Leadership and Hypocrisy

Today, I was in a political discussion with one of my managers and a co-worker. They are both Bush supporters, and they were repeating the popular mantra on the "right" about how "leadership is doing unpopular things" in reference to the war in Iraq. I engage them in conversation about how Bush spends like a drunken sailor on liberal social programs. For example, Bush signed the largest increase in federal education dollars ever, signed a HUGE medicare handout package, and spent a ton of money on a HUGE farm handout bill. My boss and co-worker both responded "Well, he had to do that, or else he won't get re-elected. He had to throw them a bone." I responded "Yeah, but he threw them the whole frickin' graveyard instead." They didn't see the irony in their statement... so I had to add "You just said leadership is doing the right thing even if it is unpopular, what makes this so different?"

I can't remember what answer they tried sputtering out, but they changed the subject quickly.

The point in the matter is that you cannot defeat the enemy of freedom (the statists, not terrorists) by becoming one yourself. If Bush wanted to gain my vote by developing liberal social policy, he was sadly mistaken. Now, I have the choice between the centrist-liberal Bush or the centrist-liberal Kerry.

In other news, I found a nice website in http://www.wasteyourvote.com Another co-worker had told me that I am "wasting my vote" on the Libertarian, Michael Badnarik. I couldn't help but respond "I'd rather 'waste my vote' than endorse either of those lying assholes." Instead of fighting for the tiny differences between Bush and Kerry (like whether or not I can invest 2% of my social insecurity), I would rather voice my displeasure over both. If everybody that strongly disagrees with both Bush and Kerry were to actually vote for third parties, or vote for Cthulhu (because you are tired of voting for the lesser of evils), or vote for themselves, et cetera... There would be a bit of panic amongst the current power structure in the federal government.

I hope everybody will agree: our "rulers" in DC need to be scared once in a while.

Bush... Kerry... No real difference

Many people already realize this, but many don't:

There are no major differences between George W. Bush and John F. Kerry. Lets go down a list, shall we?

1) Both support gay civil unions, and both oppose gay marriage
2) Both supported the extension of the "assault weapons" ban
3) Both support the Iraq war
4) Both support remaining in the UN
5) Both support the continuation of the unconstitutional federal War on Drugs
6) Both support the continued existence and growth of a myriad of unconstitutional and/or dangerous alphabet-soup agencies, such as the DEA, ATF, FDA, and IRS
7) Both support so-called "free speech zones" (also known as "protest pens") at their conventions and stump speeches
8) Speaking of conventions, both support taxpayer funding of their conventions
9) Both want to reduce state sovereignty and increase federal power (ignoring the 10th amendment)
10) Both support unconstitutional FCC powers restricting free speech
11) Both support the USA PATRIOT act (Kerry voted for it, Bush signed it into law)
12) Both support increased Medicare spending
13) Both will continue the Social Security ponzi scheme
14) Both will sign off on pork-barrel spending
15) Both will continue giving away Billions of taxpayer dollars in foreign aid
16) Both will continue to blindly support Israel, even though we lose money and lives on this one-sided alliance

There are some tiny differences between the two candidates. Bush wants us to invest one to two percent of our social security in private accounts. Kerry says none. Bush wants to cut taxes and spend more, putting us further in national debt. Kerry wants to raise taxes and spend more, putting us further in personal debt. Kerry wants more nations to join our troops in dying in Iraq and other countries, while Bush would be just as happy if we were at it alone.

Instead of pulling yourself apart deciding which of these two evils is slightly less evil, why don't you simply not vote for evil at all? You have several different options:

1) Vote for a third party. I prefer the Libertarian party myself, but you can pick another one if you'd like. You are not wasting your vote if your candidate doesn't win, you just send the message of "I don't like either of you bastards." If enough people do that, the powers-that-be and the powers-that-want-to-be may start to pay closer attention.

2) If no third party appeals to you, do as the Guns and Dope party suggests, and write in your own name on the ballot.

3) Don't vote. One of my favorite authors, Claire Wolfe (from whom I... ermm... borrowed this blog title from) takes this approach. Ms. Wolfe mentions the "Conspiracy of Freedom" in her new book, "The Freedom Outlaw's Handbook, 179 things to do 'til the revolution." It is a good read, and I suggest everybody buys a copy.

If you keep voting for Evil and Slightly-Lesser Evil (which ever party or candidate happens to fill either particular role at any particular moment), you will keep getting evil. Even worse, you are putting your seal of approval on evil.

Please... just stop doing it, for goodness sake (literally.)