Random Thoughts

For the past few days I've been sitting here staring at my screen, wondering, "What the heck am I going to write about?" AOL has blessed us with the ability to write larger journal entries and I'm stumped.  Well, I'm not really stumped. I have tons of ideas and things I'd like to comment on. The recent testimony of Condi Rice, the recently released Presidential Daily Briefing, the rising levels of mercury in our fish, the recent uprsings in Faluja, Iraq, and even today's big holiday: Easter, are all on my mind. I have something to say about them all and yet part of me just doesn't feel like it.

Yes, Bush is a horrible president. The war in Iraq is a real mess; a quagmire to borrow the Vietnam era term. The PDB certainly didn't tell Bush when and where Osama Bin Laden would be attacking, but it did warn that he was planning something.  What did Bush do?  He went on vacation (actually he was on vacation when he got the memo). And yet through all of this I see much deeper problems.

The concentration of our media has been detrimental to our Republic. Read the following study done regarding the 2000 election coverage to see what I'm talking about: Journalism.org - Reports & Surveys - Campaign 2000 - The Last Lap The media is failing us.

There are so many issues that tug at my heart and yet I keep coming back to this one: media.  Why?  Because it is impossible to have informed debate when the media ignores the wishes of the population.  Americans want to know what's going on.  We want to be informed.  We want to take part in our political processes. 

But what are we told again and again?  First we're made to believe that the issues are so complex that only 'experts' can understand them.  We see this throughout our culture.  And if you'd like to read more about it I'd suggest Trust Us, We're the Experts by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber.

We want to be informed. Instead we are bombarded with news stories that bleed, right?  When it comes to campagin coverage we're more likely to learn more about the campaign process than any actual substantive differences between the candidates.

And who wouldn't want to be a part of this grand political process?  But it's pretty hard when we are bombarded with poll results that show us who is going to win.  No sense voting for Nader, right?  He can't win! Or we get the assanine logic that voting for Nader is voting for Bush!  So is a vote for Bush a vote for Nader?  How exactly does this work?  And then we have the lovely electoral college to make sure the masses don't get too much of a say regarding who is president.  And has anyone noticed the low voter turnout?  Some say Americans are lazy, apathetic.  I disagree.  We work harder and longer hours than any of our counterparts in the industrialized west.  We're not lazy. But we have lost faith in the political system.  Most of us realize that if voting could affect change it would be illegal. And the rest of us realize that the democrats and republicans are so similar that voting for one or the other only makes a minor difference.  Who recalls the presidential debates between Gore and Bush?  They agreed 34 times! on issues.  That's supposed to be the spectrum of political debate in this country?  I hope not.

The democrats know their days are numbered.  They're big campaign strategy seems to be, "Vote for us because we're not quite as bad as Bush and the Republicans."  Isn't that what the ABBA really stands for?  A real Anybody But Bush Again campaign would endorse Ralph Nader and other independents.  Not this one.

As frustrated as I am at the moment, I am optimistic.  What goes on in our centers of power is largely dictated by the people on the streets.  The less we care, the less involved we are, the less informed we are, the more free they are to push through programs and initiatives that benefit the rich and powerful. But I strongly believe that through concerted action on the streets we can take back our country and make it a force for peace in this world.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this