Herman's Bane

If you've been paying attention to my blog the past couple months, you're no stranger to my feelings about GOP Presidential candidate Herman Cain.  (Inaudible whispering).  Wait, what's that?  I haven't said anything at all about Cain?  Hmmm....(goes back and extensively checks).  Oh.  I guess I haven't.  There was just this one time I posted a link to a USA today article on Facebook and made some passing comment about not liking Cain.  Well then- it's too late turn back now.

Herman Cain has captured my attention, and not in the good way.  Even though I haven't been paying too much attention to what's going on in the GOP (there's no point in really- as a social worker I am bound by the Code of Ethics to vote Democrat), I've gleaned all sorts of information about Herman Cain from CNN articles, random sound bites,and commentary provided by Stephen Colbert.


Yes this is the sort of thing I've railed against in the past. Too bad for you I already knew I was a hypocrite, Mr. Jump-to-Conclusions Mat!

Incomplete research/incorrect facts+opinion-stated-as-fact=hypocrite.  Well played, Mr. Jump-to-Conclusions Mat

Still you have to admit that the soundbites haven't been friendly to Mr. Cain. He comes across as full of himself, with an unhealthy childish arrogance laced with an overbearing disdain for convention in a non-charming-but-trying-to-be-charming sort of way.

 
From what I know of Cain (and again I'm no Herman Cain wikipedia entry), he has already written a book about his journey to the White House, sold out his race, promised an electric border fence, claimed he was joking about the electric border fence, then said he was kidding about joking about the electric border fence,and insulted an entire nation of Uzbeks.  That was all in like two months.

Note: I'm sorry about all of the links that took you away from my blog.  I realize that you probably came here to read my blog and not read stuff that other people wrote.  But since I'm only marginally interested in blatant plagiarizing, I figured it'd be best if I let you know that not all of my great ideas are, in fact, original.

But earlier this week, Cain's past rose up from the grave like a waylaid kitty cat from hell and bit him square on his I-am-America ass. 

For the uninundated, some skeletons came out of Herman Cain's 1990s closet singing a couple of tunes about sexual harassment.  With a backstory practically choking on a mix of political intrigue and Clue, this turn of events could very well turn the GOP tide.  I'm sure Cain knows this- he has already begun engaging in his verbal denial gymnastics.  Therefore I won't bother to keep feeding him rope with which to hang himself.  No, I want to talk about something a little different:

I want to talk about me.  Well, and you.  You too.

See after reading about Cain's apparent indiscretions, I went through my checklist of predetermined cognitive biases.  I compared it to my theory of Herman Cain that I had already postulated in my mind, found that it reinforced my notions, and filed it away as another case of Herman's Bane.  And by 'filed it away', I mean 'attached a millstone to the neck of Herman Cain's chances for election and dropped it into Lake Superior'.

But then I started thinking about the whole idea of an event from 15+ years ago resurfacing in the present day.  I started to think about mistakes committed in youth (or youngerness in Cain's case), and how much a person changes over the course of their lives.  Biologically, Herman Cain isn't even made up of the same cells he was in the mid 90s.  Who is to say those allegations (even if they are true) are necessarily relevant to Cain right now?  Maybe he did act poorly towards women in those circumstances but then changed when he realized the error of his ways (note: I'm intentionally not going to talk about any financial hardships due to the 'error of his ways'.  Oh crap.  I just did.).

Then I thought about 'what if I was a candidate- what sort of dirt would they unearth about me?'.  I decided that I didn't really like that line of thinking.  I've spent the better part of a lifetime meticulously crafting my wholesome image, and some of the stuff I've done/thought/said could erase all of that hard work in the amount of time it takes you to say "Youshouldknowjasonparks.blogspot.com".  Screw that, I say.


I reckon most of us like to think and hope that the dark deeds of evil will be brought to the light in this lifetime- as long as its the other guy.  Thankfully, most of us don't go into careers where people are paid to delve into the sordid details of our pasts (no matter how 'past' they really are).  Unfortunately, society makes it easy for us to be failure voyeurs, getting our self righteousness jollies by others shortcomings while we plant our own holy flags in the backs of those who lives the lives we wish we lived.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I really don't care at this point whether Herman Cain did or did not sexually harass anyone in the Pizza biz.  Because I'm not convinced it has anything to do with how well he would run our government.
 
I'm not trying to say that sexual harassment is a minor issue, and I'm not trying to minimize Herman Cain's 2 (known) transgressions in this area.  After all, I'm a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant male.  I know all about discrimination (just from the other side).
 
The past counts, yes- but shouldn't our political discourse stick more to policy issues?  It seems that nowadays, the only way to get people interested in politics is to sensationalize the candidates until our elected government officials are really just our latest reality TV contestants.  I think back to 2008, and the whole 'Barack Obama is a secret Muslim/wasn't born in the USA/has ties to anti-patriot preacher'- and how none of those things really contributed anything to understanding Barack Obama's views on healthcare, the economy, or foreign policy.  Which is, you know, what politics is kind of about.
 
As Americans, I think we owe it to ourselves, our neighbors, and the nation at large to seriously look into the political stances of our candidates and not their steamy off-camera failings.  We're not voting someone off the island or trying to pick the next American Idol- we're trying to find the next Commander-in-Chief.  And chances are that person will be a human being who has done some (relatively) horrible things- just like me.  And you, I'd imagine.  But then again, if we aren't willing to be governed by a morally-flawed human being with skeleton-laced closets- then maybe we should just give this whole 'anarchy' thing a go, eh? 
 
PIC- http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/additional/large/office_space_kit_mat.jpg

Civic responsibility?

So I have something of a confession to make- and what better place to make an intimate confession of the soul than the internet?

The truth is- I didn't vote on Tuesday. Now, realistically, I have no one to blame but myself. But this is election season- so I'm going to blame everybody! I'm going to blame the Obama administration for not fixing all of the problems that Obama said it would. And I'm going to blame the Rebublicans for creating all those problems in the first place. I'll blame my kids for being so needy. I'll blame my wife for being so busy with school. Satan gets some blame for placing distractions and temptations in my path- shoot I'll even blame God for not giving me the strength to overcome!

Seriously though, I have to sleep with the knowledge that I didn't vote. I'm pretty disappointed in myself- this is the first election since I graduated, when I was at the height of my political awareness. Is real life my kryptonite? And if so, which type is it?

The election season really snuck up on me, and by the time I was really aware of what was going on, it was too late to fully jump right in. What makes it even worse is that this is probably the last meaningful election before the end of the world in 2012.

All that said, the reason I'm even letting you into my tormented soul is because I believe that there is denial to be made...I mean, redemption to be had.

See, I knew a couple weeks ago that there was no way in Sheol that I was going to be able to properly ingest and process enough relevant information to be able to make an informed decision (and I'm not a straight ticket voter) so I pretty much mailed in my absentee ballot right then and there. Absentee, as in I am going to be absentee from the 2010 Election season.

And by doing this, I feel like I still performed my civic duty. Yes, let me repeat myself: And by doing this, I feel like I still performed my civic duty.

I feel this way because to me, there is more to voting than just showing up to vote. I could have walked over to the armory, checked into a booth, and played a good game of name recognition. Then I would have got my 'I voted' sticker, and the birds would have broken out into song as I walked along. I would have won the lottery, and all my dreams would have came true.

But would that be fulfilling my civic duty? Punching a bunch of names that have no meaning? I mean, I totally understand that my responsibility is to be an informed voter. But to those who voted, I ask this- were you fully informed? (See what I did there? I just totally flipped the spotlight from me to you...which gives me a chance to sneak away and escape).

I'm not talking about the brief synopses you can find in voter guides- that's how I used to vote. I'd pick up the voter guide, look for a couple issues that I felt were important, and go from there.

I have a much different perspective now, though. I realize that some of the issues I felt were important are slightly less important. I see the larger picture, and how some of the hot button issues have no real relevance in the daily lives of most people. I have learned that you can't just say 'so-and-so voted against this bill, so he/she is against this issue'...because there is so much substance to each and every bill, it's preposterous to think that you can summarize someone's stance on an issue because of how they vote on a certain bill.

The fact is, we live in a sound-bite society, and our political ads play right into that. There's no real information in them- it's all personal attacks and over-simplified quotes. That might be good enough for some people- but it's not good enough for me. I'm not content to vote out of emotion, which is what the past couple of elections have played on significantly. People are turning out to the polls in record numbers- but are they voting with their heads? Or with their hearts?

Whether you're for big government or small, you have to acknowledge the fact that running a country as large as ours is a very complex undertaking. I don't think it's feasible to power that kind of operation purely on emotion- yet that's what our political system is driving towards. We aren't looking for voters who are in the know- we want torches and pitchforks! And then we wonder why Republicans and Democrats can't get anything done- because their tenures are not fueled with mandates to accomplish tasks- they are driven by the impetus to keep the flames of passion alive in their constituents.

I know that I've done a lot of summarizing and stereotyping in this blog- so in that sense I'm a pusher. And I didn't 'vote', so I realize that my words have slightly less impact in this arena. But I really do want to see the system change. I want to see overhaul. I'm tired of the two-party domination. I'm tired of being spoon-fed- I'm an adult, I can handle my own silverware. Especially when all I'm being fed is garbage. I didn't vote because I wasn't informed- but I would rather be uninformed and not vote than to be an uninformed voter.

Now, where is that acetylene?

Congrats Obama...NOW GET TO WORK!

Well, since everyone and their brother is probably weighing in on the presidential election, I must follow the lemmings in order to maintain cultural relevence.

First of all, congratulations are in order for Barack Obama. I was surprised that he beat out Hillary Clinton, who has basically been the Democrats 'quarterback of the future' ever since ol' Bill left office. His is a historic victory, the first guy with a Muslim sounding name to be elected president (note-I'm not getting into this whole 'Obama is a secret Muslim thing- I'm just pointing out his name isn't Jim or George or something like that). He is also the first African American to be elected to the presidency. Congrats Obama.

Of course, now the onus is on him. He has a chance to do great things for this country. Or he can be the answer to a trivia question. Democrats control the triple crown- senate, house, president. So there is this understanding that he now has to put up. His whole campaign was around 'change', and while I've said before that I don't doubt that our country needs change, it'll be interesting to see what happens. Barack Obama is going to be trying to implement lots of changes while cutting taxes...eventually the math isn't going to add up. Either he will have to keep taxes the same/raise taxes, or else he will not be able to accomplish everything he promised.

I would just say two things- first of all, I think a certain degree of patience should be afforded to him. After all, our entire world (not just the USA for all the Bush-haters) is in a mess. It would be ignorant for anybody to think that Barack Obama can just come in guns blazing and fix everything. Give him some time/patience.

On the other side, he needs to show something. He needs to produce results. Barack Obama, in my opinion, rode into the white house on the coat tails of the national disapproval of George W. Bush. So he needs to show that he can do better than what he put down. Logistics shouldn't be a problem- as I said, Dems got the trifecta. But the QUALITY of those policies is what is going to matter.

I would really like to see Obama move on from this whole 'Bush bash' mentality. You used it to your advantage, you won the white house- now it's YOUR job. Don't blame bush for what is sure to be a rough period of on-the-job training. You wanted to be a trailblazer, you wanted to make change- well guess what- it's not easy. Barack Obama can take a page from Hank Aaron, who handled the home run record chase with class, grace, and dignity. While there is a lot of difference obviously between baseball and the presidency, there are still similar principles that can be applied here.

Again, congratulations to Barack Obama. I'll be praying for wisdom for you, because you will need it.

3rd Party Candidates in a nutshell...or at a glance, if you have a peanut allergy

A couple weeks ago, I posted on 3rd Party candidates as agents of change. I must have sparked some sort of revolution, judging by the hundreds of e-mails I've received from loyal readers, asking where exactly these candidates stand on the important issues.
I really miss cheesy ads and alien invasion...

Okay, so those e-mails were sent to me by myself, from made up fake e-mail addresses. Don't try to confuse me with 'details' or 'facts'. I'm thinking about adopting relativism as my new manta.* Seriously though, relativism doesn't make sense to me. I mean, sure, I can see why people would WANT to adhere to it- basically zero accountability deification. But when you say 'there is NO such thing as absolute truth', isn't that making an absolute statement, thus nullifying itself? It sure sounds better than 'there may or may not be absolute truth'. Or 'aliens are invading, would you please pass the turkey?'.

So back to the purpose of the post. I'm going to weigh in on some issues of the 3rd Party candidates that are on the ballot in Michigan. According to CNN.com, the top 3 issues for voters are the economy, healthcare, and terrorism. Since this is my blog, we'll go by my top 3 are economy, foreign policy, environment

First off, we have Cynthia McKinney of the Green party. Hers was the most difficult website to navigate in terms of finding issues. I had to glean a lot of this stuff from the Green Party Platform/Manifesto. I also found out that the Green Party supports the legalization of marijuana. And Rosanne Barr supports the Green Party.

Economy-
Cynthia McKinney would close tax loopholes and repeal the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% of income earners. She would fairly tax corporations and deny federal subsidies to those who relocate jobs.McKinney would fight for an the opportunity for every family to have gainful employment at a ‘living wage. She would also set a goal of carbon neutrality within the next 20 years, which would benefit our country both in more jobs and a better environment. She would seek a repeal of trade laws such as NAFTA and CAFTA, and labor laws like Taft-Hartley. McKinney would advocate for equal pay for equal work.
Environment-
It’s the green party, duh? Anti-carbon, pro-renewable resources. And legal hemp. Don't forget legal hemp.
Foreign policy-
Basically, the Green Party platform says, 'We want military recruiters out of our schools, an end to funding for war, products for war, preparation for war, intelligence for war and funds used to to maintain or expand U.S. military presence at home or abroad. We need an end to all wars and occupations by U.S. forces'.

Next up, we have one of the Baldwin brothers, Chuck Baldwin, of the Constitution party. Well, I'm not sure if he's REALLY one of the Baldwin brothers, although he could be. Baldwin could be his maiden name too, for all I know.

Energy-
Chuck had nothing to say about energy, which leads me to believe that he lives in a log cabin in the mountains. Why did I come to that conclusion? It's simple, really. I found the answer on http://www.chuckbaldwinlivesinalogcabininthemountains.com/

If the above were an actual website, than this picture would have come from that website. Just imagine that Chuck and the constituents of the Constitution party are marching on your house to beat you up because you didn't vote for him.
Economy-
In order to keep jobs in this country, Chuck Baldwin favor a tariff based revenue system, A tariff on foreign imports, based on the difference between the foreign item's cost of production abroad and the cost of production of a similar item produced in the United States, to protect American jobs and, at the same time, raise revenue for our national government.
Foreign policy-
Chuck is a very pro-military man, but in an UnderArmor sort of way. You know, 'WE MUST PROTECT THIS HOUSE', not 'click clack'. Chuck would begin the process of safely extracting our troops from Iraq. and stop playing policeman of the world. Baldwin believes that the primary obligation of the federal government to provide for the common defense of the United States of America. Chuck still supports a very strong military, although not for the purposes of invasion, but of protection of America.

Hello, Bob Barr of the Libertarian party. Imagine if our president was a bar. Now name that bar, 'Bob'. That's the kind of excitement America needs!

Energy -
Bob Barr feels 'the free market should be the foundation of America’s energy policy. The federal government should eliminate restrictions that inhibit energy production, as well as all special privileges for the production of politically-favored fuels, such as ethanol. Congress should allow the exploration and production of America’s abundant domestic resources, including oil in the Outer Continental Shelf and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and alternative sources such as shale oil'.
Economy-
Bob thinks govt. needs to spend less, and stick to fundamental economical areas of govt. in the constitution, which are protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. He thinks that doing this will allow American’s to keep more of their own money. 'Every area of federal spending can and should be cut. Entitlements must be reformed and welfare should be cut, including called corporate welfare. Military outlays should be reduced and pork barrel spending eliminated'.
Foreign policy
Bob thinks that America should not be the world’s policeman. 'Our military should provide a strong national defense, not to engage in nation building or to launch foreign crusades. Bringing the soldiers home would better protect America while saving lives and money. American foreign policy should emphasize swift, decisive and winning action against those who vowed would harm us. This means defense, not foreign intervention. We should encourage private involvement around the world primarily through free trade'.

Notice I just flat out quoted Bob several times, instead of paraphrasing. I couldn't do his words justice. Plus, I'm sick of typing.

We've all heard of Ralph Nader, THE Independent candidate. He has the most in-depth website, and lots of similarities to Green party ideology (he ran as a Green Party candidate in '96 and '00, according to Wikipedia). Not sure where he stands on the marijuana issue, or the Rosanne Barr issue. Wait a minute...Rosanne BARR, Bob BARR...hmmmm...this is why I distrust the political process, and think that tyrannical dictatorship might be the way to go.

Economy
Nader believes that equitable trade, improving the infustructure, creating a new renewable energy efficiency policy, fully funding education and redirecting large bureaucratic and fraudulent health expenditures toward preventive health care will create millions of new jobs.
Nader would rework the federal budget to spend more money on things like infrastructure, public works, schools, libraries, sustainable energy and pollution controls, and less money on the military. Some ways he would cut military spending would be reduce strategic nuclear arsenal to 1,000 warheads, close unnecessary military bases, overhaul the Pentagon's financial management operations, and reinvest in diplomacy. Other policies include Progressive Taxation, Equal Pay for Women, Child-Care, Living Wages for All Workers, Restore the Social Safety Net
Foreign policy- Nader had nothing to say about Russia, which leads me to believe that he does not like hockey. Maybe he should run for office in Canada- obviously they don't like hockey, since all of their teams end up moving here anyways.
Nader would reverse the current policy in the Middle East. Nader proposes a rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq- a target of withdrawing troops in six months.
Energy-
Ralphie urges a new clean energy policy that no longer subsidizes entrenched oil, nuclear, electric and coal mining interests — an energy policy that is efficient, sustainable and environmentally friendly. 'We need to invest in a diversified energy policy including renewable energy like wind and other forms of solar power, more efficient automobiles, homes and businesses one that breaks our addiction to fossil fuels. A new clean energy paradigm means more jobs, more efficiency, greater security, environmental protection and increased health'.

Here are the candidates websites:
McKinney- http://votetruth08.com/
Baldwin- http://www.baldwin08.com/
Barr- http://www.bobbarr2008.com/
Nader- http://www.votenader.org/

All quotes were taken directly from the candidates websites, unless I got them from somewhere else.


Thank you for bearing with me. Whoever you vote for, know why you are voting for them.


*Some of you might have said, 'he means mantra'. You were wrong.