February 4th, 2008 by Eric
Last week, after the President’s State of the Union address, there was a photo taken of Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. She is reaching over either to shake his or Ted Kennedy’s hand. He turns away just as the picture is being taken, making it look as though he is rejecting her handshake.
But you know that already. The reason I know that you know that is because you are reading this blog which means that you are probably interested enough in world events that you turned on the tube sometime that week, and regardless of whether you were watching FOX, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, or Nickelodeon (OK, maybe not that one), you saw pundits discussing it, analyzing it, and doing whatever else they could do to it for nearly three days. It was Christmas in January for the media.
If you’re like me, you were more than a little irritated that this got so much press coverage. That 99% of voting-age Americans knew about the “handshake snub,” but hardly any could tell me about the differences in their health care plans, is enough to make me want to throw my 38″, 300-pound television through my window. But instead, I decided to even those numbers out, if only a little bit. So below are the health care plans of Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Take a minute to read them over.
But most importantly, VOTE! And when you do, base your decision on who you think has a better health care plan, who will strengthen America’s middle and lower classes, and who will improve our standing in the world. Don’t make it based on a picture of a handshake.
.
This pretty much sums up how I feel about the whole thing.
September 27th, 2007 by Eric
One of the things that bothers me most about our current political system, or at least many of our current politicians, is how little they ask of their constituents. We spend trillions on a war of choice, all while cutting taxes, especially for upper income households, without providing adequate equipment for our troops. We re-up a Farm Bill that over-subsidizes corn even though our government knows about its enormous negative impact on our environment, health, and economy. We are encouraged to indulge in huge vehicles and drive as much as we want in spite of the fact that gas prices are outrageous and we are destroying our environment with each firing of a piston.
I'm not one to wait for my government to tell me what to do and neither should you be. But it would be nice if a politician took a stance on an issue, even or especially one that is unpopular, because they knew it was right, rather than because it would get them reelected.
Politicians in other countries do it. Sometimes they even get reelected. In Norway, for instance, they not only require that their cars be more fuel efficient and ask that their citizens be more environmentally conscious, but, according to Reuters:
No car can be “green,” “clean” or “environmentally friendly,” according to some of the world’s strictest advertising guidelines set to enter into force in Norway next month.
“Cars cannot do anything good for the environment except less damage than others,” said Bente Oeverli, a senior official at the office of the state-run Consumer Ombudsman.
Well said, Bente.
So you can't even advertise a vehicle as “environmentally-friendly– in Norway. The article lists several more reasons; most of them even make sense. But the point is that they are taking action based on something that they believe to be right, rather than worrying about who they might upset.
So what can we do about it? Well, first, don't wait for your government to tell you to do the right thing. And next time someone holds an opinion different than you own, keep an open mind. If enough people do it, we might get some sensible progressive political solutions rather than just sycophantic pandering. Heck, you might even be able to tell one politician from another.
Photo by this Norwegian.
September 6th, 2007 by Matt
I’m done watching the Presidential debates. It’s not that I don’t care who wins, ’cause I do. I’m actually a bit obsessed with politics, even though we shy away from politicians on Progressive Wednesday. In fact, I’ll probably end up working on a campaign for a third party candidate. If I do, for the sake of full disclosure, I’ll let you know who and maybe even why. But here’s why I’m done with the debates: most of these folks are blow-hards and wannabes who’d have you and I believe that if we don’t watch our backs, well, the terrorists are gonna get us, and if we don’t elect them, well, then we’re not really watching our backs.
The problem with this ridiculous argument is two-fold:
- Superman they ain’t. Superman kicks serious tail. I know Superman, and none of them are Superman.
- They’d all like it if we kept this on the down-low, but here goes: you don’t need to be afraid of terrorism.
I’d say that the proof is in the pudding, but I don’t really dig on pudding. I’m a cheesecake kind of guy, so, for the sake of this argument, the proof’s in the cheesecake.
According to the Global Terrorism Database, which is connected to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, between September 12, 2001 and January 1, 2005, exactly five Americans died on U.S. soil as a result of terrorist attacks.
In other words, my sisters and brothers, terrorism isn’t really something we ought to be fearing during our daily lives. Consider some of these comparative statistics:
So put the golf clubs away when the cumulonimbus clouds come calling. Double-check your ladders, and help your octogenarian grandmother down the porch steps. Maybe consider a flu shot, or, I don’t know, washing your hands on occasion. For crying out loud, 11 people died in 2003 because of fireworks.
One last thing on terrorism, because I know folks might be thinking, Well, Mr. Zambito, what about 9/11? First, please, call me Matt. Second, I care deeply about the the tragedy of 9/11, because 2,356 people died, because it filled us with a gut-wrenching feeling of the unknown. That date and the images from that day will always remind us of a huge loss of innocent human life, and what can result from a tremendous act of cowardly, unprovoked violence. But just consider for a moment that about 3,000 people die every month from the flu. That’s a tragedy, too, and an easily preventable one at that.
What I’m getting at is that we needn’t fret thinking that the terrorists are going to “follow us home.” Odds are, even if they do (which they don’t seem to be doing), we’ll be safe because the vast majority of terrorist attacks result in zero fatalities. And if we demanded that our government spent more of our money and resources protecting our borders, our ports, our food and water sources, and increasing our global intelligence, well, then we’d be all the safer.
(Please Note: If you’re planning on serving me cheesecake (hint, hint), hold the cherries, okay?)
Make this your homepage 
Add this to your favorites