we took over the world
 
it's obviously a bit of a stereotype (in the most logical sense of the word) to assume all pro-lifers are republicans.  the common sense reality of the current political landscape makes that stereotype reasonable for the sake of some arguments.

historically, republicans have also claimed to be the "small government" party which, on paper, seems like a reasonable cause.

this NPR piece, in talking about a judge striking down certain provisions, illustrates how those two things have become so diametrically opposed it seems unsustainable.
 
 
recently, GOP presidential hopeful michelle bachmann was cracking jokes about how god was sending earthquakes and hurricanes to the east coast to warn politicians about bloated federal spending.  despite some criticism to the contrary, at the time she said this bachmann was clearly kidding.

unfortunately, there are two things about this statement that make it clear that she is the joke.

1.  someone capable of being president doesn't kid around about natural disasters that killed/will kill americans.  that's as callous and ignorant as possible; it shows a dramatic lack of judgement and an almost sociopathic inability to sympathize with others.

2.  she may have been kidding with this, but the statement does not stray too far from her widely chronicled religious beliefs.  she is the type of person who believes in a god that takes a proactive role in punishing or rewarding (mostly punishing) behavior in real time.  this type of belief eliminates the ability for someone to have the type of pragmatic perspective needed to be president. 

luckily, bachmann is becoming marginalized in the primary.  if that trend continues, the threat of her holding the nation's highest office will go from 'dwindling' to 'impossible'.

yet, it's still frightening that collectively voters have not laughed her out of the race.

we have to do better.   
 
 
the pinnacle thus far of Obama's presidency is the affordable health care act.  it is the peak of what democrats consider his success so far, and also the legislation conservatives say is the most damaging.

in fact, there's quite a bit of heat behind the philosophy said legislation needs to be repealed.  that is, the first legislation in generations that is designed to address a runaway problem should be eliminated and all potential progress erased.

that is what the current climate of absolute politics does to us.  it erases the possibility of all potential progress.
 
 
"GOP may OK tax increase that Obama hopes to block" is the way one associated press headline reads.  your eyes are not playing tricks on you.  you read that correctly.  Obama wants to block a tax increase. the GOP wants to okay it.

the same GOP that nearly brought apocalypse to the american and global economies by demanding no new taxes now wants to raise them.

so what's the difference now?
 
 
the triumvirate of the federal government that makes a bulk of america's decisions has long had their elections on the same day. 

while the 6-year terms in the senate are staggered so about 1/3 of them are up for re-election at the same time, this is not enough to give the american people a fair shake at deciding the balance of government.

there is another problem with our federal election process:  the lack of term limits.

these two things combine to create a smoke and mirrors situation where the only constant is complete chaos.
 
 
every american has probably forgotten, at some time or another, that the things they say matter.

sometimes that leads to nothing serious, and others the damage done by words can be immense and long-lived.

recently, two high-profile americans seem to have forgotten to mind their words and, because they are elected officials, we need to hold them accountable.

especially when one senator is making threats toward his peers.
 
 
when 2 of the GOP presidential hopefuls are connected to a theology called dominionism, voters should probably take notice. 

in short, dominionism is a philosophy that christians should run the world.  quite literally, those that follow the philosophy believe that christians need to infiltrate the government and control how the world operates.

this article explains it more thoroughly.

what's important is that Bachmann and Perry are both connected to the philosophy and why them being president would be problematic for the land of the free.
 
 
american voters have a nasty habit of voting based on things that don't significantly impact the general welfare or the country or things that are patently false.

one of the most egregious examples of this phenomenon is that if you want to vote for a fiscally responsible president, you have to vote republican.

in the context of debt ceiling increases, that is patently untrue.
 
 
last night, republican presidential hopefuls took to the stage to, according to Webster's, engage in a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

that definition of the word debate would allow for a reasonable exchange of ideas concerning a particular topic that, in the context of presidential hopefuls being the participants, affects the american people.

what we got was back-biting and childish.

and it also gave us a knowing look into what we can expect from a republican president.
 
 
beyond all odds, every single american can agree on one thing: the federal government spends too much money.

the challenge comes when people begin arguing over where spending should be cut and will likely be an issue until the end of man, or the united states becomes China-West.

some of those people like to defend trickle-down economics, but the unfortunate reality of that philosophy is it actually IS realized here.

in the rhetoric about federal spending cuts, every politician claims to have the best interests of the american people at heart, but do their actions really reflect that stance?