Political participation

It is my belief that conventional political participation is pretty much useless, and that unconventional political participation is not used enough today.
Conventional participation encompasses things like voting, which we have already discussed and determined that many people feel that voting doesn't really change anything, writing to one's representatives, which doesn't do a whole lot because those representatives have more important deals to honor and people to appease than one or two ordinary citizens, and things like speeches, which may work up some publicity, but don't do anything with it.
Unconventional participation includes things like political violence, which I am not including in the "not used enough" category because with a country and military like ours not only would political violence probably not work, but it would scare many supporters away from the cause. But other things like civil disobedience are simply not used enough any more. Civil disobedience is a great way to work up public awareness and sympathy, and creates a problem that the authorities have to do something about, forcing action on the issue. I know that marches are getting a little stale and overused, but things like peacefully breaking a law to draw attention to that law's wrongness is just not seen often enough any more.

Important Issues

After perusing several of the proposed revisions to the constitution for the class, I realize that all of these issues are pretty important.
Okay, my gun control proposal is nowhere near as time-critical as Alex Oswald's spending amendment, or Ariane's health care amendment.
But I have very strong beliefs about issues like Kimberly's non-straight marriage amnedment and my gun-control amendment.
The point is that while I understand why candidates have to pick and choose which issues to talk about because there is only so much time to campaign, I wonder why they choose the issues they do. Most of the issues disscussed aren't the time-critical ones, but ones that no one seems to agree on, or ones that the candidates can say feel-good things about and move on.
Now, I haven't done much research on the current candidates other than what I hear during my every-day activities, but I really do wonder how they choose which issue to discuss in which forum.

Public Opinion

I've always been aware that my personal beliefs and opinions vary from those of the majority of the population, but especially after the last reading, it is striking how far off I am from the rest of the country.
We, as a nation, scored very focused on the importance of quality-of-life versus simple survival. I certainly don't disregard the importance of quality of life, expanding oneself and making the most of one's life, but I think as both a fairly poor college student, a nursing student, and frankly a bit of a survivalist, I tend to rate the two about equal in importance. I don't have a lot of money, and right now my most pressing concern is making enough to keep food in my cupboards. As a soon-to-be nurse, I am constantly worried about the health, safety, and survival of myself and those around me. And as a survivalist my biggest concern is planning for the worst, concentrating only on what it would take to survive in any situation.
In addition to that belief set, we scored higher than any other developed nation on the importance of traditional/religious values as opposed to individuality and less traditional values. And as a bisexual, a liberal, and an atheist, I think I score about as far away from traditional values as possible.

New constitutional revision

In light of my recent observations of the way that children and their parents behave in society, I am considering changing my amendment to the following:
Every physically and mentally able citizen will be required to spend 6 months in a waitstaff position at a restaurant, and 6 months as a service clerk. These requirements mush be completed by age 22.
I think that if everyone had to spend time in these jobs, not only would people be more patient with and understanding of the service sector, but parents might stop their children from screaming in the lobbies and dining rooms of restaurants, and they might keep their children in check while in stores, instead of letting them run wild and destroy merchandise and displays.

Thoughts?

The US is stuck in the past

I'm not saying that tradition is a bad thing, or that ties to one's past isn't beneficial. Remembering the mistakes and triumphs of our past help us function better in the present and plan for the future.
But after a visit to Springfield today, after seeing how much money the capital has spent re-doing the building to look like the original capital, hiring east-coast artists that can mold plaster, and spending huge amounts of money on expensive materials that serve absolutely no purpose, I realize that we are stuck in the past. Huge amounts of money that could have gone to education or health care, are put into the hand-moulded plaster and imported crystal and granite in our state's capital building that almost no one ever sees, and instead of spending that money on what this state really needs, our government put it into trying to recreate the old capital building. Having a modern building wouldn't hurt anyone, and might even bring some pride to our capital, that at least part of our government is moving with the times.
This reminds me of our constitution. We have the oldest constitution of any democratic country in the world. I'm not saying that this in itself is bad. My concern is that if that document no longer works, or slows down the government process, or leaves out important ideas necessary to the protection of citizen's rights, the need for a new document should outweigh the pride in having the oldest peice of paper to base our government on.
I'm also not saying we're there yet, just that this is an issue that needs to be considered. How much are willing to give up for our pride in having the longest-lasting constitution?

The problem with today's condidates

As explained by wikipedia.org, Cthulhu is "a giant fictional being, one of the Great Old Ones in H.P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos.[1] It is often cited for the extreme descriptions given of its appearance, size, and the abject terror that it invokes. Because of this reputation, Cthulhu is often referred to in science fiction and fantasy circles as a tongue-in-cheek shorthand for extreme horror or evil."
He is also explained as the great father of the Chaos gods in some mythology, but the general point is that Cthulhu is as evil as it gets.

Now, while I think this is a bit of an (funny) exaggeration, this poster illustrates my point very well. When there is no candidate available who accurately represents me, my beliefs, my morals, my points of view, it is a little hard to swallow that if I want to be a part of our electoral process, I will have to "vote for the lesser evil". I don't want to choose between two bad candidates for who gets my vote, this is not the system I want to participate in. I want to choose between a diverse group of candidates and find one who shares my beliefs and morals, and give him (or her) my vote. Sadly, I have yet to see a single person running for president who I really truly wanted to vote for, and not just so I wouldn't have to deal with his opponent in office.

War Crimes

Perhaps I'm a little late in realizing the full implications of the torture and denial of basic human rights used on prisoners in Iraq, but according to tonight's reading (The American Anomoly, by Raymond A. Smith), "Congress and the public learned that the US military had been using torture and depriving detainees of due process rights in Iraq and elsewhere, and that Iraq had not, in fact, possessed weapons of mass destruction. Likewise, press reports revealed that the president had authorized the wire-tapping of phones withing the United States without obtaining judicial warrants, as required by the Fourth Amendment."
Now, I understand that Congress had been pretty much goin along for the ride at that point, but if we can impeach a president for having sex with another woman and then lieing about it (not exactly a high crime) shouldn't we impeach a president for violating not only the Constitution and the oath he took to defend it, but also the rights of the people that he governs only by consent?
I'm really at a loss here...