A Short (yeah right) Blog About "Isms"

or

The Fear of Losing Perceived Power

I kind of understand it in a way. My stock is Jewish. For millennia we have been castigated by others, that excluding the want by many of our own not to assimilate, as those who control the mass of wealth and influence on humanity. I did not choose this. I was born into it. Feel the irony if you can. I have lived in poverty for most of my life(irony), some of it my own doing. I was raised by Republican Jews (irony), and have been fed on some public assistance (more irony), hardly ever lived in a house that either my parents or I have owned (even more irony), to end up not graduating college with my law, medicine, or business degree, neither of which I was attempting to attain at the time (yep more irony), only to end up on the low end of of the totem poll in my employment with a communications company (oh god the irony.) If you are keeping score, I am a Jew with no degree, who's only control of the communication industry is whether or not I can make your cable work, and this blog... maybe my facebook account.

The problem is that history is full of us no talent heebs. Well not really. History doesn't give a shit about the "do nothings." We are out there, though, en mass.

The crux of the matter comes when I mention my ethnicity. Even in high school it drew some interesting looks. Fear. That's the name for it. Basically this long haired kid, who everyone assumed, incorrectly I might add, was some pot-head slacker, all of the sudden became all of that and much more when folks found out that he was Jewish. Weird. So, yes, I have experience with racial stereotypes. Mine may have to do with superior intelligence or studiousness, but there are other aspects that I'm not completely proud to exploit. My humor, however I'll keep, even though that comes more from my English side. Oh, did I forget to mention I'm a half breed? In any case,  I understand the fear from some ends.

There are a ton of isms and one phobia, used by bigotry, to keep certain segments of the population down. The problem is only one is properly named. That being "homophobia." Racism and sexism do not persist because of actual hatred. The hatred only exists out of fear. I know this sounds like something the bullied kid says for self affirmation, but it seems true. The stereotypes generated from these isms want to make the people in these groups seem weak. These stereotypes are propagated further when people within these groups, have attained a certain power and influence. Any mistake by the elevated individuals who might fall into said group is, of course, emphasized within the group who is spreading the hate in order to justify their "belief" in the stereotype. In reality they are trying to bring that person down due to their fear of their own racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual inadequacies, inorder to compete.

You might ask how this is so. Well here is the deal. Do you fear a blade of grass? Grass is inherently unintelligent, it covers a good deal of the planet, yet you don't wake up screaming in your sleep thinking a blade of grass will be president one day. Let's take it up a couple of notches. Do you fear the day that pigs will rule the Earth? No? Maybe you fear something that was considered livestock only 150 years ago, like the African American. Maybe you freely use a  derivative for his or her racial nomenclature to describe someone who is stupid, while at the same time being in awe of the pervasiveness of their musical culture, poetry, stopping at a traffic light, eating a peanut butter sandwich, and reminiscing about how you survived that one surgery, while swapping files on your thumb drive. Maybe you fear the reasoning capability of something that wasn't even allowed to vote nationally, within the last century, like the American female, who most likely threatened bullies with her fist while defending and rearing you, then taught you your first words while wiping your ass. Maybe you equally use a term for her genitalia as also a term for the weak and cowardly, when in reality that piece of anatomy is capable of feats that you wouldn't wish on any part of a male anatomy, unless you were a woman.   

What I'm talking about is the fear that there is nothing left for the white male to be proud of. Let go off that. What has your "white male pride" gotten you? Well for instance you have taken on the accomplishments of those you, in past, have ridiculed like the Irish, Germans, Scottish and so on. Then, of course, you adopted the accomplishments of your nation done by African decedents. Though I will mention that not one person has brought up how the British still haven't had a black Prime Minister yet. It's only a matter of time. Yeah they got us beat in the woman ruling the country bit. Maybe that's part of it.

The truth is, there is no hatred without the fear. You only fear losing ground to those capable of attaining that higher ground. The ones you castigate the most are the ones you fear the most. The ones you genuinely feel are inferior, you make no mention of.

So despite calling them faggots and using the term to describe those inferior and weaker to yourself, you fear them, hence the term homophobic. You use the term "nigger" to describe those who are of inferior intellect, yet have no problem spreading peanut butter on your toast, nor do you ask who "nigger rigged" the blood transfusion system, or lasik, or the ability to allow you to add a printer to your computer configuration. You probably don't remember the whole hoopla over rock n' roll being  "nigger music" or maybe you are still in fear of Hip Hop culture. You Have no problem calling anyone weak a "pussy" or say they are acting like a "bitch" when, in fact, you were probably squeezed out of something that could also be called a "pussy" and feared the wrath of your mother, who would be termed  a "bitch" by any outsider who witnessed her stern treatment of you.

All of these things, these "isms," are the result of shortcomings in the so called  "white race."  You fear Africans, Hispanics, Jews, homosexuals and women because they do what you can't or won't do. In the end, you end up with a display of impotence. It's quite pathetic really.

We should call it all what it is. It's fear. It's only hatred because it has graduated from that fear of impotence. So I suggest we call it as it is. It's not rascism, it's Africaniphobia, or Hispanaphobia. It's not sexism it's gynophobia and so on. Anyway, that's my two cents. Oh a penny!

Johnny Get Yer Gun.

I have been debating with myself whether I should write this or not. I was afraid this sort of subject matter would be too serious, too dark, and move my blog in a direction away from the usual humor I project in my posts.

I put myself in the place of those parents in Newton, Connecticut. I imagined I was waiting to see my child emerge, and imagining the amount of terror, sadness and insanity, I'd suffer, as time rolled on without seeing my beloved boys emerge from all that chaos. I feel fortunate that I can only imagine. I saw my children that day come home from school, unlike some of those parents in Connecticut.

Lately it's been a whirlwind on the issue of gun control. My own news-feed on Facebook, seems to follow the ebb and flow of thought on the issue, and I'm pretty much unnerved with pundits on both sides. Despite the best of intentions, the most vocal, seem to have no problem standing on these 26 deaths in order to prop up their own agendas on gun control. I myself, don't believe it is too soon to talk about it. Many pundits, years from now, will try to invoke the feelings of this week, in order to make their points clear. So why delay it? At the same time I keep in mind that we've been at war for over the past decade, and have seen our freedoms whittled away in the name of public safety.

I know some of you will look upon this, disagree, then move on your merry way. Others will take some of this as offensive, or just not be able to handle it, and we will go our separate ways. My hope, as always, is to cease the language of radicalism, which is pervasive in the media, whether it be social media or the news, in order to bring us together for beneficial discourse.

Where Do I Stand?

I think it's important that I do not cast any illusions in how I feel about gun control. This is important  because, in the end, my attempted objectivity on this subject will obviously be judged. Some of you will dismiss me right off the bat, and I ask you to continue reading, if nothing else, to get to know me better.

I believe, wholeheartedly, in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. I believe that our right to bear arms is needed to counter-act a government that has possession of a military force. There are those who state that the number of individuals currently incarcerated in this country is proof that the second amendment doesn't protect us from the government taking our freedoms. I would respond that the second amendment hasn't been really tested, in 200 some odd years. Civil disobedience only goes so far, eventually, you have to arm yourself, either with a sympathetic army, or your own arsenal. I not only believe that you should have the right to own a weapon, but you have a right to own whatever weapon the nation's military has in its possession.

Now before every pro gun pundit starts the standing ovation, there is a huge “BUT” in this. Whereas I believe you have the right to own whatever weapon you please, I also believe you should be required to pass a few background checks. You see, I also believe in gun control. So in my imaginary world, you should legally be able to buy a military grade, fully automatic AR-15, after you have been licensed to carry one. Licensing would be required to be renewed once a year. It would involve, mental competency evaluation, a review and inspection of the weapon(s) that you own, weapon owner's competency testing, an inspection of the weapon’s security. a review of your court records, a review of those living in your home and those in contact with you, the reaffirmation of the existence of a locator chip in the weapon, ballistics testing, and drug testing all at your cost.

None of this is tongue in cheek. I'm serious. If you want a fully loaded Abrams Tank, or a patriot missile array, then I think you should be able to own it. I however don't believe that everyone deserves the unrestricted ownership of such. Since most armed crimes are committed with a registered firearm, I believe you should be held liable if your weapon is stolen and used in crime.

My example, may be a bit extreme, but I believe that the same should go if you own a Glock 9mm or a Remington model 700 hunting rifle. I know the argument is that this just makes it harder for responsible, law abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals, but considering that a good deal of weapons used in crimes are either stolen from those who purchased them legally or used by the legal owners themselves, it's hard to justify not making  more controls on legally owned firearms` in the aspects of purchase and security once purchased.

The other side is yes, it is easier for someone breaking the law to get their hands on anything, than it is for a law abiding citizen. I do not know, personally, anyone who wants to own a firearm, and is allowed by law to own one, but doesn't because the regulations are to much of a hassle. I'm sure they are out there. Despite how I feel about what weapons you should have the right to own, I don't think that the usage of such a freedom, frees you from suspicion drawn due to your purchases. After all, from its invention, the personal firearm was designed to kill, and do it more effectively and efficiently than other hand held weapons available upon its inception. It is not designed for any other purpose. There are those that buy them without such intention, but their initial purpose cannot be ignored. I think a person who wishes to own these, in any quantity, should expect to draw suspicion. To expect anything else is naive.

On top of all of this, I do not own, nor do I wish to own a firearm. I personally don't think I should be allowed to own firearms, due to my temper among other things. I have been trained to use them in the military. I've gone target shooting with friends. I'd even encourage everyone to fire a variety of firearms, of some sort, at least once in their lives to gain knowledge on the issue. I just don't want to have any.

So to sum it up, I am extremely pro second amendment, to the point of allowing you to own any weapon the military has in its arsenal, with a massive amount of regulation and registration, but I don't own a fire arm, even though I am a thoroughly experienced user. That puts me near the middle I think.

With that being said, let's carry on.

You Look Like a Fucking Idiot.

No, I am not talking about boys in skinny jeans, or boys in baggy jeans with their drawers hanging out. I'm talking about you characters on both sides of the issue making stupid arguments. Basically it comes to two very specific points. On the anti gun side is the “there is no reason for you to own (enter 30 plus round magazine, assault rifle or whatever, here) and on the pro gun side there is the “More people died in car accidents or whatever and we don't ban...”

Stop it. You both sound ridiculous. In the first place, depending on who you talk to, there is no practical reason, for the following: Art, music, store bought food, guitar amplifiers over 60 watts in a two bedroom apartment, cars that go 210 miles per hour, Justin Beiber, suspenders, women's professional basketball, religion, mathematics, critical thinking, commas... I could go on, but you get the idea. It is one of the weakest arguments against anything. You are just asking for someone to rebel against you when you say that. It insights its own argument, and usually it's the people who articulate this argument who are into things which most people consider inconsequential.

On the other side, using automobile deaths, or deaths by some other human guided object, in order to dispute the need for firearm regulation to those in support of such measures, is, in a word, stupid. The usual comparisons involve cars, airplanes, and knives. All of these have multiple purposes and chances are if you killed someone with one of these (outside of military application) you were using them outside their intended purpose. For instance, an automobile, in civilian circles, is intended to be used for the transport of people and/or goods. A colt AR-15 (the AR stands for Assault rifle) is intended to be used to kill people. When a car used irresponsibly to kill someone, you are using it incorrectly. When you use a colt AR-15 irresponsibly to kill someone, you are using it just as correctly as you were when you use it to not kill someone.... Wait a minute.. It is designed to kill people, so using it as a doorstop, a parking brake, or for quiddich, is using it outside its intended purpose. It is, after all, called an assault rifle, not a cooking rifle, a tennis rifle, a flying rifle, or a hammer. Assault means to attack, so no, it is not designed for self defense. It is designed to assault. Even when it's abused you are using it correctly. So if you are wondering why your clever analogy to demonstrate individual motive over the actions of an an inanimate object is falling on deaf ears... that is why.

Both of these arguments are designed to sing to the choir. They aren't going to convert anyone to the opposing side, nor will they convince anyone they are wrong in their beliefs. This is actually one of the growing problems in this country. We don't argue so much to convince people they are wrong, but to become more self assured. And so, the divide continues.

50% of all Statistics Lie
or

Statistics Don't Lie, But They Are Used Out of Context.

If there is one thing politics has taught me, it is that statistics are abused above anything else, including firearms, automobiles, and twitter. Here is a basic fact. If I'm trying to convince you that something is out of control, I will have more success comparing it to itself as a percentage of growth over time, than give you the odds over all. For instance, if I told you that traffic accidents rose 46% between 2001 and 2002, you might be aghast. If I then told you only 1% of automobiles were involved in those traffic accidents in 2002, you would calm down.

Here is the deal and I won't do it for you. Take the number of school shootings since the assault weapon ban. Now take the number of those, including universities, public schools, and private schools. Use all the math you learned in those schools to come up with the percentage of schools that have suffered such tragedies. The resulting percentage is less than 1%. Meaning that less than 1% of all learning institutions experienced a shooting within their walls. Now you can use this statistic how you wish. Maybe you want to illustrate that we do not need gun control due to the insignificant chance my children and yours will be shot on school grounds. Maybe you want to show how ridiculous it would be to arm teachers. Who knows, but the fact remains, when someone tells you something has risen 300% or whatever, you can sit right smack dab in the middle of it and tell them the facts. There are more lottery winners than school shooting victims.

What I will tell you is of more significance. In 2011, 30,940 US civilians, died of firearms injury, either criminal, accidental, or suicide, which was actually down from 2010. Once again, with the point of being unbiased I will tell you that the population of the United States 2011 was projected at about 312 million. It is roughly estimated that there were 270 million firearms in the US. So with that said, 0.00009% of U.S. Americans died from gunshot wounds in 2011. To add to that 0.0001% of firearms in the US, killed a person. Now with this perspective you can either advocate the relative safety of legal firearms sales, or stipulate that gun control wouldn't cause a lack of safety. This statistic, of course, doesn't tell the story in certain demographics, or areas of the country. It is general across the country, which brings up the thought that fire arms regulation should be on a geographical basis. But of course, that is all lost in the media hubbub.

Now there may be some of you that are trying to show the growth of gun violence over a period of time. Keep in mind that there approximately 4 million births in the US accompanied with an ever shrinking 2 million deaths a year. So you can say gun deaths grow by so much a year... but then you have to think that the amount of adult US citizens grows by about 2 million a year, therefore gun ownership grows, and so on. Just be responsible.

So What's the Big Deal?

Or

Mastering the Fear of The Masses.

We are victims of fear. The retail industry uses it to stimulate profits. The media uses it to stimulate ratings. The politicians use it to stimulate support.
 

I have always believed that the greatest enemy to liberty and freedom is the fear of the constituency. It is irrigated, grown and cultivated to be used, by the powers that be (either commercial or political), to grow their strength and influence. Your fear of damnation, strengthens the power of religion. Your fear of ignorance of some terror or another, strengthens the power of the media. Your resultant fear of that terror, strengthens the politicians' agendas.

This fear allows for you to be exploited. Think of what is left in the grocery store every time there is a snow storm predicted. Think of how the fear of death or being obese has lead to this or that dietary trend. As for the weapons industry, the fears of regulation and assault have resulted in record profits. The more scared you are, the more likely you are to combat that fear with something commercial.

The media, of course, aides in this. You are no longer interested in being merely informed. You need to be scared into watching the news. Thus their programming is geared into making you afraid or angry of this or that thing, no matter how inconsequential. Think of how many people you know who have died? Now for a great many of us, we've known people who have died of cancer or natural causes. Chances are many of us have known few who have died of anything. We don't know of anyone who has killed themselves due to cyberbullying, dodge ball, or firearms. I myself will state I'm the exception to the rule, knowing plenty who have died of firearms, cancer and suicide. Yet we live in fear of these things. We live in fear of something that only effects a 10,000^th of a percentage.

The truth is death is a loud beast. It can be exploited to the point of putting the living into a riotous fervor. Think of where we were in 2000. Air travel, though a bit of a pain in the ass, was relatively simple. Now four flights out of thousands get hijacked, and we cannot bring nail clippers on our carry on baggage? We have one guy get caught with a bomb in his shoe and now we have to take our shoes off for a domestic flight. Now it costs almost 100% more to take a flight. Why? Because you demanded it out of fear, even though what security measures were in place resulted in a casualty rate less than that of your daily commute to work.

The media, whether it be Fox News, CNN, or NBC, have managed to put you in a state of believing that you are in constant danger from an alien force, government or criminal intent. Let's be frank. I'm not advocating we live in utopia, but you have shown yourselves, and not the terrorists, politicians, and criminals as the enemies to liberty. I direct this to both sides of the debate. This does not means we shouldn't have safeguards, but you will never, ever, be the master of your own death.

If Sandy Hook has taught us anything, it is this...

1. Fear is the master of the democratic mob.

2. Nancy Lanza was an avid gun owner and her exercise of the Second amendment did nothing to save her.

3. Despite being in fear of the fascist police state that would result from Obama Care, and the reelection of Barack Obama, conservatives have no problem turning schools that already have secure entry and 24 hour surveillance into microcosms of fascism, by adding armed guards. 

4. You are all tools of fear.

The debate over this matter has resulted in two sides telling each other this basic statement: If it wasn't for the fact that (you have/don't have) guns, then these things (would/wouldn't) happen. Mix them up, either or, it doesn't matter. In essence we are trying to manipulate the other's behavior, and the one thing that should be prevalent in American Society, is telling someone that they have to do something someone else's way, results in a backlash from those who believe otherwise. This is a divisive issue. It is designed and spoken in a way to divide. There is no middle ground. Right or wrong, both arguments will fall on deaf ears due to their casting of blame on the other. Democracy ends the moment our national discussion on compromise ends. This discussion is a sample in why the individual citizen, does not even believe that there should be a democracy.

Secession and Sensuality.

Part 1
Cesarean Secession. 

I have seen the petitions. I know that some people are thinking this is a sign of an oncoming civil war. Others look at it with disdain for the south and have no problem with certain states seceding from the union. I tend to chuckle at this myself.

The reason why any of this is getting attention at all is part of the post election fallout, and a sensationalist media attempting to stoke the fires of apocalypse that seemed to be the theme of this last presidential election. Basically, there have been petitions posted on the White House's web site, from private citizens, requesting the granting of separation from the United States. Now, there is no actual procedure in the U.S. Constitution, for a state to dissolve its affiliation with the union, nor is there anything in the constitution not allowing it to occur. That being said, private citizens, petitioning the White House for their state to be allowed to "peacefully leave the union" is probably not, nor should it ever be, considered a valid request.

What should be taken seriously is when a state legislature asks for the ties to be dissolved. There is nothing preventing a state, other than fear of repercussions that aren't even legislated federally, from choosing to hold a popular vote on a ballot that asks the voters in that state if they want to leave. Signing a petition to the White House, is kind of skipping a step. It's like going over your boss's head, and even though the Administration will have to answer petitions once they gain a certain amount of signatures, the answer will be, in not so few words, "no."

The reality is that none of these states will leave, and I'll show you why using, arguably, the most "independent" and "belligerent" of them all.

Part 2

How to Mess With Texas

Texas has had a decent secessionist movement since it was annexed by the U.S. in 1845. Unfortunately, since the end of the U.S. Civil War, that movement been divided into factions so many times, then factions dissolve, then the surviving factions fragment,  that there is no real unity behind it. Nonetheless it does have one of the most persistent and known secessionist movement(s).

Texas is projected to have a Gross State Product of about $1.3 trillion for 2012. To put that in prospective, Canada was10th the world in Gross National Product in 2011 with $1.5 trillion  If Texas were to become an independent republic, it would be 14th in GNP. Not bad, except for a couple of problems.

Texas receives nearly $300 billion in federal aid per year. That's $11,500 per capita in the state. This doesn't include the influx of revenue from it hosting nearly 125,000 members of the U.S. Military, that are garrisoned in 15 U.S. Military bases throughout the state. Included with these military bases is about 50,000 military civilians the companies of the defense industry and defense contractors. Now, just wait a second, I'm going to loop these back in here.

The Texas Military Force (their national guard and other forces) currently numbers at about 26,000 people. That's one soldier for every 1000 Texans. In contrast, the U.S. Military has 1.5 million active duty personnel, one soldier for every 205 Americans.  The force is sustained, in part, with federal funds.  So now let's get the ball rolling.

Right off the bat, Texas will say goodbye to the $300 billion in federal aid it gets per year. This doesn't include other things like stimulus money, federal disaster relief funds and what not that can add an additional $50 billion. That already hurts. Now since Texas would be no longer part of the union, it could see the end of the US military presence in the new republic. I mean, we can't have over one-third of our active duty military force in a country we aren't currently running a war in, so they go bye bye.  This means Texas will have to raise it's own army. 26,000 people aren't going to cut it when you've added an additional international border, and have a coast line that is no longer protected by the US Navy and Coast Guard.

With the US military gone, and most of it's equipment with it, US defense contractors find themselves in a foreign country with a significantly smaller force to service, that is financed with a significantly smaller defense budget (The US defense budget is more than GSP of Texas.)   So they will either downsize or leave. At current levels, the defense aerospace industry, alone, employs 200,000 people and that doesn't include other facets of the defense industry in Texas.

This leaves Texas in a quandary.  It is out $300 billion in federal funds, in addition to a portion of the federal paychecks that were going to 125,000 members of the military, 50,000 military civilians , and up to 300,000 residents, that are either employed by the defense industry or by military bases. Add to that the non military businesses surrounding these bases, and this bad dream expands to a horrific financial cataclysm, to many communities.

The losses would become like a domino effect. Texas does not have state income tax. It gains state revenue from property and sales taxes. With the loss of federal funding, the need to replace federal enforcement agencies that were supplementing the state's own institutions, along with the need to expand its own defense, Texans will find that, while they are no longer paying income tax to the U.S. government, they will not have more money in their pocket. If  up to 1,000,000 people move out of your state or are unemployed, and on top of that you have the need to create new services, you will find that you are under a budget short fall. The newly formed Republic of  Texas will have to either raise property taxes or raise income taxes.

With rise of taxes, many more leave. One of the reasons people moved there or claimed Texas residency was due to there being no state income tax. The more people leave, the more the new republic finds itself in a dismal financial depression. For all of the glory of their revolution, they end up just like Mexico.

This, of course, isn't the half of it. Much of this secession talk was fanned by the recent presidential election. The urbanized areas, like Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston (the places where the money is at),  and much of southwest Texas, voted in favor of Barak Obama. The Republic, once formed, could find itself in its own secession mess, with areas, wishing to remain with the U.S., breaking off and rejoining the union.  It could be feasible that the new Republic of Texas, would be landlocked, surrounded by the union it just left, with no port, or they find themselves asserting military might in order to maintain their territory. Hello Texas civil war.

To sum it all up, Texas secession could end up with the state losing above and beyond $1 trillion, a few million citizens, several hundred square miles of land, along with possibly ending up in a civil war. Otherwise it's not a complete disaster. So, with that looking like it will work out for them, let's go to the next secession candidate....

Part 3
What has Four Eyes but Cannot See?
Mississippi.

Do I even have to bother?

Now That You've Lost, What Next for The GOP..

It had to hurt. I know it did because I watched it play out on television with Karl Rove in emphatic denial of the election projections. I watched scores of my conservative friends and others ask themselves what is wrong with this country? I watchd Glenn Beck announce that "sometimes god sucks," and that there is a "sickness" in this country.

While the pundits, experts and blowhards attempt to rationalize the outcome of this election, I tend to sit back and think about the future.

I made it no secret what I wanted the outcome to be, and yes, I am pleased, so far, with the result. You see there is more that needs to happen. The reasons why the Republicans lost this presidential election have been touted to everything from being out of touch with younger voters, women and minorities, to Mitt Romney picking the wrong running mate, to Romney himself being either too centrist, or too right wing.

To start with Romney's problem wasn't that he wasn't right wing enough. Basically this would state that more extreme right wingers on the presidential ballot, in particular Virgil Goode (Constitution Party) and Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party), took the votes that Mitt Romney needed to win. This isn't the case. Statistically speaking, the math doesn't work out like that. If you add their totals to Mitt Romney's total, you still end up with Barack Obama winning the election. In all of the battle ground states Obama won the majority of the vote (that's more than 50% for those of you not mathematically inclined), therefore it was impossible for Romney to win those states if he garnered the votes he supposedly lost to far right opponents. I might add that Obama didn't need Florida, and at the time of this writing they are still tallying votes. In New Mexico, the state in which Gary Johnson was governor, Johnson only posted 4% of the popular vote. Obama won a majority of the popular vote there so even with Johnson's votes Romney would not have won. The bottom line is, Romney would not have won even if he was more right wing. It may have been something that chipped away at his final tally though.

There is the idea that the "gimme stuff" crowd, or those on government assistance, of some form or another, ended up being the majority of the voting block, and therefore, won the election. The problem is that even with the most generous of math, meaning you total everyone on welfare, then add everyone on food stamps, then add everyone on SSI, and or Social Security, then assume none of these demographics intersect (which they do quite a bit), then assume that they are all voting (which didn't happen), and voting unanimously for Obama (which also didn't happen), you can, incorrectly I might add, come up with a voting block that is %37 of the population, about 115 million.

Here's the problem. about 121 million people voted. That block of 115 million, if it were accurate, would have been about 95% of the total popular vote. Obama only won the popular vote by a scant 3%, so that rules out the idea that those on public assistance voted unanimously for the President. According to most exit polls, about 40% to 41% of those that voted made below $50,000 per year. Despite the old welfare queen urban legend no, you cannot make 50k on public assistance, so our public assistance demographic is in the lower end of that range. 60% of that 41% voted for Obama, meaning out of the entire electorate,  not even 25% both made under $50,000 and voted for Obama. Add to that, of  those making less than $30,000 per year, Obama won 61% of the vote. To put it in perspective, if you assume, very generously, that Obama's main vote came from 20% of voters and assume that they are even exclusively a demographic who live on hand outs, then factor in the percentage of the electorate who cannot possibly live on handouts (those who make more than 50k), those who voted for Romney, about 31%, of the 50k plus block  would have nullified the generously overestimated 20%  of the electorate that was the Obama "free loader" vote. Basically, you are stating that 20% of the vote won the election for Obama, with 80% of the vote to play with. What?

Romney  lost significantly among women, minorities, and voters under 40 years old. He lost with significantly with non protestant voters, 60% of whom voted in favor of Obama, thus neutralizing the Evangelical vote.  Basically the core of Romney's votes came from white males over the age of 40.  This sort of trend was repeated in other races through out the country. To say the least, in a society, that is being ruled less by  so called "old white guys," and is seeing the increasing influence of empowered women and empowered minority groups, the Republican party is seeing its demographic shrink.

Many in the GOP continue to point the blame to the electorate. The data I see says something quite different. It shows a party that is out of touch, that has dated rhetoric, and, above all, attempted to put forth a candidate, that it didn't wholly believe in, in order to perform the already daunting task of unseating an incumbent president.

I consider myself a conservative. I believe in limited government and self accountability. The problem for me is that the party I used to belong to has focused more on attracting a fringe element, such as the religious right, racists, and homophobes, that have no place in a party that is supposed to be for those who seek individual sovereignty, and limited government. The party has sought more to counter act the left under the guise of serving their constituents, then actually serving those who elected them.  True Republicanism doesn't have to be the antithesis of the Democratic Party ideology.

One of the results of this election may be the eventual splintering of the GOP. There are many, like me, who want to escape the will of the Tea Party faction, and the religious right, in order to steer the party more toward the center. Many of us want to get away from the bile these extremists and obstructionists.

We have allowed the liberals to be the signal barers for issues of personal liberty that should have been ours to sponsor from the get go. We've allowed them to champion issues of individual sovereignty, such as reproductive freedom, civil rights, sexual preference, anti-prohibition, and anti-censorship, in the name of courting a religious fanaticism, and fighting off a red menace, that doesn't exist. We've allowed these factions to make us look out of touch, belligerent, and like buffoons to the press.

We've created enemy lines in our own nation by allowing incorrect usage of terms such as communism, socialism and fascism, in order to castigate well meaning opponents as enemies of the state in which they serve for their support of issues that aide our aims in enhancing personal sovereignty. We've become, not so much the vanguard of limiting government interference in the personal lives of the electorate, but the proponents of institutional abandonment.

The key to Republican success is simple. We embrace the ideals of individual and personal sovereignty.  We ditch the religious right, for their ideals about sexual freedom, abortion, censorship, prohibition and what not fly in the face of personal sovereignty, and limited government. They also alienate a good portion of voters. We distance and disassociate ourselves from right wing media, who are not as much true conservatives as they are anti-liberal, and divisive.  As always, we also speak for fiscal rationality, and attempt to eliminate the idea of running under budget deficits.

The idea is that Republicanism, supports individual freedom and liberty. Any legislation would either enhance those freedoms or would be voted down. One's personal liberty should not interfere with another's. For this we use the idea our nation was built on, majority rule, with minority rights protected.  For instance, one's health enhances one's personal liberty in that one is not tied down with medical bills.Therefor legislation to reduce pollutants, would in fact be an enhancement of the majority's personal liberty. Education creates freedom of opportunity and personal independence,  therefore legislation to improve education, enhances personal sovereignty.  Civil rights isn't a matter of big government interference, it's a matter of enhancing personal sovereignty, just as ending slavery of all kinds was at the inception of the party.

The idea is something that crosses the divides of class, ethnicity, gender, and sexual preference. It creates a diversity of a opinion within our own party, and refocuses us back on the core principles that Republicanism was founded on.  It doesn't put us in direct opposition to everything the Democrats stand for, it just makes us different. It changes our coalition, makes it stronger, and encompasses the will of those who seek freedom. It will attract a new breed of Republican that will supplant the irrational tea party/evangelical coalition. In due time, it would change the face of a party that is in dire need of diversity and thus change its reception by the public. Most of all, it would help to grab the demographic that did determine the election, that being 35% of voters who consider themselves conservative or moderate, that ended up voting for Obama.

Now the question is, who am I fucking kidding?

The Typical Introduction

Hi. My name is Joe. Yes, Joe. I am your typical cynic, who can be found in the wild residing in many of the subdivisions of suburban sprawl. Now that we've weeded out anyone looking for inside information on Snookie's bra size, I will continue.

Truth be told I don't know why you want to read this blog. I may be just another faceless voice, screaming my frustrations at an apathetic world. Truth is, I've dabbled with this before and I really didn't get anything from it, but, as it turns out, I need to keep my opinions off my facebook page, because I'm starting to upset people, or make them block me, and honestly, I have so much to share there .I mean it, I do. My mom is on facebook and I've blocked her from half of the shit I post.

Truth be told,  some of my friends bring up stupid shit so this is a place where I can express my opinion without attacking them directly. In essence though, ff you think that anything posted on here is a direct response or attack to something you said, you are incorrect. The only reason I post anything is because I see it as a train of thought from a group of people or even humanity in general, so don't take it personally.

I invite discussion and respectable discourse. Address others as if you are inviting discussion, rather then pontificating. I will do my best to moderate, but keep in mind I'm not impartial. Please attempt to use some form of respectable grammar and spelling, write as if you deserve to be heard and not as if you demand it.