I've been afraid of many things in my life. At one point it was spiders, then heights, then girls, then getting hit by a baseball, Gremlins, then I think girls again, drugs, then the SAT's, babies, the "real world" (not the MTV show, but the place at the end of the yellow brick road), Strom Thurmond, SARs, the Real World (the show this time), and finally porto-potties. What I've never feared is letting the rich keep their money, letting the poor have some more, homosexual coworkers, neighbors from another country, asking for a little help, or lending a hand myself. There are some in our country's leadership positions that seem to fear many or all of these "problems" and it's just silly for lack of a better word.
Let's start with the money. Now that I've seen Martha Stewart and Wesley Snipes go to jail, I see that even the rich have to pay their bills, regardless of sex, race, or vampire slaying capabilities. If you can't solve the tax problems by waiting for them all to die and leave it behind or by convincing the rich guys in charge to make the rich pay a little more, then find the answer elsewhere. Just don't expect that answer be cutting unemployment to those who spent all of their hard earned money making the rich richer. Let's maybe start with a solution along the lines of "I know it's official business, Senator, but maybe you could pay for your own dinner this time." I'm sure there's a lot of free steak in Washington going to people that have never known hunger or being to broke for steak (or bread even). What's the worst that could happen if our leaders led the sacrificing?
I get why the money is so hard to let go of, but even more importantly, what's the worst that could happen if they decide to let people be people? I think there is an irrational fear of what going to happen when white isn't the most prevalent skin tone in the US. There is a fear of what might happen if we let foreigners in to our land and give them jobs, and educate them, and let them start holding office and having opinions. There is a fear of the way the world might just crumble if the two ladies or gentlemen in the apartment next door find peace and comfort and possibly love in each other's company. Would it really matter if they happened to wear a uniform to work? How scary would it be if everyone just decides that all of this fine and these scenarios go unchecked and spread across the land? To those of you in power, holding back the wheels of progress: take a deep breath, open your eyes, and realize that time is already here. Even in your worst nightmare you still have your money and your power, and isn't that really why you got into the game?
Friday, December 10, 2010
Who Needs a Legacy When You Can Have a Soundbite?
Maybe it is because I was much younger and my TV time was limited. Maybe it is because I had baseball to play and a trip to the other side of the neighbor planned with my buddies on our bikes. I never knew much about the people on the TV, whether they were actors, athletes, singers, or the President. It was good to be uninformed about the real lives of people in the spotlight. More that that, it was good that now and then the cameras were turned off and we didn't have to dissect every action made by a household name. Now the spotlight is so big, you almost have to seek refuge to stay out of it. Even though this makes for a more transparent society, I think that it's actually hurting the world of politics.
I'm not saying that I want political games to go back to the shadows, where it once was in my mind. My problem with everyone being on camera is that it's made us all shortsighted. This is especially true for a world where professional hustlers have to convince us of their worth every 4 years. Nobody cares to make a "New Deal" or create "the Great Society" because in order to fix what is broken, something else has got to give. Also, everything that is broken was a fix to someone else's problem. In order to be someone's hero politically, you almost have to become someone else's bogeyman. That spotlight is in HD now, and everyone looks like a bogeyman in HD.
I'd love progress to a time where law-makers can form an opinion, express it, and then receive feedback that didn't include slowly clubbing them to death with their own words for two weeks or until someone says something else. (It doesn't even have to be something better or worse that what the last guy said. It just has to feed the hungry spotlight.) Maybe then they could start concentrating on what's good for the nation in the long term, and not just what's serves their party and image in the short term.
I'm not saying that I want political games to go back to the shadows, where it once was in my mind. My problem with everyone being on camera is that it's made us all shortsighted. This is especially true for a world where professional hustlers have to convince us of their worth every 4 years. Nobody cares to make a "New Deal" or create "the Great Society" because in order to fix what is broken, something else has got to give. Also, everything that is broken was a fix to someone else's problem. In order to be someone's hero politically, you almost have to become someone else's bogeyman. That spotlight is in HD now, and everyone looks like a bogeyman in HD.
I'd love progress to a time where law-makers can form an opinion, express it, and then receive feedback that didn't include slowly clubbing them to death with their own words for two weeks or until someone says something else. (It doesn't even have to be something better or worse that what the last guy said. It just has to feed the hungry spotlight.) Maybe then they could start concentrating on what's good for the nation in the long term, and not just what's serves their party and image in the short term.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Beauty is in the eye...
A wise man once said "(they) say I am a saint losing myself in politics. The fact is I am a politician trying my hardest to become a saint." Even Ghandi struggled to pull off the balance between the two. To be in politics is probably as close to time travel as any of us will ever come. Step into the spotlight and prepare to relive everything you hoped the world had forgotten about you. I agree with Amanda Hausmann's editorial, "Liars and Leaders... Synonymous?", on most fronts. However, the premise that this is a fairly new problem is what I disagree with. (Respectfully, of course, ma'am).
On the passing of a health-care bill that was crafted behind closed doors, I think the president was in a no win situation. To me, this could be an indication that both parties were going to make concessions that they were not ready to tell the public about. This may actually be one of the few instances of compromise we've seen lately. Convictions and compromise rarely find each other in the 24 hour news cycle. This maneuver could illustrate how the president is not following through with his pledge of transparency. However, failing to find a condition under which the bill could be completed could be interpreted as partisan politics and his unwillingness to reach across the aisle. He promised not only transparency, but also to work with the Republicans to get things done. Either way, he will be portrayed as negatively in some way. Nevermind the thousands of citizens this bill may benefit. The story will be told through the eyes of the beholder. My point is, in politics, it will always be about who you're not instead of who you are.
The Republican Party once ran an entire campaign not on what they planned to do, but rather, on what Harry Truman had failed to do. "To err is Truman" was the basis of their entire campaign. Didn't work, but it was close. It was just easier to criticize than to come up with solutions.
Let's put my friend "Aaron" in the political spotlight. Would the voters see him as a 30 year church goer, or as a 6 year pot user? It all depends on how you view religion and marijuana, I suppose. Or how much dirt they find on the other guy. The spotlight is bright and we're all flawed. Your heroes and leaders, your neighbors and saints all have skeletons. As Ben Franklin said, "It takes many good deeds to build a good reputation, and only one bad one to lose it."
On the passing of a health-care bill that was crafted behind closed doors, I think the president was in a no win situation. To me, this could be an indication that both parties were going to make concessions that they were not ready to tell the public about. This may actually be one of the few instances of compromise we've seen lately. Convictions and compromise rarely find each other in the 24 hour news cycle. This maneuver could illustrate how the president is not following through with his pledge of transparency. However, failing to find a condition under which the bill could be completed could be interpreted as partisan politics and his unwillingness to reach across the aisle. He promised not only transparency, but also to work with the Republicans to get things done. Either way, he will be portrayed as negatively in some way. Nevermind the thousands of citizens this bill may benefit. The story will be told through the eyes of the beholder. My point is, in politics, it will always be about who you're not instead of who you are.
The Republican Party once ran an entire campaign not on what they planned to do, but rather, on what Harry Truman had failed to do. "To err is Truman" was the basis of their entire campaign. Didn't work, but it was close. It was just easier to criticize than to come up with solutions.
Let's put my friend "Aaron" in the political spotlight. Would the voters see him as a 30 year church goer, or as a 6 year pot user? It all depends on how you view religion and marijuana, I suppose. Or how much dirt they find on the other guy. The spotlight is bright and we're all flawed. Your heroes and leaders, your neighbors and saints all have skeletons. As Ben Franklin said, "It takes many good deeds to build a good reputation, and only one bad one to lose it."
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Can't Ask, Won't Tell
In today's society of fast flowing information, anything that is said or done anywhere can travel worldwide within moments. This is true for everything from telling an inappropriate joke to (unfortunately) releasing state secrets Consequently, most structured organizations follow hierarchies and the flow of information is filtered on the way from the top down. The United States government is no different. In this NY Times editorial, the author contends that President Obama is overusing the White House's ability to invoke the state secret doctrine.
The author's name is not listed, but the intended target was the American public. I found several valid arguments made towards restricting and/or restructuring the use of this doctrine. First, the argument is made that Obama campaigned on throwing out the status quo. The veil of secrecy that the Bush administration hid behind frustrated many people to no end. It should be just as wrong for Obama to operate in the same manner. Secondly, I agree with the author's assertion that there should be "an independent and trusted mechanism for scrutinizing efforts to use the secrecy claim". While any organization should have the right to protect itself and its secrets from a rival, the American people have no way to verify what's being withheld to protect us versus what's being withheld to deceive us. The state secret doctrine currently requires convincing a federal judge that national security is in jeopardy, but requires little, if any, proof. Lastly, several instances were given showing how past administrations have used the doctrine to break the law. A democracy cannot properly function if opponents (internal or external) can be silenced without the right to due process.
It's time we put an end to the government's longstanding practice of doing things in our name without our permission. It's time to be seen more as shareholders, requiring answers and accountability, and less as workers, functioning as the bosses tell us to. Until we learn to use the control we have over the government, they will continue to use the control we have given them over ourselves.
The author's name is not listed, but the intended target was the American public. I found several valid arguments made towards restricting and/or restructuring the use of this doctrine. First, the argument is made that Obama campaigned on throwing out the status quo. The veil of secrecy that the Bush administration hid behind frustrated many people to no end. It should be just as wrong for Obama to operate in the same manner. Secondly, I agree with the author's assertion that there should be "an independent and trusted mechanism for scrutinizing efforts to use the secrecy claim". While any organization should have the right to protect itself and its secrets from a rival, the American people have no way to verify what's being withheld to protect us versus what's being withheld to deceive us. The state secret doctrine currently requires convincing a federal judge that national security is in jeopardy, but requires little, if any, proof. Lastly, several instances were given showing how past administrations have used the doctrine to break the law. A democracy cannot properly function if opponents (internal or external) can be silenced without the right to due process.
It's time we put an end to the government's longstanding practice of doing things in our name without our permission. It's time to be seen more as shareholders, requiring answers and accountability, and less as workers, functioning as the bosses tell us to. Until we learn to use the control we have over the government, they will continue to use the control we have given them over ourselves.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Drugs, Thugs, and Tough Love
Being a Texan, I've grown up with influence of the Hispanic community complementing the American culture my parents chose to raise me in. I remember taking visits to the other side of the border to visit family. Running through the streets of a border town with my siblings and cousins made for some fond memories. 20 years later, we hardly recognize each other. While many Americans view Mexico as a noisy downstairs neighbor, I see a friend that's fallen on hard times.
Things have spiraled out of control and many were content to ignore the problem, lock the door, and wait for things to work themselves out, for better or for worse. This article illustrates how close to home the problem is. It is now becoming common for bullets to cross from side to side during routine drug busts. The call for border security is generally seen as locking the door to keep the bad people out. However, the violence in Mexico is directly related to our bad habits, and unfortunately, is primed to jump the Rio Grande into our cities. The article states how Ciudad Juarez, just a stone's throw from El Paso, has become one of the most dangerous cities in the world. It may be time to recognize our role in Mexico's problems and prepare to lend an honest, helping hand to a nation in dire need.
Things have spiraled out of control and many were content to ignore the problem, lock the door, and wait for things to work themselves out, for better or for worse. This article illustrates how close to home the problem is. It is now becoming common for bullets to cross from side to side during routine drug busts. The call for border security is generally seen as locking the door to keep the bad people out. However, the violence in Mexico is directly related to our bad habits, and unfortunately, is primed to jump the Rio Grande into our cities. The article states how Ciudad Juarez, just a stone's throw from El Paso, has become one of the most dangerous cities in the world. It may be time to recognize our role in Mexico's problems and prepare to lend an honest, helping hand to a nation in dire need.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)