we are all flawed

I think at my young age I am still surprised, to a certain extent, at people's flaws and get disappointed too often.  But I've noticed more and more as I went through college, and now the challenge to make something of myself in the world, I have become less surprised and less disappointed in people.

Expectation is the problem.  Expecting somebody to be something is wrong.  Expectations tend to lead to realizing something, or somebody is flawed in some fashion.  If anything, it is best to expect that we are all flawed in some way.  Expectations also tend to impose ones view on another, and that too is not right.  But the paradox in all this is that expectations and disappointment is a flaw in of itself.

As I've aged, I have come to realize something about meeting and dealing with people, and that is learn to accept somebody for who they are.  I, or one person for that matter, cannot change somebody else or impose my-- their--beliefs on somebody else.  Realizing this has taken a long time, but it's a humbling experience because one has to realize their humanity.

I am mortal.

I make mistakes.

My views aren't shared by everybody.

I still have a ways to go in some areas.  I still argue relentlessly with my father about politics and history, knowing prior to even getting in the argument that his views are set based on how he perceives the world.  Us arguing will not change our perceptions of the world.

Lastly there is one other thing I'd like to mention that I've learned to do more and more.  It's a hard thing to tackle for anybody, and that is being able to admit to being wrong.  Not going to lie, it's hard, because other people have a tendency to rub it in.  The funny thing is that these people also have a hard time admitting to being wrong.

Hopefully you can take something away from this, if anything, acknowledging that we are all flawed in some way, and think twice before casting the stone.

Ron Paul out of step with Americans? I think not

Ron Paul's popularity is higher than it ever has been and after a third place finish in Iowa and a strong second place finish in the New Hampshire Primary, is a major contender for the Republican Candidate for President in the 2012 Election. However, fellow Republican candidates say he's out of tune with Americans.  Is he?

Let's break things down a little bit.  First of all, Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist, and believes our government should not exceed the limits put down by the framers in the constitution.  He believes in the Bill of Rights, laws that provide for our personal liberties and he opposes anything that would take away any personal liberties.  He has repeatedly warned the nation as a congressman of the housing bubble, deficit spending, and wars/intervention overseas creating enemies of the United States and not establishing friendly relations.

I would say all of these views by Ron Paul have been proven right.  As a president, he will propose spending cuts that would take off $1 Trillion in his first year in office, not after ten years, which the current administration and the heads of the Republican Party have been talking about the past six or more months.  His plan entails drastic spending cuts to end five departments in the Federal Government: Education, Interior, Energy, Commerce and HUD (Housing and Development).

Ron Paul voted against the Patriot Act, citing it essentially voids the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.  I can't tell you how many people I've met that were against the Patriot Act, and the current administration doesn't look to be repealing it.  Currently, around 78% of the population want all troops pulled out of the middle east, not just Iraq, but Afghanistan too.

Another area that Ron Paul gets a lot of unfair criticism is his views on Israel.  Many of the candidates and established republicans paint him as a person that does not want to side with Israel.  WRONG  In fact, Ron Paul believes the United States must maintain friendship with Israel, but not overstep it.  He believes in Israel's sovereignty to take care of itself.

Continuing with Foreign matters, established republicans also put a spin on his views on National Defense and his views on pulling out all US troops from bases around the world, citing that this would make the US weaker in the world and less safe.  Here's another way to look at this.  On the day we were most vulnerable, our military was unable to defend the country because they were stretched all across the world.  For Pete's sake the fighters scrambled to intercept Flight 93 had no weapons on board!!!!  So, in my opinion that's very weak defense.  Defense is about protecting something.  In football, defense is about protecting the line and holding the other team off from getting more yards.  If the defense went out on the field, ignored the line of scrimmage, and instead lined up behind the opposing teams offense thinking they can take that part of the field and get a touchdown, they'd obviously leave the rest of the field open for the opposing team to score and do whatever.  No analogy is perfect but this is what a lot of people think the US should be doing with its military. Protecting the borders of other countries while leaving ours scarcely defended is simply unacceptable.

Ron Paul wants to cut back military spending, but he wants to maintain funding for a National Defense of OUR BORDERS!  I really don't know how much more clear I can make it to some people.

And to finish up on foreign affairs, Ron Paul believes that if this country needs to go to work, it has to be declared by the congress.  The president has no power to send troops into foreign countries and conduct a war.  To be quite frank, that's enough of an infraction to get a president impeached and removed from office in my opinion.

Turning to other matters, Ron Paul wants to do a complete audit of the Federal Reserve, and if possible, get rid of it.  It's played a tremendous role in all these government bailouts to Wall Street, Banks and the housing markets, and let's not forget it manipulates the value of the dollar solely on the nation's credit.  The dollar is not backed by anything but credit.  Ron Paul wants to get the dollar back on a sound backing, and that would be with Gold.  I think most republicans agree with this, but many big government republicans may say all this stuff, but they really don't try.  And why should they?  They need the Federal Reserve to print fiat money to pay for their wars.

Dr. Paul also wants to legalize the use of medical cannabis, or marijuana, in the country.  Once again this would help cut spending, and it would also undermine the drug cartels in Mexico.  And with a stronger National Defense under his administration, there would be less violence from the cartels.  Dr. Paul's position is based off the failure of alcohol prohibition in the 1920's.  Once it was made illegal, the prices of alcoholic beverages skyrocketed, thus creating a very lucrative black market industry.  Crime rate went up dramatically across the country due to the organized crime involved in selling illegal alcohol.  Therefore, cannabis should be legalized.  After all, government shouldn't tell you what to put in your body.  A lot of people in this country believe the same thing.

I guess I better cut this short.  I just want to say at the end here that the Republicans have to look at some of their views, look at what the American People think, and try to change.  Isolating Ron Paul and his growing followers will get Obama re-elected, and continue the status quo.  Nothing will really get better if Obama or Mitt Romney get elected.  They're essentially the same, and clearly out of step with America.

Are extreme ends of the political spectrum the same?

Ever since I took a history course on the NSDAP (The Nazi Party) and a couple Modern British History courses, I've had an theory in my head that's never really gone away.

That theory is this:  Both extreme ends of the political spectrum essentially lead to the same thing; a state with seemingly unlimited authority over its people and the country's economy.  A state that will stop at nothing to continue to preserve itself at the expense of its people.

It all depends on how you define what the left is and what the right is and perhaps even a little bit of history of that country to help guide you on finding that.

So, what is the left?  In the United States and most of the western world, the left involves equality and increasing liberties to all, and economically it involves state intervention in the economy at all levels.  The left  sees the state as a way to help its people by making life easier for them by some kind of a welfare system, a national health service, and a pension system; all done to enhance the quality of life.

What is the right?  While the left is generally seen as a progression, the right is seen as preservation of society in that country.  Economically the right is against government intervention in the economy, and less government programs, as the government is seen as a barrier or force that can infringe on the people's personal liberties.

So what are the extreme ends of these?

Let's start with the right.  The way I see it, the extreme right can be two things:

1.  Complete Anarchy
2.  An authoritarian state with strict laws to preserve the country and a strong military police to enforce the laws and detain those that do not conform or meet the state's requirements.

And now the extreme left.  I see it as one thing:

An authoritarian state which controls the economy in all ways, high taxes, and sole provider for the people.  Whereas the far right has strict laws to preserve the status quo, the extreme left has strict laws to enforce equality and political correctness, but like the extreme right, the extreme left would have a military police to enforce these laws.

An example of the far right would be the Third Reich in Germany from 1933 to 1945, ruled by the NSDAP and Adolf Hitler.

An example of the far left would be the USSR in Russia, the Soviet State ruled by one party, the Communist Party and lead by many dictators, among them was Joseph Stalin.

It's in my opinion that there's very little difference in either of these, the only differences being how these countries got to this end.  Both lead to a tyrannical, authoritative state that says they're interested in serving the people, but in actuality, enslaving them to maintain the power of the state.  There can only be one voice in these places; both the USSR and NSDAP Germany banned any opposition to their parties.

Let me know your thoughts.  I intend to continue a topic of what is America?  Is it right, left, or maybe the middle?  What is the middle and can there be a equilibrium on the political spectrum.  And at some point I'd like to tackle the two party system here in the US.  Are they really all that different?