Palin is worse than we thought

Folks-

I've resisted blogging about Sarah Palin in this election cycle, largely on the belief that you vote for the President, and not the Vice-President (which I think is a bad idea to begin with.) However, it has become plain that McCaint's choice of Palin was an absolute disaster. I obviously did suspect this from the beginning. The day her choice was announced, one of my co-workers asked me what I thought of her as a pick, and my response was: "I think McCain just lost himself the election." When he asked me why, I said: "He can't use the experience argument anymore. It's impossible to argue that she has more experience than Obama." We've watched them try to make that argument, but really what McCaint did was put a woman whose experience comes out to being a sports journalist, mayor of a town of about 6,000 people, and governor of a state of only about 650,000 people (about a third the population of my county) for less than 2 years up against a man who has a law degree from Harvard, was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, was a University Constitutional Law Professor, was a State Senator in a state with a population of over 12 million, and a Federal Senator for that same state, and then claim she has more relevent experience than he does. It would be comical if our future didn't depend on the outcome.


For most of the campaign we've been told how Palin is "one of us," and backs the same things we do, such as energy independence, ethics, America, and all things patriotic. It seems every single day something comes out to prove that sentiment wrong in every way.


As for her interest in energy independence, on October 21st the AP posted an article written by Martha Mendoza detailing how as Governor of Alaska, Palin backed shipping Alaskan Liquified Natural Gas to Japan, instead of using it in the U.S.


As for her ethics, she very obviously tried to get her former brother-in-law fired, and fired the man who refused to do it. Contrary to the reports from the McCaint Campaign, she was indeed found to be in violation of Alaskan Ethics rules, but the body making the report had no power to do anything about it. Then a few days ago it came out that she spent $150,000 of the McCaint campaign money for clothes in direct contradiction of what McCaint himself said 15 years ago. The campaign is gamely saying that the plan was to donate them to charity after the election. Does that suddenly make it ethical? I don't remember McCaint saying anything to that effect back then!


It's clear that she has no idea what the job of Vice President entails. Every time someone brings up the subject she either rebuffs the question, or gets the answer very wrong. The job of the Vice President has nothing to do with legislation. The Vice President has two tasks defined by the Constitution: 1. Cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate (not write or debate legislation), and 2. Take over the job of the President any time he or she is unable to perform the job. This usually is interpreted to mean when the President dies, but it also comes up if the President is in surgery, or is otherwise incapable of performing his or her job. That's it.


Now, after telling us all along that she is one of us, and taking Obama to task over his connections to William Ayers, she makes a really boneheaded statement: She is incapable of calling those who bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors, nurses, staff, and patients of those clinics, Terrorists. That's right, the guy who didn't kill anyone in his bombings in the '60's is a terorist, but those who target and kill abortion supporters to suppress other abortion supporters through terror, well, she can't call them terrorists. I'm not exagerating this folks. She can't refer to extreme-right-wing terrorists as what they are. "My killers aren't terrorists," she seems to be saying, "because they are on my side."


This may seem difficult to believe, but it's true. I'm not going to make you take this on faith. You can click the link above or check out the embedded YouTube video below and see her refuse to call abortion clinic bombers terrorists yourself.




This is what she is, in her clearest sense. She is an elitist, not a bi-partisan. She believes that her needs come first, her ideas come first, her beliefs come first, and if she needs a terror squad to put down ideas she doesn't like, she will. This is not the kind of "change" we need in this country, and never did.

It is clear to me that she and McCaint would destroy all of those things that I think makes America great. Tolerance of differing ideas. The idea that anyone can make it in America. This isn't what we are all about.

If you agree with me on these points, please pass this on to your friends.

-Edly

A new Pledge

By Ed Smallwood

Here we are on the eve of Independence Day. I promised earlier this year to be more topical, and oddly, I found this one holiday easy to come up with an opinion over.

This is the time of year that we all show off our patriotism. We wave flags, we set off fireworks, we have concerts and barbeques. But how often do we think of the document that matters most to our country?

Yes, the Constitution. It’s not as old as the country itself or the flag, but it’s the document that defines our country. That has to be at least as important as the flag. I mean, without the Constitution, there would be no Republic for the flag to stand for.

So, why do we pledge allegiance to the Flag but not to the Constitution? No, I’m not against the Pledge of Allegiance; I’m just wondering why we don’t pledge to uphold and protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

Honestly, I would feel much better about the education my children are getting if they had to pledge to uphold the Constitution on a regular basis. This would give their teachers a good opportunity to bring up the rights and limits afforded by the Constitution, and hopefully, improve their civics education well over that afforded to myself at their age. And honestly, isn’t that what we all want? A better education for our children than we ourselves got?

How do we get something like this started? Personally, I believe that it should be started at the school district level and then carried up to the State level. If Congress wants to get involved and standardize the pledges being used, that would be fine, but not absolutely necessary.

Really, this seems so obvious to me that I don’t understand why it hasn’t been in place for the last two-hundred years. Am I the only one that thinks this way?

If someone knows of a pledge already written, or would like to write one that would be appropriate for all age levels, I would love to hear about it.

“Business as Usual” ends at home

By Ed Smallwood

For the past couple of years I have been publishing my thoughts online in the form of essays. One essay at a time, one thought at a time. They started out as a trickle that I would put on a MySpace page, and have in recent months turned into a virtual deluge (for me) that I have been posting anywhere I can from my personal blog to any news or commentary site I can find.

As I publish more, I’m noticing more people are responding to my thoughts. I have seen many messages, both public and private, from people that are very thoughtful. Those are the comments I cherish.

Some of my essays have been about what I think should be done to improve the world in some small way, whether it be improving the environment by modifying our behavior, to improving communications in this country by acknowledging a problem and fixing it. There is one response to these essays that I have gotten that has gotten me mad: “Not gonna happen.” It is a simple statement of belief, a resignation of what is. A surrender to the inevitable.

Although the people who make this statement may not realize it, it’s also lazy and a way of dodging personal responsibility. “Nothing is going to change, so I don’t have to do anything or feel guilty about it. I can safely sit here in front of my TV and criticize others about how bad things are.”

Every time this happens a lobbyist or legislator smiles. You can almost hear them: “You smell that? That’s apathy. I love the smell of apathy in the morning!”

I decided to ask myself why this thought process made me mad. Why should I be surprised that someone would think this way when, in fact, all of the evidence of the past 40 years or so completely backs them up?

For years we have been told by surveys that Americans are tired of “Business as Usual.” My loose working definition of “Business as Usual” is a government that doesn’t listen to its constituents, but listens very carefully to lobbyists for corporations and special interests. Distilled down to two words: “Money talks.”

So, if Americans are tired of “Business as Usual,” why is it usual? Why has it been usual? How could people put up with it for this long? It’s because true Democracy has not been considered important.

Democracy requires several things to work: Information, participation, consent. These aren’t just optional parts of a democracy, they are vital. For years television news has been our main source of information about our government. Newspapers have been shriveling on the vine from neglect. Newsmagazines used to be staples of the check-out line at supermarkets. Now they have been placed so far down on the racks I thought that they had been removed entirely until a few days ago when I nearly kicked one. The slots that used to be filled with Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Reports have all been replaced by scandal sheets and entertainment magazines, with the newsmagazines being placed so low on the racks that they are below the eye-level of even the smallest child (certainly not their target readership.) “Who cares what’s happening in the real world?” these reformatted racks proclaim. “Read about what’s happening in the soap operas on your favorite television network instead!”

Through miseducation our democratic process has been limited much more than simply through our sources of information. “Get out there and vote!” we hear at this time of the election cycle. “Vote!” From some other people you will hear, “If you don’t know the issues, don’t vote!” The implication here is that democracy is simply about voting. You vote or you don’t vote. You vote for one pre-selected candidate or the other; for a proposition or against it. You can work on one candidate’s campaign, or the other, or stay away and choose from the comfort of your living room. That is all that is expected of you, and all of the communication that is wanted from you. All of civics reduced to a single paragraph. Complexities removed. “If you don’t like it, then stay home. We don’t want your opinion.”

There is a saying that I’m sure you’ve heard. It has been around since the founding of our country: “United we stand. Divided we fall.” Well, the citizenry of the United States has been divided up into a nation of individuals, and that’s why democracy is failing. Voter turnout falls when there is no perceived difference in the candidates. Choosing candidates is usually like going to an ice-cream store and being offered vanilla, vanilla bean, or French vanilla. Why is this? Because television networks allow the candidates to portray themselves this way. We are told that we have the choice between the candidate that has experience and will change the way things work, and the candidate that has less experience and will change the way things work. Has television really given us a history of what the candidates have done, or have the networks given the candidates carte blanc to redefine themselves in any way they want? After all, if the television networks want access to the candidates they can’t ask the hard questions.

This has been the way business in Washington has been conducted for decades, and will continue to be until we stop them. If you are waiting to elect someone who will end “Business as Usual,” you will wait forever and never see it end. This will not change from the top. It works much too well for the people that have been elected, as well as the corporations, lobbyists, and News Networks that got them elected. They currently have no motivation to change. As long as you are isolated, sitting comfortably in front of your TV, getting the news they want you to hear and limiting your involvement to voting periodically, they won’t change a thing. Oh, often you’ll hear them loudly talk about campaign finance reform, while messily gutting it out of public view.

The fact is that we cannot come to these people and ask them for meaningful reform. Especially if we are not willing to change ourselves.

You must be wondering by this point what it is that I am asking? Do I really expect people to get out of their couches and march? Do I expect people to start running for office? Should we all write our congresspeople? Should we blog?

I have an idea at this point. It is just the beginning of an idea, fragile and easily destroyed by apathy. If carefully nurtured it could bear the sweetest fruit. It is still very small and will require care to survive long enough, and we cannot do it separately and in isolation.

You see, it is easy to control individuals, to make them feel alone. It is difficult to control people in groups. I am not asking you to join a national organization. I am asking you to start a neighborhood group—a root level group. Some already exist, but many, many more are needed. Your group should get together as often as you reasonably can just to talk. You may want to set-up organized meetings, or unorganized bar-be-ques. You may have a stated agenda, or you may let anything come up as it will. However, you should be willing to get out of your house and go to these meetings, and host them yourself as you can. Do not be afraid to speak out! Let your voice be heard! And most importantly, let your group’s voice be heard. Don’t be afraid to get together as a group and let your representatives in local, state, or national government know how your group feels.

It is easy for a politician to ignore individuals, or categorize them broadly. It is much more difficult to ignore the opinions of a group of people, especially when they vote for your office. All of the lobbyist campeign money in the world is useless if your constituents refuse to vote for you.

My thought is that as these neighborhood groups should invite their representatives in the local, state, and national governments to come to meetings sponsored by these groups and talk to the people who live in the neighborhood. That way, people won’t be relying on news organizations to ask their representatives tough questions—they can ask them themselves. In addition, these neighborhood groups could make their concerns known to their elected representatives directly, instead of hoping that they are covered in some kind of opinion poll, or that their letters make it through the politician’s staffers. These groups may want to publish local newsletters that could be distributed online and to the door of their neighbors. They could endorse candidates who are responsive to the need of the neighborhood, and withhold endorsement of candidates that are not. Or, if neither option is palatable, you could always help one of your own members run for the office!

Also, groups of this kind could get together with other like-minded groups, and pool their resources to get better responses. Multiple groups around a city could work together to set up debates between candidates, or have round-table discussions.

More importantly, your children and grandchildren should see you doing this. It is important not just to participate in democracy, but to teach the next generation how to interact and to know what democracy looks like. Currently, most of them think it looks like talking heads on CNN or C-SPAN. Let them know real democracy looks like people talking to each other, not people talking at each other. Don’t let them be intimidated by elected officials—they’re just people who were elected to office.

While it is probably too late for this kind of organization to have much impact on the current election, it is certain to me that now is the right time to start organizing these groups for all of the elections in the future. Potential recruits for neighborhood groups are self-identifying at this time. How better to know if someone might be interested in joining than to look for signs emblazoned with the name of some politician sticking into someone’s lawn? Is that not an invitation to talk?

If we are to take back our government from the lobbyists and special interests, it is going to be through this kind of local change. By paying attention to our government and closely watching what is going on, we will counter all of that special interest money going into the campaign treasuries. That isn’t just the beginning of campaign finance reform--it’s the beginning of government reform. Most importantly it doesn’t require an act of Congress, it can’t be vetoed by the President, and it can’t be overturned by the Supreme Court. That is true Democracy.

If you are a patriot, a person who believes in the United States and spreading democracy, then you have no excuse for not starting a neighborhood political group or joining one that already exists. Now is the time. Join in real Democracy and do more than just vote.