We'll just leave that part out...

Thought for the night: just as Jesus would probably be pissed at the stuff being done in his name, this nation's founders would be pissed about the stuff their names are being attached to.

I'm still pissed about the TEA Partiers and their blatant ignorance to history. The original Tea Party (you know, that one back in the 1700's) wasn't because of being taxed too much. It was because of a big corporate tax break - the East India Company wasn't being taxed at all while everyone else still had to pay taxes. The corporation controlled the government.

Does any of this sound familiar? Corporations buying politicians? Whining for more and more corporate tax breaks? People getting pissed?

The irony is just wacky.

Meanwhile, while the corporations get more, the average American is getting less. The income gap continues to widen - the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. This isn't capitalism, it's greed!

And the ignorance isn't quite as complete as I wish it was. Ignorance in itself is forgivable, as the ignorant can be taught. However, there are instead active misinformation campaigns. The TEA Party of today kept trying to change Wikipedia to make history closer fit their view of things. Texas chooses to mostly leave Thomas Jefferson out of the curriculum because his views differ from their own as to what America is supposed to be.

History is being silenced. Just as many Christians shun the teachings of Jesus, many self-described patriots choose to shun the founders, only acknowledging the parts that fit their views. So the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797 said that America was not in any sense founded on Christianity? That's fine, we'll leave that out of history lessons and make damned sure that "under god" stays in the pledge, and "in god we trust" stays on the currency. Corporate tax breaks were a big part of why we fought the Revolution? We'll just leave out that little detail and say it was because of taxes and tyranny.

If you care (and you damn well should), then it's your duty to make sure history is not silenced. Make no mistake, it is repeating itself. The only differences are in technology and in scale.

If I had a larger following and it didn't seem such a cliche, I'd be tempted to launch my own campaign to "take back the TEA Party," aimed at educating people as to what it was really about.

The "real" Tea Party

A lot on my mind tonight (or this morning) and perhaps I've had more home brewed beer and Irish whiskey than is good for me. Anyway, quick history lesson for those who don't know the whole story about the Boston Tea Party (something modern TEA Partiers often hide). The original Tea party was a response to a corporate tax break for a huge corporation that had gained control of the monarchy - the East India Company. You may recognize the name from the Pirates of the Carribean series, but make no mistake - it was a very real corporation, and they had a large role in the reason why America's founders decided revolution was justified.

You see, the English monarchy had exempted said corporation from taxes. But, they didn't exempt smaller businesses or individuals from taxes. This was obvious favoritism for those who could buy votes/representation, and it made smaller businesses unable to compete. Because they still had to pay taxes, their prices were no longer competitive. So, they threw the East India Company's tea into the harbor. This was true corporate government, as the monarchy was granting special favors. This is also something we see coming especially from the Republicans - "give more tax breaks!" they say. "Don't hate the rich" they say. "Don't turn this into class warfare!" they say.

They vilify anger and those who oppose them by throwing around terms that have become dirty words. "Class warfare." Really? Perhaps the "class warfare" has been around longer than they care to admit, and they throw this "dirty word" at their opposition to discredit them. To portray them as simply being jealous and perhaps lazy. Anger itself has become a dirty word. Is it not justified?

I'm not going to call for violence or destruction - only for realization. Realization that we've been lied to and manipulated. While the Democrats sure as hell aren't innocent, the Republicans have made themselves the aggressors. They keep using the same, worn-down "trickle-down" theory - make the rich richer to the point where they don't know what to do with their money, and they might pass some down to the poor. "Don't hate the rich," they say. I honestly don't. I have the American dream - work hard to achieve success and be wealthy. Is that not the American dream? Equal opportunity?

While it may not be openly institutionalized as it once was, there are established social classes. And it's not as easy to move between them as our founders would have liked. As in the past, the super-rich buy politicians. There remain some few altruistic people, but mostly, the wealthy are inclined to simply protect their wealth. Romney is an unfortunate prime example. He did decent things in the past, such as inspiring the Affordable Care Act (read: ObamaCare), but is controlled by his desire to maintain his wealth and power, and the support of those who provide him it.

Anyway, here's a meme to post to Facebook and the like. For easy viewing, I'd recommend saving to your own album and sharing - I've already got my blog linked on the meme. But, you can still always right click, "view image," and post the link on Facebook. Still always looking to expand my audience.

Election Stuff

Ah, the smell of feces being hurled through the air! That can only mean one thing: campaign season!

The Republicans, if not for being such morons, would have had this election handed to them on a silver platter. And don't get me wrong - I'm not devoutly against Republicans as a whole. While I am liberal, I'm a moderate one. I vote based on the person, not the party. That said, yes, I do tend to cast a fair number of votes for Republicans. That does not change the fact that the Republicans are being bloody morons in this campaign season, though.

The TEA party is a big part to blame. Allow me to explain: the TEA Party is of course very politically active, and devoutly anti-Obama. In itself, not too big a deal. Hell, I was against Bush the lesser to the point of wanting a treason investigation on his administration. That's another story entirely however, and something I still stand by.

The TEA Party however is making its points largely by denying facts and obstructing. They tend to favor the most extreme candidates, usually religious fundamentalists (think Bachmann and O'Donnell). The candidate does well in rallies full of like-minded people, so they get the nomination. Then having the Republican party nomination, they do poorly in debates where there assertions and stances are actually questioned and exposed to contradicting facts.

Such extreme candidates tend to disgust moderates, even those who would otherwise be more inclined to vote against the liberal candidate. O'Donnell is a good example of this, as the one she ran against was openly socialist, if memory serves. Just let yourself consider that for a moment: people chose a Socialist over a Republican nominee. Republicans are in serious trouble.

Their presidential nominee does not help. Make no mistake - out of the choices of the ones that were allowed any exposure, Romney really was the best one, I think. But he still is an out of touch hypocrite.

Don't even get me started on the War on Women. That just keeps getting pushed further and further, with it now pretty much impossible to deny in good conscience that a War on Women is exactly what it is.

I think we may see in the near future the Republicans falling to the insignificance of "third party" status with the Libertarians rising up to their place. I don't know if it will be this election, but the way things are going now, that's what is coming.

2012 Elections and my Endorsement

By now, you are probably tired of hearing about election stuff. I know I am, and there is still a number of months to go. However, that doesn't make it any less important.

Republicans... Republicans. Ugh. They had a chance to get some major victories in. While many of the reasons people hate Obama are basically bullshit, the fact is that a lot of people still hate him regardless. But hate is generally synonymous with stupidity, so it requires only a little rhyme and no reason.

All in all, I'd say that the TEA Party is the worst thing to happen to Republicans and the best thing to happen to Democrats in a very long time. Regardless of how stupid they are, the fact is that they are good at getting their candidates nominated. And said candidates tend to be extreme... like Christine O'Donnell. While such candidates may set the conservatives all afire with glee, it's ultimately the moderates who decide an election. We moderates tend to dislike extremists. Most politicians are aware of this, and thus switch to pandering to moderates once they get the party nomination, never mind how much they painted themselves as an extreme party loyalist during primaries. Just remember... "Independent" isn't spelled with an (R) or (D).

Anyway, generally speaking, the Republican Party didn't give choices to be very enthusiastic about during the recent primaries. The one I liked ended up being shunned as a trouble maker and was generally ignored. Unfortunate for the Republicans, because I think the guy could have won against Obama. No, I'm not talking about Ron Paul - I see him as a hypocrite and religious fundamentalist.

Consider the choices offered, though. Most were TEA Party types. Religious fundamentalists to the core, all logic be damned. Preaching smaller government in the same breath as preaching for more invasive government... sorry, but small government doesn't tell you who you can marry or be in the bedroom with, or dictate religious morals as a whole.

Well, counting out the one I like, I'd say Romney was the lesser of the evils offered... but still evil. It is painfully obvious that he is out of touch with all but the rich and super rich, though he tries to paint himself as being otherwise. Don't get me wrong; I'm not one who hates the rich... I only hate those who are greedy/snobby about it, or painfully out of touch. I still remember reading a complaint from one rich person (not a parody) about how people without money just don't understand how hard it is to live on $250,000 a year. Perhaps he should try living on about $10/hour to see why we're not exactly sympathetic to his plight.

Romney really is a politician through and through, and a painfully out of touch rich guy through and through. He is one of those who really has loved "off-shoring" American jobs for quick profits, and he panders relentlessly, constantly changing his stances. I can respect someone who changes their stance after thinking things through... but his changes in stance have been a result of pandering, not deep thought.

For any who may have been curious about an endorsement from me... I like Obama overall. He did inherit a hell of a mess from Bush the lesser, and I knew before anyone even announced they were considering to run for the spot that the next president would likely be unpopular for making hard, but necessary decisions. That's not to say that I endorse him or entirely approve of his actions. For instance, I am thoroughly disappointed in his decision to not only not overturn, but to instead strengthen the misnamed Patriot Act. As for Obamacare... I'm watching and waiting. I don't like the individual mandate... but other than that, I'm waiting for a better alternative to be offered. "Let them die" isn't an option, else I suggest you volunteer yourself to that philosophy.

If I endorse a candidate, it would be the one I mentioned earlier that the Republicans shunned and ignored - Gary Johnson, who now is on the Libertarian ticket. I don't agree with all his stances, but I do know that 1) he is brilliant, 2) he is fair, and 3) he's willing to think about and reconsider his stances if new evidence is presented (for example, his change in stance on the death penalty, now being against it after finding that his policy also would have resulted in the execution of a specific innocent man). In truth, what more can one ask for in a leader? Check him out and give him your support... and spread the word! Gary Johnson (L) for president, 2012

The problem with the GOP

Who here is keeping up with the GOP primaries? If so, do you have a favorite? Mine recently went Libertarian after the GOP ignored him and called him a troublemaker. Other than him, I honestly don't like anyone running in the GOP.

With my politics, most who know me would probably expect me to support Obama. Well, I did. I supported him through the Democrat primaries and voted for him in the general election of 2008. The way I saw it was that he was fresh to politics and still had ideals, rather than just being another slippery turd in a business suit. I don't regret my vote. McCain would have been worse... it would have been like Bush having a third term. But I am disappointed in Obama.

I had hoped he would hold onto those ideals that had endeared him to me if he got elected. Sadly, he did not. He carried on many of Bush's policies, such as the inappropriately named "Patriot Act," and more recently, the NDAA. Other than that, much like any politician, he's too much a coward to make any big moves or to push for any big changes. It could be blamed on the obstructionism coming from Republicans, but no one said that being president would be easy, and only a fool would think it would be. Especially being the first black president, sadly. Birthers can deny all they want, but I doubt they would be making such an issue if not for his race.

With this - the bad economy and the continuing slow erosion of liberties, I think that people on both sides are taking a "it's just more of the same" mentality when they look at their leaders and candidates. It's hard to get excited about what either party is offering.

I'm firmly convinced that the TEA Party is going to be the downfall of the Republicans. While the movement in itself is not racist, many in it are. They also keep pushing the most extreme and theocratic candidates up to the front in the Republican primaries, forgetting that it's ultimately the Independents and moderates that decide, come the general election. I will say right now that as an Independent and a moderate, I do not want an extremist in office, and would happily vote Obama another term before accepting one of those the TEA Party has pushed.

Every Republican candidate has shown certain extremist ideas. I won't harp too much on Bachmann, only because she's dropped out already. But, let's look at Rick Perry, who seems proud that Texas has had so many executions under his rule (some of whom have later been proven innocent), or Newt Gingrich who is one of the biggest noisemakers and hypocrites that I've seen in my lifetime - lambasting Clinton from one side of Capitol Hill to the other over an affair while he, himself, is having an affair, which is nothing new. And yes, in general while I am not myself gay, I do consider equal rights for gays to be an important issue. If nothing else, one's stances on this is very telling of their character as a whole, I think.

To summarize, the GOP really isn't uniting on much of anything other than hate, whether it be of Obama or of gays. The candidates presented are weak and sometimes too much alike. None is offering real change... and as for the economy, they just keep presenting plans to balance the budget by the time they are long out of office. That's not fixing anything, it's just passing it to the next guy.