The Press Who Cried, “Duck!” Instead of, “Wolf!”

     Watching the news lately, I am frustrated with the dramatic crescendo building about the debt ceiling limit agreement “in progress.”  Those of us who have an inkling about how important this issue is certainly hopes a good debt-reducing plan will be approved. It is due by August 2nd. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

     Meanwhile, poll results are brandished about which show that the President’s approval rating (45%) is not nearly as low as one would think it would be, Fox News opines, considering how bad the economy is. For instance, President Bush's huge $700 billion federal budget expansion in 2008 blackened his name across the mainstream press. But Bush’s spending habits did not even touch President Obama's first year of spending, which added another $1 trillion, reports Conn Carroll of The Foundry. All those jobs Obama promised are nowehere. Companies who are making money are holding tight to every penny and not reinvesting for fear of what the future holds. So the Fox News pundits quip that Obama’s approval rating “defies gravity”. Ask Chriss Angel or any other illusionist, and they will tell you that gravity-defying stunts simply have strings attached. And Fox knows it. They are cut from the same fabric woven with all those little strings.

     Another poll by Fox News shows that “over half of voters think those who predict a financial catastrophe if the limit isn’t raised are exaggerating (55 percent), and most think those who suggest Social Security checks might not be sent are just trying to scare people (63 percent).” In other words, the American people are jaded by misplaced hype of the press (misdirection, as it is also known), and are consequently unable sense and recognize a true catastrophe, like this debt ceiling deadline, when it is looming right in front of them.  I think that is a pretty fair assessment. The press has done all they could to create this environment of distrust.

     This blog, GOOOH-NOW.blogspot.com, is about addressing the corruption of politicians, and presents the GOOOH plan to provide a systemic remedy for political corruption. In my article submission today, my intention is to make the case that corrupt politics has bred corrupt news sources. Corrupt news sources imply that the present political election system is rigged against the people, since the press' ability to dispense reliable information about candidates is unduly influenced by political agendas. When it comes to information about candidate prospects, then, we should beware the bearer of mainstream news. I apply that warning to both sides of the political fence.

     The case in point that underscores how seriously I believe the current crisis in our country is the fault of both political sides and by the spin doctors of the press can be seen in the current debt ceiling crisis example. About two decades’ worth of administrations, both Republicans and Democrats, have done the incremental damage that has brought us to our current point. The press has vacillated between demonizing and excusing this problem all along the way. Thank goodness the press keeps telling us what to think about all this…

     Hey, does anyone remember when the press used to be all about just reporting the facts and not telling us what to think? Yeah, me neither.

     So now consider why Obama’s approval rating, reportedly, “defies gravity.” Because the majority of the mainstream press, for whatever reason, refuses to be very critical of this administration, the news being pumped to the masses fails to attach this administration with responsibility for much of anything. Same goes for the “Republican” side of the fence. I have a bet to make: We have a bunch of presidential candidates taking the field for the upcoming 2012 election, and I’ll bet the farm that the one who comes out on top will undoubtedly be the one who can garner the most amount of positive influence with the press. Just based on what I saw in the last gubernatorial race here in Texas, I will place my bet on Rick Perry getting the bid (You may say that he has not conceded to run yet. I say he has lived for this day all his life-long political career. He’ll run.). The way things are between the typical politician and the world of reporters, the hand that rocks the press is the hand the rules the world. Rick Perry rocks the press.

     We currently have a system where we are given limited choices for whom we can vote. It's good to have select choices, but who is making those choices for us? The candidates chosen for us by the political parties are the ones who have the money behind them -- these candidates have the corruption behind them, too. It goes with the money. The last election proved that rare was the grassroots candidate who could survive. The odds are against us, and the odds are in favor of the political class who would rule us.

     GOOOH offers a way to break that corrupted system.

     So what would it be like if we actually applied the GOOOH system? What would happen if we were able to truly vet candidates, and got to vote for candidates because we got to know them, personally, face-to-face, rather than merely trusting what the press or the local party has to tell us about them? What if, after a candidate is finally selected by his peers, he or she was made to sign a legal document pledging to follow through with political commitments on issues under penalty of losing their office? And, what if the candidate did not have to worry about how to use political powers and influences to gain re-election because term limits is systematically enforced? Might that lead to a beautiful reduction in corruption?

     If that were to happen, well, I am sure there would be HUGE backlash from certain corners of the press. I would suppose that some press members would denigrate political candidates selected in such a “localized” way. A homegrown candidate selection process could only produce an unsophisticated nominee for a political position, they would say. That's what they said about many of those 2010 grassroots candidates. After all, that's a candidate not vetted in the usual way – by the press.

     Please understand that I am not anti-press, and I love our constitutional amendment guaranteeing freedom of the press. Thomas Jefferson states in one of his letters, “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” My point is that our press is no longer free. They are enslaved and obligated by alliances steeped deep in corruption. In an effort to protect their political darling, whether that darling be a president, senator, or congressman, if a bad event compromises a political friend then the press tends to tell us to simply duck when they should be crying wolf. Or the opposite can be true too: instead of informing Americans of a situation that might simply need to be ducked, the press will reliably use it as an opportunity to demonize a foe, usually the opponent of their darling.  We all know this is how politics and press operate. It is insane and it needs to stop.

     The American people have an opportunity to circumvent this politics/press corruption game and restore an honest and enforceable selection/election system. It’s called GOOOH, and it’s the best notion for promoting involvement of the people in political issues and helping them to make informed election decisions since the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, which sparked the tradition of candidate debates that we value to the present day.

     Please check out GOOOH. Let’s start with applying this system to the House of Congress. Representative candidates vetted district by district. Candidates selected by neighbors coming together to ascertain and choose together who is the person who best represents local interests. (Is that not, in fact, what a representative is supposed to be?)

     Consider how we the American people can be a collective influence to re-adjust our political destiny and put the USA back into accord with the intentions of the Founding Fathers. What do we have to lose? Come August 2nd our country may lose its credit rating, with all the horrible economic implications that implies. How bad does it have to get before we are willing to do something grounded in common sense to take our country back?

     Thomas Jefferson states in another letter, “And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?” I propose the peaceful resistance of GOOOH. Let’s refresh the Tree of Liberty together. We might just be able to liberate the press while we're at it.

New Year, New Reform, New Voice?

2011 is here. 

A brand new year, a brand new new Congress that is now controlled by Republicans...

... a brand new Senate under new leadership…

Well, no, that didn’t happen.

There were not enough seats up for reelection in the Senate to make a dramatic change there. Yet the lack of improvement in the Senate can not be merely attributed to the smaller fraction of seats up for election this past November. Some personalities that should have been given the boot were not booted out at all. In fact, in spite of all the horrific press he garnered for himself, Nevada could not shake Harry Reid out of his Senate seat. And there Harry remains, much more than a mere Senator, but the Majority Leader still. And of course the executive branch remains the same – nothing changed there – and it reliably continues on in a fixed socialist state of mind.

The Tea Party deserves credit where credit is due: they have managed to shine a light on the notion that core American ideology is diametrically opposed to socialism and progressivism. The general popularity of the Tea Party movement has helped to galvanize a great number of people to get a little more aware of politics, maybe attend some energy-charged rallies, and to get out the vote. A number of new fresh faces ran for various offices at the state and federal level. If these fresh faces were lucky and kingmakers Karl Rove, Glenn Beck and the rest of the “non-journalist” news entertainers did not seek to lampoon their low-funded campaigns, then these candidates who fought solely on love-of-country and a desire to engage their government have the distinct pleasure of knowing they ran good races for the right reasons, and not because they were ever “to the manor born.” Some of these scrappy reformers even managed to get elected, but only one here and one there. Meanwhile, Tea Party people are thrilled that they have helped to cause a shift to the right, or so they think.

At final analysis, however, the question begs to be answered: is the fundamental problem a conservative/liberal problem, or something else?

How I observe, filter, and then process the political issues I see on cable news (or what I read in blogs) is quite similar to how I handle the issues and dysfunction I see in smaller group dynamics. Dysfunction is nothing more than a system of people engaging each other in ways that are not functional, after all, and that concept can certainly apply to both the macro level of social structure as easily as it can the micro level of family units, since people are people wherever they go. Another constant we can count on is this: People make choices and are solely responsible for them. At the same time, however, choices are never made in a vacuum. The environment will support, encourage, or nourish a choice, or it will shun, discourage, or react with unfavorable consequences.

For example, an obese man who can no longer get out of bed because he weighs half a ton is responsible for what he has done to himself, but he did not do it all by himself. There had to be someone else in the house willing to bring him lots of food every day. Someone is always supporting the drug addict’s ability to sustain his addiction. In this realm of family dysfunction, food is not the primary evil; drugs are not the primary evil. Human behavior and the desire to sustain self-indulgent activities is the primary evil.

Likewise, I see a country that is mortified by the largesse of government. I see the country trying to put new people into the system to make better decisions in that system – but the system itself is the same. Fundamentally, the prognosis for the new freshmen in congress this year should be no different than that of the freshmen class of 1994: full of resolve, will likely lead to initial positive results. But look at what the 1994 class had turned into by 2004. No surprise: they simply entered a system and an environment that supported favoritism, elitism and an ultimate lack of consistent accountability. They go in lean and come out fat.

Do we expect that our current lean machines will remain so when they walk into a house where they will be fed every temptation you can imagine? Remember, the election cycle did not remove one iota of lobby influence, and there are no term limits. Oh, and let us not forget Big Media, who is more than happy to influence our understanding of what goes on in Washington and what relationship we have with our representatives. They are capable of painting stories an infinite number of ways depending on what is good for ratings, advertisers, and ultimately their pocketbooks. Their ability to hold accountable any politician is impeded by their own self-interest. The environment is unchanged, just a few new personalities playing in it. In the macro-political realm, liberalism is not the primary evil; progressivism is not the primary evil. Human behavior and the willingness to abuse power is the primary evil.

Like many concerned citizens in America, I often wonder if anything I do can make that much of a difference. The only influences that seem to have any real push are the larger herds (like political parties with their platforms). While most of us join herds as a means to promote some of our real, personal interests with government, our individual voice seems so very insignificant, and so we tend to overly rely on our identification with party to define who we are. But parties, as we have seen, can abuse power too, Republican and Democrat alike. So how can we assume that this country has come, as a "national family", to a “rock bottom” place where the country is willing to take on truly radical reform to rid itself of its political dysfunction? Is a political party - call it Republican or Tea Party, Democrat or Libertarian - capable of permanently denying its own capacity to abuse power to a degree that it can reliably hold government accountable? Is there anything we can effectively do, as individual citizens, to hold parties and platforms accountable that does not require prior party approval? Do we need to develop of a completely new kind of "herd" to hold the existing herds in check? Well, in fact, GOOOH is a concept that addresses this problem. Interested in learning about it?

I am passionate about GOOOH as a reform solution to the political dysfunction that plagues our system. It remains true to the intention of the framers of our Constitution. It enforces term limits. It is infused with undeniable accountability since GOOOH enforces that representatives are immediately answerable to the very people who selected and elected them.

I occasionally hear naysayers that suggest GOOOH will never go over – there won’t be enough buy-in for it to work. My response is this: naysayers tend to look at GOOOH as if it is the introduction of a new political party. It is not a political party. Moreover, it is an actionable way of selecting true citizen representatives who can be held to exact account for their campaign promises by direct accountability of the very people they represent to a degree similar to what could be done back during the early years of our country, when politicians were very familiar to the people in their hometowns and districts, and a sense of relationship was truly there. And for those who tend to always fear new things: Do valid, enduring movements grow from anything other than small seeds? They do start out small indeed, and they only grow if they continue to prove their own solid merit. Since its inception in 2008, GOOOH has grown quite nicely to well over 86,000 members. GOOOH is growing. It is growing because those who seriously check it out seriously see how much sense it makes. It is not merely a new herd, it is a new way for voters to be able to engage politics and have a clearer voice.

If we collectively continue to not change how our House representatives are elected, we cannot expect that the people we have occupying our House now will ever become any less corrupt than they ever have. If we want to save our country, it is time to quit with half-measures or to bow solely to the cult of personality, which is all we are doing if we only seek to vote for new faces. Honestly, if we don’t do something more substantive to fix the dysfunction than just electing a few new people with new promises, will our country do anything but get worse? It is time for the whole country to consider doing something better: let’s get GOOOHing.

Find out more about the GOOOH process for selecting and electing true citizen representatives at GOOOH.com. You can also:

• Find GOOOH on facebook. 
• See if there is a GOOOH meetup in your area on Meetup.com. 
• Some of the GOOOH membership has taken it upon themselves to launch a whole online community, the ultra brand-new http://usa.goooh.com. 

Do something new for yourself this 2011 by allowing yourself to consider that our political system can be radically improved, and that your time working towards this improvement is not time wasted. Learn about GOOOH, and share it with your friends. GOOOH will be put into operation in 2012; GOOOH is a system that will be tried out. Come and seriously consider this brand new measure to improve and strengthen our country. If you, like so many of us, find yourself completely struck at the simplicity and profound merit of the GOOOH solution, then join us and tell your friends to check it out for themselves. GOOOH wins on its own merit every single time.

I certainly wish the best for our new conservative representatives in Congress. It is my deep hope, and belief, that they will seek to do this country a lot of good in the next few years. But let none of us be afraid to make further reformations to our political selection and election system, especially since doing so will strengthen our country after the current bunch of representatives are long gone.

UNITING AS A FORCE WITH INTENT

You and I are members of a very select group and we joined to make a difference.

There are literally hundreds of groups across America wanting to make a statement. Some of the groups are small with just a few members and some with a few hundred members and all, like us, are dissatisfied with the current politicians and the wretchedly bad job they are doing.

Almost all groups are trying to figure out who is the best of the bad and when chosen they will encourage members of their group to vote for that career politician because there is no better choice.

The two parties have a lock on the candidate selection process and they always select the person that supports the issues that most concern them. Issues that when they become law will benefit their pocket book or the pocket books of their supporters of their past and future election. This is distinctly the problem that you and I can overcome.

In 1780 Samuel Adams wrote “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

I can say with out doubt, the most egotistical and aspiring men in this United States are the politicians that hold office, and we the citizens and members of the many groups are the experienced patriots and that is why we banded together. We have the power collectively to prevent the ruin of America.

We all disapprove of the job Congress is doing, yet 87% of incumbents are re-elected.

This did not change on November 3, 2010 because our groups have not joined in focus on the precise problem, the selection of our Congressional representatives.

Why do they get reelected over and over again? Incumbents take advantage of the perquisites of office to enhance their electoral position over their challengers. Thus, the franking (free mailing) privilege incumbents get helps them maintain increased name recognition. Travel to the district helps incumbents as well. In addition, by performing casework for their constituents (such as by finding lost Social Security checks), incumbents can develop good will, which then translates into votes. Finally, incumbents can skillfully take positions that are in agreement with constituency opinion. They also advertise based on these positions and build a legislative record that the opinion leaders in the district can support. In short, incumbents are doing just enough to help them get reelected. Getting reelected is their number one priority from the day they take the oath of office. Representing the constituents of their district takes a back seat to getting reelected.

Do campaign contributions to congressmen buy votes? Of course they do. If they didn't, there wouldn't be any campaign contributions in the first place especially from the heavy interests in business, defense industry and others who regularly buy Congressional votes. Not all politicians in office are on the take, but too frequently the news exposes a glaring example. I would be hard pressed to name just one that is not on the take.

The most recent features suspected bribery taker Congressman William Jefferson (D., LA.) trying to explain the $90,000 found in his freezer. This may be shameful, but certainly not surprising. Throughout history, there have been an old-boys' network operating among Washington lobbyists and legislators. Members of the House of Representatives must run for re-election every two years; Senators every six years.

Today a Presidential candidate must raise millions for a campaign, and it takes at least $250,000 to several million to finance a Congressional campaign. Does anyone really believe that all campaign gift money comes from selfless patriots whose only altruistic motive is to bring competent, honest government to Washington?

Today’s politician could not fix the problems we have even if they wanted to. They are trapped by what we call "political Catch-22s": Once elected they must serve their party or they will be gerrymandered out of office (ask Lieberman). Politicians must serve the special interest groups that finance their campaign or they will not have enough money to seek re-election. Being politically correct at all times, ensuring they do not offend any person and thus lose their votes and dollars, is necessary for their absolute existence. Politicians can only create "pork”, they can never remove wasteful spending. They are so determined to get re-elected that they spend ridiculous amounts of time fund-raising instead of representing their constituents.

You and I want a candidate that will have no ties to special interest money and is not beholden to any political party telling them how to vote and is not worried about being reelected because the most they will ever serve is two terms. Is there a solution to all of this? A solution to special interest money used to buy votes, a solution for a candidate saying one thing to get elected and then doing just the opposite. Yes there is and the solution is to change the way candidates are chosen.

I have researched over fifty groups all with special agendas, Tea Party,

Operation PitchFork, 9-12 Project, Break the Bonds of Tyranny just to name a few and none of them have a definite solution with one exception and that unique exception is an

organization named Go - GOOOH is an acronym for Get Out Of Our House. GOOOH is not a party, nor is it a platform. It is a process for electing citizen representatives to serve the people in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Why the House (something we all learned in school and most have forgotten)?

The President can suggest laws, but only Congress can make them. A member of either the House or Senate may introduce a bill but it must be approved by both. If similar but different bills are passed by the House and Senate, a conference committee attempts to reconcile the differences and then both will vote on the same bill. Before it can be a law it must also be approved by the President or, if he does not sign, the House and Senate can vote on it again and if they both pass it by a 2/3 majority it becomes law. If the law is challenged, the courts can rule that it is unconstitutional.

GOOOH has the solution: get rid of the politicians and elect true citizens. Go will

(a) Sever the ties with special interest groups

(b) Replace career politicians with true representatives

(c) Hold our elected officials accountable

(d) Allow you and your peers to actively participate in the selection of your representative.

(e) Allow you and your peers to determine, among yourselves, who can best represent your District

GOOOH does not define (or have) a platform. It allows selected candidates to represent their district's interests unencumbered by partisan politics. Candidates will define their own platform by filling out the Candidate Questionnaire.

Candidates are required to sign a legal contract agreeing to run for no more than two, 2-year terms. They will therefore spend their time representing their district and developing legislation - not fund-raising (or pandering) for the next election.

As a member of your select group you should also consider becoming a member of GOOOH. It will cost you nothing to join and your benefit will be in helping pick the next candidate to run for Congress in 2012. If we all band together for this worthy goal we will create the starting point of true representation for the people.

Visit www.goooh.com and learn more.

P.S. Having read this, please reply with your thoughts on the subject.

Sincerely

Don Alexander

Houston, TX

832-443-5108

The whole or any part of the above may be used by a member of GOOOH as needed.

donmalex@aol.com .