mojave_wolf (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} mojave_wolf) wrote,@ 2007-08-07 09:43:00 |
|
First post in a while . . .
Lack of time & exhaustion have kept me from posting that much of late, and when I *have* had time I've tried to catch up on my f-list & other readings and then the time is gone, and now that finally when I have bit of time and am less exhausted, the sheer magnitude of built-up thoughts (which requires me to either give them all short shrift or leave lots/most out) and magnitude of things still out there to possibly comment on in friend-posts (most of which will get left out, sorry) threatens to make me plead exhaustion again and not post anything.
Topic the first --
::inspired by a lot of Democrats helping Bush get expanded warrantless wiretapping powers, and an entry this weekend insolarbird's lj, and responses there, including mine::
We in the US are stuck in a two-party system, more or less, for now. So if you would ordinarily vote Democratic and don't because you are pissed off at the Democrats, to some extent, at least in the short term, hard to argue that you aren't inadvertantly helping Republicans.
On the other hand, when the Democrats don't actually *do* anything worthwhile, and some of them, like my happy senator Feinstein, who I already didn't vote for last time (voted Green, thank ya very much), vote in favor of expanding warrantless wiretapping and generally expanding the government's ability to snoop into private conversations, at what point do we ditch them for a while until they change or something new (Green Party or otherwise) rises to take their place? Or do we keep voting democratic whilst campaigning for a change in the voting system that people who care more about getting themselves elected than fixing things (which would seem to define at least half the democratic party, these days) have absolutely no incentive to put in?
Do we wait till they announce they oppose Roe vs. Wade? Or that they think large corporations have too little power in the current economic system? Or that they favor government surveillance of EVERYTHING (see Great Britain, if you're in the US, if you're over there already, yes, I realize I exaggerate slightly, but not as much as I wish I was)? Or that they want nuclear fission reactors and coal burning power plants as their solution to globa warming (Obama already did this and lost any possibility of me voting for him in the primary,but it looks like he's knocked himself out of winning anyway w/his pakistan comments and wtf was he thinking? and if he gots the nomination and its him vs. Thompson, who I'm assuming will be the Republican nominee, shit, what do I *do*?)(edited to clarify--there is NO chance I would EVER vote for Thompson; what to do means whether to vote Green/Obama/not-at-all/other)? Or just until after 2008?
Perhaps related: When is a primary vote wasted? At this point, I'm inclined to vote for Kucinich in the primary. Of the "viable 3", I am most enamoured of what Edwards is (currently) saying, whilst most impressed w/the way Hilary handles herself (which is true of her as compared to Kucinich, and this isn't unimportant--I want a candidate who can trample a hostile media while eviscerating the right wing opponent in debates come fall 2008; I think Hilary is the best at this and Obama the next best, tho gotta give him points for having a higher charisma factor, and alas he no longer has any chance of my vote unless he backs off the nuclear power thing so he's kinda out of it for now). But, if it looks like a vote for Edwards will have a bigger chance of shaping Clinton's opinions, or when the Cali primary comes 'round things still look like a toss-up 'tween those two, or one of those and Obama, and Kucinich is still waaaay back, would voting for him (as I did for Dean in 2004) actually give him/his ideas more say in the final platform, or is it time to run w/one of the "top" candidates? Obviously, part of this will depend on what they are saying, and what Edwards is saying is actually pretty good (and in give and take situations as opposed to prepared speeches, Hillary comes across quite well, also). So, hmmm.
Topic the second (and last political one for now?): The mainstream media doth indeed keep getting worse. For a while, print media made up for the badness of broadcast, but the LA Times, which I truly believe was the best large circulation newspaper ever in this country for a while, is now essentially no different/better than The Birmingham News when I was growing up, the LA Weekly is . . . ummm, I guess now entertainment only w/some minor local news?; the Washington Post and NY Times were *never* what they were cracked up to be but they seem to be going downhill also (or already in a big hole near the bottom of the hill a few yards above the already crashed and burning LAT) . . . which leaves . . . what?
The blogosphere is great and can do a lot of things and provide a greater variety of perspectives than single papers ever could, but there are disadvantages to this form as well, even if all else was equal, and all else isn't equal. For example, as far as investigative reporting and such, the resources just aren't there. Does anyone know of any worthwhile dailies/weeklies still out there? Or see any hope on the horizon I'm missing?
(edited and split into two entries; the book part is now separate)
Lack of time & exhaustion have kept me from posting that much of late, and when I *have* had time I've tried to catch up on my f-list & other readings and then the time is gone, and now that finally when I have bit of time and am less exhausted, the sheer magnitude of built-up thoughts (which requires me to either give them all short shrift or leave lots/most out) and magnitude of things still out there to possibly comment on in friend-posts (most of which will get left out, sorry) threatens to make me plead exhaustion again and not post anything.
Topic the first --
::inspired by a lot of Democrats helping Bush get expanded warrantless wiretapping powers, and an entry this weekend in
solarbird's lj, and responses there, including mine::We in the US are stuck in a two-party system, more or less, for now. So if you would ordinarily vote Democratic and don't because you are pissed off at the Democrats, to some extent, at least in the short term, hard to argue that you aren't inadvertantly helping Republicans.
On the other hand, when the Democrats don't actually *do* anything worthwhile, and some of them, like my happy senator Feinstein, who I already didn't vote for last time (voted Green, thank ya very much), vote in favor of expanding warrantless wiretapping and generally expanding the government's ability to snoop into private conversations, at what point do we ditch them for a while until they change or something new (Green Party or otherwise) rises to take their place? Or do we keep voting democratic whilst campaigning for a change in the voting system that people who care more about getting themselves elected than fixing things (which would seem to define at least half the democratic party, these days) have absolutely no incentive to put in?
Do we wait till they announce they oppose Roe vs. Wade? Or that they think large corporations have too little power in the current economic system? Or that they favor government surveillance of EVERYTHING (see Great Britain, if you're in the US, if you're over there already, yes, I realize I exaggerate slightly, but not as much as I wish I was)? Or that they want nuclear fission reactors and coal burning power plants as their solution to globa warming (Obama already did this and lost any possibility of me voting for him in the primary,but it looks like he's knocked himself out of winning anyway w/his pakistan comments and wtf was he thinking? and if he gots the nomination and its him vs. Thompson, who I'm assuming will be the Republican nominee, shit, what do I *do*?)(edited to clarify--there is NO chance I would EVER vote for Thompson; what to do means whether to vote Green/Obama/not-at-all/other)? Or just until after 2008?
Perhaps related: When is a primary vote wasted? At this point, I'm inclined to vote for Kucinich in the primary. Of the "viable 3", I am most enamoured of what Edwards is (currently) saying, whilst most impressed w/the way Hilary handles herself (which is true of her as compared to Kucinich, and this isn't unimportant--I want a candidate who can trample a hostile media while eviscerating the right wing opponent in debates come fall 2008; I think Hilary is the best at this and Obama the next best, tho gotta give him points for having a higher charisma factor, and alas he no longer has any chance of my vote unless he backs off the nuclear power thing so he's kinda out of it for now). But, if it looks like a vote for Edwards will have a bigger chance of shaping Clinton's opinions, or when the Cali primary comes 'round things still look like a toss-up 'tween those two, or one of those and Obama, and Kucinich is still waaaay back, would voting for him (as I did for Dean in 2004) actually give him/his ideas more say in the final platform, or is it time to run w/one of the "top" candidates? Obviously, part of this will depend on what they are saying, and what Edwards is saying is actually pretty good (and in give and take situations as opposed to prepared speeches, Hillary comes across quite well, also). So, hmmm.
Topic the second (and last political one for now?): The mainstream media doth indeed keep getting worse. For a while, print media made up for the badness of broadcast, but the LA Times, which I truly believe was the best large circulation newspaper ever in this country for a while, is now essentially no different/better than The Birmingham News when I was growing up, the LA Weekly is . . . ummm, I guess now entertainment only w/some minor local news?; the Washington Post and NY Times were *never* what they were cracked up to be but they seem to be going downhill also (or already in a big hole near the bottom of the hill a few yards above the already crashed and burning LAT) . . . which leaves . . . what?
The blogosphere is great and can do a lot of things and provide a greater variety of perspectives than single papers ever could, but there are disadvantages to this form as well, even if all else was equal, and all else isn't equal. For example, as far as investigative reporting and such, the resources just aren't there. Does anyone know of any worthwhile dailies/weeklies still out there? Or see any hope on the horizon I'm missing?
(edited and split into two entries; the book part is now separate)
