The Zombies Are Here!!!

Last night, I had a Zombie dream.

Now, to be perfectly honest, though I have a vivid imagination and have dreamt of many things, I have to admit Zombies was not what I would have expected me to dream about. Zombie movies have never been a favorite genre for me and way too much has been written about why people like them. The last thing I would have expected me to dream about was Zombies. I've never done it before, and haven't watched a Zombie movie in many a month. None the less, last night, I dreamt about Zombies.

I'm not sure it was the classic Zombie movie, but it had elements of it. Zombieland is a Zombie movie I actually enjoyed because it was so tongue-in-cheek (and in seat, and on floor and flying through the air and... well, you get the picture), but it had elements my (apparently deranged) mind threw into my dream. That is to say, it didn't focus so much on the beginning of the disaster as the point of view of someone just trying to make it through the day.

It all started out normal enough (as all Zombie movies do). It was from the perspective of a "regular guy" (yours truly) who was just going about his life. Only, occasionally, someone would pop up as a Zombie.

Mostly, they were ignored.

They'd be in theaters, in the supermarkets and malls, going about their business as well. But they were Zombies and everyone knew it. Gradually, though, more and more of them appeared. They still went about their business, but they were a touch more hostile than all the other "normal" people out there. If you pointed out to one they were a Zombie, they'd actually attack you.

Eventually, of course, there were Zombies everywhere. They weren't interested in eating your brains so much as they were interested in turning you into another zombie, or killing you if you resisted. Not typical Zombie behavior I grant you, but it was pretty typical of the mentality (if not NECESSARILY the actions) of some folks today.

It took a while for me to remember, but the Zombies in my dream were Red, White and Blue and looked like they lived mostly in trailers before they went on their world-wide rampage of "Join us or die!!!".

Is anyone out there beginning to draw the same parallels I did?

Let's look at politics today: A bunch of people who can't think being led by party platforms which have no chance of becoming reality, each using the platforms of the other party as the boogie man's whip to keep their followers blindly in line. Anyone who raises a voice against these blindly shuffling, Red, White and Blue zombies of either party are shouted down, attacked (and in some cases killed) or vilified as someone who must be converted to their point of view or "die" (metaphorically at the least, literally at the most).

Now, I tend to equate violent zombies with the right wing (mostly because a conservative is more tolerant of violence, and tends to use violence and violent imagery as their "weapons" of choice in convincing others to go along with them, but I digress), but in this case, both parties can be called Zombies. Right wingers believe in their political nonsense because politicians tell them what they must believe. Left wingers believe in their nonsense, partly as an anti-reaction to the Right-wingers platform, but also because they believe what their politicians tell them.

The politicians are the APPARENT zombie masters. Of course, the politicians are themselves zombies of the Corporate World (and if you don't believe the corporations run the world, you should read up about what the British trader said on the BBC the other day about how Goldman Sachs runs the world and not governments ), which makes the Corporate World and bankers the true Zombie Masters. I expect he'll meet a bad end in the near future. Defamation or death is what I expect to see happen. He was telling the TRUTH, after all, and the Corporate World doesn't want anyone to know the truth.

But the bottom line isn't so much who controls the zombies. It's that the zombies really made themselves by refusing to think for themselves. I've written about the dearth of people thinking for themselves before, but perhaps haven't mentioned HOW they fuck this up so badly.

Most people believe they are thoughtful and hold opinions that are well considered. They think they listen to what other people say and decide for themselves whether to believe in it or not. Of course, this isn't what's really happening, but they think it does. They then become entrenched in these beliefs and will often react belligerently when those beliefs are challenged - ESPECIALLY when those awful, inconvenient "facts" are used against them.

That is NOT being thoughtful nor creating well considered opinions.

The truth is, in politics, OPINIONS SHOULD NEVER BE SET IN STONE. EVER!

Life isn't static. It's always changing. Societies grow. New technologies create new ways of looking at things. Knowledge and discoveries open new vistas and new horizons. And because of this, what was true about things yesterday may not be true about them tomorrow. Going back to my favorite whipping boy, politics and the right wing, I can say with utter certainty that today's right wing was NOT what it was twenty years ago. Today, it's militantly opposed to compromise that would benefit the people and the country. Even if you go more than half-way to their position, they will not accept that, and demand they get everything their way or nothing gets done. They aren't called the Party of NO! these days just because they're against drugs, sex - outside of a marriage between a man and a woman, of course - and abortion.

Since the right wing refuses to budge, the left wing has started doing the same thing and nothing is getting done.

People aren't thinking. They're reacting.

If the reactions were beneficial, that would be fine, but the reactions are to only entrench one's opinions more solidly in an unyielding matrix of political ideology.

Way back when, I had a friend who recited T. A. R. as a way to go through life. It turned out he was looney as a Wanner Brother's cartoon, but this advise always struck me as one of his more lucid moments.

T. A. R. Think. Act. React.

Notice the first word. Think. Always think first. You think about your action AND your reaction. When I was in college, I did a speech on this using the acronym SCAB Act. - Stop and Consider Actions Before you Act. I said that if you remember SCAB, you might avoid a few of your own. I thought it was catchy.

The point is THINK FIRST! ALWAYS think first. But here's a few more hints about how to do it since, apparently, people are so out of practice in doing it for themselves.

The first thing you do is stifle the emotional reaction. Being emotional is a reaction. It's not thinking. You can use the energy to do something constructive like mow the lawn, build a sky-scraper or something equally affirming, but the last thing you want to do is use that emotional reaction to respond.

Next, consider what you heard/saw/experienced. People often go with a first impression of what was put before them without actually absorbing it. They have prejudices, preconceptions and perspectives that may interfere with what was actually intended to be put across. Flying off the handle by jumping to an erroneous conclusion is a great way to end up with foot-in-mouth disease.

Once you've accurately absorbed what you experienced, next consider WHY. Now, granted, there isn't always a why. But if it's an argument, and someone is trying to convince you of something, or is getting angry at you over something, consider the whys. Whys are the underlying motivations for what you have absorbed. When considering the whys, try not to let your prejudices, opinions and other set-in-stone aspects of your personality/life get in the way of arriving at a conclusion. This may not be possible for some people to do, but none the less, it's a step that shouldn't be skipped.

Finally, respond. Do it calmly, rationally and with a factual basis to support and justify your response. Because sure as hell, when you respond in such a manner, the other person will probably fly off the handle and your point looks far more reasonable and rational than theirs.

Thinking, as I pointed out 20 or 30 years ago, should be an Olympic sport. It requires CONSTANT practice and it's obvious some do it a lot better than others. But it's an activity that everyone should be doing whether they're good at it or not. An open mind, some has said, can't hold onto anything. But a closed mind can't get anything into it. What we need are minds that allow things in, and can arrange them neatly according to our own experience and reasoning.

No one is going to be perfect at this - especially those whose opinions tend to be handed to them on silver platters and catered to by those wishing to manipulate them. So to finish it all off, when it comes to thinking, assume no one is telling you the truth.

In politics, this is ESPECIALLY true. There is so much spin going on to sway and convince that no one really knows what the truth there is anymore on either side of the political spectrum. If you assume everyone in politics is hiding something, spinning the truth, trying to get their own way at the expense of everything else (a not unreasonable starting point given the way Washington hasn't worked in the last two or three years), think before you react, try to discern all of the whys and, above all, search for the truth on your own using sources that are NOT part of the world where the spin is coming from, then you are well on your way to creating well considered, thoughtful opinions which can change as the circumstances and world changes.

Zombies can't think. And even if you paint them all red, white and blue, they're a hazard to life because they want you to be just like them. The horror in my dream had more to do with becoming a mindless automaton unable to think or mentally do for myself than any possible physical mutilation of body that becoming a zombie might bring. (I don't look good in red or white, but blue is okay).

In my dream, feeling cornered, I stopped running from the Zombies and started attacking them instead. I was using my fists - but in reality I was using my mind. I could think. They couldn't. In the end, I was the one left standing amid a lot of broken Zombies and the world was once again safe to be in.

We need more thinkers and fewer zombies if THIS world is to be safe again.

Why Rednecks Are So Stupid

I can't help but wonder why the average "conservative" supporter is so adamant about voting against their own best interests so constantly. I mean, from a bottom line point of view, every time they vote for a conservative, their lives get worse.

Conservatives believe in "fiscal responsibility", but exactly what does that mean? Not spending more than you make? No, that's not true because when it comes to military spending, conservatives are more than willing to print a bunch more dead presidents to finance a war. The same goes for subsidies of industries and businesses (what we also refer to as "corporate welfare"). This has come at the expense of the average taxpayer - and more so from those who traditionally support GOP policies. Far more of the budget is spent on military spending (including veterans benefits, research and whatnot) than on any three "welfare" programs, but the way "rednecks" talk about it, all the government wants to do is tax and spend on "socialism".

Given all the things the right-wing does (outside of advancing repressive social programs), it's patently obvious that they are catering to the rich at the expense of the poor, but the poor vote for them anyhow.

Case in point: GWB's proposal to privatize Social Security.

I don't think anything gives the rich a hard-on more than thinking about all those tax dollars being invested in their companies instead of the insurance policy that is Social Security. But let's face it, had GWB's plan been implemented, most people's retirements would have been wiped out due to the proliferation of subprime mortgages in investment packages, causing those packages to tank.

The rich, of course, were never hurt by this. They only got richer.

Another case in point: The number of government subsidies going to Big Oil. These are supposedly to offset the costs of finding and developing new reserves of oil. But when a company is making hundreds of billions of dollars in PROFITS (not just revenue, but extra cash that hasn't been spent that year), investors and executives get paid off, but the tax payers get left holding the high gas prices and bill to subsidize the oil company's search for more of what made them rich to begin with.

Taxpayer money going to increase oil company profits while the average American gets financially hammered at the pumps.

Another case in point: The GOP's adamant refusal to extend gas mileage requirements on new vehicles. Way back when, the Auto Industry predicted bankruptcies and millions out of work - over seat belts. The same was predicted over air bags. The same was predicted for improved auto safety standards. None of these predictions materialized due to those improvements. But again, they're bleating to the GOP about improved gas standards cutting into profits and the government backtracked.

FYI: Improved gas mileage saves you money, and cuts down on the amount of gas sold, which means smaller profits for Big Oil, but more green in your pocket, and possibly, in your back yard, too.

EVERYTHING the GOP and political conservatives have done has benefited big business at the expense of the people. Even creating jobs hasn't been terribly beneficial because the GOP's job creation method has always been to start a war (In fairness, Johnson continued the Vietnam war to finance his Great Society, but he was from Texas, so he was a conservative liberal - if there is such a thing these days).

And despite all the evidence that the conservatives favor the good of business and the enrichment of the wealthy over the good of the people, the most desperate and least wealthy of the people in the country still vote for them.

I believe it has to do with a carefully crafted campaign to misdirect them into this behavior. And with this "class" of people, it's a fairly simple thing to do.

Now before I get anyone's patched long johns in a twist, I'm using the Jeff Foxworthy definition of a Redneck: A person with a glorious lack of sophistication. They are not bright, but they are steady. They aren't quick, but they are stubborn and reliable. They aren't well educated, but they make their own way. They come from a culture where a man's word is his bond and a handshake is as good as gold. There is much to admire from this culture. In many ways, it's the backbone of the country. They are the "salt of the earth" types, who are, sadly, easily misled due to that lack of sophistication.

This lack of sophistication translates into a very narrowly focused understanding of the world. They want things simple, traditional and the way "god intended things to be". This, in and of itself, is fine and dandy. But with a simple point of view of things, they are very easily manipulated.

A typical conservative candidate is against abortion, pro guns, against "gay marriage", is all for a strong military, against "socialism" or "welfare", in favor of low taxes and less government in your life. Some go further, but we're going to use a "middle of the road" conservative as an example.

The typical redneck believes in all of these. Some because it's part of his culture. Some because it's part of his religion. But the typical redneck doesn't want anything to do with helping the rich get richer unless the rich are working hard for the money and earn it the old-fashioned way. This is where conservatives are very quite about what they do when they're in power. And this is why conservatives are in power at all: Money.

The conservative fiscal policy makes the rich get richer at the expense of the poor. And it's a policy which perpetuates itself. For example, a strong military is a conservative cornerstone. But if there aren't a lot of poor, uneducated Americans willing to die for their country, there can't be those wars the military is being strong for.

So it becomes necessary to ensure a continuing supply of people so poor, their only way out of grinding poverty is the military. To do this the tax burden is shifted from those who can afford it (the wealthy) to those who can least afford it (the poor). Further, the tax dollars, rather than being used to help the poor with education or vocational training to find better jobs, are given to businesses which are already making substantial profits. This is allegedly done to stimulate job growth, but in effect only stimulates the bank accounts of the rich and the company's investors. No number of tax incentives or subsidies has stimulated a significant number of jobs. Even today, this variation on the thoroughly discredited "trickle down" hypothesis of economics is still believed by fairly bright people to work.

It doesn't. It never has. It never will.

The ways the GOP have shifted the wealth from the poor to the rich are insidious, varied and effective. They have effectively created a "pro business" mentality among their followers which worships the notion of the "Free Market" (Something I had a few words to say about not long ago). But this is a vital part of the strategy they've used. In a "Free Market" the theory is that anyone, through hard work alone, can become a rich person. This is the dream of most of our oppressed "rednecks". They believe that through hard work, a person will "make it". The day they "make it" is always next year, though. The whole system is stacked against them. The illusion keeps them going, but the reality is, none of them are going to get there.

Consider this: To be good in business you need native smarts or an education. Most people lack native smarts, so they need an education. This is the first step.

To get a good education, the average person needs good schools, good fortune and a lot of help from higher up on the food chain. Granted, there are success stories about ordinary people having a great idea nad getting rich because of it, but they're about as frequent as hen's teeth. For every success story, you have tens of millions of people left behind. The sad fact is, most Americans will barely scrape by their entire lives and few will ever elevate themselves beyond what they grew up with - if even that.

The GOP has systematically destroyed the education system, creating one so expensive and impractical, we are graduating fewer people who can actually think from high school than ever before. The GOP has used the mythology of creation as a corner stone in the dumbing-down of America. We used to graduate more Doctors and Engineers than we needed. Today, we have to import them. Why? Because the lessons science teaches - critical thinking, logical progression and rational thought - are being undermined by conservatives pushing for a religious agenda in our nation's schools. Texas tends to push harder than the rest because if the Texas school system (one of the largest in the nation) adopts a particular policy regarding the sciences (or any subject for that matter), text book publishers tend to only publish that one policy, leaving the other states to deal with the aftermath. Texas is a conservative state, its policy makers brainwashed by the powerful who cater to religious notions (because it serves their purposes of having a large number of expendable minions to serve and service the rich) in order to forward the goals of their masters, the wealthy.

But in even more direct ways, the conservatives have undermined education. They have cut funding, raised tuition, and created a public school system that is perpetually underfunded, understaffed, overworked and focused on bogus issues like "no child left behind" (an impractical, unfunded and useless policy which focuses on passing tests rather than learning a subject). The scholastic emphasis is misplaced resulting in graduates who can't grasp subject matter and focus on tests. And the atmosphere in schools has never tended to encourage thinkers in the first place.

Cut off the head and the body will die. The rich can always afford to educate themselves at private schools. The rest of us... Not so much. The brain drain has created a dumber, less capable, less insightful America who needs to bring in educated foreign workers to help raise the bar in innovation, industry and manufacturing.

But it doesn't stop there. Aside from destroying most American's ability to educate themselves (and earn a more respectable income) through dismantling the education system and making what is left almost prohibitively expensive, the GOP and their rich puppet masters have managed to be more direct in reducing the average American's options by taking money from them directly. Policies that favor businesses have been a staple of the GOP diet for decades. But only now are those policies paying off in the form of higher prices, lower wages and other impacts that cost Americans more than they realize.

Oil futures were (and still are) manipulated by the rich to ensure the price stays high. This means more money out of our pockets just to get to where we have to go. And that price has been inching higher over the last ten years - 300% higher from about $1.50 to (at times) nearly $5.00/gallon. It's expected to go higher than that. People in Europe pay more, but much of that is taxes.

Union busting has been embarked on in a big way these days, reducing the wages of workers. It also reduces their benefits, which leads them to a decreased financial ability to practice preventative health maintenance resulting in higher health care costs and increased poverty because of it.

Relaxed regulations for Big Pharma (and anything else "big" for that matter) result in skyrocketing prices for medications which, several years years later when the patents finally wear off, can be had for pennies. Pharma says they have to recoup their losses on research. Well, GOP leaders made sure the FDA streamlined approval of these drugs - many of which have been found to be hazardous to human health and life. Further, they allowed advertising of these hideously expensive drugs, and allowed big Pharma to bribe doctors into prescribing them unnecessarily. All of this reduces the money the average American needs in order to get the education, material and means necessary to better themselves.

Subsidies for companies engaged in "alternative fuel", which is neither "Green" or particularly efficient (ethanol) have cost the taxpayers billions, but what is worse is the impact switching from food to fuel production in agriculture had on food prices globally. The price of edible corn went up 400% in one year. This cascaded throughout the agriculture world, resulting in higher demand (and prices) for other foodstuffs like rice and wheat. The cost of bread alone went up 200%. And despite vast profits for big Agra, they still were subsidized with taxpayer money for doing this. We all paid more for our food, leaving us with less for other things.

Nickle, diming and dollaring us to death, our money went from our pockets, to the rich, in a barely noticed, but highly effective stream of shifting revenue unparalleled in world history.

But it's the poor who suffer the most from this - and rednecks aren't known as the most well-0ff class of people on the face of the planet.

Which means these poor sods, the redneck, is still stuck with the Army or poverty.

So why do these people continue to vote against their own best interests?

Because the conservatives have poisoned the well.

Simple people don't like anything different than themselves. They are often racist, intolerant, blindly faithful to family traditions and religions and are pretty much incapable of breaking out of that mold. But within this predisposition lies the handle one can grasp to manipulate them.

In manipulating a simple-minded culture, one must first create a scapegoat. In this case it's "liberals". Liberals have to be "the enemy". They are vilified, demonized and finally cast into a political purgatory no self-respecting redneck would ever want to visit. They are stereotyped as elitist intellectuals who don't know any better (at best). This creating the scapegoat is exactly the same thing Nazi Germany did to the Jews. Much of the impact of that scapegoating they did in the 1930's and 1940's remains today.

As long as there is an "enemy" upon which to focus their hate, these folks can be relentless. Not once will they stop to question things if they can be made to believe something is a certain way.

Next, one must cater to their culture by supporting those "traditionalist" beliefs in a socially proactive way. Promoting the banning of abortions, demanding a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, demanding that public buildings be used for religious purposes.

It's all a bunch of horseshit.

This is the distraction they use. The handle they have on the average "redneck". The smoke and mirrors the politicians pull on their followers. If they're asked a question about their support of a particular bill that gave billions of taxpayer dollars to Chevron, the crafty conservative politician will say, "I supported the rights of a baby by blocking Planned Parenthood funding when I was a state representative!". Or he could respond with, "I voted to increase military funding and saved 500 jobs!" Anything but a straight and honest answer to the question.

This is how they use their voters. They find some stupid, utterly meaningless social issue and blow it up out of proportion. "Gay marriage undermines the sanctity of marriage!" I don't know of a single straight marriage ruined or made weaker because a bunch of homosexuals want to have the same civil rights as them. There never has been. There never will be. It's a horseshit issue. The same for abortion. If you don't like abortion, don't get one. Beyond that, it's a horseshit issue. All of the conservative social agenda is for is to garner support among a people who love traditional values, and practice them. Making them a party platform is blatantly catering to them to get their vote. But with that vote comes the authority to strip them of their wealth and give it to the wealthy.

The wealthiest 20% of Americans control 85% of the country's wealth, earn 85% of the income and only pay 35% of the total taxes. The rest of us (80% of Americans) split the remaining 15% of the wealth and income available, but pay 65% of the taxes that are needed to run the country.

Now, I don't know about you, but to me, that doesn't seem like a fair and reasonable disposition of the tax burden in the country. The bottom 15% paying 65% of what it takes to run the country? And here's the kicker: The poorest 20% of Americans control 0.1% of the wealth and income and pay about 15% of the taxes.

All thanks to the misdirection and horseshit smoke and mirrors tactics the conservatives have played on them all these years. These poor slobs actually think these social programs are going to ever be put into effect despite their blatantly unconstitutional natures just because some candidate in the back pocket of some big corporation or conglomerate says they're going to do it. They say these things (and occasionally try to implement them) simply because to do otherwise would eventually be noticed and remarked upon by the rednecks who elected them.

Rednecks may be unsophisticated, but if you hit them over the head enough times with something, eventually you get their attention.

Unfortunately for the country, the damage has been done insofar as trying to bring these folks back into the political fold goes. In creating their horseshit smoke and mirrors tactics, the conservatives have managed to turn what are supposed to be (and were in the past) political issues into a religion. The faithful shall forever be voting more and more radically conservative while the rest of the "libturd", "libtard" heathens rot in their socialist hell. Or something like that. I was never very good at creating words to insult other people with. I figure the words we all already know are good enough for that.

The rednecks can now be called rednecks because they have served themselves up to be beheaded on the altar of corporate greed and the pursuit of political power, willingly sacrificing themselves on the battlefields chosen by the rich and powerful strictly to preserve the wealth and power of the rich and powerful having been tricked into believing it will make any difference or help the average American back home.

And despite mounting evidence of the detrimental nature of their relationship with and support of conservatives, there is no sign that they're going to wake up from their enchantment anytime soon. They are being beaten over the heads repeatedly, spilling their blood endlessly, almost never able to live better than their parents, believe the conservatives who say it's all the Liberals fault and keep voting for more of the same from their elected officials. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time. In politics, it doesn't ever change if you vote for the same platforms over and over and over again. And yet, they expect things to get better for them each time.

And that's why Rednecks are so stupid.

Wake up, people. See what's happening. Whether intentional (which I think it is) or not, it is what is happening NOW. Conspiracy theories aside, this is what's going on and the GOP and conservative movements are all behind it. Cause and effect, whether intended or not, the GOP and conservatives are keeping you down and doing everything to keep you there. I'm not saying you need to vote for a bunch of incompetent liberals, but for your sake and the sake of this great nation, don't vote for conservatives who always say what you want to hear. The essence of politics is compromise. Absolutism is destroying us.

And you're helping them do it.

Politics IS Religion

Let's face it, Politics in the U.S. is no longer about the secular world. It's all about religion.

Recall, now, that I define a religion as a set of dogmatic behaviors. Defining Politics as religion may be stretching this definition a bit, but if you consider the fact you can describe the behaviors of a conservative as well as a liberal within a fairly narrow boundary for each, and that each side is moving to push their people to abide within those boundaries, and that the boundaries are becoming even more restrictive, politics become less about government and the running thereof and more about religion.

There is definitely a belief system involved here. It's already been pretty conclusively proven that neither extreme of the political spectrum (conservative and liberal) has ANY answers. They've moved out of range of actually solving any problems with the party planks they've acquired over the last couple of decades. When people believe in things that can't really happen, you start moving into the realm of religion as well. Though beliefs don't qualify something as a religion in my book (Behaviors do, remember), they definitely have the same area code. And when those beliefs move into the impossible (or extremely improbable), then we're looking at shared zip codes.

Another reason why politics is a religion is because of the reason the effort is put into it. And the reason is secular power. Though one could argue that there is no religious basis for politics, that it's all about social issues and the way governments run, let's look at it from the flip side. Organized religions are all about secular power. They brow-beat their followers with dogmatic platforms demanding compliance to a certain behavioral code. Belief is only a by-product and, in the end, isn't really necessary. Provided the followers go through the motions and say the right things, they "believe" in the eyes of others, whether they actually do or not. Further, while religions have long since insinuated themselves into social issues, more and more lately they've inserted themselves into how governments run as well. The language of government is fraught with religious symbolism and ideology.

All of this describes a political rally, although I'm inclined to say that at a political rally, the followers are far more likely to believe in their nonsense than someone in a church.

And what that nonsense has the same impact: That is to say regardless of who's in power, nothing really changes. The progressives try to move forward while the conservatives try to move backward. There may be some movement at times while one or the other is in "power", but the fact remains that as much as the progressives move forward while in power, the conservatives move backward. Like a religion, it doesn't matter what you believe politically because the end result is always the same - nothing changes, no one new is converted, no one who believes stops believing.

Finally, and most telling of them all, is the fact that politics includes violence against others to force them to "behave" the same way as those inflicting the violence. Religion is fraught with examples of coerced conversions. Politics is fraught with the same thing.

Pundits exhort their rabid fans in vague terms (which in reality can only be interpreted one way) to go out and save the country from the bad guys (who are invariable the politically polar opposite of them). The violent imagery involved in these exhortations is subtle, but apparent to those who have a discerning eye or are too simple-minded to understand that the images aren't meant to be taken literally. While cause and effect isn't always linear, the fact remains that political rhetoric, passing off politics as a religion that is to be followed with no questions and no resistance and to call those who don't the enemy who should be "targeted", is widespread and that people have died who were targeted because of their differing political ideology.

This puts politics down there with religion. The only difference I can see is that unlike religion, with politics, the people vote for who their gods will be.

Why Planks Don't Build Bridges

It dawned on me, not too long ago, that the whole problem with politics today is "position". Party platforms. Planks of policy. Agendas of the asses (Not a typo.).

Let's face it, politicians get elected because people want to know where they stand on the "issues". The problem here is that taking a stand on the issue isn't going to solve it. Politics isn't about politicians fulfilling campaign promises. It's about getting elected. Politicians, as individuals, usually have almost no power at all. It's only through cooperation, deal-making and other such things that anything actually gets accomplished at all. Campaign promises to "fix this" or "undo that" or "oppose this" or "stop that" are all BS. No one person can promise that. No political party can promise anything. They can't deliver on their agendas without cooperation or a dictatorship. Given the polarized political landscape today, where cooperation is viewed as being weak and betraying the 'values' of the member's political party, the only way to deliver a campaign promise is the dictator route.

Planks may be great for bullet points to inflame the passions of the masses, but in practical terms, planks accomplish nothing but putting up roadblocks to getting anything done. They delineate the limits of compromise toward the other side - which is to say none. They're not even viable starting points. Platforms are merely ideas, tokens of position on a political map that is as malleable as clay to those who unfold it. If it will get those who unfold it into power, they'll put that token anywhere. They mean NOTHING to these people other than as a means to an end - which is to get into and stay in power. That much is pretty obvious.

No matter the platform point, the policy position or the agenda, the one question that none of these things can answer is, "How?" How are you going to get that done? Ram-rod it down people's throats so your side "wins"? Force your agenda on an unwilling half of the country? 'Spin' it so it sounds like a deal it isn't? (We call that lying where I come from) Frankly, I'd rather avoid dictatorships again. So assuming the two parties will continue to remain opposed to one another's platform points, and no compromise will ever be forthcoming (which is NOT as unreasonable an assumption as you might think), and dictatorships won't be tolerated by the masses, what's the only way to get things done?

First of all, we need another major political party. One in the center, for whom agendas and planks and such mean nothing. These people will be elected simply because they won't paint over themselves with whatever convenient political color is out there to get elected. Their one political campaign promise is to get the job done. What does getting the job done mean?

Basically by applying the bullshit meter to things.

If the bullshit meter points too far to the left or the right, it goes BZZZZZZZ! and the business is sent back to be fixed. It's pretty easy to spot bullshit in politics. They're called party platforms.

Moderation means doing things so that no one is happy. By no one, I mean the left and the right. If a compromise is worked out which leaves both sides yelping with equal volume, you probably have a good compromise. You know the platform points. you know where both sides stand - the core 'values' of each party. But the reality - the solution to dealing with these issues and their plank positions - is somewhere in the middle. It always has been. And that's where our American Moderate Party works: in the middle, hashing out the solutions so that both sides scream with the same pitch.

Let's face it, extremism doesn't provide lasting solutions. It never has. We can't build a bridge with planks that can't meet in the middle. We have to have enough overlap in our political positions to encompass all but the more extreme views. We have to find solutions that stand a chance at lasting longer than the next national election when the political pendulum swings the other way. And that won't happen - ever - with the political climate we've had in Washington DC the last two decades.

EVERYONE is fed up with congress (by everyone, I mean enough people to ratify amendments and over-turn vetoes, AKA a super-majority). But we still play into that "if you're not with us you're a traitor and against us" attitude the Antichrist (Karl Rove) brought to us during the Bush years.

We have to get over that. The best way is by organizing the silent middle into a new political party. One whose purpose is to finish building bridges, not with the thin planks of extremism and fragile ropes of expedience, but with the steel and concrete of the kind of practical cooperation that is at the heart and spirit of a UNITED States of America. We need enduring solutions, not political party plank patches. We need the American Moderate Party. It's too late for this election, but in two years...?

I think we can do it.

How Moderates Can Have a Voice - 08/24/2010

While I've written a lot about politics, I think I should make it clearer where I stand on the political spectrum so that those who want to hate me know where the shots across their bow (or at their bridge) I tend to verbally make are coming from.

I am a left-center moderate.

I have definite views of the left and the right - neither worth my time or consideration. The left is incompetent and naive. The right is genuinely evil (I define evil as pure and utter self-gratification only at the detriment of others). If given only those choices, I don't vote.

That's really the only thing a moderate can do these days. No matter what the election is about, there's always the choice between the devil on the right and the deep blue sea on the left. Is the difference between standing up to your nose in dog shit on the left and standing up to your nose in burning dog shit while being beaten by a religious fanatic who wants to drive the devil from you on the right.

Neither side is appealing. What amazes me is that people will choose EITHER side at all.

America isn't filled with political geniuses. Far from it. If we had an electorate who could actually see where the power comes from (the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee), then we'd all rise up and destroy both of these non-elected star-chambers before their rivalry destroys the country. The American people have as much choice in their candidates as Iraq, where the all-powerful central religious committee chooses the candidates based on a religious litmus test. The RNC has already said they won't back anyone who doesn't pass their ideological litmus test. The DNC hasn't QUITE gotten to that point yet - mostly just saying all you need to do is oppose the RNC's litmus test.

This means in order to be chosen to be elected by the "central committees" in the US, you must either be in favor of or oppose a set of political ideologies promoted by one side's extremist political views. And this is how we've been doing politics pretty much throughout the 20th century and all of the 21st.

Like I said, American's aren't terribly bright when it comes to politics.

What's worse, Americans seem to accept it as normal and even healthy (those few idealists who still cleave to the quaint, but obsolete, notion that we as a country can have more than two choices.)

A two party political system is bad for America. It doesn't promote an atmosphere of cooperation or peace. It doesn't promote agendas that are good for America - only special interests (who, for the most part, fund the DNC and RNC and are thus the powers behind the government in the US). It creates a political environment where extremists can behave in such a way that people think it's only political expression when in fact it's sedition and treason for which these extremists in more moderate circles would be rounded up, tried and convicted. It is not "healthy political debate" when people are promoting armed insurrection, rebellion or acts of terrorism all in the name of patriotism or even because they have to "take back America".

(I always ask from whom they're taking back America? From the people who democratically elected the current government? And once you've got it, who are you going to give it to? The idiots who fucked it up in the first place?)

I say we take CONTROL of America. Like a top whose spinning in winding down, we're teetering on the verge of another civil war all because the right-wing can't accept the fact it fell from power and wants to get back in. All because the powers that be (DNC and RNC) are diametrically opposed to everything the other believes in and neither will support the other in ANY point regardless of its merits. We are a country torn apart by political extremism at the top and political moderation in the electorate - forced to hold its nose and decide which pile of dog shit they'll have to stand in for the next two to six years.

But how to do this? We moderates have no political voice. We have no national committees funneling millions of dollars to fund moderate candidates. We have no "fair and balanced" news channel spouting moderate propaganda (is there even such of a thing as moderate propaganda?). We have no media access at all in the days of "infortainment" where a news channel's ratings depend more on keeping viewers than informing them of the day's events. The RNC and DNC have hijacked the democratic process in the US and there's little we can do about it except stand impotently on the side.

I would LOVE to see a constitutional amendment mandating a three party system. Get rid of the house entirely. Split it into three chambers - left, right and center. They don't represent their states so much as political ideologies. Limit them to 150 per chamber (I'm sure someone can come up with a way to make the representation proportionate to state populations and political demographics)

Initiate bills in the Senate. That's still the same old senate, but these bills will be given debate in the lower chambers where changes can be made by committees composed of an equal number of representatives from each chamber. No earmarks can be added to the bill. Those have to come from the Senate (if they come from anywhere). Provisions of the bill can't be changed, but they can be removed (Basically saying we keep this, we don't keep that, etc. Kind of a line-item veto). Once out of committee, mandate voting on the bill - no filibusters. Silence is taken as a YES. (Silence always implies consent). Two out of three chamber votes yes wins. Constitutional changes requires three out of three yes votes. A no vote sends the bill back to the senate for changes or to die - senate's choice. If the lower chamber wants a bill started, they have to work with the Senate.

This kind of structure, regardless of who's president, would keep the pendulum from swinging too far left or right since it requires the moderates to have a voice. And if you consider the fact that the silent minority is at least 30% of the population, that's a lot of people who, thus far, have had no real voice in our political destiny.