stop, drop the vote '08?

I was hoping to share some of my thoughts regarding our participation in the political process.

As sons and daughters of the Divine, we have been given authority over Self (and over sin, over ignorance, over spirits, etc). But by entering into certain relationships, we transfer this authority through a variety of subtle and not-so-subtle means. For instance, when we consult a medical professional, we transfer a certain amount of authority over our physical body. We hand over additional authority if we choose to follow that professional's recommended course of treatment. We say, in essence, I am submitting to your authority, to your expertise.

When we submit to a pastor or a church, we cede a portion of our spiritual authority. This authority is always ours to reclaim, but we transfer portions of our authority on a daily basis - often without giving it a second thought. Subconsciously, we weigh each of these transactions through the process of a simple cost-benefit analysis. How much am I willing to compromise for some perceived gain? What is the likelihood that the perceived gain will translate into actual gain?

Now, I'm not going to spend my time arguing a case for our government being morally and fundamentally corrupt. I believe this to be self-evident, though I know many would disagree. Such a conclusion is one that every individual must make for her/himself. But here is a basic outline of the problem, as I perceive it.

Business, Media and Government have become hopelessly entangled. Utilizing the two-party system, it has become all too easy to limit the range of outcomes in any election and assure that the country stays on the general course that its leadership intends. And so democracy is no longer a democratic process. (And, after all, we are not a democracy but a republic - an issue at the heart of this topic.)

So, by participating in the political process we validate the system. It is the will of the people, and not the office itself, that lends authority to our leaders. And unfortunately, the higher the office, the more compromised the politicians vying to fill that post. So we are lending our authority - OUR authority - to the most compromised individuals, placing them in our nation's highest posts. I don't know about you, but I place greater confidence in the moral authority of the average 5 year-old than I do in many of our national leaders.

I've used this example before, but I'll try it out here. Say Person A needs an apple. He recognizes his need for an apple, and wishes to acquire this apple. So Person A goes to Person B, the only food supplier in town. Now Person B does not wish for Person A to acquire an apple, because Person A might then take the seeds from that apple and grow his own apple trees, thus removing Person A's dependence on Person B. But Person B needs to provide Person A with some food, or risking losing Person A's dependence on him, as well.

So Person B provides person A with three choices: a steak, a pound of dark chocolate, and a lobster. All excellent choices, but not what Person A needs or wants. But tantalizing enough to encourage participation. So as soon as Person A selects the lobster, for example, he validates the selection process - and by participating in the process, he validates Person B's position of authority.

Whether an individual decides to participate in a political process is every individual's decision to make. I just want to encourage each of us to think about who we lend authority to in our lives. What persons, what institutions, what ideas, what spirits - who do we give it up for? And for what gain?

Don't be too quick to lend your own authority to someone else. You are a child of the Universe, to steal a turn of phrase - a son or daughter of God. That's some pretty cool stuff, so be mindful to exercise your authority wisely.

Love!
Nix Fan

Political Climate: Quite warm dates with a bit of RIDDING '08 ELECTIONS!!!! Over to you.

"Diamonds v. Pearls" Student Blasts CNN

16 Nov 2007 11:21 am

Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked Hillary Clinton whether she preferred "diamonds or pearls" at last night's debate wrote on her MySpace page this morning that CNN forced her to ask the frilly question instead of a pre-approved query about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

"Every single question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN," Luisa writes. "I was asked to submit questions including "lighthearted/fun" questions. I submitted more than five questions on issues important to me. I did a policy memo on Yucca Mountain a year ago and was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship. For sure, I thought I would get to ask the Yucca question that was APPROVED by CNN days in advance."

Now, Luisa is getting "swamped" with critical e-mails.

So what happened?

Writes Luisa:

"CNN ran out of time and used me to "close" the debate with the pearls/diamonds question. Seconds later this girl comes up to me and says, "you gave our school a bad reputation.' Well, I had to explain to her that every question from the audience was pre-planned and censored. That's what the media does. See, the media chose what they wanted, not what the people or audience really wanted. That's politics; that's reality. So, if you want to read about real issues important to America--and the whole world, I suggest you pick up a copy of the Economist or the New York Times or some other independent source. If you want me to explain to you how the media works, I am more than happy to do so. But do not judge me or my integrity based on that question."Rivals to Clinton believe that the debate audience had a pro-Clinton tilt. UNLV was responsible for distributing most of the tickets.

In a separate post, Luisa provides the question she wanted to ask:

Yucca Mountain, NV is the proposed site for the country's nuclear waste repository. Despite scientific evidence that it is a vulnerable site, the federal government continues to push for the plan to move forward. The evidence relied on is unsound and the risks involved in transporting high-level radioactive waste across the country are high. What will you [Sen. Clinton] do to ensure that the best site/s is/are chosen for the storage of spent nuclear reactor fuel?

Sam Feist, the executive producer of the debate, said that the student was asked to choose another question because the candidates had already spent about ten minutes discussing Yucca Mountain.

"When her Yucca mountain question was asked, she was given the opportunity to ask another question, and my understanding is that the [diamond v. pearls] questions was her other question," Feist said. "She probably was disappointed, but we spent a lot of time with a bunch of different candidates on Yucca Mountain, and we were at the end of the debate."

Hi all; I started a thread about mass media, since this topic seems to have generated some discussion. Here's the link, if anyone is interested.

https://twohawks.forumotion.com/political-climate-f19/mass-media-t636.htm#2898