Politics, The American Blood Sport

Readers from other countries daily log onto Beyond The Political Spectrum in order to get an insight into the social and political fabric of America…without all of the MSNBC or FOX News-esque ideological spin. And because many foreign visitors to my blog want to know about (either) the social and/or political landscape here in The States, I thought that foreign readers might want to know that we here in America take our politics very seriously. In fact, it’s probably safe to say that after the recent Congressional and presidential election that politics is as much of a blood sport here as soccer is to most of you who live abroad. For example, as you may or may not know, projection polls leading up to the presidential elections indicated that nationally, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama were in a virtual tie, while the president was leading in the so-called “battleground states”… states representing the greatest number of votes based on population.

 Despite the fact that many knew the election was to be a referendum on the economy and the razor edge closeness of most mainstream polls, the ever-so-slight battleground states lead the president had had many mainstream news outlets and pundits slightly favoring Obama to win the election. However, Republican/conservative backers of Romney didn’t want to believe what most traditional polls had projected for the election…polls which routinely adhered to industry polling standards. Much like an undermanned, underpowered soccer team ignoring the experience of a better team and the probably outcome, they ignored mainstream polls because they were reflective of a perceived pro-Obama “bias.”

 Fueled in part by conservative media talking heads cut from the Fox News cloth, many Republicans had their anticipated election victory “validated” by the likes of conservative pollster Scott Rasmussen (who based his polling system on flawed assumptions which gave the most inaccurate of projections). The effect was a glut of notable conservative pre-election day predictions. For example:

UnskewedPolls’ Dean Chambers: 

Romney 311, Obama 227. “Despite the pattern of skewed polls, most of them commissioned by the mainstream media, the overall electoral landscape is looking more and more favorable for Romney.” — Nov. 1, on examiner.com.

Rush Limbaugh: 

“All of my thinking says Romney big. All of my feeling is where my concern is. But my thoughts, my intellectual analysis of this — factoring everything I see plus the polling data — it’s not even close. Three hundred-plus electoral votes for Romney.” — Nov. 5, on his radio show.

Newt Gingrich: 

“I believe the minimum result will be 53-47 Romney, over 300 electoral votes.” – Oct. 25, on Fox News.

Taken together—and despite evidence to pointing to the contrary—Republicans were dealt with an Election Day loss which they never saw coming. This was apparent in the apparent live on-air meltdown of political strategist Karl Rove election night on Fox News as the projections of Obama’s win started to become apparent. Although in Rove’s defense, his being incredulous toward believing the $300 million dollars of the "dark money" his political action committees (American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS) contributed to seeing Obama defeated went for naught would have rendered me just as unhinged. 

In a similar fashion, casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who became the largest single political donor in the history of politics had an equal amount of luckless success.

Mr. Adelson donated more than $60 million. But of the eight candidates he supported, none won. That included the Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, who was battered by negative ads financed by Mr. Adelson during the primary before Mr. Adelson switched to become a supporter (See:  "Times Topics: Sheldon Adelson.")

And although Republican-leaning groups outspent Democratic ones by a wide margin, this is not to say that there wasn’t an equal amount of outside money spent on the Democratic side. And although Republican-leaning groups outspent Democratic ones by a wide margin, this is not to say that there wasn’t an equal amount of outside money spent on the Democratic side. Organizations like American Bridges and Priorities USA Action benefitted from large donors whose causes reflect left-of-center issues.

2,100,000 - Irwin Jacobs Founder of chipmaker Qualcomm and former M.I.T. professor.

2,100,000 - Jeffrey Katzenberg Chief executive of Dreamworks Animation.

2,000,000 - Jon Stryker Gay rights advocate and founder of the Arcus Foundation.

1,750,000 - Amy P. Goldman Author; daughter of the late Sol Goldman, a wealthy New York real estate investor.

1,600,000 - Anne Cox Chambers Part owner of Cox Enterprises, the media conglomerate.

1,350,000 - Anne Earhart Investor, Corona del Mar, Calif. Granddaughter of the oil baron J. Paul Getty.

                                                      (Source:  "The Big Democratic ‘Super PAC’ Donors").

Needless to say that this list is hardly exhaustive. However, it showcases how—much like in European soccer—interests groups are willing to go blow-for-blow in influencing election politics in America. In a real sense, these outside moneyed groups would be analogous to the Euro-rich tycoons who own the various teams, and try to exert their influence on the game’s outcome from tournament to tournament.
And much like an occasional European soccer game, this election cycle was marked with its own version of the soccer riot; we call them “presidential primaries.” And this year’s GOP presidential primaries were marked by cut-throat accusations, name-calling, and self-destructive gaffes that opponents pounced on drunker soccer fans rooting for a losing team. And although there were no equally visible Democratic presidential primaries this particular election cycle, we saw the same often raucous atmosphere during the election of year of 2008…particularly between then candidates Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. These pre-election contests to whittle down the party candidates often reveal genuine animosities as well as personality differences between individuals seeking public office, especially at the federal level.
And sometimes, American politics has its occasional bouts of violence and tragedy related to the electoral process, which is usually confined to state and local contests (such as the 2001 murder a DeKalb County, Georgia Sheriff-elect by the former sheriff of the county). But this year’s presidential elections, as a result of the reelection of the nation’s first black president, have yielded a new level of violent insanity. In Miami, 64-year-old Henry Hamilton had been "very upset about the election results,” according to friends and family members. Prior to the recent presidential elections, Hamilton had allegedly made remarks to the effect that "if Barack gets re-elected, I'm not going to be around.” True to his word, he was found dead November 8th “with the words ‘F--- Obama!’ scrawled on his will and two empty prescription bottles nearby” (See:  "Death of Key West Man Linked to Obama's Reelection").
As if suicide over the election of a particular candidate wasn’t bloody enough, a woman in Phoenix, Arizona was arrested and charged with nearly killing her husband in an incident related to the recent elections. According to news reports, 28-year-old Holly Solomon allegedly chased down her husband with the family car, eventually catching up to him and running him down. The reason? Because he had failed to vote in the presidential elections. According to police, “his wife became angry over his "lack of voter participation" in last Tuesday's presidential election and believed her family would face hardship as a result of Obama winning another term.”(See: "Arizona Woman Runs Down Husband With Car for Not Voting: Police").

And yes like soccer, America politics has its equivalent of hooligans and rowdy roughnecks whose only contribution to the sport is mayhem and deconstructive commotion. You can always tell these individuals by their fear-mongering laced with hyperbolic and exaggerated rhetoric. They usually make unsubstantiated claims, more so than what one would usually expect within the rough-and-tumble world of politics. Claims of “government sanctioned ‘death panels,” how women’ bodies can automatically reject forced pregnancies at the hands of rapists, that abortion is a "Constitutional right," how marijuana “isn’t harmful,” and how climate change “has not been proven” are the give-away signs of these outsiders.
So I say this to those readers who are not Americans that we have more in common with you than you might think. Although we tend to do things in this country a lot differently than they do in the rest of the world, we all play certain games—sometimes to the death—with all the fervor and ferocity of the lower mammals. Where you all play and see games like soccer as being a life-or-death affair, we in this country treat politics with the same level of deathly earnest. And as the 18th century philosopher David Hartley once said, "Nothing reveals Humanity so well as the games it plays."

  
Gingrich criticizes former Governor Mitt Romney's recent statement regarding President Obama's election win; that his victory was the result of "gifts" he promised America's minorities, women, and college students. Category:

Read More

What You Might Have Missed...The Third-Party Presidential Debate

 One of the biggest complaints anyone has with almost any aspect of the sociopolitical status quo in America is that the powers-that-be—namely those with controlling interests in the way things are—tend to silence the voices of dissent…or at least those voices in the wilderness we tend not to pay attention to. And one of the reasons I began this blog is to give an airing to items and issues in the news that are either overlooked, or not even considered within the context of critical (as opposed to ideological) thinking.
As an example, I cite the presidential debate from this past Tuesday. No, I’m not talking about the presidential debate between Democratic and Republican nominees President Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. What I refer to is the lesser-known, barely-covered in the media debate between the third party candidates for the White House in Chicago earlier this week. The Chicago-based Free and Equal Elections Foundation sponsored the event, which was moderated by former
 Click on the video to watch the third party debate in its entirety

CNN talk-show host Larry King (See, "Third-Party Debate" for the background to this debate)
The event was arranged to counter the rules of the Democratic and Republican-controlled Commission on Presidential Debates that exclude political parties which do not fall within the parameters of their rules, which include:

Rule 1: The candidate must be constitutionally eligible to hold the office of the President of the United States. Rule 2: The candidate must “have achieved ballot access in a sufficient number of states to win a theoretical Electoral College majority in the general election.” 

Rule 3: The candidate must have achieved “a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate, as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations.” 

In regards to Tuesday's debate, the rule that only parties with at least 15% of popular support was used to exclude the third party candidates. What’s more, it seems that many of us ordinary citizens are complacent with the way the two major political parties dominate the political voting process. The Green Party candidate for the White House, Jill Stein was arrested outside the venue of this week’s major political party debate when she showed up with her running mate, Cheri Honkala, to protest the Democratic and Republican virtual monopoly on the debate and election process in America. Stein was taken away to a detention center and handcuffed to a chair for several hours as the Republican-Democratic debate carried on without her…or any third party candidate (See: "Our handcuffed politics: What The Arrest of Jill Stein, The Green Party Candidate, Tells You About America").  And then we wonder why we have legislative gridlock at both the federal and state levels across the country…!
And if such efforts to limit the level of participation of those who would bring a different political view to issues, there is a call from some within established circles to streamline the process even more. Many conservatives during this year’s primaries complained that “that entirely too many candidates were invited to take part, including hopefuls who were consistently polling around 2 or 3 percent.”
What most defenders of the current electoral system don’t know is that some of our nation’s Founding Fathers were not only against the notion of organized political parties, but warned Americans against their control of the political process. Consider their words:

“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

- GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

  --John Adams

Even activist the Tea Party Movement, which might have sprang from noble intents, was a cause (or series of causes) that eventually became co-opted by right-wing neoconservatives, and has become representative of the very type of candidates that they were trying to keep from being elected…purveyors of a big corporate government!
And despite the reality that some of our most revered Founding Fathers’ thinking on political parties assert the opposite, many political party activists make attempts clothe their contribution to the gridlock of our current political process in the notion that they are “the party of…,” implying some level of legitimacy or being representative of the idea of a real America!
When I think of the current two-party political system and the resulting political polarization it has influenced, I think of the of Thomas Jefferson:

Men are naturally divided into two parties,'' he wrote, "those who fear and distrust the people and wish to draw all power from them into the hands of the higher classes [and] those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise, depository of the public interests.''

Ask yourself, "Where do you stand?"

Read More

Does This Familiar? Spotting Lies & Weak Logic On The Campaign Trail, Part 1

Some time ago, I posted what I felt to be an informative piece based on my observations explaining how and why people structure their particular political ideologies ("Our Political Ideologies Explained...").
Strictly speaking, there are two reasons why many Americans have such a difficult time trying to understand policy issues and their implications: (1) Politicians, when asked by reporters about a policies' particulars, tend to provide familiar programmed rhetoric, which amount canned answers spouting the party line; and (2) most Americans don't take the time to objectively (as opposed to subjectively--look for or at "facts" which support one's already presupposed beliefs) research issues. And as the latter reason is concerned, even when confronted with indisputable proof, people will reflexively question the "bias" of the research, or attack the bearer of the bad news.
Recently, National Public Radio (NPR) did a piece on the weak logic often employed in political campaigns, in particular the election campaign of 2012 for the office of the White House between President Obama and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney ("A Guide To Spotting Pretzel Logic On The Campaign Trail"). More to the point, the piece focused on why such hole-ridden statements of non-thinking are absorbed as fact by Democratic- and Republican Party loyalists...without any objective (there's that nasty word again) fact-checking on the parts of would-be voters.
I thought the article was so informative that I decided to reprint it here, as a service to those rare few who would like to actually think beyond the campaign rhetoric of both sides, and let the facts--so to speak--speak for themselves.

***************************************************************************************

It's a good thing presidential campaigns aren't college debates because politicians routinely spout arguments on the stump (and in their ads) that would never pass muster on the university rostrum.

Campaigns are rife with logical fallacies aimed at whipping up voters and herding them to the polls. Some are deceptively difficult to recognize, while others are familiar but no less seductive.

"Fallacies are used all the time in campaigns," says Sam Nelson, director of forensics at Cornell University's school of Industrial and Labor Relations.

"Human beings are busy. We have all kinds of information around us all the time, we don't have time to logically think through every argument, so we're looking for short cuts," Nelson says. "The issue is whether you can recognize these short cuts that are really fallacies and avoid falling for them."


As we head into the final months before November elections — with party convention bluster, brutal ad wars and debate posturing — Americans will almost certainly be exposed to a lot more pretzel logic. So with the help of Cornell's Nelson and Storey Clayton, a debate coach for Rutgers University Debate Union, here's an election-season primer to help people at home spot the top five logical fallacies so far in this year's presidential campaign. The Latin is optional.

ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM — 'Appeal to Authority'

What it means: There's nothing like name-dropping a Founding Father, a former U.S. president or a Nobel laureate to boost your argument. But that still doesn't change the substance of the argument.

Why it works: "It's the devil we know as opposed to something new, which we've never tried," Nelson says. "There's always risk in change. Some people are big risk takers, but most people seek safety."

Examples from the campaign trail:

Mitt Romney, July 29
"Ronald Reagan was one of our great foreign policy presidents. He did not come from the Senate. He did not come from the foreign policy world. He was a governor."

The Take-Away: "As Reagan's presidency has grown more distant, his star has sort of grown. He's a very appealing authority figure," Clayton says.





President Obama, Aug. 1
"You do not have to take my word for it. Just today, an independent, nonpartisan organization ran all the numbers on Gov. Romney's plan. This wasn't my staff. This wasn't something we did. An independent group ran the numbers."

The Take-Away: "This is a shortcut for most citizens who aren't willing to do the hard policy analysis. Obama is saying these people did the work so you don't have to," Nelson says.

POST HOC ERGO PROPER HOC — 'After this, therefore because of this'

What it means: The argument attempts to turn simple correlation into false or questionable causation. A textbook example: Because the birds sing every morning before the sun rises, the birds' singing causes the sun to rise.

Why it works: "It's a very appealing, intuitive fallacy," Clayton says. "A lot of the arguments that people make around presidential campaigns, for example, are essentially drawing the inference that whatever happened in one's time in office is their responsibility, whether or not they were actually responsible."

Examples from the campaign trail:

Mitt Romney, Aug. 1
We have fewer jobs under President Obama. Then there's unemployed and underemployed. That's gone up, that's in red, because that's a bad direction. Then we have the unemployment rate, that's bad too, that's why that's in red."



The Take-Away: "What you're trying to do in a presidential campaign is take relatively complex issues that there's a lot of division on and simplify it so that everyone understands what you're trying to say," Nelson says. "Everyone understands the idea of a report card. Holding it up visually even makes it better. Now, is that report card based on reliable information? We don't know."

Ex-Steel Plant Worker Joe Soptic, Speaking In Obama-Affiliated PAC Priorities USA Ad
"When Mitt Romney and Bain closed the plant, I lost my health care. My family lost their health care. A short time after that, my wife became ill. ... She passed away in 22 days."



The Take-Away: "Someone responsible for a business is not necessarily responsible for every single decision or every single aspect that's made within that business," Clayton says. "But that's exactly what this ad is trying to argue. It's a classic example of giving someone responsibility over foreseeing every possible effect or every possible outcome."

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM — 'Argument to the man'

What it means: Anyone who's ever been verbally taunted or bullied in a schoolyard is familiar with argumentum ad hominem — basically a fancy debate term for name-calling. Its purpose, like that of all fallacies, is to divert attention away from substantive arguments.

Why it works: "It short-circuits the thinking part of your brain and makes you think, 'This guy's an idiot,' " says Rutgers University's Clayton.

Nelson of Cornell agrees, saying ad hominems are "funny and memorable" and that the person launching one often benefits from being perceived as a fighter. "It appeals to aspects of American culture that we got on the schoolyard and we still have when we're adults," he says.

The Take-Away: "These examples basically reduce everything to name calling," Clayton says. "They cut through the logic and all the rational arguments."

Examples from the campaign trail:

President Obama, Aug. 6



Gov. Romney "would ask the middle class to pay more in taxes to give another $250,000 tax cut to people making more than $3 million a year. It's like Robin Hood in reverse. It's Romney Hood."

Mitt Romney, Aug. 7


"We've been watching the president say a lot of things about me and my policies, and they're just not right. And if I were to coin a term, it would be 'Obamaloney.' "

Needless to say, that in the realm of election politics, there are so many more logical fallacies, little white lies, structured inaccuracies, and outright lies, that it's easy to understand why Americans would rather spout the party line and anecdotal "proofs" than spend the major effort it would take to search out the facts.

To Be Continued...

Read More

Seven Simple Questions for Republicans Abandoning Akin

Politics, that ever-fascinating spectacle which illustrates man’s (or one group’s) obsession to impose his/their will over the masses by shaping public policy has stolen the spotlight once again. In the last week, Republican Missouri Representative Todd Akin, who has been engaged in typically brutal (by contemporary standards) campaign to unseat the district’s sitting Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill, has been the target of more slings and arrows than a Star Trek “redshirt” in the Hunger Games.

Since his now-infamous remarks about “legitimate rape,” calls have been coming from every nook and cranny of the political world for Akin to drop out of the race. While granted, his remark that women’s bodies have some heretofore unknown mechanism which prevents pregnancies resulting from rape smacks of the complex imaginings of a 3rd-grader who has an unparalleled insight into the nature of cooties, he has every right to speak his mind…or what passes for such. And although I do agree that the cheapening of human life exemplified by the death culture that both abortion and the death penalty should be abolished, I cannot help but bear witness and testify against how I see the Republican Party throwing one of their own under the bus to avoid losing power.

I also cannot help but wonder the obvious; whether Akin’s remarks are a reflection of similar beliefs—of some variation thereof—held by the majority of Republicans. After all, their party’s ideological anti-abortion fetish seems to take priority over other, more pressing issues relevant to the American people; one of the very first bills passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives was the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R.3.PCS). So as the Republican Party look for the perfect spot on the back of Akin to drive it’s knife, I find myself thinking about a great many things related to this issue.

In the current issue of The New Yorker (August 20, 2012), writer Amy Davidson piece, “Seven Simple Questions for Republicans Abandoning Akin” reflects many of my own questions surrounding the issue.

I’ve taken the liberty of reprinting the thought-provoking piece here.

What are Republicans renouncing when they run from Todd Akin? Akin, the G.O.P.’s candidate for Senate in Missouri—he had been leading in the polls—said in an interview yesterday that “the female body” had a mystery mechanism that prevented pregnancy in the case of a “legitimate rape.” (The full, awful details are in an earlier post.) He doesn’t seem to have expected the anger this occasioned; by the end of the night he had apologized, and, on Monday, he was roundly abandoned by Republicans from Mitt Romney to Scott Walker. (He was also, less surprisingly, denounced by Democrats, including President Obama, who said, “Rape is rape.”) John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told him that he wouldn’t be getting the five million that the Party had planned to spend on his race, the Washington Post reported, and others pushed him to drop out. Akin, though, isn’t making it easy, telling Mike Huckabee, “I’m not a quitter.”

And this shouldn’t be too easy for the G.O.P.—given that the actual policy positions, if not medical knowledge, of many in the Party are quite close to Akin’s. This is true of Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s running mate. So here’s a test: Are you a Republican politician who would desperately like to distance yourself from Akin? Answer these seven simple questions first.

1. You’ve said that Congressman Akin’s remarks offended you. Can you explain, in your own words, what about them offended you? Was it just that he was wrong about how conception works, or do you see more problems in his statement? Please be specific; vague references to “empathy” don’t count.

2. Congressman Akin used the phrase “legitimate rape.” If you haven’t addressed that in question No. 1, can you do so now? Is it a phrase that you would use, or countenance, or one that you would object to? Also, Akin co-sponsored legislation changing a statutory reference to “rape” to “forcible rape.” Is that a bill you voted for, or would?

3. Do you support access to abortion for victims of rape? Have you ever voted on or introduced legislation, or signed a pledge, addressing that point? Would you require any qualifications—for example, would there need to be a criminal conviction first? Do you support access to abortion for anyone besides rape victims?

4. How about emergency contraception, also known as the morning-after pill? A University of California Study estimated that, in 1998, twenty-five thousand women became pregnant as the result of rape, and that twenty-two thousand of those could potentially have been prevented with emergency contraception. Would you classify this as abortion? Should all women, whatever their circumstances, have access to the morning-after pill? And should health insurance cover non-emergency contraception?

5. Congressman Akin is an educated man. Do you think this incident shows that there are shortcomings in sex education and scientific literacy in America? Would you support increased sex education? And could organizations like Planned Parenthood have a role to play there?

6. You and your colleagues have called on Akin to withdraw from the Senate race against Claire McCaskill. Why? Do you think that he is unfit to serve, or do you just think that he will lose?

7. Can you talk about what you’ve done in your political career to help victims of sexual violence? Have you listened to those women’s—and men’s, and children’s—stories?

Reprinted from The New Yorker (August 20, 2012)

The fact that I used Davidson's piece does in no way mean to imply that I am pro-abortion. As I stated before, I believe in the logical consistency of "pro-life;" both abortion and the death penalty should be abolished.
I am merely using this piece to illustrate how the Republicans can tree themselves by adhering to ideological beliefs rather than beliefs which reflect critical thinking...just as the Democrats do so themselves on the issue of gay marriage and "gender issues" (See: "The Politicization of Gender In America" for example)
I'm just wondering when will politicians from both parties will step away from their respective ideological stances and learn to govern based not on emotions, party allegiance, or ideology but on reason alone...?

Read More

Issues In The News (For Dummies!)

As a first for Beyond The Political Spectrum, I recently got the inspiration to start posting exceptionally insightful political satire (via political cartoons) about various social and political issues currently in the news.
For my first such posting, I thought I post some very sharp political commentary, courtesy of The Houston Chronicles' Nick Anderson (disclaimer: don't shoot the messenger!)

Read More

Campaign 2012 -- Let The Games Begin, Conclusion

As I tuned in to last week’s first GOP debate of the 2012 presidential campaign, I couldn’t help but engage myself in deep cynical thinking about how much the political process in America is illusion designed to misdirect the casual observer. After all, as the old adage goes, nothing that happens in politics is by accident. As I watched, I observed how much of this chase for the White House (and Congress) is just theater intended to ensure the self-interests of the political class, and to manipulate both our thinking and our perceptions as voting Americans for the sake of the monied and connected few. With regards to this reality, I am often left wondering if any Republican, Democrat, Tea Partier, or wannabe political aspirant actually believes what comes out of their mouths at any given moment as they seek public office.
As an illustration, in a Washington Post article dated June 19th, reporters Dan Eggen and T.W. Farnam reveal a tactic used by those seeking high-profile political office known as the “money blurt.” The tactic works like this:

An up-and-coming [or established] politician blurts out something incendiary, provocative or otherwise controversial. The remark bounces around the blogs and talk shows and becomes a sensation. And in the midst of it all, the politician’s fundraisers are manning the phones and raking in the donations (see: "Michele Bachmann, others raise millions for political campaigns with ‘money blurts’")

In some ways, this practice illustrates how those seeking public office often give the poor dumb voter the impression that he has his/her best political interests at heart, while jockeying for position in a field of candidates usually engaged in chasing the same objectives.
Even worse are politicians so wedded to a particular ideology (such as Christianity, conservatism, or even liberalism) that they become inflexible in both thinking and beliefs, deluding themselves into thinking that this intransigence represents "convictions" shared by those who's perceptions they color with their words as they seek a public office as our representatives.
The next GOP candidate seeking the Republican nomination for president exemplifies this dynamic in spades.

Michele Bachmann

Bachmann, The first woman to represent the state of Minnesota in Congress, is another Tea Party favorite as well as an arch-conservative many times the magnitude of most of the men seeking the Republican nomination. For example on the issue of abortion, the staunchly anti-abortion (as well as staunchly Christian) candidate called on fellow candidate Mitt Romney to sign a “Pro-Life Pledge “and vow to protect life from conception to natural death.” Up till now, the GOP’s frontrunner has refused, preferring to focus on the economy as his platform issue. Her campaign’s response that “any Presidential candidate seeking our party's nomination should sign the SBA Pledge and vow to protect life from conception to natural death” reveals her ideological “convictions” as well as her political shrewdness. Granted her stance on abortion is no doubt genuine, her attempt to paint another party candidate into a corner on the issue is a transparent attempt not to create a unified ideological front on the issue, but to take a bit out of Romney’s front runner status. To this, I am reminded of Plato’s assertion that anyone who wants to be in charge shouldn’t be.
Bachmann also believes that the theory of “intelligent design” should be taught in public school science classes, supporting her stance that that evolution is a theory that has never been proven, one way or the other (forgetting that, of course, intelligent design can easily be labeled packaged pretty much the same way). Not only does such a stance laugh in the face of the doctrine of [the] Separation of Church and State, but as a lawyer, her stance puts her in a position of promoting her religious beliefs over a clear legal obligation to uphold a Constitutional principle…the same Constitution she professes to defend.

On the economy, Bachmann’s hard right-wing views find her criticizing even her own fellow Republican Party members—far beyond what one could consider campaign politics. In 2003 as a state senator, she disparaged an economic initiative of fellow Republican 2012 presidential candidate and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, comparing his administration’s “tax Free Zones” meant to spur economic growth to Marxist principles.
In her public appearances, she portrays herself as being rabidly against tax increases of any kind (although in 2005, she opposed Minnesota Governor Pawlenty’s proposal for a state surcharge of 75 cents per pack on the wholesale cost of cigarettes, calling it a “tax increase.” She later reversed her position and voted in favor of the cigarette surcharge). She is against minimum wage increases, and in favor of increases in exploration and drilling for oil and natural gas domestically. She is also in favor of pursing alternative forms of energy such as wind and solar (although it is unknown if she would support government economic subsidies for the latter…my guess is no).
She has called for phasing out both Social Security and Medicare, expressing that “we have to do is wean everybody else off” (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/bachmann-wean-everybody-off-social-security-and-medicare.php).
On social issues, Bachmann is consistent in her hard right-wing. Bachmann supports both a federal and state Constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage (admittedly, marriage should be recognized as a union only between a woman and a man, but based on reasons of common sense stated in part 2 of this posting and not via legal codification).
She is against abortion, except in the cases of rape or incest.
She has vehemently attacked the Obama Administration-sponsored Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act/health care reform bill, calling it “unconstitutional” (although it’s a certainty that most people who go without or cannot afford health care coverage would not agree that their Constitutional “rights” are of more paramount importance than their ability to receive health care). She has outlined her own ideas for changing the health care system, including: enabling consumers to purchase insurance across state lines; increasing the use of health savings accounts; and allow everyone to “take full deductibility of all medical expenses,” including insurance premiums; and tort reform.
On climate control, Bachmann has called global warming, a "hoax," saying that carbon dioxide is "not harmful" because it is a naturally occurring by-product of the life-cycle on earth. Personally, I have always wanted to know how those doubting the empirical evidence of global warming and climate change can reconcile their belief in an all-powerful invisible God whom they can't perceive by way of the senses, but deny what's going on right in front of their eyes (Read/Listen here for example).
On allowing would-be insurance buyers to purchase across state lines, one has to wonder how this would truly far this would to lower costs for the consumer. Increasing savings accounts sounds like a good idea on the surface, but is really a non-factor considering most service-sector jobs barely pay enough for a subsistence living, yet alone allowing for affording a luxury like health insurance; many consumers still struggle to afford even the deductibles and with more. And with more state governments demanding that their public employees contribute more to their benefits package, savings accounts just aren’t a practical solution for many. However, tort reform and deductibility of medical expense/premiums are viable solutions. Obviously, she is of the mindset that market-based solutions for socioeconomic problems are the only solutions (or the only ones which should be offered in a market-based economy), which is surprising for someone with her education background (she possess a Masters in Laws). But outside of these traditionally conservative options—by addressing costs rather than universal access—with regards to health care, she has not offered anything novel (or even substantive) in the way of a substitute beyond the rhetoric the current option’s unconstitutionality, and its effect of being a “job killer.”
Bachmann has also called for the abolishment of the Environmental Protection Agency, created under the late Republican President Richard Nixon, also calling it a “job killer” (apparently, labeling policies which don’t agree with her excessively conservative views “job killers” is enough to sway segments of the voting electorate who are susceptible to such manipulations of ideology).
Adolph Hitler once said that if you tell a big enough lie often enough, it will eventually become the truth, and that in the end, truth will not matter. The practice is all the more effective if you are able to find supporters from the gate. This is what I am reminded of in Michele Bachmann’s candidacy. She is quite vocal in her assertions that anyone [else] who doesn’t view social and political policies from her own perspective as being “out-of-touch with mainstream” views, but these loud protestations only mask the fact that her own views fit that particular bill more than others.
Adolph Hitler once said that if you tell a big enough lie often enough, it will eventually become the truth, and that in the end, truth will not matter. The practice is all the more effective if you are able to find supporters from the gate. This is what I am reminded of in Michele Bachmann’s candidacy. She is quite vocal in her assertions that anyone [else] who doesn’t view social and political policies from her own perspective as being “out-of-touch with mainstream” views, but these loud protestations only mask the fact that her own views fit that particular bill more than others.
A lawyer by profession, Bachmann is quite an elegant and polished speaker. She knows how best to persuade a group of people trying decide for themselves what is right. But most of America’s voting electorate lack the time (or patience) to look into the substance of issues for themselves, and shrewd politicians know this. They are able to take advantage of our propensity to listen to what others have to say on a particular issue, rather than self-research. And if the message is elegant and persuasive enough—fact checking and intentional distortions notwithstanding—expect even the most marginal candidate for office to have a level of legitimacy.
Although clearly competent, her views on how best to govern the country simply do not have the best interests of all Americans at heart. In fact, her view of America seems to reflect the views of a select few whose social, economic, and ideological interests would benefit. And although this is not the case with Obama’s Administration, it appears that at least his attempts to craft policies which the majority can benefit from are more in line with the country’s promise.

Note: Beyond The Political Spectrum will continue throughout the 2012 presidential campaign to look at other contenders for both the Democratic and Republican nominations

Read More

For The Last Time, Affordable Health Care Is Not Leftist…It’s A Right!

It’s no secret that I am a huge proponent of affordable health care for all Americans. It’s a belief that I’ve held since I was a child, and no, it’s not an ideological stance; it’s a belief borne based on what is simply a pragmatic need for the nation and its people. So suffice it to say that I am—outside of the knowledge that the fight against universally affordable health care is really a conflict of power between opposing parties—left scratching my head as to why individuals would be so vehemently opposed to such a laudable goal.
Obamacare. Socialism. And now job killing. There are just a few of the politically-charged pejoratives that opponents of health care overhaul use to slander the notion that all Americans should be covered by the best health care system in the world.
Last week, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted to repeal the Affordable Health Care for America Act (House bill - H.R. 3962) with their own act, the
Job-Killing Health Care Law Act (H.R. 2). Without control of neither the Senate or White House, this act was a largely symbolic measure meant to play to those constituents who are on record as being vocally opposed to health care reform, and who supported last year’s Republican electoral trouncing of the Democrats as they swept into power in the House.
The sad part about this affair is that outside of ideology, the Republicans don’t have a leg to stand on. First, in order to have brought this endeavor to the floor of the one chamber of Congress they control, they had to ignore the findings of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Earlier this month the CBO, which calculates the projected cost of legislation, concluded that repealing the health care overhaul act would increase the federal budget deficit to the tune of some $230 billion dollars for the projected period between 2012 thru 2021 (http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/cbo-health-care-repeal-797015.html). Needless to say, political foes against health care reform have taken a “figures-lie-and-liars-figure” stance in discrediting these numbers. In fact, Speaker of the House John Boehner told reporters, "I do not believe that repealing the job-killing health care law will increase the deficit” (naturally, any figures which opposition uses to justify its/their arguments are somehow “more accurate”).
The truth of the matter is that most analysts agree that health care reform does not “kill job” as claimed by opponents. In fact, the opposite is proves to be in evidence even now (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jan/20/eric-cantor/health-care-law-job-killer-evidence-falls-short/). Just this month, Forbes magazine has published two articles which demonstrate how small businesses have already benefited from the health care reform act. Based on preliminary results, major insurance companies are reporting increases in small businesses offering health care to their employees due in part to tax cuts created by the new law What’s more, the fact that many private insurers are apparently increasing the number of clients they are serving, and that small businesses are taking advantage of the tax benefits in order to shore up the number of employees they offer health care to also kills the argument that the law is a slippery slope to the road to “socialism’ (http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/06/more-small-businesses-offering-health-care-to-employees-thanks-to-obamacare/). This fear mongering slandering of health care reform is predicated on the argument by opponents that mandating that Americans purchase health care insurance “un-Constitutional.” History would disagree.
In 1798, the 5th Congress of the United States drafted and passed the Act for The Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen. Signed by non other than President John Adams—one of the Founding Fathers of the Constitution—the law created

the Marine Hospital Service, a series of hospitals built and operated by the federal government to treat injured and ailing privately employed sailors. This government provided healthcare service was to be paid for by a mandatory tax on the maritime sailors (a little more than 1% of a sailor’s wages), the same to be withheld from a sailor’s pay and turned over to the government by the ship’s owner. The payment of this tax for health care was not optional. If a sailor wanted to work, he had to pay up
(http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/).

This very similar to how truly socialized medicine operates in European countries today. Keep in mind that many member of that Congress were comprised of some of the drafters of the Constitution. Hence, the argument that “no where in the Constitution does it state that government has such authority” (or intention) is moot.
Such related arguments have been used by the dozen or so Republican state governors who have filed lawsuits in federal courts seeking to block enactment of the new law. These governors assert that the new federal health care mandate is an “unprecedented encroachment on the liberty of individuals” and “on the sovereignty of the states.” So does that mean that if a state mandates that its citizens must have insurance that they are similarly “encroaching on the liberty of individuals?” What then is the difference between whether a state government or federal government makes such a mandate? Massachusetts Republican governor Mitt Romney apparently has no issues with government mandates, as he was the brainchild behind his state’s requiring nearly all of its citizens to purchase health care insurance in an effort to cover them. In the early 1990s, in an effort to counter the plan then-President Bill Clinton was proposing, Arizona Senator John McCain (yes, that John McCain) first proposed “individual mandates” with regards to federal health care coverage for every American. And more recently under Bush II, proposed mandates were not a problem when they were proposed by former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/23/1544321/individual-health-insurance-mandate.html)
However, if you want a real anecdotal example of how health care reform is more of a political ideological jockeying for power by opponents, you needn’t look any further than the Republican-controlled House itself. Late last year, newly-elected House Congressman Andy Harris (R-Maryland), an anesthesiologist who defeated his incumbent Democratic opponent by riding an anti-Obamacare platform into office made a small media wave. When informed that there would be a one month lag in time before his federally-mandated, tax-payer-funded medical healthcare insurance plan kicked into gear after his January 3rd swearing in, he questioned why it took so long for his insurance benefits to kick in. He then asked if he could “purchase insurance from the government to cover the gap.” According to reports, he was “incredulous” and stated that “this is the only employer I’ve ever worked for where you don’t get coverage the first day you are employed” (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html). The eye-opening magic of Karma in action.

Maryland Republican Senator Andy Harris after his November election win

In much the same way that many laws are passed yearly, opponents of affordable universal health care coverage need to give the political opposition a rest. Under the old system of every-American-for-himself, the prior system was simply unsustainable on both cost and individual coverage levels. And lastly, the lack of any proposed alternatives only proves how politically self-serving repeal is for those trying to do so.
Granted, the new law is not perfect—no where near being so—it does provide benefits to both individuals and businesses which the old system failed to do. Small businesses benefit by way of tax credits (up to 35%) which help in the costs for providing coverage for their employees. Young adults can now stay on their parents’ policies until the age of 26. Children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be excluded from health care coverage. And seniors have benefited from having the “donut hole” in coverage for prescription drugs from the Bush-era prescription drug overhaul (2003) filled. Finally, insurance companies get to bring on 30 million more people to insure. It’s simply hard to understand how when so many can benefit from an overhaul in health care affordability why opposition remains. Even more puzzling, how political interests groups and opponents of health care reform can manage to mobilize so many Americans to think and vote against their own their own self-interests.
If opposition to health care reform is a stance meant to protect my “rights,” you can have it; I’d much rather prefer my good health and an ability to maintain it without going broke.

Read More

A Few Items In The News…

The Mid-Term Elections

Years ago, Adolf Hitler said that if you tell a big enough lie often enough, it will eventually become the truth…and that truth will eventually not matter. Keep that in mind as reality has declared the mid-term elections of 2010 to now be history. And after all of the usual pre-election insanity of campaign lies, slanders, half-truths, opponent misrepresentations, and shifty campaign contribution, we have projected winners and losers.
Now that America has a divided Congress—between the now Republican-controlled House of Representatives and the Democrat-controlled Senate—as well as a Democratically-controlled executive branch (i.e., that’s the White House to those of you who failed Civics 101), we can expect ideological intransigence, political gridlock, party-bashing, and ultimately legislative inaction to run Washington for the foreseeable future.
Even as the landslide-victorious Republicans are preparing to take control of half of the federal government’s legislature, the presumed new Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-OH) had already started to engage in the usual Washington political hyperbole by declaring that “there seems to be some denial on the part of the president and other Democratic leaders of the message that was sent by the American people."





Last week’s election victories on the part of the Republicans (in both national and local races across the country) were not so much as bringing the Democrats face-to-face with some presumed denial on their parts as much as it was greater organizing among the conservative rank-and-file, a more effective public relations machine, and better image-projecting. Combine this reality with the fact that Democrats were ideologically split over support for policies promoted by the White House and you get the pasting that Democrats suffered at the polls almost 2 weeks ago.
Most informed Americans already know the conservative platform of the Republican Party, so to call this election “the most historic election in over 60, 70 years” is something of a stretch of reality, and reeks of political spin…trying to make more of the elections than they were (come on…the election of the first African American president and the accompanying one-party control of the federal government during the previous election cycle doesn’t count as more “historic?” Even the Republican shift of Congress in 1994 was more meaningful historically). More to the point, its not as if the American electorate has much of a choice when it comes to party/ideological representation in Washington anyway…Brand X or Brand Y.
Taken altogether, these events harbinger what is to come for the American people…the ultimate loser in the elections of the past couple of weeks. Until either one party effectively (the key word here) controls one aspect of the legislative process, decides to work in the interests of their constituencies—us—and not instead hold allegiance to their political parties and their respective ideologies, or until both parties either learn to work together or the American people opt to create a viable third political alternative (the Tea Party totally withstanding), we can expect the same a three-ring circus in Washington in the coming term instead of functioning three branches of government.

Corporal Punishment In Schools

A high school basketball coach in Jackson, Mississippi is in legal hot water after images of him “paddling” students during a basketball practice went viral over the ‘net this week, courtesy of another student’s cell phone camera.
Coach Marlon Dorsey defended his practice of paddling basketball team members who failed “to run basketball plays correctly" as a way of trying to "save these young men from the destruction of self," according to court documents filed recently.
In further defense of his actions, Dorsey issued a statement which read,

"I paddled my students... today, some of [sic] students have lost pride in their school and in their (sic) selves. Students are disrespecting teachers, administrators and other students by stealing cell phones, leaving off campus without permission, disrupting classroom teaching time, late for class and not following dress codes by wearing the pants on their butts and house shoes to school and on-court behavior. I took it upon myself to save these young men from the destruction of self and what society has accepted and become silent to the issues our students are facing on a daily basis."

As of this writing: Dorsey is still employed with the district, but is on active suspension without pay for 28 days; students who were alleged to have been paddled still attend classes and are still playing on the boy's varsity basketball team; and a lawsuit has been filed in court naming the school district, Dorsey, and the school principal as defendants who failed to safeguard the rights of the players (http://mw.cnn.com/snarticle?c=cnnd_us&p=0&aId=20101111:mississippi.coach.whippings:1).





Having worked with young people myself for over 10 years (including currently as a counselor for at-risk teens), I not only empathize with Dorsey’s position, but support it 110%. Today’s youth are simply out of control, especially urban youth. Part of this is because we as a society have adopted an overly liberal attitude toward dealing with both their issues and their actions. We have adopted a New Age form of thinking which asserts that paddling, whippings, and other forms of “abuse” are more harmful than helpful to youth in dealing with their delinquency. But an argument can be made that removing these (and other such) sanctions as options when it comes to bringing up our children does more harm to society as a whole.
Most of us who comprise Generation X, Baby Boomers, and prior generations received such sanctions regularly in both the home and in schools (from 3rd grade through high school), and we are no worse for our experiences. In fact, it could be argued that such actions reinforced our generation’s superior social value of duty, while the absence of such actions has resulted in this current generation’s sense of entitlement.
Even if you don’t agree with bringing back corporal punishment in public schools, one thing no one can disagree with is that there was no where near as much violence, disrespect for teachers, and lack of self-respect back in my public school days as there is today with the absence of such measures. Also, people were not chomping at the bit to sue for any perceived violation of one’s “rights” back in the day as they are now…as if awarding monetary “compensation” somehow miraculously gives one back his/her dignity.
In fact, who needs Corporal Punishment? I say bring in Sergeant Slaughter!


Black Unwed Motherhood Reaches A New High

This week, the Washington Post featured a story about the extremely high—an understatement to be sure—rate of unwed motherhood among black women in America. According the both the article and the latest government figures, black single motherhood among black women is an astounding 72%, far and away shadowing the demographic group, Native Americans at 66% (“Blacks Struggle With 72% Unwed Mothers Rate,” The Washington Post.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/06/AR2010110602362_pf.html ).

To emphasize the point, the article focused on the experience of a Houston-area OB-GYN and her low-income–serving practice. The government’s statistics closely mirrors the daily experiences of Dr. Natalie Carroll, who gives a level of personal counseling emphasizing the need for single mothers to bring stable male figures into the lives of their children…in addition to medical care she provides to expectant mothers.
For many within the black community, this fact is no surprise, although the numerical percentage is still shocking. The black community also knows all-too well the correlative outcomes that such a high rate of single-parent households tends to yield—children of unmarried mothers (of any race) “are more likely to perform poorly in school, go to prison, use drugs, be poor as adults, and have their own children out of wedlock.”
It’s a well-know but little-discussed norm within the black community that, even when is criticized for the sociological pathology that it is by high profile figures such as entertainer Bill Cosby on the left and former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes on the right, it becomes a matter of loping off the head (s) of the bearer(s) of bad news rather than an issue to be addressed.
It’s a complex problem with equally complicated solutions. Yes, black males could learn to step up and accept more responsibility insofar as family and their children are concerned, but when the economic climate creates more impediments than opportunities, how is he supposed to become “marriage material” if he cannot even acquire gainful employment? And what woman is going to “take care of a man” (a prospective taboo among many black women)?
And what about idea of marriage as a solution to this problem? Given the almost daily reports about how many high profile couples such as entertainers—individuals of more-than-adequate financial means—are splitting up almost as soon as they get together, how is any man supposed to take the institution of marriage seriously when it seems no one else is? As a solution to the high rate of single motherhood in and of itself, marriage seems to be an outdated institution that no one takes seriously. Indeed, depending on whose numbers you buy, more than half of them will end up in divorce anyway. So there is obviously no sense of security in matrimony. More so, if it comes down to divorce, the man is far more likely to receive the short end of the stick insofar as rulings (spousal/child support, the dividing of assets, etc.) are concerned, so where is his incentive to get married?
It would seem that many aspects of the socioeconomic system in America have to change in order for facilitate an incentive for black males become more responsible, and for black women to accept them as potential marriage partners. Then again, these were non-factors for black family cohesiveness during both slavery and in the century of Jim Crow following slavery. As mentioned earlier, it’s a complicated issue.

Read More

Will Ideology Block Possible Economic Assistance?

Well, it’s the start of a new month, and hopefully, the start of warmer weather and political tidings in Washington…the kind of potential issue that Beyond The Political Spectrum was created to explore. However, my suspicions are that last night’s piece on CBS’ 60 Minutes about Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal—a rising star of the Republican Party—will portent the usual amount of acrimony in national political discourse that we’ve seen over the years.
Why do I say this? Because Jindal, along with the governors of South Carolina, Idaho, Alaska, Mississippi, and Texas all question whether or not the nearly $800 billion earmarked for the economic stimulus plan championed and signed almost 2 weeks ago by President Obama will work to stimulate the country’s ailing economy. For this reason, most of these same governors say (ostensibly) that they will not accept [some] portions of the stimulus fund money. Although this is a valid concern, avoiding anything short of full compliance with implementing the plan smacks more of politics than statesmanship by these governors, especially given the unprecedented nature of not only the country’s current economic situation, but those of the very same states where these governors serve the interests of the people.

Rising political star among conservatives, Republican Govenor Bobby Jindal of Lousiana, along with others opposes the stimulus plan

What can it hurt to support the stimulus plan? If it fails, opponents can justify their stance without the taint of trying to sabotage it by choosing not to accept all of the financial assistance the money is intended to provide; the president and his supporters would be forced to eat crow, and Republicans could then ride another 1994-like wave back into power and show us how the economy should be dealth with. If it succeeds, then the country is better off, and the people can get on with their lives of the living-by-credit and paycheck-to-paycheck status quo that was the reality prior to the now 15-month long economic downturn.
A cynical analysis would conclude that these governors—all Republicans—are putting their political party’s ideology, along with possible political aspirations of a 2012 White House run in ahead of the immediate needs of the people of their respective states. This cynicism could be supported, in a sense by Jindal’s revelation in the 60 Minutes interview, that he considers the late former President Ronald Reagan to have written the book on creating a healthy economy, ideologically speaking. And when pressed about his future aspirations as to a potential White House run, Jindal simply answered “I have the job I want (as governor).” In political parlance, that translates to “I’m leaving my options open…but I don’t want to telegraph my intentions just yet.” Sounds somewhat justified.
And aside from their beliefs that the stimulus plan may fail are their individual arguments. For example, Texas Governor Rick Perry’s concern “is there’s going to be commitments attached to it that are a mile long.” As my teenager nieces would say, “Well, duh…” What money from the federal government doesn’t have some strings attached? How much more different is this aspect of the stimulus package than other federal funds sent to the states? If any of these governors “sees” any difference between the attached “strings” of the economic stimulus package and other funds distributed by the feds to the states, then it is as surely as an ulterior motive in politics to be a perspective that is politically inspired. This is especially true considering that built-in provisions in the stimulus package allows for state legislatures to accept any money that their governors reject; these governors could reject the money and still look like staunch conservatives in front of their core ideological constituents.
It seems that upon simply examining possible options, any reservations that the governors of the various states in questions have do not stand up to the yardstick of impartial or justified concern. Consider Mississippi’s Haley Barbour’s contention that accepting unemployment dollars offered up by the stimulus package would “force his state to eventually raise taxes when the stimulus money runs out.” Is it too difficult for a state’s legislature to enact fiscal policies tied to spending any stimulus-related money that wouldn’t interfere with its mandated use and distribution? Come on…what happened to the thinking and problem solving acumen that conservatives were supposed to be so noted for?
So, as a public service to those of a particular ideological bent who do not want to appear to be (irresponsibly so) putting their personal aspirations or petty dogmas ahead of the needs of their constituents, I have a simple suggestion for those governors even thinking about not accepting any money from the president’s economic stimulus package…simply give your portion of it to the other states which are experiencing similar economic issues. I’m sure they wouldn’t mind taking it…just offer it up to states with economies on life support like Michigan and California. Just simply ignore the fact that your own state economies are pretty much in the same crapper as those of many other states who could benefit from your generosity and selfless philanthropy. Only then can I and others across the country accept that your reservations are devoid of selfishness.

Read More

Survivor: White House Run!

Someone pinch me! Did I miss the television promos of the latest incarnation of Survivor? Survivor…you know the show…the one where contestants resort to trickery, backstabbing, name-calling, and other levels of duplicity in order to win the prize at the end of the season? It seems this particular “reality” TV program is reality…at its most real. My guess is, since I must have obviously not paid attention to those annoying corner graphics that normally distract me as I watch my favorite network television shows, that what I’m watching on television is Survivor: White House Run, or something to that effect.
That’s how I’m seeing the current run for the White House by the two major contending presidential candidates, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama. It seems that anything in the way of mean-and-bread issues that concern Americans of all stripes has taken a backseat to politics as usual. We hear the ridiculous dollar amounts plopped down by the Republican National Committee on Governor Sarah Palin’s wardrobe, how John McCain (sadly) doesn't know how to operate a computer or surf the web. On the other side, we hear questions about Barack Obama’s questionable ties to domestic terrorists, his lack of patriotism for not wearing a flag pin on his lapel, or Senator Joe Biden’s historical faux paux about how FDR would sit down in front of the television set to address the nation during the Great Depression. So much has been made of these issues that they have inevitably degraded into distortions of reality and truth which has come to symbolize Americans’ discontent with electoral politics. The only Saving Grace this time around is the relative novelty of the race’s candidates; the 1st African-American, 1st female (or Gyno-American if you’re into being PC), the oldest American, and the obligatory white male running for the two highest elected spots in the land.
Despite both the novelty of this election, and the promise of civility (from both sides) of an election where issues would be the focus instead of the distractions of mudslinging and opponent degradation, we have witnessed what could be called “civil muckraking;” gutter politics as usual, but with more gentlemanly articulation. I acknowledge this because, compared to 2004 presidential election where Swiftboating attack ads sank John Kerry’s White House bid and the rush to dig up dirt on President Bush helped bury the network career of Dan Rather, we see a more refined level of nastiness, but with the usual political distractions from the issues. It’s too bad that the Survivor series doesn’t require writers…they could take ideas from what’s going on currently.
Is Sarah Palin’s expensive wardrobe really an issue in an arena where image and image building is not only accepted, but necessary to a shallow electorate (Remember the Kennedy-Nixon debate? The 1st televised presidential debate where the tanned and makeup-laden Kennedy looked like a bronze tiger compared to the plain, go it au naturale Nixon). And what about Obama’s supposedly jab at Palin by his use of the time-worn phrase “lipstick on a pig” remark? He could have just as easily used the equally-aged variation, “perfume on a pig.” Either way, unless one is just so partisan, that he or she is just looking for a way to make this rather innocuous statement about Palin, it’s a meaningless barb. Biden’s slip? Nobody’s perfect, especially us historically-challenged Americans. McCain’s lack of computer savvy? He’s 71-years old…is that so usual a condition among that particular age group? Obama being a "Socialist?" Well, hard to ignore the recent nationalization of banks/lending institutions...if that isn't a socialist move, then I don't know what is.
And what about all this talk about “lack of experience?” This particular distraction non-issue deserves special highlighting because to assume that any American lacks experience for public office reeks of the arrogance of the political class--career politicians who tout the honor in being "public servants." If we truly are The People that the Constitution states that we are, then we are own potential representatives too. And our country's history is full of examples of our representatives coming from among ordinary people, such as Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, who successfully launched a campaign for Congress, as was elected on a platform of gun control after her husband was killed in 1993 by an armed man on a New York subway. And lest we forget that an entire myth of legendary proportions was built around a certain rail-splitter from Illinois who eventually became one of the most honored U.S. presidents during this country’s most crisis-ridden period. Finally, the Founding Fathers had no experience in cobbling together the legal foundation of a country, but that didn't stop them…and most of them were home-schooled, lacking the formal education, political office experience, and 200+ years of history as a reference that both Obama or Palin has as advantages. As with most elections--sadly--innuendo, negative aspersions, interpretations of an opponent's intents that border on conspiracy theory, and outright lies have become integral components of the process. However, these shady actions are poor substitutes for "issues" by [the] candidates, or of "reasoning" by the so-called "enlightened electorate." And this latter non-issue is among the most irrelevant of the distractions of the current campaign. To believe that only the "experienced" can be our logical representatives is analogous to the pre-Reformation Catholic Church's doctrine of the "necessity" of an intercessor (e.g., priest) to represent us or legislate on our behalf before the "God" of public servitude.
The fact that these distractions are brought to us by nearly every television network is what blurs the line between reality and “reality TV.” Backstabbing, name-calling, character assassination and outright lying may make for questionable entertainment, but as a basis of picking the leader of our nation and the Free World? Looking at things from a Big Picture perspective, I can’t say that I blame the candidates for these types of engagements…if We The People would learn to distinguish between TV and tv, and stop caring so much about the smoke-and-mirrors of show over the life-and-death issues of substance, maybe people like me wouldn’t have such a hard time telling the difference what we watch and what I’m watching. Maybe then, we could force our representatives to address issues such as this current crisis economy and external threats (not perceived threats). Because as it stands right now, we're all playing Survivor.

Read More