No requirement of truth

       A recent post hijacking got me thinking.  The "two parties" have done a perfect job of brainwashing America.  Ask someone to define a typical Republican and they would list them as being "Rich, white guys" at best.  Ask for the typical Democrat and you might hear talk of being "socialist".  Why do we believe this?

      "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." -H.L. Mencken-
     
        That's pretty much it isn't it?  We believe what we are being sold.  We see the advertisements and disregard the ones we don't agree with.  We see the ones we agree with and add those "facts" to our list of talking points.  Here is a fact for you.  Political speech has no requirement for truth.  That's right.  There is no such thing as false advertising, bait and switch, or breach of contract associated with political advertising.
       You may have heard the radio spots where one candidate (Beaubien) is claiming the other (McSweeney)  made comments about denying a woman's right to an abortion, (He did, but not in that context) then launches, without segue-way, into a quote, made by someone else, that is very inflammatory   The ad then states that McSweeney, being of the same party, clearly feels the same way.  If this were advertising it would be brought to court over this flagrant misstatement.  But political speech is exempted from the requirement of truth.
       McSweeny, of course, ran an ad defending himself and saying that Beaubien was just trying to cover up having voted for a tax increase.  I still don't see what one has to do with the other, and they both are lying.  Again, there is no requirement not to.
        See the idea is that the opposing party will just run an ad countering the claims of the first.  A great solution if there are only two, well-backed and very well-connected, parties.  Slander a green party, libertarian, or other "third party" candidate and they will just have to take it.  They don't have the money to run a counter ad.  That is a bit imbalanced isn't it?  If they were selling a product they would be brought to court over price-fixing, market-fixing, or collusion.
       So the "two parties" have a lock on the system, no requirement for truth, and a set of stereotypes they have sold the American people on, to such a degree that we automatically assume Romney to be an elitist, owned by big business, and Obama a gun-hating socialist.  Their voting records actually show those roles to be reversed.
       I would ask you to make sure you go vote your conscience, but you really can't.  Unless your candidate is the honest one, and clearly, the other guy is lying.  Sure, we'll go with that.

In January the sale of medical devices will be taxed.

        I have taken it on myself to write our senators in Illinois, about an upcoming vote to repeal a tax.  This tax will begin in January of next year.  It will tax the sale of medical devices.  The tax will be paid by the manufacturers.  Because apparently, if you are a lawmaker, you are either so daft, or so arrogant, that you don't realize the cost to hospitals will go up by the same 2.3% you have decided to tax the manufacturers.  I wonder how the hospitals will make that back?  Yes, folks, it is another indirect tax they are hoping we wont notice, or will blame the hospitals and  not Washington.  

       In a change of format, I will provide the text of the message I sent to our Senators.  The House has already voted 270-146 to repeal this tax so, for now, they are in the clear, on this issue.

Message below:

       I have already written on behalf of my company to you.  I am speaking now as a private citizen.  A 2.3% tax on the sale of medical devices, paid by the manufacturer, will only be added to the cost of the sale.  Hospitals, who can least afford it, and are currently being pressured by new regulations, an increase in the percentage of non-paying clients, and pressure from the insurance companies, (also caused by Washington), will end up paying this indirect tax.  This type of indirect tax should be made unlawful.  It is dishonest and insulting to our intelligence.  In this case it will also either cause the collapse of our healthcare infrastructure to accelerate, or the loss of even more U.S. manufacturing jobs.  I would say thanks for listening, but there is little chance you will ever directly see this. So to the staffer who does read this: please relay my profound displeasure over this tax.  I understand there is a vote coming, naturally after the November elections, to repeal this.  This unfair, unscrupulous, and frankly immoral tax should be repealed immediately, regardless of the winner of the Presidential election, or the political climate.  

End Message

       Here are some web pages that allow you to message the staffer who might eventually summarize what you have written into a thumbs-down.  (Or thumbs-up, you might want to pay more for healthcare.  I'm not you.  I don't know.)  At any rate, here is how to futilely attempt to have your voice heard.

http://www.kirk.senate.gov/?p=comment_on_legislation   For Mark Kirk

http://durbin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact              For Dick Durbin.

Feel free to copy-paste my message.  It might be taken to mean a level of organization, and maybe even scare them into doing their jobs for a change.  

Thanks for listening.

Full circle

       In the election year part of the political cycle I am reminded of the way history moves in circles.  There is a vicious cycle where one party is elected, halfway through they start to lose support, the other party takes over the Senate, House, or both.  Then that party loses the presidency.  Wash, rinse, repeat.  This may be a four year cycle, it may be 8, or longer, but it always repeats, just with the opposite party in control next time.
       Things always come full circle.  That is the heart of the problem isn't it.  Combine simple geometry with basic root cause analysis, and even a brain-damaged chimp will shortly realize that moving in circles is not progress.  As long as we continue the vicious cycle, as long as things come full circle, we cannot progress.  Progress, you see, is a line.  Not an arc, not a sine wave, not a line segment and not a tangent.  It is a line that stretches from before history, to beyond it.
       "So", I hear yo asking, "what can we do to fix this?"  Well it is simple.  Most things are, we just  complicate them as an excuse as to why we refuse to do them.  First: admit the parties currently in power do not represent Joe six-pack.  They also don't represent Joe dime-bag, or Joe Magnum-of-Champagne.  This is more than a failure of the media, the public, and the two party system.
       Also, I hate use of the term two-party system.  It comes from the two major parties, of course.  But more so; in global politics the western world is the first world.  The soviet bloc was the second world.  The two had modernity.  The "Third world" nations were those that refused to ally with either, and thus were more denied modernity.
       The implication of referring to another group as a "third party" is that they are inferior.  Funny, since normally they have the better ideas, and more honest candidates.  Also, as long as we have brought math into the picture, count the number of people running for president on your ballot when you are voting.  WAAAAYYYYYY more than three, right?
       Back to the fixing it part.  We need more people to get involved.  Theodore Roosevelt put it best.  "A vote is like a rifle.  It's usefulness depends upon the character of the user"  You can't fix it by shouting slogans, picketing, or backing someone who represents a single issue you believe in.  Nothing is solved by relying on talking points.  The world of sound-byte debating is killing real political discussion.  This is more than just bringing civility back to political debate, it is approaching things from the perspective of listening.
       Civility is not interrupting.  Civility is not yelling.  These are things that your parents should have pounded through your thick skull.  These are things that are the basics of society.
       Listening however, is accepting that the other side may have a point, and giving another point of view a chance before condemning it.  It involves thinking.  Listening and thinking are what are missing from the American political scene.  Two tenets of leadership.  All we are left with is action.  Action without thought or knowledge is at best wasteful, at worst harmful, and always leads you back where you started.  A point we arrive at every election year.  (back to top).