Once again I'm sorry for having to point out so many flaws in our political system. It seems that people have a bias attatched to well known political names. According to an article in USA today, there are over two dozen candidates running for congress or govenor who are related to previous holders of that exact position. So this begs the question, "are the american people basing some opinions on political candidates simply because of their name?

The answer is of course. It is not possible to remove all bias from the complex labyrinth of a political system. However it is a problem that because of candidates being decendants of positions of power and performing either to the liking or not of the public. So this bias could also prove to work against them. A New York Assemblyman Adam Clayton Powell IV wants to create his own impression instead of living in his father's impression. "I could make subways and buses [a vital mode of transport in downtown New York for commuters] free and there are still some people who would say 'Oh, that's just Adam Clayton Powell's son.'" Even father's are concerned about the images they have placed on their son's based on previous actions.

So what can we do? Once again all signs point to education. Not necessarily through the school system but educating the citizens on all political candidates that they will be voting for or against. It is not fair to have an uneducated demographic and ask them to decide who is best suited to lead them when the only knowledge they might have would be of a father who performed his role in office poorly. We need to find a way to better inform our people!

It's About Time

Finally I'm observing the political news and I hear something about education?! No way crazy right? Believe it or not Obama actually isn't just focused on getting himself out of this mess America put him in, but concerned about our future and what we can do in order to prevent further problems. "If we want succes in our country, we can't accept failure in our schools," Obama stated according to a New York Times article Obama Defends Education Programs. There are certain themes such as recessions and bank failures that can not be repeated to ensure the prosperity of our nation. How is that accomplished? By educating the less educated.
When people understand the facts and can analyze history, it becomes much easier to prevent the same mistakes from happening twice (such as the Great Depression). We aren't quite in the state of such desperation as the 1930's, but it is extremely unfortunate for our country to be in the billions of dollars of debt that we are in today. The most effective way of preventing future problems is to help upbring the uneducated so they do not make some of the same mistakes made in the past. It is important for Obama to recognize that there are many underqualified schools and underprivileged kids who do not recieve the proper education.

Finally Someone Agrees Wtih Me...

So there's a tight race down in the swamp country between Marco Rubio and Florida's govenor Charlie Crist. I was not fairly interested in the article about the race until I came across an accusation by Rubio. When being interviewed about his opposition, the man began on how politicians "will say or do anything to get elected." Hello?!? Exactly what I have been saying this whole time. How do we know that Rubio himself is not simply saying this to turn the tide in his favor?
Well it's pretty obvious that he is not running merely to win but actually stands fast in his policies. He is a proclaimed ultra-conservative but says he dose not care much for labels and stands by his policies. Another plus that puts Rubio on my good side is the fact that he is not afraid to take shots at the white house. Washington is morphing into a more liberal state, and Rubio puts his foot down when remarking "This healthcare bill has to be replaced. These ideas are too expensive. And they dont work..." Congressional efforts to limit greenhouse gases, he added, would "succeed in making us the cleanest Third-World economy on the planet."
So maybe there is hope yet for these politicians. I'll be following this race from now on to see what sort of ideas and promotional speeches that might not make it through my "BS" filter.

Someone's Gotta Give

I've been speculating recently about the values that our politicians today have when dealing with vital problems facing our nation. Is it not apparent that our nation and world is in an energy crisis? Most sane people can point to all the endless signs that we are not only relying to much on non-renewable resources, but destroying our planet in the process. A recent aritcle in the New York Times sparked my interest and prodded at my main purpose of investigating politicians true motives.
"What 7 Republicans Could Do," by Thomas Friedman is supporting the democratic's rational side of the energy bill being discussed in the Senate. We need to be a more energy efficient nation not only to protect and preserve our world, but to strengthen our dollar by keeping more money circulating in the United States. Our great competitor China has already surpassed us in the clean-technology area.
The author criticizes republicans because it would take only 7 to pass the bill. The problem I have with this situation is that it is hard to believe that there is not a single Republican who will vote against their party. This leads to one of my many skeptical questions pondering do politicians vote in fear of being rejected by their parties? Is there no moral sense in them these days that they will not take a stand for what they believe in, instead bend over in support of their party just to play the game?
All sources point to the energy bill at being cardinal in our prosperity. Now the only things standing in its way are stubborn republicans.

Are Politicians Simply Playing a Game?

One of the main issues I have with the current government with so many political bodies around, is are the politicians simply selling what the american public wants to hear? An article written today by the New York Times covers an interview with president Obama. He is asked a series of questions about how the economic crisis has damaged his chances for the midterms in November. "Washington has spent an inordinate amount of time on politics - who's up, who's down - and not enough on how are we delivering for the American people," said the president. This got me thinking, is that what politics is all about these days? To me it seems almost as though it's a battle between two political parties to demean the other in whatever way they can. What has politics really come to?