Both political parties issue surveys where one can rank issues in order of importance. Last week I got another one. Frustrated with the misleading agenda-driven wording designed around the myth that there's a big difference between the two candidates and parties, I changed wording and added a few issues. But there is little use.
The most important national issues are absent in the debates. Obama and Romney agree on so many issues they are essentially one and the same candidate.
"Obomney" will win the presidency, and our nation will lose again. The independent and third party candidates are bringing up the most pressing issues affecting our national security and economy. But they are shut out of the debate. The Commission on Presidential Debates, set up after the League of Women Voters withdrew citing fraud on the American People, now sets the rules and controls the audience. So the national debates we should have, the issues that most affect us in Big Horn County and families around the world, will not happen.
http://sojo.net/blogs/2012/10/04/who-didn%E2%80%99t-win-presidential-debate
They argue with each other over which plan bodes the worst for a contrived crisis in social security, Medicare and Medicaid. We have, in Big Horn County, come to believe these benefits (not entitlements) we've paid for over almost a century are ending. Neither candidate nor party discusses a simple solution: make these payroll deductions a flat tax and keep the same benefit max for social security. Income levels above the current cap of $106,800, rare in Big Horn County, would then be taxed at the same rate. Keeping the benefit max, doing away with that cap and flattening the tax would simplify payroll taxes for employers. It would also, solve the funding problem of these programs forever, and allow lowering, not raising, the overall payroll deduction rate or age of starting benefits. This option is off the presidential debate table.
option-eliminate-the-payroll-tax-cap-AARP-ppi-econ-sec.pdf
Eliminating the Social Security Payroll Cap: A Bad Idea | NCPA
The great Obamacare debate has run its course, with a successful censorship of the public option by both parties. Now Romney, in his latest waffling in the Denver debates, has made clearer his plan to replace Obamacare with Obomneycare. Neither plan brings us anywhere near par with other first world nations' health care expenditures because it ignores the public option employed virtually universally outside our borders.
The two parties want us to argue over the middle class instead of seeing the many families who were middle class, and now have fallen below the line. They mislead us into thinking it is simple joblessness. They ignore the huge growth of jobs that do not pay a living wage. So we continue the myth that the poor simply lack initiative, and refuse reform of our currently unjust economy, hostile to millions of American families. Check out the new documentary http://thelinemovie.com/
Other sources on American poverty:
They opt for the least viable option in addressing Iran's potential for a nuclear weapon, because they think we the people feel safe with them shaking our big stick. The better option is to convene a broad nuclear conference over Iran's possible nuclear threat including those two Middle East nations already having deliverable nukes trigger ready: Israel and Pakistan. These two should submit to the same UNSCOM inspections and truth-telling Iran has been allowing—yes, allowing, and that truth is not spoken to the American people. Such a strategy would guarantee an end to Iran's potential nuke preparations, motivated by the current reality of no nuclear parity with Israel. Like with Saddam, will we successfully negotiate away viable defensive weapons and then, God forbid, bomb and invade another nation.
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/09/25/iran-reaffirms-offer-on-nukes/
We Big Horn County family elders, concerned with our children and grandchildren serving in harm's way, don't want to give our government an automatic approval for another unwarranted war.
I'm reminded of when the Baghdad bombing began. Hundreds of our English students were gathered at a XiHua University auditorium in China for a public debate contest. Our department head, considered a friend of mine at the time, spoke these words: "America can't be trusted. China will never give up its nuclear weapons. Iraq did. Now look what's happening." I was shocked.
We are bombarded here in this election season with hyped up controversies between the two political parties exemplified both in Rehberg's Government Madness blog and the many Democratic talking points. As a result, our candidates both proclaim this election is about something much bigger than who is president. Then they stand together across the centerline of their road choice and beckon us into their sideshow political fights. As Noam Chomsky says, "…so there are differences between the parties: about how enthusiastically the lemmings should march toward the cliff." So yes, this election is about something bigger than Obomney for president. But they have agreed to ignore us here, and our media mostly rubberstamps censorship of the most important issues our nation now faces.
(Here ends the column in the Big Horn County News)
This problem is profoundly irrational, and unlike anything in our history, in our current broad distrust of science. Shawn Otto is author of a book worth reading to get a grip on how far we have strayed as a nation from responsible research:
Good Science Always Has Political Ramifications. Why? Because a scientifically testable claim can be shown to be either most probably true or false, whether the claim is made by a king or a president, a Pope, a Congressperson, or a common citizen. [Book Excerpt]
Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America
Author, filmmaker, science advocate Shawn Otto
Shawn Otto, an acclaimed author, filmmaker and noted science advocate, whose book "Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America" (Rodale Books, 2011) is the winner of the 2012 Minnesota Book Award for general nonfiction
He is featured writer in The Scientific American
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-platform-to-crowdfund-the-truth-2012-09
Can Democracy Still Work in the Age of Science?– Shawn Otto
"Jefferson's central idea of democracy is that "whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." Jefferson thought it required "no very high degree" of education for people to be well-enough informed. But what happens in a world dominated by complex science? Are the people still well-enough informed to be trusted with their own government? Why or why not? Today, science is under political attack like never before. At the same time, science impacts almost every aspect of modern life, and is poised to create more knowledge in the next 40 years than in all of recorded history. Can we expect attacks to increase or lessen? Why is this happening? Why is it so much worse in the United States than the UK or EU? Why are people the world over protesting against both autocratic and democratic governments? Can democracy survive the rush of science? We'll compare strategies scientists and journalists can use online and off to manage these emerging science challenges – together with a world of unsolved legacy environmental science challenges – for science and better public policy."
http://people.howstuffworks.com/debate3.htm
http://www.montanademocrats.org/node/409
https://rehbergforms.house.gov/govmadness
The two parties want us talking about who is to blame instead of what to do about climate change. Of course, the consensus in the scientific community regarding the human role in climate change may be questionable (I doubt it is). But the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice is not questionable, happening decades sooner than forecasts of 2011. Now, without a national debate, plans are afoot to harvest the vast newly available energy resources in that fragile environment. No attention is paid to the science on the meaning of this symptom of global warming.
Recent attention paid to the increase in sea ice off Antarctica avoids the larger affect of global warming as a cause of the marked increase in westerly winds around the continent. It's the increased air flow off the 2-mile-high mountain of ice over the continent, a circular wind current that, though warmer than the air in winter usually is, results in significantly more sea ice. I remember my daughter's experience in the 1990's researching ice of -50 degree temperatures in tunnels deep below the South Pole Station while record high temperatures in summer there were -20 F.
Our international relations have become firmly under control of powerful people who reverse Jesus' Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Instead we have adopted pre-emptive war, "do in others before they do you in." This has been our misdirected response to the world tragedy of terrorism since 9-11. Of course we want carnage and deadly civil strife of terrorism removed outside our borders instead of having it happen here. But, by invading other countries and establishing military bases all around the world we have discarded the most powerful tool to stamp out terrorism: collaboration with friendly citizens of nations where there is an anti-American element. The neighbors of these radicals have the power to squelch them. Instead we drone them. Or bomb them. or break in the doors of their homes. We capture, disappear and torture their parents, brothers and sons. Of course some of these are committed to fighting against us. But we haven't really sought to stay there and listen to them. So we wonder why they hate us.
The Drones now giving President Obama the exclusive power to exterminate a human being of his choice almost anywhere in the world presents a variety of legal issues. Can the US government legitimately attack and kill citizens in a foreign country with which we are at peace? Even with their tacit consent?
U of VA author Ashley Deeks justifies this as self defense. Because the US is targeting groups in Pakistan that are associated with the 9-11 attacks, it has the right of self defense by attacking.
The drone legal controversy is thus brought to focus, but not in the debates. We are not supposed to see or think about the families with children and old people hearing drones in the sky from inside their homes, trapped by poverty and geography in a brutal reality that drones could target their house any night. The psychological wounds from our drone war against the people of Northern Pakistan will come back to haunt us in spreading hatred of America. Instead President Obomney—either Romney or Obama— will continue droning us to peaceful sleep at night with assurances his drones will keep us safe another four years.
http://sojo.net/blogs/2012/10/05/can-any-good-come-drones
http://sojo.net/blogs/2012/09/25/drone-watch-living-under-drones
But road not taken by either party is about choosing to examine honestly and clearly the options we have as a nation on two crucial fronts worldwide: escalating warfare, and escalating climate change.
Both issues affect us right here in Big Horn county. We have one of the highest per capita rate of soldiers serving in combat.
On the big science issues and the environment, Scientific American's Shawn Oono says science lies at the center of our biggest policy controversies. Yet our scientists are not consulted, and our leaders and pundits diminish the importance.
On climate, Obama talks about regulating green house gases and increasing fuel efficiency. Romney has backed off from saying we don't know what causes climate change. He now agrees humans have affected our climate crisis. Yet he still says there is no consensus. His mutually contradictory statements have implications.
On food quality, Romney is about deregulation. He says industry will self-regulate adequately. Obama says we need government.
Water safety. Overconsumption is threatening the standard of a minimal amount of water for everyone. Obama talks about a clean water act he tried to push through. Obama has no specific steps. He says the real problem with water quality is over-regulation. Which triggers regulation. He would relax regulations because they are costly and ineffective.
Energy. Obama doesn't talk about the future, he just cites his past policy.
Romney talks about energy independence, but really means north America. He thinks we could be. But this is unreal, since the global market determines price and access.
Obama's answers intersect a bit more with what scientists are saying than Romney.
They both ignore our incarceration system. "Perhaps most frighteningly--both to the public and to many of the inmates themselves--is that 2,000 of these men in solitary confinement are released directly from extreme isolation onto the streets of New York every single year.
The often invisible experience of those living in extreme isolation in the state's prison system is revealed in a new study by the New York Civil Liberties Union . The report paints a damning picture of a cruel and expensive practice that is being phased out in other states even as it expands across New York State."
They both ignore the poor.
http://sojo.net/blogs/2012/10/04/who-didn%E2%80%99t-win-presidential-debate
The Mexican gun & drugs war made is in America. Mexican people blame the American government and gun business for the horrific death and destruction over the border.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H33u1e80WY&feature=relmfu
http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romneys-stump-speech/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/04/1139793/-Mitt-Romney-Lying-to-victory?detail=email
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yMOzvmgVhc&feature=youtu.be
A seven minute video. Choose who to believe, our government, or the people who went to Pakistan to investigate? Here are some quotes from people who live in the area: "We don't know why there are drone attacks in our area. But it's Americans doing this, to end the lives of Muslims. Do American people know the drone strikes here are killing civilians?
http://www.nationofchange.org/romney-passes-torch-taxpayers-1349356703
Romney's Salt Lake City Olympics, researched by Hightower, the Texas congressman.
http://www.nationofchange.org/what-hell-happened-1349363594
"Mr. President, if you can't explain why you are the Commander-in-Chief in this class war against the billionaire bandits attempting to seize our government, then get off the horse and let someone in the saddle who can ride." --Greg Palast
http://www.nationofchange.org/last-night-s-debate-romney-told-27-myths-38-minutes-1349364077
Four years later Mondale and Reagan vetoed 80 of the moderators league of women voters proposed because they did not want difficult questions. Remember the public outcry? The next debate included League of Women Voters recommended moderators.
In four more years Dukakis and Bush drafted the first ever 12 page-secret debate contract. League refused, and published the contract, accusing both candidates of trying to subvert the democratic process. The commission got the backing of Republican and Democratic leaders and created a commission to implement the same 12 page contract. Frank Farencoff is still cochair, and he is also director of the American Gaming Commission. Other cochair is Mike McCurry. Lobbiest for media interests.
What are corporations doing sponsoring debates? Anheiser Bush is biggest. It can simultaneously demonstrate support for both parties and get great exposure to politicians. SW airlines, international bottled water, howard buffet, kennedy library, two law firms are other current sponsors. Candidates cannot actually ask each other questions. No third party or independent candidates are admitted. The 2004 secret contract written by the join commission of Republican and Democrat leaders was 32 pages long.
David Graber
RR 1 Box 1211D
631 Woodley Ln
Hardin, MT 59034
406 665-3373
www.greenwoodfarmmt.org
Bonnie's email graberbj@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment