Tuesday, October 10, 2006

The Fall Chill...and never before heard topic from ME

Flew home last night to 30 degree temps and rain. We had a chance of snow in Denver last night, up to 2 inches, but it never happened.


I'm purchasing a ski pass that gives me unlimited skiing at Keystone, Breckendridge, and A-Basin, plus 10 days at Beaver Creek and Vail. (not to mention half off at heavenly).

I can't wait.

Couple that with the all wheel drive vehicle I hope to be purchasing this week or next week, and.....It's too early to get that worked up.

Ok folks brace yourselves. I'm not sure I ever really promised to NEVER touch on this subject, I'm not sure I did, but as I've grown and matured I've developed OPINIONS and I intend to share them. I'm short winded so this shouldn't take long.

POLITICS. My father used to demand that I vote, but I never wanted to because I didn't CARE. I had no opinions, and I wasn't about to vote for a certain person just because my parents told me to. If I was to vote, it was going to be for someone that I truly wanted to vote for.

I attempted to vote in the Presidential elections 2 years ago, unfortunately, I sent in my absentee vote too late.

Through my travels and ...what not, I've started to form my own opinions. Before I moved to Colorado, my brother warned me to not become granola. (for those of you slang illiterate, Granola is defined by the Urban Dictionary as

"An adjective used to describe people who are environmentally aware (flower child, tree-hugger), open-minded, left-winged, socially aware and active, queer or queer-positive, anti-oppressive/discrimin atory (racial, sexual, gender, class, age, etc.) with an organic and natural emphasis on living, who will usually refrain from consuming or using anything containing animals and animal by-products (for health and/or environmental reasons), as well as limit consumption of what he or she does consume, as granola people are usually concerned about wasting resources."

As I'm not quite Granola, I'm definitely a Tree Hugger. (My friend Laura H. describes me as "her little tree hugger." Shes from texas, so relative to her, everybody is a tree hugger.) But I still like Meat and I live in a modern home, but I try to stay on trails when hiking, I'm not a "meadow stomper" (thanks dearing), and I'm concerned about the welfare of our environment. I'm kind of stuck in the middle.

But back to Politics. I don't understand why we all follow the rules of the two party system. Both sides have good points, and both sides have "what on earth..." points. Just the fact that Bush has to question the rules of torture set out in the Geneva Convention, which pretty much tells you he's gone to far, is a good example of a "what on earth.." points.

I don't think I'm being revolutionary here, but they only choose to stand on one side or the other because of votes. Thats it. It's all about the votes. And from my experiences (all WHOPPING 25 years of them) I've learned that pretty much across the board, any extreme is bad. We've all heard "everything in moderation." You can eat Mcdonalds and you'll be fine, but eating it 3 times a day for 6 months WILL KILL YOU. Isn't MARRIAGE all about compromise? Meeting in the middle to actually SOLVE problems? I feel like this whole two party system just ends up with us voting one side in, having them for 1 or 2 years, realizing that something crazy is going on, and then we vote the other side back in. Its a vicious cycle.

Maybe I'm showing my Political Immaturity here, and if so please feel free to comment, but wheres my middle guy? I would like a different choice. And I guess those are the little "independents" who never get any votes, but they don't get any votes because they don't make these passionate speeches about critical issues where they rile up this legion of supporters where voters start making decisions on ONE issue.

But anyways, maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about, but there it is.

I list myself as MODERATE.



jch said...

For a guy who claims not to have cared over the past 25 years, the point you make about the inadequacies of the two party system is right on. I would take your argument a step farther and say that as Christians we should hold our political party associations loosely...very loosely. Now I've been known to argue from the left but at the end of the day, like you, I find myself in the middle. This two party system is for the birds!

Casey said...

I do agree with you. I am a registered Democrat, but I am about as far left as you can be without being an outright Communist. But if you want your vote to count for anything, you have to pick the lesser of the two evils. When it comes to politics, it's important to look at what people stand on individual issues rather than looking at whether they are blue or red. That's what gets us into trouble.

Houston said...

For our political system, the two party system really does work best. Here in England they have three parties and a different way of voting (simple majority) which means that a large segment of the population gets left out. I share your disillusionment with the practice of both parties, but is seems to be more an issue of getting the parties to actually represent the people again than adding another party. More parties just mean more problems.

The Future said...

Jeremy for President!!!

And as you know, I disagree with your stance on meadow stomping. Grass here survives even if millions of people walk on it. I think the meadow can handle it. Besides, you're not stomping... you're uncovering uncharted territory.

laura g said...

jj, you should go to independentabilene.blogspot.com

it is cole bennett's site about his independent views and how they would make abilene a better place, but it has broader applications.

i dont think you are crazy or politically immature. people who are COMPLETELY satisfied with EITHER party don't think for themselves. just as we dont agree with every single view our friends have about every single issue out there, we arent going to find a politician we completely agree with either. that is normal.

if people are truly disgusted with both candidates, then they should save themselves the stress and not vote. they can check out of current events for 4 years and be blissfully unaware.

on the other hand, if folks do plan to vote, try to view it as choosing the most reasonable candidate rather than choosing the lesser of two evils. if you start out thinking they are both pretty awful, but one is less so than the other, you are certain to be dissatisfied no matter who wins. generally, the folks who see it as choosing the lesser of two evils have that opinion because they listen to mainstream media's assessment of nearly-statistically-invalid polls taken on the downtown streets of a wholly democratic metropolitan city. (or a wholly republican small town, if we were to have a democratic prez).

don't underestimate your ability to research the candidates' views on individual issues from more sources than katie couric. there is a wealth of info on the good ol' internet (for both sides) that will help you decide the facts and make the decision you think is best.