Liberal College Kid

The thing about a democracy is that the only way it can be successful is if the people running it know what they’re doing. The more popular phrase for this, of course is a “well informed citizenry,” as a democracy is a government by the people. To this end it is imperative that since we are participating in self governance, we must know what the government is doing. Further, if the only way we have to express our demands to our representatives is by voting, we must know exactly how they’ve done representing us. Right?

With this kind of thinking, one would be led to believe that the media then plays the most important role in our democracy. I’m not saying it doesn’t, but I do take issue with what is covered. Need an example? Let’s talk about the Anna Nicole Smith fiasco. She died tragically and suddenly, left a daughter with unclear parentage, had a crazy mom who wanted custody, there was that crazy judge who cried and talked about his days as a tennis instructor. It was really a great month or so on the news. But wait, how is this even important? Sure it has entertainment value, but what about the stuff that actually matters? Since when did Americans dying in foreign countries fighting a horrible never ending war become less important than some woman with huge boobs taking too many TrimSpa Babies?  What did the government do to protect the environment during that month?  Or what did they do to get the 40 million people in this country without health care the coverage they need?  What did they do to fix social security, or to rid DC of special interest groups and lobbyists?  I guess we can only assume nothing as it certainly wasn’t covered on the news.

The problem with the media is that it has completely abandoned its purpose. Where once the idea was to inform the viewers, the point now is to sell the viewers stuff and come up with things to put in between commercials that will make people less likely to change the channel. The saddest example of this was on September 11, 2001. On a tour I took of New York City our tour guide said something that has stuck with me. I’d like to paraphrase it here for you:

Late at night on TV we hear the ‘bzzz bsssh this is only a test…’ of the emergency broadcasting system. If there has ever been a true emergency since its inception, was 9/11 not worthy of the emergency broadcasting system? Instead we watched the towers fall live on cable television, and people stayed glued to their TV’s and the companies that own those TV stations gained viewership, ratings, and ultimately money.

When is the last time we saw a clip from a speech someone gave in congress on the nightly news? Here’s another one, why don’t local news stations EVER talk about local politics. With the exception of elections, you never hear anything about the goings on in your state legislature unless you go looking for it. You could read about it in a newspaper, but those are going out of business left and right.

Our last hope, in my opinion is the internet. The internet serves as a place where true citizen journalism can take place. Finally, there can once again be dialog about issues that TV and the mass media do not allow for. I mean, look at this site. If we write something you like or don’t like you can write us, and we write back. This is the very foundation of our democracy. Dialog is key, and the sooner we start talking about politics the way we should the sooner we’ll have a better more functional government.

Young people are seen as apathetic in this country.  We don’t vote so politicians don’t bother themselves with campaigning on issues that are important to young people.  This will only change if the people demand it.  If we seek out real news and stop watching the junk that passes as news today we may just effect the change we’re looking for.   I want people to know what they’re government is doing.  I want them to get mad when they see their legislators make the wrong decision on something.  I want to see the end of treating elections like auctions where the highest bidder wins.  If we want to change America we have to change what’s on TV… It’s that simple.

• Leave a comment... (0)

I got the idea for this post while riding a train from Schaerding, Austria to Bratislava, Slovakia. The majority of this train ride is rolling hills, plenty of trees and storybook villages. Storybook villages with one distinctive new feature: solar panels. Near farms and cottages, windmills speckled the countryside. I was so impressed by these things I felt the need to post something about it.

First, the solar panels. Solar panels are pretty much awesome. Ok, right now they still have a few kinks, and the photovoltaic cells used to generate power have to be replaced more often than would be ideal (but really, will anybody be satisfied until they never have to be replaced?). But to keep it simple, we’re not running out of sunshine anytime soon. Unless a meteor hits the earth, covering it a thick layer of dust and junk, we can pretty much count on the sun coming out eventually (although as I look out my window, it doesn’t seem like it will). The unfortunate thing about America is that it is actually illegal for many people to install their own solar panels. People who can afford to do this and are WILLING to do this are frequently told by city councils and neighborhood associations that they can’t. I can’t really think of good reasons for this. Riding through Austria, the solar panels didn’t detract from the beauty around me. This seems to be the only thing a neighborhood association could possible have against them. As for city governments and above, I can only assume that the electric company has a stronghold. In case you were unaware, in most places, if you install solar panels that supply your house with more energy than you use, you can sell it back to the power company. So I suppose if you could install enough you could actually profit (and your power company would be using a clean source of energy!).

And windmills. They are an incredibly old, time-tested source of power. And they are clean! Their main drawback (I’m being serious here) is that sometimes birds fly into them and die. I’m not overly concerned about this. Sorry PETA. And once again, some people consider them an eyesore. I find this argument stupid. Sure, if we tore down forests to build them, that would be bad. But when farmers place them in their fields, it is just adding another use to the land. And where would Holland be without their beloved windmills? They aren’t hideous, they can be quaint! Maybe if we switched back to the traditional Dutch design more people would jump on board. As with sunshine, I don’t see the wind going away anytime soon. And I think even if a meteor did hit earth, the wind would probably still blow all that dust around. So, really, they’re a fail-safe plan.

Tonight I went out to dinner with 2 American customers and 1 Austrian employee. The 2 visiting customers commented on the solar panels and windmills! Since I wrote this post yesterday, I found this worth noting. The Austrian was more than a little disgruntled with America’s carbon footprint. I also think I helped talk both of them into riding their bikes to work (at least occasionally). They also found the bird argument ridiculous. I also explained my recent conversion to vegetarianism (which is a big discussion point in Austria, people find it unbelievable that I haven’t starved yet), and both noted the need to reduce beef intake. They also mentioned an interested in buying more food from local growers. And they asked me for ways to reduce their carbon impact! Huzzah for environmentalism.

When I started writing this, I didn’t know if it was going to be an environmental rant, a report on Austria or some combination. So maybe I’ll educate everyone (including me) about Austria. Huzzah! If you don’t care about Austria then you can stop reading. Jerk.

First, Austria is a democratic republic with a president and two houses (sound familiar?). There are 9 constituent federal states. I am currently in Upper Austria. Vienna is both a federal state and the capital city. Currently 5 parties are represented in their parliament (20 seats out of 183 to the Green Party) (please see previous post: Everyone Likes Parties, Let’s Have More). The most exciting thing to me is that Austria is a permanently neutral state. Good for them! The current president is Heinz Fischer of the Social Democratic Party (SPO). They have elections every 6 years (next election: 2010). No incumbent has ever lost a presidential election. The president is mainly a figurehead, although technically the constitution grants him some very significant powers (like dissolving the Nationalrat, the more powerful of the 2 houses). The main exports are…just kidding. I’m done. But I really think it’s salt.

• Leave a comment... (1)

When my good friend asked me to contribute to his well-meaning liberal blog, I hesitated. While my positions on litmus-test issues are certainly in line with those of many liberals, I’m wary to identify myself as a member of a community that so consistently frustrates me. Indeed, the state of political discourse in this extraordinary nation disappoints me daily.

I submit to you that most of us Americans, independent of political leaning, have wrapped ourselves so tightly in our own beliefs that we’ve forsaken the goals of public debate and robbed democracy of its power. Though these political ideals are surely lofty, it doesn’t follow that we should resign ourselves to narrow-minded punditry. Yet all too often, we do.

If our calls for progressive change are sincere, our methods of engagement with those we hope to convince are deeply flawed. Do we truly feel as though we’re winning over hearts and minds?

Lest we forget, our “opponents” are motivated by factors equally deserving of respect and tolerance as our own. We may find their opinions disagreeable and at times morally reprehensible, but we ought not forget that they too are entitled to a position. We must remember that their reactions stem from their beliefs as well as their personal and social circumstances. As such, they are fully worthy of our empathy. Why don’t we give it to them?

After all, if we want them to listen to us, we have to listen to them.

Thus, in my inaugural post, I urge members of this blog to consider the persuasions and arguments of those with whom we might disagree. We must recognize the duality of our partisan politics, seeking to reconcile our views and work toward constructive change.

America is tragically divided. Let’s work on that. After all, e plurbis unum—right?

• Leave a comment... (1)

Sorry for the recent lack in activity on here.  I have been so disheartened by the recent vote to keep the Iraq War going that I had to take a few days and reexamine why I even bother caring, much less writing, about politics.

The truth is, I care because I feel like we all should.  I think that’s also why I get so worked up over the happenings in DC.  As a representative democracy, our government more than represents us, they areus.  Whether or not we voted those representatives in, they are still there because of us.  What the government does, we do, and that’s the thing that really gets to me.

Our government has gotten to the point that the only thing that matters are elections.  As soon as someone is voted into office they have to be back out on the campaign trail, going to fundraisers, doing interviews, getting money from special interest groups.  It’s no wonder the news no longer reports on anything that happens as far as legislation goes in Congress.  Why would they?  No one’s ever there?

In this most recent vote, two Presidential candidates that this site still supports waited until they knew the outcome before casting their votes against the war.  Those candidates were Clinton and Obama.  Sure they got the decision right, but why not stand up and advocate their position instead of just laying low until it no longer mattered which way they voted?

I’m sick of the Democrats and the wimpy attitude that seems a prerequisite for service in congress.  Why can’t we have a party that has strong stances on issues?  Why must we always, time andtime again concede to the Republicans.  What do they ever do for us?  Why is it that the only time we hear about “bi-partisanism” is when the Democrats are in the majority?

I guess I’m not ready to move on and forgive just yet, and I hope none of you are either.  Because no matter how you slice it, the Democrats have failed the American people.  All this so that they won’t look like they voted “against the troops.”  You know what, the point of being in congress is not to be reelected, it’s to make ones self worthy of being reelected.  Somewhere along the way we’ve forgotten that.

• Leave a comment... (0)

A colleague of mine recently suggested that America should vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger in the 2008 election. This was not an American cracking a joke; this was an Austrian, in Austria. An Austrian who has never even visited the United States. Sure, he is promoting one of his fellow countrymen. But then he went on to discuss very specifically who I thought would get the Democratic nomination.

What I found interesting about this conversation was not that an Austrian knew that the governor of California was also The Terminator. It was that he seemed to be more capable of having a reasonable discussion with me about American politics than many Americans I speak to. I have a friend in America who honestly didn’t know when the next presidential election was going to be. The fact that he could name the year AND several potential candidates surprised me.

Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. America forces its politics to dominate the news in much of the world. And with the large number of people who will be incredibly happy on January 20, 2009 when Bush leaves office, I suppose many of these people are taking an interest in whether the American populace can make an intelligent choice. I am still impressed though, because the election is still very far away. It seems exceptionally early for anyone to be involved (another rant entirely), but especially someone who doesn’t even live in this country.

I think the main reason I am surprised by his knowledge is that I know so little about the contemporary politics of other countries. I read a couple of articles about the recent election in France, but not enough to really talk about it with a French person. I think it made me feel a little guilty for taking so little interest in the actual politics running other countries. Here I am living in Austria for a short time, and I know absolutely nothing about their government. I took a class in “global” (I use quotes because we actually only studied Western democracies) politics a few years ago, and for the duration of that class I knew a fair amount about Germany, England and France. But when it ended I didn’t really continue to read about them.

I suppose here I could go on a small rant about how little American media feeds us, and how they should do a better job. Which is definitely true, but I’m not placing all the blame on them. I think I should become more proactive in understanding more of what is going on in the world. More than just the few big stories that make American newspapers. I highly recommend reading the UK newspaper The Guardian for those interested in doing the same.

PS Props to Jake Barnes for doing his best to help us all on this too!

• Leave a comment... (0)

Here, hot off the presses, is the second of my yet-to-be-determined-number of posts regarding France and, more specifically, the new French government headed by President Nicolas Sarkozy. The election of Sarkozy has a bearing in the U.S. which is much more significant than most media outlets would have you believe. Sarko is an unapologetic capitalist the likes of which have never graced the halls of the Elysée
Palace. For example, Sarko garnered many votes thanks to his plan to increase the amount of time an individual can work past the currently regulated 35 hours. He was derided by his opponents for proposing that French citizens be able to “work more in order to earn more”, so deep are the socialist roots in France. It is this capitalist spirit that Sarko brings with him that has helped him get into office.

The real reason Sarko got elected is because right now the French economy is in the dumps. It has stagnated for the past few years under Chirac as he tried to establish some sort of significant, definite, legacy. Chirac’s strong suit has always been his huge push for equality and acceptance in French society and the riots in Parisian suburbs in 2005 (which were drawn mostly along ethnic lines) severely hurt this legacy (incidentally Sarkozy was the Interior Minister at the time who cracked down so hard on the rioters at first, calling them “scum”, that the riots spread and intensified). Concerned with repairing the Great Uniter of France title that he had worked so hard to achieve Chirac let the economy slip in his final years in office. France has become the weak link, economically speaking, in the Big 5 EU nations (Spain, the U.K., Germany, France and Italy) and French voters turned to the right in order to rectify the situation.

For the United States this means that the era of polite disengagement with France may soon be over. While Sarkozy is in no way a fan of the war in Iraq he is most likely willing to overlook the debacle there in order to spur the French economic engine. So, why does this matter? Who cares if France is going to want to trade with the U.S. more than it currently is? Why do I think it’s a good thing that the French have turned to the right in the most recent election? The most important thing to note is that the right in France would still be fairly far left on most issues (and the far left on domestic issues) in the United States. If Sarko can engage Bush economically he will also be able to get in his ear, to a certain extent, on other issues as well.

The Franco-American bond is one of the most interesting situations in all of world politics. The French still have a very strong sense of debt owed to the U.S. for “saving” the country in WWII. When I was in France recently one of the news talk shows was discussing relations with the U.S. and one of the guests made a statement to the effect of “we may disagree with them on many things but we can never forget how they came to our aide”. The U.S. too has a collective interest in staying close with France; it’s the je ne sais quoi that keeps Americans heading over to France in droves despite the fact France is routinely dissed at home. Because of this Bush will, hopefully, welcome a French administration eager to engage the U.S. even if France still warmer relations with Iran and Russia than the U.S. does. Hopefully this will all result in the U.S. taking a new tact in Iran (one that wouldn’t lead to a war) and maybe even in Iraq if France is dangling the carrot of trade in front of our face. Bush has had a blast allying himself with lap dogs like Tony Blair and John Howard but if he is forced to listen to Sarkozy, who knows, maybe he can learn a thing or two.

• Leave a comment... (0)

The Alabama state legislature passed a bill recently which apologizes for the role the state played in slavery. Fantastic. The bill was passed in the House by an unrecorded voice vote. Okay, no worries there. The bill passed in the Senate by a margin of 22-7 with five abstentions… and along party lines. All Republicans in the Senate either abstained from voting or flat out voted against a bill which apologizes for slavery. Are you kidding me? How does anyone not vote in favor or a bill which apologizes for enslaving people?? Are the Republicans in Alabama not sorry that there state was a fervent defender of the right to “own” another human being? I simply can’t fathom how anyone in good conscious could vote against a bill like this one.

This is just another indication that, “as far as we’ve come”, we still have a lot of work to do if we want to live in a truly equal society. Remember when Clinton wanted to mend race relation in this country and had a town hall meeting to that end? It didn’t do a whole lot when everything was said and done but it was still a start. While I don’t believe that the government can simply tell its citizens to treat everyone with respect and equality and assume it will happen I do think they should be expected to play some role in at least initiating a dialogue or by actively promoting the idea of racial equality.

We want to believe that, as a whole, we do treat everyone equally, after all it’s in our Constitution isn’t it? Because of this anything that works to promote racial equality immediately comes under fire the second it inconveniences someone not being helped (i.e. Affirmative Action). We want to believe that if you’re a poor black kid that grew up in Cabrini-Green you have the same shot at getting into an Ivy League school as a rich white kid from Palm Beach. We still have this fantasy that all it takes to succeed in America is determination and the ability to pull yourself up by your boot straps (a colloquialism I’ve never fully understood) but the reality is that this isn’t the case. We do need Affirmative Action and other government programs that are designed to enrich our culture by making it more heterogeneous. It’s great that race relations are much better than they were 50 years ago and it’s true that things have improved by leaps and bound from where they were before the civil rights movement but when there are still seven elected officials who feel compelled to vote against a bill that apologizes for slavery there is still a lot work to be done and the government should feel obliged to take the lead in starting that work.

• Leave a comment... (0)

I would like to start my angry rant with a comment Nancy Pelosi said today regarding the Iraq War finance bill:

“This is like a fig leaf, this is a token, this is a small step forward, instead we should have a giant step forward into a new direction,”

I agree, SO WHY DID THE DEMOCRATS GIVE UP AND LET THE PRESIDENT CONTINUE HIS WAR?!

Harry Reid was quoted today saying

“The days of blank checks and green lights… are over”

LIAR! I think we should be demanding new Democratic leadership. How is this standing up to the President? How is this not simply another blank check? Mr. Reid, this is a green light and as your party’s leader you have a responsibility to stand up to the opposing party, even if you think it might be unpopular. What’s the President going to do, throw a fit if he doesn’t get war funding? And don’t give me that b.s. about not supporting the troops. The ONLY way to support our men and women is to bring them home.  There would not be political fall out if the Democrats would stand up and be accountable for their views.  There is nothing wrong with being liberal!  Liberal is not a bad word, or an insult or a demeaning term that means somehow that if one is liberal they are inferior.  There is nothing inferior about a real moral high ground.  The idea that we shouldn’t make wars with other countries is a liberal idea, and the people that think we should torture people say that Jesus is on their side!  Hah!

The Democrats have proven once again to be every name that conservatives have ever called them.  Spineless flip floppers.  Well conservative pundits, tonight I agree with you completely.  I am a registered member of a party that won’t stand up for anything no matter how many Americans stand up and say they want change.

The Republican debates have been great because we’ve seen how crafty the Republicans are.  We’ve seen virtually everyone running for President shift to the right in order to gain the support of the base.  The Democrats are nothing like that.  They don’t care about the base.  They know full well that we could never vote for someone who thinks being gay should be illegal so they don’t do anything we ask of them.  Even when we’re the majority, all that matters to Democrats is the middle.  The “Independents” of our country that could go either way so long as the Democrats aren’t too progressive.  Here’s a piece of advise for the Democrats:

Half of this country doesn’t vote because of crap like tonight that the Democrats pull.  I mean really, why vote?  Americans put Democrats into the majority in congress and NOTHING HAS CHANGED?!  We’re still in Iraq, hell, we’re still funding Iraq and letting the President do whatever he wants.  He created a War Czar for God’s sake.  Forget Department of Defense, we have a War Czar!!

And politicians wonder why our generation doesn’t vote…

• Leave a comment... (0)

Hey everyone, sorry I haven’t posted in a while but I’ve been in France and didn’t take my laptop with me. I’m going to be writing a few posts about different things I noticed while in France and how they contrast with the US. I’ll start off easy as I wouldn’t want to pull a hammy by getting going to quickly here.

France, as I’m sure you know, has a new President. Nicolas Sarkozy, the diminutive Energizer Bunny of a man, won the run off election with about 53% of the popular vote to become the 6th President of the 5th Republic (I’m not counting the two interim President’s). While I was there he was sworn into office, although I’m not sure if that’s the correct term as you’ll see in a bit, and I was interested in how different it was from the inauguration in the United States.

To start everything happens more quickly in France, Sarko was elected on May 6th and sworn in on the 17th (that’s just a shade under the three or so months we have to wait for the new president to start here at home). The rapidity of succession is defiantly nice in that it gives the voter the instant gratification (and hopefully instant change) that they want when casting their ballots. The downside is that the new President doesn’t have time to assemble a team and get up to speed before assuming command; they have to do most of their learning on the job.

The “swearing in” is also completely different from that of our American ceremony. The President of France never really takes an oath like our President does and there is no hand-on-the-bible photo-op moment in the ceremony. What does occur goes, or rather went, something like this: Sarkozy pulls up to the Elysée Palace (the French White House) and gets out where he is met by President Chirac. Chirac takes Sarkozy inside to a private room and gives him the codes for France’s nuclear arsenal (I find it interesting that, for a country as non-interventionist as France, they make such a big deal of this) and Chirac, I can only assume, offers Sarko some pearls of wisdom on assuming the pseudo-throne of France. Sarko then walks Chirac out of the palace, puts him in a car and waves as the now impotent President drives away. Chirac is followed across Paris by a gaggle of paparazzi to his new home; an apartment being given to him by an Arab billionaire (or something like that, my French isn’t perfect so I was picking up what I could). Sarkozy, then, heads back into the palace to a grand salon of sorts where he has a bunch of extremely dignified looking individuals waiting for him, it’s show time. A member of the crowd steps forward, reads an oath which pretty much says “way to go, now you’re the President, have fun” and Sarkozy then signs something saying that he accepts the duty. After this I start to get confused, Sarkozy is handed a huge gilded necklace of sorts, he looks at it for a while, hands it back to the person that gave it to him and then, BAM he’s President!
I have no idea what the necklace stands for or, more importantly, why he doesn’t put it on or, even more important than that, why he doesn’t keep it but I bet a quick wikipedia search could get some answers. After all this Sarkozy shakes about a thousand hands and then makes a speech followed by him going outside to review an honor guard which plays La Marseillaise and then, finally, he hops inside a car and is off to the airport for a flight to Germany to meet with Angela Merkel (this part isn’t protocol, it was just his first official duty). Overall I was impressed by both formality and the relaxed nature of the event. It was grand in scale yet also very personal. Sarkozy wasn’t up on some big platform that towered over his audience, he was walking amongst them. As he left the palace he got out of the car to shake hands with all of the citizens gathered at the gates, the event felt more grounded and connected to the voters than an American inauguration does.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Michael Moore, for me, is a hero. His books and movies have been an inspiration to me throughout my college years and I will vehemently defend him against anyone the right can muster up. In fact, had I never seen Bowling for Columbine or read Dude Where’s my Country this website would probably not exist. His work has been monumental, timely, and a great perspective on the flaws of this country. His most recent project is called Sicko and it comes out June 29th, so long as the government doesn’t confiscate it first.

Sicko deals with (from Michael Moore’s website):

“Much of “Sicko” consists of moving testimony from Americans who have suffered at the hands of insurance companies, drug firms and HMOs. That includes a mother whose daughter died because the nearest hospital could not treat her, and a man who was told the cost of reattaching his two severed fingers would be $60,000 for the middle finger and $12,000 for the ring finger.”

Once again, his timing could not be better as health care figures to play probably the second biggest role in the 2008 Presidential election; behind only Iraq.

The film however, has caused quite a stir already not for its content (which will undoubtedly cause more than just a stir) but for the filming process.  More specifically, Moore may be in trouble for where he filmed: in Cuba.  The United States trade embargo with Cuba forbids US citizens from going there without permission and anything Moore purchased there could result in a fine of 1 million dollars per infraction.  You can watch a news clip about that story here.

Sicko opens June 29th, and I hope you will join me in seeing it.  Moore’s documentaries are more than simply movies: they are important, poignant glimpses of our society and we are all better served by seeing them, no matter what side of the aisle we fall on.

• Leave a comment... (7)