Archive for January 28th, 2016
I try not to discuss politics, since it can be such a polarizing thing. My personal disposition is that a person’s political opinions are their own thing, like the faith/spirituality they choose to practice, who they choose to partner with, or what kind of underwear they choose to wear – nobody’s business but their own. Likewise, with the media the way it is these days with the signal to noise ratio (all relative to what channel you watch), and life’s to short to sort through all the bullshit being shoveled.
But this is a Presidential election year where, to say political opinions are polarizing, would be considered the understatement of the season. The singular advantage to the abundant media exposure today’s candidates have (so much more now as opposed to even in 2008 or 2000), is the opportunity for those on the fence – willing to look at the candidates as people, not just a party affiliation, and determine the best person for the job of President.
That said, here’s my political stake in the ground, as of 28 January 2016, based on what media I have been exposed to. To better understand that stake, however, there needs to be some context.
When I became old enough to register, I registered as Republican, because that’s what my parents were, and what I thought those with conservative tendencies did. As I’ve aged, while I still have conservative tendencies, I have shifted more toward “Independent” (that whole “who do I think would be the best person…?” thing). Some of the folks I have supported have won, others have lost, it’s the way it goes.
When potential candidates emerged a year ago, I made the comment to MC that I liked the idea of a Carson vs Sanders, and actually hoped that’s how things might fall.
Then media happened, and while I would still prefer Carson to get the eventual nod for the Republican ticket, it’s not looking like that will happen. I can’t bring myself to support any of the other candidates.
Which leaves the Democratic hopefuls…a year later, I’m still hoping Sanders gets their endorsement. But part of the reason why him and not Hillary didn’t quite crystallize until I read this, from Wil Wheaton (where he references this article, which pretty much sums it all up), but the tl;dr..
Paraphrasing, the thesis [of the article is] that she lacks political courage, and won’t take a stand on something unless is politically safe for her. From marriage equality to the war in Iraq to ensuring that the poorest Americans have opportunities to have a better life, she has never supported a law or policy that was politically risky or would threaten her chances to advance her political career. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has taken principled and politically risky stances, not because they would advance his career, but because that’s what he believed in.
So, my hope is to vote Sanders in November.
So here’s the thing: What is the context of the above? Is this being observed by someone involved in the combat, or a documenting observer (like spectators on hills during the Civil War)? From another airship, on the ground, or some other elevated structure? Is this the culminating event of a longer conflict, or an inciting skirmish that changes the course of an ongoing event (like the Lusitania or Pearl Harbor)? Is it truly 4:1, or are there other ships that are just out of sight, joining the fight or fleeing? Is it a purely military conflict, or against pirates? Is the aim to capture, to destroy, or simply disable – possibly for a rescue mission?