My Verona
Nice dinner with friends at the Villa Verona (the Sycamore one, not the fancy one)
Lots of Obama talk but that's ok. Everybody was probably shocked by my cynicism and defense of his candidacy when I said, "Of course image is important. What the hell else are people going to vote for? Substance? Please, we're Americans we don't have time to understand the differences between candidates on that score."
But that response is part cynical and part absofuckinglutely real. Let's look back at the 2000 election. Let's think about a less polarizing, but still important, difference between Bush and Gore. Which one of them had a better plan for working with the Asian Tigers, ASEAN promoting, when necessary, and capitalizing on economic advantages in the Southeast Asian markets? And which could provide a better buffer for those markets especially against China or make some of those countries feel they could operate economically and otherwise without the sometimes bruising Chinese diplomacy style mucking up the works. I could not begin to answer that question then.
I couldn't sniff out the major policy difference between the Bush camp and the Gore folks in the run up to the 2000 election, how could I say something meaningful about other complex and nuanced policy differences? Come on!
I voted against Bush then almost exclusively on the basis of the Texas version of No Child Left Behind. I believed, and I turned out to be fucking right, that this horse-faced-shit expanded government in ways and to places that it had no business going...
And Bush turned out to be one of the biggest, big government presidents in my lifetime. I saw the seeds of that bullshit state interference with Texas public schools (Kim happened to have a dear friend on the ground there) and folks who knew me back during the election of 2000 (before all the recount crap) will remember that this is what I said to everyone. I argued with friends and others who were "anti-big government" and said this fuck from Texas already has plans for a full scale invasion of American public schools and he will use the bullshit argument that you and others like you always fall for 'Our schools are inefficient and should be run like a business'
And the anti-big government people voted for Bush for a variety of reasons. Maybe fear led them to say 'Let's make government big enough to protect us' or maybe 'No Big Government' was always code for 'I don't want my tax dollars going to welfare' or maybe I am too stupid to understand why all the folks voted for Bush...
Other than, he cut an image that they found presidential, or they felt comfortable with the image he put forth.
And I'd be full of bullshit if I didn't say that is part of what made my decision to vote for Obama so easy. Truth be told, I have no other criteria on which to make a decision.
One last thing about bullshit and me...
I have become the Charles Emerson Winchester III snob at work. One of my coworkers who I love and respect needs "noise" (her words) while she works, and the nature of her job is such that she can't use an MP3 player. She was at the cub game on Thursday and because she was gone there was no radio. Another worker was complaining that she missed the We Play Anything Radio and this started a discussion around the room that I tried , not so desperately, to stay away from...
When I was asked about the We Play Anything station that is normally played in our room I said, "It's ok if you don't like music."
I am the least popular person in my room and only surprised that it took this long to come to pass.
Lots of Obama talk but that's ok. Everybody was probably shocked by my cynicism and defense of his candidacy when I said, "Of course image is important. What the hell else are people going to vote for? Substance? Please, we're Americans we don't have time to understand the differences between candidates on that score."
But that response is part cynical and part absofuckinglutely real. Let's look back at the 2000 election. Let's think about a less polarizing, but still important, difference between Bush and Gore. Which one of them had a better plan for working with the Asian Tigers, ASEAN promoting, when necessary, and capitalizing on economic advantages in the Southeast Asian markets? And which could provide a better buffer for those markets especially against China or make some of those countries feel they could operate economically and otherwise without the sometimes bruising Chinese diplomacy style mucking up the works. I could not begin to answer that question then.
I couldn't sniff out the major policy difference between the Bush camp and the Gore folks in the run up to the 2000 election, how could I say something meaningful about other complex and nuanced policy differences? Come on!
I voted against Bush then almost exclusively on the basis of the Texas version of No Child Left Behind. I believed, and I turned out to be fucking right, that this horse-faced-shit expanded government in ways and to places that it had no business going...
And Bush turned out to be one of the biggest, big government presidents in my lifetime. I saw the seeds of that bullshit state interference with Texas public schools (Kim happened to have a dear friend on the ground there) and folks who knew me back during the election of 2000 (before all the recount crap) will remember that this is what I said to everyone. I argued with friends and others who were "anti-big government" and said this fuck from Texas already has plans for a full scale invasion of American public schools and he will use the bullshit argument that you and others like you always fall for 'Our schools are inefficient and should be run like a business'
And the anti-big government people voted for Bush for a variety of reasons. Maybe fear led them to say 'Let's make government big enough to protect us' or maybe 'No Big Government' was always code for 'I don't want my tax dollars going to welfare' or maybe I am too stupid to understand why all the folks voted for Bush...
Other than, he cut an image that they found presidential, or they felt comfortable with the image he put forth.
And I'd be full of bullshit if I didn't say that is part of what made my decision to vote for Obama so easy. Truth be told, I have no other criteria on which to make a decision.
One last thing about bullshit and me...
I have become the Charles Emerson Winchester III snob at work. One of my coworkers who I love and respect needs "noise" (her words) while she works, and the nature of her job is such that she can't use an MP3 player. She was at the cub game on Thursday and because she was gone there was no radio. Another worker was complaining that she missed the We Play Anything Radio and this started a discussion around the room that I tried , not so desperately, to stay away from...
When I was asked about the We Play Anything station that is normally played in our room I said, "It's ok if you don't like music."
I am the least popular person in my room and only surprised that it took this long to come to pass.
posted by edP | 6:38 AM
4 Comments:
I don't know what you're talking about! I think the people who have never taught a day in their life surely know the best way to implement curriculum in the classroom. But then again, what the hell do I know, I'm just a teacher :)
Yeah, I knew that guy was a fuckbarn before he started fucking everything up!
Social issues are still important to a few people. I realize it's totally uncool around these blog parts and I'm prepared for any zingers. Yes, the war is important, but as a Catholic I cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate with a 100% approval rating from NARAL.
There is nothing more uncool than these blog parts olekobe so nothing you present is more or less uncool than...well, you get my point.
I have two questions, and they are not rhetorical (neither are meant to convince you to vote for Sen. Obama or anybody)
1. How much does a presidential candidate influence social change or maintain important social values and mores?
2. To what extent does the NARAL and it's rating system reflect the full range of the Catholic faith?
Outside of my questions, both meant in earnest - not as traps...I wonder why abortion, among some American Catholics becomes the litmus test (or at least seems to jump to the fore) for candidates...
Abortion certainly is THE issue when it comes to Western conservatives and thoughtful critics of modernity - they can see that rights are trump to such a degree and are now viewed in such an extreme way that the advocates of those rights must go to great lengths to guarantee the expansion and protection of those rights.
So from the point of view of contemporary conservatism, I can see a candidate's stance on abortion as a litmus test for the voter.
As I Catholic, I'm not sure why the Catholic voter should not make a candidate's stance on the death penalty the litmus test. Sure the death penalty in the time of Christ was the means by which sins are forgiven...
sorry
But I think redemption, overcoming sin, and embracing/forgiving sinners make up a much larger part of Christ's ministry and the teaching found in Acts and the epistles...
My response here is not to question the seriousness of your choice of candidates or your Catholicism
...that is not my place...
But I don't feel comfortable with the notion that a pac (the NARAL or whatever pac has a rating system for candidates on the death penalty)...
...I don't feel comfortable with the suggestion that a PAC (or even something that looks like a PAC) can or should direct the Catholic voter...
At least without me questioning such statements like the prick I am.
Post a Comment
<< Home