So I been thinking as of late. Pondering the questions once posed. What is that he needs?

But as he pondered, he began to thaw out. Re-discovering the things he once knew, but in a different light. It felt good. The problem? He moves to slow. I mean, maybe its not even that.. maybe he just started too late. After all, can an object who started late ever hope to catch up to another object who is traveling ahead at the same pace? Whatever.

When you start to look at people in a new light, suddenly they loose their light. That essence that once permeated from them becomes very human. For instance, Parents. They are not higher than the child. Police, same shit. Presidents, soldiers, priest, shamans, preachers, doctors, activists, actors, super stars, scientists, lovers, all the same. It all boils down to one thing; that they are human. Human, human, human. So why all the reverence for these people? Why give them all  your trust or unconditional love? Love isn't blind. That's stupid. Love is consciousness, engagement, confrontation, and eventually respect. Love is something that has to be re-examined in our modern day society, because it is quite clear that we have no fucking clue what it is. Chemicals? That's part of it, but there's more to it. After all, can a druggie be in love with his drugs? No, thats attachment, reliance, dependancy, obsession... not love.

As for blind trust in our "professionals"? (doctors, judges, police, politicians, soldiers clergy, etc) Well, so what? they're still people. They are very much capable of committing just as many mistakes as you or I. They do not require your blind devotion/trust. This whole obsession with being "nice" or not being "rude" has got to stop. These people are often made to feel privileged and above the rest of us because of this. They are not above you, and deep inside they know this too. However, we ourselves help convince them otherwise by our refusal to engage in reality.

Fuck. I completely went off. Well I guess it had a connection but still.. the point here is reality, truth, life. Whatever. This is what the answer to the aforementioned question, "what is it that he needs?". He needs it because he once had it and now feels deprived.. no, robbed of it.

The new question then remains...

If he has what he seeks, then why does it feel incomplete? Why does it.. elude him?

And so it goes...

The feel of this years democratic primaries have, from the beginning felt like a circus freak show. Hey, look at the women trying to be a man! Hey, look! black guy trying to be a white man! I mean not that the prospect of having a woman or black president isn't a big deal, but the way the media has played it is well, just down right questionable (to put it lightly). But hey, what can we expect from the crap we call the "media" nowadays? *Shivers*.

I'm writing this because to be honest, I'm not quite sure what is bothering me about this race. All I know is that something is amiss. It's like a storm beyond the horizon in which no one can see but through the electricity in the air, the rise in humidity, the shifting winds, the scent of wet dirt, you know is coming. Maybe that was a bad analogy. I'm not suggesting that something horrible is coming out of this.. just the feeling that there is something almost sinister which I can't perceive. The media, duh.. but something else. Why would the media focus so much attention on the woman vs black (representative of minorities) aspects of the race?

First of all, everybody who has ever been into progressive politics knows that women and people of color have made huge strides in bridging their causes together as of recently. And though there is still much friction between women and men (mostly created by men), the advancement of both causes continue to grow. I keep thinking about the still small, but ever growing anti-war backlash going on in the country. The fact that women, and people of color have been very critical of the war has been something that has brought many groups together. And lets face it, our government loves unity, especially when it is an oppositional force. So what does the government have to do with the medias portrayal of this years election? Well, one only needs to look at the strangle hold the government now has over the media to understand. Go back in time, say Vietnam era and look into media archives from that era and tell me what is different now? Censorship. This also explains why Americans haven't reached critical mass when it comes to the issue of ending the war. Of course, like most things, the truth has a way of slipping out and as more and more people start learning bits and pieces of the truth the anger begins to propel them a new direction. One of opposition. So what does an administration hell bent on war do to turn the tide or at least deflect some of that hostility?

1) Give them "hidden" boogie men to fear/hate or simply divert their attention. (This has the dual purpose of diverting peoples attention and dividing them).

-Immigrants

-Terrorist

-Threat of nuclear war (an all time favorite)

-Poor people who leech of the system

-woman vs. black president!

2) Give them government handouts to the poor, or even better handouts for the wealthy disguised as help for us all.

-Raise minimum wage

-Tax breaks

-Cut interest rates

-Economic packages

-Economic assistance to third world countries/tour poor nations. -_-

Just to name a few...

Hmm, but then I can't help but wonder, am I over analyzing things? What if all these things are just coincidental? What if the media is just responding to the trends that bring them more profit? But does that make sense? Does a lack of decent coverage of war lead to higher profit/viewers? Sounds a bit farfetched if you ask me. And so, though I admit that all these thoughts are based of opinion and educated guesses at best, I cannot deny the nagging pull that something is terribly wrong.

And to tell you the truth, I don't think that the attention garnered by these two candidate stops simply there. The sinister aspect which is much harder to grasp still eludes me. It could very well be a manifestation of "hidden" beliefs that women, no matter what color, are still inferior to men. Heh, I guess that is one of the reasons why this bothers me (among others). The fact that an inexperienced but charming man can and will beat a women of great experience. This isn't some appeal to people to change their minds about Obama, because frankly, I am one of his supporters. Still I can't deny those prevailing feelings of suspicion that I've described.

I think I will stop here for now. And though I walk away from this with a strong sense of confusion, I at least feel that the unraveling of the truth has been set in motion. I may or may not change my mind as more things become apparent in the months leading up to the elections. I will watch critically, I will continue to be a student to the truth, but I will reject all forms of absolute truths as well.