A Little to the Right

While browsing the blog-sphere, I came across this interesting blog by Dr. Martin Rundkvist: US Politics have no Left Wing. The key point I found here was the absurdity of American politics - to europeans, even our "liberals" are seen as conservative. We seek moderation, we do not promote change, not in the truest, most progressive sense. Only now are we seeing the possibility of a woman in office. Are we truly leading the world in the latest and greatest expression of democracy? And, are the democrats truly 'left,' or do they sway a little bit more to the right than we would like to think? This is what Dr. Martin has to say,

So, believe me, US politics don't have a Left. Looking at the presidential candidates, I am frankly appalled. None of them would be a viable politician in Sweden. They all support the death penalty, none advocates strict gun control and all make frequent mention of their religious beliefs in public. These are extremist stances. Not even the tiny Christian Democrat party mentions God publicly in Sweden, for fear of alienating the pragmatic rationalist majority.

Putting things in this context creates a drastic gap between our ideals about what it is to be democratic. In a sense, this forced me to think about the relativity of our politics. More and more, it seems we are standing more on the ground of loose myths about our country, instead of steady facts.

From a European perspective, US politics are an ongoing battle between the extreme Right and the middle Right. The Republican presidential candidates are really, really scary people in my view. So all of us in the world at large who live under the shadow of US political hegemony are holding our breaths, hoping that Clinton or Obama will make it into office. They're pretty bad, but the alternative would be unspeakably dreadful.

It is sad that it has come to this, but of the two, I'd say Ron Paul or Obama will have my vote. For one sound reason: integrity. The both of them have been pretty consistent, and do not play dirty politics like Clinton tends to. Not to mention the strange fact that two families have been running the country for the past 20 years: The Bushes and Clintons. This is rather more like a dynasty than a democracy. Just for the principle of it, I do not trust a small group on the top to simply pass around the presidency to the "privileged few." How come nobody is mentioning this?

Except for Mos Def on RealTime with Bill Maher. I think these questions shouldn't be considered absurd. If anything, let's explore the possibilities first, no? I do appreciate Bill Maher's work, but the one thing that gets to me is at times it seems he is too easily dismissive. At any rate, have a laugh and learn a lil':

"Hacking Democracy"

I just finished watching the HBO Documentary, Hacking Democracy. And, let me tell you, this video really made me wonder if our votes really count anymore. The video's premise is this: Do our votes really count? Are they being manipulated to sway elections in one direction or another? The voting machines themselves are owned by private companies that do not even allow those in charge of elections to understand the technology. They are supposed to be secretive, and only to be repaired and managed by the private companies. Yet, in this documentary, a number of individuals easily obtain program data from one of the larger corporations - Diebold. Diebold is harshly criticized for its negligence and conservative favoritism. Yet, as only the truly corrupt can do - it is not removed from its voting contract! Only the flawed machines were banned. The corruption within Diebold was scolded publicly, but embraced out of the spotlight. 

There are a variety of voting issues raised in this documentary. For instance, in areas with struggling economy and lower class citizens, very few polling machines were even given to them. One or two machines were expected to handle hundreds of voters, standing out in the rain for hours. This negligence is an issue all to itself. 

As a final blow to Diebold, a number of computer scientists manipulate Diebold electronics to rig a test election. The question was a matter of whether or not it could be hacked, and whether or not the hack could be detected.  Sure enough, it was successfully hacked, and sure enough, the hack was not detected! Diebold insisted that this was because it wasn't tested by their own technicians. Fortunately, this excuse does not hold sway, as a growing number of scholars and computer scientists have confirmed Diebold's nearly pathetic lack of security. This raises the very disturbing question for many citizens: How much do our votes count? In the 2004 presidential election, one district even managed to get negative votes! After a thorough analysis, it was determined that this was a very unusual problem that had never occurred before, and could only occur if someone was deliberately attempting to manipulate the votes. What's going on here? As a partial nihilist (I admit sometimes I really am), I'd say that this is nothing new. We know the government is corrupt, we know many Americans don't vote anymore, so is it such a surprise that private interests have begun to become more important than public?

Bringing this topic to the current presidential race, Kucinich has asked for a recount:

 Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, the most outspoken advocate in the Presidential field and in Congress for election integrity, paper-ballot elections, and campaign finance reform, has sent a letter to the New Hampshire Secretary of State asking for a recount of Tuesday's election because of "unexplained disparities between hand-counted ballots and machine-counted ballots."

Quoted on the issue, Kucinich says,

"I am not making this request in the expectation that a recount will significantly affect the number of votes that were cast on my behalf... Serious and credible reports, allegations, and rumors have surfaced in the past few days... It is imperative that these questions be addressed in the interests of public confidence in the integrity of the election process and the election machinery - not just in New Hampshire, but in every other state that conducts a primary election."

Kucinich raises a critical point that I feel may fall on deaf ears. The goals of those interest groups, those government officials are set and charged. They have their eyes on the prize, sitting comfortably in subtle thrones of power. Why would they want to give up their cushioned thrones of bureaucracy? This is something that the American people will need to continually keep tabs on, and consistently battle over. It's a fact of life that powers corrupts, no? It's something we all crave, yet I hope that our nation has not completely lost power in its ability to do checks and balances.

For anyone who's interested, here is an article describing Diebolds machines and elections:

"Elections can be stolen in under a minute with Diebold Machines"

You can watch the documentary in full here: HBO: Hacking Democracy

Or in parts 1-9, here: Hacking Democracy 1 of 9

The Presidential Debates - A Review

Hey everyone. Just finished watching the Republican and Democratic Debates in New Hampshire. The actual numbers aside, I'd like to just take a few minutes to review and summarize the general mentality of each party, what was said, what was not said, and who was left out. 

The Democratic Debate

To bring this up because it needs mentioning: Dennis Kucinich was excluded from this debate by ABC, raising a great deal of controversy and an official file of complaint by Kucinich. He argues that such an act is unfair, and not in the best interest of the people. I'm going to have to agree with him here - It's not surprise that ABC, like any other major news corporation acts with a bias and utilizes its power to hold sway on how an election, or for the moment this race, will turn out. It's a shame that Kucinich was excluded, as he missed valuable airtime and the chance to discuss his values with the American public. He has proven to be more than a worthy candidate in the previous debates. I guess we'll see how this ends up - but for now here is a video by Kucinich's news site concerning the ABC exclusion.

Moving along, and taking a look at the actual debate.... There were quite alot of accusations. Obama accused Hillary, Hillary accused Obama. Edwards made a call for a crusade against interest groups. They were kept in the spotlight for the majority of the debate. Issues centered around healthcare, terrorism and more worldcentric policies. This, generally speaking, is good. Unfortunately it seems alot of the debate was kept on trivial differences - each candidate attempting to one-up the other in, "I'm more progressive than you are." This is a major turn off to me, and perhaps my sharpest criticism. We want individuals who will can lay specific plans on the table without constant bickering with other candidates - an individual who can make his or her own stand without needing to attack others in desperation. Unfortunately, it seems one of the few who were able to do this - Kucinich, was excluded. There's more to my rant on Kucinich's exclusion, but I think that one deserves another blog. My apologies to the readers if they've heard enough. Please, feel free to skip that future blog.

Republican Debate

There is a stark contrast between this debate and the Democratic one. First off, I don't see the appeal in any of the candidates - except Ron Paul. A majority of the candidates agreed on some central issues: That Bush had the right idea, but didn't execute it completely correctly. They believe that the primary issues are security, border control and nostalgic principles of honor, duty, military background and loyalty. Candidates like Huckabee also seemed to support a strongly religious undertone.  One of the most shocking statements in this debates was Giuliani's, "We have the best health care system in the world." I nearly choked up a mouthful of chinese food at this point. It seems the majority of the candidates support sentimentality and ideals over realities and facts. If they merely looked at some of the facts, such as this one on digg.com : 10 Myths About Iraq - They might have something more valuable to say. I hope that the American people can see through these general myth-based beliefs and sentimentalities, and realize it takes true courage to embrace the issues of the modern age- and the responsibility to take on new perspectives. 

Republican Debate Part 1

Democratic Debate Part 1