Do You Vote?

So yesterday was voting day for a bunch of primaries where I live, and it may have been where you live as well.

My mom made a special call to see if I voted, and when I said I hadn’t, it’s like I told her that I had just run over the family dog. After letting me know how disappointed she was, she finished by saying something like “Well, as long as you vote in the main election…”

I proceeded to tell her that I’d be taking the same approach to voting in November as I did yesterday, so needless to say, part one of the conversation was repeated.

But I don’t regret it. Aside from being the secret to your parents’ happiness, what’s the point of voting? Especially in a Presidential election? Here’s my theory: the more people vote, the less important it is to vote, so with that in mind, if I didn’t vote yesterday, I’m sure as hell not going to vote in November when there’s twice as many people voting. Logic alone says that my vote will only be worth half as much (since there will be roughly 2x the people voting), so why waste my time?

I know that everybody talks about how important voting is and all that jazz, and that if everybody voted elections may be different, but I have news for those people: they wouldn’t be one bit different.

There’s no proof that more Republicans (or Democrats) stay home on voting day, so it’s not as it Obama won in 2008 because 100% of Democrats showed up to vote as opposed to only 75% of Republicans. No. When Obama won by a popular vote of something like 54% to 46%, it was a pretty accurate representation of how many people in America wanted him to be President.

But anyway, going back to what I was saying earlier, the more important the election is, the more people vote. As a result, individual votes mean less. So think about this for a minute:

There are approximately 310 million people in America. It’s estimated that roughly 60% of Americans voted in 2008. That means no less than 186 million people voted. What are the odds of those votes being split right down the middle at 93 million for each candidate?

Actually, that’s irrelevant because the President isn’t elected based on the popular vote anyway, so let’s take a look at Missouri (which is where I live).

There were nearly 3 million Missourians who voted in 2008, and I’d bet my life savings, my car, my clothes, and even all of my latex clothing that if the same amount of people show up in 2012, the votes will not be a perfect split of 1.5 million to 1.5 million.

The thing is, voting is a waste of time, and the argument people use to try to convince me that I’m wrong is an even bigger waste of time.

You know the argument: “What if everybody thought that way?!?!”

Well, friend, I’m willing to take the risk because I’m pretty confident that not everybody does feel that way, and I’m willing to bet that there will always be millions of people who will continue to show up to vote regardless of how pointless it is.

Anyway, those are just the thoughts of an attractive, opinionated man.

But if you don’t agree, you’re a racist nudist who shaves with polar bear blood.

What’s the Point of Political Ads?

I don’t know if local television has more political ads than cable/satellite channels, but it sure seems that way, and that’s got me thinking about one thing: what’s the point of them?

Granted, as somebody who’s an advertising/PR major, I get that people respond better to individuals and items that they’re familiar with, but for crying out loud, you either know who you’re going to vote for or you don’t.

Do you think someone out there is thinking “Wow, I had no idea Barack Obama is insanely liberal. Thanks for using millions of dollars to make an advertisement to point that out, Mitt Romney!”

If you’re basing your decision off of some 30 second advertisement that takes everything out of context and exaggerates things so much that even a dishonest fisherman would be ashamed, then do everyone else a favor and stay home on voting day. Or don’t. I’m pretty sure no major election has ever been decided by one vote, so go out and cast you vote for whoever you want.

Anyway, that’s just my thought for the day. And yes, I’m limited to one thought per day. You wouldn’t want me to strain my pretty little head, would you?

Don’t Make Easy Things Difficult

If you’ve been here before, then you know one thing is true about me: I love my latex bodysuits.

And if you’re a regular here (which is roughly 2 people), then you know another thing: I love writing about controversial topics. I don’t do it very often, but I do love it. It’s like heroin–it’s extremely exhilarating, but if you do it too much, people start to wonder about you and accuse you of terrible things. However, when you do it in moderation, everybody wins. You get the wonderful feeling of someone who just did heroin, and everybody else gets to watch you feel wonderful.Win-win.

The thing I’m writing about today is probably one of the most controversial things in today’s society, so in a way, it’s like black tar heroin–the finest of the fine. The strongest of the strong. In other words, use in very strict moderation, otherwise you’ll be in for a whirlwind of mayhem.

The topic is gay rights.

I’m writing about said topic only because a local story has gotten so much national coverage.

Brad Pitt’s mom recently wrote an editorial for her (and my) local newspaper about the upcoming election. To be honest, it was a pretty tame, decently thought out piece that really shouldn’t offend anybody. She didn’t make any sweeping statements, nor did she say anything obviously or blatantly untrue.

And to be clear, Mrs. Pitt is a legitimately religious person. She raised her kids in the same church she still attends on a regular basis, and her letter was more pro-Romney than anti-Obama or anti-gay, but that’s not the way a lot of people are taking it.

This is the part that people seem to be having trouble with

“[President Obama is] a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage. I hope all Christians give their vote prayerful consideration because voting is a sacred privilege and a serious responsibility.”

First of all, I don’t see why it’s such a problem to say that. Are people really so sensitive reading something that’s true is considered offensive?

I mean, everybody who hasn’t been asleep and/or living in some third world country for the last four years should know that Obama is pro-choice and he supports gay rights. Big shocker. Anybody with half a brain could have told you that exact same thing four years ago.

Here’s the thing: what she said is no different than if she wrote a letter to the sheriff urging him to be harsher on speeders. If that were the case, people would simply assume that she thought speeding was wrong, not that she hates everybody who speeds.

Look, there have always been people – and there will always be people – who oppose gay rights not because they hate gays, but because they believe it’s morally wrong. How does that make them bigots or hateful? I could say that I think stealing is wrong, but that doesn’t mean I hate all people who have ever stolen something and that I think that they should be deprived of certain rights. It simply means that I think taking something that doesn’t belong to you is wrong.

The thing is, both sides should be blamed—people who have moral and ethical problems with homosexuality shouldn’t go out of their way to say and do things with the specific intention of offending gays. At the same time, people who are for gay rights need to tone down the defensiveness a little bit. People will vote for Romney because they don’t want to support Obama’s record when it comes to gay rights. Get over it. That’s all Mrs. Pitt was saying. She said absolutely nothing negative or untrue about gays as a group or any gay individuals, so what’s the big deal?

I know, I know. Live and let live, right? Well, if I may be blunt for a minute, that premise is complete bullshit. Productive societies need rules. The idea that “I’ll do what I want, you do what you want, and we’ll just get along and not complain” is naïve and impractical. People aren’t perfect, so mistakes will be made and problems will arise, so how do you fix things when there’s no instruction manual?

Rules are the instruction manual to life. With that theory in mind, I’m fully aware that there are people who can do things without a manual, but those people are few and far between, and those usually aren’t the people for whom the manuals were intended.

Listen, people are always going to disagree on what the instructions and rules should be, but ideally, when it comes to politics (and just about anything else other than religion, really), morality should be set aside and what’s best for the majority is what should be done. If the majority of people benefit from gay marriage while only a few people suffer, then it should be passed. If it only benefits a minority while burdening a majority people, then it shouldn’t.

Life’s such a simple thing. I really don’t know why some people want to make it so difficult.

The Founding Fathers Aren’t Electing the President

Because no matter who you are, this is about a million times better than a picture of Ron Paul, the founding fathers, and, yes, even monogrammed ball gags.

It’s been a while since I posted anything worthwhile and interesting on here, so I thought to myself: “Self, what would be a good way to get people talking? And thinking? And talking while they’re thinking?”

I came up with an obvious answer: monogrammed ball gags.

Did it work? No?

Fair enough!

I know something else that will do the trick: politics! And, of course, since this is a politics-related post, I’ll put out the same disclaimer I do with all of my p-related posts: If you disagree with me (which is highly unlikely since I’m almost always right on this matter), I kindly ask that you email me your home address and a photo of yourself wearing only a pair of mesh socks. If you do not have a pair of mesh socks I will gladly send a pair to the address you send me.

After you do this, expect me to drop by your house roughly 1-434 days after receiving the email with a batch of homemade treats we can eat while we dispute our differences. And don’t worry. I’ll bring the bleach.

Now that the disclaimer is out of the way, I’ll dive right into the issue!

I’ve seen a lot of people out there supporting Ron Paul, and even though I don’t understand what would compel someone to make such a decision, I’m not here to complain about someone’s political preference.

I’m here to complain about the way people who support him, well, support him.

For instance, I have a few friends on Facebook who are avid Ron Paul supporters, and I’ve noticed a disturbing trend among these people: they post more political-related status updates than the few friends I have who actually have jobs in politics in some form or another.

Honestly, though, I could deal with the status updates if they were enlightening, but they are not. Far from it. They usually just go on mentioning things like “freedom” and “rights” and “constitution.” I won’t dispute that all of those words are pretty important–in the right context, anyway. Fact is, if those people actually looked at Ron Paul’s voting history (the few times he’s actually bothered casting a vote on a particular issue), they may feel differently. Or they may not. I don’t really know how their minds work, so maybe it would only make them stronger supporters.

See it annoys me when people toss around words that a candidate is supposed to be like rather than what the candidate is actually like. That’s why it annoys me when people say Ron Paul is all about “liberty,” Mitt Romney is conservative, and Barack Obama isn’t the most liberal president that America has ever seen. All you have to do is look at their history to find that none of those things are true.

But what annoys me the most is when people use the founding fathers to promote Ron Paul. Or promote anything, for that matter, unless it’s an Independence Day Party.

I came across one Facebook friend who posted a quote from Ron Paul that said this: “One thing is clear: the founding fathers never intended a nation where citizens would pay nearly half of everything they earn to the government.”

Well, that may be true, but let me tell you a few other things that our founding fathers didn’t intend when they set up our nation:

• Women, minorities, and poor people voting. It’s true. For quite some time women weren’t allowed to vote, black people only counted as 3/5 of a vote, and anyone below the middle class was considered “too uneducated” to vote. Do you think anyone would go for it if a notable politician came out tomorrow and said we should revert back to that philosophy? I can only think of one person, and his name rhymes with Beith Bolbermann.
• Slavery going out of style. The founding fathers had a lot of land, so how in the world could they take care of it all while they were down at the local town halls laying down the groundwork for the greatest country in the history of the world? Well, we both know the answer to that.
• Prohibition. From everything that I’ve read, the founding fathers weren’t exactly straight-laced, puritanical people. They drank like fish and a few notable f.f.’s had elicit extramarital affairs. The latter has nothing to do with prohibition, but you better believe that if they could have peered into their crystal balls and seen the future, the last sentence of the Bill of Rights would have read “And don’t even think about Amendment 18.” This would have caused many decades of mystery, but it all would have made sense eventually, and it would have saved the Constitution two useless amendments (I consider something that’s created only to nullify a mistake useless, but that’s just me).

Look, I know the founding fathers were smart guys and integral in forming the best country in the world, but looking at them as a guide to all political answers just isn’t practical. Times change and people change, and the world changes with them. Saying a guy should be nominated because of one little thing the founding fathers would have liked covers up the multitude of things that person has said that the founding fathers wouldn’t have liked.

Fact is, you elect the best man for the job, not because he would have been good for it 250 years ago, but because he’s good for it today. And if you don’t agree with me, you’re a racist nudiphobe who hunts baby seals.

 

Free Speech is Overrated

It seems like “free speech” has been a hot topic lately.

Well, not so much “lately” as “ever since I can remember.” But there have been a few things that have brought it to mind recently.

I preface this by saying this: I try not to talk too much about politics because even though they’re incredibly boring, they always bring out very strong opinions, which in turn, result in heated arguments–and while I’m a pretty argumentative person, I’d much rather rub lotion on your thighs and give you a deep tissue massage than debate with you. That’s just who I am.

However, there are some things that just really piss me off. Sure, for a while I can ignore them, but when people keep making the same complaints, I feel like somebody needs to be the voice of reason. Sadly, my voice will never reach these people. And even if it did, they probably wouldn’t find it to be very reasonable.

One topic I’m talking about is the story of Sgt. Gary Stein, who was a member of the Marines. Here’s the full story if you’re interested, but basically, he was dishonorably discharged for criticizing the President.

Well, sort of. It wasn’t really as simple as that.

Sgt. Stein posted negative comments about President Obama on his Facebook page. The higher-ups saw it and told him to remove the comments. Twice. Instead, he made a group dedicated to criticizing Obama. They told him to remove it. He left the comments and the kept the group going, so basically what you have is a Marine who not only disobeyed direct orders, but, in a way, an employee who is openly criticizing his boss.

The fact that he even had to be told to stop making comments about the President is bad enough. The fact that he continued to do it even after he was told by his superiors to stop is worse.

Of course, people say that he’s entitled to free speech, and this is an argument that’s been around since the creation of the Bill of Rights, but it’s an extremely invalid argument for two reasons:

One, whether it’s being in the Marines, working for Microsoft, or working at Macy’s, having a job is a privilege, not a right, and like all privileges, it’s something a person can lose. You can lose it for poor performance, not getting along well with others, or any other reason you can think of, but I think openly criticizing your boss or your company is something that will always get your fired–especially if you’ve been warned three times to stop.

An employee of Microsoft would probably get fired if he started a group on Facebook dedicated to slamming Bill Gates. For that matter, he’d probably get fired if he started a group telling everyone how great Apple and Mac products are. Sure, he’s entitled to do those things because he has the right to free speech, but it’s like having a driver’s license–you can go 20 miles an hour over the speed limit every time you step in your car, but if you continue to get caught, there’s a good chance you’ll lose your driving privileges.

Fact is, if an employer thinks that you saying something is detrimental to the company or it puts the company in a bad light, they have every right to fire you to save their brand and image.

What the Marines did was no different, and frankly, I don’t want somebody who can’t take simple orders from an officer in charge of protecting my rights and freedoms. To me, it shows a great deal of selfishness, and that’s not exactly a good quality when you’re supposed to be fighting for a cause bigger than yourself as well as for millions of people whom you’ve never even met. Those ideas kind of conflict.

The second reason it’s an invalid argument is really simple–and this may not apply directly to this specific story, but we’ve all heard people criticize others and then try to hide the “free speech” blanket, but that’s not what the Bill of Rights was talking about when it talked about free speech. It was a response to the fact that in England (and most other European countries), people could be imprisoned and even tortured for saying and/or writing negative things about the King.

That may sound like it conflicts with this story since Sgt. Stein was “punished” for saying negative things about Obama, but that’s not true. He was punished for saying negative thing about his boss–the man who’s in charge of all branches of the military and just happens to be the President.

Look, the fact is, every American has the privilege to say whatever he wants about anything, but just because you can say something, that doesn’t mean you should.

I mean, I definitely don’t agree with much of President Obama’s policies, but people comparing him to Hitler and attacking him personally, I don’t get. It bothered me when liberals did it to George Bush, and it bothers me when conservatives to it to Obama. I’ve said before that I think Barack Obama is probably a pretty decent guy, I just don’t agree with his ideas.

It’s one thing to criticize someone’s ideas and actions, but it’s entirely different to attack someone personally because of his ideas and actions. I mean, come on, people. Act like your mothers taught you at least a little respect when you were a kid.