Florida Vote YES on 4

From time to time, during my wanderings around Pensacola, I see little political signs that say something like, "No on 4". I didn't know what it was about so I did some research.

My take on it is that it has to do with requiring a city to get the approval of its citizens before changing land usage rules. I don't know much about the whole municipal land use process but I do know that I think citizens should have as much say as possible in what the government does. It's beyond me why someone could seriously defend disallowing citizens to vote on ANYTHING. The only reasons I can come up with are greed and power-hoarding.

Picture someone looking you in the face and saying, "No, I don't think you should be allowed to vote on that." Seriously? Negative thoughts would bloom in my mind, but I'd remain polite.

Amendment 4 would put people out of work? That's a tired ploy. When in doubt, say that something will kill jobs. Then nobody will like it. It's not based on truth; it's a guess. If what you're saying is true, prove it. ("You'll see when Amendment 4 is passed and people can't get jobs." We'll see.)

I poked around the Web for some reasons as to why I'd want to vote for limiting my say in government and I couldn't find any. Maybe I'm naive. Maybe I'm ignorant of some key facts.

Government exists for the benefit of the masses, not the fortunate few.

To learn more check out:
Florida Hometown Democracy
Florida Comprehensive Land Use Plans, Amendment 4 (2010)
Vote No on 4

US Citizens Cannot Afford Federal Government

No wonder our country has such massive debt.





[chart courtesy of Cato Institute's Downsizing the Federal Government]

Obama Works for the Culprits but It's Not His Fault

Some thoughts generated upon viewing

Obama: 'tea party' wrong on 'culprits' of economic woes

For slightly over an hour, Obama appeared at a town hall style gathering called “Investing in America,” hosted by the business cable channel CNBC at the Newseum journalism museum in Washington. He admitted that “times are tough for everybody right now” and noted that the recovery fostered by his policies “is slow and steady as opposed to a quick fix.”

I thought that when the President had something to say then he commanded all the television stations. Now he's relegated to a business cable channel? I didn't watch any TV last night so I don't know if other channels broadcasted it. If they did, did they have to say that it was "hosted by CNBC"?

If this isn't further proof that Obama is a corporate talking tool then I don't know what is. Did GE/Comcast hire Obama to speak on their behalf? "Appear tough on big corporations, but not too tough." "Appear tough on net neutrality, but not too tough."

The President of the United States of America responded to an amorphous, miscellaneously defined political(?) movement on a niche television cable channel owned by a massive international corporation and the US's largest cable provider. Weird. No wonder nobody hardly even cares about the President. Despite the fact that everyone has an opinion on the President, half of them didn't even vote, and probably more than half of the ones who did don't really know what they're talking about.

Obama disputed tea party activists who argue that the government is now engaged in activities which go beyond the scope of what is authorized in the US Constitution. He argued that the federal government is probably less intrusive now than 30 years ago.

Yeah, it's less intrusive into the machinations of megacorps.

Don't let all these supposedly myriad new regulations fool you, the business elite control the world now more than ever. Government somehow continues to increase its staff but also shrink away from responsibilities at the same time. Blows my mind.

And the fact that these corporate issues are major talking points is majorly back-asswards. You have to draw some long lines to seriously connect half the shit they talk about as far as major political issues back to your own daily life. No wonder it hardly matters who our President is. They're all corporate shills.

I laugh at you when you say how much better this or that guy (not a girl!) would've been as our President. It's like this:





To conclude, I'd like to state that I think it's important who our President is. I think they become tools after they're elected but if they're strong enough they can inject at least a little personality and reason into the mix and maybe after a succession of good Presidents we can reach a truly worthwhile state of politics and honest democracy which works for the betterment of humanity.