MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Yes, the mid-term elections are over and the crying jags have pretty much stopped, so, while I'm shocked at the damage comfort chocolate has done to some people's butts. . .
. . . I have just one thing to say about the overall impact of the glorious orgy of wastage known as the 21st Century American Campaign for Public Office So's I can Live off the Public Dole Whilst Killing it for Everyone Else: Humph!!! (and also "We'll just see about that, lads and lassies!")
In a country where the U.S. total debt is nearing 55 gazillion dollars, where the interest alone is over 3 bajillion, where the official number of unemployed citizens is almost 15 million but the actual number is 26 million, where we owe so much money to China they could conquer us simply by calling in their debt. . .in that country, our country ('tis of thee), the politicians--those bloody buggering bastards--spent 4.2 billion dollars on campaign advertising in order to secure for themselves not just any jobs but--get this--government jobs.
So when we kept calling for jobs, jobs, jobs we apparently didn't make it clear that we were talking about ours, not theirs. For months now, we've been concentrating on getting the votes out for people who needed a job so badly they spent more than most of us will earn in five lifetimes in order to get it.
Is it asking too much, then, to expect that they'll come up with some meaningful ways of building a job market in the Greatest Country in the World so that the people who voted for them can get in on the American Dream?
Money doesn't buy votes, it provides a glittery gift box for perceptions. Real people still have to get out there and cast their ballots and it's those same real people who suffer and bleed when their own government turns against them at a time when they need them most. What those 30 megakillion pieces of silver bought this time is the perception that real people aren't suffering and bleeding. Not worthy people, anyway.
This election was baffling in that one faction, the anti-government Republican Tea Party, ran on a platform of aggressively disinterested blind-eye and won. They convinced millions of the most vulnerable among us that even though they'll be taking paychecks from the government and accepting all the perks that government will allow, and sitting in the halls of government deciding and voting on how best to stop the government from doing anything--it's what the American people want, by God, because they said so. (And how did they say so? By voting the anti-governments in, of course.)
So it's all about the job but not all about the jobs and once again we're on our own, getting ready to shout from a mountaintop into the wind, hoping a few tiny word-wisps will escape the updrafts and waft down to earth, finding purchase on a mighty magic rock capable of transforming those syllables into actions that might actually mean something.
But in case that doesn't happen, there's always this:
(I was hoping you weren't going to read this far. I got nothing.)
Cross-posted at Ramona's Voices here. (Nothing there, either)
Comments
Oh ya...I remember seeing an infomercial about that on a local FOX affiliate. You send them some money and then attend a seminar and they give all the information you need to secure a government job. Sweat.
by cmaukonen on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 5:59pm
Jobs, jobs, jobs....at least I don't have to hear Rick Michigan's whiney voice say that anymore because he done bought his for $6 million according to this.
Spending personal fortunes on buying a government job has truly gotten out of hand.
by wabby on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 8:10pm
It's just crazy. Sure, some won and some lost, no matter what they spent, but in Bernero's case he didn't stand a chance. That article says Snyder spent 6 million dollars in the primary. What did he spend overall?
Something has to be done about campaign finance reform. There will never be such a thing as a level playing field if money is the answer to everything. Not fair.
by Ramona on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 9:39pm
I thought the $6 mill was a little light myself, but didn't bother to reread the article before posting. I'd read the figure was around $14 mill for Snyder while Bernero was under the $2 mill mark. It was lopsided at whatever the final tally was. Still, it was no where near DeVos's self-funded war chest. Over $40 mill for the governorship which he lost to Granholm. Ha.
by wabby on Tue, 11/16/2010 - 12:41pm
Ran across this the other day.
Published Oct. 11, 2007 (that is, before "the crash."):
by artappraiser on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 8:26pm
Wow, that's a bombshell. Not the news--it doesn't come as a shock to most of us--but the fact that Gallup was so emphatic about their findings, even to the point of offering solutions.
Who was listening? Was it used during the campaigns? If it wasn't, it should have been. It should have changed everything.
Just a mailing of the following would have done it (This came right after your quotes above. Notice the emphasis on "good" jobs):
by Ramona on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 10:19pm
A distinction worth making: the $3-4.3 billion was the amount spent for political advertising NOT the amount spent BY the political candidates.
http://adage.com/article?article_id=146818
If a candidate spends $14 million, but outside groups spend $57 million because they wish to further their own interests, then don't blame the candidate for the combined total!
by Contrarian on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 9:28pm
by Ramona on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 9:48pm
Only the ads from the candidate's campaign have to have an "I approve this message". Outside groups are legally prohibited from coordinating with the campaign, so that while they do support a candidate, the candidate doesn't 'own' it. (This doesn't count ads sponsored by the candidate's party.) Outside ads usually end with someone talking really fast saying, "This ad was paid for by Citizens for a Prosperous America"- or something similarly anodyne.
by Contrarian on Tue, 11/16/2010 - 1:58am
You got me, Dave. Still having a hard time with billions of dollars being spent on election campaigning (the point, actually), but you got me.
by Ramona on Tue, 11/16/2010 - 6:23am
If you listen to the 'Political Gabfest' (a podcast from Slate), David Plotz has been arguing that what this shows is that the U.S. elections have previously been "under capitalized". It's a somewhat distasteful notion that there could be a dollar value assigned to elections, but distasteful or not I think he's right.
by Contrarian on Tue, 11/16/2010 - 7:17am
"Somewhat distasteful" is more than a bit of an understatement. "Outrageously obscene" is my take on it. We're in an economic crisis the likes of which most of us haven't seen in our lifetimes, and we're talking about billions with a B going toward political campaigns.
We love to be stingy when it comes to actual needs, pretending that real people aren't being hurt, but this seems to be outside of any kind of moral distinction. I'm sickened by it, and intellectual analyzing is not the antidote. I still feel like vomiting.
by Ramona on Tue, 11/16/2010 - 7:56am