Taco Bell is currently being sued for false advertising. A California woman (not seeking cash damages?!) alleges that Taco Bell should not be able to claim they are serving "seasoned beef" when their meat is only 35% percent beef. Methinks she has a good point.
With that in mind, an old post I wrote:
Ohio Woman Appeals Slander Suit
--From Reuters
DAYTON, OH - An Ohio woman is appealing the decision of the Ohio State Court in their Friday ruling that she slandered the a prominent national grocery chain. Diana Frederick, 38, said to several friends, family members, and associates that Alberson's brand cheddar cheese "tastes like rat poison." The grocer took offense to the statement, alleging it cost the store millions in sales.
Plaintiff attorney Brian Winters remarked, "because our primary source of marketing for Albertson's brand products is word of mouth, we view this statement as particularly damaging to the store's success."
The case represented the first time that free speech rights have been challenged by a commercial entity. Albertson's attorneys argued that, under the law, a corporation is endowed with the same rights as an individual. Thus, slander against a corporation should be governed by the same laws as slander of an individual. The attorneys argued that if they could demonstrate causal harms that resulted from Mrs. Frederick's anti-factual words, they should win the suit.
The jury deliberated for only 90 minutes before returning a decision in favor of Albertson's in the amount of $5.2 million. Juror Mike D. explained, "the only thing more convincing than the attorney's suits were their arguments."
Mrs. Frederick plans to appeal the case to the Ohio State Supreme Court.
"We feel confident that the appeals judges will overturn this decision. I'm just a woman who stated my opinion, and there's nothing wrong with that," said Frederick to media members after the trial.
However, Mr. Winters felt confident in his client's chances in an appeal. "Sure, we have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean you can just say anything you want."
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Thursday, December 23, 2010
The Ape and the Dolphin
Once upon a time there were some apes who were ever slightly smarter than all the other apes. They knew they were smarter because they built tall buildings and invented things and because if they ever got into a fight with the dumber apes, they would win hands down, in about 30 seconds. And not only could the smart apes kill every other ape if they wanted to, they could extinct every species they had ever known to exist in the universe. In fact, the dumb apes were so dumb they didn’t even know about surrendering before they got massacred. The smart apes had invented that too. So there.
So there was what the smartest of the smart apes liked to say. Of course, they would never say “So there” unless they were drunk, or exceptionally unsure of themselves, or caught in a rare moment of honesty they would later regret. Instead they would invent long-winded rationalizations that dressed up those fatal words in some more palatable tone, so that the dumber apes wouldn’t have to feel so bad. And so that they could do what they wanted and not have to feel bad about it either. So there.
The smart apes had also invented feelings and love and creativity and abstract thinking too. It made them all feel warm inside, probably the way the dumb apes feel most of the time (when they aren’t busy trying to forage for food or swing on branches or whatever stupid ways dumb apes waste their time). But the smart apes were busy with far more important things than swinging from branches. They were selling their bodies or building machines or digging really deep holes or doing science projects that might blow up the whole universe.
None of those things really had to do with love or creativity, though it came in handy now and again. Really, most of the smart apes weren’t even that smart. They just did some job and had a bunch of baby apes. And they watched apes pretend to be different apes than they were on an electrical contraption. Or they watched apes play games or have sex with each other. Mostly they wished they weren’t just apes and were something far greater, or at a minimum that if they had to be apes, they might have a little more money, which the smart apes had also invented.
It turns out that smart apes aren’t the only ones with big brains though. And so there were some dolphins, who also have really big brains, but can’t possibly be as smart as the smart apes since they don’t have any buildings or weapons or money either. Anyway, these dolphins were watching the smart apes (though because of their geographical limitations, they saw only a small sample size. Despite having big brains, the dolphins did not know about statistics). When they watched all these smart apes, they laughed.
They laughed because the apes had invented all these great things: like freedom, but most of them were slaves. And like justice, but most of their world was unjust. And like love, but they loved most to betray each other. And they had learned that generalizing about apes is usually a bad idea, but they did it all the time anyway, and believed their generalizations more than anything else. They laughed because the apes thought so highly of their ideas but felt so poorly about themselves.
And then, after the dolphins had a good laugh, they swam back out into the ocean and jumped around and played with each other. They squeaked to each other in their primitive dolphin language, and then swam as a pack to meet their next destiny and live perfectly in harmony with nature.
So there.
So there was what the smartest of the smart apes liked to say. Of course, they would never say “So there” unless they were drunk, or exceptionally unsure of themselves, or caught in a rare moment of honesty they would later regret. Instead they would invent long-winded rationalizations that dressed up those fatal words in some more palatable tone, so that the dumber apes wouldn’t have to feel so bad. And so that they could do what they wanted and not have to feel bad about it either. So there.
The smart apes had also invented feelings and love and creativity and abstract thinking too. It made them all feel warm inside, probably the way the dumb apes feel most of the time (when they aren’t busy trying to forage for food or swing on branches or whatever stupid ways dumb apes waste their time). But the smart apes were busy with far more important things than swinging from branches. They were selling their bodies or building machines or digging really deep holes or doing science projects that might blow up the whole universe.
None of those things really had to do with love or creativity, though it came in handy now and again. Really, most of the smart apes weren’t even that smart. They just did some job and had a bunch of baby apes. And they watched apes pretend to be different apes than they were on an electrical contraption. Or they watched apes play games or have sex with each other. Mostly they wished they weren’t just apes and were something far greater, or at a minimum that if they had to be apes, they might have a little more money, which the smart apes had also invented.
It turns out that smart apes aren’t the only ones with big brains though. And so there were some dolphins, who also have really big brains, but can’t possibly be as smart as the smart apes since they don’t have any buildings or weapons or money either. Anyway, these dolphins were watching the smart apes (though because of their geographical limitations, they saw only a small sample size. Despite having big brains, the dolphins did not know about statistics). When they watched all these smart apes, they laughed.
They laughed because the apes had invented all these great things: like freedom, but most of them were slaves. And like justice, but most of their world was unjust. And like love, but they loved most to betray each other. And they had learned that generalizing about apes is usually a bad idea, but they did it all the time anyway, and believed their generalizations more than anything else. They laughed because the apes thought so highly of their ideas but felt so poorly about themselves.
And then, after the dolphins had a good laugh, they swam back out into the ocean and jumped around and played with each other. They squeaked to each other in their primitive dolphin language, and then swam as a pack to meet their next destiny and live perfectly in harmony with nature.
So there.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
The Criminal who Became a Man
Michael Vick, like many other Americans of note (from Snooki and Bill Clinton to Brett Favre and Tiger Woods) have had their stories beaten into our heads by constant play and replay in print and televised media. Anyone who knows who Michael Vick is knows that he killed dogs.
The story had legs because it evoked a horror (the murder of America's beloved pet) and tied it to a famous name. Like Tiger Woods after him (sex), Clinton before him (sex), and perhaps the father of celebrity-centered media saturation, OJ Simpson (murder), Vick was a 24/7 story. It touched everyone, became a talking point in conversations across the nation, caused unnecessarily deep emotional reactions, and ultimately remains as a part of the public lexicon as Vick's life continues to develop.
My question: why was the public more willing to militarize against Michael Vick, athlete and dog-killer, than against other far-more-worthy social causes? Few expressed the same shock and anger at Bernie Madoff stealing billions (even as he was the head of NASDAQ) or Jack Abramoff fomenting political corruption at the highest levels. Obviously there are many views on the continued war on terror, but even the pacifists who most deeply oppose the war could learn something from PETA about forming protests.
To this extent, Michael Vick provided the public an outlet for the frustrations that are experienced across the cultural spectrum (economic, social, racial) since his crime centered on something universally disagreeable: the torture and murder of dogs. It's easier to protest Vick than a complex ideological war, easier to stand on the side of dogs than against pillars of the economy or political system (crooks or not). Easier to feel anger or righteous condemnation than to attempt to reconstruct difficult, broken institutions.
It was not so much that Vick was an innocent marched to slaughter by a biased jury, as that the court of public opinion was far more ruthless than it might otherwise be. That he (and others who share in his media saturated negative limelight) is an easy target. Everyone knows precisely how to react to someone who kills dogs or commissions scores of prostitutes or abuses power to have illicit sex with (not so attractive) college interns. Reacting to corruption, bad government, and war requires research, thought, and dedication. Voting is the accepted social medium for expressing these concerns, and regardless of the gravity of the socio-political crime, it can never be as heinous as killing innocent, lovable doggies.
What is the postscript for many is the story for me: the redemption of Vick. Some will never forgive him for his trespasses against animals, but the reality is that he lost everything for it. Years of his life, millions of dollars (in addition to the money that was stolen from him by his agents and managers, who were as crooked as Madoff and Abramoff, or even a dog's hind leg), and the chance at immortality (both as cultural icon and athletic innovator). Despite losing all of this, despite spending two years at his physical peak in Ft. Leavenworth, Vick is now the same caliber athlete and a better quarterback than he was before incarceration. He works hard, studies his role, says all the right things to media, and meets his obligations (both imposed by his federal bankruptcy court and as a result of his federal sentence).
The story of Michael Vick is no longer the story of a man who became a criminal, but rather of a criminal who became a free man. But that leaves little to protest against, it robs the public of its righteous anger, and it requires a re-evaluation of what is possible: both from those who consider him a victim of his culture, and from those who consider him a raging psychopath.
Really, though, we learn more about our own culture from Michael Vick than we can ever learn about him.
The story had legs because it evoked a horror (the murder of America's beloved pet) and tied it to a famous name. Like Tiger Woods after him (sex), Clinton before him (sex), and perhaps the father of celebrity-centered media saturation, OJ Simpson (murder), Vick was a 24/7 story. It touched everyone, became a talking point in conversations across the nation, caused unnecessarily deep emotional reactions, and ultimately remains as a part of the public lexicon as Vick's life continues to develop.
My question: why was the public more willing to militarize against Michael Vick, athlete and dog-killer, than against other far-more-worthy social causes? Few expressed the same shock and anger at Bernie Madoff stealing billions (even as he was the head of NASDAQ) or Jack Abramoff fomenting political corruption at the highest levels. Obviously there are many views on the continued war on terror, but even the pacifists who most deeply oppose the war could learn something from PETA about forming protests.
To this extent, Michael Vick provided the public an outlet for the frustrations that are experienced across the cultural spectrum (economic, social, racial) since his crime centered on something universally disagreeable: the torture and murder of dogs. It's easier to protest Vick than a complex ideological war, easier to stand on the side of dogs than against pillars of the economy or political system (crooks or not). Easier to feel anger or righteous condemnation than to attempt to reconstruct difficult, broken institutions.
It was not so much that Vick was an innocent marched to slaughter by a biased jury, as that the court of public opinion was far more ruthless than it might otherwise be. That he (and others who share in his media saturated negative limelight) is an easy target. Everyone knows precisely how to react to someone who kills dogs or commissions scores of prostitutes or abuses power to have illicit sex with (not so attractive) college interns. Reacting to corruption, bad government, and war requires research, thought, and dedication. Voting is the accepted social medium for expressing these concerns, and regardless of the gravity of the socio-political crime, it can never be as heinous as killing innocent, lovable doggies.
What is the postscript for many is the story for me: the redemption of Vick. Some will never forgive him for his trespasses against animals, but the reality is that he lost everything for it. Years of his life, millions of dollars (in addition to the money that was stolen from him by his agents and managers, who were as crooked as Madoff and Abramoff, or even a dog's hind leg), and the chance at immortality (both as cultural icon and athletic innovator). Despite losing all of this, despite spending two years at his physical peak in Ft. Leavenworth, Vick is now the same caliber athlete and a better quarterback than he was before incarceration. He works hard, studies his role, says all the right things to media, and meets his obligations (both imposed by his federal bankruptcy court and as a result of his federal sentence).
The story of Michael Vick is no longer the story of a man who became a criminal, but rather of a criminal who became a free man. But that leaves little to protest against, it robs the public of its righteous anger, and it requires a re-evaluation of what is possible: both from those who consider him a victim of his culture, and from those who consider him a raging psychopath.
Really, though, we learn more about our own culture from Michael Vick than we can ever learn about him.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
A Sixth Sense: Facts, Ideas, and the Mystery of Perception (Part 1)
Not surprisingly, post-modern thought and science find themselves at a crossroads of opposition. The course of deconstructive analytics has created nuanced views of experience, calling into question the nature of explicit fact. It has succeeded in identifying the tacit content of experience and reconstructing a view of reality where experience and perception are functions of one another. It is fair to say that post-modern thought has created a tautological explanation of existence, perception, and fact. In other words, when one looks in the mirror, one sees what he has learned to see. When one considers the word "blue", its meaning is both highly subjective and completely personal, based on the conditions of one's experience of "blue". Meanwhile, science (specifically physics) presses forward in search of a unifying theory of matter, seeking to quantify the distance between probabilistic events (particle physics) and cosmic motion (relativity). It stands on the precipice of defining the precise content of a moment, and a deeper understanding of the nature and role of time.
To that end, in an increasingly complex world, we are faced with theoretical and observable evidence from all directions that historical conceptions of "facts" are under assault. The course of thought has lead us to an acceptance that my "blue" is often not "blue" at all, and the course of science explains that the most elementary constituents of existence often have no definite location. Despite their different approaches and the subtle disagreements amongst conclusions, these two modes of thought do offer a couple areas of common ground: 1. Perception of a moment is enough to change the content of a moment; 2. Individual perception is not replicable or universal.
With the nature of fact thrown into such controversy, we are left to re-assess the role and power of perception. While we have long-ago accepted that the human experience of sense (taste, touch, smell, hearing, sight - henceforth, the Objective Senses) lacks the capacity to perceive the entirety of the universe, we have yet to consider that this list of senses could be amended. The course of science has been to expand the capability of the Objective Senses (particularly sight and hearing) to allow humans to observe the universe beyond their biological limitations (IE microscopes, SONAR, and particle accelerators). These technological and scientific achievements do not address a more fundamental question: what is the relationship between observation and fact? Perhaps it can be more basically expressed as: what is the relationship between the past and the future?* Thus, I propose a re-evaluation of the Objective Senses as the sole determinants of fact, and posit that Ideas (as the placeholders of experience) are a credible, tangible, and necessary constituent of perception and fact.
To be continued ...
* Scientific methodology relies on the assumption that the observed "Laws of Nature" persist without regard to time. For example, we have observed certain patterns in the motion of objects in relation to the forces that act upon them (IE if you toss a ball in the air, it will follow a certain path before ultimately coming to rest on the ground), and from that deduce that these patterns will always obtain. In the example, we may all be willing to accept that the theories of motion will not cataclymically change tomorrow; however, this does not address the central question, and it also raises questions on which scientists now effort (including research into the particles that cause forces, most notably the graviton which exists only in theory, yet to be observed). Namely, how can science establish certain laws and theories as absolutes (on the basis of having observed them) when it does not know exactly what the conditions are that cause these theories to exist? How can it adhere so strongly to the need for evidence to support conclusions, yet advance conclusions for which there is no evidence (IE that the next time I throw a ball, it will adhere to the "Laws of Motion" or that in 150 million years the "Laws of Motion" as they exist today will still be applicable)? We can explain gravity in terms of evidence, however we can not explain WHY gravity happens, or what conditions may cause the effects of gravity to change (this is important because cosmology necessitates that the force of gravity changes - again, this has only been observed in theory). Thus, science is a sort of objective history of matter (what did what to what, when, and for how long), but within its theoretical framework, it relies on the "faith" of its adherents to justify extending those explanations into the future.
To that end, in an increasingly complex world, we are faced with theoretical and observable evidence from all directions that historical conceptions of "facts" are under assault. The course of thought has lead us to an acceptance that my "blue" is often not "blue" at all, and the course of science explains that the most elementary constituents of existence often have no definite location. Despite their different approaches and the subtle disagreements amongst conclusions, these two modes of thought do offer a couple areas of common ground: 1. Perception of a moment is enough to change the content of a moment; 2. Individual perception is not replicable or universal.
With the nature of fact thrown into such controversy, we are left to re-assess the role and power of perception. While we have long-ago accepted that the human experience of sense (taste, touch, smell, hearing, sight - henceforth, the Objective Senses) lacks the capacity to perceive the entirety of the universe, we have yet to consider that this list of senses could be amended. The course of science has been to expand the capability of the Objective Senses (particularly sight and hearing) to allow humans to observe the universe beyond their biological limitations (IE microscopes, SONAR, and particle accelerators). These technological and scientific achievements do not address a more fundamental question: what is the relationship between observation and fact? Perhaps it can be more basically expressed as: what is the relationship between the past and the future?* Thus, I propose a re-evaluation of the Objective Senses as the sole determinants of fact, and posit that Ideas (as the placeholders of experience) are a credible, tangible, and necessary constituent of perception and fact.
To be continued ...
* Scientific methodology relies on the assumption that the observed "Laws of Nature" persist without regard to time. For example, we have observed certain patterns in the motion of objects in relation to the forces that act upon them (IE if you toss a ball in the air, it will follow a certain path before ultimately coming to rest on the ground), and from that deduce that these patterns will always obtain. In the example, we may all be willing to accept that the theories of motion will not cataclymically change tomorrow; however, this does not address the central question, and it also raises questions on which scientists now effort (including research into the particles that cause forces, most notably the graviton which exists only in theory, yet to be observed). Namely, how can science establish certain laws and theories as absolutes (on the basis of having observed them) when it does not know exactly what the conditions are that cause these theories to exist? How can it adhere so strongly to the need for evidence to support conclusions, yet advance conclusions for which there is no evidence (IE that the next time I throw a ball, it will adhere to the "Laws of Motion" or that in 150 million years the "Laws of Motion" as they exist today will still be applicable)? We can explain gravity in terms of evidence, however we can not explain WHY gravity happens, or what conditions may cause the effects of gravity to change (this is important because cosmology necessitates that the force of gravity changes - again, this has only been observed in theory). Thus, science is a sort of objective history of matter (what did what to what, when, and for how long), but within its theoretical framework, it relies on the "faith" of its adherents to justify extending those explanations into the future.
Of the people, By the People, For the People? I think not...
The process of selecting the next President of the United States is now underway, and in a few months it will begin with major party primaries. I tend to eschew the major parties, as each has daunting relative weaknesses and have (in the last 20 years) acted more as vehicles for corporate interests, rather than the good of their constituencies. This lead me to consider the standing of the American doctrine of Government Of the People, By the People, For the People.
Financial estimates for a successful 2008 Election Campaign now exceed $100 Million. Similarly, members of Congress as well as state legislators and governors must raise significantly more money than the average American earns in a lifetime to even consider political campaigning. The monetary demands of candidacy have made it nearly impossible for any but the wealthy and well-connected to consider holding office: a far departure from the ideal of Government Of the People.
As a result, the major political parties have become multi-billion dollar political machines, with candidates acting as high-priced executives on behalf of the long list of contributors to their political causes. Special interest money and lobbyist groups now occupy unique positions of power in the political process, often able to speak in a louder and more economically persuasive voice than the average American. The recent Jack Abramoff lobbyist/payola scandal shows just how corrupt this system can be and has been. While in concept special interest groups provide an opportunity for concerned Americans to voice their opinion as a bloc, these groups have come to look very much like the parties they lobby: well-funded, big money political machines, and what has been lost in all of this are the concerns and activism of the constituency. Certainly this is an unacceptable departure from the ideal of Government By the People.
And what are the results of these trends in our political system? Despite the continued increases in economic indicators, the rise in our international power (though this is being checked somewhat with currency devaluation), the quality of life for the "average" American continues on the decline. The poverty rate has been on a steady rise since the 90s, and income inequality continues to be a concern. Most notably, compensation for the top 5% of the population continues to escalate to unprecendented levels. An example of this is provided by United Health (the nation's largest health insurer), whose CEO has netted more than a billion dollars since 2000, while record numbers of Americans (myself included, along with 46 million others) can't afford health coverage. What is occurring is an effectual redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, and we can see those policies with only a cursory glance at the current administration. Thus, though Americans still live "better" than most of the world, they don't live as well as they could, primarily so that a privileged few can amass inordinate wealth. I assert that regardless of whether our government is still truly a representative democracy, it is the furthest from attaining the ideal of Government For the People.
While the effects of these transformations of liberal democracy are wide (political apathy, feelings of disenfranchisement, existence of a welfare class, widening class gaps, etc.), it is not doomsday. Though America may not at this moment live up to its ideals, it has not foresaken them. As such, the concerted effort of individuals CAN make a difference.
Most notably, Americans must once again utilize their most basic unit of political power: the right to vote. Voting has two basic impacts (among many): 1. Influences the outcome of elections (duh) - if you vote, your political voice can be heard in selecting the candidate(s) you believe best represent your interests and the interests of America; 2. Capturing the attention of political entities - in the modern age, political candidates have access to a large wealth of information, including voting demographics and issues and stances that each demographic prioritizes. President Bush was able to get elected simply by appealing to a very narrow demographic: Midwestern and Southern protestant parents. Even in 2004, when he garnered more than 50% of the popular vote, nearly 75% of the voting age populace of the US did NOT vote for the man who became President. When you exercise your right to vote, you also send the clear message that your opinion must be considered by candidates, and you affect the course of future political disucssion.
Despite the promise of free elections and the lofty ideals of democracy, the facts are that American political participation lags noticeably behind the rest of the free world (most notably Western Europe and Japan). To blame our governmental shortcomings only on corrupt politicians and incompetent leaders is irresponsible, when We the People aren't doing our part. So, I encourage everyone to take a little time (just an hour or two in the course of several months) to learn a little about an issue or two that matters, and then translate that into a vote. One vote may or may not be the difference in the election, but your one voice is too precious to silence and ignore.
With that in mind, there are some candidates from the major parties taking strong and aggressive stands on important issues and encouraging Americans to participate in their government. One such candidate is Barack Obama (Democratic Junior Senator-Illinois) who recently participated in a "town hall" meeting that webcast live on Myspace and was rebroadcasted on MTV. MTV.com has posted these videos (21 4-5 minute conversations on different topics from the Senator). Below is a link to those videos, where you can learn more about Sen. Obama and his ideas for America. In the video linked, he explains a core principle: whether you agree with him or not, it's important to be part of the process. Thank you for your time reading this, and I'll see you at the polls!
Barack Obama in Iowa
Financial estimates for a successful 2008 Election Campaign now exceed $100 Million. Similarly, members of Congress as well as state legislators and governors must raise significantly more money than the average American earns in a lifetime to even consider political campaigning. The monetary demands of candidacy have made it nearly impossible for any but the wealthy and well-connected to consider holding office: a far departure from the ideal of Government Of the People.
As a result, the major political parties have become multi-billion dollar political machines, with candidates acting as high-priced executives on behalf of the long list of contributors to their political causes. Special interest money and lobbyist groups now occupy unique positions of power in the political process, often able to speak in a louder and more economically persuasive voice than the average American. The recent Jack Abramoff lobbyist/payola scandal shows just how corrupt this system can be and has been. While in concept special interest groups provide an opportunity for concerned Americans to voice their opinion as a bloc, these groups have come to look very much like the parties they lobby: well-funded, big money political machines, and what has been lost in all of this are the concerns and activism of the constituency. Certainly this is an unacceptable departure from the ideal of Government By the People.
And what are the results of these trends in our political system? Despite the continued increases in economic indicators, the rise in our international power (though this is being checked somewhat with currency devaluation), the quality of life for the "average" American continues on the decline. The poverty rate has been on a steady rise since the 90s, and income inequality continues to be a concern. Most notably, compensation for the top 5% of the population continues to escalate to unprecendented levels. An example of this is provided by United Health (the nation's largest health insurer), whose CEO has netted more than a billion dollars since 2000, while record numbers of Americans (myself included, along with 46 million others) can't afford health coverage. What is occurring is an effectual redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, and we can see those policies with only a cursory glance at the current administration. Thus, though Americans still live "better" than most of the world, they don't live as well as they could, primarily so that a privileged few can amass inordinate wealth. I assert that regardless of whether our government is still truly a representative democracy, it is the furthest from attaining the ideal of Government For the People.
While the effects of these transformations of liberal democracy are wide (political apathy, feelings of disenfranchisement, existence of a welfare class, widening class gaps, etc.), it is not doomsday. Though America may not at this moment live up to its ideals, it has not foresaken them. As such, the concerted effort of individuals CAN make a difference.
Most notably, Americans must once again utilize their most basic unit of political power: the right to vote. Voting has two basic impacts (among many): 1. Influences the outcome of elections (duh) - if you vote, your political voice can be heard in selecting the candidate(s) you believe best represent your interests and the interests of America; 2. Capturing the attention of political entities - in the modern age, political candidates have access to a large wealth of information, including voting demographics and issues and stances that each demographic prioritizes. President Bush was able to get elected simply by appealing to a very narrow demographic: Midwestern and Southern protestant parents. Even in 2004, when he garnered more than 50% of the popular vote, nearly 75% of the voting age populace of the US did NOT vote for the man who became President. When you exercise your right to vote, you also send the clear message that your opinion must be considered by candidates, and you affect the course of future political disucssion.
Despite the promise of free elections and the lofty ideals of democracy, the facts are that American political participation lags noticeably behind the rest of the free world (most notably Western Europe and Japan). To blame our governmental shortcomings only on corrupt politicians and incompetent leaders is irresponsible, when We the People aren't doing our part. So, I encourage everyone to take a little time (just an hour or two in the course of several months) to learn a little about an issue or two that matters, and then translate that into a vote. One vote may or may not be the difference in the election, but your one voice is too precious to silence and ignore.
With that in mind, there are some candidates from the major parties taking strong and aggressive stands on important issues and encouraging Americans to participate in their government. One such candidate is Barack Obama (Democratic Junior Senator-Illinois) who recently participated in a "town hall" meeting that webcast live on Myspace and was rebroadcasted on MTV. MTV.com has posted these videos (21 4-5 minute conversations on different topics from the Senator). Below is a link to those videos, where you can learn more about Sen. Obama and his ideas for America. In the video linked, he explains a core principle: whether you agree with him or not, it's important to be part of the process. Thank you for your time reading this, and I'll see you at the polls!
Barack Obama in Iowa
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)