A closer look at Jill Stein is long overdue; and the traditional media has made it clear that they won’t provide this, presumably because she isn’t going along with the political agenda of the relatively few owners of the Mass Media.
Many of us have been extremely frustrated at the traditional candidates that we’ve been given to chose from by the Mass Media; they attempt to tell us that these are the only ones that we should consider and they give them an enormous amount of coverage while attempting to shut alternatives by simply ignoring them or on rare cases by saying that they have no support or are fringe candidates.
This is an enormous effort to use propaganda to tell the majority who is a “viable” candidate or not.
The first requirement for viability is name recognition and this can be obtained either by an enormous amount of media coverage or an enormous amount of money collected, in most cases, by the multi-national corporations.
This process puts the virtual decisions about who the candidates are for both major parties in the hands of a small number of people who have an agenda that has little or nothing to do with the best interests of the vast majority of the public.
Several recent decisions by the US Congress and many more throughout the past several decades if not much longer has clearly indicated that those in power have little if any regard for the will of the people. They have refused to pass the Buffet rule; refused to allow serious consideration for a public option or single payer; and refused to cut subsidies for the oil companies even when there was overwhelming support for these ideas in polls. In these cases Barack Obama or other politicians have provided some support for them but it has often been done in a manner that has been ineffective even when there have been other options; for example it was reported in January that they had the option of voting to change the filibuster rule with a 51 vote majority in the senate if it was done at the beginning of a new session after an election but the Democrats chose not to do so and therefore they gave the Republicans an easy option to shut down progress while the Democrats can pretend that they supported a lot of legislation; furthermore it was clear at the time that the Republicans intended to use this tactic. I could go into a much longer list of examples; but for starters it should be clear that the public should stop accepting the stated, or implied, lie given to us by the corporate media that we have to choose from the candidates that they agree to give attention to.
To continue accepting this would be to continue giving tacit approval to a system that continues to rob the vast majority of the public blind for the benefit of a few people that have political power and donate an enormous amount of money to the campaigns of corrupt officials.
There are many more Presidential candidates listed at Project Vote Smart and one of the ones that clearly deserves a closer look is Jill Stein who was willing to fill out her Vote Smart questionnaire unlike the so-called viable candidates Mitt Romney and Barack Obama who have both taken many controversial positions on many issues and they have both betrayed the trust of the public often and overwhelmingly indicated that they both put the best interest of their campaign donors ahead of the public on many issues. In fact in a sincere democracy no candidate should be eligible to be on the ballot if they refuse to answer to the public as I have indicated in several posts including the one about Election Reform and the Semi-secret fundamentals of democracy.
If a job applicant for any job at a traditional corporation refused to fill out the application that was given to them by their potential employer there is no way they would be given serious consideration for the job; and yet that is exactly what the political establishment and the Mass Media is indicating that the vast majority of the public should do when they choose their elected officials.
Jill Stein has also done what I would a much better job presenting her views on her website which doesn’t rely on nearly as much hype at first glance and provides an enormous amount of positions on the issues in the news section. There is additional information about her on her page at “on the Issues” and electioncandidates.com as well. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have provided as much if not much more information on these website as well as many other news organizations and debates but they’re full of contradictions and it is difficult if not impossible to know what they’ll do; both of them also have a long history of disregarding their promises once they obtained power.
This shouldn’t be the way we elect any sincere democratic representative; on one issue after another it seems that Jill Stein has a better position and more credibility than either of the two major “viable candidates.”
On health care she has taken the following position:
Jill Stein has also provided more information on “Health care ruling won’t deliver reform Americans need, says Stein;” where she mentions, among other things the fact that she has campaigned on a single payer system. Neither Mitt Romney or Barack Obama have supported this although when Barack Obama was a candidate he did say that he would support a public option which was quickly forgotten for political reasons and the fact that the campaign contributors from the health care industry would never go for it. Even Jimmy Carter has said that they’ve been blocking reform when they “bribed” or “legally bribed” congress with an enormous amount of campaign contributions. The money that the health care industry spends on campaign contributions and lobbying is a business expense which they have to pass on to the consumers but they don’t pass on any of the influence that goes along with it. The same goes for advertising dollars and other administration costs which also have to be passed on in order for them to be profitable and they’re not required to provide much if any honesty; on top of that the health care premiums have to provide their enormous profits as well.
The official justification for this is that they can cut costs with competition; this sounds good if you shut down the thought process before going any farther. The truth of the matter is that they don’t compete by providing better health care, just by providing more deceptive advertising and cutting costs, often at the expense of quality. For more information see Single-Payer National Health Insurance at Physicians for a National Health Program.
Jill Stein is the only one of these three that seems to sincerely want to reign in the excessive costs and she is the only one that hasn’t accepted excessive amount of campaign contributions from the health care industry.
On education she wrote:
Additional information is available at Jill Stein at electioncandidates.com where she makes it clear that she wants to fund schools properly without pushing corporatization in the form of charter schools and presumably also Channel One which provides free TVs in return for the right to advertise the children which has had devastating effects according to Roy fox’s review in “Harvesting Minds.” Both Mitt Romney have indicated that they want to rely more on charter schools despite the fact that a close look at the history of this experiment and a look at the basic principles indicates that it isn’t designed to improve schools instead it gives more control over them to the corporations who’re more interested in making a profit out of them than teaching children.
The participation of corporations in schools has increasingly had am impact on the quality and reliability of the educational material given to students about many issues including the environment as indicated in the following excerpt from Susan Linns book “Consuming Kids”:
Corporations are already attempting to indoctrinate children for their purposes in many cases especially those in poorer areas and it is clearly against the will of the people in many cases including a recent on at The Brian Piccolo Specialty School in Humboldt Park, Chicago which is currently being protested by parents; this is one of many charter schools that’re being supported by the Obama administration and his ally Rahm Emanuel. Mitt Romney has also made it clear that he wants to increase the corporate influence in schools
Jill Stein writes the following about Foreign Policy:
the assumption that the USA is and should be based on their military dominance is based on an enormous amount of lies and propaganda that has been drilled into the heads of many members of the public and it rarely if ever stands up to scrutiny, when scrutiny is actually applied, which the Mass Media doesn’t do. Most of the wars we have fought have been based on lies as indicated by the academic review in many places but nopt the propaganda that is presented in the media, although they do occasionally mention certain facts briefly without much emphasis so that people quickly forget them if they rely solely on the media. This includes Vietnam which was exposed by the Pentagon Papers and both North Korea and Iran as well as many other examples. In both the hot sports now in the news that may involve imminent war or at least threats of war for the purpose of scaring people the US has had opportunities to make an enormous amount of progress but instead they have done the opposite. In 1999 Jimmy Carter came to an agreement to ease tensions with North Korea and this appeared quite good until the Bush administration came into office and decided it simply didn’t like it for no rational reason. Iran has just as long a history including the CIA coup in 1953; the supplying of weapons to both sides during the Iran/Iraq war; the accepting of help with information about Al-Qaeda after 9/11 followed by an arbitrary inclusion in the “Axis of Evil” during a speech for political reason and much more.
If the US wasn’t antagonizing other countries around the world they wouldn’t have nearly as much problems with them. Jill Stein has made this clear in ‘Obama’s own Iran statements are “loose talk of war,” says Stein;’ where she indicates that she recognizes other methods to solve foreign policy problems without maintaining a constant state of perpetual war. The corporate media is constantly coming up with new stories about how there is a great threat to us but on closer examination they aren’t nearly as much of a threat as they ‘re made up to be; and if they were many of these stories shouldn’t be reported and forgotten so quickly. The latest is the testing of a missile in North Korea which failed but there will be many more. If North Korea, Iran and others didn’t feel threatened by the USA then they mi9gyht not be doing all this posturing in the first place. Furthermore, many of thes stories that are being told about threats of war simply don’t make sense at all; one of the most notable is the hikers that have obtained an enormous amount of attention. There has never been any explanation about why any rational person would go to a potential war zone and approach a border with a hostile nation which is how this began in the first place. Clearly they shouldn’t have been detained but this seems to be used for propaganda purposes that don’t add up to any rational agenda.
The constant state of war is being used as an excuse to continue to deprive the public of the most important information that they need to make important decisions about how they vote on foreign policy issues. The version of the truth that is presented to the majority of the pubic isn’t the same as the version of truth that is available to many other parts of the world and a smaller number of people within the USA that take the trouble to check the facts about foreign policy and the lies that are constantly being told to the public by the government.
They can be expected to keep trying to scare us until we stop believing them without credible evidence and scrutiny.
Click on cartoon, made available by Scott Stantis, to see his blog and more of Kevin.
After the war in Iraq about weapons of mass destruction which were never there; and well informed people knew it before the war; it should be clear that the government and the Mass Media hasn’t been honest with the public about foreign affairs.
Jill Stein has also indicated that she is opposed to the use of copyright laws to suppress free speech as indicated in the following article:
Additional information on this subject and many others would be helpful but on one issue after another she is much closer to the views of many of the members of the public than either of the “viable” candidates that have been presented to the public by the corporate media.
A close look at the issues should clearly indicate that if there is a more credible candidate than Jill Stein that can be trusted to be elected president it isn’t the establishment candidates being presented by the corporate media; instead it may be one of the other candidates that have taken the time to fill out the questionnaires from Project Vote Smart. Refusing to fill out these questionnaires shouldn’t be an option unless there was a more sincere system of interviewing the public. Unfortunately a close look at Project Vote Smart may indicate that it has scaled back on its questions and the quality of the material that they attempt to obtain from potential candidates; however the information that they do ask for is still better than what the Mass Media presents to the public. Furthermore the fact that they’re asking fewer questions should indicate that they’re asking even less from the candidates and they’re meeting them half way. I don’t personally agree with this if it is what the people at Project Vote Smart are doing but it isn’t adequate as an excuse on the behalf of the candidates. If the candidates think the questionnaires that they used to ask twelve years ago are too long they could come up with an abbreviated preliminary that could be flowed up by the longer version. This would make it easier for the candidates to provide answers for the most important issues sooner rather than later and it would make it easier for the voters that want to start out by checking the abbreviated applications. Vote Smart should probably also keep all their old information available in archives that are easier to find by the public. This should indicate that any organization that is entrusted to request answers from the candidates should also be accountable to the public and the contributors to Vote Smart might want to ask them to restore the quality of their questions or a new organization can be formed that is as good if not better with direct control from citizens groups over the interview process. Either way the candidates should be required to answer questions from the public.
There is still a common belief by many people that third part candidates don’t have a chance but I suspect that a closer look at a lot of the information available on the internet may refute that; while searching for information on Jill Stein I found much more support her than the majority of the public is aware of. The corporate press probably prefers not to report on this but there is a much greater grass roots movement supporting non-traditional candidates than there has been previously including Occupy Wall Street and many other protest organizations that are fed up with the lack of concern with the will of the public. Combined with the increasingly bad positions being taken by the corporate candidates I suspect she might have a much better chance than most people realize. Furthermore, it will be a much bigger waste of a vote to support a candidate that the public knows is going to sell them out than it is to at least try to elect a sincere candidate.
Jill Stein doesn’t claim to have unified support from the Occupy Wall Street movement nor should she since this is a diverse group and they may not be unified behind any one groupd but she does support many of the most important issues that the majority and large segments of the Occupy Wall Street movement have been championing and I suspect that she will get a lot of support from these segments. Furthermore I suspect she might be receiving a lot more attention at the grass roots level than candidates have in the past. This has been indicated in several articles about her about the Occupy Wall Street movement including Occupy the White House By Kris Kitto; Occupy Napa Valley College launches protest; Solidarity with Indiana workers; Stein Condemns Police Assaults on Occupy Movement; Stein Condemns Police Attacks on Oakland, DC, Miami; and much more that can be found when Googling Jill Stein Occupy Wall Street or similar phrases.
This is on top of the support that she has with the Green Party and I suspect there are many other grass roots organizations like those opposing the commercialization of schools; those that oppose the permanent state of war; those that support human rights in war zones as well as sweat shops that may also support her.
If both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama continue the mud slinging match that they’re conducting without doing more to address the best interest of the majority of the public then they may both be down for the count when November comes around and a third party candidate like Jill Stein can win.
the Massachusetts gubernatorial debate on April first and Stein accepted Romney’s invite to a debate rematch; there is no further response from the Romney campaign on whether he takes this offer or democracy seriously.
Now that the Republican party has turned into a bad joke it would only be fitting if it goes out of power with a rematch like it came in to power; the time to end the corporate lock on a two party system is long overdue.
Jill Stein isn’t the only third party candidate that might raise some attention but she is doing it at the Grass roots level and there is at least one that is doing so with the help of the corporate media and may also be seeking the help of American’s Elect which is also getting more media attention than Jill Stein. The reason for this may be that there is additional money behind this movement and it may also be behind Buddy Roehmer’s campaign as well who might be attempting to portray himself as the reform candidate that everyone is calling for while still maintaining connections with the traditional establishment. He is also running for the nomination of the Reform Party which may be worth checking out; however caution would be advised. At times the reform party has had some good candidates as well as bad and there was a rift of some sort a few years ago. I haven’t looked to closely myself but I think it moved sharply to the right at some point and may not be as rational as it was at one time. Also Buddy Roehmer has declined to fill out his issue positions questionnaire at Vote Smart, which as previously indicated should raise some doubts about his candidacy. I’m not ruling out the possibility that he or some other candidates could be positioning themselves as an apparent grass roots candidate while still supporting as much of the corporate agenda as they can get away with; I don’t get the impression that Jill Stein is doing this.