Obama, McCain, Bill Ayers, G. Gordon Liddy, Socialism and Other Disinformation

As this election moves into its endgame, the BS continues to flow from both sides, and buttons are being pushed right and left, by the right and the left.

To compound this problem, there seems to be a generalized lack of understanding of even the most basic of the terms being thrown around, affecting a large portion of the electorate.

Furthermore, Obama's refusal to sling even some of the truckload of dirt on McCain that exists may turn out to be the best strategy for him, but it leaves the ignorant and hysterical elements within electorate with an imbalanced view of things.

The first assertion that I hear and see every day about Obama; that "he's friends with terrorists," rooted in his past association with Bill Ayers is stretching the truth to the point of breaking. If the "Chicago Machine" considers Ayer's formidable intellect and organizing skills valuable to the point where they are willing to overlook his past activities, and leftist ideology, that makes a whole lot of people, including a large number of conservatives who also know Ayers "friends with terrorists." Chicago's Mayor Daley (the second), while part of the democratic machinery, is not known for his liberalism in many areas of social policy, yet he came to Ayers's defense during the early days of the scandal. Obama seemed to get this point across clearly in the debate.

What some commentators expected Obama to bring up, McCain's self avowed friendship with G.Gordon Liddy never came up. Liddy, a convicted felon, neo- nazi nutcase, self admitted admirer of Hitler and AM radio inciter of right-wing terror had McCain as a guest on his radio show. McCain is on record calling Liddy his "friend," something Obama never called Ayers

Then there are the accusations of "socialism." I don't get it; both candidates are advocating central governmental control of the economy, but McCain was the one who proposed limits on the so-called "Golden Parachutes" and other executive perks and compensations. This is direct government control of contracts between private enterprises and individuals. In other words, it's "socialism" too, and much closer to the Stalinist variety than Obama's version of it. As disgusted as I am with the rush to reward incompetence and corruption among the super-rich and their highest paid flunkies, the ideological definitions being flung around need to be understood, and acknowledged by the voters for them to have an informed choice (or lack of thereof).

Is the current economic crisis the result of under-regulation as or over-regulation? I've heard both sides of the argument, and I don't claim to know the answer to this question. I don't want the government regulating my own life and personal finances excessively. Sure, I like capitalism. A free market is a good idea, in the same way that cars and highways are nice things to have, things that we as Americans value. A market without regulation is like a highway without a speed limit filled with cars with no brakes; horrible crashes are inevitable. The only highway I know about with no stop signs or speed limits is AC/DC's "Highway to Hell."

Neither of these candidates represents my interests and rights. They will not even mention the fact that they will happily throw people in prison for their lifestyle choices. The choices I have made before were dangerous, unhealthy, and not things I would recommend that anyone in their right mind do. My choices now are different ones. But I reserve and demand the right to make those same choices again, if it serves a purpose. As old age, infirmity, pain and death draw closer who will decide for me how I will exit this life, and just how much of what medication I will be allowed? Who gave these self-appointed demigods the entitlement to decide the extent of suffering in others?

Until the DEA, FDA, AMA, drug company lobbyists and legions of related parasitical industries stop jacking up the prices of medical treatment and medications, there will be no freedom of choice or free market in health care. Obama and McCain both are advocates of variants in a controlled market in health care. One says it's a "right," the other says it's a "responsibility," but I have yet to hear the word "choice" enter into the debate other than in relation to choices between highly regulated options.

Why some people distinguish between governmental responsibility for traffic lights and highway repairs, and the healthcare needs of the American work force escapes me, and I don't deny having a leftist streak. But if this was capitalism, free market principals would apply consistently. The number of medical school slots wouldn't be limited by AMA quotas.

Meanwhile, if I want to use a controlled substance legally, I can go pay my money to a doctor who will either give me what I ask for, or refuse to do so, forcing me to find a doctor who will. The only difference between that system and a free market in drugs is the amount of money that I have to pay for someone to spend five minutes with me and write a prescription.

I still don't know who to vote for. Ron Paul is not running. Bob Barr's defection from the Republican Party is too recent. Ralph Nader is fun to listen to when he's pissed off, and is sounding a good bit more like a libertarian than a liberal these days, but his past blunders and beliefs about the role of government turn me off to him.

The last time I vote, I voted for a democrat on grounds of "the other guy's worse." I'm lower working class -borderline underclass really- and Obama says he's going to help me for that reason. I've heard that before. I have a feeling that whatever choice I make on November 4th will give me cause for regret.

SOURCES

G. Gordon Liddy: John McCain Find His Own radical http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/05/g-gordon-liddy-john-mccai_n_100134.html

Rage Against The Machine"Guerilla Radio" The Battle of Los Angeles EPIC Records 1999