Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Quote of the Month
"If you sell a candidate the same way you sell a cinnamon roll, is the candidate a cinnamon roll ?"
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Election
I really can't wait for the political season to be over with. It's all so boring to listen to people spout out bumper sticker slogans like robots.
It was just Super Tuesday and I'm proud to say that I didn't vote. Yes, I'm not one of those jerks that walks around with a little sticker that says, "I Voted" while patting myself on the back all day. Anyway, I don't think people understand how politics works so here's my little version.
Here we go. If a candidate wants to be a contender they need to raise massive amounts of cash. We're talking millions of dollars. In fact, Senators have to raise an average of $34,000 a week, every week, for six years to stay in office. Politicians actually spend more time looking for money than anything else. So why is money so important? During the 2000 congressional election, 94 percent of the House of Representatives and 85 percent of the Senators with the most cash won the election. Yes. You read that right. It's not about a person with a moral compass or what someone believes but how much money can be raised. (I recommend the site http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1633488_1633530_1633568,00.html for anyone interested in this information. This nonpartisan group has done an incredible, absolutely amazing job of following money in Washington.)
In order to raise all that cash, politicians have to find constituents to support them so they head to where the big money is: the corporations. Fortune magazine runs an article every year highlighting the biggest corporate whores of the year. This year, "business is betting on" Hillary Clinton. She has been able to get support from the likes of Morgan Stanley, Anheuser-Busch, and Sun Microsystems. Here is a small list of her Top Contributors and Top Industries.
Why do corporations hand out so much money? Well, the only goal of corporations is to maximize profit. They give to buy and influence our politicians and our policies. For instance, Enron was the biggest contributor to the Bush's presidential and gubernatorial campaigns. For giving so much Bush hired some of their employees and associates including Alberto Gonzalez as White House counsel, Thomas White for Secretary of the Army, Lawrence Lindsay as Chief White House Economist, Patrick Wood as chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Harvey Pitt in charge of the SEC.
Former CEO, Kenneth Lay gave Dick Cheney a memo (click here for actual memo) that said, "The administration should reject any attempt to re-regulate wholesale power markets by adopting price caps." He also gave a wish list of eight policy recommendations. Of the eight, seven were made into law. This heavy deregulation led to the California Energy Crisis.
That's one example.
I don't know if anyone noticed, but Clinton´s idea of Universal Healthcare is a scam. She says she's going after the pharmaceutical and insurance companies. Sounds good to me. These bastards have been raping the sick and dying for years. It turns out that's she's doing the exact opposite. Hillary has managed to raise, "more financial backing from health-related industries than her opponent."
The reason drugs are so cheap in Canada and elsewhere is because there are government regulations that tell companies that they can't take something that cost 5 cents, and turn around and sell it for 50 dollars. Instead, Clinton's plan works much like car insurance. Buy it or be penalized. (Oh yeah, she also gives poor people a little tax break for buying the health insurance. Too bad, they can't afford the insurance in the first place.) So, if I was an insurance company, Clinton would be a savior. People are forced to pay for insurance and insurance pays for the pharmaceuticals. Everyone wins...except the public who will be footed with the bill. Hillary's plan is Universal but it looks more like corporate welfare to me. Of course, I guess it makes sense when the pharmaceutical and insurance companies back you.
Another strategy for winning election is to hire Public Relation goons. Clinton has hired the PR firm Burson-Marsteller. These thugs work for the likes of Philip Morris and Saudi Arabia. They actually helped clean up Saudi Arabia's image after 9/11 when it turned out that 15 of the 19 hijackers were of Saudi decent. Freedom House ranks Saudi Arabia just under North Korea as far as freedom is concerned.
For a PR company, selling candidates is just like selling any other product. They aren't selling beliefs or issues but image. That's why politicians say stuff that 100 percent of the public believes in. Freedom. Democracy. Support the Troops. Whatever. Everyone believes in these things so politicians say them over and over again to win votes. And marketing people know that when you hear these things you get goose bumps and get all emotional and froth at the mouth.
Marketers teach candidates to be vague on every issue. I still can't figure out what Clinton thinks about Iraq. She says she wants to start taking out troops out in the next year. So does Bush. She won't guarantee troops out by 2012. And as far as I can tell, she wants permanent military bases in Iraq. So what is the difference between the Bush and Clinton plan? I can't tell. She constantly rips on Bush's handling of the war but what is her plan? To leave... eventually. Again, that's Bush's plan.
So wrapping this whole thing up, I'm really tired of hearing people say things like, "I think we need Change. That's why I'm voting for Obama." Or how about, "I think Clinton has more Experience so I think she'll be a better president." Or, "That McCain's a real Straight Shooter; he says what he thinks." That, and all the other stuff about 500-dollar haircuts or who would make a great leader and who had the ultimate comeback during the debate. It's all window dressing dumbed-down to the lowest common denominator.
These are strategies that sell politicians. Clinton is betting on the angle of Experience, while Obama is using Change. These have absolutely nothing to do with the issues. In the end, what upsets me most is that voting, democracy itself, is really nothing but sideshow. In the end, the candidate with the most money wins anyway. And in order to get that money the public must be subverted.
It was just Super Tuesday and I'm proud to say that I didn't vote. Yes, I'm not one of those jerks that walks around with a little sticker that says, "I Voted" while patting myself on the back all day. Anyway, I don't think people understand how politics works so here's my little version.
Here we go. If a candidate wants to be a contender they need to raise massive amounts of cash. We're talking millions of dollars. In fact, Senators have to raise an average of $34,000 a week, every week, for six years to stay in office. Politicians actually spend more time looking for money than anything else. So why is money so important? During the 2000 congressional election, 94 percent of the House of Representatives and 85 percent of the Senators with the most cash won the election. Yes. You read that right. It's not about a person with a moral compass or what someone believes but how much money can be raised. (I recommend the site http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1633488_1633530_1633568,00.html for anyone interested in this information. This nonpartisan group has done an incredible, absolutely amazing job of following money in Washington.)
In order to raise all that cash, politicians have to find constituents to support them so they head to where the big money is: the corporations. Fortune magazine runs an article every year highlighting the biggest corporate whores of the year. This year, "business is betting on" Hillary Clinton. She has been able to get support from the likes of Morgan Stanley, Anheuser-Busch, and Sun Microsystems. Here is a small list of her Top Contributors and Top Industries.
Why do corporations hand out so much money? Well, the only goal of corporations is to maximize profit. They give to buy and influence our politicians and our policies. For instance, Enron was the biggest contributor to the Bush's presidential and gubernatorial campaigns. For giving so much Bush hired some of their employees and associates including Alberto Gonzalez as White House counsel, Thomas White for Secretary of the Army, Lawrence Lindsay as Chief White House Economist, Patrick Wood as chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Harvey Pitt in charge of the SEC.
Former CEO, Kenneth Lay gave Dick Cheney a memo (click here for actual memo) that said, "The administration should reject any attempt to re-regulate wholesale power markets by adopting price caps." He also gave a wish list of eight policy recommendations. Of the eight, seven were made into law. This heavy deregulation led to the California Energy Crisis.
That's one example.
I don't know if anyone noticed, but Clinton´s idea of Universal Healthcare is a scam. She says she's going after the pharmaceutical and insurance companies. Sounds good to me. These bastards have been raping the sick and dying for years. It turns out that's she's doing the exact opposite. Hillary has managed to raise, "more financial backing from health-related industries than her opponent."
The reason drugs are so cheap in Canada and elsewhere is because there are government regulations that tell companies that they can't take something that cost 5 cents, and turn around and sell it for 50 dollars. Instead, Clinton's plan works much like car insurance. Buy it or be penalized. (Oh yeah, she also gives poor people a little tax break for buying the health insurance. Too bad, they can't afford the insurance in the first place.) So, if I was an insurance company, Clinton would be a savior. People are forced to pay for insurance and insurance pays for the pharmaceuticals. Everyone wins...except the public who will be footed with the bill. Hillary's plan is Universal but it looks more like corporate welfare to me. Of course, I guess it makes sense when the pharmaceutical and insurance companies back you.
Another strategy for winning election is to hire Public Relation goons. Clinton has hired the PR firm Burson-Marsteller. These thugs work for the likes of Philip Morris and Saudi Arabia. They actually helped clean up Saudi Arabia's image after 9/11 when it turned out that 15 of the 19 hijackers were of Saudi decent. Freedom House ranks Saudi Arabia just under North Korea as far as freedom is concerned.
For a PR company, selling candidates is just like selling any other product. They aren't selling beliefs or issues but image. That's why politicians say stuff that 100 percent of the public believes in. Freedom. Democracy. Support the Troops. Whatever. Everyone believes in these things so politicians say them over and over again to win votes. And marketing people know that when you hear these things you get goose bumps and get all emotional and froth at the mouth.
Marketers teach candidates to be vague on every issue. I still can't figure out what Clinton thinks about Iraq. She says she wants to start taking out troops out in the next year. So does Bush. She won't guarantee troops out by 2012. And as far as I can tell, she wants permanent military bases in Iraq. So what is the difference between the Bush and Clinton plan? I can't tell. She constantly rips on Bush's handling of the war but what is her plan? To leave... eventually. Again, that's Bush's plan.
So wrapping this whole thing up, I'm really tired of hearing people say things like, "I think we need Change. That's why I'm voting for Obama." Or how about, "I think Clinton has more Experience so I think she'll be a better president." Or, "That McCain's a real Straight Shooter; he says what he thinks." That, and all the other stuff about 500-dollar haircuts or who would make a great leader and who had the ultimate comeback during the debate. It's all window dressing dumbed-down to the lowest common denominator.
These are strategies that sell politicians. Clinton is betting on the angle of Experience, while Obama is using Change. These have absolutely nothing to do with the issues. In the end, what upsets me most is that voting, democracy itself, is really nothing but sideshow. In the end, the candidate with the most money wins anyway. And in order to get that money the public must be subverted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
