Osama bin Laden was killed yesterday.    Well, thank goodness.   Now the war on terror is over, all our troops are headed home, the economy is already improving by leaps and bounds, and I hear that Republicans and Democrats were buying each other rounds in all bars in D.C. last night.

Oh, wait…..what?   What’s that you say?   Nothing’s changed?

Nor will it.   For all the hoopla and people having their temporary fix on this news story, it will change nothing, and for that reason alone — despite many other, valid reasons — it’s annoying at best to view the revelry and carrying-on by everyone in the USA and elsewhere about this rather minor development in the grand scheme of things.  OBL was marginalized ages ago; he has been no more effective than the boogeyman for years.

Americans, however, are exceptionally good at focusing on the shiny and completely missing the larger picture and, as such, will spend the better part of the next month having this as our top news story, analyzing the attack, the compound, the result, the analysis, the burial at sea, etc. from every possible angle — the people in charge will be on every news story and even Oprah will shed some tears over it, and at the end, Ryan Seacrest will hold a special on E! entitled, “Osama:  From Fame to Infamy, a Tragic Tale” and will fill it with ominous phrases that hang over every commercial break.

Meanwhile, back in reality, our troops will keep on staying exactly where they are and will still be fighting the same, pointless wars that they’ve been involved in for the past 10 years.  The economy will keep on crawling — dazed, bleeding, and drunk — back from the cliff edge.    Jobs will still be scarce.   Homes will be foreclosed upon.   Families will cease to be able to afford healthcare.  Government will continue to bicker and bitch and moan and draw down salaries us proletariats can only dream of.

And best yet?  Terrorism will likely INCREASE as OBL is martyred.    Excellent.

And for those of you who somehow think that this will automatically earn Obama a 2nd term, think again.    Only the politically naive would suggest such a thing, as if one single “success” in a presidency ever gained that sort of clout.    He’s got a hard, hard road ahead of him and I don’t think this necessarily points to him being an effective or worthwhile president — there’s plenty of crap that he’s failed to push or come through on.   This is very, very politically minor.

This is not a patriotic thing that we have done.   Going on the warpath, acting like a global jackass, spending billions of dollars in two needless wars with countries not even involved in the original idea, and hunting down and killing a man is not something to be proud of or jubilant about, unless you’re the sort that gets some sort of sick glee out of watching executions or similar.

This is not to say that I don’t think the man was the scum of the Earth, because I think he was; but at the same time, taking pleasure in this is the wrong attitude to have — it’s terrible that people of his ilk even exist; try to hold yourself higher than his standards and treat this as what it is:  A sobering, unfortunate yet necessary step in an ongoing struggle against the purely evil people of the world who do not think twice when it comes to eliminating anyone they do not agree with.

The adults among us should be quiet, contemplative, and sober; yesterday, a man was killed.   A life was taken.   This should not ever, ever be taken lightly, no matter what the need or justification.

In the end, the result of this event is almost certainly a wash.     Yes, a crazed mastermind of incredible evil has been eliminated from the Earth.  But do not think this ends terrorism, for there will be any number of other people willing to jump up and happily take the role.    Yes, a mission was accomplished, but it won’t send our troops home.    Good on Obama for finally doing what Bush couldn’t, but it won’t save his presidency.   And the rest of us will be no more or less safe at home or abroad than we were before.

Don’t you feel better now?

© Nathan Pralle for PhilosYphia, 2011. | Permalink | 2 little comments jumping on the bed. | Subscribe RSS

I am realistic.   I recognize the flaws in the country and the system and I may be vocal about them, or I may simply register them with a vote.   I may be very critical of policies and procedures but that doesn’t mean that I have less of it inside me.    It simply means I care.

I might grow teary at the National Anthem or I may not; sometimes even if I do not visibly react, I’m still thinking about it inside.    The song may do nothing for me and yet that does not make me less.

I may not willingly volunteer to joined the armed forces, recognizing that it’s not my forte to do what they do.   That doesn’t mean I’m less supportive of those that choose that profession and duty.

I realize that I can be both worldly and nationally; I am not limited by my affiliations to my country to be less than compassionate, understanding, multicultural, globally relevant, or charitable to the world as a whole.   My participation in the culture and nationality of another country does not exclude me from being tied to my own.

I understand that loyalty does not equal exclusivity; I am free to show my support for more than just this and yet not be considered to be neglectful.

What I am is unique and special, and it contributes to the whole.   So does everyone else, in equal parts.

I am an American and I am Patriotic — you just might not recognize me.

© Nathan Pralle for PhilosYphia, 2010. | Permalink | One comment. One lonely comment looking for a friend. | Subscribe RSS

I can hope that politicians will implement some really great reforms for immigration soon, but I won’t hold my breath lest I turn blue and collapse before my time.   But I have my own ideas, and if it sparks some discussion on their merits, so be it.

This is a dependent list, meaning that to truly work all points must be implemented at once (or staged in as noted).   Half-assing this system won’t work to benefit of anyone, most likely.

IMMIGRATION REFORM IDEAS

1.  Truly Lock Down Our Borders – We’ve been saying it for years, but we’ve never actually done it.   Tons of other countries are a pain in the ass to get into because they have their borders tighter than a bongo but the United States is practically an open gate with a “Welcome!” sign.    If this requires the placement of a soldier on each mile of the border to guard it and a 15′ high razor fence, so be it — I’m sure we can find plenty of servicepeople willing to trade their deployment in Afghanistan for some homeland security duty.

2.  Announce a Period of Partial Amnesty — Once you have locked down the borders, declare a 6-month window of partial amnesty for all illegal aliens.    You put out a huge marketing campaign that tells the public, “You have six months to come forward and declare yourself as an illegal seeking permanent status in our country or to leave.   If you come forward in this time period, you will be shuffled into the program for gaining a green card without penalty.   If you decide to leave, you can go without issue.  After this time period expires, you will be declared illegal and an enemy of the State and will be deported without appeal.”   This does not mean that folks will not be required to go through the standard procedure to become a legal permanent resident, but you have to deal with the current illegal population and wholesale deportation is impractical, so this is the fair way to handle the backlog.

3.  Simplify the Permanent Resident Requirements and Procedures — I will detail what requirements I think are necessary to be a permanent resident in this country and a citizen in another post, but suffice it to say that both the requirements and the procedure needs to be simple, straightforward, relatively cheap, and clear-cut.   Anything else and you encourage people to go or stay illegal and take their chances.

4.  Revise and Expand the Visa Program — We have a huge requirement for temporary presence and work positions in this country, whether it be in the entertainment industry or the seasonal worker system.   If you provide an easy way for people to come here legitimately for work, visits, or similar, you discourage illegal access.    Seasonal worker visas should be super-easy to obtain for a specified time period, say, 3-4 months, with easy requirements — prove you pay your taxes and a criminal/drug check.    No quotas, a low fee, and easy applications complete the picture of simplicity.

5.  Lower Wage Requirements for Seasonal Workers – One of the big problems with seasonal workers is that companies prefer that they be illegal so they can pay them below minimum wage to work in the fields and so forth, and the people are perfectly willing to do so.   Thus, to make this work, lower the minimum wage requirement to something reasonable; say, $2/hour.    This will prevent outright exploitation ($0.50/hour or something) but will give companies the flexibility they need.

5.   Heighten the Penalties for Illegal Entry –  Coming here illegally should carry a swift and harsh punishment, fast deportation, fines, and banning from the country for a very long time.   If you make it easy to NOT be illegal, then the ones that are should be severely dealt with to further discourage it.

6.  Amend the 14th Amendment – The intentions of this Amendment did not include providing a loophole for illegal immigrants to get a foothold in the country simply by having a child.    If the child is born to a permanent resident or citizen, this makes sense to make them citizens as well.   But if both parents are illegal or temporary, the child should absolutely not become a citizen automatically; it ties these people here in unnatural and unfair circumstances.

7.  Require Regular “Check-Ins” for all Non-Permanent Residents — If you’re here and you’re not permanent, you should have to check in with an official body every 3 months or so to confirm that you are following the terms of your visa and that there are no outstanding measures to be taken care of.   If you fail to report regularly, you are then tagged as being illegal and you are sought and handled in that matter.

8.  Require Regular Worker Audits – Companies will have little to no excuses for hiring illegals under the new system, so regular surprise worker audits should be conducted.   Contrary to all the detractors out there, it’s completely legitimate to ask, “show me your papers” to employees and employers to have them prove that only legal workers are being used.

9.  Require Paperwork for Any Government-Paid Benefit – The only exception is being dire, life-threatening medical care, but otherwise, it’s completely normal to background check someone before giving them government-paid care, food stamps, etc.    Make it fair — if you are going to ask everyone, ask EVERYONE, including me, to prove that I’m a legitimate citizen.   More on this in a future post about national ID cards.

10.  No Tolerance Rule for Crimes by Temporary Residents — As non-permanent residents in the USA, hold those present here temporarily to a higher standard; if you commit a crime while here, you are convicted and deported.   No time in jails (costs us money), no big appeals process, no chance to go back to work here.   We insist as visitors to our country that you treat it better than your own country; if you are not willing to do so, out you go.

Conclusion

These measures are probably not complete and all-encompassing of all situations that exist out there, but I think they would be a step in the right direction towards where we need to go.   Some of these appear harsh, perhaps; and maybe that’s a legitimate concern, but at the same time, we have to consider this fact:   We welcome with open arms foreigners into our great country, but we insist that you are a visitor and must behave with the appropriate amount of respect.     I realize the economic issues of cheap labor and seasonal help and I think we can work the laws and regulations to conform with those needs and demands without sacrificing our national security and control of the situation.   In reform, we hope to go back to being a great country who makes it clear what is acceptable and what isn’t and is only ever enhanced by the stream of new people, cultures, and ideas entering on a daily basis.

© Nathan Pralle for PhilosYphia, 2010. | Permalink | 5 little comments jumping on the bed. | Subscribe RSS

I arrived in the morning feeling very lost and very late, of which only the latter was debunked upon entering and seeing the very long line for registration. I was, at least, happy that of all the things I show up late for in life, this wouldn’t be one of them.

The day proceeded pretty much thusly; registration, milling about, pre-convention business, a whole bunch of speeches by political candidates, official business, some more speeches, and voting on the platform of the party. This all took from about 9am until 3-4pm and I left around 3ish because we were past most of the interesting parts.

I left? Yes, I did, mostly because the entire day ended up being a complete waste of my time. It’s not that there weren’t points at which it was interesting — indeed, some of the political speeches were quite good and the heated debate over the controversial portions of the platform was most entertaining. But these sparse moments of interesting were bordered on all sides by long stretches of extremely boring.

And it’s not that the content was all that boring, it’s that the organization was pure crap. The folks running the whole thing were running around or standing about looking very confused while trying to figure out what was next, what the format of the next section was, etc. And despite purporting to adhere to the standards of Order, once it extended beyond simply courtesies to the chair (in particular, one point of procedure that was challenged and discussed and argued ad nauseum), it all fell apart.

In whole, I spent the day muttering, “Get ON with it, already.” I eventually gave up and slipped out to spend the balance of the day doing something — anything — more interesting.

Good Points:

• Getting to meet and talk to Bill Maske, candidate for Congress (against Tom Latham(R)), who came up to me as I was sitting alone and feeling fairly out of place, shook my hand, and talked some small-talk to me. Nice guy, good speech, and I think he’s got a shot at the seat, I hope.
• Kurt Meyer’s more-than-passionate intro for Bill Maske. Im-pressive.
• Hearing a very rational speech in favor of a provision to support the removal of “God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, in which the speaker basically said, “I don’t care what you believe in as long as you stand beside me to defend America together.” Brilliant. (The provision passed.)
• Seeing the cute little blonde-haired kid, complete with backpack and Omaba button, on his dad’s shoulders. Start ‘em early!
• Hearing cheers and jeers from the crowd depending on what bills or political names were said. Yes, it was a bit, “sports centre”ish, but on the whole, it’s nice to turn to the person next to you and say, “You know, I can’t STAND Chuck Grassley” and they completely agree.

Conclusion

I won’t attend a Convention again, I think; once was enough of a Saturday blown trying to keep awake while things proceeded around me. To be honest, I thought the business end of it would whiz by and the bulk of the time would be spent hearing from candidates or other citizens who had an axe to grind and wanted to make it known. While there was a good whack of that, too, it was difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff, and that’s very unfortunate.

1.5 out of 5 stars.

© Nathan Pralle for PhilosYphia, 2010. | Permalink | 3 little comments jumping on the bed. | Subscribe RSS

Frankly, religious right — WTFWJD, eh?

Here’s the thing — based on the teachings of Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, or any of your typical mainstream religious figures, the staunchly religious should be all over social reforms such as poverty, homelessness, and health care, right?    I mean, what did these great teachers instruct if not tolerance, kindness, taking care of the poor, the sick, the needy, befriending the outcast, reaching out to the lowest or loneliest in society and wrapping them up in arms of love, service, and help?   They as a group should be jumping all over the idea that we’re trying to reform health care so more people get the proper care and we add the 40+ million uninsured Americans into the system.

And yet on that side of the aisle we see exactly the opposite, opposing reform, opposing taking resources from those that “have” to give to those that “have not” and generally turning a blind eye and an upturned nose on those who can’t make it as easily as they have.    “They’re just lazy,” comes the reply when you ask about the lower-class family struggling to feed their children and keep a roof over their heads.   “If they just worked harder, they could have health care insurance, too.”

It’s simply astounding to me at the attitude carried by this group about social matters.    Instead of, “alms for the poor”, it’s “go work at Walmart”.     When considering a proposal to provide cheap housing to low-income neighborhoods, the response is, “Stupid bum — why don’t you get a job and buy a house?”   Eyes roll at the kids who have to get free or reduced lunches in order to get a decent meal — “Bloodsucking parents…”

Their rhetoric spreads far and wide in teabagging protests and angry townhall meetings — “You are NOT entitled to what I earn!”    Oh, really?    Let’s hope God thinks you’re entitled to what you earn, you hypocrite.   Maybe you ought to be a better steward of your earthly riches?

The counter-argument to this is that such donations to help the less-fortunate should be given voluntarily, not through government intervention.   As nice of a sentiment as this is, it obviously doesn’t work or we wouldn’t have the problem in the first place. The fact is, most of these people touting these ideas are hypocrites and prefer to hang onto their cash at all costs, the needy and desperate around them be damned.   At least I will be freely honest about the fact that I don’t donate much to charity because I prefer to use it on my own family.    But even I’m not enough of an asshole to say, “Oh, no, don’t raise my taxes slightly so more people can get health care.   I prefer having that on my conscience.”

There is far too much emphasis being placed on whose fault it is that we have the poor and lowly amongst us and not enough action being done to attempt to correct it.    There are legitimate concerns, I realize — some folks in these tight positions are there because they were incompetant or reckless — but does taking the attitude that they must all be in that position really do anything to help or resolve the issue?    Instead, it ends up being a distraction to the real problem at hand — we have under- or uninsured people getting sick, going broke, and sometimes dying because they can’t get the help they need.     How do we solve this?

In the end, if the religious right is going to preach a particular theology, then they would do well to live by it.   After all, Jesus did not ask Mary Magdaelene for her financial records to see if she was a prostitute out of desperation or because she gambled it all away.    He did not tell Zacheus, “I’m coming to your house — but only if you’re not crooked.”    He did not commission his followers to be servants to humankind just so they could make excuses about why they shouldn’t.

Who knows?  God might even approve.

© Nathan Pralle for PhilosYphia, 2009. | Permalink | 5 little comments jumping on the bed. | Subscribe RSS

I think it can be saved — and I think we can benefit from a good, solid bill that enacts real reform — but the President and his supporters must change course and tactics and must do it soon or however poorly-designed the arguments of the opposition may be the American people, and ultimately the support beneath the bill, will fall away into oblivion.

Get On Message — The White House must get their entire staff back on a single, solid, concise message.    Instead of coming out of the chute with guns blazing, this administration has sauntered into the park holding a bill on a platter and were surprised that they were attacked from the bushes.   Put on the battle gear, grow a pair, give out the orders to everyone on the team, and get marching in lockstep.     The message from the White House must be solid, without holes, and consistent.

Stick to Your Guns — Speaking of a consistent message, the President must come out on national television in front of Congress and say, “This is what we want for health care reform — points A, B, C.   Anything else, I will VETO — period.”    And he must stand behind that decision, no matter what the polls say, no matter how the votes appear to be swinging.    If you’re going to be bold, you have to stick to it or nobody will believe you, and right now, nobody thinks anyone’s really serious except the fear-mongers.

Public Option or Bust — The President’s punch list for reform must include the public option without it being a possible drop point.   It is the only way true reform can happen and everyone knows it.   Quit listening to the detractors and waffling on it. This is not a recipe for doughnuts, it’s health care reform.

The Buck Stops Here — President Obama must come out and state exactly how they are going to pay for reform, whether in the form of savings, taxes, discounts, or other means.    The numbers must be clean, clear, and understandable without an accounting degree.   He must stop skirting around the fact that in order to pay for this, people will have to be taxed.    We citizens are not stupid, and if you tell it how it is, we’re likely to back you, but you cannot hide from what is the truth.    If you’re going to sock it to the rich, then say that.   If you’re going to raise all of our taxes by a margin to cover everyone else, tell us how much.      We want to know the bottom line and then we’re likely to sign the check.

Go to the People — The President must engage the public media like he did during the candidacy and go on any newscast, talk show, and public media that will listen.   He must call a national address and engage all networks.    Taking along the solid, concise message of the first point, he needs to present it to the American people over and over, using graphs or videos or flowcharts or dayglo chimpanzees — whatever visual aids will help everyone understand the benefits and costs of health care reform and how it will affect them.     Almost everyone I know is confused and knows little about what this bill will or won’t do and that must stop. Everyone should be talking about it around the water cooler and we should all know the exact picture, whether or not we agree with it.

Tighten the Screws — Once all this has been done, the White House must then put enormous pressure on its Democratic base in both houses to perform and align with their message.   If that means calling every representative into a conference and having a Come-To-Jesus talk, so be it.    Stop the sound bites of Democrats waffling within their own swimming pool while the Republicans dance outside and point fingers — it’s embarrassing.

Stop Beating the Dead Horse — The entire Democratic party along with the White House must stop talking of “bipartisanship”.     It is worthless.     We all well know that most Republicans do not want to reform health care and therefore will at best water down the reform and at worst kill it, this sort of bill must not be signed with the least bit of dilution.

If Necessary, Go Down Gracefully — If, after all this solidarity, marketing to the public, demands of the Congress, and adherence to a clear principle you cannot get the votes, you can’t get them — simple as that.   This is Landmark Reform™ — it might not happen this round, although we need it desperately.    But the clear and simple way of ensuring that, if it dies, you will not be able to resurrect it for another 10-20 years is to waffle and cajole and weasel and compromise it into a small, weak shadow of its original intent.      Better to lose and lose big than to be decimated into pieces too small to put together again or, worse yet, to implement a bill that ends up being a drooling half-wit representation of Real Change.

We need to have health care reform.    I think most Americans want health care reform, but we all want it to be done correctly, clearly, and decisively.     This can and should truly be a huge turning point in our history as a country.

© Nathan Pralle for PhilosYphia, 2009. | Permalink | 5 little comments jumping on the bed. | Subscribe RSS

Your “typical” NRA member seems to tout the gun line as, “I have a RIGHT to have a gun, any gun, anytime, all the time, and you shouldn’t ever stand in the way for me to have one.   If I or anyone else uses it irresponsibly, then that’s the breaks.     Just because there are crazies with guns doesn’t mean I should have a hard time getting my hands on one.   Their view of Democrats is, “You should NEVER have guns!   Guns bad!”     Liberals extol the number of gun-related deaths and the amounts of rednecks and nutjobs with firepower roaming around the country in Jeeps.

Let’s clear the smoke here, shall we?   Honestly — you’re all looking like idiots.    You, too, Meghann, and I’ve liked you from the start, but…whew.   Swing and a miss, dearie.

First off, the liberals do NOT want to take away guns.   Oh, sure, there’s some folks out there that want to eliminate them entirely from everyone, but those folk are about as prominent as the conservatives that think we should hand every kindergartner a Glock upon entering school for their own protection.   The vast majority of liberals simply want the following:

• much tighter laws and penalties to control gun sales and acquisition
• much tighter laws and penalties on gun storage, license, and usage

That’s it, really.   We don’t think guns, in and of themselves, are evil things, but an awful lot of terrible things have been committed with guns and it behooves us as a society to improve how we view and handle these potentially dangerous items.   By doing so, not only can we protect ourselves and others from improper usage, but we preserve the right of people to have and use guns because they won’t be viewed by the extremes as being terrible things.

I believe that anyone of a legal age (18) should be able to procure and operate a firearm.  I believe that the higher the firearm you wish to purchase the more checks you will have to go through in order to do so.   For a BB gun, you probably don’t need any particular proof.   For a shotgun, passing a safety course is requisite.    A rifle has a higher requirement, maybe a background check and a waiting time.    Handguns are even higher, incorporating the previous plus adding in long wait times, full background checks, and an extended safety course on handgun-specific safety, storage, and usage.   Carrying concealed is even higher, probably with poly tests and a psych eval.   Assault weapons are simply banned outright as they have no practical use whatsoever.

Does this sound harsh?   Perhaps, but we go through a similar scheme when getting a license to drive — learner’s permit, school permit, driver’s license (car/light truck), then you can move up to chauffeurs and eventually CDL and other heavy-truck licenses.    We don’t let an uneducated 16-year-old get behind the wheel of an 18-wheeler and neither should we allow a new, unknown gun owner behind the barrel of a .45 pistol without the proper evaluation and training.    This isn’t being exclusive, as the NRA would have you believe, but smart and preventative.

Is this so bad?   Why does the NRA fight something like this that sounds so…reasonable?   Am I missing something?

© Nathan Pralle for PhilosYphia, 2009. | Permalink | 16 little comments jumping on the bed. | Subscribe RSS

The fact is, we now have on record leaked memos from the Bush administration authorizing extreme measures to be used in extracting information, quotes from Dick Cheney about what sort of tactics were used on detainees, and probably the most damning evidence of all, the International Committee of the Red Cross report citing that the methods used on US prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay and other “black sites” around the world were, in fact, nothing but torture.

The ICRC is the independent, non-political group assigned to police nations for violations of the Geneva Conventions, the set of international treaties that determine world-wide rules for waging war and the treatment of such people as prisoners of war.     Essentially, the GCs were convened to hold all countries to some minimum standards of decorum when in conflict (personally, I think it’s hilarious, because why not just outlaw war?  That is another discussion, however.)

The ICRC report is quite easy to read and accessible, written in plain, understandable English — I’ll even post it here as a link:

ICRC Report on Torture

I urge you to read it, or at least some of it; the summaries are darn good bits, and reading even one of the types of torture used will set your hair on end.  The accounts of the acts done by CIA operatives and other personnel are…not pretty, but something we should all be aware of, because our country endorsed and used these on other living human beings.

These reports are never meant to be seen by the public; as you can read, it was addressed to the CIA and is marked confidential.   Thus the reporters have held nothing back in their evaluation of the true situation and what it means in moral and ethical terms.   It makes no bones about their evaluation of the treatment of the top 14 “high value” detainees, saying, “…the ICRC clearly considers that the allegations of the fourteen include descriptions of treatment and interrogation techniques — singly or in combination — that amounted to torture and/or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”    This is nothing less than a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions by the United States government.

And I’d like something to be done about it.

So far, Spain is on the ball and has already started working on prosecuting six Bush-administration officials for their involvement in authorizing torture tactics, but why should we wait for other countries to do our dirty work?    You can be assured that Europe has far less to lose if they choose to prosecute the people involved in this than we do, but don’t we, the people, care enough to deal with this ourselves?  Does the new administration not know what has happened and that they have a responsibility to find those guilty and to prosecute them for their crimes?

Of course they do — they’re just avoiding it because it’ll burn up HUGE amounts of political capital, especially with the far Right.     There’s always been a bit of a precedent to avoid such mole-whackings of the previous administration, even to the point of pardoning the whole messy system (hellooooo, Nixon?).    I do not think that we should let this one slide into the past without even a whimper, however.    So far, Attorney General Eric Holder has been rather mute on the issue, dodging the central question of torture prosecutions, despite saying during his confirmation that he did not agree with the tactics and that it should be punished.     And fair enough, he’s just getting started, but…we’re waiting.   And we don’t want to be kept waiting forever.

Change is not always easy.    It oftentimes pisses people off and makes enemies.    Change can be hard, stressful, cumbersome.    You might end up making just as big of a mess from performing change as you started with, or even worse.   But on this note, we cannot let falter — the United States, the American people, are not torturers and we do not stand for that sort of behavior.    We must redeem ourselves in the world’s eyes as well as our own, for how can we face our children and say we did the right thing if we sweep this under the rug?

It will be hard and difficult and painful, but it must be done.    Please, President Obama, prosecute the perpetrators of torture.    And please, American public, support the effort.    We can do better, and we should.   Pay the bill and bring those to bear for their heinous acts — please.

© Nathan Pralle for PhilosYphia, 2009. | Permalink | One comment. One lonely comment looking for a friend. | Subscribe RSS

First, I think Meghann is one of the clearest, cleanest voices in the GOP today.   There is a lot of ‘noise’ in the party line and it’s nice to hear someone coming up with sensible, cautioned opinions about what’s going on and more importantly, what to do about it, which does not seem to be a point on any Republican powerpoint presentation today.

I do debate the idea that the Republicans are showing party unity right now.   They may have shown unity during the Bush years, mostly by not saying anything against what Bush was doing with his policies, but nowadays there is an awful lot of side and back-talk and odd folks struggling for recognition and voices in the GOP dogpile — Palin, Steele, Jindal, etc.   Nobody is a clear, solid leader and they’re not all talking the same game.   Add to that the Republican legislators who have chosen the path of, “NO”, despite efforts to bi-partisanship by the president, and you’ve got a party locked in a struggle with itself.    At the moment, the Democrats only have to sit back and watch (if they know what’s smart) and wait until the GOP finds a real leader that unifies the party message before having to fight it.   Right now, Republicans are doing all the work in hurting themselves.

Did supporting the surge really benefit the GOP?   I don’t think so….after all, supporting the war efforts simply made it that much easier for Democrats to gain ground in the election due to the animosity it produced; the polls clearly showed that the war efforts contributed greatly to the decision to flip the leadership of this country around.

The quote from Senator Reid was improperly cited out of context.    The original article from The Hill.com quotes Reid as such:

Reid stated, “I don’t believe in the executive power trumping everything… I believe in our Constitution, three separate but equal branches of government.”

“If Obama steps over the bounds, I will tell him. … I do not work for Barack Obama. I work with him,” he said.

Meghan is VERY correct when she says the extreme-left liberals are making Obama’s efforts at a centric position extremely difficult.   I’ve never like Pelosi and Reed has struck me again and again as a mosquito to be slapped, and I do think they tend to get in the way.   That being said, what is up with the GOP refusing to give any ground on any of the major votes and instead be whipped into saying a universal negative to every major thing that comes up?   Stimulus?  NO.   Budget?  NO.   Bi-partisanship?  NO.

I think a lot of the Left (minus the few out for their party and nobody else) are trying to make a middle ground that’s happy to everyone, but how can that be encouraged when there’s no response?   At this point, I’m more likely to say, “Screw it — we tried, you didn’t budge, so now we won’t even try and you can just suffer the consequences.”   Remember that at least in the House, Democrats don’t even have to try to get GOP votes, and in the Senate, it’s fairly easy to get around the filibuster if need be.    Republicans would do well to put down their sabres and meet us in the middle of the field on occasion.

All this being said, I do agree with Meghan’s call for centrism on the part of moving forward, both for Democrats and the GOP.    This is generally how government is designed to work anyway, and is why we have the system of checks-and-balances in place to prevent the extremes from existing.    Both parties would do well to remember this as they move forward;  big changes are possible without becoming extremist, and that’s the hard balance to find and maintain.

© Nathan Pralle for PhilosYphia, 2009. | Permalink | One comment. One lonely comment looking for a friend. | Subscribe RSS

Down She Goes!

Obviously there’s been a lot of talk lately about this whole economic stimulus package that is trying to be passed here in the United States, but other countries have now started to add in their own versions — the UK, Australia, Iceland (bad luck there, dudes), and others.   It’s all in the name of trying to get things back to “normal”, where that is indicated by more people making money and doing well than not.   And right now, most of us are either starting to falter, have stumbled, or are flat on our faces and sizing up where, exactly, we would put the KitchenAid in the cardboard box.

I’ve thought a lot about this entire idea of the stimulus, have listened religiously to NPR’s Planet Money podcasts concerning various opinions and analysis, and have thought about my own situation as well as that of others.    Despite recent polls indicating that support for the bill is falling amongst Americans, I still feel it’s a good idea, but the manner in how to go about it is the tricky part.

Tax relief?   Good.   Tax credits?   Not bad, but harder to see right away.   Infrastructure spending?   Great for the long term if done right, huge sinkhole of a money pit if done wrong.     The sides on that one are pretty slippery, too, I’m afraid.   Corporate tax cuts?   Uhm…didn’t we try that one already?  Yeah, it didn’t work.

I think the hardest part for everyone is quantifying what, exactly, is going to happen that will concern us, personally.   I mean…I’m big enough and smart enough to look at the whole picture.    I very well know that infrastructure spending, while a slow, long-haul poke in the ass of the economy, will ultimately make us a better country and we’ll be glad we did it in, say, 5 to 10 years.    But to be honest, RIGHT NOW, it doesn’t mean Jack M. Squat to me in terms of my day-to-day needs and necessities.

Giving me more money to take home is a great way to say, “Perk up!  Stimulate the economy!”    But that depends on how much it is.    $50 a paycheck isn’t going to go much farther than things do now, and I’m likely to look at that and think, “Well, I could…uh….buy another case of ramen??” whereas a significantly larger amount, say, $300, is another car payment, or mortgage boost, or a debt payment, or….there’s a lot more options for that kind of cash than a five-0h carries.

It also matters in terms of where I am versus where others are.     I still have a good, decent-paying job, and feel secure that I won’t be gone anytime soon (although nobody feels 100% secure and, rightly so).    There are tons of folks out there, however (and getting worse every day), that aren’t emloyed or at least not enough, and they’re looking at the stimulus package in a whole different light, more as a savior to impossible conditions rather than a boost.

I’m certainly not of the opinion that everyone should get a huge handout.   For one, in such a situation, you HAVE to have some people on the rocks, some business failing, and some jobs lost and so forth, otherwise nobody has motivation and the system becomes a welfare state and not an opportunistic one.    BUT, that all being said, it makes sense that we’d try to at least keep the majority of folks in good shape when possible.

What do I need?   Well, if I have to be completely selfish, here’s what MY stimulus would look like:

• More take-home money in the paycheck, of a significant amount.    Iowa, take back your silly agricultural taxes (god, state taxes here are stupid-high), and federal, ease up a bit.   I’m happy to pay for roads, but — honestly.
• Debt relief in the form of lower interest rates and longer pay periods.    Don’t know what government could do about that, but making things stretch out would sure be handy.   I’m happy enough to pay off my debts, but making it easier to buy groceries would be really kickass.
• Offer the option to have a forbearance on student loan payments for a year.    Look, I’m in it till 2021 right now;  I’m not in a hurry, so…can I just take a year off?   Charge me interest if you will, but let me forget about that one for a bit, hrm?   They’re so…annoying.
• Since I’m one of those who has a house that I can actually pay for and afford, make it easy to get monies or credits for improving our properties.   Not only will we get more efficiency, but we’ll see urban renewal, and that has to be a positive.

Really, in a nutshell, those are the things that will matter to me most, given my situation and place in life right now.     I’ll probably get a few of those things, but doubtful if I’ll get them all.

Now it’s YOUR turn — tell us what would stimulate you and why it would make a big difference in your life.    If we’re lucky, a Senator’s reading this right now.

© Nathan Pralle for PhilosYphia, 2009. | Permalink | 4 little comments jumping on the bed. | Subscribe RSS

But, let me first give you a proper send-off before we bid you a final, “adieu!”; after all, I’ve been waiting a long time to do this.

Get out. Get out of the government that you have not used to better Americans and the rest of humanity, but which you have used as a plaything, a tool to further you and your cronies’ better interests, to pay homage to your buddies and your daddy’s friends, disregarding anyone and any principles you had to trample and grind under your heel to make it happen. It was never yours to use in the first place, and why we let you have it, I’ll never know, but know this — no more.

Get out. Get out of our foreign relations where you have made us either the laughingstock of the entire world or the biggest bully, threatening and tossing temper tantrums and poking our nose where it doesn’t belong and without permission. You have embarrassed us to our allies and incensed our enemies. Travelers are afraid to say they are from the United States lest they reap scorn and derision from the places they visit where we used to be welcomed gladly. Our foreign friends look at us in disbelief, saying, “Why?” I am tired of apologizing for my country’s actions. World, we are so very sorry. Please forgive us. But we will not forgive you, Mr. Bush, for ruining our noble place in the world and making us look like fools and children.

Get out. Get out of our economy that you have squandered and dashed across the face of businesses and workers with wild abandon, ignoring problems and regulation in favor of making a quicker buck for your special interests and investments. You stood by and did nothing while greedy investors and businesses took everything their grubby hands to get ahold of and used it against the country for their own gain, and when they did start to fail, you handed them bags of money. I hope they take good care of you in your retirement, because you won’t be getting a cent out of me.

Get out. Get out of our religions and our beliefs, which you have used not as a moral compass for your actions or a mirror for your judgements, but as a terrible, bloody axe that has hacked down empathy, slashed at compassion, and beheaded love. Along with the bastions of the religious right, you have established a new policy that any belief is ok in the USA as long as it is Bushian. You have tainted policy and procedure with so-called, “faith-based initiatives”, which are nothing more than barricades erected to shield the exclusive and discriminatory hate speech and actions of the religious conservatives and further the spread of their ensnaring, evil message, all in the name of being, ‘holy’. You are certainly not that, Mr. Bush.

Get out. Get out of our military where you have taken the good, noble graces of the men and women who would willingly die (or have died) for their country and used them as throwaway soldiers for your own unjustified wars. These are wonderful people, Mr. Bush, and you’re killing them. It’s high time they all come home to live and work and be among us again; we love them, we miss them, and you’re done screwing with them and their lives for your own stupid wars. We are done trying to “fix” the difficult countries of the world in the name of oil, revenge, and made-up terrorist and weapon threats. Our soldiers deserve more respect than that.

Get out. Get out of our historical town and the mansion steeped in tradition and meaning. Washington D.C. is tired of you and your tripe, and I cannot imagine the frustration everyone living near you has felt in having you so close, yet not close enough to wring your neck. Take with you all your cohorts, the slimy, stinking masses that covered up your idiotic blunders with rhetoric and used you and your power to further their own nefarious means — not that you were innocent, of course, because you enabled them, Rummy and Cheney and Rice and all the others, to keep an exclusive, “old boys club”, going where the public was patted patronizingly on the head and told to run along, all the while being cut from behind with your rapiers for your own giggles.

Get out. Get out of our lives, our present, and our futures. We have spoken, Mr. Bush, and we have made a new covenant. The errors of the past have been learned; there is a new era coming and it doesn’t involve you nor those that see the sun rising from your pants. The religious freaks, the close-minded, the fat executives, the racist, hate-spewing, discriminatory masses — you have all been expired. Your time is up. We are the new generation, one that sees beyond the color of skin, the difference in sex, the rigidness of class. We have seen a new future where our children will not even think of these things as factors; where the world communicates at the blink of an eye and we have friends of all walks of life. Where people are judged by how hard they work, how much they care for their world, and how much they love one another. We will not separate by types of people, types of love, or types of belief, because we know that the goal is goodness, compassion, empathy, and love, and they come in many forms and creeds. All that follow these principles are welcome with open arms.

You are not welcome.

Get out.

Get. Out.

Get the FUCK out, George Bush. The new dawn is here and we are taking our country back. You don’t belong.

Get Out — AND STAY OUT.

© Nathan Pralle for PhilosYphia, 2009. | Permalink | 9 little comments jumping on the bed. | Subscribe RSS

Here’s some things I do know:

- Without extremely strict guidance as to where funds are used in the corporations, they will be misused.     Period.    Clearly the folks couldn’t properly use their own money; what makes us think they’ll use loaned money any better?     To paraphrase Olbermann, piles of cash sitting around are a bad idea.

- There’s loans to hold your current business open and keep it running, and there’s loans to restructure it into something better.    Everyone says it’d be bad to let them go into bankruptcy, but for restructuring?   I think that’s exactly what they need.    Telling someone to stop being bad or hold a gun to their head and see which method gets more response.

- I really, really hate unions.   Always have — I think they’re fundamentally unnecessary in today’s modern market.    And now we are going to (probably) see a prime example of why they’re a bad idea when everyone has to go along with the negotiated terms.    UAW Suckers.

- Letting these companies die scares a lot of folks, and don’t get me wrong — it’s a big deal.   But to be honest, I’m leaning more and more towards letting them die.    Yes, it’ll be extremely painful, but in the long term I think we’ll end up with something better than we will if we limp things along.   It’s like a broken bone — if you snap a bone straight through, when it heals it’ll be very strong, stronger than it was before.   But a “green” fracture that only bends or frays the bone takes longer to heal and is never the same again.    I think that can be applied here, and as painful and traumatic as it is, a clean break may be our best bet.

I worry — a lot.   We’re struggling big-time to make it right now, but if I had my choice, I’d rather dive into a horrific couple of years to emerge victorious and more productive than ever before vs. limping a broken economy along for the next 10 years.

Your thoughts and discourse on these reflections and any others are appreciated.

© Nathan Pralle for PhilosYphia, 2008. | Permalink | 4 little comments jumping on the bed. | Subscribe RSS

Dear American Voters,

I have to start out this letter by saying that in all the elections I have participated in, this was by far the most exciting, vivacious, and involved one I have seen yet.    Everyone was talking about it over the water cooler and almost everyone, while they had an opinion, was at least open to discussion about the possibilities.     We had two very dynamic and interesting candidates — don’t get me wrong — but the plain fact is that the voters were the ones pushing the conversation from behind.

Well done, America, well done indeed.    This is how politics is supposed to work — from an involved, interested standpoint.

I have to say I’m especially impressed with the grassroots efforts of the Obama supporters.   Never before have I seen so many people involved at such a small level.    It made me motivated and excited to see so many passionate people taking to the streets to effect change.     Now, perhaps this is a testament to how truly awful the past 8 years has been under the Bush regime, but I also believe it says something about the citizens and how America can really pull together to get something done — if only we choose to do so.

Now that the hubub is all over, the election is done, the leader is picked, and the signs are coming down, we have a new task ahead of us.    Oh, you thought your work was done?   Hardly!

Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike would do well to offer up any services and help to the new government in the hopes of bettering ourselves and our world.    Sure, we now have a largely-Democratic-based system, and both Congress and the President should be aligned on most issues so things should be smooth on that end, but the country is still essentially in dire straits.

The economy is still going to be extremely rough, the war isn’t going to end on a dime, healthcare is still a huge steaming pile, and the environment, human rights, and taxes (among other issues) are still going to be problems to be solved.   We all have an interest in helping out.

And Republicans, don’t think you get a free pass here.    Just because your guy lost and you might still be bitter about that fact, these problems still matter to you folks, too.    Remember that the issues are the same, we just have alternate ideas about how to solve them.   So if you think you can just sit back and go, “Well, ok Democrats, it’s your ship, have fun driving it and we hope you run her aground,” think again.   We need you, dammit.    We need your energy, your ideas, your thoughts, and yes — we even need you to play the devil’s advocate.   It is only by the participation of the opposing viewpoint that we can truly check all our facts and make sure that when we say we are right, we really and truly are right and not just being egotistical.     So please don’t shut up and wait till you get a red-stater into office again, we’re all in this boat together.

Plus — if we fail to solve a problem because you didn’t help, you’re still getting screwed, even if you didn’t agree with the approach.   Doing something is oftentimes better than doing nothing.

But again — I and many others were so overwhelmingly impressed by the sheer forces of human willpower, energy, and enthusiasm during this election.     If we can only take that and push those efforts directly into solving problems, suggesting solutions, and supporting the folks in the front lines of the government and economy, there’s probably no end to the good we can accomplish.   How awesome would it be to look back after 4 years and go, “Holy hell — look how much we improved ourselves, our country, and our world.    AWESOME!”

C’mon, America.    We have work to do.    And you can help.

Yours in the battle,

Nathan Pralle

© Nathan Pralle for PhilosYphia, 2008. | Permalink | One comment. One lonely comment looking for a friend. | Subscribe RSS

Dear Senator McCain,

Thank you for fighting a mostly admirable fight, despite all the mistakes your campaign made during the process and the huge anchor that is the Republican party right now tied around your neck.    I can only hope that I am as spry, intelligent, poignant, and energetic as you are when I’m your age.    It truly does show the power of wisdom and experience.

Some pointers for next time:

ONE: To really reconnect with the public on a Republican platform, you first have to get your party to go back to the days when GOP stood for “Grand Old Party” and not “Grumpy Old Pissants”.    Everyone has to be invited and welcomed, from the young to the old, and you have to tout the standard banners of the traditional Republican platform — minimal government, low taxes, less involvement, rights to the people and states.    The party has become far too clouded to be considered cohesive and folks have a tough time discerning it from the opposition, and when the Democrats have cookies, you’re just screwed.    The Republicans need to get their crap together because, lord knows, I usually love their traditional economic policy.

TWO: When choosing a running mate next time, please think it through more than you did.    The strategy to pick someone like Palin to garner the female vote was a big gamble and one that pissed off more women than won them over, I think.    Frankly, the populus is more intelligent than you give them credit for — do you really think that women will just roll over like that so easily?   Palin proved to be a moron of the worst kind — just enough information to make her dangerous, and not enough sense to shut up when required.    I think you knew this several weeks after making that ticket but, as they say, once you commit you can’t back out without looking wishy-washy.

THREE: The negativity?   I know you were grasping for straws near the end, but the truth is you hurt your campaign more than helped it with all those depressing ads, insinuations, and attacks.   As they say, sometimes small doses are the best way to take your medicine, and that approach might have worked better here.    People are smart — if you say once or twice that someone’s shifty, they’ll figure the rest out for themselves.    But if you hammer, hammer, HAMMER it into their skulls, they’re likely to think you’re either a) full of it or b) a bully.    I and many others found themselves being completely turned off by the constant barrage, and you never want that.

FOUR: We all appreciate the sacrifice you’ve given to our country in the form of military service and performance.   Nobody would ever deny that.    However, using that as a reason for why you’d be a good president is not a valid argument and harping on it does you no good.    A good soldier does not a good president make, and vice versa — you must prove yourself in other ways.    And you have — by being a long-time senator.   Except you voted with Bush too much, so…so much for that.   But the soldier bit?   Thank you.    Thank  you a hundred times.    But drop it for an election.

Finally, I’d like to thank you for running for the office.    It must have surely been a huge strain on you, your marriage, and your life in general.   Whether or not I agree with you, I cannot help but admire someone so dedicated to his country and service that he gives up a period of his life — when he really should be out fishing with his grandkids and playing cribbage — to go on the trail for public office.    Bless you for your energy, courage, and determination.

Hopefully you’ll stick around in the public sector for a long time yet; we can always use politicians with your fire and power.     Just give a bit of slack on the conservatism, hrm?

Sincerely yours,

Nathan Pralle

© Nathan Pralle for PhilosYphia, 2008. | Permalink | 5 little comments jumping on the bed. | Subscribe RSS

Dear President-Elect Obama,

Congratulations on your success!   I am so very happy that you made it through the process and proved to be the winner with not only myself, but millions of other Americans ready for something different in their government than the last 8 years have provided.    Please take a few weeks off and rest up, get some naps in, shag your wife silly, and generally have a good time.   Your upcoming reign as our next Head of State will be one started on an uphill climb and it will not soon level out — you must be very prepared for the struggle ahead.

Please understand that the things that appealed you to the masses — your committment to the individual person, to change for the better, to eloquence in speaking and action, to promises of new hope for all classes of citizens — will all be scrutinized closely by those that worked so hard to get you where you are today.    While we’re happy to give you a pass for awhile to get up to speed and deal with the trash heap left by the Bush administration, it won’t be long before we are looking for things to actually start happening that make a difference.   Please don’t make us regret the long hours we’ve put forth and faith we’ve poured out of our hearts in your direction.   Right now, we have your full back, and we hope to keep it that way.

It’ll be hard to buck the system and get something done.   Doing the right thing in government is oftentimes contrary to the system and we the citizens have seen time and time again when a promising politician gets into office, full of good ideas and truly transformational messages, and over time gets bogged down by the red tape and pressures and finally caves in and becomes a shadow of their former self.     While the latter is the easier row to hoe, we all hope that, like many great leaders of the past, you’ll rise above the noise and frustration and stick to your guns for true change, not just things that seem that way.

Finally, a thank you to you for being a massive inspirational force for friend and foe alike in this race.   Rarely do we get a race with even one very dynamic personality and in this one, we had a bunch, and you were at the top of the pile.     It’s been a long time since I’ve seen so many people fired up about something like an election, whether American or not, Republican or Democrat, and to have brought so many to action is truly an accomplishment.      Thank you for not dumbing yourself down to the masses, but instead being a leader we can all aspire to in one way or another.

Good luck with your new office — I hope you enjoy the digs and the responsibilities.    We’ll be watching!

Your proud constituent,

Nathan Pralle

© Nathan Pralle for PhilosYphia, 2008. | Permalink | 4 little comments jumping on the bed. | Subscribe RSS

You’ve already read (or you should have) my opinions on why you might choose to NOT vote.    But I have a lot of faith that the folks that read this blog are smart, motivated individuals, so I’m not too worried about it.    But, just to reiterate a point:   I don’t care who you vote for today as long as you have a good reason for it. This is your moment, America, to step up and speak your mind.    We’ll find out at the end of the day what this country really thinks (and whether or not a bunch of us need to move to Australia to find like-minded consensus.

That being all said….

For all the talk, for all the rhetoric, for all the ads and media and coverage — Obama still remains my top choice, and was the circle I filled in 3 weeks ago when I voted absentee.   If you’re sitting on the fence (and I don’t know as though many are these days), please consider chucking your vote in his direction.    Not only does my head say he’s the way to go, but my gut does, and I’ve learned to listen to that as a valuable contributor.   If it doesn’t work out for some reason (I don’t think it won’t) and you voted for him because of me, you can personally write me a letter of disgust and I’ll take it like a man.

I don’t think you’ll be writing that letter.

Do it for a better tomorrow.   Do it for a change from what we’ve been doing the past 8 years that, as you can clearly see, hasn’t worked out.   Do it for a refreshing change from fear and suspicion and government poking its head where it shouldn’t.   Do it for my son, if you like, whom I want to have the best of everything in life possible and whom can only benefit from a good government leader.   Do it for having someone intelligent and charismatic and likeable in the office for once.

Whatever reason you need, just do it.

Get yer vote on, America.   I’ll see you at the end.

© Nathan Pralle for PhilosYphia, 2008. | Permalink | 3 little comments jumping on the bed. | Subscribe RSS

I don’t blame you one iota.   I sympathize.    I burn, I pine, I perish.

But, if you have to consider one piece of advice before Election Day — if you have to turn your attention back on (I know, it’s tough) and really think about some opinion of the election process before then — mine might be a good one to consider.

I’m just saying.

While the crazy dance of politicians may leave you feeling homicidal and/or desperately needing a day-long spa treatment, the voting process — the actual act of you, the voter, placing your mark on the world — is not something to hide your head under a pillow about.   I firmly believe that there are too many people who vote incorrectly nowadays and I am here to try to prevent that. If I convince you, then maybe I’ve made a difference, however small that may be.

You don’t have to take my advice, of course.   Who am I to advise on political matters?   But it won’t kill you to consider these points…this time, at least.

1.  If you don’t care, don’t vote — There are a lot of pundits out there that will say that voting is your patriotic duty and you should do it at all costs, but I’m saying right now — if you can’t give two whits about the process or the people, DON’T.    You only endanger everyone else with your aloofness.   Voting for the sake of voting is reckless and stupid, both for yourself and us.   Please find something else more amusing — I won’t think less of you.

2.  If you don’t understand, don’t vote — Close on the heels of the apathetic are the ignorant, just begging to screw everything up.   Either educate yourself about the positions up for the vote and who is running for them or abstain.    This rule does not mean that if you do not know everyone right now, you can’t vote.   You have time — bone up.

3.  If you are planning to vote straight party, don’t vote — Voting for a straight party (meaning you just mark or pull the lever for “Democrat” or “Republican” instead of choosing each individual one) means that you don’t care enough (see #1) to read and understand each position being voted for.    Sure, it’s nice to be part of a group, but this isn’t a group activity and you are an intelligent, independent human being.   Make each decision for yourself.   If, at the end of the ballot, you have basically ended up voting for a straight party ticket anyway, so what?   What have you lost, a few minutes of Wheel of Fortune!?

4.  If you will vote for a candidate because a) your parents will, b) your religion will, c) your friends will, or d) any other group will, don’t vote — While listening to the opinions and thoughts of others is highly encouraged, the election is a special time where you, the citizen, gets to shed all external influences and vote as you think best.   If that embarrasses you, don’t vote.   Ballots are secret for a reason — take good advantage of that and use your brain instead of your self esteem.

5.  If you are going to vote a particular way because you always have, don’t vote — Again, the nicest part about voting is that it is secret.   So you’ve been a stolid Republican all your life — so what?   Voting Democrat, if the candidate is the best choice in your mind, isn’t a shame.    It’s fully taking the reins of your responsibilities of voting.  The point here isn’t to change sides, necessarily, but to avoid being a complete robot.  (No offense to our most favorite of all robots, who can bite my shiny metal ass.)

5.  If you are voting for or against a candidate because of one or two issues, don’t vote — Hanging your political hat on a singular issue that a candidate supports is idiotic.   No political position is so narrowly focused that one opinion will make or break the performance of that person over their elected term — you MUST consider the entire package.   Sure, I’m anti-abortion, but I’m voting for Obama because the package is better than the McCain bundle.   To vote for the opposite just because of that one dissention tossing away a lot of great aspects in favor of a bunch of bad ones.    A basket of good apples with one bad is a much better deal than one of all bad apples and one good.    And a good basket makes good pie.   Mmmm…pie.

6.  If your primary goal for a candidate is not for the scope in which they operate, don’t vote — What I mean by this is, you must consider the scope in which the candidate is running and consider whether or not they are the appropriate candidate within that scope. For instance, voting for a state senator because tax breaks he offers will help your town is WRONG.    Instead, you should consider those proposed tax breaks in reference to his scope — the entire state — to determine if he is the best candidate.   Likewise, electing a president because they are sympathetic to Midwest farmers is wrong, because although they may be good for the pigs, they may be very bad for the country as a whole.   Since the candidate will be operating at a particular level, it only makes sense to pick them based on that level.   Creepy logic, hrm?

7.  If your vote will be affected by the candidates age, gender, religion, sexual orientation, race, creed, family, or social status, don’t vote — This is 2008, folks.   I like to think that, in many ways, we have made progresses beyond that of our forefathers in determining the true worth of a human being and not taking irrelevant factors made up in fear into account.    If you are still stuck in the past, however, please don’t bring your biases to the polling location.   Stay home, beat your wife, and watch re-runs of All in the Family, completely missing the satire.

8.  If your choice of candidate is influenced by who has the better (or more convincing) commerical, media presentation, email forwards, or yard signs, don’t vote — I know that the media plays a very large role in determining how we perceive the world, products, and information, but you also have to keep your head screwed on straight and always realize that when you see an ad on the Boob Tube, it’s specifically geared to make you think or react in a particular way — and that particular way is usually one that prefers that you don’t look up the facts yourself and instead take the ad at its word.   Danger, Billy Bob!   No matter how an ad, sign, or presentation makes you feel, make sure you are always thinking about it correctly and double-check your facts.

9.  If you are not considering a candidate’s leadership abilities, charisma, communication abilities, and affability, don’t vote — Yes, I want you to always think intelligently about a candidate’s qualifications, previous employment and experience, and history, but at the same time, an smart voter considers the sort of business that the politician is getting into (or continuing in).    Most political positions involve copious amounts of public exposure and opportunities for leadership.    The higher up you get, the more this is relevant, and it behooves us as voters to place these abilities as a close 2nd, if not equal to, the other qualities of the candidate.   Why?   Simply put, a person who has good communication skills and the ability to take charge in a situation will get farther than a very qualified one who does not.    The past 8 years has been one of stumbled sentences, misread teleprompters, and blank stares.   Image matters a lot to foreign relations and confidence, especially if you are smarter than the average bear.

10.   If you are making your vote based on emotion, don’t vote – I know it’s hard for us to be non-emotional in times like this where the economy is in the dumper, people are losing their homes, investments are drying up, gas is killing us, and so forth, but you cannot allow that to get in the way of your voting process, because you may very well place a vote based on your current mood vs. the correct decision for the long-term.   Remember — the situation will change.   For better, for worse, something will change, and you want your decision to be correct no matter how you might feel in a week, month, or year.    Instead, use your emotions to urge you to be the best damned voter anyone could ask for.   Go, team, go.

So — there you have it, 10 reasons to NOT vote.

Does this mean I’m advocating not voting?   No.   Does it mean that I am trying to give you an excuse not to vote?   No.    It means I think you (and everyone else) is capable of being a better voter, of making good choices based on logic and rational thought, and placing a vote that they won’t regret in the long term.     I’m also not advocating that you vote in any particular way — Democrat, Republican, Independent — but what I am saying is that I want, whatever your choice is, to be one that you arrived at by thinking about it. As long as you have a good reason, I’m happy with it.

I’m curious to hear what you think of my 10 reasons to not vote and if you agree or not.   Either way, I’m done with my process — I voted already via absentee.   I highly recommend it if you have the ability in your state; there’s nothing quite like being able to review a ballot in the privacy of your own home, having the ability to look people up online before you make your decision, and vote sitting on your ass.   Because I’m fond of doing things that allow me to sit on my ass, and it’s a damned shame they don’t have grills with recliners on them.

Vote Early, Vote Smart, Vote Often!

© Nathan Pralle for PhilosYphia, 2008. | Permalink | 5 little comments jumping on the bed. | Subscribe RSS

Senator McCain, failure is a part of life, and in some times and in some situations, far more preferable to the alternatives in hand which only start with embarrassment and humiliation and can extend anywhere as far as grave injury and writing a death sentence.   Surely you have learned from some of your failures in your life and become a better person because of them?

Maybe not.   One has to wonder how yourself, Bush, and the entire neocon movement continues to support such a farcical operation, founded on some outright lies and many half-truths and partial facts; a quest which continues to flounder about like so many chickens in chamber pot, its mission to bring democracy and peace to a nation that cannot yet fathom a dictatorless society let alone true unadulterated freedom.  Meanwhile, a great many hardworking men and women simply doing their job in the armed forces and following orders are putting themselves and their family futures on the line for a war never declared around a reason that never existed.

Stunningly, amazingly, dense.

And yet, regardless of all these stark pieces of reality, if we even partially accept that invading Iraq was necessary, moral, and justified, this does not change the fact that one option for getting out of there and returning to a life of normality is, indeed, the F-word:   Failure.

Why must it be such a frightening thing?

The most successful of businessmen will no doubt regale any listener kind enough to bend an ear in their direction with countless stories of the most spectacular and horrific moments in their lives that darned near ruined them completely and shot their dreams and hopes to hell.   You’ll probably even find a few that strongly regret some of these transgressions, no matter what the outcome was.    Failure is, and always has been, one of the best ways for life to grab the nearest sand shovel and bean us over the head in teaching us a lesson.

Sure, it can be a painful experience, but so is giving birth, from what I understand, and yet folks seem inclined to keep doing that, don’t they?   Mind you, sometimes babies happen because someone didn’t pull out in time, but….wait.   That relates rather nicely here, don’t you think?   I digress, and I think there’s a law against saying the word, “Touché,” to yourself, especially during inner monologue.

Frankly, you do not speak for me when you state that failure is not a good option.   It is a very plausible option, given the fact that we not only continue to create and/or maintain chaos in that state by our very presence, and the fact that the Iraqi government has specifically requested that we get the hell out in a timely fashion, thankyouverymuch, but most importantly because by staying in the Middle East and exerting such a bullying influence on the region will only come back to chomp us on the southward cheeks in the end.    If this is a key strategy in the War On Terrorâ„¢, please don’t play Risk anytime soon for any great amount of cash.

In addition, I do not believe that having a leader that sometimes accepts failure or defeat is a bad or unworthy trait.   Rather, I am convinced that is is the character of the person’s response to such a situation that determines their ability to lead and gain respect.    Avoiding failure altogether is simply a sign of a coward, an idiot, or both.

Another very important question everyone should be asking is this:   If the U.S. pulls out of Iraq in a timely fashion, and the country collapses upon itself in howevermany months afterwards, is it truly a failed operation?   Are we artificially placing blame and responsibility on our shoulders for the entire welfare of a nation’s stability?   That is not a situation that I am comfortable with nor one that I wish to start setting a trend for around the world.   The fact remains that, despite the fact that we were the aggressors and we were the ones that shot their entire society and way of life to hell and back does not mean that we are now the permanent caretakers of their society and future to the end of perpetuity.   If they were incapable, perhaps, but they’re not — the Iraqi people are a strong and productive folk, and perhaps it’s time we let them prove it as such.  They certainly feel ready for the challenge.

So, Senator McCain — I am not afraid of failure, either in the case of Iraq, or Afghanistan, or any other failed mission.   I am far more impressed and far more respectful of an admittance of wrongdoing, a pledge to correct wrongs and prevent a reoccurrence, and a skillful and tactful withdrawal from the fray.   This is the mark of true character, success, and leadership, and you sir are simply afraid of it.

It is a mistake to suppose that men succeed through success; they much oftener succeed through failures. Precept, study, advice, and example could never have taught them so well as failure has done. — Samuel Smiles

© Nathan Pralle for PhilosYphia, 2008. | Permalink | 4 little comments jumping on the bed. | Subscribe RSS

I attended my local precinct last night mostly because I’m amused by the entire process and it’s one of the few places where my presence has some sort of true impact on numbers. Consider my particular location — we had a total of 80 people present, so my voice was about 1.25% of the total, whereas in the entire United States, my vote is approximately worth 4 ten-millionths of a percent. Oh, wait! The Electoral College pretty much destroys that entirely. Nevermind.

Out of the group, Obama got 35, Clinton got 2?, and Edwards got a similar 2?. A few people tried to go for Dodd or Biden but quickly shifted to one of the three camps once they saw that the viability of their position was, at best, poor. The caucus itself was fairly uneventful — no speeches were made, we just gathered and then proceeded to spend far more time counting each other than any group of semi-intelligent beings should ever waste. As soon as everyone was accounted for, 95% of the people left. As it turned out, they still had to elect delegates to the county meeting and, since I was one of the few left behind in the Obama camp, I am now one of the seven delegates to my county’s meeting, which appears to me to be little more than a formality.

My reasons behind picking Obama were many, although there weren’t really any Democrats that I didn’t like in some fashion or another. About the only thing I don’t like is his stance on abortion, but where can you find a pro-life Democrat anywhere? I pick my battles, I guess.

Here’s my overriding reason, which I would have stated at the caucus had that sort of thing come up: When choosing a president, you can support someone that is a radical, wants to make big changes, or really sees a government running different from the way it currently is but in the end it’s a stupid thing to do. Why? Change is good — don’t get me wrong. Different viewpoints are appreciated and welcomed as well.

But there’s a balance to be struck — the world is what it is, and government works in a certain way. Remember, the president is simply the head of the executive branch. There’s 485 other people in Congress that you have to get everything past first and if you can’t work with them, your radicalisms won’t do you any good. The best of intentions will simply lead you to a migrane. The best candidate who will be successful is the one who can straddle the fine line between new ideas/change and the status quo, and I think Obama has that quality.

Here for your pleasure is a rundown of my thoughts on the candidates of which I have an opinion about. If you don’t give a wet slap, feel free to mosey on down the road to your next website:

John Edwards – As a person, I really like Edwards. I think he has a great personality, seems like a solid, hard-working kind of guy, and would be the sort of man you’d find behind a grill at a family reunion with a smile and a sizzling burger for everyone that came by. That being said, I think he is too radically blue-collar oriented. I realize that he is championing for the common man, but the fact is that the changes he proposes to help the common man go violently against the way the system currently works. Sure, I’m all for change in this area to prevent corruption, greed, and so forth, but you can’t change it overnight and Edwards’ plan proposes changes that would ultimately impact the economy in a negative manner. It’s a pity — I think he has a lot of down-home common sense, and as Aprille stated, he and his wife are a class act. I just think he’s too far off the dart board to be viable. Oh, and for future reference Mr. Edwards? The whole mailing-pamphlets-like-hail thing? You came on a bit strong.


Hillary Clinton – I think Hillary has a lot of powerful ideas and I’m interested in the idea of a female president; I think it would lend some interesting emotional leveling to the position. That being said, in terms of change, I worry that she sits too much in the camp of “business as usual” and will be easily pulled into that position again as president. Sure, she’ll make change as a Democrat, but I wonder if her ideas are fresh enough to really break out of the status quo and push for new thoughts and processes in Washington. I don’t think this is the case. I believe she is so able to bridge the gap between parties that she will compromise to an excess instead of standing ground on some key issues. If I had a choice between keeping things steady or throwing the state of the Union into chaos incarnate, well — I’d rather we not rock the boat. But I think it’s time for some new directions, and I don’t know if Hillary can steer the van hard enough. For the record, however, she has a hell of a resource in her husband campaigning for her. He gives one amazing speech.


Ron Paul – Gosh I love this guy — solid, true to himself and his beliefs, articulate and interesting to listen to, and not afraid to speak his mind. It’s a shame his position isn’t viable in our government system. Again, he’s too far off the target to make an impact. Electing Ron Paul into office results in a lame duck that can flap its wings all it wants, veto veto veto, and end up with nothing useful by the end of the term. Pure visionary radicals like Paul won’t make changes because the system is designed to filter out ideas that are off the chart. A pity — I’d champion this guy in a second if I thought he’d be effective. Ron, anytime you’re in town, lunch is on me.


Mike Huckabee - No, no, No, NO, NO! How many times do I have to tell you people, you do NOT want government involved in religion? This includes someone who is running and getting votes solely on the basis that he is a good, Christian man. What, I ask, does that have to do with the price of tea in China? The fact that Huckabee won Iowa makes me feel ashamed and dirty.


Mitt Romney - My opinion of him actually has nothing at all to do with religion because, if anything, he’s been the best at keeping his belief system out of the race. The thing that creeps me out about Romney is how much he just reeks of old-school Republican good-ol’-boys club scent. His entire demeanor is geared towards being a schmuck. Even if he had the best policies in the world, I couldn’t place my trust in him because he just feels like a weasel.


Rudy Giuliani - O.M.G. You have to be kidding. A guy whose entire platform is based around a notion of, “I dealt with NYC on 9/11, therefore I can deal with the country.” Besides being a total asshole, Giuliani is incompetent and overblown.


Barack Obama – Articulate (and I use that in the non-offensive way), sharp, clear, straightforward, and with an incredible ability to balance both common sense and a reaching for the stars. He is the best combination, as I stated above, of the power of change and the smarts to keep from making changes that will screw up the system. He has made plenty of bold statements, promises, and ideas without going outside the realm of what is possible and plausible. He has reasons for his positions and a pretty clear idea on how he’ll implement them. At this point, I don’t expect rock-solid plans, but I do think you need to have some thoughts on it, and he has some pretty clear ones.


That is, in effect, my rundown. The other candidates I haven’t paid enough attention to or they haven’t left enough of a mark on me to matter.

So, what do you think of the whole she-bang so far? Interesting? Stupid? Too early to tell? Don’t care?

© Nathan Pralle for PhilosYphia, 2008. | Permalink | 9 little comments jumping on the bed. | Subscribe RSS

No doubt a lot of you have heard about President Bush’s latest dubious action, which was to strike a deal with the mortgage market and attempt to freeze some interest rates from climbing so people didn’t have to foreclose and lose their houses. The essential idea behind it is this — during the housing bubble of the past few years, a lot of people either bought their first house or upgraded. Because interest rates were so low and lenders were giving out mortgages left and right for great terms, a lot of people bought a bigger place than they could really afford. They could do that because lenders gave out a lot of ARMs — Adjustable Rate Mortgages. It essentially means that for the few few years, your payments are low and your interest rate is, too. After that, however, the interest rate readjusts, usually higher, and your payments go up steeply.

Well, three or four years later, here we are, and a lot of homeowners are finding themselves in dire straits. Their ARMs have readjusted and, because interest rates went up, so did their payments — significantly. Suddenly that $350,000 house in Orlando is sucking up all of their income and they’re eating ramen to make it. If borrowers can’t make the payments, the lenders foreclose on the property and take it back and they lose their house as well as getting a black mark on their credit history.

So, the government is stepping up and saying, “Hey — a lot of foreclosures are bad for people and bad for the economy, so we’ll help you folks out and here’s some programs to assist you through this tough time.”

Excuse me? Since when was this a good idea?

Frankly, I’m miffed. By doing this, the government is basically condoning the actions of stupid people. Just like investing in Internet startups in the late 90s, everyone got too excited and did dumb things that they’re now regretting. Feeling a bit bad about buying a house that cost you $600/month for the first few years and now costs you double that? Want me to call the waaambulance?

As I heard one financial analyst say on the BBC, people are financially motivated in two ways — the pursuit of gaining wealth and the fear of bankruptcy. Both features exist in capitalism to balance the system out and make it dangerous to be reckless with your money. Sometimes that risk pays out — and sometimes you hit snake eyes.

I feel bad for anyone who had the wool pulled over their eyes about a bad mortgage, but only a little bit. Buying a house is not a trivial matter — you’re are making a huge purchase that will extend over years of repayment and financial situations — it behooves you to know exactly how your loan will behave at any point and what your risks are. Assuming everything will be fine because the banker says so is stupid. Failing to understand the risks you are taking is also stupid.

Call me cold-hearted, but I think this sets a bad precedent. Just like my childhood friend, this basically says that being idiotic with your money will result in the government stepping in to make sure you don’t suffer from it. If they do that now for mortgages, do we get a slippery slope to other risks in life? Oh, you made a bad choice by jumping off a roof — let us help you pay for that. You bought a huge-ass SUV and can’t afford the gas now to drive to work? Let us help you subsidize that. A bad hand at poker? You didn’t mean it, did you — here’s a Benjamin to keep going.

A bankruptcy would suck — but life isn’t all tea and sandwiches, either. Sometimes the only way people learn is by making mistakes, but apparently letting people make them isn’t ok anymore?

© Nathan Pralle for PhilosYphia, 2007. | Permalink | 8 little comments jumping on the bed. | Subscribe RSS

Yes, I’m on medication, just not the kind you’re thinking of. ~

Here’s how you solve the “problem” of marriage, once and for all, for all situations, types, and combinations, without hurting anyone’s feelings, stepping on any religious toes, or violating any laws of the land. This solution is airtight, I believe, and really doesn’t have any downsides — at least, until you prove otherwise. Feel free to show me a moron if I am, truly, barking mad.

The Problem

Parishioners get their petulant panties in a twist anytime someone goes to get married that doesn’t fit their religion’s bill of tender. Yet the act of not getting married means that the couple (or group, as the case may be) does not get to participate in the tax breaks and other civil benefits that marriage brings (for instance, getting to be your partner’s health care decision maker). Married folks clearly have the advantage when it comes to this, as well as simply being able to state, “We’re married.” Most homosexual couples are happy enough to simply have a “commitment ceremony” to say their vows to each other, but they feel they’re being shafted in the benefits department (and rightly so) by a society geared towards heterosexual unions.

The Solution

The answer to all of this is very simple (told you), can be understood by anyone, and involves little change from our current way of administering and handling marriages. It is also compliant with all religious beliefs, whether they specifically allow or disallow homosexual marriages or other different unions.

Marriage is, right now, a combination of two facets: one, the legal joining of two people in the sight of the government and society for purposes of taxation, health care, benefits, names, and other associations, and two, the religious ceremony that unites two people into one unit.

The key is to disassociate these two acts from being one act into their separate facets once again without any cross-association between the two. Once we are able to do this, marriage can happen and civil unions can happen and nobody gets their feathers ruffled.

The Civil Union

The word marriage gets stripped from government and the legal side of things and in its place the civil union is born. This is a legally-binding agreement that joins two or more people together in an entity that is recognized by government and society as being a single unit for purposes of taxation, health care, names, responsibilities, etc. I say two or more because what is to prevent a group of four from becoming a civil union? Logically, there’s no barrier to this. The result is very much like incorporating a business; you have to fill out the forms, jump through the legal hoops, pay your fees, and then you are joined. There’s no religious involvement — indeed, no ceremony at all. It is simply a matter of following procedure. The process should be difficult enough so as to not be easy but simple enough to not prevent anyone from going through it. The cost can be set high enough to make it a significant financial decision, yet not out of reach for the poorest yet well-intentioned.

The process for disjoining would be similar to the dissolution of a corporation. Agreements about assets and liabilities would have to be resolved, agreements made, and the courts involved to review the case and agree to the divorce. Again, it should be difficult enough such that it won’t be taken lightly and the system clogged with weekend pranksters, yet workable for the poor and inept to accomplish if necessary.

The Marriage

Marriage, then, is left to be a purely religious ceremony, carried out in whatever way that particular belief chooses. The religion of note can choose whether or not to support homosexual or polygamous relationships or to disavow them, much like it already does now. There would be no paperwork for the State involved with a marriage — if the religion has paperwork, so be it, if not, that’s fine, too. It is performed before or after the civil union or without it as people like — having a marriage does not mean having to have a civil union, nor does having a civil union mean that a marriage is required. They end up being two completely different acts.

It Works. Really.

The separation of these two aspects into different acts is the solution I propose. It allows any sort of combination of people to reap the benefits of government and society without being tied to a religious definition. Anyone can have a religious ceremony without having to make a civil committment. Divorce is taken in the context of which it was conceived — you can break your religious connection without dissolving your civil one if you choose. Each belief system can condone or disown each couple or group as they like.

“But Nathan,” you say, “I don’t believe that homosexuals should get married!” Fine. What’s the problem? You can believe that all you want, but you cannot tell me that in a religiously-neutral context it makes any sense to legally disallow gays or other groups from being civilly joined. If you insist that the government disallow civil unions because they aren’t allowed by your religion, then you are asking the government to align with the beliefs of your religion and that, my friend, simply isn’t right. Nobody wants the government to dictate religious beliefs — that’s a founding principle of the United States — so why do you insist on doing so with marriage?

The solution above is the best of all worlds. People can once again reap the benefits of being legally associated with others and conform to whatever religious belief they prefer (or to none at all, if that suits them). What astounds me is why nobody seems to think of this on their own.

Why is there such a barrier to an idea such as this? How many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop?

The world may never know.

© Nathan Pralle for PhilosYphia, 2007. | Permalink | 11 little comments jumping on the bed. | Subscribe RSS

Three cheers for the euphoric inaction of the masses.

Don’t get me wrong — I love baby seals. I just can’t eat a whole one by myself.

The environmental crisis: Mother Nature’s way of possibly eliminating from her system one of the most annoying of parasites all the while the fleas attempt to analyze, test, and make plans for repairing the dog while still being able to suck blood at an alarming rate. “Compact Fluorescents!” they yell with exuberance. Net effect? Some hillbilly down in Kentucky, noticing the sudden drop in his electrical bill, upgrades his lamp to a 100 watt bulb. Such advances must be truly exhausting for the folks at Greenpeace.

I could not be pegged to be much of a die-hard for end-user environmentalism; it strikes me sour like the Democratic Party’s traditional way of approaching social ills such as poverty, jobless rates, and healthcare. The attitude of caring for the end instead of fixing the means turns rancid after a few iterations and people start realizing that bailing out the Titanic with a wineglass probably isn’t going to benefit the masses in the long run.

Likewise, whilst all of the bloggers out there today typing feverishly have the best of intentions and may even spark someone to think a little, their mutual clickity-clack orgy of plastic and electrons won’t remove the swimming pool that has suddenly appeared in the first-class dining room. While peace, love, and universal happiness practically streams out of the sparkling fiber today, I’m a little miffed by the fact that the train keeps on chugging despite the cow on the catcher, no matter how much she moos.

Where, then, should efforts be placed? This is the question on everyone’s mind; or, at least, should be, whether you are making your reforms for the true benefit of your planet or as a publicity stunt for The Corporation. The answer ends up being just as obscure as the data that assails us from every angle about the problems that currently exist, how they are issues, where they come from, and who is responsible. The glass covering the donations bin is at least as smoky if not more obscure than the windows on the world in the first place.

The first rung in the ladder that we climb is You. If you are a normal human being, you may read some of the postings for Blog Action Day, perhaps even muse about them, and then promptly jump into your gas-powered car and drive home tonight. Don’t worry — so will I. In fact, most of us will. Only the very few folks out there who have chosen to follow a life outside of mainstream society will be bicycling or riding a hemp-powered scooter or floating home in a hydrogen balloon. I certainly don’t think less of you because you’re doing what you have to do to stay alive and make your way, but it points to a greater influence than your simple vehicle choice.

You begin to climb the ladder of cause and effect as you move away from the reasons why you drive to work, or take public transportation, or other means. People have to get to work from places far removed from their jobs. They live at those places because they’re cheaper or nicer or safer than closer places. They are nicer/safer/closer because they’re newer. They’re newer because someone built them recently. Someone built them because they figured they could make money, and they did so because people with good jobs bought them. But now those people have to get to their jobs. Et voila. Haven’t we been here before?

The problems in environmental reform aren’t easy to pinpoint, but everyone seems to have a good idea of what they might be. Global warming. Pollution. Natural resources. Endangered species. Yet, when you really explore each of these, you discover that the reasons are problems can go backwards up a long chain of responsibility and causal relationships ad infinitum. This is not to say that a reasonable and impactable point can’t be found along each of these to effect change, it simply means that it may not be the most obvious, cheapest, or simplest. Teaching the masses to use hybrid cars isn’t always a win-win situation. There are real, economic, political, and psychological reasons for the way some things are and a movement to buy organic goods may not be effective enough to make a difference to those where their situations simply prevent them from taking a similar step.

So, the day will progress much as any other does, with cheery little blog postings smattering the ‘net and making those squishy little sounds that warm, sloppy kisses make upon landing on the lips of easy opportunity, and pupils will scan and twitch and read and comment until everyone has filled up their own buckets of responsibility and goodness to the brim, sighing contentedly. A few lights will be turned off quicker tonight; water will cease running for a few seconds less at every toothbrushing, and cars may be driven a little less forcefully on the commute home. But tomorrow is a new day — a new start for the world — and has anything really changed at all?

© Nathan Pralle for PhilosYphia, 2007. | Permalink | 9 little comments jumping on the bed. | Subscribe RSS

So, in response, I give you the modified lyrics to this ignorant, piece of shit song. Anyone want to try covering this?

Are You a Moron?

I hear people sayin’. We really need this war.
They say, “There’s some things worth fightin’ for.
What about our freedom, and this piece of ground?
We didn’t get to keep ‘em by backin’ down.”
They say we don’t realize the mess we’re gettin’ in
Before you start preachin’ let me ask you this my friend.

Are you a moron? Are you a dumbass, too?
Believing that this fighting crap
is really good for you?
Are you a moron? Have you lost your mind?
Killing random people just to give you peace of mind?
They say we should be worrying about Bin Laden…
Are you a moron?

We took the footage off TV
Because it doesn’t help you or me
It’ll only breed anger, hate, and fear
People acting like scared sheep with a bear
This country is out looking for a fight
9/11 sure as hell doesn’t give us the right

Sending all those soldiers
Away from us to war
Does anyone here remember what they’re fighting for?

Are you a moron?
All those people killed
Won’t come back to see us
If we kill everyone else
Are you a moron?
Just ’cause you’re American
Doesn’t mean you’re always right
Or the way of light is might
Think about what those gone would want you to do….

Are you a moron?

© Nathan Pralle for PhilosYphia, 2007. | Permalink | 2 little comments jumping on the bed. | Subscribe RSS

North Iowa was graced today with the presence of both Possibly President Hillary Clinton and Past President Bill Clinton during the 4th of July parade in Clear Lake, IA, about 30 minutes drive from my house to the north. In a move clearly meant to bring celebrity exposure to the dominantly-conservative Midwest, the Clintons proceeded to slow down the entirety of the parade by causing a 30 minute delay at the start so they could shake hands every block. ~

By the time they got to where we were sitting, they apparently decided to skip a block and walked swiftly ahead, only to stop at the NEXT block and shake hands. So we got no sweaty hand-lovin’ whatsoever. I did, however, managed to snap off 3 photos of them as they went past. I think Bill looks extremely good; he’s lost a lot of weight.

Tom Latham was also there…I got a pretty good snap of him:

Mitt Romney was also there, but since I don’t give a wet slap about him (and he was on the other end of the street anyway), I didn’t bother trying to get a picture of him.

My wife, however, did manage to take a very cute picture of the baby bunny living in our yard, so here’s that snap:

See?   Even in a land full of politicians, at least something is cute and fuzzy.

© Nathan Pralle for PhilosYphia, 2007. | Permalink | No comments....YET! Make one! | Subscribe RSS

I am here to officially announce that I have no freaking clue.

But, in true Internet blogging fashion, I’ll happily open up my mouth and resemble the south end of a horse facing north in talking about something I have no knowledge of, if nothing else, to the amusement of my Australian compatriots.

I know that Australians once “lost” a prime minister by, supposedly, drowning, although it’s really hard to say given the country’s penchant for overly-poisonous animals that enjoy human a la stick.

I know that John Howard has mostly been a lapdog of the Bush administration and, despite most Australians I know thinking that Bush is nuttier than a squirrel pantry, the government still seems to back most things the US is doing in the world.

I know that they have a Labor party that does very little baby-squirting but has a lot of people involved with it that do things like dig rock out of caves in the ground. They also have a Liberal party which, contrary to popular belief, is actually conservative. Leave it up to Aussies to figure that one out.

I also know that Australian Parliament, much like the English equivalent, is a much more relaxed legislative body than any of the ones in the United States. Watching Congress on C-SPAN here in the U.S. is a great anti-insomnia therapy, but catching a session of Aussie or English Parliament is somewhat like watching a celebrity roast but using nice words. More than once has a news story come out about some politician or another calling another one a jackass or similar.

Or, as you can see in this clip on YouTube, a slip of the tongue may very well set back the entire legislative process while everyone quits rolling on the floor. Everyone in the world knows the Aussies are more relaxed than most, and this most definitely doesn’t depart from that notion.

I think that the Australian policy of compulsory voting is both wonderful and idiotic in the same glance. Living in a country where the “voting public” is usually a measly 35 to 40% of qualified individuals, its heartening to think that everyone in Oz is getting out and voicing their opinion.

However, requiring people to vote means you will end up with a vast majority of folks simply trying to “get it out of the way” and not giving a wet slap what they mark on the ballot, just as long as they get it done and nobody hauls them in for not doing so. This, I imagine, would mean that media exposure and making your name a household word works even better in Australia than in the U.S. — if you are looking at a ballot and you’ve heard of the one guy but not the other, who are you going to vote for? Not that this doesn’t happen in the U.S.; I fully expect McCain, Giuliani, Clinton, and Obama to receive a bunch of their votes simply due to exposure and not because of merit. But I’d imagine that there are a fair whack of people that simply don’t vote in the USA that, if they were forced to, would add to this pool, further diluting it.

Perhaps Aussies are just more astute.

I am trying to think if I know of any particular points of interest in Australian politics that I’d care to comment on, but when I’m still trying to figure out cultural differences (although I’ve come a long way), historical and cultural references (many of these still elude me), and attitudes, Australian Politics takes a pretty far back seat in the theatre of my mind (and is probably having a good time making out with Aussie Economics). That being said, even from my very limited exposure to anything, I have a few comments to make about things that Aussie politicians should perhaps concentrate on:

• Technology – Always a big one, and one close to my heart. Although Aussies have come a very, very long way in technology and in many ways have exceeded the US, it is something that politicians should keep at the forefront of their minds and their policies if they want Australia to continue to grow and expand in the world. Oz is a long freaking distance away from — well, most anything — but technology can and will close that gap and make it viable to conduct business from or to Australia without a huge expenditure. (plus, if it keeps expanding, I have job opportunities. yay!)
• Regulation - This comes on the heels of Technology and relates a lot to Australian telecoms (Hello, Telstra?) and similar businesses that, in the past, pretty much seemed to squelch any sort of competitive behavior. Not that the FCC or similar policymakers here in the US have done a perfect job, but on the whole we’ve recognized that a little correct regulation of monopolistic behaviors and corrections for the market promote expansion, competition, and innovation. There is a gigantic startup cost to almost any physical infrastructure in Australia, given the geography and population distribution, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that any one business has the right to disallow competitive behavior, especially when the economy could really use it. Plus, they’re going to have to start, like the US is, taking a look at VoIP and its impact on services in the country.
• Immigration – Actually, given the US’s procedure for immigration, the Australian equivalent is a walk in a park. I think the “points” system is brilliant. I just want politicians to keep this subject in their heads so it gets evaluated regularly and as many good, beneficial opportunities as possible are kept open for people willing to make the jump and live there.

Past these three things, I really can’t comment on other aspects. I’m not up on the Australian economy, I don’t know what civil rights are being debated, I’m unsure of the tax or social welfare issues at hand, and I haven’t kept up much on the national healthcare initiatives. I’m pretty sorely uneducated on most of it, as you can tell. If I move there, I’m going to be doing a LOT of reading and watching of news programs to catch up.

Anywho….this is my general, foot-in-mouth, completely unjustified look at Australian politics from the viewpoint of an almost complete outsider. If nothing else, if you are an American, I hope you learned something — if you are an Aussie, I hope you had a good laugh.

© Nathan Pralle for PhilosYphia, 2007. | Permalink | One comment. One lonely comment looking for a friend. | Subscribe RSS