The Buddy President

National Review is a “conservative commentary on American politics, news and culture,” and I make the journey to the right from my center soapbox about twice a week to read about what stereotypical conservatives have to say about what's going on in the good ole US of A.

Two days ago I happened upon an article by Rich Lowry on how Obama is tricking young voters entitled “Obama's Dupes.”

Expecting to hear about another Bachmann-esque conspiracy rant and rave, I skimmed through the first few sentences.

Skimming turned to reading and I finished up the one page article feeling inspired.

Inspired and pissed off.

Now, I have no problem with a conservative having a point - I would be just as inspired and pissed off if it was a leftist that brought this up again.
I have a problem with the fact that his point is even an issue.

In short, he makes the argument that young voters flocked to Obama in '08 because of his promise of hope and change. Fine - they were duped just like any other constituent who honestly believes anything a potential President (or in office one for that matter) has to say. 

But the unsettling argument continues on to point out that it'll just happen again - why? Well, because Obama has that "cool and cerebral style," because of the "slow jam" on the Fallon show, because he's like their buddy.

AAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Their buddy?!?!

I can remember the first time I heard about this - when Bush was first elected. In interviews, people said they voted for him because he seemed like a good guy, someone you'd want to grab a beer with. 

Why the fuck would you want the President to be someone you'd grab a beer with?

Wouldn't you rather he skip the beer and spend some time...oh I dunno...running the god damn country?!

While Lowry's post focused on young liberals, this phenomenon is not cloistered in the leftist lair. It's a widespread factor in deciding who to vote for. 

And this kind of thinking points to something that I have long wrestled with: the cultural politics of my generation. 

In other words, my generation (I'm 25) does a damn good job of avoiding politics. And when we do encounter it, we treat it like a Facebook event - something we can ignore or pay attention to based on who's gonna be there, how much fun we think we'll have and whether it happens at the same time as Glee or not. 

Well shit people, it's not a frat party. 

Politics happen whether you RSVP or not - the only thing is that if you don't show up, or possibly even worse, if you show up with a punch bowl blend of ignorance and arrogance, the downfall of our future economically, socially, politically, globally and yes, culturally, will catch up with you quicker than that 5th gin and tonic.

Politics can be culturally stimulating - but we as a culture, our generation, has to make it so. And that does not include having a beer with the President. The President should be chosen based on his ability to work for you, for the issues that effect you and will effect you. 

But since most people my age don't know what those are, we fall back on how likable a guy is. 

Groan....

Make politics part of your cultural existence - educate yourself on the things going on around you outside of fashion, fucking and Facebook. 

Create culture that mirrors politics and you'll see that through the creation of a culture that is tied to politics, the political trajectory can be moved. 

We can't change politics through a few non profits and a few rallies. We have to change it through the cultural lens we use to see it. 

Only then will we honestly appreciate the realities of our nation's issues. 

So, put down the Bud Light and get to know Obama as a President, not as a buddy. 

And get to know the system he's a part of. 

Pretty sure once you do, you won't want to have a beer with any candidate.

Today is...

...a lot of things. It marks the 235th birthday of our nation. It marks the birth of an experiment, a manifestation of ideas. It marks a day for sun, fireworks, hot dogs, burgers and flag waving. It marks the day Abraham Lincoln asked for 500,000 troops as the South demanded secession. It marks the day Thomas Jefferson and John Adams died in 1826, Thoreau moved into his shack on Walden Pond in 1845, the Statue of Liberty was presented in Paris in 1884, Lou Gehrig made his farewell speech at Yankee Stadium in 1939, and tonight I'm going to see the Mets play at Dodger Stadium...

So what? Not just to the Mets and Dodgers, but so what to any of it?
What does it mean? What is the significance of declaring independence? One can speculate as to what it meant as the founding fathers stood in what must have been an atrociously warm Philadelphia, a year of war with Britain under their belts, finalizing what would become a beacon, a cornerstone for this American experiment. But today, what does it mean? Polls suggest that 1 in 4 Americans don't even know who we declared independence from. A mere 58% know it took place in 1776. The poll also suggests that the younger the person was, the less likely they were to know the correct answer.

In the prologue to one of my fathers books he notes, if one does not know one's past, one can not hope to understand the future.
In my experience, Americans walk blindly into the future, clutching to ideals they don't even fully understand, using them as a crutch against the weight of our own issues and realities, hoping all will be well because of the flags they fly and the big guy in the sky.
They wander into political parties because of friends or loose affiliations. They push to an extreme simply because the rhetoric sounds cool. Solid issues and stances take a back seat to pandering and bantering. Intelligence and familiarity with key issues pales in comparison to the importance of party loyalty and ideological faith.

As an activist growing up, I pushed my truths and opinions on others. I wanted them to see that I was right, that my point of view was the start of enlightenment, the beginning of finding more information, more knowledge, because for me, it of course was.
Now, I just want people to see. I don't want people to know exactly what I know. I want them to research, think, dig, and find other truths, other buried aspects and dirty secrets of this city upon a hill. I do not wish to preach, I wish to teach.

Like Thomas Jefferson wrote (granted, many Americans might not even know who he is):

“Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.”

Ergo, if a people is not informed, they can not be trusted with their own government. They will hold no sway over this sagging republic, this corporatized state...sound familiar?
Because that's where we are today.
Our government is a corporate entity wholly outside our jurisdiction. It is a free floating society, the medium between the top 1% and the bottom 99%.
It is a constant banter between left and right, the center being all but erased, considered "wishy-washy," unpatriotic, indecisive and well, just un-American.
It's ironic to think so when if one looks at history, the bulk of all forward moving legislation was done from the center, from a place of debate and compromise.
But who bothers with history anymore? My twitter feed is updating and True Blood is on in half an hour.

James Palombo, a professor, lecturer and author (and dare I say activist) has been through the system. With an undergraduate degree and three graduate degrees, he's seen and knows a few things about education. Being that he earned his undergraduate degree in prison, he has a pretty good grip on the justice system as well. In his book, Criminal To Critic, he chronicles his own life as well opens up a dialog for some major hypocrisies and pit falls of this American experiment. The interesting thing is how he comes to know them, to share them. He explains in detail his education, from inside the cell to outside - indeed, the theme of education is a red thread throughout the book. It is constantly in the back of your head, creeping forward and touching on various points of your mind as you read.
It brings to light the very basic fact that a country of the people, for the people and by the people will create a political system in direct parallel of the people. That those in power will write laws, will create legislation based on the position of the people. If they can get away with building a government around capitalist and corporate ideals, well shit, why not? More dough for the top and fuck the bottom, they don't care anyway.
If we are apathetic, lazy and disengaged from the issues at hand, how can we possibly expect the government to pull our weight, to push our needs and wants forward?
If we pull left and right, pushing the envelope to ever more remote extremes, how can we blame the government for reaching no agreements or conclusions? If we do not act, do not stand up, how can we complain over the things that come to pass?
And how can you act if you have no knowledge of the issues needing your attention? And at this point, how can you educate yourself if you don't know to?
A tricky conundrum. One that I myself try to constantly hurdle, using the medium of music to transport a message. It is a problem James Palombo, along with CIC (Campaign for Informed Citizenry: cicorg.com) attempts to tackle - promoting an engaged and educated dialog on current issues and concerns.

Point being, it's not enough to say that shit is wrong - that's blatantly obvious even to someone just crawling out from under a rock. Citizens, and as we have seen, particularly youth, need to be more conscious of their role in a republic. We have to constantly stay up on happenings, here and all over the world, as our scope of greed and arrogant power is clearly borderless.
And from that education, that knowledge, we must push forward for change. We must Think. React. Do Something.

This is our country, our experiment, our choices - and yes, not making a choice is still a choice.

So, on this 4th of July, while you're kicking back a brew, enjoying a burger under a perfect blue sky, a proud flag waving in the soft breeze...let these thoughts, these questions cross your mind:

If we are to celebrate independence, let us think what independence means.
Do we have it?
If so, do we care for it? How?
If not, how the hell and why did we lose it?
And how do we get it back?

Happy Independence Day.

Right in the middle...

As we all know this country is a two-party governmental system. With the primaries sneaking ever closer, there are few illusions as to the voiceless middle's absence from any sort of campaigning or long shot chance at a victory in key races. Wandering through the myriad of news stories yesterday, I came across an interesting piece on CNN discussing the "Militant Middle" as they're coming to be known. If you follow politics, you'll know that most of the US is not made up of tea partiers and Greenpeace vegans. At least, at the very least, 1/3 of Americans are in fact moderates. That doesn't necessarily mean independents or Green partiers that like ruining the election for the terror twins. No, it just means that they don't necessarily fit the corporate status quo laid out by the left and right pillars of our government. I found it interesting when the article quoted Rep. Kathleen Curry (Colorado) as saying she left the Democratic party due to their demands she listen to them more than her constituents. It is a complaint too few politicians are making and far too few voters are acknowledging. However, according to the article, there is a growing middle "party" if you will, that is acknowledging this horrendous disconnect between voters wants/needs and what is actually getting done. I checked out one of the sites mentioned in the article, ModerateVoters.org and found an interesting buffet of moderate styled news. Their key phrase at the top reads: "First, there was the conservative Drudge Report. Next, there was the liberal Huffington Post. Finally, for the rest of us, there is Moderate Voters."
While I joined the site and appreciate the growing forum for people who don't like being pulled left or right for the sake of a politicians career, I wonder if it's not unfortunately more lip service. Rick Bayan, a moderate who was excited about Obama and now complains he's more establishment than promised (sorry Rick, should've seen that coming) concedes that what this country needs is "extremist moderates." I don't really like that terminology. Extremist anything implies the inability to see anyone else's point of view other than your own. It smacks of arrogance, self righteousness and overall asshole-ishness that I don't think we need more of in this country.
I will however agree that if shit is going to change, the people who aren't loony tuned extreme left and right need to step up and do something, without pussy footing around issues or people's personal feelings. Bipartisanship my ass, it's called getting shit done for this country. You don't need to "cross party lines," you need to ignore party lines, lay down your ill-placed loyalties to elephants and donkeys and focus on the people instead. There is a growing middle and I think we've all noticed it. The Tea Party has certainly provided moderate Republicans a reason to start walking towards the middle a bit. Disappointment with Obama and really anyone else elected under a Democrat or Republican party flag is coaxing more and more people to head center. And contrary to popular belief, these are the people that are the most engaged in politics - again, what this country needs. Many people complain that moderates or independents just need to make up their mind. In fact, they have. Just like most atheists or agnostics are so because of their experiences in religion, most moderates chose to be so not because they're indecisive but because they dug past party propaganda and found nothing but empty promises and mud slinging popularity contests.
So, what's next? Well, as I said, while I'm excited about the new mutterings of moderates getting louder, I fear it may be more talk than action. The right and left history of this country is ingrained in more than just those who uphold it. If a third party were to be introduced would Americans (even those who are tired with the right and left) know how to handle it? Is the two-party system too tattooed in our political minds to break away from the choking comfort it brings?
Apart from the voters side, the terror twins are not likely to willingly accept another contender for CEO of the White House, particularly if that contender is more honest and less corrupt.
It's a long, hard road for an endeavour such as this. One thing is definitely for certain. If moderates are to rise to legitimately battle the right and the left for power, toppling status quo and the for sale nature of our government, they must rise above forums and the chic suffering of an alternative culture.
Another article I read today spoke of conservative activists crossing lines of custom, tradition and even the law to get their point across. Not to be a bad influence, but how come the middle isn't doing that? Why are the Ann Coulters the only ones who have a fire in their bellies? Grab hold of the average American psyche - the one that can't be explained with extremist left or right hectoring. Grab hold of it and change something, not hope for change or campaign for change, really change something. As I sit here writing this with no plans to blow up parliament, I realize the hypocritical nature of this post. So, I leave you to go write some incendiary lyrics to stir the pot...hope to see you on the other side.

Tea is to Coffee as Republican is to Democrat

On the heels of the expulsion of the Tea Party Express a.k.a the Tea Party on speed, I decided to check into some of the workings of both the Tea Party and its sworn enemy, the Coffee Party.
What I found was a striking case of déja-vu. Granted, I did grow up in the South so hearing people refer to blacks as "colored people" like Mark Williams, leader of Tea Party Express did, is unfortunately not a new thing to me. However, neither are the stances or arguments of either group.
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree here and from top organizers to tea and coffee drinkers across the US, the right vs. left hectoring runs deep.
The Tea Party came first, and started with a message of anger and action at a time when that's what the US needed. Having started as a response to the bailouts, the group quickly morphed into a sick, right wing extremist bitch fest complete with guns and an ironic support for the very people who caused the bailout.
The Coffee Party began as a response to the Tea Party which in reality is a shitty reason to start an organization. Annabel Park wanted to have a little sit down to discuss issues from a non-Tea Party viewpoint.
Beginning to see the trend? Tea Partiers like their Republican overlords are loud, stupid, ill-advised, close-minded, gun-toting right wingers while the Coffee Partiers are quiet, spineless, peace loving lefties.
May seem a harsh representation but overall, am I wrong?
These two parties offer nothing that the two party system doesn't. If anything, they're just amplified versions of the guys in suits that get paid to run this country into the shitter. You have Sarah Palin as a poster child, who many Republicans feel is a little too off the intelligence and experience reservation. You have support of extremist candidates and good old boys like Mark Williams and Richard Behney cleaning their guns and watching out for "colored people," a sentiment most Republicans wouldn't agree with or at least state openly.
Then you have the Coffee Party that is submissive and sweet, starting each meeting with a pledge to respect with patience and understanding the viewpoints of those who don't agree with them. You have members saying that they don't wanna "make a ruckus," they just want to sit down and converse about issues. Well, isn't that nice?
And to top it off, you have right and left bashing from each group. After all, coffee doesn't like tea and tea doesn't like coffee. So, how does that move this country forward? How does a "grassroots" representation of the suited version in congress make a shit stick of difference?
Well, it doesn't really.
For those of us who don't wake up proclaiming our undying devotion to either party, we have to sit in the sticky, untasty middle between coffee and tea.
Polls show that most US citizens are not staunchly Republican or Democrat, that they fall under the heading of "moderate." To me, that suggests that Republicans and Democrats, likewise Tea and Coffee are out of the loop.
The two party system is debunked, it doesn't work. It is flawed beyond repair. Our country is stagnating as corporate interests feed off our indecision. We don't need more offshoots of the same old shit, we need a real grassroots organization, a real NEW theme: to move forward, not right and left.

Making non-ideological headway

I recently read an article in the NY Times Opinion section by Frank Rich, a regular in that section.
It's entitled "The Up-or-Down Vote on Obama's Presidency."
Now, I think we can all agree that Obama hasn't proven to be the magical knight of change and hope that he promised to be in his campaign. Unfortunately, he hasn't even been much of an ordinary foot soldier for hope and change.
Rich makes some really great points about Obama and how he has thus far failed to make any difficult choices in the face of partisan attacks and serious issues. He has a great ability to talk to people, tell them that he understands key issues and the need to solve them but he doesn't act. He has yet to outline a clear-cut plan of action, a path to fixing a broken America, on anything from health care to finances. He seems deathly afraid to be called out as partisan. His fear is a great contributor to the stalling. I believe he confuses his ability to act with the appearance of extremism. Acting on key issues is not about choosing sides, it's about getting things done, regardless of who believes what.

Rich mentions FDR and Reagan, two people, who throughout their political careers, made decisions based on their own knowledge and convictions for what they felt was right. The New Deal was seen as extreme by both parties. FDR said "fuck it." In 1967, after Reagan had just been elected governor of California, he submitted one of the largest state budgets in California history, much to the dismay of his conservative pals. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying either one of these characters is infallible. I'm merely bringing up examples of partisan leaders who acted on issues regardless of what their party would bitch and moan about later.

Obama hands off key issues like finances to Congress that will in all likelihood just banter back and forth until they take their next vacation. He apparently didn't want to go up against the same people who filled his campaign piggy-bank. I say bullshit. You're commander-in-chief. It is your job to act on the behalf of the people, not pundits or partisan bullies who claim you're too right or left. Your people are depending on you to act. Like Rich says, Obama doesn't have another year to dance around issues throwing well written speeches our way. A firm stance is necessary to move forward. And, in the end, as commander-in-chief, he has to close his ears to both bickering sides, and go off his own mind. And as his constituents, we should do the same. Work to move forward, not left and right.

Bullet points

Some bullet points for the meetup this coming Sunday March 14th.
Please comment on them and tell me your thoughts as well, and join us on the 14th.

One thing we discussed was what to call our movement/group. I came up with a couple of ideas, but I don't know if they work. Thoughts?

-ICU (Informed Citizens Unite) Also a take on the face that this country is in emergency mode, something has to be done fast, and efficiently...
-FWD (Forward We Demand) Doesn't really sound right, looking for another "D" word since I like the idea of moving forward not left or right as a bit of a slogan of sorts.

As far as the group is concerned,
-visibility, both on the ground and online.
-informing people in both those arenas.
-video blogs of our meetings and actions. give people insight to who we are and what we do. i think that's very important.

As far as key issues I feel we need to pursue:
-corpotocracy. this is an umbrella issue b/c as we discussed on the 6th if you were there, so many things touch on this one subject. it is responsible for much if not all of the problems we have today.
i. the bailouts: i choose this b/c it's a very rare unveiling of the clear cut
symbiosis of government and the corporate world
ii. the failing economy: this has a lot to do with the bailouts but i choose this
as a key argumentative issue b/c so many people on both sides and inbetween
can agree that this is a big problem. our information that we offer on a
centralized hub website can offer answers and further bring people to fight
for themselves and their families.

Again, please comment and bring ideas. I will be posting this on a few different forums, hope to hear from all of you soon, and see you on the 14th @ 5pm PST.

Not Alice's Tea Party

I've been trying to wrap my head around the Tea Party for quite some time. As I said, I used to be a member until I found out that they had taken a bus to loony-ville and weren't coming back any time soon. The idea for the basis of this movement seemed good: concerned citizens pissed off about the fact that their government was spending money they didn't have on issues their constituents didn't profit from, monetarily or otherwise. That sounds like a good start to me.

There can be books written on the derailment of this good idea but I'm not gonna be the author. I just want to point out some things that alarm and concern me.
The movement is not fully coherent, there is not one leader, there are small groups of people that run their own versions across the country. They do not have a clear cut goal, unless you consider their blatant hatred for anything not outlined in the constitution a goal. Their ideology is based on right wing extremism, with a popular shirt sold at rallies stating: "Proud Right-Wing Extremist." They seem to have no ability to see or care about an opposing viewpoint. It's the good old fashioned, "You're either with us or against us" motif.

Now, I have a fear of any extremist, whether it be religious or secular. The reason being is that, like I said above, they offer no place for opposition, for questions to be raised. How do you know God exists? He just does Timmy, get your ass to church. Same thinking here. What's wrong with this country? It's a corrupt socialist money sucking liberal hot bed! Where's your proof? Shut up, I have a gun!

I wish that last bit were just a joking exaggeration. At a recent Tea Party rally, Richard Behney, a Republican Senate candidate, told Tea Party supporters his plan if the 2010 elections didn't swing in his favor: “I’m cleaning my guns and getting ready for the big show. And I’m serious about that, and I bet you are, too.”
On ResistNet.com, a Tea Party supporting blog, "fellow patriots" are encouraged to "grab their guns." Just one day after Stack crashed a plane into an Austin IRS office, Minnesota governor, Tim Pawlenty, told a group of Tea Partiers to take a page from Tiger Woods’s wife's book and “take a 9-iron and smash the window out of big government in this country." Tea Party hero and Minnesota congresswoman, said she wanted “people in Minnesota armed and dangerous." In Texas, the Tea Party gubenatorial sweetheart, reminded folks at a rally that “the tree of freedom is occasionally watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.”

These are just a few examples. Now, this scares the shit out of me already. But just wait, the plot thickens.
“I voted twice and I failed political science twice,” said Darin Stevens, leader of the Spokane 9/12 Project, Glenn Beck's pet project closely tied to the Tea Party.
Another Tea Partier, Leah Southwell’s admits that “I knew zero about the Constitution," having until recently been a top Mary Kay sales rep.

Ok, so here's how I'm reading this. Let me know if you think I'm off: Tea Partiers are turning to increasingly more violent rhetoric with increasingly less knowledge of their country or its past and what brought it to its current state of affairs that they are so ready to overthrow. Hmmmmm...They don't even seem to realize that one of their champions (Palin) used to be the running mate of a man they think is way too liberal (McCain)!

If you check out a previous post of mine, it shows a link to a video of a man interviewing some of Palin's supporters outside of a book signing. They know DICK about ANYTHING. It is absolutely amazing that they stand outside waiting to meet someone they know nothing about yet blindly support.

We are royally fucked (even more so than now) if the Tea Party movement ever reaches a place where it is legitimately considered a viable political party and not a cult.
Do we have no answer to this? Do we have no response to the "Proud Right-Wing Extremists?"

What do Palin supporters sound like?

A video I found on youtube. Some of the commentary is a little leftist but the main point is a good one. Why do you support what you support? Do you think for yourself? Do you know who your government is and what they're doing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27QTX46XNLM

Extremist Ideologies NOT what we need

Here's the link to my next video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgpApiKLCV8

I discuss extremist ideologies and their adverse effect on the US, using Palin and the Tea Party Nation as examples, since the convention and her keynote speech are still fresh news.