Politicians, politics, and political supports are hypocits.

It’s quite interesting how politics can be as hypocritical as possible. It is OK for one candidate to do something but not OK for the other candidate to do the same thing (one is doing it because “he would be a good guy in office” and the other is doing it “because he wants the votes”.

Perfect example, recently both candidates (Barak Obama and John McCain) have said that now is the time to try to help people in the gulf coast in preparations for hurricane Gustav. Now is the time to make donations, help friends and family in need, communities to work together, and for “us to act like Americans”. It is a great thing for both candidates to day.

So why is it that a lot of people one minute would say “See, this is why Obama would be a great president, he’s being proactive about this” but then a few minutes later they’ll say “McCain is only doing this to look good and/or get votes” (and I’ve seen people say the same with the candidates reversed). So, it is OK for the candidate that you like to show this kind of support but not OK for the other?

People complain about their (the politician’s) inconsistencies but then come out with inconsistent statements like this. People, that is hypocritical. How dare people complain like this and moan about politicians’ inconsistencies when the complainers themselves are inconsistent in their support.

The reasoning? Political parties. Most people who debate politics are very biased towards their on party and their party’s agenda and ignore the other sides strengths. Personally, I hate political parties. I’d say get rid of them, we don’t need them. This political bickering is what slows down our progress (along with lawyers trying to find loopholes to exploit and/or close). Just imagine, people might actually have to research who they vote into office as opposed to voting strictly by R, D, and I / other.

Breed speciific legislation - a double edged sword.

I consider breed specific legislation a serious problem here in the US. It is a very sharp double-edged sword.

On one hand, legitimate and responsible breeders and owners are kept from owning the breed in question thus reducing the number of people trying to improve the breed. With the reduction of responsible owners and breeders you have a much higher percentage of irresponsible owners and breeders thus making a bad situation worse.

Now, this breed that is labeled as a bad breed will get nothing but bad press from the bad owners and breeders making it seem like there is need for stronger legislation against the breed.

And it spirals downward in that direction.

On the other side, instead of the bad part of the breeders and owners into this breed, they now get into other breeds making them a “bad breed” in the eyes of the people who write these laws.

Perfect example:

Pit bulls have a very bad reputation in the US. I don’t think anyone would argue this point. From what I’ve also seen, a majority of the pit bull owners and breeders are irresponsible (note: not all). Pit bulls are also the choice dogs for dog fighting.

So, states, counties, and cities are banning pit bulls making it harder for these people to own them and the few that do, are less likely to be responsible with their breedings and ownerships.

There are a lot of people now who can’t get this breed so they want to continue with their dog fighting and irresponsible ownership so what do they do? They get into another breed. Shepherds, bulldogs, Dobermans, rottweilers, and so on. Now, there is a more dominant bad element with these breeds. So what happens? The politicians start to make legislation against these breeds. I’m already seeing places ban shepherds (one of the most loyal breeds out there, if well bred, trained, and owned).

The solution? That’s easy. Stricter guidelines for breeders and certifications for dogs (allow dogs to be bred that meet a standard) and require all dog owners to go though at least one set of training classes with their dogs. Don’t discriminate, educate people on dogs, how they act, how they thing and so on.

People need to wake up and see that banning specific dog breeds is not the solution.

George W's War

This came to me in an email so I cannot cite it's source but it does put a perspective on things.



No one likes war. War is a horrific affair, bloody and expensive. Sending our men and women into battle to perhaps die or be maimed is an unconscionable thought.

Yet some wars need to be waged, and someone needs to lead. The Citizenry and Congress are often ambivalent or largely opposed to any given war. It's up to our leader to convince them. That's why we call the leader "Commander in Chief."

George W.'s war was no different. There was lots of resistance to it. Many in Congress were vehemently against the idea. The Commander in Chief had to lobby for legislative approval.

Along with supporters, George W. used the force of his convictions, the power of his title and every ounce of moral suasion he could muster to rally support. He had to assure Congress and the public that the war was morally justified, winnable and affordable. Congress eventually came around and voted overwhelmingly to wage war.

George W. then lobbied foreign governments for support. But in the end, only one European nation helped us. The rest of the world sat on its hands and watched.

After a few quick victories, things started to go bad. There were many dark days when all the news was discouraging. Casualties began to mount.

It became obvious that our forces were too small. Congress began to drag its feet about funding the effort.

Many who had voted to support the war just a few years earlier were beginning to speak against it and accuse the Commander in Chief of misleading them. Many critics began to call him incompetent, an idiot and even a liar. Journalists joined the negative chorus with a vengeance.

As the war entered its fourth year, the public began to grow weary of the conflict and the casualties. George W.'s popularity plummeted. Yet through it all, he stood firm, supporting the troops and endorsing the struggle.

Without his unwavering support, the war would have surely ended, then and there, in overwhelming and total defeat.

At this darkest of times, he began to make some changes. More troops were added and trained. Some advisers were shuffled, and new generals installed.

Then, unexpectedly and gradually, things began to improve. Now it was the enemy that appeared to be growing weary of the lengthy conflict and losing support. Victories began to come, and hope returned.

Many critics in Congress and the press said the improvements were just George W.'s good luck. The progress, they said, would be temporary. He knew, however, that in warfare good fortune counts.

Then, in the unlikeliest of circumstances and perhaps the most historic example of military luck, the enemy blundered and was resoundingly defeated. After six long years of war, the Commander in Chief basked in a most hard-fought victory.

So on that historic day, in a place called Yorktown, a satisfied George W. sat upon his beautiful white horse and accepted the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, effectively ending the Revolutionary War on Oct. 19, 1781.

Endangered animal habitats will be, well, endangered

If the Bush administration has their way it will be up to agencies who conduct projects like highway development, commercial and residential development, and so on, whether or not their projects will endanger the habitats of endangered species.

That's right, the people who stand to profit the most from these projects will decide if animals are in danger from the projects or not. Sure, the way our government has been going they won't let a thing like MONEY get in the way of protecting endangered species. What next? Allowing pedophiles decide if they should be allowed near children or not?

Seriously, this is a bad move. We need to protect our planet and legislation like this will surely do the opposite by allowing the destruction of animal habitats for the benefit of a few already wealthy politicians and developers. Because of legislation like the endangered species act stopped the over-development of places like the Florida Everglades which has proven to be highly important to the local ecosystem. Now, we will be able to witness the destruction of such species on the brink like wolves and the buffalo. Nah, we don't need them, that superhighway is more important. Oh, and since we'll have the superhighway, we might as well build a 500 acre mega mall with a 1500 acre parking lot.