Updates, etc.

I've updated the links to include some fringe parties, Peter's excellent idea, and a few people I care about. I repeat, that I care about. Just because they're listed here doesn't mean I'm endorsing them for any office or that I approve of their choice of dames, desks, or speakeasys. Maybe we'll get some names up that other people care about, too. And maybe we'll even get a Republican on the list. It's not that I don't care, it's just that none of them are standing out in my mind, except for maybe Lynn Swann. We'll at least be hearing more about him in the coming months, I'm sure.

un-uniquely unqualified

I've yet to vote in a US election. In 1996 I was 3 months (& change) too young. In 2000 I hadn't registered to vote, although I stayed up with one of my college housemates long enough on election night to leave a note on the table saying "Bush won." We would have done better to go to bed, although Dan Rather's malapropish similes were rather amusing. For 2004 I contrived to be out of the country on Election Day. I did, however, cast a primary ballot in person earlier in the season, so technically I would have been able to vote by mail. Quite frankly, I didn't care.

Judging from US Census figures, I'm hardly alone in my apathy. You wouldn't know it for the year-and-a-half of media hype that is the US electoral process, but 36% of eligible voters did not vote in the 2004 election. [126m of 197m eligible voters cast ballots.] Compare that the other great American tradition: the Super Bowl. Foreign intelligence indicates that 'well over 141m people in the US watched at least six minutes of the game.' The pre-event domestic figure suggested 64% would 'take part in this yearly tradition'. Given that the US population is nearing 300m, that's a smaller percentage, I know; but I think you could still make the case that American Democracy® is as concerned with football as politics. [If not more so: the Super Bowl happens every year. Nor would I expect that large numbers of people wake up Wednesday after Election Day with a hangover.]

Some times I've considered shaping my apathy into a more principled form: taking a measured stance on issues and not voting accordinly. I'd be in more distinguished company if I'd arrived at my inaction honestly. I guess I have trouble accepting the idea that government exists to do good, siding instead with the darker interpretation of Churchill's quip:

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Of the available issues, I could get most worked up about the environment. In the American political landscape, this means "global warming", and the choices, for me as a voter, are absurd. One party pretends that there is no problem, and no reliable scientific data about the non-existent problem. The other party is rabid to sign international treaties to establish protocols that will have no effective impact--save economic cost--over the long term. What room is there for someone like myself who trusts the scientific data pointing towards global warming, but believes Bjorn Lomborg's argument that it would be a far more cost-effective (and more just) use of available resources to raise the standard of living in the world's poorer countries? Come Election Day, no room whatsoever; nuance has no place in a two-party system.

Anyhow, I'm considering breaking my streak to vote in the upcoming Congressional elections this year, as much as I hate having no option to express my dissatisfaction with the evil governing party except by rewarding the other party--who are also evil, though powerless--with a vote. [This being East TN, there's no chance that a Democrat could be elected; I'd have to count on the dimished margin of victory to make a statement.] Really, I'd like to take the Republican party behind the woodshed and give them a good whupping. Or start an anarchist uprising. But when the so-called party of fiscal conservatism starts spending money like it's the end of the world on bridges in Alaska to increase relatives' land values, I have to settle for voting in the Democrats to blow my tax dollars on religiously-insensitive art. At least handing money over to the NEH produces something worth an aesthetic reaction.

Intorducing... peter

The team now includes peter, our resident wombat and equal opportunity offender. Expect insightful gems, often coated with a thick sauce of cynicism.

Ed Rendell on Charlie Rose

Gov. Ed Rendell, the second most powerful man in Pennsylvania, was on Charlie Rose's self titled show last night. Although I think he (Rendell) can be a real drag, yea verily utter scum at times, I liked a few of the things he said in the interview.

One thing that he mentioned was that voting in this country has been reduced to 30 second TV spots. From his mouth: "We've dumbed down politics and elections in the country." This was sparked when he mentioned that the DNC (I think) asked him to run blocker, so to speak, for Bob Casey's senate run. As Rendell pointed out, Casey might be pro-life but he has much more in common with democratic goals (18 out of 20 points he says) than Rick Santorum.

In the upcoming election Rendell wants to do his part to make sure that idiot liberals don't hide under a rock with the choice of two pro-life candidates in the same way that idiot conservatives hide under a rock when there are two pro-choice candidates. In his own words "The democratic Party has to be big enough for pro-life democrats." He mentioned that American politics isn't about what matters but is instead about abortion and gay marriage.

I agree.

Next Monday Charlie Rose will air an interview with Pennsylvia's most powerful man, Joe Paterno.

Introducing... Master Johnny!

We are pleased to have on board Master Johhny, aka Mick. Mick's a good man. Heed his words. We hope to hear his insights and pontifications from him from time to time.

Conservatives, Stand Up To Be Counted

Here is an article that takes a quick and non-comprehensive look at Conservatism vs. Republiacnism. The article notes that conservatism is an idea while the Republicans are a party.

I'm a bit sad that it focused mostly on the expansion of executive powers, the only matter in recent memory where the houses of congress have given anything short of a rubber stamp to Bush. But since that's about all there is to mention I guess I can't complain too much.

I would be interested in articles related to how well the current government, which is definitely Republican, is being conservative. Likewise, I'd like to know how the Democrats are doing being liberal.

Whazzis?

I figured that This Party would be a fun place to start a communal political blog. Now I just need to go find some politically motivated people who are not like me and would be willing to post. I have a few prospects in mind, some liek me and some unlike me... poor souls....