He Said: Friday Ramblin'

Late 20th-century America advanced rapidly. Technology allowed ideas and words to move faster than previously imagined. It brought the world together in a way that seemed impossible. The world indeed got smaller while simultaneously expanding. Anything was possible. So why did all the same problems remain? Or worse, get exacerbated?

Which problems should have been solved by such fast-moving and groundbreaking means of communication? Shouldn’t international crises have been nearly eliminated? Sure, we couldn’t control the weather, but our responses should have been so swift and coordinated as to make anything past “first response” a simple matter; if you weren’t injured or killed by the initial wave/blast/storm, our communication and mobilization resources should have made search and rescue a simple matter. But we know otherwise. Humankind always manages to let itself down at crucial moments. Typically due to bureaucracy. Just ask people in New Orleans. Or Haiti.

So where are we now? A nation brought to its knees by debt and cultural division. Freedom, somehow, means wildly different things to many different people; the rallying cry of “limited government” now used as more of a blunt object with which to beat the other side – “limited” to being used against our enemies. Neither side (for we’ve become incapable of acknowledging a third, fourth, or more options) is without blame, though one seems to wear it like a badge of honor so ingrained is it in their mindset. The other plays half-assed, publicly not quite sure if it likes playing by the rules while secretly not. Carter wasn’t corrupt, just too idealistic to be effective. Reagan believed wholeheartedly in a very bad idea. Bush was so hard-wired into the military-industrial/intelligence complex that politics were an after-thought. Clinton was a genuine leader but too flawed to be a great one; post-POTUS life is far more amenable. Dubya was a knee-jerk reaction to Clinton’s antics and Gore’s woodenness; a fearful response to “too much freedom”. This has all culminated in Obama, a man who is somehow perceived to be both an extension of Bush and his party’s short-sighted neo-conservatism and the first giant step toward socialism. Nuance has never been an American trait.

So where are we now, really? Well, we have a POTUS that has let down his core constituency yet can point to a laundry list of legit accomplishments; a POTUS that has seemingly alienated one half of the country with one policy that they oppose on principle in spite of the fact that it will benefit the majority of them; a POTUS who, no matter how hard he tries to unite, will be a divider. Nuance has never been an American trait.

Which leaves us with… a GOP field dominated by the least offensive character, who also has no charisma and no leadership ability. One man followed by a shrinking field of clueless, power-hungry lifers fighting for scraps. Some are well-intentioned but bereft of forward thinking; others are legitimately dangerous to our collective future. So BHO will likely see 4 more years. And that isn’t dangerous, but it isn’t inspiring either.

Steve Jobs was both an asshole and a visionary (as many so often are), and he wasn't afraid to be either when the moment called for it. He saw a path toward enlightenment that happened to be littered with consumer-invention. The perfect combination of personal freedom and collective involvement. His technology could be yet another tool to make the world smaller and simultaneously larger, infinite. And we’ll still let ourselves down very soon. Nuance has never been an American trait.

He Said: Which is worse, continuing the status quo or doing nothing?

So we are inching closer to finding out who will be our candidates for November, and I find myself as uninspired by our choices as I've ever been. On the Republican side we are provided with many big names, but very little that's new.

Rudy Giuliani, once a media darling and forever linked with his heroics after 9/11, has made it clear he really has nothing new to offer us as he intends to simply continue our war efforts in Iraq and elsewhere. He is somewhat refreshing as a Republican since he confounds his own party and the religious base that was so crucial for Dubya by being an adulterer, sometimes cross-dresser, and has previously been pro-choice.

Fred Thompson, another candidate thought to have some real power and support, has looked lethargic and disinterested during most of the debates. Fred does have lymphoma, which he says is not affecting him much, but he does not look healthy. He, too, intends to continue the war, as well as signalling a desire to implement even more conservative policies, most of which involve some level of intrusion or restricting of rights. Funny, I thought Republicans claimed to be for less government.

I don't know much about Mitt Romney other than he's Mormon and he used to be pro-choice. 2 things that will most likely alienate or at least breed suspicion among the religious right base.

I would have considered voting for John McCain a couple years ago, but his flip-flopping on certain issues and complete pandering to elements within the GOP base have really turned me off. Where's the McCain of the "Straight Talk Express" campaign?

I didn't know much about Mike Huckabee until earlier today, and then I found out all I needed to know to not vote for him. He said he believes the Constitution should be brought into line with "God's standards". I'm gonna let that one sit there by itself.

Finally, Ron Paul has spent more time fending off accusations of racism from things he wrote while running his own newsletter a few years back than campaigning. Ooops! Despite actually receving more support than Rudy and Fred in some primaries, he's been frozen out.

I used to be a Democrat, but I left them because I felt they were ineffective and lacked guts. A few years on, and I'm feeling I made a good decision. Barack Obama has impressed me at times, but just when I think I'm willing to throw my support behind him he goes and says something that reminds us he may not have enough experience for the job. Also, I'm not really sure what his intentions are. He says he intends to bring the troops home, but that's an awfully (overly?)simple response to a very complex situation. But, he's a nice guy. So was Carter.

Ah, Hillary. Or AAAAAAAAAHHHHH HILLARY!!!!!!!, depending on how much she scares you. She's got experience alright! Unfortunately, it's the Rovian mudslinging kind. I think she likes the dirty side of politics, which comes as no surprise given who she (occasionally) shares her bed with. She has flip-flopped as well, and not in the "I gave it considerable thought and changed my mind" sort, but rather the "Oh, I'm speaking to the VFW today, I better throw in some stuff about initially supporting the war" kind. I'd also like to break the stranglehold of family politics within the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Bush regime we've had for 20 years. She, too, says she intends to end the war. And she may understand the proper way to do this. She also may decide to use taxpayer dollars to buy herself an island. I just don't trust her.

John Edwards can't win. But I'd take a $400 haircut anyday. He'll make a good running mate, though.

So who will I vote for? Well, considering I left the Dems to become a Libertarian, perhaps I'll give them my presidential vote. But that guy has less chance of being elected than me right now, so I have a tough decision to make. I'm hoping one of the candidates says something soon that piques my interest. Until then, I'm undecided. Status quo or no quo?

So, who are you voting for? Maybe I'll wait to see who She decides on! ;)