Politically Inconsistent

This is what I was talking about in one of my older blogs. I think the one about losing faith in democracy. I briefly mentioned how the politicians of today's world try and cater to everyone's wishes, instead of having their own. They are just trying to win, thats all political seats are now, prizes, trophies. That is the source of lots of people's frustration now. They can't find one decent candidate now who is running on their own ideals. And when they do find someone who is running on their own ideals, its usually some crazy far out there extremist. Anyways, I am bringing this back up for a reason, I recently found a solid example of a presidential candidate doing what I just described. The culprit is Mitt Romney. It seems that Romney is slightly confused when it comes to his opinions on gay marriage, stem-cell research, abortion, ect. When Romney was running for Massachusetts governor in 2002, he attended a Gay Pride rally and handed out fliers proclaiming "All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of sexual preference". Then, in 2003, he came out as a leading voice against gay marriage. Apparently, according to the paper, this isn't the only occasion where Romney's position has drastically changed, he has changed his position on abortion, stem-cell research, and other such issues. Talk about annoying. Honestly, I wouldn't care if he had the complete opposite views on every single issue I just mentioned, as long as he stuck with his ideals, I wouldn't care, I wouldn't vote for him, but at least I could respect him. Now, I can't respect his as much, because he could be just another contestant in it for the prize, doing whatever it takes to get the presidency. 

Sunny Acres

For those of you who don't know, Sunny Acres is a piece of land out on Los Osos Valley Road. The owner, Dan Devaul, has, for some time, been using it as a homeless shelter/recovery home. Homeless people, drug addicts, alcoholics, and other such people go there for a place to stay and work. Devaul lets them stay on the ranch, gives them work, feeds them, gives them a second chance. However, the local government has been blocking his efforts of this, because the buildings that the homeless are staying in are not up to code. This is ridiculous, here is a man, who is trying to help unfortunate people, and the government is trying to directly oppose him! Okay, so they want safer buildings, but instead of trying to work with him, all the government does is work to stop him. That is just messed up. Maybe this isn't the whole story, there could be some crucial part of the story that I am missing, does anyone know? 

Strict or Loose?

Do I believe our government should follow the constitution strictly? Honestly, I don't know what this means. The constitution was written in very vague terms, and with very broad statements. I think the founders wrote it this way on purpose. They were aware that the country would not be the same in the future, they knew that the world would change. They weren't sure how the future would be different, so the only way to plan for the future was to give guidelines that the country could follow, and shape to fit their own times. Thats what the constitution is, a set of guidelines that our government is supposed to follow. The problem that I see, isn't whether to follow it loosely or strictly, at this point in time, it would be very difficult to follow it strictly, the problem is the people whose job is to interpret it. I feel like they could twist their interpretations to serve them best, so they benefit from what they say. I guess I just don't trust politicians.