Peg in the Machine

Here’s something funny I’ve discovered here lately when getting paperwork for potentially running for a local office:  a form to report any conflicts of interest.

Now it doesn’t matter what you put on it, you’ll still able to run.  They just want you to list any conflicts so it’s public knowledge (despite most of the public probably not even knowing the form or information exists).  So really it’s just a joke.  Doesn’t matter what you do, what companies you represent, you can still run for office (well, there might be some things prevented, but overall).

Now while I personally wouldn’t mind a teacher running for office (despite it being a potential conflict as they’d be more pro-edication than say, a doctor [who'd have a conflict as they could alter medical laws]), and see how it can be useful…. but at the same time it just seems kind of pointless in the end.  Especially since some of the “conflicts” are the reasons why the people would be voting for them in the first place.

That in itself is insulting — most likely to the socialists. When you have two parties in a country bashing each other’s brains out to see which group-mentality leader of the drones comes out on top (you know you’ve seen them — the people who are 100% for Obama or McCain no matter what they say or do), then one goes around and calls the other a socialist in a round about way in a negative light.

I know, some of you out there think that’s not a problem – but imagine if you called someone a communist, republican or a democrat. It’s not all fun and games until someone insults your belief or party. It’s something to remember. If you’d get upset if someone were to make a comment using your belief or party as the “bad” phrase – it shouldn’t be said.

Yes, you read that right.

I’m getting so annoyed with this “change” all the parties are chanting like mindless brain-seeking zombies (“chaaaaaaaaaannnnngne”).  A lot of the time it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  Candidates are saying they’re the candidate for change — and asking for you to re-elect them (you know, the things they’ve been doing apparently are lies or something – otherwise they’d be doing the same-old thing not “change” when put back in).  Other candidates are saying “change!” like it’s the magical word that makes it all better.  Like a mother’s kiss on a boo-boo, or open source in the computer world (hey, I use and write it!  I’ve just lost count to the people who light up like a child on Christmas day when they find out a program’s open source).

It’s like the parties are saying: “we, the same two parties and people, that have the same beliefs as those currently in office are wanting you to elect (or re-elect) us to office so you can have CHANGE!!!!!”

It’s like taking ex-lax to get rid of diarrhea.  You might run out of crap sometime, but you’re not quite sure what you’re going to be left with once it happens – and you’re pretty sure you’re not going to like what’s going on until then.

It’s the topic that’s come up everywhere these days:  Who do people really want in office, and what do they really want to be done?

All around people keep on saying how they really want to vote for third-party-candidate X, but they know they won’t get in so instead they’ll vote for Satan’s right hand man (or sometimes saying left hand hand).  They don’t agree with the candidate, don’t want them in office, but they’re the lesser of the two evils.  Sadly it seems to be said with over half the people — if they all voted the way “it doesn’t matter” the Democrats and Republicans would become the “third” party and the “third” parties would be the primary ones.

But I digress, a bit.

What is strange about the way many people seem to view the candidates isn’t so much that they’re different in what they’ll be doing —- but that they’re going to do the exact same things, just have different methods to get there.  And we all know what the same thing is:  keep everything the same, increase wars, keep on chugging out oil, and screw the little man.  Isn’t it a shame when you go into an election and get to choose not what will happen, but what will be done to get there?

Think about that for a moment.  No matter who you elect, you’re going to have the same basic things done and you have no choice about that (want wars to end?  get over it!) — but you have a choice on how you get to that point.  Some choice isn’t it?  All the main decisions that affect the people’s lives are already decided, you just get to decide whether path A or B leads you to decision A.

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?

One thing I find completely shocking is just how many people are surprised when a politician running for office doesn’t vote the way they promise.  Or in some cases vote the complete opposite despite it going against what everyone believes the politician stands (such as Obama and the FISA amendments).  One month he’s for repealing the bill, the next he’s granting pardons and amendments to it.  The internet goes into a fury over this “shocking” thing since he was supposed to be the candidate for “change” not “Bush version 2.0″ (“another Bush” as some are calling it).

But what I find more shocking than anything isn’t that he voted against how everyone expected — but that people actually are shocked that he did.  As time goes on you hear the same basic things all the time, politicians doing the opposite of what they say they’ll do and what policies they were voted into office on.  Some shock.  Didn’t people realize that this who “change” Obama was referring to was an advertising ploy more than a political stance?  If you’re really the candidate for “change” you shouldn’t have to say anything.  People should be able to see it in your actions.  They should be able to see it in your life prior (I won’t say “political” life as a people stay true to themselves, and it’s not always the same — not to mention people aren’t born politicians).

People keep on talking about how the lines between democrat and republican are clear and set.  Yeah…right.  If that were the case they’d have completely different ideas on everything, and it’d be the same throughout the party.  But, it’s not.  It’s down to the individual’s personal beliefs.  And even in the parties, these same people saying they’re so “different” also use terms like “liberal” and “conservative”.  So you’ve got liberal democrats and conservative republicans, but also conservative democrats and liberal republicans (which some would say they’re in the wrong party).  They’re so tangled up and trying to say how different they are, that when you boil a lot away — they all accept corporation donations, they don’t all vote the way you’d expect them to (go against their party), and in the end even if you have a few good ones that do what’s right – they get shoved aside and outvoted by the others.

So this year, just like all others, you get to choose between two candidates.  The Demoblicans (or Repubocrats) — however you want to combine the two into one.  In the end, doesn’t really matter.  They might have different goals to get to a point, they might have slightly different ways to get there, but in the mish-mash of political parties running the US government, you’ll end up with the same thing we always have — something in the middle that people hate, politicians love, and more political fodder to fuel the next mud slinging campaign.

Or…. you could vote for a completely different party.  One that’s ideals and goals are so apart from both of those that they conflict on almost everything.  Your choice.  You could vote for the lesser of two evils, or cast a vote for a third party — telling the two that not only did you take the time out to vote, but you didn’t vote for them.  So then when the lesser of two evils gets elected, they’ll be sent a signal that they weren’t even really wanted in.  And anyone worth anything would take notice.