In Response to "What are we so afraid of?"

My colleague Kayce Kutch makes a very valid point on her blog Mondo Deviate within the article titled "What are we so afraid of?" She states that many of the policies and extremes that we have created and will create are ultimately due to the fears that we have at that particular time. This is absolutely correct. Fear is a very normal human characteristic and the number one instinct we have that occurs due to fear is to protect and secure what's ours. 

Would we have created weapons of mass destruction if we did not feel the necessity to have such "protection"? Would we be in a war on terrorism if we did not feel at risk of another attack? Sure, fear is a defense mechanism within human nature, but as Kutch states, "there is a significant difference between a healthy psychological reaction to a realistic threat, and the same exact reaction to a threat that is only perceived." While I don't feel that same way about the stance on fear and the people giving up their rights to feel safe, I do believe that fear gave the people and/or government a certain drive to progress down a certain path than we would have should we not have had such fears.

 I live a pretty calm life and thank God everyday for this fact, but on the rare times I do turn on the news and actually sit down to watch what is going on in the world, it does indeed scare me. The idea that I may get mugged or shot just walking down the street... It's something that crosses my mind each and every time I may go in an area that isn't known to me. While I would love to feel safe in my own home and will vote for those that I believe can "protect" this country, I don't believe I will give up the rights that I deserve. Doesn't one's safety coincide with one's happiness? I shouldn't have to nor feel as if I am giving up bits of my myself and/or freedom to simply feel safe walking down the street. 

I have probably gone of on a complete tangent here and may not have even discussed the same point as my colleague here, but this is ultimately what I thought of when reading her piece. I consider myself to be a pretty big scarredy cat but I am also one to stand up for my beliefs/wants. I don't feel that fear will paralyze me in to giving up my rights just to feel safe but rather give me the motivation for the proper stance in certain areas. 

Money, It Ruins Everything!

I have been hearing the phrase "fiscal cliff" everywhere recently. The "fiscal cliff" this, the "fiscal cliff" that, the "fiscal cliff" here and there. This phrase is just right out consuming the political articles on every mainstream and political blog I have come across lately. I honestly had no clue what this phrase meant or even if it effected me at all (I tend to think most political factors don't effect me... I know, I'm naive). I found one site, The National Priorities Project, that assisted me with defining the "fiscal cliff": 

"Fiscal cliff" refers to a host of different federal budget cuts and tax increases that are all scheduled to take effect at the start of 2013. These looming budget cuts and tax increases are referred to as a "cliff" because, if they all actually took effect in 2013, it would be a major setback for our weak economy.

Even with this definition I come out a bit hazy on what exactly is going on and after reading the multiple articles I have in regards to this particular topic, it seems to me that the political world in general isa bit " hazy." Are they proposing these solutions based on what they believe to help the United States as a whole, or just their self? It seems we are kind of have ourselves a "chicken fight" on our hands. Who will back down first? Will it be the Democrats or the Republicans? This is not the time for a political showdown! 

I do believe the only quote that I have seen to be remotely clear and level headed is from Amy Brundage, a White House spokeswoman, within the article G.O.P Balks at White House Plan on Fiscal Crisis by Jonathan Weisman: 

Right now, the only thing preventing us from reaching a deal that averts the fiscal cliff and avoids a tax hike on 98 percent of Americans is the refusal of Congressional Republicans to ask the very wealthiest individuals to pay higher tax rates. The president has already signed into law over $1 trillion in spending cuts and we remain willing to do tough things to compromise, and it’s time for Republicans in Washington to join the chorus of other voices — from the business community to middle-class Americans across the country — who support a balanced approach that asks more from the wealthiest Americans.

Shouldn't the real reason behind all propositions brought to the table be for the betterment of our country overall? If I am reading this article correctly, are we arguing on whether the rich should pay higher taxes or not? On whether the top 2% of our country that make several times the average citizen (which remember is considered to be around $50,000 a year) actually be in a higher tax bracket? Perhaps it's just me or maybe I'm not getting the entire picture here, but I don't really think that is unreasonable. 

Are people really that stingy?

 Hah! I forgot that this world is full of Mr. Scrooges! 

Anyways...While I'm not a huge fan of Obama or any one in a political office at this point in time, I do believe President Obama's proposition for resolving or at least lessening the damage of the fiscal cliff is better than the alternatives that have been brought to the table. And Mr. President, if it's any consolation, which I'm sure it's not, when I make enough money to be within the top 2% wealthiest of our country, you can higher my taxes. 

Technology VS. Man

 I took an interest on the topic of droids being involved in military warfare when reading my colleague Robert Nguyen's article, " Unmanned Strike." I read both of the articles that were embedded in Nguyen's article and happen to completely agree with his standing on this matter. While I also do not condone violence and would rather come across a more peaceful route than the "war" we are apart of today, I do believe that droids are a much better alternative than having our soldiers, the men that volunteer to fight for our country, sent off with the possibility of not returning.

When droids are mentioned, or humans being replaced by technology in any fashion, the thought of a very well known movie pops to mind... The Terminator. Many people believe that our technology is rising so far that soon enough people will be out of jobs due to computers being able to perform better and more efficiently. Honestly, even if this is the case, I would much rather see a droid get shot down than a fellow human being. So what if that droid takes the place of one of our valuable soldiers? We can build more droids (even though it costs what seems to be like a bajillion dollars) but we can not replace a lost life.

As Nguyen has stated, the loss of life is to be expected when involved in a war. However, if we can reduce the numbers of those lives that are lost, even if it is just by a small number, it's worth every penny. There's no point in sending our men and women off, possibly even losing their life, if there is a safe alternative.

Show Me The Money!!!

The average income of a US Citizen is estimated to be about $50,000 a year. Barack Obama, our current President and candidate for the Democrat Party, had an average income of around $1.6 million, a total of 32 times the average citizen and 4th among the richest presidential candidates. Mitt Romney, the candidate for the Republican Party, had an income estimating to be a little more than $26 million in 2010. That's more than 400 times the income of an average citizen. He is ranked number one among the richest presidential candidates. Looking at those numbers alone, does it seem plausible that the the average Joe, or even Jane, can actually have a chance at running for the Presidency? 

HIGHLY UNLIKELY! 

As stated in one of my previous critiques, the average Presidency Campaign takes up to $1.25 billion. That's $1.25 billion every 4 years! I've never even managed to see a total of $1000 in my bank account before it's taken right back, divided among the many bills that I have. I live from paycheck to paycheck, a lifestyle I'm sure many US Citizens have experienced or are still experiencing at this moment. If I am considered to be the "average Jane," how is it possible that I can accrue $1.25 billion only to spend at a chance to become the President? It's not even a sure bet! It's not... I could do all the canvassing I wanted, beg for donations and gather a number of supporters, but I think I would still end up short about oh... $1.24 billion?! 

I'm sorry ladies and gentlemen, my average Joe and Jane aspiring to be the next president, but I have to break the bad news to you... It's just not possible! From the way I see it, you could be the absolutely best person for the job, could even make the changes that the United States desperately needs, but the opportunity will never be yours due to the fact that you just don't have enough money. 

If you are outraged as much as me at this particular situation, here are some fun facts and reading material: 
                 
Top Earning Presidential Candidates
As Income Inequality Widens, Rich Presidential Candidates Dominate
Yes, The Rich are Different
Household Income for States: 2010 and 2011

Lots of Money = Leader ?

I had a hard time choosing a post for this particular assignment due to the fact that the majority of the opinions I have been seeing are about the same exact thing. Who won the second debate? Why I'm supporting Barack Obama instead of Mitt Romney. Why I'm voting for Romney instead of Obama. Honestly, as much as I've read, I probably have heard every single point possible (I'm sure there are more out there, but it's just hard to believe). I was looking for a post that had more originality than the majority of the blogs I was reading and then I came across P. Sainath's article on "Billionaire Candidates: Follow the Money, Find the Leader." Did you know that each candidate and their party may spend up to $1.25 billion by the time the campaign is over? That's $2.5 billion every 4 years just to choose a leader for our country. If I remember correctly, isn't our country trillions of dollars in debt? And yet our "leaders" are choosing to spend $2.5 billion each election? That, in my opinion, is craziness!

It might appear that direct spending in 2012 by both presidential campaigns is less than it was in 2008 — though not by much. 

Sainath, the rural affairs editor of The Hindu, author, and professor at Princeton, writes this article to inform the "average joe" just how much money a candidate accrues and spends during their campaign. I can't even imagine $1 million let alone $2.5 BILLION! They spend this money and then wonder why the US is in such debt and why our economy is down the toilet. Sainath then goes on to state that despite racking up such a heinous bill, when money or even the inequality within the United States regarding money is addressed during their "debate" they avoid any commentary like the plague.This statement by far made me sad and just sickened me to no end,

"Meanwhile, about 25 million people who want full-time jobs can’t find them. The number of those on food stamps is at record levels. And 50 million people suffer food insecurity in a nation where, as economist Paul Buchheit points out: “The 10 richest Americans made enough money last year to feed every hungry person on earth for a year.”

If this is the case, which I have no doubt is probably true, the United States is doing something wrong. It needs to be addressed. However, with the leaders of today... I doubt it ever will be. It's in man's nature to think and act in their own self-interest above all else. However sad it may be, this fact is truly being shown. 

Once again, neither man mentioned the word “inequality” at any point in the debate...the word was as taboo as “corporate crime.”

As you can probably tell, I completely agree with what Sainath points out. Sure, I thought the presidency campaign would cost a lot, but $2.5 billion? That's outrageous. If the "average joe" wanted to run for presidency, it just couldn't be done. He'd be stomped by the money bags trailing men such as Obama and Romney. Does one have to be filthy rich to even consider becoming a leader within our country?

Apparently so.

Being hostage to money power is no myth.

Pretty Words... That's All I Hear!

   

I have read through a large number of commentaries and editorials over the past couple of days and ultimately all I'm seeing in regards to politics is how uneventful the most recent presidential debate was. How the articulate Romney overpowered President Obama, whom only seemed "tired". The opinion article Jeremy D. Mayer writes within The Christian Science Monitor, dated October 4th 2012, has basically hit the spot on the nose in regards to this debate (If you can even call it that!). Mayer is an associate professor at the School of Public Policy at George Mason University who often gives his input in regards to US Politics. He is very knowledgeable when it comes to Presidential Campaigns and is never shy about voicing his strong opinions. 

Obama never tried to go on the attack against Romney

Mayer doesn't exactly join a side in this article but rather critique's both Romney and President Obama in how they handled the debate in general. Neither candidate had a flawless argument. Statements such as "Obama said almost nothing that would appeal to someone who wasn't already with him" and "you point out the numerous contrary positions [Romney's] had in public life, and say that he’s a man who will say anything to win an election. A man without conviction or principle," are threaded throughout the entire article. He criticizes Obama and then turns around to bring down Romney, never to exactly pinpoint a Presidential Candidate that may come ahead. However, there is one statement in particular that may be the most important statement within Mayer's article, "campaign strategy says that the candidate who has a likability advantage is the one who has the better ability to go on the offensive." In this case, Romney comes out ahead. He went to the debate looking as if he "wanted" to be there when President Obama was quiet, reserved, and just looked exhausted. Who wants a tired President who can not attack when it's necessary? 

If Mr. Plouffe told Obama to be quietly dignified and avoid attacking Romney as a flipflopper, he should be fired.

Overall, Mayer points out that this debate did not suggest a clear winner but rather just muddied the waters further for those undecided. Neither candidate made a real impression other than Romney really knowing how to talk pretty and Obama looking tired. This is certainly not what a Presidential Debate, an all important event that should help determine who is fit to run the United States, should entail. The questions were elementary, not even coming close to those controversial topics of the present day, and the answers were unrealistic or too lame to even be considered. Luckily there are two debates left. Romney has the chance to put his foot in his mouth, and Obama has the chance to attack (or vice versa). 

You can’t go before the American people, and give the impression that a debate – one of the core parts of the presidential campaign – is a chore you are above.

In conclusion, I would have to completely agree with Mayer and what is said within this article. HOWEVER it doesn't help whatsoever when it comes to being an undecided individual. The Presidential campaign is at a point in which they are aiming towards those that haven't decided whether to back Romney or President Obama. This article and even the debate that occurred does not help the undecided to sway either way! Romney spits out words that he knows people want to hear, but can those words become a reality or will they simply remain a fantasy? Obama doesn't pinpoint the lies that Romney spiels but rather takes it and goes around the subject in general. Can we not find a candidate that is honestly and whole-heartily working to make United States better? Bah... Probably just my naivete speaking. 

The Fix?

     As I don't follow politics as much as I should... well let's be honest, I don't follow it at all, I am just now reading on many of the "featured" articles among the mainstream news sites. I am just now finding out about the mistake on Romney's part in regards to his 47% statement. His mouth made a slip that he is now trying very hard to recover from. Can he recover from this remark of his?

    Romney is currently on the trek for presidency and attempting to pick up the pieces of his campaign on the way. Out of the many articles I have found in regards to Mitt Romney, I haven't found a lot of positive. In fact, as I read on further, I do believe he's just digging a deeper hole for himself. The one article that happens to sum Romney's downfall up and even proposes a fix for his failing campaign would have to be by Chris Cillizza from the Washington Post titled "Why it's time for Moderate Mitt."  Cillizza explains that if Romney truly wants to dig his hide out of the mess that has been created he should probably swing more towards his moderate side. I happen to think it's a great idea and what can possibly hurt by trying?
    I wonder if Romney is reading this article.... If he's not, someone knock on his door and give him a hint!