrations is Washington, including both political parties, and the corporate elite who run Washington. Yes, there are differences besides their demographics. The Tea Party is more conservative, though not as extremist as the media portrays. For instance, they would like to see a small federal government. The other appears to be more liberal leaning. They would like to see a more responsible though not necessarily smaller government. But there is common ground and common cause between them. I urge both groups to explore ways to combine, if not coordinate their efforts. I urge you dear reader to plug in to which ever group you feel most comfortable with and work for the change we need to save this country for our children and their children. The time is now.
Check these Out:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/30/occupy-wall-street-protests-new-york_n_989221.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl3%7Csec3_lnk1%7C100783
http://www.thedailyactivist.com/
http://www.occupytogether.org/
http://www.teaparty.org/about.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)