It is what it is

What do you care what other people think?

Before having Q, I recall occasionally seeing a child walking down the street in some odd or seemingly inappropriate get-up - perhaps wearing a pirate costume (nowhere close to Halloween) or a bathing suit with rain boots on a nice spring day, and I would wonder what was going on.

Since having Q, I no longer wonder. The answer has become clear, and for me it lies somewhere between "pick your battles" and "does it really hurt anyone"?

I had a good example of this today. Q has for some reason got it into his head that Easter is the greatest holiday ever and has spent the past few days talking about how the Easter Bunny will visit us next month.  Today he scored the mother lode at the art store when he asked me to buy him a pair of bunny ears (think hair band with bunny ears attached).  He then proceeded to wear said bunny ears for the rest of the day -  including while we played tennis for an hour, and for our walk through downtown Boulder.

As we walked through town, we got many amused looks from people on the street, and Q took any opportunity that presented itself to explain to passersby the glories of the Easter Bunny (as well as EB's friend Bugs Bunny - all bunnies are apparently friends).  Experiences like this make me very aware just how much we often conform to what's "normal." I'm not saying that I have a deep longing to roam around town in bunny ears, but I guess it would be kind of nice if some of the same eccentricities we allow for children were more acceptable in adults.  Maybe that's one of the perks of having a kid - you get to experience a lot more freedom of expression, get over the uptight concern of "what will people think?" and generally let your freak flag fly.  If I walk down the street with Q singing "The Yellow Submarine," people smile.  If I walk down the street singing it by myself, people cross the street or try not to make eye contact. (okay, I'm projecting here, I've never actually walked down the street singing anything.)

It made me think of the Richard Feynman book, "What do you care what other people think?". Feynman fared well for himself pursuing a less orthodox approach to things, as he chronicled in his various books.   For me, this book's title is a good question to reflect upon occasionally. 

The Democratic Party owes me two hours

A (delayed) assessment of the caucus process....

I consider the Democratic caucus that I attended on February 5 to be one of the stupidest uses of 2+ hours of my time in recent memory.  It is simply incomprehensible that in the United States in 2008 there is still anyone who considers this the best way to run a primary.

This was the first caucus I've ever attended, so I'm going to describe the experience for those who remain blissfully ignorant of how a caucus is managed.  At the primary site I was assigned to, I would guess there were approximately 450 people.  Registration began at 6:15, so I think people were checking in until 6:45 or 7. Then we got to all cram into an elementary school gymnasium and listen to a quick introductions, followed by two minute speeches on behalf of the candidates (presidential as well as lower offices).  To be kind, not all of these speakers were exactly the best representatives the candidates could have offered.  But even considering the better ones, it felt entirely appropriate that we were in an elementary school, because that was the level it felt like the speeches would have been more appropriate for.

After the speeches were done, we broke into precinct groups, and then the real idiocy began.  There were about 150 people at this point, now packed into the school's library.  The organizer asked for a show of hands of who was for Clinton - A SHOW OF HANDS?!?! - and then began going around the room trying to count hands.  A suggestion from the crowd led to each person counting off a number as they put their hand down.  The same counting process happened for Obama.  At this point the groups were separated and the numbers needed to be re-counted to make sure they were accurate - again, several suggestions from the crowd on how to ensure accuracy, and then finally it was decided to hand in the voter cards we had been given at registration to the leader of each sub-group. 

Hmmm. What would be a good way to accurately count the votes? It turns out that a lot of states have actually figured out a remarkably efficient and accurate way to count votes.   It's called a ballot box.  Sitting around an elementary school library raising my hand to have my vote counted, and having spent an hour and a half to get to that point, was utterly ridiculous.  The process then proceeded to elect delegates to represent our groups vote, and then I'm guessing it moved on to the voting for lower offices.  I say "guessing" because at 8:15, two hours after I arrived at the caucus site, I called it a night and headed home (as had a large number of the people who had been there for the presidential vote.)

All in all, I consider this to be  the most inefficient, disenfranchising, ridiculous process for engaging the populace in the election process.  The notion that this encouraged some sort of meaningful discussion of candidates didn't prove true for me, and the biggest topic of discussion I noted was a discussion of the stupidity of the caucus process.  I suspect many people simply didn't feel like spending an entire evening in order to cast their vote and decided to stay home.   There were a lot of people whose spouse was home with the kids because they didn't have a sitter to take care of the kids while they spent 2+ hours in order to vote.  I also resented having to publicly state who they're chosen candidate will be - I think I should be allowed to have my voting preferences remain private if I should so choose.

If it were a simple polling process, I can't help but think there would be higher levels of attendance generally and higher engagement in all of the lower-level races.  I just read a George Will article in which he argues the value of caucuses in part because their annoying and time-consuming nature weeds out the people with only slight or moderate preferences and taps into the more rabid supporters.  While allocating concert tickets based on who's willing to camp out for them the night before may be reasonable, I don't think that's a sensible way to elect a president.  Frankly, I've driven by some of those lines, and most of those people aren't the type I'd task with electing our next president.

Tough Choice

I'm planning to vote at the Democratic caucus in Boulder on Tuesday night, because I think it's generally important to vote, because there are so many critical issues the next president needs to address, and because I'm quite curious about how the caucus process works. My general thought on the caucus itself is that it seems somewhat non-inclusive that the only votes that count are from people who can be available from 6:15-8:45pm this Tuesday.  Regardless, my fascination with organizational behavior forces me to attend.

The trouble I'm having is that I'm just not sure who should get my vote.  There are some specific differences between the candidates that are notable but generally not given too much note -  e.g specifics in health care plans, clarity of the timing regarding withdraw from Iraq - but in the end, more than any election I've been of voting age for, it really does seem like it comes down to a gut feel, a sense of who you think is the right person for the job - largely because of personal qualities, a sense of what attributes are most important in a president, and a sense of who is best matched to the unique challenges we are presently facing.  Somehow this analysis is so much harder than evaluating health plans, views on education, etc. 

In some ways, the fact that I don't find the choice totally clear cut bothers me - I envy the people who seem to be connected to one of the candidates with an almost religious fervor.  It isn't that I don't like both of the candidates - I actually like them both quite a bit. It's just that neither one completely checks all of the boxes of what I'd like to see in a president.   Of course, Ryan reasonably pointed out that it's not as if there is anything that could fully qualify someone for the job of president, but still I'd like to feel a more complete devotion to one of the candidates, more certainty that they were unequivocally the best person for the job.

In most elections in the past, I've found myself annoyed with the "Get out the vote" campaigns, because I've always felt so strongly that the first mission needed to be "Inform the vote", followed by getting out the informed vote.  In some ways, this election is different because although I've been making a reasonable effort to inform my own vote,  it hasn't gotten me any closer to clarity on who I'm going to raise my hand for (or however this caucus thing works.)  I can read debate transcripts and find pros and cons for each of the candidates, I can read position papers and largely agree with both of them. 

I find the second-guessing of who is more equipped to compete in the general election simply presumptuous (I don't really think that many people are qualified as political crystal ball readers). And frankly, I want to vote for who I actually want to win, not play a part in some grand game of political chess. My problem is, I'm just not sure who that person is.

I've got a little less than 48 hours to figure it out, and I really have no idea what I'm going to decide.