Well it looks like Sarah Palin is getting smacked with ethics violation charges again.
What?! You mean charging the taxpayers to fly your kids around with you on "official business" to places they've not been invited or even have any business being at is wrong? Gee, I never would have guessed.
Seriously? If she can't keep from abusing her power as Governor, how does anyone expect her to not abuse her power at VP of the United States?
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Something...else
When do things cease to be what they are?
When does something cease to be that particular something and become something else?
For instance, when does Sammy, the cat in this blog, cease to be Sammy? Obviously, earlier in the day when Sammy was rubbing up on its family's ankles, possibly lapping up some left-over cereal-milk, Sammy was what the family knew as "Sammy." But after Sammy got squashed by Strangeloop's car, was it still "Sammy"? Strangeloop states that "the cat was pretty tore up and it was quite the ugly sight." But does is the cat still a cat, albeit lacking the life-energy that constituted the cat being alive and making up the "personality" that family had come to use to distinguish "Sammy" from other cats, even if they were identical in appearance.
I suppose this begs two distinct questions, both of which merit further examination. 1. What exactly constitutes the cat being "Sammy"? And 2. What exactly constitutes the cat being "a cat"?
I suppose the first question has already been somewhat answered. Sammy had a personality that the family was intimately familiar with that made Sammy the family cat that they all loved. That personality would have helped the family distinguish that particular cat from other, visually identical cats. Certainly, that personality, at least to some degree, made Sammy well, "Sammy." But obviously that wasn't the only thing that made it "Sammy."
So that brings us to the point of the family discovering the cat laying where Strangeloop left it on the porch, "pretty tore up and quite the ugly sight." Whoever discovered it laying there would have recognized it visually as Sammy. But was it still "Sammy" since the life-energy and personality existed no longer? One could possibly make the claim that the cat was no longer "Sammy" and was instead a visually-recognizable conglomeration of flesh, fur, and biomass. What the family would mourn over would be the memory of Sammy's personality and the memories of the past interactions they had with the cat when it still possessed the life-energy. I would have to contend that post-death, the cat is would cease to be "Sammy" though that would certainly be of little consolation to the family.
So then when does the cat cease to be "a cat"? I would have to say that even a dead cat is still a cat. It still possesses all the necessary ingredients to be a cat - DNA, specialized cells, body structure, appearance. If some scientists were to extract some of the cat's DNA, even after death, they would be able to re-create a cat and nothing else.
So what has to happen for a cat to no longer be a cat? If you chopped it up into little pieces, it would still be "a cat," just in a whole bunch of little pieces, wouldn't it? Maybe not. It would definitely possess the DNA, and the cells, but not the right arrangement or appearance. The cells wouldn't even be in the correct juxtaposition to - say, after re-injecting it with the now-missing life energy - function the way they did before, making it a fully functioning cat. Granted, one could make the claim that a cat missing a leg or needing a pacemaker is still a cat so some function can be sacrificed and still maintain the actual organism. But at some point, enough functionality is lost to prevent the pile of pieces from being considered "a cat" though I don't know where that is.
What if you took the cat and put it in a chemical bath that broke down all the cell walls and dissolved the biomass into its molecular components. Say you were able to then completely extract the original chemical from the solution and be left with a pile of molecules or chemicals of some sort. I don't think anyone would say that what remains is in any way "a cat". They would call it something else - a pile of chemicals, a solution, whatever. But maybe the family would still consider it "Sammy" just like they would if Sammy were cremated and they possessed the ashes. However I would refer back to my discussion above and claim that they are not assuming the chemical pile or the ashes are actually "Sammy" but the memories they invoke are what they are clinging to. The other stuff is simply the physical reminder, much like a headstone would be at a loved one's cemetery sight.
Though this far from settles the issue - it may well actually only lead to further debate - it brings about a very interesting concept that may well close the debate. Something ceases to be "something" when it becomes something else. A cat is no longer a cat when it becomes a pile of ashes or a pile of chemicals. The actual existence of something may cease and its components may constitute something else from there after, but the memory of that particular thing will endure as long as there are those still available to remember it. That is what blurs the lines between something being one thing and being something else. If there are no anthropogenic attachments, there is little debate. That is precisely why humans have such a hard time with matters such as these. Only in the complete absence of emotion can one fully understand things.
When does something cease to be that particular something and become something else?
For instance, when does Sammy, the cat in this blog, cease to be Sammy? Obviously, earlier in the day when Sammy was rubbing up on its family's ankles, possibly lapping up some left-over cereal-milk, Sammy was what the family knew as "Sammy." But after Sammy got squashed by Strangeloop's car, was it still "Sammy"? Strangeloop states that "the cat was pretty tore up and it was quite the ugly sight." But does is the cat still a cat, albeit lacking the life-energy that constituted the cat being alive and making up the "personality" that family had come to use to distinguish "Sammy" from other cats, even if they were identical in appearance.
I suppose this begs two distinct questions, both of which merit further examination. 1. What exactly constitutes the cat being "Sammy"? And 2. What exactly constitutes the cat being "a cat"?
I suppose the first question has already been somewhat answered. Sammy had a personality that the family was intimately familiar with that made Sammy the family cat that they all loved. That personality would have helped the family distinguish that particular cat from other, visually identical cats. Certainly, that personality, at least to some degree, made Sammy well, "Sammy." But obviously that wasn't the only thing that made it "Sammy."
So that brings us to the point of the family discovering the cat laying where Strangeloop left it on the porch, "pretty tore up and quite the ugly sight." Whoever discovered it laying there would have recognized it visually as Sammy. But was it still "Sammy" since the life-energy and personality existed no longer? One could possibly make the claim that the cat was no longer "Sammy" and was instead a visually-recognizable conglomeration of flesh, fur, and biomass. What the family would mourn over would be the memory of Sammy's personality and the memories of the past interactions they had with the cat when it still possessed the life-energy. I would have to contend that post-death, the cat is would cease to be "Sammy" though that would certainly be of little consolation to the family.
So then when does the cat cease to be "a cat"? I would have to say that even a dead cat is still a cat. It still possesses all the necessary ingredients to be a cat - DNA, specialized cells, body structure, appearance. If some scientists were to extract some of the cat's DNA, even after death, they would be able to re-create a cat and nothing else.
So what has to happen for a cat to no longer be a cat? If you chopped it up into little pieces, it would still be "a cat," just in a whole bunch of little pieces, wouldn't it? Maybe not. It would definitely possess the DNA, and the cells, but not the right arrangement or appearance. The cells wouldn't even be in the correct juxtaposition to - say, after re-injecting it with the now-missing life energy - function the way they did before, making it a fully functioning cat. Granted, one could make the claim that a cat missing a leg or needing a pacemaker is still a cat so some function can be sacrificed and still maintain the actual organism. But at some point, enough functionality is lost to prevent the pile of pieces from being considered "a cat" though I don't know where that is.
What if you took the cat and put it in a chemical bath that broke down all the cell walls and dissolved the biomass into its molecular components. Say you were able to then completely extract the original chemical from the solution and be left with a pile of molecules or chemicals of some sort. I don't think anyone would say that what remains is in any way "a cat". They would call it something else - a pile of chemicals, a solution, whatever. But maybe the family would still consider it "Sammy" just like they would if Sammy were cremated and they possessed the ashes. However I would refer back to my discussion above and claim that they are not assuming the chemical pile or the ashes are actually "Sammy" but the memories they invoke are what they are clinging to. The other stuff is simply the physical reminder, much like a headstone would be at a loved one's cemetery sight.
Though this far from settles the issue - it may well actually only lead to further debate - it brings about a very interesting concept that may well close the debate. Something ceases to be "something" when it becomes something else. A cat is no longer a cat when it becomes a pile of ashes or a pile of chemicals. The actual existence of something may cease and its components may constitute something else from there after, but the memory of that particular thing will endure as long as there are those still available to remember it. That is what blurs the lines between something being one thing and being something else. If there are no anthropogenic attachments, there is little debate. That is precisely why humans have such a hard time with matters such as these. Only in the complete absence of emotion can one fully understand things.
Things that annoy me, Chapter 5
Plumbing. (yeah, yeah...insert "Joe Plumber" comment here. Anyone who willingly takes up that trade ought to have their head examined so I don't really give a shit what he thinks about anyone's tax plan...)
I hate plumbing. Mostly because I'm not good at it but also because the materials needed for it go against most of what I stand for. Not only is PVC worthless and seems to have a high affinity for shattering in places that are virtually impossible to access without tearing out floors and walls, but it is really nasty stuff from an environmental standpoint. And the chemicals used to clean and glue the fittings ought to be targeted by the ONDCP.
For the last two days I've been making regular trips into the crawlspace under my house trying to fix pipes that, despite my best efforts to drain them last year, apparently froze and broke. The process is agitating enough on account that I hate the materials in principal but it just adds salt to the wound everytime I think I've finally found and fixed all the leaks only to turn the water on and find water spraying from some new, practically-impossible-to-access-by-anyone-larger-than-a-six-year-old space under my house. I've even found shattered vertical pipes in this process. How in the hell a vertical pipe shatters after not having any water in it for a year is a mystery to me. My only assumption is that Karma is on the side of the propane company and is getting back at me for shutting the water off to the upstairs of my house so I didn't have to heat it last winter. Whatever the reason, I'm annoyed. I now have to commence wallowing in the muddy crawlspace looking for the next leak.
I hate plumbing. Mostly because I'm not good at it but also because the materials needed for it go against most of what I stand for. Not only is PVC worthless and seems to have a high affinity for shattering in places that are virtually impossible to access without tearing out floors and walls, but it is really nasty stuff from an environmental standpoint. And the chemicals used to clean and glue the fittings ought to be targeted by the ONDCP.
For the last two days I've been making regular trips into the crawlspace under my house trying to fix pipes that, despite my best efforts to drain them last year, apparently froze and broke. The process is agitating enough on account that I hate the materials in principal but it just adds salt to the wound everytime I think I've finally found and fixed all the leaks only to turn the water on and find water spraying from some new, practically-impossible-to-access-by-anyone-larger-than-a-six-year-old space under my house. I've even found shattered vertical pipes in this process. How in the hell a vertical pipe shatters after not having any water in it for a year is a mystery to me. My only assumption is that Karma is on the side of the propane company and is getting back at me for shutting the water off to the upstairs of my house so I didn't have to heat it last winter. Whatever the reason, I'm annoyed. I now have to commence wallowing in the muddy crawlspace looking for the next leak.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Falling off the wagon
"What the eff? Long time no post."
I know. I have been slacking on my blogging lately. I haven't really been putting thought to text at all as of late and I'll admit I am starting to fiend a little bit. So here's my weak attempt at a quick fix to tide me over until I finally just suck it up and spend some real time in front of this screen really dispensing my thoughts.
I can't say my lack of posting is a product of being uninspired. Daily I have things happen or hear things that could potentially send me into a tirade of a six-part blog post. Lord knows that today's world doesn't lack for blogging topics. What I have been lacking is ambition. Historically, that's a common affliction with me this time of year. The days are getting perpetually more dreary and cold and most of the time I would rather just hide from it than take it head-on and keep functioning at near-peak performance. Unfortunately, obligations keep me from just hiding away so I often find myself just kind of coasting along, doing what I must but nothing more. For a while now, writing hasn't made it far enough up the perceived "must do" list to merit my dedicating oh-so-valuable do-nothing time to it. That's beginning to change.
Excuses, excuses I know. But were it not for excuses, I wouldn't be blogging while I should be working.
Here's what's on my mind for those of you who don't care but read blogs during your do-nothing time like I do:
I know. I have been slacking on my blogging lately. I haven't really been putting thought to text at all as of late and I'll admit I am starting to fiend a little bit. So here's my weak attempt at a quick fix to tide me over until I finally just suck it up and spend some real time in front of this screen really dispensing my thoughts.
I can't say my lack of posting is a product of being uninspired. Daily I have things happen or hear things that could potentially send me into a tirade of a six-part blog post. Lord knows that today's world doesn't lack for blogging topics. What I have been lacking is ambition. Historically, that's a common affliction with me this time of year. The days are getting perpetually more dreary and cold and most of the time I would rather just hide from it than take it head-on and keep functioning at near-peak performance. Unfortunately, obligations keep me from just hiding away so I often find myself just kind of coasting along, doing what I must but nothing more. For a while now, writing hasn't made it far enough up the perceived "must do" list to merit my dedicating oh-so-valuable do-nothing time to it. That's beginning to change.
Excuses, excuses I know. But were it not for excuses, I wouldn't be blogging while I should be working.
Here's what's on my mind for those of you who don't care but read blogs during your do-nothing time like I do:
- I'll be glad when the election is over. All this incessant talk, much of which I participate in, is really hurting my head. And the chain email thing really is out of control but I still help to perpetuate it even though I have no idea why.
- There are some bands out there that should have quit while they were ahead. I suppose when the only thing you've done for the last 20 years is make music, you don't know how to stop. AC/DC should not be producing new albums, neither should Metallica (though their new one is leaps and bounds better than the one that preceded it, it still blows) or Korn (especially now that they're missing half the original band members).
- Hard rock bands should NOT cover hip-hop songs. The term "shorty" or some ebonicified version thereof should never be uttered over a shredding electric guitarist. Nor should the term "lovely lady lumps" ever be uttered, period.
- Digital TV is still worthless where I live. It's like watching a scratched-to-hell DVD of network TV programming.
- Free markets cannot exist in perpetuity. A free market system works only until the disparity between the "haves" and "have nots" becomes large enough for greed to dictate the use of the "haves'" power at the expense of the "have nots."
- Sarah Palin not only epitomises hypocrisy, but also embodies the double standard that women are held to. Neither trait makes her qualified to be VP of the USA.
- The only real beneficiaries of this campaign season are Saturday Night Live and Tina Fey.
- Moving sucks.
I'll likely expand on some of the above thoughts sometime in the future. Not that any of them are really worth reading about but I don't necessarily write this blog to have it read. I write because I have to...for me. It's my drug and I need to fall off the wagon again.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Is misinformed better than completely ignorant? Part 1
There are several issues that are all over the media lately and will likely come up in tonight's third and (thankfully) final presidential debate. Top on the list is Barack Obama's supposed "association" with the "domestic terrorist" William Ayers.
I'm all for rooting out past corruption on any candidate. What I'm not for is the main stream media (MSM), or the other candidates' campaigns spinning these stories and making them national issues when they don't really merit being so, or vice versa.
I decided to try to find for myself what Obama's association was with Bill Ayers, and for that matter, who the hell this Bill Ayers guy was. Washington Post had a decent summary here. Apparently in the late '60s and early 70's, Bill Ayers was part of a radical group called Weather Underground which claimed responsibility for a dozen or so domestic bombings between 1970 and 1974. Bill Ayers was never convicted of any crime but told the New York Times in an article published in Sept. 2001, "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."
So the guy was obviously quite the radical in the early '70s. Now I wasn't alive then, but if I remember history and some stories I've heard from elders, that was a pretty tumultuous time. Does that excuse violence? No, of course not. But let's keep the era in mind here. Ayers is/was obviously big on politics, albeit maybe TOO big at times.
Now, what is the connection between Obama and this Ayers guy? These days, Bill Ayers is a well-respected professor at University of Illinois-Chicago and well established in the "intelligencia" community. Obama's only real ties to the man are that they live in the same general area of suburban Chicago and move within the same liberal-progressive circles. Early in Obama's political career, Ayers contributed....wait for it....a whopping $200 to his congressional re-election campaign. Aside from that, the only real "interaction" they seem to have had is that they both served on the board of a Chicago anti-poverty group called the Woods Fund of Chicago between 1999 and 2002.
So it seems to me that Obama's interaction with Bill Ayers doesn't merit being put on the national stage. Unfortunately, much of the media, and definitely a lot of the McCain campaign (ahem, Sarah Palin) is painting Obama as one who hangs out with terrorists. Yet, the Chicago Sun-Times reports that "Obama's Ayers connection never bugged anyone." Sometimes I wonder if complete ignorance on the issue isn't better than the misinformation and ridiculous spin being put on it because I can guarantee that few people will actually search out the truth. Obama didn't exactly 'pal around' with a 'terrorist' who was never actually convicted of anything and was part of an organization that operated when Obama was about six years old.
I'm all for people being well informed but I think people should be "well" informed. To be "well" informed, one's information should not come from stirring, fear-deriving, fanatical chain emails and half-stories in the all-to-often biased media.
Done ranting for now. See part two.
I'm all for rooting out past corruption on any candidate. What I'm not for is the main stream media (MSM), or the other candidates' campaigns spinning these stories and making them national issues when they don't really merit being so, or vice versa.
I decided to try to find for myself what Obama's association was with Bill Ayers, and for that matter, who the hell this Bill Ayers guy was. Washington Post had a decent summary here. Apparently in the late '60s and early 70's, Bill Ayers was part of a radical group called Weather Underground which claimed responsibility for a dozen or so domestic bombings between 1970 and 1974. Bill Ayers was never convicted of any crime but told the New York Times in an article published in Sept. 2001, "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."
So the guy was obviously quite the radical in the early '70s. Now I wasn't alive then, but if I remember history and some stories I've heard from elders, that was a pretty tumultuous time. Does that excuse violence? No, of course not. But let's keep the era in mind here. Ayers is/was obviously big on politics, albeit maybe TOO big at times.
Now, what is the connection between Obama and this Ayers guy? These days, Bill Ayers is a well-respected professor at University of Illinois-Chicago and well established in the "intelligencia" community. Obama's only real ties to the man are that they live in the same general area of suburban Chicago and move within the same liberal-progressive circles. Early in Obama's political career, Ayers contributed....wait for it....a whopping $200 to his congressional re-election campaign. Aside from that, the only real "interaction" they seem to have had is that they both served on the board of a Chicago anti-poverty group called the Woods Fund of Chicago between 1999 and 2002.
So it seems to me that Obama's interaction with Bill Ayers doesn't merit being put on the national stage. Unfortunately, much of the media, and definitely a lot of the McCain campaign (ahem, Sarah Palin) is painting Obama as one who hangs out with terrorists. Yet, the Chicago Sun-Times reports that "Obama's Ayers connection never bugged anyone." Sometimes I wonder if complete ignorance on the issue isn't better than the misinformation and ridiculous spin being put on it because I can guarantee that few people will actually search out the truth. Obama didn't exactly 'pal around' with a 'terrorist' who was never actually convicted of anything and was part of an organization that operated when Obama was about six years old.
I'm all for people being well informed but I think people should be "well" informed. To be "well" informed, one's information should not come from stirring, fear-deriving, fanatical chain emails and half-stories in the all-to-often biased media.
Done ranting for now. See part two.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
NASCAR and Politics, Again
It's becoming increasingly difficult to get excited about the upcoming election. Not that I was all that excited about it before but I at least looked forward to utilizing my right to have a say in who my leaders are. But now, exactly one month before the big day, I barely look forward to watching the second round of debates.
It's always the same ol' crap. "Change" and "Hope" and "Victory" and "middle-class" and "Wall Street versus Main Street"...crap, all of it pure crap served on a silver platter to ravenous pundits and talking heads. So much crap that it's not worth even hoping for something substantial to come out of either candidates' mouth. I would consider watching something else if the Big-3 networks would televise anything different (I only get CBS, NBC, and Fox). It's not like I won't have ample opportunity to get the gist of it from Youtube. But since they don't, I have no choice but to tune in.
Sometimes it feels as though I'm watching the event not so much to determine a winner, but to determine the biggest loser. It's almost like watching NASCAR just to see the wrecks - I watch the debate to see who has the biggest blunder, who tells the biggest lies, and who can avoid directly answering the most questions. And in the end, both competitors will have blown tires, scraped the wall, and had their fenders crushed in. Yet each will leave with a handshake and a smile and wait to see how much new material they've provided to the brilliant minds at Saturday Night Live.
It's always the same ol' crap. "Change" and "Hope" and "Victory" and "middle-class" and "Wall Street versus Main Street"...crap, all of it pure crap served on a silver platter to ravenous pundits and talking heads. So much crap that it's not worth even hoping for something substantial to come out of either candidates' mouth. I would consider watching something else if the Big-3 networks would televise anything different (I only get CBS, NBC, and Fox). It's not like I won't have ample opportunity to get the gist of it from Youtube. But since they don't, I have no choice but to tune in.
Sometimes it feels as though I'm watching the event not so much to determine a winner, but to determine the biggest loser. It's almost like watching NASCAR just to see the wrecks - I watch the debate to see who has the biggest blunder, who tells the biggest lies, and who can avoid directly answering the most questions. And in the end, both competitors will have blown tires, scraped the wall, and had their fenders crushed in. Yet each will leave with a handshake and a smile and wait to see how much new material they've provided to the brilliant minds at Saturday Night Live.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Of NASCAR and Politics
Not long ago, before I was jaded by the system, I believed in the democratic way. Voting was a sacred right that gave each and every person the opportunity to decide who they thought, as a nation, was best to lead them. I now realize that that's bullshit.
I am not a big sports fanatic. I don't have any one favorite football team. I have a favorite NASCAR driver but I am often just as happy to see others win as I am seeing my driver win a race. What I find more often than not when I watch sports is that I'm not so much into who wins as I am into who loses. There are more NASCAR drivers that I want to see finish last than there are who I want to see win. When I watch football, I usually find myself pulling for the team that I don't give a damn about simply because they're playing a team I want to watch lose.
It makes sense when you think about it. There are 43 drivers at the start of any NASCAR race. Only one will win but 42 of them will lose to some degree. You're odds of coming out "victorious" are higher if you're pulling for any one driver NOT to win. It's a bit different with football in that there are only two teams at the beginning so essentially there is a 50/50 chance that your team may win or lose (all things being equal). But there is little chance of your team winning every game throughout the season (last year's Patriots notwithstanding) but having multiple teams you want to lose will give you more opportunity to stay engaged in more games throughout the whole season.
Just as with football and NASCAR, I view my choice in this upcoming election as a choice between who I want to see lose more than the other. I fully believe that for the majority of people who have a stance on (and knowledge of) multiple issues, there will never be any one candidate who has the same view on EVERY issue. In fact, there is a good chance that both candidates will have some stance in common with most multi-issue people. I know that's the case with me and most everyone I know (aside from the one-issue voters, anyway). So, for me, it comes down to an issue of choosing the candidate who I want to lose the election and then voting for the other.
Here's how I see it: This nation is headed down a slope and accelerating. I don't exactly know what's at the bottom of the slope, or what we'll encounter along the way but I know it's not good. The country's economy is crashing and well on its way to another Great Depression. We have a global climate crisis that threatens the entire human species that this nation is doing nothing about. We have a growing disparity between those who possess the most wealth and those who just barely scratch by and the former is growing perpetually more greedy at the expense of the latter who are growing perpetually more desperate. We owe so much money to, and are so dependent on other countries that we're practically owned by them. And some of those countries are becoming increasingly powerful and resource-depleted and will soon need to either find other means of providing for their massive population domestically, or start taking from someone else.
This snowball has been rolling for quite some time now and it's going to be hard to stop...or to even slow it down. But I know that the current administration has done nothing but smooth and pave the path for the snowball, allowing it to accelerate more. I also know that one of the choices in this upcoming election will only continue that acceleration with more of the same policies and biased priorities. That doesn't mean that I believe that the other choice will really implement even a fraction of the changes he promises - I know he won't. Our current government doesn't allow for wholesale changes to the country's energy portfolio or economic system in a single administration...or even two of them. We're a good decade, or two, or even a generation away from realizing real change. But what I do believe is that there is one choice that will at least try to throw some speed bumps onto the slope and maybe, just maybe, start to turn public opinion around to mobilize the nation, as a whole, to start levelling the slope somewhere below where this snowball is heading so that maybe we can turn this around sometime in the future.
The other choice is a guarantee that this snowball will continue to accelerate - A pair of candidates that want more drilling that won't do a damn thing about our economic or climate situation except worsen it; A pair of candidates that want to keep our armed forces over-extended, weakening us even more than we already are (in the name of "national security"), a pair that pays little mind to the precariousness of the climate issue; A pair that doesn't seem to understand what the current economy is doing to the common person.
So my choice seems to be either vote for a pair of candidates that I'm not real thrilled about voting for in an effort to keep the other pair from winning...or not vote at all. I suppose I could waste a vote and vote third-party but thanks to the wonderful two-party system we've developed here in this great (?) nation, I don't know if it wouldn't be better to just not vote at all. Since I'm probably not going to be able to keep from throwing my two cents into any discussion on the actions of the winners over the next four years, I better have had a say in whether or not they got in there in the first place. So I'll be using my sacred right to vote not to elect who I think is best to lead us for the next four years - I don't think either choice fits that description - I'll be voting against who I think is least fit to lead this nation. It's a bit sad that it's come to that but unfortunately that's how it is.
I guess I'll see you at the polls.
I am not a big sports fanatic. I don't have any one favorite football team. I have a favorite NASCAR driver but I am often just as happy to see others win as I am seeing my driver win a race. What I find more often than not when I watch sports is that I'm not so much into who wins as I am into who loses. There are more NASCAR drivers that I want to see finish last than there are who I want to see win. When I watch football, I usually find myself pulling for the team that I don't give a damn about simply because they're playing a team I want to watch lose.
It makes sense when you think about it. There are 43 drivers at the start of any NASCAR race. Only one will win but 42 of them will lose to some degree. You're odds of coming out "victorious" are higher if you're pulling for any one driver NOT to win. It's a bit different with football in that there are only two teams at the beginning so essentially there is a 50/50 chance that your team may win or lose (all things being equal). But there is little chance of your team winning every game throughout the season (last year's Patriots notwithstanding) but having multiple teams you want to lose will give you more opportunity to stay engaged in more games throughout the whole season.
Just as with football and NASCAR, I view my choice in this upcoming election as a choice between who I want to see lose more than the other. I fully believe that for the majority of people who have a stance on (and knowledge of) multiple issues, there will never be any one candidate who has the same view on EVERY issue. In fact, there is a good chance that both candidates will have some stance in common with most multi-issue people. I know that's the case with me and most everyone I know (aside from the one-issue voters, anyway). So, for me, it comes down to an issue of choosing the candidate who I want to lose the election and then voting for the other.
Here's how I see it: This nation is headed down a slope and accelerating. I don't exactly know what's at the bottom of the slope, or what we'll encounter along the way but I know it's not good. The country's economy is crashing and well on its way to another Great Depression. We have a global climate crisis that threatens the entire human species that this nation is doing nothing about. We have a growing disparity between those who possess the most wealth and those who just barely scratch by and the former is growing perpetually more greedy at the expense of the latter who are growing perpetually more desperate. We owe so much money to, and are so dependent on other countries that we're practically owned by them. And some of those countries are becoming increasingly powerful and resource-depleted and will soon need to either find other means of providing for their massive population domestically, or start taking from someone else.
This snowball has been rolling for quite some time now and it's going to be hard to stop...or to even slow it down. But I know that the current administration has done nothing but smooth and pave the path for the snowball, allowing it to accelerate more. I also know that one of the choices in this upcoming election will only continue that acceleration with more of the same policies and biased priorities. That doesn't mean that I believe that the other choice will really implement even a fraction of the changes he promises - I know he won't. Our current government doesn't allow for wholesale changes to the country's energy portfolio or economic system in a single administration...or even two of them. We're a good decade, or two, or even a generation away from realizing real change. But what I do believe is that there is one choice that will at least try to throw some speed bumps onto the slope and maybe, just maybe, start to turn public opinion around to mobilize the nation, as a whole, to start levelling the slope somewhere below where this snowball is heading so that maybe we can turn this around sometime in the future.
The other choice is a guarantee that this snowball will continue to accelerate - A pair of candidates that want more drilling that won't do a damn thing about our economic or climate situation except worsen it; A pair of candidates that want to keep our armed forces over-extended, weakening us even more than we already are (in the name of "national security"), a pair that pays little mind to the precariousness of the climate issue; A pair that doesn't seem to understand what the current economy is doing to the common person.
So my choice seems to be either vote for a pair of candidates that I'm not real thrilled about voting for in an effort to keep the other pair from winning...or not vote at all. I suppose I could waste a vote and vote third-party but thanks to the wonderful two-party system we've developed here in this great (?) nation, I don't know if it wouldn't be better to just not vote at all. Since I'm probably not going to be able to keep from throwing my two cents into any discussion on the actions of the winners over the next four years, I better have had a say in whether or not they got in there in the first place. So I'll be using my sacred right to vote not to elect who I think is best to lead us for the next four years - I don't think either choice fits that description - I'll be voting against who I think is least fit to lead this nation. It's a bit sad that it's come to that but unfortunately that's how it is.
I guess I'll see you at the polls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)