Doers, Thinkers, & Liars.
It's a mad hate-on.

I hate talking about politics. Well, I hate talking politics with people who really care about politics...or, people who think they know something about politics. In that category, I especially hate idealists, specifically those with a take charge "we can make the difference" sort of attitude. What's even worse is when they have no idea either what they're talking about politically, or they have no conceptualization of history, sociology, and psychology.

Personally, I couldn't care less about politics for a lot of reasons.

It's not because I believe that I, myself, or the common man is powerless. I do to a degree, but that's not why.

Truth is, in many ways I believe that much of our government is powerless, but that's not it either.

I don't think of government is the great evil. In many ways, it's too petty to be evil. They don't fight it out over issues, they squabble. It's that and the fact that all of these idiotic laws from two hundred years ago. It's that and the fact that so much of it is tied up into media, advertising, and propaganda. It's all that and the fact that I'm voting alongside a majority of folks who know as much about politics as I do or less (and that's bad going on worse).

Ok, I know something about them and I know about history, sociology, and psychology.

Anyhow, I got into an argument concerning politics either. That's not true. The person who had a vested interested in politics was arguing politics with me. I on the other hand, was arguing a specific point about image, charisma, and speeches. The reason this came up was his incessant playing of speeches from the Democratic National Convention yesterday evening.

He claimed it was educating. I claimed it was the same sh!t I've heard at any political convention for either side. And I think that's the media's fault.

My analogy was that if I made a product and then I was selling that product, would I ever say anything against it. "Drink B-List Cola, it's sweet, refreshing, and had half the calories other colas...though it does cause about 3 flipper babies every year..." Not likely.

Now I've got nothing against John Kerry personally, but the pararde of family members, friends, and fellow veterans became tiresome. My feeling is that I'll judge him a few years in (if he is elected) about whether he did any of the stuff he droned on and on about. See, when he has DONE something, not speechified about it.

That's where the argument came in. He argued that speeches weren't part of propaganda....um, the hell they aren't in a election race. Maybe it's one of the good things about the media I'll have to give in to, but if you've ever followed candidates parading around the company, you've no doubt noticed that they change their tune depending on who they're talking to. Or they get vague. Or they evade certain issues.

I'd like to think that I elected someone because I believed in what they stood for, not because they told me what to believe.

That's not even the point.

Even if I did believe in them, it still doesn't mean they'd be able to DO anything when they got there.

That's sociology. It's the fact that every issue seems to come packed with controversy. It's because everyone wants "what's coming to them." It's because no two party members can agree on any one thing. It's because of a total lack of vision for the greater good, for the future.

Like I said, the media, big business, big money.

If you haven't read the story about why Tom Ridge is stepping down as Homeland Security Secretary, you should look it up. (See, I advocate education about the government.) The being tired part I can understand, that actually sounds honest. I'd respect a guy who said, "You know what, I'm trying my best, but I'm just beat." It's the college thing...hmmmm...well, go look it up.

Then again, this is all speculative. That's thinking. Thinking is pretty ethereal. Theorizing is ethereal. Like thinking and theorizing, with the exception of filing taxes once a year and the possibility of breaking a traffic law, the government doesn't impact much on my life and so is ethereal. Anyhow, that wasn't meant to be jab, it just turned into one. Fact is, thinking is useful, but don't get me wrong, THINKING is not better than DOING.

The ideas that Karl Marx thunk up for the Communist Manifesto weren't all necessarily bad ideas. That's just it though, they were ideas. The fact is, as Russia was able to prove, it doesn't work in practicality. Now a lot of modern communists (think Thinkers) say that that was because it was true Marxist Communism. Well, I look at that as showing that it must be flawed if you can't get it right just bursting out of the gate. While it has held on in other countries, I don't think anyone would argue that the remaining communist countries are exactly the promised utopias that was hoped for.

Of course, to be fair, I can't back anarchy either. Now again, anarchy is a loaded term. Because of past associations, anarchy is thought to be some violent overthrow of the government. I can't dismiss it, but remember denotation and connotation. Well the violent punk rock version is part of the connotation of the word, anarchy. The denotation is self-rule. It means each persons governs themselves, makes their own laws, and answers only to themselves. Again, thinking-wise, it sounds great, especially to thinkers.

Here's where we can play the psychology and sociology cards. What about 'leader' and 'follower' personality types? What about those mentally incaple of self-rule? What about those too lazy to come up with anything for themselves? What happens in human interactions when two opposing view points meet? What about couples? Family units? Etc...

In practicality, it would take a split second for anarchy to break down into systems and organizations again. In reality, there could only be a few hundred people on Earth who could never run into each other for anarchy to truly work...and that would be over in a single generation.

Anyhow, this certainly isn't to say that thinking is bad. Some really good practical stuff has emerged from some of the most hare-brained thinking. It has a lot to do with shooting really high, and finding a good middle ground to actually land on.

Which brings me to my last little subject matter.

Somewhere along the line, I believe in this century, wrongdoing somehow became absolved as long as "no one got hurt." Allow me to elaborate: 1) Robbing the bank with shotguns then someone could or would get hurt which is wrong, but 2) Embezzling all the money out of the bank didn't kill anyone, so it wasn't bad. I'm not saying the law doesn't punish them the same when they are caught, I'm saying that it's a bad thing that they did whatever in the first place believing it was ok so long as there was no physical violence.

I file this under LIARS, because, after all, they are lying to themselves. Crime is crime.

Likewise a lie, is a lie. Once again, people justify this like they do breaking minor laws. "It was only a little lie." It's still a lie, just like speeding is still breaking the law. No speeding doesn't not put you on par with someone convicted of multiple homicide, but you did break the law.

I'm not saying all politicians are liars. Lemme put it this way, what Obi-Wan Kenobi said about things being true from a certain point of view, I can agree with. But you can't bend the truth. If you change it, even just a smidge, then to some degree you are lying.

Stories are often organic, and change over time. You should be allowed to change your mind and opinion without being branded a liar. It can be tough to find the middle ground. But if you go into something knowing that you are bending the truth, knowing that you are changing or substituting something else...guess what...you're lying.

It's not to say that you can't do what you wanna do, or believe what you want to believe. Just be stand up about it.

Much of the world can be broken down in terms of internet dating. Guy puts his profile up and lies about his interests. Girl puts up picture of someone else. They meet. Assuming by fluke it doesn't work out, guy gets mad at girl or vice versa because the other person didn't tell the truth. A lot of times they get downright indignant about it. How can they? They were both lying.

So in conclusion, assuming I had an exact point, I would prefer it if neither candidtate made a single speech at all. If all we had to go by was their records and nothing but their records: what they voted for, and what they voted against. Maybe they also get to chalk up a list of what they currently believe or back. Then once they were in office, you could actually judge whether they did what you wanted, or voted the way you voted.

I don't know. With all the liars, criminals, thinkers, and non-thinkers out their, I don't know if we really want their representatives to be in a position of power.

Anyhow, it was a loosely connected affair, but it was what I was thinking.

Cheers.