A Better Way of Electing a President

I have been thinking more about the election process. All the spending on ads seems wasteful to me, even if it is educating the public about the candidates. It seems more important for a candidate to create the impression of being able to be a good president than for them to actually be a good president. It is really similar to the "branding" process that companies use to get people to buy their products. They create an aura of goodness around their product, which (so I have heard) has more of an impact on sales than the quality of the product. Now, I tend to think this is a problem, and not a good way for our society to choose its leaders.
The real question is, what kind of system would work better than this one? Well, giving the discourse over picking candidates more of a direction would help. Something more substantial than those CNN debates, which seem more about talking points than debating the issues and trying to find practical solutions to the problems our society is facing. In fact, I think our leaders should have to prove their organizational and leadership abilities with more than their past. We could create a system of rites that the candidates have to complete to be eligible for the post. These rites would be designed to themselves strengthen our country and make things better. So, it would be a win-win... instead of deciding who rules us based on talking points, we would judge it based on their actions and effectiveness. Plus, all that campaign money would be siphoned into making our country better. The news agencies would be required to give equal coverage to all the candidate's activities, so they need not worry about advertising for their campaigns. They might need to advertise for the rites though, so that could be problematic.
Here are a few ideas i came up with while brainstorming. A "rite of development" which would be trying to improve a economically depressed town. A "rite of peace" which would be traveling to an opponent nation to try to increase ties. A "rite of poverty" which would require the candidate to fully live in poverty for a month. A "rite of leadership" which would involve coordinating a group of people to solve a problem. And you can design rites to address some of the major problems of the day, like the environment and inequality.
I think this would generally be a better way of judging the worth of a presidential candidate.

Well, with this and the last post, I think I am back up to the 1 post a week average.

Protesting Attire

I will try to post a couple times in the next week to keep my average at around 1 a week. I cant let bucky show me up with his posting rate.

I was surfing the internet and found a cool experiment that a couple of people preformed concerning dressing up for protests. Blogger doesnt seem to want to publish my link... the article is called "Protesting in Professional Attire: A Follow-Up." just google that and it will be one of the first few. it is on theseminal.com

Having dressed up for some protests, I believe that it is quite effective. People generally take you more seriously when you play to their stereotypes of serious people. Part of me wishes it wasnt so, and that everyone would be taken equally seriously when they are presenting their concerns. But if I can do something as simple as put on professional attire to make people take me seriously, I will certainly do so. Using symbols like that to one's advantage is an essential component to navigating the treacherous waters of the political and cultural landscape. Symbols have a power all their own, and they can be used to effectively bring certain topics to mind when the public is viewing a political activity.
For example, if I had been organizing the Port of Tacoma blockade, i think it would have worked better to dress up like American Revolutionary soldiers... and have old-timey flags and drums and such. That would evoke a very interesting dynamic in the minds of the viewing public. It would associate the blockade with the American struggle for freedom that most Americans associate with. It would give the impression that the blockaders were opposing something similar to the British tyranny that America rebelled against.
Dressing this way would also throw off the police who are trying to prevent/break-up the blockade. It is much harder for an American police officer to attack a group of people sporting the symbols they grew up associating with the goodness of their country, than it is for them to attack a group of people sporting no particular symbols, or symbols that the officer has associated with trouble (like certain types of clothing, chants, flags, and other typical peace movement symbols).

Anyway. Things have been good with me lately. I had some annoying flying adventures before the holidays, including almost having to spend the night in George H.W. Bush airport. But it has been really nice to see my family. I am preparing for more job application things, and thinking about what my future will hold. I have started reading "The Left Hand of God" by Michael Lerner, which has been a very excellent read so far.

Random Musings and Organizations Rant

Have you ever noticed how often politicians and other pundits will frame things as "war on" something. Like "war on terror" "war on poverty" "war on the middle class"... even that crazy "war on christmas" that was in the news a few years back. I wish we could frame struggling to do something in other terms than war.

I must say I miss new Daily Shows and Colbert Reports. I wish the media companies would concede that they make money off of internet showings of their tv shows, and give the writers their fair share of the ad revenue. It is the writers that create this media, so I see no reason why they should not get the benefits of their hard work.

I have been thinking more about Republics and Democracies. It is interesting how a Republic will willingly and overtly recognize the power of the people they govern, yet ignore what polls say is the overall belief of the society. They tend to listen to people who make the effort to contact and pressure them (like lobbyists). This power to influence is an inherent human power, and can be exercised by anyone... but it is possible to amplify this power. Organization is the primary method to achieve this. If you have a bunch of people working to push an opinion on any other group, their collective ability to do so is far greater than the sum of their uncoordinated individual abilities.
This means that the policy decisions of a representative in a Republic will always be slanted toward those who have the organizational abilities to amplify their power. This is true now, as it was back in the Roman Republic. Only now, we have large corporations that can mobilize tens of thousands of people... the people under employment in that organization. There is one hitch, however, the decision-making of the organization is what directs the amplified power toward a specific goal. So, if there are a bunch of people working for an organization, who have no ability to affect the general direction of the organization, they have no ability to direct where their power is being aimed.
I think this is why corporations have become so powerful, they are very large organizations with no accountability to those who compose the organization. They invest the power of all those people in a group of stock holders, a governing board, and/or CEO. These small groups are able to wield the power of the thousands working in the organization. However, they cannot wield it just as they please, they MUST, by law, wield it to make money. This means that the leaders in our most powerful organizations are bound, by the government, to make decisions that will only increase profits.
Such a weird system, if you ask me. But this is why lobbying has become such a problem. The government requires the most powerful organizations in our society to lobby it to increase their markets and profits, and for not to lobby it for any other purpose... no matter what the people in those organizations wish. The only solution to this, that I can see, would be to change corporate law to return the corporation back to what it was before the late 1800s... when corporations were only allowed to exist for the public good, as opposed to the profit of stockholders.

I think this is an important connection... and it also makes me wish that there was a large national organization that was supposed to act in the public good. Cause while the government is supposed to fulfill this role, it clearly doesnt, and it needs to be pressured to fulfill its role.
So we need to create a large organization to act for the public good.

What is the government?

I have been thinking about the concept of "the government." It is a tricky idea, because it has mutated into such an odd organization. It used to be, mainly, the forum for the public (or those appointed by the public) to make decisions about what needs to happen for the benefit of the entire public; a tool to enact those decisions; and a social space for conflict resolution. Hence, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. But, it has separated itself from the public and ceases to play this role in its entirety.
I have come to the conclusion that the government should literally be the public. It should not be this conceptual "other" that is has power over you. It should be the place you go to exercise your power. But how would one construct a government that is re-merged with its community?
I do not know the answer to that question, yet. I am certain it would look quite different from the government we have now, which gives off an aura of all-powerfulness and authority. It would embrace participatory democracy, certainly, but I am still trying to figure out the institutional organization. I have managed to narrow it down, though, to some needs and goals. The decision-making arm needs to be directly democratic, and have a vibrant and accessible public forum for the discussion of issues and problems. Every citizen should feel able to engage in these debates and input their opinion, while being able to directly act on their beliefs through regular referendums. I think we should elect ideas instead of people. Of course, necessary in this system would be a culture of participation and consensus. This would be harder to create than anything else.

In other news, I have not heard back from the PIRGs about whether I got the organizing job with them or not. I guess that probably means not. oh well. And sadly, the ac adapter cord for my laptop has stopped working, so I have had to order a new one of those. My laptop will be out of commission for the next week. I have been thinking about starting to look for day laborer jobs until I find a long-term job, so I will atleast be able to make alittle money to support myself. I will probably start that after I get back from Christmas.

Milk Madness

I heard in the news the other day that the government of Pennsylvania decided to ban hormone- and antibiotic-free labels on dairy products. The article Don't Cry Over Labeled Milk explains that agriculture officials banned this label because, according to them, it creates the false impression in the minds of the public that there is "good" and "bad" milk in terms of health and safety. I take exception to this ruling.
Injecting cows with antibiotics when they are not sick, and hormones is unnecessary and indeed kind of scary to think about. Anyone who has taken antibiotics could see from the warning labels that if a nursing mother takes antibiotics, they will be secreted in her milk. The same is true of cows. Quite frankly, I don't relish the idea of drinking milk that has antibiotics in it.
I also do not trust growth hormones. Canada and the EU have not approved them for use because of concerns about animal and public health.

I wonder how much of a hand Monsanto, the corporation that makes bovine growth hormones, had in this ruling? There are plenty of goods that are marketed to make one product seem better in some way than the same product produced by other companies. You don't see the government limiting how bottled water producers use the words "clean" and "fresh." Although, I believe that there are rules surrounding whether bottled water they can be described as "spring" or "drinking" or "mineral." But, you don't see the government saying "Labeling one bottle as spring instead of drinking makes it seem that one is good and one is bad." and then outlawing the use of that form of descriptive labeling.
This whole thing seems corrupt to me, like the agriculture officials were doing a favor for Monsanto at the public's expense.

Well, enough ranting for now.
I head an awesome quote from Thomas Merton, a Kentuckian Monk from the early part of the 20th century. He said, "In the end, it is the power of personal relationships that saves everything." There is so much wisdom in that. He was addressing social activists and peacemakers, cautioning against becoming too success oriented and losing sight of the value and truth behind their work. Sounds alot like an appeal for Christian "do not resist evil" and Buddhist "desireless action."
I have thought a great deal about the word resist in that quote from the Bible. I believe it has a different meaning than the way we use "resist" now. The way it was used in that quote would imply the application of anger and/or violence to confront evil. I do not believe it refers to non-cooperation or firm, non-violent, and good-natured confrontation of evil.

Internet's Down

The internet went down at my brother's place, where i have been staying the past couple weeks. So I had the pleasure to walk for half an hour down a hill to get to this lovely internet cafe in Berkeley. It really was a nice walk, even if it was a little rough on my knees. I have thought about taking the bus back up the hill, but I decided that I have the time to walk and the exercise would be good for me. I don't want to get into the habit of spending small amounts of money to make my life slightly easier.

Lately I have been wondering why giving to strangers has become so taboo in American society. I was sitting on the subway the other day, and there was an old man standing at the other end of the car. He was not fragile, he looked like he was in good health. His lady friend had managed to snag a seat next to a late 30s person. But, even though he was surrounded by younger people, no one offered him their seat. I wonder why no one near her thought to give up their seat for him. I would like to think that had I been on that side of the car I would have given him my seat. But I suppose I won't know until I get the opportunity. It is often hard to publically give when no one else is doing so.
Americans also seem reluctant to accept help. They say they don't want to be a bother, or they don't want to cause another hardship, which are good intentions. But I do not see helping someone else as a burden, I see it more as a lucky opportunity. Helping people is very rewarding for the person giving as well as the person receiving. Everyone ends up feeling better about their interaction. And I refuse to feel like others are indebted to me when I help them. I would rather they waited until they had the opportunity to help me, or someone else instead of endeavoring to "repay their debt." I don't even like framing it as a debt. Debt implies that you own someone something. Helping others should be done with no strings attached, and assuming that you owe something to someone who helps you is, in fact, doubting their generosity.

Also, everyone should check out my article "What is a Christian? Part One: Values are Practical"

Starting out

So, I figured I would give Blogging a try. We will see how it goes. I am going to try to post atleast once a week.

I watched the Democratic Debate on CNN tonight and I was struck by the difference between this years crop of candidates vs. 2004's candidates. These people are farther to the left and they are talking about important issues like health care, education, the war, corporate-power, and poverty. I like Kucinich best, he takes bold, principled stands on the issues, and I agree with most of his policies. If only the media was giving him more attention.
Obama comes in a close second. His policies aren't as good as Kucinich's, but he is smart and has not lived a sheltered life. I would vote for either with a pretty clear conscience.
Edwards has some good policies with poverty and unions, which is pretty good, but I don't trust him as much as I would trust Kucinich or Obama. And I am not a fan of Hilary. I think her policies won't be particularly effective. She is too much of an establishment candidate too. The others talk about corporate power, but I haven't heard that rhetoric from her.

I do think that whoever gets elected in 2008 will be a democrat, I don't think the republicans have a chance if they pick anyone other than Ron Paul. I do not think a pro-war candidate is viable. So, I think there is going to be a period of change after the 2008 election. I do think that we will have healthcare reform, environmental reform, energy policy reform, and education reform. But I think it probably won't be enough. A step in the right direction, sure, but not enough. Which is why we need to try to push the public discourse in this country toward better solutions and push the government toward these solutions too.

I have found it particularly interesting to see how each candidate tailor their statements to appeal to certain groups of people. They use terms that are popular on the left, like movement, progress, and social justice. Edwards has been using the corporate power rhetoric and Obama has been using rhetoric of change.

In other news... My move to San Francisco has been going pretty well. I have a second round interview with the PIRGs for an organizing job. I have found alot of good apartments on craigslist, so now I just have to start contacting the posters and deciding where it would be best to live. Unfortunately, this depends on how often I have to go into San Francisco. If I have to go every day than transportation costs would make it cheaper to live in the city. If I need to move around the Bay Area more often than transportation costs would make it cheaper to stay in the east bay. So much planning to do.