RamblingPseudoPoet on Xanga

Weblog

Saturday, 02 February 2008

So I've decided.

Finally. Granted, Edwards dropping out made the decision easier for me (it was probably going to be him but I hesitated). But after the last debate...

...Obama.

I'm too tired right now to get into why, but I'd say it primarily is because of the comparison of rhetoric concerning foreign policy. Clinton subtly utilizes an us-versus-them tone in her explanations, while Obama seems to come from the standpoint of empathy... I see Obama as a global leader, while Hillary seems to have a kind of America-supremacy sort of paradigm that didn't feel fundamentally different from every other president...

Ah, well...

Thursday, 17 January 2008

Currently Reading
Language Death
By David Crystal
see related
Election Madness

Last week, I had a dream.

I had a dream of John Edwards being a real asshole.

I mean that literally. I actually dreamed of hanging out with Edwards for an afternoon in like, some random outdoor picnic setting. At the time, I was leaning towards being an Edwards supporter, but here was Edwards, getting all defensive and obnoxious literally every time I asked him a question. I think he, like, also refused to give me lemonade when I asked for some. By the end of the dream, I snarled at him, "I can't believe I was going to vote for you."

Then, I woke up in a cold sweat.

Clearly, this is getting ridiculous. Shortly before the Iowa caucuses a couple of weeks ago, I got maddeningly obsessed with the presidential election. I mean, truth be told, the shit's interesting as a mothafucka. And, as I've just exhibited, it's gotten to the point that I'm dreaming about it. I mean, I dreamed of John Edwards. That's pretty disgusting. Soon enough I'll start getting "Two Americas" fetish fantasies, not that I know what that would be like.

Fundamentally, the vote I'm going to cast is a form of political narcissism. One vote really ain't gonna do anything, but it'll give me a sense of imagined civil engagement and legitimacy in democracy. It'll let me say, "Well I didn't vote for him/her." Woot. But it's sort of a symbolic gesture to myself to show where I stand on things.

But is it more than that? I've been trying to figure that out for the last three weeks. The whole purpose behind backing a candidate is wrapped up in the purpose for voting. Last time, in '04, it was to send a message to the party that the progressive Left wing still had something to say. Needless to say, I voted Kucinich. But this time around, I'm really not so sure. His whole UFO shit and his obnoxious, self-righteous approach is really starting to get on my nerves, no matter how much I agree with him.

Nowadays, it's way more complicated for me, which is also what makes it so fucking interesting. Here are my competing strains of thought:

VOTE FOR THE MOST PROGRESSIVE ONE. But fuck, who's most progressive? Kucinich? Gravel? And isn't that a a silly measure, anyway-- a form of phallic measurement of Left-wing adherence? Besides, what's exciting is that the three front-runners are kind of progressive this time around. Why bother with the two (no offense, guys) lefty losers when the frontrunners are actually kind of appealing for once?

VOTE FOR THE WINNABLE CANDIDATE. Who's the most capable of defeating the Republicans? I've said from the very beginning, Obama, not Hillary. That's because of the not-so-simple race dynamics in this country (Obama can represent a sort of non-threatening "racial redemption" for a whole population of white folks with white guilt) and the equally complicated gender ones (femininity and the Oval Office ironically don't mix, and Hillary's seen as a sort of opportunistic she-devil by the Right). To my immense pleasure, the black man and the white woman are out-charisma'ing the white man (Edwards).

WAIT. DON'T VOTE FOR THE WINNABLE CANDIDATE. Who am I kidding? Democrats are as historically responsible for corporate expansion and imperial conquest as Republicans. Why should party winnability really matter that much in the long run?

OKAY, WELL, VOTE FOR THE MOST PROGRESSIVE WINNABLE CANDIDATE. Out of the three, that ends up being Edwards, given his anti-corporate stance and most aggressive universal health care plan. But, like, he's a hedge fund haircut hypocrite who gives me no real reason to believe that he actually stands for his convictions. Not to mention that...

REPRESENTATION DOES MATTER. VOTE FOR THE BROTHA. OR THE SISTER. Like, I'm honestly pleased that Obama and Hillary are the frontrunners, not Edwards. Shallow though it may be, I think that it would a symbolically glorious moment for Obama or Hillary to become our President. Of course, I'm well aware that having that person in office could ultimately result in tokenism rather than any substantial change (and an excuse for the mainstream to say "____ism is dead" even though it clearly will not be). And I have to admit, even though I don't agree with all of Obama's positions I really like the guy. Not to mention that I really admire the crap out of Hillary's überintelligence... she's clearly the smartest candidate in either party.

So I'm still undecided. Here's my candidate-by-candidate shakedown.

OBAMA
Pros: As I've noted, he's winnable, he strikes me as genuine, actually (Audacity of Hope is a good book), and the kind of attitude he brings to politics will probably result in a lot more civic engagement. Then again, that's like, exactly what folks said about Bill Clinton. And voting for him would just feel really fucking good.
Cons: I'm not sure if I like his conciliatory approach. His willingness to compromise could come at the expense of the oppressed. Not to mention that he supports guest worker programs.

EDWARDS
Pros: Aggressively anti-corporate, and I'd say that I agree with more of his stances than any of the frontrunners'. And I like his aggression... his confrontational style shows that he might, just might, stand up for the working man.
Cons: Opportunistic and potentially disingenuous. He only adopted this tone recently, and has no reason to follow through. I also don't like his idea that immigrants "must" learn English, nor do I like that rather sexist comment he made about Hillary's blouse during the YouTube debates.

CLINTON
Pros: She's smart, she's got a great healthcare plan & stance on immigration, and she knows how to work Washington. And I would delight in seeing a woman president, not gonna lie.
Cons: She's an unapologetic former war hawk, opposing the war only since 2007; before then she was a very strong defender. I'm also not a big fan of Bill Clinton, Mr. Neoliberal, so if she's similar to her husband... not to mention that she's raised more money from the health care industry than any other candidate...

KUCINICH
Pros: I agree with pretty much everything he says. He tells it like it is: anti-war, pro-gay marriage, pro-single payer health care...
Cons: I don't know if he knows what "charisma" means.

GRAVEL
Pros: He's the guy who helped release the Pentagon Papers, and was instrumental in ending the Vietnam war. The guy's a Congressional hero, and is fundamentally progressive...
Cons: He's crazy.

In other words, it's all up for grabs. At first I was Kucinich, then Obama, then Obama/Kucinich, then Obama/Edwards, now Obama/Edwards/Hillary/Kucinich/Gravel. Fuck. How the hell did I get MORE undecided???

Help.

Sunday, 11 November 2007

love->senioritis

Monday, 22 October 2007

Currently Listening
Tracy Chapman
By Tracy Chapman
see related
Realization: what blissful stress it is to be in love at Stanford.

...Talk about an impact on my academics... :P

But shit, man... I don't care. It's just too good.

Wednesday, 15 August 2007

If there's anything I've learned while in NYC...

...it's that Stanford's crazy. Demented. Psychotic. We're a nuthouse. Like, my thought process and day-to-day worldview while in NYC essentially... uh... normalized. There are just certain things about the Stanford culture that... well.. can quite literally drive one insane. Maybe it's so compelling because it is so nurturing (or seems so, on the surface). But it also represents the peaks of neurosis and self-absorption at times.

Don't get me wrong. I still love the place and I still embrace everything it turned me into. But uh... I dunno, let's just say that spending a fair amount of time in this environment has put everything in perspective for me, particularly in terms of two areas: growing up, and class/privilege. For one thing, I've met a lot of fourteen year old poets in NYC so are a hell of a lot older than twenty one year old juniors at Stanford, if you know what I mean. I can see now why a lot of Communist leaders (obviously, misguidedly) purged practitioners of supposedly "bourgeois"intentions, i.e. anything that dealt with individualism and that biz. I say misguidedly because purging's always a bad f'ing unethical idea, but on the other hand I understand the sentiment.

Before I continue, let me make a distinction between individuality and individualism. I'm very much a proponent of individuality; i.e., self expression, uniqueness, being your own self and all that jazz. But individualism, I have mixed feelings about. I feel individualism is more ideological, a set of principles that prioritizes individual success over collective success (note: prioritizing is not necessarily equating to; in other words, individual success does not necessarily come at the expense of collective success, but it can). I don't think individuality and individualism have to be tied together, in the same sense that I don't think democracy and capitalism have to be. So many of the folks I've interacted with here, that is, folks who have tended to NOT come from the upper strata of society, have such compelling, individual personalities hand-in-hand with a sense of collective responsibility.

But where was I going with this? Oh, right... the whole growing up and class privilege thing. The point I was trying to make, in a roundabout fashion, is that many of the neuroses and problems we encounter as Stanford students (note: not all, but dare I say most) are a bourgeois privilege. So much institutional concern about self-reflection and exploring oneself (e.g. the "don't pick a major freshman year"-- mandated self-discovery), while not exactly a bad thing, in some ways allows a culture of extreme individualism to develop. Entrepreneurship, independence, discovering MY happiness... all that stuff is within the ethos of Stanford culture. Sometimes even the sort of nice stuff that comes from liberal guilt can stem from that... guilt-avoidance is sometimes a big factor in community service. Paul Farmer would argue that that's not necessarily a bad thing, and I agree, but when it comes down to it, operating off of that sort of motivation becomes sort of taxing (I know because I operated that way for a period).

Shit, I got off topic again: where was I? Right, um, individualistic Stanford problems as bourgeois privilege. Everyone's got problems. We know this. But the thing is that if you're rich, you have different kinds of problems than poor folks. And then if you're liberal and rich, it creates interesting juxtapositions: the poor person's problem is living check-to-check, while the rich liberal's problem is feeling guilty that the poor person's living check-to-check. The rich liberal then has two options: do some service and feel better about himself, or blame the victim for not working hard enough (yes, many so-called "liberals" do pull that card too). But in either case, the rich liberal gets to kind of sit around and wonder and cry about it while the uh, poor person is still, uh, working. The moment of contemplation is a privilege.

If you were to say "takes one to know one," you'd be absolutely right. Compared to the rest of the world, I'm rich (as is most anyone who's got an internet connection and reading this). And like Hillary Clinton, I call myself a progressive rather than a "liberal" (the difference is that she's not really either). And that very privilege comes with the leisure time of contemplation, even when I am working my ass off, because it's mental work that often requires plenty of reflection anyway. So yeah, I'm speaking sort of autobiographically. And more importantly, as an RA, I've definitely spent a lot of time indulging all this stuff. Obviously the truly difficult marginal situation is for first-gen college students who are thrust into an ill-defined bourgeois role that almost always requires an ontological separation from one's home community. It is an enormous privilege to have a community that expects you to go on to college, a community that's not going to wonder if you've sold out when you come back during winter break. I'm very lucky to have that.

This is probably the worst-written post I've shat out in a while, but let me just close by saying that it's not even really useful to feel guilty about any of this shit, because that guilt is a privilege too. It's just good to be aware of it. And then, on top of that, one should empathize, not sympathize. It's always more useful to feel angry, rather than to feel sorry. For example, I don't feel sorry for those living in poverty, exactly. "They" (and I know it's absurd/problematic to make a whole demographic an othered monolith) sure as hell aren't looking for my sympathy... it's sort of like that Nikki Giovanni poem about living a good life despite what biographers would say. On the other hand, I feel angry at the system that allows those disparities to exist, because they shouldn't if we're 5% of the world's population and control 25% of the wealth. And as a side note, our military spending is almost equivalent to that of the rest of the world combined (oustrips the next fourteen countries combined, anyway).

Wow this post sucks, writing-wise. But I hope someone kind of understands what I'm getting at. boo random trains of thought...