Are We on the Verge of World War III?

While I realize most of us probably have better things to do then think about the potential US strike on Syria, I think if people realized what kind of mess it could spiral into might make them feel differently. While I seriously doubt that a strike on Syria would plunge us into World War III, that is the feeling a lot of people had when a certain duke was assassinated and the first World War started. In fact if you look at the global situation during that period and compare it to what is going on now, there are a lot of similarities. I know it's a stretch, but remember, people believed the world going to war not once, but twice was a stretch as well.

How do You See World War III in this Mess?

If you look at World War I as an example then seeing what could happen with the current situation is easier to understand. First, just like with World War I there are a series of alliances that span all over the world. The US, Europe, Australia, and a few other nations are all bound by treaty to come to the defense of one another. Russia has several alliances with neighboring countries including Iran. Iran has an ally in Russia and is on fairly friendly terms with China. China for its part is friendly with Iran, but has a treaty with Pakistan. India is a bit of a loner but is in constant skirmishes with both Pakistan and China over the Kashmir region. While this isn't even close to the full picture it should give you an idea of just how tangled everything is.

World War I was not started by the aggression of a country against the other, it was started because of a single assassination which set off a chain reaction of events that caused the first world war. Just like back then, we are looking at a similar single incident setting off a chain of reactions that could plunge the world into war. Right now the United States is considering performing a military strike against Syria. While this on the surface may not seem like a big deal, it is actually a huge deal.

Currently both Russia and Iran have stated they will retaliate against the US if the US conducts a strike against Syria. In fact, Russia has actually moved some of their warships into the Mediterranean sea and this should scare the hell out of us. Now, if the US makes a strike and Russia retaliates, this triggers off a series of treaties. First, while the US may not have Britain's support on striking Syria, they are bound by treaty to respond if we are attacked by an enemy. Not only is Britain compelled to come to our defense, but so is every member of NATO as well as Australia.

Along with Russia retaliating, Iran has threatened retaliation. If they chose to make a military move of aggression against the US then Israel would be more than happy to jump to our defense and most likely other countries in the Middle East would pick a side on that conflict and plunge the entire region into war. While this is all a mess we still aren't close to done yet. IF Iran attacks the US, the US and it's allies would retaliate pretty heavily and then China is most likely going to get involved. If China comes into the war then that probably means Pakistan and India go at each other too.

Admittedly this is quite unlikely to happen given that neither Russia nor Iran have anything remotely close to the capability of our military. However, while it is unlikely world war three would start, what is likely is for Russia, Iran, and other's to retaliate against the US and our allies in unconventional ways. If these unconventional attacks become dangerous enough, eventually the US will have to enter into war against Iran and again we could wind up in a very messy place.

Just something to think about.

Should We Attack Syria?

It appears that President Obama is coming closer to making a decision to order a military strike of some kind against Syria. While I realize he has reasons for this decision, this is actually one of the few times I am completely opposed to the actions of his administration. Most of the time I can either agree with the president or see the reason for his actions well enough that I can be at some kind of peace with his decisions, but I can't this time. I realize that the president feels he may need to order the strikes but I really believe it is a mistake. The reason I believe that ordering any kind of military intervention in the conflict in Syria is because there is almost nothing to be gained and a great deal we could lose.

Background

I am pretty sure that if your reading this then you probably have a basic grasp of what is going on, but if you don't here is a quick run down.

A couple of years ago the Middle East nation of Syria erupted into civil war. In that time there have been many calls for the US and other western nations to get involved because this war has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives. At first, this actually looked like a civil war the US would want to get behind because the leadership of Syria is very anti US and happens to have close relations with Iran's. Yet, while it looked like we might want to at least back the rebellion with some kind of support, we learned that many of the people who are providing money and weapons to the rebels are actually radical Muslims. This means that even if the rebels won the civil war and got rid of Assad (the head of state in Syria) we wouldn't wind up in a better position in that part of the world.

All of this changed dramatically a few days ago when it was reported that someone had used chemical weapons in an attack that killed thousands of civilians. Because the United States has stood against the use of chemical weapons since World War I we feel a responsibility to monitor their use. When we first started paying attention to the Syrian uprising, we quickly decided not to get involved but warned the Assad government if they used chemical weapons in the conflict (which he has done before) we would become involved. The US put this line in the sand in hopes it would deter Assad from using chemical weapons, but it looks like that didn't work.

Now the US finds itself in a bad situation. If it decides to not make any kind of military strike, then we run the risk of loosing respect from our allies and looking like we are weak when challenged. However, if we do make strikes there is no telling what kind of path that will force us to walk. This is the type of situation that no leader wants to find themselves in, but unfortunately for President Obama, he has to make a decision and no matter what he decides there will be consequences that are not entirely his fault.

The Pros and Cons of a Military Strike

The only good reason for making a strike against Syria right now comes down to the fact we put a line in the sand. If there hadn't been an attack using chemical weapons, we more than likely wouldn't be having this conversation. The problem is that while we may wish otherwise, that line in the sand has been crossed and now we got to choose what to do about it. It may seem like the easy answer is to simply order a strike against Syria and let them know we won't stand for the used of chemical weapons. Unfortunately, it really isn't that easy.

The main reason a strike may not be the best idea is because we have very little to gain from it. If the rebels were pro democracy then maybe we would, but they aren't. In fact the rebels may be a worse group to have in power than Assad. Assad may not be a friend to the US and he is not a nice guy, but he is a known quantity that we have learned to deal with. If we do make a strike it isn't going to change things as far as the overall conflict goes. While we might take out a couple of valuable Syrian targets, it won't topple the Assad regime and will also kill innocent civilians who have already suffered enough. In order to actually get any kind of benefit from military action we would have to commit ourselves to yet another war and right now we really can't afford that.

Along with having nothing to gain from military action is the fact we really don't know who used the chemical weapons. While the Obama administration is saying they are positive it was Assad, this really doesn't make sense. Assad has actually worked to make sure the US doesn't get involved in the conflict. The Syrian government has gone so far as to allow UN inspectors into the country to keep a tab on things in hopes of keeping the west out of the conflict. When you think about this, it makes almost no sense for Assad to be stupid enough to provoke us in the one way he knew would force our hand.

It would seem that once you consider the pros and cons, price we will pay and risk we take by making a strike obviously outweighs any benefit we get from "sticking to our guns" in this situation. I am not saying Assad should be allowed to get away with using chemical weapons. I am not saying that the current regime in Syria is a good thing. However, there are horrible things happening in every corner of the globe and lots of bad leaders out there and we are not doing anything about them. I know the president isn't looking for my advice, but if he did I would tell him he needs to stay as far away from this conflict as possible. Our nation doesn't gain a damn thing from lobbing bombs into Syria, and stands a chance to lose a great deal.

The Second Amendment

I have been giving some thought to the second amendment lately and I think some of my views on it may be changing. I agree with the right to keep and bear arms and I will always agree with this right, but it is becomming more and more appearant to me that this right is not quite as simple as I would like it to be. Unfortunately while I believe that gun onwership is not only a right but also a responsibilty of every citizen of the USA, that right is being misused by many people. One of the core foundations of democracy is the idea of self rule and while this means that we are given certain rights, this also means that we accept certain responsibilities. When it comes to the second amendement it seems that right now more people are far more concerned with their rights than they are about their resonsibilities. This fact is part of why I am changing my views on supporting legislation that restricts access to guns. Where one time I was firmly against any and all laws that restricted access to guns, I find myself realizing that this ideal is not responsible of me as a citizen of this country.

Whenever I am asked as a citizen of the United States to consider a change to law the first thing I do is give consideration to the documents that this country was founded on. I am a firm beleiver that the Constitution of the United States is one of the finest examples of democratic ideals in the worlds history. I believe that those who worked on this document were some of the greatest minds in the history of our race. The reason the Founding Fathers included the second amendement as part of the bill of rights was because in the world they lived in an armed populace was about the only way they could possibly raise an army strong enough to combat threats.

Why We Have the Second Ammendment

This may seem like a strange idea to us now but you have to remember that in the beginning the United States was not the world power it is today. It was a small country with a small population that had justifiable fears of much larger and more powerful nations such as England and France. Along with the fear of other nations, the United States was also conflicting with the Native Americans whose homes we were invading as we expanded our nation. This meant that the very survival of the country depended on its citizens being armed.

Along with the idea that the country needed an armed malitia, the other reason the right to keep and bear arms was given to us was out of a consideration of livlihood. Many of the earliest citizens of our country lived on the frontier and hunting game was not just a sport, but a necessity for their survival. While today no one needs to live off of hunting, that was not always the case. Thus the second ammendement gauranteed that those people blazing the path on the frontier could not only survive but also defend themselves.

While those were the times the Founding Fathers created the constitution in, those are not the times we live in now. We no longer need an armed populace to defend our borders. In fact we have the strongest military in the world and it' unlikely we will lose that place any time soon. Not only do we no longer need a militia to defend our borders, we also are not on the brink of starvation meaning that hunting is not the necessity it once was.

The reason I bring up all these facts is to show that while we may have been given a right to keep and bear arms, the reasons for this right have dramtically changed over the last two hundred plus years. While there are some out there that will decry this idea, the fact is the constitution was designed to be adjusted for the needs of a society the Founding Fathers knew that would change over time. If this was not how they felt then they would have never given us the ability to make ammendments to the constitution.

The Role of Ammendments

The fact that we are able to make ammendments to the constitution is a very important thing to keep in mind when you consider any law that may or may not restrict one of our rights. If you don't keep this in mind then you either have never read any of the documents this country was founded on, or your blatently ignoring the intention of the Founding Fathers of this country to suit your own purposes.

While, it's obvious that the constitution and other documents of the country can be ammended, this doesn't actually mean we should. Any change to the constitution and the bill of rights should only be made after very strenuous public debate and even when a change to the ammendment is not being considered, any law that prevents access to a right by any class of citizen should also recieve the same ammount of debate. To do less would be to compromise the principles our country is founded on.

The good news is that no one is actually trying to repeal the second ammendment. While there are plenty of talking heads that are screaming this is happening or that this will happen, it's not true. What is going on currently is a debate about how to create laws that allow for a greater degree of safety for children and everyone else. Unfortunately while there are very strong merits to this idea, it has gotten lost in a morass of ambiguous claims of rights being stripped away, of government over reach and more. I am sad to say that I allowed myself to be a victim of this very same hyperbole.

Fortunately while I have been a victim of hyperbole and dogma, I am waking up to a different reality. I didn't do this over night and I didn't do it just to side with liberals. I am waking up because I am seeing that guns are a problem in our society and we as a people need to start thinking about effective ways to deal with it. While I wish I lived in a world that didn't have the need for laws to restrict people from doing the wrong thing, I don't. I live in a world where far more people seem to be unwilling to live up to their responsibilities than there are those who will do so. This by nature means that in order to protect not only myself, but those around me, things have to be done to make this happen, and unfortuantely I can't see any way to do this other than to pass gun laws that make it harder for people to obtain a gun.

I know there are plenty of arguments against this. I also know that passing these laws do restrict one of our rights. However, this doesn't mean those arguments are correct or that we shouldn't do what is right for the best of our society. Because I do my best to give every side of an issue consideration before I choose a course of action I only feel its fair to discuss those arguments here and thus give people who may read this as broad a point of view as possible so that they can make up their own minds about this issue.

Makng Guns Illegal Means Only Criminals Will Have Guns!

This is actually the side of the argument I would most commonly argue before I started changing my mind on the whole thing. The basic idea behind this argument is that if you take guns away from law abiding citizens then you have a world in which only criminals have guns. This argument is actually true, but there is one big problem with it, No one is trying to take guns away from law abiding citizens. The fact is that most gun laws have required something that almost all citizens possess and that is a clean background and in some cases a proof that you actually know how to use your gun safely. 

Passing Laws Against Guns Is A Restriction of my Rights!

This is probably the second argument I would default to when I argued against gun laws. Again I actually agree with the argument, but where I have changed is when I consider the other side of the entire rights argument, responsibility. It seems that lately people are more than happy to scream about their rights being viloated and howl about having things taken from them, but they never speak about their responsibility. The idea of democracy is based on self governance. Self governance is based on the idea that while we all have certain rights, we also have a collective responsibility. When someone is not able to live up to their responsibility they don't deserve their rights. 

To make this point I am going to point out something. I am a convicted felon and I was punished for this crime. While I can argue that the laws I was punished under were injust, the fact is I commited my crime knowing full well it was against the law. I had no excuse for breaking this law, but I still chose to and so as a means of correcting my action I was put in prison and several of my rights were taken away. The reason my rights were taken away was because I had not lived up to my responsibiity as a citizen of the United States. I wilingly and with full knowledge of my actions, broke the law. While I lost many rights during my incarceration, I was given some of them back on my release, but not all of them including the right to keep and bear arms. 

So, my question is this, if I had a right to keep and bear arms without having a responsibility to govern myself, how would you feel if I had armed myself the moment I stepped out of prison? 

I know someone will be thinking "he shouldn't have broken the law if he didn't want to lose his rights." and you are one hundred percent correct, but what about alll the crimes that go on every single day that are not stopped? Why are you prefectly okay with a citizen of this country having their second amendment right completely stripped for their entire life yet you holler when people want to ask for stiffer gun laws to make sure guns only end up in the hands of responsible people?

The Founding Fathers Gave Us the Sceond Ammendment For A Reason!

I actually touched on this earlier, but this point dove tails nicely into the point I was just discussing. A lot of people have this image of our Founding Fathers as infallable human beings who walked along the earth with a slight glow displaying their inherrint rightousness. The problem is that this is far from infallable and they knew this. They knew they were not perfect men and they made sure they created a document that could be changed when the need arose. This is a fact and no matter how much you close your eyes to it, it's not going to change.

If you think that the Founding Fathers were perfect and we should follow how they envisioned democracy then you probably need to tear up your voter registration card. The Founding Fathers believed that only land owning whites were educated enough to vote which means that most of you reading this wouldn't have been able to vote under their ideals. Not only does that mean any women, black, hispanic or other race of person couldn't vote, it means poor white men couldn't vote either. Think about this for a second and then tell me if you really believe that things shouldn't change over time. 

Another point I have to make here is that yes, we have a second ammendment right to keep and bear arms. Yet, while many people scream and holler every single time a new gun law is mentioned or a current one is enforced, they seem to have little problem with restricting other rights. How many laws have been passed restricting the right to free speech? the right to assembly? the right against unreasonable search? The right to due process? How is it that people are willing to stand and shout about the second ammendment being restricted yet have no problem with laws passed to restrict or clarify other rights? This seems a bit like hypocrisy to me.

I Have a Right to Defend Myself!

This is one I have heard a lot in regards to gun laws. I actually agree, everyone has a right to defend themselves, but I have to wonder if a gun is actually required to defend yourself. I have lived a life that is best described as wild and I have spent a lot of time around those who do actually see guns as a way to impose their will. In my entire life, despite hanging out with violent people I have only had a gun pulled on me once and that was by a police officer.

There are two points this fact should bring up. First, if I spent my life around violent people and only had a gun pulled on me once for good cause, how often does a person actually need to have a gun to defend themself? Second, how many more times would I have had a gun drawn on me if they were made more available? I myself know that I can be a bit of a hot head, and know that had I had access to a gun for "self defense" I most likely would have used it for "self defense" when it wasn't actually required. Given those facts, I really don't see how having laws that restrict people from getting guns actually impacts your right to self defense period.

Guns Don't Kill People, People Do!

I was actually getting tired of this excuse of an arugment even before I started changing my thoughts on gun laws. While it is true that a gun can't kill someone without a person, the fact is that far to many people die because of guns. There are some that argue that if people didn't use guns they would kill with other weapons, and this is true, there are some people who will kill know matter what they have to do it with. However, while there are some people who would kill another person, giving them a gun makes it easier for them to do. Not only do those who already have an inclination for violence find guns easier to kill with, people who probably would have never commited murder use guns as well.

If guns didn't make it easier to kill then there wouldn't be evidence to support this idea. The fact is that out of all murders commited in the US every year, a vast majority of them were commited with guns. This is something I have tried to ignore and justify for a long time because I didn't want to change my stance on gun laws but I just can't do it anymore. The evidence that guns make people more dangerous is to great and until we learn to embed the idea of acting responsibly with the idea of rights, this isn't going to change. No ammount of wishful thinking, demogougery or hyperbole is going to change it either.

We Need to Enforce the Laws We Have Now, Not Make New Ones!

This is probably the one argument that really makes me shake my head. While the argument actually makes sense, the problem is that the laws are being enforced. Right now if I wanted to get a gun I would not be able to unless I did it by illegal means or if I found a loophole in existing laws. Now in one way, yes better law enforcement would prevent me from getting a gun, but that is something that is true of all crime, not just gun laws. However, when it comes to closing loopholes in gun laws, there isn't support from people who see how it makes existing laws more enforceable instead it leads to cries about violated rights. The sad fact is that sometimes you have to make new laws to make current laws actually enforcable.

Conclusion

In the end the issue of gun rights versus gun control isn't a simple thing. There likely isn't ever going to be an easy answer. While some people might believe the best thing to do is get rid of guns all together, that isn't going to happen. I realize not everyone is going to agree with my point of veiw and this is a good thing. If everyone thought the same we would have never become an independent country, we would have never given guns to the people, and more than likely you wouldn't be reading anything I have said.

I believe that the constitution does give the government the power to pass gun laws. I don't believe the government can ever completely outlaw guns and I don't want it to. While I believe we need to think about ways to make gun laws more effective, I also don't believe government is the sole answer to this problem. I was told a long time ago that while I had a right to free speech, if I misused that right to often it would be taken away, and I think the same is true of guns. If those who own and use guns don't start taking steps to be more responsible with them, then eventually those who are okay with the government taking guns away will outnumber those who support gun ownership so greatly there won't be anyone to really stop it from happening.

A Thought on Feminism

I know my next post was supposed to be a solution to the welfare problem, but I think I over reached a bit. Entitlement programs is way to big a subject to handle in a couple of short blog posts. I am currently rethinking how to approach that particular subject and have been letting my mind wander a bit. Tonight I was watching a movie called the Rebound. In one scene of the movie the main character is in a group self defense course and the sensi is standing in front ranting about the ocean of female anger. At first I did about the same thing I have always done and kind of listened half hearted because while I agree with feminism I have never understood the anger so many women feel. As the sensi went on though, I began to realize something that I have never understood before, and that is why women feel so angry. It is because quite simply they haven't been allowed to be angry and even today they are not allowed to feel this most basic human emotion.

Think about this for a second and you will get what I am saying. When a women is pissed off that her husband has cheated on her do we allow her to be angry? No, instead we tell her she needs to "get over it" and if she can't than we make fun of her. If a woman reaches out to get vengeance for being cheated on, she is called a bitch or worse. Yet if the tables are turned and its the man who has been cheated on he is justified in his anger. His friends tell him he should be angry, that it's right to be angry.

It goes beyond being cheated on though, far beyond. When a woman is passed over for promotion and gets angry we don't tell her that she is right in her anger, instead we criticize her for thinking she is worth more than she is. Yet, a guy does this, he is told by his buddies he is right and that he should be angry. It's not just the workplace either, women aren't allowed to be angry when they are treated with injustice. They are told to be quiet, be demure, not rock the boat. When a woman is angry about how someone treats her children, she is told to not be angry to let the children's father deal with it. This is complete bullshit and so wrong I can't even comprehend it and this is exactly how I have felt most of my life.

I have been allowed to be angry my entire life. Whenever I was hurt, not only was it okay to be mad, I was encouraged to be angry. When I had a problem with someone else I wasn't told to be quiet and demure, I was told that I had every right to confront the individual about the problem, that I had the right to be angry. As I think about this, I realize that had I not been given that permission to be angry, I would have so much anger built up. I would be unbelievably angry about all the crap I have been put through without being allowed to actually defend myself in any reasonable way that holding it in would take a strength of will that I don't believe I possess. Yet, while I may not have that strength of will, so many women do.

We owe a collective apology to every woman who has ever been told she isn't allowed to be angry. We owe and apology to every woman we have ever criticised for being assertive or for defending herself and her own honor. We owe a collective apology to every woman who has ever been told to "let it go." Not only do we owe women an apology, we should stand behind them and let them cry out in barbaric rage at the injustice they have been forced to endure because we didn't want them to be angry.

I am just now beginning to see why so many women are angry, and I tell you what, If I were a woman I would be angry too.

The Many Faces of Entitlement Programs Part 1: Definitions and Problems

I kicked around a lot of ideas for my inaugural post on this blog and finally settled on entitlement programs. The reason I felt this was a good jumping off point is it seems that the major problem with our government right now is coming to any sort of agreement on how to handle this particular problem.

What are entitlement Programs?

This is a great definition to read before going on.

Basically it seems to be that there are four sides to this argument that break down along traditional party lines of conservative and liberal ideals. Keep in mind that this is a very basic break down of the arguments and that there are variations in each party.

The Liberals:

The liberal stance on entitlement programs that benefit citizens is based on the idea that the government has a responsibility to care for those who can not care for themselves and who do not have the same promise of opportunity that the average citizen has access to. The entitlement programs that they tend to support are classically defined as welfare and range from Food assistance through cash assistance.

However, when it comes to entitlement programs that benefit large corporations (and yes those do exist) then the liberals tend to be a bit more along the line of wanting to end this particular entitlement. This is often seen as a tax increase in order to end "corporate welfare". It should be noted that liberals actually do sponsor quite a bit of corporate entitlement programs in the alternative energy sector and other places.

The Conservatives:

Conservative elements are universally opposed to most if not all citizen based entitlement programs. Conservatives tend to oppose these kind of entitlement programs bases on the ideas that each of us should stand on our own to maximize the chance of freedom for each individual to win or lose according to their actions. The standard argument against the types of programs tends to be along the lines of "My money goes to pay for someone else to not work while I have to work." another common argument is "If I didn't have to pay taxes for these programs everyone would have more money and there wouldn't be a need for them."

In stark contrast though is how most conservatives view corporate entitlement programs. Almost universally most conservatives are in favor of giving big business tax breaks with the idea that these businesses are the job creators. Also along the lines of big business receiving tax cuts, most conservatives also favor tax cuts for small and medium businesses. The main argument for this reasoning is that by not taxing businesses people will be paid more and these job creators can hire more people.

It is pretty easy to see that there are two groupings of entitlement programs. The first grouping is citizen based entitlements or more commonly referred to as welfare. The second is corporate entitlement also referred to as corporate welfare. It's also plain to see that both of these groupings have plenty of great substance for discussion. While I will eventually make my way through both of them, I want to narrow the field down a bit and focus on welfare for the next little bit.

Why are entitlement programs such a big concern?

The basic reason that entitlement programs are such a big concern lately is because since the 1980's entitlement spending has totaled over half our government budget every year. This means that over fifty percent of the money taken in taxes an borrowed by our government is spent in maintaining these programs. Because of the recent recession, we have had to take a serious look at the affects of this spending and try to find a way to fix it before we bankrupted our country.

The problem was further increased because our government got into a serious case of gridlock in trying to find a solution to what is a very obvious problem. Again the solutions to the problems came down to party lines. The liberals wanted to increase taxes on the wealthy (who for the record to pay a considerable amount less in taxes than the middle class) and the conservatives wanting to slash entitlement funding if not out right get rid of it.

Now if you are reading this blog, then chances are that you are probably already aware of this extremely frustrating gridlock in our government, so I will save everyone some time and not go over it in any great detail. If you haven't been paying attention to what our government has been doing then take my word for it when I say it was a very very bad thing. Also I would suggest you go learn a bit about it, it is something that actually affects every single one of us in some way.

So we have a big problem and that's what we should do with entitlement programs. While the standard answers seem to be either "increase taxes" or "get rid of them." I actually have a better idea and that is what I will cover in my next blog.

What is Walking Back to Center?

For a while now I have been trying to think of a way to encourage people I know on both sides of the political spectrum to look at what the other side has to say in a reasonable and logical way. Without getting to deep into political theory, I feel that our nation has always worked best when the differing faction within our government operates near the center of every political axis both liberal and conservative both socialism and libertarianism and I want to try and advance this idea a bit myself and that is the goal of walking back to center.

In my time as a citizen of the United States of America, I have had the opportunity to see our government work well and work badly. I have seen our nation climb out of the depression of the seventies into the boom of the nineties, the housing bubble of the early 2000's and most recently a nearly catastrophic depression which we are slowly making our way out of. I have seen my country go to war several times and have seen the safety net for the poor and disabled grow and shrink. In that time I have given a lot of thought to what my political views are and what I believe the role of government should be. While at the moment I share a lot more in common with the liberal side of things, I also value conservative ideals as well, so I guess this makes me a moderate.

We moderates get a lot of flak for being wishy washy and this is quite simply a lot of BS. Moderate political belief's are not about being wishy washy, it's about being willing to look at what everyone has to say and actually listening to what is really being said, then making a decision based on facts instead of hyperbole and knee jerk low effort thinking. In short being a moderate means taking the middle road because it benefits the most people instead of clinging to an idealism that only benefits a select few.

Does this mean I think everyone should ditch their party and become moderates? Absolutely not, if this happened our nation would fall into mediocrity faster than it already is. We need people who are passionate about all sides of the political spectrum or there won't be any advance or change and that is a bad thing. What I do want is for people to stop pointing their finger at the "other side" and instead actually give thought to what is being said and then making an informed decision. Basically I want us all to start walking back to center a bit more often.