I try not to watch the national news anymore. It's not that I dont want to be an informed citizen. It's not that I do not wish to keep abreast of national and world events. I very much do. I keep headline feeds on my google home page and glance through them every day, reading those that catch my interest or eye. I read the Chico News and Review religiously, and hit the Paradise Post and Chico ER websites whenever something significant is happening locally.
It's just that watching the national news completely depresses me. Within 15 minutes I'm usually convinced that our state, our country, or sometimes our planet is going to hell in a handbasket.
The scenes of devastation, loss, need, and pain and suffering in Haiti, for instance, are deeply depressing, and I know that no amount of money I can offer will greatly change things so long as the infrastructure itself is so badly crippled.
In time, things will get better, but meanwhile people will die, and if I submit myself to watching hours of it, I will grieve to a degree that will affect my ability to function.
When I read or listen to what Pat Robinson or Rush Limbaugh has to say about it, I find myself filled with anger that borders on rage and hate. And yet, that anger does me no good, and them no good, and them no harm, either. It only shortens my life, and disturbs the quality of it while I'm around.
And when I watch the Today show for any length of time, which, I must admit I adore, or at least I adore the cast of the today show (the early part of it, anyway), I walk away convinced that the world is unjust, that I am creating emotional damage to my child, my partner and myself, and that I am physically a ticking time bomb that will disintegrate into a disease and cancer ridden heart attack/stroke/embulism/anarism at the next intersection, but that's okay because with the way I manage my finances, Id've been on the streets next week, anyway. And I never get anything "useful" out of the tips and tricks on these programs...it's always common sense knowledge and conventional wisdom.
Having said all that, I got "stuck" watching the news the other day, and fairly intensely. And as usual, it convinced me that the country is going to hell in a handbasket. What's got me all fired up is the supreme court ruling regarding campaign finances.
For decades, we, via our legislature and various propositions, have, as a voting populace, tried to get special interests out of politics, or, at the very least, severely limit them and mitigate the damage they can cause.
And now our own Supreme Court strikes down the wishes of the people in how they want to be ruled. Basically all elections are now for sale in the United States. How? Well, the Supreme Court has ruled that their can be no limits on corporations or unions spend in political campaigns. And political campaigns, already ugly and misleading with their attack ads and downright laws, will now be for sale to the highest bidder. And once elected, that elected official will generally be looking to get relected, so they are not going to want to disenfranchise their new corporate sponsors.
That's right folks...our new president, Joe the Plumber, brought to you by General Electric. Your congressmen and women brought to you by Nike and Wheaties. I'm not saying money didnt matter before...it did, too much. But now it matters even more, and that means less representation by the people, for the people.
The most frustrating part of this argument to me, is the concept that regulating the amount that corporations and unions can spend in elections somehow violates free speech. Say again?
One: A corporation is a legal entity, not a citizen. Created for business purposes only, it was never meant to vote, or be elected to public office. Will that be next? Will Viacom vote in the next election? Will Fox be elected President?
Two: How does money equate to speech? Money, or currency, is an exchange of legal tender or it's facsimile in the form of a check, credit charge, etc. for goods and services, or in the repayment of debt.
The legal defintion of freedom of speech definition is the right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, to communicate ideas and opinions without government intervention.
Noone was preventing corporations or unions from expressing their thoughts or opinions, not that corporations or unions, as legal entities, are capable of forming opinions or ideas, since they are not, in fact, CITIZENS, but they've certainly made their thoughts and opinions known, in every election I've ever seen.
So what now? Well, for now, we're stuck with the ruling, and this increases our responsibilities as voters. I will, and encourage anyone I know, do the following:
- Refuse to read, watch, or listen to campaign ads of any kind. There's no truth but twisted truth to be found there, no matter the candidate.
- Watch debates, and read opionions and ideas published by the candidates themselves.
- Educate myself on the issues at stake, and on the backgrounds, reputation, and previous voting history of all candidates.
- Be cautious in the sources I accept. Since I will have to turn to online sources more and more, I will first consider the likelihood of the information to be reliable, and then the likelihood of it's being slanted.
- Where I cannot find unbiased and reliable information, which is becoming harder to do all the time, I will review the information received from both sides of the slant, ensure that I seek out both sides of the slant, consider how the slant affects the information I am reviewing, and come to my own decision. If possible, I will ask the candidate themselves about positions I feel are cloudy.
Frightening...I'll be turning off the news for the rest of the week. Reading is an underrated pursuit. Here's a few you might want to take a turn through:
|