Uneducated Voters: The Downfall of American Politics

Disclaimer: this is not based on any Scientific evidence, rather the inner workings of one politically motivated idiot. I've had the idea of expressing my views on this subject matter for quite sometime, yet due to time constraints and writers' block I am only now publishing. Here it goes:

I am sick and tired of our generation referring to themselves as believing in certain idealogies (i.e. liberal, moderate, conservative) which, in turn, prompts them to vote for a particular party to which they really have no idea about only because they have been force fed these political views their entire life.

I admit, I am one of those people.

Don't get me wrong, I have no intentions of passing any blame on my parents, or even your parents for that matter (if this describes you); yet simply put, this phenomenon is an "An object of conditionality" that has enclosed our generation to a feeling of apathy in forming their own independent ideas about the political environment in which we exist. What I mean when I use the phrase "object of conditionality" is that the conditions that we live, work, and play and the people that we consistantly interact with are the key variables in determining how we think politically. We live under a democratic style of government(yes, you could argue that we are more of a true Republic by James Madison's definition, nonetheless international politics have defined it otherwise, and so we will call it a democracy) that's main truth is "choice" or "freedom".

The basic freedom of a democracy then must be the right of every person who is of voting age to vote. Here in lies the biggest problem. We are caught up in the idea that the "power of the people" lies in your sole ability to directly elect the leaders who represent you. Which is, in its purest form, correct. What we forget, however, is that the leaders we elect have all power and authority (within our system of checks and balances) to pass laws that directly affect our everyday lives.

This past presidential election could be best characterized by the "get out the vote" initiative, especially among my generation. The best example of this was Sean "P. Diddy" Combs' "Vote or Die" campaign (which in itself was quite strange). The idea behind it was that we as a nation would rather see 80%(or more) of the entire nominally qualified population of our country vote, educated or not, than we would a smaller, more educated and qualified group. This, in turn, has the biggest backlash because citizens that shouldn't be qualified to vote, are qualified. There vote can then be directly attributed to my theory of conditionality. I don't say that to incinuate that the constitution should be amended to raise the qualification standards for which one can have voting rights. I do, however, believe that by raising the number of voters, the level of political education should also increase.

Our government is too strong an entity for it to controlled by "conditionality". We need citizens who have a clue as too what they believe in. When our forefathers wrote the constitution, they did not foresee an America that was apathetic towards the basic freedoms that its governement entails.
If you claim to be Democrat then know what Democrats believe in. If you claim to be Republican, then know what Republicans believe in. Don't claim to be something that you don't know anything about. Hell, just don't vote the next time we have elections.

Uneducated voting should no longer be tolerated within the political landscape of our great nation.

My Rebuttal

I don't know if many of you read Drew Snyder's webpage on a consistent basis, but I try to as much as possible. He has an uncanny way of combining intelligence and wit through unrivaled articulation to bring you the latest news from his own perspective. That being said, when I got home today I turned my laptop on to engage in my usual routine of "blog checking". I usually begin with Snyder's page, if not for the simple reason that has established himself as the "blogfather". His blog is the easiest place to start from given that he has links to everyone else's sites. As the page came up, the title of his latest post caught my attention. It read, " Shooting off at the mouth", to which I thought to myself, "sounds interesting, I will read". As I began, I had no idea where this article would take me. Much to my surprise, it was about me and my "so-called" relationship with the elite society of friends based in Clinton, Mississippi who call themselves "The Dudes". (I recently wrote an article on this blog about some of the inner struggles among this group). Drew's article was filled with accusations that I claimed to be a member of this group when I am not, nor ever was. As the article reads from SnyderNews.Net, "Bradley Lum, the newest blogger on the block, has committed a grave error in the close-knit Clinton society by proclaiming himself 'a dude'." It goes on to read, "For Lum, a known associate of "The Mikes" - a rival to "The Dudes", to claim membership without formally being "made", his presumptuous and reckless statement could jeopardize his prospects when Dude leadership officially selects new members." As you might imagine their are quite a few questions that come to mind after reading this. First, when I made the move to Clinton as a young, immature fourteen yr. old, who immediatly became the first people I affiliated myself with? If I recall right, it was Garret "the parrot" Nowell (who just recently got engaged, congratulations Garret), Matt Flanagan, and John Lassiter who were all affiliated with the First Baptist Church in Clinton at the time. Correct me if I'm wrong but I have a hard time believing the "leadership" of this group we are speaking of was in place prior to the year nineteen hundred and ninety-eight. If these statements I have made hold true then that would mean I was around before the creation of this "elite society" thus in some indirect way granting me "founding status". However, it would be possible for me to have met both Flanagan and Lassiter, taken a three year hiatus and then rejoined after the group was already formed, yet I don't recall that happening. Second, who are "The Mikes"? I will be the first to admit that the personalities of certain people, namely the mikes, clash with those of "the dudes"and some actions they have taken don't sit well with members of the group, but does that mean that are a "rival group" infringing on the territories that "The Dudes" established almost a decade ago? Are they a violent group, would they do anything to get what they are after? I believe that the answers to these questions are all a resounding "no". If "the dudes" allow these actions to bother them in some way wouldn't that be adding fuel to the fire they don't want to start in the first place. This would be all the mikes need to give them any reason to believe they have a chance at gaining the status "the dudes" have throughout Clinton and most of central Mississippi. The bottom line is this, I have been an active participant in this organization for almost half of my natural born life. I am a few years younger than most of the members of this group, therefore making it difficult for some to view me as an equal. I'm ok with that , as long as we get all the facts straight and understand each other to a degree that it benefits the collective group as a whole. All thoughts welcome:

Don't hold back - Vent, Vent, Vent

(To be read in a jokingly and completely serious, all at the same time)

As I was reading the post on the other "dude's" blogs (lay, lassiter, tangy, and ooon kyle), it occured to me that their is alot of held in emotion that has no organized avenue at which to express itself. I'm not so sure this is the absolute best thing for the collective group as a whole. Hunter's reluctance to post anything else, Josh Kyle's idea of "blogger profiling" and the women he has offended, and the Buckster's harsh, curse word filled post, are all just a few examples of animosity felt amongst friends at this so critical juncture in our rich and storied history together. We may not all live in the same town anymore (and probably won't ever again) but the friendships that have developed over the last decade are ones that should last a lifetime. Besides Thew's consistent belittling of me (which I am ok with after much counseling), we've had a pretty smooth past. Let's not forget what we've come through together and what we will accomplish in the future.

*I apologize for leaving anyone out of the picture, i.e. Tangy, Chandler, Buckster, etc. This was the most recent picture I had access to.

Why ask Why?

Have you ever pondered something, anything really, and said to yourself, "Why"? Toddlers do it all the time. Everytime the mother or father makes a statement, it is usally responded to with the question, "why".(i.e. Mother says, "Milk will make you healthy, so drink your milk!" The child, more times than not, responds with "why?") Now I'm sure that the mother has an idea of why the milk is healthy for the child if she recalls anything from ninth grade biology class, however, she really doesn't have an educated response to the exact reasoning behind it all.

I believe that we do this alot in our everyday life as well. No, it's probably not as miniscual a question as the above example but nonetheless we don't have reasoning or substance behind much of what we do. We live in a baseless society that has no roots in which to believe in. We do things in a hurry, with no regard for life outside of our own. We don't know many of the answers to life's questions, but it's not because they aren't there, it's only because we don't inquire. We have no ambition of learning outside of our own introverted world.

I'm sure at some point in your life you have heard the phrase "Knowledge is Power". Well if that is true, then the key to knowledge would be that simple three letter word, "Why?" If we used it more often, who knows what could be learned. The possibilites are endless. Do yourself a favor and start asking "why". You never know what you might find.

Only in Massachusetts

A public school district in Massachusetts has decided that teaching math with an "anti-racist" theme would be more appropriate than the "good old cut and dry" that we all grew up learning. The teachers in these schools have been instructed to do more than just teach multiplication and division - they give their students lessons on how to purge what they consider racism. The parents in this very rich, very liberal community believe that the district is trying to be to "politically correct" instead of teaching basic math principles. Superintendents for the Newton School District say that they are only trying to teach "respect for human differences." The objective is for students to "live out the system-wide core value of 'respect for human differences' by demonstrating anti-racist/anti-bias behaviors."(fox)

Some parents say their students not only are in desperate need of math help but that they also don't know the basics of U.S. history and that anti-racist policies are getting in the way of teaching the basics.

"The 'antiracist' and, actually, 'anti-American' curriculum permeates the school environment," Lillian Benson, whose children, ages 8 and 11, attend the district's schools said. "My children do not know Christopher Columbus, except that he was a racist who caused the death of many innocents or the founders of the nation. They have hardly heard of George Washington or Abraham Lincoln even though we live in the area that began it all. What they do know about is the wonders of Ghana, Mexico and China," she said.

And so the debate continues...Will there come a point in time when we say, as a nation, that we will no longer teach our children "differences" in Blacks, Whites, Reds or Yellows, rather teaching them that we are people designed to live in a state of racial equality. I believe that the moajority of Americans, no matter what race have come to grips with what has happened in or history and by looking back on it in a negative manner, we lose all chance for a positive future.

Are you serious Hugo?

What in the hell is this guy thinking? I don't know if you have been keeping up with International Politics lately but the leader of Venezuala, Hugo Chavez, has decided that after 50+ years of democracy, it's time for a change. He has taken drastic steps in the recent weeks and months in forming a Totalitarian Dictatorship. As Venezuala is the fifth largest producer of oil in the world, he is in control of 15% of the United States oil imports. Much of the money made on these imports has been directly used to buy weapons from Russia, namely 100,000 Kalashnikov rifles and 30 attack helicopters. There also have been discussions about a possible $4 billion purchase of advanced MiG fighter jets. The newly appointed Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice was quoted as saying "I think we have to view, at this point, the government of Venezuela as a negative force in the region".
Hugo, Hugo, Hugo. You really shouldn't do that. As my father would say to me, "You're cruisin' for a bruisin'". Did you just wake up from a deep sleep? Are you still a little disoriented? The United States just dismantled two countries with ease because of these types of shinanigans and here you go wanting to "test the waters". Well Mr. Chavez, as you will soon find out, the water temperature will not be to your liking. To put it best, when a senior U.S. Department official was asked about this potential threat he calmly replied, "We shoot down MiGs".
Be afraid Hugo, be very very afraid.

Prologue: Philosophy on Impulse

So it begins. I told myself I wasn't going to get involved, that posting on other people's blogs would suffice. Nonetheless, I could contain my thoughts in random postings no longer. I have no idea where this might take us, however I can say that it will be interesting and informing, sometimes disparaging and always stimulating. I would never intend to upset anyone, but if standard dialogue irrupts into painful disagreement, who am I to intercede. So go on, allow yourself to indulge into these Philosophies on Impulse.