It doesn't matter who wins the White House tomorrow...

Would you like to know why it doesn't really matter who wins the White House tomorrow?  I will give you a list:

1. Gitmo is still open, and will likely remain open regardless of who wins.
2. Torture is still used in interrogations.*
3. Warrantless wiretapping still goes on.*
4. There is still wholesale assassination using automated drones.
5. We still abduct and torture foreign nationals.
6. We bribe the leaders of other countries for our economic gain.
7. We invade other countries (Libya, Pakistan, more than likely Syria soon) without the consent of Congress and then call it something other than war.
8. Both men support Bush's tax cuts for the rich (even if Obama claims he does not).
9. Both will let the Fed continually print money based on nothing, further devaluing the dollar.
10. Abortion.  Seriously, neither is going to do anything.  It is just a political talking point.
11. We have more people incarcerated than China.

You want to know what the difference is between Obama and Romney?  Who they will choose for the Supreme Court.  I suggest you make your choice based on that, or you vote third party.  As for me, I am voting third party.

*Yes, Obama knows this is ongoing, and yes, he could stop both of these if he chose.

A bit behind...

I know I am running a bit behind... okay, a lot behind, but I did want to comment on one thing about the Democratic Convention.  They forgot all our other allies' capitals!

Where was London is the capital of England?  Where was Paris is the capital of France?  Where was Berlin is the capital of Germany?  Where was Stockholm is the capital of Sweden?

They cannot think that our other allies did not notice that they added Jerusalem is the capital of Israel to the party platforms!  Maybe it is because we've been at war with the rest... well, except for Sweden.

Disclaimer: Yes, I do know, in reality, why they added it, despite my protestations above.

The Problem With the Chick-Fil-A Problem

Chick-Fil-A is a conservative Christian company.  It has been since it began.  Members of the company on all levels have probably expressed opinions similar to the one that has got everyone in an uproar-- even the one who expressed the opinion this time.  They have given money to conservative political action groups before too (which is apparently the "real" reason so many people want to boycott Chick-Fil-A).  Why the uproar now?

It's a similar question to what I wondered to myself when the Tea Party started right after Obama was elected.  The things they were, and still are, complaining about have been happening a long time.  The timing seemed suspicious.  It still does, even if I can sympathize with some of the protests the Tea Party has.

It is possible, in both cases, that the majority just honestly didn't know about this stuff until now (or right after Obama was elected, in the case of the Tea Party).  It's... possible.  It is still nevertheless suspicious.

The suspicious part of the Chick-Fil-A debacle?  It's an election year.  In fact, it is less than six months to the election, and I cannot help wondering if Chick-Fil-A's president's comment would have gotten this much attention if it wasn't, or if the majority of people would never even known he said it.  I really have to wonder if all these people would be protesting the money Chick-Fil-A donates to conservative lobbyists (and has pretty much always done so) if it wasn't.  I have to wonder if Chick-Fil-A's president would have made his comment if it wasn't as well.

I am not saying that the protesters don't have the right to protest.  I am not saying that Chick-Fil-A's president doesn't have the right to say whatever he wants to.  The Tea Party has the right to do their thing as well.  They all even have the right to do it when they want to.  I am just saying that their timing is a bit... suspicious.

Is this poll's results really all that surprising?

Poll: Party platforms a mystery to many by Jennifer Agiesta for the Associated Press

Perhaps the confusion that so many Americans have about which political party stands for which cause is the fact that in action, as opposed to word, members of both parties act the same in office.  I am not referring to the times when members of government from opposing sides have found common ground, like the Safe Haven law.  I mean the tendency of politicians to say what the constituents want to hear, and then get into office and do whatever is best for themselves.

"Platforms" are more what the parties wish the public to believe-- platforms are just words.  This has been true of American politics for quite some time.  If one is to judge the politicians off what they actually do, the lines between the parties are so blurred as to be indistinguishable.

Washington or Wall Street? Which is the problem?

I read an op-ed recently about how the real problem is not Wall Street but Washington.  Bradley Schiller was making the argument that the "1 percent" is made up of many who have made our world better, like Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, and Steve Jobs of Apple.

Not that I want to speak ill of the dead, but wasn't Steve Jobs a huge jerk?  I have to admit, I am not an Apple aficionado, but I am also not a "hater" (though I did find it horrifying that the working conditions in one of their factories in China was so bad that workers were committing suicide-- and Apple did not do anything about it until the news media reported on it and caused a scandal).

While I have a Facebook account, and like how it helps me stay connected with friends I might lose touch with otherwise, I also find myself wishing for an alternative on a regular basis.  I also find it annoying that I need to check my privacy settings almost every time I log in, just to make sure that Facebook didn't "helpfully" change something for me, or add something new with the default setting being privacy free (surely so I wouldn't have to track it down to enable it, since I must want to share everything with the world if I have a Facebook account, right?).  I mean, there is a reason Facebook had to make a settlement with the FCC.

I'm not saying everyone who is rich is evil.  I can agree with Bradley Schiller on Warren Buffet, for example, and would like to add that Buffet himself has pointed out that it is unfair that he is paying less in taxes than his secretary.  Also, there is a group of wealthy people pushing for their tax bracket to start paying their fair share, which just made some politicians sulky-- one enough to spat out that if the group wanted to send checks to the IRS, nothing was stopping them.  Yes, Washington has plenty of the blame, and the wealthy are not all evil monsters keeping us down.

I just am of the belief that most of the time, the blame lies in a couple of places, if not everywhere.  Wall Street has a bit of blame here too, so can't we start admitting that the whole system is broken?

Martin Luther King Jr. Day

Read the story behind the famous "I Have a Dream" speech.

It is a pity that there is no available footage of this historic speech.  Not just because it is so historic, but because all of us need this reminder to fight against our own human natures-- the drive we all have to despise our enemies, to hate those who are different from us.  In this speech, Martin Luther King Jr. did not just speak, he preached about one of the hardest parts of his faith, to love our enemies, and masterfully wove it into the march's theme of demanding equal rights for people of color... and he did it all without preparation, as he shoved aside the notes and outline that he was originally going to speak from.

Who really chooses the Republican nominee?

People usually blame the news media for picking the party candidates, especially since one candidate emerges as the candidate before all the states have voted in the primaries.  I, however, think that it may be our culture that is to blame.  How many are saying that if Mitt Romney wins the South Carolina nomination, the Republican party should rally behind him, making him the Republican candidate when South Carolina is only third out of 50 states to have their primary election? 

The very fact that all of the states have their primaries at different times seems to encourage this crowning of a winner before most members of the party (and in some states, most voters regardless of party) have even gone to the polls.  It would make so much more sense to hold the primaries all at once, but there is no question of changing to that.  The only changes in when state primaries are held are changes that attempt to place a state's primary ahead of the others.

It is not as though the news media is not contributing to this mess.  How many small budget Republican candidates are being completely ignored, like Buddy Roemer?  Ron Paul came in third in Iowa, second in New Hampshire, yet he is still barely mentioned.  When he is, it is almost in passing, and as though his only supporters are some far out extremists-- yes, because there are enough extremists in three states to get him third and second place.  When he is focused on, it is usually with derision.  Mitt Romney is cast as a "moderate," a title I am not all that sure he deserves.  He is also cast as the candidate best suited to beat Obama in the general election.

This is the key.  The candidate best suited to beat the other party's candidate is the one the party wants.  It doesn't matter if the candidate is the best for the job, or will do what is right for the country, or will stick to his principles unless compromise is what is best for the country.  What matters is if he can beat the other side's guy.

So if Mitt Romney becomes the Republican candidate after only three primaries, before you get to vote, don't blame the media, even though they played their part.  Blame the Republican party, who just like the Democrats, don't care what you think.  They only care if they can win.

Pendulum by Jordan Page

Read the lyrics while watching.

I find this song covers pretty much everything that is wrong in our country.