Something I often hear that bothers me is that the general American public consists of sheepish slaves to the media. This statement is often said by somebody who loves politics and tends to treat them as one would treat sports, fighting for their home team and demonizing others. What I've noticed though is that somebody who's passionate about politics isn't necessarily intelligent about politics and somebody who doesn't give a rat's ass about politics isn't necessarily a slave to the media. The difference is usually that the former consists of radicals who think that their ideals are the solution to all of life's problems and the latter consists of moderates who are happy with the way things are. Although I love to fight, I'm beginning to realize that I'm somebody who's happy with the way things are.

Here is my political view: I don't care about anything that doesn't affect me. Abortion? Drugs? War in Iraq? Since I'm not a woman or in danger of impregnating one, drug addict, or soldier, those issues are of no concern to me. I'll be content with wherever those issues land. However, when an issue does arise that does affect me, you can be sure that I'll have something to say about it. Until then though, I might as well not even vote, and if I do, it might as well be for whomever is the most popular. I think that most people are like this. It might seem apathetic and it might seem selfish, but I don't think they're any worse than the alternative: the idealistic radical intent on fixing the world with their dogma. No matter how apathetic one might be, one will stand up for what they believe in. If a politician becomes too confident in the public's tolerance and acts in a way that deeply offends everybody, they will no longer tolerate it, and they will take action. Look at what happened to Grey Davis in California. I doubt Californians are much more passionate about politics than the rest of America, but everybody has a limit.

When it comes to elections, the general public tends to focus on the two candidates from the largest political parties while ignoring all the third-party candidates. Although some of this is due to the fact that third-party candidates have no chance of winning, I also think that it's because the Democrats and Republicans represent their views much more accurately than any other political party does. Let's look at three of the most well-known political parties besides the Democrats and the Republicans: the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and the Reform Party. I don't know about you, but to me, they all are a bit too wacky for me. Even if they could possibly win, I wouldn't vote for anybody from any of those parties. They tend to want to change more than what is necessary, while the Republicans and Democrats try to appease the masses, who happen to share most of the views I value. Therefore, I and many others will vote either for Kerry or Bush with no chance in Hell of voting for any of these other clowns. Personally, I'm voting for Bush this year because he seems like the best candidate out there at the moment. When I'm older, I might vote for myself though.

Although I love to debate and I do hold some opinions on issues, in the end, I couldn't careless about most of them. Things are going well for me and changes inspired by unrealistic ideologies would probably do more damage than good and will not solve the problems of society as promised, and I have a feeling that there are many others who feel the same way.