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.

Today We're Selling Rotten and Rubbish!

Last night, in an attempt to get back into the swing of politics and bridge an ideological gap in one fell swoop, I attended fifteen minutes of a Tea Party Patriots meeting. It turned out to be only fifteen minutes because, after we'd gotten there late, that's how long my mother managed to sit through it before walking out in disgust. Since she is my primary source of transportation (still), I went with her. I had no desire to walk ten miles back to my house. No thanks.

That being said, it is already clear that our local Tea Party has reduced this year's presidential race down to the media's level--which is why my mother was so disgusted. Basically, they are saying (as ever) that a vote for anyone other than the GOP candidate is a vote for Obama. Because, you know, we all realize and acknowledge the concrete fact that the GOP would never nominate someone who wasn't...well, ideologically sound with their beliefs, and sincere in his own belief in that ideology. Obviously.

In any case, besides the mathematical odds of your vote even doing anything for your candidate, much less against him or her, there is the matter of the choices I, a young voter, am being faced with. I feel a bit like a harried shopper. Let me explain.

Imagine, for a moment, that you walk into a grocery store. Perhaps you are hankering after some good beef, some potatoes on the side. And pie. (Pie is a necessary part of any good meal.) But as you go to select your steak, a wild-eyed employee comes running up, apron flying, hair rumpled as he screams in your face and quickly replaces the steak you'd picked up, practically yanking it from your hand. You protest, as you should, that you quite liked that steak, and had been planning to buy it. No, he screams, that steak is bad for you. That steak would ruin the store if you bought it! No, no--you want one of these steaks. And into your hands he places two old pieces of meat.

They smell as rank as they look, and for a moment you're nonplussed. Surely these two can't be the ones he means! And besides, look at the price tags! But the employee insists, and somehow you've dropped one of the steaks, and the employee has already put an arm around your shoulders and is steering you towards the check out, chatting your ear off about how you've made the right decision, and the choice was inspired, truly inspired, sir, and bravo and cheerio!

Ridiculously lame attempt to be British aside, it seems that sometimes this is precisely the kind of choice that is given voters. Romney or Obama, they say--"Here you are, have the compromising hack or the suave liar. Which do you prefer?" The media has reduced the debate down to which one stinks less, rather than which one will actually help the country and abide by the Constitution while he's at it. And then of course, there's the lovely citizens of this fine country, who insist that if we don't vote for their candidate, we're "wasting our vote"... and God Almighty forbid we vote outside the two party system! Why, that would be tantamount to treason.

Let it be known here and now, then, that I will vote for whoever I please, fearmongering notwithstanding. And I know, quite well, that my vote will not be wasted.

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.

John Quincy Adams

This is Not a Joke

This morning, the Obama campaign sent out an email to all their supporters--plus two ardent libertarians who like to laugh at said emails--that was, of course, full of self-congratulatory propaganda. What else do you expect from the beautiful American election cycle? Freedom? Choice? A hassle-free consideration of all the options?

Of course not. That's naive and idealistic. No, what works far better is being beat over the head by how one side's right and the other's wrong...from both sides. But don't worry. It's for your own good. After all:

We also know that candidates who take these extreme positions can, in the right circumstances, win not only a primary but also a general election in just about any state.

It's true. And we just can't expect you to know who to vote for, so we have to kindly inform you that, number one, all the Republicans are corporatist hacks. Even though Barack Obama received more in corporate funds than any other candidate in the 2008 elections. Not to mention the horror of this:

The extremist Tea Party agenda won a clear victory. No matter who the Republicans nominate, we'll be running against someone who has embraced that agenda in order to win -- vowing to let Wall Street write its own rules, end Medicare as we know it, roll back gay rights, leave the troops in Iraq indefinitely, restrict a woman's right to choose, and gut Social Security to pay for more tax cuts for millionaires and corporations.

Yes. That evil, extremist Tea Party that's led by...Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney, who has all but said that he wants to do the same things as Obama, just dressed up in a facade of conservative Christian principles. Just like practically every other Republican. Including Santorum and Perry and Gingrich and Bachmann. And especially Huntsman. And other than the obvious that the troops were supposed to be brought out of Iraq in December--Wall Street isn't capitalist, Medicare is already broken, gay rights and abortion don't belong on the federal docket... and Social Security is both already gutted and bankrupt anyway.

In closing, it is interesting to note how, sometimes, the Democrats seem to realize more about the Republican party than the Republicans do.

But it's curious that no one can really explain how, when or why the 70-plus percent of Republicans saying in polls and in Iowa that Mitt Romney's not their candidate will suddenly come around.

Yes, that is a curious thing to try and explain. Which is probably why Mitt Romney shan't win, and Obama will have to contend either with the Flavor of the Day, Santorum, or Ron Paul--I mean, He Who Shall Not Be Named. We'll see how that works out.

"Anyone But Obama"

Last night's GOP debate sickened me. There were a few exceptions, of course--Ron Paul's answers were, typically, quite good, and Romney was surprisingly well reasoned in a few places. Gingrich was his usual slimy self, and I've discovered that Huntsman just doesn't sit well with me; he strikes me as too much of an oily politician playboy for me to enjoy listening to him talk. Bachmann regaled us with her usual ignorance and then protestations that she wasn't ignorant, sprinkled with several ill-timed jabs against Obama, Santorum trailed behind the rest of the candidates, and Ron Paul made everybody uncomfortable when he said Iran wasn't a threat--and was heartily ridiculed by the commentators, who set themselves up as "rational Americans".

And then we reached the end of the debate, and I decided that the Republican Party, en masse, has entered their bid for a personal vendetta. Because winning this election isn't about helping the American people. It isn't about lowering taxes. It isn't about bringing freedom back into our society. Heck, it isn't even about the triumph of civil discourse over the evil liberal hordes.

No, of course not. This election is about one man: Barack Obama, duly elected ruler of the United States of America. At least, according to everyone but Ron Paul at last night's debate. Apparently, the GOP field has only one goal, and that goal trumps all others: to beat Barack Obama on November 6, 2012.

Naturally, this sentiment was heartily embraced by Newt Gingrich, who is convinced that he (with his upstanding moral record and his proven ability to follow through on his political promises) is the only one who can beat Obama. In fact, he had quite the moment up on stage as he all but said--"If you don't vote for me, you're voting for Obama and you'll rot in hell." The others heartily backed up this sentiment (except of course for Ron Paul, who offered a somewhat inspiring speech about political discourse and its place), and every single one of them managed to put in a plug about their future administrations. Of course.

But what really concerns me is that so many people who aren't sitting on a cushion are buying into this idea. That is, the idea that anybody (absolutely anybody) would be better than Obama.

Hey, at least his replacement wouldn't be a Democrat.

Because that makes a whole ton of difference, you know. I mean, it kept Obama from starting wars--just like Bush--and giving out taxpayer money to wasteful businesses--just like Bush--and ramping up government control of things that aren't theirs to control--just like Bush--and used the media to propagandize the public so they'd accept ridiculous security measures--just like Bush. As we can see, having someone from a different party in office can completely change the government's policies. And changing from "Democrat" to "Republican" next year will completely reverse this trend. Because a Gingrich/Romney/Bachmann/Perry/Santorum administration would be utterly different from an Obama one.

Honest.

Let's just put it this way: If I see another "Anyone but BO" bumper sticker, I think I'll puke.

Protests, Palin, and Polls

Protests...

I'm sure all of us have had the Occupy Wall Street movement drummed into our heads over the past few weeks. Not that I mind the news media giving popular movements coverage. That's a good thing. There seems to be a wide range of people who are participating in the protests, from anarchists to democrats who just think government should give them more money. The people I especially don't understand--and the ones who seem to be most vocal on the movement's website--are the ones who are upset about their student loans and how evil Wall Street is because those evil corporatists don't pay taxes.

To the first, I would simply say that your choices are yours to make and yours to live with. You decided to go to college, with the idea that it would help you get a job. It obviously didn't, and now you're saddled with mountains of college debt that you have no way of paying off. Welcome to reality, where government doesn't pay for your shoddy decisions.

The second has a bit more justification, because the men who work on Wall Street are sometimes the ones who try to get out of every tax they can in quest of profits. I see this more as a commentary on the stifling nature of our tax code, and how easy it is to buy off the IRS, more than anything else. Should our politics and our money be separate? Sure. Will it happen anytime in the next six thousand years? Probably not. Six thousand years of past human civilization couldn't figure out how to wrest the two apart, and I have no delusions that our highly advanced technology will figure out a way for us to do it.

Of course, being the borderline anarchist that I am, I think our tax code is broken, period, and needs to be completely scrapped and rewritten, preferably in a way that will take up no more then ten printed pages and will be easy for the regular person to read. Hey, I'm allowed to be lazy with my citizenship. But once again, that's not going to happen anytime soon, because the IRS is far too lucrative an agency to be so curbed.

I identify far more with the protesters who are there for causes like ending the wars, or protesting the fact that our government is basically owned by the Chinese one because we owe so much money to them. Or even the people who are protesting the fact that corporate sponsors make up so much of the money given to our politicians (I'm still wondering why Rick Perry needs a whopping $17 million to prosecute his campaign...especially when Ron Paul is doing far better, and has only raised $12.5 million since he entered the race. I'm also wondering why people are still giving that shill money. But I digress). But, then again, as I said above, there's no way we're going to separate the two.

Palin...

Sarah Palin announced yesterday that she wouldn't be making a bid for the job of Spender in Chief. Democrats are disappointed, because their easy victory won't be quite as easy as they'd hoped, Palinites are mad/sad/in the depths of despair, and the rest of us are just happy we won't actually have to put up with her for the next thirteen months unless we are masochistic enough as to turn on Fox News.

I'm really not all that surprised by the move. She enjoys her role as media darling far too much to give it up for actual campaigning, and she knows she has more power as a pundit than she would as a prospective candidate for the highest office in the land. Mostly because she'd never get elected, and I do hope she knows it.

Polls.

With Barack Obama's approval rating down near 42% and his Rasmussen approval index at -24--again--I think it's safe to say that people don't really like him much. And it's not just our Democrat president, but also our Republican Congress that is drawing the ire of voters. According to a recent poll, only 14% approve of Congress' handling of recent business.

Not that Congress really seems to care. To individual congressmen, all that matters is that their individual popularity remains stable. And judging from my experience, that hasn't changed much. People in my district may not be fans of Congress, but they love Mac Thornberry, our valiant Republican knight who votes for bailouts and doesn't know the first thing about the Constitution, judging by his rhetoric. So individual congressmen get reelected, and Congress doesn't change, since people apparently don't realize that if you don't like what they're doing, it might be time to put new blood in there.

After all, it can't be our elected representatives who are statist curs. It's other people's representatives who do such terrible things.

Ron Paul Being Forgotten

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

And this is why I love Jon Stewart, because even if I don't agree with him all the time, he stands up against things he finds unfair...in his own unique way.

Also, he's right: Pew found that Ron Paul is mentioned less than other candidates, despite his popular support.

I Nominate...

In the spirit of the "ABO" movement, I would like to make my own nomination for the office of President of the United States.

Bugs Bunny.

It makes perfectly logical sense, I promise. Because even though Mr. Bunny lacks the corporate and governmental experience most look for in a candidate, he looks really good in a suit. He's also from Brooklyn, which makes him really interesting and elitist for those of you who look for that. On the other hand, he acts in a casual manner and has an endearing, personable accent that makes him the perfect pick for those of you who like that sort of thing.

An entertainer during World War II, Mr. Bunny played the vital part of making sure children all over the United States retained a bit of their childhood, and also offered firm moral support for the mothers and fathers during that most difficult time.

Mr. Bunny disapproves of sport hunting, but has no interest in gun control, as he prefers to taunt hunters rather than remove the means whereby they pursue their sport. Mr. Elmer Fudd, his longtime antagonist, was unavailable for comment, but I am confident that Mr. Fudd would have nothing to say against Mr. Bunny's impeccable pro-gun rights record.

Mr. Bunny has a wide array of experience, including NASA expertise, an extensive knowledge of the world after travelling around it several times, usually very quickly, and is also very involved in environmentally-savvy activities, having expressed his support for Earth Day several times over the years.

Perhaps Mr. Bunny's most strong platform pillar is his ideas on the economy. As he is a strong fan of carrots, Mr. Bunny believes the United States economy should go completely carrot-based. Since carrots are essentially an infinite resource so long as people choose to plant them, the standard would never fail, and if for some unknown reason the market still crashed, we'd be able to eat our money.

For those of you who want a man strong on defense, Mr. Bunny is your rabbit! He never leaves a stone unturned in the pursuit of victory, and has a canny mind for outwitting the enemy, whoever that might be this episode.

All in all, it is my belief that Mr. Bugs Bunny has the potential to become the greatest leader the United States has ever known. Bugs Bunny 2012, folks. Count on it.

As this is a rather silly post that arose out of a conversation with my mother, I promise that something more serious will be coming soon. I hope. It might be a rant at Rick Perry, but it will be something.

O, the Things that I've Missed

And I don't really mind. A quick update - my summer activities are over, which of course means I'll have to start school soon. Sometimes being homeschooled is nice, though. I get to decide when to do my schoolwork. Haha. China was awesome, and I wish I was still there, except for the annoying fact that I couldn't get Facebook there. I love Facebook. But you don't really care about any of that, so I'll get into the interesting here's-what-I-think-about-all-the-junk-that's-still-going-on portion of this post.

Apparently the economy is fixing to crash. Again. In fact, our ole' friends Fannie and Freddie are even in the news again, as credit ratings on those institutions plummet. As if they weren't already in a 5-mile hole it had drilled in the crater made by the last market tank. The cause of the whole commotion seems to be centered around the fact that our Congress has finally realized that you can't expect to both borrow trillions of dollars and pay off trillions of dollars at the same time. (This is especially difficult with trillions of dollars in broken programs hanging onto the trillions of dollars in revenue the government brings in. Just pointing that out.)

In fact, it's apparently gotten so bad that Congress has realized bandaids aren't going to fix their bleeding head wound. They might have to cut more than the $1.5 trillion they'd planned on from the budget deficit. Over the next decade. Of course, we can't get rid of any really important programs like that extra aircraft carrier, Congressional salaries, or the Department on Aging, but we'll see what we can do.

Meanwhile, the 2012 presidential campaign seems to be getting started. Yay. Can't wait for that drama. Something I've observed: adult drama is just as tiresome as teenage drama, they're just older, and political drama is just as tiresome as adult drama, it's just the politicians have more money to spend. (We won't get started on celebrity drama; it's basically just teenage drama with more public scrutiny.)

Rick Perry, Texas' very beloved governor is cementing his run for President, most notably with a day of prayer he hosted recently. Of course, all the conservative Christians are now singing his praises, declaring that they'd love such a righteous president. Blech. Study what he's done to Texas sometime, then come talk to me.

The rest of the GOP field is just as depressing, with the hesitant exceptions of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson: Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Allen West. It reads like a list of who's-who of warmongering Republicans. But I'm being unkind. Can't have that.

I've not really researched the Democratic field, but I'm pretty sure (quite positive, actually) that President Obama will be their candidate. Not only is he in a strong position as an incumbent president, no matter how unpopular, but he still has the hearts of quite a portion of the Democratic voting base. And so, this race will come down to Obama and the candidate who wants to get butchered in the polls.

The Weird and Weirder

So after realizing that I've fallen sorely behind on blogging, I decided to do another combined post! I know, I know. I use these to excuse my lack of posting far too often, and I apologize. But today, I even come prepared with a theme! That theme is things that really make me go: O.o

So, without further ado:

Number one : The solution to national debt

It will never cease to amaze me how the first response to the phrase "we need to reduce the national debt" is "let's just raise taxes!"

Am I the only one who just flat doesn't get that?

I mean, I understand. We need more revenue coming in before we can pay off our debt. That would probably be a good thing. What isn't a good thing is assuming that's going to be the only answer...as we start spending even more money...and keep borrowing money from China...because any ten year old will tell you that if you keep borrowing, you're never going to pay off your debt. It doesn't work very well.

Of course, any ten year old would probably also be able to tell you that if any household managed their finances like the US government does, they'd be sent to jail. But I digress.

I suppose what gets me is that the "let's raise taxes" solution isn't accompanied by anything more concrete, like...reducing the astronomically large offense - ahem, I mean, defense - budget, or reducing/restructuring medicaid benefits, or cutting off/reducing planned social security payments to the upcoming generation, since there isn't really any money there, anyway. There a million places we could cut funding, yet...the first idea that comes to mind to reduce the debt is...spend more, but raise taxes to sort-of compensate. Not promote fiscal responsibility, and live within our means, but instead live just like we did before, and hope we can make more money to pay for it.

This makes tons of sense.

Number two : The Republicans

I've been consistently puzzled by the quandary formed by the Republican party. They seem incapable of finding a candidate that can actually compete in the national elections.

I mean, I'm beginning to think that it's like some sort of rite that goes on every election at the RNC. All of the super-rich people who make decisions in political parties like that get together around a table, stare at each other for a minute, and then say, "Okay, we have here the list of prospective candidates for our party. Now which one is completely incapable of doing anything but spouting talking points and looking stupid?"

I'm not a Republican. You know this. But still. I'd like to at least have some sort of somebody that I could cheer on and not sound like an utter loser. So really, GOP, would it be too difficult to nominate someone who's actually smart and has the ability to talk without sounding like an idiot? You know, like...Ron Paul. Or Gary Johnson. Or both of them together. (That combination, by the way, would be something close to political dynamite. I'm just saying.)

But I think it's pretty safe to say that people like Newt Gingrich (who is a laugh), Mitt Romney (who is a socialist), Herman Cain (who, from what I hear, is nothing but a warmongering talking-point machine), Sarah Palin ('nuff said) aren't really helping the conservative cause.

Number three : Osama bin Laden is Dead. Long Live the TSA.

I suppose it was rather idealistic of me to expect my freedom to come back when we killed the Big Bad. Perhaps it's just because I'm used to stories where, when we kill the bad guy, things go back to the way they were before. Yeah, that's probably it.

But it seems that in the aftermath of the death of the Biggest Threat to Mankind Anywhere, we have to increase security, not calm down because he's dead.

...

But isn't the single threat to America dead?

Oh, that's right. Bin Laden wasn't the only one. That's right. I remember now. Really, there's this faceless horde that he's been training, just waiting for the day when they can strike. Somehow. Hopefully not with bombs that don't work, because those are just too easy to laugh off.

This all goes back to the idea, I believe, that we have to be tremendously frightened at any given time that something is going to come and kill us, even when nothing is. And that something, of course, has to hate us simply because we're free, not because oh, they disagree with us ideologically, or they think our actions are imperialistic in nature and arguably illegal.

So, in order to feel safe from this mysterious threat, we have to continue our security efforts in our airports, and maybe even expand those security efforts to train stations, subways, and even your local grocery store. Because, after all, we can't ever be truly safe. You never know when bin Laden will come back to life.

So yes. Three things that make absolutely no sense to me.

And 2012 is Upon Us

Only, not really. Of course, you couldn't tell it by the eagerness of the New Generation of Republicans. They've already begun lining up for the senate seats that will be up for grabs in two years.

Now, I will say that I've been guilty of wondering who will run for President in 2012 (I'm probably going to be rooting for Gary Johnson, if anybody cares), but I find it rather ridiculous to be worrying about the same races we just got done with. v.v

Yay

So...the Republicans took the House. Big surprise, whoopiee. In Texas, my home state, Rick Perry got elected to a third term. Awesome. I'm so proud of the voting Texans in this state. They averted....uh....Rick Perry's virtual carbon copy, Bill White, from getting into office. Go ya'll. Thank you so much for saddling us all with that man for another four years.

Mac Thornberry, our representative for the House also got reelected. For the ninth time. This'll be his tenth term in the House. Once again, I'm so proud we voted in a small-government candidate from the Republican party! You go Mac, keep voting for legislation like the PATRIOT act, TARP, and all that stuff, and reduce the size of that government!

Yeah. I'm....very excited about the outcome of this election, in case you can't tell.

Elections...

are almost upon us. The impending big day has been greeted with much speculation about how bad the Democrats will end up- not "will they", notice, no. They're going to do bad. It's just a question of how bad.

You know, it's rather frustrating. We had an election two years ago. Things aren't going to magically change/get better/even get worse in 2 years. We could, oh I don't know, stick with one side for awhile just to see how it'll end up before we automatically switch...and end up getting the same thing as we had before.

Rather closer to home for me, Texas is having the time of it's life. Rick Perry is probably going to win (again), have another term in office (again). Yay! I'm so 'cited. His most prominent opponent, Bill White, wouldn't be any better. But, of course, those are the only two people focus on. And whine about. The mantra is "Oh we don't have choices, so we'll just vote party."

Because, after all, voting with da partay has fixed our problems so effectively in the past. That's why America's in a drawn-out recession. Yeah.

The problem is, my dear fellow Texans, that you do have choices. So they're not great choices. Kathie Glass may have gotten the Libertarian nomination for governor, but that doesn't make her an ideal libertarian. (I'll leave you to go do the research on that one...) And the only other one is some Green Party candidate named...Deb Shafto, I think.

Not amazingly wonderful choices. But anything's better than the Perry/White choice at this moment...

Using God

So, I'd like to get a little...religious...here for a minute. Yes, I know. Don't run away screaming, pweese?

Christine O'Donnel, the new Republican/Tea Party darling, has definitely stated that God wanted her to run for public office. And do something.

Yeah. Right.

And He came to you in a cloud and told you this, did He not?

You see, I really don't buy into that kind of thing. Something tells me that God, at the heart of it all, just...really doesn't care who is in office. I'm reading an excellent book right now, "The Myth of a Christian Nation" by Greg Boyd. Wonderful book. In it, he talks about the kingdom of the world (Satan's world, which he owns and rules) vs. the kingdom of God- the heavenly kingdom God runs and owns. His whole point is that God doesn't concern Himself so much with the kingdom of the world because it's all fundamentally Satan's. He's more concerned with Christians showing Calvary love to those around them and showing the kingdom of God in everyday life.

Add to that the fact that Jesus Christ never once encouraged political action. In fact, he discouraged it, and refused to talk about political issues of the day. When people tried to get him to take a stance on taxation by the Roman empire, he pointed out that since, according to the people around him, Caesar was an idolatrous phoney, why not give the idolatrous phoney what he wants- that is, his money back?

As a Christian myself, I get antsy when people claim God's endorsement when they're running for office, mostly because I see it as superficial. As this gentleman pointed out, it's a copout on some level, because it makes it so that the candidate doesn't have to take a stance. "Where do you draw your inspiration?" "The Bible." "Who's your hero?" "Jesus."

Really? Are we in Sunday School now?

More than that, I regard it as using God. Politicians use God to reach a goal. They know that by appealing to the broadest base of public support- religious Americans- they can get power. Because, after all, what will get you more votes- answering the question of why you want to be in office with the honest "Power and money" or "Because I want to turn America back to her roots, back to God"?

Which is sad, of course. Americans eat it up, not realizing the fundamental hypocrisy that goes on there. American politicians who call for God's endorsement also often seem to support the most contrary things- they support big business, which keeps millions of people the world over in bondage to a system of virtual enslavement. They support wars that are unjust and that foster rhetoric like "kill them all and let God sort them out."

Somehow- and this might just be me- I don't think that Jesus Christ, the same man who said that the greatest should become least and that all should love their enemies, would quite approve.

So perhaps it isn't so much that politicians use God...they just create their own that approves of everything they do. As Anne Lamott said- "You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."

A Rant on Paul

Rand Paul is the country's new up-and-coming. The savior of the liberty movement. The amazing, awesome, splendiferous son of Ron Paul, the almighty one.

Alright, maybe not that bad. But you'd think it, with the reaction he's getting in some circles.

I know several people who are known for berating the Republicans and Democrats for lemming behavior. Then they do this: vote for a name like 'Paul', without thought to the actual beliefs of said Paul.

However, I will not support Rand. Why? The reasons are simple: I just don't agree with him. At all. He supports the war in Afghanistan. He supports measures like the PATRIOT act. He is for banning of abortion and granting person hood to unborn children. He has even said he is not a Libertarian, and doesn't want to be identified with the group.

So why in the world are Libertarians falling for him?

And many are- I know several. I think it can be traced back to the issue of his last name and his parentage. Yet do we really want a dynastic Congress? Really?

Furthermore, I think many Paulite Libertarians have fooled themselves into thinking Rand is lying for the purposes of political expediency, for which there is no proof. Could he be lying? Certainly. However, Rand has no record whatsoever. We don't know how he will vote. Hence, I must assume that what he says is what he truly believes. And frankly, what he says I don't agree with.

So I find the willingness to give him the benefit of the doubt a bit puzzling. I know that his positions don't align with some of the beliefs of my friends. So why are they following him so ardently?