Monday, December 31, 2007

Hillary Might Win For New Reasons

I remember hearing lots of negativity about Hillary Clinton 8 or 9 years ago. It was like the public didn't really value her work. Then Bush came along and made everybody question their previous attitudes, including whether or not the Clinton scandal really mattered. I think a lot of people would appreciate getting back to the Clinton years, even if it means going back on their word.

What word? Impeachment. A lot of people cried "Impeach!" when they found out about Bill Clinton's sex scandal, and how he lied to the American public. But then Bush took us to war, and lied to the public about WMD's. Which lie matters more? Of course, most people would probably choose the latter.

If voting Hillary will bring back the Clinton era of prosperity, truth where it counts, and a nearly-eliminated deficit, I think a lot of people will do it. It seems like a vote for Hillary is more than a vote for an individual female politician. Most candidates run on their own experience. And that seems to be what she's doing. But underneath all that is the subtext that a vote for Hillary is a vote for the achievements of Bill.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Pre-Primary Craziness, Signs Of Obama

There's an interesting post on Random Waves of Insight called Obama's Workers Tried To Cheat Us. It's about being hassled by Presidential campaigns, and getting signed up without your permission to use your yard as a political ad.

It seems like things get crazier and crazier as we approach the primary. I wonder what other wild things will happen.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Thursday, December 27, 2007

2008 Presidential Primary Sample Ballot

I searched all over the place for a sample ballot because I wasn't sure what was on it. According to Michigan, it's just the Presidential candidates, nothing else.

Here's the 2008 Presidential primary sample ballot I found.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

The Fair Tax Is A Good Idea

Sounds fantastic. Instead of the complicated system we have now, all we'd do is pay an extra 23% on new goods and services.

We wouldn't have to worry about keeping track of every little financial detail.

No more audits.

No more confusion.

No more tax loopholes that burden the rest of us.

No more tax evasion by illegal immigrants or people with offshore accounts.

Sure it's got complexities of its own, but is it more complicated than the system we have now? I say there are more pros than cons to the Fair Tax.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Christmas Card From The Clintons

The only candidate for the 2008 election that I got a Christmas card from was Hillary.

No one else sent me a card!

Guess now I know who to vote for. (It really was a pretty nice card)

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Friday, December 21, 2007

John McCain, Underdog?

I read somewhere that John McCain is doing better than expected.

I've heard that he's a solid candidate that seems to be overlooked.

I believe he has what it takes to lead the country.

I think he'd make a great President.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Yahoo Pulls Some Strings - Yours

Misinterpreted dot Org has a neat post about how Yahoo is trying to get people to vote Democrat in 2008.

It's amazing. It's as if Yahoo is trying to use its ubiquitousness to persuade the public one way or another.

Of course, some of you are probably not surprised at all by this. But is it fair? Is it right?

The fact that those questions pop up leads me to believe that if what Yahoo did was on purpose, it's not ethically pure.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Vote Gore?

I've heard some people saying they plan on writing in Al Gore's name when it comes time to vote for a new President.

Would Gore be better than Mrs. Clinton?

It was Mr. Clinton + Gore.

Then Gore vs. Bush, and Bush "won."

Then Gore didn't run.

Then Hillary campaigned, and Gore made a movie.

It feels like in a battle between Hillary and Gore, Hillary would win.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

John Edwards - Antichrist?

Point 1: Looks great for his age.

Point 2: They say the evil characters are always appealing.

Point 3: He's ahead of Clinton and Obama.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Monday, December 17, 2007

Next Prez Bolsters Recessive Economy

Some people predict a recession. I think if it happens, our next President might be able to bail us out. But not just through action.

If the nation has enough faith in his or her ability to set things right, we might just become confident to such an extent that the stock market rallies and things get better without active Presidential intervention.

I just hope there's a hero among the candidates that every citizen can believe in.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Road To White House Paved In Gold

I'm wondering if the road to the White House is paved in gold.

Is the campaign trail broken? Is the system down? Have we eliminated the honor and truth from our Presidential election process, and made it simply a corporate event? What I mean is, is it all about money?

I think the wealthier candidates, or those with more financial backing, have an unfair advantage over candidates with less money. Money can buy a lot. It can pay to bus groups of people around. It can pay volunteers with coffee and donuts to go door to door and solicit votes. It can pay for signs, better ad spots, and more public appearances.

There must be some way we can reengineer things to balance the playing field. Could technology be the answer?

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Obama Did Drugs And That's OK

Spoke to a representative of the Obama Campaign today, and I asked him what was on my mind. Obama and drugs...what happened?

He told me that in Obama's book, he made a point of mentioning that as a youth, he had experimented with drugs. The rep mentioned how that's not so out of the ordinary, as many people have done the same.

I know that all the ads telling children not to do drugs are shown because so many kids do do drugs. And I can understand wanting a pure politician, someone elevated above real citizens. But at the same time, don't we want someone representing us who can identify with us and who we can identify with? I think so.

And he's quit drugs, right? So what's the problem?

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Friday, December 14, 2007

Chuck Norris For Huckabee

Yahoo has a picture of Norris and Huckabee. Together. Teammates.

Chuck Norris has reached idol status, so to see him backing a mere mortal is shocking.

Chuck Norris once smoked ten thousand cigarettes just to fill his body with cancer. He then flexed for 30 minutes, and the cancer was cured.

See?? You'd think with Chuck Norris behind him, Mike Huckabee would be unstoppable. And maybe he will.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

I Watched The Democratic Debate

About an hour's worth. Here's what I saw:


  • Technically proficient in his ideas, which are good
  • Pauses a lot, says "uh" a lot, easily loses my interest
  • Apollo program for the environment, boost patriotism there
  • Great speaker, looks at audience, camera, emotional and intellectual appeal
Bill Richardson
  • Good ideas, but overweight
  • Fat cat look? Lack of will power? Lack of character? Weaker appearance? Don't want a weak-looking leader
Chris Dodd
  • Father was censured, but isn't running to clear family name
  • Is running to serve the public
Joe Biden
  • Not a racist. Obama and others back him up.
John Edwards
  • Looks great for 54
  • Blinks way too much, weakens his position, possibly would hinder him in meetings with foreign leaders
I admit, much of this is superficial, but I figure diplomats and citizens worldwide will be affected on a similar basis.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

GOP Debate in Iowa

I watched an hour's worth of the GOP Debate in Iowa today, and I learned that Alan Keyes is crazy.

I also learned that John McCain has plans to make energy independence such a high priority that he'll create a Manhattan Project for it that will free us from Big Oil in 5 years.

McCain for the win!

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Yahoo: Don't Vote Huckabee, Watch "The Golden Compass"

I read another article on Yahoo about Mike Huckabee. It says, "Now that he's a front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, he's being asked anew about some of the views and comments he expressed in the survey by The Associated Press."

The article goes on to compare his old views to actions that have been taken by our government, and recent things that have been said.

"When asked whether the U.S. should take any action to kill Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Huckabee replied: "The U.S. should not kill Saddam Hussein or anyone else." The U.S. military captured Saddam, an Iraqi court convicted him and he was hanged last December."

Ooh, I guess since we did it, Huckabee must have been wrong. There's no possible way that Bush's vendetta could have been ill-conceived. And perhaps Huckabee meant that we should stop Hussein without killing him. How childish.

To be clear, my point is that just because the U.S. did something someone was against, it doesn't make that person wrong. The action itself may have been wrong. Taking an action doesn't inherently justify it. It's like if Huckabee had said murder in general was wrong, and then someone killed someone. That still doesn't make it right. Like this fictional example:

"When asked whether killing one's enemy was OK in his book, Huckabee replied: "A person should not kill an enemy or anyone else." Cicero Goldthwaite kidnapped his enemy, Dr. Horace Yardsmith, and strangled him to death last December."
(Subtext: Obviously Huckabee was wrong. How else could Goldthwaite have taken an action, unless that action was inherently correct? And Huckabee said otherwise...tsk tsk tsk...)

Here's something else from Yahoo:

"Huckabee's 1992 comments on isolating AIDS patients run counter to a statement he released last month calling for increased federal funds to find a cure."

I don't know the exact statements he made, but let's compare the ideas he presented. Isolate AIDS patients, and increase funds for cure research. Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive. You can quarantine people with a disease while simultaneously researching a cure. It's not one or the other. "Run counter to" is just plain wrong. So I think Yahoo is trying to lie to us and make us believe that Huckabee is going against what he has previously said.

Most of the other stuff about Huckabee in the article didn't seem that bad. But I got the vibe that Yahoo doesn't like Huckabee and is trying to sell the public on how he's not so great. Honestly, I think he's a long shot, but the fact that Yahoo seems to be slamming him while pretending to be impartial is of interest.

It's like how "The Golden Compass" came out, and Yahoo kept printing headline after headline about how "it's so controversial," and "it's not doing well, or is it?" My guess is all the "negative press" was really a masked attempt to advertise the film, get people talking about it, and get butts in seats. I think Yahoo is using it's enormous readership to try to sway the public one way or another, and is doing so deceitfully. I must be naive for having taken so long to figure this out, but now that I am aware of it, I'm glad. At least now I can read without expecting "fair and balanced news."

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Monday, December 10, 2007

Future Online Presidential Voting

The other day it occurred to me that we can do so many things from the comfort of our own home. We can order pizza, order products through sites like Amazon, order up anything. Some lucky few of us can earn a living online. We can pay our bills online. You can even buy a house online. So why not vote online?

I'm thinking there's a trend here, where as a byproduct of making things easier for people with hectic and busy lives, we're creating a society in which many people have no need to leave their homes.

If that trend ever becomes super prevalent, I can imagine new technology allowing us all to safely and securely cast our votes for the next President at home, online.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Sunday, December 9, 2007

FDR: Quarantine the Aggressors

I recently read this speech, and learned that at the time, America was very much isolating itself from foreign affairs (rise of the Nazis, etc.). FDR gave a speech to the effect of, "We must stop the spread of aggression, because if we don't, we could be next." There was a huge backlash, and he strategically retreated from his position, but this speech shook the Free World awake and into action against the aggressors. Who's to say whether it applies to our current predicaments abroad.

Here it is:

"Mayor Kelly, Governor Horner, my friends in Chicago:

. . . It is because the people of the United States must, for the sake of their own future, give thought to the rest of the world, that I, as the responsible executive head of the Nation, have chosen this great inland city and this gala occasion to speak to you on a subject of definite national importance.

The political situation in the world, which of late has been growing progressively worse, is such as to cause grave concern and anxiety to all the peoples and nations who wish to live in peace and amity with their neighbors.

Some fifteen years ago the hopes of mankind for a continuing era of international peace were raised to great heights when more than sixty nations solemnly pledged themselves not to resort to arms in furtherance of their national aims and policies. The high aspirations expressed in the Briand-Kellogg Peace Pact and the hopes for peace thus raised have of late given way to a haunting fear of calamity. The present reign of terror and international lawlessness began a few years ago.

It began through unjustified interference in the internal affairs of other nations or the invasion of alien territory in violation of treaties. It has now reached a stage where the very foundations of civilization are seriously threatened. The landmarks, the traditions which have marked the progress of civilization toward a condition of law and order and justice are being wiped away.

Without a declaration of war and without warning or justification of any kind civilians, including vast numbers of women and children, are being ruthlessly murdered with bombs from the air. In times of so-called peace ships are being attacked and sunk by submarines without cause or notice. Nations are fomenting and taking sides in civil warfare in nations that have never done them any harm. Nations claiming freedom for themselves deny it to others.

Innocent peoples, innocent nations are being cruelly sacrificed to a greed for power and supremacy which is devoid of all sense of justice and humane consideration.

To paraphrase a recent author “perhaps we foresee a time when men, exultant in the technique of homicide, will rage so hotly over the world that every precious thing will be in danger, every book, every picture, every harmony, every treasure garnered through two millenniums, the small, the delicate, the defenseless -- all will be lost or wrecked or utterly destroyed.”

If those things come to pass in other parts of the world, let no one imagine that America will escape, that America may expect mercy, that this Western Hemisphere will not be attacked and that it will continue tranquilly and peacefully to carry on the ethics and the arts of civilization.

No, if those days come, “there will be no safety by arms, no help from authority, no answer in science. The storm will rage till every flower of culture is trampled and all human beings are leveled in a vast chaos.”

If those days are not to come to pass—if we are to have a world in which we can breathe freely and live in amity without fear—then the peace-loving nations must make a concerted effort to uphold laws and principles on which alone peace can rest secure.

The peace-loving nations must make a concerted effort in opposition to those violations of treaties and those ignorings of humane instincts which today are creating a state of international anarchy, international instability from which there is no escape through mere isolation or neutrality.

Those who cherish their freedom and recognize and respect the equal rights of their neighbors to be free and live in peace, must work together for the triumph of law and moral principles in order that peace, justice and confidence may prevail throughout the world. There must be a return to a belief in the pledged word, in the value of a signed treaty. There must be recognition of the fact that national morality is as vital as private morality.

A bishop wrote to me the other day: “It seems to me that something greatly needs to be said in behalf of ordinary humanity against the present practice of carrying the horrors of war to helpless civilians, especially women and children. It may be that such a protest may be regarded by many, who claim to be realists, as futile, but may it not be that the heart of mankind is so filled with horror at the present needless suffering that the force could be mobilized in sufficient volume to lessen such cruelty in the days ahead. Even though it may take twenty years, which God forbid, for civilization to make effective its corporate protest against this barbarism, surely strong voices may hasten the day.”

There is a solidarity, an interdependence about the modern world, both technically and morally, which makes it impossible for any nation completely to isolate itself from political and economic upheavals in the rest of the world, especially when such upheavals appear to be spreading and not declining. There can be no stability or peace either within nations or between nations except under laws and moral standards adhered to by all. International anarchy destroys every foundation for peace. It jeopardizes either the immediate or the future security of every nation, large or small. And it is, therefore, a matter of vital interest and concern to the people of the United States that the sanctity of international treaties and the maintenance of international morality be restored.

The overwhelming majority of all the peoples and nations of the world today want to live in peace. They seek the removal of barriers against trade. They want to exert themselves in industry, in agriculture, in business, that they may increase their wealth through the production of wealth-producing goods rather than striving to produce military planes and bombs and machine guns and cannon for the destruction of human lives and useful property.

In those nations of the world which seem to be piling armament on armament for purposes of aggression, and those other nations which fear acts of aggression against them and their security, a very high proportion of their national income is being spent directly for armaments. It runs from thirty to as high as fifty per cent in most of those cases.

We are fortunate. The proportion that we spend in the United States is far less—eleven or twelve per cent.

How happy we are that the circumstances of the moment permit us to put our money into bridges and boulevards, dams and reforestation, the conservation of our soil and many other kinds of useful works rather than into huge standing armies and vast supplies of implements of war.

Nevertheless, my friends, I am compelled and you are compelled to look ahead. The peace, the freedom, the security of ninety per cent of the population of the world is being jeopardized by the remaining ten per cent who are threatening a breakdown of all international order and law. Surely the ninety per cent who want to live in peace under law and in accordance with moral standards that have received almost universal acceptance through the centuries, can and must find some way to make their will prevail.

Yes, the situation is definitely of universal concern. The questions involved relate not merely to violations of specific provisions of particular treaties; they are questions of war and peace, of international law and especially of principles of humanity. It is true that they involve definite violations of agreements, and especially of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Briand-Kellogg Pact and the Nine Power Treaty. And we have signed both of the last two. But they involve also problems of world economy, world security and world humanity.

It is true that the moral consciousness of the world must recognize the importance of removing injustices and well-founded grievances; but at the same time it must be aroused to the cardinal necessity of honoring sanctity of treaties, of respecting the rights and liberties of others and of putting an end to acts of international aggression.

It seems to be unfortunately true that the epidemic of world lawlessness is spreading.

And mark this well! When an epidemic of physical disease starts to spread, the community approves and joins in a quarantine of the patients in order to protect the health of the community against the spread of the disease.

It is my determination to pursue a policy of peace. It is my determination to adopt every practicable measure to avoid involvement in war. It ought to be inconceivable that in this modern era, and in the face of experience, any nation could be so foolish and ruthless as to run the risk of plunging the whole world into war by invading and violating in contravention of solemn treaties, the territory of other nations that have done them no real harm and which are too weak to protect themselves adequately. Yet the peace of the world and the welfare and security of every nation, including our own, is today being threatened by that very thing.

No nation which refuses to exercise forbearance and to respect the freedom and rights of others can long remain strong and retain the confidence and respect of other nations. No nation ever loses its dignity or its good standing by conciliating its differences, and by exercising great patience, patience with, and consideration for, the rights of other nations.

War is a contagion, whether it be declared or undeclared. It can engulf states and peoples remote from the original scene of hostilities. Yes, we are determined to keep out of war, yet we cannot insure ourselves against the disastrous effects of war and the dangers of involvement.

We are adopting such measures as will minimize our risk of involvement but we cannot have complete protection in a world of disorder in which confidence and security have broken down. If civilization is to survive the principles of the Prince of Peace must be restored. Shattered trust between nations must be revived.

Most important of all, the will for peace on the part of peace-loving nations must express itself to the end that nations that may be tempted to violate their agreements and the rights of others will desist from such a cause. There must be positive endeavors to preserve peace.

America hates war. America hopes for peace. Therefore, America actively engages in the search for peace."

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Saturday, December 8, 2007

Huckabee vs. The AIDS

I saw a headline on Yahoo about how Mike Huckabee wanted to sequester all AIDS patients somewhere. I didn't read the story, because I got the impression the vibe of the article would be, "What an evil man. A new Hitler."

I have in the past contemplated ways to end the AIDS epidemic, and separating the infected from the uninfected has come up in my mind as well. Of course, in a country like ours, where you fight for the little guy and personal freedoms, neo-concentration camps seem ludicrous. But if we can't cure the disease with medicine or biotech, and it is threatening our way of life, doesn't it make sense to limit the potential for spreading as much as possible?

I'm not advocating eliminating all the patients. I'm wondering if there is any scenario they would find acceptable in which they are physically separated from those they care about who are not infected, but still allowed to lead fruitful lives. If there were a luxury resort with broadband net access, video chats galore, plenty of phone lines, digital cable, pool, tennis, incredible food, everything you could want, and you could talk to people you care about over the net or phone, and the only catch was you couldn't leave because you might infect someone, would that still be beyond reason?

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Friday, December 7, 2007

Mike Huckabee, Super Guy

A while back I had viewed Huckabee as somewhat of a good guy Bush. Not super articulate, not clean and polished like the wealthy elite candidates, and vaguely out of touch. Bush was out of touch, and seems to remain so because he's not making decisions based on the will of his voters.

Lately, though, it seems like Huckabee isn't like Bush at all. He seems genuine, caring, and while he may not be the most smooth guy in the running, his heart seems to be in the right place.

On the "Colbert Report," Stephen Colbert pointed out the cartoonishness of a President Huckabee. But maybe that's just what this country needs. Or at least a Vice President Huckabee.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Is Hillary Clinton Bill's Pawn?

Today the thought occurred to me that Bill is determined to get back into the White House by any means necessary.

Previously, it has seemed like Mr. Clinton was staying out of the spotlight as much as he could to allow his wife to campaign on her own. But now, what if it's all part of his master plan for a third term?

If Hillary gets elected, could Bill make her decisions for her? Or could he tell her what to do? I think so. He might somehow influence all of her acts as President, and he may just start running things his own way.

Of course, this seems ludicrous, but that's just what he'd want you to think we're he really up to something.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Ellen Cons Her Way Into Speaking With Bush

Yahoo has a video of Ellen DeGeneres with guest Jenna Bush. Ellen talked Jenna into calling her mother. The secretary or call screener said Mrs. Bush was on George Bush's line, and transferred the call. Ellen said "Hi" to the first lady, and steered the convo toward the President. She seemed aggressive, but she probably expected a good amount of resistance.

When George Bush got on the phone, he seemed like a nice, ordinary father. In fact, he sounded much different from his stereotype, to the point where I first doubted it was him, and then doubted that the Bush we see and hear on television is the real Bush. Of course he'd have a different attitude with his family, but the unexpected nature of the call and the way his voice sounded made me wonder about the humanity and the personal experiences of our leader. I thought, "Could what happened to him happen to any of us? Probably."

Each of us might find ourselves in charge, and might end up making decisions that a lot of people don't agree with. But we're only human. That's what the call put emphasis on. It humanized him.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Jon Stewart Keeps America In Check

On a recently-aired episode of "The Daily Show," Jon Stewart covered the issue of waterboarding, and said outright that it is obviously torture. In fact it practically defines torture.

He gave me hope in his overt way of speaking the truth that America has enough people like him to counteract those who would make this country into something twisted.

It's easy with what's going on nowadays to feel like this country is being dragged down into an unsavory place by people who either don't know any better or are disturbingly selfish. Hopefully more people like Jon Stewart will help keep the public informed about what is right for us as a country, and what is most definitely wrong.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Monday, December 3, 2007

Free Speech and Racism

There's a post on Random Waves of Insight about how racist remarks got Imus fired, but business brought him back. It's called Don Imus Is Back! A Win For Free Speech?

I for one am glad one slip up can't (completely) ruin someone's life. I value free speech and forgiveness. Still, it's easy to find negative feelings for someone who holds to ideas of generic hatred.

I wonder what the public consensus on free speech vs. racist remarks is? Should we tolerate foul ideas in order to preserve an open dialogue with everyone on all subjects?

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Sunday, December 2, 2007

Middle Earners Are Taxed The Most

In my post Tax Changes, I wondered about a bleak scenario that I didn't know had already befallen society.

"What if middle-income earning families were suddenly taxed the most...?"

Today I became aware of the reasons middle earners are taxed the most. It's really pretty simple.

  1. The poor have barely anything to tax.
  2. The rich have tax lawyers and can avoid taxes more easily than others.
  3. The government still needs money, and so squeezes the middlers hard.
To guard against this, middle earners could aspire to know the same things tax lawyers use to help the rich avoid excessive tax payments.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Saturday, December 1, 2007

No Torture, Please

Another thing I remember from the CNN YouTube debate was the variation among responses to the question of whether or not waterboarding is considered torture. Up to that point, I thought Mitt Romney had been doing well. But then he said he didn't think it was safe to publicly define interrogation techniques, because that would allow terrorists to better train themselves to withstand such tactics.

I agree. That makes sense. However, I still don't feel that any form of torture needs to be used. I don't think it should be used either. And besides, they say it doesn't produce reliable intelligence, anyway.

I believe Romney made a valid point in order to avoid the question. It would seem that even if waterboarding were considered torture, it would be allowable under "certain" circumstances, along with many other horrible techniques, with Romney as President. And I don't want that to happen.

Senator John McCain, on the other hand, seems completely against mistreatment of prisoners. I think part of what makes America great is the high standards it (usually) holds itself to. It sounds to me like McCain is all for the preservation of these standards.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Friday, November 30, 2007

An End-Times Mentality has a post that rattles off a bunch of things that all add up to an End Times scenario. Among them are the Mark of the Beast, WWIII, the Antichrist, and December 21, 2012.

I agree that there are a lot of things that seem to coincide both temporally and in an End-Time warning sense. There's that whole Pope legend too, where supposedly our next Pope will witness the rise of the Antichrist and the end of the world.

Looks like things are heating up this season. Stay tuned -- to life!

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

CNN YouTube Debate: Fantastic

This morning I was able to watch some of the debate rebroadcast from last night. It was great seeing real people make contact with presidential candidates. It really hit home how much technology is changing things.

Previously, normal folks would have to get in line in person to ask a single candidate a question at one political event. Now, people can craft eloquent and insightful questions on their own time, submit them, and if they're good/lucky enough, get accepted for airing and answering by many candidates at a time. Of course, there must have been many, many questions that were ignored for one reason or another, but the fact that the people who got through seemed to be normal makes the point that things appear to be opening up to the common man.

I don't think the Republican party really has as big a chance at getting a candidate elected as the Democrats, simply because of all the negativity from the past few months (and years). In spite of that, it looks like there are more than a few men who have good ideas for improving the country.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

1996 Election vs 2008: This One Matters More

Channel surfing, I came upon an old episode of Mad TV. There was a segment from their old "X News" sketch in which they were complaining about the '96 election and how the candidates were either out of touch with society or were unmemorable.

Of course, at the time we all took the election seriously. It was important. But in hindsight, it feels far less important than the upcoming one. I guess that's because it feels like there's so much riding on it.

Bush has done many things in office that the general public disagrees with. So we are looking for someone who can truly represent us in the White House. Sure, that was also important in the 1996 election, but things weren't so bad in the years leading up to it.

I think the reason 2008 is so important is because we've got a lot of room for improvement on a national scale.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Al Gore In The White House

As part of winning the Nobel Prize, Al Gore was invited to the White House, along with other Prize winners. Seeing Gore stand next to Bush in the Oval Office (I think it was), it made me think back to the election, and about all the things Bush has done that have made him less likable than he might otherwise be. I wondered just how much secret animosity Gore felt toward him in the months and years preceding the televised moment in which they stood side by side.

On camera they both appeared normal, happy, and quite friendly. They weren't really interacting, but they were smiling amiably at the men and women in front of them.

It made me wonder whether there were any bad feelings there at all. My theory is that whatever is truly felt is suppressed and hidden for the good of the situation at hand. That detachment from true emotion may be so complete as to sever the ties with the naturally-occurring feelings in favor of more professionally supportive ones. But I guess that's something we all aspire to.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Monday, November 26, 2007

Bush vs. Carter - The New Low

A recent airing of "The Simpsons" joked about the public's disdain for Jimmy Carter. Some would say he lacked effectiveness as President, and wasn't as aggressive in foreign dealings as he needed to be.

Now we've got a Prez who is most definitely forthright, and gets things done, but not in the interest of the general public. One might argue that he fights for what is truly best for us, but how can that really be when so many people are against it?

It would seem that our new least favorite President became so through emulating the opposite of Jimmy Carter's faults. Could W. Bush be Bizarro Carter?

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Vote Hillary, But Only To Get Bill Back?

If Hillary Clinton were running on her own and Bill Clinton had never been President, I don't think she'd have as a good a chance at being elected. I think because Bill did such a good job, many are willing to be led by him again, even after his "scandal." A vote for Hillary may seem to be a way to get Bill back into office.

I wonder if that's true. If Hillary is elected, will her Presidency feel like a 3rd term Clinton administration? Or a completely new 1st term Hillary Clinton administration?

Whatever happens, I hope our next President makes things better.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Hillary vs. Obama? Or Hillary vs. Giuliani?

The media seems to be screaming that Obama is Hillary's biggest opponent. But other places seem to say that Giuliani is really the one to take on Hillary. In my mind, Hillary doesn't really have an opponent strong enough to present a real challenge. Maybe the media is making Obama seem powerful because of his race? Electing the first black President would be interesting, but maybe there's more to it than that.

On more than one occasion I've heard that Giuliani's platform is more related to 9/11than anything else. I wonder if a national crisis right before elections would sway the public and get us all to believe that we need Giuliani to bail us out? Because if all he's good for is fixing things that are truly messed up, then that may be the only scenario in which he would seem necessary.

Then again, over 70% of Americans (apparently) believe the country is on the wrong path. That in itself is evidence of how messed up things are.

So who will face off with Hillary?

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Friday, November 23, 2007

Women: Chip Implant > Stolen Purse?

Watching an ad for an expandable compartmentalized purse alternative, I began to wonder about the Visa Chip. One of the commercial's selling points included an across-the-chest strap for wearing a purse that would prevent would-be thieves.

Like most commercials, this one skewed things. First, a woman was shown sitting at a table with her purse hanging from her chair. A thief snatches it. Then, using their product, the woman wears the purse. No worry about losing it. But who wears a purse when seated? To be fair, she should have been shown wearing her purse in the first scene, too.

Back to the original question. Since the fear of losing a purse is used as a selling point for a "better" purse, could the fear of losing what's in the purse, like credit cards, be used as a selling point for a credit card that, like the advertised purse, you "wear" all the time? A credit card that you wear on, say, the inside of your right hand?

Things don't seem bad enough that fear of theft could be used to sell such a device, but maybe all it takes is some bad neighborhoods to start getting implants. Pretty soon, people are sharing how "convenient" the tracking implant is, and how it makes things "easier." "I never have to worry about losing my money again!" Nor would you need to worry about being truly free, since that ship would have long since sailed.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Some People Still Like Dubya

I was watching the news and I saw a clip of George W. Bush and the First Lady walking from one area to another, waving and saying hello to various Americans who had apparently lined up to see them. I found myself wondering why there weren't any scowling faces in the crowd.

My perception was that most people dislike the President and his ways. So it surprised me to see Americans waving and smiling. I figured any place the President is must have its own prerequisites for allowing someone near him. "Are you a fan of the President? Do you like him? Are you a friendly person?" People are probably quickly analyzed on a similar basis for suitability.

But what if that's not it at all? What if people are waving and smiling not because they like him according to the actions he's taken, but rather because of how he acts in public, and because he won't be President for too much longer?

It doesn't feel like he'll declare martial law and suspend all elections, but you never know.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Clinton Was A Good President, So There Is Hope

Recently, I posted about how The Presidency Is Bigger Than Any One Person. But I'd like to think that the damage that's been done to America and the world in general over the past 8 years can be undone with a better national leader.

When Bill Clinton was in office, he brought the deficit way down. When George W. Bush was President, he sent the deficit way up. Clinton, despite his scandal, did a good job in other areas. The scandal of Bush is that he seems to have done quite poorly in other areas. What does this mean?

If one President can make things good for America, and another can make them bad, then its possible that yet another can make them good again. It's also possible that a new President could make things worse, and continue down the fiery course that has already been set. Time will tell whether the former or latter comes true.

I think that another Clinton administration might just be what we need. But what if I'm wrong?

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Stem Cells From Skin Cells, Not Embryos

I read that someday, we'll be able to create supplies of stem cells from skin cells. This means that making use of discarded embryos will no longer be an issue, and can no longer be used as an excuse to delay research into the field of stem cells.

I for one think stem cells have tremendous unexplored potential, with both restorative and preventative applications. Just think, if someone bound to a wheelchair today could walk and function better tomorrow thanks to stem cells, and no unborn children were manipulated to produce that result, then what's to complain about?

I believe this new development will allow legislation permitting stem cell research to get the green light. Good deal.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Monday, November 19, 2007

Keeping Someone Alive Against Their Will

How horrible. Has science really become that cruel and twisted that a person doesn't have the right to a natural death? In the old days, you were pronounced dead much earlier than today. We've achieved technology that can keep someone alive long after they've lost all brain activity. And when they're still aware and conscious, the machines that prevent death can themselves provide a feeling of torture.

In hindsight, some survivors may feel that that "short-term" torture was worth it in the end, since they came back from their trauma and are now enjoying a decent quality of life. But shouldn't a person's wishes be honored in the moment? When you've got someone hooked up to machines against their will, isn't it right to honor their request to remove the equipment?

I think so.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Sunday, November 18, 2007

The Presidency Is Bigger Than Any One Person

I've heard this in "Air Force One," and I've heard it elsewhere. "The Presidency is bigger than any one man." So why do we all blame George W. Bush?

It seems like there's much at work behind the scenes that we just don't take into account. On "Inside The Actors Studio," "Tom Cruise" mentioned how when he works on a project, if everything goes very well, he'll give credit to everyone. If the project goes bust, he alone will take the fall. But in our country's case, is it right to focus the blame all on one man?

It's possible Bush is merely a cog in a much bigger machine that has been moving toward our present situation for quite some time. I'll bet some people out there would say that is obvious. I've toyed with this idea before in my "Is George Bush Just A Pawn" entry, but only now does it seem to make much more sense.

The real danger is in thinking that a new President will solve all the problems the old one helped create. If the problem doesn't lie within that single office, and instead originates with the body of influence around the President, there could indeed be continued rough times ahead.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Your Right Not To Be Hassled By Phone

I'm no expert, but to me there are flaws with the "Do Not Call List." I've heard that it only blocks calls of a "let me sell you something nature." It doesn't prevent non-profit organizations or poll takers from calling. It doesn't stop political organizations from ringing you either.

I believe that one of people's rights is the right to enjoy sanctuary within their own home. That's the right to be left alone. In Texas, they preserve this right in the extreme, allowing trespassers to be shot and killed without so much as a, "Leave or I'll shoot" from the armed homeowner. Now, sure, a phone call is not the same as a physical guest or trespasser. But hearing that certain companies instruct their employees to call a minimum of 15 times before removing you from the list is just absurd.

If you had a stalker, and they were calling you at all hours, you could get a restraining order. And yet some companies replicate that stalker behavior, and are allowed to do it.

I love having technology connect us all, but what I don't like is the potential for abuse. What I'm waiting for is phone service to catch up to email. That way you can block SPAM calls in such a way that you never even have to hear the phone ring when a SPAMMER calls.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Friday, November 16, 2007

Ads Are Getting Slicker, More Devious

Every once in a while I'll see an ad that simultaneously engages me and bothers me at the same time. There will be some fun, upbeat scenario, but the ad will be emphasizing taking pills or supersizing myself or something. It points up how much better ads have gotten at hiding their evil undertones.

Not that every ad is evil. But what is the point of advertising? To make the person being advertised to take some action. It could be to pop some pills, eat some food, or go shopping. Whatever. Ads want you to obey.

There's an old idea about how the Devil is extremely attractive. Not only is it necessary in order to convince good people to do wrong, the wrong itself is usually seductive as well. To me, ads are getting more and more seductive, and better at hiding the negative aspects of "just going with the flow." I sometimes wonder if there are people out there who don't comprehend in the least the negative underbelly of ads, and only see what advertisers want them to see. And then they only think what the ads are designed to make them think. "Do this, and all your problems will be solved!"

I've been thinking about buying that new home gym machine...

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Thursday, November 15, 2007

John Edwards' $400 Haircut

Ever since I was young and heard in movies about how the government spends too much money on things like toilet seats in order to hide other expenditures, I've accepted that there are things that are paid for that the public doesn't know about. On paper, a toilet seat costs hundreds or thousands of dollars. But in reality, it's not the toilet seat that costs so much. It's other stuff.

Hearing about Edwards and his expensive haircut got me wondering. Is this one of the rare times when the public is acquainted with a legitimately expensive purchase? Or is this a cover-up?

I've also come to accept that people running for office probably act just like the government, and spend money in areas that the public isn't supposed to know about. But in Edwards' case, I can believe that he did in fact pay that much for a haircut.

Why? Because I'm also aware of how high-end services in the "make me look good" industry can come with exorbitant price tags. Celebrities were in the news a few months back because of the big money they paid for such things as sunglasses. You can cheaply get a pair that looks just as good as one that cost a celebrity $1000, and yet the celebrity is still willing to pay that much for it.

I think part of the high prices have to do with goods and services being of exceptionally high quality, and part of it has to do with a scam. It's the scam where someone works on someone famous, and that famous person approves and recommends the worker to their high profile friends. Pretty soon the worker is getting paid a lot of money, maybe because they're worth it, but at least partially for the simple reason that the abundantly wealthy people can get used to paying high prices. I think it may even reach the point where rich people overpay out of habit.

So is Edwards' haircut worth that much? I doubt it, unless he has some complex scalp condition. And anything's possible. For all we know, he could be severely balding, and the $400 is paid to a miracle worker to make his hair look as decent as it does.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

The Dixie Chicks Were Ahead Of The Curve

A while back, one member of the "Dixie Chicks" spoke out onstage saying she regretted that George W. Bush hails from her friend, Texas. After that, they were attacked by the media and general public as being anti-Bush and therefore anti-America. Now, things have come full circle, and the majority of Americans have a low approval of both Bush and the current administration. Now it is fashionable to question our current government. But that was not so a few years ago.

In the wake of terrorist incidents and widespread threats, many people sacrificed freedom for security: the freedom to question one's government, to hold our leaders accountable, to voice disapproval in public. Were we wrong? I think so. Sure, it was a scary time. But when times get tough, you don't just shut down and pretend you've got an infallible hero leading the way. You've got to pay attention and do whatever you can to help. Blind support is not helping. It is hindering.

And yet, it was fashionable, and the "Chicks" ran right up against the worst of it. Pretty soon people stopped buying their music, and radio stations nationwide stopped playing it. The "Dixie Chicks" were seen as unpatriotic. But now we realize the truth -- that they may have been more patriotic than most. The actions they took expressed how much they value our freedoms -- enough to risk a severe backlash from a tightlipped Police State. How long before we reenter such a society? Or maybe we've never left?

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Race and DNA: The New Connection

The New York Times recently published a story about how biology and DNA are understood well enough now to be used as tools in the race debate. Originally, the idea was to prove that current prejudices are incorrect. For example, African Americans are believed by some to be not as smart as other races. Some wanted DNA evidence to reveal that African Americans are actually smarter than other races, but that wouldn't solve the problem of judging people by their DNA.

If one race is shown or "proven" to be generally superior, no matter what tests are involved, whether they be DNA or physical trials or aptitude tests, there's always the risk that racism will strengthen from that race against others, and vice versa. There must be a way to separate individual qualities from groups of people, so that sweeping generalizations cannot be made.

Unfortunately, we are apparently entering the dangerous time when DNA evidence does seem to be useful in making sweeping generalizations that are not only damaging, but are also considered by some to be scientifically accurate. Gattacca, here we come.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Monday, November 12, 2007

Political Polling Brain Scans

I was watching the news today, and learned that a new trend among pollsters is to give the citizen being asked questions an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) during the interview. The idea was brought up as the topic of a short segment between a female news anchor and an elderly professional pollster.

The pollster's take was that it's just another "secret weapon" or "edge" that the candidates can use. In a race to be the next President, every bit helps, even if it's bunk. And that's just how he saw the MRI's usage. He said he believed that similar, if not superior results could be obtained from first asking someone how they felt about a candidate, and then following up with, "Why?"

The MRI has revealed that when someone thinks of a certain politician, the emotion areas of their brain light up. So obviously each individual candidate will evoke a different emotional response in different people. The gist of the study, according to the pollster, was that women liked Hillary Clinton, and men like Rudy Giuliani.

The last time I considered Giuliani as a potential winner, I remember hearing on either the "Daily Show" or the "Colbert Report" that he's really running to be "President of 9/11." That got me thinking about how a lot of what he seems to be saying hinges on his experiences in New York. Sure, he did a good job, and we needed him, but a Presidency isn't solely about moments of crisis. At least, it shouldn't be.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Global Warming U.S. Like Pre-WWII Germany?

On an episode of the original "Star Trek," it was revealed that a Federation officer had violated the Prime Directive and interfered in a civilization by teaching them to emulate Nazi Germany. He said he did so because things were falling apart for them, and in all of earth's history (according to him) there was no country more efficient than Nazi Germany. He said at that point in time, the Germans were able to come back from incredible devastation, and triumph over it.

But living in a country like that, a pure Police State, is like living during a perpetual witch hunt. The atrocities are unforgivable. And it appeared the Starfleet officer didn't intend to carry out any new atrocities on the newly-created Nazi planet. He just wanted to make things "better" by solving whatever problems there were with efficiency, through using every resource, and every man, woman, and child as a tool of the State.

Already people have begun to question the current State of the Union. Are we moving toward Fascism? Some think so. Are our civil liberties being broken down for various reasons? Some say yes. When a country meets incredible hardships, it does whatever it takes to overcome them. So the question is, do we feel it necessary to overcome the mounting obstacles with a loss of freedom? Will global warming, fewer resources, and terrorist threats all combine to give us cause to create another pure Police State? A country in which everybody must do their sworn duty for the good of the nation? An America without Freedom? Will all of this come to pass?

Only if we let it.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Saturday, November 10, 2007

A National Government Is Like A Student Body Government

Today it occurred to me that the U.S. government is just like a student body government. Both try to keep the public happy, and both have secret agendas to work for.

I once took part in an instructional seminar about the effects of political power, and the lesson was: those in power will use those not in power to serve them, and to help maintain that power. Apparently, it's basic human nature.

Of course, throughout history there have been select individuals who have risen above the stigma associated with being a normal power-hungry politician. These benevolent souls have aspired to create a nation that is truly free, where power is truly equal among the people. I hope we get another president like that, and soon.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Friday, November 9, 2007

Tax Changes

Today I learned about how the alternative minimum tax is being patched for a year to prevent a middle-income tax hike. But this got me thinking. What if the opposite were to happen?

What if middle-income earning families were suddenly taxed the most, and a majority of tax money were put to use in the military?

It reminds me of the movie, "1984," in which people became cogs in a war machine.

Communism has everybody give up their resources and productivity to the use of the State. If only poor and middle-class people were used as cogs, and the rich were relatively free, what would that make America?

But that probably won't happen, thank goodness.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Thursday, November 8, 2007

Power-Hungry Politicos

Today I heard that politicians get to be in power by any means necessary, and once they achieve that power, they continue doing whatever it takes to maintain and augment their power base.

This idea was used to explain the rationale for our current President, who was referred to by one person as, "King George," increasing the power and influence held by the Executive Branch.

Someone else pointed out that Hillary Clinton will undoubtedly win the 2008 Presidential election, but won't change anything. What's more, she just may continue to increase the power held by the President, and instate mandated hand chip implants.

It seems like every other day there's something in the news evidencing the negative changes America is currently going through.

I hope there's a positive end to all this, but it just feels like there are too many wheels turning to keep us from a bad scene.

The place I read all that was a page on It was in the comments for a story about how AT&T is like Big Brother, keeping tabs on everyone.

Here it is: They're Doing a Huge Massive Domestic Dragnet on Everybody in the US

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Recent Monday's Green NBC Lineup = Environmental Propaganda

I DVR'd "Chuck," "Heroes," and "Journeyman." I noticed special tips for how to go green, both during shows, and during commercials. But what really struck me was the hue they used.

They colored all 3 shows a subtle yet noticeable shade of green. The first time I noticed it was during the Heroes opening -- the eclipse shot. It had a green background, and I just figured it was like when "The X-Files" started using intro messages other than, "The Truth Is Out There." Maybe it had something to do with the biohazard Peter Petrelli just found out about?

But later during "Journeyman" I saw the green hue as just a simple overlay to color all immediate programming. Why?

To get the viewers into the "green mindset." I don't think being energy-efficient is a bad thing, it just surprised me how far NBC was going to convince us to think a certain way. I hadn't even noticed the hue for half of the 3-hour block.

It almost felt like I stumbled upon a subliminal ad, but the fact that I eventually realized what was going on made me just feel mildly oblivious. I'm sure, though, that some viewers probably never even noticed at all -- at least, not consciously.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, ?Clinton?

Bush, Bush

H.W. Bush was Reagan's VP. So that's 4 years as Vice President. Then H.W. Bush was President. That's another 4 years with the White House.

Clinton, Clinton

Bill Clinton was elected President, and then reelected for two total terms in office.

Bush, Bush

Al Gore won the 2000 election, but W. Bush contested it and ended up winning. Then he was reelected in 2004.


Hillary Clinton runs in 2008. Wins? Or does W. Bush go for a 3rd term?

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Monday, November 5, 2007

Loss Of Media Would Be Crushing - We Take So Much For Granted

I just realized today how simple and easy the internet seems to use, and how powerful and necessary we've made it. I also thought of how devastating it would be to suddenly not have it anymore.

The Net makes possible all kinds of incredible things. To suddenly no longer have access due to a catastrophe, SkyNet, or some government blackout is pretty scary to think about.

I know I've already written on this subject, but it never occurred to me until today how easily we all expect things to just work. "Just do your job, web page!" When something breaks, we become frustrated in the face of our own apparent powerlessness. Sure, the human spirit can triumph, and go on, but a complete shutdown of the Web would be like cutting off 95% of our 5 senses.

We'd no longer be able to communicate as rapidly and effectively, and the world would suddenly become a big, big place again. It's a big world after all...

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Sunday, November 4, 2007

Could A Media Blackout Happen In America?

Watching Pakistan, I wonder if our President is considering pulling the same stunt of bending all the rules to maintain his power. If he followed the newly-established Procedure for Presidential Cheating, he'd have to black out the media. What then?

If TV and Radio stations went off the air, we'd turn to the net. But I'm sure there's some mandate out there that could make the internet unavailable. There would be dark times ahead if that were to happen. That's a pretty scary outlook.

I hope it doesn't come down to that.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Saturday, November 3, 2007

Kirchner is to Hillary as Musharraf is to Bush (a.k.a., First Female President, Or Bush's Third Term)

Recently, foreign news has offered some insight as to what we might expect here in America come election time.

On Sunday, October 28, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner won the election to become Argentina's first democratically elected female President. She is the wife of former Argentine President Nestor Kirchner, whose job she is taking.

"Hey, that's like Hillary! Her husband was President too! Wow, looks like Hillary's going to become the first female American President, after all..."

Not so fast! Today in Pakistan, President Gen. Pervez Musharraf "suspended Pakistan's constitution and deployed troops in the capital ... declaring that rising Islamic extremism had forced him to take emergency measures. He also replaced the nation's chief justice and blacked out the independent media that refused to support him."

"Hey, that's like George W. Bush! He hates the U.S. Constitution, and has a horrible approval rating! Wow, looks like Bush's going to declare a State of Emergency and suspend all future elections. Sorry, Hillary!"

Hmm... It could happen.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Friday, November 2, 2007

Is Our Current Administration Doomsday-Ignorant Or Doomsday-Intentful?

It occurs to me that all the stuff happening with America around the world has been set in motion by our current administration. As the days go by, the public gets wearier and wearier of being led by a man and group that don't have the same goals in mind as we do. All of these major military actions and a lack of homeland focus seem to be adding up toward a final showdown with the major powers of the world. Does anybody besides me have a problem with that?

I was thinking about George W. Bush and co., and I just couldn't wrap my head around them having a reason for making things worse. So I tried to rationalize how they could conceive that the actions they're taking will make things better. Then I realized something.

You can be so intent on one path, that it seems easy to rationalize it. You can be so determined that no amount of resistance, no number of naysayers, will sway you from your decision. Even if you're the President, and the naysayers are three quarters of the American public.

But the President's job is to answer to the people.

The reason I came up with that could be used by our current administration to justify its actions is this: "The public doesn't know what's best for itself. I/We do."

It's like a stubborn father deciding the fate of a teenage child, without heeding the valuable input the child tries to communicate. And most feel good films say that's a bad thing.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Thursday, November 1, 2007

Hey Buddy, Vote For The Guy Who Paid Me To Hassle You!

I remember way back in college being approached by people on the street at election time. These were normal people. Fellow students. But they had been bent to the wills of the campaign managers for various candidates.

"Hey, you gonna go vote?"

"Already did."

"Here, have a piece of paper!"

Let's look at this little blue slip I just event is taking place on this campus in the near future...candidate X will be there...


Other student: "Hey, you vote yet?"

Subtext: "Vote for my guy!"

Today, I got two calls from two separate candidates. Recently I got a piece of mail that referenced a prior conversation I supposedly had with someone regarding Obama. Never happened. Various other solicitations have been made as well, but I won't bore you with the details.

I feel so popular!

The point is, in an age with "Do Not Call To Solicit Business" lists, there are people who will call, and write, and show up in person to make sure you know the RIGHT person to vote for.

"None of the Above!"

Or maybe Clinton...or that Colbert guy...or...

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

South Park: Imaginary Terrorists Are Really Dangerous

Tonight is the third part in a trilogy of South Park episodes involving terrorists and our imagination. The whole point behind the main plot line, I think, is that now we as Americans are more afraid of what we imagine could happen than is likely to happen.

Terrorists have physically terrorized us. And now they're in our imagination, terrorizing us at the mental level. We could nab all the terrorists in the world, but if we still lived in fear, the War on Terror would never end.

South Park depicted some terrorists entering our imagination and blowing up a wall that separated good thoughts from bad ones. All the bad guys from every movie ever are now mingling in the collective imagination with our dearest Disney friends.

I think what the creators behind South Park are doing is warning us that if we rely too heavily on "what ifs," we could dig ourselves a hole that only a major war could get us out of. Indeed, these are dangerous times, in both the physical and mental realms.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Arnold Schwarzenegger, President-Elect In 2012

The way things are going, I think we just might give him the opportunity to run for President.

Remember how he initially became California's governor? The former guy wasn't doing so well. And everybody wanted someone new.

Well, our current President doesn't seem to be doing so well. And I get the feeling that even while we want someone new, it's not necessarily anyone who's running right now.

If Schwarzenegger ran for President, would you vote for him? I think I might...

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Monday, October 29, 2007

The Dethroning Of A King

I was watching a show on Nostradamus last night, and in it they said he may have predicted a French uprising 200 years before it took place. In that uprising, the people overpowered the government, and dethroned the king.

When I first heard about the massive nationwide protesting going on about the Iraq War, I thought, "Too little, too late." Really, my first feeling was that to do any good, the protests should have happened much earlier.

But that got me thinking. If more and more of the public is fed up with the current administration, does that mean we're approaching a time when a consensus will be finally reached on the matter of impeachment?

Or will we as a nation get so, "Out of control," that martial law is declared?

I really hope the latter is not the case, but anything's possible nowadays.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Sunday, October 28, 2007

Another War? Nuts.

Do we need another war? Is Iran really a threat? No.

Or what if it is? And the President already cried wolf too hard before, and now his warnings are falling on deaf ears?

If we go to war, things could be bad. International relations may suffer.

If we don't go to war, and Iran really does get The Bomb, things could get really ugly.

I don't see us taking no action. I think we'll probably take steps toward an invasion of Iran, and then maybe something will happen to stop us. Maybe we'll stop ourselves. Maybe other countries will say, "No, this time you actually are right. Go on ahead, and we'll help." Or maybe they'll say, "And why can't Iran go nuclear, huh?"

To which we'll reply, "Because they're crazy."

Yeah, I think like it or not, we've got a brewing confrontation on our hands. And that's a shame.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Fox News Is A Terrorist Organization

A terrorist works to spread fear. Terror-ist. A terrorist breeds terror wherever and however possible, to further its own goals. A terrorist is selfish because it makes people afraid for its own selfish reasons.

Fox News breeds fear among the public with unfounded rumors like, "al Qaeda is behind the California fires." What does Fox News want? A police state? It sure looks that way. But at least it's the leading provider of fair and balanced news. Not!

Inciting panic among the people through the use of stories not based on TRUTH means that FOX News is a terrorist organization. And isn't there a war on terror?

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Friday, October 26, 2007

"The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war." - James Madison

This page contains a list of brilliant statements by James Madison, the fourth President of the United States. They seem especially relevant today, as America continues down the slippery slope towards fascism.

Here are 12 separate quotes. Placed in a specific order, these quotations make up a "speech" in which Madison seems to be directly alluding to our current situation, and the danger we face:

  1. "All men having power ought to be mistrusted."

  2. "The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."

  3. "Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power."

  4. "It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."

  5. "The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."

  6. "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

  7. "Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other."

  8. "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

  9. "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

  10. "The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war."

  11. "The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty."

  12. "We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties."

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Is George W. Bush Just A Pawn?

Some leaders are simply figureheads. Our President actually makes decisions, which is why I dismissed the idea that he was a pawn when I first thought of it. But then I realized if he was a pawn, his decisions would effectively be made for him.

The Syndicate of Evil would say, "Turn down this bill. Don't aid disaster victims. Start WWIII." And he'd have to oblige, given their undisclosed power over him.

I figured if this were true, and we only learned of it later, we'd look back and feel bad for a President who was widely disliked for doing things that he really had no hand in. Would that be better than a President who is definitely in control, and uses his power against the will of the people who voted him into office? I'm not sure...

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

The Next Pope Will See The World End

Saint Malachy's "Prophecy of the Popes" contains 112 short Latin phrases, each of which describes a separate Pope. The prophecy dates back to 1139, and says that the final Pope, Peter the Roman, will be in charge when Rome is destroyed and Judgment Day occurs. Our current Pope, Pope Benedict XVI, directly precedes Peter the Roman.

Wikipedia has the text of the final Latin phrase, along with the translation:

"Ominously, the longest and final motto reads, 'In persecutione extrema S.R.E. sedebit Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oves in multis tribulationibus: quibus transactis civitas septicollis diruetur, et Iudex tremêndus iudicabit populum suum. Finis.' In translation this means, 'During the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church, the seat will be occupied by Peter of Rome, who will feed his sheep in many tribulations; and when these things are finished, the seven-hilled city will be destroyed, and the formidable Judge will judge his people. The End.'"

So according to this prophecy, which has seemed to somewhat accurately describe each of the previous Popes, along with the current one, once Pope Benedict XVI steps down, the final Tribulation will begin.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Could George Bush Be Furthering The Work Of The Antichrist?

2012 is a year of much speculation, and many predictions. On Wikipedia, there are quite a few theories as to what will happen, if anything.

One of the predictions is as follows. "The book The Nostradamus Code speaks of a series of natural disasters caused by a comet (possibly as above) that will allow the third Antichrist to disperse his troops around the globe under the guise of aid in preparation for a possible nuclear war, although in the strictest sense it is unspecific as to nuclear war or some other natural or man caused destruction."

Recently in the news it was divulged that George Bush is gunning for a U.S.-led missile defense program for Europe, to defend against Iran, which could develop nuclear technology capable of attacking the U.S. or a European ally by 2015. We've already got troops in Iraq. We're looking to invade Iran. Where else can we "disperse troops around the globe in preparation for a possible nuclear war?"

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Monday, October 22, 2007

Garry Kasparov, Brilliant On Bill Maher, Makes Our Politicians Look Bad

I think everyone should see the interview Garry Kasparov recently gave on "Real Time with Bill Maher." Kasparov, the former world chess champion, is running in the presidential election in Russia, but in doing so he puts his life in jeopardy.

Bill Maher says Putin's approval rating is pretty high, and Kasparov responds, "How do you know? I mean, are you seriously, are you relying on the polling results of a police state? I think that with the same tight control of media and a pervasive security force, I believe Bush and Cheney could enjoy the same approval rating here."

What if that's why Bush's rating is still around 24%? Maybe there's a weaker version of the system in Russia already in place in the U.S.

Kasparov also disproves the idea that Russia is "meant" to be under one man's control, saying that Democracy would most likely work, given a chance. He later remarks that the U.S. is using Democracy as a "geopolitical tool" to get what it wants, at the dismay of its international brethren. There's a lot of good stuff in this interview, so without further ado, here it is:

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

47 Deaths Associated With The Clinton Family

I received an email today, and found it interesting enough to post. Apparently there are a bunch of deaths tied to the Clintons. Maybe whoever researched this is trying to infer a connection that doesn't exist. Maybe once you reach a certain level of political power, you become associated with so many people that of course there will be a few of them who die for one reason or another. The more people you know, the more dead people you will have known. But maybe there's more to it than that. You be the judge.

Here it is:

-- Begin Email --

So you want to work for the Clintons


Just a quick refresher course lest we forget what has happened to many "friends" of the Clintons

1 - James McDougal - Clinton's convicted White water partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.

2 - Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown. The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House.

3 - Vince Foster - Former White House counselor and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock's Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.

4 - Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors. The rest of the people on the plane
also died. A few days later the air Traffic controller committed suicide.

5 - C. Victor Raiser II - Raiser, a major player in the Clinton fund raising
organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992

6 - Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock, September 1992. Described by Clinton as a "dear friend and trusted advisor."

7 - Ed Willey - Clinton fund raiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising events.

8 - Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock. Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock. Park's son said his father was building a dossier on Clinton. He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.

9 - James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black Book" of people which contained names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas.

10 - James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported to have ties to Whitewater.

11 - Kathy Ferguson - Ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson, was found dead in May 1994, in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness for Paula Jones.

12 - Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiancé of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide ruling of his fiancé, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the grave site of his fiancé.

13 - Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton's friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client was a convicted drug distributor.

14 - Florence Martin - Accountant & subcontractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal Mean Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot wounds.

15 - Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.

16 - Paula Grober - Clinton's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December 9, 1992. She died in a one-car accident.

17 - Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter. Investigating Mean Airport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation.

18 - Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with Casolaro and the 1980 "October Surprise" was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993 in his Washington, DC apartment. Had delivered a report to Janet Reno 3 weeks before his death.

19 - Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his death from his Arlington, Virginia apartment balcony August 15, 1993. He was investigating the Morgan Guaranty scandal.

20 - Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang. Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her office at the Department of Commerce.

21 - Charles Meissner -Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.

22 - Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton's advisory council personally treated Clinton's mother, stepfather and brother.

23 - Barry Seal - Drug running pilot out of Mena Arkansas, death was no accident.

24 - Johnny Lawhorn Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.

25 - Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guaranty. His death was a purported suicide and his report was never released.

26 - Hershell Friday - Attorney and Clinton fund raiser died March 1, 1994 when his plane exploded.

27 - Kevin Ives & Don Henry - Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports say the boys may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. A controversial case, the initial report of death said, due to falling asleep on railroad tracks. Later reports claim the 2 boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.


28 - Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck, 7/88.

29 - Keith McMaskle - Died stabbed 113 times, Nov, 1988.

30 - Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.

31 - Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989.

33 - James Milan - Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to "natural causes."

34 - Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990.

35 - Richard Winters - A suspect in the Ives / Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery July 1989.


36 - Major William S. Barkley Jr.
37 - Captain Scott J. Reynolds
38 - Sgt. Brian Hanley
39 - Sgt. Tim Sabel
40 - Major General William Robertson
41 - Col. William Densberger
42 - Col. Robert Kelly
43 - Spec. Gary Rhodes
44 - Steve Willis
45 - Robert Williams
46 - Conway LeBleu
47 - Todd McKeehan

Quite an impressive list! Pass this on. Let the public become aware of what happens to friends of the Clinton's



-- End Email --

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Human Chip Implants: Good Or Bad?

Could having a chip implanted somewhere in your body be a good thing? I think it might, if it does more than just track you and take away your privacy.

I've read that one prominent foresight specialist sees 2045 as being a year by which if you're not hooked up to technology somehow, you won't be able to comprehend the rapid changes that are going to take place. He doesn't just advocate something like logging onto the net every few hours. He means you've got to have some sort of implant that complements your biological intelligence.

By 2045, it is theorized, AI (artificial intelligence) will have reached the Technological Singularity. At that point, it will be inventing new technology faster than "regular" humans can have a hand in the process. So in order to understand what's going on, we'll all have to be part machine.

A chip in your brain that made you smarter and able to link up with other people and communicate without actually speaking could be a very powerful asset to an individual. However, let's focus on what a chip might do in the next couple of years.

I'd say early chip implants would have some basic functions, probably as outlined in the Book of Revelations. Your chip will identify you, track you, and allow (or prevent) you to buy things. It will essentially be a LoJack and credit card.

I personally dislike the prospect of 24-hour surveillance. On the other hand, if disaster strikes, and someone is kidnapped, a locator could be very helpful. But there will probably be ways to dampen the field and fool the computers into not knowing where that person is. So the "hacker-types" and G-men will be able to mask someone's location, but the general public will not, and will therefore be highly visible, all the time. Still sounds scary.

But if you forget about the "Big Brother" component, and focus solely on the commerce aspect, what you get is an interesting scenario. Plastic is already being touted as superior to cash, in ads like those for the Visa Check Card. In those commercials, people are seen swiping a card without signing anything or getting a receipt, rapidly speeding up the buying process, but also creating a lack of security and physical transaction records. Someone in a commercial like that could easily be using a stolen card. How is the clerk to know, when there is no way to verify that the person using the card actually owns it? If the card were implanted in their hand, however, that would be a different story.

If you had a tiny, flexible Visa Chip implanted on the back of your hand, you could easily swipe and pay with no fuss, and no worries that someone else will steal your card. If they cut off your hand to get your card, you'd likely first focus on your injury as the more severe problem.

So you swipe and pay, and don't get a receipt? If you trust the computer networks to maintain an accurate transaction record on your behalf, then you've got nothing to worry about. Sounds neat, right? Sure, until the Visa Chip becomes mandatory, and is renamed "Mark of the Beast." Then things get weird.

All in all, I am still highly doubtful about the benefits of microchips implanted in humans. But the fact that we're already using them to track pets leads me to believe that it won't be long before everyone gets to confront this issue in an up close and personal way.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Friday, October 19, 2007

George W. Bush = America's Last President?

I read that a reporter mentioned this to George Bush: Vladimir Putin has suggested that when his presidential term is up in Russia, he will become Prime Minister and quell any attempt to change the political climate. Putin's plan is to retain his power as the supreme leader of his nation.

Came Bush's reply: I've thought about doing that myself.

I read somewhere else that people in favor of impeaching Bush won't do so for fear that he'll declare Martial Law and cancel elections in the face of the State of Emergency.

This is pretty scary, but what's even scarier is the idea that Bush comes close, but doesn't do it. We get complacent. And our next president does declare Martial Law just before their term ends.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

The Friendly Face of George W. Bush

Take a look at these pictures:

Some people wonder why 24% of Americans still support Mr. Bush. Here's a theory:
It's because he just looks so darn friendly! If I hadn't heard any ill of this man, my natural inclination would be to think well of him.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Bush Says: Iran Will Start WWIII

This article reveals that George W. Bush recently mentioned to other world leaders that Iran's current leader wants to blow up Israel. What better way than to nuke it? Tehran is currently being looked at because of its suspicious nuclear program.

Bush was quoted as saying, "So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

What does this mean? It means that in Bush's mind, as soon as Iran becomes a nuclear power, it will inevitably nuke Israel. And that means that all Hell will break loose.

So if World War Three is being thought of as guaranteed unless we step in to prevent it, doing so by crushing Iran's nuclear prospects, then that means that Bush has already made up his mind that we must invade Iran if they don't back away from nuclear research. And why would they?

Bottom line: We're going to Iran.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Verge Of WWIII -- Will We Back Down? No Way!

Some people think the U.S. will find a way to justify and sell its people on a war with Iran. After all, Iran's nuclear program can be interpreted as having the ultimate goal of creating an atomic bomb.

Vladimir Putin, the current Russian president, warned the U.S. not to take any military action in Iran.

"But they're building nukes!"

"I don't care. Don't invade."

Option #1: Invade. Begin WWIII.
We enter Iran. Russia assembles a League of Arab Nations and fights us. BOOM!

Option #2: Don't Invade. Iran gets The Bomb. Nukes us. WWIII.

Why prolong the inevitable? Why get nuked?

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Monday, October 15, 2007

Technology Can Easily Aid In Total Surveillance, Credit Card Chip Implants, and the Rapture

In this day and age, with things getting smaller and smaller, and faster and faster, pretty soon it's going to be incredibly easy to put a camera on every corner, and in every room, watching and listening to everybody, all the time.

Commercials are already pushing the Visa Check Card as a faster and therefore better method of payment than cash. But they skew things. The Card users always have their cards ready and in their hands. No need to sign any slips of paper, according to the ads. How secure is that? And most of the time, the "loser" who pays with cash is shown reaching into his or her pocket or wallet or purse to get the money in a slow and apparently exasperating way. Now, that's totally unfair.

If one person has their form of payment in their wallet, the other should too. The Card members should have to reach in and retrieve their Cards, just as the cash user does. But it would be so much easier if the Card were embedded beneath the skin of the hand, wouldn't it? Sure, some would laugh and say, "Ha ha, you've got the mark of the Beast!" But we'd all know that with just a flick of the wrist, we can pay for that overpriced coffee and extra donut and not look foolish to the customers behind us in line, all of whom have been brainwashed by the Visa Check Card mentality of, "Hurry up, get out of my way, I need to pay now!"

Is the Book of Revelations right? It sure looks like some good planning could make it so...

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Fascism vs. Terrorism: Which Is The Bigger Threat?

Over the past few years, terrorist threats have dominated our public consciousness. But a more sinister, subtle threat has emerged: A growing trend toward American Fascism. And many feel that this is the greatest danger to the American way of life in the history of our nation.

This article mentions how the government is teaming with corporations to bring America into an ever-increasing state of Fascism. A Communist government controls the corporations. A Fascist government is controlled by corporations.

According to Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, our government is using disasters as a way to manipulate the public. Whenever tragedy strikes, changes are put into effect to increase privatization and profitability. Homeland security, schools, housing, and foreign military affairs (specifically, the Blackwater economy in Iraq) are all cited as areas in which this negative privitization has occurred.

Many feel that George Bush is to blame, as it is his administration that has created this situation. Maybe our next President will set things right. But they could also theoretically go further than even Bush has. And that's what scares so many.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Saturday, October 13, 2007

"None Of The Above" For President

In "Brewster's Millions," Richard Pryor as Montgomery Brewster ran for political office with the campaign slogan, "None of the Above," advising folks to vote for neither him nor his fellow candidates. What if America were to vote "None of the Above?"

There are a few options here. First, we could boycott the vote. If nobody voted, we'd likely have to have another election. But what if we all actually went out and voted for a write-in candidate by the name of "None of the Above?" Since that phrase doesn't have a solid meaning, even if "None of the Above" won, it wouldn't win, unless the public had obviously agreed to what it meant beforehand.

If it means, "None of those who are running," it might force a new pool of candidates into the running, and keep Mr. Bush president a little longer.

If it instead means, "No, no more presidents," then I'd bet someone would try to convince the public that we really do need someone to look to for leadership.

Let's think about how a school would handle it if the student government held an election and nobody voted for anything other than, "None of the Above."

From what I remember about school, those in power could make and break their own rules at any time. So I bet at one school, if "None of the Above" won, the principal or previous president would decide who the next one would be. And that’s not Democracy. But I guess that's what we'd get if we as citizens put out the message that we're not voting for anyone anymore. Thankfully, that hasn't happened -- just yet.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Friday, October 12, 2007

Stephen Colbert For President

This article revealed that Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central's "Colbert Report" wants to run for the office of President as both a Democrat and a Republican.

In his native state of South Carolina, Mr. Colbert can kick of his campaign using media outlet ETV to garner support from fellow citizens of SC. He is gracious enough to allow the public to determine which party he truly belongs in. As a returned favor to Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who previously mentioned he'd like Colbert to be his Vice President, Colbert has decided that Mr. Huckabee can be his VP, if and when he is elected.

For those of you who read my recent post about Why America Will Never Vote In A Comedian President, you already know my thoughts on the idea of electing someone on the basis of their TV or movie persona. However, Mr. Colbert insinuated that his persona isn't necessarily the one that's running for President. Saying that he's really two people who go by the same name, it's possible that if America does elect him, they won't get the Colbert Report Stephen. They'll get the real one. And who knows, he could have a knack for politics.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

If Everybody Voted On Everything

How would that work? If we no longer used politicians to make decisions, but instead put every question and issue to a vote, in which everybody participated, would it make things better?

I think having people specialize in issues and ideas is a good thing, and works, because it makes them much more prepared to decide things for the future. They have the experience, and can put that to use in every question they address. When the majority votes on an issue, they vote on what they know, what they've seen or heard. It's more difficult to become genuinely informed when you rely mostly on the news and word of mouth. Rumors can develop, secret agendas can skew the facts, and the truth can be lost in the shuffle. If we all voted on something right now, I'm not sure that would be better than leaving it to the pros, because it's likely we'd be manipulated to some end, much as we are during the time of an election.

A man walks up to you, and says, "Hey, buddy, are you going to go vote?"

You say, "I wasn't planning on it."

He says, "Oh, but you should. It's your patriotic duty, and it's good for the nation!"

You say, "Gee, you're right. I'll go vote right now!"

He says, "That's the spirit! And don't vote for my side."

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Obama's Old Goof-Up

Here's an old clip of Barack Obama speaking to his supporters, and letting them know that 10,000 people died in a Kansas tornado. The actual number was 12.

He also erroneously reported that the Iraq War was the reason cleanup had been delayed by a shortage of industrial equipment. This was later refuted by the Kansas Army National Guard.

Some would say he made a few simple mistakes. Others think he was using scare tactics to incite the crowd. I like Obama's attitude, but I don't like it when political leaders get things overtly wrong.

I got used to people poking fun at Bush and his weekly malapropisms, but that kind of thing gets old quickly. I think something even worse than poorly articulating the correct facts is the expert articulation of falsehoods. Hearing something like that has a negative effect on the amount of trust I can put in a leader. Thankfully, I haven't noticed too many similar slip-ups.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Could We Really Elect A Comedian President?

I'd say no.

I've never actually seen the Robin Williams film in which he's the President of the United States, and leads the country using wit and satire. I did read the IMDB plot summary of the film, and according to that, his victory owed itself to a voting systems glitch. In spite of the fact that even in the movie he was not truly chosen to lead our country, I think it's important to understand some of the reasons why a candidate with a similar outlook on reality would probably not do very well in the polls, given our current political climate.

As long as I can remember, there's been the need to be able to take our leaders seriously. Only when you have absolute faith in a leader can you allow him or her the freedom to laugh at things, but even then, laughter is usually kept to a minimum. In a system far from perfect, time is better spent on coming up with solutions than coming up with jokes.

Sure, pointing out something that is funny because it is flawed makes us feel better. Sure humor and laughter are methods for confronting problems. And sure, making light of something sheds light on it, exposing an issue that needs to be addressed. But when all you do is expose issues, and never really address them, you're not truly leading.

Even if a leader were to spend the majority of his time off-camera working to resolve his country's problems, if the only things his or her citizens saw of him on-camera included cracking jokes and winning in a battle of wits, they'd naturally assume that that is the full scope of his official duties. That would weaken morale and citizen confidence, and do unnecessary damage to the state of a nation.

In this day and age, we need a leader who can take him/herself seriously, and can be taken seriously. Sure, there must be leeway for light-hearted moments, but light-heartedness should be the exception, not the rule.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.