Ron Paul for President. Here's an illustration I did this week to promote our man Ron Paul. Feel free to share, and feel free to give credits for the image.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Ron Paul Is Winning
I've been seeing news reports coming in more than ever, lately, containing news about Ron Paul. That Ron has been winning state after state now that the delegates are being counted rather than the straw votes. One report said he had won 11 states now, with others yet to confirm the delegate totals. This not only puts Ron into the convention, but if he gets enough delegates, we could have a contested convention where the bound delegates, who are still required to vote for Gingrich or Santorum, will be able to vote their conscience, and I think it's quite clear who will get the majority of those votes.
Ron Paul for President. Here's an illustration I did this week to promote our man Ron Paul. Feel free to share, and feel free to give credits for the image.
Ron Paul for President. Here's an illustration I did this week to promote our man Ron Paul. Feel free to share, and feel free to give credits for the image.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Utah Caucus and Election Jargon
Yesterday I went to the Utah Caucus. I went prepared with my camera, which I didn't end up needing. I had a great time in my first delegate nomination process, in which I ran for 4 of the 5 positions available. I gave a one-minute speech during each round by the seat of my pants which was exhilarating. I used to be deathly afraid of public speaking, and although that fear is domesticated now, I still get just nervous enough to make it intense. Finally, in the very last vote, for Utah County Delegate, I was voted in. Afterward I had several nice folks come up to me, shake my hand and tell me they voted for me every time. It was great. There are people who agree with my ideals. And they're not all young people. Ultimately I had to give up my position because I don't permanently reside in the precinct I was elected in, but that was ok for two reasons. First, I didn't want to be a county delegate anyway. I wanted to be a state delegate. Second, the alternate who will take my place happens to be the only other nominee who believes most of the same stuff as me. In any case, I had a great time, learned how a caucus works, and learned that it's pretty easy to become a delegate, even when 50+ people show up in your precinct.
I really appreciated standing in the politicians' shoes for a minute. I always think they totally suck because they never say anything specific. They just say stuff that sounds nice but has no substance. And in some cases, like Michelle Bachman when on the news, it's because they know that if they take a position on anything, people will disagree, or because they don't know what they're talking about. But after standing up there saying pretty specific stuff, reciting the preamble to the constitution and referring to ammendments, talking about GDP and debt, etc., and then seeing people get elected who just said, "I'm a school teacher and I don't know much about the issues, but I'll try to learn," well, it tells you something. The majority of those people are interested enough to show up, but haven't given it any thought. For most of them, the only driving issue was getting Orrin Hatch out of office, or keeping him there. Not on account of his principles, but only on account of his 36 year Senate career. So if you're running for the presidency, it would be tempting and arguably necessary to keep things simple enough that people will like the sound of it without feeling like they're getting a history lesson or feeling guilty or stupid for not knowing what GDP stands for. So while it still frustrates me that I have no idea what Mitt Romney stands for, really, I can sort of understand now why he just uses catch phrases and never adresses issues specifically or passionately.
Now let's change the subject talk about some election jargon. See if you hear these things and ask yourself what the crap they mean:
"Take back our country": This means to once again go from democratic president to republican president. Unless there's a republican already in office...then it means to get a democrat into office.
"Keep America the hope of the earth" means that we'll be a good country, and then "offer" to make other nations good, too.
"Devoted to the principles of America" means I have some principles, but since you don't want to hear about them, and some people disagree with them, this will sound better.
"The right course for America is not to divide America, but to unite America." means the right course to become president is to pretend we all agree, and are all one big happy family.
"Restarting the economy" means somehow making it work good.
"Restoring fiscal sanity in Washington" means I will personally educate everyone in congress and they will comply.
"Return to the constitution" means I've heard that we're not obeying the law of the land, but I haven't read it, so I don't really know. I hope no one looks at my record with a copy of the constitution next to it.
"Finally do something about this massive debt" means I'm going to do the same thing as president I've done as senator--pass whatever bills I think will be politically expedient regardless of their effect on the debt. Standing my ground against spendy guys in the congress is difficult.
"A balanced budget in 5 years" means I won't be able to reduce the debt, but each year I'll make sure the government only spends what it takes in, which will maintain our unsustainable level of debt.
"I'll eliminate every job-killing Obama regulation" means I'll only eliminate the ones that kill jobs. Which ones kill jobs? Well that's a matter of opinion. And by the way, I always make sure to say "kill" to make Obama sound like a murderer.
"I'll repeal Obamacare" means I'll think about repealing it, but if opposition is too great, or my new advisors say it's a good idea, I'll actually consider keeping it around. Because if I repeal it, then they'll expect me to come up with a better idea.
"It's killing our economy" means Obama is a murderer. Again.
"The threat of a nuclear Iran" means that although they don't have nuclear weapons, don't have uranium enriched sufficiently to produce nuclear weapons, and have said they intend only to use nuclear technology for peaceful applications, I'll never believe them, even though our own secretary of defense has said there is no evidence they are working toward a weapon. Also, despite Iranian offers to allow full transparency for inspections, etc., in exchange for allowing them to exercise the rights they are granted under international law to have nuclear power plants, I'm pretty sure they're building nukes so they can nuke Israel asap. And to prevent this, I want to spend another 10 years sending troops to a middle-eastern country which did not attack us or our allies under the false pretense of having weapons of mass destruction.
"Send troops" means kill people. It means adding to the debt at our current pace or higher, because Iran actually has a military. It means gas will cost $6/gallon. Seriously, though, people will die. And as we've seen in the last 10 years, it won't just be soldiers. So we had better have a pretty good reason to send troops.
I got the majority of these from a single video from Rick Santorum. The first few are from a video of Mitt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg6grCd98HM
I really appreciated standing in the politicians' shoes for a minute. I always think they totally suck because they never say anything specific. They just say stuff that sounds nice but has no substance. And in some cases, like Michelle Bachman when on the news, it's because they know that if they take a position on anything, people will disagree, or because they don't know what they're talking about. But after standing up there saying pretty specific stuff, reciting the preamble to the constitution and referring to ammendments, talking about GDP and debt, etc., and then seeing people get elected who just said, "I'm a school teacher and I don't know much about the issues, but I'll try to learn," well, it tells you something. The majority of those people are interested enough to show up, but haven't given it any thought. For most of them, the only driving issue was getting Orrin Hatch out of office, or keeping him there. Not on account of his principles, but only on account of his 36 year Senate career. So if you're running for the presidency, it would be tempting and arguably necessary to keep things simple enough that people will like the sound of it without feeling like they're getting a history lesson or feeling guilty or stupid for not knowing what GDP stands for. So while it still frustrates me that I have no idea what Mitt Romney stands for, really, I can sort of understand now why he just uses catch phrases and never adresses issues specifically or passionately.
Now let's change the subject talk about some election jargon. See if you hear these things and ask yourself what the crap they mean:
"Take back our country": This means to once again go from democratic president to republican president. Unless there's a republican already in office...then it means to get a democrat into office.
"Keep America the hope of the earth" means that we'll be a good country, and then "offer" to make other nations good, too.
"Devoted to the principles of America" means I have some principles, but since you don't want to hear about them, and some people disagree with them, this will sound better.
"The right course for America is not to divide America, but to unite America." means the right course to become president is to pretend we all agree, and are all one big happy family.
"Restarting the economy" means somehow making it work good.
"Restoring fiscal sanity in Washington" means I will personally educate everyone in congress and they will comply.
"Return to the constitution" means I've heard that we're not obeying the law of the land, but I haven't read it, so I don't really know. I hope no one looks at my record with a copy of the constitution next to it.
"Finally do something about this massive debt" means I'm going to do the same thing as president I've done as senator--pass whatever bills I think will be politically expedient regardless of their effect on the debt. Standing my ground against spendy guys in the congress is difficult.
"A balanced budget in 5 years" means I won't be able to reduce the debt, but each year I'll make sure the government only spends what it takes in, which will maintain our unsustainable level of debt.
"I'll eliminate every job-killing Obama regulation" means I'll only eliminate the ones that kill jobs. Which ones kill jobs? Well that's a matter of opinion. And by the way, I always make sure to say "kill" to make Obama sound like a murderer.
"I'll repeal Obamacare" means I'll think about repealing it, but if opposition is too great, or my new advisors say it's a good idea, I'll actually consider keeping it around. Because if I repeal it, then they'll expect me to come up with a better idea.
"It's killing our economy" means Obama is a murderer. Again.
"The threat of a nuclear Iran" means that although they don't have nuclear weapons, don't have uranium enriched sufficiently to produce nuclear weapons, and have said they intend only to use nuclear technology for peaceful applications, I'll never believe them, even though our own secretary of defense has said there is no evidence they are working toward a weapon. Also, despite Iranian offers to allow full transparency for inspections, etc., in exchange for allowing them to exercise the rights they are granted under international law to have nuclear power plants, I'm pretty sure they're building nukes so they can nuke Israel asap. And to prevent this, I want to spend another 10 years sending troops to a middle-eastern country which did not attack us or our allies under the false pretense of having weapons of mass destruction.
"Send troops" means kill people. It means adding to the debt at our current pace or higher, because Iran actually has a military. It means gas will cost $6/gallon. Seriously, though, people will die. And as we've seen in the last 10 years, it won't just be soldiers. So we had better have a pretty good reason to send troops.
I got the majority of these from a single video from Rick Santorum. The first few are from a video of Mitt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg6grCd98HM
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Unbiased Republican Party and Media? Virgin Islands Caucus Results:
First of all I should say that I hadn't even heard that the Virgin Islands had held their caucus. Well they did. U.S. territories get to participate in the election process just like the states. I guess there really wasn't that much to report since our man Mitt Romney won there. Let's look at the mainstream media's reports. The Associated Press, aka. AP, reported the results two days ago:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gNbv47075JA8AyZYEK_X71TXjOww?docId=ac12385cdd4545d28a42cbd82a830e18
Mitt Romney won 7 delegates and Ron Paul won 1. How about the New York Times? Same result.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/virgin-islands
I want you to notice something about this page here at the NYT. Apparently there were only 6 voters. Romney got 4 votes, Paul got 1 vote, and one person was undecided. How are there less voters than delegates? Because. Romney got 4 delegates, 2 were assigned by the party, and the undecided finally decided on Mitt. So those numbers represent the delegate count, not votes. Now, check this out. I click on "Primaries" to look up another state's results. I'll pick Oklahoma just for random's sake. Here are those results:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/oklahoma
Almost 100,000 votes are reported for Santorum alone, and he only got 14 delegates awarded for it. So in this state, they reported actual votes. Maybe it's a fluke. How about Idaho:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/idaho
Mitt Romney got all 32 delegates, and it shows 27,000 votes. Ok, so why did they not show actual votes in The Virgin Islands results? And why can't I find a link to the Virgin Island results under that "Primaries" button? Well, I guess we might have to go to another source to find the actual vote count, because you won't find it here. I also looked all over MSNBC.com and FoxNews.com and I didn't find a single mention of the Virgin Islands anywhere. Let's look at the Huffington Post. They have an article with a seemingly positive headline:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/12/ron-paul-virgin-islands-caucus-results_n_1339944.html
Here they're reporting that Ron Paul "won the popular vote." I've been following this election, and I've never seen the media distinguish between winning a state and winning the popular vote until now. Ron Paul has repeatedly said that what really matters is the delegates, with which he is generally doing very well. But until now, the media has always marginalized that statement by saying Paul would need to win a state (vote) to get the nomination. Now he has won a state (or territory, rather), and suddenly it's not the vote that matters, but the delegates. If you read on in the Huffington Post article, or the Washington Post article they borrowed their information from, they are quick to point out that Ron really hasn't won anything, and that he just can't seem to get delegates, even when he wins the vote.
Why all the effort by the media to avoid reporting Ron's win? The delegates are what really matters, but remember, the delegate totals they've published all along have largely been estimates, since no one can know how the delegates will vote until the convention, except in winner-take-all states. So the media has been perfectly content to base each state's victories on the popular vote until now.
I can understand the Republican Party having a strong bias, but what's the media's excuse? And if they're both so afraid of Ron Paul gaining momentum, what else are they willing to do to mute him?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gNbv47075JA8AyZYEK_X71TXjOww?docId=ac12385cdd4545d28a42cbd82a830e18
Mitt Romney won 7 delegates and Ron Paul won 1. How about the New York Times? Same result.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/virgin-islands
I want you to notice something about this page here at the NYT. Apparently there were only 6 voters. Romney got 4 votes, Paul got 1 vote, and one person was undecided. How are there less voters than delegates? Because. Romney got 4 delegates, 2 were assigned by the party, and the undecided finally decided on Mitt. So those numbers represent the delegate count, not votes. Now, check this out. I click on "Primaries" to look up another state's results. I'll pick Oklahoma just for random's sake. Here are those results:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/oklahoma
Almost 100,000 votes are reported for Santorum alone, and he only got 14 delegates awarded for it. So in this state, they reported actual votes. Maybe it's a fluke. How about Idaho:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/idaho
Mitt Romney got all 32 delegates, and it shows 27,000 votes. Ok, so why did they not show actual votes in The Virgin Islands results? And why can't I find a link to the Virgin Island results under that "Primaries" button? Well, I guess we might have to go to another source to find the actual vote count, because you won't find it here. I also looked all over MSNBC.com and FoxNews.com and I didn't find a single mention of the Virgin Islands anywhere. Let's look at the Huffington Post. They have an article with a seemingly positive headline:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/12/ron-paul-virgin-islands-caucus-results_n_1339944.html
Here they're reporting that Ron Paul "won the popular vote." I've been following this election, and I've never seen the media distinguish between winning a state and winning the popular vote until now. Ron Paul has repeatedly said that what really matters is the delegates, with which he is generally doing very well. But until now, the media has always marginalized that statement by saying Paul would need to win a state (vote) to get the nomination. Now he has won a state (or territory, rather), and suddenly it's not the vote that matters, but the delegates. If you read on in the Huffington Post article, or the Washington Post article they borrowed their information from, they are quick to point out that Ron really hasn't won anything, and that he just can't seem to get delegates, even when he wins the vote.
Why all the effort by the media to avoid reporting Ron's win? The delegates are what really matters, but remember, the delegate totals they've published all along have largely been estimates, since no one can know how the delegates will vote until the convention, except in winner-take-all states. So the media has been perfectly content to base each state's victories on the popular vote until now.
I can understand the Republican Party having a strong bias, but what's the media's excuse? And if they're both so afraid of Ron Paul gaining momentum, what else are they willing to do to mute him?
Monday, March 12, 2012
Voting Your Conscience vs. Voting For Who "Can Win"
I want to share with you a little bit of good old fashioned Braxtonian reasoning. Before I do, I'll give you some context.
An issue I've seen discussed in debates, in mainstream media, and among real people who actually exist, is "electability." I would argue that this has been promoted more frequently than the other leading issues, like the economy and jobs, or the "wars" we're fighting. What is electability? Well let's do what all great church talks do, and start with the dictionary definition. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition:
e·lect·a·ble adj.
There are a few other ways to be disquailfied, such as already having served two terms, being a convicted criminal or having previously betrayed an oath taken to uphold the constitution.
So assuming all our candidates are over 35 and aren't traitors, they're all electable. This isn't what so many people are referring to when using the word, unfortunately. But because this term has this original meaning, and is now being used to describe a candidate's likelihood of being president, candidates who are "not electable" may appear to those who don't know much about the process to believe their vote would be wasted on someone who can't win anyway. And thus I hear so frequently, especially from those supporting Mitt Romney, that, "I don't want to vote for someone who won't win anyway." And this is what I want to discuss. This argument is almost always followed with, "And I don't really know much about Mitt, but what it all comes down to is getting Obama out of the White House. So if he's the one who can beat Obama, that's who I want to vote for."
"I don't want to waste my vote on someone who can't win":
If politics was like betting on horses, and you got a reward for picking the winning horse, then this would make some sense. Unfortunately no one will be showing up to your door with a giant check regardless of what you do. In this race, the goal is to pick the right candidate--or in other words, the one who best reflects your values, character and vision for the country's policies. Your reward for doing so, if he or she wins, is enjoying accurate representation in government. If your chosen candidate does not win--even if they only got 1% of the vote--your reward is having expressed your honest views in the political forum. And knowing you didn't vote for the next schmuck who signs away your rights and adds trillions to the national debt. A clear conscience is worth more than following the crowd. Or at least that's what my mother taught me.
You may not think a single vote makes a difference, but it does. First of all, nominees are chosen by delegates, who are chosen by citizens. Every candidate is electable, and will be elected, if he gets the most delegates. You can pick your delegate. If you become a delegate, and cast your vote, your vote represents thousands of people who picked you. Secondly, a group of individuals expressing their political voice is a movement. Movements are noticed by the media. Politicians, especially the really crappy ones, follow the media and will jump on whatever bandwagon they think will get them re-elected. For example, the Tea Party was just a bunch of conservative people inspired by Ron Paul's values. The media noticed the protests, and reported about it. Before you know it, establishment republicans like Sarah Palin had gotten on board and put their name on the movement to take advantage of the publicity. So while many of these politicians have no intention of actually acting on the principles which the people support, the principles are now in the public discourse, and people are recognizing again the original source of those ideals (Ron Paul) and voting in that direction. All because some people protested, and voted out representatives they disagreed with. One vote at a time.
"I don't care who wins, as long as it's not Obama."
This may be the first election you've followed, but if not, you should remember back to the last election, and the one before that. "Anyone but Bush" in 2004 and "Anyone but another Bush" in 2008 were the motives for voting then. Obama was elected primarily on his campaign's promise of change. A change we can believe in. What changed? We're still at war. The economy is still growing very slowly. The president is still signing documents limiting our rights. We're still increasing the national debt. I would say the main difference is that Obama's speeches are less entertaining because he doesn't make as many mistakes.
Running on the idea that the current president has got to go because he's just so horrible is the oldest trick in the book. It's there every single election, and we should stop basing our vote on strategy and start basing it on the dictates of our conscience. Mitt Romney was declared the most electable from the start. Why? Because his head is disproportionately large and he looks executive? Really, why? Is it his awesome policies? I want you to hold your hand in front of your face and see if you can count 5 of his specific policies on those fingers. If you don't have 5 fingers, just pretend you do. If you're missing fingers, you may be on a government terrorist watch list, by the way. "Restoring America" and "Preserving America's greatness" and "Not apologizing for America" are not policies. If you were able to list 5, I respect you. Now hold up your other hand and list 5 policies on which Mitt Romney differs from Barack Obama. The point is, getting Obama out of the White house doesn't do any good if the guy you replace him with does all the same things. Does that not make sense?
Also, please don't vote for Mitt or against him just because he's Mormon.
Let's look at some quotes from people who know what they're talking about.
"I hope that no American will waste his franchise and throw away his vote by voting either for me or against me solely on account of my religious affiliation. It is not relevant."
John F. Kennedy
"Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature.... If the next centennial does not find us a great nation ... it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces."
James Garfield, the twentieth president of the United States, 1877
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816
"We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts--not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
Abraham Lincoln
"We hope that you will go to the polls in large numbers and vote for the strongest, finest people who are certain to do the most to safeguard the rights and freedoms of the people."
--Spencer W Kimball, October 1976. Romney said in a debate that he would have signed the NDAA.
Now a word on politics. This is an election year, and there are many strong and strident voices incident to political campaigning. It’s a wholesome and wonderful system that we have under which people are free to express themselves in electing those who shall represent them in the councils of government. I would hope that those concerned would address themselves to issues and not to personalities. The issues ought to be discussed freely, openly, candidly, and forcefully.
--Gordon B. Hinckley, October 1982
There are more, and I encourage you to research each candidate using more sources than just Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. Get involved. Learn the issues. And if, after learning of each candidate's specific policies and plans you support Mitt Romney, fantastic. Vote according to your conscience. Not by who you think everyone else will vote for.
An issue I've seen discussed in debates, in mainstream media, and among real people who actually exist, is "electability." I would argue that this has been promoted more frequently than the other leading issues, like the economy and jobs, or the "wars" we're fighting. What is electability? Well let's do what all great church talks do, and start with the dictionary definition. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition:
e·lect·a·ble adj.
Fit or able to be elected, especially to public office: an electable candidate.
Here are the constitutional requirements for presidential candidacy, shamelessly pilfered from Wikipedia:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications one must meet to be eligible to the office of president. A president must:
- be a natural-born citizen of the United States;
- be at least thirty-five years old;
- have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.
So assuming all our candidates are over 35 and aren't traitors, they're all electable. This isn't what so many people are referring to when using the word, unfortunately. But because this term has this original meaning, and is now being used to describe a candidate's likelihood of being president, candidates who are "not electable" may appear to those who don't know much about the process to believe their vote would be wasted on someone who can't win anyway. And thus I hear so frequently, especially from those supporting Mitt Romney, that, "I don't want to vote for someone who won't win anyway." And this is what I want to discuss. This argument is almost always followed with, "And I don't really know much about Mitt, but what it all comes down to is getting Obama out of the White House. So if he's the one who can beat Obama, that's who I want to vote for."
"I don't want to waste my vote on someone who can't win":
If politics was like betting on horses, and you got a reward for picking the winning horse, then this would make some sense. Unfortunately no one will be showing up to your door with a giant check regardless of what you do. In this race, the goal is to pick the right candidate--or in other words, the one who best reflects your values, character and vision for the country's policies. Your reward for doing so, if he or she wins, is enjoying accurate representation in government. If your chosen candidate does not win--even if they only got 1% of the vote--your reward is having expressed your honest views in the political forum. And knowing you didn't vote for the next schmuck who signs away your rights and adds trillions to the national debt. A clear conscience is worth more than following the crowd. Or at least that's what my mother taught me.
You may not think a single vote makes a difference, but it does. First of all, nominees are chosen by delegates, who are chosen by citizens. Every candidate is electable, and will be elected, if he gets the most delegates. You can pick your delegate. If you become a delegate, and cast your vote, your vote represents thousands of people who picked you. Secondly, a group of individuals expressing their political voice is a movement. Movements are noticed by the media. Politicians, especially the really crappy ones, follow the media and will jump on whatever bandwagon they think will get them re-elected. For example, the Tea Party was just a bunch of conservative people inspired by Ron Paul's values. The media noticed the protests, and reported about it. Before you know it, establishment republicans like Sarah Palin had gotten on board and put their name on the movement to take advantage of the publicity. So while many of these politicians have no intention of actually acting on the principles which the people support, the principles are now in the public discourse, and people are recognizing again the original source of those ideals (Ron Paul) and voting in that direction. All because some people protested, and voted out representatives they disagreed with. One vote at a time.
"I don't care who wins, as long as it's not Obama."
This may be the first election you've followed, but if not, you should remember back to the last election, and the one before that. "Anyone but Bush" in 2004 and "Anyone but another Bush" in 2008 were the motives for voting then. Obama was elected primarily on his campaign's promise of change. A change we can believe in. What changed? We're still at war. The economy is still growing very slowly. The president is still signing documents limiting our rights. We're still increasing the national debt. I would say the main difference is that Obama's speeches are less entertaining because he doesn't make as many mistakes.
Running on the idea that the current president has got to go because he's just so horrible is the oldest trick in the book. It's there every single election, and we should stop basing our vote on strategy and start basing it on the dictates of our conscience. Mitt Romney was declared the most electable from the start. Why? Because his head is disproportionately large and he looks executive? Really, why? Is it his awesome policies? I want you to hold your hand in front of your face and see if you can count 5 of his specific policies on those fingers. If you don't have 5 fingers, just pretend you do. If you're missing fingers, you may be on a government terrorist watch list, by the way. "Restoring America" and "Preserving America's greatness" and "Not apologizing for America" are not policies. If you were able to list 5, I respect you. Now hold up your other hand and list 5 policies on which Mitt Romney differs from Barack Obama. The point is, getting Obama out of the White house doesn't do any good if the guy you replace him with does all the same things. Does that not make sense?
Also, please don't vote for Mitt or against him just because he's Mormon.
Let's look at some quotes from people who know what they're talking about.
"I hope that no American will waste his franchise and throw away his vote by voting either for me or against me solely on account of my religious affiliation. It is not relevant."
John F. Kennedy
"Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature.... If the next centennial does not find us a great nation ... it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces."
James Garfield, the twentieth president of the United States, 1877
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816
"We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts--not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
Abraham Lincoln
"We hope that you will go to the polls in large numbers and vote for the strongest, finest people who are certain to do the most to safeguard the rights and freedoms of the people."
--Spencer W Kimball, October 1976. Romney said in a debate that he would have signed the NDAA.
Now a word on politics. This is an election year, and there are many strong and strident voices incident to political campaigning. It’s a wholesome and wonderful system that we have under which people are free to express themselves in electing those who shall represent them in the councils of government. I would hope that those concerned would address themselves to issues and not to personalities. The issues ought to be discussed freely, openly, candidly, and forcefully.
--Gordon B. Hinckley, October 1982
Especially in an election year, as we have in the United States this year, we should seek to support those we believe will act with integrity and carry out our ideas of good government. The Lord has said: “When the wicked rule the people mourn.
“Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold.” (D&C 98:9–10.)
The Church maintains a policy of strict political neutrality, favoring no party or candidate, but every member should take an active part in the political process. We should study the issues and the candidates to be sure our votes are based on knowledge rather than hearsay.
--Joseph B. Wirthlin, April 1992There are more, and I encourage you to research each candidate using more sources than just Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. Get involved. Learn the issues. And if, after learning of each candidate's specific policies and plans you support Mitt Romney, fantastic. Vote according to your conscience. Not by who you think everyone else will vote for.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
"Let's Agree to Disagree"
I've spent a considerable amount of time in forums debating. Forums about religion, politics and photography (which, I submit is a more sensitive subject than either of the other two). I've noticed some patterns. The majority of people have a breaking point in a discussion. A point beyone which they will not venture. This is the point where instead of just A) Demonstrating they're right, B) Admitting they're wrong, C) Leaving the discussion, or D) Saying "I don't know, I'll have to look into that," they start to cry inside and feelings of offense start to well up in their general chestal area. When this happens, phrases like, "Let's just agree to disagree," and "You're not going to convince me, and you've obviously made up your mind," and "It's a free country, and I'm entitled to my opinion," and "You don't have to be so judgmental/rude" start to appear. I should mention that I have this emotional limit, too, but I tend to make jokes, or just leave the forum instead of getting all defensive and weepy. This is what I want to talk about.
There is some crazy stuff out there. There are some crazy people. There are elements and institutions in the world that have many sides, and even some sides we don't see. Our worldview is largely shaped by what is in our immediate vicinity. Our parents, our friends, our plans and hobbies, the radio and TV. The internet. To say that CNN covers every relevant piece of news there is in the world at any given time is just not reasonable to assume...especially when they spend whole weeks covering the death of hardly-famous celebrities who died predictably after decades of hard drug use. My mom doesn't follow politics, but she taught me some great things about morality. I have to go to many sources to get everything I want or need. I understand that some people have siblings who are gay, while others don't. Some people have one parent, others have two, or none, or five. Some people have done drugs; some haven't. All our circumstances and experiences color our worldview. It is NOT my opinion that any of these things color the TRUTH. No matter what angle I look at it or argue, and no matter how many times my sisters teased me as a child, gravity still exists. Richard Simmons is still really bizarre, and the Earth revolves around the Sun. Just like it did when the world thought it didn't.
But while we disagree, we can accept that sometimes we're wrong and best way to learn about the truth is to find out for ourselves. But there are some things we don't know that we don't know. In which case it can be helpful for someone to tell us about their point of view. And it's ok not to believe it. And it's ok to apply some scrutiny to those ideas, and put them through the ringer a bit. And when someone does this to your ideas, and you reach the end of reason, and you start to feel bad because you know what you believe but can't explain it further, it's time to say, "I don't know what else to say about this, but because I have an interest in knowing the truth, I'm willing to investigate."
I already know that I live in a free country. And don't argue that I don't respect your right to your opinion and speech, because I'm not taking away that right. I'm exercising mine, and enjoying yours. The purpose of ammendment 1 is not to give us the right to be polite and avoid these conversations. You can do that all you want in the most oppressive dictatorships. The purpose is so we can say exactly how we feel about anything we want, and be passionate in those expressions. If our politicians would be more willing to do that, we would, in my opinion (which I'm entitled to, so don't take away my rights by disagreeing), make our nation much better off. Expressing ourselves vocally or in print is an exercise which requires practice and effort, and if you get fatigued, just rest.
I already know we disagree. And I already know you're not going to be instantly converted to my opinion just because I spoke it. In fact, this never ever happens in a debate situation. What does happen, is people go away from the discussion reviewing it in their mind, which either inspires research, or prompts the sudden, retrospective appearance of "what I wish I said," which makes your opinion stronger, and more solid. We don't need to agree to disagree, because even if we disagreed to disagree, it wouldn't make any difference. We still disagree. Either way.
Of course I've made up my mind. If I hadn't made up my mind, we wouldn't have had this discussion. But making up your mind is not final. Minds can change. If I discuss something and someone presents an idea that makes a lot of sense, or shows me some convincing evidence, then I would be a fool not to either do my homework to verify the evidence, or accept the information. But just because you haven't made any points doesn't mean I'm closed-minded or set in my ways. I'm just waiting for you to say something I can use.
Stating my opinion and backing it up is not rude. Just because you feel bad, or feel stupid, doesn't mean it's because I said something rude or condescending. There are far too many people who view disagreement as grounds to take offense. It is precisely because of this that our culture is so concerned with politenes that we call people who disagree bigots, haters, quacks, un-American, etc. Instead of just making your case, it's much easier and more emotionally gratifying to dismiss and villify people and their opinions. I have something to say. If it makes you feel bad, why don't you go sit on the toilet and do some introspection to figure out why exactly it made you feel that way?
We live in a world where there's a lot going on. And some of it is important. And if you have decisions to make, like who to vote for, it's important that you have as many of the facts as you can get your proverbial hands on. It's important to ask hard questions and expect some hard resistance. Plato taught us that people will fight to stay in the cave. So set your sights on the light and do what it takes to follow it. Because trust, even if you can resist them, there will be other people on the outside interested in keeping you in. There's nothing wrong with learning. With having an opinion. And we both have a responsibility to express that opinion if we want it to be educated with scrutiny, and if we want others to know what we know.
There is some crazy stuff out there. There are some crazy people. There are elements and institutions in the world that have many sides, and even some sides we don't see. Our worldview is largely shaped by what is in our immediate vicinity. Our parents, our friends, our plans and hobbies, the radio and TV. The internet. To say that CNN covers every relevant piece of news there is in the world at any given time is just not reasonable to assume...especially when they spend whole weeks covering the death of hardly-famous celebrities who died predictably after decades of hard drug use. My mom doesn't follow politics, but she taught me some great things about morality. I have to go to many sources to get everything I want or need. I understand that some people have siblings who are gay, while others don't. Some people have one parent, others have two, or none, or five. Some people have done drugs; some haven't. All our circumstances and experiences color our worldview. It is NOT my opinion that any of these things color the TRUTH. No matter what angle I look at it or argue, and no matter how many times my sisters teased me as a child, gravity still exists. Richard Simmons is still really bizarre, and the Earth revolves around the Sun. Just like it did when the world thought it didn't.
But while we disagree, we can accept that sometimes we're wrong and best way to learn about the truth is to find out for ourselves. But there are some things we don't know that we don't know. In which case it can be helpful for someone to tell us about their point of view. And it's ok not to believe it. And it's ok to apply some scrutiny to those ideas, and put them through the ringer a bit. And when someone does this to your ideas, and you reach the end of reason, and you start to feel bad because you know what you believe but can't explain it further, it's time to say, "I don't know what else to say about this, but because I have an interest in knowing the truth, I'm willing to investigate."
I already know that I live in a free country. And don't argue that I don't respect your right to your opinion and speech, because I'm not taking away that right. I'm exercising mine, and enjoying yours. The purpose of ammendment 1 is not to give us the right to be polite and avoid these conversations. You can do that all you want in the most oppressive dictatorships. The purpose is so we can say exactly how we feel about anything we want, and be passionate in those expressions. If our politicians would be more willing to do that, we would, in my opinion (which I'm entitled to, so don't take away my rights by disagreeing), make our nation much better off. Expressing ourselves vocally or in print is an exercise which requires practice and effort, and if you get fatigued, just rest.
I already know we disagree. And I already know you're not going to be instantly converted to my opinion just because I spoke it. In fact, this never ever happens in a debate situation. What does happen, is people go away from the discussion reviewing it in their mind, which either inspires research, or prompts the sudden, retrospective appearance of "what I wish I said," which makes your opinion stronger, and more solid. We don't need to agree to disagree, because even if we disagreed to disagree, it wouldn't make any difference. We still disagree. Either way.
Of course I've made up my mind. If I hadn't made up my mind, we wouldn't have had this discussion. But making up your mind is not final. Minds can change. If I discuss something and someone presents an idea that makes a lot of sense, or shows me some convincing evidence, then I would be a fool not to either do my homework to verify the evidence, or accept the information. But just because you haven't made any points doesn't mean I'm closed-minded or set in my ways. I'm just waiting for you to say something I can use.
Stating my opinion and backing it up is not rude. Just because you feel bad, or feel stupid, doesn't mean it's because I said something rude or condescending. There are far too many people who view disagreement as grounds to take offense. It is precisely because of this that our culture is so concerned with politenes that we call people who disagree bigots, haters, quacks, un-American, etc. Instead of just making your case, it's much easier and more emotionally gratifying to dismiss and villify people and their opinions. I have something to say. If it makes you feel bad, why don't you go sit on the toilet and do some introspection to figure out why exactly it made you feel that way?
We live in a world where there's a lot going on. And some of it is important. And if you have decisions to make, like who to vote for, it's important that you have as many of the facts as you can get your proverbial hands on. It's important to ask hard questions and expect some hard resistance. Plato taught us that people will fight to stay in the cave. So set your sights on the light and do what it takes to follow it. Because trust, even if you can resist them, there will be other people on the outside interested in keeping you in. There's nothing wrong with learning. With having an opinion. And we both have a responsibility to express that opinion if we want it to be educated with scrutiny, and if we want others to know what we know.
Friday, March 2, 2012
"I'm gaining mass."
People work out and they hope their body will start emitting rays of sex-appeal all over the place. Because this desire is eternal, people have commercials on TV selling variously-shaped pieces of plastic and metal that guarantee to cure all self-esteem issues, thighs that rub together, and un-attractiveness. All you have to do is work out using these tools. 70 years of commercialized appeal to body-image issues has taught us that no matter who you are or what your situation, weight-gain is bad. No one wants to gain weight. People who gain weight get fat and gross. Eventually weight-gainers can't even stand up anymore, and end up being fed in bed by an enabling family member until their tiny heart can't move blood though 1500 pounds of "weight". What we really want is to gain mass. Now mass is sexy. People who gain mass are body builders. They're finess models. They're olympians.
Well I have news. The only difference between mass and weight is gravity. So unless you're planning on doing your jumping jacks in outer space, your protein shake is building weight. And no matter what kind of tissue or fluid or material you've gained 5 pounds of, it's weight. Check out this definition of mass.
Google's definition of mass: A coherent, typically large body of matter with no definite shape.
Take heart, though, because people who work at Google have large bodies and sit in office chairs all day, so their "mass" probably is shapeless.
Well I have news. The only difference between mass and weight is gravity. So unless you're planning on doing your jumping jacks in outer space, your protein shake is building weight. And no matter what kind of tissue or fluid or material you've gained 5 pounds of, it's weight. Check out this definition of mass.
Google's definition of mass: A coherent, typically large body of matter with no definite shape.
Take heart, though, because people who work at Google have large bodies and sit in office chairs all day, so their "mass" probably is shapeless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)