The secret Message in Ferdinand the Bull

The story of Ferdinand the bull, is that rather than fight in the bull ring, a solitary bull would rather sit by, and smell the flowers. What does this show us? Several things I feel. Firstly Ferdinand the bull neither initiates nor accepts the provocations of the matadors to fight. Instead he chooses peace, the desire to be one with nature, and to end the bloodshed. The act of not fighting can be seen as an act of symbolic speech wherein Ferdinand in not fighting is a conscientious objector to his societal status as a bull and that his smelling the flowers is really an act of civil disobedience.

Perhaps it is this civil disobedience that is what allows for peace, and the book shows that to maintain peace, occasionally civil disobedience as a desire for peace must be made visible. Ferdinand also shows us that peace allows for a happy ending, as Ferdinand is in fact one of the few bulls who makes it out of the bull ring, thanks to his resistance.

Call me Crazy for distorting this message out of a children's book, but I'll be sniffing the flowers.

Country First?

Up until this point, I have not commented on the campaign or the messages of John McCain. However when watching the Republican National Convention (RNC) I noticed the repeated theme and new slogan of John McCain was "Country First."

To many people they may have thought, what a patriotic, pro-American, positive thing to say. I personally took the motto "Country First," as a very nationalist, not anti-American, but rather perhaps a bit of a fascist thing to say. Yes, that’s right, country first, over its people. Let us sacrifice for the country!

I respect John McCain’s service record. In fact I admire his sacrifice for his country. However we have become a consumer driven country that has thoroughly invested into the military industrial complex. In doing so we no longer feel it is country first, but rather individual first. Perhaps it is the ways of old in "Country First" that McCain finds support for his new slogan.

In his acceptance speech Obama, said that we all put country first. I feel this is an inaccuracy, we have learned to put individual first, and to forget about those who we do not benefit off of. We do not put country first. However our government should not follow a policy of country first, but should institute a policy of people first.

The question may arise; how is country first different from people first? Country first puts the needs of the country above the needs of the people; these needs are not synonymous. The needs of the people ought to be what the needs of the country are. However far too often the people are ignored, and a few special interests are placed above those of the general population.

What is it that really bothers me about "country first?" It's is the nationalist undertone, that no matter how you feel, the betterment of your country should precede the betterment of the individual, and the objectives of the people in mass. In putting country first, we deny our own desires.
Maybe I'm too much of a consumer to see the value in putting my country first. A representative government as ours claims to be, should not chain its citizens in servitude from which they may not break free, but rather our government should be in service to its people. With a slogan of "Country First" on both sides, surely we are left to know that we will continue to represent the interests of a few, while the general populace remains ignored, abused, and in servitude.

What If The Majority Of Citizens Didn't Vote?

What would happen if 51%< of all eligible voters did not vote? Would that, make the government illegitimate as the majority of people did not vote for that government to be  in place?

Is It Really The Oil Companies Fault?

According to John McCain we have become a "Nation of Whiners." Obama has retorted that we are not, and things are genuinely bad at the moment. However is that really true, are we whining? I feel that at least when it comes to gas prices we are.

It is not the oil company’s fault, but rather ours. The main complaint with the oil companies seems to be that they are making "windfall profits." But what defines a "windfall" profit?

It seems that a "Windfall" profit has become a profit that is greater than the revenue needed to keep a business going. However is not the ultimate goal of profit to be able to stay in business? I personally see this as the goal of profit. I find it sad that here in America the land of "equal opportunity" people are complaining about an industries profits when here they should have the equal opportunity to build their own industry if aptly able.

Note that I am in fact not advocating the "trickle down effect." However I am saying that we are complaining over the success of one industry while no longer striving to recreate that success in our own lives. It can be duly noted that the corporate executives in the oil companies have in fact gained personal wealth. However how much of this actually has to do with consumption as it does inflation. Could the prices have been made lower via increased drilling several years ago? Yes, would it have been profitable, no.

If we look at the recent drilling activities in North Dakota, we are left to ask the question; why are they drilling now? Why not three years ago? Very simply as the price per barrel went up the profitability went up. We all know that labor costs are less outside the U.S so why wouldn't they wait until the price was high enough that they could turn a profit off the oil they knew was there. Does it help gas prices now? No, but it does allow the oil companies to maintain profit and thereby giving us one sector of the economy which does not seem prone to an impending recession.

Furthermore I hear of the oil companies funding studies for alternative fuels, and people go well why would we trust them. They say that the oil companies are afraid of alternative fuels, that they know they'll put them out of business.

This is not the case though. The oil companies are not in the business of oil, but rather they are in the business of energy. This means that to continue to make profit they will be the companies to invest and push for the innovation of new alternative fuels.

Are there times when the oil companies policies are a bit sketchy, yes. Do I feel we regulate their business practices enough? No. However I am tired of people complaining over their profit when really if we want to switch to alternative fuels it is big oil that will lead us there. Lower gas prices would be great, however if we look at the "windfall" profits, are they so extravagant when that profit will yes, go to execs, but it will also go into research and development, taxes, and may eventually be the key to seeing lower prices at the pump.

My short views on Trust

Perhaps the reason we do not trust, is not that we are afraid of losing our trust in man, but rather that man will lose their faith in us.

Why Should I Vote?

Why should I vote? In America, we have been taught that it is your duty to vote, that it is right, and that if you do not then you are doing not only yourself, but also your country injustice. But are we really? Where has the injustice occurred, do you even have a choice when you vote? According to the two party system you do, and it's Democrat or Republican. This nicely translates to a choice of Liberal, and Liberal. It denies the possibility that, Fascists, Classical Conservatives, Socialists, and Communists do exist, and therefore limits not only their choice, but prevents them from being able to act on their beliefs.

We have been taught to believe that in not voting, you are giving up your right to do something, to create change, that to not vote is an abdication of your power. We are taught from a young age, that if you want to change the influence government has in your life then you must vote. However is the action of voting itself not an action imposed by the government; the end goal being to make you vote as they desire?

To quote author David Schuman, "Americans have a voting fetish." We feel that we cannot have government without voting, and thereby in voting you show your belief that government is in fact necessary.

By voting what are you doing? I feel that you are not showing your beliefs in what you believe public policy ought to be, but rather that you are fine with the policy in place. That your vote shows belief in a system that gives you no choice, but makes you "empowered." Why could not voting, not be seen as an act of expression, showing not only your discontent with the system but the fact that you've had enough of the politicians telling you what to do?

Voting itself shows your belief in the system, but how are we to know any better. Until this past summer I too believed that not voting was bad. That in not voting, I was accepting my fate, and that in voting I could find my voice. Interesting that we associate vote and voice together. By not voting are you really abdicating your voice? Are you really voicing your thoughts in a private secluded booth, where the only change you’ll make is a ballot that may or may not be counted?

I feel that you aren't, that by not voting on a conscious level you see the system as fundamentally flawed, that voting is in fact taking away your political voice. That it is stifling your thoughts and expression and forcing you to believe that you have a limited voice. Speak up! Not in a voting booth, but in public, make your voice be heard, not whether you’re a Democrat or Republican.

I personally can't vote, as I'm 17. However if I were eligible to vote, I will tell you that my vote would lie with Montgomery Brewster of the novel/movie "Brewster's Millions," and that thanks to this past summer I would in fact vote “None of the above!”

Obama, McCain, and Bush... Different methods for the same product.

I'm not the biggest fan of Obama, even if I do prefer him to Mc.Cain. Although I don't believe in many of his positions, and ideas, I did watch the Democratic National Convention (DNC).

I will say this much for Obama, like Reagan, like Bill Clinton, like Nixon, he is an excellent orator. (Scratch the Nixon.) But what did he actually say in his acceptance speech is what I'd really like to know?

First off he said he wanted change, that he desired social change, that he wants education reform, and healthcare reform. However he did not mention his plans for each item, and when looking at them you will see that the plans he does have are inadequate. He also said that he plans on pulling out of Iraq, and that Iraq is bad. However later in the speech he contradicts that very notion, and I’ll explain that a little later on. Finally he said that McCain is another George Bush, but in reality later in his speech he himself describes the desires of the Bush administration. You may say how, but for the moment, I want you to ask yourself what has he actually said thus far, that Republicans are bad and that he is different.

I'm now going to turn the writing for a bit over to Obama's speech writers, as this is the section where he truly expresses a desire and the knowledge that not only is America an Empire, but that his Administration will keep it that way. Note this is both the goal of McCain and George Bush; it appears it is now the goal of Obama as well. Are they any different now?

"You know, this country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that's not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that's not what makes us strong. Our universities and our culture are the envy of the world, but that's not what keeps the world coming to our shores.

Instead, it is that American spirit, that American promise, that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.

That promise is our greatest inheritance. It's a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night and a promise that you make to yours, a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west, a promise that led workers to picket lines and women to reach for the ballot.

And it is that promise that, 45 years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln's Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.

The men and women who gathered there could've heard many things. They could've heard words of anger and discord. They could've been told to succumb to the fear and frustrations of so many dreams deferred.

But what the people heard instead -- people of every creed and color, from every walk of life -- is that, in America, our destiny is inextricably linked, that together our dreams can be one.

"We cannot walk alone," the preacher cried. "And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back."

America, we cannot turn back..." (Barack Obama accepting the Democratic Nomination)

Many people see that excerpt and think, what a great country we live in, I view it as an admission that we have built an American empire which strives to capture, not only the economic capital, but also the human capital from around the developing world. This excerpt is not only an admission that American empire is a good thing, but that it is right to exist. Many people here will view the "we cannot turn back," line as a landmark for civil rights. However it is really an exclamation that under an Obama administration the U.S will maintain its hegemony, and will remain the empire it is currently. Obama is hypocritical here, as it's finally coming out that the change the Obama campaign wishes you to believe in, is really the preservation of empire.

People often ask of me; how can you think Obama and McCain are the same, that Democrats and Republicans are equal. It's a very simple answer. Both The Democrats and Republicans end goal is to preserve American hegemony, and in doing so assert ourselves as the worlds only superpower. Even George Bush wished to do this, even if through what we may now call preemptive war. (Kissinger would be proud)

The fact that McCain leads to four more years of George Bush is a fallacy, because in terms of preserving hegemony and the "Pax Americana" society we live in, Obama, and McCain are both the equivalent of George Bush.