Toyotagate: Congress makes Toyota look like a Saint

10,000 deaths per year

34 deaths. That's what Toyota's unintended acceleration scandal has caused.

Yes. It's horrible and Toyota deserves some vilification, nonetheless, as I wrote for Soultek.com, "for more than a decade Congress let 10 - 20,000 people die every year because it was good for the Big 3 and it was good for Big Oil.

I mean, c'mon. What would you do if you knew you could save 10,000 lives per year by forcing automakers to build a slightly less profitable vehicle?

Well, for decades Congress certainly hasn't done much. The US auto industry is just too important, so important, in fact, that 10,000 lives per year have been expendable. Yet, Congress is in an uproar over 34 deaths?

How did these 34 deaths become so much more important than the 10's of thousands killed by unnecessary rollover deaths?

How can Congress be so biased? So blinded? Isn't it obvious?

We the people have only one voice left, our vote, and while many might believe the vote to be irrelevant and meaningless, I assure you, the vote can have meaning if we work together and vote against the incumbents.

Republicans not happy with Party

Dump the incumbents

According to the annual Conservative Political Action Conference presidential straw poll, a majority of conservative Republicans poled "wished the Republican Party had a better field of candidates to choose from", while choosing Ron Paul as their top pick.

Discontent in the Republican Party? Why should anyone be surprised? Poll after poll shows that many voters in both parties are unhappy with the Congressional leadership of both parties, so it isn't surprising to see libertarian Ron Paul, the most different Republican, resonate.

Good. Hopefully this sentiment lasts into the upcoming elections. It's time for voters to think different, to seek real change, and about the only thing voters can do to achieve real change - not just a change in party rule - is vote against the incumbents.

Let's get out the vote and lets VOTE AGAINST INCUMBENTS!

63 percent want to vote out the incumbents

Time for real change and real turnover?

63 percent of Americans want to vote against Congressional incumbents, according to the latest polls, but will they?

While these are the most anti-incumbent results in polling history, angst against incumbency has been growing for many years. Yet, the results at the polls have not really reflected this growing pre-election anger in most instances.

Is this finally the time all that changes? Could 50 percent Congressional turnover, or more, actually be possible? Or, will angst-filled voters simply avoid the voting booth in their typical apathetic manner?

Are you ready to vote against the incumbents?

Hate politicians? Let me give you a reason to vote

Don't waste your vote!

Do you hate politicians? These days it seems most of us do, which is why many Americans don't vote. We just don't think it makes a difference.

Well, just because you hate politicians doesn't mean you can't make a difference with your vote. Vote against your incumbents. Send a message that you are not happy. Even better, vote for a third party candidate. Again send a message that the status quo of Washington for the last few decades is no longer acceptable.

Don't buy into the primary hype

The President is just a puppet

By all means get out and voice your opinion in the primary, it's a good habit. Still, don't buy into the hype that a new President is going to change much in America. Congress creates legislation, not the President, so start thinking about your Congressional vote.

My advice: Vote against ALL Congressional incumbents!

If you're happy with the state of America then vote for your favorite candidate. If you're unhappy with the state of America, don't believe for one second that simply voting for a new President is going to change much. You must send a message to your Congressional representatives!

$40.6 billion reasons for Republicans to vote against Republicans?

$4.00 gas is cheap?

So, ExxonMobil profited $40.6 billion dollars this year. That's plenty of money to keep buying Congress, as oil companies have been doing for decades.

But I don't care about $46.6 billion.

In the 1990's it cost America more money to secure and transport oil from the Middle East than the oil from the Middle East was worth. Yet, Americans don't pay for the security costs of oil at the gasoline pump. In fact, if Americans paid the real cost of gasoline at the pump, gas would probably cost $10.00 or more per gallon.

Environmental costs would probably push this cost even higher.

Yet, not one Republican is really addressing this issue, nor are any Democrats. Despite the fact that military-industrial complex that runs our government via cheap oil has created two wars in the Middle East, 9/11 and created massive pollution, not one mainstream politician is taking real action to change this.

OUR government has failed us, and voting 100 percent Democrat or Republican won't change that fact. Democrats have run Congress and the White House. Republicans have run Congress and the White House. Little has ever changed.

Vote against the incumbent in 2008!

$40.6 billion reasons why Democrats should vote against Democratic Incumbents

$4.00 gas is cheap?

So, ExxonMobil profited $40.6 billion dollars this year. That's plenty of money to keep buying Congress, as oil companies have been doing for decades.

But I don't care about $46.6 billion.

In the 1990's it cost America more money to secure and transport oil from the Middle East than the oil from the Middle East was worth. Yet, Americans don't pay for the security costs of oil at the gasoline pump. In fact, if Americans paid the real cost of gasoline at the pump, gas would probably cost $10.00 or more per gallon.

Environmental costs would probably push this cost even higher.

Yet, not one Democrat is really addressing this issue, nor are any Republicans. Despite the fact that military-industrial complex that runs our government via cheap oil has created two wars in the Middle East, 9/11 and created massive pollution, not one mainstream politician is taking real action to change this.

OUR government has failed us, and voting 100 percent Democrat or Republican won't change that fact. Democrats have run Congress and the White House. Republicans have run Congress and the White House. Little has ever changed.

Vote against the incumbent in 2008!

Bush, Congress achieve record lows in polls

Do voters even care about voting anymore?

"Public approval for President Bush and Congress has sunk to the lowest levels ever recorded in The Associated Press-Ipsos poll," according to Breitbart.com.

So, will voters do something radically different in '08, such as Vote Against All Incumbents, or we just going to do what we always do and expect different results?

I expect insanity, or no vote at all from most Americans. Isn't democracy grand?!

Bush more popular than Congress?!?!

Bush testing out a plug-in hybrid vehicle

George Bush is unpopular. That's no secret. According to the most recent Gallup Poll, Bush's approval rating is holding steady at about 33 percent. This low approval rating led many to believe that the unpopular President helped lead to a Democrat-controlled Congress.

But is that the real story?

According to the same Gallup poll, Congress has an approval rating of just 29 percent. Congress is even less popular than the President?

I think Democrats better wake up, as better Republicans. Ultimately, Democrats probably won control of Congress simply because they weren't Republicans - that's it. It was a vote for change that gave Democrats control of Congress.

Yet, has anything really changed? Certainly, the gross, unproductive partisanship of Congress has not changed, and nothing is being accomplished. Even worse, it is possible that essentially nothing will be accomplished until early 2008 - at best.

Perhaps in 2008, when America again votes for change, it shouldn't be limited to replacing Democrats with Republicans or vice versa. Instead, perhaps EVERY incumbent should be replaced?! Perhaps EVERY incumbent should be replaced with an Independent candidate?

Now that would be a change. Seriously, could it get any worse? When the best that is accomplished is, well, nothing, can it really get any worse?

Register to vote. Take a stand for change in 2008.

Jerry Falwell: A reason not to vote Republican?

A reason not to vote for McCain or Romney?

My condolences to the Jerry Falwell family. Mr. Falwell, I assume, was a man that tried to stand for his beliefs, and that is to be commended.

Unfortunately, however, Mr. Falwell's beliefs were out of touch with a majority of Americans. The bible does not rule America, and the fact that Mr. Falwell tried to judge America by the bible was just plain wrong.

Thus, I am saddened to see Republicans, particularly John McCain and Mitt Romney, supporting the bible-thumping minister. Quite simply, Mr. Falwell was too religious to be such a central focus of the Republican party - for it was this same type of fascist-religionism, or rebellion against it, that ultimately created the U.S. in the first place.

Wake up Republicans!!!!! If you want to represent America, you MUST look beyond religion. If not, then rest in peace, because if you don't wake up your party is dead.

Government spending at all time high

"For the first seven months of this budget year, which began Oct. 1, revenue collections and government spending are at all-time highs.

However, the spending total of $1.585 billion was up at a slower pace of 3.2 percent from the previous year."

So the government is out-of-control, but it isn't spinning quite as quickly out-of-control?

Let's do it. Register to vote! Dump the incumbents!

(Source: Yahoo via Drudge)

Not just the President: America is also mad at Congress

Get rid of all the incumbents?

The people of the U.S. are not very happy with the job the President is doing according to every poll. A new poll, however, indicates the people are just as unhappy with Congress, despite a switch from Republican control to Democrat control.

"The survey found only 35 percent approve of how Congress is handling its job, down 5 percentage points in a month. That gives lawmakers the same bleak approval rating as Bush, who has been mired at about that level since last fall, including his dip to a record low for the AP-Ipsos poll of 32 percent last January." (GuardianUnlimited)

If we expect change, isn't it time to really change Congress? So, register to vote and lets vote out the incumbents - ALL of them. Yes, a few good people will be lost, but isn't it time for a fresh start?

Hillary or Obama: A vote for change?

Either a woman or a black man is a big change

There's an interesting article in the TimesOnline about Republicans that are converting to Democrats to support Barack Obama's run for President. Why? Because these converts believe Obama could unite the country.

“I think we should design campaigns that appeal, not to 51% of the people, but bring the country together as a whole,” said Matthew Dowd, President Bush's Chief Campaign Strategist in 2004. And, apparently, Dowd believes Obama has the best chance of achieving that end.

Could a politician actually unite the country these days, especially one coming from one of the major parties - both of which seem to relish campaign-funding partisanship? I hope so.

Even better, I hope these different candidates (not rich white males) can get more Americans to register to vote and, more important, to vote.

And if you don't like either of these candidates, then get out and vote for your candidate. And, if you don't like any of the candidates, then vote for a third party candidate - that's a better vote for change than not voting at all.

So, register to vote. If the far majority of eligible voters start voting and keep voting, then politicians will have to listen to the people, rather than the lobbyist controlled two party political system.

Democrats prove Congressional waste is non-partisan

While Democrats won over Congress by simply not being Republicans, they are acting just like Republicans now that they are in power. Apparently, America's danger spots, in terms of National Security, are now places like Belgium and the Caribbean.

Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi said he toured the Caribbean because he now chairs the Homeland Security Committee and wanted to see vacation hot spots to “examine border security and port security.” Boy, isn't that convenient?

Isn't it time for Americans to accept the fact that both Republicans and Democrats suck?

Voting out Republicans was O.K., but the focus should have been to vote out ALL incumbents. Party politics don't help the people, just the parties.

(Source: Examiner)

Forget the Left and Right, Vote Red, White and Green

Do you want to change America's energy paradigm? Do you believe in energy conservation? Do you want to end foreign oil dependency? Do you want to raise fuel economy standards? Do you want fight global warming? Do you want to buy a hybrid car or other fuel efficient vehicle?

You are not alone. It is estimated that 45.3 million Americans would answer yes to most of the questions above and they are not all tree-hugging hippies. In fact the majority of the Red, White and Greens are non-partisan moderates, but there are also significant numbers of liberals and conservatives - these issues are more important than party politics.

Civil Society Institute President and Founder Pam Solo said: "Red, white and green is the new patriotism for this complex era in which energy, the environment and national security are all bound up together. What we see here are a new set of values that equate love of country with energy independence and protecting the environment from global warming. These survey findings show that there is a huge group of Americans who are very clear about their strong embrace of environmental values and the elected officials who reflect those values. The existence of red, white and green voters could have huge implications for the 2006 and 2008 elections." (more)

Let's get some more red, white and green representatives in political office!

If you hate Democrats, Read This!!!!!

So, you don't care about half the voters in America? You don't care about another 40 - 50% of Americans that don't even vote?

You only care about those people that think just like you? Everyone else is the enemy?

Is that the best Democracy has to offer?

If we can't understand those in America that disagree with us, how are we going to understand those throughout the world that disagree with us?

Is the Republican Party more important than the people?

If Democracy is nothing more than partisanship in the name of power, then I say _uck Democracy.

Nothing is more important than the people, the people ARE the democracy. Anybody whom believes in Democracy should be focused on one thing and one thing only, getting at least 90 percent of the people to vote - anything less ISN'T Democracy.

Like it or not, the people ARE more important than the party.

How can a democracy exist when non-voters represent the majority?

_UCK BOTH PARTIES!

If you hate Republicans, Read this!

So, you don't care about half the voters in America? You don't care about another 40 - 50% of Americans that don't even vote?

You only care about those people that think just like you? Everyone else is the enemy?

Is that the best Democracy has to offer?

If we can't understand those in America that disagree with us, how are we going to understand those throughout the world that disagree with us?

Is the Democratic Party more important than the people?

If Democracy is nothing more than partisanship in the name of power, then I say _uck Democracy.

Nothing is more important than the people, the people ARE the democracy. Anybody whom believes in Democracy should be focused on one thing and one thing only, getting at least 90 percent of the people to vote - anything less ISN'T Democracy.

Like it or not, the people ARE more important than the party.

How can a democracy exist when non-voters represent the majority?

_UCK BOTH PARTIES!

Rate the stupidity of liberal leaders: Just how stupid are they?

I just read a refreshing article in the Los Angeles Times, Head-in-the-Sand Liberals, which I'm happy to report is one of the most talked about articles printed by the Los Angeles Times. Finally, someone - in a very nice fashion - is challenging the idiotic leadership of the liberal party.

I realized how much I hated liberals one day before the Iraq War. I was walking down Lake St. in Pasadena to go grab some lunch, and protestors were waving "No Blood for oil" signs up and down the street. I thought, well, what you should be saying is, "No blood for gas guzzlers".

Of course, these liberals couldn't say that when many of them drive gas-guzzlers.

Later that day I was driving home and I drove through South Pasadena, a very rich community in the Los Angeles area, and in front of me a brand new Jaguar sported the bumper sticker, "Jesus was a liberal."

I was so angry I wanted to ram into that Jaguar.

Yeah, Jesus would have been a Jaguar-driving liberal living in a multi-million dollar home in South Pasadena. Are liberals really that idiotic, I wondered?

Well, yes they are according to this excellent article by Sam Harris - a self-proclaimed liberal.

"I don't know how many more engineers and architects need to blow themselves up, fly planes into buildings or saw the heads off of journalists before this fantasy will dissipate. The truth is that there is every reason to believe that a terrifying number of the world's Muslims now view all political and moral questions in terms of their affiliation with Islam. This leads them to rally to the cause of other Muslims no matter how sociopathic their behavior. This benighted religious solidarity may be the greatest problem facing civilization and yet it is regularly misconstrued, ignored or obfuscated by liberals."

For example, Muslims are now calling for the death of the Pope and have almost assuredly killed an innocent nun who spent her life helping poor people.

"you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword." (more)

I think Bush has been a terrible leader, yet I think his boldest and greatest move was attacking Afghanistan and Iraq. We DID take this Jihad back to the Middle East. Yet, Bush has handled Iraq horribly in terms of any sort of long term planning.

Yet the liberal stance is, the war was wrong. America IS evil, and Democrats will fix the problem.

Oh yeah? OK. So now even the Pope is a puppet of Bush, now the Pope and all non-Islamic religions are also puppets of the Bush administration?

Liberals are right in complaining about the Bush handling of Iraq, of 9/11, but they are far more wrong in their beliefs about the state of the world, terrorism, and Islam.

Islamic extremists believe it is O.K. to kill non-Muslims and to die killing non-Muslims. These people are so much better than the Pope, than Tony Blair, than George Bush?

Don't liberals believe in freedom of and FROM religion - even Islam? That's what I believe and sadly I feel more aligned with conservative, red neck, ignorant Republicans than I do with Democrats.

Either Democrats need to wake up and get the neo-facist liberal extremists out of their party leadership, or more Democrats need to vote against both parties.

Many Democrats are right and in claiming Republicans are hurting America, unfortunately, many Democrats are causing just as much or more hurt than the Republican Party.

Are you an angry voter? Planning to vote against incumbents?

A new poll suggests that the majority of Americans are angry about how the country is being run and they plan to vote against incumbents (more).

Are you an angry voter? Why?

I'm an angry voter. Of course, since both sides of the aisle have decided to make partisanship their main platform, is it really surprising that nothing good is coming out of Congress?

While I'm totally for voting against incumbents, I do believe that little will change without a higher American voter turnout. Moreover, I think we shouldn't just vote against incumbents, we should vote for outsiders.

I say forget the career politicians. I say forget the die-hard Republicans AND Democrats.

A vote for change requires real change - a completely new voice, a completely new platform.

Rate your incumbent anger!

Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House: Let's hope not

If Democrats take back control of Congress, then Nancy Pelosi will probably be the Speaker of the House. Will that be good for America?

Before we answer that question, let's discuss two issues.

First, what is the essence of Democracy? Is it one person one vote? If so, why does that mean anything? Isn't it really that Democracy, at its best, leads to consensus? That's why one person, one vote is so important, because consensus makes it hard for one person, one party, one way of thinking to dominate all aspects of American political life?

Let's face it, very rarely, if ever, does one person, one way of thinking, offer the answers to everything.

Second, so social security is in PERFECT shape? Every single person alive today has NOTHING to worry about when it comes to social security? When we all retire, we will all EASILY be able to live off of social security, right?

I ask the second question, because that is what Nancy Pelosi forced all Democrats to agree upon when George Bush said social security was flawed.

So, why do you then have a pension plan, a 401k plan? Why do Democrat-controlled Unions demand such great health care and pension plans for members if social security is so PERFECT?

In reality, relying on social security in retirement will lead to only one thing for most Americans: the poor house.

The truth is, social security is VERY flawed. Those of us in our 20s, 30s and 40s will almost certainly face serious shortages when it comes to social security. Yet, Nancy tells us there is NO problem.

Why?

Because George Bush, vis-a-vis Republicans, must fail at everything so that Democrats can control America's Democracy. Partisanship, not consensus, rules the world of Nancy Pelosi and the leaders of the Democrat Party. Unfortunately, partisanship also rules the world of the Republican Party.

Both parties are far more focused on raising money and on fighting the other side, than on consensus - the essence of Democracy.

Of course, multi-millionaires, such as Mrs. Pelosi and many other members of Congress, don't have to worry about social security - EVER.

Instead, they worry about POWER and the CONTROL of America's Democracy.

George Bush has not been a great President, but Congress - on both sides of the aisle - has been just as bad, if not worse.

America is a divided country. We speak different languages, we practice different forms of religion or no religion, and we have different political views on many different issues. This isn't bad, this is good. The opposite is the Taliban, it's facist Germany.

Why can't Mrs. Pelosi and the leaders of both parties respect these differing views? Why do they act more like facists than leaders of Democracy?

What happens if Mrs. Pelosi wins the role of Speaker, but accomplishes nothing because of extreme partisanship? Sure there is room for the likes of Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Tom Delay in politics, but on the fringes of the party, not in a leadership role.

Ultimately, in order for a divided America to achieve great things, concensus will be required.

Could Independents hand the election to Democrats

Yesterday there was one important election in California between a Democrat and a Republican. While Republicans won the race, the vote was very close - even though it was Republican territory. It seems a good number of Republicans voted either Democrat or for an Independent candidate. Will this carry over to the general election and cause a change in leadership in the House, Senate or even both?

Why I didn't vote in today's primary and why I will vote in the real election.

Did you vote in today's primary? I didn't. Wanna know why?

I'm a registered Independent, so there wasn't too much for me to vote on in this primary. Still, the Democrat Party would have allowed me to vote, but I didn't take them up on the offer.

Why?

My wife is a registered Democrat and my phone has been ringing off the hook all day and every day trying to tell me for whom to vote. Every day my mailbox is full of ads for Democratic candidates trying to fight each other for a place on the ballot. In fact, yesterday, I received 11 different full color glossy ads from the SAME candidate.

While this might be worthwhile if it were two different parties competing against each other, these people are from the same party. Yet the candidate with the most advertising - the most money - is almost certain to win. Is this expense justified?

Still, I know almost nothing about any of these candidates, and what I have learned isn't always great, such as a candidate moving into my neighborhood just in time to run for election. How can you know my issues if you haven't lived here? Yet the party bigwigs can still support such a candidate.

How much money is being spent by Democrats to fight other Democrats? Who funds these battles within the party? How much money is spent?

And this isn't just Democrats, it is Republicans as well.

Suddenly it seems just a tiny percentage of Americans are determining the candidates for the entire political system.

That's why I'll be voting Independent, or for a third party, for every candidate. No I don't think that my candidate will win, but I don't believe in the American political system - a system completely determined by money - and voting Independent is a vote for change.

A call to those that don't vote

So you don't think your vote will count? Or, maybe you don't think there is really any difference between Republicans and Democrats - both are just controlled by well-funded lobbyists? Well, that is no excuse not to vote. If you fit either one of these categories, get out and vote, dammit. Vote for a third party candidate. Even if you have to vote for a Democrat or Republican, then vote against the incumbent. Vote for someone new. If millions of us vote third party and/or against incumbents we could make it much harder for lobbyists and special interest groups to control the outcome of elections. So register to vote. You can make a difference!

Peggy Noonan's Third Time: Ready for a New Political Party?

When those not voting outnumber the voters of either Democrats or Republicans, you know there is a problem. Add in 90%+ incumbency and you know it's time for a change. So, can a new political party be the answer? Perhaps according to a new article from Peggy Noonan, "Something's happening. I have a feeling we're at some new beginning, that a big breakup's coming, and that though it isn't and will not be immediately apparent, we'll someday look back on this era as the time when a shift began," she states regarding a Third Party. Still, my favorite quote is, "The problem is that the parties in Washington, and the people on the ground in America, are polarized. There is an increasing and profound distance between the rulers of both parties and the people--between the elites and the grunts, between those in power and those who put them there."

If we can't have a new party, I say vote against ALL incumbents. The few good politicians we lose are worth the gain of cleaning our political house!

Re: Report Rebuts Bush on Spying

I read the article, Report Rebuts Bush on Spying in the Washington Post, and I didn't think much of it. While I'm not opposed to an investigation into the issue, how can any judgement be made without knowing all the facts? Since much of the program is top secret, then the Congressional Research Service really can't fully study the spying program in full detail, correct?

Nonetheless, American privacy is an important issue, and an unbiased investigation might be worthwhile. Unfortunately, Washington isn't capable of an unbiased investigation.

After reading the story, I checked out some blogs and found myself at fatcat politics. Fatcat isn't really about fatcat politics, it is about slandering Republicans.

O.K., that is fine. Many Republicans are funded by fatcat corporations and lobbyists, but so too are many Democrats.

Man, I really tire of elitist Democrats. While I probably agree more with Democrats on many issues, I actually trust Republicans more. While I rarely, if ever, vote for Republicans - I would vote for McCain - they seem to at least stand for consistency. Too often Dems. just seem to stand against things, not for things. I say either lead, follow, or get the F _ CK out of the way.

While I wasn't a big fan of Hillary when Bill took office, you have to give the Clintons credit, they tried to lead and I sometimes think Hillary might prove to be much more of President than her husband - she won't be chasing young interns. (I'm an independant, dammit, how can I be plugging Hillary?)They tried to take on health care, much the same way Bush tried to take on Social Security. That's leadership.

That's why I was annoyed by an image on fatcat linking corporations, Republicans and the Iraq War. Let's face it, corporate money dominates all politicians in one way or another. Anyway, below is what I wrote:

____________________________________________________________

Wow, the Iron Triangle?

So the Iron Triangle doesn't include both Dems and Repubs? Democrats don't have any corporate ties?

Anyway, it seems to me we went to war in Iraq in an attempt to stabilize the Middle East, and WMD was a piece of evidence - now proven largely incorrect - as to why the area needed to be stabilized in the war against terrorism, but it was by no means THE reason.

Now you can argue that Iraq wasn't a good method for stabilizing the Middle East or for fighting terrorism, but that doesn't seem to be what you are doing.

You just want to slander Republicans. Fine, I don't really care because I see both parties as the problem.

Still, in reality almost every smoking gun against Bush and going to Iraq used by Democrats now, was available to Democrats before the war, yet they went along.

It's sort of ironic that you think Iraq was about WMD and Zarqawi sees Iraq as a battle between Islam and Democracy, which seems to give some credence to the Bush belief.

You obviously hate Bush and have always hated Bush, so your glasses are only focused on proving your point that Bush sucks, rather than focusing on the real problems of the Iron Triangle and the real problems of fatcat politics.

Please understand I am not defending Bush, but the Iron Triangle and 'fatcat' politics have run both parties since both parties were founded. Let's be fair if we really want this to change.

In reality being a Democrat isn't NEARLY enough. In fact, it might not be helpful at all.

If that isn't true why is incumbency, in both parties, just a few percent under 100%? Why did Carville say the last election would be determined by just 3% of voting Americans? Why do average members - regardless of party - leave Congress much richer than when they started?

Groups like the UAW, for example, inevitably, collude with GM at times. That's why a number of Dems voted against increased fuel efficiency standards this last fall, when they had the numbers to make it happen. Instead, they wanted their piece of the corporate pie - the same corporate money they use to fund the Democratic party.

Do the ends always justify the means?

Pretending like this is just a Republican issue will only guarantee that very little will change. So congratulations, perhaps you will impeach Bush, but you'll still accomplish nothing regarding fat cat politics.

Thus, is this really a 'fatcat politics' site, or just a 'I hate Republicans site'?

_____________________________________________________

Anyway, to me, this is just more reason to register to vote. Again, if you don't believe in either party, you still need to vote. Vote for a third party if you don't want to vote for either major party, but PLEASE vote.

If we think so many politicians are corrupt, why do we keep voting for them?

According to a CNN poll, over half the people believe that the majority of those in Congress are corrupt.

This isn't a new trend in politics. The belief that Congress is corrupt has been an ever-growing sentiment, and a sentiment that Bill Clinton successfully utilized to become President.

Yet, if so many believe that those in Congress are so corrupt, why is the rate of incumbency so high? Are 'the people' so disgusted they just choose not to vote?

GET REGISTERED TO VOTE. Don't just complain. Vote. If you don't think your vote counts, then vote Independent or for the Green Party. Who cares if they don't win, your vote can still send a message, even if your candidate doesn't win.

If you think those in Congress are corrupt and you aren't even registered to vote, then I think your more stupid than they are corrupt. So elevate your intelligence and register to vote.

Do both the Democratic and Republican parties suck?

On the Republican side, I like people like John McCain; on the Democratic side, I like people like Joe Lieberman. Yet, each of these people doesn't have the backing of their party, and that is why both parties suck.

That is why the other half of America that isn't voting needs to vote. Only a significant percentage of eligible voters voting can take back the power from rich, career politicians and give it back to the people. Let us remember rich politicians exist on both the sides of the aisle, it is not just the domain of the Republican party.

Read more on Do both the Democratic and Republican parties suck?

Exxon's $9 billion oil profit: Why is Congress giving tax dollars to oil companies?

From Hybridcarblog.com

Hybrid cars are not the answer to today's oil problems. Sure, everyone could drive a Toyota Prius and America could end foreign oil dependency, but one vehicle isn't going to save America from foreign oil. Even if everyone wanted to drive a Prius it would still take years before that many hybrids could even be produced.

Thus, critics dismiss hybrids as hype, noting that today's hybrid technology costs do not justify the savings in fuel economy. As if investment never leads to cheaper costs and better technology - I mean look at computers, what a wasted investment!

Instead, America would rather rely on big energy, such as Exxon Mobil. That's right, the same Exxon Mobil that "said Thursday high oil and natural-gas prices helped its third-quarter profit surge almost 75 percent to $9.92 billion" according to the AP. The same Exxon Mobil that is going to be given tax payer money to help alleviate the oil shortage in America.

Now, that's a plan!

And we're going to need more oil, a lot more oil, not only in the U.S., but worldwide. Unfortunately, that oil might not exist. According to an extremely interesting NYTIMES article, Doubts Raised on Saudi Vow for More Oil, Saudi Arabia might have far less oil than they have been proclaiming to the world, and a serious oil crunch could be just around the corner.

Don't worry, I'm sure Exxon will use some of its profits and tax payer incentives to help out the average American!

If oil supplies do stagnate, where is the oil going to come from to run all the diesels that are going to save America according to the Detroit News? Nothing like putting all your eggs in one basket.

Why not invest in technology?

Experimental hybrid vehicles have already been built that can achieve more than 100 mpg, some even achieve as much as 250 mpg, and others have claimed that a flex-fuel plug-in hybrid could achieve as much as 500 mpg. Additionally, flex fuel plug-in hybrids could utilize gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, electricity or even hydrogen. Is that too many options?

What the hell are we waiting for? Why does America continue to provide tax dollars to the oil industry? Why do we allow automakers, including Toyota, to continue to sell gas-guzzlers? Why not subsidize the cost of a fleet of Ford Escape hybrids and Toyota Highlander hybrids that achieve at least 50 mpg? That technology exists right now, yet instead we give billions to oil companies?

Oil, not technology, is the solution to America's problems, at least if you ask Congress. I guess almost 10 billion in profits provides a lot of favors.

So yeah, 100 mpg hybrids are too expensive and hybrids are just hype, but spending billions and billions on oil companies, oil refineries, the hydrogen highway, and fuel cells is a bargain - at least for Exxon Mobil it is.


Register to Vote!

More refineries, or more hybrid cars?

Congress has become a joke, or maybe it has always been joke. Special interests, not the people's interests, are always the priority. And, who can blame Congress? Since half the people don't care and don't want to vote, I guess the power of lobbyists should be expected.

Instead of Congress focusing on more oil refineries and more tax incentives for oil companies, why not bail out the American auto industry and fund hybrid cars?

Bio-diesel hybrids could end foreign oil dependency as fast as they can be made. Additionally, Congress would be helping an important American industry. Moreover, ending foreign oil dependency could save the country more than a trillion dollars according to studies (more).

What are we waiting for? Get registered to vote and make sure that everyone you know is registered to vote. Don't worry about who they are voting for, just make sure they vote.

Rainbow Coalition Marches in Atlanta

When I was a college student at the University of Wisconsin - Madison, Jesse Jackson gave a speech in our fieldhouse to several thousand people. It was quite emotional and I found myself getting caught in Mr. Jackson's rhythm, but I found the frenzy annoying.

So, I sat down for a few moments and realized that Mr. Jackson really wasn't saying much. Even more interesting, Jesse would stop mid-sentence and the crowd would roar. They too were simply caught in the rhythm of his speech.

A few months later, I saw Mr. Jackson on Saturday Night Live read Green Eggs and Ham as if it were a political speech and was astounded at the similarity to my own experience in our fieldhouse.

Today, Jesse Jackson is marching in Atlanta to protect voting rights. Is this just more green eggs and ham?

Almost 50% of eligible voters don't even vote. Shouldn't voter turnout be the ultimate issue?

I'm not trying to diminish the importance of civil rights and the right to vote, but the right to vote doesn't mean much if it isn't utilized.

More important, is Mr. Jackson really for voting rights, or just the rights of Democratic voters?

Typically, always voting for a party, either party, leads to incumbency, and incumbency leads to pork-barrel legislation. The crappy energy bill or transportation bill were nothing but pork, but Republicans alone couldn't make either happen, Democrats helped.

Yes, Mr. Jackson, voting rights are important, but if all registered voters simply voted, everything might change. However, if all registered voters, not only voted, but voted against incumbency, everything WOULD change.

Congress, fuel efficiency and hybrid cars

Early last week I wrote that Congress was blowing tax credits for hybrids because of caps. I followed that train of thought with the article The Energy Bill, hybrid critics and American political ineptitude, in which I wrote, "Ultimately, the clean vehicle tax credits and much of the energy bill promotes and endorses complacency, rather than technological innovation."

Then on Friday it was announced that hybrids would qualify for the carpool lane. This set off a fury of resentment at sites like autoblog.com whom didn't think such a move was fuel efficient. I posted an entry to autoblog letting them know fuel efficiency isn't the only reason for carpool lanes.

Ultimately, carpool lanes were created to move traffic because idling traffic causes the most air pollution. It is the fact that hybrid cars are super clean that has given them carpool lane status.

Nonetheless, according to a great article in the Mercury News, the California DMV will only be giving 75,000 total hybrids car pool lane status. So the whole issue is somewhat of a mute point.

All of this goes back to the ineptitude of the American Congress.

To promote fuel efficient technology in this time of oil and terrorism wars, Congress refuses to address fuel efficiency,even though - according to the EPA - the Big 3 are abusing fuel efficiency loopholes that result in 1980's fuel efficiency in 2005 America.

Instead, Congress has provided capped credits for hybrids that are really just protectionist tax credits that reward an industry that is failing America and failing in the war on terror. Ultimately, the clean vehicle tax credits were just pork for the Big 3. One way or another tax payers are paying for the incompetence of the Big 3.

The hybrid tax credit and carpool lane privileges for hybrids are nothing but hype and might hurt, rather than help, the move towards clean, fuel efficient technologies. Ultimately, the energy industry and their cronies in Congress - which represent a majority of members - do not represent America.

I'm really starting to wonder, who is more dangerous, terrorists or the American Congress? Actually, I'm starting to believe the answer to the question is, unfortunately, blatantly obvious.

Vote them ALL out. It couldn't get any worse.

What happens when gas hits $3.00 per gallon?

So oil is almost at $60.00 per barrel and has a very good chance of approaching $70.00. While I've predicted $3.00 gasoline before year's end, which was an aggressive prediction just weeks ago, others are sounding the $3.00 dollar alarm as well now. "I think within a year from now, you're probably looking at $3 gasoline and you're probably looking at something over $60 for oil," stated oil tycoon Boone Pickens, who runs a billion-dollar hedge fund that invests in energy commodities and equities.

What will happen if gas hits $3.00? Not much good from Congress or U.S. automakers - that seems clear. And why should they act, most Americans are complacent, apathetic and don't vote anyway.

What could they have done?

Biofuels are competitive when oil is $35 per barrel in Brazil (See more). Why couldn't that have happened in America? I'm sure pork-barrel lobbyists had nothing to do with it.

For more see Gas prices, hybrids, and Politics.

Medical marijuana and voting

So, the Supreme Court ruled that federal law is more important than state law when it comes to medical marijuana. I guess that isn't really much of a surprise.

Nonetheless, the evidence that marijuana has medical uses is indisputable. The Medical Association, not the DEA, should be responsible for the governance of this medicine. The rights of Americans are being denied.

Doctors already control the use of drugs far more dangerous than marijuana. Why the bias? Prisons, police, pharmaceutical companies, and fat advertising contracts - whole industries demanding more money to increase the race for the proverbial carrot on a stick, a battle that can never be won?

For decades 100s of billions have been wasted trying to prevent 'Reefer Madness' without success as drug use has increased. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results each time?

Then there is hemp. Hemp For Victory saved America in WWII, but it's too dangerous to help with global warming, pollution, and foreign oil dependency?

Are the only leaders in American politics fascists? If hemp was so important for Washington and Jefferson, why is it so dangerous today?

The Supreme Court made it very clear, this is an issue for Congress and the people. Since Congress only cares about re-election, nothing is going to be accomplished.

So, get registered to vote! Let's wipe the slate clean. Down with all incumbents!

And buy a hybrid car!

Gas prices affecting economy

According to Reuters, "U.S. consumer confidence deteriorated in April to its lowest in five months as higher gasoline prices left Americans uncertain about their economic prospects, a report said on Tuesday."

The so-called "backbone of the U.S. economy" is strongly affected by gasoline prices? Who'da thunk it?

Obviously not Congress, or some action might have been taken regarding fuel efficiency decades ago, when evidence of future problems began to mount.

Protecting inefficient, short-sighted, profit-greedy multi-national corporations is not free market capitalism, it's corrupt politics that has risked both the U.S. economy and National Security. Even after 911 - a day that changed everything(?) - nothing has changed.

Join the revolution, demand nothing less than hybrid car fuel efficiency, and don't forget this issue the next time you vote.

Gas prices, the Energy Bill, and Congress

Since the Energy Bill passed the House of Representatives, I have scanned the media for a positive assessment of the Energy Bill.

I have been unable to find one.

A majority of Americans, ones that live near the poverty line - the ones you never hear about on the O.C. or on reruns of Beverly Hills 90210 - are coming up shorter and shorter each month because of gas prices. But, who cares about a bunch of hillbilly, disenfranchised Americans that don't vote anyway?

Definitely not Congress. Gas prices are skyrocketing and the blame falls on both Democrats and Republicans alike. The last President to really push fuel efficiency was Jimmy Carter, according to USAToday.

While it seems obvious that Republicans have oil-lined pockets, Democrats are not nearly as innocent as outspoken Nancy Pelosi-(D)California, would have us believe. Instead of blaming Republicans, perhaps she should start by questioning the UAW-controlled-Democrats that are just as complicit in protecting the status quo of the automotive industry.

Even China is raising fuel efficiency standards. Not because scientific evidence suggests a global warming connection, but because pollution is ALREADY affecting their lives and China isn't very interested in America's decades old, inefficient automotive technology.

Save that for the Americans too stupid to value substance over image.

But I don't blame those Americans because we haven't had much choice, thanks to Congress. Experts, including those from the government, tell us this is an issue of National Security, yet neither corporate America, nor Congress, is taking responsible action.

Instead, billions of tax-payer dollars are being given to rich-in-profit energy corporations to 'save' America from the problems the same corporations created.

So, when you are at the pump this summer, pumping $3.00 gallons of gasoline into your vehicle, remember to thank your well-paid Congress-person.

And, if you are interested in buying a new car, don't forget hybrid cars! Send a message to the automotive industry that you want change.

Americans must take a stand against the American auto industry

Everyday, segments of America exercise rights every bit as important as voting. The choices we make, as consumers, essentially fund the people - rich shareholders - whom fund American politicians.

Automobiles, are one of the biggest purchases Americans make, and it's become one of the most important choices.

Vehicles, such as the SUV, are, quite simply, anti-American.

Even Bill Ford Jr. admits that car exhaust contributes to global warming, and that SUVs have had, at times, a dangerous past.

In just 50 years, Southern California has become a city highlighted by its notorious smog - something that kills people, and shortens the lifespan of millions of others.

This wasn't some natural phenomenon, this was man-made.

According to the Pentagon, global warming is one of the greatest threats to American security.

So what are American auto corporations doing about it? What are American corporations, who stand by "Buy American", really doing to help Americans?

Is building bigger SUVs what America stands for?

O.K., let's forget about the environment. Big gas-guzzlers can only make sense if gas is cheap.

Has enforcing cheap, foreign-derived oil cost America?

While, cheap gas has allowed Americans to drive huge, waste-of-everything vehicles, it has also required immense military action in the Middle East, seeded terrorism and anti-Americanism, led to two wars in Iraq, and helped bring about 911.

So now what is the auto industry, particularly, the American auto industry, doing about it?

Ford is releasing 20,000 Ford Escape hybrids. Sure, that isn't even a percent of their sales, but what a nice gesture.

Of course the Escape hybrid couldn't have been produced if Ford didn't lease its hybrid technology from Toyota. See, Toyota perfected the hybrid powertrain with the Toyota Prius.

If not for the Prius, America would be decades away from the Escape hybrid.

Now, Honda is releasing the Accord hybrid, it's third hyrbid model, and Toyota will be releasing several more models in 2005.

Ironically, only Japanese companies have addressed these issues, issues that should be a national priority to all Americans and American corporations.

They say, in many parts of America, cars are an extension of peoples' personalities. Imagine what that says about many Americans.

F_ _ _ the environment. F _ _ _ the Middle East and all Muslims, in fact, F _ _ _ everybody else in the world. I don't care about the future. It's not my responsibility. My kids can clean up my mess, and if you don't like it, I'll just run you over.

While SUVs are not evil, they are completely unneccessary in the driving conditions of most Americans, and they promote irresponsibility.

If something is unneccessary, and destructive, wouldn't the intelligent and the simple thing be to get rid of it?

Americans have been duped to believe that SUVs stand for American freedom of choice.

In reality; however, SUVs stand for anything but freedom.

American auto corporations have had plenty of time to clean up their dirty act.

Now it is up to the people to represent. Do we stand for arrogant irresponsibility, or do we stand for Freedom?. Hybrid cars and other fuel efficient vehicles and technologies represent not only freedom, but the future. Anything less is unacceptable.

Join the revolution.

Register to vote.

Politics: Money is the Name of the Game

The Democrats have already raised $13,000,000.00 for the next election, according to reports released today.

Democrats also announced having raised at least $400 million in the 2003-04 election cycle.

The Republicans haven't provided their final numbers yet, but most expect final numbers to be in the same range as the Democrats.

That's right, folks, almost a 1,000,000,000.00. Nine zeros, baby, a billion dollars.

A billion dollars to elect someone whom doesn't even represent the majority of Americans.

Think this is ridiculous? Do something about it!

Register to vote! Don't like either party? Register Independent, just register.

Click here to register to vote!

Smoke Dope, But Don't Vote?

Do you smoke weed, yet you don't vote?

Get off your ass, man. Register Independent. Let the squares know that you are going to vote.

I'm not advocating marijuana usage. Any drug is a crutch, but I believe that you can make those decisions by yourself.

The paranoia and government hypocrisy regarding not only marijuana, but more important, hemp, would be a complete joke, if not for the immense potential of hemp.

While many marijuana and hemp advocates rant about huge conspiracy theories dating back to Henry Ford, science alone, justfies marijuana legalization.

Recently, the Editors of Scientific American stated, "outdated regulations and attitudes thwart legitimate research with marijuana. Indeed, American biomedical researchers can more easily acquire and investigate cocaine. Marijuana is classified as a so-called Schedule 1 drug, alongside LSD and heroin. As such, it is defined as being potentially addictive and having no medical use, which under the circumstances becomes a self-fulflling prophecy."

Moreover, the article quotes the journal of Nature Medicine as saying that marijuana's "clinical potential is enormous" - a direct contradiction to it's classification. "The potential may include treatments for pain, nerve injury, the nausea associated with chemotherapy, the wasting related to AIDS and more."

In other words, the U.S. Federal government is in violation of it's own rules and regulations. More disappointing, marijuana's cousin, hemp, offers even more potential than marijuana, but is defined as marijuana by ignorant Federal legislation.

So, we know the people need to set the government straight on this and many other issues, so register to vote.

Not voting is for punks. Not taking action isn't a vote against the system, it's a vote of stupidity. If you don't like the system, vote against it by registering Independent!

Register to Vote

Why the 90 percent mass is better than the 30 percent herd.

I read an interesting piece in Scientific American, called Common Sense, by Michael Shermer. The piece essentially claims that for a group to be smart it should be "autonomous, decentralized and cognitively diverse."

Massive amounts of data, according to Shermer, show that "For solving a surprisingly large and varied number of problems, crowds are smarter than individuals."

Of course crowds and the herd mentality can also be a problem "when the members of a group think uniformly in the wrong direction."

It is almost impossible not to think of Republicans and Democrats as herds. Essentially, only a tiny percent of people decide the entire agenda of a whole herd of people.

Both major parties are the antithesis of "autonomous, decentralized and cognitively diverse".

Even worse, neither party tries to mobilize 'the people' only people that think similarly. Neither party; therefore, will make America stronger.

Only a majority of eligible voters voting can help America achieve the potential of democracy. Yet, both major parties focus on control of democracy, rather than actually achieving democracy.

Register to Vote. Register Independent.

Dem Leaders Question Kerry's $15 million nest egg

According to a CNN article, "Democrats are questioning why he sat on so much money that could have helped him defeat George Bush or helped down-ballot races, many of which could have gone our way with a few more million dollars," said Donna Brazile, campaign manager for Al Gore's 2000 presidential race.

While Kerry is yet to respond, the move is almost certain to impact the 2008 election.

Additionally, Kerry has another $7 million "on hand in a legal and accounting compliance fund that he could use for legal expenses in a 2008 campaign."

Just a little a pocket change to the Two-Party System.

For the complete article, click here.

Click here to register to vote.

Where is America's Largest Voting Bloc?

"The Biggest Voter Turnout since '68."

Wow, less than 60 percent of eligible voters voted in the 2004 Presidential election!

So, less than 30 percent of eligible voters decided the President of the United States. If everybody who didn't vote, voted for the same Third Party Candidate, they would easily determine the President of the United States.

Yet, these people are basically ignored. If you are one of them, nobody cares about you. You mean nothing - at least to anybody elected to represent people in your area.

Perhaps you don't care, or don't think your vote will matter.

It can. If you don't vote for "them".

If you think all politicians are the same, vote against them.

Your vote really can mean something.

But, if you don't register to vote, it won't matter.

So, if you don't feel like a Republican, or a Democrat, be an Independent. You can still vote for a Republican or a Democrat.

More important you'll send a message to all politicians that your vote requires results, not experience, not image, not campaigning skill, and not money-raising skills - just results!

If politicians can't achieve results for the people, they can get a job working with the people, and give someone else a try. The norm should not be career politicians.

Click here to register to vote!

Nader wins one, loses two against the Ironic Democrats

Democrats continue their quest to deter the vote of millions of Americans and have succeeded in removing Ralph Nader from the ballots of New Mexico and Arkansas.

The New Mexican decision - originally decided by a Democrat-contributing judge - is being appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court.

The Arkansas decision will also be appealed to the Supreme Court. In that State, Nader was removed over silly technicalities, much like the recent Florida Case.

Nader was put on the ballot in Maryland.

Apparently, many Democrats choose to focus their energies against Nader, against Voting, rather than focusing their energies on any solid plans For America. Winning is everything, even if it means the disenfranchisement of millions of Americans.

Isn't it ironic!?

Put Nader back on Florida ballot asks McCain

Ralph Nader is appealing his removal from the Florida state ballot, after a state judge removed him, stating that the Reform Party is no longer a legitimate national party under state law.

Senator John McCain sided with Nader's efforts claiming, "These obstactles discourage public participation in elections by denying voters the right to vote for their preferred candidate. Keeping Nader off the ballot in hope that his voters will be forced to support another candidate is patently unfair to those Floridians who, for whatever reason, have decided he's their man."

Once again, it seems, the two party system doesn't endorse or promote citizen participation, it only promotes the participation of those that already agree with the two party system. Any dissent, it seems, will not be tolerated for it might disrupt the status quo of a minority of wealthy, powerful people - the elite of both the Democrat and Repulican parties.

How undemocratic. (Democracy - A form of government in which political power resides in all the people....)

Update

Nader is temporarily back on Florida's ballot, though his stay there isn't guaranteed. For more information, click here.

Democrats abusing office power to fight Nader

A lawsuit filed by the Committee for a Unified Independent Party has been filed against Democrats in West Virginia, Oregon, Illinois, and Connecticut, accusing public officials in those states of misusing their official power.

Democrats are already running ads against Nader in many swing states, and challenging petition signatures all over the country, such as Nevada, where Democrats contested 11,571 of the 11,888 names to add Nader to the ballot. While this questionable focus is legal, other activities by Democrats elected into public office might not be legal.

According to the Wall Street Journal, "The fishiest situation involves West Virginia, where a state judge recently slapped down an unprecedented case brought by the state itself (rather than outside Democratic Lawyers) to keep Mr. Nader off the ballot." It appears that both Secretary of State Joe Manchin, who is currently running for Governor and Attorney General Darrell McGraw validated a petition to allow Nader to be on the ballot, but then reversed their decision after "intense political pressure from the Democratic Party."

Apparently, a half-dozen citizens, out of 23,000, argued, primarily, that the petition gatherers didn't show appropriate credentials and a few other minor incidents. The Wall Street Journal stated this action was "going too far to keep him [Nader] off the ballot."

While it can be assumed Republicans are tampering with the Nader petition drive, there are millions of voters who want to vote for an Independent Candidate, yet the Democratic Party doesn't want their votes to count. At the same time, John Kerry claims that Republicans are going to try to block the votes of African Americans, and pull more of the same 'Florida abuses'.

While 'one citizen, one vote' has become a Democratic mantra, it appears to only apply for Democratic voters.

As a registered Independent I am appalled by these actions. Not every Independent is a Republican in-disguise. Many of us are tired of the antics perpetrated by BOTH parties, and we feel that adding an Independent Party might provide some recourse.

James Carville, Democratic Strategist, often claims Republicans are better at 'it' in justification of the Democrat Party acting like Republicans. 'Well, they started it' Democrats seem to whine in validation of their childish logic.

Well, I'm tired of the past, of issues like Vietnam. What about today?

Enough is enough. Stand for something, not against something. That's what leaders do, and the Democratic Party, for all its criticism of the Republican Party, proves it's the same beast with a different costume.

Being a leader and losing is far more noble than a leader who gives up leading only to win at any cost. If that is the future of Democrats, of Republicans, of America, then there is no future.

How sad.

Couch potato voting!

During the last presidential election only about 50 percent of the eligible voting population actually voted. Many, just don’t seem to care, or don’t think it matters. Many others, after a long day at work, are simply too tired to wait in line – if they even know where they are supposed to go in the first place.

If you typically fall into the later group, absentee voting might be what you need. Many states have relaxed absentee voting restrictions in the last several years, and a new web service can help you find out more about absentee voting in your state. Absentee Impact is a company that creates voter registration software, but also helps citizens to determine if they qualify for absentee voting (requirements vary by state) and provides all the necessary forms for absentee voting.

If you do decide to vote via absentee ballot, make sure to closely follow all instructions, or your vote will not count. It is also important to request your ballot at least one month before Election Day, and it is equally important to send it in at least 10 days before the election.

So, if you think absentee voting is for you, order your ballot NOW, and VOTE!

What is selective consumerism?

Selective consumerism is the ability of consumers to use their purchases as a vote - hopefully, to positively affect the world. Selective consumerism is buying change. It's about saying, "I want the future to be better than today."

Countless corporations, only some of which are based in the United States, have one motive: appeasing shareholders. Typically, shareholders care about one thing: ROI, or Return on Investment. Therefore, corporations myopically search out profit, perpetually losing sight of cost/benefit for the world outside the corporation. For example, if a corporation can legally but profitably pollute the environment via a loophole in the law, even though the corporation knows the pollution is harmful, most often it will. Since the corporation is technically not doing anything wrong and reaping profits, layers of insulation obscure any moral questions.

This is not leadership. This, ultimately, only benefits consumers in the short run, if it keeps costs down. Nonetheless, ultimately, the consumer, as citizen, will pay for the clean up of this pollution - as the profitable corporation seeks new loopholes to increase profit.

Technology, including the Internet, provides consumers more choices, and the ability to vote with their choices. Do you want to buy a product that destroys people's lives, simply because it's cheap? Or, perhaps you would prefer to vote for products that are profitable, but that also make the world a better place at the same time?

I'll be doing a series of articles that focus on the hybrid car as an extreme example of selective consumerism. It's my personal favorite because it’s a big ticket item that truly has the potential to change the world.

Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) allegations against Nader

Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)

Read the AP article of the above for quotes, etc.

Congratulations, Crew! I saw this article on the Drudge Report and laughed once I went to your site. How can "Responsibility and Ethics" be in your title? Does that give you license to use yellow journalism-style tactics? "Anybody, but Bush" doesn't give you license to try to violate people's freedom. Ralph Nader isn't the problem, the fascist, extremist attitude of the ultraleft and ultraright is the problem.

Your home page indicates that only Republicans violate ethics and responsibility. Of course, other than Ralph Nader. Yes, there are Republican versions of Crew, and that's why both parties have become the problem. Statistically, neither party speaks for America, neither party has a mandate of authority. In fact, the biggest mandate is one of no confidence - in either party, or third party cronies, like Crew.

Well, the days of no confidence are not enough. The focus cannot be on the failures of the other, for all who strive for greatness will inevitably fail. Your minimalist attitude is of no help to America, Cert, only American Citizen Empowerment can change America.

Get out and vote, and if you can't vote for Bush or Kerry, vote for anybody else. Just Vote. Let them know you will be demanding more, and you are only getting started!

Al Gore, the bore, at it again.

According to a developing Drudg Report Story, Al Gore in a speech on Thursday, "will also urge the broadcast media to further resist Administration efforts to manipulate and intimidate them, to fearlessly report the fact that there is no Al Qaeda/Saddam collaborative relationship, as the 9/11 Commission staff report has concluded."

What? Intelligence during his own tenure as VP, officially documented, claims otherwise. There is absolute proof that Al Qaeda, even Bin Laden himself, met with the Iraqi diplomats. Al Qaeda exists only as terrorist organization, if they weren't discussing terrorism, what were the discussing? The fact is we just don't know, but it seems pretty obvious they weren't discussing humanitarianism.

Additionally, George Bush didn't create 911, and the current Iraq war wouldn't exist without 911. The 911 plan was in place and moving forward during the reign of Al Gore's boss. These terrorists declared war on the U.S. long before the Bush Administration. Further, during the Clinton/Gore years what was done to make the Middle East better? What was done to prevent the kinds of anger and hate that caused the planning and execution of 911?

Clinton and Gore ruled during the Internet boom, a time of great domestic stability and wealth, yet in the Middle East we were hated more and more. Where was the diplomacy then? The Art of War is preventing War, and the Clinton/Gore Administration failed, horribly.

When it comes to Iraq and terrorism, the Democrats have no more moral authority than Republicans. During one of the biggest economic booms in U.S. history, what was ultimately accomplished by the Clinton/Gore Administration? Did the world become a better place,did the US become a safer place? No, Al Qaeda and Middle East frustration regarding the U.S. position on Palestine resulted in 911.

Of course, in hindsight how could Clinton/Gore know what was coming? It's obvious that the Intelligence community wasn't very intelligent, just as we are finding out in Iraq. If Iraq is a political issue, it's an issue that demonstrates the current ineffectiveness of the current American political system. Both parties have lost moral authority not only with the world, but with 50% of the American population.

The blame game is the losers game. This country needs leaders, not finger-pointers. In reality only about 20% of the American population truly endorses either party. Neither party speaks for the people, only for themselves.

The only thing that is going to change this is citizen participation. Only significantly increased voter participation can put a kink in the political machine. So, get out and vote. If your excuse is I don't like Bush or Kerry, or either party, then vote for Nader, or write somebody in. Just prove you care and that you are watching.

Nader Again Refuses Dems' Request He Quit

Link to Story Posted on Yahoo

What is up with the Democratic Party? Ralph Nader has every right to run for office, and his supporters have every right to support him. This is the essence of freedom and democracy, this is America. While I realize that Democrats think defeating Bush is everything, even at the cost of choice, it must be remembered that freedom has costs. Freedom means that people of differing viewpoints must respect each others' differing viewpoints. Democrats complain about that the Patriot Act is eroding personal freedoms, yet they still try to take away, minimally, millions of peoples' vote. Voting should be the ultimate freedom, and neither party should ever seek to restrict this choice.

In the news, Democrats continually speak of America, or President Bush losing "moral authority" in Iraq. How about Democrats losing moral authority in America? It is completely unethical, immoral and unacceptable for the Democratic Party to do anything but promote the Democratic Party. Instead of limiting choice, why don't these Congress People get into their communities, at the grassroots level, and help their neighbors, providing the kind of leadership that compels voters to follow great leaders. We live in a country where 50% of the people don't vote. While difficult, mobilizing these new voters, even if only a few million, is a much more democratic expenditure of money and time for the Democratic Party.

Gerrymandering by both parties has created indentured Congress people. Incumbency in the House of Representatives is almost 100%. The polarity of the two parties is terribly high and the people are tired, of BOTH parties. While Democrats might be right that it is time for Bush to go, it's time for these Democrats to go as well. Neither party represents the Majority of Americans and neither party has the right to take anyone's vote away. The Democrats involved in this scandal must stop now, and they must apologize to the American people.

Is this Democracy or Facism

Over the last several months a number of websites have emerged with one goal, keeping Ralph Nader off the ballot. We live in a a country with few choices when it comes to the vote and half us are not voting.

A recent email from a Texas Democratic party official to members, obtained by the Guardian, was headed Keep Nader off the Texas Ballot and continued: "We need to make sure he is nowhere near a ballot in Texas."

Michael Frisby, communications director of the Stop Nader Campaign, said: "The point is not just to keep him from getting on the ballot but to make him spend money and time in all of these places so he has less money and time to spend getting votes."

Is this democracy?

The beauty of democracy is supposed to be freedom of choice. Yet even the democratic party is fighting choice, as are many Democract-Activists. Further, this isn't just about the presidency. There is currently almost permanent incumbency in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The fact is "The People" need to vote and they need to have absolute freedom of choice.

More Sample Sites. Keep clicking these sites since they are paying for the clicks!

www.dontvoteralph.net Please this site speaks of integrity. It takes integrity to question integrity.

The Nader Factor
"The Nader Factor is dedicated to building a dynamic grassroots community of former Nader voters, Nader supporters, progressive Democrats and others who understand what's at stake and are uniting to change the Democratic party and take this country back from the right-wing in Washington."

Again, please. Instead of worrying about the few percent of voters that have voted for Nader, why not focus on the 50% of voters not voting.
To think that either Republicans or Democrats are the sole problem of American Politics is ludicrous. Choice is a fundamental American value, and 50percent of Americans feel disenfranchised by the two party system. If an alternative choice brings them into the political sprectrum, then the greater good is achieved.

One person one vote hype?

During the last election, the problems in Florida created much discussion about the Electoral College. Many had decided it was time for one person, one vote, and have called for a national discussion regarding the subject. Ultimately, such a move requires amending the Constitution, and would require the help of politicians whom seem too polarized to accomplish much of anything these days.

Would one person, one vote accomplish meaningful change? Doubtful. Only 50% of eligible voters are voting, essentially allowing less than 25% of the voting population to determine the presidency of the most powerful democracy in the world. In fact, voter turnout in the U.S. ranks 139th out of the 172 countries with democratic elections, at 54.5%. (Read More)

Does Your Vote Matter?

A new study recently revealed that college students don't believe their vote matters in the presidential election. Even worse the study found that, "only 19 percent of American college students believe that politics is "very relevant" to their lives, and 43 percent believe that politics has little or no relevance".

Actually, even worse, is the fact that these students are mostly correct. Political insiders will tell you, because of the Red/Blue zone, only about 2.5% of the electorate is going to decide the vote. Additionally, in the last election, over 98% of congressmen were re-elected, and sadly, the candidate who spends the most, wins, PERIOD.

Therefore, money controls not only the elections, but America. Yet, "we the people" do have recourse. We the people most revolt, and we must revolt by voting in numbers never before attained, and we must feel free to vote third party.

Freedom of choice is the greatest weapon against tyranny, yet we have almost no choice, and now Democrats want to "legally" prevent Ralph Nader from getting on the ballot. Is that democracy, or facism?

Just get out and vote, and if you don't feel like your vote will count, vote against the 2 party system. Your vote can matter. (Click here to Register to Vote.)