Shutting Out The Majority
What if they gave an election and no one came? It’s predicted that on E-day, November 7, a good 55% of Americans will be so disgusted by the Gore-Bush choice that they’ll either not vote or vote for third-party candidates. Yet the establishment media outlets continue to pretend that these two lapdogs of the moneyed elites offer us the “clear-cut choice” Americans deserve. Really? What did we do to deserve this?
The Gore-Bush debates were so lame that, in one of them, the two Republicrats said the equivalent of “I agree with you” 40 times! Moderator Jim Lehrer finally asked in exasperation: “Is there any difference?” Neither Gore nor Bush came up with any. Ralph Nader, who at least could have made these bore-offs substantive and fun, described the debates as “an interminable tedium of platitudinous dittos … marinated in cowardly escapes from challenging the entrenched corporate interests.”
Even though two-thirds of Americans wanted to hear Nader in these debates, he was shut out by the two-party duopoly working through the sham outfit called the National Commission on Presidential Debates. Sounds impressive, doesn’t it? But it’s not a public body at all, nor does it have any authority of law. It’s a private front group created by the two parties and their corporate campaign contributors. No independents or third-party members are allowed on the commission, which operates out of a bipartisan lobbying/PR firm in Washington, D.C., that represents big corporate clients. Its funding comes from such giants as Anheuser Busch, ARCO, AT&T, Philip Morris, Prudential, and Sprint.
These powers were so afraid of citizen Nader that they even had armed guards bar him from entering a TV room to view the first debate.
The message is that the majority of citizens who reject the corporate-controlled two-party duopoly are no longer welcome in America’s closed political process. And they wonder why people aren’t voting?
‘Quality’ Junk
The ubiquitous mega-chain of some 20,000 7-Eleven convenience stores is planning a whole new generation of stuff to sell to you. Are you ready for 7-Eleven sushi?
Believe it or not, the primary purveyor of Slurpees, cigarettes, acidic coffee, beef jerky, and gas is headed upscale. The Associated Press reports that Jim Keyes, company CEO, envisions the chain becoming “the Mercedes-Benz of the convenience store business.” In addition to burritos-in-a-bag, 7-Eleven stores of the future are to have such fresh foods as sliced melon. Keyes says, “We think that the opportunity for convenience goes far beyond what it was before.” What’s next — pté on a stick?
Well, it’s not going to be totally fancy. The company says that it will be offering a line of edibles it calls “shelf-stable microwave meals,” which means they’ll contain enough preservatives to remain on the shelf well into the 22nd century. The company’s idea is to serve quality fast food, only faster. “People are on the run,” says a marketing manager. “This is where somebody can come in the morning and throw something in their briefcase.” Oh, yummy.
All of this futuristic foodstuff was previewed during the summer session of “The University of 7-Eleven,” a company school where hundreds of employees gather for training on how to ask customers such provocative questions as “Have you tried our new Butterfinger muffin?” And if that doesn’t make you queasy, how about 7-Eleven’s new steak-flavored hot dogs? Coming soon to a store near you.
The Congressional Trough
Here they come, a whole herd of fat hogs, but these porkers are hoping they can tip-toe by without you noticing them. Fat chance. These hogs are U.S. senators, and the reason they’re being so unusually quiet is that they’ve done something especially hoggish, and they know the voters won’t like it: They’ve just voted themselves a pay raise. I’ll bet your senators didn’t hold a press conference to brag about this!
Indeed, it was quietly tucked inside an obscure appropriation bill for the Post Office and other agencies. There were no public hearings, no debates, and no media coverage — just a silent maneuver to put another $3,800 a year into the senators’ paychecks, bringing their total annual take to $145,100.
The apologists for this sneaky grab for personal enrichment say it’s only a little ol’ cost-of-living adjustment, why make a fuss about it? Well, if it’s so insignificant, why did they take it?
The vast, workaday majority of Americans, who didn’t get a pay raise this year, wouldn’t consider $3,800 insignificant. Members of Congress already pay themselves more per year than 98% of the people earn — they ought to be the last in line for an increase. Thirty-eight hundred dollars would raise the pay of full-time minimum- wage workers above the poverty line. Yet these same senators scoff at such a notion, deeming such a raise far too high.
In the past four years, Congress has given itself three pay raises, for a total of more than $12,000. That’s more than a person makes working full time on the miserly minimum wage authorized by Congress.
Instead of $12,000 in pay raises, wouldn’t it be more honest just to give each member of Congress their own minimum-wage worker?
This article appears in November 3 • 2000.