A Great Movement

'Well behaved women seldom make history.'  -Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

We all know the slogan the president ran his campaign on.  He wants to make America great.  He used this slogan to motivate his supporters and those voters who might have been on the fence on election day.  He rode that slogan all the way to Washington, D.C.  The one thing I don't think he counted on was the populous using their freedom to assemble and showing that this country already is great.  I don't think he realized that those who do not support him can show great movement when motivated to make their voices heard.  

What we have witnessed within the first two weeks of his presidency is what makes America great.  The Women's March throughout the country and the world was a wonderful thing to see.  As a white, straight, man I have it pretty easy.  I don't have much to worry about because it is people that look like me that founded this country and basically run this place into the ground on a day to day basis.  What I was talking to a co-worker about regarding the Women's March is not the fact that these marches were taking place in large cities which is what you would expect, but it was also taking place in small towns.  Not on a large scale, obviously, but it was still happening.  There were a few small towns in Minnesota that had anywhere from fifty to two hundred people march in solidarity.  That is what is great.  From large state and national capitals down to a small research boat in Antarctica we witnessed an organized movement that gave hope to the future.  You saw mothers bringing their sons and daughters out to march.  Grandmothers and granddaughters.  Husbands and fathers marching in solidarity.  These types of actions are important not only for the present, but for the future.  Future generations are witnessing what a motivated people can do.  It can start a conversation in a house that might not always talk about things like this.  It engages the youth and might produce the next generation of politicians or lawyers.  IF this is the case, they'll better than we are.  They will have grown up in an environment that shows empathy as a great tool of being a kind person.    

While the Women's March was inspirational, what I thought was more important were the airport protests over the Muslim travel ban.  It was more inspirational because it was spontaneous.  It was spontaneous and it spread like wildfire.  From what I could tell, it started in New York and slowly spread across the country.  I was going through my twitter feed and I was getting goosebumps watching and reading from people that were there.  People came out in force to protest the president overreaching.  Lawyers were going to airports and working with those detained to try and get many of them through and to reunited them with families.  Many lawyers working pro bono.  After the first night, there were more staged protests at different airports in solidarity.  Slowly, government officials took action.  Calling for a lift of the ban.  Direct action works.  Maybe not instantly, but politicians aren't always fools.  They know how to stay in the good graces of the public.   

The American people are just starting to find their voice.  They are finding that standing up for what they believe to be right and just is empowering.  They are standing in the face of a man acting like a fascist.  Direct action by the people can lead to change.  Besides, if there isn't mass direct action, how are the Nazis that are now in the white house going to recognize that the country is pissed at them?

Scott Walker: Man of the People...For One Day....Kind Of.

So.  Scott Walker.  We need to have a little chat.  Come here.  *Quietly whispering*  Dude, Labor Day is around because of unions.  I don't know if you want to really tweet out Happy Labor Day because, you know, you hate unions. *Walks away*

Happy Labor Day!
— Governor Walker (@GovWalker) September 2, 2013

Not only did I link his tweet, but I want everyone who reads this to read the replies.  Click on the time and date link to see the replies.  Most people that read that tweet understand the irony as they should.  I don't know if he fully understands what Labor Day is all about.  I know that now it's all about summer ending, one last barbecue,  and another sale on furniture.  My favorites were just the ones that said 'fuck you' or something along those lines.

How does he think that was a good idea?  Does he not understand what or where this holiday comes from?   Did he just give the responsibility to some little intern and they thought that it would be a fun little game to play?  I don't know.  I think that with holidays like this one or Memorial Day were established so long ago that people forget why they are around.  They forget that while these holidays do mark the beginning and end of summer, there is a history to them.  And if you are going to be a public figure and do things like break unions, you should probably just stay away from holidays like Labor Day.

Scott Walker isn't an idiot just because of this tweet.  He is an idiot in general. 

Erick Erickson: Worst Person in the World?

Social media is a great thing.  It allows instant access to people's thoughts and feelings on subjects they, and presumably you, are interested in.  It can also get you in a ton of trouble.  There are many sports teams that prevent athletes from going on websites such as Twitter during or directly after games or practices.  It gets written into contracts.  This is a good idea.  There have been plenty that have put their foot in their mouths and have either deleted the tweet or issued a bullshit apology.  Saying that 'your Twitter got hacked' is a horrible excuse for not thinking before tweeting.

At the end of last week, Texas passed House Bill 2 putting harsh restrictions on abortions.  It is since heading to Rick Perry's desk to be signed into law.  If anyone is curious, there was a Supreme Court decision in 1973 which made abortion legal in this country.  It goes by the name of Roe v. Wade.  Anyway, a Right Wing talking head by the name of Erick Erickson tweeted this out not long after the bill passed:

this is the tweet of a sociopath. RT @EWErickson: Dear Liberals, go bookmark this site now: http://t.co/4lpNThqhLI
— Lauren Rankin (@laurenarankin) July 13, 2013

Now let that link sink in for just a second.  Horrible right?  Erick Erickson contributes to Fox News and runs his own website (Redstate.com).  It is one thing to be very excited about something that you believe in getting passed in a state.  I know a ton of people that were happy when DOMA was struck down and when gay marriage was legalized in the state of Minnesota.  It is another thing to taunt those who oppose what you believe in.  And to do so in such a manner is unbecoming.  This guy is a douchebag, straight up.  He revels in his controversial statements and makes fake apologies.

Not long after he tweeted this, it was deleted, but not before people got a hold of it and went ranting and raving against him.  Listen, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life you have to look at this and think 'who the fuck does this?'  Who thinks that it is funny to link a site for hangers after an anti-abortion bill is passed?  Someone that is completely disconnected with not only reality but humanity as well.  

GUNS! (and how to regulate them)

I've debated back and forth in my head whether or not I wanted to write about gun control.  Everyone on both sides of the issue are, for lack of a better phrase, up in arms about it.  As they should be, this is a very touchy subject.  People are very passionate about certain things, and guns just happens to be one of them.  I would rather be writing about same sex marriage or legalization of marijuana or the fact that Spring Training is just several months away, but because this subject is what is dominating the news, this is what is on my mind.  I'm not going to throw out numbers or statistics, just my opinion.  

I grew up in a house with guns.  The main purpose of these guns was for hunting.  A few rifles, a few shotguns, but that's it.  My mom doesn't like firearms of any kind, so when we were very little, they were tucked away somewhere in the house and we had no idea where they were.  Out of sight, out of mind.  They were kept where we physically could not get to them even if we tried.  Dad brought them out once a year to go hunting.  As we got old enough to go hunting, we took our firearm safety class.  We were taught to respect the firearm.  There was also a little bit of fear instilled into our minds that if you did not handle them properly, the end results could be injury or death.  I feel that education about guns of any kind is the first and most important step.  Education and respect.  Along with this education, the gun owner needs to keep an open dialogue with their family.  If you tell someone that they can't touch something like a firearm, their natural curiosity takes over.  And without any knowledge of the firearm that is when you see horrible accidents happen.  

The minute someone put out the word 'ban' along with 'gun' people lost their shit.  Everyone has to understand that a total gun ban will never happen.  With all the money that organizations like the NRA pump into Washington D.C. you will never see an all out ban on weapons.  Ever.  Or a partial ban.  I don't think you will see a ban on assault weapons, which most people are calling for.  The best way to go about any kind of ban is taking a look at clips.  Restricting the size of clips.  And that would be tough to do.  One of the best arguments I have heard is 'what do you need a clip that holds thirty bullets for'?  What are you doing that requires that many?  When a sane answer to those questions is brought forth, I will listen.  Until then, this should be the focus of change.  The rifle I used when I went hunting this fall was my dad's.  It holds four bullets.  I didn't even need all four.  My dad told me 'if you empty that clip, you shouldn't be in the woods.'  And all I did was fire one shot.  It would be difficult to restrict the number of clips people own, so the size of clips is the way to go about it if the politicians want to go with that fight.  For people that want to go to the gun range, you still have your clips, they may just be smaller.  And you still have your firearm.

If restricting the size of the clip wouldn't work because, well, you just never know when you will need those thirty bullets for your semi-automatic rifle, why not restrict the amount of ammunition you can have?  I believe most boxes of ammunition come twenty to twenty five to a box.  That is a standard size, I'm not talking buying in bulk.  Just have a deposit on the bullets much like some states do for cans and bottles.  Once you return all the spent casings, they don't go flying so far from the gun that you would not be able to find them, you can buy a new box of ammo.  And use a database to track who has bought what ammunition.  If you haven't returned the ammo you previously purchased, you cannot buy more.  In order for that to happen, there would need to be a registration of gun ownership.  If you are trying to buy ammo for a gun that you do not have registered under your own name, guess what, you aren't getting the bullets.  Simple as that.  If you have two rifles and three shotguns, all you need is five boxes.  But good luck getting everyone on board with this whole registration thing. 

In the end, you will not find a happy medium.  It is just not possible because the left and the right are too far apart and neither one will compromise on their stance.  Until they get together and hammer out something that people agree on, we will have this debate after every mass shooting.  And that is the unfortunate truth. 

Cut Loose, Have Fun

The presidential nominees were nice enough to do an interview on ESPN before the football game last night.  Here it is.  Now, after watching this if you tell me that Mitt Romney isn't a robot I will call you a liar.  You are on ESPN not at another debate.  Loosen the tie, relax the shoulders.  Barack Obama was having a fun interview, Romney looked like he was trying to still gain voters. 

The part of the interview that I found interesting was the question about what would you change in sports.  It's a fun question because the president doesn't really have the power to change sports...or do they?  Obama takes credit for getting the college football playoff system off the ground because that's what he saw that needed to change.  See, something fun.  Although he did say that he would like to see eight teams, not four.  So you would think that Romney would also pick something fun that the people would rally behind.  Instant replay in baseball, larger courts in basketball, deep house music playing throughout the entire sporting event, something like that.  What does he pick?  Performance enhancing drugs.  Fail.  He gets all serious and whatnot.  Everyone knows that drugs are a problem in sports.  Everyone knows that they will never be out of the sports because every single person wants and needs to find an edge.  Just deal with it. 

Another case of a person being out of touch with the world.  And I'm not saying that it is just Mitt that is out of touch with the everyday people and their sports plight.  If they had asked the vice president and vice president nominee the same question Crazy Uncle Joe would have given a Romney-like answer whereas Paul Ryan would have made some sort of connection to P90X.  Either way, politicians need to find a way to just shut off the professionalism from time to time and have a little fun with interviews.




But it'll never happen.  

Vote, Cause Murrrrrrica!

Tomorrow is election day.  An important day mainly because of the presidential election, but also congressional, senatorial, and local.  I have always felt that the local and state elections are a bit more important because they have a more direct impact on the people.  At the national level, the politicians just argue that the other side of the aisle is wrong and don't get nearly enough accomplished. 

I stand by the thinking that if you don't vote, you cannot complain about the outcome.  Your argument is invalid if you are too lazy to get out of the house one day out of the year and participate in the democratic process.  Whether you vote Republican, Democrat, or third party as long as you do it that is fine.  In 2008 (the last presidential election), the national voter turnout was 61.6 percent.  Looking at Minnesota in that same year, the turnout was 77.8 percent.  In 2004, those numbers are 60.1 percent (national) and 78.4 percent (Minnesota).  Both sets of numbers can be found here (2008) and here (2004).  I did not live in Minnesota those two elections, but living here now, I like the fact that I will be part of a state that has such a great turnout every four years.  The main question I have is with the options we have now, can the turnout numbers start to increase this year?  Options that are out there are include early voting and mail in voting.  You don't even have to leave your house if you don't want to anymore!  

Even if you do not vote for the two major parties, voting third party still gets your voice heard.  That is how you start the conversation to get things changed.  As more and more people get disenfranchised with the parties in power, they turn to the third parties.  Even if these third parties do not get into power, if they continue to get more votes, true politicians will take notice and start to work for these people to bring them back into the fold.  Or at least they should.  That's how change happens, or at least how it should happen.  Bringing change should be the new normal. 

The problem with social media

Remember back in the day when sites like Facebook and MySpace were getting started and it was fun?  Remember when it was just about posting your thoughts, pictures, and funny jokes? Remember when you found out about a party that a friend was setting up because of these sites?  Remember when it was not about stating what companies you like or posting those stupid little pictures with witty statements on them?  Remember when it wasn't about politics?  I miss those days. 

Back in 2004, Facebook was starting to take off.  I was a senior in college.  I wasn't really interested in sitting in front of a computer and looking at what everyone else was doing.  I was interested in, you know, graduating college.  If I had just been starting out in college, I'm sure I would have jumped on the bandwagon.  As it turned out, I had to go back and check this, I started my account two years after Facebook was established.  I have often thought about just up and deleting my account, but there are some good aspects to it. 

Staying connected with family and friends.  The main point is to stay up on the doings of those you care about.  Or at least it was.  Now it's about these stupid little games and sharing other peoples' photos, not your personal pictures you took on a vacation or your plans for the weekend.  I would even take all the stupid personal statuses that are so vague that you know a person is fishing for comments.  You know what I mean.  'I just don't know what to do anymore...'  That kind of thing.  Very junior high-ish.  I stay on Facebook to keep up with family, not to get the most comments on statuses.  I do my best to limit the amount that I share of other peoples' stuff.  Unless it is relevant to me. 

It use to be that there are things you shouldn't talk about at work.  Politics, religion, and sex.  I say 'use to be' these things because that line appears to be gone.  I feel that this guideline should hold true to social media.  Those topics are what drive wedges between friends and family.  Unless you hold the same view, it just gets tricky.  This year we have a presidential election and there are so many links and pictures and 'information' from both sides of the aisle flooding the site.  It's aggravating.  I find myself just rolling my eyes and scrolling to the next story.  It's hard to find actual interaction between people.  I know I wrote about this just a few months ago, but I feel that people just don't understand the problem with it all. 

So after all that, why do I continue to use Facebook?  It's easy to delete your account.  Other than the reasons I have already stated, I keep it because of the past.  I look back at some of the old posts and older pictures that I have been tagged in.  It makes me smile when I go back and look at that stuff.  There are pictures from when I worked on the Island.  From past trips that I have been on.  Times I have spent with friends.  I keep on keeping on because at any time I can go back and remember what Facebook was originally used for.  And I stay on because of this blog.  I link it so family and friends can keep up on my writings.  I know it is few and far between this year, but that happens. 

The Name Game

What's in a name?  Everything.  What's in a name for a sports team?  Even more.  The University of North Dakota's athletic teams use the name 'The Fighting Sioux' and has been met with controversy over and over again.  While there is one side defending the name saying that it honors the Sioux people, the other side says that it is demeaning because they are a people and not a mascot.  The word 'fighting' has been dropped and then picked back up again.  Then dropped.  Then picked back up.  Back and forth, back and forth.  In fact, Sioux tribes are even split with some bands having voted to allow UND to keep the name and other bands voting for them to change it.  In order for the name to be changed, the majority of the Sioux tribes and bands have to vote to change the mascot. 

I went to Central Michigan University for college where the mascot is the 'Chippewas'.  There was some controversy with the name and the helmets of the football team because they had a spear about thirty or forty years ago.  They changed the helmets and all was well.  CMU works closely with the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe and the tribe supports the college nickname and it has to do with that good working relationship the school and tribe have.  In fact, several years ago a member of the tribe was a starter on the football team and considered it an honor to play on a team that used the Chippewa name.  It has to do with the fact that they don't have the spear on the helmet, or a stereotypical white frat boy dressed up as an Indian chief.  In the end, work closely with those you wish to adorn as a mascot and all will be well.  Stay away from stereotyping the mascot and you will look like the good guys.  

For me, the main issue here with UND is the word 'fighting'.  Now, most people will point to the 'Fighting Irish' and say that Irish people don't have a problem with that, but what if it were the 'Drunken Irish'?  How would the the Irish feel about that?  The word 'fighting' indicates to me that this is how the majority of people view the Sioux people.  While historically they are seen as an aggressive tribe and fought the westward expansion and the people taking their land, you cannot tell me that it is okay to take that and use it as part of a mascot name.  Hell, I'd be aggressive towards people who are trying to take my land and place me on a reservation too.  And it's not like their people were ever massacred or anything like that.  While the name 'fighting Sioux' is on the border of being outright offensive, it is not even close to being the Redskins.  That team right there is the worst offender of offensive names.  There is also the Braves and the Indians in professional sports, and while they have been met with some controversy for other things, their names to me aren't as bad as Redskins.  

They do have an Indian head on their hockey jerseys which is also under scrutiny because it is seen as offensive by some.  Looking at the jerseys, it isn't as offensive to me as the Cleveland Indians' mascot that they have on their hats and jerseys.  In fact, it was designed by a member of a Chippewa tribe based in North Dakota.  So there's that.

In the end, it is not tough to say who is right and who is wrong in this situation.  If UND wants the scrutiny to go away, it is not very difficult to take a name away.  I would think that if they dropped the word 'fighting' and just kept the word 'Sioux' most of these issues would go away.  Personally, I think that if a team, professional or otherwise, is going to consider using a people for their mascot they need to work very closely with them and get the approval before moving forward with the name.  I would suggest that UND just drop the name and go with something that is linked with the state of North Dakota, but it's North Dakota.  They don't have a lot to go on. 

It could be worse....

One more little tidbit on the Occupy Wall Street movement then I promise to move on.  And it's not like this is some big lengthy post, it's just a link.  A link to the past and what the occupiers could face if we lived in a shitty country.  Maybe not shitty, maybe if we lived in a more oppressive country.  Yeah, let's go with that. 



Hit it.  And be thankful this isn't the case. 

The new counterculture (part two)

This is the second part of the Occupy Wall Street posts.  Here's the first one.


I like the idea of the Occupy movement but there is something missing in it.  For the longest time, I couldn't put my finger on it.  Then it dawned on me.  It wasn't some great epiphany or in the middle of the night and I shot up in bed with this great idea.  It just popped in my head when I was reading some articles on the movement.  They aren't doing as much as they should be.

It is great that there are so many voices in so many places finding a purpose.  Not only are they finding a purpose, but it is the same purpose.  A unified front speaking out against those they feel have let them down.  Or at the very least, looked down on them from their corner offices and downtown penthouses.  

The movement is great, but you can only say so much before needing to take action.  They must realize that marching in the street, camping night in and night out in a town square, and making funny yet poignant signs can only get you attention.  Going on political talk shows gets the attention that you need, but you need to take that next step and get your voice heard by those who really can make the change you want.  If you are there just to protest that's fine, but if you want actual change, you need to take your anger and your voice and present your case, whatever it might be, to the government.  They aren't going to sit up on capital hill and eventually change the way they do things just because there are protests all around the country.  They can wait it out.

Do I think this will actually happen?  I don't think so.  I know that the thought process behind the movement is that it is suppose to be a leaderless movement.  No one person is the voice of the Occupy movement.  They are a collective voice.  There are local leaders I guess you would call them, but there is not one or two big time leaders, but that is what they need.  They need just a handful of people to meet with lawmakers and get these changes made.  The only way just flat out protesting will get anything accomplished is if it is a violent protest.  With guns.  And that won't happen.  It worked in the Middle East, but that is an entirely different world compared to the one that the Occupy movement is dealing with.  The Middle East protests started violent and used violence to end oppressive and violent regimes.  You can't go from being a non-violent protest movement to taking up arms.  That would be disastrous.


In the end, the important thing to take away from the Occupy movement is that thousands of voices can find a common theme.  And what they say can change the country if they find the right people to lead them.

The new counterculture (part one)

I wanted to break this up into two because I got half way through and realized it would be too much for one post.  I also think it's worthy of two posts just because it is an interesting topic and can be so much more in the end. 

One of the greatest things about this country is in the first amendment of the constitution.  The rights to free speech and the right to assemble.  Since the first movement of Occupy Wall Street took form in New York I have been passively following it just because I'm obviously not in New York and cannot participate.  Occupy Minnesota has been going on for a few weeks, but it has not had the coverage that some of the larger city occupations have gotten.  Mainly because it isn't as interesting as some of the others.  All across the country there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of arrests of protesters for various infractions and at Occupy Oakland there have been violent clashes with the police.  This is just the latest case of violence and I'm sure there have been minor clashes throughout the country and the world.  

I can't help but feel like the occupiers are the new counterculture.  Just like the hippies of the sixties who were out and about protesting the government, Vietnam, civil rights, and whatever else they felt like, those protesters had a voice and a cause and were willing to clash with the government over it.  The occupiers are starting to find that same voice and that same fight.  They have found something they think is worth fighting for, worth getting arrested for, worth getting their skulls bashed in for.  

The occupiers and protesters feel wronged by the top tier (or one percent) of this country and are sick of the greed that they have used to their advantage.  This is where the 'We are the ninety nine percent' theme came from.  Groups of people have unified under one banner that most of us can identify with.  This isn't something that the normal person hasn't thought about before.  Everyone wants to shake their fist at the government in a public place.  They want to be seen, they want to be heard and that is what the Occupy movement has allowed many people in cities throughout the country to do.  New York, Columbus, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Oakland.  It has gone global.  London, Madrid, Melbourne, Berlin.  That's the beauty of the internet within this movement.  It's allowed for worldwide unity against the rich.  

But there is a downside to this movement that I will get into next post.  Before I get into that, I have a quote from Gangs of New York which I think is appropriate for the movement.  'The earth turns, but we don't feel it. And one night you look up. One spark and the whole sky is on fire.'  Just think on that for a little bit.  Absorb the context.  Until the next post.   






Interested in learning more?  Click it. 

Occupy!

The Occupy Wall Street movement has started to spread across the country and it is intriguing me.  It has made it's way to Minnesota.  If you live in the Twin Cities and want to get involved in giving the top one percent the middle finger, here's a link to Occupy MN.

I'm not gonna lie, if I had a job that did not involve a ton of responsibility, I would think of calling in.  But I can't, I need money for bills.  I highly encourage anyone to take up the cause.  It's a great expression of freedom of assembly and speech.  And apparently the Minnesota government is okay with it.  As long as everything is peaceful and doesn't get violent, they're going to let it happen.  Not like the New York cops who pepper spray peaceful protesters.







And you wonder why I hate New York.   

So that happened....

Hank Williams likened Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler today.  No, seriously.  And there are consequences to idiotic statements like getting your song pulled from Monday Night Football.  Sports and politics crossing lines once again.  I want to write how stupid this is, but that's pretty straight forward.  And he did it on Fox News.  But what else would you expect from them?

Now, everyone is right to have their own opinion, but at what point is it okay to go on national television and compare anyone, anyone, to the worst person ever?  I don't care how much you hate someone, there is no one on earth that is in the same level as Hitler.





I just don't get people sometimes.  

Important writings

I have always wanted to write about things that are important to me.  Things like sports, history, a little bit of politics here and there, but there are times when I get half way through writing something and think 'who am I pissing off?'  I giggle a little bit and publish it anyway.  There are so many things that are going on in the world right now that anyone can pick and choose a certain topic and focus mainly on that, but that's not really my thing.  I like to find a topic, write on it once maybe twice, and move on.  Is that bad?  If someone reads something, is there ever any hope for a follow up?  So, here is a quick rundown on some important issues that I would like to explore a little bit more.

Unions

Love em or hate em, unions have their historic place not only in our country, but throughout the world.  Do you enjoy your eight hour work day?  Thank a union.  Do you enjoy working in a safe environment?  Thank a union.  Unions in the late 1800s and early 1900s paved the way for the working world we have today.  However, unions today carry a stigma in this country today because they have a quick trigger finger to call for a strike when negotiating for a new contract and working terms for those that they represent.    

Nationalism

'Merica!  That's why!'  Something that the right wing of the political world is standing hiding behind is the flag.  Well, they stand behind that and scare the shit out of everyone with the thoughts of terrorism.  The one bad thing that has come out of the extreme nationalism that we have seen in the past decade is the Patriot Act.  It's an all inclusive scary act that gives government agencies rights to spy on us.  It is Orwellian, but you all knew that already.  Maybe not as bad as spying on us, but there is more wiggle room for them to do nasty stuff.   

Sports

It seems recently that there are just scandal after scandal in the sports world.  I always want to write about it, but the overkill and over analysis from sportswriters to sportscasters just want me to stay away from the stories.  I really wanted to write about the downfall of The Ohio State University football program (snicker snicker), but I just got so sick of reading and hearing about it that I gave up on writing about it.  

But...you promised

The one thing that has baffled me since I have been old enough to be interested in politics (so, around twenty five or so) is how upset people get when politicians do not fulfill campaign promises.  It's not one political party or the other.  It's all of them.  Republicans, democrats, libertarians, tea party (douche bags), communists, socialists, nihilists.  From the uberconservatives all the way to the far left tree hugging hippies.  Whomever.  It's all of them.  This is a blanket call out on all politicians.  They're the high school boyfriend that promises to bring a condom to the prom after party but 'forgets' to and tries to convince you that it's okay.  Just as long as he pulls out.  Crude analogy, but pretty hilarious.  

If there is one reason to not trust any politician, this is it.  And it's not like they don't try to make some of their promises stick, it's just that everyone expects them to keep all of their campaign promises, which is pretty much impossible.  Especially as divided as the country is today.  The political parties argue in spite of themselves.  They do not have the interest of the people in mind.  All they care about is arguing the opposite point of the other party.

As long as we the sheep people go along with the thoughts that the politicians have our best interests in mind, we will continue to vote for whomever has the best promises.  Or whomever hides behind the flag more.  America!  Fuck yeah!  Grimace all you want, you know it's true.  I will concede that it is difficult to pass legislation through the government when all they do is battle each other. 

But if we can get signs that there is some progress, or at the very least, some efforts to fulfill these promises, you will keep you supporters.  However, if you completely screw the pooch and do not make an effort to get something done, even the smallest promise, you will be cleaning out your desk.  The people are fickle.









That's democracy for you.  And you can thank yourselves, politicians.  You made everyone hate you by being useless.  

Revolution?

Could a revolution take place here in the United States?  Listening to podcasts and reading articles about the protests and the overall revolution that is taking place in the northern part of Africa and in the Middle East has got me thinking if it were possible to happen here.  In order for it to happen, democracy would have to topple and something 'better', politically, would have to come along.  Looking at the reason for all the protests it has to do (generally) with getting rid of a leader that has oppressed their own people for decades.  We already have that issue covered with the twenty second amendment.  So what would we have to protest and revolt against? 

We have it easy living in the United States, thanks to the first go around with the revolution idea.  It helps that they fought a country that was an ocean away.  A revolution could not work here today.  There is too much organization within the government that could stomp out any inklings of a revolution.  The protests we see today here in the US are a joke.  Think about the Tea Party protests. 

*Sidebar* 

Tea Party people are fucking idiots.   

*Sidebar done*

So you have the Tea Party protests a couple of years ago.  Nothing says complete revolution like a bunch of right wing nuts complaining because their party is no longer in power and the new president is trying his best to put the country back together after the previous president screwed the pooch.  Being a democrat is not being a socialist or a communist.  Figure it out. 

I point out these protests by the Tea Party because they are the most recent and are well known to most everyone here.  The problem is that they would all gather for the day, shout random profanities and hold signs saying they hated the president and that he was a commie and a Muslim and was ruining the country and then?  Then they would go back to their homes, cook dinner, go off to bed after being crooned into a state of ignorance by Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh. 

If you want the government to change their thoughts and ideas, is a one day protest going to do that?  No.  If you want your government to listen to what you have to say, is yelling at them from afar going to get your point across?  No.  You want to start a revolution, you need to quite your job and take it on full time.  You need to be willing to march in the streets for weeks at a time.  And having a protest here and there will not work.  Organization is key.  A protest in New York City being held on the same day as one in Dallas or Chicago does not a revolution make.  You need to concentrate your people. 

The scary part of a revolution is death.  Let's face it, toppling a government is not going to be bloodless.  You think some fifty year old conservative is willing to give their life to a cause?  Please.  We are too selfish in this country to even consider it.  Would you be willing to go on a hunger strike in prison like Bobby Sands or Francis Hughes (look them up).  Imagine the pain of not eating for sixty days.  Two months?  Crazy.  Or an even more sever protest, would you be willing to set yourself on fire in protest to your government like Mohamed Bouazizi or Abdou Abdel-Moneim Jaafar?  All of them are martyrs to their causes but are also extreme cases of how hardcore someone can be for what they believe in.   

I know that this topic is pretty heavy.  Revolutions are not fun.  You can talk and joke about them with your friends, but the follow through is intense and insane.  Personally, I am happy to be living in this country for the fact that it is stable and we don't have a leader that will stay in power decade after decade.  No country is ever going to have everyone be happy.  There is going to be dissent and anger towards your government, that is just the way people are.  It allows everyone to complain about something they don't like.   





Besides, if we didn't have dissent and anger, we would have utopia, and who wants that? 

What if...(part two)

*This subject is broken up into two entries.* First entry is here.

Robert Kennedy is one of those 'what could have been' in politics. Granted he had a start on his career, but it could have been so much more. The greatest things that he did was as his brother's attorney general. From taking on Jimmy Hoffa and the teamsters to working with civil rights leaders and activists he was an active AG. More so than the AGs now. Who can name Obama's attorney general? I can't, but I'm not a big fan of politics.

He was on his way to being another Kennedy president and he would have been great. He held his ground on issues that he felt strongly about. His outspoken anti-Vietnam War view may have stopped the conflict four or five years before it actually did. By the time he was running for president, the war was unpopular and he could have had enough support from congress and senate and help from the overall populous to withdraw. On the opposite side of that, it may not have happened because it would have been seen as buckling to Communism. It's not like the Commies won that war. Besides, Communism didn't work out for anyone except Cuba and China, and who cares about them.

Let's assume (for the sake of argument) that he won the presidency in 1968 and got the United States out of Vietnam in 1971. The year is just one that I threw out there, it would be have been two years into his term, a good benchmark. That is four years before the fall of Saigon. Four years of fighting. Four years of lives not lost. That is one big what if. Looking up statistics, it is close to three thousand American lives between the years of 1971 to 1973. Three thousand! It was past the height of casualty rate (1967-1969), but still three thousand. That is a small town in Anywhere U.S.A. If he does that, he wins a second term for getting the country out of Southeast Asia and an unpopular unwinnable war (thanks Mr. Cronkite) and becomes more popular than his brother.

Not only is there an entire new outlook on the Vietnam War but if he was not assassinated, think of the political landscape. If he wins in 1968, you know who is never elected? Richard Nixon. Richard. Freakin'. Nixon. No Watergate, no resignation, nothing like that.

I just like to think about stuff like this and you can think of so many different people and what could have happened if they had never been born, or if someone died, or if they never invented what they invented. So many options and so many people to think about. Try not to stay up too late thinking about it.

A note

A quick little note on the new picture header for my blog.  I have written about this building before, but this is the old Carleton school that was in downtown Wichita.  It is gone now.  They tore it down.  What is there I do not know, I haven't been in that area for quite some time.  But it still depresses me whenever I come across this picture.  

That is all.  

Oh, and we officially have a new president.  That's cool.

quickly now.

just a quick blip.  

If you don't vote, you can't complain.  Plain and simple.  If you don't take part in your democratic right, how am I suppose to value any opinion you have on the next four years?

I can't.

childish politics

Not listening to anything right now, just watching the (possibly) final game of the world series.  Philly is winning four to three right now, bottom of the seventh inning.  As nice and fuzzy as the Tampa Bay Rays are this year, they haven't been around long enough to win the world series.  Sorry guys.  

One of A's co-workers asked her if I liked politics, what with my love of history (and you know, the whole college degree thing).  I don't.  I really don't.  Sure, all the ways they pass laws and bills is interesting, but politicians are so childish when it comes to elections.  It always starts out nice and focused on what each person wants to change or their thoughts on hot topic issues.  And that is fine, that is what it should be about.  But then it just gets nasty and mean.  Mudslinging, top notch mudslinging.  And some may think that that is what politics is about, defaming your opponent to make yourself look better, but shouldn't it be about how they will help or protect the voters' interest?

Politicians remind me of kids on the school playground getting in trouble by the teachers.  They just start naming everyone else for doing something wrong.  

As I listen to clips of McCain rallies and hear the crowd boo anytime they talk about 'that guy', or start hearing the words terrorist or traitor come out of the crowd, I think has this gone too far?  What if some 'patriotic' person tries to harm Obama?  Are they not the terrorist attacking Americans?  That is some scary stuff to think about.