De Bait! De Bait!

Wow, a few months ago I was completely jaded and had completely lost all interest in this presidential election; my how the tides have turned! First, there were the VP picks; both of which piqued my interest and renewed some faith in the whole process for me. Now, we have the seasoned Senator actually calling to cancel…er, ahem, I mean, postpone the first of three presidential debates (not to mention the canceling of the VP debate altogether, but I’m not even touching that mess). It’s all crazy right?

Well, I don’t know. In my humble opinion, it might just be genius. Really, if McCain can convince the American public that he is genuinely taking an “above politics” approach then he might just reel in a new crop of supporters; I’m just not sure how many Americans are biting on this tactic. I fear for the old man, that many will view it with complete derision. It’s a lovely sentiment and whatnot, but really I think the majority of Americans want a President that is capable of a little multi-tasking.

Anyway, I know I’ve been a negligent blogger, and I have so much more churning on this one as well as the bailout / economic situation disaster that we’re in; however, I’ve just too much to do in too little of time these days. Ugh, okay, I can’t sign off without saying a little more…It’s unlikely that the calamitous state of our economy is going to improve through hurried legislation. This bailout biz is a train wreck for the general public. Actually, perhaps there’s an even more applicable analogy; it’s a band-aid for a situation that needs a far more in-depth treatment plan. I don’t know about the rest of you (I certainly welcome your thoughts on it all), but I don’t trust such an exorbitant amount of money in so few hands.

I implore everyone to be actively involved in your political choices though. Read the news. Watch the debates (when they happen). Etc. With regard to the bailout I urge you to read a little something from the Campaign for Liberty peeps.

On a friendly note, I also wish you all a fantastic weekend!

What's in a name?

Really, I hate to argue with the bard, but would a rose by any other name still smell as sweet? It seems to me that humans are an easily influenced bunch…

Just trying to avoid work so catching up on some reading from a couple of my favorite spots. Right now, it’s Ben Smith. Ben reports on a recent poll by the True Patriot Network which found that more Americans (of the ones polled) find McCain patriotic than do Obama.

I don’t have much time, but I wonder if perhaps the people polled have confused “patriotic” with “jingoist”. While they might often be cross-referenced as synonymous, they really are not. Clearly one of the two is sweeter than the other.

Anyway, just bored, and I am anxiously awaiting the Senator’s VP pic…I’m aware this does not make my life sound very exciting, but I don’t care. For what it's worth, I think he's leaning Romney, but I'm a bit intrigued by Ridge (not to mention a bit sad I missed him in my initial top 3).

Stupid is as stupid does

So, I wasn’t even sure that I was going to share the following little convo and my thoughts, but then as I was perusing the news articles on Yahoo’s homepage yesterday this one prompted me to go ahead and write about it. Upon finishing, I think it’s only fair to hop back up here and offer a little fair warning of wandering and turning a tad tangential…nothing out of the ordinary there ;)

As I’m sitting with someone she says to me, “You know what I’m sick of?”

I presume this is rhetorical, but the pause is actually a tad too long so I say, “Stupid people?” This is usually what I am ‘sick of’ so I assume it’s a decent guess. It’s not that I think I’m a genius per se, quite to the contrary really; however I am confident that a fair number of the people I come into contact with on any given day are intellectually lacking, and that I actually fair well-enough. I recently read somewhere that with regard to national average IQ the U.S. ranks 18th. I suppose that isn’t too terrible, but really given our purported measures toward educational success and higher learning it seems a less-than-impressive ranking.

Anyway, I digress…it turns out that was exactly what she was sick of; however, she was using a rather biased means to identify said “stupid people”. She said (and maybe I shouldn’t be using quotes because this may not be verbatim – close though), “YuhhYES! I am sooo sick of stupid people. These idiots that live near me have a ton of election signs in their yard, but the only reason they have them is because they are the most “Christian” candidates. Ask them about their platforms, and they know nothing. I don’t understand why it is that religious people vote for someone just because they share the same religion? It’s stupid.”

Me, “Ouch, wow! You realize that’s a rather judgmental remark that not only implies that people with a belief system are stupid, but it also implies that it is somehow wrong or stupid for their beliefs to impact the way that they vote?” Her response was something like, “Well, you know I don’t get the belief thing, and honestly it is a bit stupid to let it decide your vote…separation of church and state...”

Me? Well, I just rolled my eyes. “Church and state” – I’ll get back to that. For now let me offer the following reminder: I think that everyone that knows me also knows that I’m not really sure what I believe with regard to an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, eternal creator. I can tell you that what I do believe in is the practice of respect for other people’s faith and practices, and that is what I said to her. To discredit someone based on their faith is just as bad as discounting them because of their race or gender. Now people that present as pseudo-religious? The ones that are lacking compassion, good works…the ones that purport a commitment to their faith but really never live it? Those are the people that I find difficulty in acknowledging or respecting their belief system, but I wouldn’t really expect them to vote for anything or anyone simply out of religious allegiance; however the people in possession of a full-on commitment to their faith? Well, that I can respect, and those are the people that I presume will allot for their religious beliefs to have some influence when making their political decisions. To do so isn’t “stupid”.

Faith is about the spiritual, the way we live our lives, treat each other, etc. Politics are about the temporal, taxes, legalities, etc. It is altogether asinine to think that, for a devout religious practitioner, there is no intersection between faith and politics. If religious faith functions as a means to delineate what is right or wrong, to clarify what goodness is how could someone in possession of a truly meaningful communion with God completely divorce Him from his/her voting decisions? The person could not.

Where is that line though? The one she mentioned as separating church and state? Well, don’t you think that when developing our government, the U.S. looked at the troubled history of Europe and her religious wars as a warning? I think that while it was expected that politicians would be religious and religious philosophy would inform their decisions, the Founders’ view was also such that we would be a nation that had faith but one that kept doctrinal disputes out of the political sphere. I don’t know…My knowledge is limited, but it seems people that are almost anti-religion fall back on that “Church and State” thing without really knowing anything about the Founders’ intent for our nation.

So (“so” the fall-back segue of a tired and lazy writer – forgiveness asked), ultimately I think it's far from “stupid” for a person to consider their faith when deciding what policies to favor, provided that when considering policies that are going to apply to everyone, to figure out how to justify those policies to people with different faiths or none. My partner in conversation was fairly adamant that there was not a way to interweave the two and still be within appropriate political “rights” or limits. She was insistent that in allowing one’s faith to impact one’s politics that the person of faith was forcing a personal religious agenda onto others. I had to disagree, and I think that it disappointed her. You see, people both atheists as well as those that have a strong belief system, are often quick to make assumptions about a person such as myself. They assume that because I do not attend a church or profess my commitment to a specific religion that I am simply an atheist; the soul, the heart, the mind, the spiritual, et. Al. is not so simple, and you should never assume unless you are prepared to listen to me drone on and on. I certainly don’t think she was prepared, but I addressed the following anyway (what can I say I get a little indignant when anyone is being attacked?):

If we’re talking about Christianity, the truest message there is one of love, forgiveness, compassion, intended to be spread through witnessing, not force. I like to think of witnessing as different than proselytizing, even more so since reading a book my friend recently loaned me. The authors, in addition, to presenting a thorough, fact-based and quite convincing argument for the resurrection of Christ also address the appropriate means to share His message. Again I can respect the person of faith that attempts to share his/her beliefs in a way that is also respectful of others, one that is free of coercion, force, trickery or disrespect. When shared and acted upon correctly the person of faith is also then still recognizing our free will. And isn’t free will, a preservation of our liberty what we’re really making our political decisions for? Even the believer of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, eternal God should vote contrary to anything that would demolish the freedom of individuals to live under the umbrella of liberty so if they are in keeping with this mindset I don’t see how a little intersection of faith and politics is “stupid” or a problem.

Enjoy the weekend peeps! I intend to :-)

How I Came to Love Ron Paul: The Story of a Self-proclaimed Libertarocrat Turned Republican Supporter…well, at least of one Republican anyway

I've been voting for 10 years now and have only voted outside of the Democratic or Libertarian parties twice. One of those times is irrelevant for this story, and the other is of course, in this election season's primary. What possessed me, the girl that everyone assumes is a hardcore liberal simply because she's the product of lower-middle class, single-parent household and lives as an enviro-friendly vegetarian with two gay best friends and a fondness for diversity and tolerance of it, to vote for a Republican? Well, it all started January 9th, in a simple conversation that I was having to become reacquainted with an old friend. We were exchanging pleasantries when he asked me, rather out of the blue, who I was voting for in the presidential election.

Now, ordinarily I don't care to discuss politics or “hot-button” issues with someone that I want to get along with as I am all-to-aware of my own ability to become aggressive and/or defensive. I recalled this kid as being one of the nicest boys I knew though, it was just on-line, and I was bored at work so I said to myself, "why not?", and acquiesced. My reply was basically that it was still too early for me to say, that I felt, often you don't get to see the best or ugliest until it was closer to election time, that admittedly I hadn't researched enough detail yet to make a final decision and was aware that I needed to get on it, but with that said, I replied that I was leaning toward Obama. Well, little did I know that my friend was/is one of the largest Ron Paul supporters out there, nor did I know what a gift he has for setting you up just take you down. Yep, he baited and I bit; the boy only asks who you're voting for and why so that he may then offer up reasons as to why your choice is not a good one, and that really there is only one sound choice: Ron Paul.

He inquired, "why do you like Obama?" I responded that for starters: 1.) I worked in healthcare and could find things that I liked in his plan and 2.) I liked where he stood in foreign policy with respect to the war in Iraq. I mean, his health plan wasn't nearly as extravagant as Hillary's, and I liked his proposed changes for private companies. He opposed the war and proposed a fairly quick return of troops. I said my friend has a gift right? Here is why I believe that he does: at this point he could have just criticized me, told me why I was wrong, etc., but instead he took more of an, "uh huh, I see," approach and proceeded to explain that there was only one person that he could comfortably and in good conscience vote for because there was only one person that was a true adherent of the Constitution, a pursuant of liberty, freedom....Ron Paul.

Of course, he wanted to know my thoughts on the man, and all I could offer was that I knew very little other than that I thought he was a proponent for homeschooling, something with which I had concerns. A litany of reasons as to why Ron Paul is awesome was delivered quickly, and I found myself promising to research him as a viable option for my vote before deciding on anyone. Never let it be said that I am close-minded because I am always open to research and to learn. Not only did I proceed to read pretty much everything on www.ronpaul2008.com I also looked for newspaper articles and political commentary on the man. I was enthralled with much of what I was reading, as there was quite a bit that I agreed with, and I'm pretty sure my friend knew it was happening as he just continued to nudge more Ron Paul my way. I was coaxed into watching ridiculously long clips from YouTube on the Federal Reserve, from which I was inspired to write a blog that sent my collective group of heavily left-leaning friends into a frenzied mess. Honestly, it threw me a bit off-kilter as well but was welcome as I had been suffering from a bit of apathy toward writing, something I once loved. Never did I expect to actually be wooed by a Republican, but Dr. Paul has his ways.

I bought and read Freedom Under Siege and fell even more smitten with this little Constitutionalist as he truly seems to always stand his ground. It's not Obama's foreign policy or healthcare plans that I agree with; they're Ron Paul's. The man acknowledges our obscene overspending and wants to stop it. He refuses to treat the Constitution as a simple piece of antiquated paper, open to interpret as we see fit. His diligence and strict adherence to his beliefs and to the Constitution move me, and it turns out that he's not so far off from many of the Libertarian ideals that I have often agreed with over the years. He speaks with honesty about limiting a big government that has far overstepped its prescribed role and about restoring our personal freedoms as they were intended to be protected in the first place.

The more Paul I read, the more I liked, and the more of everyone else I read, the more I disliked and identified them as trespassing against the Constitution. With Ron Paul there are no surprises; his policies and future actions are found in one place. Any reluctance or hesitance? You need only look at his voting record. The man does not waiver. What about the rest? Well, they will pander and weave whatever story they think the public is buying. James Madison once said, "Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." James Madison = founding father and soothsayer ;-) I decided that I no loner want anything to do with this bastardized form of government and that I would seek to only further advance my knowledge of Ron Paul and what he stands for.

I desperately wanted to hear Ron Paul speak, and I wrote the following to my friend in explanation as to why I would very much like to go with him: “I would like to listen (in person) to someone that impresses me with his ability to recognize that not all human problems are capable of solutions (at least not via government solutions), that resists unnecessary government spending (especially given the current state of our economy), that holds a watchful eye over big Washington power, that I can respect for his faith even if I don't fully grasp it and respect even more for what seems to be the ability to know there is a point where religion and politics simply do not mesh, that promotes self-reliance and cultural pluralism and most of all freedom.” Ron Paul did not disappoint; if anything I like him even more. Previous viewings of his speeches and debates had left me wondering just how personable he was and whether or not he was a very good speaker. Concerns were put to rest on Friday night as I listened to him deliver an excellent speech, peppered with humor and filled with a more than personable demeanor. It was an absolute honor and delight to hear him speak and to share in the company of approximately 1500 other impassioned Ron Paul supporters. I thank my friend not only for taking me but for introducing me to someone that is truly the kind of candidate I can support.

What’s not to love about Ron Paul? He favors sound money, non-interventionist foreign policy (keeping our tax dollars here), increased trading and friendly interaction with other nations, personal responsibility, repealed income tax, free market healthcare, small government, personal freedom and so on…:-) I encourage you to consider not only his platform but his level of respectability: he is consistent, and he doesn't take money from criminals like the other three big names in this race as they are all guilty of business with the likes of Soros, PACS and Goldman Sachs.

I believe that he means what he says as voting actions speak louder than any campaign propaganda. An administration headed by Ron Paul would result in a better United States, one much more economically stable and in healthier relationship with the rest of the world. Current administration and our ballot choices take a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world. I’m tired of it, and I will not vote for someone just because he is the lesser of two evils. I will wear my Ron Paul button. I will help spread his message of freedom and liberty, and I will vote in November the same way I did in February.

The Constitution is the sine qua non to a healthy U.S., and Ron Paul is the only candidate that knows this. In closing I leave you with a commercial whose Haloesque animation I sincerely enjoy in addition to the content as well as some words from Barry Goldwater that seem as though they could just as easily be spoken by Ron Paul today; truly great ideas and principles do not expire:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hK4BzVsAgtY



"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom." - Goldwater

I eagerly await my copy of The Revolution: A Manifesto.

Damn it feels good to be the cop that knows a gangsta…or the mayor, or the gov, or the President (an encore post)

Originally posted on My Space March 16, 2008. As just stated in the post prior to this you will receive a shiny brand new something or other, original for Blogger tomorrow or later in the week. Thanks for your patience in the interim. This will be new for some peeps anyway.

Okay so I know that I said my next blog would be on healthcare, and trust me it’s coming. Right now it’s hitting a little too close to home, and I just don’t have it in me. Additionally, I promise sometime I’ll blog during the day when my thoughts are more cohesive, and I can write with clarity. Sorry, you’re just going to have to deal with another mess for now.

Tonight, I finally watched American Gangster. You know the one with the unfortunate-looking Denzel Washington portraying the real-life character of drug lord Frank Lucas. It was a long but entertaining movie that has inspired me to indulge in a little War on Drugs complaining tonight, and I hope it will help to tire me out soon as I have a 4:30a.m. wake up call tomorrow (blerg!)

Now, let’s see what was I thinking as the credits rolled…mmm, Denzel is a good-looking man…um, the War on Drugs is as backwards now as it was then…

Not only does the "War" on Drugs undermine our fundamental civil liberties, but there are very few public policies that have negatively impacted public or societal health to such a degree as this so called war. Were Foucalt alive to see this mess he’d probably say it was a biopolitical war. The War on Drugs is a war started by the Government against its own people.

The War on Drugs is the botch job of countless politicians and an utter waste of taxpayers’ dollars. Public health problems like Hepatitis C and HIV are only escalated by laws that restrict access to clean needles. US-backed aerial fumigation of drug-growing operations in third world countries is causing the deterioration of an already fragile environment, not to mention the direct negative health impact the fumigation has on the inhabitants of those areas.

Social concerns include the costs associated with funding a War on Drugs. Like any actual war it is pricey. It was estimated that in 2005 after factoring in incarcerating drug law offenders, police protection, legal adjudication, etc. that $45.5 billion was spent on the War on Drugs. Drug prohibition also inflates the cost of drugs, leading users to steal or harm to support their high priced habits. Additionally the War on Drugs plays a negative role in society with its seeming promulgation of racial inequities in a country where minorities still face discrimination. How so? African American and Latino groups are stereotyped as the big drug lords when let’s be realistic: the big drug lords are oft the White House backed corporations that supplied Central American countries with the materials necessary for manufacturing narcotics, not the 14 year old slinging crack (he’s small potatoes.) This War is yet another means for the government to further separate people from each other and from their liberties. Shamefully, the War is causing a vicious cycle that will only be perpetuated in the children of inmates; inmates serving time for distributing marijuana, cocaine, non-prescribed pharmaceuticals, etc. Those children are at risk of educational failure, joblessness, addiction and delinquency.

You would think that we had learned our lesson with alcohol prohibition, but no; here we sit idly by while the government forces a non-Constitutional prohibition of drugs. I’m not saying that I promote all drug use. Admittedly drug abuse is bad, but the drug war is worse. Illegal drugs foster speciously high profits that fund groups such as the Taliban and other similar groups involved in civil warfare across the globe. Despite its opium sales funding their war against the U.S. we still offered somewhat of a reward to the Taliban to abate some of its poppy fields. What is wrong with that scenario? Puhleeze, I only have so much time here before I must attempt slumber.

So what was I saying? Oh yeah, drug prohibition is a Constitutional no no, and since its start has only succeeded in an increase of drug use in all categories. Just for fun though let’s look at marijuana. Once thought in the U.S. as a drug used only by Mexican immigrants and a handful of musicians, since the first hindrance of its availability and use in 1937, it is noted in some places to be used by up to 50% of our nation’s youth at least once. (1937 is when the government passed the Marijuana Tax Act to curb distribution / use of marijuana.) Again, this is a misuse of government. Specifically though, I am concerned with the federal government regulating medical marijuana. Legalization of medical marijuana is a states’ rights issue. The federal government doesn’t have a constitutional foot to stand on when it comes to this issue.

I would like to see us venture away from the War on Drugs and into a world of Harm Reduction. Harm Reduction is rooted in the following tenets: 1. people should not be punished for what they put into their bodies and 2. people should only be punished for crimes committed against others. It acknowledges that no society will ever be free of drugs. It holds that drug policies should seek to reduce the negative consequences (principally death, disease, crime and suffering) of both drug use and the policies themselves.

Okay, seriously I am tired, but there is so much more to say. I didn’t even get to start on the benefits of medical marijuana...another time perhaps. Sometimes I wonder if it’s worth it anyway. I love you people, but why do I waste my time sharing my thoughts to only have 29 of you read them? Then again, I guess none of you asked so really I can’t complain. Thanks to those that venture into my late night jumbles.

More info (not that it's all perfect either):
War on Drugs Basics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs
Money Spent http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm
Harm Reduction http://www.harmreduction.org/