Imagine a Congress with no voice for impeachment. Imagine Congress with no questions about Iraqi civilian casualties. Imagine a Congress without Kucinich when Bush decides on his pretext for war against Iran. Imagine the worst, because that is what we will have if Kucinich is defeated.
As if I wasn't depressed enough about Kucinich's lack of a chance in the presidential election, now this?
No one should feel this disheartened in the political system at 21 years old. I've researched Kucinich and, everywhere I look, his name is attached to ideas that I whole-heartedly agree with, though they maybe radical ideas for anyone who actually wants to be in (or remain in) office. As I've written previously, in my observations, it seems like major party candidates make careers out of catering to whatever audience is listening. Though I will vote for Obama if nominated, my vote is in full acknowledgement of his guilt in this; a guilt I don't think can be avoided in today's political climate.
It's a symptom, though, of a sick political system as a whole. The ways in which politicians are elected: it's not about experience, but about name recognition (which is closely associated with funding). Even candidates who desperately want to do something good and change the landscape of government face enormous challenges in even being recognized as serious candidates without support of big business or influential lobbies. So, unless you are ridiculously rich and can, somehow, run an entire campaign on your own money, you wind up having to cozy up next to people you may have wanted to avoid, just to stay in the game.
Though the founders obviously did not think very highly of common folk (as evident by their decision to create the Electoral College to help decide election outcomes), I don't think they ever quite envisioned a political system that was so married to corporations and money. Just because a man is rich does not make him worthy of running a country.
The idea of "democracy" is not the type on government by which we claim to live today. Democracy is government for the people, by the people. This is PoliSci101. In a democracy - literally - EVERYONE has a say. Rather, what we have is a rather loose form of a republic; we have a representative government. There's nothing wrong with that except that we're kidding ourselves if we think there's anything about OUR form of republic that is true to its name.
This is something for which I don't even completely blame our government. WE don't vote. WE don't allow our government to hear our voices. WE say nothing more than we should. And then, when we actually do vote, many of us are not informed enough to vote for the candidates which best represent who we are and who are most qualified to defend our priorities and values. But, this is a rant better writers have gone on and - if you're interested in knowing more about how voters become bamboozled and vote for candidates that do not serve their interests at all - you should check out What's The Matter With Kansas? by Thomas Frank.
However, in picking up where I left off last blog (and in picking back up my Kucinich point), honesty in government is something I've learned to believe doesn't exist and I think that's horribly unfair. It appears that Kucinich is what he says he is and he'll tell you what he really stands for, regardless of who you may be. He stands by his principles and, while it's cost him elections, it's saved him his soul and - at least in my case - has won him respect.
For whatever it's worth, though, I intend to follow his work until they either throw him out of government or elect him into a position where he can clean up the mess of the decades of insanity that have existed thus far. I sincerely hope Kucinich win his re-election bid in Ohio's 10th district. There needs to be at least one voice of reason in government (though I know he is not our only hope). He makes noise, but - unfortunately - he doesn't have the money for a bigger megaphone on a bigger stage.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Eavesdropping And You!
I told you: the NSA really IS watching me! (Or, in this case, listening.)
"After more than a year of heated political wrangling, the Senate handed the White House a major victory Tuesday by voting to broaden the government's spy powers and to give legal protection to phone companies that cooperated in President Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program..."
This isn't good. I know right now we're talking about international calls / groups, but it just gives me a queasy feeling. It just doesn't sit well in my stomach. Today, it's eavesdropping on international calls out of suspicion; what's the excuse tomorrow? I'm uncomfortable knowing that at any time for any reason (since there's no or little accountability here, no one running to get a warrant with evidence in hand) that someone could be listening in on other (likely innocent) people. If this sort of thing is becoming tolerable, are they going to say that eavesdropping on activists is okay because they may all be guilty of trying to start riots?
I have friends overseas, one in India and one in South Africa, specifically. Whenever I write to them, I write as if someone other than my friends are reading. I often discuss politics with them (since whatever happens here will very likely effect them) and I often censor myself. Even in emails I send to friends in the US, I'm careful. It's unfortunate and it makes me worry about what could happen down the road. It makes me worried that there may come a day when activists, writers, artists, thinkers of all kinds may feel pressure to censor themselves because...who really knows who's watching or listening?
During and after the French Revolution, the governments in France and England forced a kind of censorship of writers, mostly poets. There's some really good political poetry from that time, but governments would shut down the publishers that printed such poems. Some writers just gave up; Wordsworth, in a way, is an example. He cooled off and decided it wasn't worth the trouble anymore.
We can't allow ourselves to be silenced in any way. Patriotism isn't, as supporters of legalized eavesdropping claim "in complying with what they believed in good faith was a legally binding order from the president." Patriotism IS defiance. Patriotism IS speech. Today, they claim their actions are against a small group of people in a very specific circumstance. You can choose to believe that, but - given this administration's propensity for lying - you may want to think about it a little bit harder.
In other news, there are more elections going on today. I really wish I could say I had faith in the people of this country, but the last eight years have taught me better. While I will support Obama, I will never say he was my first choice. I just pray he doesn't let me down...I pray he wins in the first place.
It's not, at all, an issue of "lesser evils." I don't see Obama (or Clinton either, really) as being an "evil." I think he has some good ideas, but I'm also cynical and tired of candidates saying anything they think will get them elected. That's one reason I don't like Clinton; she knows words (which is good) and she knows how to manipulate them so as to be as vague as she wants to be, depending on with whom she is speaking. I don't feel Obama is as guilty of that, but I think any major party candidate with a shot at winning does that; it's survival.
It's also unfortunate.
What's refreshing about third party candidates (or...Kucinich, haha) is that they seem more willing to actually say things. Truth in politics sounds like an oxymoron, but that is what I crave. Tell me the truth. Tell me what you'll really do. Broken campaign promises are as cliche (and predictable) as broken hearts.
"After more than a year of heated political wrangling, the Senate handed the White House a major victory Tuesday by voting to broaden the government's spy powers and to give legal protection to phone companies that cooperated in President Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program..."
This isn't good. I know right now we're talking about international calls / groups, but it just gives me a queasy feeling. It just doesn't sit well in my stomach. Today, it's eavesdropping on international calls out of suspicion; what's the excuse tomorrow? I'm uncomfortable knowing that at any time for any reason (since there's no or little accountability here, no one running to get a warrant with evidence in hand) that someone could be listening in on other (likely innocent) people. If this sort of thing is becoming tolerable, are they going to say that eavesdropping on activists is okay because they may all be guilty of trying to start riots?
I have friends overseas, one in India and one in South Africa, specifically. Whenever I write to them, I write as if someone other than my friends are reading. I often discuss politics with them (since whatever happens here will very likely effect them) and I often censor myself. Even in emails I send to friends in the US, I'm careful. It's unfortunate and it makes me worry about what could happen down the road. It makes me worried that there may come a day when activists, writers, artists, thinkers of all kinds may feel pressure to censor themselves because...who really knows who's watching or listening?
During and after the French Revolution, the governments in France and England forced a kind of censorship of writers, mostly poets. There's some really good political poetry from that time, but governments would shut down the publishers that printed such poems. Some writers just gave up; Wordsworth, in a way, is an example. He cooled off and decided it wasn't worth the trouble anymore.
We can't allow ourselves to be silenced in any way. Patriotism isn't, as supporters of legalized eavesdropping claim "in complying with what they believed in good faith was a legally binding order from the president." Patriotism IS defiance. Patriotism IS speech. Today, they claim their actions are against a small group of people in a very specific circumstance. You can choose to believe that, but - given this administration's propensity for lying - you may want to think about it a little bit harder.
In other news, there are more elections going on today. I really wish I could say I had faith in the people of this country, but the last eight years have taught me better. While I will support Obama, I will never say he was my first choice. I just pray he doesn't let me down...I pray he wins in the first place.
It's not, at all, an issue of "lesser evils." I don't see Obama (or Clinton either, really) as being an "evil." I think he has some good ideas, but I'm also cynical and tired of candidates saying anything they think will get them elected. That's one reason I don't like Clinton; she knows words (which is good) and she knows how to manipulate them so as to be as vague as she wants to be, depending on with whom she is speaking. I don't feel Obama is as guilty of that, but I think any major party candidate with a shot at winning does that; it's survival.
It's also unfortunate.
What's refreshing about third party candidates (or...Kucinich, haha) is that they seem more willing to actually say things. Truth in politics sounds like an oxymoron, but that is what I crave. Tell me the truth. Tell me what you'll really do. Broken campaign promises are as cliche (and predictable) as broken hearts.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Super Tuesday Through The Eyes Of A Pollworker
I woke up this morning with a text from 'Math' Kevin. It read: "Guys, I need help. I need a quote for class! Who did you vote for and why? Is the race for presidency clear and over?"
Did he think I could answer this in a text? I asked if I could message my response and he said sure, so I did and I thought I'd post it here as my post-Election Day response.
...................................................
You should have known you'd get no short answers from me!
I voted for Obama. He was not my first choice, but he was my "realistic" choice and became my only choice once Kucinich dropped out. I voted for Obama because I want a liberal in the White House. I don't think 'liberal' is a dirty word and that's also why I liked Kucinich so much. While Clinton is a Democrat, she's also sort of part of that old political machine of which I think people (and our generation, especially) are getting sick. When I say I want to see change, I almost want a complete revamping of the government. I guess I think - between the two of them, at least - Obama is the one who is most likely to think independently of that old machine. He's young and his "inexperience" may be what makes him the least corrupt among all the candidates.
But even in terms on inexperience, I think Obama has more than Bush did! Obama - I think - was a State senator for a while and then became the junior Senator from Illinois, so he's held public office for probably ten years or so in one form or another. Bush was a governor. That's it, as far as I know. He didn't even hold that office for very long. [I could be wrong, but I don't remember ever hearing about him holding any other political office. He owned a baseball team before he was governor, right!?] He was never in the Senate. A lot of presidents haven't been Senators. Experience in public office has never been this pressing an issue before.
Anyway, I voted for Obama because I really think he's the future of the Democratic party and is in the best position to pull the US out of this crazy war and all the other messes conservatives have left us. I also think he has a better chance of beating anyone the Republicans put up. Republicans seem to hate Clinton and can probably get more Republican voters to come out and vote against Clinton than they could against Obama. Clinton has baggage that Repubs can pull apart and unite their constituencies against. Again, Obama's "inexperience" saves him from that.
I don't think there are any clear winners, especially on the Democratic side, but even on the Republican side. Obviously, the Obama / Clinton race is neck and neck. McCain seems to be pulling ahead, but the Republican race seems to change almost daily. A few days ago, it was McCain versus Romney and no one was even talking about Huckabee. Now, Huckabee has won some key states and he looks to be back in it. While it's probably safe to say that McCain will win that nomination, Romney and Huckabee aren't even close to dead yet.
Huckabee terrifies me. The last thing we need is another religious fanatic in the White House. I'm so sick of that. Religion is actually a reason why I didn't like Edwards much. I don't want a religious man running the government. I want a man (or woman...haha) who can think objectively and make decisions on what's right for the nation (and the world, since the US has that power for now) as a whole, not just the religious percentages that fund their campaigns. I think that's so dangerous and it scares me - truly scares me - how many evangelicals come out to vote versus the rest of us. Running a country based on religion is not the way to go, especially considering our asses are in deep shit with this war. God's guidance has sort of sucked in this case and it's time to start looking at the actual human suffering and making decisions based on the people who actually exist and what's best for them. You can believe in God, but you shouldn't base laws or make decisions for an ever-more secular nation based on "Oh, God said so."
Bleh. This is long. Sorrrrry!
I think we'll have to wait out the Democratic side for a while. I feel like Clinton could get it, but that's just because I'm setting myself up for disappointment. I don't have anything really against Clinton and I will absolutely vote for her if she wins the nomination. I think either Democratic candidates will do a hell of a lot better than Bush (but I also don't think that's saying much!). I hope that - regardless of who wins the Dem. nomination - that citizens are fed up enough with the Bush administration that, even if they don't like Clinton, they'll vote for her over McCain. McCain seems to just want more of the same in a lot of ways. The only thing that makes me feel slightly better about McCain is that, at least, he WAS in a war and may have better perspective / strategy than Bush, but I'd still never vote for him.
Wow. I knew this would be long, but I didn't think it'd be THIS long. You probably only needed, like, a sentence, and I gave you a paper, but you gotta give me a break: I'm a PoliSci major!
...................................................
I was pondering the difference between hope and optimism yesterday as I drove back to Quibbletown (where Jess and I were pollworkers for the election) from my own polling place as Fellowship Farm. I suppose I can say I am hopefully Obama will win the nomination and the election, but I am not yet optimistic. I think you can have hope without really having a reason behind that hope, but optimism requires some firm evidence that things will work in that favor. I think optimism is an "educated hope."
There were lots of voters yesterday, more than we ever expected (as was evident by the fact that the town didn't give us nearly enough voting slips). Lots of people (including myself) declared party affiliations, almost all Democratic.
What I liked seeing the most, though, was - believe it or not - kids at the polling places with their parents. I think going to vote with my parents when I was younger is a huge reason why I wanted to vote so badly once I 'grew up' and why I only wanted to turn 18 so I could register. Of course, it wasn't computerized when I went into the booth with my parents. Haha. I just remember going with them and the impact that had on me. Now, with such a monumental and historical race going on, I hope that some of those kids remember this election and its importance, regardless of the outcome, and grow up to be good voters too. This election really could change everything, not in just who becomes president, but in the minds of future voters. If either Obama or Clinton win, the younger generation will no longer be stifled by the idea of someone who isn't an old white dude being president. It won't be an impossible / improbable idealistic thing anymore; it'll be something real. I know when my parents were younger, they could never have imagined a day when a woman and an African American were even in the race for president this far down the line.
I guess my thoughts went to the future partially because I am not optimistic, though very hopeful, and if liberals don't succeed this year (and if the US hasn't blown the world to bits by 2012) that the generation watching their parents vote this year will grow up to vote in the next election(s) - with this one in mind - and really force change to occur. I think this election has the power to really stick in people's minds because, regardless of who wins between Obama and Clinton, it WILL be a historic election. Neither one of these candidates was ever supposed to get this far. That, in and of itself, is something of a success and if we're not quite strong enough to pull it off this year, I am optimistic that we will be next time because it won't be such a taboo idea to have a "minority" run.
Someday, in the not too far off future, I hope women and non-white candidates become as normal in elections as computers and iPods have become throughout society. These things that never existed before have become so much a part of the culture that we can't imagine ourselves without them and I hope this sort of trend in electoral politics continues in a similar way. This is the first step and whether we take off or stumble, it's better than nothing and we're on our way.
Did he think I could answer this in a text? I asked if I could message my response and he said sure, so I did and I thought I'd post it here as my post-Election Day response.
...................................................
You should have known you'd get no short answers from me!
I voted for Obama. He was not my first choice, but he was my "realistic" choice and became my only choice once Kucinich dropped out. I voted for Obama because I want a liberal in the White House. I don't think 'liberal' is a dirty word and that's also why I liked Kucinich so much. While Clinton is a Democrat, she's also sort of part of that old political machine of which I think people (and our generation, especially) are getting sick. When I say I want to see change, I almost want a complete revamping of the government. I guess I think - between the two of them, at least - Obama is the one who is most likely to think independently of that old machine. He's young and his "inexperience" may be what makes him the least corrupt among all the candidates.
But even in terms on inexperience, I think Obama has more than Bush did! Obama - I think - was a State senator for a while and then became the junior Senator from Illinois, so he's held public office for probably ten years or so in one form or another. Bush was a governor. That's it, as far as I know. He didn't even hold that office for very long. [I could be wrong, but I don't remember ever hearing about him holding any other political office. He owned a baseball team before he was governor, right!?] He was never in the Senate. A lot of presidents haven't been Senators. Experience in public office has never been this pressing an issue before.
Anyway, I voted for Obama because I really think he's the future of the Democratic party and is in the best position to pull the US out of this crazy war and all the other messes conservatives have left us. I also think he has a better chance of beating anyone the Republicans put up. Republicans seem to hate Clinton and can probably get more Republican voters to come out and vote against Clinton than they could against Obama. Clinton has baggage that Repubs can pull apart and unite their constituencies against. Again, Obama's "inexperience" saves him from that.
I don't think there are any clear winners, especially on the Democratic side, but even on the Republican side. Obviously, the Obama / Clinton race is neck and neck. McCain seems to be pulling ahead, but the Republican race seems to change almost daily. A few days ago, it was McCain versus Romney and no one was even talking about Huckabee. Now, Huckabee has won some key states and he looks to be back in it. While it's probably safe to say that McCain will win that nomination, Romney and Huckabee aren't even close to dead yet.
Huckabee terrifies me. The last thing we need is another religious fanatic in the White House. I'm so sick of that. Religion is actually a reason why I didn't like Edwards much. I don't want a religious man running the government. I want a man (or woman...haha) who can think objectively and make decisions on what's right for the nation (and the world, since the US has that power for now) as a whole, not just the religious percentages that fund their campaigns. I think that's so dangerous and it scares me - truly scares me - how many evangelicals come out to vote versus the rest of us. Running a country based on religion is not the way to go, especially considering our asses are in deep shit with this war. God's guidance has sort of sucked in this case and it's time to start looking at the actual human suffering and making decisions based on the people who actually exist and what's best for them. You can believe in God, but you shouldn't base laws or make decisions for an ever-more secular nation based on "Oh, God said so."
Bleh. This is long. Sorrrrry!
I think we'll have to wait out the Democratic side for a while. I feel like Clinton could get it, but that's just because I'm setting myself up for disappointment. I don't have anything really against Clinton and I will absolutely vote for her if she wins the nomination. I think either Democratic candidates will do a hell of a lot better than Bush (but I also don't think that's saying much!). I hope that - regardless of who wins the Dem. nomination - that citizens are fed up enough with the Bush administration that, even if they don't like Clinton, they'll vote for her over McCain. McCain seems to just want more of the same in a lot of ways. The only thing that makes me feel slightly better about McCain is that, at least, he WAS in a war and may have better perspective / strategy than Bush, but I'd still never vote for him.
Wow. I knew this would be long, but I didn't think it'd be THIS long. You probably only needed, like, a sentence, and I gave you a paper, but you gotta give me a break: I'm a PoliSci major!
...................................................
I was pondering the difference between hope and optimism yesterday as I drove back to Quibbletown (where Jess and I were pollworkers for the election) from my own polling place as Fellowship Farm. I suppose I can say I am hopefully Obama will win the nomination and the election, but I am not yet optimistic. I think you can have hope without really having a reason behind that hope, but optimism requires some firm evidence that things will work in that favor. I think optimism is an "educated hope."
There were lots of voters yesterday, more than we ever expected (as was evident by the fact that the town didn't give us nearly enough voting slips). Lots of people (including myself) declared party affiliations, almost all Democratic.
What I liked seeing the most, though, was - believe it or not - kids at the polling places with their parents. I think going to vote with my parents when I was younger is a huge reason why I wanted to vote so badly once I 'grew up' and why I only wanted to turn 18 so I could register. Of course, it wasn't computerized when I went into the booth with my parents. Haha. I just remember going with them and the impact that had on me. Now, with such a monumental and historical race going on, I hope that some of those kids remember this election and its importance, regardless of the outcome, and grow up to be good voters too. This election really could change everything, not in just who becomes president, but in the minds of future voters. If either Obama or Clinton win, the younger generation will no longer be stifled by the idea of someone who isn't an old white dude being president. It won't be an impossible / improbable idealistic thing anymore; it'll be something real. I know when my parents were younger, they could never have imagined a day when a woman and an African American were even in the race for president this far down the line.
I guess my thoughts went to the future partially because I am not optimistic, though very hopeful, and if liberals don't succeed this year (and if the US hasn't blown the world to bits by 2012) that the generation watching their parents vote this year will grow up to vote in the next election(s) - with this one in mind - and really force change to occur. I think this election has the power to really stick in people's minds because, regardless of who wins between Obama and Clinton, it WILL be a historic election. Neither one of these candidates was ever supposed to get this far. That, in and of itself, is something of a success and if we're not quite strong enough to pull it off this year, I am optimistic that we will be next time because it won't be such a taboo idea to have a "minority" run.
Someday, in the not too far off future, I hope women and non-white candidates become as normal in elections as computers and iPods have become throughout society. These things that never existed before have become so much a part of the culture that we can't imagine ourselves without them and I hope this sort of trend in electoral politics continues in a similar way. This is the first step and whether we take off or stumble, it's better than nothing and we're on our way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
