Most of my life I had accepted the fact that there was a centralized national government that made and passed the laws and pretty much controlled the life of most every day people. While I was always against the people who directly interfered in my life – like the police or even some teachers – I never thought about the corrupt bunch of scoundrels in Washington DC because I didn’t see them. When I started to pay attention to politics – to watch news channels, read books, and spend hours in the morning reading every newspaper and blog I could get my hands on – I became so disillusioned by my government that I thought it should be completely abolished. Part of me still believes in anarchy, believes that given enough time people will be able to control their own lives, but I’m starting to think that things should be somewhere in the middle. Arthur Silber (returning from quite a long sickness) wrote a blog today from an imaginary standpoint twenty years from now; an old person telling his or her grandkids about the 2008 elections, about how less than 5% of the US population voted, the winner was barely elected, never showed up to be sworn in, and things worked out anyway. He obviously writes it much better than I do, but the point was that things worked themselves out, people are not complete idiots and are able to survive without a central government. The abolishment of all government would surely – in 2008, the way things are now – lead to complete chaos, so I am in no way hoping for that (yet). However, if each state were to become somewhat autonomous, in charge 100% of itself and its people, would things fall apart or would they become better? If the governors formed some kind of UN (with Hawaii and Alaska becoming autonomous and the other countries that the US has taken over, either returned to their right owners or becoming autonomous themselves) that met once a month to decide all national issues (threats to the nation, water sharing, and so on) what would happen? This is all I have to say right now – and it probably did not come as clear as I wanted – but I think it is a very good idea and I will be working on it.
As if the elections of 2000 and 2004 didn’t prove that our votes in national elections don’t count, how about what is going on in the Democratic primaries right now? Although I do not understand completely what a superdelagate is (and there isn’t even a wikipedia article yet) or why it is up to them to choose the democratic nominee no matter what the voters say, from what I have read it appears to be pretty corrupt. The way they vote is determined by two things; their whim and how much money each candidate has ‘donated’ to them over the past few years. Neither of these factors should be what picks the next nominee for the Democratic Party. Even though Obama has gotten more votes and won more states, as of now Hillary Clinton has received more of the superdelegates votes. If we needed another clue as to how biddable the democratic voters are- the Republicans do not have superdelegates.
Fidel Castro, leader of Cuba for the past forty-nine years, has finally yielded power by announcing that he will neither “run for” nor accept the presidency after the upcoming elections. Power is expected to go to his brother Raul, but the real question is what will the US do? There have been numerous attempts on Fidel’s life along with a strangling embargo for the past forty something years. Even though we have troops all over the place and are involved in two unwinnable wars, will we still try – once again – to take over the small island? Only time will tell, but one thing is clear; our opinion – the opinion of the people – will not play a part.