My non-political political analysis

The political pundits and talking heads are out in full force giving us their analysis of that the barely two-digit win by Hillary in Pennsylvania means. And blogland is full of finely tuned views too. This is not one of those. This is an artist's view of that this means, so it is very subjective.

One, clearly American Flag lapel pins do not matter (see previous blog), because Hillary has never worn one to my knowledge. Nor does dress for success. Throw that book out because I think she has horrid taste in pant suits. And a woman is suppose to wear a skirt for a job interview.

Two, there was a wide variance between the pre-primary polls which showed the gap being only 5% and the actual vote with 10%. (note: this was way down from the 30% Hillary started with.) But this difference seems to show that once we pull that curtain there are a huge group of white Democrats that are closet racists.

Three, the Hillary camp is probably going to use this little racial blip to say she is the one to go head to head with McCain. But don't buy that, because if the very White Male Democrat is closet racist he is probably also closet sexist (ask his wife and it probably is not that closeted). So when it is Hillary against McCain the white man with the military record will win every time. Just ask the KKK.

Four, and for me this is the really bad news, the old time dirty politics wins. That means the style of campaigns brought to you by Carl Rowe will be up and running in 2008. The Clintons are past masters. So this is the end of substance as we know it. It has been nice to debate some real issues for a change but the last debate proved in conjunction with the outcome of this primary that we are back to such clarifying terms as Flip Flopper.

Nothing is going to change. Hope is dead. Time to start meeting in back rooms and cellars and plan the revolution. Democracy was a nice experiment but it did not work. It can be purchased.

This all comes down to a lapel pin?

I watched the Hillary and Obama debate last night and personally think Obama won because he politely tried to get the debate focused back on the issues. It seemed to be all about US flag lapel pins. And why Obama does not wear one.

Was I the only one to notice that Hillary did not have one on her jacket lapel. Nor was she wearing one of the acceptable "I am an American" colors. Bush can always be predicted to wear a blue suit, white shirt and red tie when he is trying to sell us on staying in Iraq.

Hillary was wearing green which does not score really high on the dress for success scales and no American Flag lapel pin. So this morning I got up and Googled Lapel Pins. And was surprised to find that there are any host of US leaders that have been caught without one.

President Reagan seems to be one of the first. But his presidency predated 9/11 and I am not sure if there were different rules for then. I was working for the Village Court during this pivotal point in our US history and I know that suddenly you were at risk of being hung as a traitor or at the least fired if you did not adorn every outfit and every ball cap with at least one depiction of Old Glory. As an ex-hippy that was constantly put down for sewing American Flag decals on jackets and pockets of jeans I found myself rather divided by this sudden emergence patriotic display. Were these often not righteous depictions of a symbol of the United States really disgracing it? There is never room for enough stars or stripes. And do we get into a snobbery of my lapel pin is real gold with enamel not paint debate.

They are all Made in China. So how very American is that?

But while surfing along through Google I was surprised to find the above photo of Senator John McCain without his requisite lapel pin. Probably there are a whole group of political photographers frantically searching their digital image files this morning to see if they can find GW without one. Does he wear one while chainsawing dead wood on his ranch?

He is a Texan and it has been my experience that all Texans wear the Texas state Lone Star on everything. And it is the major decoration for all cabins owned by Texans here in New Mexico. Do you wear the Lone Star Lapel pin above or below the US Flag lapel pin?

Ask me if I care? Frankly if the issues facing us Americans do not get some serious attention in the very near future then I will cease to be proud of this country. I already have to apologize for our president (lapel pin or no) to all foreign friends and visitors. So let's stop playing this picky, picky game of make wrong and try to address the real issues that concern us.

Bitter? Who isn't?

Hillary has been condemning Barack's comment about voters being bitter. Yes, we are. And the numbers seem to prove it. In a recent CNN poll 81% of Americans said our government is on the wrong track. This is the highest level of disconnect with politics and Washington in almost two decades!

And a full 78% say things have gotten worse in the last five years. But what is the most frustrating is that nobody in Washington seems to be listening. While all the economic and political pundits are searching for words to survive this "slow down" in our economy two thirds of Americans polled thing it is a recession and think it has been going on for a while already. The world bank recently revealed a study which showed that food prices around the world have risen 83% in the last three years and that now some 33 countries are facing a crisis with food prices. But GW Bush, the leader of a free and democratic world by his own titling, doesn't even know that gas will soon be at $4.00 a gallon or better here in the states while Iraq sits on huge stockpiles of oil that it won't even use to rebuild its own country.

OK, I get the Pottery Barn rule. We broke it so we pay for it. But GW went into this ill-advised and illegal war saying that Iraq's oil would fund it. We have now spent enough in that tiny country to totally fix Social Security or secure Medicare into the next half of this century or fund a universal health care system or repair and replace our aging infrastructure or research and develop alternate energy resources . . . the list goes on and grows by the minute . . . or's get replaced by and's.

Yes, we are bitter. What happened to Democracy begins at home? Not to mention charity? A recent report on a local TV channel said that the US government has promised our National Guard to replace all the equipment shipped to Iraq by 2013. That's five years! This equipment and our National Guard is used to fight wild fires on the grasslands and forest fires in the mountains. This year they had to go and rescue a community buried in record snows without an operating snowplow. They spent two days preparing to rescue people without food because the antiquated equipment GW did not want for Iraq needed tires, and mechanical fixes to make the trip.

Yes, we are bitter. And quite frankly I think that is the only sane way to be right about now. We have not only spent all the money that could fix this country but we have spent all the future money that could fix this country. Russia went bankrupt fighting the war in Afghanistan. We are so deeply in debt to China on the war in Iraq we have to make nice to a communist country that plans to change the weather for the Olympics. Don't they care that it might have climatic repercussions down jet stream? No. They don't care about Tibet, or our poisoned pets, or the lead paint in toys either. But GW will go to the opening ceremonies and honor them because we owe them money for a war we should never have gotten into.

I think Obama was spot on. We are bitter and we want something done about it. Until then we have our guns, and some their religion. And we just don't want anything given away to anyone else until we get our fair share. Obama's one mistake is he limited his comment to the blue collar workers. Doesn't matter what your collar color is we are all bitter.

The politics of gas prices

The mountain west is an area of vast open spaces with sparsely located population centers. Some towns are merely a gas station, a church, a bar and a tack shop (a business that sells things for horses and cattle and those that work on and with them). It is easier to get a bale of hay in parts of New Mexico than ink for your computer printer.

Before the Internet you took a trip to the nearest big city once a month or two of supplies. And it was in those cities that the big box stores opened up. They killed a lot of the Mom and Pop businesses in smaller towns in the area. The result was a capitalistic system that was supported by big vehicles and cheap gas and long distance driving.

I live in a resort town where it is easier to buy skis or mountain bike than a pair of jeans and tennis shoes. You cannot buy a shirt that does not have the name of the resort printed or embroidered on it. The local grocery store caters to the Texas tourist trade and not the organic diet locals. Our business depends on people traveling by car to get here. There is no other way. No trains, only a small private jet airport, no buses. And while the tourists travel here we have to travel to Santa Fe or Albuquerque to shop for things not available in our area. Or shop the Internet. And even with that delivery prices are going up.

I am looking for tile for my studio. I have a lumber yard in my town but not a flooring supply store. I traveled two hours to Lowe's to look for tile. The delivery charge to my town will be $135 or 30 cents extra per tile. I cannot haul it it my van because it is one ton of tile in a 1/2 ton base vehicle. I could do it in two trips. Twice the gas. If I had one of those little energy efficient hybrids we would be looking at six trips or more.

I have the feeling that some of those little stores Lowe's and Wal-Mart, and Sam's put out of business will spring back up eventually. But in the mean time we two choices: pay the higher prices for gas or delivery or choose to not buy those items you cannot haul in your car. A lot of us are going with the latter option because we cannot afford the first.

I don't think it would bother me as much that gas prices are causing me to totally alter my choices in life if the gas companies were not making such huge profits and paying their CEO's such huge salaries. Or if the President had a clue about what gas prices were and the impact upon our society and the businesses, especially the small businesses.

If we stopped giving gas companies tax breaks and used that money to build some railroads and make more of our communities accessible by some means other than car and made it easier to get goods into those towns we all might feel a bit less bitter. Everyone is angry at Obama for saying we are bitter. But we are bitter. We see the rich get richer and have absolutely no concept of how pinched the middle and lower classes feel by the economic woes led I think by gas and fuel prices. My life style has changed drastically due to that. I want someone to recognize it. I am angry as hell that the rich fat cats in Washington don't seem to even be aware of what we are going through. McCain said we should all just tighten our belts a little and eat out less often.

This weekend I ate out with a friend for the first time in a couple of months. I used to eat out at least once a week. My friend filled up her gas tank for the first time in a month because she has been staying home to save gas. Yes, we are bitter. And I am frankly thrilled someone running for office realized it.

Just Unplug

As of April 15th I will have disconnected from my satellite server. I have blogged about my feelings on this before but without a definite resolution until just recently.

I am one of the disadvantaged rural people that cannot get the television channels like ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS with just a standard antenna. And while a lot has been touted about how great digital broadcasting will be nobody has said that it will make areas without television reception more able to receive local channels without paying a satellite or cable service for this privilege enjoyed by most citizens of this country. I cannot even get a daily local paper where I live but I can get Internet with a satellite which I also pay for.

It bothers me that I have to pay to find out what is happening in the world around me. But it brothers me even more that I do not get choices of what I pay for. The satellite and cable providers (pimps) claim they package channels to save me money but I argue with this. They want me to pay for 250 channels (235 of which I will not watch) to be able to get the 15 I will. And while single senior women are a large and growing segment of our society there is no package that does not include Disney, ESPN and an ample sprinkling of religious channels of faiths I resent supporting. I have e-mailed AARP on this issue and they are supposedly in talks with the satellite services (fear dealers) to develop a package aimed at us. Frankly, I believe as long as they can sell us 250 channels so we can get CNN, TNT and local news they will not change.

My response to this is to just say NO. NO television. NO satellite television service. I will get my news from Internet Websites. Weather that way too. I will watch DVD's for entertainment (without commercials trying to sell me something). I will read. And I will think. And one of the things I have been thinking about is where has the FCC been in all this? When did broadcast television cease to be a way to keep our population informed and start being a way of blackmailing them into compliance.

Free Trade?????

Is it free trade? I really do not think so if we are locked into an agreement like NAFTA which we cannot alter. Or if that trade means we have to compromise our ideals, morals or laws.

Free trade with China has certainly cost us pet owners a lot. And mothers with children having to spend more time shopping for toys that are made here or guaranteed lead free.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg. What about the thousands and thousands of jobs that are being outsourced to foreign countries? We are called protectionists if we even raise doubts about this ideal of a free world economy. It does sound like a neat thing. I would love to be able to get high quality Italian shoes on an equal footing as it were. But then Italy falls close to my expectations on its treatment of women and minorities. It cares about its seashores. It is not trying to whip Sweden into compliance. And most items I have purchased with the Made in Italy label have been of good quality.

I don't have those same feelings about hardly anything coming from China. And I can endorse the Made in Mexico label only on those things I know Mexico does well. Frankly, that is not electronics even if under the auspices of a United States firm. It still pays to be a bit careful about buying ceramics from their country because of their use of lead based glazes. But if I am faced with the choice of two products and one is made in China and another in Mexico I will opt for Mexico every time. I am close to not buying something I want if I can only get it made in China.

But those issues are not all there is to this Free Trade issue. It seems that the other countries are not playing fair. They are making items in prisons or giving money to companies so they can undercut the prices of products made here. And Free Trade seems to be only for major companies. As an artist my work purchased by someone in another country still faces major duties and tariffs. That does not sound free and open to me.

Both Democratic candidates are promising another look at the North American Free Trade Agreement but Bush is already advocating a free trade agreement with Columbia. It will cost us jobs and allow free trade only one direction. We need to look long and hard at these agreements in the future. If they hurt our citizens or endorse a way of life we cannot morally support then we should just say no.

Election Reform - a modest proposal

With ll the mudslinging going on out there in the Democratic primary process I just had to step back and ask myself if there was a better way. There must be. It has been more than 200 years since our founding fathers set the basic rule down for our republic. But despite the constant call for change by even the candidates themselves the American people seem to not want change. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Well, I frankly think it is broke. At the very least you have to ask yourself what could be achieved if we took all the manhours, money, energy and creative thinking being spent to get one person elected above another and directed it toward just one problem like global warming or the economic crisis.

What if instead of going all out to gather delegates we gave each person running for the highest office of our land the task of making some measurable improvement on just one national problem. The various pressing problems could be written on a slip of paper and tossed in a hat. Each presidential hopeful would pick just one piece of paper. They would then take their staffs, all the money donated by the people, and set out to tackle the problem.

The news media instead of rehashing over and over what one candidate said about he other and how many ways the popular vote, the pledged delegates, and super delegates could report on the progress of the staffs of the candidates in defining the problem, blue-skying a few outside the box solutions, and steps taken to move forward.

The candidates would have to constantly assess the success of their staff and make staff changes to facilitate progress toward the solution. Even seek out and hire experts in the field. Isn't this what we ask of our presidents? We have currently a president unwilling to make any staff changes or modify his failed plan in anyway or listen to any voice other than his own. We want a new president that will behave differently. One that will not be concerned with his legacy but with whether or not he left this country a better place to live in. Not Iraq. Our country. Not that he has done better with Iraq.

By reforming our election process in this way we would not only be able to pick the candidate able to lead and not just run for office. We would also accomplish something toward the improvement of the major problems we face in the future. The election process would actually benefit something other than just the advertising firms and media commercial markets.

I don't want another president with "all the answers." I want one willing to admit he does not have all the answers and willing to listen to experts who just might have the answers. I want a president who is good at something other than running for office.