It lives?

Not entirely surprising, but we both went "poof." Business does that. So does not having anything particularly interesting to write about.

Orphan doesn't write about current events; his policy is that, unless something will stand in a year, or five, or ten, it wasn't worth writing to begin with. Watching old political skits on SNL confirms this. As Scott Adams wrote, "Gorby jokes don't age well."

That said, current events do sometimes bear noting, if for no other reason than, "hey, the fuck else are we going write about?"

So here I break policy somewhat, but only to establish context.

Our context is that it is currently October of 2012 and there's this "election" thing looming on the horizon. We recently had a televised presidential candidate debate that was, if I am to understand interpretations of such debates going back several decades, one of the more one-sided ones we've ever witnessed. I watched it.

So, in the interest of furthering context, I'll say that my general view going into this thing was that Romney was the lesser of two evils and that the debate cemented this. I didn't need a demonstration of the incumbent's incompetence or the malice inherent in his politics. Were I to vote, I would vote for the former.

Therein sulks the problem.

I don't vote. There are a myriad of reasons for this, ranging from the principled to the pragmatic. Fundamentally, though, it comes down to this:

There is no candidate I wish to vote for. Nobody is "my guy."

Not surprisingly, it is the conservatives who will attack you on this point. You have undoubtedly heard the adage "if you don't vote, you can't complain." I assert that, yes, I can. Watch me. But here's why:

Your guy is not my guy. I would say that I am sick and fucking tired of being told that I need to vote for your guy because the alternative is the other guy, or that because I somehow lose the right to complain otherwise, but I'm not. Your moronic statements require no energy to process and reject; it's empty, meaningless bullshit and rhetoric. When one of these two parties - and I could give a shit less which - puts up someone who represents an ideology I support then maybe - MAYBE - I could be convinced that this entire affair isn't immoral to begin with.

Your guy does not represent me. He doesn't represent me more or less than the other guy; he simply does. Not. Represent. Me. That's really not that hard to grasp, is it? Now, I could tell you that I refuse to compromise my principles and vote for your guy just so you can get who YOU want in office, but judging by the lack of reading comprehension of most people I'm opposing here, there's not much point in pursuing that rebuttal.

I've been reading the usual tripe about how "you libertarians will never get you who want in office," or "the perfect is the enemy of the good" and so forth (that I am not a libertarian is not relevant). Yes, absolutely, the perfect is the enemy of the good. But, by all means, keep settling. That is working out so fantastically fucking well for you, after all. Keep beating your chest and telling me that I'm an idiot because I won't join your tribe. I'll just keep repeating: I will not vote for who YOU want in office just to keep who YOU don't want out. If we're going to insist that I have a vote then, fine. I have a vote. It's MINE, and fuck you for trying to take it.

But, by and large, I just can't be bothered with those people. Their comments sometimes annoy, but little else. They so completely lose their shit at the prospect that someone refuses to ante up just to prevent the other team from winning that their goals become manifestly clear.

The other sort of argument I hear is that, well, if I don't like the current system, why don't I work to change it? This position, again, assumes that the means of doing this are moral, but let's step outside of the ivory tower for a minute. You pitiful shits are always chanting that others need to "live in reality" (as opposed to what?), so let's do that. Here's the reality: I could spend every dollar to my name, every hour and minute of my time, and even working the theoretically most efficient means possible of effecting change, I would fail. "That's defeatist." No, it's practical, which is what you claim you wanted.

I've asked people in arguments on both sides what the cost is - how much of my own money and time do I have to dedicate to a third option before I'm "allowed" to complain? I've never gotten an answer.