We are the Deciders!
Today I posted some audio from Rachel Maddow's January 16th show, on my player over there. Rachel has spent the past week at MSNBC in the liberal's, gayz, and wimmin's only isolation booth, and during her moments on camera has been hammering her head against a wall of...I'm sorry, but the only way to describe it is stupidity... that prevails at that anchor table between Tweety and Pat and the other guyz, with Tweets scowling dramatically at Keith's every word. Yeah, Keith is the shining star over there, but he sure knows when and how to share the spotlight with really talented and smart people like Rachel. Hey, its not his fault if he makes all the rest of 'em look bad!

I understand that there is some deep need to get on with it, and that the job of the media has transformed from informing us into a service to expedite the wishes of the large corporations that have conglomerated any critical thought or problem solving skills that might be inherent in us, into an easy cartoon for the masses who are too lazy to think. But, before we sew this thing up, doesn't it make sense to, at least, know a few of the major differences between the 3 democratic frontrunner's? Isn't it worth a moment of thought in an election cycle that is drawing unprecedented crowds, and upsetting the control of powers that have put us in a box and decided for us for so long?

The reason that so many people vote against their own best interest is because they accept the fear and manipulation of the parties without doing even a little work to find out the basic stances of the candidates. We are somehow encouraged to trust our gut, and to go with the feelings that we personally have about a candidate, as if this is some sort of high school popularity contest.

Last week Sam Seder said something really helpful while on the air with a caller. He said that he doesn't believe that voting is about your own personal preference, as in which candidate that you personally like, is pretty, or whose views you like. Its about assessing all of the information that you have and voting on what works and is logical for the process and the country. This is absolutely true.
We live in a me, me, me society that encourages individuality and political correctness to an extreme that was probably unthinkable in the election cycles of the founders of this thing. In order to be a workable society, we have to consider what is best for the entire society...right?
This isn't just about what serves YOU personally, but what serves, not only the process, but the continuation of this imperfect union, and the society as a whole. If we consider that this country is only as strong as it's weakest citizen, and that we are supposed to be a country of immigrants, each giving a hand up to the one below, then a question arises about how this thing got twisted into a way for the rich to get richer and to hang onto their wealth while the poor, and increasingly the middle class, are getting the shaft. Capitalism cant possibly work over the long run unless the more fortunate and talented members of our society pay a scaled percentage of their earnings back in. If they use their position to hang onto an unfair share, (that's a relative unfair share...as in, not comparing it to the average middle class wage, but to what is above and beyond most of our wildest dreams, as in the percentage difference between the CEO and the lowest worker, and that sort of equation rule of thumb,) then they are pulling the foundation out from under the society that allowed them to build that wealth in the first place!

You may be able to build your McMansion on the hardship of others for a while, but this is really a house of cards, and one natural disaster or catastrophic illness could be a great leveler. So, unless you really have no feeling about who we are or what our aim is, or who your neighbor is and how the homeless man on the street could be your brother, you need to learn what is happening out there and have real reasons for why you're doing what you do...more specifically, why you are voting the way you vote.


Conservatism is not a bad thing at all, and it actually is part of the delicate balance and the checks and balances of our government, but fer' Christ's sake, at least know why you are a conservative....and try not to have it always end up back at your disdain of taxes and how you deserve somehow to have more money in the bank as opposed to people who cant go to the doctor or afford their medicine.
I spend more time than I'd like talking to people about politics, because I am the political one...you know, the one who knows whats what, and so its easy to get a quick and easy fix on whats happening without having to sit through Tweety and...er...the national news, every night. And, I have to say that I'm hearing, more than I like and mainly from middle class people who are working so damned hard to just make ends meet, that they are sick and tired of these immigrants and poor folks with their hands outstretched. Give them health care for free? No way!! School for their kids? No way!!
But, the long view tells us that, on the ground its different. Should you spend some time at say, an inner city after school program, or a food pantry, you might see that neglecting a shot or a checkup can result in long term costs to society that are much more than it would cost just to make medical care available to all. I also have been very troubled by the ongoing impact of Clinton's Welfare reform package and the lack of programs for children who have no place to go in the afternoon. I see kids wandering around with little parental oversight, parents working way too hard to barely get by, and the very real possibility passes by me each day, that our society is saving money on social programs in favor of long term care for teen parents and their kids in the same cycle. Very young girls pushing baby carriages, and girls sneaking to see their boyfriends even as parents tell them not to...what can a parent do if they have to work so many hours and there are no programs for teens in this entire city? If we don't do something preventative now, we are throwing away our most valuable asset of educated future generations.
Knowing what your opinion is and why is of the utmost importance. For those who say that its just too depressing or that it infringes on their life to worry about such serious things, I say that if you find this hard, then just wait until we ignore this for a few more generations.
And we all have the responsibility for future generations. Its not like, if you don't have kids yourself you shouldn't have to pay for schools, because the schooling you're paying for is as easily your own, as it is for the people who will carry on for you, regardless of if they are your flesh and blood or not.

I also have to say that I don't know where the idea came from that Americans are somehow deserving of an easier ride in life than anyone else on this planet. We are lucky to have an abundant country and power in the world, but to assume that we deserve to never be touched by what happens in the rest of the world, or what the fallout is from our actions, and alto of what got us where we are in the world order, is a little shortsighted. If its about being safe and ensuring our continued luck of abundance, then the long view is necessary for all of our citizens. We also have to be aware of what we've done on the path to where we are. It was the disregard of history and scholarly advice that got us into this war, and that we will be paying for for generations to come. There is nothing more powerful that having good diplomatic standing and a reputation as a good guy. There is nothing worse than being hated by the entire world because we've fucked up a country and made the worldwide terrorism problem worse.



So, no matter what your persuasion is politically, or what candidate of either party sounds good to you, look into what their platforms are now, in this cycle, and look at what they are saying.
If you are a republican or even just like McCain or any other the other clowns in that freak show, you're on your own over here. There is a ton of information out there, and its up to you to figure out what the proposed policies are beyond your impressions of the candidates, (locally, here is some of it.) Good hair or having been in a prison camp does not make for a great president, or even a passing one. A general feeling of liking or disliking someone doesn't pass for knowing what they are going to do at this critical juncture. Keep in mind also that anyone who wants to be president at this particular juncture is either half crazy or some kind of true believer. It is up to us to know which and of what before we go in the voting booth, or the folding table that we get here in CT now.

Regarding the democratic front runners, Rachel Maddow does a great rundown in the audio on the RIPCoco player from 01-16-08; The Differences Between the 3 Dem Frontrunner's. This goes beyond the woman vs. race vs. white guy line that we keep getting. These candidates are very different in how they would govern, and anyone who doesn't know the differences between them needs to look into it. A synopsis of Rachel's explanation of it might go like this:

Hillary Clinton is the candidate of change from within. She thinks that it is enough to have a Democrat back in the White House. She wants to work with corporations and within the structure of the government, as it is now, to create some programs that address the problems of the country. She is a party player and believes that lobbyists and large corporations deserve to be heard on the same level as regular citizens.
On the war, she wants to get us out, but foresees being in militarily for a long time and having a presence there via our embassy. She seems to want to reserve judgment on what exactly will be done until she gets into office. Even as she says that she will end it, it seems like there are no hard numbers forthcoming, except for a plan to begin within 60 days of taking office. There is alot of talk about our strategic interests in the region and fighting terrorism, but it sounds alot like the Bush agenda. Like most of what I hear from her, this position isn't really stated clearly; like, she has a plan but its not fully formed yet.

John Edwards is the candidate of change by force and power. He wants to turn the system upside down and try to return it to a more equitable distribution ideal. He sees the system as being in such a state of disrepair that it really needs to be changed. Edwards entire career has become one of working for the middle and lower classes and trying to right the wrongs that come about when unregulated capitalism is allowed to go wild. Edwards wants to re regulate the deregulated big businesses, (and particularly the insurance industry,) that Reagan was so sure would regulate themselves if the government just backed off. Hows that working? Its not! And the result has brought out the basest of human frailties and cruelty that anyone could imagine.
Edwards On the war: He wants to start to withdraw troops and get us completely out of the country within 9 months. He would order an immediate drawdown of 40,000 to 50,000 troops, and continue until we are out for all intents and purposes, leaving 3,500 to 5,000 troops to guard the embassy and humanitarian workers. He wants to keep sending the vetoed supplemental funding bill , with the timetable for withdrawal, back so that Bush has to veto it over and over, (this is an idea I like, because maybe the American people will start to look at what exactly is going on, and maybe we can make a record of this so that future generations know that this was Bush's war and his prerogative to stay there this long.) He wants to engage in diplomatic talks with all the countries in the region and hold peace talks. He also wants to continue to help Iraq train its forces. This plan still has a ways to go, in my opinion, but it does have that concrete withdrawal which will bring things to a head pretty quickly and lets the country stand up and figure out its leadership one way or another. The likely chaos that will ensue is not worse than dragging this out and having a slightly lesser level of the same over more months...it has to be done one way or another because we are clearly making things worse by being there.

Barack Obama is the great communicator candidate. he believes that only through communication and unification will this partisan country resolve it's differences and get anything done. Beyond that its a little unclear as to what exactly he will be able to do that is all that much different than Edwards. One thing is for certain, he is new and inexperienced, and he is sliding towards the center as this thing goes on. I would like to see more concrete plans from him. Pretty words don't mean much anymore.
Obama on the war: he seems to have a 16 month plan that involves bringing home 1-2 brigades per month, and not leaving a permanent base...that is, unless Al Qaeda build a base there...then its all out the window. One interesting thing is that he feels like we never finished the war in Afghanistan; its unclear if he wants go back there and finish or just keep strategic outposts in order to strike Al Qaeda when necessary. My opinion is that he may find that drawing down so slowly is more dangerous to the troops left behind and draws out a situation that may need to become chaotic before it reaches its own level.
And firewater always seeks its own level.





Products of the week:

Rapturewear (What will YOU leave behind?) is a real company...so I'm not suggesting actually giving them money. But some of their products are just too good not to share. Behold a sampling of their T-shirts!:

c/p RIPCoco

Labels: 2008 election, Democrats, Rachel Maddow, Sam Seder