Bipartisanship, the South and Voting Outcome...

Firstly, I'd like to start the post off with a commemoration of 9/11.  I can't believe it's been nine years since that day, because it is still so vivid in America's memory.  What happened that day and through the following weeks was unbelievable on every level, so horrific, with such acts of heroism, and such unity of the country, truly a day that shaped the future of America and the world.     

The Myth of Bipartisanship: 

The Democrats have been calling for bipartisanship recently.  The thing is that this bipartisanship, in their minds, means that they still get to do exactly what they want to, which is expand the role of the government.  They're calling for the Republicans to come over to their side without giving any significant concessions to the other side, and even if they did, it would be at too great an expense to the overall republican ideology to pass the bills they want passed.  Essentially what it boils down to is that Obama and the Democrats' idea of bipartisanship, one which they so aggressively call for and criticize others for not following, is that they will do exactly what they want, only a little bit slower.  That's ridiculous. 

Voting: 

I hear all this talk about person versus party.  Do you vote for the person or do you vote for the party?  Neither.  You vote for the outcome.  That means you vote for whoever has the best chance of improving the country or the state.  That means that you don't vote for someone solely because they seem like a good person.  You don't vote strictly party line no matter what.  You don't vote for third parties unless there is an overwhelmingly good reason.  It means you get involved early and intensely to get your candidate chosen, and this might be the most important thing you can do.  Primary voting is often overlooked and is incredibly important.  Then, during the final election, you vote for the best outcome.  Chances are you might not like either candidate, but you vote for the outcome.  There was a great South Park episode where Stan wondered what the point of voting was if it was "between a douche and a turd," and the reason to vote is that voting is your way of shaping the future of the country, it is your input into what will be the outcome, and the politicians are just the middle man in that step, you could say, using a pun I have used before, that they are just tools.  They are not a higher class of people and should not be treated as such, and you don't vote for the person you like best or who deserves the most respect except to the extent that that person may be more likely to get the policies you want done.               

The South: 

I'm increasingly perplexed as to why the rest of the country wants the South to be a part of America.  It is always belittled, ridiculed, and spoken of and portrayed in a derogatory manner using nothing less than bigotry and stereotypes.  Nothing complimentary is ever said about any of it except perhaps the food which is supposed to be tasty but unhealthy.  Politicians (especially on the democrat side but on both sides) go out of their way to minimize the South's influence and push Southerners to the periphery of their parties, trying to distance themselves from that region of the country.  So why did we fight a war to keep it in?  What reason could you possibly have at this point if the South decided to secede again?  I actually want an answer here.   

Quran Burning ...

So there's this one florida pastor who has a congregation of fifty people in a small church that more resembles a barn in Florida who has announced plans to burn the Quran on September 11, 2010, and no one else in the country agrees with his actions, but for some reason this is the biggest news story of the day. 

Obama called for Americans to  unify as "one nation under God" (man, who knew he knew the pledge of allegiance?), and said there would be increased violence in the Middle East toward our troops if this occurs. 

Mayor Bloomberg of New York said that he had the right to do it, but that it was "distasteful," which is exactly the response people wanted regarding the ground zero mosque.   

Hillary Clinton said that it would inflame tensions in the middle east and endanger muslims abroad. 

Robert Gates said pretty much the same thing. 

General Petreus said that it would put US troops at increased risk. 

The FBI got involved, visiting the church and collecting information relating to his plan (if only they'd done the same for the Ft. Hood shooter ... )

The response wasn't even limited to the governments of the US, state and federal.  Nato even chimed in, its secretary general condemning the act, calling it "disrespectful," and saying it would have a "negative impact" on the security of troops in Afghanistan. 

So did the Vatican!  They called the plans "outrageous and grave."  They also said that “Each religion, with its respective sacred books, places of worship and symbols, has the right to respect and protection."  This prompted some to call them hypocritical in light of history, something which seems to be a recurring theme in this post.   

Then, after a discrepancy in which it was briefly believed that both the Ground Zero mosque and the quran burning were going to be called off, neither was and the mosque's imam said that moving the mosque now would send the wrong message and cause violence in the muslim world (as if he was going to move it before, or didn't realize that it was not a good idea when he announced plans to put it there). 

Finally, muslims from around the world threatened violence if this one man went through with his plan. 

Let's put this in perspective.  This is one man who no one had ever heard of before.  Not only does virtually no one else agree with his plans, and not only do the plans pose no direct threat to anybody, but it is not even a widespread occurrance (which really doesn't matter, as the government is not there to tell citizens what to do as long as it doesn't hurt other people directly), and yet it has made international news and the highest authorities in the world have gotten involved?     

Pastor Jones, himself, said there was a double standard for burning Bibles and American Flags and Qurans, and he said some other stuff but I couldn't find it just now, but essentially the world is trying very hard to prove him right. 

I guess the difference is that radical Christians burn Qurans and radical Muslims burn people. 

Lastly, I would like to make it perfectly clear that, if there are violent protests and innocent people, including our troops, are killed or put in harms way because of this incident, it will absolutely not be the fault of the pastor or the country.  I came to the conclusion a long time ago while reading about the nazi occupation of Poland in WWII, in which the preferred way of keeping order was to kill innocent people when crimes were committed in order to keep the country in line (to the extent that when the Warsaw Uprising occurred, rather than fighting the fighters, the nazis spent most of their time emptying hospitals and churches and killing their occupants), that threats and intimidation do not in any way put the blame for an action on the person being threatened and intimidated.  The fault for killing somebody lies with the killer, and submitting to threats and intimidation is unacceptable.