LibriumArcana.Games

I was speaking with Cyncat (as well as Lord Hater Supreme, general Havoc, lest anyone think I was skipping anyone) via skype a few days ago, and Cyncat raised a good point about not only how I unconsciously have viewed politics for a while, but how many other Americans do as well.

The issue is this: too many Americans, including myself, fall prey into the "team" mentality when it comes to one's political party - attacking the party one views as "opposition" without remorse (or reason at times), and oftentimes turning a blind eye to one's own "team's" views and actions.
The current political system as it stands shows only a dual party system - though there are certainly more than those two, those other parties get very little attention, exposure, or consideration. General Havoc, some time ago, was relating a conversation he was having with a non-American about the American political system, and how the (effective) two-party system was a good thing, since it essentially forces centrism and consensus (to a degree) on both parties.

However, as we're seeing currently, with enough money thrown around to influence the parties, a party's views can change drastically. Moreover, the two party system allows for a deeply divided electorate - in recent years, political news and events are necessarily shown in a partisan light. Currently, the conservative/Republican media is a more extreme example of this (see: FOX news, CNN, Drudge Report, etc.), but while guilty of less egregious examples, the liberal/progressive/Democratic media isn't innocent of this either (see: DailyKOS, firedoglake, Keith Olbermann, etc.)

So, with all that background, here's the discussion questions.

1. Does America's current two party system actually work for the American populace, or does it in fact work to the American populace's detriment due to necessarily forcing partisanship?

2. Is the influx of corporate cash in the form of non-profits and SuperPACs a necessary consequence of how the political system works here in the US, or is that a problem with another cause?

rhoenix wrote:In the interest of full disclosure, I had identified myself nostalgically as a Republican in the style of Teddy Roosevelt or Dwight Eisenhauer for many years - but as Cyncat correctly pointed out, this is an inherently untenable self-perception, because that party does not exist in current times. In short, the Republican party to whom Dwight Eisenhauer and Teddy Roosevelt belonged bears little resemblance to today's Republican party, apart from the name.

And? Forgive me but I don't feel the need to identify myself politically by what's trending in one of the major parties nowadays. I am a conservative of the old school who has been left behind by the radical shift the republican party has taken. Is it incumbent upon me to spontaneously morph into a Tea-Party supporting hack because much of the rest of my former party has done so? Am I no longer allowed to be pro-choice? And who precisely makes the decision as to what my political affiliations are allowed to be? Cyncat? You?

I AM an Eisenhower-style Republican (in some ways) and anyone who wishes to disagree with me on that point is invited to kiss my ass. I am sorry if opening the term "Republican" up to more than obvious dunces inconveniences those Democrats who would rather view politics through the lens of "The Smart Party vs. The Stupid Party" but it is not up to anyone else to decide what my politics are. I don't care how "relevant" that description is, particularly given that the Tea Party itself is barely four years old. If I choose to describe myself as a Whig, a Jacobite, or a Roman Populare, I will do precisely that. My politics were not selected on the basis of what is presently trending well on Twitter.

General Havoc wrote:And? Forgive me but I don't feel the need to identify myself politically by what's trending in one of the major parties nowadays. I am a conservative of the old school who has been left behind by the radical shift the republican party has taken. Is it incumbent upon me to spontaneously morph into a Tea-Party supporting hack because much of the rest of my former party has done so? Am I no longer allowed to be pro-choice? And who precisely makes the decision as to what my political affiliations are allowed to be? Cyncat? You?

I AM an Eisenhower-style Republican (in some ways) and anyone who wishes to disagree with me on that point is invited to kiss my ass. I am sorry if opening the term "Republican" up to more than obvious dunces inconveniences those Democrats who would rather view politics through the lens of "The Smart Party vs. The Stupid Party" but it is not up to anyone else to decide what my politics are. I don't care how "relevant" that description is, particularly given that the Tea Party itself is barely four years old. If I choose to describe myself as a Whig, a Jacobite, or a Roman Populare, I will do precisely that. My politics were not selected on the basis of what is presently trending well on Twitter.

Havoc, this is precisely the point I was attempting to make with the discussion, but it wasn't as clear as I thought it would be.

My point in all this is that by basing one's votes politically by the issues one supports or is against is inherently different than showing loyalty to a particular party or ideology. That the two-party system inherently favors support of ideology first, and issues second - and this is the heart of the reason I made this discussion post.

rhoenix wrote:1. Does America's current two party system actually work for the American populace, or does it in fact work to the American populace's detriment due to necessarily forcing partisanship?

It usually works at least marginally better than it does, and quite frankly, for as bad as we have it right now, the alternative is to have a multi-party system like much of Europe does. I prefer partisanship to not being able to form an effective government.

2. Is the influx of corporate cash in the form of non-profits and SuperPACs a necessary consequence of how the political system works here in the US, or is that a problem with another cause?

Ooof... This is a trickier one from my understanding. Because as far as I know, there have always been large influxes of corporate cash involved in politics. SuperPACs are just the latest "legitimization" of such money. It is an unfortunate necessity of a capitalist society.

General Havoc wrote:I AM an Eisenhower-style Republican (in some ways) and anyone who wishes to disagree with me on that point is invited to kiss my ass.

Completely nonsarcastically, this is why I like you.

I think the bases differ a lot more than the parties do. The parties are organisms, machines, companies if you will. Their product is votes and legislation. Such ideology as they present is often as authentic as the organic label in the supermarket- there to bring in business from a certain stripe of customer.

The system as I view it, is barely about ideology at this point, outside of vote-driving rhetoric. Yes, substantial issues are forced where one side or another has a huge edge in the voter base- Mississippi and abortion being an example. But the further one gets from the local issues, the more detached the entire thing becomes. D.C. is a world unto itself, and the edifice largely covers a money-making machine that neither side dares to shove too hard. Occasionally you'll try to get a zealot like Gingrinch who tries to 'win' the game by pushing the system with brinkmanship, but by and large the majority of people involved with the system are more concerned with their own stakes in its perpetuation.

What I noted years ago about our political system is the 1984-esque quality of it. Not the surveillance state or our foreign policy, but rather the never-ending sitzkrieg of American politics. All this energy and emotion expended with the notion that either victory or doom is lurking. 2006 was a '94 style wave election, a tide of frustration with the Bush administration that culminated with the surge that essentially guaranteed that Team D was going to take the White House in 2008. 2008 begets a counter-wave as the Republican base conjures up a large quantity of bullshit about the Kenyan Marxist Muslim who somehow stole an election. Now they're busy retreading the 2004 election, operating in the assumption that the entire country is as outraged and up in arms as they themselves are, and as such even though they have an uninspiring Massachusetts pol to run behind everyone of right mind recognizes that the enemy is Evil and needs to be driven from the halls of power. I expect that'll work as well for them as it did for the Dems in 2004. But regardless, the game will continue the same as it has before, with both sides spouting the same rhetoric and hurling the same accusations at each other, often almost word for word.

(And what's scary a Romney loss is that it opens up a possible Santorum presidency, which is an authentically disturbing prospect to me.)

What is promising, in terms of living our day to day, is that the system has trended toward milquetoast centrism since Reagan left office. Hopefully this will help prevent the specter of the Santorum presidency. Give me expedient dealmakers and flip-floppers like Obama or Romney any day.

1. Does America's current two party system actually work for the American populace, or does it in fact work to the American populace's detriment due to necessarily forcing partisanship?

The two party system has been in place since little before the end of the Washington Administration. In short we've had this system longer then most nations governments can say to have existed. It pre-dates the governments of continental Europe, it pre-dates the governments of Latin America and Asia. If it doesn't work for the American people, I would have to ask why does it not work now when it has been working for generations. It is in the confines of the two party systems that radical and dramatic changes to American society have been affected. The victories of the civil rights movement and the women's liberation were not brought about by a 3rd party after all.

Frankly most of the people who claim this then proudly tell me that they don't vote and that they never had. Claiming they are shut out because there is no one representing their views. Honestly that is a fair gripe. The actual ideological representation in Congress is fairly narrow (Bluntly, the far right parties of continental Europe, Japan and India to name a few are to the right of the GOP, while there are acres and acres of space to the left regarding the democrats). That said, opting out ensures that no one will ever represent your views and why should they? You don't vote. No matter what the government does, you never take the most basic action in a democracy to correct. At best you will make some sound and fury that signifies nothing. For the average American, if you do not vote, your opinion does not matter to a politician. You are no threat to his job prospects. At best he will act to ensure you remain a non-voter through what will to him trivial action. Angry voters are a terror, the screams of nonvoters barely register.

Additionally if you can't be bothered? I'm pretty sure I don't want you voting anyways.

2. Is the influx of corporate cash in the form of non-profits and SuperPACs a necessary consequence of how the political system works here in the US, or is that a problem with another cause?

A consequence? Yes. A necessary consequence? Well now we're talking about something different.

The influences of corporations in American politics has waxed and waned over the decades. In the gilded age they were quiet open on their influence, the backlash of the Progressive era curtailed much of their domestic influence (Yes, I'm aware of the banana wars but frankly deploying armed forces to support economic interests is something just about every government that is strong enough to get away with it does. France certainly doesn't hesitate if it's corporations interests in Africa are threatened.). After World War their influence rose again only to fall under the heels of the FDR democrats and remain under those heels until the 70s/80s.

This is a simple problem brought about by the system of capitalism has practiced in the US (and China, and Japan, and elsewhere). Corporations exist to make money. If they can play with the laws, they make more of it. Governments make laws and tax Corporations. Corporations therefore attempt to ensure governments do what they want instead of the other way around. Nations have dealt with this problem in different ways, we tended to use rather soft handed regulations compared to others (I don't recall any nationalizations or executions for example).

The current situation is brought about because one group of elites has decided to represent the corporations desires in a large way and the other party hasn't decided to oppose it. This has happened because voters has a whole haven't demanded that anyone opposed them in a meaningful way.

What's that? Yes, they have? There was the whole occupy wallstreet and so on and so forth? Bullshit. The OWS movement refused to organize politically and wasted it's energy flailing about and being steered by jackasses with stars in their eyes. You'll notice that force was used on them... When it became clear that they were not going to become a political organization but rather a bunch of people griping in tents. They became no threat to the politicians job prospects and the police moved in and threw them out.

The tea party did organize as a political movement and they got treated with soft hands. You can scream billionaires all you want (what there are no leftist billionaires now? The Reverend King didn't happen to face an entrenched system of brutal elites who were determined to stop him? Cry some more! That'll Help!) but in the end, one side threatened to vote and got what it wanted and the other side threatened to stay in tents and got a billy club to the face. Figure it out.

To boil it down, it is a consequence of corporations wanting to influence the system for greater profit and no real determined political block opposing them. In our system if enough people with enough money or numbers or both get together and want something, they tend to get it unless another group is working really hard to stop them.

I'm not claiming end of history here, but in ways I think we've potentially tipped past the ability to truly recover the system at this point. Yes, the elites aren't as open in their control as they were in the Gilded Age, but then there is an institutional memory of how hard the pushback can be when control is too openly displayed.

Instead it's simpler to pay lipservice to the concepts of representation while business as usual carries on. The decades of practice gained in advertising and mass manipulation come into play on this, allowing it to be a more soft power approach.

The reason I don't get too glum about it or declare it the end of history is because it's simple evolution of the system. Could it swing back? Right now, I don't see how. Power has become too centralized, while responsibility has diffused too far between the branches of bureaucracy and so on.

On the flip side of that, there is very little that makes politics attractive to the earnest and honest anymore. The supreme scrutiny that public figures undergo now means that every casual utterance has to be carefully considered, every acquaintance has to be weighed for their potential drawbacks. Why would a sane person want to run for president, for example?

Then on the ground level side you get this screeching ignorance, as was typified by OWS. I watched one of the forums where a lot of members from all over the country gathered and talked, and their understanding of damn near everything was so childish and incoherent. They couldn't even run their various People's Republics of Parkistan without disintegrating into drama and squabbling. They touted direct democracy as if it were some new and unprecedented thing rather than a long-discredited notion, and they'd shut down GAs over endless squabbles because some precious snowflake felt marginalized or insulted. I saw people claiming that the very concept of hierarchy was what has created the laundry list of ills they attributed to, well, every society in existence.

What we're seeing here is just part of an ongoing trend. Public education collapsed decades ago, American workforce structures are getting wonkier as time goes by because twenty-odd years ago a lot of companies decided to eschew training in favor of headhunting trained employees, to the point where we have workplaces where people flat out don't know how to work and how to organize, a problem that's creeping up the ladder into management as people are promoted out of need for warm bodies behind desks.

Add into this the 24 hour news cycle distributed via partisan platforms, which really does turn our politics into sport. People can root for their team- winning the White House is winning the Superbowl. Microanalysis of every little slip, gaffe, or twist in the opposition reinforces how stupid, incompetent, yet omnipresent, evil, and threatening they are.

So what do you do in all this? Abide and endure, essentially. If a moment avails itself, take your shot and fix something, but overall American politics are like the weather. It gets stormy and tempestuous and it can be very bad if it lands on you, but rooting for Team Drought or Team Tornado isn't going to really change things.

Some of this stuff will self-correct- the workforce will get it's shit back together as the need for proper training continues to show, for example. As for the government itself, it'll keep lurching along, dispensing joys and miseries in its wake.

I think the healthiest approach to it all is to not take this shit personally, as much as possible. We are still living in about the best place at the best time in history, and it is great to be alive.

What utter rank defeatism. You should be ashamed of yourself Josh, you used to know better then this. You see a few opening skirmishes and declare the other side undefeatable. You hear the bleatings of people widely know to move from protest to protest and make their living that way and declare they speak for an entire generation.

I have seen plenty of people who know how to organize and lead, I have seen plenty of workers who know their crafts. This is no grim twilight of Asgard or the final days of Rome.

Things are rough but they have certainly been worse. We have defeated worse with less. But will certainly not do so with your stance. To be blunt Josh, while I remain now and always your friend... You should simply stop talking politics, if this is going to be your stance, you no longer have anything to bring to the table.

Used to know better, or maybe I learned that we're bailing the ocean with a teaspoon out here.

I did very explicitly say this isn't the end times. However, what is the meaningful fight here? It's not in pretending that the piece-shuffling that comes with a congressional election is supremely meaningful, because we essentially get the same legislation regardless.

It is true that I probably shouldn't talk politics, because I've essentially decided that, given my beliefs, a person gets one shot at life and a life spent in the Quixotic pursuit of political justice probably produces neither satisfaction or justice. People with beliefs enter the system, get ground up and spit back out, or else they sell out and become a part of it.

If a moment comes and there's an opportunity to make a meaningful mark, go for it. My argument boils down to the fact that there is very little that's meaningful in the regular ebb and flow, and getting worked up about it is a fruitless exercise in frustration.

Now when the time comes where we're square up against what I consider to be a serious threat like Santorum, be assured I'll be out there slinging some mud at some fuckers. I'm just not going to get over-excited by the mooks like Obama or Romney, I'm not going to buy into shiny promises of hope and change, nor am I going to accept ideas like a party being on my side.

I disagree that things are super-rough right now. Life in general in America is supremely superior to where it was a bit over a century ago. Hell, over half my maternal grandmother's children weren't even born in a hospital because there weren't any in reach around Little River at the time.

Politics sucks. I affect the things I can reach and do my best to dodge the things I can't.

As for the labor and schooling situation, I see that as a consequence of short-sighted MBA mindsets and those trends tend to self-correct.

Defeatism? Only if you consider American politics to be the supreme expression of a person's life. But around me, I see healers and teachers and philanthropists who bring more good to the world than any ten shrieking political advocates, and that's the side I want to be on.

Oh Please, climb off your high horse and remember who you're talking to. Declaring the system to be utterly wrecked and there is no means of changing is defeatism. As for your lofty declaration of being on the side of healers, teachers, philanthropists... It squares poorly with your earlier declarations. Additionally you treat as if the two things are unrelated and one must be one or the other. If one would see the prior mentioned persons do their best work, then the system they work in must also be addressed. Or are now doctors and teachers suddenly disconnected from the very system they work in? You are attempting to draw a false distinction and choice... To a man raised by pastors.

The blunt fact is that one does not have to chose one or the other as you have suggested and that working in one field benefits the other.

Teachers do as much good as the teaching system allows them to do, just ask Hotfoot who spent time in it after you left. Doctors, nurses and others do as much good as the system of laws and society allow them to do. Philanthropists do as much good as the resources the system allows them to gather can do. Anyone who does not believe me, may check history and do some anthropological work viewing other systems and what goes on in them.

As for your continued insistence that Santorum will somehow be a threat, despite being unable to rally support in his own home state or anywhere outside of a shrinking region of the union... I suggest you put the cart before the horse. 4 years is a long time and to pretend you know who will raise to the top of the GOP power games when we're unsure of who will be in charge at the end of this year is frankly Josh unbelievable. I'm not trying to insult you here but in all honesty and good faith, you are taking positions that have nothing to back them and are riddled with holes. In respect to the op I won't pursue the Santorum issue any further, that's not the point of the thread. I am of course at your disposal via PM or any other mode of communication you wish.

All that said, if you truly believe you will only benefit by withdrawing from politics, then do so. If you feel you can be of greater use doing other things, then go do so. But do not pretend or preach the idea that doing so makes you morally superior to those trying to mend and improve the system that frankly you are depending on to give you the space to do your good works. I don't that crap theologically from the fundamentalists and I won't take that crap socially or politically. Not even from a friend.

A few points. Havoc may identify himself as conservative in the mold of the Eisenhower Republican, but that's different than identifying as a Republican. My point to rhoenix, when it was made, was people identifying with political parties based family or regional tradition with little regard to what the modern incarnations of those parties actually do and represent.

The second is that we crawl forward. Global Warming and over population serious problems and they will fuck us up if they aren't met (but not as badly as they will fuck the developing world) but small pox survives only in a few test tubes, running water and electricity are common in much of the world, global communication is only getting easier, treatment of women and minorities has steadily improved in much of the world, and we can do organ transplants. That doesn't mean we should underplay how serious our problems are, but we shouldn't go running around weeping in despair.

frigidmagi wrote:Oh Please, climb off your high horse and remember who you're talking to. Declaring the system to be utterly wrecked and there is no means of changing is defeatism. As for your lofty declaration of being on the side of healers, teachers, philanthropists... It squares poorly with your earlier declarations. Additionally you treat as if the two things are unrelated and one must be one or the other. If one would see the prior mentioned persons do their best work, then the system they work in must also be addressed. Or are now doctors and teachers suddenly disconnected from the very system they work in? You are attempting to draw a false distinction and choice... To a man raised by pastors.

The blunt fact is that one does not have to chose one or the other as you have suggested and that working in one field benefits the other.

Teachers do as much good as the teaching system allows them to do, just ask Hotfoot who spent time in it after you left. Doctors, nurses and others do as much good as the system of laws and society allow them to do. Philanthropists do as much good as the resources the system allows them to gather can do. Anyone who does not believe me, may check history and do some anthropological work viewing other systems and what goes on in them.

As for your continued insistence that Santorum will somehow be a threat, despite being unable to rally support in his own home state or anywhere outside of a shrinking region of the union... I suggest you put the cart before the horse. 4 years is a long time and to pretend you know who will raise to the top of the GOP power games when we're unsure of who will be in charge at the end of this year is frankly Josh unbelievable. I'm not trying to insult you here but in all honesty and good faith, you are taking positions that have nothing to back them and are riddled with holes. In respect to the op I won't pursue the Santorum issue any further, that's not the point of the thread. I am of course at your disposal via PM or any other mode of communication you wish.

All that said, if you truly believe you will only benefit by withdrawing from politics, then do so. If you feel you can be of greater use doing other things, then go do so. But do not pretend or preach the idea that doing so makes you morally superior to those trying to mend and improve the system that frankly you are depending on to give you the space to do your good works. I don't that crap theologically from the fundamentalists and I won't take that crap socially or politically. Not even from a friend.

I'll give you this: I'm sure I have come across as sanctimonious about being above the game or whatever. And in consideration of the fact that it does shit in places where people are attempting to have discussions about the issues, regardless of how I feel about the validity of the positions being taken or the affiliations of those involved it's basically shitty and prima-donna-ish. So I'll say here and now that I'll aim to stop doing that and feel free to slap me in the face with it if I cross over that particular line again.

That said, you're burning straw over to the right of me here. As I said, I have no beef with picking your fights and making them where necessary. The Santorum example was part of that because I feel as though the Palin wing has glommed onto him. Which is where I'll leave that and sure, if you want to pick it up in PMs I'm game as ever.

What I'm saying is that life is a balancing act. You've got the deeds you can do, the duties you can fulfill, and for the most of us that's best delivered by affecting what we can reach. Look a the time, energy, passion, and venom that we've expended over the years in pursuit of political ideologies, and then show me where the people in our circle have truly affected the national scope of politics, let alone the global. Literally thousands of pages of arguments, clogging poor Ted's tubes as we search for citations to prove our points and win the day, for... what?

Mind you, this isn't even an argument that I'm truly directing at you. But I do know people that that's all they do. They spend their days chasing the latest tidbits from Fox or Drudge or MSNBC or Huffpost or whatever, then they go around lecturing everybody in reach about the evils of the opposition. They get into passionate rants online and they burn all their spare energies in pursuit of a system that takes people like them and simply counts them as an asset.

I mean, hell, if you want to get politically involved the average city council and school board have more than enough dirt and drek to keep an active person occupied for a lifetime.

Does that constitute a betrayal of the larger fight? Shit, if that's how you want to take it then there it is. I do vote, every election and I do my best to stay informed on the candidates, despite the futility of running as anything but a Republican around these parts. In the meantime, I'll stick to what I can reach and I'll live my life.

frigidmagi wrote:Oh Please, climb off your high horse and remember who you're talking to. Declaring the system to be utterly wrecked and there is no means of changing is defeatism. As for your lofty declaration of being on the side of healers, teachers, philanthropists... It squares poorly with your earlier declarations. Additionally you treat as if the two things are unrelated and one must be one or the other. If one would see the prior mentioned persons do their best work, then the system they work in must also be addressed. Or are now doctors and teachers suddenly disconnected from the very system they work in? You are attempting to draw a false distinction and choice... To a man raised by pastors.

The blunt fact is that one does not have to chose one or the other as you have suggested and that working in one field benefits the other.

Teachers do as much good as the teaching system allows them to do, just ask Hotfoot who spent time in it after you left. Doctors, nurses and others do as much good as the system of laws and society allow them to do. Philanthropists do as much good as the resources the system allows them to gather can do. Anyone who does not believe me, may check history and do some anthropological work viewing other systems and what goes on in them.

As for your continued insistence that Santorum will somehow be a threat, despite being unable to rally support in his own home state or anywhere outside of a shrinking region of the union... I suggest you put the cart before the horse. 4 years is a long time and to pretend you know who will raise to the top of the GOP power games when we're unsure of who will be in charge at the end of this year is frankly Josh unbelievable. I'm not trying to insult you here but in all honesty and good faith, you are taking positions that have nothing to back them and are riddled with holes. In respect to the op I won't pursue the Santorum issue any further, that's not the point of the thread. I am of course at your disposal via PM or any other mode of communication you wish.

All that said, if you truly believe you will only benefit by withdrawing from politics, then do so. If you feel you can be of greater use doing other things, then go do so. But do not pretend or preach the idea that doing so makes you morally superior to those trying to mend and improve the system that frankly you are depending on to give you the space to do your good works. I don't that crap theologically from the fundamentalists and I won't take that crap socially or politically. Not even from a friend.

I have to say, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one beating this particular drum.

Partisan politics has been a feature of this country since its inception. It has seen the US through twenty wars, fifty-five presidential elections, one hundred and Twelve Congresses, two dozen depressions, a civil war, a cold war, and many, many rounds of social upheaval, some of which are still ongoing. Partisan politics dragged everyone kicking and screaming through all of those things. It is, as we all remember, the worst form of government in the world, except of course for the others that have been tried from time to time.

Dismiss it all as useless if you like, but I question how unimportant a subject can be if you're willing to invest that much time explaining your lack of interest to us all.

General Havoc wrote:Dismiss it all as useless if you like, but I question how unimportant a subject can be if you're willing to invest that much time explaining your lack of interest to us all.

Truth? It's probably venting. This is about the only place I even discuss politics at all anymore but I'm generally surrounded by hooyah Team Redders.

Josh wrote:Truth? It's probably venting. This is about the only place I even discuss politics at all anymore but I'm generally surrounded by hooyah Team Redders.

That.... sucks. A lot. Really nothing else I can say except that. Take heart that those team redders appear to be heading for another defeat come November, at least if the analysts I trust are correct about it.

General Havoc wrote:That.... sucks. A lot. Really nothing else I can say except that. Take heart that those team redders appear to be heading for another defeat come November, at least if the analysts I trust are correct about it.

Yeah well the problem is that I don't take any heart from a win for the Dems either and I'd be just as irritated to be living in deep blue country too.

I'm just a finicky bitch at heart.

It's cool, though.