Should we support the May 2nd Gas Strike?

It seems that a new Gas Strike Day has been planned for May 2nd, 2008.

While I understand the move, I think we are looking at the wrong fix. A one day strike is more of a hindrance to we the people than to Big-Oil.
Shouldn't we instead focus on finding alternate energy sources?
Shouldn't we act more responsibly and favor smaller cars over SUVs and other Tank-like vehicles?
Shouldn't we stop wasting our resources and change our life styles instead?

It all seems to me like pandering rather than a willful stance for change. I think I will certainly meet the strikers at the pump, the day before or the day after the strike.

What do you think?

Ten Reasons Why I Do Not Support Barack Obama for President

Dear Reader,

I would like to take a bit of my busy Sunday to formulate a response to Obie Fernandez - a renowned developer for whom I have utter respect - who wrote this article about why he supports Barack Obama and I should too.

Dear Obie,

Allow me to espouse your outline of 10 points to better counter-argue your article and give you food for thought in regard to the upcoming presidential election.

1. Style and Integrity

You argue in this point that through his speeches and debates Obama has given you the sentiment of an honorable man, who speaks truth and acts with integrity. Well, I guess I will have to pop the bubble for you, THIS IS exactly why he is a lawyer, and a politician. Never mistake charisma for truth. Charismatic persons are like a bottle of good wine! Drink the bottle, it will taste great but you still end up drunk!
Instead of digging dirt to discredit your man, I will instead revert to experience to formulate my judgement on his integrity:
Obama voted against the Iraq war resolution, and stated he would oppose funding for the war. He proceeded to vote for all of the funding authorizations.
While in style he differentiates himself from his democratic foe Clinton, nothing differentiates them in government action there.
On the war, there is only one candidate that comes to mind when it comes to style and integrity: Ron Paul.
Ron Paul not only voted against the Iraq war resolution and all funding for it, but he also gave what would today be considered a Prophetic House Floor Speech on Iraq on October 8, 2002.

2. Timing

Do you really believe that there is a hidden civil war in America because of race, religion, and culture?
Assuming you are right, what makes you think a black President is the answer to ending racism and religious conflicts within our borders?
If I am to follow your current thought process I would be electing John McCain for President in order to end the war in Iraq. Indeed, who better than a war veteran who has been tortured in Asia would know the atrocity and pointlessness of war? My answer to this argument is: You do not need to try the flame to know fire can burn. Wise people use collective experience as if it were their own.
On the idea that a civil war is brewing in America, I do not entirely disagree with you. I just disagree on the causes of it.
America's currency is crumbling.
America's reliance on foreign money is rising daily.
America's debt is at an all time high.
America's middle class is disappearing.
America is facing what is expected to be one of its toughest recessions.
America's inflation rate is at 10% - An all-time high.

How does Obama intend to avoid a civil war for bread when our dollar is not even worth its printing paper? By funding some more war with Iran this time?
I urge you, reader, to do your homework and research on the causes and solutions to our growing economic aches ( direct answers to homework provided at http://www.ronpaul2008.com )

3. Religious Stance

In one sentence I will sum up your point:
Obama is religious... but almost!

If we are to read Article 6 of our beloved constitution,

no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Since religion is a non-issue when it comes to being President of the United States, allow me to make it a non-issue when it comes to electing one.

4. Political Talent and Ability (and yes, Experience)

In truth, you are right about the talent part. He does have certain oratory skills. I just wish he practiced on his own speeches rather than his speech writer's.
When it comes to ability, he is definitely able to work past partisanship when his ideas fail. Actually, this is what irks me the most. Why not fight for your principles? Why fund a war you did not initially agree with then say you were against it all along?
Did I miss Experience? Oh well, forgive me, so does Obama.
Seriously, he yet has to finish his first term as a Senator, and though I do believe , like Corneille, that

I am young, it is true;
but in souls nobly born valor does not depend upon age

I cannot judge the man on his valor, for his actions have gone against his principles, and since principles are derived from values, going against them thus diminished his valor.
Also, allow me to not consider oratory skills as valor, for eloquence is to a politician's promises a marvelous wrap to a mediocre gift.
After all, Napoleon had it right:
If you wish to succeed in politics, promise a lot and never give a thing!

5. Talent to Inspire

This is very true, and worrisome. Once the euphoria of the moment wears down and the inspired unwrap the gift inside the beautiful words, what will we find?
A man who, like many before him, has sold us 'Change' but has really never changed anything but his own principles.
I find myself most inspired by a man who stood by the constitution, strictly, for 30 years and 10 terms as a congressman, 50 years married to the same woman, grandfather of 18 grand-children, and a lifetime as an Obstetrician/Gynecologist delivering more than 4000 babies. A man who stood by his word, his actions, and our constitution, whether inspiring new friends or foes. That to me, is inspiring.

6. Not a Clinton

... but very close.

7. Bi-Partisanship

I equally dislike both parties today. The democrats were elected in Senate and Congress - in which they hold a majority of seats in both - to end the war, and congress just passed an extra USD 500, 000, 000, 000 ($500 billion) to continue fund it.
Republicans (except for Ron Paul) seem to want to stay a hundred years in Iraq.
Now one thing can be taken for granted, Ron Paul would stand any day as the only true bi-partisan President when it comes to obeying the constitution, and this should be good enough for we the people of America.

8. Understanding and Views About Technology

This point is where you threw me off a bit. Obama voted for renewing the Patriot Act!
Once again, this goes back to the illusion of principles through rethoric. In other words, Obama is using his oratory skills to make us believe he promotes an agenda he has stood against.
Let us try to get this straight. Obama is okay with having the government spy on all our communications, including new media like the internet and you find that stance on technology attractive?
One question though, are we going to have to buy a Real ID card sweeper to browse the internet comes November?

9. A Strong, Black Role Model

I believe you are plain wrong. We need the President of the United States to be a role model to all Americans, not just the blacks.
And truly, if black people needed a black role model to succeed, how did Obama get to where he is? I do believe you are giving very little credit to Martin Luther King or Rosa Parks, and are unconsciously blaming other contenders for not doing enough.
You really want to help the black community? Why not look at Ron Paul 's stance on ending the war on drugs? Maybe we would be able then to give a real role model to all those kids whose fathers are doing jail time when they should be working to help an overburdened working mother to raise them.

10. Intelligence

Intelligence is a false argument, because we use our own to judge other's.
And while you are comparing him to George W. I would ask you to judge with an open mind, as "Dubya" won't be running this time, but Dr. Ron Paul, a well-learned, well-mannered, well-principled, and well-intentioned Doctor will be running on the real platform of change, whether it be in our foreign, fiscal, or monetary policy.
Unlike any other running candidate to the Presidency this year, he will be running on the intelligence and experience of our founding fathers.

Now many of you or your parents have heard very little about Ron Paul. And that is a good sign, for in an empire of lies, truth is the enemy!

Now more than ever, a December 16 they will never forget!

In light of the latest 'Youtube' republican debate one should heavily wonder why the media have overtly declared war on Ron Paul at the detriment of their journalistic ethics. Whether or not a Ron Paul supporter every reasonable person watching the debate will attest to the fact that Giuliani or Romney had more time allotted to them during their first exchange than Dr. Paul had during the course of the entire debate. With such a disparity can one undecided voter make a true educated decision on the candidate he or she should support?

Certainly not.

With such an imbalance can a reasonable viewer say that CNN was respecting their oath of impartiality, as journalism ethics dictate?

Certainly NOT!

Was the debate biased in favor of those candidates to make it more interesting?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!

Now that we know that this debate was not meant to educate, persuade, or amuse, what could have pushed a news network to have so blatantly usurped their power and fed the American people this masterpiece of totalitarian run journalism?

The answer is rather simple:
However popular and trusted, CNN or FOX are nevertheless privately owned networks, and therefore are less inclined to respect ethics than to please their owners. With this said, it is usually in their interest to milden their views to attract more people, as is the case with CNN, or to take position more openly to cater to a more faithful audience, as is common FOX News strategy.

What happened in this debate, however, is a grave miscalculation on the part of the media. While they have successfully and subtly provided viewers with front runners for decades they have revealed an ugly agenda this time. They have tired and disillusioned millions of viewers who stared in disbelief in what looked more like a bad joke than a true debate.

The internet and more importantly, the web 2.0 - whose philosophy claims to bring a social aspect that helps bring people together - has enabled millions to gather their own evidence in the quest for a President, and gosh, is it different from what was force fed to us in the tube on the 28th of November!

A revolution is brewing, yes, but a beautiful revolution indeed! Knowledge has never been closer to us as it is today, people have never felt closer to us as they do today, and more importantly, the truth has never shined so brightly as it shines today!

They have managed to take over our TV sets and advertise their vision of who should have a chance in the race for the presidency. But fear not, my people, for the (GQ) dark horse of this race is carrying the message of peace. The lord of the night will see the light of day, and on December 16, we will show them the fruits of our revolution, as they have never seen before, for on that day, History shall be written!

The illuminati 2.0 have names: Kevin Rose, Mark Zuckerberg and many others have shown us that free speech is nothing without free thought!

More than ever, for our liberties! Let us show them that truth will prevail!

Politics 2.0 - The Ron Paul Challenge!

Have you been following the latest political debates and diatribes ?
Well, if you haven't, do not hastily run to your TV set just yet, dear reader, as the real news seem to be coming in force from another powerful media, our most beloved Internet.

There is no doubt the web 2.0 trend has invaded our homes and lives in multiple ways. It has only been a year since Youtube came out, and you won't find anyone around who hasn't heard of it, not even from the deepest caves of Afghanistan. Myspace, thefacebook, digg, reddit and other user generated content websites have unleashed the power of a new web, more powerful, more instant. Distances have never felt so short, and people so close.

In an effort to ride the wave, democrats and republicans alike have setup 'Youtube' official election debates where users were able to ask questions via videos posted on Youtube... Pathetic. Partisanship totally aside, I believe the Youtube-sponsored democratic debate of April totally missed the point of the 2.0 philosophy. CNN selecting which videos be shown? What a joke, what a contradiction!
The web 2.0 philosophy was born with one principal at the center of the scene, the user.
What is the point of having a Youtube sponsored debate if the videos do not represent necessarily the wish of the users, a la Digg.

Isn't the point of politics to give a voice to the people through popular voting?

Popular voting being the principal ingredient feeding the web 2.0 and politics makes of the internet a major tool for political purposes - at least in theory.

In practice, one candidate stands out in the web world, and one only. His name is Ron Paul.
I would love to introduce him to you, but I'm sure if you read me now you know all about him already. He represents an iconic figure for the web, as his success may very well point out the power - or lack thereof - of the web 2.0 as an accurate platform for determining our politics.

Ron Paul, so famous on the web CNBC had to pull its latest poll off its website, argument being that the results (largely in his favor) may have been hacked, or are part of a massive internet campaign for the candidate.

Is Ron Paul going to live up to his virtual fame? Are his online numbers even closely representative of his true worth on the presidential election market?

Let me know what you think...

Ann Coulter - An American By-Product?

In yet another controversial pronouncement, conservative media freak Ann Coulter has revealed once again her true ugly self. While we may deem her comments of Monday as a sad but regular attack on the ever so stigmatized Jewish people, "We want Jews to be perfected" may just be touching the surface of a deeper American problem.

If you had the luck - or lack thereof - to be raised in beloved America, chance is you were taught two different theories on where we, as human beings, come from. Evolution, also known as Darwinism, and another theory, Creationism, based on the book of Genesis.
While Evolution is regarded as the scientific approach to the sempiternal question of our provenance, Creationism is solely based on the religious beliefs that dominate our society.
The danger of not relying on scientific concepts when teaching the history of our existence manifests itself in people like Ann. Teaching Creationism at school is but the first step to enabling such idiosyncrasies to persist in the minds of people whom you would think as intelligent. Refer to the latest voted legislation at the European Parliament regarding the dangers of teaching Creationism at school.

Ann Coulter, like many others (she clearly is representing a current of thoughts) adheres to a neoconservative ideology that merely portrays the WASP group as the perfect American society. Obviously, because they are - supposedly - educated, they understand people, their differences, their flaws as an ethnic group, and we can't but believe they must have put together a ladder of American Perfection. From her comments, Jews must be scoring high enough on it that everything would be much easier if they were just Christians. The question is, easier for who?
Did the jews come to you to complain about their hardship in America?

The true reason is it would be just easier for you and your likes, Ann, because as it is, you must do a hell of an indoctrinating job to explain to your peers by religious a + b that Christians are the perfect Americans, the fed ex way to heaven as you like to put it. I would love for you to answer that simple question actually: Why do Jews not believe in Christianity?
But I don't expect you to, actually, or at least, not in an intelligent, reasoned, logical fashion.

One could easily compare your comments to what monsters like Hitler or Ahmadinejad have advertised, but I would rather call it human nature. After all, as animals, we live to belong, and as humans, we lust for power. Associate both traits of the human character and you know we all want to at least believe we belong to the strong. Yes, Ann, I understand you, and where your comments are coming from. From my own traditional, antiquated, non-perfected mind, I rationalize your thoughts, because I can...