Abortion

I see so many political conversations start at, or lead to this issue. Many of them are discussions about why people should be voting a certain way. The stance of many Christians seems to be that we should all(Christians) vote for the Republican because thats the party that is "pro-life", and claims they will work to overturn Roe v. Wade. While many Christians that vote Democratic are attacked and accused of not caring about that issue or ignoring it.

The truth is I feel that we to often have let this issue be hijacked and become little more then a guilt trip to try and get people to vote a certain way, at best we have let it become a wedge between brothers and sisters that makes us argue, fight, and treat each other in a not so Christ-like manor. So why do we do this??

It has been over 35 years since the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down. If we include Nixon who was in office at the time, we have had 7 different Presidents since then. 5 Republicans, and 2 Democrats, and Republicans have been the majority in the house and senate more then half of those 35 years. This is an issue that nearly every Republican candidate(Pres. or otherwise) I can remember has used as part of his or her campaign, and yet, I am left asking, what has changed??

I am anti-abortion, I wish that we lived in a world where this didn't happen, but the reality is we do, and changing a law won't change that. My own son was nearly aborted, but by the grace of God someone talked to his BM and gave her an option. Now, I'm not naive enough to think that adoption alone will stop abortions, much like I am not naive enough to believe that making abortion against the law will stop it. After all the law doesn't seem to keep me from going 70 in a 65, and I'd guess your experience with the law is similar. Honestly, I wish I knew some way to make it stop, but I don't, nor have I ever heard or seen a realistic idea from anyone else. But what's more troubling to me then that, is that we allow this issue to be used by people who don't know either. 

What I do know is that electing a Republican or anyone for that matter is going to stop it, history has already proven that. One thing we can and I think we should do is stop letting this moral issue be hijacked by politicians, and used to divide us. Maybe then we can actually get somewhere on the issue.

Socialism???

I'm just gonna be blunt, I'm a simple guy, not an expert on this or many subjects. But this is how I see it. 

I hear and see the word socialism thrown around a lot right now, mostly by those attempting to spin things in order to make Obama's policies seem as though they are anti-american or something. Heres the thing, if you look at our country with any sort of reality you know that this country has practiced socialism on many fronts for decades, maybe much longer. So if thats true then its clearly not anti-american. Sure we like to consider ourselves capitalists, but ultimately our country functions somewhat well because we have a fairly even mix of the two. In fact before the Rescue/Bailout plan our government already accounted for and/or controlled between 20-30% of our economy, with the plan it could be 40% or more when all is said an done.

Also in this country we have Social Security, Medicaid, Unemployment, and Welfare just to name a few programs. All of which are funded by money we or companies are required to give to the government. The reality is most of us have or will receive some benefit from at some point in our lives. In all likelihood we already have a friend or family member that does. Now obviously some of these programs have some issues, and need improvement, no one will argue that. But my question is this, ultimately if we remove the lefty/righty distortion glasses and look again, what's so terrible about them? And if there is something so terrible then why hasn't something be done already in order to get rid of them? 

Obama has said time and time again that he wants to re-evaluate government programs in order to maximize effectiveness and spending, and eliminate those that are no longer working.

McCain's claim is that he would use the line item veto and cut some of them, or "freeze" them. However he has had nearly my entire lifetime to vote on, fight to improve, or dismantle these programs, but his record shows he has supported or at the very least voted for most of them.

In Alaska, Gov. Palin started giving money to the taxpayers, by essentially taxing the oil companies more. Ironically something Obama wants to do. She was applauded for this, heck, I applaud her for this. But from what I have heard, most authorities on the subject would call this a form of guess what, thats right, socialism. 

So call me crazy, but I'm confused as to why this claim or attack even exists. If we want to have some strait talk, we are all taking part in socialism. In my opinion that seems to be a good thing. We need to keep a healthy balance between socialism and capitalism, I think as long as we do we will be better off. I also tend to think the whole mess we are in financially comes back to that balance getting skewed. Maybe we let our greedy little capitalist side take over a little to much. 

Supermajority or Super-Supermajority, thats your choice.

I was wondering when people would start to talk about this, and it seem that something has finally clicked in peoples minds. I actually think at this point we have a choice of a "supermajority" or an "super- supermajority". I'll explain how that works. 

I brought up this Supermajority idea to someone(a financial guy of 20+ years) several months ago, asking how he felt about that. To my surprise his response was, "Well, hows that going to be different with a McCain win?". He went on to say that he thought even then McCain was a long shot, so if McCain were to win, it would only be because the right had worked so hard for him, that they neglected the smaller stuff in the process. You know, like the re-election or election of congressmen and senators. Because of this mistake, McCain as President would have a choice, 1)basically be a lame duck from day one, with little more then Veto power. Or 2)work with a Dem. controlled house and senate to move things in the direction they want to go, so at least there was some progress.

So basically, if he goes with option 1, the best he could do is veto bills and budget line items. But if he can't really accomplish anything else he promised, even the people who voted for him will start to turn on him after a few short months. Its also a dangerous situation because he would be extremely easy to pin everything bad on, because lets face it he is not willing to work with them. If he goes with option 2 he essentially turns his back on the very people that elected him. Sure maybe he can get one or two of his policies and promises to happen. But at what price, how many more of their policies or even worse, those pesky earmarks will he have to let slip past his veto pen? The same one he has promised to use so much.

I have to admit I hadn't thought about it quite like that before, but like it or not he has a point. At this time it seems the mistake has been made and at the very least its extremely likely that there will be a Supermajority. If that happens I think McCain might as well be Bush, Bush might actually look better. If he loses and Obama wins, which seems more and more possible every day, we have a Super-Supermajority.

So Supermajority or Super-supermajorty, thats your choice.