More spin than Karl Rove in a G Force machine

If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.

Check out the first segment of the most recent episode of the Media Project, from WAMC public radio.

In it, a listener (myself) asks the following:

Given the results of a recent Zogby poll in which 44 percent said they "believe the United States' system is broken and cannot be fixed by traditional two-party politics and elections," doesn't this discredit the corporate media's rationalization that they ignore "third party" candidates because no one is interested in them?

Listen to Times-Union editor Rex Smith's response to this. He claims that it's not the media's job to drum up support for smaller party and independent candidates. He doesn't say what IS the media's job though. I naively thought it was to provide the public the information they needed to make an informed choice at the ballot box. And Smith can't quite figure out why newspaper sales are tanking.

It's hard to listen to this segment without wanting to puke... or to laugh hysterically. It contains more spin than Karl Rove in a G Force machine.

Paul Newman

Paul Newman passed away on Friday from cancer. Though more famous for being an actor, Newman spent much of his time over the last two and a half decades as a philanthropist, particularly for charities related to sick kids.

Newman was a frequent visitor to this area because the Double H Hole in the Woods camp for seriously ill children that he co-founded in Lake Luzerne.

Please consider making a donation in his memory to Hole in the Woods camp.

Bipartisanship or democracy?

If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.

There may be a presidential debate tomorrow, if Republican candidate St. John decides to participate. But I won't watch it. It won't really help me make an informed decision because it will exclude most of the candidates.

There are at least five candidates that I know of with a mathematical chance of winning. By mathematical chance, I mean they are enough state ballots whose electoral vote totals combine to at least 270.

Those five candidates are St. John, Democrat Barack Obama, Libertarian Bob Barr, independent Ralph Nader and Green Cynthia McKinney. I strongly suspect there are at least one or two more. But of those 5-7 candidates, only 2 have been invited. Why?

The presidential debates used to be run by a non-partisan group called the League of Women Voters. The LWV still sponsors many debates at state, local and Congressional levels. In the mid-80s, the two-party Duopoly decided they wanted to seize control of the debates and decided to stop cooperating with the widely respected LWV. The League argued that a change in sponsorship that put control of the debate format in the hands of the two dominant parties would deprive voters of one of the only chances they have to see the candidates outside of their controlled campaign environment.

But the Duopoly persisted and created the the Presidential Debate Commission.

The commission is bipartisan entity created and controlled by the two corporate parties. Its two co-chairmen are former heads of the Democratic and Republican National Committees. Most of its members are former Democratic and Republican elected officials, appointees or money men.

Befitting its control of the two corporate parties, the debates have over several corporate sponsors.

So the corporate party-run and corporate-sponsored debate commission excludes candidates from non-corporate parties. The Democrat- and Republican-controlled commission excludes candidates who aren't Democrats and Republicans.

This isn't exactly shocking, but it is disgusting.

Imagine if baseball's rules on payrolls were written by the Red Sox and the Yankees.

The corporate debate commission has two objective criteria for which candidates they allow. The first is constitutional eligibility. The second is whether they have a mathematical chance of winning an electoral college majority, as I described above.

These objective criteria should be the only criteria.

But if this were it, then people might actually be exposed to the ideas of non-corporate candidates. And we can't have that.

So the bipartisan, not non-partisan, commission arbitrarily decides to restrict participation to candidates who have received the arbitrary figure of an average 15 percent support in five arbitrarily chosen polls.

The corporate media blackout on non-corporate candidates essentially prevents them from getting anywhere near 15 percent in the polls, unless they can buy their own media coverage. How can candidates like Nader, McKinney, Barr and others gain widespread support in the polls if citizens are never exposed to their ideas through the media?

Non-corporate candidates are being told that they won't be given a forum until they prove they are popular... which of course is almost impossible if they're never given a forum. The corporate candidates buy their forum with the huge campaign bribes they receive (from corporate America of course... see how it's all one giant circle).

Smaller party and independent candidates don't get these huge "donations" and are ignored by the media. So how can they effectively get their message across to the masses?

The only non-corporate party candidate ever admitted by this commission was Ross Perot, who bought the poll numbers with his own money.

When smaller party and independent candidates ARE given something close to a fair shake, they often do well. Green Matt Gonzalez (now Ralph Nader's running mate) came within a whisker of winning the runoff to become San Francisco's mayor after getting a fair amount of media coverage.

Independence Party candidate Jesse Ventura was at a few percent in the polls for Minnesota governor. But after his participation in the debates, which apparently were done fairly because he was invited, his numbers skyrocketed and he eventually won the election. At first, no one supported him because no one had heard anything about him. People don't support unknowns. But as soon as he participated in the debates and people were exposed to his ideas, they liked what they here.

This is democracy.

This is what Democrats and Republicans are desperately trying to prevent.

The Duopoly will use all kinds of excuses. They will say that huge debates will be unworkable. Canada's upcoming elections will feature a pair of debates that include five party leaders. The last mayoral election in my city had debates that also included five candidates. They sky hasn't fallen yet because of this.

The Duopoly will say people aren't interested in smaller party and independent candidates. This is a lie. According to the polls they venerate so much, 44 percent of those polled agree that "the United States' system is broken and cannot be fixed by traditional two-party politics and elections."

The Duopoly will say that these are nothing more than "fringe" candidates with whacky ideas. Of course, if they were that far on the extreme, the Duopoly would have nothing to fear in allowing their participation. If anything, the Democrat and Republican would look moderate by comparison. But in reality, they know that these candidates have some good ideas.

Basically, they think you're too stupid and unsophisticated to handle more than two choices at once.

The excuses presented by the two corporate parties are based in nothing more than self-interest. Their self-interest, not yours. Really accountability is the last thing they want.

This collusion is nothing less than crooked. This collusion is nothing less than the rape of our democracy. And I'm sorry to tell my well-intentioned, but sometimes blinkered liberal friends that the Democrats are just as guilty in this rape as the GOP. Even the major party names are fraudulent. The Democrats' leadership believes in plutocracy, not democracy. The Republicans' leadership believes in the empire, not the republic.

All debates should invite every candidate with a mathematical chance of winning. It's fair. It's democratic.

The viability of each candidate should be decided on election day by the voters, by no one else and at no other time.

Let people decide who they're interested in hearing and who they don't care about. Let the citizens hear everyone's ideas and make up their own minds. Don't let the closed shop make this decision for you.

There are other things that need to be done as well. The biggest being the reform of rigged electoral laws in many states. As The Post-Star put it in an editorial: Up until the 1880s in this country, there were no obstacles keeping candidates from getting on the ballot. But as third-party candidates racked up victories against the major political parties of the day, those parties, which were in power, introduced more and more stringent ballot requirements, such as requiring a large number of signatures or an entry fee to qualify.

These two things, combined with a sane campaign finance system, are essential to restoring American democracy.

But for now, it's fair to say that if Americans are presented 10 different brands of white bread on the supermarket shelf, then surely they deserve more than two presidential choices.

The corporate fleecing of America: it's not just for Washington anymore

If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.

Adirondack Almanack blog has a great editorial on corporate welfare and how the ingrateful recipients of it are now biting the hands that once fed it. So, for example, taxpayers in Ticonderoga, NY subsidized the destruction of main street locally-owned business by the corporate behemoth Wal-Mart only to see that corporate behemoth (most recent annual profit $3,500,000,000) raise holy heck about $30,000 in town taxes.

Save money? Live better? Not quite.

Support our volunteers

If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.

There are many ways to give service to your community by volunteerism. Be a mentor. Join the PTA. Help a literacy program. But in my opinion, two of the most noble and important activities are those of the volunteer firefighters and emergency medical technicians (EMTs).

The Post-Star had a good editorial on the importance of retaining volunteer firefighters.

I am a huge fan of, and have a great deal of respect for, volunteer firefighters and EMTs. These volunteers really are the backbone of many rural towns here in upstate New York and, no doubt, across the country. In an era when people are so mobile, it seems fewer and fewer people are connected to or really care about their communities... except when there's a problem that directly affects them. Volunteer fire companies and EMS's are truly a part of their community and comprise people who want to better the place where they live.

The thing that makes me particularly respect these two professions even more than the other noble forms of service is that volunteer firefighters and EMTs are saving people's lives and homes, and often risking their own lives and exposing themselves to horrific scenes... all in the knowledge that they won't receive a dime for what they choose to subject themselves to.

So if your local volunteer firefighters or EMTs hold a fundraiser, please help them out. They deserve your support.

Intentional irony or world's stupidest marketing plan?

Banner ad seen while logging into a website:

AT&T: Plays well with others (*-significant restrictions apply)

Multiparty democracy now!

If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.

Canada is going to have general elections next month. Apparently, the debates are going to include five national party leaders. Canadian debates regularly include four or more leaders and the sky hasn't fallen on northern democracy. In fact, their real multiparty democracy probably functions better than our version.

Last week, independent and smaller party candidates gathered in Washington in what was described a 'display of unity'.

Though from differing parts of the political spectrum, the candidates agreed on the following policy points:

Ending the Iraq war as quickly as possible.

Strengthening privacy and civil liberties.
Reducing the national debt.
Auditing the Federal Reserve.

All of which puts them on the opposite side of the two corporate parties. These real differences with the Establishment Talking Points are why they are all completely ignored by the corporate media.

With 44 percent of Americans believing that America's problems can't be fixed under the current two-party system, the excuse that the public 'isn't interested' in smaller party candidates no longer holds water, not that it ever did.

This editorial in the local daily explains some of the other barriers blocking 'third party' candidates. The biggest one being electoral laws rigged by the two corporate parties for their own benefit.

Up until the 1880s in this country, there were no obstacles keeping candidates from getting on the ballot. But as third-party candidates racked up victories against the major political parties of the day, those parties, which were in power, introduced more and more stringent ballot requirements, such as requiring a large number of signatures or an entry fee to qualify.

If America wanted to be a real multiparty democracy, it would eliminate these restrictions and make it easier for citizens to get involved in the political process. But the duopoly wants to protect its interests. And as long as liberals and people think they're progressive given the Democrats a free pass for not being democrats, this situation will never change.

Financial sanity burnt at altar of the gods of bipartisanship

If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.

Sens. Obama and McCain are both engaging in posturing over the Bush administration's repeated bailouts of failing corporations. As NPR reported, Obama has raised over $10 million in legalized campaign bribes from Wall Street while St. John has netted over $7 million. So excuse me if I don't buy into their faux populism.

St. John has called for a commission to study the problems. There is already a commission that's supposed to deal with some of these problems. It's called the Securities and Exchange Commission.

This is exactly what happens when corporations are given the protection of being backed by public (taxpayer) money without any restrictions whatsoever to protect the public interest. If you want the protection, accept regulation. If you don't want regulation, assume all the risk yourself. Pick your poison. These most gargantuan of corporate welfare handouts give the market the worst of both worlds: risk without responsibility.

I guess the 'free market' is free for the corporations, certainly not for the taxpayers.

But the meltdown in the insurance and financial sectors is not entirely the fault of Republicans. The deregulation that produced this risk without responsibility was the fruit of that most sainted of Washington concepts, one that is teflon to any and all criticism: (drum roll please) BIPARTISANSHIP.

In 1999, a bill was passed that completely gutted regulations on financial institutions. It was passed by a Republican Congress (with plenty of support in the Donkey Party) and signed by a Democratic president. Just read this CNN report from the time and count how many times you read some form of the word 'bipartisan.'

Many Americans think bipartisanship is automatically a panacea to any ill. In too many instances, it's merely a case of the two major parties colluding to protect the interests of their corporate sponsors. This is precisely why we need try multipartyism in the United States, like every other western democracy has.

"The bill is anti-consumer and anti-community," said one public figure quoted in that CNN report. "It will mean higher prices and fewer choices for low-, moderate- and middle-income families across the nation... Personal privacy will be virtually eliminated" under provisions allowing affiliated businesses of the newly merged companies to share customers' personal financial data as they offer one-stop shopping.

If we had multipartyism, then that public figure might've been a Congressman from a smaller, non-corporate party on the floor of the House. But since we don't have that, the public figure was consumer advocate (and 2008 presidential candidate) Ralph Nader.

This prediction was made in 1999. Does any of it ring true today?

But Nader, like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich or anyone else who goes against the corporate parties' consensus, was burnt at the altar of the gods of bipartisanship.