Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Interesting Note on Voter Fraud

So I've been job coaching a client of mine at a place that does community activism for immigrants and refugees.  They help people reunite with their families, they aid them in the immigration process (which can take upwards of 10 years, by the way), and work with them on finding jobs and the like.  While my client was helping them sort out their budget, I overheard one of the attorneys talking to his client.

His client, who confirmed that he is not a U.S. citizen, informed the attorney that he registered to vote.  The attorney sounded flabbergasted.  "Are you a U.S. citizen?"

"No," the guy replied.  He was of some sort of Latin heritage.

"Well how were you even able to register if you couldn't prove your citizenship?"

"I don't know," he replied.  "I just filled out the card and then got something in the mail telling me where to vote."

I don't really know why this came up in their conversation, but it did.  The attorney was in awe that the guy was able to register to vote, and he was extremely worried because his client--if caught--could possibly be pinched for voter fraud.

Fortunately, his client said that he did not, in fact, go vote.  The client sounded really worried about it all, so I'll just err on the side of optimism and say that he was telling the truth.  Even though he didn't vote, what the hell does this say about the voter registration process?  There was a worry that non-citizens were voting--I think the worry being that they were voting under aliases or whatever--but this seems to be a bit more unsettling.

You don't even need an alias to commit voter fraud.  It would be very interesting to see just how this guy was able to register without any red flags going off.  What's more, if he had voted, who's to say he would have been caught?  Wht would prompt anyone to look at a registered voter's name--someone who is alive and proved his identity by the address he gave them (ha)--and just get an inkling that maybe he was not a U.S. citizen?

To Democrats: I know you all like to pretend that voter fraud doesn't happen, or doesn't happen on a meaningful scale, but let's be honest: if you thought the Republicans were committing voter fraud, you'd be allover it as well.  Many Democrats always point to the fact that there's not been many proven cases of voter fraud.  That's pretty laughable seeing as how the whole point of committing fraud is to get away with something without being caught

It's sort of like saying that just because we can't prove that mafia money is dirty, that must mean they don't have any dirty money, like we've never even heard of the concept of money laundering.

I know that many Democrats want to go on believing that their party is the party of honesty, justice, and all those other warm-and-fuzzy words.  But the truth of the matter is that a Democrat is just as dirty as a Republican.  If we could only expose their corruption to the light of day, I'm sure that many Blue Dogs would vomit uncontrollably for a couple of hours.

The takeaway from this should be that we should stop pretending like there are many--if any--politicians who are actual bastions of virtue and integrity.  I know of one so far, and he's retiring.

Saturday, November 24, 2012

The Big Game: The OSU-Michigan Rivalry

I was born and raised in Columbus.  I spent four years away while I was in the Navy, but I came back and I will likely reside in Columbus, OH for the rest of my life.  It's not a bad town.  It's pretty big, there are some great suburbian areas, and it's a wonderfully diverse place.  There's plenty to like about Columbus.

What I don't like, however, is the whole OSU-Michigan rivalry.

I'm a Michigan fan (GO BLUE!!!).  I don't know why, except that as a kid when I was forced to watch the OSU-Michigan game, I always rooted for Michigan because I liked the way their jerseys looked.  I probably continued to root for them even more after being ridiculed for liking them.  Yes, I was actually ridiculed.  I can't even use the phrase "was ridiculed," because I still catch flak for it to this day.  Let it be known that Buckeye fans are some of the worst, most obnoxious sports fans on the planet.

You want to talk about people who ignore reality and completely forget history?  Just talk to a Buckeye fan about OSU football.  It's the damndest thing you've ever seen.  Whenever I am told about how much better OSU is than Michigan, I always bring up the fact that the Michigan Wolverines are the all-time most-winningest team in college football.  They beat every single team on most games won, most national titles, and even in percentage of games won.  Hell, they even beat Ohio State on most Big Ten titles.

They loved shitting on me for seven years when Michigan was unable to beat OSU.  Every time I remind them of the Cooper years, they look at me as if I had just uttered a phrase in Sanskrit.  They look at me dumbfoundedly when I remind them that Coach Cooper only beat Michigan 3 or 4 times in his entire 12 years of coaching at OSU.  Then they remind me that all of that was in the past, and all that matters is the present.

Apparently, to a Buckeye fan the only past that actually does matter is all the times OSU beat Michigan--they have no problem reminding me about all of Michigan's losses to the Scarlet and Gray.

Now let me tell you about "Michigan Week."  It's a week of torture for anyone brave enough to love the Maize and Blue.  The week is filled with everyone talking about how much they hate Michigan.  They don't only hate the University of Michigan: for some reason, they all hate the entire state.  I honestly don't get why there's so much hatred towards the whole state, but for whatever reason it's enough hatred to compell them to sing "Don't Give a Damn About the Whole State of Michigan."

Now let's talk post-game.  If the Buckeye's lose, the whole town will be depressed for about a week.  It's actually kind of nice, because my family and friends will shut the hell up for a while.  But people will legit be depressed and upset.  You know how I will feel if UM loses?  I'll mostly dread the flood of "Go Bucks!" and "Michigan blows donkey balls," texts, but ultimately it won't mean much to me because Michigan's season was over after game 1.

That's because losing to Alabama meant Michigan would not have a shot at the national title this year.  I honestly don't give a shit about the big game, because all I want for my team is for them to go to the National Championship bowlgame.  OSU could lose every-single-game and Buckeye fans would still be happier than pigs in shit so long as they beat Michigan.

Rivalries are neat things, but Columbus takes it way out of hand.  I mean, how many other cities have been known to straight up start RIOTS simply because they lost their rival game?  Thanks to the Columbus Police Department and the OSU campus police, we no longer have to worry about cars being tipped over and dumpsters being set ablaze on the Saturday after Thanksgiving every year.

Thursday, November 22, 2012

NSFJ: Happy Thanksgiving!!!

In case you were wondering, NSFJ = "Not Safe for Jersey."  Sorry, Jersey, but I've started a tradition and I must stick with it.


 
 
 
Happy Thanksgiving!!!

Sunday, November 18, 2012

For KP: What Makes a Leader

KP, one of my regulars here on Christian Fearing God-Man, suggested that I write about leadership.  So over the next couple of days, we're going to talk about leadership in personal terms and on the national and international stage.  What does it take for me, the common man, to be a leader?  What does it take for the President to be the leader of this nation.  What does it take to be a leader in the world arena?  Well, we're going to find out.

This topic is interesting to me because I was having a conversation with my father about my son that veered onto this idea.  My son is seven years old--in second grade.  At his parent-teacher conference, my son's teacher told my ex-wife and me that he demonstrates a level of maturity that is uncommon for a boy his age.  She said that he "has a dry sense of humor, which is sometimes bad because his sarcasm can be very cutting to the other children--because they don't understand."

My father laughed when I told him this, partially because he knows that my son is a carbon copy of me and my personality (Me?  Sarcastic?  Perish the thought!), but also because he knew what it potentially portends for his future.  "You know what he'll be, don't you son," he asked me.

"Yes" I replied, "he's going to be a leader."  It is in my son's nature to be independent, to be strong willed.  He enjoys being in charge of a situation, and he loves being the rule-maker.  Sometimes, he even displays a flash of vision: occasionally he is able to imagine an end goal, and he can lead little people to realize that goal.  He's a neat little guy.

Those are some of the good qualities of being a leader.  You have to be independent, self-reliant.  A good leader knows when he can't do something himself, but a great leader always tries to do it himself first as long as failure will not cause catastrophic harm.  Too often we see leaders who have no inkling on the particulars of a task ordering others around and placing unrealistic expectations on their followers.  That's not to say that you have to be intimately familiar with every single detail of a particular function, but you should at least familiarize yourself.

A strong will is essential, because failure is always just one poor decision away.  One thing I've noticed about humans is that many if not most lose heart fairly quickly when faced with failure.  It's not difficult to demoralize someone into resignation, and we are more prone to quit when we feel like the circumstances are out of our control.  The leader helps his people overcome that feeling of hopelessness.  The leader inspires his people to press on, failure after painful failure.  However, a good leader knows when to call it quits and how to motivate his people to learn from the failure and move on.

None of that means a hill of beans without vision.  This will be the hardest thing to teach my son, because vision can only be achieved through creativity.  Although you can foster creativity, you can't really teach it.  Anyone can be creative, but the thing that separates a visionary from a dreamer is practical application.  It's not enough to see the end-goal, but you have to know how to get there.

My friend, the Anonymous Howard Beale as I like to call him here, is a visionary.  He's a man who can not only see the final product before he's even begun the project, but he figures out all of the steps necessary to achieve victory.  What's more, he is able to paint that picture to others, and he can inspire them to help him realize his vision.  It takes a clarity of mind which is easiest achieved through logical, analytical thinking.  A good leader must be willing to hammer out the details if he ever hopes to succeed.

I've noticed some negative qualities in my son, the sort of pitfalls, if you will, that come from being a leader.  My son finds himself wanting to control people so that he can achieve his own personal goals.  He wants them to play his games, and to follow his rules.  He is usually very unwilling to compromise, which is something I work on with him.

There is a point where someone ceases to be a leader and instead has found himself to be a manipulator.  It's alright to inspire people to realize your personal vision, but what separates a leader from a manipulator is mutual benefit.  Working towards your vision has to be rewarding for everyone involved, or else you're simply treating your fellow humans as disposable resources.

So what does it take to be a leader?  Three things: Vision, charisma, and drive.  In the next article, we'll talk about how these things apply to the office of President of the United States and how Obama stacks up against other historical examples.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Dumbass Idea of the Century: Secession Edition

In a little known conflict known as the American Civil War, several states in the South seceeded from the Union.  What ensued was an incredibly bloody conflict that claimed the lives of over 600,000 Americans.

What's so wrong with secession?  Apparently, there's some people in a bunch of states that signed petitions asking for the federal government to allow their states to peacefully seceed from the Union.  Kind of ironic seeing as how the first real secession crisis came on the heels of a presidential election.  So if a bunch of people want to do it, it must be okay, right?

Wrong.

Many people have accused Lincoln of being a tyrant, of denying the natural right of popular sovereignty.  Well, they're wrong, too.  Lincoln's whole basis for secession was actually based on . . . wait for it . . . the constitution.

Secession is unconstitutional.  The secessionists states in the 19th century claimed that the constitution was a contract entered into by the states, and if a state decided it wanted out, then that state should be allowed to exit the contract.  The problem with that is that the preamble of the constitution--the first three words--nullifies that entire argument.  For those of you who have never read the Constitution, here's how the preamble reads:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
 
Note the underlined and bolded part.  "We the people . . ."  It doesn't read, "We the States."  The Constitution was not a contract entered by states, it was created by the people and for the people.  A state cannot legally seceed from the Union, because the Constitution is a document that binds the states to the law of the land.  The states are bound to the Constitution by the will of the people.

So it's fairly stupid to continue on with this whole secession idea.  Not only is it insanely stupid and indicative of a historically retarded populace, but it's ridiculously childish.  What, because you can't have your way, you're going to take your toys and go home?

Grow up, dream on, and get over it.
 

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Why the Republicans Really Lost

First of all, thank you to everyone who has been patient with me in these past few weeks.  My good friend, the Anonymous Howard Beale, saved the day by resolving my PC issues.  In return for his excellence, I have offered him free China Buffet for a year.  A round of applause for the man that saved my sanity!

I have taken all of your suggestions into consideration, and I will write on all of the topics suggested to me soon.  But I figured, what better way is there to get back on track than to piss off my conservative readership?  I figure that if I'm not pissing someone off then I'm doing something wrong.

Since the election, I've noticed a considerable amount of articles that usually have some variation of "Why Romney Lost," as the title.  I'm noticing a theme here, and that theme is denial.  Most articles I've read have blamed either money--the idea that Romney didn't have good campaign momentum because of poor fundraising--or low voter turnout on the conservative side.  In typical Jack Camwell fashion, I think they're both wrong.

The problem is hard-core social conservativism.

Let's look at some statistics, shall we?  There was a Gallup poll that conservatives touted as proof that the pro-life movement was gaining momentum.  "For the first time in history, more Americans are pro-life than pro-choice," the poll claimed.  I'm not disputing the poll numbers, but I will dispute the interpretation of the numbers.  I will use myself as an example.

Personally, I am pro-life.  I am not morally okay with abortion.  I think in most cases it's wrong.  If I were a woman, I do not think I could abort my baby (unless I was raped or the baby was going to kill me) and live with myself.  I know a few women who have had abortions and who are of the same mind.  It's a moral line that I cannot personally cross.  However, politically I am pro-choice.  My theory is that many Americans who identify themselves as pro-life feel the same way.

Now, the poll asks the question of whether or not abortion should be legal.  The numbers are a bit misleading in my mind.  According to the poll, over 30% of Americans feel that abortion should be legal in most or all circumstances.  Another 40ish % of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in a few circumstances.  Only 17% of Americans think abortion should be illegal in all cases.

Seventeen percent.  I think someone should have shown those poll numbers before the RNC went off the deep end and adopted "pro-life without exception," as the official Republican Party platform.  They turned off a lot of voters with that nonsense, and those who were in the extreme minority clearly ignored the majority of registered Republicans.

The second big mistake is the whole gay marriage thing.  Right now, a majority of Americans believe that same-sex marriage should be legally recognized, according to Gallup.  Call the poll skewed all you want.  Most people I know--and I know a very diverse group of people--think that gay marriage should be legally recognized.  53% of Americans think it should be legal.

When you break it down by political affiliation, the only thing that really matters to Republicans in this case is the independents.  In 2011, 59% of independent respondants said that they supported the legalization of gay marriage.  How many independents you think are turned on by the GOP's stance on gay marriage?  My guess is that at least 59% of them disagree pretty strongly.

When broken down by age, young people overwhelmingly support gay marriage legalization.  It's no surprised that people over 55 were the ones who disagree with it most.

I for one could not vote Republican this year partly because of the blatant fraud committed in the primaries, but also because of the sharp right turn the party took.  If the Republicans ever want a chance to be in the Whitehouse again, they're going to have to wake up and smell the social evolution.  No, this is not the sign of the degredation of society.  It's a sign of social evolution.  It's a sign that much of the country is finally realizing that the government has no business dictating morality to the people.

The government has no business telling me how to make my life so long as I'm not hurting anyone.  "But what about all the aborted babies, Jack?  They're getting hurt!"  Yeah, well so did a lot of innocent Iraqi children, but the Republicans still beat the war drum pretty loudly when we went in and stomped a mud hole in Sadam's guts.

Stop being hypocritical, Republicans!  Either you believe we should be free to choose and live by our own morality or you don't.  Either you believe that I alone have the power to choose my moral actions or you believe the government should choose for me.

The Republicans lost because the extremists somehow got a hold of the reins.  Don't believe me?  Just look at the poll numbers.  I am sure that I'm not alone in how I felt about the party.

Saturday, November 3, 2012

Reason for My Absence

First of all, thank you to everyone who has commented on any of my work in the past week.  Your continued participation is greatly appreciated.

The reason I have been absent is because of a brown out that totally tanked the mother board on my PC.  It blew a capacitor in the power supply and completely raped the BIOS.  My friend, the Anonymous Howard Beale, has been working diligently to get my PC up and running again.  A big thanks to him!

I'm writing this from my mother's computer, so unfortunetly I'm not up and running just yet.  My promise to all of you is this: I will make a 3-part article spectacular on some subject that I think people might be interested in.

And as an added incentive, I will take suggestions on what the topic should be.  What do you want me to write about?  It's not me being lazy, it's me making up for my absence.  I wan to give the people what they want.

So please, give me suggestions on what you would like me to write about on some length.  The only thing I ask is that you PLEASE not ask me to write about economics.  I hate economics.

Thank you to my readers, and hopefully I will be able to fully participate again soon.

BTW:  In my absence, I've passed the 200,000 pageviews mark!  Peanuts to some of you, but it's a nice accomplishment in my mind.