The Lesser of Two Evils

Every four years people professing to be pundits pontificate on what we the voting public will do in the fall election. This year has been no different in that department, however the cast of characters has changed some. The historic campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton have been well documented. Sen. Obama even earned his party's nomination becoming the first person of African descent to do so. With that he faces Sen. John McCain in the general election. Much of Obama's success can be attributed to his message of change. With the notion of change comes the idea that Sen. Obama will be able to respond to the issues facing the country with an approach that everyday people would come up with. This idea has many thinking of "outside the beltway" solutions to "inside the beltway" problems. However, a radical thought that few have given serious consideration to is perhaps a more impactful change would come from a candidate outside of the two major parties. This is thought to be blasphemy on the surface, but a careful examination of the issues suggest that maybe a third party candidate speaks more directly issues that matter to you the voter.

If you are a free market enthusiast and would like to see capitalism grow and thrive you may think your only horse in this race is John McCain. However, Libertarian candidate Bob Barr is for no government intervention in the free marketplace. According to Barr's website the role of government in capitalism is to "protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected". This seems to be on par with McCain but where they differ is Barr advocates for a suspension of business subsidies and the scaling down of the military as ways to cut federal spending. Sen. McCain is not interested in removing business subsidies and it goes without saying that he has no interest in scaling down the military; thus it'll be less than likely that Sen. McCain will take the real steps to cut federal spending as his rhetoric suggest.

Sen. Obama has throughout the primary season called for universal health care. Yet he has been shy to call for the single payer system. He has consistently laid out plans that will more than likely ensure many more Americans health care but would not offer a solution that would provide health care to the 47 million uninsured in the United States today. Cynthia McKinney is in support of the single payer system and wants to move insurance companies out of the health care conversation saying in November of 1999 that health care is a "right not a privilege". She also supports trimming the federal budget by drastically reducing defense spending. Both Sens. Obama and McCain argue they want to rid Washington of lobbyist influence and pork barrel spending. However none of them have proposed increased funding for the Department of Justice's Corporate Crimes division to pursue corporations and lobbyist illegally influencing Washington. Ralph Nader has proposed strengthening this division.

Many well reasoned Americans will look at the evidence presented and find a candidate that speaks to their needs more than the major party candidates. Ultimately the response will be that a third party candidate will never win, so why waste a vote. The main reason a third party candidate never wins is because so many people think of it as a wasted vote. If the people who truly supported the positions of third party candidates actually voted for those candidates the United States would have elected officials that represent more than just Democrats or Republicans. But until the voters assert what power they do have in a democracy, decisions will stay limited to the lesser of two evils.


http://www.runcynthiarun.com/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/
http://www.blogger.com/www.votenader.org

To Be Black In America

As CNN gears up for their "Black in America" presentation to take place tonight and tomorrow , I can't help but feel this will be another half-hearted attempt to try to know or understand Black people. Some may applaud CNN for their efforts, but maybe its the cynic in me that sees CNN capitalizing on the popularity and historic (arguably) run of Senator Barack Obama. Some may counter by suggesting that this production has long since been in development with the earliest promotions for it coming as far back as March. However, if we think back to March, Sen. Obama had just broke even in Super Tuesday and was marching toward the nomination.

Regardless of the reason the production itself seems to be lacking. One of the first and most key points to look at is the choice of commentators. There are a few names and faces that are regularly paraded out to translate Black to many White Americans. Many of these people are the same folks who MSNBC, and FoxNews use to try to translate Black culture to White Americans. Such people include the everpresent Cornel West, Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, Tom Joyner, and Dr. Eddie Glaude. Many of these men are famous precisely for being able to translate Black culture to White audiences. There are many others who would do a better job conveying the emotional, mental, physical and most important spiritual spectrum of Black life to a viewing audience. Some of the others may not be the famous academic types but people who simply call it as they see it.

Ask for example why Bill Rhoden, a sports columinst for the New York Times is never asked to speak at these type of affairs. It would only make sense that if Black Americans are the overwhelming majority of the two largest grossing sports in the United States (70% NFL, 80%NBA) that someone with a level of expertise in sports would be asked to provide their opinions. However many people don't know about Rhoden. Probably because of his suggestion that integration (in sports) did more to harm Black institutions than help. Most in the mainstream won't want to hear this because it threatens racial harmony (translate as White economic triumph). He also referenced athletes as "40 Million Dollar Slaves. He has always been critical of subtle and implied, and often times not-so-subtle and implied racism that is inherent in the United States.

Ask again why you rarely hear from Walter Williams. Williams is a conservative professor from George Mason University. He writes columns and appears as a guest on radio and television shows extolling the virtues of capitalism. He also cites real life examples of how government programs have worked to the detriment of Black Americans. Yet you don't hear from him at these types of forums possibly because he clearly exposes holes in the White Americans theory that they (exercised through the government) are Black people's only salvation. There is extremely little I agree with Dr. Williams about but I do appreciate any man who will call for Black economic independence, and at the least he provides a new viewpoint, that differs from the traditional African American school of thought (whatever that is)

These two brief examples serve only to illustrate how off the mark networks come when trying to broadcast an accurate representation of Black life. The main reason being that Black life is so diverse and all inclusive that it cannot be told through commentators and translators. The best and only teacher of Black life is lived experience. Tonight CNN will try to capture everyday people and use them as the new translators of Black culture. It may even be a valiant attempt but in the end it will fail because Black life is much more than a 30 second soundbite, or a one hour program or even a two day special. To be honest its even much greater than a 617 word Essay. Because Black culture and life cannot be translated, however for what its worth, I think it can be described in one word. BEAUTIFUL

Before Judging Zimbabwe

Many people have rushed to judgement in the matter of Zimbabwe. Looking at the information being presented its easy to see why. Much of the information many Americans are getting are in simple and non-complex terms. In the narrative we see a good guy, Morgan Tsvangirai, trying to bring "freedom" and "democracy" (holy words in the United States) to a people who suffer under the hand of a despot, Robert Mugabe. That seems to be simple enough. We should probably align our nation's public opinion and resources against the bad guy.

Unfortunately nothing is that simple and much of the United States media(for whatever reason) has decided to not flush out the complete details of the situation in Zimbabwe choosing rather to retell the narrative in efforts to drum up support for Mugabe's opposition. The only problem with this is that the people closest to Mugabe and Zimbabwe refuse to condemn him in the same way much of the Western Media has.

The Washington Post recently did an article looking at Robert Mugabe's relationship with South African president Thabo Mbeki. Throughout the article they reference Mbeki's association with Mugabe as tarnishing a great legacy. As Mbeki tries desperately to convince Mugabe that retirement is both honorable to his legacy and beneficial to his people, many in the west consider Mbeki "dirtying" his own legacy by involving himself with Mugabe. However, it is not so easy for Mbeki to part with his elder as it is for the world to turn their back on Mugabe.

Perhaps it was the refuge that Mugabe allowed Mbeki to take as the Apartheid government of South Africa had exiled members of the ANC. Perhaps it was the raucous reception Mugabe received at Mbeki's inagural in 2004. Perhaps it was Mugabe seizing control of white owned farms in Zimbabwe in efforts to redistribute the wealth to the common people of Zimbabwe. Whatever the reason, and there seem to be quite a few, Mbeki is not yet ready to call Mugabe the terrible tyrant that the American media has already crowned him.

Let me be clear, this is not a piece about why we ought to support Robert Mugabe. Instead it is a call for all Americans to seek out truth that our media does not always present in its entirety (particularly on matters pertaining to Africa). Just as there are quite a few good reasons why some African leaders still support Mugabe, there are also legitimate reasons why he is unfit to continue being the leader of Zimbabwe. What we must do is try to open our minds to various sources of information in order to come away with the most complete story, not just the narrative that our media paints for us.