_    I’m a writer and fairly creative. But there are others out there with beliefs and ideas that make my craziest ideas seem sane. I admit this not only without shame, but with actual relief. Seriously, this is so I ridiculous I wouldn’t make this up…

Scientology, known for being a staple of Hollywood stars, has multiple beliefs that I find a little hard to swallow. Here are two that are so completely over the top, though, that I can’t belief they are claiming- seriously!- that they are true.

The first is about their founder, L. Ron Hubbard. He is one of those men I refer to as a “Forrest Gump” (no offense to Forrest). They’ve done everything, they’ve met everyone, and they know everything. The Scientology website claims: “In July of 1952, L. Ron Hubbard became the first to scientifically isolate, measure and describe the human spirit, while objectively demonstrating spiritual potentials well in advance of scientific thought.”

Maybe my science books are missing this momentous event, but I can’t seem to find this on any timeline. I mean, even disregarding the word ‘scientifically,’ how can anyone claim to measure the human spirit? Or be the first to describe it? I guess millennia of philosophers know nothing next to L. Ron Hubbard. 

The second thing is something I not only wouldn’t, but couldn’t, possibly make up. This is Scientology’s use of the E-meter.  I am going to quote their site directly.  There is no way I can make it sound crazier than it does, and I don’t want anyone to think I’m mis-paraphrasing. 

Direct Quote: “One-to-one auditing is assisted by use of a religious artifact that helps the auditor and preclear locate areas of spiritual distress or travail. This religious artifact is called an Electropsychometer or E-Meter. (Electro-psycho-meter from electrometer, a calibrated device used for measuring extremely low voltages and psyche, the human soul, spirit or mind.) The E-Meter measures the spiritual state or change of state of a person and thus is of enormous benefit to the auditor in helping the preclear locate areas to be handled. The reactive mind’s hidden nature requires the use of a device capable of registering its effects—a function the E-Meter does accurately.”

Yep. If you believe that one, I am also taking donations for the “Starving Artists,” fund.  Money will be used to buy necessities for hungry artists.  Donate to my PayPal address!

_2012 is a presidential election year, meaning that a serious portion of news time will be dedicated to this topic.  Obviously, we know who the Democrat's presidential candidate will be.  I will be doing a post about President Obama’s “rough” campaign platform at a later date. 

But with the wide variety of interesting debate comments and moments, I thought I would do an overview of who is running on the right.  (I do not support any candidate at this point…from either party.)

This being a cynical website, I will be posting a couple of less-than-intelligent quotes from each candidate.  I WILL do my best to find verification of every single quote.

Bio:
    Son of Michigan governor, George Romney.  He graduated from Brigham Young University in 1971, and then earned dual degrees from Harvard Law and Harvard Business School (1).  Worked as business consultant for firm Bain & Company for years, and then founded investment firm Bain Capital in 1984 (2).  In 1999, he took over as president of the Salt Lake Olympics Organizing Committee, and helped “rescue” them.  In 2003, he was elected governor of Massachusetts.  Ran for president in 2008, but was beat by Republican John McCain.

Views:
    On a banner under the navigation menu on every page of his 2012 Presidential Campaign site, is the phrase “We have a moral responsibility not to spend more than we take in" (3).
    For taxes, his motto is “Fairer. Flatter. Simpler.”  Wants to reduce corporate tax rates, and make other tax cuts (fairly traditional Republican views). 
    Open trade with other countries and wants to change the dynamics of our trade relationship with China.
    Healthcare: Repeal Obamacare; give states more responsibility and resources to act; make individual tax situation the same for individuals w/ employer-sponsored health plans as well as individuals who purchase their own; general regulatory reform; malpractice reform; and encouraging market forces to help solve some of the problems. 

Media/Outside Commentary:
Newsweek magazine has a negative view, and is blunt about it. 
    Direct quote: "And so we’re back to the 'Have a Beer' test.  Imagine a guy with hundreds of millions in the bank (again, some of it from laying off working folks) telling a bunch of laid-off working folks, “I’m also unemployed.” How clueless, how clumsy, how cloying can you get?" (4).

Fox News, in the articles I accessed, worked very hard to keep a balanced view.  In an article covering Romney’s wealth and taxes, they report not only the good and bad, but maintain a balanced "commentary" throughout the article.  The following section of the article- though a bit long- seems to sum up the balanced view.  Note the two sections in bold (my emphasis), one seeming "pro-Romney," the other "anti-Romney." 
    "Tormented by Democrats and Republicans, particularly Gingrich, who insisted on knowing about the sources of Romney's massive wealth and his holdings in offshore accounts, Romney revealed last week he pays an effective tax rate of about 15 percent.  Though lower than the 35 percent income tax rate of high-earning Americans, it is in line with his primarily receiving most of his earnings not through wages, but through investments taxed at the 15 percent rate.  According to the financial disclosure released by Romney, during 2010 and the first nine months of 2011, his family had at least $9.6 million in income. In addition, Romney investments -- worth between $7 million and $32 million -- are being held in offshore-based holdings. Such offshore accounts also can enable wealthy investors to defer paying U.S. taxes on some assets, according to tax experts, but Romney said that he's not done anything that can be used against him. (5)"

And my very favorite part of these posts....the "Quotes" section:
entire: (6)
    “I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that. I don’t know how much our contribution is to that, because I know that there have been periods of greater heat and warmth in the past but I believe we contribute to that. And so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.”  -Mitt Romney during a campaign stop in New Hampshire in June of 2011. (7)
-and, a few short months later-
“My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.” - Mitt Romney during a campaign stop in Pittsburgh on October 28, 2011. (8)

For the "Quotes" section, a giant "Thank You!" to "Think Progress" for posting the ACTUAL VIDEO for both quotes.


Notes:
1. “Mitt Romney Bio,” Romney for President, Inc., accessed January 23, 2012, http://mittromney.com/learn/mitt
2. "Mitt Romney," Biography.com, accessed January 23, 2012, http://www.biography.com/people/mitt-romney-241055
3. “Romney Believe in America,” Romney for President, Inc. accessed January 23, 2012, http://mittromney.com/
4. Paul Begala, “Mitt Romney Would Fail the Presidential Beer Test,” Newsweek, January 23, 2012, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/22/mitt-romney-would-fail-the-presidential-beer-test.html
5.  "Romney to release 2010 tax returns this week,” FoxNews.com, published January 22, 2012, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/22/romney-to-release-2010-tax-returns-this-week/
6. Stephen D. Foster, Jr., "25 of The Best Crazy, Stupid, and Scary Quotes Uttered By The Republican Presidential Candidates in 2011," AddictingInfo.org, accessed January 24, 2012, http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/31/25-of-the-best-crazy-stupid-and-scary-quotes-uttered-by-the-republican-presidential-candidates-in-2011/
7. Brad Johnson, "Reducing Global Warming Pollution is 'Important'," Think Progress, accessed January 23, 2012, http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/06/03/236305/mitt-romney-reducing-global-warming-pollution-is-important/?mobile=nc
8. Brad Johnson, "Romney Flip to Denial: 'We Don't Know What's Causing Climate Change'," Think Progress, accessed January 23, 2012, http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/10/28/355736/romney-flips-to-denial-we-dont-know-whats-causing-climate-change/

First of all, forgive my short absence.  I'm also a freelance copywriter, and got bogged down with jobs.  And, of course, clients come first.  I'm working on two posts right now: a humorous one about "crazier" human beliefs, along with another candidate profile. 

In the meantime, Michele Bachmann has withdrawn from the race.  The last two profiles I've done, the candidate has withdrawn shortly afterwards.....maybe I'm jinxing them.  In that case, anyone want to vote for who I do the next profile on?  ha

This blog has been overly serious for the last few posts, so we need to take a little humor break.  Luckily, it's Monday.  Monday's are always miserable.  I don't even have a 9-5 job (I'm a freelancer) and Mondays are still miserable.  So, I figured I'd cheer everyone up.  Here's a few links, cartoons, and light bulb jokes (come on, everyone loves the light bulb jokes).   

"The Onion" is always a great place to visit for a smile.  My personal favorite for the day is the " Neighborhood Kind of Hoping Panera Bread Shows Up and Plows Over Charming Local Bakery." 

Q: How many liberals does it take to change a light Bulb?
A: At least ten, as they need to hold a debate on whether or not the light bulb exists. Even if they can agree upon the existence of the light bulb they still may not change it to keep from alienating those who might use other forms of light.
-and- to keep it "fair and balanced"
Q: How many conservatives does it take to change a light bulb?
A #1: One, after reflecting in the twilight on the merit of the
previous bulb.
A #2: Four, one to do it and three to complain that the old bulb was a lot
better.
_

_How many Marxists does it take to change a lightbulb?
None. The lightbulb contains the seeds of its own revolution.

How many archaeologists does it take to change a light bulb?
501--one to take the old bulb out, and 500 to proclaim that it confirms the biblical record...

How many archaeologists does it take to change a light bulb?
501--one to take the old bulb out, and 500 to proclaim that it dis-confirms the biblical record...(so much for the univocity of the archaeological record, eh?)

How many archaeologists does it take to change a light bulb?
Well, actually, it only takes a couple to remove the old bulb, but then they get so involved in studying the old bulb (especially in trying to correlate its appearance with all other burned-out bulbs within a 1000 km radius), that they never get around to putting the new bulb in...

With tax season coming up,
Q: How many Accountants does it take to change a light bulb?
A: What sort of answer did you have in mind ?

Reuter's article: "Occupy makes annual list of most overused words."
Whole list of funny articles (I can't verify accuracy, but they caused a smile: http://www.humoretc.com/odd_news.php#high-denomination

This last cartoon is a little blunt.  So, if easily offended, close your eyes.  (or find another website to visit....okay, I didn't mean that...well, not 100%).

Q: How many Censors does it take to change a light bulb?
A: One to ---- ------- ----- and another to ---- ----- ---- while ---- ---- - - -----with a ------
(and if you don't "get" how it relates to the cartoon, ask the politically correct politician/teacher/parent who is currently programming you.) 

_First of all, try saying that title five times fast, “A New News Source,” “A New….”  Now, let’s move on to more serious subjects.  When I’m writing an article- or searching sites looking for interesting viewpoints-, I go through a variety of news sites.  I do this because I like having well-researched, accurate articles that reflect various views. 

When I first went to the BET News site, there were three articles/photo albums (the stories are actually a series of photos with slightly longer captions than normal) that immediately caught my attention.  The first was an article in the hip hop news section.  It was “100 Best Songs of 2011.”  Browsing through the article, I found multiple songs I’m going to have to download on my ipod.  (There’s nothing like a fast beat to make you push a little harder during a workout).  The second article that I found extremely interesting was “The Year in Obama Insults.”  I usually do a post at the end of year with the stupidest quotes of the year, and I can see at least one insult that is going to make the list.  “This Day in Black History: Dec. 24, 1865: Ku Klux Klan Founded,” also caught my attention.  I’m a history major, so most historical stories capture my interest. 

Overall, I would have to say I am very impressed with the News section of the BET site, and would recommend it to anyone.  It has a wide variety of topics, as well as a large number of photographs.  One annoying thing about the site, though, is that it switches the page on you after about a minute.  I was in the middle of reading and pondering a caption, and the site automatically switched my page from the political quotes article I was reading to “When Hip Hop Meets Football.”  During the time it has taken me to write this paragraph, it has switched again to “Dolled Up Celebs.”  Despite this small failing, I am definitely adding BET news to my resource list.

_2012 is a presidential election year, meaning that a serious portion of news time will be dedicated to this topic.  Obviously, we know who the Democrat's presidential candidate will be.  I will be doing a post about President Obama’s “rough” campaign platform at a later date. 

But with the wide variety of interesting debate comments and moments, I thought I would do an overview of who is running on the right.  (I do not support any candidate at this point…from either party.  Participants/Contenders will be appearing in alphabetical order). 

This being a cynical website, I will be posting a couple of less-than-intelligent quotes from each candidate.  I WILL do my best to find verification of every single quote.
Note: Hermain Cain has “suspended” his campaign. 

Candidate: Newt Gingrich

Bio:
   Son of a career military member.  Bachelor’s degree from Emory University and Master’s and Doctorate in Modern European History from Tulane University.  Taught History and Environmental Studies at West Georgia College for eight years.  Represented Georgia in Congress for 20 years, including four years as Speaker of the House. 

Views:
   Immigration conservative.  On Day 1 on office he plans to end all immigration-related lawsuits against states immediately, including those pending in Arizona and South Carolina.  Website states “The Gingrich Administration will secure the border by Jan. 1, 2014 by any means necessary.” 
   Pro-Israel- wants to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, in accordance with Israel’s statement that Jerusalem is their capital. 
   Wants to restore “conscience clause” and strengthen existing ones.  This clause allows anyone in the medical environment to refuse to perform a procedure that he or she finds morally or ethically objectionable based on religious teaching. 
   Repeal and re-place Obamacare.
   Option of a 15% flat income tax.    

Media/Outside Commentary:
   Chicago Tribune contributor Steve Chapman: “Gingrich is an condescending, self-important egotist.”  (Source1)
   Weekly Standard editor William Kristol: ...who mocked the "Olympian sense of exemption from standards and logic" that he said allowed the candidate to claim he was not a Washington lobbyist, despite pocketing $1.6 million in fees from Freddie Mac. The mortgage giant is a bête noir of small-government purists.” (Source2)
    On Friday’s “Morning Joe,’’ on MSNBC, host Joe Scarborough, who’s had his own problems with the former House speaker, noted that “Newt Gingrich, when he attacks Michele Bachmann, sort of speaks in a different tone and is far more condescending to Michele Bachmann than he is the men on the stage.’’  (Source3)

Newt Gingrich Quote:  (yes, I only have one…this one says everything you need to know about the guy.)
"It doesn't matter what I do," he answered. "People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live." (Note 1)


Note 1: I found this quote in multiple places.  Both the Huffington Post and The Guardian report the quote, stating that it came from an interview conducted by Esquire with Newt Gingrich’s second wife. Sources for this quote:
Michael Tomasky, “I report, you decide,” The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/aug/10/us-politics-newt-gingrich-sociopath
Elyse Siegel, “Newt Gingrich’s Ex-Wife Goes Public: Messy Relationship Life, Meltdowns, and 2012,” The Huffington Post, August 10, 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/newt-gingrichs-ex-wife-go_n_676834.html

Source1: Steve Chapman, “Newt Gingrich’s biggest problem,” Chicago Tribune, December 16, 2011. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/chi-gingrichs-big-problem-20111216,0,3076773.story

Source2: James Rainey, “United on the right, against New Gingrich,” Los Angeles Times, December 16, 2011. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-gingrich-20111216,0,3186074.story

Source 3: Melinda Henneberger, “Opinion: Does Newt Gingrich have a woman problem?  With Michele Bachmann, yes,” The Washington Post, December 16, 2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/opinion-does-newt-gingrich-have-a-woman-problem-with-michele-bachmann-yes/2011/12/16/gIQA4lYuyO_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop

"Success is the ability to get along with some people, and get ahead of others." - E.C. McKenzie*

Let not the mind be like concrete- all mixed up and permanently set.

Work to make yourself indispensible, but never get the idea that you are.

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." — John Wooden“God will not look you over for medals degrees or diplomas, but for scars."- Elbert Hubbard*

Ordinarily, anything whispered or shouted is not worth listening to._

"Funny, when you're dead how people start listening."- The Band Perry


*Some of the quotes I found online, meaning that I cannot 100% verify the author.

I was thinking about labels today...Christian, Muslim, Liberal, healthy, Bi-Polar, over-weight, under-weight, Southern, etc.  I was also wondering why we, as Americans, are so damn eager to label OURSELVES?  People are so proud of claiming to be one thing or another.  (But they seem to get so angry if someone else labels them as something.) 

I think the government is one of the biggest offenders (or enablers) of labeling people.  You "qualify" for food stamps, you're "lower middle class," or you vote "conservatively."
This being an election year, citizens will yet once again get a preview of presidential candidates running around to "swing" states and ignoring the rest of the union.  In this case, you don't even have a label.  You're only a miniscule portion of an electoral vote.  An electoral vote that they're only worried about if you live in a certain state or region. 

I'm so annoying to people doing polls.  I'm always "independent" when they ask whom I vote for.  I refuse to answer basic "yes" or "no" questions on most big issues...I'm a big believer in the shades of gray, not a black and white world.  I can (and do) argue both sides of issues...often in public, on this very blog. 

So, I invite everyone to join me in celebrating National Unlabeling Day. 

Here's a personal story mildly related (feel free to skip...the good stuff is over):
I was reading through an old blog post (on this same subject written about two years ago), and thought this a fairly appropriate personal story to go along with this.  Long story short: I used to drink too much.  Husband dragged me to doctor who put me on medication to help with my bi-polar mood swings.  Within about four months (somewhere between three and six anyway), I had quit drinking. 

I went to AA for awhile, but quit going.  Why?  There were various reasons, but the biggest was that I was trying to have a life, not spend everyday at AA, with AA people, talking about drinking.  In my eyes, alcohol is still controlling your life in that scenario.  Another is that I don't have a desire to drink.  Ever.  I never liked the taste of alcohol in the first place, I liked the effect.  Third, I didn't fit in real well- I haven't been arrested, didn't cheat on my husband, didn't waste the family fortune (ha-ha...what little we had at the time), didn't move or have to quit a job because of drinking.  Plus, quitting for me was amazingly easy compared to what I saw other people going through.  (For those who know anything about AA, I've only got one white chip.) 

I saw on the calendar the other day that it was my "5 year sober" date.  My grandma, a wise lady, has said all along I was never an alcoholic, I was drinking because I was bi-polar.  Well, today, I'm shedding at least one label attached to me.  When doctors ask on forms about prior medical history, or when nosy people want to know why I'm not drinking (husband is in the Navy), I'm just going to say "I just don't".  I'm not an alcoholic.

_Yes, an odd post for Thanksgiving Day.  I don’t think anyone is really thankful for politicians….
2012 is a presidential election year, meaning that a serious portion of news time will be dedicated to this topic.  Obviously, we know who the Democrat's presidential candidate will be.  I will be doing a post about President Obama’s “rough” campaign platform at a later date. 

But with the wide variety of interesting debate comments and moments, I thought I would do an overview of who is running on the right.  (I do not support any candidate at this point…from either party.  Participants/Contenders will be appearing in alphabetical order). 

This being a cynical website, I will be posting a couple of less-than-intelligent quotes from each candidate.  I WILL do my best to find verification of every single quote.

Bachmann, Michele
    Bio- graduate of Winona State University, received J.D. at the O.W. Coburn School of Law at Oral Roberts University and an L.L.M. in Tax Law at the College of William and Mary.  Worked as a tax attorney, and then in the Minnesota State Senate from 2000-2006.  In 2006, she was the first Republican woman to be elected to represent Minnesota in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Views:
   Self-proclaimed “Constitutional Conservative.” 
   Wants to repeal Obamacare. 
   Believes the government “needs to make the serious spending decisions that many families and small businesses across America have been forced to make.” 
   Pro-Life. 
   Opponent of taxpayer-funded bailout of Wall Street and the Dodd-Frank legislation. 

Media/Outside Commentary:
   CNN Contributor John Avlon says, “It's part of her usual schtick: playing politics by talk radio rules, where impact is far more important than accuracy.” 
   Glenn Beck showing initial support, but said that since MSNBC now likes her, he’s pulling his support (I can’t tell if he’s joking or not). 
   On the “Late Night with Jimmy Fallon,” (NBC) the band their views clear when they played “Lyin’ A** B*tch” as Bachmann first appeared on stage.

Michele Bachmann Quotes:
   “And what a bizarre time we’re in, when a judge will say to little children that you can’t say the pledge of allegiance, but you must learn that homosexuality is normal and you should try it.” (see note 1)
   "This is one thing we know about Barack Obama. He has essentially handed over our interrogation of terrorists to the ACLU. He's outsourced it to them. Our CIA has no ability to have any form of interrogation for terrorists." (debate)
   "hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in 'intelligent design.'" (see note 2)


Note 1: while this quote is quoted many places on the internet, here is ONLY two even semi-legitimate news sources I could find for it.  Almost every site says this quote was from a radio news interview (“Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 6, 2004) but I cannot find an original news story from that time period.  Also, the quote changes slightly from site to site…I can’t tell if this is from sloppy reporting or if the quote was made up in the first place.  I have contacted Olive Tree Ministries (Jan Markell’s current home) and am awaiting a response. 
-Pauley, Donna Cozart. (2011, Oct. 7). “Views From the Left: Loud Whispers.” Alvin Sun Editorials. http://www.alvinsun.net/articles/2011/10/07/opinion/editorials/doc4e8f4f25e92cc643301005.txt
-Bakay, Dennis. (2011, Aug. 14). “Michele Bachmann’s Anti-Gay Stance Makes Her an Irrational Presidential Candidate.” Philly2philly.com.  http://www.philly2philly.com/politics_community/the_water_cooler/2011/8/14/47598/michele_bachmanns_anti_gay_stance_makes_her_irra

Note 2: I agree with CNN’s John Avlon who says that she plays a little fast and loose with the facts.  However, to give her credit, I did actually find a Nobel Peace Prize winner who is on the record for intelligent design. 
-Powell, Bonnie Azab. (2005, June 17). “’Explore as much as we can’: Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution, intelligent design, and the meaning of life.”  NewsCenter, UC Berkeley News. http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtml


Sources:
-Avlon, John. (2011, Nov. 23). “Michele Bachmannn fumbles the facts.” CNN.com. http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/23/opinion/avlon-bachmann-facts/
-Bachmann, Michele.  Congressional Website.  http://bachmann.house.gov/
-Beck, Glenn. (2011, Nov. 22). “Glenn on Bachmann: ‘She’s exceptional.’” Glenn Beck website.  http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/11/22/glenn-on-bachmann-shes-exceptional/
-Beck, Glenn. (2011, Nov. 23). “MSNBC praises…Michele Bachmann?” Glenn Beck website.  http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/11/23/msnbc-praises-michele-bachmann/
-Bohn, Kevin. (2011, Nov. 24). “NBC apologizes to Bachmann over song.” CNN.com. http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/24/showbiz/nbc-bachmann-apology/?hpt=hp_bn7
-Daum, Meghan. (2011, July 1). “Michele Bachmann the believer.” Chicago Tribune. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-07-01/news/ct-oped-0701-daum-20110701_1_michele-bachmann-sarah-palin-believer

_For those who haven’t been following along, here is quick brief of what has passed thus far: I posted a joke about being careful who you vote for in 2012.  The joke was supporting the “conservative” side, with the cynical view that the “ant” who worked hard and saved ended up getting everything taken away by the “grasshopper” who took charity and claimed that it was unfair that the ant had so much while the grasshopper had so little.  A reader posted a comment pointing out that many businesses (GE in particular) do NOT pay their fair share, and hypothesized that this was due to unfair laws passed and supported by Republicans.

 Looking up the facts about the GE news article led to a spirited discussion in our household…what can I say, husband and I are both opinionated.  I’ll let you guess who was on what side.  (ha-ha) 

So, I have a few questions for my readers,
1) Do you think many businesses do not pay their fair share?   -or-   Do you think they are unfairly taxed at a higher rate and that the GE example is the “exception that proves the rule?” 

2) Do you think that too many Americans rely on various government aid programs?   -or-  Do you think these programs do what they are intended to do, and should continue to be funded? 

3) Do you think all of these issues have to be divided into Republican and Democrat?  Can’t one have varying opinions and express them without being pigeonholed? 

I’ll be posting reader’s answers to these questions, so please comment!  (if you leave your site link, I’ll include that with your comment)