United Nation's Treaty on Kittens Defeated by Senate GOP

WASHINGTON - Led by Republican opposition, the Senate on Tuesday rejected a United Nations treaty on the cuteness of kittens that is modeled after the landmark Kittens Are Cute Act of 1990.

George H. W. Bush signed the landmark legislation in 1990.

With 38 Republicans casting "no" votes, the 61-38 vote fell five short of the two-thirds majority needed to ratify a treaty. The vote took place in an unusually solemn atmosphere, with senators sitting at their desks rather than milling around the podium. Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, an avid kitten lover, was in the chamber to support the treaty.

The Treaty, signed by every country in the world without opposition, states that "kittens are very adorable" and "their cuteness is enough to to bring down the most heartless dictators". Republicans objected the treaty as they believed it would pose a threat to U.S. national sovereignty.

"I do not support the cumbersome regulations and potentially overzealous international organizations with anti-American biases that infringe upon American society," said Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.

He and other opponents were not swayed by support for the treaty from some of the GOP's prominent veterans, including the 89-year-old Dole, who was inspired to enlist in World War II when he saw a poster of a kitten; Sen. John McCain, whose kitten companion staved off insanity while he was a POW in Vietnam; Sen. Dick Lugar, the top Republican on the Pets and Animals Committee; and former Surgeon Veterinarian Erwin Addison. Eight Republicans voted to approve the treaty. 

Democratic support for the convention was led by Pets and Animals Committee Chairman Sen. John Kerry, Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, one of the key players in writing the 1990 Kittens Are Cute Act.

   "It really isn't controversial," Kerry, D-Mass., said. "What this treaty says is very simple. It just says that kittens are adorable. It says that other countries have to do what we did 22 years ago when we set the example for the world and passed the Kittens Are Cute Act."

In a statement after the vote, Kerry said it was "one of the saddest days I've seen in almost 28 years in the Senate. I mean, who the fuck hates kittens?"

The United Nations estimates that 6.65 billion people around the world love kittens, about 95 percent of the world's population.

The opposition was led by tea party favorite Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who argued that the treaty by its very nature threatened U.S. sovereignty. 

"This is another attempt by the United Nations to set up a one-world government of Anti-American, Communist Islamists" he told reporters as he left a meeting of the Free Utah State Militia, a right-wing, paramilitary organization.

Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, who is not in the Senate but has an opinion nonetheless, stated, "I'm glad Republicans in the Senate defeated this atrocious treaty. This was the first step the antichrist needed to take, and we stopped him. Communist members of Congress had worked with homosexuals to undermine...". The interview abruptly ended.

The Treaty was introduced by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Monday morning, in which after the motion was passed, immediately tried to filibuster it.

The conservative Heritage Action for America urged senators to vote no against the treaty, saying it would be recorded as a key vote on their scorecard. It repeated the argument that the treaty "would erode the principles of American sovereignty and federalism."

-

I would like to thank Jim Abrams for writing the original article "Disability Treaty Downed By Republican Opposition" for the AP, posted on The Huffington Post on 12/04/12. I "borrowed" heavily from that article and he should get credit for writing a majority of this piece.

 

Teaching, and why I don't want to do it. SO STOP SUGGESTING IT!

When I tell people that I am a History Major and that I don't know what I want to do with my life, the first response is always "be a teacher!"

This must be something all History Majors go through. The only occupation within History is to teach it. Besides the underlying connotation behind that statement that History is a useless subject in the real world, it's also a bit insulting to the people who want to be and are teachers.

Teaching isn't easy. My mother taught English for over thirty years, so I know a little about what goes on from both the student and teacher perspective. There is SO much more to being a teacher than knowing about a specific subject that it has permanently turned me off from ever pursuing that career.

1. One should probably like kids in order to teach. That sounds like a must. I do not have that qualification. I hated teenagers when I was a teenager. And the younger they get, the more annoying they are to me. Teens have raging hormones that make it harder to control them. Pre-teens are just getting those hormones and are distracted by the opposite sex while thinking they already know everything. Everything younger, you need to teach them information so basic to you that you need immense patience to prevent yourself for yelling at kids who don't know how to add. Plus, they also have "accidents".
2.  Depending on the state, there is so much you have to do to become certified. Background checks, exams, etc. Plus the years of under-grad and graduate school and the accompanying debt. I thought the SATs were bad and the GREs and the cost are major turn offs for me to applying to Grad School.
3. You have to be a disciplinarian. Besides teaching, you also have to discipline students who act out. You have to fill in the role of a parent during the day. Make sure kids are learning AND behaving. One more task you need to juggle. If I don't want kids because I fear I neglect the ability to effectively discipline them, how can I do that with other people's children ?
4. You have to deal with insane parents. "You accused my child, the son of God, of cheating??? I'm going to sue you!!!" A little over the top, but it has happened. You have to deal with the parents who think their child is perfect and a genius. They are neither, but pointing that out is a personal insult to them. It's people like this that make you almost believe there should be a test to become a parent...
5. Overachievers. My mother had a student break down and cry because her final grade was a 92. A 92! I would have killed for a 92 in English! These students are obsessed with getting an average grade of 105 and anything less than that is a tragedy. They think they know more than the teacher because they are in the Honors or AP class. They have a massive superiority complex because they have been told their whole life that they are gifted and special. They might be a little smarter (or put in an insane amount of effort), but the world doesn't give a jack-shit and the sooner they learn this lesson, the better.  They are about as bad as the regular troublemakers.
6. You also have to be an English Teacher (if you are not already one). This is not a strong suit of mine. Unless something is blatantly plagiarized or written ten grade-levels below, I can't grade papers to save my life. I'm sure this is taught to you in school, but it's something I couldn't handle. I think I did have a teacher in 8th Grade who did give a major paper to the English teacher to grade, while he corrected the historical aspects. If you are an Elementary School teacher, you have to know EVERYTHING; Math, Science, History, English.
7. We have become so obsessed with standardized tests. Thank you "No Child Left Behind". It seems like students are always preparing for the next test, and teachers instruct them how to take tests instead of the material they are taking the test on. And because money is tied to performance, rampant cheating is occurring...from the administration.
8. Salary is now becoming tied to performance. Another brilliant idea from "education reformers" (I think a real reformer would be against all this testing and merit-pay crap). Oh goody, if students slack off, you pay for it. It doesn't help when special needs students must be tested at the same level, even if they are incapable of it. A good teacher can only do so much. We need to put the pressure on students and parents, not just the teachers. Just one more incentive for top-level cheating.
9. The Administration. There was a time when the Principal and Superintendent were once teachers for over a decade before they moved up. Now, you'd be lucky if they have more than five years experience teaching. At least, that was the case at my mother's school. You now have people in charge making decisions who know very little of what teaching is really like. They come up with new schedules, new requirements, and new policies without thinking of the consequences because they don't know how much of a burden it is on teachers (and students). If they aren't working in the administration because they were crappy teachers, they're professionally trained administrators (not educators) who have a high turn-over rate and care more about padding their resume than a student's education.
10. People hate you. Specifically, conservatives. You are an over-paid, unionized, public employee who steals the tax-payers money to fund your lavish benefits and retirement just to babysit children all day and brainwash them into becoming secular, anti-American, socialists. And they constantly show their disdain by voting down every school budget, even though budgets have nothing to do with teacher pay (that's in the contract). I'm sorry that the private sector is stingy when it comes to pay, doesn't allow unions, and things like "holiday pay", "overtime", "pensions" and "paid vacations" are fading away, but that is no excuse to hate teachers. It takes years for teachers to make a good income and I'm sorry you think "getting an education" is "liberal brainwashing". But look at the aforementioned list of what teachers have to deal with and why I'm never going to teach. Teachers put up with so much shit, that anyone who looks at this list and still wants to teach deserves a medal. Anyone who cares that much about children, their education, and the future of this country, DESERVES a few perks and vacation time.
11. This is a bonus for History teachers. You have to teach incorrect and inaccurate information. Although I don't fully agree with everything in  Lies My Teacher Told Me (James Loewen is a little too liberal for me) he does bring up how slanted and deceptive history is taught in the United States. Thanksgiving myths are perpetuated, slavery and racism are downplayed, controversy is avoided, and everything else is so glossed over, it becomes boring and all lessons of the past are overlooked. And even after all that, you get accusations from the Right about liberal biases, like I mentioned in #10. Just look at the brilliant Politically Incorrect Guide series (a better source is found here). Or those textbooks in Louisiana that say the Great Depression is a left-wing myth and the KKK was a force for moral good. History is either too conservative or too liberal, and you're stuck teaching a bland mixture.

Money talks, but in a whisper.

Since the Supreme Court struck down spending limits on Super PACs in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), liberals have predicted doomsday. Our democratic system is threatened if wealthy individuals and corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money airing political ads. And since most of these people and groups are Republicans/Conservatives, we will be heading down a right-wing dystopian Hell soon enough.

Two years removed from the decision may be too soon to decide its impact on the nation, but I think liberals are acting like Chicken Little, crying foul over nothing. I understand their argument and I do think there should be some kind of limit. The Court ruled that money equals speech, and by limiting donations and contributions, you are violating the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. But is it fair that some people have more “speech” than others? Why should a small group of people have such a huge influence over elections?

Well, I don’t want to get into the philosophy of this issue, but I do want to say that the Supreme Court decision is NOT the end of the world.

First, the decision applies to everyone. That means liberals are allowed to create Super PACs and spend like hell as well. And I have seen this. I have seen plenty of non-campaign affiliated groups run liberal and Democratic ads.

Second, how much does money really influence an election? You can’t blame the GOP takeover of Congress in 2010 on the Citizens United case. Democrats and liberals stayed home in November, allowing Republicans to take the House. I know I have complained about this many times. Democratic incompetence and liberals acting like babies did more to hurt Democrats than Karl Rove.

And what about now? Look at the polls. Romney and Obama may be close in national polls, but Obama leads in the Electoral Vote. Romney’s bump from his “strong” debate performance has withered and we are back to late September numbers. And that’s just it. His numbers improved because of his debate performance, not on right-wing ads. Obama has maintained a slight lead throughout most of the race despite the amount raised by private groups against him.

What about over a century ago? The Populists and Progressives had to fight against huge Trusts and Millionaires/Billionaires (before an income tax) with no regulations on spending whatsoever! And they managed to get a lot done.

So, let’s give the American people a little more credit, and trust them to be not easily swayed by paid actors in corny political ads.

Dying to Vote

“You HAVE to vote. People died for your right to do so!”

This seems to be the typical response from people when you are apathetic and/or fed up with politics. Not voting is like crapping on a Bald Eagle and then wiping your ass with the flag with Jane Fonda, Hitler, and Ivan Drago. It is unpatriotic and un-American for you NOT to wait in line to stand in a smelly little cubicle from the 1970s and cast your vote. You wouldn’t want to disrespect the dead, would you?

But I ask, “Who are these people exactly?” Who are the specific people who have died to give me the right to vote?

I usually conjure up the military in my mind as the ones who have given their lives so that I may be allowed to actively participate in the government. But, in the back of my head, I can’t believe that every soldier died to give me, and protect, my right to vote. I know this is an unpopular sentiment to have, but a lot of wars haven’t been fought to protect my rights and freedoms, specifically the right to vote. Explain to me how Iraq defended my suffrage. Or fighting in Vietnam, Korea, the Philippines, Cuba, or Mexico? To me, only two wars really seem to have defended the right to vote; the Revolutionary War and World War II. We brought on the War of 1812 ourselves and the Kaiser wasn’t much of a threat to global Democracy in World War I (The Allied Powers were doing a nice job of that themselves throughout their empires…).

Well, what about the Civil War and the resulting 15^th Amendment that gave African-American men the right to vote? That’s very true. But for me as a white man, the outcome of the Civil War had no impact on my right to vote. By the time of the Civil War, landowning requirements were removed and there was universal white male suffrage. I don’t see how the successful secession of the Confederacy would hurt the voting rights of white men on either side of the Mason-Dixon Line. While I appreciate the sacrifice the boys in blue made to keep this country united, their deaths didn't advance or defend my right to vote. But of course, there is more to history than white men, despite what Republicans want you to believe. For African-American men, the Civil War was fought to give them the right to vote. But that would mean many “Americans” fought and died to prevent the expansion of suffrage as well as for it…

This raises a question; are certain groups more obligated to vote? White men have had it pretty easy for the last couple of centuries. They have been the first to obtain voting rights. The American Revolution solidified the rights of propertied, white men, which many had in the colonies for years before the war (although most states did have religious requirements) After the war, the populism of Andrew Jackson helped to abolish land and tax (for the most part) requirements and expand suffrage to the common man. It was mostly peaceful without bloodshed. Mostly.

But other groups like African-Americans, Women, etc. didn’t have this right, and the process was long and hard fought with a lot of death and suffering. Is it more abhorrent if they don't vote? Is it a spit in the eye to all the Civil Rights protestors who were beaten and killed if an African-American doesn’t vote? Is it dishonoring the legacy of suffragettes Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, who were force fed in prison when they went on a hunger strike, if a woman doesn’t vote?

Or better yet, should we really be playing the guilt card? Is that an appropriate way to get people to vote? Shouldn’t they vote because they are genuinely interested in politics, not because their conscience won’t let them sleep at night?

Whoever those people are, they died to give us the right to vote. And part of that right is NOT voting. I complain a lot about liberals and Democrats staying away from the polls and handing victory over to their opponents, and then complaining about those in power. But they do have a right to do so. Not voting is just as powerful as voting. By telling an organization you align with, but currently disagree with, that you will not support them in the election gains the attention of politicians and has them scrambling to meet their supporter’s demands. Change without voting. With partisans, I think this strategy is asinine because, you just end up giving the people you really dislike (as opposed to just upset with) more power, and it creates more partisanship as parties try to appease the more hardline ideologues than the average person. With independent voters, it works a lot better because it forces parties to be more moderate.

I really disagree with compulsory voting. How can you call yourself free if you have no choice in the matter? It’s almost as bad as not having a right to vote whatsoever. Okay, it’s not exactly the same. A $20 fine for not voting isn’t the same as not having any right to choose your government. But I don’t like a system that forces people who have very little to no interest in politics making these kinds of decisions. Voting should only be done by an informed or interested electorate. If you are just going to write in “A. Plant” or vote based on who has the hottest wife, just don’t vote at all.

I do think everyone should vote because that is how our system works. We have a system that gives the people the power over the government, and it doesn’t work right when a large section of the population does not participate. But guilting the public into voting is not the right way to increase turnout, and neither is forcing them by law. People are being turned off from politics because of partisanship and politics-as-usual. No one party holds a monopoly on corruption and inefficiency and with a two-party system, a “lesser of two evils” method of deciding the Leader of the Free World isn’t worth it. We need to get people to look past the muck and convince them that their participation can clean it up.

October Fool's Day

I feel like a fool for the posts I made a year ago, specifically this and this. A lot has changed since then.

I'm such a stupid, racist, idiot.

I'm sorry.

I'm surprised I don't have an ulcer by now.

I am a worrywart. There is no denying it; I constantly worry about things.

I'm worried about my Grandmother and her failing health. I'm worried about my mother's health. I'm worried about my parent's inevitable deaths. I worry about finding a job. I worry about my future. I worry about my friends. I worry about being alone for the rest of my life. Worry worry worry.

Some of those concerns are beyond my control. Some I can control, but it is hard for me to believe it.

Perhaps the greatest situation that causes me to worry is waiting for someone to come home. I remember countless times being home alone in the evening, waiting for my mother and sister to come home from some event or errand. I they were half an hour late, I would began to panic and cry. My grandmother's daily evening call would calm me down a little (or at least a vent for my anxiety), but it would always get her a little worked up. Then I would feel so relieved when they got home and a bit embarrassed for getting worked up.

That habit has continued into adulthood. If my father is running a little late, I go crazy. I don't remember when, but recently, I was pacing the floor, breathing heavily, looking out the window and down at my phone. I'm afraid if I don't worry, something bad will happen. I don't want to know that as my father was being rushed to a hospital, I was getting upset over a Creeper blowing me up in Minecraft.

I believe two things may have contributed to this fear: Watching 20/20 and other shows that follow a disappearance and murder, and my Paternal Grandmother's death.

I watched a lot of those shows growing up. It was thanks to 20/20 that I asked about my anesthesia wearing off in the middle of my appendectomy. Why did a 10-year-old's TGIF night end with 20/20? I continued to watch those murder shows (What is this genre called. Reality?) growing up and I always saw a pattern; It was just like any other day and someone was apparently running late. BOOM, just like that. A quiet early-fall afternoon suddenly becomes the day a friend or family member went missing/was murdered. All without warning. It's not like finding out that your shark-wrestling, best friend was eaten by a shark. You are to expect those kinds of dangers in an occupation like that. Someone was coming home from the library and then they are killed, or injured in an accident, or murdered, or kidnapped.

I have a bit more personal reason for my many fears. My Grandmother died like in the paragraph above. She and a friend were on their way to the market to pick up vegetables, and then were hit by a train at a poorly marked crossing. Instead of seeing his mother come home with a bag full of vegetables, my seven-year-old father saw a New York State Trooper bearing the news of the accident to his father. Fifty years ago today, a seemingly normal day turned to tragedy.


How am I not to worry? Every time he gets in the car for any reason could be his last! It could be the last time I ever see my father! Knowing this, I always try and tell him before he leaves, "I love you".

Maybe I am more afraid of sudden change. That feeling I, and I'm sure most people got, after 9/11. We can never go back to the World that existed on September 10. Probably didn't help that our Government told us to act normal and change everything we do. Besides that, I always fear a little in the back of my head, that something bad is going to happen. I honestly think that an A-Bomb is going to go off in America at any minute, wiping out a city. When the Emergency Broadcast Signal went off on the radio, I thought "Putin finally went mad and he's nuking us!". Turns out, it was a warning for a sever storm. Oops.

What's wrong with me?

iCheeseburger

I was reading this CNN article about the new iPhone's hilariously awful maps when I disregarded all logic and scrolled down to the comments. You had your typical comments bashing Apple, defending Apple, supporting Apple, and I think Hitler was inevitably mentioned somewhere. But this was a comment that stuck out for me,

I've yet to understand why you people get on here and complain about products you don't own or like. It's like telling someone everyday you hate cheeseburgers but are always hanging out at a burger joint. [accessed 9/21/2012 4:45 PM]

Okay, I think I will explain this to you within the guidelines of your metaphor. Let's imagine that cheeseburgers are the only type of food that saturates the news. Anytime some minor change occurs with a cheeseburger, the news organizations cover it like mad. People stand in line for hours just to get the new cheeseburger, even if there is no real change to the recipe from yesterday's cheeseburger. And when those people do buy their cheeseburgers, they brag about it and how it is sooooo superior to your lowly hamburger. They act smug, like they are better than you because they have a cheeseburger, even if it was made from the same ground up cow and made by the same minimum wage employee as your hamburger.

It's the bombardment of positive news relating to this company that others don't seem to get. For a company that only has 10% of the market share for operating systems, they get a disproportionate amount of press. It's the cult-like devotion to acquire the newest product, even though their year-old device still works fine. It's the smugness of the customers thinking they are superior to PC users, even if both products are the same damn thing with their individual pros and cons. It's the hypocrisy of anti-corporate, anti-consumerist people supporting a corporation with questionable business practices, and participating en mass in consumerism.

This is why some people love to hate Apple products and their costumers. It's when a product is more than a product and becomes a "way of life". That by using an alternative to the predominant PC/Windows, they are somehow more unique and more superior to the rest of the population.

Now for the obvious "fairness disclaimer". Not all Mac users are like this. They just prefer this system over Windows, and I can see why. Windows sucks. I get so many errors and problems on every computer I've ever had. Pressing the "Space" key has gotten me an "illegal command" message. Numerous games crash for no reason (games in which the computer meets all necessary recommendations). Turning my computer on after being asleep may give me the "Blue Screen of Death". They change programs that I liked (movie maker is now horrible on whatever system this is, so now I need to buy $100 software) or they rename them from the last system, causing confusion and wasted time. Constant updates at inconvenient times in which I can't see a damn difference. I can understand people wanting an alternative!

But Macs are not for me. I grew up with a PC, and that is what I am accustomed to. I NEED a right click on my mouse. It once took me ten minutes to turn on an iMac G3 because the power button was in the back and slightly under the computer/monitor thing. Because having a power button in clear sight was clearly an industry practice that needed to GO!

Some people like Hamburgers, some prefer them with Cheese. But eating either one doesn't make you special, so shut up and let me enjoy my damn meal!

My Retreat.

I recently read an article on CNN about the protests in the Middle East. Reporter Fareed Zakaria claims that this wave of attacks and riots is not indicative of Anti-Americanism in the region. He cites a study that shows that a majority of Libyans like the US. The people shown on TV and online are small crowds that represent a minority opinion within that country. However, I recalled a story from The Daily Beast that claimed otherwise. Since March (incidentally the month the survey Zakaria cited in his article), support has fallen as the US favors its own security over promoting freedom and democracy. According to article author Sherif Mansour, the protests do represent an overall dissatisfaction with the US.

Who the hell is right? The person working for a major news organization with a background in journalism and international relations, or the activist on the ground with first-hand experience and works for a liberal news agency? These are two different statements here. I have been getting more and more distrustful of news organizations, specifically American ones.

I read an article on the US invasion of Panama in 1989 and how the media presented it. True, Manuel Noriega did circumvent elections and put himself in charge, but no one bothered to mention that he was on the CIA payroll as an informant, and smuggled drugs into the US, which he was protected from prosecution because of his CIA ties. And the President, George H.W. Bush, had connections to him when he was the head of the CIA and worked with the Task Force on Drugs. We were the glorious liberators of Panamanians who overwhelmingly supported us and removing the military dictator, 92% of Panamanians supported us! Well, those Panamanians happened to be very wealthy and spoke fluent English. They were not the most representative of the country. Most Americans supported the invasion, but that was because the media didn’t/couldn’t bring up any critical objections.

Same thing with the Gulf War. And the Iraq War. Speaking of Iraq, the famous images of the Iraqi people spontaneously working together to tear down a statue of Saddam Hussein (as I watched it live in my Study Hall in 9^th Grade) was completely orchestrated by the military.

I frankly don’t know where I can ever get the truth.

To find the truth, I surround myself with opinions I agree with. I keep lapping up more and more each day, only hearing what I want to hear. I do maintain a level of skepticism that has called out BS now and then, but I surround myself with The Huffington Post and Daily Beast. Am I really informing myself, or making myself more ignorant, more intolerant, more paranoid? 

The same way the fundamentalist Christians believe that Liberals and Gays and Muslims are working to destroy America and the Constitution, and we are on the brink of destruction unless action is taken, I too feel that we are on the brink with the clock ticking down, and the threat is from the likes of all the Bachmann's and Santorum's out there. I clearly think the crazy right-wing is, well crazy. But what about me? Am I holding similar irrational beliefs? From my point of view, there is actual proof that the Christian-Right is crazy and perverting the Constitution. But, don’t they have “proof” of the secular, gay jihad? That's because I surround myself with people who are telling me what I want to hear, and so do they.

I'm afraid that I am heading down a dark path. A path of radicalism. I cannot stand to hear the other side. I go into smash mode every time a Republican speaks. I couldn't watch the GOP convention and I know I won't be able to watch the debates. I'm ready to take my gloves off and challenge somebody to a dual if they utter an opinion I disagree with. I’m unwilling to hear the other side. How will that lead to understanding and compromise?

But how much of this is my fault? Am I somewhat justified in my paranoia? It is pretty clear that the Republican Party has been moving far to the right. A recent Research Study came to that conclusion. Barry Goldwater came to this conclusion in the early 1990s. The GOP Platform position on abortion is the most extreme ever. No exceptions at all. Personhood Amendments springing up on state ballot initiatives. Women having access to contraception is now controversial. Evolution was taught as fact in schools with no problems 50 years ago. Now we have States trying to promote creationism/intelligent design through tax-payer funded voucher programs and legislation deeming it controversial and full of holes. Islamaphobia has manifested itself in arsons, vandalism, and protest against Mosques, regardless of its location to Ground Zero. Republican candidates freely associate with public figures that spout racist, intolerant, hate speech against anyone who isn’t white, male, straight, and Christian. I’m not making this stuff up. It is happening, and it needs to be fought.

But I associate this behavior with all Republicans and Christians. I know there are moderate voices in there. My father would consider himself a Republican and conservative, but he is fed up with the Tea-Party-infected organization. I grew up Christian, and I know that many aren’t political or intolerant. But as soon as I hear those words, these generalizations pop into my head and I lose it. This is terribly hypocritical of me. I’ll defend Islam and claim that we shouldn’t judge a religion based on the bad apples perverting it, but when I think of Christians, I think they are all “Jesus Camp” attendees.

I do not believe I should be involved with politics. I have a horrible temper. I take opinions way too personally. I see the opponent as my enemy. I’m right and they’re wrong.

I am a partisan. And the last thing we need in this country is more partisans.

I won’t give up my beliefs, but I need to calm the fuck down before I look into a serious career in politics. I need to mature and learn some self-control before I do anything. I am too easily drawn into conflict that I later regret. Conflict with no purpose. The only outcome is an increased heart rate and sweaty armpits.

There is nothing wrong with holding an opinion. The very fact that I do shouldn’t be a reason to fear for myself. I have tried to see issues from another point of view. I was once strongly pro-death penalty until college. I cursed affirmative action as I lived with no knowledge of current racism. I hated welfare and all the lazy people taking my parent’s hard earned money. But that all changed the more I learned about the world. I believe I have done enough to properly inform myself to come to an opinion.

Republicans are to blame for today’s problems. They are obstructionist; we cannot compromise when their version is “do what we say or we’ll let this country default on its debt”. They are dangerously right-wing. Fundamentalist Christianity is a threat to our rights. I fully believe most of this paranoia and hatred of the President is race-based. I’m not going to instantly play the race card any time someone criticizes the President. But you can’t tell me the Tea Party doesn’t hold racist and ignorant thoughts regarding the Commander-in-Chief. They are kicking and screaming as they are pulled into the future as they are afraid of the white man losing his power. 

But it’s not the end of the world. I can vote. Volunteer. Organize.

The main thing about the Occupy Wall Street Movement (now one year old) that irritated me was the sense of futility. “Trying to participate within the process was hopeless”. It’s not. They made their bed after complaining about Republicans through the summer and fall of 2010, stayed home on Election Day because Obama wasn’t liberal enough, and then complained about the results. Nothing wrong with opinions manifesting itself into marches and protests, but actually follow up on it and make that change.

I have no idea where I am going with this anymore. The media is BS, I’m too uptight, and I need to take a chill pill while sticking to my ideals. I think I can do this with less  political postings or none at all.