Look at the Bright Side Already!

In review of my classmate's blog: Government Not So Bad, I loved what you had to say. It is getting old that most Americans have nothing good to say about this country or its leadership and how it's run.

I for one, may not agree with everything this country puts into action, but I wouldn't want to live anywhere else in the world. I've been overseas and visited poverty-stricken countries for extended amounts of time. Americans may be suffering right now due to ridiculous prices on everything, but we are still steps ahead of other nations.

Americans take for granted all the freedoms and liberties we have. What about all the things we do have? Why does everything always have to be focused around what is less than ideal? Our "less than ideal" situations in America are leaps and bounds above what some nations could even dream about.

Obama Just Wants the Votes

Everyone is buzzing about Obama and Clinton joining forces. Is there no one else who thinks this is a bad idea? Politically, it may be a smart move for the Democratic Party as a whole, but is it really what's best for the future of our nation? I had a hard time accepting the fact that either Obama or Clinton could win in the national election in the fall. The idea of them joining campaigns and supporters is even harder to wrap my mind around.

America just witnessed the most competitive race over who was going to be the official democratic nominee. We watched as Obama and Clinton fought with everything they had against each other. Now the idea of them combining their bids for the national election is in the works. As far as the merging of their names is concerned, it would create a popular ticket in the fall. Obama and Clinton each have radical supporters in large numbers. The fact that each of their supporters borderline hate the other candidate makes it humorous.

If Obama and Clinton do not run together in the fall, Obama will lose a lot of voters. Clinton's supporters in general, do not support Obama and vise versa. If they do not run together, Clinton's supporters may vote for a non-democratic candidate, or perhaps even not vote at all. If Obama places Clinton's name on the ballot as a tag team, he has ensured that Clinton's supporters will vote for them, regardless of how they feel about Obama.

I think it’s a sneaky move for Obama because who knows if he actually thinks Clinton would be a great vice-president or if he just wants the votes that come with her name?

Even the 'Dumb' Have Free Speech

I loved every sentence of your "Free Speech for the Dumb." I find it odd that most people don't realize the right to free speech does not equate the need for their free speech. The fact that this country is based on individual freedom contained in the Bill of Rights is remarkable. The Bill of Rights is what sets this nation apart.

The right to freedom of speech is also amazing in the sense that people are allowed to say whatever they wish as long as it does not endanger others. What individuals believe does not even have to be socially acceptable or even respectful. That’s the beauty of this nation. Where else can someone talk bad and accuse their government all day and not get shot or imprisoned for it? Given, imprisonment is not the case in every country for disliking the government, but in some strictly government-controlled countries, it’s not far from the truth.

Being free to voice one’s opinion without fear of the government is a privilege that we all take for granted. Not only do we not have to fear what the government thinks of what we say, our government even protects our right to say it! What a free country we live in!

Seriously, What's the Point?

With the election coming up this fall, I have often found myself contemplating whether or not to invest my time and energy into actually voting. This contemplation is mostly due to the fact that voting in a national election seems border line senseless to me.

The idea behind the election makes perfect sense: two candidates contending to run the nation, Americans choosing the “winner” after countless campaigning and public debates. The actual voting process is what has me amused.

Americans are bombarded relentlessly with the “your vote counts” slogan. We hear it all the time as a response to thinking our vote doesn’t matter: “What if everyone thought that way…” Well, I get it – votes supposedly count in the election process. My problem is the idea that the voting process is accurate or even worthwhile, both conclusions due to voting machines and the electoral college.

First of all, why do we live in a society where machines have to do everything for us? The idea of a machine – that is incredibly prone to flaws – counting the votes for something as vital as the leader of our nation is absurd. A machine can easily be tampered with to control the results of its unsuspecting voter without detection. The concept of human counting may be daunting and time consuming, and perhaps even full of flaws itself, but it’s easier for me to trust a human than a machine. Given, human error and perhaps even corruption lurks, but humans are a lot cheaper than machines and I believe them to be much more dependable and accurate.

Secondly, why do we need an electoral college to decide what America has already decided, and in some cases, even contradict the decision? I do not understand the significance or purpose behind having an electoral college. Americans are capable of electing a president on their own without a committee to do it for them. Why do we need to participate in the lengthy and costly voting process when the electoral college ultimately selects the president anyway? Given, the electoral college does agree with the nation’s outcome the majority of the time. But there have been three instances in history when the electoral college selected a president that did not win the popular vote. Those instances seemed to be a waste of the voting process. Americans voted for their president, just to have the electoral college usurp the decision and elect the other candidate anyway.

I’m not against voting, I’m against the idea that the votes don’t really matter when it comes down to it. We need to correct the voting machines susceptibility to flaws in addition to making absolute certain the electoral college is necessary in today’s government.

What?? Obama is Black?

I was fascinated by the things I read in Francis Wilkinson’s article Benign Neglect. Not only for the fact that I had never heard of the term, but also because the article was entirely about race. I was expecting a typical Democrat vs. Republican, Bush vs. Obama type article and instead, I was stunned by the content.
The entire article is nothing but another comparison of race. I feel like America has been slapped in the face with the racial aspect of this presidential campaign. We get it! Barack Obama is black, we’ve heard! It’s getting old. Let’s move past the fact that a presidential candidate is not white. Surely we can come up with something better to talk about and focus on.
Shouldn’t we be more worried about someone’s ability to lead this country? Someone’s ability to be a successful president has nothing to do solely with their race.
I thought it was very interesting that Wilkinson pointed out Obama must “avoid stirring the racial pot [to keep from] unnerving white voters for whom his race requires a leap of faith.” I think it’s funny to assume white voters are unwilling to vote for Obama based solely on his race. Isn’t that a little presumptuous and borderline shallow? If Obama is not supported by white Americans it will be for reasons above his race.
Wilkinson also mentions how Obama “conspicuously failed to mention that his accomplishment was a historic first,” meaning he is the first black man to run for president. I was enthralled by this statement. If Obama got on stage and mentioned that he was the first black man to run for president, you would probably be able to hear crickets. Why would he do that? Not only would it make him look like an idiot, it would imply that Americans are idiots by not realizing that already. Of course Obama failed to mention his historic achievement; he has much better things say to manipulate Americans with that would actually behoove him.

My Comments of a Commentary

Personally, I am tired of Barack Obama. He has blown onto the political scene at a time when Americans are vulnerable and are generally interested in change from the previous presidential campaign. This has been an advantage for his campaign, but not an earned one. His eloquent speeches and magnetic personality have basically ensured him the future presidency, much to my chagrin. As a person, I have nothing against Obama. As a future president, I would want nothing to do with him.
We need a president that will lead this nation on more than just nice speeches. Some people attack these issues as trivial, but why can’t he just wear the American flag pin or have enough respect for our country to put his hand over his heart during the national anthem? Why would we elect a president who is not even proud of this country? Given, when the election is at stake on the whole, these minor details can easily be overlooked, but they speak something to me personally. I want a president that upholds traditional values. I don’t mean what is politically correct for one party or another, I mean the bigger picture. Regardless of what party affiliation someone has, the president should have a general love and pride towards the country he wishes to lead.
In a recent editorial by David S. Broder, The Washington Post, such fallacies are revealed. Broder notes how peculiar it was for Obama to retreat as he did. Broder points out for a presidential candidate, “Obama made a minimum of appearances in the final states, as if relying on his momentum to carry him through.” Momentum is not a valid motive for presidential election.
Obama has slowly backed away from the controversial issues that have surrounded him and even threatened his campaign, such as severing his 20-year association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church. How convenient that he would slowly disassociate with something he so passionately devoted his life to just to save face for the presidency. Running for the presidency does not erase twenty years of devotion.
Broder compares the current bid for the vice-presidency of that from 1980. Just as Reagan elected against installing Ford as his vice president, Obama will not help his case by joining forces with Clinton. As far as I’m concerned I would like to see Obama put his fancy speeches to use somewhere else.

It's Worth the Read

In a recent Newsweek article, author Holly Bailey does a remarkable job of presenting the ‘Change’ McCain wishes to bring in the fall election against Barack Obama. Bailey points out McCain’s respect for Clinton, as well as his need to remain distinct from President Bush’s administration.

This article is worth reading due to its uncommon nature of all the other political articles on the media scene right now. Instead of investing time in reading what Clinton couldn’t do that won’t change, let’s look to the current prospects of the presidential race.

McCain is makes it very clear that he is choosing to remain separate from Bush’s policies and execution of the war in Iraq. McCain also counters Obama’s allegations that voting for him would indeed be an extension of the Bush presidency and a vote for a third Bush term. Bailey also points out the similarities between McCain and the Dole election of 1996. The article is concluded with the comparison of McCain’s practical call for ‘Change’ and Obama’s popular call for ‘Hope’.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/139906