Everyone needs to know what they have in this world, and decide what they're going to do with it.  You have to decide what is most important, and what the ideal world would look like.  Then, realistically, choose a course of action to pursue that goal.  Don't worry about whether it can be done, the only way to know is if you actually do it.  Know who you are, and what your purpose is.   

A few wishes:

1. That people with agendas would not take a few words and deliberately take them out of context to serve their own interests

2. That candidates would actually work to support the ideals they say they believe in, rather than breaking people's hearts by promptly jettisoning the ideas that got them elected

3. That professional politicians would take their country's interests at heart, not just those of their political future

4. If politicians change their minds, that they would have the guts to explain in a coherent manner why, and not deny that they have in fact changed their minds

5. That campaigns would be focused on issues of substance, not on silly non-issues that get blown out of proportion

6. That candidates and parties would promise policies that make realistic sense, and not silly fantasy policy that will buy votes

7. That media would check their facts, and not get overly obsessed about certain topics at the expense of all other worthwhile news

8. That media would not perpetuate the lies by repeating the words used by political hacks with agenda

9. That for once, people are not forced to choose between two extremes

10. That people in government would be held accountable for incompetence

Mmmm...cheese.

Okay, it seems like some irritating people are posting advertising in the form of comments... you all are a bunch of losers, anyone who does that.

Well, it's not like I get a lot of readers anyways.  But I'm really curious to see whether my silly title would get any fake 'web journal' comments.

Don't bother looking to read the comments.  If you do that, you really have no life. 

A few things I can't stand:
1. People who make promises they can't or do not intend to keep.
2. People who portray themselves as being a paragon of virtue- only to be caught in a corruption and/or sex scandal later.
3. People who focus on tiny little excuses for issues that really, really don't matter (you know what I'm talking about, the lapel pin, flag burning).  There are a lot of people who really know how to make a mountain out of a molehill.
4. People who capitalize on the public's fear.
5. Ridiculous political language used only to hide the truth so that the public won't hate you.
6. Cheaters who break election rules.
7. Anyone who treats voters as if they are complete idiots.

With all the continual "How will this controversy affect this candidate?" and "what does this poll mean?"; I have to say it's all just too much.  The honest truth is that most people are either a) not paying attention, or b) only casually tuning in.  That of course means that all of these poll numbers probably tell us absolutely nothing about what will happen in November, or even next month.  There are a lot of voters who might be unsure of their answer on the phone, but when they get into the voting booth they go with their gut feeling.  I know that for a fact, as I was one of them.

I saw a poll on CNN that said "this many people will switch to McCain if Obama/Clinton doesn't win."  I'd look at such a poll with a grain of salt.  I think the actual number of people who would switch to the other party is small.  Clinton and Obama's policies, for all their sniping, are not that different.  Once the nastiness of the primary season is over, I'd tend to think almost all loyal Democrats would go with the party nominee.  If they were really that upset about it, they'd vote for an independent or not at all (but not Nader- not after 2000!).  I know, I know- Democrats like McCain.  But I think that's because of his past record of working with Democrats, and the "straight talk" that seems to be rapidly disappearing.  If you think a Democrat might switch, ask him/her if (s)he thinks US troops should be in Iraq for 100 years.  Now I know that that's an exaggeration, but you know who said it.  I'd be surprised if they truly like McCain that much.

Are people really going to change their vote because Barack Obama's pastor scares them?  I don't think so.

I shudder to think that anyone who truly actually believes that Barack Obama is a muslim might be voting in November.  There have been times when I have thought, 'the voter turnout ought to be higher,' to the point of considering whether voting should be mandatory (as in Australia).  Then again, how smart are the people who are not voting?  Of course, I don't know the answer to that question.

In terms of Stephane Dion not bringing down the government, here's what I say: sooner or later, people will get tired of Stephen Harper.  They'll see him for who he really is and they'll demand they get a government that gets results.  When that time happens, it'll be time to bring the government down.  I don't think Canadians want a government that spends all its time playing political games and shamelessly doing everything it can to get a majority.

   

I got another phone survey yesterday.  It seems so strange that I get another one so soon after the last one.  I guess that tells you that the calls are made at random.  Although I don't care for all the silly questions about botox.  I was really tempted to hang up on that string of questions.

Canada's prime minister is suing the leader of the opposition.  For libel.  Unthinkable.   And to think this all came up over an 'alleged' bribe made to late MP Chuck Cadman, and revealed by his wife who is now a Tory candidate!  Perhaps I'd feel more sorry for the p.m. if he didn't seem like the kind of politician who would say or do anything to win elections.

I don't really want to comment on Eliot Spitzer.  It just seems really sad that yet another politician has irreparably damaged his reputation and career (and possibly his marriage) in such a shameful fashion.  But that seems to be all over CNN.  Campaign coverage can push a lot of important stories out of the limelight, but sex scandals are always major news.

Why oh why do politicians' supporters have to open their mouths and say something stupid?  Samantha Power, Geraldine Ferraro... even Bill Clinton earlier in the campaign.  Sometimes you have to wonder whether people are thinking before they speak.

I recently was called on the phone to do a survey.  This survey was only the second time I was willing to go through with it.  A very short, two-minute one this time.  If it's about opinions, issues, ideas, I'll take it.  If it's about what toilet paper I use, I'm really not interested. 

I feel like there's a lot of people who are unwilling to put up with phone surveys.  My father and sister always refuse.  I can understand that, but I think I have a little more respect for such things.  Lots of political scientists use them for empirical data.  Although anyone with an honest bone in their body would have to admit, they all have limited usefulness because people are changeable.  People can change their answer on a given question based on how they woke up that morning.  I don't have proof of that, but determining who is going to win an election is not like proving the existence of gravity.

I actually took a course on quantitative analysis.  It had some really complicated formulas- and I am not talking about variance or standard deviation.

So, Democrats voting in Wyoming and Mississippi.  Somehow I don't think Obama and Clinton will be campaigning there afterwards.  I have to say, I really did not think they would be focused on winning in Pennsylvania.  Campaigning in April was something of the past, I thought.

I really don't see NAFTA being significantly changed.  Just a teensy bit of catering to the voters, I think.

Congratulations to the New York Giants.  I have to say I rarely follow gridiron football, but beating a team that hadn't lost all season... poor New England fans.  I'm sure they gladly would have lost several of the first 16 if it meant they would have won the last one.

I have to say I was totally surprised to see the US presidential nominations still up for grabs past "Super Tuesday."  I thought with all the front-loading that it would all be over by then.  Okay, so now we know John McCain should be the man to beat, but the Dems are still deciding.  I just hope the person with the most votes is the nominee.  The Michigan/Florida thing is a real pickle, though.

I'm looking forward to the day when George W. Bush is irrelevant.

I have to say it has seemed a bit weird having a US presidential race with no clear frontrunner, let alone the fact both parties have competitive races.  I know in my previous post I was talking about early winners having momentum... but I suppose I ought to find it refreshing to have a few races lead to a foregone conclusion.

Is anyone else tired of ugly, dishonest rumours being spread about candidates?  Perhaps it is naive to expect people to play fair.  It is absolutely ridiculous that any candidate should end up spending TV time refuting baseless attacks from political opponents (whether they be from campaign employees or not).

What is Rudy Giuliani doing?  It sounds like a totally insane strategy to just ignore all the early races.  I'd be shocked if it works. 

I'm not opposed to primary elections and caucuses, but I have a few misgivings.

Why do Iowa and New Hampshire effectively get to decide which candidates will most likely be nominated? Winning those two states gives a candidate a lot of momentum.  I think you ought to let most, if not all of the country have more of a say in that.  Of course that makes things more expensive, but the candidates seem to have no problems doing that.  If you really wanted to have one or two states at a time, they could consider drawing them at random, rather than having the same two states each time. 

Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3?   The election is in November.  There really is no reason why the election season should start so early.   All that does is give months and months on end for nominees to trash the other with tours, speeches and attack ads.  The election starts absurdly early- they could easily start the actual voting process in the summer.

Restricting the primaries to party members may make the candidates effectively chosen by the most fervent supporters, who are often not centrists.  Presidents have to be the executive for everyone- they should not be pandering to partisan extremists.  Perhaps letting everyone vote in all primaries, as they do in Wisconsin?  Then again if you did that, you might not want all of the primaries/caucuses at once (just to guard against one night of madness).

The media's focus on the presidency really makes everything else something of an afterthought.  I know that's the nature of the US system and nothing would likely change that, but honestly- how many Americans don't know the name of their congressman?

Oh, the dreaded double post.  The darn thing was taking forever, so I clicked "post entry" again and I end up with a double post.  Not as if it needed any additional emphasis.