Why is the Tea Party the Worst AND Best Thing To Happen To Obama?

Anticlimactic as this statement is by now, I think the worst AND best thing to ever happen to or for President Obama is... THE TEA PARTY! Hear me out.  Look it up and it appears to have formed almost in direct response to Obama's election as of early 2009.  A year later, it proved a pain for Obama because it almost singularly robbed Obama's Democrats and even a few "mainstream" Republicans of their seats in the House.  After a while, however, it became pretty clear to everyone but Tea Party members and supporters that whatever the so-called "Republican" House had to actually offer would never see the light of day as long as Obama and his ilk controlled the other two branches, so it reduced their tactics to sometimes comical, yet expensive sideshows (like Ted Cruz's fight to repeal Obamacare during the government shutdown last year) and made them little more than obstructionists.  Nevertheless, despite obscenely low approval ratings, Obama's re-election and no change in the Senate's balance of power after 2012, the Tea Party branch of the Republican Party is STILL in charge in Congress!

This is bad for Obama (and fellow Republican Speaker John Boehner, interestingly enough) because it puts everything he does under even more and incredibly intense scrutiny, but there's a reason why it might also have guaranteed him a second term.   I don't think people re-elected Obama because they all enthusiastically embrace all of his notions about changing America and so forth - although there have been documented, fundamental shifts in certain attitudes towards government's role in the economy and healthcare and so forth across the board. Yet, neither do I think these Tea Party people are being voted into and kept in Congress as part of a fluke or because people think they might actually get the upper-hand.

For better or worse, a majority of Americans probably do not vote - certainly not in midterm elections and not even in Presidential ones - and of those that do, the mob mentality pretty much rules.  Two mobs face off (bear with me here) and whichever one looks like it has a better chance of winning and of not messing things up even more is the one most likely to get the most votes. Since most people are wary of politicians, in general - regardless of their political persuasions otherwise - most voters, particularly the swing voters, are not looking for who is "good" but, rather, who is WORSE. When those few and far between that aren't going to just blindly vote the same way over and over again find who is or, rather, looks worse, they then vote the other way. It must come down to which side gets the most converts on which issues nowadays because I find it hard to believe that one party has so much more of America's confidence than the other, particularly when rhetoric and some policy proposition is so extreme.  It may look that way sometimes, but the left has ALWAYS controlled the popular media in America (one of the earliest TV interviews EVER features Eleanor Roosevelt criticizing then-Senator Nixon over his prosecution of Alger Hiss) while the right has long had footholds in the business and, more recently, the religious communities. Which American subculture you belong or are closest to - Hollywood or Wall Street, to put it more directly - likely decides who you think most represents America at its core, past, present and future, regardless of actual facts and political statistics (many of which are skewed for roughly the same reasons).

Obama got re-elected because everyone was scared to death that Romney would start a war with Iran and/or North Korea and sever just about every proverbial purse string connected to social programs, etc., and that just wasn't acceptable while unemployment numbers are still so high and, again, those fundamental shifts were/are still occurring.  More than that, he's the one that came up with the original form of the Affordable Care Act in the first place (or, rather, the Heritage Foundation came up with it for him), a bill that one side rejects while the other supports ONLY as a fantasy stepping stone towards socialized medicine - and since personality matters in elections, nobody was going to vote for someone that wealthy and seemingly "out of touch" and void of recognizable personality when coming out of a major recession. At the same time, I don't think it was hard to predict in 2012 that, should Obama be re-elected, not only was he likely to step up his more personal agenda, but his supporters would demand it.  Sure enough, practically his entire second inaugural speech is about Obama's vision of America and the way he'd leave it after his second term; about civil rights in the future coming in the form of increased government enforcement of fairness and equality laws as well as a stance of pro-immigration and what would become a foreign policy dedicated to ensuring that America move closer to and promote, in his words, "global norms." Socially, economically, etc., and it's no secret that up until they found out Obama's drones were spying on everyone, much of the rest of the world heartily celebrated Obama's initial election because his ideas about healthcare, for example, have been almost identical to much of Europe's.

So why is the Tea Party faction still in control of the House of Representatives - THE legislative and arguably most powerful branch of the government, itself - when it has held approval ratings in the teens and below since before 2012? Besides the obvious stench of decay emanating from what used to be a more stable and dignified Republican Party, the Tea Party faction is perfect for keeping Obama in check because even if they don't make any actual gains, they are effective at limiting Obama's gains whenever he appears to be getting too full of himself.  It has nothing to do with policy, at least not from them.

American voters nowadays may be riled up, but they're not idiots.  They know that both sides have wandered off the reservation, politically speaking, but it is for that very reason that - given the choice - they want the so-called "fringe" segment of the Republican Party to keep what is now the entire Democratic Party behind Obama in check... even if, generally speaking, they actually like Obama more. Liking someone and trusting them, though - NOT the same things. ;)

What Is The REAL Value And Agenda Behind The Discrediting Of "Creationism?"

A lot of people nowadays use the "big bang theory," age of the Earth and evolution in general to not only explain the Earth's origins, but to pointedly discredit anyone that dares believe in a god - particularly, it seems, the Christian God (because so many critics tend to start with Christianity and rarely go much further in their criticisms of other beliefs in deities).  While people like Isaac Newton were both scientists and people of faith, the whole concept of any real reconciliation of science and faith nowadays is painted as being borderline preposterous, stemming from the ignorance and delusions of uneducated and superstitious people.

But here's a question: The big bang theory is, broadly speaking, the expansion of the universe from something akin to a spec which involves the combining of elements to create more familiar matter.  Where did that spec and those elements come from?  Why, I wonder, is it more "ignorant" to believe in a god that, in whatever way over however many years, CREATED a vast universe that functions independently (i.e., evolution) and naturally formed the Earth, than it is to believe that all these elements and this expansion just... existed and began its processes, for no reason whatsoever? If you're going to say, "Oh, well, we're just criticizing those that take the Bible too literally," then you still throw off the whole argument.    You can say, "Well, faith and religion are just ancient psychological tools meant to be grown out-of and replaced with fact, originally used to make sense of the world and provide some structure for early man." To some extent, that's probably true as it makes a lot of sense, except that the only practical benefit in doing away with spiritual and religious faith in a deity at all is to get out from under that god's and religion's restrictive tenets. After all, rules are made to be broken, so they say, and how much easier could it be to break a rule than it is after you've just decided for yourself that the rule is obsolete (mostly because you want it to be), serves no practical purpose and is, in itself, immoral because of its inherent intolerance?

Answer this: Do you want EVERY impulse and human behavior to be... tolerated? Where is the line drawn and why?  For example, since everyone is going to die, anyway, why is murder wrong? Say someone comes and murders a friend or relative.  They can't be brought back, so why not just tolerate it and let the killer go?  What is "justice?"  Like faith and the rules of religion, why do we need it? And even for those that do tend to take most Scripture literally, there is at least an awareness that it is full of metaphors, shadows, parables and so forth. I can't speak for other faiths and religions, but much of Jesus' teachings are in the forms of stories and parables whose meanings were never in the literal.  The Bible with which most are familiar cites the Earth as having been created in seven days, yet later admits that a day unto the Lord is as a thousand years.  Or more? There's a lot of "scripture" that isn't even in the Bible that most know and abide by, at least in the Western hemisphere.  The point where the time frame and mode of the Earth's creation is concerned is that nobody knows and nobody really needs to know - at least, not in the definitive sense.  Understanding nature is one thing, and that is useful, but knowing for certain its origins and where it came from is something else altogether.

Frankly, I don't think it has anything to do with actual science. It seems to  change very little to believe that the Earth is 4 to 6 billion years old instead of just 10,000 in that there aren't many practical applications of either theory that haven't already at least begun to be explored and put into practice.  I think it has to do with the fact that religion (and not just Christianity or even Islam) has for so long been used to excuse so many atrocities and so much hate that science and the battle to discredit creationism is just the latest tool in some people's attempt to systematically rid the world of any semblance of organized religion whatsoever. If you can't guilt the "ignorant" religious people into seeing that they have too much influence or power and hurt too many people with their seemingly arbitrary rules about homosexuality and abortion and other things, then, well... get them on the facts.  Get them on their belief in things that cannot be proven and for which many say there is solid evidence that contradicts said beliefs.  Okay, but there's still just one problem: FAITH, BY DEFINITION, IS A BELIEF IN THAT FOR WHICH THERE IS NO PROOF!

And religion?  Does anyone with half a brain actually believe that there has to be a god at the center of an actual religion?  In the earliest heyday of Star Wars, there were people that made a serious attempt at getting the Jedi... lifestyle or... whatever... recognized as a legitimate "religion."  They almost pulled it off, and what's at the center of that: The Force?  Even in Star Wars mythology (which is what many consider it in a modern sense), the anthropomorphism of the Force as midichlorians only exists in one or two of the films and is largely rejected.  Otherwise, that's about as close as the myth gets to identifying the Force as any one or group of entities.

The subtle hypocrisy in trying to discredit creationists is that, in doing so, you're engaging in a form of intolerance that is not so dissimilar to that intolerance which many would attribute to religious believers and simultaneously condemn. Whether you're seeking to silence anyone teaching evolution or anyone promoting religious dogma in public and trying to merge it with public policy, you're trying to silence someone.  You are actively discriminating against a point of view and, by extension, anyone that holds it, and the very fact that you could be threatened by a perspective which you claim to be so preposterous and ludicrous does, in itself, I think, say something about the weakness of your own crusade if not your overall argument.  Ultimately, people will believe what they want to believe, especially where the origins of the Earth are concerned IF they even think it's of any personal or practical relevance.  What I think critics of creationism tend to fail to consider is that even the validity of their theories on evolution and of the big bang theory, itself, still does not rule out the existence or even involvement of a higher power.  If anything, the universe, itself, becomes that higher power because you are always going to be stymied by that ultimate question: Where did the spec and the elements come from that had to combine and expand to execute the "big bang" and form the universe as we know it today?  

JULY 4TH INDEPENDENCE DAY - Enjoy It While You Can! And BE GRATEFUL!

Something tells me that July 4th will not be a holiday much longer.  The alleged desire for more "globalization," particularly while President Obama and his ilk rule the proverbial roost, portends a day in which almost any form of national pride will be looked upon as naive and, ultimately, immoral.  I don't argue with people that talk about America's mistakes, at least in terms of what those mistakes are.  America is an experiment and as with most experiments, it has had more than its share of explosions and injuries that could have been prevented.  What was done to the Native Americans, for example, seems almost totally inexcusable.  What I see many of America's accusers fail to acknowledge, however, is that - like slavery - the abuse of the Native Americans began LONG before America was actually a single nation and, technically, was perpetrated mostly by the English, French and Spanish.  However, the nation of the United States does bear its share of responsibility in that particular tragedy for what was done by people like President Andrew Jackson, who I think oversaw the displacement of the Cherokee in the Trail of Tears.  There are also things like certain dubious motives for America's participation in overseas wars and other conflicts, particularly the Vietnam conflict (never officially declared a war by Congress) and, most recently, Iraq.  However, it strikes me that this was all made possible when, in the first years of the 20th century, presidents like Teddy Roosevelt and, later, Woodrow Wilson - one a Republican-turned-Bull Moose Independent, the other a Democrat that first tried to help form a version of the United Nations - began to think that America needed a more significant presence and a reputation of its own in world affairs. People can judge any way they wish, but it's a FACT that America became instrumental in winning two World Wars for its allies overseas and, in particular, for beating back the threat of the Nazis, who might otherwise have taken over most if not all of Western Europe and created a scenario which might have eventually threatened the United States, as well.  America didn't do it alone, but the war began in 1938, three years before America's involvement began, and the Nazi war machine was going strong at that time (Japan is a slightly different matter).

The fundamental reason I'm in favor of holidays like July 4th is that it reminds people to be GRATEFUL for something, and in the case of America, one of those things is the freedom to air such a long litany of complaints without excessive fear of reprisal from the State.  Unless I'm mistaken, China now forbids ANY celebration or recognition of the anniversary of the protests in Tienanmen Square,  Russia is slowly reverting back to its Soviet era habits of harassing and trying to occupy and possess its neighbors, such as the Ukraine and Georgia, which poses an indirect threat to Western Europe in part because that region relies a lot on things like natural gas from the East.  One can call America hypocritical and, at times, warlike, but in the end, I think it's done more significant good than harm to most of its citizens. After all, people are still coming here from all over the world, and do you see boatloads of Mexicans and South Americans headed for Cuba?  No.  They trek hundreds of miles sometimes on foot to reach the border of AMERICA - and you can argue that it's the more obvious and convenient choice, but by how much?

Speaking only for myself, I've seen nothing to suggest that I would have lived past my first week or two of life had I been born anywhere else, and the homeopathic or alternative medicine of the Far East would NOT have saved me from the conditions which required surgery and technology to correct.  The healthcare systems in some other countries may be cheaper, more accessible and even efficient to a degree, but from what I've heard, they're not all so flexible as to be able to devote enough time and attention to saving a single patient's life.  That's why I'm opposed to socialized medicine HERE (not everywhere) because no matter how well it is alleged to work in other nations, most of those nations deal with smaller, less diverse populations, and in the end, we're still talking about wholesale healthcare: First come, first serve and nothing done that isn't first approved for payment by the state.  My family has been in the healthcare business for 40 years and I've been in and out of hospitals as a patient my whole life.  So far, I've not heard ANYONE - not doctors, nurses or anyone actually working in the field - voluntarily say a single good thing about the Affordable Care Act or the prospect of socialized medicine.  Just recently, my father went to the emergency room, where a doctor talked a little about how he feared the Affordable Care Act's limitations in the near future on what they could do due to insurance restrictions meant to make it all less expensive.  Recently diagnosed with cancer, my father was even offered FREE CARE by an oncologist at Baptist (he can only really afford the VA, which is technically free but not very efficient or reliable and knew about his lung tumors a full year without saying anything), but was unable to get, the oncologist said, because the law prohibited any doctor from treating patients for free so long as they have Medicare, which my father does now that he's 65.      

I'm sure there are people that could come up with a thesis' worth of statistics and incident reports with which to argue against what I've just written, particularly when it comes to the above paragraph, but this whole blog boils down to the following: If you want to live in a place or a nation that doesn't have its share of sins and still have America's level of freedom and relatively low taxes, your best bet is probably to develop independent space travel so you can fly to a similar world whose population hasn't had time to make as many mistakes. People associate patriotism with nationalism, and nationalism with the warmongering attitudes of the Nazis and the former Soviet Union, who goose-stepped through history on the backs of their beleaguered and sometimes neglected citizenry and all over any and everyone they could find.  Almost every serious accusation leveled against America having to do with mistakes made since the end of the second World War comes back to similar behavior and, most notably, the "military industrial complex" first warned about, ironically, by Republican President and former general Dwight Eisenhower upon leaving office in 1960.

Yes, it is an unfortunate fact that nations like America have sometimes relied, whether intentionally or unintentionally, upon war and conflict to boost economies and world standing. However, this, at least, is not solely a flaw of the Americas.  Rome was born, lived and died on the fruits of war and of conquest. War was made just to keep Rome alive, as it needed territory and populations to conquer, rule over and tax to maintain its own opulence. Similar things could be said of the Spanish and of the English thereafter  The difference with the United States, I believe, is the freedom to acknowledge these imperfections and to at least try to avoid letting them get the better of us in the future.  They may be facts of U.S. history, but they need not be facts of our future just because we continue to be a nation unto ourselves.  As far as nationalism and national pride is concerned, I see it as being more about gratitude than anything else, with gratitude being a far healthier and more productive attitude than the nurturing of feelings of victimization and apocalyptic despair. Some may claim that this requires the convenient forgetting of America's "atrocities," but I disagree.  If anything, we can remember those atrocities and be GRATEFUL that, as a nation, we learned and/or are learning from those mistakes instead of letting them get us down. I also disagree with anyone that believes it to require a lot of naivete.  Does one have to believe themselves perfect and flawless in order to have self-esteem and to want to live?  If so, then I think we would all be suicidal - at least everyone of at least average intelligence.

If you're an American, living in America, then be GRATEFUL for that - if for no other reason than the fact that you have the freedom to complain if you wish!  If, of course, that's what you get off on, and believe me, I would understand.  A lot of people that come down the hardest on America claim also to be "humanist," but what is more human than being able to be as flawed as America allegedly is, yet still be able to learn from the past, stand up and march into the future with adjusted attitudes and new approaches?  Many are criticized for believing that America is the greatest nation on Earth, but frankly, I hope that everyone - no matter where they live - can have the luxury of believing that about their nation. The fact that the world is divided into nations does NOT, in my opinion, mean that we cannot work together.  All it means is that we acknowledge our differences, both voluntary and otherwise, and celebrate them while still having respect and getting along as best as possible.  The fact that we have differences also does not mean that they cannot be set aside to achieve common goals. I don't think humanity NEEDS one world order just to be able to work together.  To me, that's a defeatist way of looking at things because it says that we're so fundamentally divided, so flawed and relatively helpless that we need a super-strong, centralized power with global reach to affect change that can benefit everyone.  Yeah, that may seem to be the case once in a while, but does it have to be?  I don't think so.  If it's an example of anything, America is an example of how humans can do just about anything when they want to, and regardless of their differences considering that America is a nation built by immigrants from around the world. If you need a reason to celebrate July 4th and be grateful for America, then I can think of none better.