The Forgotten Class

An interesting interview just given by Bill Moyers on PBS discusses what both presidential candidates fail to recognize: the lower class. McCain hasn't even acknowledged any classes in his campaign, and Obama is sternly focused on the middle class. But what about the lower class, the poor, those who are struggling to provide adequate food, housing, and a decent standard of living for themselves, because gas prices are so high, food prices are rising, credit is untouchable, and housing and rent costs are through the roof? It is blatantly obvious that no political member in the United States knows how, or should it be said wants to recognize a huge amount of people who have no influence on America's rudderless leadership, other than the fact that they are just ever-present.

How does such a lower level economic mass begin to effectively be a player in the political realm of government? In the past, revolutions seemed to have been the only means for poorer classes to force recognition upon their leaders, or in fact turn over the ruling institution, and grab hold with their own structures of economy and rule. The one thing the United States is missing since its inception is a revolution of sorts, one in which has completely turned the governing structure on its heels, and replacing it with what is necessary to make the populace feel secure in the way they can effectively, and efficiently get through life under a governance.

The United States, is in a sense revolution-proof. A large part of the lower class in America is partially informed, but not what most would call educated about how they're governed. Entertainment has replaced informative news at this level, because it is not only simpler to digest, but also quicker, and much more pleasing to absorb. How many people, lower class or not, actually spend the time to watch a Congressional hearing on C-Span, or actually read longer articles in a newspaper about current affairs (other than sports and entertainment related articles), or the economy? For one, they are complicated to understand, and often time overwhelm the reader with verbiage that is written by intellectually elite journalists, who are reluctant to inform at the level of a high school graduate. Granted there are some really great Internet resources available that scale this information down, but they still don't get the message across, because it's simply not interesting. Look at shows like John Stewart and the Colbert report, that do in fact give the average intellect an informed perspective of politics, government, or economy, but yet because it is satire, it leaves out all the questions, or the arguments of political perspective. So, for the most part, information in this country, and the ability to make an informed decision about your quality of life is basically removed via pulp entertainment.

Even the news in some cases is pulp entertainment. All major networks pretty much cover the same issues with slightly varying points of view. So the headlines are packaged into quick and easy relatable stories, without substance. Take for instance, the economic bail out of $700 billion being granted to financial corporations. Yes, it gets the people worked up, but because there is no points or counterpoints provided by the news networks, people won't despise or protest what they are hearing about, because they don't fully understand the reasoning behind it. They simply cannot understand, once they revolted, the arguments for changing it. In the same interview, as mentioned above, Moyers asks, Michael Zweig, that you can have a journalist relate this news to people, and have a professional economist advocate for them, why is there no unions, or other representative institution in place to provide a movement for these people to gather muscle to get the government to listen to them, and Zweig's response is, that they do in fact exist, but the problem is they are, if not weak, simply not active, and if after the presidential election they don't come to muscling up, there is a need for organization to "come from below". He even has tried to go to these organizations and have them gather their members, in an effort to educate them on how to get a better footing in the current economic struggle. Informing the masses simply isn't happening in the news, and these folks are not getting the information they need from anywhere else.

What You Want to Hear Comapred to What You Should Know

Last night's presidential debate, though in most of media's opinion was pretty bad as far as structure, but the content is a great reflection of how much the balance of truth in the U.S. is so lopsided, that it doesn't seem that American's know what to ask themselves what they expect of a leader. Instead, Americans have always lumped all the failures of the government on the shoulders of presidential candidates, in hopes that they can solve all their problems.

That's a huge responsibility to expect of two people, and is not even close to being reasonable. On the Republican stance for smaller government, if we look at the government's disposition under a Republican leadership, the government is huge. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the government's employee count comes in at 1.8 million employees, and that doesn't include the postal service (Federal Government, Excluding the Postal Service). With 488 congressmen, and 15 cabinet member within the Bush administration, there is apparently a large amount of government presence. The point here is presidents are not the sole solution to the country's problems. They only manage, and if they manage instead of controlling the government, then they can indeed solve all the nation's problems.

Something that really stood out last night, was McCain pointing out that Obama was wrong about the surge in Iraq. Well, he wasn't wrong. Yesterday afternoon, General Petraeus talked about the future of U.S. Central Command, addressing the Association of the U.S. Army, and he mentioned the surge, and stated that the surge was in fact not the reason for success in Iraq. So would you believe a presidential candidate or the general who is running the war? Obama wasn't wrong. To add to this, Obama wants to deal with fighting al Qaeda in Pakistan, because that's where they are. They are not in Iraq, and Afghanistan is not the frontier of this war. Currently the U.S. military is carrying out military attacks within Pakistan's border, and this is all while George W. Bush is in office calling the shots. Which leads into the next point.

McCain also accused Obama of not understanding national security issues, and that if Obama was president, there would be no time for "on-the-job training". First off, neither candidate has any experience with contending with foreign threats, outside of making ineffective votes in the Senate. Both candidates supported a war in Iraq that was a pseudo-declaration based not on intelligence and fact, but based on suspicions. Because, when the Bush administration went to the United Nations for the case to go to war in Iraq, Bush expressed a need to go to war based on the suspicion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, not a fact. No one in the intelligence sector felt that was an adequate truth, and it “was [now] a guiding principle of the U.S. government that suspicion was an adequate threshold for preventative action." (Suskind, Ron (2006). The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America’s Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11. (pp. 170-171) New York. Simon & Schuster.) No one needs training to be a fear mongering, and suspicious character, or a leader that cannot responsibly deal with foreign policies.

As far as the economy is concerned, which is a very heavy issue right now with Americans, both candidates were a bit weak, and there was no real backbone behind their statements in dealing with economic issues. But Obama constantly gets slammed for wanting to raise taxes. but, there was a statement made by a CNN correspondent, who said that McCain has an axe chop when it comes to dealing with the economy, where as Obama uses a surgical knife to cut away taxes, and dealing with budgets. Currently we don't need a president who uses volatile policies on a volatile economy. Obama wants to increase taxes for those who bring in more than $250,000 a year. There are billions of people in America who don't even bring home over $100,000 a year. It seems that Obama is more aware of the economic make up of the U.S., and McCain is so far out of touch.

Consider these points! Also remember these are issues that the candidates support, but will not directly have control over. It must be realized that they will only steer the policies into the direction that the people see fit. The president only has as much power as the people sacrifice to him.

Get out and vote, and don't leave the control of your future in the hands of leaders who won't listen.

Just Shut Up, and Vote

You know, when I people tell me, "Why should I vote? It won't matter.", I consistently tell people they should, because if you don't it really wouldn't matter. Especially when we are having so many critical things to consider, like whether we should continue being at war, what we should do about our corrupt and dysfunctional economy, and placing people in leadership who will fix the broken system we call democracy.

Whether your candidate wins or not, it is not just about who the next president is going to be, but a number of leaders lower on the rung, like your state senator, representative, circuit court judges, mayors, supervisors, councilmen, or propositions on bills that will closely effect your life. If you don't believe me, go to http://www.smartvoter.org/, and search by your zip code. I would be more than willing to bet that you would find a large amount of things to vote on, and you would end up spending well over an hour in a voting booth deciding over what to vote on, because there is so much to vote on. So there is no excuse not to vote. By saying that your vote doesn't matter is just as ignorant as saying that there's no sound coming out of your mouth when you're speaking.

In all reality, I would think that a person may be semi-correct in saying that when voting for president, let's say, the vote may not directly matter, even though it does, because of the complicated structure of our nation's government. There is a lot that goes on when a president makes a decision, but due to our system of checks and balances, technically your choice for president doesn't effectively mean that all your needs matter. But when you consider things like propositions and state offered bills that you can vote on every November (not just every 4 years). These items on the ballot directly effect you, because they are laws that will be put into place immediately based on the popular vote. For example, in my state, they have a legislative proposition concerning the fostering of the renewable energies sector. Whatever I choose to vote on this proposition, I know that it will go back to my state legislature with my direct opinion on how legislators should handle energy matters that are directly effecting me. If you consider this, if the presidential candidate you are choosing, leaned in favor of a legislative bill like the one I just mentioned, your vote would in fact not directly matter, because the president is an executor of the law, and can only make a decision on legislative propositions that are brought forth by Congress.

I suggest that if you don't think any of the presidential candidates matter to you, fill in the blank under the candidate's names with your name, and vote on the other matters that really effect you closer to home. Your vote does matter, so shut up, and fill out your absentee ballot, or get down to your local polling place. Go here first http://www.rockthevote.com/rtv_register.html

Obamanated!

Yeah I know, another Obamanym, but I couldn't resist. Anyhow, I just got done watching the speech given by Obama at Mile High Stadium, and up until about 5 minutes into his 45 minute speech, I was convinced that he's going to be the greatest thing to happen to this country in a long while. Now I say this from a former Republican standpoint, because I come from a conservative background, and tend to not have a lot of tolerance for extreme liberalism. I am starting to see a swing to the right a bit more in the Democratic party with Obama getting the presidential nod. I like that he has called McCain, and the GOP out on the floor, and is demanding that they start getting in touch with the reality of governing the United States of America, instead of their political mumbo-jumbo, full of empty promises to the American people. He has made it clear that Republicans do not govern, but instead they let the country ride the dangerous wake of their disorganized, unplanned, and threatening foreign and domestic policies. All of which have left the American people out in the cold and harsh realities of economic despair, employment hardships, and a government toward whom they cannot turn. I think my decision has been made based on Obama telling us, that we have come the crossroad, "a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more."
Obama has brought in both parties and even an awakening third, the Independents, by not only making note of them in his speech, but recognizing that McCain was a true war hero, and a political hero for breaking away from his party when he felt that his beliefs and views were in contrast to those of his out of touch, and failing party. This is what I like about Obama, because unlike a "celebrity", he puts his political ego aside to recognize his opponents strengths as a non-partisan player. Unlike the GOP, that constantly bashes Obama and the Democrats, nit-picking at every last detail of their platforms, moral fiber, and even their family members. If we consider how Bush in his 8 years of false "compassionate conservatism", we can see that the Republican party is not at all compassionate, and really has no sense of understanding the deep rooted suffering that Americans have faced during his presidency. Where's the compassion in that? Where is the compassion in their foreign policy, when they decided to go to war? Where was the compassion, in letting hurricane victims drown, and be permanently removed from their homes? Where is the compassion in even showing up to your own party's national convention? What is so compassionate about lying in order send our men and women into battle?
Anyhow, McCain is steeped also in that lack of compassion, because in Obama's words, he just "doesn't get it." The Republicans are out of touch, and when this is the case, they really can't comprehend the needs, and the hardships of the people they are supposed to serve. The Republicans don't get it simply because, when the Democratic National Convention occurred, 84,000 people packed into a football stadium to hear Obama accept his nomination. Obama had the full support of all his former Democratic contenders. The streets were filled with more protestors than there were police forces, and there was no need for showboating. The show came to Obama, and Denver was raising the roof.
In contrast to this, the Republican National Convention, was held in a much smaller venue, the current president, for the first time in the history of the RNC, didn't show up to support his party's candidate, and McCain scrambled for a female president absolutely incapable of running a state, let alone an entire country. The Democrats didn't need to desperately seek out an individual to leech off the Republican's female support. And what respectable presidential candidate of a conservative party selects a running mate without even a glance at their political background, which contains numerous discrepancies. On top of this have you seen the amount of police force used in St. Paul over the passed few days, in response to peaceful protests? It just goes to show, whether they were violent or not, there were a lot of people there who were not just angry, but absolutely fed up with the Republican party's failure to effectively govern.
Effective governing comes from the people, and not from its leadership. The masses know what is good for them, and what will provide them safety from the cold threatening world. We will not stand to be fearful of things that we cannot control. We will not let a small handful of powerful men control our thoughts, freedoms, and livelihood. We will decide the fate of our country, not the Republicans, not the Bush administration, not the rich, not the police, and we will decide who will make our country stronger, and a fruitful place to live. We have withstood way too much passive aggression from the current administration, and it's conservative supporters, and Obama hit it home for me when he said, "change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it - because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time."

STFU!!!

This article is dedicated to all those political nay-saying assholes out there, who keep nit-picking at the candidates. Stop pointing out to us the minor issues, and start broadcasting the good points about your chosen candidate! I'm personally sick and tired of hearing about how Obama is standing by an extreme pastor, or how Hilary told a little white lie, or how McCain is going to be just like Bush. Sit down and shut up, or better yet go to the library or get on the Web, and research these folks. You'll probably find a whole slew of facts that will put something in your pea-sized brains, that rings something true to their true nature; actually being a politician, and not a scheming liar.
On that note, I sense that Americans are disbelieving of their political prospects before they even get the chance to prove themselves in office. I don't know about you, but I find it vary difficult to make a decision, when my judgment is clouded by vague accusations, and in-fighting, that hurt all candidates, no matter what party or affiliation. It's bad enough I've been lied to by a standing president, but now I have to second guess every potential candidate because these people feel the need to bash each other's political heroes, so that theirs will win based on who has the cleanest political wrap sheet. The cleaning doesn't need to be done outside of the presidency. people! What needs to be done, is give the American voter some confidence, and a sense of faith in any one of the current candidates, by focusing on their goals, and not their downfalls. Unless, of course the downfall is extremely in the wrong.

Refusing to Buy into the Obama Hype

Obama is a seedling. He's the next G.W. Bush. Not very well established in the political arena, and a neophyte at best. How can we let a senator who's had less than 2 terms as a major political figure. What has he done? What are his national values? I find myself thinking that this guy is on someone's A list, and will be fast-tracked into office, in order to fulfill some global demographic. I won't buy into it either. In my opinion the American public is pissed that they made the mistake of voting in a conservative white good old boy, who failed to manage the presidency well, and now the American public is like, "Well gosh, maybe we should see what the complete opposite would do". A very bad decision, with no backing. We need a president who can do the job, and as far as I'm concerned, I'm not too sure that Obama can do it.