MichaelRunyon.com – All Things Geek

I realized today that I always spell tomorrow “tommorrow”. Now, when I look at it in this context, it makes perfect sense to me that it’s spelled the way that it is. And clearly, I eventually recognize that this word is not correct when it comes out of my hands. Yet, I cannot stop doing so. 

I find this behavior to be fundamentally different than that of a “bad speller”, if you will. I am aware that I am spelling something wrong, and due to the corrective functions of the tools that I use on a daily basis, I no longer have to go back and correct myself. Yet, I still remain in my ways, despite all evidence to the contrary. 

What aspects of ourselves can we analyze and come away with no solution? I have bitten my fingernails (an admittedly nasty habit) since birth, and continue to do so, even ravenously, and most noticeably during times of stress. I also compulsively (and also sub-conciously, i might add) chew the inside of my cheek. I don’t even notice that I’m doing it most of the time. Yet, if I had to devise a solution to get me to stop doing it, would I be able to? Short of something drastic or autonomous, I doubt that it would be successful. 

Which brings me round to my point again: What are we to do with behavior that we understand, but cannot correct? Should I continue to worry that I cannot bring myself to find solutions to behavioral problems within myself? Or is it strange to be so self-analytical, that you might even consider something of this nature. To be sure, it’s pretty late in the game to be trying to correct some of these things; consider that they’ve been happening my entire life. But that shouldn’t stop me/us from attempting to bring about the best sides of ourselves. 

I won’t waste time going over all of the strange and depressing things that have marked this presidential campaign year. I’m pretty sure that even the most stubbornly ignorant people in America have heard quite a bit about both candidates. How much of what they’ve heard is the truth, though, is the real question. 

I decided a while back, after doing some research, to abandon the practice of voting on the candidate, and voting for the ideals that I hold. After doing some personal investigation (with the aid of some websites) that I most closely align myself with the Green Party and the Libertarian Party. I am very much for the Constitution re-instatement platform that those affiliated with the Libertarian Party have been pushing lately. I feel that a true step towards the core values that the Constituation put into place would be a very good thing for this country. 

I was talking to my parents and sister the other day about how strange it was to find so many people who had such strong opinions about one candidate or the other without much basis. Certain relatives on one side of the family tend to repeat the somewhat fearful phrasings of the right, going on about Obama’s Muslim background and the abortion issue. I don’t really have a problem with them expressing their fears about those aspects, only lamenting that they are making such a large difference in their minds, versus some other aspects that I find to be much more important, such as the economy or foreign policy. 

Unfortunately, in regards to the war in Iraq, there appears to be no clear definitive difference between the two candidates. McCain seems to hold true to the right’s mantra about us leaving Iraq means signalling weakness. Obama has hinted at the idea of beginning to leave Iraq almost immediately after taking office, but I don’t recall much being made of an immediate and total withdrawal from either candidate. And even Obama has stated that perhaps we should focus our efforts in Afghanistan once again, to attempt to eliminate the root cause of the initial threat. I can’t say that I’m much of a fan of our troops being stationed in either place, as I feel occupation of either country is unjust, not to mention poorly executed. 

This brings me to my main point: neither of these candidates offers the radical change that I am looking for, and I feel that America needs. Sure, they have their differences, but they are very, very similar in almost every aspect. All this jockeying for votes seems to draw out their differences, but during these crucial times, it seems to draw them much closer together (as far as issues are concerned). Each party makes their common cracks about stereotypes about the other party, and round and round we go. But at the end of the day, aside from some grandiose talk about fixing problems that we could easily avoid, a great majority of the problems that we face will remain no matter which candidate is chosen by the populace.

This is the time for a 3rd party to rise to legitimacy. Many of the candidates who represent them are fairly well known. Ralph Nader is probably known to a great many of Americans, though I rather doubt that the positive associations outweigh the negative. In 2004, I was one of only 18,058 people in the entire state of Indiana to vote Libertarian (Michael Badnarik at the time) for the presidential election. Indiana had 2,463,830 people vote in the 2004 election, so 0.73 percent of Indiana voted Libertarian. Not a strong total.

Given the radical difference in policies between Nader and other 3rd party candidates and the 2 main party candidates, it’s really a shame that they aren’t given more of a chance to make themselves known to the American people, to offer Americans a chance to invoke true change in the country. Unfortunately, without the staggering funding that the candidates have brought to bear on this election, and without the white-hot focus of the corporation-owned media news outlets, they don’t stand a snowballs chance in being actually elected. The last successful independent candidate was Ross Perot, and many would argue that his success was largely because of his personal wealth, allowing him to enter the households and consciences of many more Americans than today’s independents. 

Coming full circle, despite these candidates near-impossibility at becoming elected in our 2-party oligarchical system, I still feel that it is best to vote on the issues that you wish to become present in our government, and not for a particular candidate. Too often we fall into the polarizing sensationalism of the media (you’re either on the right (republican) or on the left (Democrat)), and allow ourselves to enter that mob mentality that gets us collectively nowhere. Until we can stop fighting bloody, expensive wars amongst two parties that behaved in almost exactly the same fashion for the past 20 years, I don’t think there is much hope at all for real change to had, despite what some fresh-faced Senator from Illinois might want you to believe.

But, hoping against hope, if he is elected, I can always be pleasantly surprised. Until then, however, I will continue to cast my vote where I hope it will do the most good: another brick in the slow rebuild of 3rd party legitimacy.�