Monday, March 31, 2008

When John Kerry Ran, I Sought Obama

Four years ago when John Kerry ran for President, I thought that none of the major candidates was really great. I wanted someone younger, someone more idealistic. Someone like Obama!

Now we have him, and yet there are serious doubts harbored by some as to whether he can really be counted on to represent America. After all, his name is Barack Hussein Obama. Barack sounds like Iraq (meaningless?), Hussein, the last name of Saddam, and Obama sounds like Osama. That's three in a row, an unlikely coincidence.

Could he be Muslim? Came out of nowhere, incredibly charismatic, idealistic. Willing to sell out?

I want to believe in him.

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

Friday, March 28, 2008

McCain and Romney Set Example For Clinton and Obama?

I read that Romney is now helping McCain. Formerly, they were bitter rivals. Now they are working together in the hopes that their cooperation will further cement McCain's pull with Republicans.

Obama and Hillary haven't been too friendly with each other so far. They've been competing. Some say it is difficult to imagine any kind of union between the two once one establishes him/herself as the definite party leader. Still, seeing it work out between Romney and McCain, I'll bet a similar Democratic union is possible as well.

Here's a thought: What if the Democrats consistently fail when it looks like they're guaranteed success on purpose? Could it be a...Conspiracy?

"No dummy, for this reason..."

Oh, it's so simple. I just couldn't see it. Wait! You're part of the conspiracy too!

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

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Hillary: Told To Lie, Lied On Own, Or Honest Mistake?

She gave a speech. Said she visited a country and had to dodge bullets. Then a video surfaced. Showed her visiting that country. No bullets.

I recently saw a speech she gave regarding her previous claims. She said she had a different memory of the event.

I wish she would have gone into further detail. It makes since that you might get two different visits abroad confused. Maybe she had to dodge bullets in another country. What country, then? When? Is there footage?

Her just saying she had a different memory, and leaving it at that... it makes me think that maybe she originally decided to tell an outright lie. Or maybe she was told to. I figure when you're that high up politically, you've got coaches and managers left and right, planning everything out in advance for you.

It does make me question her. If she lied, then she's a liar. Can't be trusted. If she was telling what she believed to be the truth, then she has a faulty memory. In that case, how can we trust her to remember the information she needs in order to do her job well? If she was told to lie, then we can't trust her staff, her choice of staff, and again, we can't trust her because she willingly went along with it.

But Obama said some erroneous stuff to. I guess we can't trust anybody.

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

Monday, March 24, 2008

Is McCain A Secret Democrat?

I heard somewhere that McCain used to be a Democrat. What if he secretly still is? What if he's running a campaign that bases itself on ideas similar to those of George Bush, but with enough individuality and change so as to make electing McCain seem like a good idea? What if some genius out there figured that if most of America would willingly reelect Bush for Term 2, then they'd probably go for McCain as a Republican in 2008?

What if he is elected President, and then reassumes his true identity? What would he do? Maybe he's a Super Democrat. Maybe he'll pull us out of Iraq in Day One, instead of leaving the doors of possibility open so wide that we might stay there for 10,000 years...

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

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Obama Speaks, Plays On Emotions, Dictates Our Lives

I was listening to Obama speak after Bill Richardson handed over his endorsement, and I found myself attracted to the ideas Obama was using. He basically spoke of change, how things were going to be different next year, that he was going to fix the economy, end the war, fix the energy crisis, and make things better in every conceivable way.

But from a logic standpoint, what is he really saying?

  • Things are bad.
  • I will fix them.
  • I won't say how.
And that doesn't seem fair. Or even believable, from a purely logical perspective. But Obama doesn't necessarily use logic to win support. After all, positive change is definitely an emotional issue.

We all so badly want someone we can believe in, since Bush has effectively let everyone down as far as they're concerned. And faced with all these problems, we're desperate for a solution.

For a second, I found myself afraid of what President Obama might do in office. During his speech, he mentioned the idea of telling us who we should be, and how this nation should be run. Sure, a Prez's job is to run the country, and sure, JFK told us we could all be better people than we were. But hearing Obama mention how he might one day dictate our lives... that just sounded weird.

He didn't go into too much detail. When you leave a statement like that general, it usually ends up being interpreted based on other factors. So I'm assuming all the fanatics behind him were giving him the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that him telling us who to be is really him inspiring us to be better.

But someone against Obama, who sees him as all talk and no walk, a puppet or pawn of hidden forces, might figure that when he says he'll tell us who to be, he means his Presidency will open up a can of Fascist, Totalitarian worms...

And that's scary.

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

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

New South Park: Britney Spears

I just watched a brand new "South Park," featuring a story about Britney Spears. [SPOILER ALERT] It was told keeping her feelings in mind, and showcasing how cruel paparazzi and society in general can be. The continued negative media attention led to Spears' attempt at suicide on the show. She survived, and it was later revealed that the media coverage was an outright attempt to get her to kill herself.

Initially, the episode conveys the idea that most people are stupid in that they don't see or care about how their negative gossip stories affect Britney. Then later, it turns out there's a whole sinister plot with roots in human sacrifice.

In the real world, I think it's just human curiosity and fascination with lame stuff taken to a pretty sick extreme. I'm wondering if there should be government regulations regarding the right of the individual to be left alone by the media. Freedom of Speech should remain, but I'm thinking about guys with cameras stalking your car. That shouldn't be happening.

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

Monday, March 17, 2008

McCain On Iraq: Could He Be Right?

From much of what I've heard, McCain has some good ideas. I recently saw a video where people were singing McCain quotes and then looking like he continually blew their mind with his expectation of future wars.

Really, I think only an idiot would rule out the possibility.

But I think their point was that we shouldn't automatically accept the idea of conflict as a given. They didn't come right out and say it, but I'm guessing they figure if we really work for peace, peace can be achieved.

One thing that struck me was the duration of our stay in Iraq. I've heard that it could be up to 100 years before we can withdraw. I had been turning this over in my mind, wondering if it really was necessary. To some extent, it does make sense. Conflict in the middle east has had thousands of years (right?) to set in and become the norm. So we make a 5-year change, and it's quickly washed away by the sands of tradition. But what if we stayed there for an extended period? After a few generations, the newest Iraqis would probably have a greater chance of accepting a peaceful and democratic society.

But in the video, there's a quote where McCain says something about 1,000 years or 10,000 years. I don't think it would be necessary to "stay" that long, because I'm guessing that within 1,000 years the world will be unified and peace will be achieved. Or we'll all be dead. But if we had to stay up to that point... It makes me wonder...

Common sense seems to say, "Let's get out of Iraq right now." But if we leave without "finishing the job" and making them understand the benefits of peace, would they resent us and continue to harbor dreams of revenge? It does seem possible. But then again, maybe we're causing that by just being there right now. It's a conundrum. I don't think there's a clear-cut solution that will satisfy everybody everywhere. Once we make up our mind one way or another, we'll have to live with the consequences.

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

Friday, March 14, 2008

One World Order

What if the U.S. economic troubles, combined with a shortage of oil and Global Warming, lead to major world-wide problems? What if someone comes along claiming to have the solution to those problems? Would a One World Order make sense as a solution? I'll bet it could be argued that way...

If all nations were working together in every area, there'd be no shortage of information, no guesswork involved. With cooperation on a global scale, we might be able to fix each nation's issues easily. But once all the problems are solved, does the "order" that has been imposed remain in place? Do any and all regulations that have been enacted stay active? Are more regulations put into effect?

It's pretty scary to think about, what with all the doomsday scenarios connected with the One World Order idea. But what if it's ultimately necessary, no matter what path history takes? And what if a unified world can achieve total peace?

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

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Free Market Is Ideal?

I kind of think a truly free market is probably the way to go. Whenever too much control is imposed on a system, new developments that might improve that system have a greater degree of difficulty in coming to fruition. It's like why Communism didn't work out so well. Without the need for competition, prices could remain high, and value could remain low. In a cut-throat, survival of the fittest, competitive economy, the strong corporations survive, and continue to strive to produce more, better, faster, and cheaper. The consumer benefits, and therefore society as a whole benefits.

But what if some regulation is necessary to prevent major economic catastrophes? I don't know... I think our economy is widespread enough to survive turbulence. But if the Great Depression II happens, regulations would probably look pretty good.

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

Monday, March 10, 2008

Obama + Hillary + Obama

The way it looked then, Hillary saw Obama unfit, and Obama saw Hillary unfit. No way they'd team up.

The way it looked yesterday, Hillary saw Obama unfit on his own, and Obama saw Hillary unfit on her own, but if they teamed up, they'd compensate for each other's problems.

The way it looks today, Obama doesn't want to play second fiddle to anyone, least of all Hillary. According to the polls, he may not have to be VP in a Hillary-Obama team-up.

The way it might end up looking, the new ticket could be Obama for President, Hillary for Vice President.

I just heard on the news something like "McCain has raised 5 million dollars. Obama and Hillary have together raised 90 million." Something like that... The point is, Obama and Hillary seem to each be in the money. If they team up, their funds will heavily, heavily outweigh McCain's.

But money isn't everything...

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

Friday, March 7, 2008

Politicians - Out of Touch?

I get the impression that whatever level of government you work in, if you're a politician, you're to some degree "above" the common people. You work in a somewhat nice building. You get paid a decent salary. You make decisions that impact many people. Leadership puts a politician on a sort of pedestal, and good leadership leads to a high salary, which leads to a lifestyle far different from that of the common middle class.

So if successful politicians can dine and stay at expensive restaurants and hotels, maybe their mindset is "seduced" into changing? How accurate can your representation of a voter's mindset be when your life is totally different?

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

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

President Antichrist?

I know, this is way "out there," but it does seem interesting that the Prophecy of the Popes and the legend behind the Mayan Calendar both seem to point toward a major calamity in the near future. If our next Pope will witness the end of the world, maybe 2012 really will be a year of major importance in human history. And the Book of Revelations says that a charismatic leader will solve problems and assume power before he reveals that he's truly the Antichrist. We sure have a lot of problems now. So if we elect someone who pulls off miracle after supposed miracle, could we be doomed? Hmm...

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

Monday, March 3, 2008

Yahoo's Political Headlines Are Stupid

I wish I had kept record of them so I could back up the claim that they're dumb. Oh well. I guess I'll just provide some examples based on the ones I've seen, but not exactly the same as the real thing.

"Clinton vows to turn her campaign around"

"Obama plans his next move"

"Clinton resolves to continue on"

"McCain wows supporter"

Stuff like that. Really stupid obvious stuff that's common sense. Of course the 2nd place Democratic candidate wants to turn things around and rise to 1st place. Of course Obama's planning his next move. They all are, all the time. Of course Clinton's going to continue. She's not far enough behind to quit. And of course McCain's going to "wow" his supporters. Supporters are most often wowed by the person they support!

It just makes me think back to something I saw on TV a little after one of the early primaries. One reporter was questioning whether the media in general was giving the election too much coverage. Another said yes indeed, and added that a lot of the recent "news" was really crap -- pure speculation. Pointless, and a waste of time for us, the audience. Who cares what might happen?

If we're working for a campaign, we might use speculation to plan out our future actions. But since most people aren't part of that whole process, speculation is meaningless, and far from entertaining. Skip to the end.

It's the same with the headlines at Yahoo. Titles like "Obama answers voter questions" imply that the "news" articles are pure filler. Pure common sense, a rehash of stories that are told every four years. The only things that change are the names.

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