Re-thinking Newspaper Subscription

I am re-thinking my newspaper subscription. I can't say this enough: I am cheap. I am frooooogle. I don't like wasting money, especially my money, but even other people's money. Less than one week into my newspaper subscription, I am already depressed. Not a single day goes by without the front page getting adorned with headlines with words like "terrorist," "Iraq," "DNC," "Kerry," "Bush," and so on. It's either fighting in wars abroad, or defending against terrorists in the US, and the rest of the page is something about the election. It's not as bad as the Korean newspapers (in the US, mainly in SoCal), but bad enough. And they're supposed to have won Pulitzers, for heaven's sake.

I'm really not griping about the lack of diversity on the front page, as I am griping about the election coverage. I know. Yeah. It's important. The man who wins in November will become one of the most powerful man in the Universe. We'll live under his regime for the next four years. It's important, I know. But what I'm feeling is that the more we allow ourselves to be driven by the election, the more candidates will be driven by the election.

I don't think history is altered greatly because of the election of single president. Abe Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents in the US. Agree? Most will agree, that Honest Abe was a great guy, because he abolished slavery (generalizing to make a point here) and unified the US. Honestly though, do you think that slavery would not have been abolished, had Abe Lincoln not been elected president? From the bottom of my heart, I think it would still have been abolished, there still would have been some sort of war between the North and the South, and someone would have lost, and eventually both sides would have kissed and made up. Maybe not exactly the way history played out, but quite similar.

If JFK wasn't assassinated, what would be so different? Sure, Jackie would not have gotten her "O." but that's probably it.

People think that if Bush is re-elected, gay marriages won't go through, and our government will still be in a deficit, he's just gonna aggravate people and make pre-emptive strikes against other countries he don't like. You know what? It will be the same, if Kerry lived in the White House. Gay marriages won't go through if the majority of American's feel that it's not a good thing. Whether it's right or wrong doesn't matter -- if enough people feel "ok" about it, it will happen. It don't matter if Kerry's the prez or Bush is the prez. If enough people want it, Bush/Kerry's administration will have to reluctantly say "ok." It's the power of the masses, the power of the people that changes will, not one man.

If the government feels that a country is a big enough of a threat to the US that the US needs to attack, it doesn't matter if Bush is President or Kerry's president. What matters, is that these situations happen, and no matter who is in charge, there's got to be a response for it. It may be a pre-emptive attack, or it may be a response to an attack. It a situation calls for war, it will happen. I'm not saying wars are nice; it's the inevitable that I'm talking about here.

So, you may ask, why bother caring, if what will happen will happen? Just que sera sera, right? Wrong. The people need to take their power back. Don't just acquiesce to getting your power taken away. Vote. Say something. Demand that your voice be heard. Don't relinquish your power to one man! Don't make it all about the election, because election season is brief (although the media drags it out to make it seem longer); the four years that man is in power, is a pretty darn long time. Don't make it all about some man coming to power; make it about hiring a great person to work for you, to work for your country. And make sure that man knows that he's working for you, and that you pay his salary. (And, try to make it a woman the next time around.)