Finally, the Election is Over

I never thought I'd be so happy to see this election be over.  My main problem with it, I think, has been Facebook, but I've had other problems.  Between Obama and Romney, I'm glad Obama won, but believe me, now I will be his biggest criticizer.  We should have primaried Obama, but it's too late for that now.

So, basically, I've been following politics closely since the early part of Obama's first term.  The whole while, I've been criticizing Obama for being too right wing.  He was a terrible negotiator, giving Republicans more than they asked for, and going so far, that even Boehner said he gave them 98% of what they want.  Oh, and by the way, that grand bargain is coming again early in the second term, but that's a whole separate topic.

So, let me lay out the timeline:  For about two years, I was criticizing Obama for being too right wing, not doing enough to help the poor, and doing too much to help wall street. Then, the republican primaries started, and I was laughing at all the candidates.  In a time when people were angry at corporations, they were literally worshiping them, and I figured there was no way anyone could take these clowns seriously.  Then, slowly but surely, everyone began posting their uninformed opinions on Facebook.  You have to see this from my point of view; I had been closely following everything that was going on, then a wave of people who literally just starting learning about current political events started tying to argue with me, and over crazy things.  I had expected everyone to have looked at the facts, and come to the same conclusion I did, that Obama was a fake progressive, and had actually put together 3 and a half years of right wing policies (it's funny I would have thought that in hindsight).  But, instead, I got people saying Obama was a socialist and an over spender.  Huh?  The rich had gotten richer, and the poor had gotten poorer.  Do these people even know what socialism is?  (As it turns out, most of them don't).  And Obama had not only decreased the annual deficit for $1.1 trillion to $1 trillion, but he'd overseen the smallest rise in spending since Eisenhower.  How ironic then that people would praise Reagan.

It was embarrassing how little people knew, and in my attempt to point out facts, I looked like an Obama supporter.
"Obama's a socialist."
"Actually, he didn't really do that much to..."
"OBAMA SUPPORTER!"
"What?"

But now that the election is over, people will go back to ignoring politics, and I can once again own the monopoly on politic posts on my Facebook community.  It's funny, I actually felt guilty when people would complain about all the political posts, and I had to keep reminding myself that I actually wasn't doing anything  different, it was everyone else that had changed.

I'm glad I went through this experience.  I will continue criticizing Obama, and, on top of that, I will be looking for a third party candidate, just spite those people who think they're savvy for waiting until the month before the election to act like they support Gary Johnson.  In all honesty, we won't have a third party candidate until we fix money in politics, which will still be my biggest concern for the foreseeable future.

Obama and Romney are basically the same person, the biggest difference is on social issues and which supreme court justices they'll choose.  But they both go where the money is, Romney is just incredibly transparent in his flip-flops, as opposed to Obama, who's good at pretending to fumble the issue.

Over the next four years, expect the grand bargain with 90-99% of what Republicans want in it.  Expect the XL pipeline to be finished.  Expect few to no wall street bankers to get arrested.  Expect the income inequality gap to continue rising.  Basically, expect the continuation of slight variations on Bush policies.

The Problem with Being an Independent

It seems that for several years now, there's been a trend of people declaring themselves independents.  The main goal of these people seems to be to make it clear that they've moved on past politics and that they aren't going to vote along party lines.  However, there's a problem with this.  Although many independents are smart, well meaning people, many use being an independent as an excuse to be uninformed.  Or worse, they try to call everything even no matter what, as if that will somehow show that they are above the fray.

It's fine to say that you're an independent, but you should have some idea of what your voting for.  By this, I mean you should have some notion of what is good and what is bad.  Whether or not you apply these ideas to a political party is a separate issue, but you should still have them.  Of course, you could always assume a political party outside the major two (if you still consider democrats and republican all that different), but that won't serve you much good at elections unfortunately.

The main problem I see with independents, is not that they don't support one party or another, it's that they don't oppose bad principles.  I strain myself not to simply come out and say that all independents should be anti-republican, for there are some decent republicans (I agree with some ideas from Ron Paul and John Stossel for example, two libertarians in the Republican party).  However, republicans haven't changed much since Reagan, and their policies have certainly not favored the majority of Americans.  At this point, it is completely undeniable that Republicans exist to serve the rich.  Not only has Mitt Romney admitted that his main goal is to assist the "job creators" (which is a code word for the rich and multi-national corporations, whether or not they actually create jobs in America), but the chairman of the House Banking Committee Spencer Bachus just flat out admitted that he believes "the government exists to serve the banks".  So this is undeniable.

So how can a supposed independent vote for these types of republicans?  Not to say that there aren't bad democrats, let's be honest, the whole system is bought.  But anyone who's paying attention knows who's not on their side.  Everyone must use an independent perspective to make their decision, i.e. they must not be biased, but once a pattern emerges, there's no reason why an independent can't decide not to vote for one party because of policies.  In other words, the political spectrum can shift--in fact, it's moved quite to the right over the years--but an independents ideals don't have to shift along the spectrum.

The problem with being an independent, is that it's too easy to simply say, "I'm an independent," and then use that as an excuse to make an uninformed vote.  The equivocation from politicians can be quite convincing to someone who doesn't know better, and I've seen a disturbing trend of far too many so called independents not knowing better.  The problem really is independents being independent for the sake of being independent.  If they ever took the time to study politics, a majority of Americans, and a majority of independents, would find that they are progressive (at least according to numerous polls) and the democrats at least claim to be progressive, as opposed to the openly regressive republicans.  Yet, I hear many independents, when presented with the facts, reveal that they fall in line with democrat's ideals, and then declare that they are independent.  Why?  Being independent gives you no brownie points, it doesn't make you a more informed voter, so why the stubbornness?  I am not a republican or a democrat, I am a progressive, but I realize that the only way to even try get any progressive policies in America right now is to vote for democrats, and at the very least, it will stall regressive policies.  At least until the system is changed.

The End of an era? A look at the closing of Borders Bookstore

By the end of September, Borders will officially close all of its bookstores.  Over the summer, many books were discounted 50% in an attempt to clear out as many books as possible.  Despite being the go to place for books for many people sometime after it’s opening in 1971, competition from Barnes and Noble and electronic readers like the kindle and the nook, have forced the bookstore to file for chapter eleven bankruptcy.

                Everyone seems to have a similar reaction to the closing—at least everyone who’s ever gotten a book from there.

                “The closing of Borders…devastates the industry for hardcover and paperback books,” said Chris Fancher, officer of reading club last year and occasional Borders shopper.

There’s a sense of sadness, and a realization that change is coming, followed immediately by an opposition to that change.

                Maybe this suspected change shouldn’t be so obstinately opposed though.  There are pros and cons to paperbacks, and weighing both sides of the debate between e-readers and paperbacks will certainly be a good debate going ahead.

                 “An e book reader…is a great device,” said Fancher who added, “Don't get me wrong, it's just sometimes it's nice to have a book with pages.”

                Some aspects of the debate to consider are prices, accessibility, and portability.  E-readers tend to win in all of these categories.  However, sometimes it takes longer to take notes and find notes inside an e-reader, and you have to keep an e-reader charged in order to use it.  But there are many other aspects to consider, and moving forward, more issues will be both raised and resolved.

                So what does this mean for the future of books?  For the near future, it just means you’ll have to shop at a different bookstore for your paperbacks.  But it’s hard to imagine that this won’t have long term implications as well.  If nothing else, it’s at least a sign of changing times.  The current evolution in reading and writing seems to be one from ink and paper, to one of computers and electronics (except, of course, for the kindle, which does technically use ink; but that’s arguing semantics).

In the end, this change is something that readers of books everywhere will just have to accept.  E-readers offer a great alternative to books, save paper, and can even be a great money saver when it comes to things like buying college textbooks.

“I believe that the time of textbooks is ending and that the time of reading devices is beginning,” said Fancher referring to the future of books in school.  “Schools will begin to realize that having e book readers is more convenient and economically sound than hardcover text books.”

                Writers though, may feel this change in a different way.  While this certainly won’t discourage any novelists or authors, seeing your manuscript go from a computer screen to an e-reader screen, isn’t as gratifying as seeing your manuscript go from a computer screen to a paperback.  But the field of writing has constantly been changing—from pen and paper, to typewriters, to computers—and this change will certainly be as smooth as any other.

                The news that Borders is closing certainly evokes a feeling of nostalgia.  But it also evokes a sense of uncertainty.  No one can know exactly where the future of books is, but it is clear that paperbacks won’t play as large of a role as they once did.

N.H.L. Playoffs Review (2012)

By the time anyone reads this, the playoffs may very well be over.  However, at this point in mid-May, four teams remain.  In the Western Conference, the Kings and Coyotes play in a matchup of goaltenders, and in the Eastern Conference, two rival cities in the forms of the New York Rangers and the New Jersey Devils play.

            The team that probably has the least chance to win is the New Jersey Devils.  They were a middle-of-the-pack team during the regular season, and they barely made it out of the first round against the Florida Panthers who haven’t made the playoffs in years.  Granted, they have proven me wrong two rounds in a row now, but I’m confident that this will be their last series of this season.

            Which leads me to the next team, the New York Rangers, who I believe will win the series between themselves and the Devils.  The Rangers are a team that usually doesn’t make it very far in the playoffs, and it is somewhat surprising to see them in this position, although they easily could’ve gotten eliminated in either of the first two rounds.  They needed seven games to beat both the eighth seeded Ottawa Senators and the seventh seeded Washington Capitals.  However, their strengths do lie in defense—with both their notable shot blocking from the defensemen, and goaltending from Henrik Lundqvist—and defense is the most important piece for winning a championship.

            Out in the Western conference are the third seeded Phoenix Coyotes.  They had been a favorite to go to, if not win, the Stanley Cup Finals, until they ran into the freight train known as the Los Angeles Kings, that is.  Led by sensational goaltender Mike Smith and veteran captain Shane Doan, the Coyotes were a force to be reckoned with in the first round against the Chicago Blackhawks, and in the second round against the Nashville Predators.  In fact, the Coyotes had been so good, Mike Smith particularly, that they made Nashville goaltender Pekka Rinne, who had been having an outstanding postseason, look average.  Their only problem, which has now been magnified, was that their offense wasn’t quite clicking, with their top goal scorer being Antoinne Vermette, who most would consider a role player, not necessarily a scorer.

            Then there are the Los Angeles Kings.  After getting some marquee players from the Philadelphia Flyers in the forms of Jeff Carter and Mike Richards, it seemed the Kings were bound for success, but it was uncertain if they’d even make the playoffs going into their final games, and they just barely snuck in as the eighth seed.  Their problem had been that there offense wasn’t up to par, but something connected in the playoffs and the Kings defeated the top seeded Vancouver Canucks in five games in the first round, and completed a four game sweep of the St. Louis Blues in the second round.  In fact, the Kings were the first eighth seed in N.H.L. history to beat both the one and two seeds in the same postseason.  For some reason, no one seems to be able to score on goaltender Jonathan Quick right now, and captain Dustin Brown has been on a tear.

            I would be lying if I say I’d thought the Kings would be the favorite to win the Stanley Cup at this point in the playoffs, although I did have a hunch they’d go far because of certain players on their roster.  However, I had thought it would be the St. Louis Blues who’d win the Stanley Cup this year.  Now that I’ve seen them get swept by the Kings though, I’m more convinced than ever that the Kings will win the Stanley Cup.  If I had to predict, I’d say it will be the Rangers and the Kings in the finals, and the Kings will win in six games.  If the Devils ended up in the finals however, I think the Kings would sweep them.  On the off chance that the Coyotes made it to the finals, I think they could also beat either team from the East.  The West simply has a stronger conference this year.  The West has sort of been the antithesis of the Republican primaries: instead of exposing one another and spurting out a weakened candidate, the Western conference allowed for the just the right amount of pressure to produce one of the best looking playoffs teams in recent memory, the Los Angeles Kings.