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.

The War on Christmas

Sorry I haven't been posting-- December can be quite a busy month, with getting ready for the holidays and also at work (I have co-workers trying to fit in the rest of their vacation hours, so I've been taking on some more hours).  If you read my other blog, yes I just copied and pasted this from it.

I am sure you have heard of the war on Christmas.  The news media reports on it, the fake news media does skits/"stories" on it...

I believe that there is a war on Christmas, but that it is different from the one we talk about, or make fun of... the war on Christmas is one that each and everyone one of us (at least in the U.S.) has taken part, and it wasn't on the side of Christmas.  It is consumerism.

I am not the only one who thinks this.  The folks at the Advent Conspiracy propose moving ones focus away from buying and buying to the real meaning of Christmas, and consequently to giving gifts that are thoughtful, that take time, and are based on the relationship one has with the receiver of the gift.  They also argue, in their first video on the dvd, that getting mad at stores who say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" is missing the point-- it is not the stores' job to tell the story of Christmas.  It is the church's job, and christians' job.  I would take this a step further, and argue that as a christian myself, I have seen first hand how christians have been as guilty of allowing, and even encouraging, consumerism to hijack Christmas.  I am as guilty of it as anyone else.  I would also argue that not only is it hypocritical of us, it is a way for us to feel as though we are standing up for Christmas-- to feel as though we are doing something-- while we continue to buy into consumerism as much as ever.

So, I encourage you, whether christian or not, to give time, or make gifts, or give to charity for those you still need gifts for this year.  I encourage you to consider celebrating Christmas differently next year.  (To be smart about giving to charity, check charities out on GiveWell, Charity Navigator, and CharityWatch.)

Blagojevich surprises me

Rod Blagojevich will be spending 14 years in prison.  I have to confess to some surprise-- I wasn't expecting them to be so hard on him.  For that matter, I was surprised when charges were brought against him.  It had seemed to me, at least, like what he was accused of were things politicians did all the time, and never got into trouble.  As I have said before, I am very cynical about politicians.

Maybe in Blagojevich's case, they had enough evidence this time around.  Or maybe everyone was just so tired of corruption that they had had enough.

It is not as though politicians have never gotten prosecuted before... it just happens so infrequently, like CEOs getting prosecuted.  Many of them haven't done anything illegal, but some of them have and get away with it routinely.  Didn't the banks only get yelled at for giving the bail out money (money that was supposed to help bail out their customers) to their CEOs as bonuses?

So, as I said, I'm a bit surprised.  I feel a bit bad that the state taxpayers will be supporting his existence, but something tells me they are not going to mind paying for him staying in jail.  I think that something is that if it were in my state, I wouldn't mind.