Where's the Outrage?

Our folks told us, if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. I am reminded of this during this year's election. It strikes me that if you don't have anything nice to say about your "chosen" candidate, you will choose, instead, to say something nasty about the alternative. It reminds me a lot of middle school. Typically, we are at our most insecure and vulnerable when we are "blossoming' into maturity. Middle school girls suck. I know--I was one of them. Because they are so obsessed with hating themselves, they strike out at everyone else. If you can't feel good about yourself--at least you can feel better about NOT being THAT girl. I think its time that we get rid of the broken two party system. The atrocities and dishonesty that we will tolerate these days are amazing. Introducing alternate parties would not only reduce the amount of "I'm supporting X because Y is even worse"; it would also eliminate the need for electing the opposite party for president to reduce the threat of "too much power" of the other party. Imagine, if we had libertarians and green party candidates in congress. We wouldn't worry about one party having enough votes for a filibuster. Our debates are a joke. They used to be sponsored by the League of Women Voters--a bi-partisun group. Everyone was invited to participate. Unfortunately, in 1988, the Bush and Dukakis campaigns drafted a joint "memorandum" outlining what topics could be discussed and how the questions would be presented. The League was outraged and refused to succomb to demands from the candidates. Unfortunately for the American people, this resulted in the creation of the "Commission for Presidential Debates". The "Commission" is actually a corporate-sponsored consortium of former heads of both the Democratic and Republican parties. The result? Only major party candidates are invited. Both candidates agreed with the "bailout" not because it was a good plan or a good idea--but because they didn't want the other party to get the upper hand--well what if there were more than two choices? Could candidates actually do things that they thought important rather than because they were afraid of losing votes?

Citizens were outraged because our politicians were not holding the bankers and investors "accountable" for the recent debacle. My question is why should we expect them to hold Wall Street accountable when we don't hold politicians accountable? Sure in extreme cases we "stick it to them" by voting for the opposite party--but during elections we willfully listen to promises that we know won't be kept. We say things like "oh I know they won't do everything they say, but that's just politics. Why? Why have we let things get so out of control that candidates will say anything to get elected? It is estimated that 5.8 billion dollars will be spent for this campaign. That's a ridiculous amount of money to see who can put on the better show. That is what it seems to me. The most money gets the most media time and the most votes. What is the connection? I think of it this way... I take tests well. I learned at a very young age that I had a knack for cramming for tests. Because of this talent, my grades have always been excellent. A few years ago, I met someone who did not have this talent. This guy could remember every fact he'd ever learned--and actually understood the concepts on which he was tested. I can't remember something I learned yesterday. Unfortunately for this friend of mine, I look much better on paper. I will get scholarships and jobs- but I can admit that he is actually a better biologist. It seems that it's the same for politicians. There ARE honest people out there--even a few honest politicians (look at Dennis Kucinich)--but because they are honest, they will never get the big positions. Think about this--despite the record-breaking fundraising that the Obama campaign has done--only a quarter of it comes from small donors. And the rest? Well we'll probably find out based on his policies should he get elected. The worst is that because Obama refused public financing and proceeded to raise so much money---election reform is probably dead for another 10 years or so. Did somebody say Change?

But then again, we may never find out. A recent interview granted by Stephen Spoonamore (who is a conservative republican McCain supporter) outlines how the GOP used electronic means to subvert the 2000 and 2004 elections and plans to do the same in 2008. Spoonamore names names and outlines procedures. Google it to learn more. Is it true or just some disgruntled conservative causing trouble? I can't say for sure, but it doesn't surprise me in the least. We are the most powerful nation in the world, but we can't hold an election these days without charges of fraud or disenfranchisement. To top it off, the highest percentage of eligible voters to actually cast a vote in recent years was 64%! We'll see if we can top that this year--by all accounts we should.

Where is the outrage? We, as a country, have settled. We have settled for a pseudo-democracy. We have settled for corruption and corporate welfare. We have settled for presidents that can't run a baseball team and war-mongering profiteering vice-president. We have forced John McCain to choose a moron like Sarah Palin in order to please his base and get the "ignorant white woman vote." We have forced Barack Obama to spend millions on a cheesy public service announcement in order to reach the Budweiser-lovin baseball fans. What a country.