Is anyone else completely obsessed with the Democratic primaries?

Visions of the Rewilding Renaissance
#41

quote: If I agree that civilization should collapse as soon as possible I’m all for the deaths of possibly billions of people, myself and my family and friends

If you wold consider the communities of nonhumans as family and friends you would see that this is exactly what goes on every day already. So either way you choose to go, and for anyone being in the know the choice doesn’t seem too difficult to me, you’re going to support the omelete making process.

I’m not going to to the PETA thing and say look at this picture of something terrible, but whenever I see something like a stonyeyed blankfaced hunter holding up a once upon a time noble wild wolf shot dead I always ask myself who I would rather see displaying who as a trophy. I’m genetically more kindred to the person, but comparing their hobby with the life of the creature they took I would place the wolf more on the friend side.

On the topic of elections, I’d better keep ti short before I really go at it and babble my fingers off, but it seems to me that the system of oppression cooked up however many generations ago was so effective that the least among us standing tall at the apex of the pyramid, the oppressors, no longer know what they’re doing or what the effects of their actions are. The oppression has made them just as ignorant as the oppressed, who had to be made ignorant in order to create a willing slave labor force. Everyone, almost, is enacting a formula that has deadened them so thoroughly that they don’t get it anymore, not from any angle. The story doesn’t grow, it was set up to stop growth, therefore it stangnates and decays.

That said, I’ve nevered pad attention to anything political. Nothing specific. I think mugwumps is a funny name. That’s about all I know. My mindful time is spent in different ways.

#42

I didn’t vote, and I am very proud that I did not. I am proud that I resisted the pressure.

I had a fight with an old college friend tonight over it. She does not understand the shit that we’re in, with or without Obama. I said to her, it doesn’t matter in the end. “What about the here and now?” she asked. I said, “I prefer to focus on other things in the here and now.” Then she told me I wasn’t living in the “real world.” I said, “No, you’re not listening, my focus is elsewhere, that doesn’t make it any less real.”

But she still thinks I am crazy. She thinks I am really crazy now.

If she came around, she would be a wonderful person to rewild with. She is my best friend.

Obama says a lot of things, and I don’t know which of them he really believes. I know that in order to get where he is, he has had to lie through his teeth more than once. But I also think that he truly believes he can help people in some ways. I think he’s had to make a lot of “compromises” internally.

I don’t know which of his “commitments” he will truly try to follow up on, but I believe that he will try. However, he won’t get very far: I believe his presidency will consist of A. appeasing the socioeconomic elite who got him where he is and B. reacting to crisis after crisis, and that won’t leave much room for the “progressive” pro-action on his platform (not that I buy it… I agree that his vision merely keeps people blind to the horrors and fragility of the social structure). But the crises will just keep coming. Trying to stop the collapse of civilization is like trying to plug a hole in a dam with the plug that you’ve just removed from another hole. This could cause major disillusionment and shake people’s faith in government… or it may not. Many people may die underneath an American flag, and many people do so now (soldiers).

Furthermore, the only way to “solve” America’s economic crisis (within civ, of course) is to screw other lives (human and non-human), and that “solution” (like the entirety of civilized behavior) will surely come back to bite everyone before long. Again, not enough plugs for the dam.

From Noam Chomsky:

Our society is not really based on public participation in decision-making in any significant sense. Rather, it is a system of elite decision and periodic public ratification. Certainly people would like to think there's somebody up there who knows what he's doing. Since we don't participate, we don't control and we don't even think about the questions of crucial importance, we hope somebody is paying attention who has some competence. [b]Let's hope the ship has a captain, in other words, since we're not taking in deciding what's going on.[/b]

But there is no captain in the world who can steer a sinking ship out of its enormous plight. Obama (and the general public) will learn that in time.

#43

Or, in other words:

I voted for president, as well as local stuff. Of course, for my vote I wrote in Jack LaLanne and Ron Popeil, figuring that they are at least obvious about trying to sell you things, and their health plan would probably be better considering all the juicing and rotisserie chicken.

Yea, obviously I don’t take presidential elections seriously. ;D

#44

Ha! I actually wanted to vote on one (count 'em, ONE) statewide initiative: Death with Dignity (assisted suicide). But I realized too late that I wasn’t registered. Well, anyway, it passed!

#45

The only questions to vote on here this year concerned funding roads and funding parks/public land. That was easy enough to decide; no on roads, yes on parks.

#46

I listen to some local call-in public radio on a regular basis. What I’m hearing again and again from callers is:

  1. There is a sense of relief that Bush is out and Obama is in.

  2. It isn’t enough that Obama got elected. If the public don’t hold Obama’s feet to the fire his decisions will continue to be influenced by the rich.

  3. The Obama administration will be facing problems similar to, if not more complex, then Franklin Delano Roosevelt faced during his 4 terms in office.

We will see what happens.

#47

I agree with most people on this post that civ is going to decline no matter who is president, but I still think the president is still a powerful person who can make more of a difference in other helpful ways. I respect someone’s choice not to vote, but I don’t understand why someone would take pride in not voting. Someone could say “well, one vote isn’t going to make a difference”, but you could just as easily say “one more rewilder is not going to make a difference” Also, I don’t buy that “the lesser of two evils is still evil” stuff. I think people on this post are smarter than to think in those absolutes. The lesser of two evils is still the “less evil” in my book.

Each political party’s postion on issues must change to reflect the evolving values of their target electorate. If not for the loud and active voices over the last several decades speaking up about environmental issues, I think the earth would be in worse shape from all types of pollution and sprawl. If not for our public education in America, we might have a higher reproduction rate and less “mental reframing” in order to observe the shortcomings of civ. We might not even have had the widespread use of this powerful internet tool if it wasn’t for active politicians and lobbyists.

The system does suck, and we can hate and ignore civ all we want, but that’s not simply going to make it go away. As people who clearly see all the problems of civ, I think the best thing we can do is try to help our fellow prisoners see things as we do, or at least find peaceful middleground. Of course it is equally important for us to find a way to leave the system and make our alternative living- but if we do so without the support or protection of our surrounding civ it will be at our own peril.

All that being said, I see positives and negatives in an Obama presidency. I don’t see how investment in renewable energy could be too bad for the Earth. I also think that increased funding in education might help more people see the disfunction of civ. I just heard Obama was going to try to remake all the environmental protection laws that Bush discarded. I’m not big on stem cell research, or enhanced infrastructure (unless it involves better public transit) but I don’t think those will cause too much harm that wouldn’t have happened otherwise.

The fact that civ will decline doesn’t make it any less powerful right now. Despite what we may be tempted to think, the civ leaders do make a difference in how we interact with the earth and each other. They may be minute differences to us who see them in the larger scope of an imminent collapse, but they could be important nonetheless. If us rewilders are able to infiltrate public disscussion and start to change more peoples minds through civs inner channels of communication, I believe we will be doing the Earth more of a favor than if we simply become “bitter rewilders” who are alienated from the public.

#48

In a system in which the only two “alternatives” are corporate bought shills, and all of the votes have been bought and decided either through targeted advertisement (read: ‘mind control’) or outright fraud (Diebold), it doesn’t matter either way. The person that the bosses want to get in will be the one to get in, which should have been apparent enough in this past election.

Renewable energy will just mean a longer period in which lumberjacks have power for clear cutting forests and miners have longer to rip out the mineral wealth of the earth. Less pollution, but less forest.

I also have little faith that improving funding to education will, or ever has, helped any sort of movement like ours. Schooling reinforces the death culture, and instead of being intended to give anyone anything resembling critical skills, it was intentionally designed to keep class stratification intact and prepare most of the children that go through it for a life working a 9-5 job, being a cog in the industrial-corporate machine. Increased schooling will simply mean increased enculturation and brainwashing.

#49

I can’t tell if you think this is a good thing or not. I’ll just go on record as saying that I think that it is as bad a thing as everything else civ has brought us.

All that being said, I see positives and negatives in an Obama presidency. I don't see how investment in renewable energy could be too bad for the Earth.

I don’t know about “too bad”, but it is definitely not “good”. There is a big difference between “good” and “not as bad”.

I also think that increased funding in education might help more people see the disfunction of civ.

similar to what dan said, if you’re talking about public education, I think you’re wrong. Public ed is brainwashing.

I just heard Obama was going to try to remake all the environmental protection laws that Bush discarded. I'm not big on stem cell research, or enhanced infrastructure (unless it involves better public transit) but I don't think those will cause too much harm that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

But we don’t have to look at things from the viewpoint that “they would’ve happened otherwise”. If we destroy civ NOW, they never have to happen. There are never just two options.

Despite what we may be tempted to think, the civ leaders do make a difference in how we interact with the earth and each other. They may be minute differences to us who see them in the larger scope of an imminent collapse, but they could be important nonetheless. If us rewilders are able to infiltrate public disscussion and start to change more peoples minds through civs inner channels of communication, I believe we will be doing the Earth more of a favor than if we simply become "bitter rewilders" who are alienated from the public.

Agreed. and again, there is always another option to the choices that “democracry” and civ give us.

#50

I think public education aims to help keep the dysfunctional nature of civilization invisible.

I really didn’t think I’d post in this thread–I’ve reveled in the extra free time, mental space and stress reduction afforded me by ignoring the election farce this year!

But I have to echo Dan and Jessica,

I just watched Apocalypto last week. Such graphic drama, holy crap! I couldn’t hope to paste together such a continuous string of adrenaline-maxed, turned-up-to-eleven scenes in my story games. . . Anyway, it struck me how the same old, same old thievery, destruction, slavery, sacrifice, and bloody murder, the innate underpinnings of civilization, so ably hide themselves in our civilization today-- behind lies, distractions/entertainment, gentility, niceness, news media, importation/exportation (distance), entertainment, safety, privilege, medicine, interstate highways and “beauty strips”, and the rhetoric of politicians, corporations, PR and greenwashing. Once they get really good at telling us where to look (focus our attention)–and they have!–no one has to tell us where not to look.

I can no longer swallow the premise that one person making decisions for millions of people, in millions of unique, individual places and communities, could ever effectively create more life. Much less that the actual popular vote has any direct bearing on the selection of that person.

Nor making more laws or legislating more funding (for “education” of the kids, “protection” of the land, or even parks–I just visited my favorite one today and found that the publicly funded maintenance had chopped down a bunch more trees and undergrowth :’(–when parks run out of funds they can rewild!) or putting caps on anything or tightening up regulations–all of that directs resources in the direction desired by those pulling the strings (growth, production, transforming life into dead things).

[/rant] phew!

Brian, I mean no disrespect when I disagree. Would you mind introducing yourself on the intro thread?

#51

Ultimately, I’m not psychologically invested in the voting and election process. I understand all the anarchist arguments against voting (I’ve used them), and am glad when people choose to defy what popular mythology tells them and not vote. For me, voting was just a pragmatic move based on who I think will bring both increased volatility to civilization with less lasting ecological impact. The voting vs. not-voting argument seems like a lot of posturing on both sides. I was glad to drop the puritanism and do what made sense to me while not distracting me from pursuing the path I’m taking.

#52

I hear and mostly understand all the arguments with my post, and i’m glad to hear the input. I don’t want to come off as someone who is still truly enamored by the system and not free in my own thinking, and I will post in the intro section soon.

For me, voting was just a pragmatic move based on who I think will bring both increased volatility to civilization with less lasting ecological impact. The voting vs. not-voting argument seems like a lot of posturing on both sides. I was glad to drop the puritanism and do what made sense to me while not distracting me from pursuing the path I'm taking.

Wildeyes, this is basically the way I feel.

I’m not trying to defend civilization or give some corny “voting is your most important right” stuff. I’m trying to say that I think it’s important for the rewilders that have the ability to act publicly to keep their voice while they privately make plans to rewild. For me at the very bottom of it, it’s like a “just in case” scenario. Like, “just in case the collapse doesn’t happen and some miraculous technology comes along to help it continue”… I would want the people in power to at least use discretion.

Yea, my vote didn’t matter. Obama would’ve won the presidency without me and all my friends voting for him. He won because of the black vote, Bush’s low approval, and lots and lots of money for advertising. But he also won because of personality and message, and the fact that the electorate was ready for a different type of candidate. I agree that he is likely another corporate face, but at least he seems to be a thoughtful and “more conscious” president. My hope is that this reflects another growing part of the electorate.

I don’t wish to take on the “crashed-civ” versus “current-civ” debate because civ hasn’t crashed and none of us knows exactly how and when that will happen. The system is as it is, and there is not enough anger with it out there to bring it down. Of course the immediate dismantling of Civ would be altogether better for people and the earth, but how to go about helping that? I think that violent rejection of civ will cause some damage , but usually only bring an end to the revolters (unless done very stealthily) More importantly, there are no visible alternatives to civ in most people’s eyes, so even when they have dissenting feelings they generally have nowhere to take them.

This is where I think rewilding has to have a friendly, inclusive attitude that can infiltrate the system. We can complain about the “conspiracy” of democracy and the illusion of control the government feeds us, but I think that it’s not that simple. While those points are partially valid, we do live under a comparatively less oppressive and more permeable system than in other areas and time periods in the world.

Yeah, public education is mostly a joke that keeps children as consumers, but it’s power is not going to be diminished by a few of us dismissing it as “brainwashing.” I’ve never heard of a teacher taking an oath that said they had to uphold the illusions of civilization, but I have heard conservatives complain of the subversive “anti-american” influence in schools and universities. My personal experiences in school are likely what ultimately led me to question civ. It started with a teacher influencing me to read Thoreau’s “Walden”, and another one with the classic dystopian tales “Brave New World” and “1984”. I guess it depends on the teachers you have, but that’s my point. I think bringing our debate with civ into schools would be more effective than shunning schools altogether. Like it or not, public schools here to stay for now, so I choose to look at them for what positive influence they may have in the spread of ideas that are subversive to civ.

I may be wrong, but I feel like a more liberal-democratic society allows for more subversive views of civ, whereas a more openly oppresive society only creates a more subversive view of those in charge of civ. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that people on this site seem pretty well-educated and intelligent. I also don’t think it’s a coincidence that Obama was associated with and served on school board with former terrorist Bill Ayers, a man who described himself as a “small “c” communist” and who likes the idea of “settlement homes” which is the closest thing to a public endorsement of tribal living that I have heard from any recent public figure.

Of course liberal politicians aren’t going to directly tackle all the problems of civ we percieve. They’re not going to run on a platform of dismantling civilization. But ask any economy loving, growth-obsessed conservative american out there, and they’d tell you that’s exactly what the liberals are doing. They don’t want to drill in Alaska? Great! Cautiously viewing nuclear power? Awesome. Want to ignore oil interests in the Middle East? Go for it. You could argue that these choices will hasten civ’s demise. There are differences in philosophy between the two parties that I think could make an immense difference in the future condition of the earth, but I’m getting mixed signals from rewilders about what kind of philosophy to pursue.

I basically comes down to these two impressions:

If I choose to support a more earth-benevolent lifestyle, I will be taking “weight” off the system, allowing it to function longer and do more damage before collapse.

Or…

If I chose to support as much consumption, destruction, and gluttony as possible, I will be causing some short term damage but will be helping by precipitating the crash sooner.

I know it’s not that simple, but I think that it’s important to clarify this quandry in order to decide the most effective actions to take personally.

#53

[quote=“Willem, post:40, topic:711”]I gave several talks at a local high school on my version of rewilding on Wednesday and Thursday.

On thing that kept coming up; the students wanted to know what I thought they “should do”. What position I advocated.

I kept having to repeat: “I don’t know. What do you NEED to do? If you use what I’ve offered you today as tools for looking at your life, what new things do YOU see? And what changes then does that inspire you to make?”

Over and over. They felt pretty certain I had some agenda, as surely most everybody in their life does when acting like they want to “help” them.

It finally clicked for most of them that I didn’t give a shit.

Then they got excited.

REAL excited.[/quote]

Brian, thought I’d reiterate this, as it makes a great deal of sense to me, and I think addresses your most recent post.

#54

“I don’t vote,It only encourages them” Robert Anton Wilson Could someone try to tell me the real difference between GOP and Democrats.From what I have observed in my life they are the same.Both parties seem to be comprised by wealthy affluent people who represent the ruling elite and the corporate interests that use their wealth and perceived power to fool the masses into slavery.

#55

Brian, I think you made a good point here:

Obama would've won the presidency without me and all my friends voting for him. He won because of the black vote, Bush's low approval, and lots and lots of money for advertising. But he also won because of personality and message, and the fact that the electorate was ready for a different type of candidate. I agree that he is likely another corporate face, but at least he seems to be a thoughtful and "more conscious" president. My hope is that this reflects another growing part of the electorate.

It takes me back to a comment that Elaine made in IF THEY GIVE YOU LINED PAPER WRITE SIDEWAYS:

Politicians don't educate the electorate. The electorate educates the politicians, with their votes. [b]pg. 97[/b]

In our lifetimes, I wonder if we will ever see the President of the United States stand up and give the Thanksgiving Address, known also as the “words that come before all else.”

http://www.mythic-cartography.org/2006/11/21/the-thanksgiving-address

If it does happen, I’d say were on the right track.

Curt

#56

Thanks Curt, yeah, DQ is a pretty good thinker.

Thanks, Jhereg. Willem’s post made a lot of sense to me, too. It made me think of a quote I once heard where someone was complaining they were sick of just talking about the state of the world and wanted to do something… and the another person says “don’t just do something, talk!”

And this is exactly why I think politics and education are powerful tools in dismantling civilization, or at least making the declining civilization more sympathetic to rewilders. I’m not saying every rewilder has to be involved in and find agreement and support in politics and education, but that those of us that have skills in public communication should certainly try.

Green, I understand your dissapointment in politics, as I’ve felt that way before too. You mentioned the “perceived power” that fools the masses into slavery. The thing about perceived power is that it can become real power when enough people believe in it. Just one person recognizing that he is a slave in a slave mass is not usually enough to break down the illusion for everyone else. The system will keep him in his place through violence or ridicule. The invisible (but currently real) power surrounding him will have to be exposed for what it is through some kind of communication. Any effective movement away from this slavery will need a bunch of “new minds with no programs” with at least a slight vision of how they will live once they leave slavery.

What does this have to do with politics? I don’t think all of politics represent “the power.” Most politicians are slaves to the system as we are, but not all of them are motivated by the “rewards” of the system. Every politician is different, of course, but usually the two parties are split on philosophy of what laws are good for people. They are both funded by the wealthy, and both parties are pro-civ for sure, but I still think they can enact policies based on an independent notion of what they perceive as “good or bad” These laws do have intended or unintended effects because they are perceived as real by the enslaved masses, and are enforced with “punishment” if not followed.

For those reasons, I think the fundamental philosophies and personality types voted into power are important. GOP is generally pro-growth, nationalistic, militaristic, and socially “conservative” in nature. Democrats are attempting to make more civ people satisfied by increasing the economic growth of everyone while simultaneously “globalizing” the world and protecting the environment, a feat which is impossible, of course. However, I prefer the democrat philosophy better because it seems to focus slightly more on the quality, not quantity of life , allowing for birth control and sex education as well as environmental protection laws. Ultimately though, I don’t expect to see a candidate running on a “save the world” platform. Right now they have to appeal to voters selfish instincts like “cheaper gas” and “cheaper homes”.

#57

[quote=“Brian, post:56, topic:711”]Most politicians are slaves to the system as we are, but not all of them are motivated by the “rewards” of the system. Every politician is different, of course, but usually the two parties are split on philosophy of what laws are good for people. They are both funded by the wealthy, and both parties are pro-civ for sure, but I still think they can enact policies based on an independent notion of what they perceive as “good or bad” These laws do have intended or unintended effects because they are perceived as real by the enslaved masses, and are enforced with “punishment” if not followed.

For those reasons, I think the fundamental philosophies and personality types voted into power are important. GOP is generally pro-growth, nationalistic, militaristic, and socially “conservative” in nature. Democrats are attempting to make more civ people satisfied by increasing the economic growth of everyone while simultaneously “globalizing” the world and protecting the environment, a feat which is impossible, of course. However, I prefer the democrat philosophy better because it seems to focus slightly more on the quality, not quantity of life , allowing for birth control and sex education as well as environmental protection laws. [/quote]

I agree with you that pretty much all politicians are slaves to the system, not only by the “rewards” of the system, but (much more so) by the fact that the corporate parties are highly centralized and totally controlled by their financial backers (to the tune of billions). This does not allow any politician to vote their conscience, on anything. If they do not vote according to the party’s dictates, and in a way that at least does not oppose the interests of the wealthy elite… their will see their careers quickly end.

I would use the exact same definition that you use for the GOP - generally pro-growth, nationalistic, militaristic, and socially “conservative” in nature - to describe the Democratic party as well.

Pro-growth = totally 100% check (just “smarter” strategies for achieving growth, recognizing the reality of peak oil somewhat more than the neo-cons).

Nationalistic = the Democrats defend America’s national interests just as much as the GOP (economically and imperialistically) - they just realize that they can achieve their goals better through negotiation and covert manipulation of foreign affairs, than through overt military occupations.

Militaristic = Obama supports a continued growth in the military budget just like Bush, like Al Gore (who actually proposed a BIGGER increase than Bush in the 2000 campaign) and every past Democratic president, and Obama supports US militaristic hegemony world-wide (supporting the hundreds of military bases world-wide, supporting the war in Afghanistan and a permanent military presence in Iraq, etc.)

Socially “conservative” = well, this one depends on what one means by “conservative”. I see the current liberal and conservative points of view only differing by a inch (to use a metaphor) - whereas if one zooms out and looks at the whole range of perspectives, then liberal and conservative seem almost identical. Take gay marriage for example - one side wants to ban it, the other wants to allow it. But both take the institution of marriage (and the nuclear family unit) for granted.

And even on the question of abortion, which at first glace might seem to represent their greatest political difference, looking at what the Democrats have actually voted for (not just the popular perception of their stance), it becomes clear that the Democrats also support restrictions on a women’s right to control her body, legally as well as financially.

I also don’t agree that the Democrats have any intention of protecting the environment in their pursuit of growth. I see that as a popular myth, completely contradicting reality. They receive hundreds of millions from mining, logging, oil, etc industries - and the corporations don’t do it for nothing. In other words, if the Democrats do really try to protect the environment, they have completely failed - and the only way that powerful of a party could fail is if they want to fail.

But I don’t want to argue that the Democrats don’t have marginally better politics than the Republicans. I think they do, but the difference is SO marginal as to become meaningless, for all practical purposes.

Jessica

#58

Interesting observation (well, interesting to me at least):

I’ve spent more time reading this thread than I spent voting.

#59

Yaaay! I think that voting accomplishes far less than conversations like this do. :slight_smile:

#60

Hey Jessica (bereal)! I think that you’re brilliant and that we’re actually in agreement (for the most part) about this politics stuff. I’m just not very articulate, so I keep coming off as someone who is defending or putting too much hope in democrats or politics in general. I have an intuitive sense that much of what we think about the lack of effectiveness in politics is similar. But I have scanned through a bunch of your other posts and realized we should probably stop wasting energy and move on to a more general topic:

In the long run, what are the most effective strategies for human behavioral change in order to best preserve the ecosystem?

Here’s the thing, let’s talk as realistically as possible not hypothetically. For instance, of course immediate mass human death would be best, but that’s not a strategy, it’s a result. I also want to enjoy this life and not be a suicidal eco-terrorist… so… many non-covert violent actions are off the table for me and probably many others (that’s not to say that I wouldn’t applaud those who can do this effectively).

I think the main conflict in my thinking (and yours, from what I can tell) is between Jensenian strategies (violent and crash-provoking) and Quinnian strategies (education and civilization abandonment). I want to try to take each action and imagine its effect realistically and from a wide perspective, not imagining how it would work in a vacuum, but based on real human behavior.

I will start off with my last “defense” of what I have said about politics and then perhaps we should start another thread (not that the subject of politics should be off-limits in that thread).

I’m going to be vague. When we think of American politics we often simplify them into two schools of thought. These philosophies are something like socialist vs. capitalist, conservative vs. liberal, close-minded vs. open-minded. These simplifications rarely capture the true philosophy or actions of the politicians and their electorate, but to me serve as vague shadings that gauge the mindset of the public. We can never know all the effects of an Obama versus a McCain presidency, but Obama and many other democrats have been selected, and the electorate throughout history has seemed to move “leftward”, bringing the politicians with it. We could argue forever about whether their policies will help or hurt the world and still never know the real effects even during or after their terms. What I’m mostly concerned about is the triumph of the “open-mind” in the electorate and its implications for our country and times. Far from being a sign to me that “everything’s going to be okay”, it instead represents a greater opportunity for us to “eat away” at civ memes and diminish civs grip (at least in our country).

I think Obama and his supporters would be more likely to at least read “Ishmael” and “Endgame” than would McCain and his supporters, and that is motivating to me. That’s mostly what I’m trying to say.

I have other reasons why I don’t think we should ignore politics but I’ll discuss them later. You seem to be pretty knowledgable, so maybe you can help me through them.

Let me know your thoughts and start a new thread if you want (I don’t think I know how to do that) Thank you,

Brian