“Should [we] have a government without a free press or a free press without a government...I would prefer the latter" -Thomas Jefferson

After hearing that "smart democrats support Obama", I decide that some people may vote based on what they think others will think of their vote (what I call "metavoting")...which disappoints and worries me. This means that lots of smart people will not be voting smart, but will be voting culturally. I've heard the catch-phrase "smart democrats" too many times to believe that they actually exist as one cohesive group who will all vote for Barack Obama. COME ON! Is anyone else disturbed by this type of gossipy rhetoric?

And I'm also disappointed to hear that BBC.ORG has claimed that Ralph Nader is best known for ruining the election for the democratic candidate in the last election. And I'm even further disappointed that Clinton and Obama have both made public statements supporting this viewpoint. Shouldn't candidates support free voter choice, and avoid grade-school-esque finger pointing? I'm disappointed in the responses of politicians in the media. (See excerpts from http://www.newsday.com Feb.25, 2008.)

I have no information on the republican candidates' viewpoints on the recent Nader entry to the presidential race (please add a comment if you have heard, and can provide a source).

My other distaste for Clinton and Obama comes from their participation in the money-media-political arena. Ultimately, I think a foundational change that needs to happen is that the economy and the state should become separate (e.g. MONEY NEEDS TO GET OUT OF POLITICS). I need more info on their campaign finance reform plans, I guess. The problem with our current political system (where only a few candidates have enough money to become and stay candidates!!!) is that money controls politics (e.g. lobbyists, special interests, etc.), and money also controls the media. This creates an umbilical cord among a triumvirate which I believe dangerously threatens our country's democracy: money, power, and the media. Our apparent "free" press is undermined by the servitude to money.
Free Press: a press not restricted or controlled by government censorship regarding politics or ideology. Clinton and Obama don't seem to comment on separating the state from money--.

The current political system has a media-money-political loophole, ready to be exploited by anyone with the most money. Meaning, if you have money, you will control the media and politics. The only salvation I see for such a loophole is the internet...but how many hours do people spend watching TV and reading the newspaper??? This is why terms such as "smart democrats vote for Obama" keep getting circulated and recirculated in conversation ad nauseam. Unless people start trying to become informed, genuinely, through the internet...I think our democracy is in a scary state of voluntary submission to the choices of the richest people in the nation. Who truly represents the interests of the people? Those who strive for money/media-controlled consumer choice, global economic competitive efficiency, and corporate interests, or those who strive for a money-free political system free from corporate interests?

So far, my opinion is the latter. Unless people are willing to vote outside of the comfort-zone of the media-savvy and media-supported candidates, we will stay on the road to what former French prime minister Edouard Balladur calls "the law of the jungle". Please don't METAVOTE, please just make an informed decision.

Do Free Market Means Justify Their Ends?

In Alan Greenspan's chapter “The Choices That Await China” (from The Age of Turbulence), he mentions the obstacles that China’s present and future leaders will encounter whilst transitioning to a nation of “developed” status. China seems like it would make an excellent case study for the transition (and a quick one!) from a centrally-planned economy to a capitalist one. When our country has taken roughly 2 centuries to become the industrial economy that shaped our current consumptive habits and lifestyles, it is worrisome to think of the detrimental effects of the same process happening over ¼ the time period and with more than 4x the people!!! Does this not worry those people who shout praise for the free market system’s past success in today’s current pro-market examples? I worry about the difference in scale when thinking about the goodness of the free-market outcomes. The cost-benefit balance is certainly different in today’s current state than it will be for the future regarding higher pollution, less natural space, and higher population densities, all of which (unless the exponential changes in technology work to solve problems regarding pollution, population, and natural space) will lead to even more exaggerated environmental consequences. Does Alan Greenspan (or others who similarly promote the free market as the most logical, best solution for all economies equipped to do so…e.g. those with strong, supportive legal institutions, etc.) consider these factors when he suggests that a free market system would ultimately lead to the greatest good in countries such as China? Do the means justify the ends?