I was pleased to see President Obama made a decision with regard to the Keystone Pipeline last week. However, he left the door open to continue the project, so I’m not ready to celebrate.
I developed an interest in water supplies after teaching a Bible study on globalization a couple of years ago. From municipalities selling water rights to bottling companies to water supplies poisoned by fracking (the source of Keystone’s oil) and other industrial processes, I learned water is becoming an embattled resource due to growing scarcity.
So the idea of running an oil pipeline across one of the largest water sources in our country, the Ogallala Aquifer, concerns me. And after the Fukishima reactor disaster last year, I am skeptical when ads (paid for by an energy consortium) quote a single geology professor saying, “I guarantee” Keystone’s tar sands oil will NOT contaminate our water supply. I believe the energy company building the Fukishima plant gave Japanese residents similar guarantees. Yet how many times have we seen Mother Nature deliver unanticipated destruction?
I understand the hope that the pipeline will supply jobs, but the few studies conducted show the industry’s estimates are high.
A recent study by Cornell University disputes the industry’s 140,000 jobs (direct and indirect) estimate, noting a number of negative factors including: the temporary nature of the jobs, many of which will be filled by non-local workers, and the possibility of related job losses due to higher Midwestern fuel prices, spills, pollution and costs from climate change. To quantify it further, some estimates ballpark the real job numbers at 2,500 to 4,650 (temporary) jobs.
And did you catch the reference to higher Midwestern fuel prices? Contrary to the pro-pipeline ads, the Cornell report states: “KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel.” Of course, China is one of the major markets for this oil.
As I watch the rise of wind turbines on our horizons, I wonder which project is creating safer long term energy solutions. And I have to ask again, do the benefits of the Keystone Pipeline outweigh the risks to our water supply and quality of life? Does the potential for 5,000 temporary jobs outweigh the cost of higher fuel prices?
The government’s environmental impact study includes information about leaks in existing pipelines included in the project, specifically Ludden, N.D., so it’s a given leaks will occur. To quote this study: “The Northern High Plains Aquifer system supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska and approximately 30 percent of water used in the U.S. for irrigation and agriculture.”
Before we get an answer the hard way, I think we should look for renewable energy sources to replace the oil and study the project further. And perhaps Keystone’s resources would be better spent to research alternative energy sources as well.
In the meantime, read and study for yourself.
Executive Summary: Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Keystone XL Project http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf/03_KX...
Cornell GLI Study Finds Keystone XL Pipeline Will Create Few Jobs http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/Keystonexl.html
Cornell’s full report: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_Keys...
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Caucuses and Primaries: Do you know the difference between the two?
Hallelujah, the caucuses are over! My phone no longer rings off the hook, we get through meals uninterrupted, and local TV news reporters are back to covering accidents, crimes and sporting events.
But after surviving the latest round of political reporting, I have to wonder how many people really understand our political system? Let me give you a couple of examples.
On the morning of the caucuses, I was watching the early news on one of the three Omaha network affiliates. The reporter interviewing a metro-area Republican Party official asked about the anticipated number of voters attending. However, the caucuses aren’t open to every voter; they are for the political parties’ members.
Those participating must choose which party caucus to attend and must be willing to register as a party member, even if it’s only temporarily.
Generally only a fraction of each party’s registered voters, usually those most active, participate in the caucuses.
Another point to remember is each party’s rules are different.
While the Republican Party uses a secret ballot voting system for caucus goers to choose their candidate, Democrats use a system of conversation, wrangling and consensus to distribute elected delegates to chosen candidates.
Iowa is one of few states still using the caucus system; most have primaries. But even the primaries, in which votes are cast, are a function of the parties.
And rules vary from state to state. Some states only allow party members to vote; others require open primaries that allow voters of any party to participate in the primary of their choice.
I bring it up because the same reporter used the terms “primary” and “caucus” as though they are interchangeable.
But not only do local reporters get things wrong. I was disappointed to hear Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, a political reporter who usually does better research than most, complaining the Iowa caucuses aren’t democratic. Hello? Party function, Rachel.
Which leads me to ask if American citizens know enough about our system and candidates to make informed decisions? It’s a question with which the founding fathers wrestled. It’s why our system elects presidents via both the popular vote and the Electoral College.
For those who don’t know, the Electoral College began as part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution and was established as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and by the popular vote. Citizens vote for the electors who then vote for the President.
However I find low citizen participation the most disappointing part of our system. For a country known for promoting its democracy, too many citizens choose NOT to exercise their rights. I am speaking from experience.
Although I have always voted in state and national elections and advocated on individual issues, I was a registered independent for 30 years.
But having lived most of my life in states with closed primaries and caucuses, I finally got tired of letting others choose my candidates for the general election.
So instead of complaining about my choices in 2008, I decided to participate in the process. I recommend others do the same.
You learn a lot by doing.
But after surviving the latest round of political reporting, I have to wonder how many people really understand our political system? Let me give you a couple of examples.
On the morning of the caucuses, I was watching the early news on one of the three Omaha network affiliates. The reporter interviewing a metro-area Republican Party official asked about the anticipated number of voters attending. However, the caucuses aren’t open to every voter; they are for the political parties’ members.
Those participating must choose which party caucus to attend and must be willing to register as a party member, even if it’s only temporarily.
Generally only a fraction of each party’s registered voters, usually those most active, participate in the caucuses.
Another point to remember is each party’s rules are different.
While the Republican Party uses a secret ballot voting system for caucus goers to choose their candidate, Democrats use a system of conversation, wrangling and consensus to distribute elected delegates to chosen candidates.
Iowa is one of few states still using the caucus system; most have primaries. But even the primaries, in which votes are cast, are a function of the parties.
And rules vary from state to state. Some states only allow party members to vote; others require open primaries that allow voters of any party to participate in the primary of their choice.
I bring it up because the same reporter used the terms “primary” and “caucus” as though they are interchangeable.
But not only do local reporters get things wrong. I was disappointed to hear Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, a political reporter who usually does better research than most, complaining the Iowa caucuses aren’t democratic. Hello? Party function, Rachel.
Which leads me to ask if American citizens know enough about our system and candidates to make informed decisions? It’s a question with which the founding fathers wrestled. It’s why our system elects presidents via both the popular vote and the Electoral College.
For those who don’t know, the Electoral College began as part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution and was established as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and by the popular vote. Citizens vote for the electors who then vote for the President.
However I find low citizen participation the most disappointing part of our system. For a country known for promoting its democracy, too many citizens choose NOT to exercise their rights. I am speaking from experience.
Although I have always voted in state and national elections and advocated on individual issues, I was a registered independent for 30 years.
But having lived most of my life in states with closed primaries and caucuses, I finally got tired of letting others choose my candidates for the general election.
So instead of complaining about my choices in 2008, I decided to participate in the process. I recommend others do the same.
You learn a lot by doing.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Whatever happened to statesmanship?
“I got a lot of problems with you people!” yells George Costanza’s father on Seinfeld during the Festivus Airing of the Grievances.
And that’s how I felt watching our Congressional Republicans during the fight to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits.
At a time when millions of Americans cannot find work and many families open empty cupboards the latter half of every month, House Republicans were willing to raise taxes on working people and leave the unemployed empty handed.
For what? To protect wealthy Americans and corporate special interests, in this case, a Canadian energy company lobbying to build the Keystone pipeline – an enterprise with no proven long-term benefits and major environmental risks.
It’s like watching a parent with a tantrum-throwing toddler -- on one side is a reasonable willingness to work together while on the other is a determination to obstruct everything that might give the other party and, in most cases 99 percent of voters, help.
That’s about the level of conversation we’ve seen from Congress the last three years, especially since electing a group of Tea Party Republicans in 2010. And it becomes more infuriating the longer this recession lasts.
But most importantly to these Republican representatives, such obstruction prevents a Democratic president from “scoring” what they see as only a political win. I’ve heard some of these public officials say, “It’s a matter of principle.”
I have to question the principles of anyone willing to let the entire country slide off a cliff by shutting down our government and cutting off paychecks – employment, unemployment, Social Security – to the people most in need. Is it principled to deliberately destroy the nation’s financial standing because you disagree with the political philosophy of the democratically elected president and the opposition party?
And is it principled to ignore the voters who elected you to score political victories when these same voters desperately need policies to provide aid and encourage hiring? Is it principled to argue for policies proven, disastrously I might add based on the last 10 years, NOT to work, such as income tax cuts for wealthy Americans and corporations?
At a time when many Americans would take any work they could get, is it principled to sit on your hands instead of doing the work voters elected you to do?
Perhaps these Tea Party Republicans don’t understand they have been elected as statesmen.
Statesmanship requires conversing with the opposition to find common ground. It also requires a willingness to move, explore options and compromise to pass legislation that benefits as many citizens as possible. (And corporations are not citizens!)
It’s a balancing act because a statesman understands his or her constituents include a variety of interests. But instead, our current Congressional Republicans have decided obstructing everything proposed by the opposition is their job.
That’s the level of “public service” voters get when we elect representatives based solely on political advertisements, campaign speeches and party affiliation.
And let’s be honest, isn’t that what a lot of us do?
Until Americans demand information on policy, track legislation and voting records, and do their homework on candidates for office, it’s all we’re going to get.
Because it’s not the party that matters, it’s the person. And everybody has a history.
So make sure you do your homework before you cast your vote. The information is out there if you choose to access it.
And that’s how I felt watching our Congressional Republicans during the fight to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits.
At a time when millions of Americans cannot find work and many families open empty cupboards the latter half of every month, House Republicans were willing to raise taxes on working people and leave the unemployed empty handed.
For what? To protect wealthy Americans and corporate special interests, in this case, a Canadian energy company lobbying to build the Keystone pipeline – an enterprise with no proven long-term benefits and major environmental risks.
It’s like watching a parent with a tantrum-throwing toddler -- on one side is a reasonable willingness to work together while on the other is a determination to obstruct everything that might give the other party and, in most cases 99 percent of voters, help.
That’s about the level of conversation we’ve seen from Congress the last three years, especially since electing a group of Tea Party Republicans in 2010. And it becomes more infuriating the longer this recession lasts.
But most importantly to these Republican representatives, such obstruction prevents a Democratic president from “scoring” what they see as only a political win. I’ve heard some of these public officials say, “It’s a matter of principle.”
I have to question the principles of anyone willing to let the entire country slide off a cliff by shutting down our government and cutting off paychecks – employment, unemployment, Social Security – to the people most in need. Is it principled to deliberately destroy the nation’s financial standing because you disagree with the political philosophy of the democratically elected president and the opposition party?
And is it principled to ignore the voters who elected you to score political victories when these same voters desperately need policies to provide aid and encourage hiring? Is it principled to argue for policies proven, disastrously I might add based on the last 10 years, NOT to work, such as income tax cuts for wealthy Americans and corporations?
At a time when many Americans would take any work they could get, is it principled to sit on your hands instead of doing the work voters elected you to do?
Perhaps these Tea Party Republicans don’t understand they have been elected as statesmen.
Statesmanship requires conversing with the opposition to find common ground. It also requires a willingness to move, explore options and compromise to pass legislation that benefits as many citizens as possible. (And corporations are not citizens!)
It’s a balancing act because a statesman understands his or her constituents include a variety of interests. But instead, our current Congressional Republicans have decided obstructing everything proposed by the opposition is their job.
That’s the level of “public service” voters get when we elect representatives based solely on political advertisements, campaign speeches and party affiliation.
And let’s be honest, isn’t that what a lot of us do?
Until Americans demand information on policy, track legislation and voting records, and do their homework on candidates for office, it’s all we’re going to get.
Because it’s not the party that matters, it’s the person. And everybody has a history.
So make sure you do your homework before you cast your vote. The information is out there if you choose to access it.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Is there a war on Christmas? It's not that simple
“Whatever this is, Hermione, it’s not simple,” Harry Potter tells his best friend in the fifth film of the series of the same name. And that’s what I keep thinking as I watch the annual “War on Christmas/Christianity” being waged.
This whole meme strikes me as another manufactured crisis drummed up to getting credulous Christians up in arms over the separation of church and state, which was developed, ironically, to protect the practice of faith.
Are you confused? Well, the older I get the more I’m coming to accept that many of the solutions we seek are “counter-intuitive.” In other words, they are not simple. And the separation of church and state is but one example.
I choose to address this now because it keeps coming up. I had a woman recently express surprise when I mentioned I’d sung The Hallelujah Chorus four consecutive years when I was in public high school. “Really?” she asked incredulous. For my part, I was surprised anyone would think the song forbidden. I don’t think of that song as religious so much as a classical piece of music history. And that highlights how much our individual viewpoints can vary.
Having served for seven-plus years on a school board, I’d like to add that we didn’t get too fussed about separation of church and state. We tried to follow the law, which prohibits teaching the practices of ANY faith in a public school. However, religious texts can be studied as literature or different religions as cultural history. Faith groups were welcome to use our facilities as a meeting space when available; we offered, with the help of the local ministerial association, an optional baccalaureate for graduates. We tried to honor Wednesday evenings as a time for church activities.
As a Christian in this country, I have never felt discriminated against or persecuted because of my faith. I’d note public institutions’ more careful adherence to the separation of church and state in recent years. But as a country growing ever more diverse and having family of another faith myself, I accept these changes as proof of our country’s guarantee that all beliefs will be respected in our civic life. I take that guarantee as a protection, rather than an assault. When and if I become a minority, I would welcome those protections, wouldn’t you?
And regarding Christmas, how can we complain? Isn’t Christmas the only religious holiday in our country written into the federal holiday calendar? Frankly the only war on Christmas I see is the way American business has used it to sell, sell, sell. It’s a marketing bonanza.
So where do these feelings of persecution toward Christmas/Christianity come from? Because from my perspective, there is no war on Christianity. Instead I feel others are using the Christian label to separate me from my Jewish, agnostic, Islamic, etc., brothers and sisters. As I celebrate the birth of the one my church calls The Prince of Peace, I suggest we abandon this war of words.
Merry Christmas AND Happy Holidays.
This whole meme strikes me as another manufactured crisis drummed up to getting credulous Christians up in arms over the separation of church and state, which was developed, ironically, to protect the practice of faith.
Are you confused? Well, the older I get the more I’m coming to accept that many of the solutions we seek are “counter-intuitive.” In other words, they are not simple. And the separation of church and state is but one example.
I choose to address this now because it keeps coming up. I had a woman recently express surprise when I mentioned I’d sung The Hallelujah Chorus four consecutive years when I was in public high school. “Really?” she asked incredulous. For my part, I was surprised anyone would think the song forbidden. I don’t think of that song as religious so much as a classical piece of music history. And that highlights how much our individual viewpoints can vary.
Having served for seven-plus years on a school board, I’d like to add that we didn’t get too fussed about separation of church and state. We tried to follow the law, which prohibits teaching the practices of ANY faith in a public school. However, religious texts can be studied as literature or different religions as cultural history. Faith groups were welcome to use our facilities as a meeting space when available; we offered, with the help of the local ministerial association, an optional baccalaureate for graduates. We tried to honor Wednesday evenings as a time for church activities.
As a Christian in this country, I have never felt discriminated against or persecuted because of my faith. I’d note public institutions’ more careful adherence to the separation of church and state in recent years. But as a country growing ever more diverse and having family of another faith myself, I accept these changes as proof of our country’s guarantee that all beliefs will be respected in our civic life. I take that guarantee as a protection, rather than an assault. When and if I become a minority, I would welcome those protections, wouldn’t you?
And regarding Christmas, how can we complain? Isn’t Christmas the only religious holiday in our country written into the federal holiday calendar? Frankly the only war on Christmas I see is the way American business has used it to sell, sell, sell. It’s a marketing bonanza.
So where do these feelings of persecution toward Christmas/Christianity come from? Because from my perspective, there is no war on Christianity. Instead I feel others are using the Christian label to separate me from my Jewish, agnostic, Islamic, etc., brothers and sisters. As I celebrate the birth of the one my church calls The Prince of Peace, I suggest we abandon this war of words.
Merry Christmas AND Happy Holidays.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Does the Occupy movment need a message?
Note: This is the latest Miner Queries column from The Red Oak Express
If you’ve been watching the news lately, you’ve seen reports about Occupy Wall Street (OWS). And if you watch mainstream news, you’ve probably heard a lot of talk about how the movement “doesn’t have a message or leaders.” Consequently, the tone is dismissive.
Mainstream corporate media have two reasons for such comments:
1. Corporate media owners and their cohorts on Wall Street want to know leaders, so they can remove them and possibly squelch what they see as a growing threat.
2. Today’s corporate media personalities don’t research and report so much as they present information from other sources, often via news releases. (I know this because I do just that for a living.) Newsrooms across America have been gutted of reporters and, especially broadcast media, pick up and use what comes in via the wires, the newspaper, Internet and fax machine. That’s why you can flip channels and see the same story told in almost the same words on every station at nearly the same time!
So key to OWS’s sustainability is its horizontal organization with no individual leaders. Additionally, without specific messages for press to take down stenographically, it requires actual reporting. That means time and money, which cuts corporate media profit – because news in now a business, not a public service.
As I watch events unfold, I keep thinking of my mother, who loved to say, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease!” Over the years I’ve learned the truth of that idiom. In the workplace, I learned to speak up if I wanted one of the new PCs coming in the next upgrades. Or if I was interested in a plum assignment, I didn’t just expect the boss to read my mind.
Unfortunately, I think voters in America quit squeaking generations ago. After casting a vote, it’s as if we just expect the winners to read our collective mind. We go back to daily life and grumble under our breath when we get nothing.
But even those who’ve spent time advocating for candidates and policies don’t seem to understand OWS. I participate in an e-mail dialogue group, and among this well read liberal group, concerns about OWS’ lack of message and organization exist. As I told them, those of us from older generations miss much of what is happening among our youth. We (parents and grandparents) assume OWS is just a rag-tag group camping on Wall Street.
I have read several articles about new types of efforts, including some technology tools, being created to support OWS. Additionally, I think we underestimate the ability of youth to combat poisonous media messaging. These young adults have been brought up with technology. They know how propaganda is created, and they take media reports with a grain of salt. They don't get their news from the places we do.
These young people give me hope. They will run circles around those who try to stop them. They don't believe in political parties, because they've grown up watching the parties give their parents nothing. I know that's how my 23-year-old son feels.
We're assuming this movement must have specific goals. But, I don't think it amounts to much more than to ask people to PARTICIPATE in our common life, which in America is supposed to be democracy. Actually, that may be the best message of all.
If you’ve been watching the news lately, you’ve seen reports about Occupy Wall Street (OWS). And if you watch mainstream news, you’ve probably heard a lot of talk about how the movement “doesn’t have a message or leaders.” Consequently, the tone is dismissive.
Mainstream corporate media have two reasons for such comments:
1. Corporate media owners and their cohorts on Wall Street want to know leaders, so they can remove them and possibly squelch what they see as a growing threat.
2. Today’s corporate media personalities don’t research and report so much as they present information from other sources, often via news releases. (I know this because I do just that for a living.) Newsrooms across America have been gutted of reporters and, especially broadcast media, pick up and use what comes in via the wires, the newspaper, Internet and fax machine. That’s why you can flip channels and see the same story told in almost the same words on every station at nearly the same time!
So key to OWS’s sustainability is its horizontal organization with no individual leaders. Additionally, without specific messages for press to take down stenographically, it requires actual reporting. That means time and money, which cuts corporate media profit – because news in now a business, not a public service.
As I watch events unfold, I keep thinking of my mother, who loved to say, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease!” Over the years I’ve learned the truth of that idiom. In the workplace, I learned to speak up if I wanted one of the new PCs coming in the next upgrades. Or if I was interested in a plum assignment, I didn’t just expect the boss to read my mind.
Unfortunately, I think voters in America quit squeaking generations ago. After casting a vote, it’s as if we just expect the winners to read our collective mind. We go back to daily life and grumble under our breath when we get nothing.
But even those who’ve spent time advocating for candidates and policies don’t seem to understand OWS. I participate in an e-mail dialogue group, and among this well read liberal group, concerns about OWS’ lack of message and organization exist. As I told them, those of us from older generations miss much of what is happening among our youth. We (parents and grandparents) assume OWS is just a rag-tag group camping on Wall Street.
I have read several articles about new types of efforts, including some technology tools, being created to support OWS. Additionally, I think we underestimate the ability of youth to combat poisonous media messaging. These young adults have been brought up with technology. They know how propaganda is created, and they take media reports with a grain of salt. They don't get their news from the places we do.
These young people give me hope. They will run circles around those who try to stop them. They don't believe in political parties, because they've grown up watching the parties give their parents nothing. I know that's how my 23-year-old son feels.
We're assuming this movement must have specific goals. But, I don't think it amounts to much more than to ask people to PARTICIPATE in our common life, which in America is supposed to be democracy. Actually, that may be the best message of all.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
How did I get myself into writing this column?
Note: This essay is my first column in the Red Oak Express. My column will appear bi-weekly beginning Nov.22.
I freely admit to being a political junkie. But I didn’t set out to write any columns. So how did I get myself into this?
I grew up with a quiet father, a farmer, who observed the world closely. He didn’t say a lot, but he didn’t miss much. And he read constantly. I spent evenings in his lap as he pored through the Des Moines Register and a stack of magazines. He built shelves for his growing library of history and biography books. He watched public TV. He asked lots of questions. He listened, and as a shy man, he spoke only when he felt called to speak. Usually, his comments delivered a whole new perspective to the discussion. I can also remember Dad writing letters to our representatives in Congress and serving on local boards. Mom did, too, and politics was always a lively topic of discussion at supper. (Mom was a Republican; Dad was a Democrat.)
That’s how I was raised. And like my father, I read – a lot because I learned from Dad it mattered. The political decisions we make – not individually but as a society – set our course. So if we choose poorly, we all pay. That is the tyranny of the majority. That’s democracy.
So for 30 years I’ve been tracking our political record. I’ve paid more in student loan interest, earned less and am now watching my kids (and yours too) struggle even harder than I did because my generation and succeeding ones have made poor choices based on misinformation we’ve been fed by corporate interests and media.
How do I know this? I’m part of the system.
I was trained as an artist to create illusion, and I work in business communication and public relations. I know how word choice affects perception, and I know how color, perspective and design play on emotions. So I can spot the spin, frame or sales pitch – whatever you want to call it.
Additionally, I care about the people I live with. I’ve spent 30 years watching family, friends and neighbors get hoodwinked by politicians bought and paid for by corporate interests. Election after election I watch them vote based on party, “likeability” and emotional reactions to ads and mangled rhetoric, rather than facts. Then they wonder what happened when their interests are ignored.
Consequently, I get a little frustrated when people assume I’ve just “drunk the Kool-Aid.” As I did with the still life in drawing class, I try to walk around situations and see them from as many sides as possible. I came very late to choosing a political party, and I’m not terribly comfortable there yet.
So I search for facts and policy solutions. I ask questions and look beyond the morning radio broadcast and the evening TV news for information. I delete chain e-mails. I check sources and track who’s paying for them. In conversation, I may ask uncomfortable questions and want to know your sources. And when I absolutely feel called to provide an alternative viewpoint, I write letters to the editor . . .
I guess that one came back to bite me.
I freely admit to being a political junkie. But I didn’t set out to write any columns. So how did I get myself into this?
I grew up with a quiet father, a farmer, who observed the world closely. He didn’t say a lot, but he didn’t miss much. And he read constantly. I spent evenings in his lap as he pored through the Des Moines Register and a stack of magazines. He built shelves for his growing library of history and biography books. He watched public TV. He asked lots of questions. He listened, and as a shy man, he spoke only when he felt called to speak. Usually, his comments delivered a whole new perspective to the discussion. I can also remember Dad writing letters to our representatives in Congress and serving on local boards. Mom did, too, and politics was always a lively topic of discussion at supper. (Mom was a Republican; Dad was a Democrat.)
That’s how I was raised. And like my father, I read – a lot because I learned from Dad it mattered. The political decisions we make – not individually but as a society – set our course. So if we choose poorly, we all pay. That is the tyranny of the majority. That’s democracy.
So for 30 years I’ve been tracking our political record. I’ve paid more in student loan interest, earned less and am now watching my kids (and yours too) struggle even harder than I did because my generation and succeeding ones have made poor choices based on misinformation we’ve been fed by corporate interests and media.
How do I know this? I’m part of the system.
I was trained as an artist to create illusion, and I work in business communication and public relations. I know how word choice affects perception, and I know how color, perspective and design play on emotions. So I can spot the spin, frame or sales pitch – whatever you want to call it.
Additionally, I care about the people I live with. I’ve spent 30 years watching family, friends and neighbors get hoodwinked by politicians bought and paid for by corporate interests. Election after election I watch them vote based on party, “likeability” and emotional reactions to ads and mangled rhetoric, rather than facts. Then they wonder what happened when their interests are ignored.
Consequently, I get a little frustrated when people assume I’ve just “drunk the Kool-Aid.” As I did with the still life in drawing class, I try to walk around situations and see them from as many sides as possible. I came very late to choosing a political party, and I’m not terribly comfortable there yet.
So I search for facts and policy solutions. I ask questions and look beyond the morning radio broadcast and the evening TV news for information. I delete chain e-mails. I check sources and track who’s paying for them. In conversation, I may ask uncomfortable questions and want to know your sources. And when I absolutely feel called to provide an alternative viewpoint, I write letters to the editor . . .
I guess that one came back to bite me.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
I’d rather be wrong
Thirty years ago, I watched helplessly as friends and neighbors fell for the amiable Republican candidate, Ronald Reagan, and his back-to-the-good-old-days message. I was five-months too young to vote. And I knew I would pay an economic price based on his policy proposals. That price? Two percentage points more on my student loans, disqualification for Pell grants, and lower starting wages when I entered the workforce. And I’m still paying as this country labors to shake off the myths of Reaganomics.
I saw it all coming again in 2000 when George W. Bush campaigned for office. It didn’t help that I had 20 more years of experience as a political observer, not to mention experience crafting messages and developing images as a communication and PR practitioner.
Again just as I predicted, W bankrupted our country as he had almost every business he’d run. He had a record, but the press reported on personality instead.
So as we approach the 2012 election, I’m going to make another prediction. With the Republican field currently in disarray, their fundraising numbers abysmal, and a total lack of accomplishment upon which to run, Jeb Bush will swoop in late to save the Republican Party.
Too soon for another Bush you say? Perhaps, but with our current economic crisis and voters’ tendency to blame the incumbent, the Bushes will see an opening. And their old money and corporate ties will line up behind their man. Traditional Conservatives to Tea Partiers will converge to support Jeb in a desperate bid to regain the White House. Like Republicans always do, they will fall in line and award him the nomination.
And Jeb Bush has a real record to run on. He is the one hope for the Republican Party and a real threat to President Obama’s incumbency. But if he wins, average Americans will be left in the cold again. His allegiance will be to the wealth he comes from and to the corporate moguls who fund his campaign.
I saw it all coming again in 2000 when George W. Bush campaigned for office. It didn’t help that I had 20 more years of experience as a political observer, not to mention experience crafting messages and developing images as a communication and PR practitioner.
Again just as I predicted, W bankrupted our country as he had almost every business he’d run. He had a record, but the press reported on personality instead.
So as we approach the 2012 election, I’m going to make another prediction. With the Republican field currently in disarray, their fundraising numbers abysmal, and a total lack of accomplishment upon which to run, Jeb Bush will swoop in late to save the Republican Party.
Too soon for another Bush you say? Perhaps, but with our current economic crisis and voters’ tendency to blame the incumbent, the Bushes will see an opening. And their old money and corporate ties will line up behind their man. Traditional Conservatives to Tea Partiers will converge to support Jeb in a desperate bid to regain the White House. Like Republicans always do, they will fall in line and award him the nomination.
And Jeb Bush has a real record to run on. He is the one hope for the Republican Party and a real threat to President Obama’s incumbency. But if he wins, average Americans will be left in the cold again. His allegiance will be to the wealth he comes from and to the corporate moguls who fund his campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
