Oh Mr. Chomsky, you devil...

[Javaman]

I have been a cynic for most of my life, and lately, I have been listening more and more to Noam Chomsky. I'm slowly understanding his point in being an iconoclast.

My dad once told me, when I was a kid, "there is no two party system, just one". It took me a very long time to wrap my head around that. Perhaps now, that I'm middle aged, I understand what he meant.

I've been, pretty much my whole life, a socialist democrat. I've always been of the belief that people come first. That elected leaders should never profit from the good of the people.

We no longer demand anything from our officials, it's become taboo somehow. Instead we have entered into a realm of Iconifying.

As much as I prescribe to what I consider original democratic party principles, today I find them lacking.

Although, I still am a democrat, I'm coming to understand the concept of being neither left right and certainly not center, but stepping out of that framework, out of the classification, has a certain appeal to me.

Labeling is what I'm trying to avoid.

When bush* was running for election back in 2000, it was the first time in my life I put party before issues. Having had bush* as my governor,(he was in office when I moved to Texas, I didn't get a chance to vote against him*), I knew perfectly well what he* was incapable of doing. I chose to vote via party just so he* wouldn't be elected. I like Gore, not my full cup of tea, but again, he was against bush*. That was enough at the time. Prior to that, I was a issues voter. Sadly, most of the issues I'm concerned with, rarely if ever make to a ballot or a platform.

So here we are today, in a state of affairs where our own addiction to oil, once again, has bitten us square in the pants.

I watch as all the talking heads dance around the topic, least of which the 2000 pound elephant in the room, that are want to avoid.

Our desperate need to continue our "non-negotiable" way of life, to paraphrase mr. chaney.

Oddly, no one has really defined what that "way of life" actually is?

Everyone spouts on the need for alt fuels, but no one, not one person says anything about actually using less oil, less fossil fuels.

Funny, really.

The heroin junkie wants to quit, but while going to a methadone clinic, he's still scoring smack at the same rate. Sounds pretty stupid right?

Why are we different? Because oil is legal? That somehow justifies our use.

Studies have shown that simple conservation could cut our need for fossil fuels up to 1/3 without even noticing a difference.

But alas, we Americans are special somehow. Just how, I don't know.

As one of the two parties replaces the other in our circular election cycle, the topic of our addiction is always spoken about or dealt with in vague terms.

Ironically, failed oilman george w. bush* was the first to go on record saying we are addicted to oil, but what did he do? invaded a nation, two to be exact, for oil. (trying to get that ever elusive big gusher?)

Obama, not immune to irony, tries to appease the right, opens the east coast up to drilling, but falls victim to a blow out at an offshore oil rig causing a massive oil spill.

I am starting to wonder.

As I started off this post, I am still very much a dem, but I'm slowly coming around to understanding the point of view of Mr. Chomsky, a little be more each day.