Plutocracy

[catscradle]

My friend Nick teaches a Critical Thinking class at a community college. He asked the students one day if they though the media had a liberal bias. He got a few hands. He then asked if they thought it had a conservative bias. Again, just a few hands. So then he ask, okay, what do you think of the media then. One student answered, "It's biased in favor of the wealthy." When he asked the students if they thought this was correct the majority of them raised their hands.

I think this is a correct assessment. We live in a society governed by the rich, for the rich. If it were anything else, we wouldn't have this farce of a bi-party system where in whoever has the biggest war chest wins. Vonnegut said of Bush and Kerry, "These two Nordic, aristocratic multi-millionaires are virtually twins, and as unlike most of the rest of us as a couple of cross-eyed albinos." He was right, of course. And I think when you have elections that are decided by thin as thread margins it underscores the fact that for most people it's a toss of the coin because who the hell cares?

I read the transcripts for the Democrat debate the other day and I was appalled. The predetermined front runners were given the majority of the air time with crumbs thrown to the others. And frankly, I wasn't impressed with Hillary, Obama or John Edwards. Joe Biden? About rode in on an elephant and was declared the most impressive of the lot.

Dennis Kucinich? Ain't gonna win, so lets not give him airtime. That's fair, isn't it?

What we NEED to have is a fair playing field. Put caps on election funds, distribute the money fairly and give the candidates equal freaken time on air. If I don't know what Susie Q's platform is, how can I make the decision she's not worth my time? We're just putting the people up there that have the cash. You cannot tell me that well-connected C students from Yale (or insert ivy-league college of choice here) are the only folks out there worthy of the presidency. Aren't there any A students from Michigan State that will fit the bill?

Why aren't we demanding that third party candidates be allowed in the debates? The last time we had anything so revolutionary it was billionaire Ross Perot. Money again. When Ralph Nader attempted it we bitched it would split the vote. I don't buy that anymore. I think if Kerry were strong enough and made his case Nader wouldn't have been an issue. There is but one party out there and it is the party of Wealth. We are governed by a Plutocracy and unless we start turning to the Constitution and demanding it be the actual governing document we choose to live by, we're sunk as a democracy.

Scott Ritter, some of you might remember him in the days before the Iraq War started - he was a UN weapon's inspector that basically said the Bush administration was full of shit and then outlined quite accurately what would happen if we went to war (He's also a Republican by the way)- he wrote an excellent article on the current state of political affairs:

Repudiation, Not Impeachment

I would encourage everyone to read it. I can't say I always agree with Scott, but I always respect him. And in this article, I'd have to say I believe he's right on target with the civil duties of the average citizen.

In it he quotes Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness …when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Food for thought.