For the record, I opposed the Bush Stimulus despite the money that it put into my pocket. Those $165 borrowed billions were bad economics based on faulty reasoning- that citizens would immediately put that money back into the economy. Instead, the majority either put that money in a savings account or handed it back to the banking sector via debt payoff. (Personally, I used that money to pay for summer day care for my daughter, so I guess I was trying to do my “part.”) I opposed borrowing more money that my daughter will be stuck paying off for what amounted to little more than a “feel good” gesture that in the end felt like a sucker punch.

Similarly, I opposed the Bush Bail-out on the grounds that feeding the insatiable maw of banker largesse was exactly the wrong approach to stave off the housing mortgage crisis and credit crunch. A look at the secrecy of the recipients, their proven wasteful use of the money, and a determined lack of willingness by the banks to part with that cash infusion has proven to be one of the biggest transfer of wealth boondoggles of all time. Had the Bush government really wanted to help the economy and the struggling housing market, that $350+ billion could have been doled out to 1.4 million homeowners to the tune of $250,000 each with the stipulation that the money HAD to be used to pay down a mortgage. The result would have been that the banks still ended up with the cash but that the housing mortgage crisis would have been significantly lessened and consumer confidence in their own resources would have been somewhat restored. Even as housing prices crashed, individual equity could have retained some value and consumers wouldn’t be tightening their purse strings like a sphincter in a snowstorm. But that, as they say, is water under the bridge. The Bush plan didn’t do that, and the Bail-out has utterly failed.

So my lack of support for the first two economic miracle cures has proven well founded. Not only did they do nothing to help the real economy, not only did they line the pockets of unscrupulous business tycoons, not only did they drain the treasury, but the tacked on hundreds of billions of dollars to the debt-strapped backs of yet to be born Americans.

Now comes the biggest plan of all, the Obama Stimulus plan, that promises to create jobs while rebuilding our national infrastructure. And again, I have to say I am reticent to offer my support. Don’t get me wrong…I support Obama in general and have been more pleased so far than not with what he’s been putting forth. And as a matter of fact, infrastructure investment in this country is well over due in many areas. The questions I have aren’t whether the money is going to be well spent or whether the spending will invigorate the overall economy- in fact Obama is promising to be as transparent as Saran Wrap so far as the spending goes-but rather returning our economy to “normal” is really all that wise in the first place.

Consider the fact that our consumer economy is predicated on people buying more and more things that they probably don’t need and that will purposefully be obsolete in a few short years. An economy based primarily on consumption necessarily feeds upon itself until there is little left to consume. Yet our form of capitalism needs people to spend more and save less or it does not work. If John and Jane Doe don’t buy the latest widget, people don’t have jobs making widgets. Fewer people working means fewer people buying and around and around it goes. At some point though, the benefits of this kind of economy are outweighed by the damage wrought. The results of a voracious consumer economy is a depletion of resources, an increase in pollution and waste, a reliance on cheaper goods from abroad to keep the spending going, which pushes businesses abroad to keep costs low, which reduces homeland jobs…the cycle continues until the wheels fall off the cart-like they are doing now. One has to ask themselves…is this the best we can do?

For many, the answer is clearly “Yes.” But in the current light, our entire economy seems to resemble one big Ponzi scheme. Good for those at the top, bad for those down the pyramid. And simply shoveling massive amounts of taxpayer money only promises to continue the current scheme in perpetuity. Basically, what our leaders are saying is that in order to fix the broken system, we have to continue doing the things that made it break down in the first place. And I wonder if rebuilding a house of cards and pretending that the foundation is now made of better, thicker, stronger cards is really any fix at all.

I’ve looked over the specifics of the Obama Stimulus and recognize that the infrastructure goals are admirable and in many cases absolutely necessary to propel our nation into a new era of cleaner technology, more reliable energy and transmission, and modernized transportation, medical, and educational facilities. I understand that once begun, many people will be put back to work rebuilding these elements of our infrastructure. But what isn’t being said and what isn’t being advocated is for a fundamental change in the way government, business, and regular people look and think about economic issues. We can spend all this money and rebuild all these things and get people working again…but unless we change our underlying habits and concepts of economy, we’ll ultimately end right back where we are now…deep in debt with little to show for it.

I know that the efforts of the Bush Administration were dead wrong, primarily because Bush and the GOP refused to provide oversight of policies and spending and just wanted to transfer the nations wealth into the hands of bastard financiers and business cronies. Kudos to them. They succeeded admirably in their efforts. They also left us in the worst financial shape in generations.

Now I see the Obama team trying to fix the problem in a different way. We’re still going to borrow and spend a ton of money, but instead of just handing it over, we’ll be getting something back in the process- better public infrastructure. So it’s a step up the ladder in that regard. But it doesn’t really change the dynamics of our consumer capitalism, or the way politicians look at tax dollars.

I don’t have the answers to our problems, but I do have questions. To be fair, Obama himself understands that this massive borrowing and unprecedented infrastructure plan won’t turn the corner on the economy right away. We still face months or years of downward economic news. But he’s trying to help-not by giving the money to a few fatcats with the caveat that they should help out if they want to-but by investing the money in our country. It’s a small difference to be sure, but maybe just big enough to do the trick. At least, we can all hope so.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Democracy was supposed to change all that. Government by the people and so on. Maybe once-not anymore. The average citizen-politician died out when the major parties came to be, way back in the 19th century. National politics became a new elite class, with the rich funding their lapdogs and the lapdogs delivering to the rich, all so the lapdogs could feel powerful and the rich could keep getting richer. This is the rule, even though the exception of an average Joe breaking in isn’t unusual. Once inside though, Joe gets a new collar, and a new lapdog is born.

That’s not to say that populist revolts haven’t turned the reins of power over from one party to another. They have. Often. That’s the part of democracy that hasn’t really changed. Just because the politicians decided to warp the concept didn’t mean the people gave up their stake in the game. When one party goes too far, the public gives them a nudge out of first chair for a while. And when that happens, the people expect to be heard and for changes to be made.

In November 2006, American voters had another of their revolts, although this one was somewhat timid in scope. In turning the Congress over to the Democrats after a 12 year Republican leadership cycle, a majority of Americans said that the War in Iraq was their main concern. In clear voices, they told the Democrats that they could steer the ship, so long as they steered it out of Iraq. Democrats campaigned strongly on doing just that and were rewarded with an opportunity to prove themselves.

P.T. Barnum (or whomever really said it) is proved right again. In spades.

Six months into their new terms, Congressional Democrats have apparently thrown in the towel on Iraq. After talking tough about “no more blank checks for the president on Iraq” and saying that any more troop funding would have to include specific targets for ending the war, the Democrats in the Senate have caved in to a spoiled man-child who thinks negotiations consist of him stomping his feet and plugging his ears until everyone gets so fed up they say “Fine! Have it your way!” and leave the room.

First they sent a war funding bill that mandated troop withdrawal dates. The Crybaby in Chief vetoed it and the veto held. The Democrats should have simply stopped there and told the American people the truth-that the president would rather leave troops without funding than agree to take steps to end the war. Instead they once again got caught up in politics, playing themselves as defenders of the troops while backing away from anything that would demand for the war to end. What happened to the Democrats who said they’d end the war on the electin trail? Oh yeah…they got elected.

So now the Democrats have tossed out any restrictions on the president and offered him the funding he wants anyway. After only six months, they’ve waved the white flag. What a bunch of cowards.

And what is it they are afraid of? A president with an approval rating lower than liver and onions? An administration so wracked with scandal that people are tripping over themselves to plead the 5th? A public so tired of politicians and their bullshit that they’re actually giving up on the system? Or are they afraid of being unpopular, losing a few financiers, or maybe even getting called names on a blog somewhere? Or are they just afraid of losing their precious closeness to the ring of power?

In giving in to Bush on Iraq, Democrats have proven where their interests lie. With themselves. They are more afraid of having to defend against right-wing namecalling than do what is right, what they promised.

And all this in only six months. Shameful. So now they’re complicit too. By falling away so early in the game, the ruling Democrats are now accomplices in Bush’s futile war, willing partners you might say.

And if that isn’t enough to make you abandon the parties completely, I guess democracy really isn’t such a vibrant form of government after all.

(cross posted at Bring It On! )

According to the New York Times article out today:

“In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities.

This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts. ” (emphasis added)

Okay- so decisions that were once made by lifetime public servants with the experience of agency and business history to guide them in decision making, now we will have a political hack as final arbiter. Where once lifelong scientists were able to make decisions and regulations based on serious science, now we will have a Bush political appointee making sure that new regs don’t run afoul of the Bush doctrine of laissez-faire corporatism and anti-scientific bullshit.

This is not an improvement, despite White House spin to the contrary. Does anyone remember the FEMA fiasco of not so long ago? That is the result of placing political hacks in positions they have no experience being in. Has Katrina faded out of memory already? Or does Bush just hope that it has?

“The White House said the executive order was not meant to rein in any one agency. But business executives and consumer advocates said the administration was particularly concerned about rules and guidance issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. “

Right…anything that would prevent the President or his corporate benefactors from defiling the environment for momentary financial gain must be stopped. Get those hacks to work! Or heaven forbid that workers continue to have protection advocates looking out for them…that too costs business money. We simply can’t have these agencies running around protecting people without a compliant Congress to assure that no enforcement occurs, now can we?

Not if your name is Bush, we can’t.

I’ll grant that some lifelong bureaucrats can get out of control. I’ll grant that some government agency regulations can be onerous. But the solution for reform is not to fill these agencies with political hacks who have neither the beadth of experience or likely the passion to do the largely thankless work of protecting the public and the environment from the excesses of business. If the president really thought there was a problem with the way these agencies create and enforce regulations, which by the way are what their are designed to do- create rules to enforce the laws passed by Congress- then the best answer would have been to designate independent panels of non-partisan civilians who had the appropriate knowledge for that particular agency’s mandate. By tossing the door open, and to actually mandating political appointees to be the ‘gatekeeper’ of regulation, Bush has joined a not-so-distinguished list of politicians and political systems who can only maintain power and control by infiltrating the government at every level with political loyalists.

The Soviet Communist state had political officers all over the place. So did Hitler’s Germany. And the Republicans call Hugo Chavez’s new, near-total control of Venezuela’s government a power hungry ploy. My guess though is that they’ll praise Bush for his initiative in reining in government regulatory power. Funny how to some folks a duck is never a duck no matter how many times it goes quack.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

But suppose the Democrats do win enough seats to become the majority party again? Will they finally tackle some of the core problems that have led to one of the most corrupt governments in our nation’s history? Will they have the sense of duty and stewardship and character to attack and end some of the most perverse aspects of ‘business as usual’ politics? Will they muster the courage to enact real ethics reform, reestablish real oversight, and reclaim their own political independence from the executive branch of government?

I can only hope that they will. K Street, on the other hand, and its plethora of lobbyists are hoping not. Long an established money changing operation between corporations and the Republican party machine, clients of K Street Lobbyist Firms are increasingly showing up at fundraisers for Democrats and are increasing their financial contributions to those running on the Democratic ticket. And while this does strengthen the idea that Democrats are in a viable position to win in November, it also shows how quickly the sharks move from one food source to another. Big Business loves the Republican party, especially in it’s current incarnation, but they also know to hedge their bets, and are gearing up to grease the hands of the other side. The question is whether or not the Democrats really want to change the way Congress is malfunctioning or whether they just want to hold the reins of power for a while.

In spite of the fact that I despise the current Republican agenda, it’s associated hypocritical politicians and their scandals, and the ruinous effects their party ‘s administration has had on American prestige, when I vote for a Democrat this November, I expect them to buck the status quo with an enlarged sense of duty, courage, and stewardship. I expect them to change the disasterous course we’ve been set upon, to enact real ethics reform, to reestablish real accountability, and to reclaim their independence from the executive branch.

I expect a changed plan of action in Iraq through new legislation revising the AUMF orders that began the Iraqi debacle.

I expect a national clean elections act similar to those in Arizona and Maine, to permanently reduce the influence of K Street and it’s spawns.

I expect enactment of the Read The Bills Act, The One Bill At A Time Act, and The Write The Laws Act which will mandate that elected officials actually read what they vote on, write the laws up for a vote (as opposed to an aide or a corporate employee), and limit all laws to single topics, making it impossible for unrelated legislation to be inserted at the last minute.

I expect a plan to address a universal health care system, a plan to decrease the trade and federal deficits, and a plan to restore the American job market through increased educational opportunities or reformations.

I expect a mature approach to international problems instead of posturing, pouting, and pre-emptive warring.

I expect a Congress that will perform rigorous oversight on public policy and international relations while investigating the failures borne out of a decade of looking the other way. I expect them to hold responsible any and all parties who have broken laws or behaved in an unethical manner without creating a circus atmosphere.

And finally, I expect a Congress that is not steeped in partisanship or religious pandering or machismo. I expect rationality, critical thinking, and progressive problem solving.

Maybe I expect too much, but I don’t expect anything we don’t deserve from our government. And I won’t be giving a Democratically controlled Congress any slack if they fail to live up to my expectations. I’ll be voting to change the direction. I damn well expect the rudder to move.

This AP article, which is appearing in many newspapers across the nation today, shows how thousands of storm victims are being systematically screwed out of money they were led to believe would be paid out in case of damage to their homes. If ever there were a reason for government regulation of an industry, the insurance giants are giving us one. Unfortunately, there actually is quite a bit of regulation regarding insurance, but most of it favors the insurers instead of the insured.

The owners of the sagging, flood-stained home aren’t in. Above the front door, a banner explains their absence, and the lack of progress: “Allstate paid $10,113.34 on this house for storm damage.”

“I want people to drive by my home and decide for themselves: Could I repair this for $10,000?” asks Eric Moskau, the home’s exiled owner who had over $1.2 million in coverage on his 3,000-square-foot home.

Did you catch that? He had insurance in excess of $1.2 million. Clearly, any sane homeowner would think that they had taken adequate precaution against home damage. Apparently though, that isn’t the case.

The biggest slap in the face though isn’t just how these folks are being left high and dry now that the waters have receded, but in how they really had no choice but to buy into a system that works hard to avoid any obligations it has to its customers.

Insurance is mandated by law or lenders, or sometimes both. Insurance is something you don’t really have an option to buy or not buy, unless you pay for your home or car outright and in cash. You want a loan for a house, get insurance. You want to drive a car, get insurance. In theory, when mishaps occur, or worse, the insurance is there to help you pick up the pieces. You know…like a good neighbor and all that.

Not so, it seems.

Insurance modeling firm ISO estimates Louisiana had $24.3 billion in insured losses, but the state department of insurance says only $12.5 billion had been paid out as of the end of April.

And while insurance companies play semantic games when writing their policies or paying out on policies, politicians are finding ways to blame homeowners for not being prepared, saying in part that people weren’t taking advantage of flood insurance offered by the government. But this is just not true.

According to the article, in New Orleans, 2 out of 3 homes carried federal flood insurance up to the maximum amount of $250,000. But when the fed policy was paid out, often the money was paid to the bank and applied to the mortgage, a practice that is illegal except in cases where rebuilding efforts have been prohibited. By law, banks have to put that money into an escrow account to be used for repairs.

Of course, we all know that the insurance and banking/lending companies have plenty of money to burn on political contributions. It seems their little insurance policies (paid for politicians) work a whole lot better than the ones they offer their customers.

Oh, and for those who want to defend the insurance companies with claims of how they have such a tough time with all the pay-outs they do make, keep this in mind. In 2005, the insurance industry cleared $43 Billion in profits, despite the damage caused by the hurricane season. That’s up 11.7% over 2004 and is a 15 year high, according to the Insurance Information Institute.

The insurance industry is a government mandated and protected racket, not much better than the organized ‘protection’ racket. Shouldn’t we be demanding a RICO investigation on all these companies? I’ve written about this before, but the evidence makes me even more sure that something needs to change.

As we come in to the new hurricane storm season, homeowners in vulnerable areas should beware…should another Katrina hit your home area, pack fast and find a new community. You’ll never recoup your losses if the big one hits.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

my·o·pi·a (n.)
Lack of discernment or long-range perspective in thinking or planning.

Is it just me or have the American people fallen into a kind of stupor that allows them to accept the myopic worldview force fed to them on a daily basis by an incompetent and corrupt government and a complicit media establishment?

I mean really, what gives? When did our great experiment in Democracy, so cleverly envisioned by our founding forefathers, become little more than an exercise in futility disguised as representational government? At what point did people decide that the only thing that mattered was the here and now? When did we decide that our responsibility ended at the edge of our yard? And how did we get to this point?

These are the kinds of questions that fill my mind so often these days, especially as I attempt to enter the arena of politics. As I sit and listen to all the madness coming from the halls of power, I have a hard time reconciling the widespread lack of concern from average people with the seemingly obvious demise of our way of life, and by extension, the lives of our future descendants. It has been said that when Native American elders faced an important decision, they projected their decisions ahead seven generations. Clearly, even if this is an exaggeration, the people who first settled, then tamed this country, wanted their culture to persevere throughout time, and the decisions they made with regards to land and resource usage and inter-tribal relations were designed to mitigate future strife among themselves and their offspring. Sure, they were decimated by European colonialists. But that failure to endure in the face of superior weaponry and a completely different worldview does not diminish their contemplative ways or the success they had for thousands of years. Their way of life and of living offered them satisfaction and prosperity on their terms without destroying that opportunity for future generations. Had we not wiped them out and forced the remainder onto reservations, we could have learned a lot from their way of thinking. But perhaps I digress…

In truth, I already know the answers to some of the questions I posed earlier. I understand that for most people, simply staying ahead of the monthly bills and keeping the kids in school, fed, and on the straight and narrow takes up most of the available emotional and intellectual energy we have. I understand that in an increasingly complex world, the number of things happening make it impossible to focus too much on any specific governmental action or societal shift. I understand that before we can worry about what takes place outside our own personal borders, we must take care of ourselves. But at some point in our individual lives, we should be able to come to an understanding of sorts that the world extends beyond our own doorstep, and that what happens out in that world will eventually reach up to our own steps and change the way we live our own lives. It is the disconnect between that reality and our own actions that makes me scratch my head in wonder.

The dangers of narrow-mindedness are not as apparent as the symptoms of it: massive fiscal debt and the looming day of reckoning; population growth and resource exploitation; diminished standing among the nations of the world; diminished ability of the people to advance the social ladder; a turn away from knowledge towards mythology. These are the symptoms of a society looking down the tunnel and seeing only a sliver of light. We assume that the answer lies in a straight, predetermined path, when the fact is we are determining the path based on the symptoms. We are trying to solve new problems with old and tired solutions that solve little while elongating the problems. We are pushing off the effects of our troubles on to future generations to contend with. It is not something to be proud of.

This is especially true of our leadership, who seem almost completely to focus on the here and now, the me and mine of situations, with a specific goal of benefiting themselves or pursuing an agenda out of line with the average citizen. And we, the people, allow this to continue by perpetuating the myopia they project onto us with their sound bites and their hot button issues. We magnify their ineffectiveness by returning them to power time and time again. We buy into the stereotypes and labeling offered to us as discourse, and all the while, the liberties that have been given to us in the blood of our predecessors are slowly stripped away. And still, aside from a little bit of complaining or small-scale activism, we let it continue unabated and unchallenged, and we continue to enable them with our own lack of action.

Humanity rolls on through it all. The question of how much longer or in what state of being is unknown, but the projections of our current paths and mindsets are not. Any amount of reason and critical thinking will ascertain that our system is broken, is breaking more each day, and will soon be a mere shadow of its original self if we continue to stand down. Indeed, it is not just our social and governmental constructs that face serious upheaval, but our very planet itself is changing, and with it, so too will the plight of humanity change.

American ideals of freedom, equality, respect and the rule of law have proved themselves to be a sound and sustainable form of government, so long as the governed remain involved and so long as those charged with governing remember whom they stand for. But if our tendency to close our eyes to the wrongs around us continues we will soon find ourselves under another form of government, one not sought by our founders, but instead more like the one they fled from.

We have the power to end our myopia. We have the ability to change our course. We have the duty to our children to leave them with a world of hope and opportunity. But we can only do so if we step out of our cocoons once in a while and fight for what is ours. The Declaration of Independence says that what is ours is nothing more than life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But to attain these things, we must work together, and we must work for the betterment of our shared future.

The lines are being drawn in the sand. On one side stands greed and self-interest. On the other stands cooperation and opportunity for all. Where will you choose to stand?

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

The issue of free speech has been all over the media in recent weeks, arising from the outrage of the Muslim world in protest to some caricatures of their religious prophet. It has also been talked about in the wake of the NSA wiretapping scandals and the possible effects that those actions may have on the U.S. government’s critics to express their views free of government eavesdropping and without fear of possible sanctions against them. In both of these cases, the ability to exercise the freedom of speech has been called into question, but in different ways. In one case, the ability to exercise free speech is being questioned by religious fundamentalists who don’t offer such freedoms to their own people. In the other, the use of free speech is being chilled by abusive governmental policies that increasingly seem to be targeted at political opponents. However, despite the serious implications of both of these matters, the topic of this essay is not to address those matters. Instead, I would like to discuss the efforts of American corporations to abridge the newest form of free speech in the world…namely, the use of the internet to get and share information and opinions in a way never before possible.

The internet has historically been an open medium, allowing innovation to improve the availability of information and the communication of people everywhere. This factor has led to the rise of many new businesses, including online shopping, online advertising, and of course, the sharing of news, information, and opinion. The internet has created a huge financial opportunity for businesses and individuals alike, but now it seems that some of the biggest providers of internet access want to change the rules and corner all those profits for themselves. The effects of this effort will not only consolidate the money making possibilities of the internet into the hands of a few giant and wealthy corporations, it will also have a chilling effect on the newest form of free speech, blogging.

With the internet today, all someone has to do is open an online account with a service provider and the entire world wide web is available with a few keystrokes and mouse clicks. You simply pay your $10 or $20 or $40 each month, depending on the speed of your service, and you can get literally all the information on any subject that you want. The explosive growth of the new electronic medium has enabled people to find out the time of the latest movie, download coupons, pay their bills, file their taxes, and organize political positions, to name just a few. You pay your provider fee and the content is free. And it has worked wonderfully. The biggest service providers get a lot of money in monthly user fees. The biggest content providers get a lot of money from online advertisers. And all the users get whatever it is they need or want from the experience. But what has been great for consumers, writers, and the curious citizen hasn’t been great enough for the biggest service providers in the game. Now they want you to pay not just for the ability to access the net, but also for the content you receive.

In recent statements to both the press and the U.S. Congress, the biggest telecom companies in the country think they deserve even more money, and they are actively seeking to restrict internet usage by trying to impose usage fees to content providers for using the infrastructure of the internet to disseminate information. By arguing that they own the ‘nuts and bolts’ of the network, they say that they should be able charge anyone who uses the network a user fee.

Bellsouth’s William L. Smith told reporters that he would like the Internet to be turned into a “pay-for-performance marketplace” where his company would be allowed, for example, to charge Yahoo for the right to have its site load faster than Google. (Washington Post, December 1, 2005)

Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg says that web applications (like search engines, online video, VoIP telephone) need to “share the cost” of broadband – broadband that’s already been paid for by the consumer. “We have to make sure that they [application providers] don’t sit on our network and chew up bandwidth. We need to pay for the pipe.” (TechWeb News, January 5, 2006)

AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre said: “What they [Google, Vonage, and others] would like to do is to use my pipes free. But I ain’t going to let them do that….Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?” (Business Week, November 7, 2005)

and

“I think the content providers should be paying for the use of the network…. Now they might pass it on to their customers who are looking at a movie, for example. But that ought to be a cost of doing business for them. They shouldn’t get on [the network] and expect a free ride.” (Financial Times, January 30, 2006)

What these men are really saying is that the more money you have to give to them and their companies, the more your right will remain to use and access the internet as you do today. Want to access 100 hundred sites a day with a high-speed connection? No problem, so long as you have the cash to pay for each site you visit, each page you view, and the faster you want to look the more expensive it will be. Effectively, they are trying to shut the door on the average person to utilize the great tool of information and commerce that is the internet. And for those who are willing to shell out a few more bucks, they are even trying to kick your personal websites into the slow lane by restricting high-speed infrastructure to their own content companies or affiliates.

But it’s not just the service providers that are trying to change the way we use the net.

America Online and Yahoo, two of the nations largest e-mail providers are taking a shot at getting an “e-mail tax” enacted in an effort to squeeze more money out of people who seek to communicate and share information via e-mail.

From the New York Times:

America Online and Yahoo, two of the world’s largest providers of e-mail accounts, are about to start using a system that gives preferential treatment to messages from companies that pay from 1/4 of a cent to a penny each to have them delivered. The senders must promise to contact only people who have agreed to receive their messages, or risk being blocked entirely. The Internet companies say that this will help them identify legitimate mail and cut down on junk e-mail, identity-theft scams and other scourges that plague users of their services. They also stand to earn millions of dollars a year from the system if it is widely adopted.

One wonders how soon it will be before they start d
emanding non-commercial e-mails be charged fees as well.

The successful effects of these efforts will ultimately spell the end of internet usage as we know it, and will shut the door on the freedom of speech that an affordable, open, and largely free internet offers us all today. These are issues that don’t just affect political bloggers either, though those of us who fall into that category will probably be the first to feel the loss. Ultimately, everyone who uses the internet for anything will feel the squeeze from these greedy, and already incredibly wealthy corporations. And while they don’t yet realize it, these measures will also kill off the revenue streams that these businesses already enjoy. When average citizens can’t afford both access and content fees, they will use the internet less and less. Advertisers will move away because their audience will have dried up. When the advertisers go, so too do all the profits. In what is often the case with unbridled greed, these guys are loading the gun they will be shooting their foot with.

Fortunately, it hasn’t happened yet. And it is possible for you to make it known that you want this nonsense to end. This is not a partisan or political problem. It will affect everyone of us who uses the internet.

To let the Telecom service providers know how much you oppose their actions, sign this petition.

To tell AOL that they need to keep their sticky fingers off of our e-mail, sign this one.

Autocracy is defined as government by a single person having unlimited power. While it is not unheard of for autocratic rule to be somewhat benign, often the head of an autocratic government creates a cult of personality, turning the state of governmental affairs into a state of despotism. Under an autocracy, the average citizen has no say in the rules of the land, no recourse against injustice, and no chance to change the course of social or political life. Citizens under the thumb of an autocratic ruler are subject to the whims of the head of state, which creates an environment of uncertainty, suspicion, and fear. Occasionally, an autocratic ruler perpetuates an aura of fairness by establishing a group of citizen legislators who ostensibly have some say in the course of government, but in reality have little or no power to affect the decisions of the autocrat. The Roman government reverted to this form under Julius Caesar and continued in this manner until its downfall.

Democracy, on the other hand, embraces the concept of citizen rule and through its adherence to established laws, created in concert with the will and ideals of the citizenry, offers the average citizen an opportunity for recourse against governmental excesses. True democracy recognizes the need not only for compromise in creating public policy, but also establishes that no single person has a consolidated grip on the reins of power. In a democracy, there is no lifelong ruler, but a temporary head of state whose main task is to ensure that the laws of the land are upheld and that the ship of state maintains a course in tune with the will of the citizens. Unlike an autocracy, the democratically elected ruler must work with all the other elected legislators to ensure that social and political policies are benefiting the whole of the citizenry, regardless of their own personal preferences for particular courses of action. Whereas in an autocracy the ruler is subject to no laws or penalties at all, in a democracy the nominal head is bound by the same laws as all other citizens and subject to the same penalties if those laws are broken.

Autocracies are maintained by force of will, force of power, and a blind acceptance of the people that there is no other way available. Democracies are perpetuated by the acceptance of all people, including the elected leaders, that to revert to autocratic rule is harmful to everyone. Above all things, democracy is a state of mind, backed by the rule of law that endures so long as the people remain involved through the selection of their leaders and through vigilance that those leaders are held responsible to the laws of the land.

American democracy incorporates a third element to maintain our democracy, and that is the independent judiciary. Because the founding fathers of this country understood that power to rule others has a corrupting influence on human nature, they built in to our system of governing a system of courts that was independent of the legislative body so that those charged with creating the laws would be mindful of the penalties of breaking those laws. The courts of America were designed to be outside the legislative functions of government so that they could impartially decide when a law was broken, or had gone to far from the protections guaranteed in the Constitution. The courts were the tool that held the legislators in check.

In all aspects, the American democratic experiment is not a perfect way to govern, but it has been the fairest devised by humanity to date. Our tri-partite form of government has endured civil strife and foreign aggression for over 230 years without collapse not just because of the independence bred into the hearts and minds of the citizens, but also because of the acceptance of our elected leaders and appointed judges to adhere to the rule of law as it applies to all people. We have outlasted internal attacks on the system by rogue politicians because the majority of politicians and judges have ruled with reason and respect of the foundations of our government- foundations that place the well being and will of the people above that of those who sit in the chair of power. We have understood, almost inherently, that the average man will continue to thrive long after those temporarily in power have come and gone, and that the ideals of American freedom are greater than the whims of any ruler.

All that we hold dear and righteous regarding the rule of law and the limits of governmental power has come under assault with the advent and advancement of the Unitary Executive Theory.

Originally a concept for business structure, the Unitary Executive Theory holds that a single person has total authority over the course of action that will be followed. Any policy decisions are directed by that one person, as well as the right to interpret what a rule means or does not mean. Under Unitary Executive Theory, there are no checks to the power wielded by the one at the top of the ladder, no recourse for those underneath the executive, no decision that cannot be overridden or discarded or ignored. In short, the Unitary Executive is an autocrat in their domain. Any lesser policymakers, while given authority by the executive to create rules for people under them to abide by, can not force the executive towards any particular course of action. While this may be acceptable, and sometimes even necessary for the success of a business or corporation, it is antithetical to the democratic form of government. Yet it is being embraced by our president today, and upheld by acquiescence by the ruling majority party in Congress. And while the minority party and the citizens themselves deride such an abuse of power, the Unitary Executive Theory is embraced by several of the justices of the highest court of the land and a push is on to increase their numbers in an effort to solidify this usurpation of democracy.

Through an unprecedented use of so-called signing statements where the president interprets the laws of congress any way he sees fit, the rule of law is being subverted by an executive who seeks to consolidate power for himself and his potential successors. What results is an autocracy by default. It is an attempt to recreate an autocratic form of government where the head of state can choose which laws apply to him and which do not. It is ironic that the last autocrat to rule this country was also named George.

On the plus side, this attempt to destroy the ideals of democracy has not been firmly implanted just yet. But the time is coming when it may be too late to revert course without major internal upheaval. When a majority party controls both branches of legislation and is pushing the balance of the judiciary towards their side ideologically, and that ideology is to consolidate power under a Unitary Executive Theory, the American experiment is in grave danger of taking a turn back in time. The table is being set before us and an apathetical citizenry is being served a sour meal. But we can still reject this course of action.

In the coming election year, we have the power to change the face of the Congress and rebalance the state of our political class. We have the duty to revoke the power that is currently consolidated by a single party. It is up to you and me to make sure that America does not become an autocracy in democratic clothing.

This is the America they have brought to reality today:

Education is falling farther behind the rest of the world, including some third world countries. Science and math scores are at all time lows. Education costs are at all time highs. Cuts to student grant and loan programs for higher education leave many out of luck. The average reading comprehension ability among adults is judged to be at a sixth grade level.

Health care has become so expensive that many citizens go without, causing preventive care to be ignored at the peril of national health. Hospitals are overwhelmed with uninsured and illegal immigrants and are closing their doors. Seniors are having to go without vital medicine in the wake of a “new and improved” Medicare prescription benefit. The average bankruptcy is due not to reckless, wanton spending, but to unexpected, catastrophic medical costs.

Energy costs have skyrocketed, but energy providers and others in the energy industry have seen their profits explode. The average person has to choose between filling up the gas tank or buying new clothes for the kids. Home heating bills are even worse. Yet the answer from Congress is not to aggressively explore new energy resources, but to offer tax cuts to the industry as they attempt to gut wilderness areas in the quest for more non-renewable energy sources.

Employment is being sent overseas as companies seek to improve their bottom line at the expense of the people they want to buy their goods. For every middle wage job that leaves, a new Starbucks opens so net job loss is negligible. Net income is going way down though. And as inflation rises along with the federal interest rates, average Americans are being squeezed by the financiers and credit companies. Bankruptcy is also tougher to access for those in real need, but companies can shift their obligations like pensions and health care off on the government while receiving subsidies and bail-outs and tax cuts.

Prisons are expanding in both population and power as more citizens are targeted in the worthless war against pot users. Meanwhile, child rapists and convicted murders are paroled and let loose on an unsuspecting society to make way for the dangerous dopers. We have nicer prison complexes than schoolhouses, which is okay since so many will end up there now that they can’t get a good education or a good job anyhow.

Domestic security is a farce with our unsecured borders, unprotected ports and transportation systems, and concern with taking nail clippers away from the elderly and infants. Regular Americans are kept off of airplanes by a “no-fly” list while we look the other way as violent gang members sneak across the border. But at least the president is spying on average citizens to make sure they aren’t calling terrorists abroad. After all, better to monitor the phones than stop them at the border.

Our environment is being assaulted by corporations who continue to ignore regulations and get away with it. Reducing greenhouse gases is just too darn expensive. Ensuring that water is clean takes too much time, and besides, we soon won’t have any scientists to monitor this stuff anyhow.

On the foreign front, we’ve managed to piss off most of our former allies and made some new, duplicitous ones in the process. The “War on Terror” has been turned into a war on innocent foreign citizens while the real dangerous people are left to plan another battle for another day. And let’s not forget about the fact that we’ve hocked the future of the next two or three generations to foreign countries to pay for all of our misdeeds. The mortgage on America is held by everyone but us, and when the bill comes due, it will be our future generations who are left holding an empty purse.

Throw in an assault on the Constitution by a power hungry president and administration, fueled by a religious ideology and sense of American superiority that does not exist and the very tenets of freedom are on the block.

And what has your congressperson or senator done to prevent any of this? The Republican party in congress has created many of these program policies and championed them through couched as family values or moral certitudes. The Democrats have sat idly by and let it happen. Both want only to remain in power and get richer while the average citizen withers away. They are paper tigers and corrupt pawns of corporate hegemony and religious zealotry and neither will help us regain what used to be a given- namely, American freedom, prosperity, integrity, and pride.

Sure, some politicians are trying to do what is right for America and Americans, and by extension, the other people in this world. But the majority are careerist hacks, bent only on their ability to get power and keep power. They’ve made politics a game of partisan bickering without benefiting the taxpayers who keep them in office. They’ve turned us off on politics by their own ineptitude. They’ve made the job of governing so meaningless that we’ve stopped participating. And now they can do as they will, not to make life in this country better, but to keep the people out of the way.

So I ask you again, Why do you support a system and a politician who would sacrifice you and your children’s future freedom and peace? Is it because you believe the rhetoric you read in the paper or the sound bites you see on TV more than you believe what your own experience tells you? If I kick you in the head and tell you it doesn’t really hurt do you believe that too?

There is another way. In America we are allowed, no, we are required, to choose who will govern us. And when those who are in the chair of power do not do their duty, we are supposed to get rid of them. If the Democrats and the Republicans won’t take this country to a place it should be, a place where our tax dollars fund the people who pay them instead of the bureaucracy that has no common sense, then we must find people who will. We must choose to elect people who are like us. People who suffer the inanity that we all endure and want to change it. People who grow weary of the rhetoric and seek to speak the truth. People who will work towards a common goal of returning America to the land of freedom and fiscal sanity and lawful rationality that it was meant to be.

If the two party system has become so corrupt that it cannot right itself, and I fear that it has become just that corrupt, it is time to move away from it to an era of citizen legislators. Don’t be fooled into thinking that we need two parties to move America forward. They obviously have done nothing but move us backwards. We could do better without them, and our very way of life may require that we do just that.

There is something wrong with our government and the way it is run. I’m not just talking about the federal government, but our state and local governments too. Lacking common sense leadership, beholden to corporate interests and finances, cornered by special interests and threatened lawsuits, and muzzled by political party philosophies, our governments are about as responsive as a sea sponge and accountable to nothing. Overlapping regulations, agencies, and missions create an atmosphere of duplicity and waste while creating barriers between themselves and the people they purport to serve.

To make matters worse, the American public has become so distrustful of government that they distance themselves from it at every opportunity. With smaller percentages going to the polls, and an even smaller number actually knowing much about the candidates or propositions before them, government leaders are often picked according to who has the better sound bites, bigger budgets, and nicer hair. Such actions only serve to ensure that government will become less responsive to a public who largely ignores them, thus causing further estrangement by both parties, and on and on. The cycle perpetuates itself until it spins out of control. Propelled by its own inertia, an unchecked government moves backwards in history, becoming less responsive to the needs of its citizens and less representative of the people as a whole.

So what can we do about it? How can we retake government and make it accountable, efficient, and responsible? The biggest problem in government today stems directly from the political parties themselves. Although nothing in the Constitution requires or advocates it, our government is largely controlled by two main parties- the Republicans and the Democrats. There are numerous other small parties as well, but we’ll deal with “The Big Two.” The Democrat and Republican parties have created a divisive representational system, forcing constituents to choose a side. In an effort to gain members, each party portrays the other side as bad for America, bad for families, bad for you and me. Their messages have become so successful in fact, that the American people believe themselves to be split 50-50, creating gridlock and animosity of epic proportions. The parties’ successful attempt to make government look like a boxing match has the added benefit of distracting Americans from paying attention to what is really happening. While we’re all busy socking away at each other, our political parties have quietly carved up the country into “political safe havens,” where they can be sure of re-election, and thus less responsive. While we’ve been watching our tax dollars disappear, they have been securing fat cat deals for benevolent corporate donors and lining up lucrative post-public careers. And all the time, we’ve forgotten that government isn’t supposed to be a sport. Government is a public service, a public duty, and a public privilege.

Republicans and Democrats alike proclaim to have differences big enough to drive a truck through. Big Business vs. Pro-Labor. Tax and Spend vs. Fiscal Prudence. Law and Order vs. Nanny State. In truth though, the two parties have much more in common than they would have you believe. Their real goal is to consolidate power, not for the benefit of providing the public with better service, but for personal gain for their benefactors and themselves. They are both beholden to large corporate donors and labor unions, which, due to the bizarre nature of our campaign regulations, bankroll their ambitions to public office. These kinds of politicians may start out altruistically enough, but the minute they take their oath of office, there are but indentured servants, paying off a debt through favorable legislation, selective enforcement of regulations, and preferential treatment. They are at the mercy of party leaders, who in turn are being controlled by corporate and industry demands. Neither party has an interest in simplifying our government so that it can better serve the people. Neither party has an interest in fiscal responsibility. Neither party has a respect for the laws of this country, finding every loophole and exploiting every nuance. And neither party has respect for you, the taxpayer, the citizen, the American.

Government was created to provide certain basic needs of society. It provides public security. It regulates and enforces laws. It creates and regulates an economic base for business and labor. It provides some level of infrastructure. It defends the inherent rights of humanity, namely freedom of religion and thought and the chance for a happy life. Everything that our government does should fall into one of those main categories.

I think we all agree that we expect government to protect the integrity of our borders from attack and to defend our interior to its best ability. We expect government to fight for our interests abroad to further our safety as a country. We expect government to enact laws that apply to everyone and to enforce those laws equally. We agree that acts like murder, rape, theft, and assault, in all their many forms, should be illegal and punishable. We value the freedom to worship any religion we choose, to learn what we want to learn, to go where we want to go. And we expect our government to respect those freedoms and nourish them. We all want our children to grow up happy, in safe neighborhoods, and going to good schools. We all want to be able to provide for our families and give them something special now and then. We all want to enjoy good health and access to good health care. We have a lot more in common than the political parties would have you believe.

It is true that in finding our way to a common goal, we often come across many rivers that lead to the lake. The trick is in navigating the best stream at the right time. Unfortunately, our politicians aren’t even in the same boat. By focusing on their task of division, they try to get us to ignore that we have much in common. They want to keep us at odds so they muddy the waters by obscuring the true tasks of government. Instead, they highlight manufactured or sensationalized differences between “them and us.”

The only way to shake the grasp of a stagnant government is to abandon the parties en masse. A successful American government need not be dependant on artificial labels. Americans from both “sides” should re-register as independents, cast aside their party platforms and recognize candidates who use Common Sense. Choose leaders who shun labels and stand for principals we can agree on. We must understand that public service is a duty and an honor and choose leaders who believe that too. Only by denouncing the politics of partisanship can the business of government truly take place.

This would be a start in putting government back into the hands of the people. The very nature of democracy demands compromise before advance, and in this current political split, we need to not only abandon the parties individually, but abandon the politicians too. Doing anything less would prevent any meaningful reform. Look at the candidates, not their political affiliation. Don’t believe that party affiliation truly reflects who they are, or who you are either. Critically evaluate all candidates, especially independents, and find out where they stand on the issues. If no independents are on the ballot, find one and support them. Make politicians stand on their own feet and explain why they deserve the honor of repr
esenting our interests. Don’t let them hide behind boorish party talking points. To ensure that there will be plenty of non-affiliated candidates, encourage and support potential candidacies.

We must always remember that we do not owe it to politicians to keep them in office or to agree with their policies. Rather they owe it to us to defend our interests and to ensure that their policies are in line with our needs. We owe it to ourselves to make sure they deliver.

Update for 2006: As the administration continues it’s assault on the rule of law and erases the freedoms of American citizens, Democrats are finally attacking Bush, Cheney, and their administration. I wish them well in this endeavor. But I believe that even if they succeed in their efforts to spurn the administration, America is only safe from the worst abuses of political power. Even if Democrats regain control, American government is awash in corruption, unbridled pork spending, and tailor-made policies that ultimately do not benefit average citizens. Independent politicians could do the job of fighting irrational spending, inane programs, and failure bound policies if given the chance. At the very least, a healthy measure of independents could force the parties back to honest governance.