Why Should I Vote?

Why should I vote? In America, we have been taught that it is your duty to vote, that it is right, and that if you do not then you are doing not only yourself, but also your country injustice. But are we really? Where has the injustice occurred, do you even have a choice when you vote? According to the two party system you do, and it's Democrat or Republican. This nicely translates to a choice of Liberal, and Liberal. It denies the possibility that, Fascists, Classical Conservatives, Socialists, and Communists do exist, and therefore limits not only their choice, but prevents them from being able to act on their beliefs.

We have been taught to believe that in not voting, you are giving up your right to do something, to create change, that to not vote is an abdication of your power. We are taught from a young age, that if you want to change the influence government has in your life then you must vote. However is the action of voting itself not an action imposed by the government; the end goal being to make you vote as they desire?

To quote author David Schuman, "Americans have a voting fetish." We feel that we cannot have government without voting, and thereby in voting you show your belief that government is in fact necessary.

By voting what are you doing? I feel that you are not showing your beliefs in what you believe public policy ought to be, but rather that you are fine with the policy in place. That your vote shows belief in a system that gives you no choice, but makes you "empowered." Why could not voting, not be seen as an act of expression, showing not only your discontent with the system but the fact that you've had enough of the politicians telling you what to do?

Voting itself shows your belief in the system, but how are we to know any better. Until this past summer I too believed that not voting was bad. That in not voting, I was accepting my fate, and that in voting I could find my voice. Interesting that we associate vote and voice together. By not voting are you really abdicating your voice? Are you really voicing your thoughts in a private secluded booth, where the only change you’ll make is a ballot that may or may not be counted?

I feel that you aren't, that by not voting on a conscious level you see the system as fundamentally flawed, that voting is in fact taking away your political voice. That it is stifling your thoughts and expression and forcing you to believe that you have a limited voice. Speak up! Not in a voting booth, but in public, make your voice be heard, not whether you’re a Democrat or Republican.

I personally can't vote, as I'm 17. However if I were eligible to vote, I will tell you that my vote would lie with Montgomery Brewster of the novel/movie "Brewster's Millions," and that thanks to this past summer I would in fact vote “None of the above!”

Obama, McCain, and Bush... Different methods for the same product.

I'm not the biggest fan of Obama, even if I do prefer him to Mc.Cain. Although I don't believe in many of his positions, and ideas, I did watch the Democratic National Convention (DNC).

I will say this much for Obama, like Reagan, like Bill Clinton, like Nixon, he is an excellent orator. (Scratch the Nixon.) But what did he actually say in his acceptance speech is what I'd really like to know?

First off he said he wanted change, that he desired social change, that he wants education reform, and healthcare reform. However he did not mention his plans for each item, and when looking at them you will see that the plans he does have are inadequate. He also said that he plans on pulling out of Iraq, and that Iraq is bad. However later in the speech he contradicts that very notion, and I’ll explain that a little later on. Finally he said that McCain is another George Bush, but in reality later in his speech he himself describes the desires of the Bush administration. You may say how, but for the moment, I want you to ask yourself what has he actually said thus far, that Republicans are bad and that he is different.

I'm now going to turn the writing for a bit over to Obama's speech writers, as this is the section where he truly expresses a desire and the knowledge that not only is America an Empire, but that his Administration will keep it that way. Note this is both the goal of McCain and George Bush; it appears it is now the goal of Obama as well. Are they any different now?

"You know, this country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that's not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that's not what makes us strong. Our universities and our culture are the envy of the world, but that's not what keeps the world coming to our shores.

Instead, it is that American spirit, that American promise, that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.

That promise is our greatest inheritance. It's a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night and a promise that you make to yours, a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west, a promise that led workers to picket lines and women to reach for the ballot.

And it is that promise that, 45 years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln's Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.

The men and women who gathered there could've heard many things. They could've heard words of anger and discord. They could've been told to succumb to the fear and frustrations of so many dreams deferred.

But what the people heard instead -- people of every creed and color, from every walk of life -- is that, in America, our destiny is inextricably linked, that together our dreams can be one.

"We cannot walk alone," the preacher cried. "And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back."

America, we cannot turn back..." (Barack Obama accepting the Democratic Nomination)

Many people see that excerpt and think, what a great country we live in, I view it as an admission that we have built an American empire which strives to capture, not only the economic capital, but also the human capital from around the developing world. This excerpt is not only an admission that American empire is a good thing, but that it is right to exist. Many people here will view the "we cannot turn back," line as a landmark for civil rights. However it is really an exclamation that under an Obama administration the U.S will maintain its hegemony, and will remain the empire it is currently. Obama is hypocritical here, as it's finally coming out that the change the Obama campaign wishes you to believe in, is really the preservation of empire.

People often ask of me; how can you think Obama and McCain are the same, that Democrats and Republicans are equal. It's a very simple answer. Both The Democrats and Republicans end goal is to preserve American hegemony, and in doing so assert ourselves as the worlds only superpower. Even George Bush wished to do this, even if through what we may now call preemptive war. (Kissinger would be proud)

The fact that McCain leads to four more years of George Bush is a fallacy, because in terms of preserving hegemony and the "Pax Americana" society we live in, Obama, and McCain are both the equivalent of George Bush.

Why I hate Starbucks.

Many people my age (young adults) seem to love Starbucks; they can't get enough of it. However I personally can't stand them. A lot of this has to do with the fact that I own my own espresso machine, and through the practice of one cap a day, and a latte here and there, I learned that they are a corporate conglomerate that has no quality control. Furthermore Starbucks is a genius of market manipulation, in their "pro-humanitarian advancement" coffee beans. They do such a great job at making you think, that 15 dollars you spent on a pound of coffee is, a) especially delicious and special, and b) that it helps human development in the third world where the coffee is grown. They've also created a cult of customers who prefer their coffee kool-aid flavored concoctions, rather than a consumer base who knows to appreciate a rich crema, a subtly micro-foamed latte, and a silky, smooth cap that you wish would continuously refill itself.

I'd like to start with the more shallow of my complaints against Starbucks. The bottom line, is that their coffee is an inconsistent, overhyped, and overpriced product. The joke that carrying a starbucks coffee cup is a status symbol is not so far off. For those in the know, carrying a starbucks coffee cup means that you know little about coffee, or that you were in a rush and couldn't enjoy a cup the way it's supposed to drank, in porcelain, over a minimum of 15 minutes. However that status symbol is what there selling, not the coffee. Sure they have espresso machines, and you can't order a medium but hey, that's what your paying four fifty for, in a drink that cost at most a dollar to make. 

Starbucks in many ways is credited with bringing specialty coffee (espresso drinks) to America. However that's a fallacy. It was really Alfred Peet who did it in Berkley California, not Seattle. And this brings me to the quality of Starbucks specialty drinks, which are at best abysmal. Sure they create fancy iced whipped concoctions better suited in an alchemists workshop than in a coffee shop, but remember it's spiked with kool-aid. But what I'm talking about is the classic specialty drinks; caps, latte's, straight shot's, Americano's, and lest we forget my favorite mystery drink (changes depending on where you get it) the Macchiato. Yes, at Starbucks, you can consistently get one of these delightful drinks. The price you will pay is whether or not your milk-based drinks will a) be improperly foamed, b) scorched, or c) stiff.Don't forget that this is put in a paper cup which is of course not only bad for the environment, but of course does nothing for the flavor of the coffee itself.

You'll notice that the proper latte (shown above) has a design, when the milk is foamed correctly a good barista can do this consistently in even caps and macchiato. That picture is one of my lattes (forgive me I'm oddly proud I have no life) and the milk was silky and smooth just as it should be. I ask you, have you ever gotten a latte from starbucks where the milk made the latte, where it blended together in harmony with the coffee? I think not, if you have, you'll note it was a once in a lifetime thing. Inconsistency overpricing, and just overall lousy quality have made me despise getting my coffee from starbucks.

The other issue with starbucks is their commitment to "helping their farmers." This can be seen with their Sidamo blends, where they want you to think that a dollar and 35 cents a day is a great wage compared to a dollar a day. Yes its 35% more, but its not enough to conceivably help lift an area out of the third world. However they want the consumer to think that 35 cents is a very big difference and in doing so make us by more, while really allowing for little to no progress actually obtained.

Now, I know I didn't go into much detail, on the last point, but to be honest that’s not my specialty. I'm sorry but when it comes to my coffee I sadly think more of the quality of the bean and roast than of the people behind it. I'm ashamed to admit it, but it's true. The question now becomes do I change my habits, and begin insisting on fair trade coffee. At the moment it’s whoever has the best roast for the price. Perhaps when I'm not a student and can afford the difference I’ll buy differently. Until then I'm happy my family even has an espresso machine, which has allowed me to experience the gift of truly magnificent lattes, caps, macchiato and the like.

I love coffee I really do, but I feel it shouldn't be ruined, that it’s not the image it conveys, that it's the quality of the bean, the flavor, the aroma, the acidity; I love it. However Starbucks has taken what I enjoy, and corrupted it with bad policy in their quality control. We've just been drinking too many of those kool-aid flavored frappuccinos to know that good coffee goes beyond starbucks.

Obama Is not all he's been cracked up to be.

Barack Obama is a candidate for change. Perhaps this is why I have a problem with Barack Obama. Not only has he become the candidate for "change," but in the past he's chosen to shy away from change. Looking at his voting record,(small as it is,) you will find that he often voted "present" essentially abstaining from the vote on controversial issues. This record of voting "present" is even more apparent when he was during his glorious tenure in the state of Illinois state congress.

The word change... What do we associate with change? Generally I feel many people view change as a negative thing. However when presented in the right light, (which Obama's done very well) it can be become positive; this was also done, by a man many "liberals" hate. That man was Ronald Reagan. We can view Reagan and Obama's campaign tactics as nearly identical as they both are positive go get'em attitudes. However Reagan was more specific for the change he desired. The interest rate was at 21% when he took office and the feeling was that America's days of empire were over. Reagan said they were not.

How is Obama's quest for change any different I ask of you? How many times in the DNC have you heard of America's world image, NEEDING TO BE RESTORED? Apparently it does, because all of a sudden we care what other countries think of us. We didn't ten years ago. Obama's promise of change is really a promise to continue on the path of an ever greater imperialist America.

As for Biden, I ask of you to view his voting record on appropriations. You will notice that here he is not so "liberal," that he has continually voted with the Bush administration i the Iraq war, and furthermore is for ANWAR Drilling. His record further shows that for someone who is a "Humanitarian" he has repeatedly supported military action over aid. He in fact called Saddam Hussein a threat before the Bush Administration. As head of the foreign relations committee that's just what I'd want, a war-monger.

If all the above doesn't convince you that Obama, Biden, (hey alliteration!) are not the perfect candidates, than I would like to throw out there also that Biden is a known Plagiarist, and has even been caught lying on his resume. People wonder why this matters. I say it does, because if a man is cutthroat in his personal relations, than what is to keep his love of lying, cheating, and winning at all costs, inside the country once in power? These very qualities, are also backed up in Biden's war voting record, where he's consistently voted for the war, and he's always voted for U.S "intervention" in foreign affairs. Biden is just what we need, an ardent supporter of Real Politik, in his own life, and in foreign relations.

Realists of the world rejoice! Idealists, sadly now is the time to worry most. Will we ever resort to soft power in foreign affairs in lieu of military action? Obama and Biden seem to think not. In fact none of the candidates do. Note that I am not a McCain supporter. However I refuse to believe that Obama is all he's cracked up to be.

Both McCain and Obama have some decent Ideas, however neither truly defines change in the sense they wish to convey it. To me it seems, that were just doing more of the same old “stuff”, presented in a different light. In one way or another, we will either continue Reaganist internal policy, or go back to a quasi version of Johnson's great society. The question is not whether we want change or not, but rather which do you prefer? My fear is not that Americans will vote for one or the other. But rather that they will remain unaware of what they are voting for.