3 posts tagged “change”
As with many of my fellow disillusioned Americans, I had lost all faith in our government some time ago. Obama's true success during his run for the presidency was that he convinced the majority of Americans that change was possible and that he was the person to do it. I was skeptical, but I must admit that he said a lot of the right things during his campaign that led me to believe that he was serious. The most important and compelling case that he made in my eyes was a call for transparency. My thinking is that it is much harder for corrupt politicians to engage in such behavior when the people can see what is going on. I am not naive enough to think that the majority of people would care, but I do believe that enough people would for change to really manifest itself.
To say that Obama has let me down and mislead his fellow Americans to this point is an understatement. Do you want an example of the transparency that he supports? How about we look at the $18 MILLION dollar website Recovery.gov. This is the government's website that is supposed to show us where the money is going. Aside from being a huge failure at its core purpose, the fact that it cost $18 MILLION should raise everyone's eyebrows! For people unfamiliar with what it costs to develop a website, I ask you to consider that it cost roughly $1500-$2000 to create Digg which is one of the largest and most sophisticated sites on the internet. The cost appalls me, but the part that should REALLY concern everyone? How about the supposed transparency.
Back in July, a software company named Smartronix landed an $18 million contract to build a Web site where taxpayers could easily track billions in federal stimulus money. It was just another part of the Obama administration’s ongoing effort to bring transparency to stimulus spending, we were told.
But it seems the drive for transparency doesn’t cover the contract itself.
After weeks of prodding by ProPublica and other organizations, the General Services Administration released copies of the contract and related documents that are so heavily blacked out they are virtually worthless.
Don’t believe us? Take a look.
ProPublica sought the contract under the Freedom of Information Act to find out what kind of site Smartronix planned to build and to assess whether it justified the cost, which Republican critics of the stimulus plan called “unreal.”
Want proof that nothing has changed in Washington? How about this little ditty from the man responsible saying that everything is fine:
Ed Pound, the director of communications for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, defended the redactions as “legitimate.” The Web site Smartronix is to build will replace Recovery.gov, the existing stimulus Web portal run by the transparency board.
“I’m not concerned about whether journalists are concerned about this,” Pound said. “We have been very transparent.”
Obama Administration Redacts Contract Details for Recovery.gov
The contract is so heavily redacted that it is worthless. In all, 25 pages of a 59-page technical proposal — the main document in the package — were redacted completely. Of the remaining pages, 14 had half or more of their content blacked out.
The entire scenario disgusts me, not only because I feel lied to, but because I honestly believe that in this day and age, Obama was our best chance at any sort of change in the way our government works. In the end, he is one of them, and not one of us.
Here is the contract for those interested:
Recovery.gov Contract Documents
This should be the last post of this series, and it is actually the original followup to the primary post. I came across some shocking information regarding rape and sexual abuse in South Africa. This hits home for me on several different levels. I have personal experience with such matters, and someone very dear to me wants to go there soon to help out those in need. I must admit that it scares me to some degree, but all of that is another story, for another time...
What information did I come across? Well, according to a study into rape and HIV by the Medical Research Council (MRC), 1 out of 4 men in South Africa have admitted to raping someone. Let's get some stats out of the way, shall we?
Three out of four rapists first attacked while still in their teens, the study found. One in 20 men said they had raped a woman or girl in the last year.
Of those surveyed, 28% said they had raped a woman or girl, and 3% said they had raped a man or boy. Almost half who said they had carried out a rape admitted they had done so more than once, with 73% saying they had carried out their first assault before the age of 20.
Any woman raped by a man over the age of 25 has a one in four chance of her attacker being HIV-positive.
One in 10 men said they had been forced to have sex with another man. Many find it difficult to report such attacks to the police in subcultures where the concept of homosexuality is taboo.A report published by the trade union Solidarity earlier this month said that one child is raped in South Africa every three minutes, with 88% of rapes going unreported. It found that levels of child abuse in South Africa are increasing rapidly.
That should be sobering for anyone. With such astonishing figures, it is important to understand why. Professor Rachel Jewkes of the MRC ahd this to say:
"We have a very, very high prevalence of rape in South Africa. I think it is down to ideas about masculinity based on gender hierarchy and the sexual entitlement of men. It's rooted in an African ideal of manhood."
I must admit that I agree with her. Having spoken with two of my friends who reside there, they confirm that assertion. I am aware of the lack of scientific merit behind such information, but you can't discount unbiased first hand knowledge. There are others who feel the same way as well. Dean Peacock, co-director of the Sonke Gender Justice project, said:
"We hear men saying, 'If Jacob Zuma can have many wives, I can have many girlfriends.' The hyper-masculine rhetoric of the Zuma campaign is going to set back our work in challenging the old model of masculinity."
I think that it stems from the cultural belief and thinking that men are superior and held to a different standard. There is a pervasive belief, practiced by many, with no real fear of punishment, and that inevitably leads to the widespread practice of such behavior.
The government has been rather complacent as well in its efforts to address the issue. In South Africa, only 7% of rapes ever lead to a conviction. In fact, the leader of the country stood trial for the rape of a family friend. His supporters demonstrated outside the court, verbally attacked his accuser and sang "burn the bitch, burn the bitch". He was eventually acquitted.
So what is the answer? Honestly, I don't think that there is an easy one. I think that there are two primary things that need to be addressed. The leadership needs to take responsibility in making sure that such crimes are punished. The need for a reform of the justice system, from the top down, is needed. Without such a reform, you will never change the matter. The second thing that needs to be addressed is the attitudes of the people. If you create a real sense that there may be a punishment for such an act, then you have tackled a large part of this issue. People are much less likely to do something if they know that they may face serious consequences for such behavior. The old model of masculinity needs to be addressed as well. This will be a much harder, and time consuming effort, but it is necessary if this behavior is to stop. People need to be made aware that there are victims in this, that women are equals, and that there are risks involved for both parties such as a sky-high HIV infection rate.
Given the current leadership, I don't suspect that much progress will be made in this area until new leadership comes to power. I remain hopeful however, since change needs to come to South Africa (and Africa as a whole) very badly.
During the campaign, two words were pushed into the public lexicon: change and maverick. During the campaign, they were both used to convey the same thing to the public. They were meant to imply that the respective candidate wasn't part of the status quo in Washington and because of that, they were able to bring forth the changes needed on Capital Hill to connect with the American public.
I don't believe that John McCain had it in him to vehemently pursue reform to the system. Even if he did, I don't think that he would have been able to accomplish them. I believe Obama had more resolve to actually attempt and push forward his reforms. His is a strange case...actually, now that I think about it, it really isn't...his approval rating is sky high and he is a media darling. Naturally, this means that almost anyone and everyone wants to attach themselves to the Obama gravy train.
This phenomenon actually works to benefit the American people (and Obama) for a change. Whatever it is that he wants to push through the system, he is recieving little resistance. Of course, I view this as beneficial only because I happen to agree with the majority of his policies.
Washington has been run by lobbyists for over 40 years. Whether it has been a religious group, Detroit, the military, energy companies, or teachers unions, etc. the need for change was obvious to any clear thinking American. For better or worse, (can it get worse? ...really?) it would appear that Obama is bringing that change with him. His recent statement about reclaiming Washington actually made me feel proud to be an American.
"The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long," Obama said in his weekly radio and video address. "But I don't. I work for the American people."
[snip]
"I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight," Obama said, using tough-guy language reminiscent of his predecessor, George W. Bush. "My message to them is this: So am I."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/28/obama-to-lobbyists-bring_n_170724.html
The best part is that lobbyist groups can't openly oppose him for fear of running head on with his popularity. It is this popularity that will allow him to get things done in Washington.
