Mini-essay on 3rd Debate

[Fullcrum]

You might find this quite informative as this touches on issues most politics today does not touch on. I wrote this for school this afternoon:

The debate last night was illustrative of the political needs of today, rather than the core beliefs and values of the candidates. Right now, the vast majority of voters have decided on a favorite candidate. The swing voters are relatively few but important, and reside in several important swing states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and more. The views of the candidates have been subtly tweaked to "pander" to the swing voters. Instead of answering questions, the candidates introduced "talking points" that had to be covered. This could be observed through the way they answered question - by deferring to the previous question to finish.

The debate developed into an interesting study of debate tactics as much as it was a discussion of policy. McCain often interrupted Obama, which introduced a sense of conflict and "how will the other candidate/moderator/audience react?" to the debate, which served little purpose than to allow his supporters to emphasize his strength and his detractors to emphasize his rudeness. Both candidates have a certain image created for them by mass perception, both from media organizations and the population at large, and it is this image that dictates their personalities. Each candidate's personality differed from debate to debate. Generally, as the debates progressed, Obama became more cautious and reserved, and McCain became more aggressive.

Both candidates stated mis-truths during the debate. Any news organization could tell you that. Did it never cross their minds that if all their facts were correct, the media would report this and add an incredible level of credibility to their reputation? Does the stress of debate force the creation of incorrect facts? I think not: I think it be more important that the candidates measure their responses based on truth rather than conviction. In our post-modernist world, conviction is given deference while reason is seen as weak. This works well if one seeks happiness or personal power. It doesn't bode well in government policy.

Many people hound the candidates for flip-flopping on their beliefs. In some situations this is a valid claim; in others, false pretense. What is the difference? When a candidate puts forth an economic policy, the candidate should demonstrate an awareness of an "ideal" state that he wishes to move the country towards, and a reasonable level of flexibility in changing the plan due to changing circumstances. It is the latter that the media attacks, thinking it demonstrates weakness. In fact, it demonstrates strength and intelligence, the intelligence to adjust course as long as it relates to a specific goal or ideal.

There were several "fringe" issues the candidates did not bring up that may solve today's problems much quicker than our current and deeply flawed methods.

One of these issues relates to energy, fossil fuels, and food production. Most people are unaware that, as opposed to supply following demand, in today's culture, our needs/basic demands are met extremely easily. To compensate, marketers and corporations must create new demand and create new supply out of old material. One stellar example of this is corn. The first corn glut in the market was during the 1820s. To compensate, farmers had two options: feed it to lots of pigs and make pork, or distill it into alcohol. Meat is inherently less efficient at converting food into food for us than other methods; consider that only 10% of the biomass of an organism lower down the food chain becomes available for food from the organism that consumed it. Can you guess what the farmers did?

The first health epidemic in American history was caused by mass production of corn alcohol in the 1820s. During the early 20th century, this same situation presented itself to the market. America was better prepared, though. Through the newly derived principles of chemistry, corn could be refined or "wet milled" (as opposed to dry milling) into various substances. Corporations got a hold of this, and started creating processed food products to use the excess corn and increase the value of the otherwise glutted corn. High fructose corn syrup, for example, is worth more market-wise than the corn used to produce it, and processing it increased its value. The government aided and continues to aid this system by subsidizing corn farmers. The glut still exists, and corn farmers would starve were it not for a corporate-run government promoting the further glutting of the market through subsidies.

Now, over 90% of processed food in the market place uses corn derived ingredients as a principle component. Scientists studying the amount of C-14 in our bodies determined we eat more corn than the original corn people, the Mexicans, and this is easily plausible given that the corn's form of carbon remains as it is thoroughly processed into meat or various extracts.

This is why ethanol as fuel is a flawed concept - it would only increase demand for corn, and that's not what America needs now. None of the candidates would tell you this.

America also realized that corn produces one of the densest yields per acre of any crop, and is as easily harvested. This makes it perfect for use as food. Anyone who's studied American history knows that America's meat of choice moved from pork to beef in part to the efforts of cowboys during the 1860s and 70s. So several corporations put two and two together, and the first CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation, otherwise known as a feedlot) opened in the late 1950s in Pokey Oaks, Kansas. Cows are not biologically designed to eat corn, and it excludes many vital nutrients, and so chemists have designed synthetic medicines to deal with the inevitable proliferation of indigestion, acidosis, and bacteria and synthetic, PETROLEUM derived substances to replace lost nutrients.

All of this requires a lot of energy. That energy is not coming from the sun - it's coming from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels to grow corn, fossil fuels to harvest, transport and process corn, and fossil fuels to serve as the base and energy of synthetic chemicals meant to supplant natural processes. In fact, over half of the fuel used in America is not from transportation, which accounts for around 30% of our use, but from the production of corn and pesticides, and factory farming of animals.

Such animals produce sub-par meat, both nutritionally and taste-wise, as anyone who's ever tasted a grass-fed steak would tell you. The consumption of meat has steadily risen in America in recent decades. This is truly a recipe for disaster, and the rising obesity rates in America attest to this fact.

Just think - if everyone had access to better quality meat and other food, and the need to process corn was reduced or eliminated because Americans decided to collectively diversify the commercial crops, not only would our energy consumption decrease dramatically, but the health of America would improve, and with it, health care costs. Just think - baby boomers being not a burden to our economy but an asset to our society, a vast trove of wisdom gleaned from experience, a valued member of western civilization. The chemical, pharmaceutical, and agricultural giants would not hear of this - a return to health means a cut in profits. Truly, our society remains slaves to big business who have not our best interest but their profit margins in mind.

The politicians did not touch on these issues, and this shows from both of them too much of the same mainstream "thinking" and quick-fix focus that destroyed our economy and bankrupted us in a war in the first place.

Note: I am very passionate about these topics and can discuss this for hours. No, days. Without sleep. I also supported Dennis Kucinich during the democratic primaries, but now support Obama.

[Brutha]

Both candidates stated mis-truths during the debate. Any news organization could tell you that. Did it never cross their minds that if all their facts were correct, the media would report this and add an incredible level of credibility to their reputation? Does the stress of debate force the creation of incorrect facts?

If you don't know the question in advance and want to answer every question without saying "I don't know" at all or even hesitating a bit it's practically impossible to get every fact right.