The Surprising Problem with Trump's Speech

Like many people, I steeled myself and sat down to what was expected to be another night of complete insanity at the Republican National Convention. I mean for the past several days, we've had near violence break out over a sign that said "No Racism. No Hate." We've heard people called Satan, criminal, and seen discrimination come to epic heights. Putting Trump on the stand was guaranteed to take us to a whole new level.

Except it didn't.

Now don't get me wrong, I hated the speech. I was insulted when he claimed he would protect the LGBTQ community from external threats, especially while the Republican platform had its most anti-LGBT platform in history. I felt that there was, in fact a new level of pandering from Trump. But beyond that, the biggest problem with Trump's speech, is that it sounded good.

I don't mean good like Martin Luther King. I mean good as in it appealed to some sort of emotional self-preserving side that exists in all of us. He didn't fall back on lies. In fact, it may have been one of his most honest speeches yet. Most of his facts were actually real. For once, he didn't draw violently divisive lines. He didn't get angry. He didn't go off the rails.

And that is terrifying.

As I re-read the speech this morning, Britain flashed before my eyes. Here were all the exact same arguments that got people voting for the Brexit. Putting ourselves first. Stop trying to support the world until we fix home. Save the lower class. Make our country great again. Some baser part of my instinct wanted to nod along with the idea of roads and bridges that were actually modern. Jobs given to people who needed them. Crime being lowered.

And therein lies the problem. Much like we saw in the UK, Americans can easily want all of the things that he's talking about. We want everything to be better. And it is really easy to say that the only reason we're not reaching our potential is because of those "other" people. Yes, focus here first. That makes sense. It doesn't even matter that 90% of what he talked about doesn't fall to the President to make changes on. It sounds good.

Humans have an intrinsic need to feel good about themselves. It's easy to think: "My problem isn't me, its that circumstance, or that person working against me." "Leave me my gun so I can be in control of my safety." "Let me spend my own money instead of giving it to some bureaucrat to make decisions over." "Let me make my street safe before I worry about another country."

The problem is that while all of this sounds wonderful, it's false. The world doesn't exist in a series of separated city-states. That age has passed. Our world is too large and too connected to live in a bubble. Attempting to build walls to separate us, and choose who is "good" and who is "bad" only makes it so that we're isolated from a world that we need as much as it needs us. America has some of the most diverse resources in the world, and yet we're still not a self-sustaining country. We need trade. We need allies. When something is unstable in the world, ignoring it will only allow it to spread. And yes, that means eventually spread to us in our magic bubble. Ask Europe about how staying isolated works when an actual threat is looming.

"Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo..." This statement got a lot of cheers. Close the borders to "bad" people. Only trade with people who do what we want. These themes resonated again and again. America First. The United Kingdom said the same thing. They're regretting it already, and little has actually gone into effect yet. History shows us it doesn't work. Fact tell us this is a false sense of security.

But it sure sounds good.

Let's hope as this election cycle continues, we can break through the sound bytes and realize what all these great sounding things would actually do to us in the long run, before it's too late.

Senseless

I had literally written an entire post for today, and then ended up deleting the entire thing. Perhaps it was Facebook's Safety Check sending my 30th update of the day as my friends checked in one by one to say that it was ok. Maybe it was Donald Trump's celebratory tweet, or maybe it was the incredibly thoughtful posts that so many of my friends, both within the LGBT community and without have been spreading around. Likely it was a great combination of these things that made me feel that my thoughts were too clinical, and in some ways far too nice.

I am tired of these tragedies. This one hit closer to home for me than anything since 9/11. People are calling this attack senseless. It's a phrase thrown around a lot, and seems so full of sympathy. "This was simply senseless." This shooting was tragic, but it wasn't senseless. In fact for us to say it's senseless belies the truth of the situation. The truth in which too many people in this country have said "this is ok."

This shooting was a targeted attack. It was both an act of terror and an act of hate. This man came into a space that for so many people was one of the only places they felt free and safe to be themselves, and he deliberately attacked them. Over 100 people were attacked by this man. It wasn't a crime of passion, it wasn't in the heat of the moment. It wasn't senseless. He knew exactly what he was doing, and what he'd hoped to accomplish. And he did it well.

The main problem is that in many ways, what he did was ok to a lot of people. Look at the Lt. Governor's tweet about us reaping what we sow. Trump's call for more anti-Islam hate. Hell look a bit closer to home, where the Governor of Florida had signed into law a bill that stripped all adoption rights from LGBT individuals, because they "weren't fit to be parents."

When our elected officials are allowed to do things like this, they are being allowed to set the stage for what just happened. You can't constantly say that someone is less than someone else without also diminishing their basic humanity. I'm sure that Omar (the suspected shooter) didn't feel like he was killing real people. He'd been led to believe in his hate, that they were something else, they were "the enemy." This happened to the LGBT community. But we set the stage for it to happen to a lot of different people. Being different can't be equated with being lesser. One religion isn't right or wrong. One race isn't good or evil.

This Presidential election season has shown that we allow our hatred for things different to run deeply. So few people were able to converse about facts and issues without demonizing the opposition. Sometimes violence occurred. In terrifying instances, it was encouraged. Candidates were not called on just their issues, but who they were. Their sex, their age, their families. It's all the same thing. Anytime we allow someone to be cast as something less than equal, we open the floodgates, and I want to see them slammed shut.

I am overwhelmed at the support and emotional posts that people are spreading, and I hope to see them continue. I hope that as this news cycle ends and this terrible story starts to fade into the background, that we can continue to support ideals of hope and humanity instead of divisiveness and hate. Maybe then we can have less of these acts that we have to claim are so senseless to make ourselves feel better.

State of the... Union? Part I- Black and White

Obama addressed this in his most humble moment in the speech saying that, “It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency – that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better. There’s no doubt a President with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better bridged the divide, and I guarantee I’ll keep trying to be better so long as I hold this office.” It's important to note that he rightfully doesn't call out the Republicans. He calls out himself, and the nation as a whole. This is important, because it shows the truth of the situation. 

Last night we saw President Obama make his eighth and last State of the Union address. As promised, it was different than most, particularly being notably shorter and focusing more on the big picture than individual policy mandates. This was a strong choice in many ways, especially given that this kind of speech is what got America on board with Obama back in 2004. Now there's been a lot of commentary on the speech, and I have little desire to add my voice to that great ocean. What I'd rather discuss is the issue lightly brought up, but profoundly impacting the night: our political parties.

Before the speech even began, news commentators spent a lot of time talking about the nature of the room: it's potential hostility given the decrease in Democrats over the last several years, and Paul Ryan's role in the night. In his first year as Speaker, he received a lot of critique on his responsibilities. He joked beforehand that he'd worked on his poker face. As the speech began, the room did almost exactly what you expected. The Democrats looked engaged, the Republicans bored. Like most of his fellows, Ryan clapped a total of 4 times that I noticed, all on issues that had nothing to do with actual policy. When the speech wrapped up, the commentators said that these days you pretty much only get applause from the President's party, and that despite the nature of the speech, not much changed in that regard. They also said that questioning and polling showed that if you were an Obama supporter, this was lauded as an incredible speech, and if not it was a complete failure. No real middle ground was found.


The last few years have been some of the least productive congressionally. The reason is simple: our party-line voting has gone off the charts. Whatever divisiveness we worked hard to build up against each other during Bush has become finely honed over the last decade. Compromise is a thing mostly only mentioned as an afterthought when something fails. "Well, they wouldn't compromise...," etc. Reading Facebook political posts show that voters are no different. Lay down almost any issue, and the reactions are always split by party affiliation.

What's most terrifying to me is that even the truth can be changed via party lines. Hilary has great examples of this. She either broke the laws with emails, and lied about Benghazi, or both were hyped up farces. Which you believe will almost exclusively be based upon party lines. The problem is that only one is true. Now I can't claim to be in the field enough to know what actually happened in those scenarios. What I do know is that only one can possibly be true. When political arguments try to change the nature of facts, everyone loses.

Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were some of the most politically divided individuals in our nations history. And yet, during their time, they were still able to build a nation. The reason wasn't because they could agree on everything- or much of anything for that matter- but because they were able to ultimately find common ground, and compromise. As Obama stated, "...democracy does require basic bonds of trust between its citizens. It doesn’t work if we think the people who disagree with us are all motivated by malice, or that our political opponents are unpatriotic. Democracy grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise, or when even basic facts are contested, and we listen only to those who agree with us."

Hamilton and Jefferson didn't have Fox News and MSNBC to closet themselves in. They didn't have thousands of sites for them to re-read their own opinions back to them over and over. They had to look at their own sides, and then LOOK AT THEIR OPPONENT'S and see if and when the common ground could be met. Where there could be give and take. It allowed for there to be voices, but for the country to still be... united. They helped build a union that doesn't look much like one today. We have created two separate realities for ourselves. We're all black and white. It's all one way or all the other.

We can't do the hard work of fixing this nation unless we first are able to look at each other's worlds, and realize that they're actually one in the same. There isn't just black and white. There's AT LEAST shades of gray. In all reality there's a whole lot of colors. As they say, the first step is simply recognizing that we've got a problem. Then, maybe we can get about to fixing it.

Hamilton I - Write Like You're Running Out of Time

Sometimes we see or hear something that moves us to inspiration. In the musical, "Hamilton," Lin-Manuel Miranda evoked powerful thoughts with both words and images. As such, this begins a series of thought posts derived from the show:

Writing. A single word that contains one of the greatest assets humanity has ever achieved. Its expression has shown us many of our greatest heroes and geniuses throughout history. Hamilton was one of those. His modern rendition says he "wrote like he's running out of time." Like so many others, the power of the written word was his greatest strength. It was through writing that he was able to truly help shape the nation. The power of writing exemplified.

Without writing we would have no true history, our ability to pass knowledge from one generation to the next would be limited to the words of our immediate elders. As society has advanced, so too has our writing. The printing press made our words extend to more and more people while advances in transportation allowed our words to reach the furthest corners of the world. The modern world took that to unprecedented heights with the advent of the internet.

The worldwide web created the ability for our words to be shared with the entire world in an instant. Our private correspondence can be shared with loved ones thousands of miles away without delay. The writing we want to share with the public can now be broadcast far and wide without cost and with unlimited range.

Such advancement has changed the very fabric of our communications, and yet the speed at which our writing has progressed over the last few decades has left us with little time to catch up. So many tools, so many places where the written word can be seen, and yet the question that must be asked, is what do we do with them?

In the time of the USA’s Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton made a name for himself almost exclusively through his writing. He wrote to support his own advancement then used that same skill on letters of entreaty to support the Revolution. When our country was being formed, he wrote thoughts into law, and then wrote essays and “papers” to garner support for the government being created, most notably with the Federalist Papers. Some say that he even wrote much of his own political downfall with the Reynolds Pamphlet.  Literally thousands of papers were written by this man and read by a nation in need of his words.  But what would all this look like if he lived today?

One of the greatest benefits to the technology of the written word today is our access to near unlimited amounts of information. Unfortunately, this is also one of its greatest weaknesses.  With access to so much information, it becomes that much harder to ensure that any single piece is read. Thoughts stream into the web in blogs, blurbs, and statuses and we are left with the nearly impossible task of sifting through it all. 

Technology has of course attempted to assist with this. We can use apps to feed us updates from specific sites of our choosing. Facebook works hard to show us things trending that also match our interests. But does this actually aid us or simply make it worse. Humans by nature are drawn to those who are most like us. Given the overwhelming amount of information available, it is easy to feel like all of the world agrees with us, despite the fact that we’re only accessing a select amount of the writing that exists. Our ideas more easily feel like facts that can become beliefs. Our bubbles can continue to get smaller and smaller without any real conscious effort. As such, even as our access to it increases, writing that moves us to an action that we otherwise wouldn’t have taken becomes more and more rarely read.

That doesn’t even touch upon our seemingly never-ending pursuit of the fastest and yet most exciting type of information… but that is a greater topic in an of itself. The fact of the matter is, that even the greatest writers face great challenges in having their thoughts and ideas brought to the fore. Even as a I write this- inspired by Hamilton’s passion and talent for writing- I am subtly aware that though billions of people in the world will have access to my words, only a handful will read them. Less will embrace the thoughts within them, and even less will be spurned into any sort of action.

Can a small voice be heard in a crowd of so many? One has to wonder how many geniuses are unheard through all the noise in the world. How many ideas and thoughts that could change the world are written into being only to be unseen amongst the deluge of the masses? Does the knowledge of this nearly insurmountable hurdle hold us back from “writing like we’re running out of time?” The idealist in me would like to think that it’s not so, but as I look back at my own history, and those of so many writers I know, I feel that the weight of making our word heard can certainly have its effect on us.

Is there any remedy to this conundrum? Is there a way for the Hamiltons of the future to make their mark with their writing? Is there a way for them to sway us with the power of the written word? Perhaps the answer is as simple as continuing to encourage as much reading and writing as we can. Perhaps society will adapt in a way that makes use of our tools without losing out on the brilliant thoughts of the individual.

Vanishing Capitalism in the name of Capitalism

Today, Arianna Huffington posted one an article that made me especially thoughtful. For the last several years, Americans have felt the pain of the shockwaves created by some sizable problems in the financial sector. What Arianna brings to light goes far beyond Wall Street however.

Amid all the arguments made, this particular quote stuck out to me: "Thirty years ago, top executives at S&P 500 companies made an average of 30 times what their workers did -- now they make 300 times what their workers make." Now, I am all for the American Dream, and the belief that people should be able to rise to whatever heights that they can bring themselves up to, but 300% more than the people that do the work to make you successful? That means if the average worker is bringing in $40,000, their execs are making TWELVE MILLION dollars! The imbalance there is stagering.

Before I go to far, let me say that I totally value the worth of being in charge, and having the responsibilities that executives and business owners have. Being in charge means that you carry the biggest responsibility. You are responsible for the company, its image, and the people who work for you. That's a lot to carry around, and certainly one should be well compensated for all that work. What I can't say- and I say this as someone who was and will again be the boss- is that this stress and responsibility is worth 300 times that of those who work for me.

Another concern that I have with big businesses is that unlike true Capitalists- who I view the vast majority of SMALL business owners to be- most of these execs are not the ones that suffer if their business is. When my business did well, so did my finances. When my business struggled, so did my budget. That's part of the trade off. The company's success rests on your shoulders, so you should reap the rewards. So to should you shoulder a large portion of the burden when things aren't going well. When companies are laying off hundreds of thousands of employees because their budgets got out of control, but then turn around and give their executives multi-million dollar bonuses, there is a significant problem. The workers aren't the ones that make decisions which lead to a company's success or failure, the execs are. While the workers are the foundation upon which a company is built, the overall effect that an individual at the "bottom" has on a major company's bottom line is miniscule, and yet they are the ones that are feeling the pain. They are the ones who are having their benefits cut, losing their jobs, and not getting raises.

More infuriating is the fact that for the average American, a 10% cut in benefits or pay is earth shattering. To an individual making several hundred thousand or worse several million dollars, such a cut isn't felt in nearly the same way. The cost of insurance, health care, food, and living for the execs doesn't scale with their income. Basic needs and a decent quality of life can be met with some semblance of a baseline. The closer your income is to that baseline the more traumatic it can be to lose any of that income.

I don't believe that everyone should make the same amount of money. I do believe that those who take risks and work hard should receive financial benefit for what they do. What I don't believe is that anyone needs to be so far out above the people they work with that there isn't even a comparison. I believe in Capitalism, but many in this country who now call themselves Capitalists aren't actually upholding the values they claim to. When a man or woman has been able to put themselves in a nearly unassailable position, where the above average man with grit and determination can't ever even dream of competing with them, you have simply created a new type of royalty. The system we have today more closely resembles feudalism than the dreamed Capitalism, with only the fringe of small and medium sized business owners struggling to maintain their rightful foothold or true Capitalism in the country and system that this country was originally built on.

Issues Only

A friend of mine recently engaged me in an issues only debate for President. We used for our discussion the New York Times Election Guide (Here).

Here are my responses, with (based on this guide) a few surprises:

Abortion: Obama and Clinton, similar positions. Fed government should stay out of a woman’s personal life whenever possible.

C- Supports Roe v. Wade; opposes ban on partial-birth abortions; judges should protect women’s rights.

O- Supports Roe v. Wade; criticized Supreme Court decision that upheld ban on partial-birth abortions.

M- Wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, but has been supportive in the past; supported Supreme Court decision that upheld ban on partial-birth abortions; "strict constructionist judges."


Climate Change: No preference (they all say the same thing) though in my personal opinion, these plans are FAR from sufficient. I will give a nod to Obama for proposing Al Gore as an appointed position for dealing with this issue.

C- Supports a mandatory cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

O- Supports a mandatory cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

M- Supports a mandatory cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions.


Economy: Clinton. Clinton’s package is more well-rounded offering multiple levels of stimulation, while not falling into the standard Democratic trap of being a crutch. More like medicinal shots than a permanent hospital bed. (Obama is close on this one)

C- $70 billion plan to "jump start" the economy; repeal the Bush tax cuts for households earning more than $250,000. (The plan is outlines on NY Times).

O- Said his plan for tax relief to middle and working classes would help stabilize the economy; repeal the Bush tax cuts for households earning more than $250,000.

M- Short-term plan is long-term plan: make the Bush tax cuts permanent; eliminate alternative minimum tax.


Healthcare: Clinton. Healthcare goes towards a basic standard of living for people. In fact a small amount spent on preventative care through insurance would save billions in care down the road. Very few things should be provided by government, Healthcare is one of them. (Obama is close on this one)

C- Require everyone to get health insurance, subsidized by employers and the government; pay for it by rolling back tax cuts for households earning over $250,000 and savings in the existing system.

O- Require that all children have health insurance; pay for it by rolling back President Bush’s tax cuts for households earning over $250,000; aims for universal coverage.

M- For free-market, consumer-based system; has pledged affordable health care for every American without a mandate; says universal health care is possible without a tax increase.


Housing: Clinton. Clinton’s plan offers the most flexibility and with our current situation, affects the most people. Obama’s plan is too tightly focused to make enough of an impact, and McCain’s plan doesn’t take into account that housing is a constant and long-term issue.

C- Extend at least $30 billion to states to help homeowners; extend F.H.A.’s capacity to guarantee restructured mortgages; 90-day moratorium on foreclosures and freeze subprime rates for at least 5 years.

O- Create new F.H.A. program to make it easier to convert subprime loans to fixed-rate, 30-year loans; create a fund to help people avoid foreclosures; require better disclosure from lenders.

M- Opposes large-scale federal assistance; any assistance "should be temporary" and "focused on homeowners"; opposes lower down payment on F.H.A. mortgages; lenders should help borrowers.


Immigration: No preference. All adhere to same plan. It is far too difficult for legitimate immigrants to be here, and that should be addressed foremost.

C- Supports a path to legalization for illegal immigrants that includes learning English and paying fines; toughen penalties for hiring illegal immigrants; voted for fence along Mexican border.

O- Supports a path to legalization for illegal immigrants that includes learning English and paying fines; toughen penalties for hiring illegal immigrants; voted for fence along Mexican border.

M- Supports a path to legalization for illegal immigrants that includes learning English and paying fines; voted for fence along Mexican border.


Iran: McCain. I know, surprising, but he is the most likely to use international support, which is what we constantly fail to do. Both the Democratic plans are very "Big Brother" whereas McCain is at least attempting a more "whole family" approach.

C- Direct diplomacy without preconditions; use economic sanctions; would not meet with the Iranian president; military option not off the table, but would not consider without congressional approval.

O- Engage in direct diplomacy; tighten economic sanctions with international cooperation; would meet with the Iranian president with no preconditions; military option not off the table.

M- Form an alliance with European countries to put economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran; no unconditional diplomacy; military option not off the table, but would consult with leaders of Congress.


Iraq: Obama (Clinton close second). Note that they have similar positions, but Obama’s plan is faster and more immediate, and I am NOT holding Clinton’s vote against her, as given the amount of false information presented to congress, many votes went different than they would have otherwise.

C- Voted in 2002 to authorize invasion, now opposed; opposed troop increase; start phased withdrawal within 60 days of taking office, with the goal to have most troops out by the end of 2013.
O- Opposed invasion from the beginning; opposed troop increase; withdraw one or two brigades a month to finish within 16 months.

M- Voted in 2002 to authorize invasion, still supportive; in favor of troop increase; against a timetable for troop withdrawal.

10:04 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment - Edit -

More Idiocy

t never fails to surprise me how dumb some people can be.

Here are a few "brilliant" takeaways from Just Out’s interview with Oregon State Senator Gary George who is pushing a ballot initiative to repeal the Oregon Equality Act that was passed last year (among many things, preventing people from being fired based upon real or perceived sexual orientation).

Just Out: What if an employee is fired because of his/her sexual orientation or gender identity? Isn’t the Oregon Equality Act in place to guard against such discrimination?
George: As an employer, I don’t wanna hear about it. This workplace is for work purposes. My advice to the gay community is SHUT UP, just don’t talk about it. If you walk around talking about what you do in the bedroom, you should be on the pervert channel.

Just Out: What is your reaction to the recent murders of out gay youth in Florida and California?
George: Obviously murder is murder, there’s no excuse for that. Here’s what I’m saying, I think we’re seeing a backlash, in other words if you push me too hard don’t be surprised if I react. Gays will tend to react violently if people are oppressive toward them. If gays are oppressive toward straights, then you’ll see a violent backlash. You’re going to have a point where these groups develop and say I’m tired of these special privileges.

Just Out: Are you suggesting that gays, by virtue of being out and open, are inciting these types of violent reactions?
George: You have to recognize for every action there’s a reaction…we’re obviously not gonna tolerate anyone who beats up any other person.

If you do feel like you’ve been discriminated against as a gay, you have hard feelings. I remember when I was heavy and wore glasses as a child and I was picked on. We all know the gay person that nobody notices – I think that is where we need to head. Everybody knows where the line is, so when I see I’m offending someone, I have to back away from that. We have to adjust our behavior so as to not be offensive. If you push anyone too hard, they will react.

My plea to the gay community would be, hey, mature. We have brilliant, brilliant people within the gay community.

In his "defense" he said he was tired and wasn’t thinking about who he was talking to and was thinking of another incident…

Because that matters.

These are the people that represent this country. Aren’t we lucky?

Blocking the Hate

Yesterday, a conversation was initiated that talked about whether or not hate speech should be restricted at colleges. Today, the Kansas Supreme Court struck down the ban on funeral protests citing "technical issues." Many organizations are working to get the language re-worked and fast-tracked through the legislature. It is interesting because I am not sure that I agree with this. Many of the organizations that approve of the ban are ones that I support, but with this issue I find myself more in disagreement.

I understand the pain and hardship that people feel when they are laying a loved one to rest, and how to have people there expressing hate is certainly a horrible thing. On the flip side, I have always been a proponent of free speech. Yesterday though, during the college discussion, this very astute girl brought up something that I never thought of in regards to hate speech. She said, "I would rather have their hate up front, than hidden." When it is right in front of you, you can face it and move on. Hate that is hidden and festers is what leads to violent hate crimes, and greater unexpected backlashes.

This insight lends a strong psychological argument to an already impressive list. The slippery slope of what and who we can restrict is certainly scary. With college hate speech, the answer is clear to me: Restriction bad. If anything restricting it only makes it that much harder when those who are blindly hated go out into the world and find themselves unprotected. The issue with funerals is slightly different. You are intruding into a personal event. But what can the ban say? How far away is ok? Who can they ban? Again, there is risk of creating a dangerous situation. Though I feel strongly for those who have faced this, I wonder if legal action is really going about it the right way.

So far to go

It should come as no surprise that after a week of board meetings for the HRC, I would have the struggle for gay rights on my mind. Coincidnetally enough, when I peruse my friends' blogs, one of them had made a post about the Victory Fund. Part of that, was an inclusion of this video:

**Warning, you may end up angry after watching this.



*Thanks Lana
You can e-mail the… person… in the video at sallykern@okhouse.gov

I am sure she deserves to hear from us.

I have a lot of friends, particularly now that I live in NYC (where we have non-discrimination politicies, etc.) that think the fight is pretty much over, or unimportant. The fact that people in power are still able to say things like what was shown in this video says differently.

One of the people that we heard from this weekend was a guy who lost his partner in a plane crash. His story, while sad was made all the worse by the fact that no one would tell him anything. He watched the news, not knowing who if anyone survived, if there were injuries, etc. His calls the air controllers were met with "You're his partner, not family, therefore we can't tell you anything." Insanity.

The level of ignorance people still exhibit and the prejudices that exist towards different people (no matter whether the difference is sexuality, race, etc). I understand that people are built thinking of things in a certain way, but you would think that in times of crisis, your compassion would outweigh your ignorance and you would do what you could for someone else. Apparently this isn't the case.

So often I feel like the wins and loses that we face are the ones in the political arena. Examples like this remind me that there is a larger war going on in the minds and actions of individual people. Unfortunately, despite progress, it seems like there is still a very long road ahead. It makes me happy to know that myself and so many people I know are doing what they can to make a difference in this "conflict" that we simply cannot afford to lose, and that organizations like HRC makes enables us to make a dramatic change in the world.

All the "News" Unfit to Print

During my daily read of various blogs, one guy made the following statement:

"I'm constantly amazed at how the media control our thinking. We can't just look at the candidates for president, listen to what they're saying and come to our own conclusions. They have to tell us what the candidates said and whether it was effective before we can decide for ourselves whether any of it rings true and influences how we're going to vote."

This election season has certainly shown this, and for the first time I am displeased with the way my favorite news station is reporting. CNN to me has always had the most diversity in their reporting. When they slant the story, they always seem to show the opposing side, etc. and for the most part I felt that they reported the news rather than filtering it. Recently this has changed.

The blogger I quoted was actually talking primarily about the slow rise of John McCain, but you can certainly see this everywhere. If you had no idea what was going on with politics and watched CNN you would think that McCain was probably going to run with Huckabee as a likely running mate, Obama is nearly unstoppable, and that the races were nearly over. Most of these "assumptions" are false.

I will admit that I am a Clinton supporter, and have been for a long time, so the fact that it is my girl that is getting the short end of the stick certainly bothers me a lot, but more than that the simple way that "analysis" seems to be given more than news is really exasperating. When a candidate does something, it is not the action that is reported on most, but all the consequences of that action. Whether or not these consequences come to pass is not really important. Assumptions are easy that way.

What is most interesting to me is that if they would quit analyzing the news so much, we would see the outcomes of what happens, when it happens and when they report it. I watched CNN for 4 hours the other day (in the background of doing other things) and followed it up with a viewing of the ridiculous Fox. Both had far more analysts on screen than reporters. I think the ratio was something like 5 to 1. When did NEWS stations become more like the op-ed section of the New York Times? I fully expect that when I watch the "Glenn Beck Show" I will get his unique opinions on things. When I watch regular news though? No thanks. CNN and other news stations are effectively taking the thought process out of our hands by handing us more opinions than news. It would be like the New York Times printing op-eds on their front page instead of news, making us hunt for the facts amidst all the theories and assumptions.

Take a look at what's going on and make your own decisions. Look at the numbers, listen to the speeches. Hear what is said and make decisions. Don't assume that the things said on these stations are actually news. Guesses are just that, guesses. The people on screen may be smart, but the elections should not be on which analyst is the more eloquent and interesting. I hope that this does not come to pass, and that people will actually look at the truth amidst all the fluff. To CNN and friends, hopefully when this election is over, you can go back to being a news station and I can start to watch you again.

No surprise in the facts, but good action

For years we have known that the current administration has "misled" us about the need for our costly and unproductive war. Now, there's some nice, if not very surprising proof from the Center for Public Integrity:

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.

It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. ...

In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.

The good news is that several representatives (including a personal favorite, Tammy Baldwin) are urging the Judiciary Committee to conduct hearings about misconduct. Rather than throw out an impeachment charge right off the back, these intellegent people are urging that we gather all the facts in a formalized manner then make a decision. I have no douby that the CPI's information will be valuable indeed.

Not mine, but good. Bush

Blunt opinion the day before the election. Speak your mind, and VOTE!!! This comes from Bill Maher, and saved me from having to write anything else.

The Democrats' best slogan: "Bush lost the war"

Nov. 5, 2006 | New Rule: Controlling Congress is for closers. Listen up, Democrats, it's as simple as ABC: Always Be Closing. First prize? Controlling congressional committees, with subpoena power. Second prize: set of steak knives. Third prize? You're fired.

The election is four days away, and I'm through dicking around with you. Here are your talking points:

1) When they say, "Democrats will raise taxes," you say, "We have to, because some asshole spent all the money in the world cutting Paris Hilton's taxes and not killing Osama bin Laden." In just six years the national debt has doubled. You can't keep spending money you don't take in, that's not even elementary economics, that's just called "Don't be Michael Jackson."

2) When they say, "The terrorists want the Democrats to win," you say, "Are you insane? George Bush has been a terrorist's wet dream, and nonpartisan commissions have confirmed that he's a recruiter's dream: theirs, not ours. And, he has exhausted our military without coming away with a win, the worst of both worlds." Bush inflames radical hatred against America and then runs on offering to protect us from it. It's like a guy throwing shit on you and then selling you relief from the flies.

3) When they say, "Cut and Run" or "Defeatocrat," you say, "Bush lost the war -- period." All this nonsense about "the violence is getting worse because they're trying to influence our election." No, it's getting worse because you drew up the postwar plans on the back of a cocktail napkin at Applebee's. And of course Democrats want to win, but that's impossible now that you've ethnically cleansed the place by making it unlivable, just like you did with New Orleans.

4) When they say that actual combat veterans like John Kerry are "denigrating" the troops, you say, "You're completely full of shit." Remember when Al Gore caught all that flak for sighing and moaning during that debate? Yeah, don't do that. Just say, "You're full of shit."

If I was a troop, the support I would want back home would mainly come in the form of people pressuring Washington to get me out of this pointless nightmare. That's how I would feel supported.

So when they say, "Democrats are obstructionists," you say, "You're welcome." Because with a bad administration that has bad ideas, obstruction is a good thing, just as it's a good thing to obstruct a drunk from getting his car keys. I would be happy to frame the debate as a fight between the Obstructionists and the Enablers. There's your talking point: "Vote Republican, and you vote to enable George Bush to keep ruling as an emperor." A retarded, child emperor, but an emperor.

Democrats, you've got two days to get out there and close. It's not about slogans this time. Although when it comes to slogans, accept no other from your opponent except this one: "The Republican Party: We're Sorry."

Moral Values

I hate hypocrasy. I think that is one of my main beefs with the average Christian. Apparently, others can feel the same. And you know, for once, I don't think I could have said it better myself:

What Are Moral Values?
by Rev. Dr. Robin Meyers
Mayflower Church, Oklahoma City

Updated August 10, 2005


As some of you know, I am minister of Mayflower Congregational Church in Oklahoma City, a church in northwest Oklahoma City, and professor of Rhetoric at Oklahoma City University. But you would most likely have encountered me on the pages of the Oklahoma Gazette, where I have been a columnist for six years, and hold the record for the most number of angry letters to the editor.

Tonight, I join ranks of those who are angry, because I have watched as the faith I love has been taken over by those who claim to speak for Jesus, but whose actions are anything but Christian.

We've heard a lot lately about so-called "moral values" as having swung the election to President Bush. Well, I'm a great believer in moral values, but we need to have a discussion, all over this country, about exactly what constitutes a moral value -- I mean what are we talking about? Because we don't get to make them up as we go along, especially not if we are people of faith. We have an inherited tradition of what is right and wrong, and moral is as moral does. Let me give you just a few of the reasons why I take issue with those in power who claim moral values are on their side:

When you start a war on false pretenses, and then act as if your deceptions are justified because you are doing God's will, and that your critics are either unpatriotic or lacking in faith, there are some of us who have given our lives to teaching and preaching the faith who believe that this is not only not moral, but immoral.

When you live in a country that has established international rules for waging a just war, build the United Nations on your own soil to enforce them, and then arrogantly break the very rules you set down for the rest of the world, you are doing something immoral.

When you claim that Jesus is the Lord of your life, and yet fail to acknowledge that your policies ignore his essential teaching, or turn them on their head (you know, Sermon on the Mount stuff like that we must never return violence for violence and that those who live by the sword will die by the sword), you are doing something immoral.

When you act as if the lives of Iraqi civilians are not as important as the lives of American soldiers, and refuse to even count them, you are doing something immoral.

When you find a way to avoid combat in Vietnam, and then question the patriotism of someone who volunteered to fight, and came home a hero, you are doing something immoral.

When you ignore the fundamental teachings of the gospel, which says that the way the strong treat the weak is the ultimate ethical test, by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest among us so the strong will get stronger and the weak will get weaker, you are doing something immoral.

When you wink at the torture of prisoners, and deprive so-called "enemy combatants" of the rules of the Geneva Conventions, which your own country helped to establish and insists that other countries follow, you are doing something immoral.

When you claim that the world can be divided up into the good guys and the evil doers, slice up your own nation into those who are with you, or with the terrorists -- and then launch a war which enriches your own friends and seizes control of the oil to which we are addicted, instead of helping us to kick the habit, you are doing something immoral.

When you fail to veto a single spending bill, but ask us to pay for a war with no exit strategy and no end in sight, creating an enormous deficit that hangs like a great millstone around the necks of our children, you are doing something immoral.

When you cause most of the rest of the world to hate a country that was once the most loved country in the world, and act like it doesn't matter what others think of us, only what God thinks of you, you have done something immoral.

When you use hatred of homosexuals as a wedge issue to turn out record numbers of evangelical voters, and use the Constitution as a tool of discrimination, you are doing something immoral.

When you favor the death penalty, and yet claim to be a follower of Jesus, who said an eye for an eye was the old way, not the way of the kingdom, you are doing something immoral.

When you dismantle countless environmental laws designed to protect the earth which is God's gift to us all, so that the corporations that bought you and paid for your favors will make higher profits while our children breathe dirty air and live in a toxic world, you have done something immoral. The earth belongs to the Lord, not Halliburton.

When you claim that our God is bigger than their God, and that our killing is righteous, while theirs is evil, we have begun to resemble the enemy we claim to be fighting, and that is immoral. We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us.

When you tell people that you intend to run and govern as a "compassionate conservative," using the word which is the essence of all religious faith -- compassion, and then show no compassion for anyone who disagrees with you, and no patience with those who cry to you for help, you are doing something immoral.

When you talk about Jesus constantly, who was a healer of the sick, but do nothing to make sure that anyone who is sick can go to see a doctor, even if she doesn't have a penny in her pocket, you are doing something immoral.

When you put judges on the bench who are racist, and will set women back a hundred years, and when you surround yourself with preachers who say gays ought to be killed, you are doing something immoral.

I'm tired of people thinking that because I'm a Christian, I must be a supporter of President Bush, or that because I favor civil rights and gay rights I must not be a person of faith. I'm tired of people saying that I can't support the troops but oppose the war.

I heard that when I was your age, when the Vietnam war was raging. We knew that that war was wrong, and you know that this war is wrong -- the only question is how many people are going to die before these make-believe Christians are removed from power?

This country is bankrupt. The war is morally bankrupt. The claim of this administration to be Christian is bankrupt. And the only people who can turn things around are people like you--young people who are just beginning to wake up t to what is happening to them. It's your country to take back. It's your faith to take back. It's your future to take back.

Don't be afraid to speak out. Don't back down when your friends begin to tell you that the cause is righteous and that the flag should be wrapped around the cross, while the rest of us keep our mouths shut. Real Christians take chances for peace. So do real Jews, and real Muslims, and real Hindus, and real Buddhists--so do all the faith traditions of the world at their heart believe one thing: life is precious. Every human being is precious. Arrogance is the opposite of faith. Greed is the opposite of charity. And believing that one has never made a mistake is the mark of a deluded man, not a man of faith. And war -- war is the greatest failure of the human race -- and thus the greatest failure of faith.

There's an old rock and roll song, whose lyrics say it all: War, what is it good for? absolutely nothing. And what is the dream of the prophets? That we should study war no more, that we should beat our swords into plowshares and our spears into pruning hooks. Who would Jesus bomb, indeed?

How many wars does it take to know that too many people have died? What if they gave a war and nobody came? Maybe one day we will find out.

Time to march again my friends. Time to commit acts of civil disobedience. Time to sing, and to pray, and refuse to participate in the madness.

http://www.mayflowerucc.org/

Politics in the Culture War

I have decided that since most people I know on here aren't on Xanga, that I will repost my blog here. 2 warnings. First, if you read my Xanga, this is simply cut and paste, so don't waste your time reading it twice. Secondly, I am not timid in any of my entries, and often times they are random thoughts put forcibly into words, so they will not be what some of you are looking for. I almost never talk about what I did in a day, etc. etc., but instead use this space to flesh out thoughts, dillemas, or philosophies that are stirring in my brain. If that is what you want, then by all means, read away.

Before I actually get to the heart of my entry, let me post today's horoscope, which considering my latest entries and state of mind, is simply unbelievable:

"It's all about setting priorities, and right now the primary one is to decide where you want to live and how you're going to live. Are you treating yourself as well as you deserve? If not, it's time to change all that."

'Nuff said.

So onto what I really want to talk about. I recently read a series of articles in the Atlantic Monthly that my dear friend Christopher sent me. The one I want to talk about is Why the Culture War Is the Wrong War by E.J. Dionne Jr. Without simply disecting the article, let me say that the point is that both sides of the political spectrum fight this war in their own way, almost creating the war that they are fighting, while really they are all fighting against and for the same general things.

The statement I want to talk about was in fact the last one in the article. He said, "The culture war exploits our discontents. The task of politics is to heal them." Wow. What a powerful statement.

Taking that by itself, one can see a vision of politics that is clear and amazing. Working towards healing the discontents of society is I think one of the highest ideals that a public servant can try to strive for. Listening to this, I think that both political fields have different problems that keep them from actually accomplishing this goal. I think that the right extremists are the farthest from this goal, partially because they are the current masters of exploiting the culture war to fight their own battles on the political field. I think that the Democrats are closer to this, because they have made it their "goal" to ferret out the problems of the underprivileged and solving them. I think that they fail primarily for two reasons:1. Though this is one of their principals, they have been unable to actually allow this to define the direction of their policies, and 2. they often fail to admit when they are wrong and instead try and solve problems by throwing more and more money at them (obviously to the discontent of their constituents).

In general, if I were to idealize the political scene, I would like to see Republicans work towards healing society's malcontents within their morality, not using their morality to create more discontent. I would like to see Democrats more willing to examine government's role and whether or not some of the initiatives that they want to pursue wouldn't be better controlled by some other agency, or if there were in fact a way that the government could assist without trying to control.

More to come on this later.

Frodo and Politics

So there is a lot of madness going on with work right now, so I haven't had much time to write. I did, however want to share this sticker I saw with you. I think it may be one of the funniest/creative political statements to date. Enjoy!

Election Recovery

Okay, I know that it took me a week to make any sort of response after what happened last week, but trust me, no one would have liked what I had to say during most of that time, and I try not to make it so that I rant too much. It's always hard to lose, and even harder to have the people you put your faith into not see it through when the going gets tough.

The week overall has been pretty good. I avoided human contact for most of Wednesday, but recovered fairly quickly after that. I cringed as I read the papers that revealed the new agenda of the Presidency, although nothing was too surprising. Luckily for me, West Wing Season 3 came out, so I did a little consoling by watching some of those episodes. They really motivate me, which is what I needed. After all that I had put into the elections, and so few of them going my way, I was feeling rather dispirited. But, now I am up to fight another day, which will make some of you cheer, and some of you cry, but hey, that's life.

I did do something rather unusual for me the other day. On Saturday, I went with Chris to Brian Busby's house where he and a bunch of his friends were playing poker. Although I have played the game from time to time, it is certainly not something that regularly comes up, and certainly not with that kind of formality, and I found it quite refreshing. One of my favorite things to do change things up so that there is no routine in my life, and yet the world tries its best to curb this kind of instability, so it is nice when something comes along that breaks up the monotony. Chris and I did fairly well, especially considering the fact that I never play the game, and we made a small return on what we put up.

Other than that, I have been spending a lot of time working on my final paper for my MU class, which is rather intensive, and requiring way too much of my time, but it will be good to have it done so that I can focus on consolidating my residences to Kansas City. That is something I am looking forward to. Well, I am looking forward to living full time in KC for a while, but of course I am not thrilled about the action of moving half of my stuff across the state. Oh well, I think it will be worth it.

Well, I don't want to ramble on much more, and I really don't want to get onto something too deep, I just wanted to put something up for those of you who follow my life. I suppose that I will let you go. I will probably get back to saying something important to me in a day or so, so as always, check back often or simply subscribe and save yourself the task. Till then /wave!

Election Fiasco

I am going to add links to stories, or put clips about the election fiasco here:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6364144/

Election Frustrations

So it's the day after the biggest election of my entire life, and I have no closure. For the second time in history, America, despite all of its advanced technology can't seem to get an election done. Of course, I can't say that this was unexpected. For weeks now, the news has been reporting flaws in the voting systems. A month ago, the Canadian election chancellor visited Missouri to inspect the voting and balloting systems and he said what he saw "terrified him." The ballots in every city are done differently, ranging from hand counted "marker" ballots to the high tech touch screens in Florida (which of course need no paper backup, because we can trust the computer designers- note that the company presidents of all the suppliers are Republicans). I am not even trying to say that there is an inherent cheating streak in the Republican party, but when you look at the effects of 2000, you can't help but wonder what dramatic impact small things like this will have.

Last night, I was up till 2am, fretting over the future of my nation. From 7:00, I was at the Democratic Headquarters, having somehow become the unofficial numbers guy for the entire packed crowd. The Internet was about 30 minutes ahead of the TV, and certain elections had certain sites that you could watch to find true numbers, not media projections, so before long, the TV didn't matter, people just came to me and asked their race. For a while it was kind of invigorating, but then I started to see the dramatic effects of the election on people- most of it negative.

So many of us put our time, effort, money, sweat, and blood into this election, and so many of us are left in tears. I know that there always has to be a loser in these things, but I can't help but be defeated as I watch some of these races unfold. We turned out record numbers of voters, raised amazing amounts of money, talked to our friends, family, co-workers, and so much of it seems to be for nothing. A main thing that I can't get over is the fact that I was used to make my own candidates lose. How? This year, the Republican party made Gay Marriage the new Abortion. The used it as a wedge issue in every close race possible. This agitates me on so many fronts. For one, EVERY poll showed that as a priority to the average citizen, gay marriage was at the bottom of their list, and yet to listen to and watch the advertisements of the Republicans, you would think it was more important than the economy.

What's worse, is that it worked. The American people got so up in arms over this issue, that it colored over nearly everything else, as countless exit polls showed. Of course this shouldn't come as a surprise considering I believe 15 states now have written their own citizens out of their state constitutions. What I want to know is why is the thought of two individuals of the same sex so threatening to people? I can understand the religious argumentation, although I think it's rediculous, I can at least understand it. But we live in AMERICA. Land of the Free. Seperation of Church and State. We are talking about the civil rights of individuals here, and the only argument that people can throw around is the Bible. (I won't even go into how even that argument is flawed beyond belief). What kind of sense does that make?

I think what bothers me most about this election is that it was too emotional. Issues were hardly ever really discussed. There were lots of vague references, but when it came down to what really showed up, it was smear campaigns, and fear tactics. "Don't vote for so and so, because they will let those gays get married, and that just isn't what America wants." "If you elect so and so, you will put our country at risk." This use of the media cheap at best. People got so caught up in the thought of an attack, either on the moral fabric of the country or by an outside force, that they failed to look at anything past that. I can handle an election that is lost on the facts, or one that is lost on the debate floor, but losing an election over tactics, I can't get around, and last night showed that is exactly what happened.

And what is the deal with the White House declaring victory when Ohio holds 20 electoral votes? Well, if any of you were watching the specials they had yesterday, you might find out that it is because THOUSANDS of voters in urban areas in Ohio (Democratic leaning of course) were standing outside for upwards of 11 hours to vote! There was one interview with a college student who had been at the polls since 4pm, and the estimates they were giving him as to when he could vote were going to be close to 3am! Now I am politically motivated, but that would stretch even my limits. How many good, honest people simply couldn't wait that long and had to go home to their jobs or their families? In addition, the eleciton officials started handing out paper ballots, which may or may not actually count. They are part of the "Provincial Ballots" that are going yo be up in the air for 10 DAYS!!! How many voices weren't or won't be heard? What about the soldiers that were complaining about their filling status being revoked because they were in Afganastan or Iraq and the mail took too long to get back and forth? I would think that the people dying for our country should have a pretty good say in what goes on in our country.

I do not want you to come away from this thinking that I am embittered over the outcome of the election (especially since we have no outcome). I am frustrated with the election in general. I am agrivated at how the campaigns were run, and the ploys that were used. I am enraged at the lengths that people will go to silence voices that they don't want to hear. Above all, I am amazed that we so blindly let it happen. I had hoped that we had learned from the dabolical in 2000, but apparently, we are willing to let the same things happen over and over, and in my opinion they will until people are willing to use their voice and make it stop.

Acting on politics

Well, I have just gotten back from St. Louis where I attended the HRC Gala Dinner and a brunch. As always, I come back with a renewed sense of energy from being around people who are truly working to make a difference. I sometimes forget how nice it is to have discourse over the challenges that are facing our community, country, and world, and being reminded of it certainly puts me in a good frame of mind.

This trip was exceptionally energizing, partially because I was able to have more intimate conversations with people. Although we were all there in support of the HRC the things that we discussed covered a much broader spectrum. I think that once a person takes it upon themselves to make a difference in one area, it is a lot easier for them to realize what's going on in the other areas of their life. Unfortunately I don't think that enough people take this initial step, and as such, a few individuals are carrying a large portion of the weight of making change. Even voting seems beyond the capabilities of so many people, and then of course there are those that vote with only half the information that they really need.

One of my friends remarked that this year has really opened their eyes as to how easy it is to be led by politicians and the media. When having discussions, people will regurgitate opinions that aren't there own simply because they had heard them elsewhere. It's aggravating to me because so often there is little research as to what exactly the statement that they are making really means.

As you saw at the opening of this entry, I watched The American President. I really enjoyed that movie, even though in some ways it seemed a bit of a stretch, but the message was really good. Without going into too much detail, the President (Michael Douglas) starts going out with a girl, and his opponent makes it into this big smear campaign. He takes little truths, and blows them out of proportion, trying to enrage the average American.

When I saw this scenario, I almost laughed. I wish that I could write down Douglas's final speech word for word because he retaliates in a way that I can't do justice to. His basic argument was that people who resort to fear tactics do so because they can't actually talk about anything important. The people who use fear and anger to run campaigns are doing so because they want to win. These people aren't there for us. Once, Mel Carnahan (former Governor of MO) was talking and he went on at great length about how being in office wasn't a job, and certainly not a career; being in office was a tour of duty. It was a time when you give up a part of yourself to do something for the people that you serve. He talked about civil service, and how that is what politics really is, or should be. The people that lead us are there for us. Once again in the movie, Michael J Fox played a policy advisor who went off on the President, and when called on it, he said something to the effect that he had every right to question him, not because he was an advisor, but because he was a citizen, and it was our right and our duty to question our leaders.

I truly hope to see more people become involved in the world. For all its horrible implications, this election has registered a record number of voters. It is my hope that maybe some of these people are starting to see the problems with what's going on in the world. As Douglas said, "This country has a lot of problems." I want to see people go out there and support politicians who are actually going to fix these problems. So many times I read about bills that baffle me. What do they really do to solve the problems? Democrats are notorious for settling; spending money, but not doing enough or in the right way to fix the problem, and Republicans seem to overload there senses with money and religion that they can't get to the problem either.

I am tired of seeing bills like business bill that came out of congress just a short time ago that gave so much away, mostly with pork-barrelling, but didn't solve any of the economic problems we have in this country, and yet so many people applauded the effort.

In the last month, I have attended more political and charity events than I have in the last year, and it has given me great hope, and a greater energy. I talk to these people who are starting to see clarity in the problems around, and they are trying to find solutions. This is what our country needs. Politicians won't change if citizens don't make them. We all have the ability to do more. We all can fight for more than we do, but it seems that we let things get in the way. It is my belief that it is our duty to pay attention. We have a lot of freedom, but we let so much of it go to waste, and even risk losing it by our inaction. I have determined not to let that happen where I am concerned and I hope that the people that know me and listen to me come away with the same kind of feeling. Taking a stand is never a bad thing, so long as you believe in what you fight for. Even when I am in disagreement with those who are behind what they believe, I can respect them. I urge everyone to make thier own stand and use whatever they have, be it their voice, their dollar, or their time. Make a difference. If we won't how can we expect the world to ever change?

Where are the heroes?

As I was sitting around talking with some friends at a fundraiser today, I saw the MO Gubernatorial Debate. After it was over, we were talking and it really drove home what bothers me with the majority of politics and power in today's world. Why is it that people always feel like they are choosing the lesser of two evils? I know that there is no such thing as a perfect person, but why always so much negativity? I have thought a lot about it, but have come up with no real answers.

I have wondered if it has really always been like this, and if not, what is it about modern society that is so different? Could it be that the media is just so widespread that it's easier to see someone's flaws? In some ways that makes sense. It takes hours for a story to be spread across the nation, and nearly everyone has access to the information that is being spread. Perhaps the people are no different, just that we can see their flaws so much more accurately now than before.

I still cannot help but feel that we are lacking in heroes today. Even outside of the world of politics, it just seems that there are so few people that stand out in my mind as mainstream heroes. Of course there are people who make an impact: our parents, teachers, rescue workers, etc. But where are the Lincolns and the Franklins... the JFKs and the MLKs? Has our world become so big that we cannot single out individual people who actually shape our society? Is it simply that we have lost our illusions about people? Could it be that we are so cynical that we have lost our ability to see another as a true hero?

Somehow I think that deep down people still want heroes. I don't know why none seem to move our society like they used to. Some people use a Hollywood as an explanation. We don't need real heroes when we can so easily create our own. Of course the reverse could just as easily be said. Are we more drawn to false heroes because there are no real ones?

I could, and probably will at some point continue at length with heroes in general, but for now, back to politics, it kills me that I so often feel like I am casting my vote against someone rather than for someone. I can't help but feel that this very idea is against the ideals of our political structure and yet I feel that there is often no choice. Why is it so hard for a politician to come to the forefront that people can get behind?

I sometimes wonder if it's the ambition factor. In today's world, you have to be such an impressive fundraiser that almost no one just gets into any high level politics as their civic duty. If I had my choice, I would like to have a lot less career politicians. I would like to see more people involved in their government. Rather than the higher positions being given to those who can rally the most money to their cause, I would like to see them more spread amongst a variety of individuals. The majority of politicians are lawyers. How different would things be if there were more academics? While this is just one example, I think that there would be a severe impact on the way our country was run.

Well, enough of my ranting for tonight. I hope that in some of your elections, you are able to fully stand behind your candidate, and not support them simply because they are a little better than the other guy.