6.21.07 If You Like to Read Nobodies Ranting About Politics, Read On...

If you don't do politics don't read on. You've been warned.

This is how bored I am with the Dodgers recently. Not bored enough to post on other blogs but too bored to turn the recent dodger losses and injuries into my own stuff. So I give you this, something that has been gurgling inside me that has nothing to do with baseball and will probably piss you off if you read it but please forgive me.

I have had this gnawing feeling. Not quite nauseous but an unsettled feeling in my stomach. It would come over me while watching or reading CNN sometimes or whenever I saw the current president or any of the hopeful presidential candidates. It was a feeling with some confused internal thoughts that were not totally coherent. Finally the internal conversation became coherent and I can pinpoint why hearing about the government and wishing there could be genuine change makes me nauseous. It's because it's so futile. There can be no genuine change with the way the political system is set up.

Sure, candidates come in different flavors as they do say they stand differently than other candidates on certain "hot button" issues that when you look at them do not affect most americans.

The death penalty

Is only used about 10 times a year whoop de doo! This doesn't affect anyone you know. If it does happen to affect you, you know that it took 10 years or so for the legal system to repeatedly keep reaffirming that they've got the right person that did something unspeakable to another human being for no good reason. Getting rid of the death penalty does not meaningfully change America as we know it. 2-19-08 Update: I think I should have added that I don't like the death penalty and hoped it was abolished. I also should have pointed out that a lot of people are in jail wrongfully and some are executed wrongfully based on the rules of the current system. I think my point was that politicians grandstanding about how they want more executions sucks for the American people, politically speaking. Killing more people isn't going to help America much.

Abortion.

Highly explosive issue. Has been for years. Position on this issue is a de facto litmus test for being the Republican nominee. This issue affects people that mostly want to legislate to stop their neighbor from doing something they would never do themselves and think is wrong . Most OBGYN's won't do abortions even if they do not find it morally repugnant because of the social stigma and fear of some extremist murdering them (doesn't happen often, but non-violent harassment happens a bit more). There are not a lot of doctors doing abortions. There are not a lot of abortions occuring considering the population. Last count was 843k in 2003 by the CDC. America has about 300 million people. About 1/2 are women. I'm going to make EVERY woman in America of childbearing age for the purpose of this argument. So that makes 1 out of about 150 women (really less than that) having had an abortion that year. That's less than 1%. That is still less than 1% too many, don't get me wrong, but the statistics don't strike me as American Women using abortion as a form of birth control. But why should an issue that affects so few people be one of the biggest issues in the american debate? Is it just an issue to distract people from wondering why they are not doing better than they were 8 years ago? I don't know. Update 2-19-08: It's funny to note how much less abortion seems to be an issue regarding whom we choose to run for President since we have so many other problems that trump it now. The candidates don't really talk about it a lot. Funny how quickly priorities can change when everyone starts losing their homes and lots of people get laid off.

Gay marriage.

Another hot issue that distracts from the fact that rich people are getting richer and poor people are getting poorer at an increasing rate. Thankfully this is becoming a non-issue by the fact that many insurance companies are coming on board and recognizing "domestic partners" and the new institution in a few states of civil unions. When is the last time a homosexual affected a straight person's life in a negative, meaningful way? Right now america is saving money on them by not recognizing the relationships legally. Gays and Lesbians and Transgender people would only be getting what everyone else should be getting in their rat race to the american dream. Big focus on such a small minority. Update 2-19-08: Again, this issue has been subverted to one line lip service. "I believe in the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman." Nobody cares right now. Which is both good and bad. Bad for gays not getting the rights they deserve, but good in that no candidate is out openly demonizing them as much as they used to. State Governors (like Romney haha) have done the most in fixing this problem in a few states.

Illegal Immigrants.

Another hot one right now. Who knows how many there are. Yep, they've probably depressed wages. But, if corporations weren't so darn cheap to bear the cost of moving certain factories to mexico we might not have so many people illegally here. So, the corporations would have depressed wages a different way anyways. It is very easy to tell if someone has the right to work here, yet so many people are getting by with a social security number that has been issued either a way long time ago or within the last 10 years or so, yet they are a happily working adult at a meat packing plant. I used to process credit card applications for a major retailer, and many people with hispanic names would have their social security numbers come back with a warning that it was too new or came back to someone who was dead or it would come back to another person currently alive and well with a different name. The policy was to let it go as long as the credit file created by the hispanic person with the other person's social security number was good. I confess I do not like the idea of people coming over here illegally whatever the reason is for coming and feeling morally justified in arguing that they are citizens because they say so and want a better life. But illegal immigrants are only a symptom of the real problem. It's not their fault and I don't personally blame them. If they were a real problem the government would have made sure people would go home. If it really affected the bottom line they would be able to find these people through public documents, find where they live, eject them from and seize whatever property they own, and send them back to Mexico with nothing but the clothes on their back. It's really simple. It is still done in the war on drugs. Government auctions off tons of cars seized from drug dealers. It's not much of a deterrent for very rich drug cartels, but it sure would be a big deterrent for Joe Blow illegal alien who's purpose in coming to america was a better life. Money gets taken away if you are caught kinda kills the incentive to come here. Update 2-19-08: This issue is still pretty hot. Everyone is kind of saying it's a problem but none of the candidates are too clear on how they'll solve it. I still think the government should adopt a policy of seize and everyone who's undocumented who chooses to stay after being told to go home. Any type of recognition just encourages the problem to get bigger. I'm not scared that these people are terrorists.

National Security

This is the most meaningful because we want a clear position of war or anti-war from candidates and because it affects the american collective conscience. I don't think we're scared of somebody flying an airplane into our home or place of business, a car bomb, or suicide bomber, but we're anxious that another radical person will poke a stick at our nation in an as of today, unthought of way and a few hundred or a few thousand people will die. I don't think anyone feels it will be them personally, though. Just that it's not good to be attacked, which is totally logical if one is to feel safe in one's own country. Update 2-19-08: Anti-war seems to still be winning as an idea as far as Iraq despite the progress made by putting more troops there. I think the idea that the benefits of security by keeping all these guys there is outweighed by the expenditure of the money we're pouring in there in light of the current economic situation. People voted for this when we voted for Congress, and will vote for it again now in the Presidential election. There aren't enough people that want to keep pouring money over there when they're losing their homes and jobs at home to elect McCain.

Why is that? Because the U.S. government while constantly re-iterating how terrorists are still a direct threat to Joe Blow american citizen, the war on terrorism comes with no sacrifice. Bush have a rich father or uncle or something because he just told us all to snitch on our neighbors (later stopped apparently because we snitch a little too much) and shop. Are they trying to sugarcoat a bitter pill? How much am I Joe Blow american paying for this war Before I go out to the mall? Is the check being deferred to my grandchildren? It sure seems economically rosy for the most expensive war in history after ...oh, I've forgotten how many years it's been since I did nothing for the war effort. Is that on purpose? The 21'st century has gotten very Orwellian. Just what is this war on terror? It certainly is different than any other war I've read of in books. Where is most of the dying occuring?

Update 2-19-08: I think the majority of people think that Iraqi instability doesn't directly hurt them, but the economic consequences of continuing to spend money over there does. Therefore decreasing money spent over there helps them more than continuing to fight there.

Well let's look around. Where is the violence? It's mostly in Iraq. Why there? I guess that's where opinions differ. Some are of the opinion that Al-Qaeda is continuing its war on the U.S. and by our presence in Iraq that we're 'Keeping the war over there on their court.' This opinion is sometimes used by politicians to justify a continued combat presence in Iraq. I guess that's a variation on better them than us. Others say there is violence in Iraq because americans are there as an occupying force and Muslims tend to rise against any infidels that are occupying 'Islamic Territory'. I think both are true.

Why is there no violence in the U.S.? Al-Qaeda still has money. They still have military forces. They want to still hurt america(ns). Our borders are wide open! I'm not sure. Thing is though, there probably aren't many Al-Qaeda left. Most of the rank and file I'm going to assert do not exist anymore. One tends to distance and disavow links to an organization when being in it means the american government will hunt you down like a trophy animal and do God knows what to you in God knows what country for God knows how long. What's left are in hiding. The war is keeping them in hiding. The guys that blow up troops aren't Al-Qaeda. They are pissed off Iraqi's so pissed off at America the government occupying their country in opposition to islamic law that they plant bombs on the roadside shipped in from Iran or they blow themselves up in marketplaces at the bidding of other islamic extremist groups because they have nothing else to live for, have lost everything meaningful to them, and need someone to blame. Normally, these people are much like you and me. But if you kill most of their immediate relatives, destroy their home, and they don't know when they will be able to work again I think we can begin to see the desperation that could lead to but not justify such acts that happen against our troops. Another problem is a lot of Iraqis are just pissed at other Iraqis. That is why creating a police state in Iraq until the elected government can take over has not and will not work. The police state (american soldiers) are the problem. Now I am definitely not saying I think our troops suck or I don't support them (what a new codeword for patriotism that's become), or I think they are bad people. They aren't. What they are when placed in a destroyed urban environment is a catalyst for more violence where a healthy amount of violence already exists. They are human fuses for violence over there in a country where life has become very cheap and people have already lost most of what they had to live for.

Update 2-19-08: The situation has changed for the better. Iraqis aren't so pissed off because America is paying them to give up Al-Queda now. Iraqis are pissed at Al-Queda because they see Al-Qeuda as the reason there are tanks in their neighborhood searching for Al-Queda guys. What's left of Al-Queda is back to killing Iraqis paid by America now. I still think most Iraqis and all of Al-Queda will be pissed until our military presence is gone.

Anyways the word I was searching for to characterize that icky feeling I had about what the american political system has become has existed for a while. I, stupid, ignorant guy that I am had to come up with it myself. I could have assuaged the feeling a bit had I just tried to attach a word to it or played around on Wikipedia.

Anyways the word I came up with is Corporatocracy. Blogger doesn't even recognize it as a word for its spellcheck program yet. But I know it's a real word. I feel the word deep in my gut.

Corporations don't care as long as they get paid. Their beginning and end is wealth. They do not care for my interests, or your interests, or any interests but their own. They pretend to in commercials on TV, the internet and newspapers to make you think they do, but they lie.

This isn't a diatribe against corporations so much as a diatribe of the influence imaginary persons with lots and lots of money and very limited interests have over government. Corporations don't breathe. They only care about the air if they are profiting off it. Corporations do not drink. They need only ensure the water won't make you ill or kill very soon after you drink it. Corporations do not eat. They again need only ensure that most of their food will not immediately put you in a hospital or kill you. If that happens they voluntarily recall it shut up and wait for the news to go away. You might see an ad spot though, just in case that will make you think they do care about you. The motivations of Corporations don't allow them to envision the world the way most would wish it would become. It sees the world as a commodity. Some limited. Some renewable (like us). Some choose to kill their employees or customers for that little bit more profit on the balance sheet. Can't imprison a corporation. It has no body. Cannot execute it for murder either, there's a law against judicially bankrupting a company through punitive damages. You can only fine it.

If your Congressman or Senator don't vote right on issues you hold dear, vote them out. That's the argument you usually hear. Umm, yeah. I could do that but unfortunately the very few rich people on the boards of corporations with tons of cash have paid every single candidate. Nobody represents the people anymore as things are set up today. If a corporation pays every candidate in some way shape or form the corporation always wins and can never lose influence. No corporation should be able to give ANY DONATION to any political candidate.

Let the public control the candidates. Not the corporations. Let the public pay for their freaking billboards and air time. At least we will still then have a modicum of control in the process. I want my tax dollars to go there. That makes sense to me. Then whoever wins the presidency might do what he feels is best for the country or the average american working person and not Exxon-Mobil or Microsoft.

Right now all the government does is to encourage the average working american person to incur debt to live or maintain a lifestyle without the proper means to ever be able to be unencumbered while requiring increased production from workers without an appropriate and reciprocal raise in pay or standard of living from workers. We are all working harder, and producing more for a master that pays us the same or less for it. That's not fair. That's what we should be trying to figure out when we talk about presidential candidates. Who cares about Joe Blow living on Main St. USA?

Now go back up and look at the bolded issues. Do any of them affect your ability to get or hold a job and make a living to achieve the american dream? Do you routinely find yourself in competition with foreign workers at your workplace? That is the only one that kinda can be argued. It seems logically connected but it's not and here's why (even though I already stated it): You were already in competition with foreign labor before they were in your face at your job sites. So is almost everyone else.

This is what happens when a society adopts an economic system based on one of the seven deadly sins. Greed is not good. Greed is bad. Greed is why our economic system is out of our hands. Greed is why you are only a statistic to the corporations that lend you money to buy an education, cars, and houses. And a statistic to the other corporation that employs you, insures you and your family, doles out corporately rationed out medical assistance to you. You don't own anything. Everything you have owns you. And by that the government rules you.

update 2-19-08: The political discourse has gotten more real. The imaginary issues have fallen away because the economy has tanked. Americans are feeling squeezed. Politicians have kind of reacted to that. That's good in my opinion. Things still aren't great, but the candidates seem to have started to be more direct about the problems facing America and Americans. When things get better, we'll probably be talking about stupid stuff like gay marriage and the death penalty again. Right now we have more important things to argue about.