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...

Civil rights in wartime

I must say that I strongly disagree with Supreme Court Judge Hugo Black on his opinion about the Korematsu v. United States.
The case was about a man of Japanese descent who refused to go to the detainment camps in 1942, was found guilty, appealed his case up to the highest court, and was still found guilty of refusing to submit to, in my opinion, racism.
I understand that in WWII the powers that be in our country decided that there was a national threat, and I think I agree with those who would say that national security against enemy countries is just as important as civil liberties because the government is protecting those rights and liberties against foreign enemies who would take them away.
But there is a limit to what I believe any government should be allowed to do to "protect" those freedoms. Benjamin Franklin once said something along the lines of "those who would give up their freedom to protect their safety deserve neither" and I believe that he was right. If, in trying to protect the rights of our citizens, we deny some of them rights, we have destroyed the very thing we hold so dear. Even to keep our citizens and country safe, to turn down the path of tyranny (which is what this amounted to) undermines everything that this country stands for, and all that it has that is worth protecting.
There were undoubtedly some Caucasian dissenters, and surely dissenters of every race and creed, but we focused our efforts only on people of Japanese descent. This is so incredibly unjust that it boggles the mind to think that the highest court in our country upheld discrimination like that. I am disturbed to think that we only abide by "innocent until proven guilty" when it suits our government to do so.