American Idols

Passion. No, feeling. That is the root cause of our present situation. We care too much about the lives of other people - and for saying it I am thought a heartless person.

I do care about people, I am concerned when I see a person consumed by consumerism and lost in the information age. I try to help who I can, and support others who do the same. Where I absolutely must draw the line is when it comes to bringing in the big "G" word -- Government.

Government has become a religion in this country. It grows out of chaos and conflict. Whether it is actual war, or a pervieved threat, like German and Japanese Americans, Blacks and their civil rights, whites and their cultural imperialism.

Everywhere today, and all through modern history there has and is a "war" being fought. Whether its soldiers, Mother Nature, black youth, unborn babies, gays, illegal immigrants, drugs being killed off or attacked, there is always someone somewhere telling us we need to fight the good fight and vote "X" for president.

I'm about sick of having to choose between poor and mediocre, knowing that half the country isn't going to like the decision any of us made. I see bumbper stickers that say "Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry." Whether reaslizing it or not, people who have those stickers and think like that are blaming half the country for whatever problems they are going through.

The problem is not with the other half of the country... its with the whole country. If we seriously believe that Democrats can do a better job if given the chance, or that Republicans will clean this place up once the Clintons are out of the White House, we have another thing coming.

Straight up: Americans worship the political system because we have faith it will one day work if we keep the present course. Americans worship at the alter of the Executive Branch, placing out hope and faith in the Office of the President to save this nation from itself (or rather the other half of the country which we dont consider to be part of the "itself" we need saving from).

Finally, we have committed idolatry and unfaithfulness in the eyes of the One True God for believing anyone but He could save any one of us or an entire nation from itself.

Should racism, sexism, and all forms of discrimination against people because of their differences end in this country, yes. Should people give 10% or more of their gross salaries before taxes to the benefit of society, yes. Should people stop having abortions and divorces, prefering to have children with a spouse and keep him or her and raise the child into a productive, and moral member of society, yes. Should debt be hard to get into, and easy to get out of, yes.

Should it be the responsibility of a government that changes leadership every 2 and 4 years, and which employs over 1 million people in a bureaucracy that is impersonal and slow to change? No.

This is the problem with our candidates. It is the problem with us. We want to hear someone say they can fix all these things, because we want them fixed... but had we ever stopped to think whether or not we were asking the right people to solve the problem we might have realized that all the politicians cared about was how many votes and dollars could be won by saying exactly what we want to hear.

"You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Primary Conflicts

There is an issue of fairness that I am becoming much more interested in since the 2008 election year. This has been an interesting year because the American people have become more educated about the process by which our states nominate presidential candidates by party. Along with the scrutiny of the myriad of candidates running for the White House has come a focus on this process, and I am sure for the benefit of the public.

Democrats in Florida, American citizens, have been punished by the Democratic National Committee, a private association, for the decision of their state legislature to hold the Democratic Primary election on a date that did not suit the DNC. The legality of this is questionable; a civil organization having sway over the decisions of a government body - I don't care what laws are in place. This scenario is also not fair since the Florida House of Representatives has 78 Republicans and 42 Democrats, and the Florida Senate has 26 Republicans and 14 Democrats. In essence the Republicans made the decision on the date of the primary, and the DNC has barred Democratic delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

It is ethically and constitutionally questionable for the DNC to demand that the Florida legislature direct the State Department of Florida, Division of Elections, to organize elections in any other way than Florida sees fit. It does not matter that the leaders of the DNC are members of Congress and other powerful elected officials in the country. The use of their offices to intimidate state legislatures is a conflict of interest that deserves legal attention.

Besides this point alone, the decision by the DNC is plainly unfair. You cannot punish the delegates and voters in Florida because of something their state legislature did when controlled by a Republican majority. The process by which primary dates are decided and the question of authority and the local autonomy of states is an important one as we consider the greater impact on the electoral process.

Speaking of the electoral process, it is imperative that the electoral process be preserved, yet we must make it a fair process in the sense that states and the citizens of those states are not deprived of their rights to vote and have their vote count.

Character Debate

There are two main ways to judge a political candidate; on his or her record and platform, also known as "by the issues," or on character. Most people come up with their own system that combines these two methods in some way, but one will usually tip the scale more than the other.

I would like to challenge the voting by issues method since there one very important flaw, being that politicians will say anything to get elected, and we don't always know why someone takes a certain position.

Character is much more an important virtue that a person's position in the Iraq War, abortion, the environment. When I voted for Senator Bill Nelson (D) of Florida in 2006, I did so because of one thing I saw on a televised debate. He and his opponent Katherine Harris were debating the issues important to Florida and the nation. I know Nelson not to be a real activist in Congress so when I saw Harris verbally beating him with a stick for being just another Democrat aligned with his party bloc I knew how wrong she was. But it was the post-debate that decided my vote. When all was said and done and the candidates had ended their show, I got to see the real candidates. Thanks to the miracle that is local television the cameras were still rolling and I saw Nelson immediately walk over to the edge of the stage and greet those who came. Harris just stormed off, stage left. When it was apparent her absence was odd, she returned and greeted others as well.

Presidential elections are no different. When it comes to voting for someone, find out why they vote the way they do. Hillary Clinton votes for bills and hopes they won't pass. President Bush is the decider, having no time for debate - he knows what's best. I heard someone say that Ron Paul was in favor of abortions, but we live in a world where you can only be in favor of or opposed to abortions. Dr. Paul would rather see the federal government take no position on that issue, because when you have such a contentious issue like that, it is better to leave the decision up to the states, and even then if it is so contentious, leave it up to the counties and cities.

I am not trying to campaign for Ron Paul, but as someone with character he makes a good example. His position on the preemptive war strategy, or Bush Doctrine, is that this nation has no right to violate Just War Theory laid out by St. Augustine because it serves our national interests. An unruly empire behaves such a way.

When deciding who to vote for this year, consider the person's morals, values, and character. Do they have an overriding belief system or philosophy to government, or even religious convictions that guide every decision they make? Or do they change positions with the political winds? If you are not sure, research, if you still aren't sure they may be such shallow people they don't have any character. If your candidate is someone who you could have a debate with when you ask them, "why," then you might have someone good. Even if you disagree with them on a few important points, remember, they are the kind of person who will engage in debate once they enter office. Not like the current president who listens to no one and draws his own road map in the sand.

The "Clintons"

In the press and on the news you will hear about the uncharted waters of this election year. The Democratic Party has some symbolically new faces in the race for president. The first woman, the first black person with a real chance at winning.

The women's vote is essential, so they say, because these two firsts are actually rivals for their party's nomination. Single women now outnumber married women. A fact which, while not celebrated, is nevertheless treated like a mile stone towards progress. This is another fact I think ironic because it originates from the very people who profess to be women's rights advocates, but who subconsciously presume that all married women are intellectual slaves to their husbands and will therefore vote how they are told.

From this camp of women's rights experts and other political analysts the talk centers around Hillary Clinton's, excuse me, Hillary Rodham Clinton's presentation of herself in relation to President William Jefferson Clinton, I mean her husband Bill.

First of all, I have to say that women voting for a woman just because of gender is a continuation of the same kind of divisive politics this country has succumbed to and will ultimately lead to what we see in parliamentary nations around the world where coalition governments are organized and dissolved with the changing of the winds. The same goes for ethnicity and race and even political party.

Spectators are concerned because they are not sure how women will respond to Hillary placing her husband on an equal plain with herself in her campaign. They say, "Why shouldn't Bill help out, all the other candidates wives are campaigning for them?" What should give all of the women's rights people pause is that Bill is not just Hillary's husband, he is a President of the United States of America. He has persuasive power like you wouldn't believe. Would any other woman in this country have a shot at the White House if her husband had been a nobody beforehand?

The fact that Hillary Clinton would be polling below the margin of error without her husband having been President should give us all pause. And consider what agenda the Clintons really have. The Obama campaign has hit the nail right on the head, and traditional Clinton supporters are not going to like it, because guess what, they are really Bill Clinton supporters, not Hillary supporters. Obama needs to call 'em like he sees 'em and take on Bill. It is the only way he is going to overcome Hillary as soon as Super Tuesday is over and the Republicans start beating down the war path in her direction. The Clintons won't be able to sustain attacks from both sides like that.