I Vote For Happy Cows

Oops, I’m Sorry, Maybe I am Under the Media’s Influence

7:30 A.M. After dragging my tired butt out of bed and staring at my feet for 30 minutes in an effort to find the energy to put socks then shoes on, while nursing a cup of hot java, I finally stumble through the door at work where once again my coworkers hear my first attempt at communication. “Aaarrgg” to which I usually receive a reply of “what’s new” or even occasionally some even more perceptive communication. Struggling to “boot-up” I slowly begin to process some level of thought. I rewind through the previous evening in an attempt to recall something of relevance usually finding myself drawing from the most common ground, television. Whether I begin with the giant pigs on Monster Quest or the huge storm on Ax Men it seems like I can count on eventually the topic coming down to the latest “Happy Cow” commercial.

Why Happy Cows and not the DNC commercial “10”, well, on the one hand, I have seen it and so have about everyone else, it is humorous and yet doesn’t manage to offend my sensibility. On the other hand, I would never have seen the “10” commercial if it wasn’t employed in the Political Science class.

Why can’t campaign commercials be more like Real California Cheese commercials? Is it a lack of funds, a lack of issues, or even a lack of creativity? None of these, but a lack of integrity, lack of respect for the citizenry and a lack of oversight and governance of law. As to oversight, who do we have that can bring these characteristics into the media? We can’t call upon the FCC to regulate the commercials because even as an arm of the government and empowered by Congress in the Communications Act of 1934 to oversee the interstate and international communications of radio, TV, satellite and cable. (About the Federal Communications Commission) It is my belief that the special interest of the huge corporations which own the broadcast industry are in an unholy alliance with the two party political system and that they find it in both of their best interest to exclude the voice of opposition from finding its way to the ears of the masses. These masses, which are as previously stated condescended upon and disrespected by the media and the politicians, are excluded from opinions which are not blessed by the eminent and infallible dogma of the this media alliance.

This lack of respect may prove to be the Achilles’ heel of both the media’s exclusive grip on campaigns and the two party government’s lack of representation of the diverse public opinion. I am not alone in making a break from the onslaught of the media campaign blitz. I can say that it has been maybe 16 or 20 years since a campaign ad has gained the advantage of being discussed over a cup of coffee at my work. I think they have become almost entirely irrelevant and of non-effect. Completely without the advantages that Happy Cows have captured lock, stock, and barrel. The politicians and the media are in the dark and have not even taken into account the possibility that we are not vegetables which require there constant spoon feeding of Pablum in order to vote for either of the candidates afforded us by our gracious two party system. I anticipate the day when all of the politicians will pull what may become known as the “Hillary”, where they dump millions of dollars into campaigning with the confidence that they are blessed by the powers that elect, (welcome to the dark side) only to lose to a contender who has capitalized on the internet and captured the American dream without the help of the Dark Lord of corporate media.

I think that the corporate media in their infinite wisdom is misinterpreting this countries distraction with sensationalism with its ability to separate fact from fiction. They bring us Celebrity Rehab and then turn out political sensationalism and think that the American public will all just pile into bed with them. What the media and the politicians lack in integrity may become totally countered by a grass roots trend to follow open source information available through other venues. I think that there is room for truth in the public forum and that with truth comes freedom. Freedom with information will enable us to vote with confidence. As a wise man once said “the truth shall set you free”.

Works Cited

"About the Federal Communications Commission." Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Home Page. 28 April 2008. Federal Communications Commission. 6 Jul 2008 .

Pat Paulson for President

I was too young to vote in 1968, but I can still remember the logic in the Pat Paulson campaign and can remember thinking to myself that it would be such a kick to actually write in Pat Paulson on the ballot. Now its forty years later and it doesn’t seem so funny that after all this time I would be, once again, toying with the idea of who I’m going to vote AGAINST. I would like somehow, to be distanced from considering the possibility of casting a protest vote. I would have liked the realization that one of the candidates or better yet one of the parties would share my concerns or envelope at least some of my viewpoints.

Before I criticize the political system I will prefer to lay the parameters of what I see as the playing field. I will start by saying that this country is the standard of freedom and democracy by which all the rest of the world is measured. The freedoms that we have in this country make it possible for citizens to speak against and even protest against government in a way which is unique to our form of government. One only has to consider the student demonstrations at Tiananmen Square in 1989 (where some reports say as many as 3000 students may have died) to appreciate that we are in a unique position and free to express decent. ("Tiananmen Square, 1989: The Declassified History: Documents")

This country has the ability to self rule and change in a way which could either bring us into a future which is free and prosperous or cast us down to just another third world country, subservient and impoverished. No matter how it turns out, it will by nature be our own fault. I worry that as we expect more from government and understand less the role and function of government, that we may not continue to have all of the intellectual tools necessary to fix the issues that we daftly intend to improve upon.

This reminds me of the ongoing dissatisfaction of most people with the development (and market share) of the Microsoft Operation System, it’s the operating system which almost everybody loves to hate, yet can’t do without. Who hasn’t been amused with the humor that prevails across the internet about “If Windows were a car…” my favorite is the line about having to press the start button to shut off the engine, or all of the warning lights being replaced with one message that says “general protection fault”. Seriously everyone can criticize it but most have no idea about the complexity of it. The fact that the United States can direct itself at all though amazes me more that the idea that another operating system can spring up from a grass root effort and actually function, at least most of the time. Linux gives me hope that a few dedicated men can volunteer their time and actually put together something of substance.

But that, exactly is the crux of the problem, our government no longer is the product of a few great men who are so dedicated to a cause as to volunteer their time and countless energy to build a free, read that open source, form of government that stands against the tyranny of the well established rich and powerful (corrupt) kingdom we have fought to separate ourselves from. By contrast we now have politicians which are so flush with wealth that they poopoo the use of a mere 84.1 million dollars of the public campaign action fund in preference to much greater funding opportunities provided through other fundraising. How long has it been since a President has been elected without the expenditure of countless millions.

While the office of presidency may not yet go to the highest bidder, it has almost sunk to this depth with the money being spent on campaigns swelling to nearly unimaginable levels. According to an article on the site of the government agency International Information Programs which states that “The total cost of electing a president in 1992 was about $550 million. That sum includes not only the $220 million spent by or on behalf of the two major political party candidates in the general election; it also includes funds spent by all the candidates who sought their parties' nominations, by the nominating conventions of the parties, and by third-party and independent campaigns.” (USIS -- Issues of Democracy, September 1996 --Financing)

This amount of money is reminiscent of a You Tube video I once saw of someone surfing a wave from the 2004 Hurricane Ivan. And just like Hurricane Ivan I see the huge swell as being a monstrous demonstration of destructive and out of control power. It is a fact that is almost beyond dispute that money is power, and just to tie it all together there is another adage that I think fits here which says “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” To which I can only give a nod to Lord Acton who continued to pen “Great men are almost always bad men.”

This leaves me with the question I asked at first, which is how to decide who to vote against? If I were to judge the candidates level of badness by the extent of campaign contributions they are able to raise then Obama may be worse that Hillary and McCain together. Yes I am being a little facetious but I am serious that I think that money represents corruption in both our government and election process and that a man of great character yet little worth would be at a loss to contribute to our great system. So I propose that we separate the elite from power and create an opportunity for a common man to ascend to power.

I think there is an answer and that it is within the reach of the common man. I can think of a media which is as available to the poor as to the upper class. A I attempt to describe it I can assume that it will begin to sound a lot like the internet. It would have to remain free, secure, and uncensored. It would also have to both give voters an open source from which to assimilate information and protect sources from piracy or having their message tampered with. We have the technology. We only need to establish an autonomous forum which can validate the electorate. I would suggest that we could make it work by using this free forum where potential candidates could have a voice or else promote someone and then through the incorporation of multiple elections where candidates debate issues and gain support through runoffs which would culminate through the process of elimination which would in due time (and process) derive an electronically elected winner. I am sure that this would be a somewhat problematic process, but I am convinced that the ingenuity of the American people could make it work.

Works Cited

"Tiananmen Square, 1989: The Declassified History : Documents." The National Security Archive. June 1, 1999. National Security Archive. 5 Jul 2008 .

Alexander, Herbert E.. "USIS -- Issues of Democracy, September 1996 --Financing." US Dept of State - eJournalUSA. 13, September. US Dept of State. 6 Jul 2008 .

Not the President

Although I am more apt in conversation to point my “boney finger of indignation” at the president and I would have to say with much warrant. I think that he is only as responsible for all of our woes as the other branches are irresponsible in their duties which they have sworn to uphold and in my opinion they are derelict. The president with the help of his cabinet may have the most power which is vested in a single person, but he also is given some serious limitations.

The president is limited by his term limits and may only hold his office for two four year terms. The president is limited by law and can be removed from office for any (read that even misdemeanor” infraction of the law. Another limit that the president has is that the president cannot make laws but can only issue executive orders which are pursuant to an already created law.

If the president cannot make law and is under the laws of the land, then he can only act in a way that the law gives him authority. The next questions are if he president is acting lawfully and where is the ultimate blame for our current situation in Iraq, if it isn’t the President at blame that leaves the Federal Judicial System or the Congress.

The Supreme Court can declare legislation and executive actions as unconstitutional although the Supreme Court can only rule where there has been cases brought before them by parties with a standing concern. The Supreme Court which represents the Judicial Branch of government is appointed to a lifelong station. The Supreme Court rules over the enforcement of law and can in certain situations even undo lower court rulings that lead the establishment of law in the wrong direction.

An example of the Judicial branch of Government having an opportunity to effect the law of the land is when the “President’s” Patriot Act (which is actually an act of congress) was challenged in court the Supreme Court did in some instances, curtailed its infringement of our civil liberties. But the Judicial Branch is still limited in many ways and does not have the authority to interfere in the actions of the president in his role of Commander and Chief.

Although the president has the authority as Commander and Chief to respond to acts of war it is unequivocally Congress which has the power to declare war. Congress has given the president via the War Powers Act of 1973 some latitude to initiate military action, the President can deploy troops into conflict abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is under attack or at least under some serious threat of attack by some foreign power. The War Powers Act of 1973 requires that the president consults with and reports to Congress within 48 hours of committing troops to military conflict and requires authorization of congress and a declaration of war if troops are remaining for more than 60 days. (The War Powers Act of 1973)

The branch of the government which is most powerful and therefore most responsible is the congress. Congress in an effort not to hinder the president from being able to respond to an emergency has given the president the power to commit our troupes to the battle field but it has done so with reservations which make it nearly impossible to commit them for a prolonged period of time. Within 48 hours it is necessary that the president inform the congress and then it is up to the congress to declare war in order for the troupes to remain beyond 60 days. Bush may have misrepresented the weapons of mass destruction but this doesn’t get Congress of the hook. As important as the need for congressional approval is the fact that Congress holds the purse strings. Congress can simply withhold the billions of dollars necessary to fund the war. Congress also has the responsibility of checking facts and could hold hearing to get at the truth of what is going on.

It shouldn’t be forgotten the congress has the ability to remove the president from office if they don’t believe him to be acting lawfully.

Congress has the true strength because they are a unified body each tied to the grass roots level citizenry which gives them there authority. Every two years they are voted on, but the majority returns to continue their work in deriving our law and funding our various endeavors. They confirm appointments to the bench and are in the position to assure that the president is operating under the law.

So the bottom line is who voted to send our troupes overseas and have since poured $500 billion dollars after them in an attempt to turn a dictator lead country into a democratic state? The $500 billion dollars which has poured into the Iraq war effort was not in the Presidents’ discretionary funds (bottom right hand drawer) but was money which required Congressional budget approval. Which is to say that there is blame to go around that neither Congress nor the Judicial Branch of the Government is in a position of impunity when it comes to our current state of affairs.

Works Cited

"The War Powers Act of 1973." The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness. November 7, 1973. The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness. 5 Jul 2008 .