Posts Tagged ‘special interests’
Wasting time with teabags and red letters

We've always been taught to believe that government has our best interests at heart–that our legislators represent us, and that the majority of Americans have a say in how government works.

But that view has fallen on hard times as more and more Americans are seeing just how Uncle Sam doesn't work. Or rather, how he has stopped working for Americans and started working for soft money, special interests, and corporate America.

This accompanying video is a representation of that view–a view which I share, by the way, and I'm not alone.

All across the U.S., Americans are displaying their outrage with teabags, of all things, and red letters. But what are we really accomplishing with these pitiful displays of our anger and dissatisfaction at our legislators? Our leaders already know that Americans' satisfaction  with the job they are doing is abysmal. They already know we disapprove of their multimillion dollar bailouts, of their obsequious gestures of goodwill, of their hypocrisy and of their willingness to represent whoever has the deepest pockets.

As you watch this video, consider what it's going to take to turn things around. It will demand more than a teabag, a stamp, and an envelope. My prediction is that as long as we are content to waste our time with these kinds of displays, things will continue as they always have.

In order to have an effect on how we are governed, we will have to adopt strategies which have an outcome that can be felt by our leaders in a meaningful way. That means total reform at the legislative level. We will have to find a way to beat the politickers at their own game. Since no one on the Hill has the backbone to do the right thing, most likely, we will have to find innovative ways to exert political pressure on our current legislators. Next, we will have to replace them with legislators who will enact the kind of reforms we need to substantially diminish the corruption of our system. That means, among other things, enacting term limits and campaign finance reform. We'll also need to systematically remove  corporate lobbyists, special interests, pork barrel spending, and soft money in any form. A watchdog group of American citizens will probably have to hold legislators accountable. Stiff penalties will follow for those who violate the law.

Is this little pipe dream of mine possible? Sure. Will it happen? Probably not. Once the political machine is in charge of holding itself accountable, it becomes self-perpetuating. It's a closed loop system, which ensures it's own survival by upholding the status quo. Reforming it will require unity on a national level and as long as the Party favorites are running the show, keeping us divided and distracted, the most we can expect from Americans is a red letter and/or a tea bag. Maybe, we would gather the courage to act in a pragmatic way, if we knew that our protests did little more than provide our lawmakers with a free beverage and cheap coaster to sit it on…but I doubt it.

 
Gay intolerance tarnishes Obama inaugural pick

An article from the AP today reported that gays are up in arms over Obama's pick of popular evangelical minister, Rick Warren.

FROM THE AP: "The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights organization, said Warren's opposition to gay marriage is a sign of intolerance." Emphasis mine.

This is outrageous for a couple of reasons. Take their definition of intolerance. For them, if you do anything which they find offensive you're being intolerant. Yet, they have no problem whatsoever with offending others and thus, by their own definition, being intolerant themselves. What a bunch of hypocrites. It seems that the only ones who have a right to be intolerant of anything are the gays mentioned in this article. They are the epitome of intolerance and are modeling it perfectly with their whining about Rick Warren.

Someone should get these people a dictionary and point out that you can't even be tolerant of someone unless you disagree with them. Do they disagree with Warren? Yes. Do they disagree with Obama for picking him to deliver the invocation at his inauguration? Yes. Okay then, why in God's name can't they take their own hollow advice and be tolerant of the man? To quote from my good friend, Ron McClure Jr., "This is dumb."

They also feel that because Obama has done this, it means they (the gays) have no stake in the Obama presidency.

Well, I hate to ruin your day gay extremists (you'll have to find something else to bitch about…shouldn't be a problem, though), but anyone with an ounce of reason knows that President-elect Obama is a special interests sympathizer par excellence. The fact that he picked an anti-special interests guy to deliver the invocation means nothing from a legislative point of view. Get a clue people; he's still a neoliberal and will legislate as such.