Political posts from the past

I've decided to delete my "other" blog (which is even less used than this one) and combine it with this one. Since there were only two major articles on the other blog, I've combined them here in one post. On rereading my post from February, I was surprised how relevant it still seems.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Why are race, gender and religion the focus?
6 February 2008

Are the people in the media un-educated? or are they attempting to entertain too many middle-schoolers that have no real interest in politics but revel in gossip? For months I’ve heard various and sundry newscasters gush about Obama’s skin color and Hillary’s gender while lambasting Huckabee and Romney for their choice of religion. [Editor's note: The media gushed happily about Hillary's gender, yet have bashed Palin for hers - not to worry, they're unbiased.]

To put it bluntly: WHO CARES!!! Am I the only one that realizes no one in their right mind should vote for ANY current- or ex-members of Congress to run this country? especially inexperienced junior Senators?

Hello!! Morons of the media (and anyone else that doesn’t have half a brain) legislators (i.e. Congress people) are good at running their mouth, period. Most of them have never had to make anything work!! A few of them CAN get things done, yet most of them have spent an entire career doing NOTHING worthwhile. They have no any positive impact on our economy, our social values, or our environment, yet they proffer their “extensive experience” (of doing nothing) as reason to vote for them as administrators? and instead of intelligent commentary, the media slobbers all over itself trying to make news of non-news-worthy events?

All these people in Congress pass more and more laws every year and expect some administrator (i.e. President) to get it done… or delegate someone to get it done. They expect all of us to pay for their “lofty idealism” which in reality is nothing more than pompous self-aggrandizement. I see all of this ridiculous pork-barrel spending that should be eliminated, yet, those in Congress have guaranteed incomes... no worries about recession for them... no strikes or lockouts... they vote for their own raises whenever they feel any economic pinch. They’re virtual demi-gods in their own minds.

Then whenever any one of them wants to throw their hat in the ring as a "candidate" for President the media frenzy locks onto inane details and TOTALLY IGNORES what is genuinely important to running as a viable Presidential candidate.

Expecting a legislator to be a good administrator is like appointing a homeless person to run HUD as a publicity stunt: yes, the homeless may have many ideas on affordable housing, but they have no clue of the complexity of day-to-day issues and operations of administering the business. And if they get their fingers too deep into management, it’s all going to come crashing down.

An acquaintance told me Hillary is "experienced" because she’s "been there." If that is the case, then show me see the volunteer willing to be the first surgery patient of the hospital janitor — he's "been there" and has watched at least 2 minutes of every surgery for the last 8 years. We all know that wouldn't happen anytime soon. Furthermore, if she had "been there" then how did Bill have so much time on his hands to chase (& catch) skirts? As a Senator, she has never pushed through one major piece of legislation (I don't think she's even gotten any minor legislation through). She was a do-nothing on all the boards she sat on. The only "experience" she can claim is being married to an ex-President. If that is all that's needed to run this country, I’d rather vote for Laura Bush, at least she was nice enough to read books to little kids.

Another person told me they liked Obama’s message of "Hope." That’s stupid: hope is what you need when your child is missing in the jungle and someone else is doing the search and rescue work. I don’t want hope, I want intelligence, I want administrative experience, and I want fiscal responsibility. The only thing Obama offers beside dark skin is an aura of mystery. No one knows anything about him or his political aspirations, other than the fact he wants to be President. I googled his church and read the statement of faith... that has got to be one of the most racist, anti-American churches I’ve ever heard of!! If they haven't changed it yet, you can read it yourself right here: http://www.tucc.org/about.htm [Editor's note: They have since rewritten this page, but it can still be found on the "Internet Archive" website right here. It is difficult to read unless you highlight it with your mouse first.]

As far as "race" goes — it’s blown all out of proportion. Why is someone that is 1/2 Caucasian and 1/2 anything else never called "white" if they have any color in their skin?? I’ve got several kinds of Native American in me, but I ran for office no one would call me the first "Native American" to run for office. Pointing to the fact that Obama may be the first black President is ridiculous, not only is he not "all black" but the genetic difference between, white, black, brown, & any other "color" is only about 4% on the DNA level! He’s got the most blackness of any candidate so far? whoop-dee-doo-daa. If I were to rate my friends of color based on the shade of their skin, I’d (rightly) be called a bigot; Obama and the media have done it and they state they’re pointing out diversity? They are not pointing out diversity, they are MAKING diversity: a mean-spirited, aggressive diversity which does nothing more than place a false barrier between darker skinned people and lighter skinned people; as if someone's brain can be "black," "white," "red," or "yellow" — ignorant media people.

Moving on, one of the local talk-radio guys keeps talking about how McCain is a "great war hero" and could represent the Republican Party well. His arguments rest mainly om McCain’s ex-POW status and because he isn’t afraid to "cross the aisle" to get things done. I for one, think the war-hero/political prisoner card has been played way too many times. Every other person I’ve known that’s gone to war (I’ve known many) does not like to flaunt the fact that they had to kill people, or that they were tortured, or whatever it was they had to do. (Let me be very clear: I do highly respect the fact that he was willing to go, and the character he showed in staying when he could have come home early.) What annoys me is when McCain revels in the "war hero" attention... when he signed up he knew that could be a part of the job. And the only "aisle crossing" I’ve seen him do is in direct opposition to core conservative values of the Republican party... then rather than crossing the aisle and coming right back, he seems to want to pitch a tent and camp out over there. If he’d stab his own party in the back for personal political gain, I surely would not want that kind of person in the White House. Politically, he seems to stand somewhere between moderate (I think they called them Blue Dogs in Reagan's day) and semi-liberal Democrat; he just wears the Republican hat so people take him seriously when he bashes other Republicans.

Some of my friends tell me how great Ron Paul is, while others think he’s completely loony. Yes, he has a few good ideas, but some of his other ideas would cripple our nation economically (gold standard would mean we pay all our debts in gold... but we currently don’t have enough gold, that's why we’re in debt) as well as put us at a military disadvantage internationally (eliminating the CIA... the only federal agency mandated to gather intel overseas... not to mention, most political and military intel is drawn from there). He’s already run as a "bona fide" Libertarian candidate in the past, but he’s running as a Republican now to try to validate himself as a candidate? If you’re really a Libertarian, why would you lie to the American public? One of my biggest peeves with him is his bigotry. Yes, bigotry: as late as the 80s and 90s he was allowing white supremacists to write articles in his newsletters... but he claims not to have any knowledge of that — in HIS newsletter? suuure. I think if I published a newsletter I’d instruct the editor on submission guidelines and get (at bare minimum) a list of the articles to be published... PRIOR to the publication date — of course, I’m no doctor.

Then there’s Huckabee. People complain he was a minister, but — hello — he gave that up... and even if he didn’t, he belongs to exactly the same denomination (even from the same state) of Baptists that Bill Clinton did — and no one had a problem with Clinton's religion. I DO have a problem with Huckabee outspending every other governor of Arkansas in history: outspending the next 3 closest "big spenders" combined. Also have a problem with him releasing more criminals than the combined total of 16 separate states that are near Arkansas: 16 states to his 1, and he put more criminals back on the streets — Oh yeah, that’s SO safe, I'm "inspired" by him — inspired to buy a gun to protect myself if he gets anywhere near Pennsylvania Avenue. He also claims to be a Republican, but his record refutes more core values than McCain’s — he too is a "de facto" Democrat. If no one else in America noticed, at least the NEA did — he’s the only Republican candidate I’ve ever heard of to be endorsed by them.

And lastly, we have Romney. Everyone is bent on destroying him, but I’m not 100% sure why. I really don’t like that he’s a mormon, but that’s not politically relevant, so throw that argument out. He’s been independent, and he’s now Republican, but no matter what he "is," "was," or "claims to be," he WAS elected governor of one of the most liberal Democratic-run states in the union. If he could get elected there, then he is really a Democrat. At least he did do some good things there, and he alone (of ALL the candidates that are still in it) has prolonged administrative experience in times of economic adversity.

We only have ONE OF SIX candidates with extensive administrative experience, and that is NOT IMPORTANT to the media??? They need to be fired.

I think my biggest peeve with this election is we really only have one party running for office. Yes I know, Ron Paul is Libertarian, but technically, Libertarianism is a subcategory of Liberalism. (i.e. The end result is the same, but the processes to get there aren’t: a few ideas are radically different, but it’s still not conservatism.) All the other candidates that are still in the running are either self-professed Liberal Democrats (in fact, Obama and Clinton respectively were the 1st and 16th most liberal senators in 2007), or de facto Democrats running as Republicans. They’re too "conservative" for the far left, but too liberal to mesh well with middle-of-the-road conservatives. Their political ideas only serve to muddy the divide between left and right. The most "conservative" of the pseudo-Republicans that are currently running for office are no more than 25 years worth of "leftward drift" policy behind the "liberal Democrats" that are currently running as Democrats. Either no one in the media is intelligent enough to notice and point this out, or they are more concerned with making news than reporting it. (I could write several posts on this, but the short version is: there seems to be a "leftward drift" in both conservatism and liberalism. As Liberalism becomes more "liberal" Conservatism follows behind. How far behind varies issue-by-issue, but in most cases seems to stay approximately 15 to 35 years apart, so that values today viewed as "liberal" will in the near future be hailed as "conservative.")


Yes, I am Caucasian; yes, I am male; and yes, I do go to church regularly, but who in their right mind is really so IGNORANT as to express race, gender, or religion as more important than extensive administrative experience?!?! We are preparing to vote for the leader of the free world! Yet the stories proffered to pique our interest in the political realm are less intelligent than what my 5 year old son thinks up? How did we get so many dumb people in the USA? How did so many get into media? How in the world can so many "sheeple" citizens listen to this drivel and be swayed by it? I thought we were living in the greatest country in the world, but if this election cycle is a true indicator, the "great" people that inhabited our country must be gradually moving out... or dying off.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The Idolization of Politics
9 October 2008

I am not a fan of "politics" as currently practiced in the USA. The fact that someone was able to get elected to the House of Representatives or the US Senate does not automatically defer "experience" on that individual. "Experience" is gained by years of doing, not by an election, not by speaking about doing, not by blood-lines, and not by the "old-boy" network. Furthermore, when considering "experience" it is vitally important that the experience gained is fully manifested and represented to the public in a manner that is open and truthful, rather than highlighting some aspects of said experience and downplaying other aspects (in most cases, half of the truth is less truthful than an out-right lie).

It seems to me that McCain’s "experience in crossing the aisle" has as many (if not more) cons as it does pros. I would prefer to know a seated President has rock-solid convictions and will do what is legally and ethically right regardless of media-generated public opinion polls, than to have a President that folds up his (or her) convictions and packs them away for the sake of unity — via compromise. McCain’s early (Reagan-era) Senatorial experience is in many respects, admirable, while much of his recent experience is at best mediocre, and some is positively horrendous. The "McCain-__________" bills of the last few years are the most-obvious example. I won’t beat those dead horses here, but suffice it to say, at the times-of-passage most of those bills seemed (to me) to be no more than political posturing. This year's Presidential race has verified my original opinions. There is much I dislike about McCain, some things I could tolerate if he were President, and much I absolutely abhor. It is disheartening to see he is the "best candidate" that the Republican Party could agree upon this year. [Editor's note: my opinion of his judgment was greatly improved by his pick for Vice President. I would not mind her filling his role should something happen to him. Biden on the other hand? hate to say it, but I'd rather have Hillary than Biden.]

Similarly, the Democrat Party's choice of Obama as their representative is sad; however, in that case, it is worse than just "sad" — closer to unimaginably pathetic. Obama is a different breed of candidate altogether; one that is (thankfully) rare in our system of government (although, I fear that from this election forward, candidates like him will become more prevalent). Other than a law degree, there was no experience in his past to qualify him to be elected to the Illinois State Senate. Other than his experience as an Illinois State Senator, he has nothing in his past to qualify him to run (let alone be elected) to the US Senate. Which leaves us at his current bid for President: there is no fundamental knowledge base in his past from which he can draw to make intelligent, informed decisions as a President. To put it bluntly, all of his "experience" is illegitimate: it is based strictly on his skin color, dress, demeanor, and speaking ability. Obama has become the "American Idol Candidate" for President.

If I were to take the next few years of my life to earn a law degree and then run for the Florida State Senate, it would be nearly impossible for me to get elected. Even if I could find deep pockets to back me, and even though I would have more life experience, business experience, and political experience than he had when first elected, it just would not happen. I cannot understand why people waive the need for experience when a candidate’s skin color happens to be in the minority of the populace. "People of color" are not any more or less intelligent than the typical "WASP" living in the USA. The fact that an individual’s skin color is different shouldn’t mean they need more "help" — if that were the case, then that would mean all "people of color" are inferior. I reject all reasoning that stems from the opinion that any race is inferior to another. The genetics underneath our skin are no different from any other "race" of humans. Prejudice of any kind (positive or negative) based on skin color is arrogant, ridiculous, and immature.

Furthermore, much of what Obama claims as "experience" would negate any possibility of me hiring him to fill any position. When hiring any individual for positions of power, influence, or extreme responsibility, clear references are critical. Anyone with a record of consistent ethics violations in their past (even if committed in ignorance) should be disqualified. I would like to see the institution of full background checks for all candidates for political office before they could qualify — treasonous or terrorist-supporting candidates need not apply.

Surprises are NEVER good when hiring a new employee. It amazes me that very little that has come to light regarding the past acquaintances of Obama has been adequately covered by the media. Much of my family is from the Chicago area, much of my family that is not from Chicago is from some part of Illinois (and has, in the past, been involved with "less than stellar" enterprises, and individuals). Consequently, the politics of the region was of interest to me, and I learned much of Chicago-style politics, ACORN, and Rezko long before I’d heard of Obama. Any one of those "3 strikes" would immediately put any "potential hires" in jeopardy, on probation, or in the "uninterested" pile of resumés.

I believe background information is extremely important for anyone striving for the position of President. As "President" one answers solely to "the people" — and "the people" is an abstract concept: meaningless to those with little or no personal standard of ethics. If I could not trust someone to "watch a till" I would not entrust that person to protect my family, country, and way of life.

Lastly, it appears to me that, to-date, all of the debates, venues, moderators, and questions have been designed to promote the "stage presence" of each candidate: "The Idolization of Politics." Stage presence is an extremely poor indicator of an individual’s character. A good stage presence plays to the masses; it ensures that each person hears what they want to hear, rather than the truth. It uses long empty phraseology which can be restated (at a later time) to mean totally opposite opinions and cover all discrepancies that may come to light. It is far better to focus on documented fact, evidence, and character (including the character of acquaintances) when making any important decision.

In short, "Stage Presence" is perhaps the single worst possible character trait upon which to make a decision regarding the hiring or firing of any individual for any position:
All con men have stage presence in spades.