A Persistent Source of Annoyance

I'm sure I do far more complaining about the (very) conservative republicans who I'm surrounded by than is absolutely necessary. But quite a lot of it is true. And they do annoy me. And since this is my blog, I'm allowed to complain about them all I like, no matter how much this is going to come back to bite me in the rear at some point in the future.

With the election season really getting started now (you know, what with the GOP having finally chosen their death, Romney having officially made a complete fool of himself numerous times, and Obama being hailed as All Things Good by the left), it seems that the beautiful citizens of this great nation are falling all over themselves to proclaim which party hack it is they want to live in the White House for the next four years.

do we want this unprincipled corporatist hack

Everybody from a Walmart checker to the people in our local government get in on this ritual. No joke, I encountered a Walmart checker a couple days ago who, seeing my mom's Ron Paul shirt, asked who she was going to vote for now that Paul wasn't in the running (I give her props for actually knowing who's in the race. That takes work. Sort of). My mom's response, that she was going to vote for Gary Johnson, was greeted with a huffy, disbelieving stare, as if she'd just said that she was going to sacrifice her children on the altar of the liberal media.

I don't know. Maybe this lady thought that was what she said. In any case, she recycled the old lines--about how Romney was the "best choice" we had, how we "couldn't live through another four years of Obama", and how we "only have two choices anyway."

or this one oh gosh choices choices so difficult halp us world

So perhaps the last part's true. Maybe we really do only have two choices that have a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting elected--and these two choices are so alike in all but a few aspects, that they might as well be one. Add to that the fact that only one of those two "choices" will, realistically, have anything close to a shot. Romney lacks the charisma and broad appeal that his opponent has in plenty. So in reality, the entire machine of American media and politics has presented me with one option, wearing two different faces, with only one face that will actually manage to "win".

And I really just don't like that much. Perhaps it's simply the overwhelmingly almost-anarchist part of myself. Perhaps it's simply that I'm a rebellious teenager and can't stand authority. Either way, I don't like being told how to vote.

Besides that, I don't think that our system is supposed to be a sort of one-size-fits-all, let's stick to the status quo kind of thing. Remember that whole freedom and justice and no-taxation-without-representation thing that people once fought a war over? Yeah, that. Perhaps you've read about it. I get this distinct feeling that those guys wouldn't have quite approved of the current idea of what a free election is supposed to be. I think they would vote for the person who most accurately reflected their own ideas, and to the dickens with whatever the rest of the world.

And so, as this gentleman stated, I am voting for Gary Johnson, and not because he will win. I am voting for him because he ought to win, and that's really all that matters.

I have an apology to make

It's an advance apology, really, that will probably come into effect on November 7th.

You see, apparently my one vote for Gary Johnson/not Obama-Romney will be the one thing that manages to tip the balance in favor of All That Is Evil And Horrible In The World And Will Destroy America As We Think We Know It.

So I would like to apologize for my vote in advance, and for all the undeclared wars, out-of-control spending, inflation, and loss of rights that will come about because of it.

Thank you for your time.

No Matter What Your Problem Is...

Government is, obviously, the answer.

At least, if you're a Democrat. Or a Republican. Or a statist. But this list is becoming repetitive.

It's something I've slowly come to realize about the people around me: no matter what the question they are faced with, or the problem that is confronting them, government inevitably, at some point, becomes the answer. Or, more properly, government money. Which is, of course, only our money taken from us by force then being immediately regurgitated into a behemoth system of government agencies and programs.

That network of agencies and programs is precisely what people have come to depend upon. I'm convinced, at this point, that the "American dream" as it existed for our forebears on Ellis Island is nothing but a pipe dream, a quixotic fantasy that is fostered by the optimistic denizens of American suburbia. That dream has been strangled by the idea that, no matter what goes wrong, government has money for us.

Democrats live this out in their rhetoric - that is, blatantly telling us exactly how they think all problems should be solved. Poverty is rampant? Well, we should steal more money from every citizen in the country to (sort of) solve it. A teenager is pregnant and wants an abortion? Well, we've stolen some money precisely for that purpose! There are people who can't keep their opinions to themselves and live with other people? Well, legislation should fix that right up!

Republicans are, in some ways, more devious. Their ideas of government intervention are more subtle. Most of them actually think they are for limited government and free markets. But then a question arises as to how, exactly, to stop abortions, and it becomes clear how they think - obviously, government is the only entity that can stop that...not individual action, with people reaching out to their fellows. Saving corporate interests, protecting big money, stopping crime, fighting the forces of chaos...all those things are jobs for the government. Quite obviously.

But for the life of me, I can't understand why. Perhaps it can be traced back to the fact that people don't want to be responsible for things. It's far more comfortable to let somebody - or something - else take care of it. This might give rise to the apparent inability of any politician to put their money where their mouth is and actually help a poverty-stricken community or reach out to single mothers and help pay medical bills. Perhaps that's just how governments work; they are inherently designed to reduce their subjects' intellectual capacity to zero through entertainment and then become the answer to everything.

But given our federal government's track record, I can't fathom the overwhelming trust that is placed in it. Our government can't stop a cave-dwelling Saudi with a core base of a couple hundred followers whose sole assets are a satellite phone and an ego as big as Betelgeuse, despite a pantheon of security guidelines, two massive wars and, of course, denying that the Taliban ever offered to give him up. But we can totally and completely trust it to successfully stop a kid from shooting himself up on a cocktail of drugs in a back alley. And we can totally trust our government's plethora of health and safety regulations to never let a drug get recalled. Ever.

All that's not even touching on the fact that the government is the biggest advocate of legal plunder in this country. You can get fined for letting rainwater run off your property! (That's actually a measure being considered in my hometown at the moment. Apparently, my town gets little enough rain as it is, so we don't want it falling on concrete. Exactly how property owners are supposed to prevent that is anybody's guess.) Before we know it, they're going to be fining us for breathing.

Oh, that's right. We release CO2 at every exhale. Us evil polluters, breathing all over the planet.

So I suppose it comes down to this.

Through some twisted process, government has become the ultimate solution to every problem. Because it's so good at solving things. And somehow, if we could just get a different person in there, real solutions would come along, and life would be dandy. If we could just squeeze a little more money out of somebody, all our problems would be solved. Jenny would have a good school that didn't fill her mind with fluff, Rob wouldn't be living in a tumbledown apartment complex in the middle of the Projects, Sarah wouldn't be pregnant at 16 and contemplating an abortion, and Timmy wouldn't be down the well.

Oh, and grandma would be baking apple pie.

If only.

Here's the deal, folks. Government has proven over and over again that it ruins everything it touches. The economy, the medical industry, schools, roads, puppies, the post office, important founding documents, libraries, other countries. They can't get involved in anything and it end up better than when they started. A new administration is not going to change that. More money and more power isn't going to change that. It will just give them more opportunity to twist more out of us.

We're all addicted to government programs. And we all know addictions aren't good. Let's break the government habit. Who's with me?

Between Them Both

Pending a post on the Iowa GOP debate and the ensuing drama over the Ames poll, I got into a debate. Sort of. It's not a very strident debate, more like a discussion about the GOP's presidential field and the economics surrounding it. It's with Democrats, a portion of the population I don't get to talk to much. (I live in the Bible belt, and that's obviously synonymous with "Republican Country." Sometimes I wish I could move to California, but I'm sure I'd hate it there just as much, except for the weather around LA which is lovely. New Hampshire, here I come!)

Anyway. Democrats apparently frustrate me just as much as Republicans, mostly because of the inherent contradictions I see in their stances.

Republicans want government to stay out of their pocket and businesses, but it's just fine if the government comes into their bedrooms and tells them what to do.

Democrats want government to stay out of their bedrooms, but if it feels it needs to interfere in money and business matters to keep us "safe," that's just fine.

And it seems to me that, between the two, we're pretty much doomed. The only way those two can compromise is to mandate both sectors. All in the name of keeping us safe and/or righteous, of course. Hush, little citizen. Big government knows best.

A Bit Meh

Lately, I've just sort of been...meh about the whole political scene. I think I have too many political friends on Facebook who are either die-hard Republicans, anarchists, or Democrats. They're ruining it for me. v.v

But, I suppose while I'm here, I could say a few words.

We had a shooting this past week, I'm sure you're all aware. As of yet, I can't decide whether I think the shooter was motivated by politics or not, though I'm betting not. Not that I actually bet, you understand, but...never mind.

Other than that, there's the typical Republicans-vs.-Democrats hubbub, with each side slinging vitriol because, of course, they're both out to ruin all that is good and right in the world. Somehow. Yeah. It gives me a headache.

Current Events

So, a pastor in Florida is going to sponsor a Qur'an burning at his church on September 11.


I can't stand people who want to burn books. I don't care what book it is. You have to be some kind of crazy person to intentionally burn a book. For real.


Further, where exactly is this man's church going to get the Qur'ans they are going to burn? Buy them? Um...wait. We're going to spend money...just so that we can summarily burn it. Right. Why not just sponsor a burning of Fed money? Because that would make just about as much sense.

Anyway, in further news. The Americans for Prosperity Foundation is in trouble. Turns out that, under 501(c)3 status, a company/foundation/organization cannot make any explicitly political statements. For instance, they can't bash certain policies of certain people we all know. To Tim Phillips, I'd just like to say- "voter education" doesn't include bashing just the opposite party's platform. That's telling the voters what we wish they'd think. How about we just let Fox News handle that, hmm?

Also, the Presidential family went on vacation (again). Not that I really care. Wish I had time to go golfing. Oh wait, I do, but I'm not the President. Right. I still don't care. What, you're saying it's wrong of him to spend his salary on what he wants? Really? How does that work?

Seeing as we, the American people, do have to pay our President, and said President does have alternate sources of income (his wife still has her own income, I believe), he can spend his money however he wants. If I had as much money as he seems to, I'd be taking trips to Martha's Vineyard, too. Of course, it might be hypocritical for him to counsel us to tighten our belts, then go on a vacation. But then again, Obama doesn't have the monopoly on bad advice. Remember Bush, telling us to "go shopping" in response to 9/11...and we all know where that brought us.

Wall Street is defecting to the Republicans, moving away from their normal ally, the Democrats. Odd, that.

So Democrats are using it as a campaign talking-point, that Republicans are, fundamentally, friends of big business, and not to be trusted as, obviously, big business must be paying off Republicans to try to repeal the stimulus/etc. if Republicans want to do so. Does that have logical validity? Sure. Is it likely? Probably. But Democrats have also been bought off in times past, and still are, so there you go.

So anyway. Americans are still concerned with things that aren't really important, a la Cordoba House, Republicans (and Democrats) are being bought off by Wall Street, and lots of other people, and our political system is still just as messed up as ever.

In other words, just another day in the life.

To the Slaughter House