Okay, a Political Rant

Here's an admission that will shock no one (probably) - I'm pretty liberal, politically at least. So take this rant with a dash of salt. But, here goes...

I Can't Believe We Might Re-Elect George Bush

I mean this, how can this be possible? Consider the following:

Iraq and WMDs

Bush has overthrown a sovereign nation by claiming that we (America) were in eminent danger from Weapons of Mass Destruction. So his thinking goes, "shoot them before they shoot you." Basic self-defense. Except that now, after taking over Iraq and capturing Saddam Hussein, we haven't found one Weapon of Mass Destruction. Zilch, Na-Da, Nothing. In fact, the person who until recently was overseeing the search now says that he doubts they had any at all and that there should be an investigation. Bush claims that this doesn't matter; Saddam Hussein deserved to be overthrown. And while I can't argue that, can I point out now that the case he and his administration made for risking our soldiers overseas (for a second time in his tenure) was based on lies? Didn't the Congress try to impeach the last President because he lied about having an affair? And we're looking to re-elect a man whose mistreats sent our entire nation to war?

It's the Economy, Stupid

Or so went the famous phrase that drove the Clinton 1992 campaign against Bush Senior. So let's take the same issue to Bush. He will be the first president since Herbert Hoover (of Great Depression fame) who overseas a loss of jobs over his tenure. And while the most recent unemployment numbers showed less people applying for benefits, the slight reduction is attributed not to new jobs being created but rather to people giving up their search for employment. Purchasing by companies still remains sluggish, the Stock Market is finally approaching it's levels prior to Bush's administration, and the future economic outlook appears murky. So where's the economic benefit of re-electing President Bush?

Back to the Deficit

Republicans claim to be the party of fiscal conservatism; they blame Democrats for encouraging big government and run-away spending. Yet Bush inherited a Balanced Budget from Clinton and the prior Congresses. You know, a budget where you spend as much or less than you take in? Between wars, tax cuts, and other new programs, Bush has catapulted the nation back into deficit spending, running up billions of dollars in debt that our children and us will someday have to shoulder. Doesn't seem very responsible fiscally.

Bill of Rights? Right...

Using the tragedy of September 11 as an impetus, the Bush Administration has put forth programs which curtail or remove basic rights of privacy. Not since the run-away days of J. Edgar Hoover has it been easier to listen to the conversations, read the mail, and generally spy on the typical citizen. Visitors to our country are now videotaped and fingerprinted into a giant database, just for wanting to visit the US. Now I do believe that some of the changes may be necessary - no one wants another attack like September 11. But I'd rather that we engage in a national debate about where the boundaries between personal privacy and public interest are, rather than allowing the Bush administration to write blank checks without informed public discourse. Now I should probably criticize the Congress for rubber-stamping such proposals, but that's another blog entry.

It's Good to be The King

Obviously, it's good to be friends with Bush and his posse. Energy companies have benefited from their friendship - environmental restrictions have been lifted and new, pristine wilderness is being opened up for exploration. Prior employers have benefited - the Haliburton company (prior employer of V.P. Dick Cheney) alone has collected millions (dare I say billions?) for providing services for the war on Iraq. Even baseball benefits - former Texas Rangers' owner Bush pushed for greater control of athletes and steroids use in his recent State of the Union (who knew that athletes and steroid use was a national issue?). Makes me wish I was a Texan CEO...

And these were just issues I've pulled off the top of my head; I am sure that I could triple the list simply by reviewing the last four years and seeing how angry I get. And yet current polls have Bush winning or in a dead heat with Democratic contenders, and this is without Bush even dipping into his Millions of Dollars of election war chest. I believe there is a huge likelihood that he will be our President for another four years. So what does he have to do to get the country to want a change?

Retro Tech is Cool

So I'm watching Monsters, Inc. last night (I'm becoming a Pixar Junkie) and I noticed that while the movie portrays an alternative world that is at least as sophisticated, if not more so (I mean, they can harness energy from screams!), all the machines had a retro, analog look. Check it out - the machines that fetch the doors have simple, analog light displays, the meters recording each scream-canister's volume is a simple thermometer/pressure gauge, and most of the interfaces are dominated by dials, levers, and other analog controls. The most sophisticated technology, it seems, is the Monsters' Training Room, dominated by closed-circuit television and puppetry. And while the television ad for the power plant alludes to Virtual Reality training, you never see it in action.

Okay, so I'm being a bit obsessive by tearing apart the technology of a fictional world, but look at other recent or popular movies. The Matrix series, the Aliens series, The Terminator series: all of these visions of the future feature grungy, messy, greasy machines and technologies that look as much like the 19th century as the 21st and beyond. And I'm not talking about the machine portrayed themselves (I mean, I haven't seen flow-metal humanoid robots lately, have you?), but rather the overall style the technology portrays.

So why is this? Is grungy cooler than clean? Or is it that the more tactile, analog, dystopian look gives a more "real" feeling? I mean, look back to the classic 2001. Even though the technology doesn't necessarily work well (HAL being one big opps), it looks clean, shiny, and new. And while I love watching that movie, the "clean" look seems both idealistic and dated - like drawings of rocket cars and Jetson-style furniture. Perhaps today's grittier sci-fi look will be a style that seems dated in another 30 years or so?

Of course, it could also be a reaction, a visual symbol of our collective loss of faith in technology. In the 1960's people actually believed the technology was the answer: feed the world, eliminate both monetary and social classes, and engender a new Eden. Now we've lived with decades of technology's results: tons of pollution, spam, corporate predidation, and an overly-sped-up pace of life (to name a few results). Perhaps we believe in the dystopic future because we've lost faith in the ideal?