How Random Babbling Becomes Corporate Policy (t3knomanser) wrote,
How Random Babbling Becomes Corporate Policy

Mmmm, mmm, politics, it's what's for dinner.

I didn't vote for Gore. I didn't want to. And for the first schmuck that goes, "Oh noes! It's your fault we're stuck with Bush!!!one!!1" get's a kick in the face, and a gentle reminder that I live in New York state, therefore, if I vote third-party, or not at all, it doesn't really matter- because NY always goes Democrat.

Why didn't I vote for Gore? Because I didn't want to. He was such a lame duck. I looked around, and examined Gore and Bush (or as we were calling them at the time, Gush and Bore), and for the life of me, couldn't imagine two more unlikely, lame duck canidates to see running for office. I began wondering, "Are the rich, power-hungry elite so inbred at this point that this is the cream of the crop?"

I wasn't alone- the small minority that voted was so underwhelmed that they couldn't make up their minds- hence the most hotly contested election since J.Q.Adams squeaked in by an act of Congress.

Quick aside- all those conservatives griping about activist judges should be wary- your golden boy got where he is because of them- or at least, got a shortcut to that point.

So now we fast foward four years. The half of the (voting) populace that didn't like Bush four years ago, likes him even less now. They are as derogatory in their assesments, as vile and ad hominem about it, as his fans are laudatory (and vile and ad hominem about people that don't like him).

Kerry's just as vague and lame duckesque as Gore was four years ago. His sandy-haired poster boy sidekick isn't any real winner in my mind- he spoke well in the debates, but at this point, he just smiles, nods, and just, in general, looks like a tool for Kerry. He is Kerry's charm and Kerry's virility.

So where does this leave us? We've got Canidate A, who has rabid fans and equally rabid detractors. His rabid detractors hold up Canidate B, which is attacked with equal rabidity by A's fans. And the fact of the matter is- neither one of these men is a "Winner". I wouldn't trust either of these men to clean my cats' litter box, let alone run the most powerful nation on Earth.

I'd kill- kill for a canidate that can actually inspire loyalty, without drumming up supporters with rabid jingoism and "with or against" simplicity. What about a canidate that is informed and contemplative? That toes no party line but his own principles? A canidate that speaks with frankness, openness and conviction?

Where is my hero? Do I have to wait till I'm old enough to be that canidate? I might not be terribly good at that loyalty part (people either love or hate me, and are rarely ambivalent- something about my confrontational nature).

The "War On Terror": We've had similar wars of ideology in the past. We fought the "War on Poverty" until we had no poverty, and the "War on Drugs" until there were no drugs- oh wait. You cannot got to war against an ideology. You do not end terrorism by killing or arresting terrorists- you create martyrs and rallying points, and make yourself look further like the bad guy.

I don't have a magic wand to wave that will end the threat of terrorism tommorrow. No one does. No one has a strategy that's going to work for sure. What we have to do is start by reevaluating our plan for this "War"- and in fact, we must stop thinking of it as a war. We reevaluate or plans, and start solving this problem as an International Community- and by that, I don't mean simply the US and it's Allies and the UN- I mean taking the case for peace to the people of the nations that send terrorists against us.

Abortion is a frequent "big issue". Let me start this way- on a personal level, I oppose abortion. If a young lady came to me off the street, and asked me about her unwanted pregnancy, I'd warn her off, and send her towards adoption lawyers- I was adopted, and know the value of that institution in a personal way.

However, I will not legislate against it. To word it gently, as a society, we're barely taking care of our members as it is. How many fall through the cracks into darkness now? Do we want to increase that number? Furthermore, criminalizing abortion won't stop it- any more than criminalizing drugs has stopped drug use, and making prostitution illegal prevents prostitution- it simply makes the process more dangerous, and ties up government resources in enforcing laws and punishing those that transgress them.

Health Care- I hate to break it to you, but it is not the role or the purpose of the federal government to provide you with health care. If anywhere, that power belongs in the States. A state is more in tune with the needs of its citizens- the needs of people in Pennsylvania will be different from those in Washington. Instead of forcing a single health care system on the nation- one single system trying to care for millions- I believe each state should approach this problem. If the citizens in New York want a single, tax-subsidised health-care system for New York, wonderful for them. And if the citizens in Iowa don't- good for them too.

I want to ensure that less of your taxes are spent on the federal level- and that more of them can go to where they can do the most good- the state level.

Same Sex Marriage has been a hot topic for moral outrage, with opponents warning that this is a sure path to beastiality and paedophelia. Obviously, such alarmism is uncalled for.

The problem with the institution of Marriage, is that it is not what it once was. We have grown accustomed to the idea of marriage being a function of religion- most marriages today happen in churches, are officiated by religious leaders, with a ceremony tied to a set of religious beliefs.

Further- marriage, at one time, had nothing to do with the highly personal concept of love. This is a recent invention- less than two hundred years old- younger even, than our nation. However, love, in our modern context, is the key of marriage.

This highly personal, highly religious institution, should not be under the purview of your government. First, we must seperate church and state functions- further, we must not intrude unfairly into the personal lives of our citizens.

I believe that we should take marriage, and return it to the people. Instead, the government should recognize only the parts of marriage that pertain to the government- the contractual obligations. This contract can be open to any couple- even ones that are not romantically involved.

Any other big issues at the moment? Hmmm... well, I'd like to see some revisions on intellectual property law, strong laws to prevent the government from traipsing all over the internet, and similar such protections.

At any rate, hit me with an issue, and I'll respond with a stance from the t3knomancy Party Platform.

On a side note, does anyone think I'll be allowed to change my party affiliation to the POEE (Paranatheometamystikhood of the Eris Esoteric).

  • Strange Things People Say About Me (to my face)

    Recently, I've been at the center of a trend. That trend is complete strangers asking me "Are you ____?" A quick summary. For example: Are you…

  • Writer's Block: If I could find my way

    -10,000 years, at minimum. Tomorrow is always better than today, especially when you can't fact-check.

  • Bob Morlang

    When I was working at Tri-Mount, we had these camp trucks. They were army surplus, and while they could take a beating, they only sort of worked. And…

  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded