Lipstick and other diversions
September 10th, 2008
“I think there’s a really good chance Sarah Palin could become president, and I think that’s a really scary thing… I don’t know anything about her and in eight weeks, I don’t think I’m going to know anything about her.”
Actually, Matt’s only being half-honest, here. He does, more than likely, know a good deal about Governor Palin. He probably knows what her kids’ names are, that her eldest daughter is pregnant, and that she’s a hockey mom. He has to know that she has a baby with Down’s Syndrome, and that she was a mayor and is currently the sitting Governor of Alaska.
But Matt, being the lazy American that he is, doesn’t want to learn anything more about Governor Palin. Eight weeks is plenty of time to separate yourself from the media and talk radio coverage of right/left bickering at each other (over lipstick, pitbulls and pigs, no less) and actually search for the facts; yet America is too consumed with gobbling up what the media serves them on a constant basis to actually take the time and study the issues of these campaigns.
Isn’t the reason why we engage in politics to attempt to fix the issues that plague our society?
As an issues person, I didn’t find myself interested in politics because I wanted to engage in adolescent name-calling. The thrill of waging battle with my enemies isn’t why I spend so much of my time involved in societal and governmental matters. I don’t take the time to write on this blog and discuss political issues of the day with my friends, co-workers and neighbors simply because I have the time to do it.
The reason why politics interests me is because it affects my life. If affects how much of my hard-earned money will actually be deposited into my bank account. It affects what sort of education my children receive. It affects my workplace, and my property.
So why do I–and the rest of America –find it so easy to fall into the trap of this childish name-calling, when our entire lives and futures are resting firmly in the hands of four powerful politicians? Why do we fall prey to a media that wishes to control us, when we have all the tools we need (Hello? Internet?) to inform ourselves and then vote accordingly?
Because we’re lazy, and because we’re human.
While CBS, ABC, Fox News, MSNBC, Bill Maher and Sean Hannity are busy informing us that Sarah Palin’s teenage daughter is pregnant (the horror!), and that Barack Obama’s audience laughed when he talked about a pig wearing lipstick ( terrifying!), the issues that really matter–the reason why we fight in the first place–aren’t even being discussed, anymore.
Matt Damon was more than likely correct that he probably won’t learn anything substantial about Governor Palin’s past record as a mayor and governor which would be enough to make an informed decision about her. But it isn’t because he doesn’t have access to the information he would need to do so. It’s because his lazy patriotism gets his information force-fed to him by the mass media, who knows all-too-well that lipstick sells, issues don’t.
Ironically enough, Matt Damon’s own statement has become the very thing that media sources use to divert our attention away from the issues so that they can suck us into their every-four-year money-making machine.
Since I’ve picked on Sean Hannity, I’ll give Mr. Damon a break and put this another way for conservatives.
Today, Sean Hannity would not shut his trap about the ‘lipstick on a pig’ comment that Barack Obama made. He wouldn’t quit with the liberal media bias, and he wouldn’t let up about the fact that Barack Obama despises him or that several known liberals are comparing Obama to Jesus Christ. NOT ONCE in over 45 minutes did I hear him talk in-depth about any of the issues.
I have news for you, Sean Hannity; THE MEDIA IS LIBERAL AND IS IN THE TANK FOR BARACK OBAMA. It’s no big secret, Dippy. But if you believe that your fellow citizens are such ‘great Americans’, you’ll give them enough credit to realize that they’re smart enough to figure that out on their own. If they aren’t, they don’t deserve the freedom or the liberty that you purport to fight for.
So what’s my point?
Let’s get back to the issues, my friends. Find the things in your life that mean the most to you, and research these candidates. THAT is why we engage in this battle every four years.
I can’t deny that it’s my hope that you’ll realize that Barack Obama is an empty suit whose associations and past actions are a prophetic vision of what we will suffer under his leadership, but I don’t hope this because because of my political affiliations or philosophies. I hope that you’ll find the truth about Barack Obama because you love your freedom, your country,and your friends and families, and believe that every American citizen has the right to keep what they’ve worked so hard for.
Our Founding Fathers didn’t fight battle after bloody battle so that we could stroke each others’ egos or rip each other down. There’s plenty of time for that in our day-to-day lives. They fought so that we would graciously and gladly accept the responsibility of having control of our own destinies as free citizens.
It’s high time we start respecting ourselves and our freedom, educate ourselves on what’s really important, and then act accordingly.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Unfortunately, McCain’s associations and past actions also are a prophetic vision of what we will suffer under his leadership and it’s the same thing that we have been suffering for the last eight years.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Listen, Vinny…I’m no huge fan of John McCain, be sure of that. If I had my way, we’d have a Libertarian President. Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen.
So, I’m left to choose (once again) between the lesser of two evils.
Barack Obama’s ties to the likes of Robert Ayers, Public Allies, Tony Rezko, Rev. Wright, Daily Kos, Moveon.org,et al, matched with his extreme-left upbringing,his documented lies and half-truths, his backroom deals with nuclear giant Exelon (who is now one of his top campaign contributors), his socialist/Marxist beliefs, his promise to redistribute wealth and grow government, enact the Fairness Doctrine, etc, etc, etc…scares the living crap out of me.
I’ve done my research, and McCain is by far the better option…unless you’re a socialist who wants government up in your business constantly. If you are, then I would imagine that Barack Obama is ‘the one’ for you.
I also don’t buy that the McCain administration will be just another 4 years of the last eight. I’m sorry, I just don’t. It could pan out to be better, or worse. We have no way of knowing that.
What I do know is that Barack Obama will KILL our economy, will steal more of my money to give it to other people. As a previously poor single mother who worked my way up the ladder by working hard and not giving up, I refuse to allow myself to be punished for my success and perserverence.
And the attempt to shut down my blog (or be fined or jailed) if I don’t offer an opposing viewpoint for every post I write doesn’t exactly sit well with me, either.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
My daddy used to tell me that all politicians—Democrats and Republicans—are just trying to get their piece of the pie. The difference is that the pie gets split more ways under the Democrats. Under the Republicans, we have seen more and more of the nation’s wealth concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. McCain’s campaign is packed with the very same lobbyists who have taken control of our government on behalf of corporations.
I understand the appeal of the Libertarian philosophy but I think it is a pipe dream. I think that capitalism is a remarkable basis for an economy, but I don’t believe that laissez-faire capitalism is any more, but the magic of the market also brought us Enron and the mortgage crisis. I think that the genius of our government is the checks and balances provided by the separation of powers. Under the Republicans, there have been no checks to the concentration of power in the ultra-wealthy and that is not good for representative democracy.
I have great respect for your effort and your perseverance, but I don’t the Republicans give a damn about you. Under their leadership, more wealth and power have been concentrated in the hands of people like George W. Bush who never had to do a lick of work for a single day in his life.
I think that the economy is in for tough sledding whoever gets elected. The Republicans decided to cut taxes and put our country in hock to the Chinese in order to give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. At least the Democrats understand the idea of paying for things that they want.
I don’t actually think that Obama will steal any of your money. I think you will get a tax break.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
I appreciate the exchange of ideas, Vinny. Thanks for coming back to discuss.
The funny thing about the Republicans not giving a damn about me is that I don’t care that they don’t give a damn about me. The Dems don’t give a damn, either, but they like to tell me that they do. To say that they care about people they don’t even know or will never meet while seeking positions of power in this democratic process is disingenuous, no matter which party is spewing it. It’s insulting because they’re insinuating that we actually buy the line of BS they’re selling.
Hillary Clinton said something in her speech at the DNC that made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. She said that if the American people voted for Obama, they would “no longer be invisible to their government”. I thought, why in the world would I want anything more than to be invisible to my government?
As far as your comments about capitalism bringing us Enron and others like them… Do you really believe that corporations are made up of any less ‘ethical’ people that those in government? Government can be just as corrupt with money and power as any corporation. The beauty of capitalism is that the market dictates the ‘checks and balances’, for the most part. The only thing to reign in government corruption and overspending is the people, but if the people lose power to the government, and when the government starts believing that it ‘allows’ freedom rather than ‘respects’ it (which is what could surely happen with the likes of the Fairness Doctrine and other tyrannical laws), the government will make Enron look like a dime-store candy heist. In fact, there are already tremendous favors and other deals being given to so-called ‘non-profits’, who are in turn using the government grants they receive to influence legislation. Government is no more immune to scandal and stealing than corporations. The only difference is that government has the military, police, courts, and prisons. Government is a more scary opressor than a corporation.
HOWEVER, when corporations get into bed with the government (like the Exelon/Obama instance I talked about above, for example), that’s when the real evil starts taking place. Both are taking American citizens for granted, and both have all of the money and power. Democrats certainly aren’t immune to this sort of scandal any more than Republicans are. They’re all corrupt.
Personally, I’d rather have a corporation get wealthier than have the government continue to tax and spend my money on things I’ll never use and things I don’t approve of, and things I find to be wasteful and excessive. I’m not envious at all of people who have lots of money. It reminds me that there’s still the possibility in this country of making a fortune if you truly want to.
Also, the nations wealth is not being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. The number of millionaires in America hit an all-time high last year of over 9.3 million households. The disparity–I believe–comes into play when the government creates a stagnant lower-class by making an increasing number of them dependent upon their welfare and other social programs. Which, ironically, is exactly what they want.
Libertariansm may be a pipe dream, but I guess I’d rather have a dream than a gaurantee of getting screwed. I don’t believe that government is the answer to our problems. WE are the answer to our problems, and the best thing we can do for our country is to take care of ourselves and our loved ones and to make responsible life-choices. I’m doing my patriotic duty by supporting my family, making good choices, paying my bills, entering into legal contracts with full knowledge and responsibility, and respecting others’ freedom and property.
And yes, my taxes will most certainly go up under Barack Obama, as will small business owners’, who usually have a net worth of over $250,000. Also, I live in rural Wisconsin, and many retired elderly living on social security will be forced to sell their property and land because they won’t be able to afford the tax increase. Not all people who are considered ‘wealthy’ are evil. That’s the classic class-warfare crap that keeps getting thrown out there.
Why do people hate the rich? The only reason I can come up with is because they’re jealous. I can’t think of any other reason why people would think that it’s okay to take 50 to 60% of someone’s earnings or net worth. What’s that magic number that makes it okay to take more of someone’s money? The progressive tax code sucks because it makes no sense. It’s stealing.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:13 am
Here Here Pheisty! (raises beer)
September 11th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I don’t hate the rich, but I know that many of the largest fortunes in America have always come doing business with the government or influencing government policy. The DuPont fortune was founded upon selling munitions to the government during the Civil War. The railroad fortunes were derived from government land grants and government funding. The steel fortunes depended on the use of federal troops to break strikes. If you are interested in more information, I would recommend reading Wealth and Democracy by Kevin Phillips.
It is not necessarily that the people that make up corporations are unethical; it is that the corporations themselves are unethical people. Under the law a corporation is a person but it is a person whose sole reason for existing is the generation of wealth. The only ethic it knows is the cost benefit analysis. If it makes greater profits by polluting the environment, selling unsafe products, and bribing government officials, its nature is to do so if it believes the potential benefit outweighs the risk of getting caught. The only ethics the corporation has are those imposed by the government and enforced by the government.
Let me make it clear though, I am a capitalist. I think that the profit motive and the free market are remarkable tools for producing economic prosperity. Nevertheless, unlike the libertarians, I do not believe that it a self regulating mechanism with adequate checks and balances. I think it naturally tends to produce booms and busts along with bubbles and panics. It also produces monopolies and tremendous concentrations of wealth. The magic of the market has to be watched.
I am not sure where you are getting your information about Obama’s tax proposals, but my understanding is that they are based on income over $250,000, not net worth over $250,000. Moreover, people making over $250,000 would not see tax rates any higher than they had in the 1990’s when the government had a surplus and job creation was much better than it has been for the last eight years. I would also be interested to know where you got the idea that people on social security would be losing their homes. I know of nothing that would support that conclusion.
You are absolutely right to be concerned with corporate influence over government but you seem to be ignoring the way corporations have run wild in Washington over the last eight years. I don’t know what story you have heard about Obama and Excelon but I don’t think that there is anything there. Excelon lobbied Obama and several senators to change the language in a bill that would imposed an obligation on utilities to promptly report any radiation leaks. Obama supported the change because Republicans controlled the senate at the time and could have blocked the bill if he hadn’t.
September 13th, 2008 at 5:38 am
Booms and busts are natural, and we shouldn’t attempt to try to ‘level them off’ with unnecessary government involvement that creates an economy that’s basically a house of cards. Take the massive mortgage bailout, for example. What that created was a false sense of security from both a business and individual perspective. Government should not be here to insure investments, which need a certain amount of risk factor involved.
I do, however, stand corrected on Obama’s tax proposal. He truly does only wish to raise taxes on what he considers “the wealthy”, but in the process of raising taxes on income earners of $250,000 or more, he hits small business owners the hardest, which in turn drives up the cost of goods and services for you and I. If businesses profit margin decreases significantly due to higher taxation, they must make up the difference somewhere. That difference gets passed on to you and I, which I consider to be an indirect tax hike on not only the middle class, but all of us.
Obama also seeks to reinstate the death tax, and raise the capital gains and dividends tax. Most of the people who will be hit with these taxes are those who reinvest in their businesses or other investments in our economy. This will mean less jobs for less Americans. It’s not like the wealthy are simply hoarding all of their money and laughing at poor people. If you take away the incentive of investment, less investment occurs, and the rest of us who aren’t wealthy will feel the pain when our jobs are lost due to the wealthier among us getting taxed (literally) to death, and not reinvesting in the economy.
This class warfare crap has got to stop. It’s based upon lies and jealousy.
As for Exelon, there’s plenty there. They were paying him off to take it easy on them, but he let them know that there was no way the Republicans would allow his proposal, so they begrudingly agreed to expose leaks voluntarily, and he in turn promised them that he would act favorably on their behalf once he was elected president. Why else would Exelon currently be Obama’s fourth largest campaign contributor? Why would they want to put in office the man who at first came after them?
Obama likes to say that he doesn’t accept money from special interests and big corporations, but that’s a complete and utter lie.
And his dealings with Rezko make me sick to my stomach. Here are two men who used their position and power for personal gain, and in the process harmed thousands of poverty-stricken people living in Rezko’s slums while he collected $100 million in taxpayer money to supposedly ‘help’ low-income families in Chicago. Obama got a nice house out of the deal, too, when Rezko’s wife bought up the adjacent lot that was originally listed as part of Obama’s property, for over $600,000. Obama didn’t want the adjacent double lot, so Rezko stepped in and bought it, instead. I don’t know about you, but I consider that to be a nice little ‘thank you’ to Obama for helping him get the $100 million in taxpayer funds for his slum project. Or maybe Obama insisted that he purchase the lot, as a quid pro quo deal. Either way, it’s filthy dirty and deserves some major scrutiny.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:57 am
In order to avoid discussing legitimate challenges to their positions, Blacks will sometimes charge their opponents with “racism.”
In order to avoid discussing legitimate challenges to their positions, Jews will sometimes charge their opponents with “anti-Semitism.”
In order to avoid discussing legitimate challenges to their positions, women will sometimes charge their opponents with “sexism.”
In order to avoid discussing legitimate challenges to their positions, many different groups will charge their opponents with “intolerance.”
In order to avoid discussing legitimate challenges to their positions, wealthy Americans like to charge their opponents with engaging in “class warfare.”
What makes dealing with these charges tricky is that many of these phenomena are real: blacks have at times suffered as a result of being black; Jews have at times suffered as a result of being Jews; women have at times suffered as a result of being women; and many people have been victimized simply for being different from their neighbors. As a result, I think we should be reluctant to reject charges of racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, and intolerance without due consideration.
The wealthy, on the other hand, hardly ever suffer as a result of being wealthy. As a result, when the wealthy start complaining about class warfare, I tend to think that it is just a smokescreen to avoid discussing the merits of which economic policies produce the most benefits for the greatest number of Americans,