Every election year, the only two people the media ever wants to talk about are the two major party candidates. The Democrats push out yet another rich martini-swilling progressive while the Republicans yell "next" and present the next rich scary-looking old man in line. During the primaries, each candidate becomes a champion of their party's values. The Democrats are all super-liberal and super-progressive, promising vast sweeping social reforms and government programs galore. The Republicans are all real conservatives, ready to bring this country back to a smaller government and more open market. Then, the primaries end, the candidates are chosen, and both start sounding a lot more like each other. We have John McCain being an environmentalist, and Barack Obama citing "safety of the American people" when he votes to give the government more warrant-less wiretapping powers. Before you know it, Obama will be an Iraq War supporter.
It's clear that the worst time to determine a politician's loyalties is an election year. Pandering to every voter interest possible inevitably leads to contradiction and policy "flip-flopping." What's also clear is that when no one is trying to garner votes, the party lines are substantially blurred. The Republicans and Democrats work essentially as one party in the "off season." As a result, nothing ever changes.
People do recognize this. Many do not get involved in politics, citing "they're all the same" as the reason. So why is it, election after election, these same people pick the person they hate over the person they really hate? Why don't they vote for a third-party candidate?
The reason is because people love to be right, and too often, voters will vote for who they think will win rather than who they like. Voting for a third party candidate is seen as throwing a vote away, or worse yet, giving it to the enemy. Many cite Ralph Nader's 2000 campaign as an example. Nader is blamed for Gore's defeat because those making the claim assume that if Nader wasn't running, all of his votes would have gone to Gore. Many of them probably would have, but there is also one other important fact: Gore won the popular vote in Florida and thus the 2000 election. It was the supreme court that made the determination that Bush won. Nader's votes wouldn't have tipped the scales because they were already tipped in Gore's favor.
But even if that sentiment was true, it was the sentiment itself that made it so. It's not impossible for a third party candidate to win an election. Ross Perot, and independent candidate, actually polled as the winner in the 1992 presidential elections for a short time. Perhaps if he hadn't dropped out of the race, we would have had 8 years of President Perot in the 90's.
Many are fed up with the one political party that masquerades as two come election time, but are still drawn to vote for it when the crucial moment comes. Some may be genuinely fooled (yet again) by campaign rhetoric, but the vast majority I feel continue voting for the same corrupt system because they get caught up in the black-and-white, us-vs-them mentality. To them, they may not like the candidate they're voting for, but they really hate the other candidate. They feel the risk is too great to vote third party. The problem is, once again, that voting for a major party because you don't believe a third party candidate can win is precisely why third party candidates don't win.
I was a victim of the same reasoning. As an Obama supporter, I began to excuse more and more minor shifts in direction he exhibited. When the controversy over FISA started, I adopted a "wait and see" attitude. Obama promised us he was different. He wasn't just another politician, and he was true to his ideals. I trusted his words against FISA (including those against telecom immunity) meant that when given the opportunity to act against it, he would do so.
When Obama had the chance to seize that opportunity, he changed his mind, and instead supported the FISA bill in the end. That's when I realized that he is, in fact, just another Republi-crat. Now that he's not courting the left wing, his politics are diving strictly to the center, where he believes he will get more votes. Now he's starting to talk about safety, and how great of a reason it is to give the government unprecedented spying abilities and let large corporations off the hook for violating the law.
On the conservative side, McCain has long been a disappointment to conservatives. His record as a conservative is paltry at best, and often throws in with Democrats in order to propose very liberal (to the conservatives anyway) legislation.
As I thought about these things, I realized that there is a battle between two political wills in this country, but not between the two that most people think. No, the battle is between the Republi-crat establishment and the minor party rebellion. These parties, whether it be the Libertarian, Green, or Constitution Party are the only ones that are advocating real, sweeping change. You want an interesting debate? I would much rather see Ralph Nader go up against Bob Barr than watch Barack Obama and John McCain pretend to disagree with each other. I know where Nader and Barr stand. They actually have sharply different ideas on how to run this country. There are more issues at stake than just pro-war vs. anti-war.
To anyone reading this who is reading this, who is fed up with Obama and disappointed by McCain, I beg you to seriously consider your political alternatives. Really think about what the purpose of an election is, and above all, remember that in order for a third party candidate to really win this time, it takes your, yes your vote. Ignore the polls, ignore the media. They're bought and paid for by the political institution. They'll ignore Barr, Nader, McKinney, or Baldwin no matter what the polls show. Sure, they throw the rebels a bone once in a while, but the vast majority of their time is on the candidates who are part of the system. I'm proud that I'll be voting this November for Ralph Nader, because I know I'll be voting for real hope and real change from someone that has actually changed things for the better. I hope you can feel the same way when you pull the lever this November, regardless of who your candidate is.
I was quite surprised that knights have their origins, not in western europe, but 2nd century Iran.
From the article:
In the second century A.D. the nomadic tribes of the Central Asian steppes would pass through the Hindu Kush and raid the cities of what is now Iran. Their tactics consisted of a mass charge of mounted warriors firing arrows as they attacked. This onslaught overwhelmed their opponents. They were stopped only when the Sassanian rulers of Iran put armor on their warriors and their horses. These heavily armored cataphracts withstood the onslaught of arrows and then counterattacked with lances. This system of defense was effective but very expensive. There were not only the high costs of the armor for man and horse but the horses themselves were particularly expensive because they were a special breed. In addition the warriors required extensive training.
The Sassanian rulers of Iran financed these cataphracts by assigning them each an area which was responsible for providing their armor and horse and supporting them while they were trained. This arrangement led to the feudal social structure with the military elite at the top and the peasant-serfs at the bottom. Sassanian literature such as Karnamag-i Artaxshir-i Papakan (Deeds of Ardashir) and the Shahnameh (The Book of Kings) bear testimony to their pursuit of chivalry.
Later the system of heavily armored cataphracts spread to the steppes north of the Black Sea and on into Europe. The Sarmatians, an Iranian-language-speaking people, displaced the Scythians in what is now south Russia and the Ukraine.
The realm of the Sarmatians extended from the Han Empire in the east to the Roman Empire in the west. From the Chinese, among other things, the Sarmatians adopted the dragon motif.
In the third century A.D.[citation needed] the Sarmatians fought the Romans near the mouth of the Danube River on the Black Sea. The Sarmatians lost the battle but they so impressed the Romans with their fighting prowess that the terms of the peace called for six thousand Sarmatian warriors and their horses to join the Roman army. The Emperor Marcus Aurelius sent 5500 of these Sarmatians to the northern border of the Roman Empire in Britain to guard it against attacks by the Celts.
Physical artifacts of this Sarmatian force have been found, including retirement villages. There are other things which may be cultural artifacts of the Sarmatian presence. There is a good chance that Celtic dragon image came from Sarmatian sources. The really intriguing possibility is a link between the Arthurian legends and the Sarmatians. In the religion of the Sarmatian the altar was a sword embedded in a stone. Arthur's father was Uther Pendragon. Pendragon means "dragon's head" and refers to the dragon-head symbol on a shield. The evidence suggests that the Sarmatians with their armor created a military caste that survived several centuries and provided the leadership in the early feudal era.
social darwinismI was thinking about Stein and the people who typically attack evolutionary theory on this point: they're usually right-wing capitalists. I thought about it some more and came to a startling conclusion: capitalism is a form of social darwinism. The "free market" that decides which businesses should thrive and which businesses should fail is nothing more than a form of natural selection. Socialism and communism work against it, controlling many if not all aspects of the market from a central authority, similar to creationist theory. So, in a way, Ben Stein and his ilk are bigger social darwinists than Marx or Hitler. Weird huh? What's also strange is that one of the earliest accounts of communism is in early 1st-century Christian communities.
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet. - Acts 4:32-37
Kind of makes you think, doesn't it?
