Isn't all political discussion just rambling?

I don't have to work at Job B again for the third business day in a row, hence a second update in a row (instead of doing, you know, real work).

"Politics, politics, politics!"

By the way, that is a quote from one of the greatest movies ever: History of the World Part I. (Yes, it's a quote because you have to read it the way Mel Brooks said it.)

Anyway, so the primaries are coming up on February 12th. My state does not have party registration, so you can vote in whichever primary you want (but you can only vote in one). I plan on voting in the republican primary. I've done it before; I'll do it again. Why? Please take a moment to consider. If you are a republican, pretend I said "democratic primary", and then you can understand why.

I'm not a democrat. I think I've already said that in a previous entry, but I feel the need to clarify it again. One can never say it enough, just like one can never say, "I don't like Republicans," enough.

I haven't kept up with the political world since voting for a new senator in 2006. Well, nothing really exciting was happening in 2007 (although that really is no excuse, but hey, most people don't even vote, some people only vote every four years, and only a few will bother to vote in primaries...me!).

I have a very liberal magazine's blog on my google reader (I don't consider myself a liberal anymore, but once upon a time, I liked the magazine). It's really sad when you're also subscribed to the Onion RSS feed, and just by the headlines alone, you can't tell which blog an entry is from. When you stop busying yourself with hating one side, you begin to see how ridiculous the other side can be as well. I'm no fan of republicrats, but then again, I can't really align myself with any of the third parties either. There are two I agree with on many issues but completely disagree with on a couple. It shouldn't have to be "completely" disagree. I'd follow a party if it was "mildly" disagree.

But it's hard to please everyone (you hear that, democrats? You can't please everyone!), and I'd rather people have convictions (convictions? Baconyum, don't be ridiculous. This is politics!) than try to change their stance just to please people because most likely you'll be alienating others anyway (like the last election Kerry and his whole hunting thing...I get it. You wanted the gun people's votes, but you're in a pro-gun control party!). It's ok to compromise. Try to find a happy medium, but there's a fine line between happy medium and sell out.

People think that the Green Party are full of idealists. You know, I disagree. I think Libertarians are bigger idealists because their platform is based on the belief that people are inately good. Socialists do not believe people are good (or else they would let people do what they want to do trusting they would do the right thing), but socialism would only work if those in charge were good people, and usually they are the worst. Oh, the Green Party are not socialists by the way; however, there is a socialist party in the US.

The other day I was going through "My Documents" on my computer, and I found a text file of an e-mail I had saved. It's called "Two Cow Governments". It explains political beliefs using two cows. (Sorry to make this entry longer, but I wanted to share this...)

THE "TWO-COW EXPLANATION" OF Government...


A SOCIALIST: You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.

A REPUBLICAN: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So what?

A DEMOCRAT: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful. You vote people into office who tax your cows, forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay the tax. The people you voted for then take the tax money and buy a cow and give it to your neighbor. You feel righteous.

A COMMUNIST: You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk.

A FASCIST: You have two cows. The government seizes both and sells you the milk. You join the underground and start a campaign of sabotage.

DEMOCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. The government taxes you to the point you have to sell both to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow, which was a gift from your government.

CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, then pours the milk down the drain.

It also had two cow corporations, which I'll share just for good measure.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when the cow drops dead.

A FRENCH CORPORATION: You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.

A GERMAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You reengineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows but you don't know where they are. You break for lunch.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

A MEXICAN CORPORATION: You think you have two cows, but you don't know what a cow looks like. You take a nap.

A SWISS CORPORATION: You have 5000 cows, none of which belongs to you. You charge for storing them for others.

A BRAZILIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You enter into a partnership with an American corporation. Soon you have 1000 cows and the American corporation declares bankruptcy.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You worship them.

It was one of those chain e-mails popular circa six years ago, so credit can't be given. It would be given otherwise. Also, just to clarify further, I didn't write any of that, so if any of it is politically incorrect, I wouldn't know and don't really care.

So going along with the Two Cow Governments, to explain Libertarian I would say you have two cows, and you may or may not give or sell your starving neighbour some of the milk, but that choice is all your own and the government should stay out of it! Green Party, you have two cows, and you take care of them like they are your children because using them for profit would be unethical and bad for the environment. Anarchist, you don't have two cows, but you can get milk from a cow whenever you want.

Remember when "democrats" were "conservative" and "republicans" were "liberal"? Of course you don't. We weren't alive back then.

And now I leave you with a tidbit from an issue from that liberal magazine I once loved. I always think about this when I think about politics and money and other shizzat. If you are really observant and know your political parties and beliefs, you may be able to figure out what I am (though I classify myself as "other"...whatever that means) by this quote.

"And [Charlie Kernaghan]'ll have running through his mind a calculation he once made: At the time, Phil Knight of Nike had a personal fortune of $5 billion. If Knight flew around the world first class, Charlie figured, that would consume only $11,027. If he stayed in a good room at the Waldorf, that would run $400 and even the best breakfast could swallow only $153. If he bought a new Lincoln Continental, that would get rid of $39,660. If he ratcheted up his consumption and flew around the world every day, stayed at the Waldorf and had three fine meals a day, and bought a new Lincoln every week, he'd still be okay for the next 781 years.

'Why does anyone need that kind of money?' Kernaghan asks."

Bowden, Charles. "Keeper of the Fire." Mother Jones. July/Aug 2003. Volume 28, Number 4. p. 73.

Why indeed.