A new report from The Center For American Progress estimates John McCain’s proposed tax plan would save corporations $175 billion per year with $45 billion of those savings going to the country’s 200 largest corporations. Right now oil companies are posting the highest profits ever for corporations while the cost of food and energy are at an all time high. For reasons like this, it would seem that voting in the fall is a no brainer. Well it is and it isn't. I think people are planning on voting for Obama for all the wrong reasons. Here's really why we have to vote for the Democrat in '08:
First of all, I am not a Democrat. Every true progressive in this country knows that when it comes to U.S. elections you have to vote for the lesser of two evils. That’s the sad reality of our so-called democracy. The Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same coin. This stupid idiom is actually appropriate for once because both parties are controlled by the all mighty dollar. When people refer to the left in this country, it is only because of its relative position to the right. Both parties are controlled by large corporate interests in Washington and when it comes to substantial differences, both have more in common than not. That being said, I am a firm believer in doing the best we can with a given situation. Right now we cannot afford to let John McCain get into office. In our two-party system, Barack Obama is the only other viable option. Will Barack Obama be much better? Probably not because if Obama really represented the radical change this country needed, he wouldn’t be representing a corporate party on the ballot in November. But Obama does have the most liberal voting record of anyone in the senate (I know I'm rationalizing). Truth is, I would love to sit here and push for Nader in the fall, because he truly represents the interests of the American people. If Americans actually paid attention to Nader in the general they would find that his positions are the ones we wish the compromising centrist candidates from the democratic party had. But the political landscape is not prime for a candidate like Nader to compete yet, frankly because Americans won’t get out of their own way (although they have plenty of help from corporate media). So yes, I will probably vote for Barack Obama in November, but I am not happy about it. It is simply the best we can do right now. There cannot and will not be radical change in this country until the American people are ready to fight for it. No candidate representing a corporate party is going to deliver the government back to the people, even if they wanted to (and they don't). When we are ready to take back our government and our country we can stop settling for the best worst in every election on every issue. (This is the point where I always say I hope I am wrong about Obama and that maybe he's a work in progress, but that's the ounce of optimist in me.)
Quick rant on climate change: Lately I've had to deal with old-white men in the break-room at work tossing around snide comments about how climate change obviously doesn't exist because we've had a cool summer thus far. Then there was a letter to the editor in today's Sentinel that claimed there is still no consensus on climate change. I've had enough so I did some quick research and here's what I found: The Intergovernmental Pannel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a completely objective entity that collects scientific information from literature all around the world. “Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.” I’ve included a link to the right that will take you to their report for 2007. The report opens by saying that “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.” Unequivocal meaning leaving no doubt, clear, unambiguous based on all of the data they've assessed. Sounds like a consensus to me but as always I am a pragmatist so I am willing to listen to any other sources that would prove otherwise.
Morning Prayer
12 years ago
2 comments:
The first half is all great and what-not, and as much as I'd like to say I'm an idealist as opposed to a realist, you have to admit we aren't reliving V for Vendetta. It's a sad sad thing to admit, but I think you and I can both agree Americans are never going to "take back their America..." Like I said, great ideas on paper and I know how you feel trying to just say things sometimes, but don't you ever feel like it's a waste...
It's funny cause I don't really believe in what I'm saying. More often than not, I'd say you do what you can, when you can, and as much as you can...Till the day you die.
And you'll die happy knowing what you did, was all about your beliefs, morals and thoughts... It's just unfortunate that gets you no where in life these days...
I wanted to comment on your first post as well...It bothers me when reading reality on paper and focusing on how corporate America is as far as our economy and jobs in this country. The old "it's who you know", and not liking your job cliche...I don't neccessarily think that IS or HAS to be true for people...I still think whatever I'm doing for the rest of my life when it comes to my job, and my life, I will love and enjoy. If not, I'll leave it and go get something else. So in that matter, aren't you kind of allowed to say you are making choices, and you are doing what you love and/or what you want to do? Obviously then someone could come back with the argument that we honestly don't truly get to make the 100% choice of what we want to be doing or how we want to be living...If this were a guarantee, I might still be living in California, acting or producing movies...
P.S. I could type for days trying to get my thoughts on just three sentences you write, but you're already probably sick of me. My last point to bring out was in reference to your colorblind, political correctness, and race paragraph. I'm a firm believer that every single person in this world is racist. Whether they, or anyone wants to admit it. You see a different color skin, and you just know it's there because of what you've learned, what you see and what the roots of the world are. Is confronting it actually going to make anything go away? I don't know, but I just wish people would acknowledge the fact that it's there, and that everyone does it. Probably even your God, Mr. Nader.
Yea, Imus is an idiot, and his generalizations about black people are always going to get him into trouble, but he doesn't think it's terrible because those are his initial thoughts...I try to be the best person I can, and I still think I look at black people differently...I'm in Georgia right now, and I can't tell you the number of people around here that just make me sick to my stomach. They still talk like we are in the early 1900's and everyone shouldn't be equal. It's truly terrifying the thoughts and words I hear out of people's mouths, Chad.
This is in response to the comments by Andrew. First of all thanks for visiting the blog and its good to be talking productively about things that matter. With that said, I think everyone would agree that it's easier to make clear points when you "believe what you're saying" and not just playing "devil's advocate." I've never bought into that idea, in fact, whenever I've said it, it's been a crock of shit. In response to your V for Vendetta reference, people often make the mistake of referencing texts like "V" whenever someone brings up radical change, as if revolutionary change has to look a certain way and that way has already been explored and deemed unrealistic. When I say the people need to take back their government, I basically mean that people need to stop settling and more or less, get pissed off. One thing I did like about "V" was the line people shouldn't fear their governments, governments should fear their people. The thing that pisses me off is that I don't even feel like our government serves its people anymore. It's like one big PR machine there to trick the population into dealing with its policies and the fact that it does things the majority of the population disagrees with in the name of that population. Your comments are all over the map so I don't really know how to address all of them. Even though your tone comes off disagreeable for the most part, it seems like your mostly in agreement. The one mistake you do make, or maybe I wasn't clear enough, is approaching my posts as if I'm speaking in absolutes, especially in your comments about "manners." I feel like manners are for the most part ritualistic. Of course there are genuine people out there, but I think in the daily grind, we do behave like robots for the most part. Lastly, on your thoughts about questioning the things I write: I always try and take a pragmatist approach to everything. Besides that, at the time I write the things i write, there is no question in my mind. I think that's best way to make clear points and argue passionately about anything, but I am always willing to listen. happy reading!
Post a Comment