Two things...

Today's exciting update is on two totally unrelated topics. How cool, right? Well, strap in and brace yourself.

First, been working on my bikes. Pics up when they're complete, which better be in a few hours since I have to race tonight. Twice. Not like I'm in any shape to do it, but I need to see how slow I truly am so I can motivate myself for the remainder of the season. Besides, if I get in good enough shape, and do really well in Cyclocross, I might qualify for nationals in Providence, RI in December. But that's a long way off.

Now, I just saw that CA and a few other states have passed bills that would give their electoral votes to the winner of the state by popular vote, not by how many districts they win during Presidential elections. Of course, in order for this to truly be enacted, a ttoal of 270 electoral votes would have to be decided this way, and so far the bandwagon only has about 100.

I have a huge problem with this. First, it's a way of changing the constitution without having a convention, and if this happens, then why bother having a federal government? It's like the whole same sex marriage issue in the Northeast where I'm from. It really doesn't bother me if you want to have a same sex marriage. However, don't go breaking the law just so you can challenge it in court and legislate that way. Get representatives in office who share your views, then get a referendum introduced. But I digress.

The bottom line is the fact that we have a republic, not a democracy. If we want the presidential election to be the poular vote, then candidates will pander to the biggest states. Worse than now. Might as well disband congress and have the entire US populace of eligible voters vote on every issue in congress from here on out. Where will it end? The constitution, though not perfect, is a pretty damn good owner's manual. It has specific guidelines for things like the electoral college. So why not follow them?

If the democratic states are so upset that they won the popular vote, which has yet to be proven beyond a doubt, and realistically never will (and if you can't steal an election with one of the Chicago Daleys on your team, well, then you're really in trouble, just ask Al Gore) then maybe they should look at who they have running for office. John Kerry? What the hell did he stand for? "Vote for me, I'm not George Bush", ok, that's obvious. So tell me what platform you have. Still waiting.

Politics isn't solved by legislation, it's solved by better candidates who actually have some type of plan people can relate to. Like him or not, GW had a plan for the country, whereas JK really didn't. Had the Democrats come up with some type of plan that didn't ostracize many people, they could have easily won.

Oh, and don't start me on taxes. The whole bs about the 1% paying nothing in comparison to their wealth. I have two issues with that whining. First, once you hit a certain income bracket, you pay a lower percentage of taxes. But why shouldn't you? You've busted your ass to get there, why not be rewarded a bit? Also, most "rich" people don't have money sitting in bank accounts, it's paper wealth. I have a friend who is technically a millionaire. Nice house, car, etc. Except that most of his money is invested, so yes, he has money, but it's not exactly accessible immediately. He actually has assets, not cash. So he only pays tax on his income, which isn't huge.

However, has anyone ever bothered to dig up what percentage of all the tax paid in this country is paid by the 1%? Well, have you? Bet it's more than 1% of the total. In fact, I know it is. I don't have the info right now, but I remember seeing it and discussing it earlier this year. I'll find it and post it in the future. Realistically, it's like being in a restaurant, and whoever has the most money pays for the most people. Is that fair?