So I took this political stance test that tells you what end you are on the political spectrum. It told me that I'm pretty central on economic stuff, but on social issues, I'm liberal. I was disturbed a little at first, but then I realized: It never occurred to me that government had any business interfereing in a person's private life.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for "Don't kill people" and "Don't marinade your cats in your car trunk." (there was a guy in Buffalo, NY that actually did this.) but that's where it ends. In this bit, I might actually be anarchistic.
Government and people's concept of it has the power to regulate people's personal lives, a lot of which involved irrational prejudices. Here are a few of my stances.
1. Gay Marriage
Government, it's none of your god damn business. I'm not gay. It's not really even my own business to tell a gay person whether or not they can marry a person of the same sex. If it doesn't hurt me in any way, why should I care? (rebuttals in quotes) "But they would receive the same benefits as a normal married couple!" Shouldn't they? I mean they're declared, committed couples who conduct themselves just like any heterosexual couple, why do we need to treat them differently? "It would cost tax money!" So you're against people having human rights because you don't want slightly higher taxes? "But marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman!" No, it's a union of two people that declare their partnership and loyalty to each other. If you don't want your religion's version of a union to include gay marriage, that's up to your religious leaders. Legally, in the government, and socially, marriage is not owned by you or your religion. It is a union, and people should be able to unite with whomever they want.
2. Abortion.
This is sticky. Honestly, I think it should be available up until the second half of the third trimester. Where does life begin? That's not for the church to decide, it's for the woman. It's not like it's an easy decision for her. People should stop thinking about it as something as mundane as choosing whether or not to eat spaghetti for dinner. It is a tough, life altering decision. And it's not yours to make, it's theirs. On the other end, I am pro-condoms. If you don't want a kid, use them. You can find them at any Planned Parenthood for free. Abortion should be a last resort not a first line of defense. As cruel as some people believe abortion to be, it would be just as cruel if not more to bring a child into a home that can't provide for them, can't love them, can't nurture them, or worse, have them spend their childhood in adoption or foster care. I'm not saying that foster care is bad, I'm saying it shouldn't be used as a place to dispose of your child.
3. Immigration
Every single one of us that isn't full blooded Native American has an ancestor that immigrated here within the past 300 years. We were all descended from immigrants. All an immigrant wants to do is be a part of our society and to make a life for themselves and their family. Are we so selfish that we honestly believe that we are so special here that nobody else is worthy of joining us? America would be nothing without immigrants, and we shouldn't treat it as a bad thing. I'm not even going to start in on the economic benefits. (well maybe shortly, more people = more demand for goods = more internal activity = companies prospering = better internal economy = better exports = a slight impact on the national GDP = help with the trade defect. that's right long term immigrants HELP our economy... who could have guessed?) We should treat people as equals instead of maintaining this ethnocentric superiority complex.
4. Affirmative Action/ Racial issues.
As far as I'm concerned, slavery reparations are a joke. It was wrong, yes. Can we change it? No. Current people getting slavery reparations would be tantamount to me suing a company for discriminating against my great great uncle in 1852. It's done, it's over. Get over it. Why should I benefit from something that happened 160 years ago?
On racial and sexual discrimination: it's everywhere and we all know it. We try to stem the flow with regulations but the truth is that we are still very far from equality. We're doing our best though, and there's not really anything else we can do about it. We can't undo thousands of years of separation in a few decades, but how far we've come is pretty miraculous.
My last word on this subject though is that prejudice is everywhere, and we (society as a whole) shouldn't pretend that minorities aren't just as guilty of it. We should try to be rational about it, and try to treat each other equally.
5. Patriot Act/ Privacy
Private phone lines, private e-mails, and private conversation should be a hands off area for the government. however, if the statements are in a public forum: internet forum, a blog, somewhere that's accessible to the public, then it is public information and the privacy is negated. In short, private stuff is private, and should remain so, but if you are careless enough to leave information where anyone can get to it, then it is public information and can and will be used by anyone including the government.
6: Drugs and other things:
Marijuana should be legal, but harder drugs should be regulated. When it becomes legal to do these things it spreads easier, and it becomes harder to handle it. I don't want the guy messing with my cell phone account to have done a line right before picking up the phone. Which, you can't fire someone for doing something that's legal on their own time. Or maybe you could like with alcohol, but you can't always tell. I've seen someone who was on heroin and I didn't know. Brittain was able to infiltrate china because they started the opium trade. And then there's the inherent risk of overdose, the neurological results, the physiological results. if anything harder than maryjane were legal, it would be so hard to regulate it that it would be a disaster. On the other side though, what a person does to themselves on their own time is their own business, and shouldn't be determined by government. so I'm split on this one. I'm 2/3rds for regulation and 1/3rd for not our business. I would probably be comfortable with selective legalization with strong regulation, and by strong I mean with a higher legal age than alcohol and similar consequences for high driving.
Economics:
Economics is where I'm truly centrist. I believe that the market should be mildly regulated unless the situation proves otherwise. I take a chess player attitude. You don't play chess declaring your third move before you've seen the first few. Reactive, not forceful. You can not force a strategy to work if the situation doesn't call for it.
1. Healthcare:
corporations turning a profit from major illness seems intuitively wrong. But then government can't control anything properly. this is something I could go either way on really, The only real way to test it out is to implement it in small areas and get feedback. Major companies do product tests, why don't we do policy tests?
2. Free Trade Agreement:
we extend free trade to those who agree to extend it to us. No more. If a country taxes our goods so much that it hurts our economy when we don't tax theirs, we should reciprocate. That said, I think worldwide free trade would be wonderful, but we can't have truly free trade without the other side's help. It's a two way street, and we can't allow our side to go unhindered if there are roadblocks on their side.
3. Defense spending:
We should maintain our military, but keep it light until it is needed. I dislike the idea of war, but there come times when action is necessary. In this situation we should be able to militarize quickly. Outside of this situation, we should not flaunt or menace with power. I believe we should take the same approach as the ancient Shaolin monk. We only use our power when we need to. We should not jump on every warpath that comes our way (You know, like GWB.). With that said, we should take care of our troops. They sacrifice so much for us and they get treated so badly. The way to lower spending and at the same time take better care of our troops, is to lower recruitment. The military recruits everyone and anyone. If we slowed intake down to the essential peacetime force, we wouldn't need to spend so much. Then, we could spend more on the troops that need it. The question isn't if we should have a strong military, it's when should we have a strong military.
On that note ...
Military/war/international relations:
1. The existing and future wars:
The actual wars were for a political agenda. The media rationalized the wars as wars against a terrorist organization. Then, as our military dismantled countries and got lodged in the civil strife of each one, they did very little to the actual organization that they used to rationalize the entire action. (Go to urban dictionary and look up "Facepalm") It is our responsibility to give power back to the people of those countries, and get out. We've already done enough damage, we should rebuild what we can and what they need in order to take their country back, then leave. The people will find the government they want, it is not our place to tell them what to do.
In the future, we should only respond to military threats.
That's what I don't like about or society sometimes. We're so ethnocentric that we think we should "police" and even govern other countries. And I wish that a people could revolt, but these days the armies are so technologically advanced that revolutions can't happen anymore. Citizens have guns, they have tanks. I'm not going up against a tank with a 50 cal. Sorry.
2. International relations: We should strive to have a healthy symbiotic relationship with countries that will. With those that won't, we shouldn't bother them, but we should leave the mutually advantageous offer on the table. Like a political barter system. If we have something they need, and they have something we need, there's no reason we can't help each other out.
On another train of thought: Country rights are like human rights. We should not take it upon ourselves to tell another country what to do.
And the UN is a joke.
Maybe I am liberal sometimes, but where it is needed, I can and will intelligently consider other positions. I wish our leadership was that way.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Outside the box- 4 Rambling Ramshackles
I was reviewing my last post and a thought came to mind:
I wonder how many Muslims were killed in the 9/11 attack that was meant to punish "Infidels."
Seems like something's wrong about that.
But anyway that's not what's on my mind today. Today it's that intangible emotion that we call "Love" and relationships in general.
I think, and this is just my stance, that relationships should not be all about sex. I mean if you want to have it, fine. That's only natural. but, I believe that a real relationship shouldn't be ABOUT the sex. Sex should be this nice thing that you share with your partner, not the biggest reason that you're with your partner. maybe this is just about what I want. I guess if all two people want is sex that's fine.
But, in the type of relationship that I would want, it would be about closeness, about friendship, about love. I would want sex to be the icing on the cake, but not the cake. and hey! there's nothing wrong with a lot of icing if the cake is good.
That leads me into my next view, about what love actually is.
This is opinion heavy but I don't care at the moment. It's what's on my mind and nobody reads this.
To me, love is first and foremost a friendship. If I truly love someone, I should be able to tell them that they're my best friend. In the most successful marriages the people say they "Married their best friend." It's true. I wouldn't ever be with someone in a serious relationship if I couldn't honestly say they were my best friend. Best friends make the best lovers.
Beyond that though, there's another layer. There's chemistry. That eerie feeling that you know this person but you haven't met them before. The millions of little things about them that may seem insignificant to other people, but that you find magnetic. It can be as small as their favorite book and as big as their ability to intellectually challenge you. There's no way to remember them all. and when you re-discover them you just fall in deeper.
Then there's the icing. The physical aspect. for me, this is almost a given if the other two are present, but that's not for everyone. I am a more cerebral creature than anything. My biggest sexual desire is to fulfill my loved one's sexual desires. If they're happy I'm happy. In general though, I think if you love each other it should be about fulfilling each other's needs, and not just about fulfilling your own.
So that's basically what love is to me, disregarding the emotional part. I could include the feeling of wanting that person to always be there, or wanting to wrap yourself around them like you're Alfonse Elric from Full Metal Alchemist. I could have even described the intense desire to take care of them when they're ill, to help them, and to provide for them.
I don't want a fuck buddy. I want a partnership.
I wonder how many Muslims were killed in the 9/11 attack that was meant to punish "Infidels."
Seems like something's wrong about that.
But anyway that's not what's on my mind today. Today it's that intangible emotion that we call "Love" and relationships in general.
I think, and this is just my stance, that relationships should not be all about sex. I mean if you want to have it, fine. That's only natural. but, I believe that a real relationship shouldn't be ABOUT the sex. Sex should be this nice thing that you share with your partner, not the biggest reason that you're with your partner. maybe this is just about what I want. I guess if all two people want is sex that's fine.
But, in the type of relationship that I would want, it would be about closeness, about friendship, about love. I would want sex to be the icing on the cake, but not the cake. and hey! there's nothing wrong with a lot of icing if the cake is good.
That leads me into my next view, about what love actually is.
This is opinion heavy but I don't care at the moment. It's what's on my mind and nobody reads this.
To me, love is first and foremost a friendship. If I truly love someone, I should be able to tell them that they're my best friend. In the most successful marriages the people say they "Married their best friend." It's true. I wouldn't ever be with someone in a serious relationship if I couldn't honestly say they were my best friend. Best friends make the best lovers.
Beyond that though, there's another layer. There's chemistry. That eerie feeling that you know this person but you haven't met them before. The millions of little things about them that may seem insignificant to other people, but that you find magnetic. It can be as small as their favorite book and as big as their ability to intellectually challenge you. There's no way to remember them all. and when you re-discover them you just fall in deeper.
Then there's the icing. The physical aspect. for me, this is almost a given if the other two are present, but that's not for everyone. I am a more cerebral creature than anything. My biggest sexual desire is to fulfill my loved one's sexual desires. If they're happy I'm happy. In general though, I think if you love each other it should be about fulfilling each other's needs, and not just about fulfilling your own.
So that's basically what love is to me, disregarding the emotional part. I could include the feeling of wanting that person to always be there, or wanting to wrap yourself around them like you're Alfonse Elric from Full Metal Alchemist. I could have even described the intense desire to take care of them when they're ill, to help them, and to provide for them.
I don't want a fuck buddy. I want a partnership.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Outside the Box - 3 Welcome Home.
I'm back because I need to vent about a few things.
1. Bella from the Twilight series IS NOT A NECROPHILIAC. Vampires are not corpses or "dead" they are UN-dead. the living dead. The living part negates that part. I don't like the series so much but if you're going to bash something at least be right.
2. I am an atheist, more so, a rationalist. I am not a force feeding nut that tries to convert everyone.
I had a showdown with a guy who thought it was a good idea to post anti-christian comments on a christian rock video... to convert people. Seeing this, I sprung to the aid of the christian side, for no other reason than the fact that forcing your ideas on other people is not only counter productive but counter intuitive. If they want to know they'll find you and ask. You don't need to shove it in their face so hard that they run even deeper into faith.
3. There are some rational reasons to believe. Not everyone can handle the thought of a random, purposeless existence. They need something to tie them together, and give their life meaning. Not only that, but the moral fabric of society is based very much on religion. "Don't kill people." Check. "Don't have an affair with your neighbor's wife" check. "Don't steal." check. And then they provide a reinforcement. an eternal utopia for the good and a punishment for the bad. Ultimate justice. Kharma. Heaven/hell. Nirvana. Valhalla. I don't believe, but I can definitely see why someone would.
The argument was made that a lot of the bad things from religions get omitted from sermon and teachings. well... yeah... I'm sure things were a lot different THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO WHEN THEY WERE WRITTEN. "It degrades women!" well duh 2000 years ago women were property. (I love women, they're confusing awesome balls of fun. but things weren't always so great for them, as few as 25 years ago.) If you put out a book today that everyone was supposed to follow that said women were property, you'd probably get shot. well, the same was true of saying that they weren't back then.
Then there's the fact that every religion on the planet makes some gross claim to be they one and only, and that non believers will be punished (or that they SHOULD be punished by believers.) How is modern day Islamic extremism any different from the crusades? Other than the whole several thousand people vs millions, not a lot. Religion, attacking people. go figure. There are a plethora of examples. islam vs christianity. islam vs judaism. hinduism vs islam. judaism vs christianity. filial piety vs bhudism. Christianity vs Paeganism. Christianity vs the celts, Christianity vs druidism. Christianity vs hinduism. Christianity vs Buddhism. Isn't it funny how the biggest religion picks most fights? The only religion that doesn't pick fight's is scientology... because they make it so you can be another religion, too! If it weren't a crock of crap it would be great.
Religion kills people.
I posted this to him: " religion always has people to force it on other people. Why should atheists do the same. Why must we turn atheism into a religion in and of itself? We lose all of the credibility that we build by not being a religion, by acting like religion. The theocentric attitude that all religions have, the force feeding, the attacks on other religions... why are you preaching against religion and yet exhibiting all of its bad traits?"
So, I think as a way of disassociating myself from other atheists I think I should invent a version of atheism and be that. and then I'll get followers and we can turn it into that episode of south park where all the atheists are killing each other over which atheism is right!
Because if there was no religion people would find something to kill each other over. If not religion or oil perhaps we can kill each other over m-theory or what to eat for breakfast every morning.
In the end people are base, egocentric, ethnocentric, theocentric, biased, brainwashed, prejudiced creatures. I make a conscious effort to examine mine at least and see what's rational and what's not. I'm not infallible though, which leads me to a personal note.
I am SO in love with this girl. We share a lot of views, and she's brilliant. She was able to challenge one of MY prejudices and give me an intellectual challenge over it, and that is possibly the most desirable thing I have ever seen in another person. She helped me with it, and I was swayed closer to her point of view. It's just one of the many reasons I love her, but it's a great one. I've never met anyone so ... perfect is the word I guess.
1. Bella from the Twilight series IS NOT A NECROPHILIAC. Vampires are not corpses or "dead" they are UN-dead. the living dead. The living part negates that part. I don't like the series so much but if you're going to bash something at least be right.
2. I am an atheist, more so, a rationalist. I am not a force feeding nut that tries to convert everyone.
I had a showdown with a guy who thought it was a good idea to post anti-christian comments on a christian rock video... to convert people. Seeing this, I sprung to the aid of the christian side, for no other reason than the fact that forcing your ideas on other people is not only counter productive but counter intuitive. If they want to know they'll find you and ask. You don't need to shove it in their face so hard that they run even deeper into faith.
3. There are some rational reasons to believe. Not everyone can handle the thought of a random, purposeless existence. They need something to tie them together, and give their life meaning. Not only that, but the moral fabric of society is based very much on religion. "Don't kill people." Check. "Don't have an affair with your neighbor's wife" check. "Don't steal." check. And then they provide a reinforcement. an eternal utopia for the good and a punishment for the bad. Ultimate justice. Kharma. Heaven/hell. Nirvana. Valhalla. I don't believe, but I can definitely see why someone would.
The argument was made that a lot of the bad things from religions get omitted from sermon and teachings. well... yeah... I'm sure things were a lot different THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO WHEN THEY WERE WRITTEN. "It degrades women!" well duh 2000 years ago women were property. (I love women, they're confusing awesome balls of fun. but things weren't always so great for them, as few as 25 years ago.) If you put out a book today that everyone was supposed to follow that said women were property, you'd probably get shot. well, the same was true of saying that they weren't back then.
Then there's the fact that every religion on the planet makes some gross claim to be they one and only, and that non believers will be punished (or that they SHOULD be punished by believers.) How is modern day Islamic extremism any different from the crusades? Other than the whole several thousand people vs millions, not a lot. Religion, attacking people. go figure. There are a plethora of examples. islam vs christianity. islam vs judaism. hinduism vs islam. judaism vs christianity. filial piety vs bhudism. Christianity vs Paeganism. Christianity vs the celts, Christianity vs druidism. Christianity vs hinduism. Christianity vs Buddhism. Isn't it funny how the biggest religion picks most fights? The only religion that doesn't pick fight's is scientology... because they make it so you can be another religion, too! If it weren't a crock of crap it would be great.
Religion kills people.
I posted this to him: " religion always has people to force it on other people. Why should atheists do the same. Why must we turn atheism into a religion in and of itself? We lose all of the credibility that we build by not being a religion, by acting like religion. The theocentric attitude that all religions have, the force feeding, the attacks on other religions... why are you preaching against religion and yet exhibiting all of its bad traits?"
So, I think as a way of disassociating myself from other atheists I think I should invent a version of atheism and be that. and then I'll get followers and we can turn it into that episode of south park where all the atheists are killing each other over which atheism is right!
Because if there was no religion people would find something to kill each other over. If not religion or oil perhaps we can kill each other over m-theory or what to eat for breakfast every morning.
In the end people are base, egocentric, ethnocentric, theocentric, biased, brainwashed, prejudiced creatures. I make a conscious effort to examine mine at least and see what's rational and what's not. I'm not infallible though, which leads me to a personal note.
I am SO in love with this girl. We share a lot of views, and she's brilliant. She was able to challenge one of MY prejudices and give me an intellectual challenge over it, and that is possibly the most desirable thing I have ever seen in another person. She helped me with it, and I was swayed closer to her point of view. It's just one of the many reasons I love her, but it's a great one. I've never met anyone so ... perfect is the word I guess.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Outside the box - 2 Why Television is pointless.
What I really would love to know, does anyone else notice how tacky television has become?
It's a walking parody of itself.
For instance, has anyone ever actually taken an unbiased look at the audience shots on shows like "Deal or no Deal"? It is something reminiscent of Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. something happens, Pan to crowd cheering or sighing! decision to make? crowd screams!
Television interrupts the natural flow of storytelling. Strategically placed within each show is a storyline structure that almost none deviate from. placed within each plot is a set of well-placed mini climaxes that serve two purposes. The first purpose is to keep you watching, yearning for more, through 3 to 5 minutes of advertisements. The second purpose is to keep your mind open and active, so that those adverts can brainwash you properly.
My second qualm with the tube is the way stations like Fuse, MTV, and VH1 operate. They make music popular, music does not make itself popular. Artists such as Coldplay, Sara barellis, 50 cent, Rhianna, Chris brown, and many more owe everything to these media monstrosities that force feed you music and tell you it is good. They are media juggernauts, and they've been forcing musical advancement in the direction they desire. I know there are super popular bands that we all love and have a guilty pleasure for. What we don't realise is that most of them are pretty horrible. (Disclaimer: I will research this and try to find the source if asked, if i was misinformed I will gladly remove the following information) I have heard that when a BET executive was asked why they wouldn't play a particular rapper, they said "Our audience isn't smart enough." That's right, you get to hear dumb music because you are stupid.
My last disagreement, although it saddens me to say, is an emotional one rather than a logical one. I sincerely miss the way TV used to be. When I was a kid just watching AHH! Real Monsters and Rocko's Modern Life everything was so simple it was the best experience i've ever had with the brainwash box.
The reason most of us don't notice things like this is that we've lost the ability to look at something with what I call "New Eyes." We are so wrapped up in the normality of what we're looking at that it becomes impossible to see how beautiful or repulsive it really is.
If you watch television, YOU ARE BEING BRAINWASHED. Now I'm not saying you have to quit watching your favorite TV shows, I'm asking you to be aware of what is being done to you. After all, it's quite hard to brainwash someone who knows what you're doing.
~~~~Commercial break~~~~
I totally just saved a bunch of money on my car insuran---
#Click#
***Screen goes blank***
It's a walking parody of itself.
For instance, has anyone ever actually taken an unbiased look at the audience shots on shows like "Deal or no Deal"? It is something reminiscent of Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. something happens, Pan to crowd cheering or sighing! decision to make? crowd screams!
Television interrupts the natural flow of storytelling. Strategically placed within each show is a storyline structure that almost none deviate from. placed within each plot is a set of well-placed mini climaxes that serve two purposes. The first purpose is to keep you watching, yearning for more, through 3 to 5 minutes of advertisements. The second purpose is to keep your mind open and active, so that those adverts can brainwash you properly.
My second qualm with the tube is the way stations like Fuse, MTV, and VH1 operate. They make music popular, music does not make itself popular. Artists such as Coldplay, Sara barellis, 50 cent, Rhianna, Chris brown, and many more owe everything to these media monstrosities that force feed you music and tell you it is good. They are media juggernauts, and they've been forcing musical advancement in the direction they desire. I know there are super popular bands that we all love and have a guilty pleasure for. What we don't realise is that most of them are pretty horrible. (Disclaimer: I will research this and try to find the source if asked, if i was misinformed I will gladly remove the following information) I have heard that when a BET executive was asked why they wouldn't play a particular rapper, they said "Our audience isn't smart enough." That's right, you get to hear dumb music because you are stupid.
My last disagreement, although it saddens me to say, is an emotional one rather than a logical one. I sincerely miss the way TV used to be. When I was a kid just watching AHH! Real Monsters and Rocko's Modern Life everything was so simple it was the best experience i've ever had with the brainwash box.
The reason most of us don't notice things like this is that we've lost the ability to look at something with what I call "New Eyes." We are so wrapped up in the normality of what we're looking at that it becomes impossible to see how beautiful or repulsive it really is.
If you watch television, YOU ARE BEING BRAINWASHED. Now I'm not saying you have to quit watching your favorite TV shows, I'm asking you to be aware of what is being done to you. After all, it's quite hard to brainwash someone who knows what you're doing.
~~~~Commercial break~~~~
I totally just saved a bunch of money on my car insuran---
#Click#
***Screen goes blank***
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Outside the box - 1
Recently, President Barrack Obama signed a record breaking economic stimulus package in order to assuage the fears of the American people. This package has helped ease the minds of billions of Americans. It is the signature of the Obama campaign and presidency; change.
For the average, media-brainwashed American, this is a cause for celebration; the government is acting to fix their problems and prevent the upcoming disaster. What is not overt to the average American is that this attempt to aid the economy is nothing different that what has been seen for the past 8 years. This bill is just a different manifestation of the bush tax rebate's concept: pump money that the country doesn't have into it's economy. This is very similar to the end days of the soviet union, where so much new money had been printed, it was actually cheaper to burn it for heat than spend it.
So what is the problem with this package? It bears the hallmark of 20Th century style American politics; utilize all resources to prevent disaster at all costs. The American government spends precious tax dollars on preventing the inevitable.
NEWSFLASH. If we spent half as much PREPARING for the coming disaster and had taken the blow and been able to roll with that proverbial punch, our economy would be fine at the moment.
I must give credit where it is due. I am very impressed that Obama has acted as publicly as he has in his presidency. He is doing a fine job as the nation's designated scapegoat. Obama gets to be the man that gets blamed for every American's problems for the next 4 years, congratulations are in order.
Where Obama has utterly failed, and what the American people have failed to realize, is that the "Republican or Democrat?" style mentality of the American voter is what is failing this country. These two parties are in reality two extremes of one uniform style of thought. While they differ on the exact method, the republican and the democrat have one ubiquitous style of thought. They approach every problem as though it is their responsibility to prevent it.
I've never seen a professional boxer that was afraid to take a hit. In fact, Muhammad Ali made a career out of taking them. What I would like to see out of the American government is a new mentality. a "rope a dope" mentality. What the country really needs to do is weather the storm, not try to run away from it.
I've been waiting for a real president of change to come. The American people may have been bamboozled into believing that they only have two choices when it comes to casting their vote, but how about some variety? How about a republican choosing a libertarian running mate? How about a Democratic president choosing a majority third-party cabinet?
Obama may be the president of "change," but all he has changed thus far is the attitude that the media manipulates in its viewers.
Keep thinking people,
- Unwashable mind.
For the average, media-brainwashed American, this is a cause for celebration; the government is acting to fix their problems and prevent the upcoming disaster. What is not overt to the average American is that this attempt to aid the economy is nothing different that what has been seen for the past 8 years. This bill is just a different manifestation of the bush tax rebate's concept: pump money that the country doesn't have into it's economy. This is very similar to the end days of the soviet union, where so much new money had been printed, it was actually cheaper to burn it for heat than spend it.
So what is the problem with this package? It bears the hallmark of 20Th century style American politics; utilize all resources to prevent disaster at all costs. The American government spends precious tax dollars on preventing the inevitable.
NEWSFLASH. If we spent half as much PREPARING for the coming disaster and had taken the blow and been able to roll with that proverbial punch, our economy would be fine at the moment.
I must give credit where it is due. I am very impressed that Obama has acted as publicly as he has in his presidency. He is doing a fine job as the nation's designated scapegoat. Obama gets to be the man that gets blamed for every American's problems for the next 4 years, congratulations are in order.
Where Obama has utterly failed, and what the American people have failed to realize, is that the "Republican or Democrat?" style mentality of the American voter is what is failing this country. These two parties are in reality two extremes of one uniform style of thought. While they differ on the exact method, the republican and the democrat have one ubiquitous style of thought. They approach every problem as though it is their responsibility to prevent it.
I've never seen a professional boxer that was afraid to take a hit. In fact, Muhammad Ali made a career out of taking them. What I would like to see out of the American government is a new mentality. a "rope a dope" mentality. What the country really needs to do is weather the storm, not try to run away from it.
I've been waiting for a real president of change to come. The American people may have been bamboozled into believing that they only have two choices when it comes to casting their vote, but how about some variety? How about a republican choosing a libertarian running mate? How about a Democratic president choosing a majority third-party cabinet?
Obama may be the president of "change," but all he has changed thus far is the attitude that the media manipulates in its viewers.
Keep thinking people,
- Unwashable mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
