"Elections" have lost value

As the elections wind up, the ballots are counted and the candidates start making plans for the curtains in their new state or federally funded homes, I can’t help but feel that I, as a voter, have been taken for a ride.

Though it was hailed as an extremely important election, and the fact that it was each American’s responsibility to vote was pressed ever so seriously into our minds, the candidates themselves made the whole thing seem like some sort of grade-school popularity contest.

Through television ads, radio announcements and yes, even newspaper articles, the candidates slung mud so fast and heavy I felt like I was back in grade 2, watching a mud-fight on the playground. It seemed that whoever was able to come out the cleanest won; whether or not he or she was actually any better than the other at all (at anything other than ducking anyways). As a serious voter, who truly cares about the direction our country is going in (demonstrably ‘down’), I took time to research the candidates who asked for my vote…. attempted to anyhow. The mud was flying online too. I also noticed that everyone was so busy telling us why the other guy was so bad, that no one really took the time to explain why they themselves were good. Has our democracy truly declined so far that our elections have come to choosing the least bad candidate instead of the best? Or is the general public truly of such low intellect that we can only understand the grunts of ‘ugh…he bad’ instead of debates about the issues? It’s downright scary to think so!

At the same time I find myself wondering when politics ended up being reserved for a new American aristocracy? Why is it that only the wealthy are running for, and winning elections? When did the money a candidate could throw at a campaign begin to choose who would win? It’s true; in the parties’ own words, they describe mad fundraising that is ‘essential’ to a given person winning an election, and state ‘so-and-so won’t win…he doesn’t have enough money.’ So, apparently, only the rich know how to run the country. And, apparently, we believe it.

Since when have the rich ever understood what the common many felt or believed? Are THEY worried about public schools, when their own children attend private? Are THEY concerned about public health care, when they can afford the best doctors anyways? Do THEY send THEIR sons and daughters off to war, or are they enjoying classes at Harvard? Do THEY worry about student loans and grants to get them there? And do THEY worry about immigrants in any other role than ensuring that their lawns are mowed and hotel rooms cleaned? HIGHLY doubtful. In fact, I’d say it’s pretty safe to say NO. Even if they were concerned, they would have no idea of what the people in ‘lower’ positions in life want or need.

The public decries more and more how congress and the president are so ‘out of touch’ with the common American’s wants and needs, and yet WE KEEP ELECTING THEM! We are actively choosing to subjugate ourselves to the rich in this country. We even PAY them, providing homes and planes and fancy cars. These people who are supposed to be representing us are so out of touch with the Americans they ‘represent’ that they couldn’t see eye-to-eye if they actually tried (and few do). The only time they get concerned about what the people think and want is at election time, when they tell us all how bad the other guy is in an effort to keep their jobs. In my eyes, this is the exact same as two brothers getting in a fight and declaring “Mom, but he…” in an effort to shift blame and responsibility away from themselves. Let’s wake up America, and end this! This loogey we called an election is unacceptable! Let’s change the election laws, demand more real information and less bull, create the ability for lower-income people to run for office, and cut the pork from the candidate’s own stomachs (do they really need all those ‘extras’ they get in office? Paid for by US?). Let’s put real democracy into action and clean up the mess we’ve created.

Chic Communism?

Here's a very interesting post I thought I'd pass on; it makes some excellent points! I hope you will all consider it next time you see a product featuring Che Guevara for sale.
-Becky

(repost from bureaucrash.com)
The typical high school U.S. History book treats 'fascism' as a virus to be removed from mankind, but socialism as something to be admired. I put fasicsm in quotes because that is the liberal establishments code word for anything that is not liberal.
What they really mean when they say fascism is National Socialism (Nazi's). Ironic, since the Nazi's neither were fascists, nor referred to themselves as such. They were the National SOCIALIST German Worker's Party. They referred to their program as National Socialism (don't let the name throw you).
Fascism was the brand name that Mussolini gave to his branch (one of two dozen) of Italian Socialism. The Italian's and German's brand of socialism differed in that they were nationalists, i.e. they cared about the Italian and Germanic people, respectively.
Communists are more properly defined as International Socialists. They had little use for the Nationalism of the Italians and Germans; they were for the working class worldwide: Workers of the World Unite!
Thus, 'fascists' and communists were/are simply socialists bent on helping the national/international class.
Fast forward, and the left today hates of anything that smacks of nationalism. Since they are sympathetic to International Socialism, 'patriotism' is an insult, since it is chauvinistic. They love the word democracy, and especially the word all, as in all children can learn, or all workers deserve a living wage -- they always put all in italics, as if this confers some special advantage over the National Socialists.
Hence the left demonizes anything national, and glorifies, or at least gives a pass to, anything international. Back to high school history books. The one I teach from condemns Chiang Kai-Shek's Chinese Nationalist government as inefficient and corrupt -- as if that doesn't descrive all government -- which it was.
But the book describes Mao Zedong's Communist (International Socialist) government that replaced Chiang's as "effective land reformers" and "worked hard to gain the trust of the peasants." NO MENTION of the 30,000,000 it starved in the Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap Forward, etc. Or the millions killed after that (another 20-30 million?).
National Socialism gets an entire chapter, with a special section for the 6-11 million killed in the Holocaust. See, they killed for the wrong reasons (nationalism). Had they only killed for internationalism (socialism/communism), they would have gotten a pass.
If you hate for the right reasons, teachers and principals everywhere will ignore you when you where a CCCP, Che Guevera, or Mao shirt down the hallway. Try that with a Swastika.

Actor Andy Garcia agrees with crashers in wondering why a killer like Che Guevera is such a pop culture icon even after murdering millions of Cubans. Starpulse reports:
Garcia, who left Cuba when he was five, says, "I'd be curious to go around and ask them how much they really know about Che. Some people wearing the T-shirt don't even know his name. They know he's some sort of revolutionary, and to wear his image is cool because you feel like a revolutionary. Someone told me the other day that they asked one of these people if they were aware of all the executions that Che was a part of in Cuba and the guy said, 'Well, I don't know if that's true, as if it had been made up to discredit him.' I wish you could say it was made up because that would mean that all those people didn't die under his thumb. That's the tragedy."
PROPS: Crasher PJaworski for the tip. Like Garcia he fled communism with his family except instead of Cuba it was Poland.

Posted comment:
WHEREFORE THE LOVE OF NAZIS?
As a teacher in a public high school, it amazes me how chic Che has become. The hat pins, the stickers, and of course, the t-shirts. (I have an identical shirt that has Ronald Reagan's silhouette instead of Che's. Lots of doubletakes.)
There's another kid -- from Russia -- who wears a hammer and sickle shirt. I always ask my class why this is allowed. Would any be able to wear a "National Socialism" shirt, a picture of Hitler or a Swastika?
Consider the fact that the International socialists have killed over five times the people that the National socialists have. Our schools are completely ignorant of this. Hell, our textbook doesn't mention a single death under Mao's regime; instead, calls him "an effective land reformer" who "worked hard to gain support of the peasants."
We need to raise awareness and satirize those who support Che. Commies aren't cool.