ELECTION 2008

The election is near. We have the two prominent candidates for presidency this election; John McCain and Barack Obama. To get to the point without tiptoeing around or being accused of having a subliminal underlining to this blog, this blog favors Barack Hussein Obama. Now before there is all smiles and praises from Obama supporters or scoffs and scorns from McCain supporters, let’s explain this decision. This is not to be interpreted as anti-McCain or say that McCain has nothing to offer, it simply means that Obama has MORE to offer than McCain at this time and it favors the presidency of Obama over McCain for the next four years.

In all honesty, if this blog were to have been written four years ago, it would have favored George W. Bush for the presidency. There are many now that could convincingly argue that favorability and a lot of those arguments would not be illogical, irrational or politically biased. This is the complexity of a democratic election. In a non-democratic society, the leaders are put into decision making power and the people either benefit or suffer from those decisions. In a democratic government, it is the burden of the people to empower the elected officials with hopes that the officials will reflect the decisions of the majority that put them into office. Even then, sometimes the decision might not reflect the majority of the people, but that decision’s outcome may. This is the foundation of democratic politics.

In decision making, it is easy to look at any decision in hindsight and determine whether that was a right or wrong decision. The hard part is making the right decision before knowing the outcome. This is what we do in an election. It would be nice to see how both candidates’ decisions and policies played out over the next four years, then go back in time and elect the one who had the better outcome. We do not have that luxury though. However, in this election we are faced with the luxury of choosing a candidate whose similar policies have not been working so good over the last four years, or a candidate who is offering something new. It is true that Obama’s party is mostly responsible for the economic difficulties that are present now, but Obama has many new solutions. If we only vote for candidates whose parties have never made mistakes, then one should never again vote for a republican or democrat candidate. Once again, let’s get rid of the “gang” mentality.

To be upfront, Obama is the 2^nd most favorable candidate to come out of this whole election process, the first being Mitt Romney. Romney was the only person to even come close to the White House that had any business sense. Since the majority of the people claim that our economic issues are most important, it would make sense that we would elect an individual with an economic background. I guess this time around, the republicans’ definition of “sense” is a little different than others. For that matter, no party in government has any grasp of the concept of fiscal responsibility. The national deficit and “exciting” new 700 billion dollar “debt” plan proves this. So it makes “sense” that the republicans not only took Romney off the back burner, but brought him out of the kitchen altogether.

(Side Note: The Bush administration’s $700 billion “debt” plan was voted by both republican and democrat majorities and supported by both McCain and Obama. It makes you question the education that the Bush administration has when it comes to finance and business. No matter what any advisers say, the best policy in any times (not just recessionary periods) is to live within your means and cut back spending if necessary. Don’t spend another $700 billion that you didn’t have to begin with. This will cost the average tax payer $250,000.00. To figure out what that means to you, take 250000 and divide it by how much you make in a year, and this is how many years you will work for FREE!

Example: 250,000 / $50,000 a year = 5 Years Free Labor

Labor without pay is one of the definitions of “slavery.” Welcome to the 1700s! This time it’s not just blacks that are being treated immorally. Some have said that the bail-out plan will actually do “good” because it will increase incentive and confidence to exceed $700 billion. This could be like drawing an analogy of a slave master telling the slaves that if cotton production is increased beyond $700 billion, then the slave master will build a new slave housing unit… Wonderful! The fact is that slavery is slavery, and the only people being “bailed out” by the bail-out plan, are the slave owners and overseers.)

There have been a lot of ignorant comments made by supporters of both candidates. Unfortunately, it does seem like a higher concentration of those comments come from McCain supporters, which is interesting being that polls indicate there are less of them than Obama supporters. It could be a "losing desperation" mentality, sort of like the infamous Tyson / Hollyfield fight.

One of those ear-biting comments has been that; because Obama’s last name “sounds like” Osama Bin Laden’s first name and Obama’s middle name is Saddam Hussein’s last name, he must be a terrorist. If a person’s name predisposition them to a certain political belief, than any persons with the names Adolf or Hitler is doomed to a life of anti-Semitism. Not to mention Obama just “sounds like” Osama, and Osama is only an Arabic derivative meaning “lion-like.” Under this logic you might as well assume that all Bills will kill you and all Bobs will rob you. The other name, Hussein, has been around long before Saddam Hussein. The majority of Americans share at least one name with a convicted murderer. Does this make all of them murderers?

The other ear-biter is all the comments made about Obama’s religion. An individual’s religion is very personal and should only be between that individual and their beliefs. Some Christian leaders ridicule Obama for his Muslim ties. This is in direct contrast to the teachings of Christ. When Christ was asked what the greatest commandment was, He said 1^st was to love God and 2^nd to love each other. So according to Christ’s teachings, it is better to have a leader love God who says they are not Christian than one who does not love God but says they are Christian. Since, nobody knows an individual’s love for God except themselves; it is hard to make that an issue at all. It is interesting that most who are upset about Obama being Muslim are mostly those claiming Christianity. Some of the same people making it an issue now, were also the same ones that were frustrated when the media spotlighted Mitt Romney’s religion as an issue earlier.

If we only vote for candidates that share our religious views, then we shouldn’t have elections at all. We should have a game show for all religions represented in America. There could be contests and performances for each religion. American could call in and vote for the religion they like best, based on their performances on the show. We could call it The REAL American “Idol.”

Even then, who is to say that all those in one religion reflect the same values? Just like there might even be some Christians who do not feel George Bush’s Christian values reflect theirs. Focusing on religion will only makes us more divisive so let’s not continue with Obama.

IN CLOSING; THIS IS NOT TO ENCOURAGE ANYONE TO VOTE FOR OBAMA BASED ON THIS BLOG. IT ALSO DOES NOT IMPLICATE MCCAIN TO BE A BAD PERSON. QUITE CONTRARY, THIS BLOG THINKS THE OPPOSITE OF MCCAIN. HOWEVER, THE FEELING IS THAT AMERICA NEEDS AN OBAMA RIGHT NOW MORE THAN IT NEEDS A MCCAIN. EVERY PERSON NEEDS TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISION REGARDLESS OF WHO FRIENDS, FAMILY, POLITICIANS OR CELEBRITIES ENDORSE.

(REMEMBER, OPRAH IS NOT RUNNING FOR OFFICE!) THERE IS NOT A RIGHT CHOICE OR WRONG CHOICE. THERE IS ONLY YOUR CHOICE AS LONG AS IT IS TRULY YOUR CHOICE. NO POLITICIAN HAS BEEN A PERFECT PERSON YET AND IT PROBABLY WON'T CHANGE WITH MCCAIN OR OBAMA IN OFFICE.

THERE ARE MANY GOOD, INFORMED AND WELL MEANING PEOPLE VOTING. SOME SAY THAT THEY ARE VOTING FOR MCCAIN AND OTHERS SAYING THEY ARE GOING TO VOTE FOR OBAMA. IS ONE GROUP LYING? NO, THIS LEADS ONE TO BELIEVE THERE IS NO CORRECT ANSWER. IF YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS COMPEL YOU TO PRAY, THEN PRAY FOR BOTH OF THEM, BECAUSE ONE OF THEM WILL TAKE THE OFFICE, AND THAT IS THE ONLY CORRECT STATEMENT.

AMERICAN "GANG" POLITICS

Now lets talk politics. We have the Republican (GOP Set) and the Democrat (DNC Set) parties. The intent of this blog is not to endorse one political party or the other, it is to break down the gang mentality that exists in American politics. The interesting thing is that the politically minded, who affiliate themselves with these "political" gangs, see street gangs and their members as primitive social organizations. As political affiliates they are far more advanced and civil minded . . . Really? When it comes down to carrying out their "set's" objectives, there does not seem to be much of an intellectual difference.

In America there appears to be such a loyalty to the parties, instead of the principles, that most party affiliates will look over the principles to achieve the interest of the party with which they belong. Most democrats watch the debates, not to see whose principles they agree with, but to see who they are going to vote for as a democrat; and republicans do the same. On the ballad they should have 2 boxes. One should say "republican" and the other should say "democrat." This would save a lot of time and money spent on debates and campaigning.
Above is a map of America. Strategists have divided the country into counties and then color coded those counties to match the party affiliation. In politics there are the "red states" and the "blue states," or we could call them, the "crip states" and the "blood states." Then you have "undecided states." These states aren't truly undecided, they are just states where the republican affiliates and democrat affiliates are more or less in even numbers. Just like many American inner-cities, you have gang neighborhoods that are mostly controlled by one gang or set, then you have other neighborhoods that are split and serve as fighting grounds for the different gangs. In neighborhoods where several gangs exist, the smaller gangs will unite or get adopted into larger gangs until over time there are only 2 rival gangs for that area. It is not the best managed or policy correct gang that takes these neighborhoods, instead it is whichever gang has the most forceful presence.

Below is a gang territory map of a Los Angeles neighborhood. Gang task force strategists have devided the neighborhood into areas and then color coded those areas to match the gang affiliation. Does it look familiar?Survival in these fighting grounds depends on your gang affiliation, instead of your personal integrity or character. A "third party" gang is usually destroyed or run out by the larger gangs fighting for that "office." This is not to say that this smaller "third party" gang would not be as ruthless and destructive as the existing gangs.

This pretty much breaks down the party system that is the American government. Most party affiliates truly want to improve their neighborhoods, but they are using a rivalry system that goes back before the United States and Verona, all the way to the beginning of time. Then there are some party affiliates who aggressively attempt to divide and create loyalties that are just as dangerous and deadly as street gangs. It could be said that aggressive political party policies are responsible for far more death and violence than the gang brawls and drive-bys that play out in the counties, suburbs, towns and cities in America. So it should come as no surprise that street gangs emulate and impose the same form of government and politics that they exist under in America. Imitation is the best form of flattery.

IN CLOSING. NO MATTER WHAT; POLITICAL PARTY, SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OR STREET GROUP AN INDIVIDUAL AFFILIATES WITH, IT IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE TO FEEL HATRED, ANIMOSITY OR DISDAIN TOWARDS THAT INDIVIDUAL. IF OUR AFFILIATIONS COMPEL US TO DIVIDE OURSELVES INSTEAD OF CREATING UNITY, WE NEED TO RETHINK THOSE AFFILIATIONS.

WELCOME

To address first things first, WRIGHT MIND is sure you all noticed the adult Content Warning when accessing this blog. I am sure there are some who clicked on this blog with hopes to find explicit material here. There are probably others who would have accessed this blog but didn’t because they too thought this BlogSpot contained explicit material.

WRIGHT MIND is sorry to mislead both these people but there is NO explicit material contained on this blog, nor will there ever be. However, this whole blog does contain Adult Content in the context that the material is intended for the self mature. WRIGHT MIND would feel uncomfortable for any persons under the age of 18 to review this blog without the knowledge, wisdom and understanding of a more mature individual to consult. This does not necessarily mean that all persons under 18 are not mature enough, or that all persons over 18 have the maturity needed for this BlogSpot. It simply means that life is experience, and the more life, the more experience. So an individual, who is born 1 minute before another, has more experience at this thing called life than the other born a minute later. The exciting part is that we ourselves are in complete control on how rich these life experiences are.

WRIGHT MIND’s intent in this BlogSpot is to discuss any topic in a direct and forward way to expose the truth WRIGHT MIND has found. WRIGHT MIND is not a shout jock that tries to be forceful and argumentative to impose WRIGHT MIND’s opinion, but WRIGHT MIND will deliver WRIGHT MIND’s views in a straight un-buffered manner. There will be times when a simple sentence or two cannot deliver the full complexity of an issue. Do not become frustrated or offended by the first few sentences and discontinue reading. Instead, read the whole commentary to gain a better glimpse into WRIGHT MIND’s reasoning for the issue.

WRIGHT MIND’s intent is to not offend anyone reading this blog. WRIGHT MIND understands that any opinions have the possibility to offend others that are not of the same opinion. WRIGHT MIND also understands that an offense goes both ways, so it is also up to the reader to not take offense to any of the blog topics. WRIGHT MIND will try to think thoroughly about topics and issues before blogging. Sometimes the thought process is an ongoing process that grows and evolves over time. WRIGHT MIND invites the readers to grow and evolve with WRIGHT MIND.

The topics discussed in this BlogSpot have no safe zone. The broader topics WRIGHT MIND will zoom into and get more specific with; and the more specific topics WRIGHT MIND will step back to take a broader look at. This is in an effort to prevent the narrowing AND the wandering of the mind. WRIGHT MIND has heard "great intellectuals" say that they will discuss anything except for religion and politics. Well, WRIGHT MIND is not a "great intellectual," so everything is fair game.

WRIGHT MIND will make efforts to eliminate the explicit content of issues and focus on the more intellectual, spiritual and social adult content of the matters. This same effort will apply to the selection of music that plays on this BlogSpot. These are WRIGHT MIND’s thoughts, feelings and expressions. WRIGHT MIND is not looking to please the masses and offend small groups; or offend the masses and please small groups. WRIGHT MIND is attempting to blog about WRIGHT MIND’s insights in an unshielded, unfiltered way.

Lastly, this IS a bias BlogSpot. WRIGHT MIND is not going to try to use flattery with words by saying this is unbiased. WRIGHT MIND is not even sure what unbiased means. Unless you find an accurate way to compile the views and opinions of every living human on this earth, a commentary will always be bias. Even then, a simple study of statistics and social-psychology could argue against that. WRIGHT MIND is not actualized enough to be unbiased, so if you read these blogs prepared to be faced with some strong opinions, that are more likely than not to be wrong. If you do not mind gaining insight from another opinion, then you have come to the WRIGHT place.

If you are looking for an unbiased opinion and commentary then WRIGHT MIND suggest you try a news broadcasting network. Perhaps FOX News.