Rep. Chaffetz Says Gyrocopter Pilot Doug Hughes Should Have Been Shot Down; however to the best of my knowledge neither he or many members of congress have indicated a serious interest in actually discussing corruption in congress that has been institutionalized and protected by law.
The following options were listed in the letters he attempted to deliver to congress, whether you agree with the way he attempted this or not:
Read the Letter Gyrocopter Pilot Doug Hughes Attempted to Deliver to Congress 04/16/2015
.... As a member of Congress, you have three options.
1. You may pretend corruption does not exist.
2. You may pretend to oppose corruption while you sabotage reform.
3. You may actively participate in real reform. Complete article
.... As a member of Congress, you have three options.
1. You may pretend corruption does not exist.
2. You may pretend to oppose corruption while you sabotage reform.
3. You may actively participate in real reform. Complete article
Rep. Jason Chaffetz and the vast majority of the congress and President Obama have clearly indicated that they prefer to take either option one or two while ignoring three; Hillery Clinton seems to have weighed in on option two with her statement about trying to address reform. If she wasn't relying on so many of the typical political advisers and collecting enormous amounts of money for her campaign while the political establishment was trying to lock up her nomination before the campaign even begins I might be more willing to consider the possibility that she meant her promises.
However she is following the same operating procedure that most if not all high profile candidates with overwhelming support from the political establishment use, including Obama. At this time in the campaign she makes promises that inevitably contradict real or implied promises that might have been made to her financial contributors; and "read my lips" once they get elected they virtually always keep the ones for their contributors if they can get away with it.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz said, "He is lucky to be alive because he should have been blown out of the air and very well could have been. He wasn't." there is an enormous amount of discussion about the lack of security that should have stopped him from delivering his message and drawing an enormous amount of attention; or at least that seems to be what the political establishment seems to prefer.
Doug Hughes clearly wasn't a terrorist although a real one using the same tactics could presumably have done an enormous amount of damage. This might indicate that in addition to drawing attention to a major subject that has been ignored by the political establishment for way too long he also did a good job exposing their lack of security.
Politicians typically claim loudly and clearly over and over again that we don't negotiate with terrorists. This seems to sound good but for some reason not everyone is convinced.
However even if some people are convinced that this is a good position, then, for many people at least, this is presumably based on the assumption that as a democracy we do negotiate with people that go about petitioning their government in the appropriate manners allowed by law. If that was the case then I would have to agree that when people use terrorism to accomplish their goals it is outrageous, especially when more rational methods are available to get legitimate complaints heard and addressed, although they would have to be balanced with other peoples concerns.Even though that doesn't appear to be the case peaceful protest is still the way to go.
Over the years there have been an enormous amount of protest from a large number of groups about many issues and when they contradict the interests of corporations that finance campaign they're routinely ignored even when there is an enormous amount of evidence they have legitimate grievances. On top of that in many cases in addition to ignoring the protests they arrest them on trivial charges usually involving things like trespassing which they often do when it is clear that their government isn't responding to them.
When people protest about energy, chemical, and other corporations that are doing an enormous amount of environmental damage that is even causing thousands of deaths They don't arrest the people responsible for the deaths who often donate to campaigns.
They arrest the protesters.
When people protest human rights abuses in sweatshops along with legitimate complaints about shoddy products that come as a result of these abuses and giving the money from sales to advertisers, shippers and lobbyists, instead of investing in quality merchandise, they don't address the corporations profiting off of this corruption, who also donate a portion of their sales to congress as a virtual bribe.
They arrest the protesters.
When we fight wars based on lies and expose mass murder and torture of innocent people often refere3d to as "collateral damage" and their are protests, they don't address the war criminals who often have political connections, donate to campaigns and even profit off these atrocities.
They arrest the protesters.
The traditional media only covers candidates that they approve of and that go along with the political agenda that the multinational corporations want, in return for bribes thinly disguised as campaign contributions.
When the Occupy Wall Street protest broke out and protests were so large around the world they had no choice but to provide them some coverage they finally did cover some of the protests for a little while but they treated them as if they were unruly and often violent when they could find ways to do so. Then when they kept on protesting they eventually stopped covering them before the protests starting tapering off.
These tactics were used to suppress protests and make it seems if they're no longer even newsworthy. To this day there are still constant protests about one issue or another but there is little or no coverage about them in the traditional press. In order to find news about tehm people either ahve to look at local media outlets around the country that only cover the closets ones, assuming they're large enough, without pointing out how many more there are around the country or look at alternative media outlets that are created by other sources, often the protesters themselves, sicne the traditional media is a blatant propaganda machine.
Is it that surprising that someone like Leo P. Thornton might be so frustrated that he would commit suicide in a dramatic fashion, with a sign that says, "tax the rich," and the vast majority would never even hear about it because the media only covered it in a few brief stories that didn't circulate widely like the following:
Rhythms of Washington return after Illinois man’s suicide outside Capitol 04/12/2015
The sightseers were back at the U.S. Capitol on Sunday, roaming in the brilliant sun in the place where a man had ended his young life in a tragic and spectacular fashion just the day before.
Explanations remained elusive Sunday for what may have helped drive the man, identified in police documents as Leo P. Thornton, 22, to commit suicide — and to do so in one of the nation’s iconic places.
A man who answered the phone at the address police listed for Thornton in Lincolnwood, Ill., declined to comment. An incident report from D.C. police recounted that shortly after 1 p.m. Saturday, “witnesses reported that a lone male subject pulled out a gun, then shot himself in the head.”
Thornton had a brown carry-on bag full of clothes and a sign that Capitol Police Chief Kim Dine said touched on “social justice.” A witness said people who saw the sign told him it read “Tax the one percent.”
Whatever political component may seem to have been at play, said Christine Moutier, chief medical officer at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and a former psychiatry professor at the University of California at San Diego, suicide is primarily a mental health problem. Research shows that in more than 90 percent of the 40,000 American suicides each year, an active mental health issue is at play, Moutier said. Complete article
The sightseers were back at the U.S. Capitol on Sunday, roaming in the brilliant sun in the place where a man had ended his young life in a tragic and spectacular fashion just the day before.
Explanations remained elusive Sunday for what may have helped drive the man, identified in police documents as Leo P. Thornton, 22, to commit suicide — and to do so in one of the nation’s iconic places.
A man who answered the phone at the address police listed for Thornton in Lincolnwood, Ill., declined to comment. An incident report from D.C. police recounted that shortly after 1 p.m. Saturday, “witnesses reported that a lone male subject pulled out a gun, then shot himself in the head.”
Thornton had a brown carry-on bag full of clothes and a sign that Capitol Police Chief Kim Dine said touched on “social justice.” A witness said people who saw the sign told him it read “Tax the one percent.”
Whatever political component may seem to have been at play, said Christine Moutier, chief medical officer at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and a former psychiatry professor at the University of California at San Diego, suicide is primarily a mental health problem. Research shows that in more than 90 percent of the 40,000 American suicides each year, an active mental health issue is at play, Moutier said. Complete article
Amazingly they imply that politics is not relevant to this suicide and dismiss it solely as a matter of mental illness. It may well be partly mental illness; however there is even politics behind that. Why aren't we treating contributing causes of mental illness?
Are they even willing to consider the possibility that when the government and economic system is so corrupt that this might be one of the contributing causes for mental illness?
Are they willing to consider his concerns even if mental illness is involved?
Are they willing to consider the possibility that refusing to address the legitimate concerns of the majority of the public could occasionally incite more incidents, perhaps including others that involve desperate people willing to take out innocent lives with them when they commit suicide?
It doesn't seem so. By refusing to address concerns they already are inciting more terrorism like the Boston Bombings. they acknowledged vengeance as a motive without admitting any culpability or even bother to deny that there is an enormous amount of "collateral damage" that they're retaliating against. Denying this would have been an obvious lie; ignoring it avoid the need to address it.
Compared to this Doug Hughes is the more rational one and did a far better job getting his point across; but that doesn't mean we should continue abandoning people with mental illnesses along with all the other concerns by those that can't afford to donate enormous amounts of money to campaigns.
I'm not sure I would want to use the same tactics that Doug Hughes or Leo Thornton did and if the government really did address legitimate concerns through reasonable methods then I wouldn't agree that their tactics are appropriate; however that isn't the cases, therefore if there is a problem with what Hughes did it is that he didn't go far enough to raise more issues.
Not that I'm advocating violence or terrorism, I'm not. However campaign finance reform isn't enough, we need election reform and media reform that puts control of the election process in the hands of the people and allows them to ask candidates questions control the debates and hear from all candidates not just the ones that the corporations say they should hear from.
We also need instant run-off elections or proportionate representation or something similar to that. However clearly Doug Hughes and many other people around the country want this as well but those that profit off the system can guarantee that this doesn't happen as long as people still don't have access to fair and balanced news, or at least news from a much more diverse group of people, not just the six corporations that control over ninety percent of the press.
I went into this much more in Election Reform and Saving Project Vote Smart and improving it or replacing it where I explained that the people should be able to control the interview process as if it was a regular job interview, like other jobs, where applicants are required to fill out an application like the questionnaire provided by Vote Smart, and answer questions like the ones asked in alternate debates in the pas where truly grass roots candidates participated. And the organizations that control the interview process, like Project vote Smart or organizations like Democracy Now that held expand the debates segments, should also be accountable to the people or we should create better organizations that do the will of the people.
This country won't be a democracy until the government engages it's own citizens and addressees their concerns instead of catering to campaign contributors while providing the public with an enormous amount of propaganda, which is paid for indirectly by the money we spend contributing to the economy.
When we buy stuff from multinational corporations they use a portion of the money we give them to lobby against our interests and corrupt the democratic system without asking us for any input.
For additional formation see the following:
"It Was Worth Risking My Life, My Freedom": Campaign Reform Activist on Flying Gyrocopter to Capitol 04/22/2015
The Democracy Club.org
Rhythms of Washington return after Illinois man’s suicide outside Capitol 04/12/2015
No comments:
Post a Comment