Political Games--Part 1

Being a news junkie, I get my news from several sources. The majority of the news is political. We are “privileged” to have so much information about our government and the people we have “elected” to serve us.

If I could use some image using mere words and fonts to express dripping sarcasm, I would have done so for the previous two words in quotes.

The particular information that I get from the constant barrage of news has shown me what a game our government has become.

That’s right. Our elected representatives, with few exceptions, are playing a game with our lives, our towns, our money.

And this is perfectly okay with all of us. Fact is, we’re so used to hearing about the maneuvering that takes place in Washington that we don’t think it strange.

We should not blindly accept the current processes in government just because that is how things are done.

For example, when the president nominates an individual to fill a cabinet post, that person has to receive a certain number of votes from both houses of Congress to be confirmed in that position. This is part of the checks and balances in our government.

However, notice that the person many times must face rigorous questioning from Congress. Still all good. Still a part of the checks and balances. But pay close attention to the news media coverage and to the final vote. The news usually will report on the likelihood of whether the person will be confirmed and they do this from speaking with people in the know—people within the circles of Congress. This reporting takes place either before or during the questioning. So, unless the media is getting false information from those insiders, then most of the representatives have already made a decision about their confirmation vote. This makes me ask, why bother spending taxpayer money on the questioning process? Why not go straight for the vote? If the outcome has already been decided, what is gained from the questioning?

This makes me think that either the representatives really want to get good information to the public about the nominee or it’s a bunch of political posturing and political theatre. The members of Congress want to appear tough to each other and to their constituents. And what part of governing does ‘appearing tough’ serve?

It does not serve any part of governing—it serves the political interests of the representative.

Of course, we are not totally defenseless against this part of the game. The news media may not report this, but the voting record of all representatives is public information. If we want to take back the government, or at least give it to someone whom we think won’t play games, then we have that opportunity at the voting booth. Even before the next election, we have the right to contact the office of the representative and ask why she or he voted a certain way on any vote.

Sadly, two huge human obstacles get in the way. One is the fact that regardless of wanting our government to work without political ambition, it has functioned this way for so long, it is a large beast that would be hard to tame. And secondly, though we have the right and ability to question our representatives now and at election time, the general public is too apathetic to do so.

Stupid Geeks

Over time, I’ve heard many say, “I’m not really smart, but I have common sense.” I completely agree that ‘book-learnin’ does not necessarily assume good decision-making abilities.
But it amazes me when otherwise smart people do something really stupid, especially when the stupid act is done in their own field of study.

For example, I have known of a nurse who smoked while pregnant. Or I hear in the news of techno geeks (others in my field) who don’t think about security when using digital media or communications.

Recently, an MP3 player bought at a thrift shop had Unites States military data on it. Luckily, it was not data that could threaten the security of the country or our service personnel.
But I know exactly how this could happen. You see, geeks love to try stuff—stuff as in apps they have never seen before. When a new app is released, even if the computer geek has no use for it at the moment, she will get the app and give it a run-through.

When controlled, this mentality is good. It ensures the public gets software and gadgets that work as they are supposed to work.

However stupidity enters the equation when the geek finds an app that is supposed to do something that the geek didn’t know it could do. Then that personality of testing the app kicks in. However the geek needs some real world method to test the app. And let’s say the app is, oh I don’t know, the ability to store raw data such as text on an MP3 player.

So the geek, who happens to be working for a branch of the US government, has a few hundred lines of text of service personnel data lying nearby, and he thinks, “hey this will be a good test. Why don’t I drop this text onto the MP3 player data app just to watch it work and get my ‘technology is cool’ fix for the day?”

But I forgot to mention the other part of the geek mindset that is important. Geeks think they do not make mistakes. Non-geeks live with a certain, healthy amount of fear when they are around computers. Geeks do not have this fear. This is a bad thing.

So our government-paid techno geek drops the confidential military info onto the app, knowing full well that he needs to delete it when he is done playing—sorry, testing and debugging.

However, immediately after he watched the app perform, and made a mental note of how he would have done it slightly differently and of course better, he gets a phone call that someone in accounting needs help understanding the difference between webmail and email downloaded to a local computer. He shuts down all of his systems and heads off to once again save the day with his wizardry and guruness, and of course stops to lecture everyone in accounting about using pet names for their passwords.

He gets back to his desk, sees his MP3 player there and wonders why he has not sprung for the nicer one and decides to see what he can get for it at the thrift store and then head home to buy the better one online.

Well, you can see how book-learnin’ does not equate with common sense.

The People vs The Politicians

Please, someone, tell me that someone, anyone has a problem with our elected officials constantly playing politics instead of governing. If you follow the main stream media, notice that the majority of the coverage about politicians and our legislative process focuses on who can make deals with whom and how a certain deal will benefit the party or the politician. And the media seems just fine with this.

Most pundits from the major outlets do not question this thinking. Even bloggers and the so-called underground media say little about this.

The problem is that we have built a sub-culture of politicians. Many of them have re-election as their main goal. Their everyday actions are centered around what they should or should not do in any given instance based on how it will affect their chances for re-election.

It is often reported that a member of Congress voted a particular way on a bill because he or she was making a deal (or making good on a previous promise) with another member. Wait. I thought our elected officials should be voting based on what is best for their constituents.

Of course, if asked, the politician will always tell you that they did consider the people when voting. Well, if that were the case, then political lobbying would not work. It obviously does work, or the corporations would not continue paying lobbyists to influence votes.

In the latest mess in Congress, the Democratic majority has promised to block the appointment of Roland Burris due to the so-called "taint" of the indicted Governor of Illinois. One analyst said the majority fears losing that Senate seat in the next election because the people will not want to vote for the 'tainted' appointee.

So they fear losing the Senate seat to a Republican. This would take one seat away from their majority (and they need every possible seat to maintain the majority.) And so losing the majority means the Republicans will have the power in Congress.

But doesn't all of that assume that they are positive that the 'good' laws come from Democrats and the 'bad' laws from Republicans? And I say this even though I prefer the Democrats usually.

Again--where are the 'people' in all of this? They are not considering the credentials of Roland Burris at all. He could possibly be the best qualified to serve the people of Illinois. But that is not even a consideration.

There are numerous other cases in which our elected officials choose party and politics over what is right.

And I think this is wrong.

Being a news junkie in this era when news is available 24 hours a day is surprisingly difficult. Let me rephrase that. Being a news junkie with a brain in these times is difficult.

The problem lies in the fact that the news outlets have to make money. To make money, they have to sell advertising. To sell advertising they have to convince the advertisers that someone is watching. This means they have to get good ratings. Ratings equals advertisers equals money.

In order to get good ratings, the news companies have to keep big stories in front of people. This creates a new problem because on some days, there are not any big stories. But this does not mean they cannot fight for those ratings that they still need.

So when the big news does not exist, they create it. So we are back to my problem of being a news junkie with a brain. I want news, but I want news that is actually news, not some over-hyped, over-used and over-analyzed story that the cable hosts are delivering as though it is humans stepping foot on Mars.

The current over-cooked story is that of whether Caroline Kennedy is qualified to be a United States Senator. CNN's Roland Martin correctly stated the actual, constitutional requirements to be a US Senator. You, know, silly, unimportant things like minimum age and citizenship of the state you wish to represent, and...and...wait, there has to be more than that, right. Well, um, no. That's it.

But yet pundits abound with opinions about whether she is "qualified." Also most political pundits have a tone in their writing that states they hold the object of their piece in total, disgusted contempt.

After a while, this type of venom is hard to digest. But since I am a news junkie, I have to get my fix. However because the reporting quality is so bad, I switch the channel or look for another news site or blog to read.

Once in awhile I will find someone with sanity--usually not the interviewer but rather an interviewee--who states what I have thought all along. In the case of Ms. Kennedy, one analyst correctly stated that all of the media's opinions really do not matter in this issue. In this instance, the vacant senate seat will be chosen by the governor of New York, not by election. And it was quickly stated that the governor probably did not care about the press' opinions on the issue.

So once again, this is much ado about nothing. After this is settled, the press will move on to the next big story, whether real or contrived, and news junkies like me will watch until we turn away in disgust, knowing that we are a pawn in the 24-hour-a-day news game.

Passion for the leader

Though I have always held a strong distaste for politicians and the political process in this country, I watched with guarded hope (positive pessimism?) that this presidential election would be different. Though it began like all others--it ended very differently.

I was pleasantly surprised to learn that Americans finally had had enough of the staus quo. Finally, enough people were hurting in one way or another that more of the masses decided to speak with a vote than in recent years.

I have also been amazed at the reaction both within this country and from around the globe. For years I have seen the passion of the population in the developing world after an election. The raw emotion that is exuded by the citizens only because a new leader was chosen was always mystifying to me. I could not grasp how anyone could feel so strongly about a leader of a country.

It's occurred to me now that is exactly how so many Americans feel.

Maybe I have never seen this before because we have not had anyone to feel that good about. Oh, sure, there have been some elected officials that I thought were better than others. But for the most part, the top leaders in our country have always been priveledged white men.

And now, in a country in which only 140 years ago, blacks were not citizens, (and by some statutes, were not even fully human) we now have a black man as the next leader. But it is more than just the color of his skin or his background that excites me.

I think Barack Obama understands the common person. He is not from a wealthy family. He did not have accolades handed to him just because of a birthright. Obama worked for everything he has accomplished.

More than that, he has worked to better the community around him. And I firmly believe he will work to better our country.

The medicine

On goes the daily, sometimes hourly reminders to myself that I take some medicine every day. I often watch someone on TV or see a person in a store that is around my age. Many times I think, why can't I be more like that person? That person lives his life without having to take a drug just to get through the day.

Whenever I utter or think such a blanket statement, the sentiments of my contrary friend who is always the voice of reason come into my head.

"How do you know that person is not on some kind of drug to get through his day? Maybe he is masking it, just like you. The casual observer would not know that you have to take medicine to get through the day."

And that is the truth. My medicines are minor in comparison to many, many others.

I have a physical impairment. But, it is not terminal. Nor is it yet restricting my life. I am so much more fortunate than the person living with a terminal illness. Or even the person who takes drugs all day and still never feels normal.

So on it goes.

Soul Provider

I was making some mix CDs for a friend today. I was going through stacks of my own mix CDs looking for the right combination of songs that he would like.

On three separate CDs, I found Michael Bolton's "Soul Provider." I liked that song, but I did not know I had put it on three different compilations.

That song always makes me smile. It reminds me of my first job as a program director at a small town radio station in Iowa. It was 1989. I had been unemployed for about 3 months, and am not proud to say, living on handouts from my parents. I had moved to Iowa from Texas to take the job.

"Soul Provider" was a big hit on the radio at the time. And since I was in radio and we played that song, I heard it several times every day.

I wonder what it is about those memories that give me a good feeling. I certainly did not want to take that job.
Sure, it was exactly the type of job I wanted, but it was in the wrong place. It would mean moving away from my friends and everything I knew as familiar. I had lived in Iowa before, but not for about 9 years.

Plus I have never been the type to boldly strike out into the unknown. And that is exactly what I was doing. With other jobs that I had started, I had something familiar to go back to at the end of the day. At the end of my work day there, I would find my way back to an unfamiliar apartment in an unfamiliar town.

But the strain of all these things are not the memories I have. When I hear that song, I have only good memories.
They are memories of good feelings. Things were "right" in my world. Things were "correct." Instead of trepidation of the unknown and remorse for the things left behind, I remember the anticipation of starting the career I had always wanted. It was my first step in that direction and I was positive that only good things were to come.

I stayed there for a year. About 13 months after I was hired, I was laid off, replaced due to new management. The job itself was not the ideal position that I thought it would be. I struggled constantly as the job was not a good fit for me. There were many times that I had no clue of what I was supposed to do and was in situations that I did not know how to handle. I was so incompetent in many aspects of the job. My memories are vivid of the times I wanted to just hide because I was so helpless to understand what the correct action to take was.

But as I write this and try to understand why I liked that year, the positive memories are strong. Even though I felt overworked and underpaid, I had the chance to go to Chicago once each month to see my friend who was in seminary there. The mere fact that I could go to the big city once every 4 weeks was great. And my friend and I built memories in that year that we still cherish. So that year brought us much closer than we were previously.

I was also free. I spent my time exploring the local area and taking pictures. I volunteered for several shows at a nearby community theatre. Though I was never a wild single and definitely not a partier, I relished the time that I had to do as I wished.

Maybe the song is life's way of allowing me to hang on to the good experiences from that year and to let the unfortunate circumstances go.