Results tagged “democracy” from Subversive Soapbox

Hi, my name is Bob, and I’m a gratefully-recovering CNN-addict.

Hi, Bob.

I really wanted to name this post: wtf is wrong with the US media, part III, but I thought it was getting stale.  I just really can’t think of anything else to say.

First of all, two of the top stories on cnn.com are about sick/dead celebrities’ children.  Yes, it’s sad that your son has just been diagnosed with some rare disease/has died .  Thousands of people die every day, but we don’t hear about them. Thousands die because of American and foreign corporations that are raping the earth, but we don’t hear about them.  Thousands of Iraqi civilians have died in the war, but we don’t hear about them.  I still do not understand why celebrities are considered news.  Perhaps the only time a celebrity should be in the news would be a headline reading: “Madonna Receives Nobel Prize for Physics Due to Discovery of Quantuum Worm Holes in Deep Space”.  You know, something significant.   

Second of all, I was reading this article that was waxing poetic about the possibilities of politics in 2009.  Part of it discussed the deflation of the Republican party, which is of importance since it is now the opposition party.  And then, then the article states: If the Republican Party is not effective, does the national media become the opposition voice?

The nation media has COMPLETELY CEASED to have the ability to become the opposition voice!  When the current administration was banging the war drums, the media rolled over and served as a megaphone for the Beltway.  During the entire primary and election season, the media parroted and sound-clipped the trail, but didn’t do any significant vetting or provide citizens with coverage of any third party candidates.  The media has ceased to be the ‘fourth estate’, and no longer can be used as a tool to keep other branches of government in check.  “Does the national media become the opposition voice?” Dream on, CNN.  If you think you are capable of becoming a true voice of opposition, I’m capable of growing a second head.  Seriously.  How can they even delude themselves?  The nation media is stuck in the entertainment business, when they should be in the journalism business.

And, me, like Bob, can’t stop going to these sites and watching/listening these shows. Does it make me a more educated soapboxer, or is it the worst thing I could possibly be doing?  

I was watching this interview of Utah Phillips, late folk singer/activist.  He was interviewed by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! If you get a chance, do check out that interview; Utah Phillips is fun to listen to.  Here’s what he said in response to a question about the media.

UTAH PHILLIPS: “Let’s see, you started out with what media has done to people. You know that better than I do. That’s why you do what you do. See, you’re doing an alternative media. And if we play our cards right and have enough time, then pretty soon it won’t be alternative media anymore. But then, we have a thorough understanding—don’t we, Amy—that they fight with money and we fight with time, and they’re going to run out of money before we run out of time. So we’ll just be patient, and you do your work, and I’ll do mine, and we’ll catch up and overtake them.

It’s a damn shame, though, that we have to be alternative. But then, we’re in a capitalist environment, we’re in a capitalist system that’s built on—that’s built on the least commendable features of the human psyche, greed and envy, rather than the best. We in community radio, in pirate radio, in alternative music distribution, we reach for the best in people, you know, we don’t—not lowest common denominators. And we are building a new world within the shell of the old.

I don’t feel pessimistic about that at all. There’s simply too many good people right here in this room, too many good people on the street, close to the street, doing too many good things for me to afford the luxury of being pessimistic. I’m going to—I’ll tell people that tonight, damn it. I’m glad it came up. If I look at the world from the top down, from FOX, God help me, or CNN or—there ought to be a CNN-Anon to wean people from that idiocy. If I look at it from the top down, I get seriously depressed. The world’s going to hell in a wheelbarrow. But if I walk out the door, turn all that off, and go with the people, whatever town I’m in, who are doing the real work down at the street level, like I say, there’s too many good people doing too many good things for me to let myself be pessimistic about that. I’m hopeful, can’t live without hope. Can you?”

I had the great luck to be in downtown Chicago the night that Sen. Barack Obama was widely and fairly elected to the office of the President of the United States, which is probably the crappiest job anyone could accept at this moment in time. For that, I offer my congratulations and condolences.

There was an air of energy, especially as the news was good. People were smiling, waving flags, pallin' around with tourists (ha. ha.). Some people got messages on their cell phones (I must have gotten 20), while others excitedly asked complete strangers what the electoral college count was. All the cops were out, streets were blocked, and from where I was enjoying a cocktail on the 96^th floor of the John Hancock building above the twilight, Chicago was beautiful.

I, of course, didn't vote this election. To be honest, I was one of the undecided. I felt that both of the candidates had their good and bad points. I think that McCain is not as Bush-like as he was made out to be, but shot himself in the foot when he chose Palin for a running mate. I think that Obama is not as socialist as he was made out to be, but I had a few contentions with him as well.

I'm feeling increasingly discontent with a two-party system that pretends to be dichotomous but is actually centrist. Neither of the two major parties fits my ideals with any kind of accuracy, so I'm growing weary of these red/blue choices and conservative/liberal ideologies. But, thankfully, this two year election is finally over. I have to admit that I'm feeling a little empty. A little on the fringe of the excitement that radiated like a doppler from Grant Park last night.

I am still overwhelmed by how excited people were. People were crying. In my short history, I don't remember anyone crying for the election of a President in a good way. People were literally hopping up and down. People were screaming and they were hugging their friends and family.

A part of me was very skeptical of this reaction. Like the wallflower in the corner of a party that doesn't quite fit in with the scene. I think it's very wonderful that Obama is our first black and only minority president. I can't believe we've been stuck with middle-aged WASPs since Washington (excluding Kennedy, who I guess was a WASC). I hope that his nomination to the presidency will add to the dialogue and healing of racial barriers in this country. I think it's wonderful that George W. Bush will finally be going back to his ranch in Crawford, Texas, to cut wheat or eat beef jerky or whatever he does. Who wouldn't jump for joy at the fact that a man who has supported and bred one failed policy after another, who really should have never been elected once, let alone twice, will finally be moving out of the White House. (Please, Mr. Bush, stay away from politics. And no lectures or books, either.)

Now, here comes my very large "however."

I am very concerned that this excitement places the entire American voting population (highest ever) in a very precarious position. Excitement like this creates high expectations, mandates, and hopes. And we, as a public, cannot expect one man and his administration to alone solve our problems. I do not want the energized electorate to become discouraged when change does not come quickly. The American voters tend to have short memories, and shorter patience. Please give President Obama a chance. He is cursed with what may be the worst handover in the history of this nation.

I am very concerned that our government will remain highly partisan, divisive, and bound by our false R/D dichotomy (for more on my feelings on this, please see my previous post, "where's my think tank?"). The downfall and party backlash of the Republicans, if you'll remember, happened when the Republicans held a majority in all branches of the government. This is exactly what our forefathers did not want to happen.

I am very concerned that the two-party system will continue to restrict the flow of ideas, policy, and social activism that is needed in modern times. Consider this quote from a recurring third-party candidate, Ralph Nader. "It would be a three-way race if I'd been in the debates," Nader said Tuesday in an interview. If the networks and newspapers had covered him, he said, his poll numbers would have gone up and the Commission on Presidential Debates would have had to include him. "We documented the two-party dictatorship, we've won ballot access and we've educated a lot of people about what politics should be about," he said. Nader was on the ballot in 45 states and the District of Columbia (this material was borrowed from this article).

I'm not saying you have to vote for third-party candidates just because they are third party candidates. But please stop ignoring politicians that don't have an 'R' or 'D' behind their name. Hell, maybe Barack Obama doesn't really deserve the D behind his name, and did it out of a necessity to win.

Here's a dream I wrote about a month ago:

I met Barack Obama in my dream last night!  I really liked him, and we were at some charity fundraiser. Oddly, there weren't a lot of people there.  I really was conflicted on who to vote for, being that my views aren't represented by either major party.  I didn't get a chance to ask him my question, but I saw my political science teacher from high school and told him to ask Obama this: "If you get elected, what processes or policies will you change to ensure that third party candidates can legitimately and seriously run for political office?" 

I hope that Obama will help do that.  That's the change I'm looking for. 

I never received my ballot.

I am so furious about this.  The futility of the vote is just so strong for me, now.  I think, what does it matter, my one vote?  Of course, this is what they want you to think.

There was a previous post on this blog, about when our tolerance will be reached for becoming upset about stolen elections.  It's gotten to the point where people don't even think that their vote really matters, since so many of our elections are futile.  The first presidential election I was able to vote for (in 2004) was a preponderance to me.  I stood in line for over an hour. When I finally cast my ballot, I shoved an ATM card into a machine.  I voted, and I wanted my receipt.  There was none.  Whenever you make a purchase, you get a receipt for it.  I had NO EVIDENCE that I had voted.  No proof.  Nothing.  Just an "I voted" sticker.  It made me feel like an appeased pet.

I'm angry.  And not altogether convinced that my vote would have counted anyway.  No wonder we're so jaded.  It's as if voting is just another exercise in futility.  Like victims of learned helplessness, there is nothing we can from becoming shocked when we try to jump out of our cages.

In the wake of an election that some people have been anticipating for 8 years, I am accepting the fact that I'm sitting this election out. 

Not voluntarily.

I am currently living in Chicago, Illinois, and requested my absentee ballot way back in September.  In fact, my father even put in an additional request about a month ago.  They received their ballots, and I never received mine.

I called the supervisor of elections in Hillsborough County, Florida, last week.  Which, apparently, was just too late.  They stated that they sent out the ballot a long time ago, and it must be the post office's fault, thank you very much. She informed me that they've been getting a lot of these calls.

She said that she would issue a new ballot.  It is Monday, and I have yet to receive the ballot in the mail.  The mail doesn't come until about 3.  I would have to rapidly fill out my ballot, rush to the post office, and send it overnight.  Since, as the woman told me, the ballot has to be physically in their office on November 4th.

So even if I manage to get home in time from the library, where I am currently working on job and grad school applications, and get to the post office before it closes, it will cost me 16 dollars to theoretically get my ballot into the voting office.

This doesn't even answer the question: what happened to my original ballot that was mailed out by the Supervisor of Elections?  Let's say that someone got this ballot and used it to vote, and sent it in.  What happens when my 16 dollar ballot comes in, and they say, "Well, this person can't vote twice?" Do they throw out both of these ballots? 

I want to know who stole my ballot!  It's not fair.  It's not fair that I might have to pay 16 dollars (when I'm so broke and unemployed) to vote in this election.  It's not my fault that I didn't recieve my ballot.  Why does it have to be in on November 4th? 

Apparently Florida has had one of the largest problems with missing absentee ballots in the country.  I feel robbed of my right to vote.  I might be bitter about this one for years.  I can't believe that people choose not to vote.

I'll never get this vote back.  For the next two, four, eight years, when I am upset about a politician, I won't even be able to say, "I voted for the other guy."  I have become involuntarily apathetic.

The bail outs of Fannie May and Freddie Mac are the largest corporate buy-outs of the US Government in history.  It is the government, once again, telling corporations that they have a friend in the US Government.  The reasons for the buy-out were cited as a rescue of a free-falling economy, but it sends the message that if you're a drowning corporation, the government will help you.  What if you're a drowning individual?  I guess they don't really care. 

Stop corporate handouts!

According to a recent CNN poll, people's fears about the possibility of a major terrorist attack are at an all time low. 

The irrational fear of death at the hands of a terrorist can be classified as an availability heuristic (more or less created by our government and media).  An availability heuristic is defined as "a phenomenon (which can result in a cognitive bias) in which people base their prediction of the frequency of an event or the proportion within a population based on how easily an example can be brought to mind" (definition courtesy of Wikipedia).

In this case, a terrorist incident can easily be brought to mind.  How many times have you seen the planes hit the World Trade Center or people running through the streets of Manhattan on that pleasant fall morning?  I bet you can see it right now.

The classic example of an availability heuristic is that, despite tragic fears, you are far more likely to die in your automobile than on a plane.  You are far more likely to die in your automobile than in a terrorist attack.  According to this article, you are more likely to meet your demise by a car crash, crossing the street, drowning, a fire, a fall, or homicide than you are to die in a terrorist attack. The mortality rate of Americans dying from a terrorist attack on domestic soil since after  9/11 has been 0.  So in the past 7 years, you have had no chance to die in a terrorist attack.  And yet, according to the CNN poll, 35% of people polled believe that a terrorist attack will occur in the next couple of weeks.  

What?  What is wrong with these people?  They're more likely to die from a heart attack or a self-inflicted gunshot wound or the flu than a terrorist attack. 

I can opinion that there is no radical Islamic terrorist threat whatsoever in this country.  I'm not going to say that some other yahoo group isn't going to come along and do something stupid (or that we're not going to have more idiotic people with guns on school campuses), but you're not going to have jihadists killing a single citizen on U.S. soil. 

Some might say that this is because our "war on terror" is working, but I say that it's because the tragedy of September 11 was created or aided by the complicity of U.S. officials to generate a fear in Americans unseen since the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. 9/11 served as the catalyst needed for involvement in a war that Americans didn't want to engage in (again, a WWII parallel), and now that they got what they wanted, there's no need to scare us again. 

There is no terrorist threat. 

I sat there, really thinking about why we are wanting to fight yet another losing war.  The US hasn't really emerged "victorious" in a war in, oh, say, 60 years. 

So I think about oil and money and blah blah blah blah.  But I just don't understand. Why would anyone want that much money? On an individual level, what are you going to do as CEO of, say, Halliburton? Smoke Cuban cigars with the Bushes and drink really expensive brandy in the boardroom?

Sure.  Money = power. At what point does it become just not necessary?  When you already have a gabazillion dollars, why do you possibly need anymore?  Pull a Scrooge McDuck and swim in gold coins? Buy another Hummer?

My point is, at some juncture, when does money stop being a motivating factor to be corrupt?  Let's take the example of a bird bath. Let's say it fulfills it's purpose: it fills up with water.  Completely.  You are happy that the birds have that bird bath.  Why would you possibly need it to rain more?  It's full of water, is serving it's purpose, that's that.  The bird bath may become cleaner with each pouring of rain, but that's just a bonus. Men become dirtier with each exchange of money, but that's just a fact.

Does corruption and greed and all of that garbage become internalized somewhere? Or is that an institutionalized value that is not personally held?  Somewhere, the collective is corrupt and greedy, but in the end perhaps each individual just wants his/her own.  Don't cultures (even corrupt ones) build upon shared individual values and goals? What's going on here?

We're supposed to be democraticized and advanced and civil and we just go over into someone else's country and start shooting things.

How can I be proud to be an American?

I saved the first of the Party slogans of 1984 for last.  Not because it is particularly powerful, but because it is the most profusely contradictory.  Further, it is probably the closest to our own reality, as governments and politicians try to tell us that

WAR IS PEACE.

I am unabashedly anti-war.  In this day and age, there is no need to declare war on another nation.  Rather, there has been no reason for us declare war on a nation since perhaps the bombing of Pearl Harbor during World War II (and perhaps not even then).  In my lifetime, I remember Operation Desert Storm, the bombs dropped in Kosovo, the war in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq.  The two most recent wars were waged in the name of America's freedom from terrorists.  We are told that these military operations will make the world a more peaceful place.

Tactically, I don't think we can solve the problem of terrorism (if it even truly exists at the scale we are told) with traditional warfare.  America's defenses are entrenched in a Cold War mentality, and trying to place age-old warfare strategies on something that's quite new.  Stopping terrorism won't be accomplished by dropping bombs on civilians that aren't involved.  The exaggerated terrorist threat is, in this writer's opinion, virtually non-existent to Americans.  The analogy I often use for the inappropriateness of the war launched on Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban and Al-Queda is this: if your neighbor comes into my house and shoots my mother, do I have the right to bomb your entire neighborhood in retaliation to "smoke him out" of his hole?  Doesn't seem quite logical. And seems pretty unfair to all of his neighbors. 

Being a cradle Catholic, I was very upset at George W. Bush's catering to Pope John Paul II's to gain approval of the war in Iraq.  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Just War doctrine is as follows:

"The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition."

These seem like pretty good guidelines, if you are going to be for war.  None of these conditions were met for the wars that have been waged in the past half-century. 

Noam Chomsky points out in several of his works that the Vietnam protest efforts actually took an extremely long time to become mobilized.  They were due in large part to men and women who returned from Vietnam and wanted to speak against the injustice of the 'conflict' [not war] that was being waged in the jungles of southern Vietnam.  In contrast with today's military, many of those people were involuntary combatants, as they were drafted.  In today's all-volunteer armed forces, we are dependent upon those few courageous souls who risk their reputation and careers to speak against the various lies being told about major combat operations in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan.  

There are grave consequences, however, to ending this mismanaged war.  Politicians and policy makers can make fabulous promises about "bringing home our troops", while neglecting to mention that our government will undoubtedly continue to employ private contractors like Blackwater to maintain the region.  Your tax dollars fund these contractors just as well, if not moreso, than our boys and girls in green.  In fact, more money is given to these contractors, and they are unregulated entities that will never be arrested, face a court martial, or apologize for the civilian atrocities we know they are committing.

I could go on forever, but I think I'll stop here.  I'll leave you with the paraphrased words of a college friend of mine, Aidan Delgado (who gained Conscientious Objector status while stationed at Abu Ghraib).  He reminded an audience that the torture, abuse, and atrocities that are done by our compatriots (contracted or enlisted) are ultimately a reflection of all Americans.  The decision to support a war in which crimes against humanity are being incurred is your responsibility with dire consequences.  You cannot support a war in hopes of peace, most especially when the acts of that war are far more destructive than any hypothetical alternative. 

In 1984, there are two groups of people.  The members of the Party, and the Proles (i.e. the proletariat).  The members of the Party did all that was patriotic in the name of Big Brother.  The Proles stayed drunk on bad whiskey and beer.  The members of the party were afforded a ration of cheap gin.  The Proles were distracted by Party-created pornography and cheap periodicals.  Members of the Party, on the other hand, were force to be distracted by the slogans of the party.

The Proles fell in love and fucked and drank and danced and lived with joy. Party members are told that sex is for procreation only.  The Proles got to feel the pleasures of life, though they were disavowed by the party, to be created as second-class citizens.  That was their punishment for their hedonistic, compassionate ways.

Members of the Party were told that they were privileged among the Proles. That the reward of their service to the Party was their freedom. Yet they received no rewards from their government.  Only the fear that one day they may be charged guilty of Thoughtcrime, maintaining ideas that went against the party line.  Indentured servants to a party that created the illusion of prosperity, while ensuring that their citizens never were allowed the true pursuit of happiness.

The members of the Party were enslaved in every way to their totalitarian government. 

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.

We have very easily and quickly become subservient to a government and to corporations that don't have our best interest in mind. In fact, they don't have a single interest of ours in mind.  Yet we are told that if we do what we are told, if we work hard, pray to God, and salute the flag, we will be granted the most wonderful freedom and democracy this world has to offer.  

Unfortunately, that sentiment is no longer true (if it ever was).  That sentiment is used to excuse those who refuse to offer assistance to the poor, with the idea that one can simply use the proverbial bootstraps to lift themselves out of the gutter.  Unfortunately, the corporate slave state has made the gap between the rich and the poor larger than ever, and diminished the possibility of a middle-class majority.

Every time we buy something we don't need or spend an hour at work we're not getting paid for (or are!), we are oiling the corporate machine.  There are little things you can do to avoid homage to the slave state.  This is one reason I'm glad for the "green" movement.  People are not buying certain things, trying to reduce their carbon footprint.  Skipping the trip to Wal-Mart or Target.  Taking public transportation. Not consuming unnecessary goods and products.

It will take a grass-roots effort.  A truly viral effort to remind people to not be enslaved to a cause that is not theirs.  To stop lining the pockets of 1% of the population who hold most of the economic resources in this country.  We don't need their money.  We don't need their "freedom". We don't need their products.  We don't need their garbage.  We don't need their destruction.

We need to be like the Proles, in a way.  We need to love and be passionate about the things that really matter.  We deserve real human connections, true compassion, and love.  Those are things that can't be purchased or given to us by the government.  We need the government to fulfill its social contract and grant everyone their basic human rights (shelter, food, clothing, and healthcare) and leave us the true freedom to engage in life and our surroundings the way we are intended as creatures of the Earth.  We will not be enslaved.

FREEDOM IS LOVE.

I hate the way people throw around the phrase "Big Brother is Watching You" like it's the only thing to come out of George Orwell's 1984.  While certainly significant, it's a bit like relying on the Cliff's Notes version of what's important.  Although I might repeat the phase myself in front of the security camera in the elevator, I understand that Orwell intended to warn people through his dystopic novel that Big Brother does a little bit more than voyeurism.  I intend to write a multiple-part series on themes from the novel.

 

There are three slogans of the totalitarian party outlined  in the book.  

WAR IS PEACE.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

I'll start with the last one.

Big Brother and his party did more than watch.  They controlled people.  Manipulated every aspect of their waking life, and monitored their dreaming ones. The very thought of revolt or dissent was a crime punishable by death.  Although we're not quite to that point in the United States, it is increasingly difficult for citizens to contemplate civil disobedience.

The appendix of 1984 is a document outlining the principles of Newspeak.  Essentially, the goal of Newspeak is to eliminate all 'unnecessary' words from the English language, redacting volume by volume until the dictionary is whittled down to a a volume with barely 100 pages.  The ability to categorize things as "bad" will be eliminated by replacing it with "ungood".  The people wouldn't even be able to talk about something in a pejorative manner (and by the way, the word 'pejorative' would be gone, too).  

To borrow an idea from psychology, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states that the ability of our mind to think about things is dictated by our knowledge of the language we use to conceptualize our thinking.  All abstract ideas rest in our mind due to the ability to use language to define them.  So the ideas of justice, freedom, and liberty, are dependent on our ability to explain them through language.  They are intangibles that require a more in-depth vocabulary in order to understand, communicate, and advance our ideas. 

In Newspeak, these complex words are stripped from language, so the very idea of a revolution, or injustice, or oppression are struck from the collective dialoge.  People wouldn't be able to even think about being revolutionaries. 

Luckily for the powers that be, they don't have to spend hours of labor and generations of patience to force language out of style.  There are other methods of controlling people that render them equally incapable of thinking about a revolution.  

Filling people's days with slavery to a corporate state, to consumerism, and a meaningless media machine that does little more than act as a megaphone for the oppressors.  That is how they have stripped people's abilities to think about true democracy.  To revolt against the slavery.  To rise above the squalor of everyday drivel to engage in the things that truly count.

When they try to flood the world with truncated words and meaningless garbage, fill your mind with your own lexicon.  Don't let them dictate your thoughts.

LANGUAGE IS STRENGTH.

You know what bothers me?  You never hear about truly liberal political think tanks.  All you ever hear about are these big Republican think tanks that are creating language and foreign policy that allows the media and government to dupe everyone into war. 

Even the liberal think tanks aren't all that liberal.  That's the problem with the media.  They've got people thinking that CNN is "liberal" and that the Democratic party is "liberal".  NO! The media is not liberal.  It's extremely centrist.  Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are not liberal.  They are centrists. 

 
The two-party system is an illusion.  It's an illusion of polarity, and an illusion of choice.  In America, it's not left vs. right or liberal vs. conservative.  It's some moderately centrist folks against some less moderately centrist folks.  There is no choice, and only an illusion of opposition.

This is where I fall:

I want a leftist, libertarian think tank.

I want a political system that isn't a hotbed for people who claim to be "liberal" or "conservative" who are really just centrists all day long.  The American people deserve true choices.  True choices among a slew of political candidates.

Here's Ireland's political landscape. 

Wow.  Amazing.  More than two major parties.

I'm moving to Ireland and building my think tank there.

Images courtesy of politicalcompass.org.

For the powers that be, our ignorance is their bliss.  It is easier to hoodwink American citizens if they have no idea what is going on, and if they don't know how to engage in democracy.  I'm not sure who the "powers that be" are, but I'm pretty certain that we can say that it is a group of politicians, corporate interests, and the media.

 
Consider a statement that Hillary Clinton made earlier on the campaign trail.  She essentially said that citizens should hold her accountable to promises that she is making during her campaign.  If they don't see her doing what she has promised, that they are to hold her accountable.

[The crowd cheers.]

Wait a second.  Does anyone actually know how to hold a president accountable for promises made on the campaign trail?  Does anyone actually know how executive accountability works in this country? For that matter, does anyone actually know how the national budget is created? How a bill is passed? How legislation is vetoed? Overturned?

Not really.

The average American citizen doesn't know much about how the government was created, how it functions, and how to engage in the democratic process.  For most people, this ignorance is cultivated early on.  Consider this: in the county that I live in, high school students only need 1/2 of a credit in American Government.  When I was in high school, I was only required to take one nine-week course in American government. (I was fourteen, and my only memory of that class was writing an essay on "The Missing Piece" by Shel Silverstein.) By my own volition, I took advanced classes in American History, Political Science, and American Government. I'm so glad that I did.

The only way to ensure a democracy as intended by the founding fathers is to make sure that people understand the procedures of the government.  When left to the discretion of the individual voter, most citizens will not learn the rights and responsibilities guaranteed by their citizenship.  The less we engage in our democracy, the less control we will have over the processes that dictate our lives.  We must start educating our children, and ourselves.  Knowledge is power, and we must not grow up in institutionalized ignorance.  To combat the brainwashing media, the lying politicians, and the powerful corporations, we must give ourselves and future generations the tools necessary to truly hold the government accountable.    

"People should not fear their government.  The government should fear its people." - V for Vendetta

I really can't stop listening to Fox News Radio.  Yes, it leaves me feeling a little ill, but I think it's important to figure out how the 'right' is doing such a fabulous job of brainwashing citizens.

People who listen to talk radio are, on average, more politically involved than most citizens.  They like to be informed, and are rather knowledgeable of current events.  Unfortunately, they don't actually report on current events on Fox News.  They typically take a single talking point and repeat it over...and over...and over...and over.  For the past three months, they have been talking about the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. I'm done listening to that.  Apparently they have been talking about this for a while.

I really recommend watching the documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. In the documentary, they show how a memo is sent out each day to everyone in the Fox world as a topic for the day.  Then, the "journalists" and "reporters" repeat this idea over...and over...and over...and over.  This is not reporting.  This is repetition. What is worse, other media stations, papers, and broadcasts will eventually pick up this "talking point" and do the same thing, to a lesser extent.  A prime example of this was the Jeremiah Wright story.  Eventually, other networks picked this up and it became mainstream news.  In theory, this isn't completely bad.  I believe that it's important that anyone aspiring president should be vetted for the company that he/she keeps.  In the end, we were left with a nice speech on racism in America, and some people have reopened dialogue on this topic. 

Other media networks do this sometimes, too.  They will latch on to a topic until they finally convince people through repetition, rather than persuasion. However, other news outlets don't have the type of clout that the Fox spin machine does.  Here is the list of assets owned by News Corporation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation. The sun never sets on the Fox empire.

This is not journalism.  This is a noise machine.  This is not holding politicians accountable.  This is finding something negative about a candidate or a candidate's affiliations and spinning until you're blue in the face.  If our current president's pastor had made any inflammatory remarks like the Rev. Wright did, Fox would not be repeating it months on end.  If this election cycle wasn't already infused with racial tensions, Fox would not be capitalizing on these events. This is not journalism.

Dissonance. The clash of two opposing sounds, which generally results in auditory cacophony. When this idea is applied to matters of the mind, it is loosely defined as two diametrically opposing ideas being processed by the brain, which generally results in cognitive discomfort.  For the sanity of the thinker, one of these ideas is summarily dismissed. It is a result of the mind's inability to process two pieces of information that are in direct opposition to one another.

In a simple example, we have been taught from an early age that two plus two equals four.  If you are told instead that two plus two actually equals five, your brain will reject it.  The brain does not allow for this contradiction [George Orwell demonstrates changing this learned fact through the use of torture, but we'll save that topic for another day].

We have been taught from an early age that the American government is honest, reasonable, and just.  From the pledge of allegiance every morning before our math lesson, to the middle school history lessons in which we learned we are granted life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have been taught that the government is for and by the people. 

Cognitive dissonance says we will reject those thoughts that create a clash of ideas in the brain. Despite isolated articles or news stories about a corrupt government, many Americans do not independently inform their perception of the Republic. Most accounts that are in opposition to our ideas of our democracy are swept aside.  The mind is a powerful thing, and our brains will even go so far as to build imaginary bridges that explain the factual disconnect. 

I was speaking with a friend about the events of September 11.  As shereadschomsky alludes to previous blog post, the investigation itself was gossamer thin (see The Commission: The Uncensored History of The 9/11 Investigation by Philip Shenon).  Evidence is withheld to this day, and much of the facts reported by the Commission have been proven false. 

I was telling my friend about some of the inconsistencies of the events of that day.  As an example, most plane crashes of airliners leave a significant amount of debris, none of which was present in the crash in Shanksville, PA (the crash site of United Flight 93).  This evidence (or lack thereof) would indicate an alternative explanation than that provided by the government.  The physical evidence lends itself to the alternative explanation of the shooting down of the plane.  But the account of the renegade passengers and their subsequent takeover of the controls was what the media presented as fact: no real criminal investigation was carried out to arrive at these conclusions.  Available data was presented to support these claims.

I'm not arguing for the veracity of these accounts, but offer them as an example of the power of cognitive dissonance.  My friend said that she distinctly remembers seeing a plane in the picture of the PA crash site.  She has a doctorate, so she has been trained to systematically extrapolate meaning from the available data.  She thanked me for enlightening her.  Right or wrong, she realized that she had never thought to question whether or not a plane was visible at the crash site.  Her mind had always pictured a plane clearly in the field.* 

Nearly every single entity of the mainstream media has become a government megaphone, rather than a questioning body that was created to ensure a formidable democracy.  The cognitive dissonance that results when we hear anything different from "official accounts" can be overwhelming, because you have been conditioned think the media cheerleaders are actually journalists and, thus, investigators for the truth.  It's not "we report, you decide," but "we report, you believe."  In order to uncover the truth about our democracy, we must stop dismissing alternative news. We must keep our minds open to more than one message.

*Please let me know if you find a picture of a plane at the crash site.  I would like to see it myself.

We in the United States believe that nothing is more important than democracy. We don't understand how a country like Iraq could get so lost.  What are the steps to wind up in a state of tyranny, we wonder?  Because, proudly, though our nation isn't perfect it has always been a democracy, moving towards more freedom for greater numbers of voters.  We wonder: how did the German people allow the atrocities of WWII?  Its an excellent question, one that sociologists and psychologist spent much of the 1950s trying to answer.  Because, while their were plenty of Nazis, most German citizens didn't have a stake in Hitler's agenda.  Most were ordinary citizens just going about their day to day business.  And you look back at those people and you wonder, why didn't they do something?  Why didn't they tear down the walls?  Why didn't they march out of their jobs and onto the streets and say, "We're not putting any more money into this economy as long as it represents injustice and murder?"  And I'm not trying to make a comparison between this administration and that one.  No, I am simply putting forth the question---how does a nation of people know when the line has been crossed?  Because history proves that people don't always act on their conscience.  History proves that all manner of tyranny can soil us before we will wake up and sweep clean injustice.  I only bring up the question of WWII to point out: it has happened.  It can happen again. 

So these are the questions we must ask ourself:

Do you believe that "President" George W. Bush won the election fair and square in Florida?  Because I was in Tallahassee in 2000.  I spoke to people who were turned away from the polls, whole neighborhoods with barricades, preventing them from voting.  And then we get the same stories coming out of Ohio in the election after.  And if you believe that the last two elections were stolen, then do we still live in a democracy?  How many rigged elections will it take before you are ready to dump all your tea into the Bay?  Doesn't have to be two.  That's not what I'm saying.  I'm asking this question seriously so that you can set a standard. So that you will know when it is time to stand up for what you believe in.  So that, three, four rigged elections down the line you don't forget the promises our Constitution have made.

I have another question.  Let's set the election aside.  Let's talk about what it means to trust the government.  Our constitution was founded on the principle that the government you can trust today could turn on you tomorrow.  That's why we have the Bill of Rights.  That's why we have the fourth Amendment, the one that protects us from unlawful search and seizure.  A lot of people think its about privacy.  It's not.  Thomas Jefferson didn't care about your right to privacy.  The fourth amendment is about revolution.  Here's why:  if you live in a country where the government can keep tabs on everyone, get into their business, then you can't have a revolution.  If you live in a place where the government is taking notes about who goes where and who knows whom, then they can lock up anyone who doesn't like the way things are going down.  Or you can put them all in a line and put a bullet in their heads.  So when the government has all that information they can do whatever they want.  And we have seen it happen.  It happened in Iran.  It happened in Italy.  Yes, it happened in WWII in Germany.  And it has happened in this country.  It happened when the government went after the Black Panthers in the seventies.  It happened in the eighteen hundreds when private militias shot Union workers speaking their mind, as I am now.  But not to the extent that it took place in these other regimes.  Most of us still feel safe speaking our minds.  So again, I want you to ask yourself a very simple question:  Where is the line?  How many people does a country have to spy on before you, personally, will take to the streets?  Right now many of us are comfortable but we are also a people that believes in liberty.  And we believe that, at some point, free people will prove they are free by disposing of bad government. If you believe in the Constitution, you must believe that.  So where is the line?  What will it take for you to question how safe it is for you to write a letter or make a phone call?  What is your limit? 

This is a question I want you to seriously ponder. One hundred?  One thousand?  One million?  Is it only one?  Here's something else to ponder.  Something we haven't pondered enough.  Have you really pondered this whole business with AT&T?  I've been thinking about it a lot lately.  Can anyone even remember what happened there?  It is hard to pick apart the news from the celebrity gossip these days.  I'll remind you because it has been plaguing my conscience. 

The government was asking AT&T for a whole lot of information about its customers.  Potential terrorists, supposedly.  And AT&T thought it was pretty inconvenient.  Do we really need a warrant for every last one of these people?  That's a lot of work. So they decided to just let Uncle Sam put his ear up to the wall and have access to every single email and  phone call made on AT&T's service.  Apparently, if you are a customer of AT&T the fourth Amendment doesn't apply to you.  I can't believe that company is still in business!  Why isn't there an international boycott against this AT&T?  Where is the outrage?  And what makes you think that if the government was reading our email and listening in on our phone calls in 2000, that they aren't doing it now?  If we don't make it crystal clear that it won't be tolerated, why shouldn't they continue to take away our rights, one by one?  So again, I ask you: What is your limit?  Know it.  Know when it has been crossed.  Be ready to act.  Because if we wait until they are recording every email and phone call we make, it will be too late.  I pray it isn't too late now. 

But I know what some of you are thinking.  You're thinking: Sure, that happened in other places, in little tropical countries where the heat drives people mad.  Long ago, in Europe before the spread of almighty capitalism.  That can't happen here.  We are still safe.  And I guarantee that's what they thought in Iran, too, before their government put everyone who doesn't think like them in front of a firing squad.  But that was Iran.  Not here. 

 I see only two reasons one might argue that that can't happen here.  Either we can trust the government or we can trust the people of democracy to revolt against tyranny.  Well, can we trust this government?  Sure, they might be spying on us, but they wouldn't hurt us.  They wouldn't lock us up in internment camps, we learned our lesson after we locked up all those innocent Japanese-Americans in WWII.  It is a totally different thing to lock people up in Guantanamo Bay.  Those people are "unlawful combatants." 

That's a funny phrase, isn't it?  We have all the leaders of all these nations sit down together and draft a document on what is and isn't ethical to do in a time of war.  That every single human being, regardless of who's side they're on, has these rights.  And to go against this document is, therefore, a war crime.  You know I'm talking about the Geneva Convention.  Its not a controversial thing.  The U.S. has been backing it since 1842. 

So basically this administration is arguing that "unlawful combatants" aren't human.  Because they don't get human rights.  Don't tell me that they're all guilty, because they haven't been to trial.  "Innocent until proven guilty."  Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  Not six guys in a room with a baseball bat.  That is not justice.  But it is easiest to believe that they are all bad people.  So we go on believing that.  Because we trust the government.  We trust that a government that steals two elections, spies on its citizens and locks people up and tortures them. 

Of course we don't.  We're not fools.  I don't need to tell you this.  You know all this.  You know you can think of a hundred other wrongs.  Lying about weapons of mass destruction.  Turning against members of their own CIA for telling the truth.  Shabby investigation into 9-11.  Of course we don't trust this government. 

So that leaves only one possibility.  There's only one other possible way we can be sure that the atrocities of tyranny don't happen here:  we can trust that the  people of a democracy will revolt against tyranny, as they did when they founded this nation.  That's why I'm asking you these questions today.  That's why I want you to think about  what it would take for you to rise up.  What would it take for you to become a revolutionary?  What would it take for you to stand on a soapbox?  What would it take for you to organize meetings?  What would it take for your water cooler conversation to turn seditious?  Because you cannot wait for the firing squads.  You cannot wait until ordinary citizens are afraid of being rounded up and taken away.  Then it will be too late. 

I hear a lot of folks talking about change.  They're talking about the democratic primary.  They have a lot of hope for turning this country around. And that's a beautiful thing.  But that's not enough.  Because no matter how great the next president is, that doesn't mean the one following it can't pick up where this administration has left off.  The American people are setting a precedent.  We are telling those that would deny us our freedoms that it is an easy thing to do.  We are telling them that we can be placated.  We can be distracted. 

Please, tell me it isn't true.  Tell me that we are a people that will defend the freedoms it took so long to establish.  Tell me you will go home tonight and think about where that line is, your personal line in the sand.  What you are willing to do to defend your freedom.  And I'm not talking about going to some other country and killing people because you believe their government is a threat to you.  Hypothetically, what rights does this government have to take away before it no longer represents you?  And what are you willing to do about it?  Until each and every one of you is sure of the answer to that question we aren't really free.  This Constitution is just a piece of paper.  It takes a nation full of conviction to give it meaning.