This one may ruffle a few feathers...
Let me first start out by saying that I lean Liberal on almost all issues. This should give enough background on my viewpoints for most people, but to clarify further, I am a huge proponent of equality for all sexes (I have 2 daughters and hate the thought of them facing the issues I see in society), sexual orientations, religions (or lack thereof), races, etc... I'm incredibly aware of the fact that we're not an "equal" nation despite what some naive people may believe. I see differences in how I, a white male in middle-class America, am treated versus how my wife is treated when people don't notice I'm around and how people of other races face different circumstances given the exact same situation.
(I started typing about perspective and how, as a white middle-class male, I can't possibly have enough to discuss all forms of discrimination, but it was getting lengthy so I'll save that for another post. If you haven't seen this video on how sex/race determine how we react to people, go watch it.)
Given that, I want to talk about the reaction to this Ray Rice situation. Again, if you're not aware of what I'm talking about, you can Google it. You can find the video. Here's an ESPN article talking about it.
Long story short: Ray Rice apparently assaulted his fiance (now wife) on an elevator; in the process, she ended up unconscious. According to police, who saw the footage on the elevator (we haven't), both struck each other, Ray's blow was sufficient to cause Janay Palmer (now Rice) to lose consciousness.
Then, after the elevator stopped/opened, we saw the end result of Ray pulling Janay out of the elevator before propping her up.
That's all we know.
So, to review:
1. There was an altercation
2. Both struck the other
3. Janay was knocked unconscious
4. Ray pulled her out of the elevator, propped her up, and gave TMZ more ratings by doing it in plain sight of a security camera
After the NFL reviewed the case (which never went to trial, as Ray was a first time offender, had no prior charges for anything, and Janay and Ray stood united that this was an anomaly and not a regular occurrence), they decided to suspend Ray for 2 games. This caused a ton of outrage (which, I presume, is part of the reason you came to this post and are still reading) due to the comparisons to how other rule violators are treated (drug violations = 4 games, so the insinuation is that the NFL cares more about minor drugs (like marijuana) more than protecting women.
The next step is going on long-winded diatribes about how women should be treated equally, about how we should care just as much about wives/girlfriends as we do the NFL players themselves. Equality this, equality that...
(Not to belittle the concept of equality, which I fully believe should have long been a foregone conclusion; I'm more belittling the manner in which people use these situations to further their own narrative, their own viewpoints, no matter how right or wrong those viewpoints are. This isn't about your views... this is about a man and woman and an altercation.)
Here's my one issue with this entire situation: if we're going to preach equality, if we're going to state that men and women deserve equal treatment, that men shouldn't be able to treat women this way...
...why is it that no one seems to care that she was also physically attacking him?
Now, before you jump on me and point out that he's an NFL player and he's a man and he's bigger and he should know better... remember that not two minutes ago you were also preaching equality. That men and women are equal. Yes, his size makes his physical assault much more effective, but take a look at the motivations, the intentions, behind each attack. If she attacked first, her mind was in the same place as his. All things equal (again, we're going on the premise that men and women are equal), if she attacks him initially, how is he deserving of any more punishment than she is?
Yes, the end result of his actions are much more jarring to see than hers, but the mindset behind those actions were at the very least equal, at worst they put her more in the wrong. If she truly attacked him first and he defended himself/retaliated, I would put her mindset as the more aggressive one. Again, given the context of equality amongst men and women, which we hear all the time, this isn't about "he's bigger than she is, he should know better"... because if we go down that slippery slope, the "equality" question equivalent would be "how could she not have known better than to attack a much bigger person? She should have known better."
But I'm sure that statement rubs you the wrong way. I'm sure you feel disgusted that I'm stating that "that poor woman should have known her place". I'm not saying that. Don't get what I'm saying twisted around. I'm simply providing an equivalent retort to the "he's bigger, he should have known better" statement. If Ray Rice is expected to be a mature adult in the face of a physical assault, sitting idly while she attacks him, how is it we can't expect her to be a mature adult as well?
Let's discuss this equality thing a bit further; let's look at this as if Janay were a man instead of a woman since, due to the fact that men and women are equal in all things, a simple "plug and play" would work. If the male version of Janay (with the same general size/frame, a smaller man) were to attack Ray Rice in an elevator and got knocked out when Ray defended himself, we'd all be praising him and laughing about the stupid guy who attacked the big NFL player and got put in his place. No one would say "Ray was much bigger than him and should have known better than to retaliate." Ray would have been generally praised for standing up for himself and putting an idiot in his place.
Why is it that, when this person becomes a female instead, we only expect one of the two sides to have a level head and, furthermore, expect that person to maintain their cool in the face of physical assault? "He's bigger, he's a man, he should know better." I get what you're saying, but you can't possibly try to claim that men and women are equal then give that treatment to this situation.
Let's call a spade a spade: men and women aren't equal in all things; while I fully believe in equal rights, and I 100% believe that women should be afforded every single right to life, liberty, and all, men and women aren't equal when it comes to physical attributes and abilities. Yes, some women could be considered in the same league as some men, but all things considered, men, on a physical level, outpace women (on average). At that point, when you realize that a physical altercation between two individuals of opposite sexes will go a certain way more times than not, trying to tout equality in the face of this situation is terrible logic due to the specifics of this particular situation (that there was assault from both sides).
That being said, I fully endorse throwing men under the jail who abuse their spouses; abuse is quite different than defending and/or reacting to being assaulted. If a man beats his wife/girlfriend, I honestly believe that the punishment is never sufficient to fit the crime. My Mom was beaten for years by her boyfriend, a 6'3", 230 pound (mostly muscle save for a beer gut... working in a Springs warehouse lifting crates will do that) mulleted redneck. As a pre-teen and then a young teen, I was powerless to help her when his assaults would come.
But I also noticed something else; there'd be times where he would be calm and she'd have been drinking, and she would get in his face, poke him in the forehead, call him names, shove him, provoke him when he would try remaining calm. Alcohol makes people lose their minds, I suppose. After a while, even I was wondering why she continued and why she was asking for what was about to happen. Yes I said she was asking for it, because she literally was.
In that situation, when he starts getting slapped in the face, who becomes the wrong one? All things being equal, shouldn't she be thrown under the jail as well? I loved my dear mother until the day she died, but I'll always remember the nights where he would beat her unprovoked and the nights where she would flip out and keep going until he finally responded. I've seen both sides of the argument up close and personally... men shouldn't abuse their spouses, ever. I've never abused my wife, nor would I ever.
However, if we truly wish to get to a point in society where men and women are actually equal, we can't keep applying one standard to one side and a different one to the other side. We can't hold men accountable for their actions then turn around and give the wife/girlfriend a free pass on their side of the altercation due to her gender. That's by no means equality, and calling it as such is the reason we still don't have true equality to this day. It happens in race relations, in gender discussions, and in discussions about sexuality. When we claim things are equal when they're nowhere near a state of true equality, then we start accepting this state of inequality as "equality"... then, when the inequality rears its ugly head (like in this case), we flip out and claim the need for equality.
It's a messed up cycle that only gets fixed when we all take a step back and take a good hard look at how we react to situations like this. Am I saying he should have hit her? No... I'm saying that I understand the need to defend/respond when being attacked though.
Humans are animals at the base level; we have a "fight or flight" response to critical situations. While you claim "flight" should have been the response here, why is it that only Ray Rice should have reacted with a flight attitude? Why not Janay when she got upset? Why is it she's allowed to give in to her desire to have a "fight" instead of "flight" response yet he deserves to be destroyed, professionally and personally, for his response? If he's wrong, how is it that she's not just as wrong?!
As for the NFL's response; there was no conviction. With a positive drug test, there's no gray area; a positive test means that a drug was taken, and that means that the law was broken. No gray area. With this situation, there was no conviction and there was no clearcut violation of anything the NFL prohibits. Yes, the NFL has suspended people who haven't been convicted of a crime before, but not on the first offense. Ben Roethlisberger? At least two times he was in that type of situation. Adam "Pacman" Jones? Look at that laundry list...
He got 2 games, which is more than the NFL has ever given out for a first-time non-conviction. Calling for Ray Rice's professional head for this situation again goes back to the inequality in gender relations; why is it he should be punished by his private company when he was attacked and responded?
Either way, this is a debate that I'll either hear "yeah! That's right!" or "how could you promote domestic violence!?" and will never get people to reach a middle ground on. I simply wanted to use this space to type some thoughts down, as it's irritating hearing "equality this, equality that" before hearing about how much more Ray Rice should be punished than Janay in this situation.
That's it for now.
Michael
Monday, July 28, 2014
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Why NOT Voting Matters as Well
This is the topic that actually made me want to start this blog. Well, honestly, I've wanted to create a blog for a while now, since I have a ton of thoughts and ideas that I don't have a great outlet for. I guess voting will be the catalyst for me creating this blog.
Today, I read an article by Russell Brand outlining his thoughts in regards to voting; I posted the article on Facebook and attached those beliefs expressed in that piece to my page and my professed beliefs, telling my friends on Facebook that I concurred with a lot of what he had to say.
I have never voted once in my life. Truth be told, up until this past year's elections (Obama vs. Romney), I haven't really cared about politics or voting and was generally too lazy to get out and vote. Whenever someone would question my ability to make statements about the state of our country (ie, "You can't complain if you don't vote"), I'd simply point to my status as a US Army veteran and state that I most assuredly DO have the ability to complain since I've given up a lot more for this country to be where it's at.
However, after spending a couple of years up here in Washington, DC, it's nigh impossible to not care at least somewhat about politics. I've learned the meanings of the terms left, right, liberal, conservative, Democrat, and Republican since moving up here, none of which I knew beforehand (I told you I didn't care...). I learned that I tend to lean to the left, to the liberal side as it pertains to social issues (same sex marriage, social equality, economic floor) while leaning right on gun control (honestly, if someone wants to kill people, taking away their gun won't stop them; I'm sure these will be future topics on this here blog). As I watched more and more coverage on the campaigns, I realized how much I didn't trust or like Mitt Romney.
Whatsoever.
I felt the need to do my part to keep him out of office; I decided to vote. I'd register and place my vote for Barrack Obama.
Remember how I said I'd never voted before? Well, I didn't realize how far out the deadline was to register. Long story short, I missed the deadline to register in Virginia by a week (or less, I don't remember at this point) and didn't vote in the election.
Well, you know what? I think that was a blessing in disguise. I'm glad I didn't vote. You all should be as well. Let me explain:
I didn't LIKE either candidate. There was nothing I particularly liked about Barrack Obama, and there definitely wasn't anything I liked about Mitt Romney. The only reason I cared at all was that I severely disliked what Mitt Romney REPRESENTED, not necessarily his positions or his declarations of what he'd do in office. It was an emotional reaction that blocked out logical thought.
I was voting based on which turd smelled the least.
Thinking back, why should I have voted? We've been indoctrinated from a young(ish) age that it is our responsibility, our DUTY, to vote in every single election with every chance we get. We're guilt tripped into it by being told that other countries don't have this same luxury, that others would kill/die for this right, and that people have died so that we could have this right. We're essentially told that we don't have a voice and that our opinions won't matter if we don't adhere to the unwritten rule of American society and vote.
After realizing that I couldn't vote due to my error, I started realizing how happy I was that I didn't have to vote. Again, I didn't like anything about either candidate (let's be honest here, this is a two party system and voting for a third party at this point is the same as not voting), so what was I voting for? I truly didn't want either in office because I had no clue what their merits truly were. One came into office bashing everything the previous president stood for, mainly the wars that Mr. Obama kept going and Guantanamo Bay, a facility that is still open to this day (not saying I agree with his sentiments, just that he's not a man of his word). The other flipflopped so much on the issues that it was difficult to even get a grasp of where he stood on a day to day basis.
I didn't like either, I'd rather neither got into office.
And yet, when I relayed this sentiment, I was told, essentially, "Yeah, but you need to vote. You have to. To not vote is unamerican!"
What?!
"Yeah, at least vote for a third party or send in a fill-in ballot. Don't skip voting!"
So what you're saying is, all I really need to do is vote? Regardless of the actual point of an election (to get our chosen elected officials into office), I need to go and either 1. vote for a terrible choice or 2. essentially not vote (which, I could have saved a ton of time by not coming to a polling center and waiting in hours of lines and sat at home all day) as long as I showed up and took part in the system.
Well, you know what? The system is fucking broken. If the system worked, we wouldn't have a political system wracked with indecision and inability to function solely based on the desire to achieve partisan goals. The desire isn't to make the government run to the optimal benefit of the society they're chosed to protect and serve, the desire is to progress selfish/partisan goals while making sure they don't burn enough bridges at home to maintian their constituency.
The reason the system is broken is this foolish "YOU HAVE TO VOTE!" sentiment. Until we can get past a two party system, this "you have to vote" sentiment is going to keep pushing this country further and further down the drain.
The reason is that, when politicians KNOW that you're going to have to go to the polls (due to the persistent guilt-tripping from the moment we can vote), they know that they don't have to show/prove that they're worthy of your vote based on their morals/merits but rather that they only have to show you that the other person is bad enough for you to not want to vote for the opposition. They just need to get you emotionally invested in the situation, they want to elicit that emotional reaction that I had during the Obama/Romney election season since, once you hate that other candidate, they don't have to worry about you anymore. You're not going anywhere, since it's a two party system and they've gotten you to turn from "that other party" (and, again, you HAVE to vote).
It's not about coming up with something better, as I can address that some other time. What I'm saying here is that, if we're not just mindless drones who flock to the polls regardless of circumstance, then politicians have to do more than just make us hate the other side. They can't depend on a dumb public flocking to the polls and getting a decent chunk of that apathetic group to punch their side of the ticket; if we finally open our eyes to the reality of how this works, and we finally stop blindly showing up on election day, think about how that will change politicans and their methods.
For one, they'll see the polling numbers go down. This would be the first step. They would realize that less and less people make it to the polls. This isn't to say that someone wouldn't still win, but that would be the point. There would be a loser in the race, one who would have to regroup and take stock of why they lost and how they could do better. The collective voice of those who abstained from voting based on the same old bash-ads and "don't vote for that guy; I won't tell you why to vote for me, just don't vote for that one" tactics and lack of substance would be heard loud and clear.
Because the only place where our "voice" can ever be heard or ever matter is at the polls.
When the loser takes stock of the loss, they'll have to change their tactics. Spending a ton of money to bash opponents but getting no results, they'll have to actually figure out why people aren't coming out to polling stations anymore. They'll get the answer they want, that people are sick of the same bullshit. They'll have to change to a plan that involves actually providing the public with real answers, a real plan, and real accountability.
When the public sees that from one side and not the other, the tides will turn back to that party.
You can see how the domino effect would go down.
---------------------
As I said, the only place where our voices matter is the polls. While the powers-that-be have used this to say "see? you have to vote!", I disagree vehemently. Think about that for a second: the people in power are trying to guilt you into supporting the system that keeps them in power. Do you really think that they're an unbiased observer?
If we don't buy into the system we all seem to claim is broken, this would require those in power to be accountable for their actions and their words. They would have to actually mean what they say and say what they mean.
Unfortunately, they know that as long as they can get people to buy into (then, subsequently, sell themselves) the notion that they have to vote, they don't need to actually please the public. Even while in office, you'll notice that they never care about actually doing what they say they're going to do nor do they care about pleasing the public since about 6 months before election day, they can just put their happy faces on and bash the opponent.
"Bash, bash, bash, he's crappy, don't vote for him."
Seriously, how can you ever complain about what your elected officials do when that's the ticket they're campaigning on?
----------------------
Since it's getting late, I'll wrap this up. Basically, until we show our politicians that they can't just act however they please and expect us to show up at the polls, we can never expect to see real change. Think about it, regardless of your views: do you think the government works? Are you really naive enough to think that its all "that other party's fault"? Whatever "news" channel you watch, they have a vested interest in this as well; they're basically campaiging 24/7 using the same tactics of "that other party is crappy, vote for anyone but them". Seriously think about it for a second, you can't HONESTLY believe that all of the blame lies solely on the side of the aisle that you don't sit on.
With that being said, answer that question: do you think the government, as it stands right now, is working? If you're a normal human being with a working brain, you'd say that no, it isn't. Think about how our consent to the current system is contributing. I'm not saying I have a better solution right now, but if we're not all blindly standing in those hours long lines to punch one side of a ticket for no other reason that "we should", politicians will be accountable, something that they're not right now.
When the system's broken, why would you consent to using it and/or buying into it. I won't buy into the system until it's fixed and/or an honest person runs for office. Unfortunately, I just don't see either of these things happening anytime soon.
For those of you who are going to, go ahead and call me unpatriotic and unamerican. Tell me that when I've just spent time typing out my reasons, which are the improvement of the system in order to improve our country.
Get your mind and head out of your ass, stop blindly listening to what others tell you ("VOTE OR DIE!!!!!1!11!!one") without stopping to think about it yourself. You may end up doing more good by doing nothing rather than what you're currently doing.
Michael
Today, I read an article by Russell Brand outlining his thoughts in regards to voting; I posted the article on Facebook and attached those beliefs expressed in that piece to my page and my professed beliefs, telling my friends on Facebook that I concurred with a lot of what he had to say.
I have never voted once in my life. Truth be told, up until this past year's elections (Obama vs. Romney), I haven't really cared about politics or voting and was generally too lazy to get out and vote. Whenever someone would question my ability to make statements about the state of our country (ie, "You can't complain if you don't vote"), I'd simply point to my status as a US Army veteran and state that I most assuredly DO have the ability to complain since I've given up a lot more for this country to be where it's at.
However, after spending a couple of years up here in Washington, DC, it's nigh impossible to not care at least somewhat about politics. I've learned the meanings of the terms left, right, liberal, conservative, Democrat, and Republican since moving up here, none of which I knew beforehand (I told you I didn't care...). I learned that I tend to lean to the left, to the liberal side as it pertains to social issues (same sex marriage, social equality, economic floor) while leaning right on gun control (honestly, if someone wants to kill people, taking away their gun won't stop them; I'm sure these will be future topics on this here blog). As I watched more and more coverage on the campaigns, I realized how much I didn't trust or like Mitt Romney.
Whatsoever.
I felt the need to do my part to keep him out of office; I decided to vote. I'd register and place my vote for Barrack Obama.
Remember how I said I'd never voted before? Well, I didn't realize how far out the deadline was to register. Long story short, I missed the deadline to register in Virginia by a week (or less, I don't remember at this point) and didn't vote in the election.
Well, you know what? I think that was a blessing in disguise. I'm glad I didn't vote. You all should be as well. Let me explain:
I didn't LIKE either candidate. There was nothing I particularly liked about Barrack Obama, and there definitely wasn't anything I liked about Mitt Romney. The only reason I cared at all was that I severely disliked what Mitt Romney REPRESENTED, not necessarily his positions or his declarations of what he'd do in office. It was an emotional reaction that blocked out logical thought.
I was voting based on which turd smelled the least.
Thinking back, why should I have voted? We've been indoctrinated from a young(ish) age that it is our responsibility, our DUTY, to vote in every single election with every chance we get. We're guilt tripped into it by being told that other countries don't have this same luxury, that others would kill/die for this right, and that people have died so that we could have this right. We're essentially told that we don't have a voice and that our opinions won't matter if we don't adhere to the unwritten rule of American society and vote.
After realizing that I couldn't vote due to my error, I started realizing how happy I was that I didn't have to vote. Again, I didn't like anything about either candidate (let's be honest here, this is a two party system and voting for a third party at this point is the same as not voting), so what was I voting for? I truly didn't want either in office because I had no clue what their merits truly were. One came into office bashing everything the previous president stood for, mainly the wars that Mr. Obama kept going and Guantanamo Bay, a facility that is still open to this day (not saying I agree with his sentiments, just that he's not a man of his word). The other flipflopped so much on the issues that it was difficult to even get a grasp of where he stood on a day to day basis.
I didn't like either, I'd rather neither got into office.
And yet, when I relayed this sentiment, I was told, essentially, "Yeah, but you need to vote. You have to. To not vote is unamerican!"
What?!
"Yeah, at least vote for a third party or send in a fill-in ballot. Don't skip voting!"
So what you're saying is, all I really need to do is vote? Regardless of the actual point of an election (to get our chosen elected officials into office), I need to go and either 1. vote for a terrible choice or 2. essentially not vote (which, I could have saved a ton of time by not coming to a polling center and waiting in hours of lines and sat at home all day) as long as I showed up and took part in the system.
Well, you know what? The system is fucking broken. If the system worked, we wouldn't have a political system wracked with indecision and inability to function solely based on the desire to achieve partisan goals. The desire isn't to make the government run to the optimal benefit of the society they're chosed to protect and serve, the desire is to progress selfish/partisan goals while making sure they don't burn enough bridges at home to maintian their constituency.
The reason the system is broken is this foolish "YOU HAVE TO VOTE!" sentiment. Until we can get past a two party system, this "you have to vote" sentiment is going to keep pushing this country further and further down the drain.
The reason is that, when politicians KNOW that you're going to have to go to the polls (due to the persistent guilt-tripping from the moment we can vote), they know that they don't have to show/prove that they're worthy of your vote based on their morals/merits but rather that they only have to show you that the other person is bad enough for you to not want to vote for the opposition. They just need to get you emotionally invested in the situation, they want to elicit that emotional reaction that I had during the Obama/Romney election season since, once you hate that other candidate, they don't have to worry about you anymore. You're not going anywhere, since it's a two party system and they've gotten you to turn from "that other party" (and, again, you HAVE to vote).
It's not about coming up with something better, as I can address that some other time. What I'm saying here is that, if we're not just mindless drones who flock to the polls regardless of circumstance, then politicians have to do more than just make us hate the other side. They can't depend on a dumb public flocking to the polls and getting a decent chunk of that apathetic group to punch their side of the ticket; if we finally open our eyes to the reality of how this works, and we finally stop blindly showing up on election day, think about how that will change politicans and their methods.
For one, they'll see the polling numbers go down. This would be the first step. They would realize that less and less people make it to the polls. This isn't to say that someone wouldn't still win, but that would be the point. There would be a loser in the race, one who would have to regroup and take stock of why they lost and how they could do better. The collective voice of those who abstained from voting based on the same old bash-ads and "don't vote for that guy; I won't tell you why to vote for me, just don't vote for that one" tactics and lack of substance would be heard loud and clear.
Because the only place where our "voice" can ever be heard or ever matter is at the polls.
When the loser takes stock of the loss, they'll have to change their tactics. Spending a ton of money to bash opponents but getting no results, they'll have to actually figure out why people aren't coming out to polling stations anymore. They'll get the answer they want, that people are sick of the same bullshit. They'll have to change to a plan that involves actually providing the public with real answers, a real plan, and real accountability.
When the public sees that from one side and not the other, the tides will turn back to that party.
You can see how the domino effect would go down.
---------------------
As I said, the only place where our voices matter is the polls. While the powers-that-be have used this to say "see? you have to vote!", I disagree vehemently. Think about that for a second: the people in power are trying to guilt you into supporting the system that keeps them in power. Do you really think that they're an unbiased observer?
If we don't buy into the system we all seem to claim is broken, this would require those in power to be accountable for their actions and their words. They would have to actually mean what they say and say what they mean.
Unfortunately, they know that as long as they can get people to buy into (then, subsequently, sell themselves) the notion that they have to vote, they don't need to actually please the public. Even while in office, you'll notice that they never care about actually doing what they say they're going to do nor do they care about pleasing the public since about 6 months before election day, they can just put their happy faces on and bash the opponent.
"Bash, bash, bash, he's crappy, don't vote for him."
Seriously, how can you ever complain about what your elected officials do when that's the ticket they're campaigning on?
----------------------
Since it's getting late, I'll wrap this up. Basically, until we show our politicians that they can't just act however they please and expect us to show up at the polls, we can never expect to see real change. Think about it, regardless of your views: do you think the government works? Are you really naive enough to think that its all "that other party's fault"? Whatever "news" channel you watch, they have a vested interest in this as well; they're basically campaiging 24/7 using the same tactics of "that other party is crappy, vote for anyone but them". Seriously think about it for a second, you can't HONESTLY believe that all of the blame lies solely on the side of the aisle that you don't sit on.
With that being said, answer that question: do you think the government, as it stands right now, is working? If you're a normal human being with a working brain, you'd say that no, it isn't. Think about how our consent to the current system is contributing. I'm not saying I have a better solution right now, but if we're not all blindly standing in those hours long lines to punch one side of a ticket for no other reason that "we should", politicians will be accountable, something that they're not right now.
When the system's broken, why would you consent to using it and/or buying into it. I won't buy into the system until it's fixed and/or an honest person runs for office. Unfortunately, I just don't see either of these things happening anytime soon.
For those of you who are going to, go ahead and call me unpatriotic and unamerican. Tell me that when I've just spent time typing out my reasons, which are the improvement of the system in order to improve our country.
Get your mind and head out of your ass, stop blindly listening to what others tell you ("VOTE OR DIE!!!!!1!11!!one") without stopping to think about it yourself. You may end up doing more good by doing nothing rather than what you're currently doing.
Michael
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)