Questioning the tradition of Thanksgiving!

Today is Thanksgiving Day, a day celebrated primarily in Canada and the United States, although not on the same day. In the United States it is being celebrated today. Many Americans will have their traditional celebrations with lots of food and drinks and some might actually take the time to be thankful for their lives.

I take issue with two things on this day. Leading up to this day, there is this “slaughter fest” taking place, where about 46 million turkeys get slaughtered for the traditional Thanksgiving food. And then many people are thankful on this day because that’s what you’re supposed to do.

Now don’t get me wrong, I see all around me that people are being grateful on many other days of the year and I also take so many things for granted in my life if I don’t constantly make an effort to do exactly the opposite. Being grateful is a lifestyle! It’s not supposed to be something you just do on occasion whenever it suits you. The important thing about this lifestyle of gratefulness is that you live it and not pretend to be living it because it makes you a better person. For example declaring on the social media everything you are thankful for today. Yes, you might actually be feeling truly thankful for everything you mentioned, but the one thing that counts is that you make that feeling of true thankfulness a part of your everyday life. I know that people are very busy and don’t always have time to stop and be grateful for just a minute. But that’s why we should make it our lifestyle to be grateful. We wouldn’t have to take a minute out of everyday to be grateful, but it would be omnipresent!

I do realize that Thanksgiving is a tradition for lots of food, just like Christmas is a tradition for lots of presents etc. and people don’t tend to question traditions, yet I feel like I have to be critical about this kind of thing exactly because of that!

Just know that those who have clean water, a family, friends, had a normal childhood, are healthy, food in their fridge, roof over your head, and all materialistic things included, have these things usually 365 days a year! Make everyday into Thanksgiving! Because more than half of the world’s population has none, one or two of the above…

And now back to the first thing I take issue with on this day. Yes, thousands of animals are being slaughtered everyday for our consumption. But here is the problem. On this day we are supposed to just be thankful for everything in our lives, oh but please slaughter 46 million turkeys to help us celebrate our consumerism culture! The tradition of Thanksgiving nowadays is about the food. Giving thanks is what we do to make us feel better, because that’s what we were taught. The word I would use is hypocrisy.

I have absolutely no problem with traditions, in fact I am a big fan of traditions. But only if there is legitimacy behind a tradition, only if the tradition isn’t used to cover up another tradition.

I don’t worry about having ruined anyone’s Thanksgiving with this post, because if there is one thing that people don’t let you take away from them. it’s these kinds of traditions! The only thing I ask is that we all make an effort to turn gratefulness into a lifestyle and that maybe we all just try a turkey-free thanksgiving once!

Now get back to whatever it is you’re celebrating today and be grateful for having the possibility to do so!

Things happening after the election…

It’s been ten days since the election. Some Republicans are still in denial, some are simply acknowledging the defeat while refusing to understand why, some are accepting the defeat and are willing to work with Democrats and some are accepting the defeat while also realizing why they cannot get through to certain demographics.

My hope for the Republican Party is that they don’t self-distruct due to the extreme differences inside their party. Like I mentioned in my last post, being the Opposition in a Democracy is as great a responsibility as being the Ruling Party. In fact, Democracy can’t exist without an opposition in Government.

So here is what I have to say to everyone who actually believes that seceding from the Union is a good idea or a solution to any problem: Do some research and find out what it means to live in a Democracy! Most people won’t ever get the chance to experience living in a Democracy and you want to secede because the party that you identify yourself with didn’t win the election? What would you do if your party wins the next election but you wouldn’t be part of the United States anymore? Would you want back in? I don’t believe that this is the kind of patriotism that America so closely identifies itself with. If your values are really dear to you, then you will find the courage to continue fighting for what you believe in. The right to secede from a Union is a legitimate and important right that shouldn’t be played around with to make some political point!

The beauty and the curse in a Democracy is that the majority of the people decides for the whole country. Take it for what it is and don’t just choose the easiest way out!

Fox News has been saying that white people have become the minority in America, that the traditional America is no longer what it used to be. Well, what I learned about America in school is that it’s a “melting pot”. The traditional America is the America in which many different groups of people manage to peacefully live together and merge into a whole. There aren’t the white people and then all the others, no!

The fact that certain groups of people, such as minorities, are getting bigger and more influential, is nothing new to America. This has been the natural developement from the very beginning. So people at Fox News are actually right about this! They bring it across as a very negative thing, but then again they are part of the so-called ‘white people’ who have gone from being the majority in America to no longer being that.

The only advice I can give the people at Fox News is: Know your country, know where it came from, know how it became the country it is today!

To be continued…

The day after the election and my message to the Republican Party!

First of all I would like to congratulate President Obama for his victory on Tuesday night.And now, before I go any further, know this about me: I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. In politics, I support whoever shares my basic principles, values and hopes or comes the closest to sharing them.

In the country where I am allowed to vote, Switzerland, I don’t blindly vote for one party, but I look for whoever brings the best ideas, ideals and principles to the table. In America, as well as in Switzerland, to 60%- 70% I tend to agree with one party, but believe me when I say, that I know, recognise and respect a good principle or idea when I hear it, coming from really any party at all! Having said all of this, I will now make an attempt to explain my state of mind during election day, the day after and today (two days after).

My election day was probably the same as everyone elses in America with one exception. I had to stay up until 5 am to follow the news, when at 7 am I had to be at work (Switzerland is 6 hours ahead of the east cost). At 5 am I finally decided to go get 2 hours of sleep before having to be at work again, not knowing for sure who had won. My nerves had been on edge during the whole day and night. By 5 am I was a complete mess!

Before going to work I made sure to check for the final results and find out who would be the next President of the United States. Turning on my computer and going on the internet felt exactly the same way, as when I turned on my computer about a year ago to go check my results for some very important exams. It almost felt like my life depended on it. All nervous, sweaty and with some trouble breathing I finally saw that Obama had been re-elected!

Anyone who has been reading my blog knows that I criticise Obama for quite a few things he’s done over the last four years and that criticism is not about to end. But here is why this election was so personal and emotional to me. As a progressive thinking woman, my core conviction didn’t really give me a choice in this election. To me, this election was not about the economy. I don’t live in America at this point, so this might not be such a big surprise. This election to me was about a woman’s right to choose, my homosexual friends being able to marry who they love, young people like me who don’t come from wealthy families to have a faire chance at getting a college or university degree, campaign finance reform, immigration reform and last but not least about health care.

I took the health care system in Switzerland and Germany (where I’ve lived for the last 6 years) for granted until the whole fight over Obamacare began. And then I started to realise what it means to live in a country where your basic health care rights are not even up for debate!

Anyway. The day after the election I had a normal work day and that was tough. I couldn’t talk to anyone about it because no one I work with really knew about the election much less cared about it at all. I felt very emotional all day. And then in the evening I was finally able to go out for some victory drinks with friends from Romania and Texas and talk about everything I had been keeping in all day.

Today, two days after the election, reality has sunken back in. While I am still eternally grateful for the choice the majority of Americans made on Tuesday, I am also painfully aware of the fact that politics WILL continue as usual. Obama is still the polarizing African-American President he was for the last four years. Many people actually hate this man with a passion and that isn’t about to change either.

So here is a message from me, Clarissa Frankfurt, to the Republican Party and every Republican who is feeling devastated and disappointed after this election:

Prior to the formation of the conservative coalition, which helped realign the Democratic and Republican party ideologies in the mid-1960s, the party historically advocated classical liberalism, paleoconservatism, and progressivism. Many of the ideas and ideals that this party was founded on I appreciate very much. The Republican Party has been on the right side of history many times before, but you should know that you are no longer this party. You want to fight extremists over seas and yet you allowed for extremist to take over your party a few years ago. You should know that you are not only letting people like me down, but also your very own and by that I mean Republicans who do not share the extreme views of the Tea Party. It is your responsibility to separate yourselves from the extreme movement that is polarizing America. Please, find your way back to your own values! Do it for the sake of Democracy in your own country!

Let me just explain what I mean by that: The Republican Party is still in control of the House of Representatives and it shouldn’t be any other way. Because in a real Democracy a Government cannot be run by one party only. Probably the two most important aspects of a Democracy are the protection of minorities (religious, ethnical and yes, also political) and the Opposition in the Government. Your role as the Opposition in your Government is one that comes with great responsibility. It is to question the government of the day and hold them accountable to the public. America wouldn’t be half the Democracy if there wasn’t a strong Opposition. When I said before that being the Opposition is a responsibility, I ment that! What is obviously not meant by that is to make it impossible for the President to do his job. A serious Opposition cannot block everything they disagree with, otherwise Democracies all over the world wouldn’t even function. Obviously there is a difference in ideology. But if the Ruling Party and the Opposition take their responsibility serious everything that needs to get that can get done. Just to state the obvious: The Opposition will most of the time not have it their way and that doesn’t give them the right to make it impossible for the Ruling Party to govern the country. Because as a Democracy will have it, the Opposition will have it their way once they are elected to be the Ruling Party!!!

Some are not really influenced by it, others make their decisions based upon it: Race!

obama 2008Very often I make myself think back on November 4th, 2008, trying to remember what I felt when Obama was officially elected President of the United States.

The reason being, that what I felt at that very moment on that day had nothing to do with reality. It was more like a state of dreaming or wishful thinking, if you will! The first African-American had just been elected President of the United States and that was extraordinary! With all of its history, had America managed to overcome racism in order to set a good example in the world? Were things finally getting better for good? What was the meaning of all of this?

Blah blah blah…these were all the things going through my mind on that day combined with an indescribable feeling of happiness, joy, hope, optimism etc. In other words, I was quite overwhelmed!

For me, all these feelings and thoughts had nothing to do with Obama being a Democrat. To me, it was much bigger than politics! Like I said, Reality had nothing to do with it! Soon enough, it all became very clear. This President had the potential to divide the country more than any other President before, not because of his policies or because he is a Democrat, but simply because he is African-American!

Racism has been and always will be a part of America. But as irony will have it, electing the first African-American President of the United States actually brought racism back to the surface, when it had successfully been ignored or not dealt with for quite some time. It didn’t only bring it back to the surface, but it was like oxygen to a fire. Attacks started rolling in and extreme movements gained momentum. The President started to be criticized in a way that made it very suspicious from the very beginning to me.

Some attacks on the President were and are not just ordinary political attacks. Some were full-frontal-over-the-top-attacks, where I would find myself asking: huh???!…attacks where the President was not even given a basic human respect, but talked about like a piece of ****, figuratively!

race2We find ourselves in times where racism is just as present as ever before. Just as harmful as ever before and just as unjustifiable as ever before! It is however no longer as obvious and exercised as openly! While some racists (yes, I purposely say that to categorize those, who will vote against Obama just because he’s African-American) might have been sleeping for the election in 2008, they sure are all awake this time around!

To say that race is a factor in this or any election, is the understatement of all understatements! A small part in everyone is a “racist”. Everyone stereotypes based on race, even if only a little bit. It is human nature to detect differences in someone rather than similarities. But I’m not sure if this can be called racism, because it seems to me, that racism is a learned way of thinking!

There is one thing I still have to mention. As a candidate, Obama said Americans needed to reckon with race and with America’s original sin, slavery. But as the first African-American President, he has avoided mention of race almost entirely. Are we dealing with a double standard here?

The one very important example where the President mentioned race, was in the case of the death of Trayvon Martin. We know what happened after that. And that might just be why the President avoids mentioning race whenever possible!??

Whatever you may or may not take away from reading this article, there is one important thing I hope you’ll remember after reading this: Things would be looking very different for Obama in this election, if he wasn’t African-American. The rift between Democrats and Republicans wouldn’t be half as big, if Obama wasn’t African-American. Policies introduced by Obama during his first term would have had much broader acceptance, if he wasn’t African-American. We wouldn’t have as many filibusters in the Senate, if Obama wasn’t African-American etc…I think you get my point!

What about this so-called War On Women?

The term “War on Women” is a catchphrase used to describe all the legislatures that are seen as restricting reproductive rights, mainly through Republican Party initiatives.

To start off, here are some numbers for you: Alone in 2011, 1100 provisions restricting women’s reproductive rights were introduced by state legislatures across the United States. Only in the first quarter of 2012, 944 provisions were introduced in state legislatures, of which half would restrict access to abortion.

The World Health Organisation defines reproductive rights as follows: “Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.”

To name only a few examples of what these rights include: the right to legal or safe abortion, the right to birth control, the right to access quality reproductive healthcare, the right to education and access in order to make free and informed reproductive choices etc. etc. etc. Please note, that these rights are not only rights for women, but rights for couples and individuals and thereby also rights for men!

What does it mean to have a right? It means you have the choice whether or not to exercise that right. If you don’t like what a specific right permits you to do, then I say just don’t do it. If you have the freedom to be anti or pro abortion for example, what makes you think you can force your political or moral view on someone else by prohibiting them by law to exercise their part of the freedom?

I will know compare the abortion situation in Switzerland and America to try to make a point. Abortion in Switzerland is legal during the first trimester, upon condition of counseling, for women who state that they are in distress. It is also legal with medical indications – threat of severe physical or psychological damage to the woman – at any later time. Health insurance is compulsory for all people living in Switzerland and abortions are covered. Persons performing illegal abortions are subject to payment of a monetary penalty or imprisonment of up to five years. A woman who procures an illegal abortion is subject to a payment of a monetary penalty or imprisonment of up until three years.

Abortion in the United States has been legal in every state since the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. Roe established a “trimester” system, such that states were prohibited from banning abortion early in pregnancy but allowed to impose increasing restrictions or outright bans later in pregnancy. The health care coverage of abortion doesn’t even come close to what we have in Switzerland.

So far so good. But now to the current development of the abortion matter:

In Switzerland the tendency is for even more liberalisation. Initiatives we’ve had to vote on, that abortion not be covered by the health insurance anymore or even that abortions be banned all together, were declined by the swiss people with more than 70%.

In America, many states passed legislation in 2011 and 2012 requiring women to undergo government-mandated ultrasounds. Some states require women to look at the ultrasound or even listen to the heart beat. In some cases women are forced to undergo transvaginal ultrasounds. In February 2011, South Dakota state legislators considered a bill that would change that state’s definition of justifiable homicide to allow the killing of abortion providers. A Kansas bill passed March 2012 requires doctors to warn women seeking abortions that they are linked to breast cancer, a claim that has been refuted by the medical community. In February 2012, Republican Congressman Darrell Issa convened an all-male panel addressing contraceptive mandates for health insurers. The legislative policy initiative described as a War on Women has included a drive to eliminate state and federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Texas, Indiana and Kansas have passed legislation in an effort to defund the organization. Luckily though, a court has stepped in to protect Planned Parenthood funds in Indiana. If that could only serve as an example!

Needless to say, everything that’s happening in America right now around reproductive rights is very peculiar. I will say that I’m not a fan of the term “War on Women”. But when i hear men like Richard Mourdock or Todd Akin talk about women not being able to get pregnant from “legitimate rape”, or when rape does result in a pregnancy, that it was something God intended, I have to sit back and ask myself, if maybe there is something to the idea of this “War on Women”??

For me it’s clear, and all the women and yes, normal thinking men should realize that there’s something cooking here! Both men and women can be pro-life! And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But you cannot just apply “your truth” on everyone else’s lives, much less force others to abide by “your rules” by pushing for discriminatory legislation.

This brings me to this years presidential elections!

In a 1994 debate with Senator Ted Kennedy, Romney said: One of the great things about our nation … is that we’re each entitled to have strong personal beliefs, and we encourage other people to do the same. But as a nation, we recognize the right of all people to believe as they want and not to impose our beliefs on other people. I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law, and the right of a woman to make that choice, and my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign.

At the May 2007 Republican Presidential debate in South Carolina, Romney stated that “Roe v. Wade has gone to such an extent that we’ve cheapened the value of human life.” He has promised to nominate Supreme Court justices who would help overturn Roe v. Wade, allowing the states to individually decide on the legality of abortion. Throughout the 2012 presidential campaign, Romney vowed that he would eliminate all federal funding for Planned Parenthood if elected.

I personally find it very sad, that Romney’s position on this subject matter has changed from a progressive view to what i would call a regressive, unmodernised and outdated view. I truly believe that we owe it to all the men and women who have fought for the women of the current generations to have more opportunity, more rights and a better chance at equality than ever before, to not let everything they went through be in vain.

Women have no right to see themselves as victims here. Don’t feel sorry for yourselves! Stand up and say something! Take action! You’re not week or powerless and therefore don’t get to assume the role of victims. So many men with their heads on straight are fighting this fight with us. And if generations of women could be strong before us, so can we. Get motivated and see this as an opportunity that can’t be wasted! And don’t forget about the respectable men along the way that have been on the right side of history!

Second Presidential Debate

Obama and Romney don’t like each other at all!!! That’s obviously nothing new. But there was no hiding it during this debate. Emotions were running very high! When they started to talk about women and jobs and the contraception coverage, there were two moments i though was very interesting.

second debateAt one point Romney said: “I’d just note that I don’t believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not, and I don’t believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives.” A provision of Obamacare requires most insurance plans offered by employers to provide free birth control. Romney opposed the requirement and said that employers should be able to make the decision as to whether their female workers get contraceptive coverage. Now i leave it up to you as to whether or not that was a change of heart or an untrue statement on Romney’s part.

Shortly before this ocurred, the question was asked: “In what ways the candidates would “rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females only making 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?” When Romney immediately started to describe in detail how he had gone hunting for women candidates for senior positions in his Massachusetts administration instead of answering the question and telling people what he would do so that women can finally earn 100% of what their male counterparts earn, i thought it was embarrassing and even a bit offensive! Something about his almost frantic answer to this question seemed fishy to me.

I certainly expected more from Obama on this question. Yes, he mentioned the Lilly Ledbetter Act. But that bit of legislation only changes the statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination, but does nothing to ensure equal pay for women from the very beginning! He spoke of enforcing laws against gender discrimination, and he stressed the impact of the Affordable Care Act on women’s health and reproductive rights.

As a woman living in the 21st century, i expected more from him. He should have said more! And certainly needs to do a lot more if re-elected!

Last but not least the fact check frenzy! This is very simple. Anyone who’s calling out Candy Crowley for fact checking Romney on an obvious false statement should stop for just a minute and ask themselves when did it become a bad thing to call someone out on a lie?? Yes she is a monderater and fact checking is not her job. But in her defense, quite honestly, the moment you think that it is more important for Candy Crowley to just be a puppet in this theatre that we call debates, rather than caring about the viewers getting accurate information, you might want to check yourself right now!

Obviously, it isn’t the moderator’s job to take care of the fact checking, but Romney insisted and wasn’t very willing to move on until that issue was settled. Too bad for Romney that he had to insist on such an easy false fact, that probably every viewer was already fact checking in his/her mind as he/she was watching the debate. Romney’s broader point was accurate – for many days after the assault White House officials linked events to outrage over a video mocking Islam.

I am personally very glad that after this debate content can be discussed, rather than someone’s mental state or coffee consumption!

What do we take away from the first presidential debate?

Once the debate was over, I sat for about 10 minutes without moving much and just trying to figure out how I felt about what I had just seen. A lot of different thoughts were rushing through my mind and i genuinely, for more than 10 minutes, couldn’t figure out what it was that I felt.

first presidential debateWhat threw me off the most was the President’s debate performance. He seemed to be out of character and at times even uncomfortable. He lacked motivation and enthusiasm. Everything we saw in the President four years ago was missing in this debate. At times, I even felt like the President wasn’t taking this debate very seriously. I can’t blame him for that, since I personally don’t have a lot of respect for the three presidential debates. But I certainly didn’t expect this from the President.

The media started speculating immediately after the debate about what might have caused this poor performance. It was obvious that something wasn’t right and it sure wasn’t the altitude! Was he just not prepared? Was he thrown off by ‘Romney’s new personality’? Did he just plain not want to be there on his wedding anniversary? Or was this the same person we knew from 2008, but worn out completly from the last four years in Washington, robbed of his hope and enthusiasm for his country’s future? Has Washington managed to break this great man’s spirit?

The other very peculiar thing from the debate was Romney’s change in tone, somewhat change in personality and also change of heart on some matters. To be honest, I understand how someone who didn’t follow the campaigns very closely or at all, hearing Romney speak about his ideas and policies, would find him very appealing. And I don’t mean that because of the content, but because of the emotional appeal. The President did deliver content and layed out some of his policies for the viewers, but did so without any emotional appeal. And unfortunately, when someone doesn’t speak to our emotions, it is required of us to think more and follow more intensly in order to understand what is being said. We react to that by just tuning out.

Romney spoke like a true moderate conservative. For me there is one big problem here. I’ve been following both campaigns!!! Romney leaned so far rigth at times, that the thought of him possibly becoming the next President was directly connected with fright!

Now, we know that he wasn’t this hard core conservative back in Massachusetts that he was during his campaign, so maybe he’s just going back to what he personally believes in, instead of what the GOP was making him say before he officially had the republican nomination. This would be a very positive developement, but I have a hard time understanding how people can now trust in what this man is saying, since only a few months ago he was willing to lean so far right because it was more convenient. How do we know that he wouldn’t go back to that? How do we now know that this is what he actually believes in and stands for? While I know that many people won’t see it as an issue of trust or integrity, I most certainly see it as that!

I suppose the best thing we can take away from this first debate between Romney and Obama is, A LOT, if you’ve been following the campaigns and NOTHING REALLY, if you haven’t been following the campaigns, because in the second scenario you would now be terribly misinformed!!

Obama, the “more effective evil”, or really the best choice for progressive change?

Two days ago, I was made aware of a discussion two very smart people had during the time of the Democratic National Convention. One side argues, that Obama is only the “more effective evil” from two evils (Obama-Romney)! The other side argues, the Obama is the best choice for progressive change within the limits of the U.S political system! In this post i will therefore incorporating some of these views as well as mine!

obama01_16773717The points for which Obama was criticised that resonated the most with me were the facts that Obama introduced a law for preventive detention, enormously expanded the “drone-wars” and almost consistently breaks international law.

Now, make no mistake about the fact that Obama is a very cool guy with a fun and appealing personality, that he is a Democrat and yes, the first black President of America. He is, however, also the person that signed into law, that anybody and yes, that includes all the citizens from his own country, can be detained indefinitely without a right to a lawyer and without the right to a day in court, if you even have the faintest connection to anything that can be linked to “terrorism”. This includes what you might google out of curiosity, write about on blogs, or even just because you know someone who is being suspected etc.

He is also the same person that expanded on a policy initiated by his predecessor and now has an even longer list of targets, to be killed through drone strikes!

The legality of the use of drones and the national sovereignty of the countries, in which these attacks take place, is obviously in question here. But even worse, in April 2009, Pakistani terrorism researcher Amir Mir claimed that civilians constituted 98.14 percent of all deaths from CIA drone strikes in Pakistan, while Georgetown University professor Christine Fair stated, “Actually the drones are not killing innocent civilians.”

And now to the argument that Obama is the best choice for progressive change within the limits of the U.S political system. When we look at the health care reform, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (although the bill did not change the fact that women make 77 cents on the dollar that a man makes), the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Obama’s support of gay marriage etc., then this second argument can be answered in the affirmative. However, with all the positive things Obama has done inside his country and for his people, one thing that hasn’t changed while he’s been President, is the lack of interest of the American people in foreign affairs—or at least where U.S. bombs are currently falling.

Considering the influence America has all around the world and it’s President being called “the most powerful person in the world”, it would be a disaster to think that whatever happens outside of America’s borders is in any way separate from what happens on the inside. The world isn’t a safer place with Obama as President. It is just as dangerous and a war-stricken world as before, maybe even worse? When before, the public was purposely deceived about wars, now they don’t want you to know about it anymore at all and do it in secrecy. We don’t call it “drone war” for nothing. Any act of aggression towards a sovereign State is by international law qualified as A WAR. Except, this war is a secret one.

Obama may be the best choice for progressive change for his People, but for the rest of the world he sure is a very effective evil!

My wish is, that people see this President for what he is. Even if he’s to some people a much better choice than Romney and yes, Obama is the only choice for progressive change within the US borders in this election, he is also the man who went against everything the American Constitution stands for by introducing “preventive detention” into law and he has by definition and by moral standard committed war crimes and all the change and reform within his country and for his People cannot make up for that!

No doubt, Obama is a good person at heart. But the position he’s in and the money and people he is influenced by make it impossible for him to be more than just an ordinary President and he has to take responsibility for that!

The influence of the media on politics

What role does the media play in Politics? Or does the media simply entertain us for profit and ratings?

0,,15833467_401,00Informed voters are essential to a democracy and it can be difficult to tell, whether the media-saturated world ultimately serves to make us more or less informed. The danger of politics in an age of media is, that the media can give importance to things that in reality have little significance. And sometimes the stories that become big stories become so out of convenience rather than out of impact. The main goal is to draw viewers and readers and stories with conflict will do exactly that! So the media seek conflict where they can. In the end, drawing viewers takes precedence over informing them.

The media has always played a powerful role in politics. They have found their niche in today’s politics. Be it on talk shows, television or the internet, they have laid a foundation, built a platform from which to voice their social agenda and flex their political muscle. How much of that voice is quality content is still up for debate. One thing is for sure, if you want to succeed in politics, it will not hurt to have the media in your corner.

We all have to know that we can and should ask questions. We have the right to look at multiple sources. We also have to decide what’s important to us and get to those issues!

indexNow, to me it’s important to mention the social media exclusively in a few sentences, given the circumstances today. We’ve all read how Facebook and Twitter fueled the Arab Spring uprising and watched videos coming out of Syria on facebook. Sure, politicians have tapped social media to raise money etc. But to date, in America, nothing has happened that compares to what happened on Jan. 20, when a loosely organized campaign to stop PIPA and SOPA swept the Internet and shook the “power structure” of Washington.

A sleeping giant — the technology world — finally awoke! Without mentioning any further details, the point I want to make is, that when social media can become a tool to make ourselves heard even inside the most insulated political echo chambers, then we know that it is indeed a powerful force for change not just in Egypt and Tunisia but also right in America!

A countervailing force may finally be at play to balance the impact of the Supreme Court decision making it easy for multi-million dollar SuperPACs to anonymously raise funds and lob attack ads in campaigns. The public can now use social media to have its say.  These campaigns have been run before but not on the same scale and never to the same stunning effect.

Are presidential debates meaningless?

I suppose the answer to this question depends on which aspect of the debates we refer to. For example, do the debates help voters to make better informed decisions? Absolutely not! Everything we hear during these debates has been mentioned and talked about many times before. Thus, debates don’t have the purpose to inform voters, unlike its pretense.

debatesIn theory, presidential candidates directly debating in a national broadcast is a great idea. But there are a few problems in practice. The Presidential Debates are conducted by a private corporation, the Presidential Debate Commission is controlled by the Democratic AND Republican Party and that funding for the Presidential debates comes from major corporations and the taxpayer dollars.

On November 26, 1985, a memorandum was issued and signed by both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. It contains a bipartisan agreement which states:

It is our bipartisan view that the primary responsibility of each major political party is to educate and inform the American electorate of its fundamental philosophy and policies as well as its candidates’ positions on critical issues. One of the most effective means of fulfilling that responsibility is through nationally televised joint appearances conducted between the Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees of the two major political parties during general election campaigns. Therefore, to better fulfill our parties’ responsibilities for educating and informing the American public and to strengthen the role of political parties in the electoral process, it is our conclusion that future joint appearances should be principally and jointly sponsored and conducted by the Republican and Democratic National Committees.

Thus a conspiracy was set in place by the two major parties to prevent competition from any other parties or candidates outside the two major parties.

In fact what they did, was to rig the entire debate system in the favor of their two presidential candidates with all decisions concerning the debates, including format, participants, moderators, panelists, questions etc., made by the two parties and their candidates. It only takes one close look at the Memorandum to see that controlling and restricting information disseminated to the public, not educating or informing the public, was the primary purpose and goal of the bipartisan corporate Commission on Presidential Debates.

TV, of course, is the major factor in warping the process. As an emotional medium, television provides information inefficiently. Candidates are always advised by handlers to play it safe and stay “on message” with simplistic catchphrases or neatly repackaged minispeeches. It doesn’t matter much what question is asked; the candidate simply pulls up a previously rehearsed answer.

Sad to say, that the upcoming debates will likely be of little consequence. The electorate is currently poorly served by the debate venue, largely because candidates and their handlers make sure little debating actually occurs.