Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
-- Dylan Thomas
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Election 08
It makes me chuckle to see just how abstract all my postings tend to be. I'm always, it seems, talking about things 'in theory', and with a lot of stream of consciousness thrown in to boot. I am not quite sure how I get caught up in that trap, but it's pretty amusing nevertheless. In some ways, I find that I cannot help myself -- the big picture interests me far more than the little everyday things that go into the big picture, and I hope I can train myself to somehow wrap my mind around part of that big picture some day. In the meantime, however, I'm afraid I am going to sound pompous and insufferable.
TodayI thought , I would take a break from mysilly musings , though -- a bit of peripeteia if you will. In that spirit, I am going to talk about practical and only practical things. And here is where the presidential election comes in. I could go on and on about the innane little tidbits of electoral history I've picked up from somewhere or another, or how we seem to be walking down the road toward a battle between two political dynasties called Bush and Clinton. But I will, instead, restrain myself, and just say that I really haven't a clue who I am going to vote for.
Of course, in any other year, when the election process gets started at the reasonable one-year mark, that would not be a problem. But in the 21st century, where it seems that these campaigns kick off earlier and earlier, the fact that I don't feel I zealously support one candidate or another is a source of concern. After all, we've certainly seen and heard enough of them to feel as though we are getting to know them, whether we like it or not. But that's part of the problem, I think. Because they all know they are in for a long haul, they are careful not too rock a boat that is supposed to keep them afloat for a year yet too much. Capsizing this early in the game would just be embarrassing. So instead we have these sorts of mediocre characters who occasionally say something defined and controversial, but two days later quickly step back from that show of guts. At this point, I think I would be more attracted to a candidate who went out and firmly and with gusto laid out his agenda, even if that agenda made me hate him (or her). I would prefer that to these pathetic feelings of indifference.
In any case, here is the present run-down. It was helped along partly by a grid that MSN has come up with to rank the candidates according to their take on the issues. Supposedly, once you go through and fill the whole thing out, you will be able to separate the candidates you support based on the number of green squares they have under their name from the ones who have red squares plastered near issues on which you diverge. Happily, this set everything straight for me: at the end of a well-spent half hour I was sitting and staring at a grid awash in the muddy green and red squares of neutrality. Nevertheless:
Hillary Clinton -- Undoubtedly smart and experienced. Oily, however, in the answers she gives to just about everything. Plus, I just cannot trust her. And she is going to have to decide whether she wants to wear the badge of her sex proudly or as a millstone round her neck that the male candidates tug on from time to time. She can't play both cards.
Barack Obama -- I like the guy, I really do. He seems more honest and less given to puffing up statistics so that they favor him. He is humble and well-spoken. And he has held his ground in the Iraq war, which is admirable. But as much as I would love to vote for candidates solely based on their positions on issues (and we see how far that silly grid got me) I think you also have to factor in ability and leadership. Now Obama is young, so maybe the leadership will come in time. The problem, however, is that we need a strong leader and we need him or her now and I don't think we can wait a year or two for a candidate, no matter how likable, to mature without paying a high price for it. Also, I am nt wild over his stance on foreign policy. I agree that dialoge and diplomacy works a deal better than going into a country guns a'blazing, but promising unequivocably to talk to any foreign power at pretty much any time could dampen considerably the delicate behind-the-scenes work of the State department.
Bill Richardson -- My suprise candidate. Unexpectedly, his position on the issues aligned with mine more than any other candidate. Plus, he has significant executive experience. And he's from New Mexico, and so occupies a special little place in my heart. But does he have the grit it's going to take to win a general election?
The rest of the Democrat playing field -- Edwards is unappealing, despite the shiny silky hair. Kucinich is interesting but impractical. And Joe Biden is just a little insane.
Rudy Giuliani -- The man cannot get his story straight. And he needs to understand that although he did lead New York through the chaotic days following 9/11, New York is one small and uncommon part of a much bigger country. He faces the very real possibility of not resonating with voters west of, well, the Hudson. Also, he cannot get his facts right to save his life. He seems determined to take perfectly straightforward statistics and tweaking them so that they fit his needs, but no longer are perfectly straighforward. (See relentless comments on prostate cancer in the UK).
Mitt Romney -- In case you haven't heard - he's Mormon. With all this talk abotu religious tolerance, it's pretty laughable that people are willing to vociferously writing him off for this reason alone. Fiscally, I think he's got some interesting and workable plans, and his focus on education is dead on. Socially, I cannot agree with him as much as I'd like. His position on immigration is one of the most perceptive out there, but his views on gay marriage are inconsistent and contradictory. I like the alternative fuel goals, but I think we need to stop looking at drilling in Alaska as a feasible idea; it would only be a very short-term fix in any case.
The remaining Republican playing field -- Ron Paul has taken fundraising to new heights, but for what exactly, I am not quite sure. Duncan Hunter is intimidating as all ____. And I liked Fred Thompson better on Law & Order.
TodayI thought , I would take a break from mysilly musings , though -- a bit of peripeteia if you will. In that spirit, I am going to talk about practical and only practical things. And here is where the presidential election comes in. I could go on and on about the innane little tidbits of electoral history I've picked up from somewhere or another, or how we seem to be walking down the road toward a battle between two political dynasties called Bush and Clinton. But I will, instead, restrain myself, and just say that I really haven't a clue who I am going to vote for.
Of course, in any other year, when the election process gets started at the reasonable one-year mark, that would not be a problem. But in the 21st century, where it seems that these campaigns kick off earlier and earlier, the fact that I don't feel I zealously support one candidate or another is a source of concern. After all, we've certainly seen and heard enough of them to feel as though we are getting to know them, whether we like it or not. But that's part of the problem, I think. Because they all know they are in for a long haul, they are careful not too rock a boat that is supposed to keep them afloat for a year yet too much. Capsizing this early in the game would just be embarrassing. So instead we have these sorts of mediocre characters who occasionally say something defined and controversial, but two days later quickly step back from that show of guts. At this point, I think I would be more attracted to a candidate who went out and firmly and with gusto laid out his agenda, even if that agenda made me hate him (or her). I would prefer that to these pathetic feelings of indifference.
In any case, here is the present run-down. It was helped along partly by a grid that MSN has come up with to rank the candidates according to their take on the issues. Supposedly, once you go through and fill the whole thing out, you will be able to separate the candidates you support based on the number of green squares they have under their name from the ones who have red squares plastered near issues on which you diverge. Happily, this set everything straight for me: at the end of a well-spent half hour I was sitting and staring at a grid awash in the muddy green and red squares of neutrality. Nevertheless:
Hillary Clinton -- Undoubtedly smart and experienced. Oily, however, in the answers she gives to just about everything. Plus, I just cannot trust her. And she is going to have to decide whether she wants to wear the badge of her sex proudly or as a millstone round her neck that the male candidates tug on from time to time. She can't play both cards.
Barack Obama -- I like the guy, I really do. He seems more honest and less given to puffing up statistics so that they favor him. He is humble and well-spoken. And he has held his ground in the Iraq war, which is admirable. But as much as I would love to vote for candidates solely based on their positions on issues (and we see how far that silly grid got me) I think you also have to factor in ability and leadership. Now Obama is young, so maybe the leadership will come in time. The problem, however, is that we need a strong leader and we need him or her now and I don't think we can wait a year or two for a candidate, no matter how likable, to mature without paying a high price for it. Also, I am nt wild over his stance on foreign policy. I agree that dialoge and diplomacy works a deal better than going into a country guns a'blazing, but promising unequivocably to talk to any foreign power at pretty much any time could dampen considerably the delicate behind-the-scenes work of the State department.
Bill Richardson -- My suprise candidate. Unexpectedly, his position on the issues aligned with mine more than any other candidate. Plus, he has significant executive experience. And he's from New Mexico, and so occupies a special little place in my heart. But does he have the grit it's going to take to win a general election?
The rest of the Democrat playing field -- Edwards is unappealing, despite the shiny silky hair. Kucinich is interesting but impractical. And Joe Biden is just a little insane.
Rudy Giuliani -- The man cannot get his story straight. And he needs to understand that although he did lead New York through the chaotic days following 9/11, New York is one small and uncommon part of a much bigger country. He faces the very real possibility of not resonating with voters west of, well, the Hudson. Also, he cannot get his facts right to save his life. He seems determined to take perfectly straightforward statistics and tweaking them so that they fit his needs, but no longer are perfectly straighforward. (See relentless comments on prostate cancer in the UK).
Mitt Romney -- In case you haven't heard - he's Mormon. With all this talk abotu religious tolerance, it's pretty laughable that people are willing to vociferously writing him off for this reason alone. Fiscally, I think he's got some interesting and workable plans, and his focus on education is dead on. Socially, I cannot agree with him as much as I'd like. His position on immigration is one of the most perceptive out there, but his views on gay marriage are inconsistent and contradictory. I like the alternative fuel goals, but I think we need to stop looking at drilling in Alaska as a feasible idea; it would only be a very short-term fix in any case.
The remaining Republican playing field -- Ron Paul has taken fundraising to new heights, but for what exactly, I am not quite sure. Duncan Hunter is intimidating as all ____. And I liked Fred Thompson better on Law & Order.
And there you are . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)