Getting It

Right. I get it. Voting in America is like bad sex. The stars might be aligned, but it's likely they'll forget your name before you start and then they want you to use some levered contraption that feels like you're sending someone to the gas chamber. Kind of ruins the mood. Oh well, it happened. Out. Joshua.       

Off To Cast My Ballot

Thanks to everyone who offered their thoughts down the stretch. My impression from what people said reinforced my sense that the two basic images of the candidates, the Hip-Hope of Barack Obama or the Compromised Can-Do of Hillary Clinton, are just that, images, and (though they may be more or less telling) ultimately they only have a corrosive effect on intelligent debate. The question of whose image is more "pure" than the other, or whose image has changed more often, or has the most cracks in it, is absurd. And I wonder whether people's passions about this are not in fact fueled by a deeper frustration that these images remain the dominate currency/form of discourse. That said, I also got a keen sense from people's comments that most people know very well what is really at stake here. This is not about the revolution. This is about changing CEOs. So like a good share holder I'm off to vote, and like a bad joke I'm just off. Cheers. Joshua.         

Second Thoughts?

This may be an alternative forum to the MFA list, but it is not a better one. The comments on the MFA list are certainly a lot more entertaining and, as Misty has just pointed out to me, the space for comments on this blog is limited to only 300 words, hardly room enough for healthy debate. People seemed to have appreciated the effort anyway. As for the comment from the anonymous emailer, I believe it has been well known for years now that RM and Hillary are on friendly terms and (as I read it) the NY Times reported that RM gave $2600 to Hillary, not Obama. As for the NY POST endorsement, how can one not take it as anything but a twisted lark that shows how deeply cynical the tabloid (like the Cheney/Bush administration which it REALLY supports) is about the democratic process? That said though, I do admit it is futile (at this stage) to find any candidate that hasn't sold out to one corporate interest or the other. I'm also thinking a lot about what people are saying about Clintons health care proposal--its the practical choice. It will get us coverage now. But my experience with the American health care system is that insurance does not in any way guarantee either coverage or peace of mind. I don't know? Cheers. Joshua.        

First Thoughts

I'm curious what people think about the candidates, so I've set up this blog to invite others on the Bard MFA list to post their comments. Right now I'm leaning towards Barack Obama. My reason is pretty basic. Hillary Clinton represents "same old, same old". Her version of Universal Health Care seems to me to be actually a form of mandatory private insurance where the government pays Insurance Companies to cover the poor and needy. As I see it this plan is from the exact same neo-liberal play book as the one that saw the privatization of Army operations, guaranteeing long term public support (at inflated costs) to companies like Halliburton. It's also not like any other Universal Health Care system in the world, which are all government funded and managed, so I hardly believe it deserves the same name. Along these lines, I find it quite disturbing that people like Rupert Murdock support Clinton, or that Hillary's closest friend among all the candidates is John McCain. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton: "same old, same old", that's my worry and why I'm leaning towards voting for Obama tomorrow. But I'm curious what other people have to say. Cheers. Joshua.