some thoughts headed into the city elections
Posted: March 30, 2011 Filed under: Politics Leave a comment »
Oh, Oklahoma. Why do you continue to setup camp in the world of backwards politics?
It’s not so much the Republican or conservative beliefs that bother me about this state, because I can handle people with a different opinion than myself (I think I’m doing good if I’m even right at least 50 percent of the time)
No, my problem is with extremist who complain about extremist, and the kind of politics that preys on fear and ignorance to push an agenda.
Oklahoma City’s council elections are coming up next week and I received a flyer speaking out against Ward 2 candidate Ed Shadid (pictured left). Shadid is running against Charlie Swinton, a candidate that believes saying the word “jobs” a million times a day makes him some expert in increasing local employment. The advertisement flyer is not authorized or approved by Swinton, but I’m going to blame him for it anyways, because when you choose to cater to the foolish you have to at times accept blame for their mistakes.
Here’s what I don’t like about the flyer. It is attacking a person with a Muslim sounding name, and I will be honest, I don’t know where Shadid’s ancestors descend from or what his religion is. But to the ignorant, Shadid says Muslim and the flyer includes an airplane and the words “radical” and “extreme”. Maybe I’m looking too deeply into its message, but I think the producers of this advertisement knew exactly what they were doing.
During the primaries I actually supported John Milner. He lost, and I am now supporting my second choice, Ed Shadid. After a candidate forum at Chesapeake my wife actually made Shadid her top candidate, so I will have to give her credit on this one. Shadid is a doctor and speaks a lot about healthy living and the role the city council can play in helping not only encourage a more healthy lifestyle in Oklahoma City, but providing many of the resources a city can use to drastically improve its quality of life and health.
Both candidates say they want to hire more cops, which won’t happen. Honestly, I’d rather see an additional 100 yards of sidewalk in my community than another police officer. I’m not anti-police, well, maybe I…, no, I’m really not anti-police. I just think we too often view the police as answers to our problems, but that’s for another post.
Back to the election, the interesting thing about a city council is I actually think they hold more power than state or even federal leaders. State senators, governors and congressmen can make major changes felt by all, but ask yourself, when is the last time a United States senator actually did something that directly altered the way you live? Some of you will have an answer to that question, but many won’t.
However, municipal leaders pass ordinances, oversee budgets that pay for almost everything we come in contact with on a daily basis, and they can have the biggest impact on communities. Not to sound heartless, but screw a better country, I want a better neighborhood.
But the real impact of a city election comes after the election. Voters get excited for campaigns but quickly plop back down on the couch after casting their vote. I did some campaigning for Milner last month, but while I was walking the streets of my neighborhood passing out flyers, I decided my real contribution needs to come after the election by staying informed and physically doing things that backup my political beliefs. Political involvement needs to be real and meaningful, not like a group such as the Tea Party that kind of pretends to be involved. Rallies and protests are fine, but I need someone who will actually pick up some trash, lead a homeless person to needed social services, ask a neighbor to quiet down without calling the police, support a local business or two, and join a neighborhood association.
As Captain Planet would say, the “power is yours.”
Peace, what is it good for?
Posted: March 21, 2011 Filed under: Barack Obama, Politics Leave a comment »
Barack Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace prize winners combined.
That statement was a buzz on the Web today and was the Atlantic’s Tweet of the day. I did a rough search for the source of that info but couldn’t find it supported by any fact from a government agency or credible newsroom. Whether it’s an accurate statement or not isn’t really the point -and it probably is true if it’s getting that much play on the Internet, right? – but the fact remains that our Nobel Peace prize winning president is juggling two wars while undertaking another fight in the Middle East.
I’m not saying Obama wasn’t deserving of the honor. I’m not on the committee, so my opinion doesn’t really matter. But, if nothing else, the prize was an indication of just how much the international community is looking for an American leader who can dial back the military force often seen as a plague by the international community.
Two things primarily swayed me towards Obama during his campaign. First, I thought he could give America a much needed dose of levelheadedness with an understanding that the world is more than just the red, white and blue. I thought he had a vision for the future that understood the importance of investing in long-term planning while not isolating America from the rest of the world. Second, I also leaned towards Obama because I felt he was the best candidate to help America tap into a more soft power approach to international affairs and would be the most likely to end the two wars. I didn’t honestly think he would end the wars in his first term, but I thought he was the most likely to do so if it was at all possible.
Two years into his presidency and we have even more troops in the Middle East. That doesn’t surprise me, but unfortunately the economy took center stage just before the 2008 election and bringing our troops back home was knocked down several spots on the agenda.
I’m against war. Not only do I oppose violence as a means for change but I also believe it flies in direct opposition to the kind of society we say we are trying to create. We teach our kids to abstain from hitting (at least some do), we teach respect for all humans, we love simple saying such as “you catch more flies with honey than vinegar,” and continue to play the Christian card, while at the same time we use guns and missiles as our primary tools in pretty much all that we do.
Obviously me arguing against war is nothing new. Debates have been raged on the ethics of just war and I don’t expect a simple blog post to shed any new light on the matter. But we live in a world of oxymorons, with none bigger than the use of violence to achieve peace.
What’s happening in Libya is horrible and I can’t blame anyone for thinking the U.S., and its allies, should intervene in an effort to stop violence against innocent victims seeking a better way of life. But the American way is often to go in the opposite direction of what we want to achieve. We give more money to the rich because we believe it will help the poor. We increase our debt in an effort to achieve firmer financial footing. And we shoot people in order to make the word safer from violence.
But that’s the way the world works I suppose, a world in which we praise people as agents of peace who at the same time drop bombs.
