Don't Vote?

First I want to say that yes - I plan on voting in the '08 elections. I plan on voting every time I get the chance, especially city and state votes. No matter how much you despise the political machine, you have to recognize that all of the cogs in that machine are the citizens of voting age, and the only way to affect the outcome of the machine is to do what you can as a cog and see what outcomes you can make possible.

So I guess it's time to look at the collective cogs over in Iowa for this "caucus" thing I keep hearing about. I don't know if it's just me, but every time I see "caucus" all I can think about is "raucous" - which inevitably is more of a synonym than anything else. The events seem like a boisterous and disorderly jumble of voters and people with confetti yelling and accomplishing little other than start off one in a long series of pissing contests.

I say "pissing contests" loosely, because the goal of any REAL pissing contest (as regulated by the Urinary Competition League) is distance or volume or something measurable - whereas these pissing contests feature people lined up on each side, pissing at each other. Clearly it's impossible to determine a winner, other than the Least Covered in Piss award. You can't even evaluate teams, because standing on one side of the line doesn't mean that people on the same side won't be pissing on you all the same. And sorry to all you femenists out there, but pissing contests are traditionally a man's game, seeing as we're better equipped to compete. You're more than welcome to participate, but you can't piss and moan about needing a handicap. Well, you can piss - but as I said, probably not as well as men.

Following on that train of thought, Obama beat out Clinton (the female one) in this Iowa Caucus. With all Democratic precincts reporting, Obama had the support of 38 percent of voters, compared to 30 percent for John Edwards and 29 percent for Hillary Clinton. Bill Richardson came in fourth and has decided to continue onward to New Hampshire (the next pissing contest venue) - while Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have reportedly dropped out of the running.

With 92 percent of Republican precincts reporting, Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, had the support of 34 percent of voters, compared to 25 percent for Romney. Fred Thompson had 13 percent, McCain had 13 percent and Ron Paul had 10 percent. Huckabee attributes his jump from single-digit numbers a few weeks ago to the rallying of evangelicals and other social conservatives. "We won the silver ... You win the silver in one event. It doesn't mean you're not going to come back and win the gold in the final event, and that we are going to do," Romney said.

The fact that there even ARE caucuses in the first place just illustrates the point that the whole "popular vote" is a myth. While it's totally true that in the final election for president one candidate can have more individual votes than all of the other candidates, I'd hardly call that the "popular vote" and I'd never call it a "majority" - I might admit to calling it the "most votes" or something like that. I mean, if you divide up the voting population, with a whole half-n-half Red and Blue (and whatever Independant would be, lost in the sea of red and blue), you have to recognize that each side doesn't wholeheartedly believe in their candidate. I mean, trusting a politician is definitely the wrong choice of words, but it's that there are primaries and caucuses where chunks of voters are disillusioned. So you'll never have a majority vote.

No matter how much I dislike the process, though, I'm not a nutcase like one of my old high-school friends. I received an E-mail saying that someone had invited me to a group on Facebook. The name of the group is what stopped me mid-thought as my blood started boiling: "Don't Vote in 2008"

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7815999347

Seriously. I cannot make this idiocy up. Get an eyeful of the group's description!

This group is for anyone thoroughly disenchanted with the electoral college, the US political system and the bullshit that every single presidential candidate spews on a daily basis. For those who don't want more of the same in 2008 and beyond, or for those who don't want a system where a person can win the popular vote and yet still lose the election, don't vote.

Take direct action. Write or e-mail your congresspersons. Start a rally, a protest, or a passive-aggressive Facebook group. Whatever you do, don't buy into the bullshit any more. DON'T VOTE.

My favorite bit of irony is that the people this group is directing its members to contact are congresspersons. You're fighting the machine by TRUSTING the machine?? I really don't know what this group even wants as a result! It apparently wants to change the way that the political machine works, but doesn't want to do that with the logical process of voting for new people in charge who can make the changes or voting for any changes themselves?

I'm totally hoping that none of them come to the shocking revelation that getting people aligned to their cause and NOT voting means that every vote by people NOT aligned to their cause becomes more effective. In fact, I'm totally hoping that my posting this, I can bring some publicity to their little Facebook group and get more idiots to join and not vote and make things easier for the rest of the cogs who are trying to make things happen by actually voting and doing our part in helping to lead the country.

In fact, maybe I should just make my own group, called "Don't Vote in 2008 (if you disagree with my views)" or something like that.

But seriously, you should vote and do your part come Election Day. Unless you disagree with my views.

(Here's where I got the Iowa Caucus numbers)


Read more!

Back to Waukegan - Voting AGAIN?

This is just ridiculous. I thought I could be proud of Waukegan, a city so close to the metropolis of Chicago where I live, for voting 7-2 a while back to approve the application process for federal training for their law enforcement to gain the ability to deport illegal immigrants. And it turns out that they caved in to the protesters and nay-sayers and "scared Latino community" and there's actually going to be a re-vote.

If Waukegan's City Councilmen wind up changing their vote as a result of protests and claims of "racial profiling" - they no longer deserve to be aldermen.

Here's the deal, people. This vote doesn't mean that all of the police get to go around and bust into your house and demand to see a green card or they're kicking your ass out to Honduras or Mexico or wherever you're from. This vote doesn't even mean that the local law enforcement officers are going to be trained at all! This vote is about filling out a freakin' application!

Guess what? The federal government could say "no" to them!

Furthermore, if the application goes through, it's not even like every cop is going to have this power and they're all gonna be on the lookout for anyone darker than Screech from Saved by the Bell so they can harass and deport on sight. The application is to get federal training in deportation for TWO OFFICERS. Which means that there wouldn't be a lynch mob roaming the streets looking for anyone speaking Spanish. It means that when a criminal gets arrested for a serious crime and turns out to be an illegal immigrant, instead of having to send notification to the I.C.E. in Washington D.C. and having to wait for paperwork to get filed, which is often too late - now they can start that paperwork at the source, in the local police agency.

It's to get rid of criminals who are AGAIN breaking the law - first by entering our country illegally, and then by committing another heinous crime against our citizens and getting caught for it.

But the Latino community is still in an uproar. "They're going to racially profile us," I can hear them whine.

Hey! If you're here legally - and you're not breaking the law by committing violent crimes - you've got NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT! The fact that thousands of Latinos are signing these petitions and complaining means their either they're too dumb to realize that if they don't break the law, they're not going to be arrested and deported - or they're mostly comprised of criminals because they're here illegally and they don't want anyone to catch them and deport them for it!

Every time there's a possibility for a law to catch a new group of criminals, look at those who are against it. There's a good chance those people are against it because they're going to be found guilty of it - which means they have the most to lose.

That's not racially profiling. That's LOGIC.

The Waukegan City Hall only has enough seating for a few hundred people. Over a thousand are expected to show up in protest. Only those people with tickets are going to be allowed in.

I say - they should have to have a ticket and a GREEN CARD or other proof of citizenship.

Only the legal citizens of a city should be allowed to help decide how their city is governed and ruled and protected. You can't let the criminals make the laws; there wouldn't be any.

I support 287(g) and call upon the City Council of Waukegan to make the right decision.

The one they already made.

A few articles about the vote tonight:
This article
And this article
Okay, one more article

Read more!

Chicago vs. PETA: A Step In The Right Direction?

Before reading this, you might want to catch up by reading the previous parts of this Chicago vs. PETA series:

PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
PART 3: Chicago vs. PETA: The Lawsuit!
PART 4: Chicago vs. PETA: The Uprising!
PART 5: Chicago vs. PETA: The First Offense!

And join us in the sixth installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. In the third part I got to speak of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA) who believes so strongly in this cause that it's practically paying for both sides of the legal battle, based on the fact that it's unconstitutional to make a city law overturning something the federal government approves, let alone deciding what people can/cannot eat. In the fourth part I got to talk about the restaurants fighting back and how more were serving foie gras than ever once the law took effect. In this fifth part, we learned about the first victim of the law and how little the city even cared, other than the media. In part six, the mayor has decided to reconsider his stance on the issue.

In fact, if all goes well, Mayor Richard M. Daley may have just put into motion the proposal to rid his fine city of this unsightly legal blemish once and for all.

Heck, the man even finally admitted that the city council's initial decision led to "the funniest law they ever passed". And while he didn't veto it outright (like he should have) when the law passed his desk, he's now agreeing with the masses that it's a horribly stupid idea in general and has taken steps to correct his mistake in letting it slide.

Chicago Mayor Daley signed on to a repeal proposal introduced by two city aldermen, according to his spokeswoman. This went into effect on Thursday. The original ban angered some restaurant owners and gourmets (as well as a few bloggers like myself), who argued that the city was going too far by restricting what residents could eat. Daley criticized it also as a waste of the city council's time, but he didn't veto it.

This change of heart MAY have something to do with the fact that the city was almost caught up in yet ANOTHER storm of disapproval as the city of Chicago's councilmen decided to downgrade their new attack on trans fats. They had previously been considering a NEW ban on restaurants using trans fats to cook food, but after the outrage of their previous "food ban" idea, they downgraded it to a "negotiation" and possible "compromise" with the Illinois Restarant Association.

Going from a ban on "animal cruelty" food to a ban purely based on nothing but "wanting to be healthier" - I don't know what the result would have been, but I'm assuming protests and fires might have been possible outcomes.

We have the right to eat unhealthy foods. No ban is going to stop that. No law ever should.

So a possible step in the right direction is taking place on the foie gras issue. The council's Health Committee will vote on the issue and decide if it should be brought before the city council. Who might finally come to their senses and NOT be swayed by PETA and other animals rights "boo-hoo" criers who prey on the ignorant like themselves - people who don't bother to learn the facts and forget that people are animals too.

Stay tuned for more in the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate. Read more!