The Myth of Sisyphys, or the Great Amercian Election Game

"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Pretty appropriate for Election Day 2010 here in the Excited States of America where the same old bums are arguing that they know better than the current bums.

Yeah, yeah, I have heard the rhetoric. We are done with socialism (oh really?), the current crop of deadbeats are responsible for high debt (forget for the moment that Reagan did more damage to the US budget than any president before and until Bush II), and on and on and on.

The real issue is the amazing shortness of memory. The amazing ability for the average, and not so average American to ignore the real issues and succumb to the rhetoric without applying any thought.

Changing the make up of the House of Representatives is a nice feel good measure that your voice is heard. Forgetting that those same representatives are not beholden to you the voter, but to the machines (and funds) that got them elected in the first place. It will not get you a new job. It will not turn the economy around. It will not automatically make it rain money. But it could have some very chilling effects that most people are overlooking.

A Republican house will likely overturn many of the valuable social programs that are preventing large numbers of Americans from dropping into abject poverty. The counter argument from my libertarian friends is that it isn't the government's job to keep them out of poverty. Fair enough. So what does the well educated, hardworking individual who has been out of work for more than six months do? Really? What do they do? The societal safety net that existed in the 1920s is gone. Many would argue it was pretty much gone by the 1920s. But what are they supposed to do? Congress cannot force companies to hire, and there has been very little hiring going on in the last 18 months. Most people are down to bare bones with high debt and many are trying to work, with little success. So just what are they supposed to do?

A Republican house has been trying, for generations, to tell the average, and not so average American who they can and cannot sleep with. With the backing of the even more right-wing tea party, it is likely that this time, should they win, that they might actually get the ability to enforce this view. At risk is a woman's right to chose, the rights of union between those of the same sex and raft of other rights and privileges that have been gained over the last generation.

And then there is the continuing myth that soldiers are dying in Afghanistan to protect our way of life. Right. Spin that one a little faster, because so far I am not seeing a lot of improvement in my way of life since soldiers were sent to Afghanistan and Iraq almost ten years ago. I have seen an increase in the federal deficit, although not on the official books. I have seen a degradation of my civil rights, in the form of increased security at borders and airports, and I have seen a lot of good men and women come back in steel boxes. All to protect my way of life? Death, cost, and degradation is not my way of life, nor is it the American Way of Life.

So today is the beginning of the next election cycle. Vote carefully. The devil you know could very well be better than the devil you do not.

With Logic Like This...

The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery, so you can't masturbate without lust. You're going to be pleasing each other and if he already knows what pleases him and he can please himself, why am I in the picture? Christine O'Donnell in an MTV interview as reported by the BBC.

The Tea Party Red Herring

On Tuesday, there was a great hue and cry in the United States as the Tea Party swept to victory in a number of primary elections. The Tea Party is touting these wins and a turning point. The pundits are less sure and as a resident, I am moderately curious, so I thought I would do a little research.

First, just what is this organization that calls itself the Tea Party and what do they really stand for.

Well, oddly, it is very difficult to get a handle on them. Unlike most parties, they do not have a leader, so it is very hard to find a clearly spelled out manifesto. Searching their web site one finds things like:

Many people seem to view the Tea Party movement as nothing more than a lot of people who are angry about taxes and government spending, but it goes deeper than that for many of us. We are tired of those things, but even more importantly and to the root is the Federal government's lack of respect and conformity to the Constitution, responsibility to the people, the intended sovereigns of this country, and its intended limited purpose as a small entity to preserve our rights, not to give and take them away with epic, unrestrained power.--An Effective Tea Party

OK. Sounds a little libertarian to me. But then you listen to their candidates.

First, Christine O'Donnell, who had an epiphany and chose to live a life of chastity, according to the Daily Record. She says There's only truth and not truth. You're either very good, or evil. Pretty black and white if you ask me. She became an evangelical Christian and there is no mention of a spouse or immediate family. I do not believe this is the first time a nun has run for office...what? She isn't a nun? Hmm...chaste, life to Christ...seems like a nun to me. But she is not without sin. Seems she has back tax issues and there are questions about her collage education bona fides. I am sure these are trivial though and she has been fully vetted and will be quickly cleared up or explained away. Based on numerous official statements, she supports teaching creationism, gun rights, is opposed to abortion (at least she does not claim to be pro-life) and rejects Darwinism. None of this is a surprise, she is born again. And there is nothing wrong with that per se.

Next, Marco Rubio, the candidate in Florida. March at least has a political pedigree, with time spent in the Florida House of Representatives and is the son of Cuban exiles. So presumably, he gets it. In the interest of fairness, I will point out that he declares himself to be a Roman Catholic. From his own web site he has this to say:

candidates for office should be talking about their conservative vision for our country’s future. --Marco2010

Conservative vision?

In Wisconsin, Ron Johnson won the Republican nomination to go after the US Senate seat currently held by Russ Fiengold. He is such an unknown that the bits on his wiki page are barely dry. In a May, 2010...do I call it a press release?... columnist George Will effused about him. The most basic right, Johnson says, is the right to keep your property.. Johnson is a pro-life Lutheran, [who] will highlight Feingold's opposition to banning late-term abortions. But more importantly, Johnson feels that the real issues is the transformation of American society in a way foreshadowed in fiction. I guess I am going to have to read Atlas Shrugged to understand what he is talking about because it seems counter to what American society is. And certainly, it seems to be counter to the very fundamentals of what the Tea Party claims to stand for.

For years, the Republican party has been fighting to control the hearts and minds of the American public. Their rhetoric has been pro-Business and smaller government, at least on the surface, while underneath, they have attempted to mandate who can sleep with whom, where and under what conditions, and restrict the rights of Americans more tightly than most dictatorships, while at the same time trying to hold up the Constitution as their document of guiding principles.

Now, along comes the Tea Party, arguing for smaller government, less tax, and a society based on the Constitution.

Fine, if you want to base your rhetoric on the Constitution, perhaps you should actually read it. To begin, as was pointed out previously, the Constitution says, in article VI, Paragraph 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Further, if we are going to assume that the Constitution includes the Amendments, all of them, not just the ones you like, then we need to look closely at the First Amendment, which says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You know where I am going with this right? The Tea Party wants to argue that they are in favour of smaller Government, yet the people they are putting up for nomination would like nothing more than to enforce their religious views on those of us that have a Constitutional right to tell them to go pound sand. And this is where I lose my patience with this whole movement. This is nothing more than ultra-conservative, uber-religious people that believe the United States is a bastion of Christianity. And it is not, nor was it ever intended to be.

But let's pretend for a moment that the vast majority of the Tea Party really are opposed to big government. Maybe those same members should enumerate the ways in which big government has helped them everyday. It is a case of let he who is without sin....

The United States has some serious problems, and I am the first to tell you that the Government needs an overhaul on a number of levels. I have covered only a few of them in the years that I have been writing this blog. But if we, as Americans, are serious about holding out elected leaders accountable, should we not actually be electing leaders that know what the issues are? Talking about smaller government is not discussing the Economy. Being born-again will not help improve Health Care. Supporting gun rights does not begin to cover the tough issues of Immigration.

Unfortunately the American voter has a very limited ability to process political information. And the buzz phrases tend to penetrate more than the real issues. Until a gas line breaks, or a levee fails. And then they want to know why the Government did not do more.

But it costs too much...

Over the summer, we heard the refrain from the Republican side of the house that the efforts to extend jobless benefits to those that were still out of work would cost too much money and hurt the recovery efforts. It was opposed because it would cost $34 billion dollars. A substantial amount of money no doubt.

Today, the Republicans are singing the same song about hurting the recovery efforts. Except this time, it will cost an estimated $10 billion, per year, but only if the Republicans do not get their way. You see, the tax cuts for the rich, implemented under Bush II are due to expire, and if the are not allowed to expire, it will cost $10 billion per year, according to some estimates in lost income for the Treasury. But this amount seems to be perfectly reasonable to the Republicans.

I am not sure who has the shorter memory, Democratic voters, Republican voters, or just the average American voter, despite several polls indicating that the majority of Americans are in favour of letting the tax cuts expire. I guess we will find out in November.

Pay Grade?

"Conservatives see her as a kindred spirit who lives her anti-abortion words in the most profound way: by giving birth to a child she knew would be born with Down syndrome. Gun owners see her as authentically one of them: a hunter with a passion for the outdoors and gun freedom." (Yahoo News)

This is not the first time I have asked this question, and I am sure it certainly will not be the last...actually there are several questions here, but let's go with the obvious one first, that being HOW can you possibly support guns and gun rights and be a parent? The logic just stupefies me. I have listened to the rants and the diatribes. Everything from "if you teach them safety they will know not to pick up a gun" to "if just one person had a gun, the carnage would not have been so bad" (yes, my tongue is only slightly in my cheek).

Let's face it, there are several things wrong with today's society that were not the case when the founding fathers set down the Second Amendment. The first is that there are no wild animals out there stalking your lively hood (in most cases). Yes, there has been the occasional report of a bear in urban areas, but you are not likely to be mauled by one. Secondly, you do not need to kill your food. The bacteria living on it is a different issue, but a gun is not going to help you there. I have also heard the argument that they are necessary "should we ever need to over throw the government." If you feel that strongly, I would not advertise it, especially if you have a security clearance as the folks at both the Department of Defense and Homeland (In)security tend to frown on the citizenry holding that Constitutionally protected (?) position.

The other question that is begged here, and really, truly is a personal one, is the whole medical ethics of bringing a child to life that is genetically flawed. I do not mean a minor glitch but Down Syndrome is Mother Nature's way of saying she goofed. Prior to even the last fifty years, a child with messed up genetics would not have survived. We can arge that "every life is precious" and "if it was your child" but there are some hard, root cause issues that have to be addressed, least of which is the costs involved and the morality and ethics of when life begins.

Obama has it right, it is above his pay grade. It is not a decision for the President of the United States to make. He is just one man. It is a decision for the country, and in this case, all of mankind to make. And anyone who thinks differently has not looked at the issue as anything more than a political statement.

Interpreting interpretations.

"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology," Dobson said, adding that Obama is "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter." (CNN)

Ah, I was expecting someone would step into the mess, but I thought it would be someone more radical. Not that Dobson is not a radical.

It is amazing how much the Religious Right want. Take this quote from Dobson: "Evangelicals are people who take Bible interpretation very seriously, and the sort of speech he gave shows that he is worlds away in the views of evangelicals."

Interpretations? If you are going to interpret the Bible, shouldn't you actually read and understand the whole book and not just selected sections or passages that say what you think they should say?

The Religious Right has been trying for years to dictate their view of morality on the population of the United States. And if Obama will not come out and say it, let me. The Emperor Has No Clothes. That goes for Mr. Dobson and the rest of those who follow his leanings.

Why do they get to choose?

Clinton, Romney on Offensive As Pivotal Contest Draws Near By Anne E. Kornblut and Shailagh Murray Washington Post Staff Writers Monday, January 7, 2008; Page A01 HAMPTON, N.H., Jan. 6 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, slipping further behind her chief rival in the Democratic primary here, has taken direct control over her strategy and message as she scrambles to block the ascent of Sen. Barack Obama. (Washington Post)

Could someone please enlighten this poor, lost citizen, why a state with barely a million TOTAL people of voting age (US Census) is suddenly a pivotal state? Even when you add in Iowa, with a voting eligible population of 2 million (of which just slightly less than 10% participated in the vaunted caucuses), that is barely more than 0.1% of the total eligible US population.

So again, what gives? Yes, I understand the rational that if the "little guys" do not get their say so, they would be ignored in the entire process, but I am beginning to wonder if they do not have too much influence over the entire process.

The 2008 elections have been going on since the polls closed and the votes were counted on November 9, 2004. In all that time, the United States is going to select a Presidential candidate based on the opinions of LESS than the population of the Greater Washington Metro area? Neither state could be considered representative and while the primary in New Hampshire might actually be more scientific, statistically it is less important that April numbers are to Major League Baseball statistics. That is to say, nil. A blip on a VERY large chart, barely inside the margin of error, but the candidates are running as if it is the end of the world, and the media is not helping any.

New Hampshire and Iowa has a minimal impact on the Electoral College. Yet, by the time the votes are tallied and the Collage has ratified the results, both of these states will have had more influence than California, New York, Ohio and Florida combined. At some point, the citizens of the United States need to stand up and declare the system broken and begin to get it fixed, or we will continue to get the candidates we did not choose because by the time it got around to being "our turn" the choice had already been made for us.