1st 21st century american presidential election

I guess I thought the last post was my last here, but I only feel in the context of this blog --- that a word about the current presidential election in the u.s. might make some sense.

First --- I call this the first election of the 21st century because --- I consider the Bush years a hang over situation - nobody payed any attention and when we finally recovered the whole system was in total meltdown - so the 2008 election presented no " choice ".

Now, the current election sort of represents a choice --- like choosing between --- the front of a dime and the back.  Obama I guess would be on the FDR side.  Boy, how far we've come in a couple of hundred years.  Unfortunately, for all the money going into it, it's not really that entertaining --- and anyway it's hard to make any judgments period because all the info on this thing is so " filtered ".

Many people think this may be a " pivotal " and significant election in the overall picture of where America is going... Not so sure about that.

Personally, I am not so much for Romney - but that's mostly because I have to give Obama all my style points --- I just think Obama is cooler.  Otherwise we're talking more on the order of ice cream flavor.

--- I'm thinking I will avoid this blog in the future --- guess it's me at my most blow hardiness --- so these might be my last words here.

Basically, the American people have a lot of hard work to get themselves out of the crap hole that they have built for themselves, especially if we want to consider ourselves involved with the progress or process of democracy.   I'd like to blame it on somebody else, Iraq, China, Iran, Russia, Germany, Japan, England or France, etc.   but guys and girls --- it's us.  We the people, and have done this to ourselves and it's not pretty at all.

In order to do that ( get out of this crap hole ) we have to encourage our good qualities.  If anybody wants to know about what " good qualities " you are surely looking on the wrong blog. But in particular, the economic issue is simple.

An economy is based on trust. There is little trust left in our economy, hence
the economic situation we are viewing today.

One more thing

Mostly liberal and conservative apply as to actions. For example you might
say a person was conservative about raising chickens, as in he only raised
two per year, or a person was liberal in planting corn - meaning he planted
a lot of corn. Also you might say a person was conservative in making a
decision or likewise liberal in that way.



I think that when they are used as nouns as to describe a group - especially
a large group it's a little silly, because people can not always be conservative
in all their actions or always liberal either. Most likely, if they were consistent
always in liberal or conservative actions they would just go around in a circle.




In conclusion, if you want to make things better, first think about what it is
you're saying, as in people talk a great deal, often, but in the end very little
is really said.

Conviction & Belief

Sometimes the idea of conviction and belief might seem the same. By my thinking
the ideas are somewhat different. For example someone might have an experience
which creates in themselves a conviction about something. It could be trivial or
significant and the following is an example of that and how it might relate to
belief.

Someone, from experience or study might conclude that wine has a beneficial
effect on them. They might view it as beneficial to there well being or health
or perhaps in some other way. However, it is also possible for that person
to be involved somehow with a belief or belief system which suggests to them
that all types of alcohol has a pernicious ( i.e. bad ) effect. This in my
mind represents an example of how convictions and beliefs might differ for
one person.

Now I would like to apply these concepts to another pair of terms, that
is liberal and conservative. Now in themselves both words suggest both
positive and negative ( good/bad ) ideas. Liberal suggests forward looking
and open while conservative might suggest care and caution. Both of these
perspectives have value.

Now consider two individuals that have convictions about firearms. One
might feel that it is important for all " citizens " to possess or carry
firearms at all times. This might be a conviction based either on personal
experiences or even perhaps study and examination. Now, it might be possible
that this same individual has beliefs resulting from other causes that
are in complete disagreement with there convictions yet those some convictions
might be so strong that they have become focused in such a way that they
will always have a firearm.

Now, it is also possible to imagine a second individual who has convictions
that no one should ever possess our carry firearms and yet it is also possible
to imagine that person associated to a belief that suggests it is valuable
or prudent to possess or carry a firearm. If you can not imagine such a thing
just consider a Quaker in the military ( that rarely happens but it's possible ).

Now if you had to guess you might think that the first person was conservative
and the second liberal. My opinion is that there is no way to really know that,
and my reason is as follows. Say the second person was actually a Quaker. Now
that person might associate or value caution and he might be very reluctant to
embrace change rapidly and also might associate with people who feel that way
and so might be considered a conservative. Now the first person might on the
other hand may very quickly embrace change and in his outlook on life might be open
to new ideas and new behavior, yet these ideas might not conflict with his
conviction on the issue of firearms.

This is of course a very brief examination of these ideas but I believe
it would be possible to consider many such scenarios from which one can
conclude that from the point of view of a single individual the label of
liberal or conservative could not be applied based on either particular
convictions or beliefs.

Christopher Columbus

Quick note --- Christopher Columbus went straight ahead to get to the " new world ". You will note that going straight ahead - he avoided going " left " or " right " ... which would have actually been - North or South in his world. Doesn't that make a lot of sense in terms of direction ...... Personal note --- I'm having a serious issue with "" quotes ...

Religion & Politics

There is a saying, avoid conversations involving politics or religion. The justification for this is the conversation will go on " - forever - ". That seems to be a good reason, and therefore you find that among males - a preferred subject would be - spectator sports -. Hence, today we find that both politics and religion have tended to move more into the direction of - spectator sports -.???><<

Now, I have only a few words on this topic, but a question naturally will arise as to the difference between politics and religion and that is a good question. Most people do like to think of them as different and of course there is the wonderful notion of the separation of church and state. I think that is a notion that requires a good deal of " introspective " thought, because that separation exists in many ways in the minds of the people who believe in it. To my knowledge it is quite difficult to actually build a measuring device for that separation. The examples of the issues that present them selves in this way are very numerous, and I would prefer that you introspect yourself on account of - it has a lot to do with your point of view on those subjects.

I must note the following - both politics and religion have concerns about behaviors. This is a very personal idea - but generally it seems that religions try to encourage " good " behaviors - while governments inspired by certain political perspectives may try more to discourage other " bad " behaviors. And now the conversation turns around the issue of " good " and " bad " which is also connected to " who's in charge, now? ". If we throw in another subject - say - science - and ask how does science play with those two modes of thought - you get something else interesting - because for example we do have the learned topic of " political science ", but hardly anyone ever discusses " political religion " as a general topic - all that much - and that, maybe, a good thing.

I will say this - many people are quite religious about their politics and some people are political about their religion. Not too many people are " scientific " about either their politics or their religion and that might not always be such a good thing - in the sense that science likes to remain objective, and tries to use " facts " simply to make the point as opposed to more emotional arguments relating to how things should be and why.

Back to the end less conversations resulting from the topics of religion and politics I would note that sometimes they can be shortened if people try to listen as well as talk. That would mean to listen to someone who is expressing something with which you disagree. Also, I have often noticed that if you do discuss science at all, those conversations can often be quite brief unless they connect somehow to some religious or political current. Finally, and I believe this would be the proper domain of " psychology " but an interesting question would be over all, do people fall asleep more at science lectures, religious meetings, or political gatherings? I hope someone has studied that.