It’s what organizations seem to be great at doing — wasting time doing stupid stuff.  It’s no that the things they waste time on are stupid in themselves, but they’re just things that don’t really mater overall.

It’s like an organization that wants to implement a new idea, let’s say whether or not to redesign their website, but instead of saying “new website with x, y, z: yes or no?” they do the following:

- Person A says “We need a new website with the following items [list of all the items in categories and subcategories, even with a summary and purpose section]”

- Person B says “we can’t vote on that!!!!  The proposal isn’t in the approved format!  It’s suposed to be [format template]”

- Person C says “but we never voted on that format, we just make proposals in the clearest way”

- Person B says “we need to implement the proposal I said since it’s the standard”

- Person C says “what standard?  we can implement whatever we want for our organization…”

(and so on, and so on…..)

- Person B says “you can’t just implement something person D says because person D said it!  The only reason it was approved was the people who disagreed left”

- Person C says “so a vote with the majority approving doesn’t count…. because they don’t agree with you?”

(ensue the fighting until personal attacks happen and a cooling off period takes place)

[months/years later]

- “Hey everyone!  We still need a new website…..”

Sadly I’m not even eggerating… corporations, politicians, even organizations spend tons of time messing around to take care of things that don’t matter — such as the method to make a proposal to do something — instead of taking on the actual problem!

Life’s short, and there’s enough messed up things in the world as it it that deserve attention.  Wasting time debating on the method to use to submit the idea needs to be stopped.

You’ve heard it before when someone says they don’t believe in violence, “what if someone’s going to kill your family?” Either that or a variant of it. But in many cases, if not most (saying “all” for anything is generally not wise), it’s “non violent — but defense doesn’t count”. Quite simple philosophy really, you don’t go out beating up others, killing, harming, or otherwise initiate violent actions — but if someone were to threaten you or the helpless, they’d step in to prevent the violence (which of course can lead to violence). The real goal of “non violence” is to prevent the initiation of violent acts.

So strike first before they strike at you policies wouldn’t exist.

If no country or person would initiate a violent act, there would be no violence – except in sports, but that’s another thing altogether and isn’t “violent” in a sense.  Few political parties out there even promote non-violence, the green party does, not sure about others, but neither the Democrats or Republicans have a non-violence policy — if they do something’s really wrong.

They start wars and develop laws to “protect” the people from terrorism.  When a candidate wants a war to end, they’re considered “weak” against terrorism so they go against their so-called beliefs.  But even now, there’s reports that neither McCain nor Obama is planning on ending the war; reports that around 90,000 new troops will be sent in, but nothing about really ending it or sending in a troop of diplomats.

Peace can’t be found at the muzzle of a gun, nor at the tip of a warhead.

There’s an old joke about a woman who takes her husband’s boat onto a lake to read in peace and quiet.  A game warden pulls up and asks for her fishing license — she says “I don’t have one.  I’m not fishing.  I’m just reading my book.”  Warden says “but you have all the equipment, so I have to fine you if you don’t have one.”  So she agrees and says “and I’m charging you with rape!”  He asks “Why?!? I haven’t even touched you!”  And she replies “But you have all the right equipment.”

Just because a country has the ability to create something doesn’t mean they will create something.  Striking first to make sure they won’t do it only increases the chances that they will, for self defense.  If you force someone into submission, they’ll defend themselves — then the media and the people will all chant “See! They did what we said!” and in the back you’ll hear a few voices trying to be heard saying “but we forced them to do it.”

There is never a winner in a war.  Everyone looses.  What’s sad is the people of a country might not want the war — but as long as the leaders want it, war it is.  Anytime you hear about a country wanting to put up blockades, force a country into submission, fire missiles into another country, or anything else…. unless you’ve seen proof that the other country started it, the aggressor isn’t the targeted country, it’s the targeting country.

To think that a country and all the people in it just want to kill others is absurd.  Now there might be some groups that want that.  There might even be countries that will back them.  But when violence is the first thing people think to react on, it makes you wonder if diplomacy was ever considered.  With some people, you can’t negotiate.  That’s just a simple fact of things.  But for most people out there, they’d be willing to make concessions.

It makes a person wonder:  when billions to trillions are spent to promote the military, how much is spent for diplomacy?

No matter where you are, as long as you have a choice (or pseudo-choice) of candidates in an election there’s a few simple rules to follow when deciding who to vote for:

1. What they believe in.

That’s it.

Here’s the list of things not to base your vote:

1. Religion – come now… do you really agree 100% with everything everyone in your religion  says?  Then why would you vote for them because they’re the same one as you?
2. Gender – there’s men and women that are serial killers, arsonists, embezzlers, religious figureheads, and philanthropists.  So why vote based on gender?
3. Race – same as gender.  There’s so much diversity within any group, you can’t safely vote for someone because they belong to the same one.
4. Political party — yep, again, not a real indication.  Granted if you belong to a third party you’ll be more likely to agree on many more points (since, well, you found them, not just belonged because your parents did or whatnot).  But even then, the chances of you agreeing completely with everything they say?  Not so much.  Even the third parties have multiple people running for primaries – so vote for the person.
5. *any other reason* — come on, you’re still reading?  There’s only one thing similar  between people running for offices: their human.  And being so they’re fairly unique and have their own set of values, morals and beliefs.  You want to make a decision – pay attention to the people!  And whatever you do…. don’t just pay attention to the media!  The media can make or break a candidate just by what they do or don’t show.  They’re not any more fair than politicians — only people think they can trust them.  Question everything.

The point is quite simply that no matter what someone is, they’re still an individual that may or may not go along with the rest of the people in his/her “group”.  So why would you even think of voting for a person based on the group?

Think someone in your group might understand your suffering more than others?  Great!  But, there’s more than two of almost every group (such as race, religion, sexuality, gender [in a sense]).  So even if they might understand your group from one point of view, what about all the others?  You want a person who will treat everyone fairly and right based on the current standards of society for the best-treated group.  You could vote in an African American, or an American Indian —- but the way a rich person would view things could be quite different than a poor one.  A person who was born into money, and had everything handed to them might think the world is fair — but a person who had their parents working 2-3 jobs a piece to just get food on the table, then the kids worked their butts off just to go to a small college just to get a factory job would have a quite different view of the world.

You should vote for who’d be the best person for the job, and who will have the country/state/county/town’s best interest in mind.  If they do, they’ll treat whatever group you’re in well as well.  It doesn’t matter what group the person is in as long as they believe in the people and doing what’s right for all.

So during this election year in the USA (2008 at the time of this writing, but applies for all years and countries), vote for the person.  Don’t vote for the race, gender, political affiliation or anything else — vote for the person.  Anything else and you’re wasting your vote.  And whatever you do VOTE.  I don’t care who you vote for as long as you vote for the person you know will do the best job.  If it’s not a democrat or republican — vote for a third party.  But don’t stay at home.  Use your vote to tell them exactly what you think of them.

Here’s the thing.  Even though I and many others would love for a third party to get into the presidency, this year, won’t happen.  But they’re getting bigger.  They believe in people and the environment — and they wanted Bush impeached and the war to end.  Don’t like the other candidates? Vote green.

I know, you’re yelling “that’s wasting a vote!!!”  But it’s not.  The only vote wasted is one for a candidate you don’t really want in, or one for the lesser of two evils.  If you don’t vote, the candidates/parties will view it as voter apathy — not as “you all suck”.  If you go and vote, but vote for a third party (or mark “none of the above” if an option) you’ll sending a powerful message: we took the time out to vote — but not for you.

So please, do the country a favor:  Stop complaining about the corrupt politicians and vote this election.  Your fellow countrymen* are counting on you.

* countrywomen, countryperple, whichever — countrymen just used since, well, it’s more common.