The way I see it is certainly oversimplified, but it goes like this. In the 1930's there was financial chaos. We (the people and the government) learned some lessons. Safeguards (regulations) were put in place to make sure those problems could never happen again. Then, over the next 70 years, (actually beginning about 30 years ago) we forgot those lessons - a form of Alzheimers I suppose - and those safeguards were removed - one by one or two by two. Times were good. The effect of removing the safeguards seemed positive. Apparently no one remembered the old lessons. A few, actually, screamed into the deaf void that the long term result could be catastrophic, but no one heard. No one wanted to hear. So here we are again. Those who forget history are surely condemned to repeat it.
I'm tempted to digress into the engineering analogy to the operation of a closed system, but I won't. I will say this along those lines - in order for a system to remain stable there must be feedback (we call it negative feedback, but that's a good thing). Simply put, if the system runs too fast, slow it down. And vice versa. Works that way everywhere. If you don't have negative feedback your system is unstable - it will eventually either stop or go into wild oscillation. Enough engineering analogy already.
I'd be remiss if I left out this little tidbit. The above argument also applies to our activities, all of them, on this planet. I believe that, for the mostpart, we are running open-loop - no feedback. Why? Probably because it is easier and cheaper. But the result will eventually be an unstable system, in this case Earth, and it will not be pretty. The question is, will the intelligent species realize it BEFORE there are terrible lessons to be learned? There may not be a second chance to get it right.
I'm done. I could expand this into a book, but I'm sure someone already has. I hope it gets read!
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Just Thoughts
A few days ago I made a list. Lists are good. My list was issues that I intend to write about. Then I wrote about Energy, one of the items on my list. I guess no one is listening, which doesn't surprise me. I write for my own enjoyment. And I'll probably keep writing, whether anyone reads or not.
In a way, this situation is a lot like the runup to the election. Few are listening. Few are paying attention. There are a million reasons why people don't pay attention. One reason might be simply that when you DO pay attention it will drive you absolutely nuts. Claims, counter claims, outright lies, half truths, mostly trues. I had a thought (unusual nowdays) - wouldn't it be nice if every broadcast and live personal appearance included a truthometer? Right on your TV screen, a gauge to indicate just how much truth is contained in the current statement. Actually there could be two gauges, one for the current statement, and one that averages the truth over all the statements made so far. Conceptually it's an interesting concept. But truth is relative, especially in politics, so it probably wouldn't work.
Still, isn't that part of the role of the 'newscasters' when they conduct interviews? If the person being interviewed makes a statement that is clearly a lie, should not the interviewer call the interviewee on it? Right then and there?! I remember a time when I thought that is what we did. I've always thought the British did it, even to excess.
Much of the time it is easy to determine the FOS quotient (you figure it out. First word is 'Full'). If you just listen. You could take the position that since this person is a politician I will assume every statement is a lie and only change that decision when it is very obvious to me that the statement is true. Actually, I think that is the position those who listen at all take when listening to the 'other side'.
But when listening to the side you like, you take the opposite attitude, don't you? Assume everything is true unless proven otherwise. So I suggest figuring it out - is it innocent until proven guilty, or vice-versa? Then apply the same techinque to both candidates and their spokespersons.
The Obama campaign asked me for advice. I said something like "tell the truth, don't lie - you've been doing a good job, keep it up. Don't get dragged into the gutter". In my opinion, that meter that averages the truth of all statements over time swings heavily in favor of Obama. I hope it stays there. I wish both meters would read very high, but I see no indication that that can happen.
When I started this entry I had no idea where it was headed. I guess I wanted to talk about true lies, or something like that.
In a way, this situation is a lot like the runup to the election. Few are listening. Few are paying attention. There are a million reasons why people don't pay attention. One reason might be simply that when you DO pay attention it will drive you absolutely nuts. Claims, counter claims, outright lies, half truths, mostly trues. I had a thought (unusual nowdays) - wouldn't it be nice if every broadcast and live personal appearance included a truthometer? Right on your TV screen, a gauge to indicate just how much truth is contained in the current statement. Actually there could be two gauges, one for the current statement, and one that averages the truth over all the statements made so far. Conceptually it's an interesting concept. But truth is relative, especially in politics, so it probably wouldn't work.
Still, isn't that part of the role of the 'newscasters' when they conduct interviews? If the person being interviewed makes a statement that is clearly a lie, should not the interviewer call the interviewee on it? Right then and there?! I remember a time when I thought that is what we did. I've always thought the British did it, even to excess.
Much of the time it is easy to determine the FOS quotient (you figure it out. First word is 'Full'). If you just listen. You could take the position that since this person is a politician I will assume every statement is a lie and only change that decision when it is very obvious to me that the statement is true. Actually, I think that is the position those who listen at all take when listening to the 'other side'.
But when listening to the side you like, you take the opposite attitude, don't you? Assume everything is true unless proven otherwise. So I suggest figuring it out - is it innocent until proven guilty, or vice-versa? Then apply the same techinque to both candidates and their spokespersons.
The Obama campaign asked me for advice. I said something like "tell the truth, don't lie - you've been doing a good job, keep it up. Don't get dragged into the gutter". In my opinion, that meter that averages the truth of all statements over time swings heavily in favor of Obama. I hope it stays there. I wish both meters would read very high, but I see no indication that that can happen.
When I started this entry I had no idea where it was headed. I guess I wanted to talk about true lies, or something like that.
Monday, September 15, 2008
McCains Science answers - Finally!
John McCain has answered the 14 science questions. You can see the answers side by side at http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=42.
Speaking for myself, I'd like to see each of these questions debated between John and Barack.
Speaking for myself, I'd like to see each of these questions debated between John and Barack.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Energy
There are at least three primary concerns about energy: 1) running out (renewable); 2) independence (create our own); and 3) clean (no pollution – no greenhouse gasses, no particulates, no residue). We must solve all three. There are also economic issues to consider, and I’m sure there are other issues to include – but I think the three listed are primary in this discussion.
Renewable - When I was in high school, and that was a long time ago, they taught me that based on the then current projections the world would run out of oil around 2050. Although there seem to be continuing arguments about this ‘fact’, ranging from ‘never run out’ to ‘very soon’, to me it seem obvious that at some point we will have pumped the last drop. Oil is not a renewable energy source – it took millions of years to create what we have today. I don’t have much patience with anyone who refuses to acknowledge that we will run out if we don’t change our ways. And, by the way, it will happen in this century – again, if we don’t change our ways. We must develop other sources – it is as simple as that. Drill, baby, drill is not a solution to anything.
Independence – “The largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world”! That’s what the present situation has been called. There are so many things wrong with the present situation – being dependent on other countries, many of which are not exactly our friends being the most obvious problem – that again, it just seems like a no-brainer to be able to create our own energy. We have the technology. It’s cost effective, and getting more cost effective all the time. Why haven’t we done more? Big energy lobbies would be my guess. We could be way down the road to being independent of foreign oil. If only ….
Clean – Whatever our sources of energy, they must be clean. They cannot increase greenhouse gasses, or put any potentially harmful gasses into the atmosphere. The must not pollute the air – no particulates. And they must not create waste products that cannot be disposed of (spent fuel rods, anyone).
There are other things, of course. For instance, if fuel made from corn (or other plants) is part of the solution, then we must solve the problem of balance between raising crops for fuel and raising corps for fuel.
In this election, it seems to me that one side is giving lip service to this subject while the other is offering an approach to solving the problem. One side is infiltrated with energy company lobbyist, the other side does not seem to have any obligations to big money.
What do you think?
Renewable - When I was in high school, and that was a long time ago, they taught me that based on the then current projections the world would run out of oil around 2050. Although there seem to be continuing arguments about this ‘fact’, ranging from ‘never run out’ to ‘very soon’, to me it seem obvious that at some point we will have pumped the last drop. Oil is not a renewable energy source – it took millions of years to create what we have today. I don’t have much patience with anyone who refuses to acknowledge that we will run out if we don’t change our ways. And, by the way, it will happen in this century – again, if we don’t change our ways. We must develop other sources – it is as simple as that. Drill, baby, drill is not a solution to anything.
Independence – “The largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world”! That’s what the present situation has been called. There are so many things wrong with the present situation – being dependent on other countries, many of which are not exactly our friends being the most obvious problem – that again, it just seems like a no-brainer to be able to create our own energy. We have the technology. It’s cost effective, and getting more cost effective all the time. Why haven’t we done more? Big energy lobbies would be my guess. We could be way down the road to being independent of foreign oil. If only ….
Clean – Whatever our sources of energy, they must be clean. They cannot increase greenhouse gasses, or put any potentially harmful gasses into the atmosphere. The must not pollute the air – no particulates. And they must not create waste products that cannot be disposed of (spent fuel rods, anyone).
There are other things, of course. For instance, if fuel made from corn (or other plants) is part of the solution, then we must solve the problem of balance between raising crops for fuel and raising corps for fuel.
In this election, it seems to me that one side is giving lip service to this subject while the other is offering an approach to solving the problem. One side is infiltrated with energy company lobbyist, the other side does not seem to have any obligations to big money.
What do you think?
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Debt, National
It's the economy, voter.
Once upon a time I was good with numbers. Not so much anymore. But there are a few concepts I think I understand when it comes to money.
The next president and congress is going to inherit an economy that is, to put it mildly, in terrible condition. Frankly I do not know how the ship can be righted. But I do know this: One side is talking about it, and one side is trying to avoid talking about it. And neither side has a solution - but that would be asking way too much - if it were easy, well, it might be on the road to recovery right now.
There's a chart I find interesting, as well as a ton of apparently unbiased information (all positions see to be recognized and discussed) at http://www.federalbudget.com/.
Here is what I find most interesting. Look at the chart - this year we are spending $580B on Defense, $675B on Health and Human Services and $490B on Tresury (debt). The candidates and the congress spend oodles of time debating whether or not to spend 2 or 3 billion dollars on, say, education. That's a good debate, but in the overall scheme of things wouldn't it make more sense to concentrate on the really high dollar areas? It's not unlike a homeowner agonizing over whether or not to spend $10 on a magazine subscription, while ignoring the fact that the mortgage could be refinanced and payments reduced by $500 a month!
Well, there, I've exhausted my knowledge of finance. Look at the website. Oh, one other thing. The Republicans claim the Democrats are 'tax and spend'. According to all of the unbiased information I have seen, the proposals on the table have 1) less tax for most Americans by the Democratic plan, and 2) less spending for programs by the Democratic plan! Go figure.
Once upon a time I was good with numbers. Not so much anymore. But there are a few concepts I think I understand when it comes to money.
The next president and congress is going to inherit an economy that is, to put it mildly, in terrible condition. Frankly I do not know how the ship can be righted. But I do know this: One side is talking about it, and one side is trying to avoid talking about it. And neither side has a solution - but that would be asking way too much - if it were easy, well, it might be on the road to recovery right now.
There's a chart I find interesting, as well as a ton of apparently unbiased information (all positions see to be recognized and discussed) at http://www.federalbudget.com/.
Here is what I find most interesting. Look at the chart - this year we are spending $580B on Defense, $675B on Health and Human Services and $490B on Tresury (debt). The candidates and the congress spend oodles of time debating whether or not to spend 2 or 3 billion dollars on, say, education. That's a good debate, but in the overall scheme of things wouldn't it make more sense to concentrate on the really high dollar areas? It's not unlike a homeowner agonizing over whether or not to spend $10 on a magazine subscription, while ignoring the fact that the mortgage could be refinanced and payments reduced by $500 a month!
Well, there, I've exhausted my knowledge of finance. Look at the website. Oh, one other thing. The Republicans claim the Democrats are 'tax and spend'. According to all of the unbiased information I have seen, the proposals on the table have 1) less tax for most Americans by the Democratic plan, and 2) less spending for programs by the Democratic plan! Go figure.
Which One Has the Crisis ?! |
Friday, September 12, 2008
Check the facts
If you haven't discovered it already, this organization is perhaps the best information source to use in this election. FactCheck.Org.
Here is their analysis of the latest McCain Ad. They are equally diligent about both sides.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/belittling_palin.html
Here is their analysis of the latest McCain Ad. They are equally diligent about both sides.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/belittling_palin.html
Nice Break!
Wasn't it nice to have a day without a lot of politics!?! Did you watch John and Barack at the ServiceNation Presidential Forum? I thought that was good and relatively non political, as intended.
But now it is back to business - here are the two newest ads from Obama. Yes, I know, I'm not writing my own feelings here - but these two ads represent some of my feelings. I will write more later today.
But now it is back to business - here are the two newest ads from Obama. Yes, I know, I'm not writing my own feelings here - but these two ads represent some of my feelings. I will write more later today.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Obama Phoenix Office
Today the Phoenix office for Obama had an opening ceremony. I went. It was hot. I'm guessing about 1000 folks showed up. Terry Goddard (attorney general) and Janet Napolitano (governor) were there to speak. It was good - short and to the point. I'm on a list to volunteer for something - just waiting for the call!
It's interesting, sort of, that as one drives around Phoenix one would not know there is a presidential election going on. No signs, no bumper stickers (I have bumper stickers, but I haven't seen any others), nothing - for either candidate. In a town where folks still display Bush '00 and Bush '04 bumper stickers (don't see many of those anymore either), it's almost strange. I'm sure it will change.
It's interesting, sort of, that as one drives around Phoenix one would not know there is a presidential election going on. No signs, no bumper stickers (I have bumper stickers, but I haven't seen any others), nothing - for either candidate. In a town where folks still display Bush '00 and Bush '04 bumper stickers (don't see many of those anymore either), it's almost strange. I'm sure it will change.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
The 'debates'
What do you think about the debates? I know, they haven't started yet, but let's talk about the debates.
From Webster - debate: a contention by words or arguments: as a: the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b: a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides
I'll start. So far, over the last several elections, the word 'debate' has apparently taken a new meaning. I though a debate was the interactive discussion of a subject by persons or groups that had differing views on that subject. Perhaps the 'interactive' aspect is what I am wrong about. But I would really like to see a debate.
What I don't want to see is what we have been subjected to for the last several elections - timed speeches, and the same speeches that have been used on the campaign trail ad nauseam. Moderator name a subject, 2 minute speech, 2 minute response, 1 minute rebuttal, 1 minute rebuttal, next subject. That's not a debate, it's a sound byte photo op.
Not only that, but I want the moderators to remind the participants what the question is/was when they stray off of the subject, which they always will. It's like each candidate has prepared 30 or so answers, and they will use these answers regardless of what the question is. With luck they may have an answer to the question/issue in their quiver, and they may be smart/quick enough to pick the answer they should use.
I guess I want a regulated discussion, and I guess I don't feel like that is what we are presented with.
What do you think?
From Webster - debate: a contention by words or arguments: as a: the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b: a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides
I'll start. So far, over the last several elections, the word 'debate' has apparently taken a new meaning. I though a debate was the interactive discussion of a subject by persons or groups that had differing views on that subject. Perhaps the 'interactive' aspect is what I am wrong about. But I would really like to see a debate.
What I don't want to see is what we have been subjected to for the last several elections - timed speeches, and the same speeches that have been used on the campaign trail ad nauseam. Moderator name a subject, 2 minute speech, 2 minute response, 1 minute rebuttal, 1 minute rebuttal, next subject. That's not a debate, it's a sound byte photo op.
Not only that, but I want the moderators to remind the participants what the question is/was when they stray off of the subject, which they always will. It's like each candidate has prepared 30 or so answers, and they will use these answers regardless of what the question is. With luck they may have an answer to the question/issue in their quiver, and they may be smart/quick enough to pick the answer they should use.
I guess I want a regulated discussion, and I guess I don't feel like that is what we are presented with.
What do you think?
Monday, September 8, 2008
Just some lies
I'm very tired of the outright lies. Half truths I can deal with. Repeating a lie over and over and over again may actually work with some voters, and that bothers me. Here's an answer to some of the crap (aka message) McCain has approved.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/liesadresponse
I'm also a little tired, so this is it for today.
PS: Tuesday morning Seth posted this story on his blog:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/liesadresponse
I'm also a little tired, so this is it for today.
PS: Tuesday morning Seth posted this story on his blog:
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Issue - Right to Life vs. Right to Choose
This is probably the most clearly defined issue in this election. For many people this issue alone defines the election and decides who they will vote for. That's just sick and wrong, of course, but the issue of abortion seems to be more polarizing than just about any other issue. I would argue that - on the grand scheme of things - there are issues which should be more important - energy for instance, or perhaps the economy. Water and food for the world - how many die daily from lack of water or food? How many are miserable? This list of important issues could go on forever, but by now you either understand my point or you never will.
On abortion we may never agree. My position is this:
1) Any view on abortion is based on belief;
2) I believe 'life' begins at birth, not at conception - abortion does not violate the commandment 'thou shall not kill';
3) I could modify the above (birth) to include not just natural birth, but beginning when the child can be removed from the womb and be reasonably expected to be a normal, healthy human. This point in fetus development is extremely difficult to define;
4) I do not enjoy the concept of abortion; (does this surprise you?)
5) I believe the mother and the father should have a choice;
6) Outlawing abortion will not stop abortion, or even slow the number of abortions;
7) If abortion is made illegal, it will return to the squalid conditions of the early 1900's, where coathangers were the tools, and no doctor was in sight. Not only will the potential new life be erased, the mother has a less than 50% chance of survival as well, and if she does survive, may never be able to conceive again;
There may be more to my view, but this is what I can think of just off the top of my head for now.
However, there are a few other things concerning this issue of abortion that make me go 'hmmmmm?'. For this I'm going to, fairly or not, put all "right to life'ers" in one bucket. Let's talk about death. Because that's what it's all about, right?
To me it seems that the "right to life'ers" put abortion at the top of their list of things they want to put a stop to, and they trace their strong feelings directly back to that commandment in the bible, 'thou shall not kill'. There is a lot of killing going on in this world - how, in their mind, does abortion rate the number one position in the list of 'killing to oppose'? How about some of these?
1) Vehicular;
2) War;
3) Genocide, Ethnic cleansing;
4) Disease;
5) Crime.
The list is really quite long. I want to include long term killing as well - things that could eventually kill millions, like poisoning rivers, which creates huge dead zones in the oceans and seas, and could eventually lead to the complete destruction of life in the ocean - which would in turn probably result in termination of life on earth; or deforestation and destruction of habitat for the diverse species needed to sustain a balanced ecology, again possibly resulting in the planet no longer being capable of sustaining life.
Yes, these are all subjects of other essays, but they are related to abortion. They are related in this way. The same group that professes to oppose abortion, the Republicans, do not recognize these things as a problem, and therefore have no plan to address them. To me that seems like such a total contradiction within their own philosophy that I don't see how they can remain sane! Okay, that's a little extreme, perhaps, but really, it boils down to 'acceptable killing' and 'unacceptable killing'.
If you don't like abortion, don't do it. That's simple minded, I agree, but that is, to me, what it boils down to. Practice your beliefs. Don't impose your beliefs on me. Please.
On abortion we may never agree. My position is this:
1) Any view on abortion is based on belief;
2) I believe 'life' begins at birth, not at conception - abortion does not violate the commandment 'thou shall not kill';
3) I could modify the above (birth) to include not just natural birth, but beginning when the child can be removed from the womb and be reasonably expected to be a normal, healthy human. This point in fetus development is extremely difficult to define;
4) I do not enjoy the concept of abortion; (does this surprise you?)
5) I believe the mother and the father should have a choice;
6) Outlawing abortion will not stop abortion, or even slow the number of abortions;
7) If abortion is made illegal, it will return to the squalid conditions of the early 1900's, where coathangers were the tools, and no doctor was in sight. Not only will the potential new life be erased, the mother has a less than 50% chance of survival as well, and if she does survive, may never be able to conceive again;
There may be more to my view, but this is what I can think of just off the top of my head for now.
However, there are a few other things concerning this issue of abortion that make me go 'hmmmmm?'. For this I'm going to, fairly or not, put all "right to life'ers" in one bucket. Let's talk about death. Because that's what it's all about, right?
To me it seems that the "right to life'ers" put abortion at the top of their list of things they want to put a stop to, and they trace their strong feelings directly back to that commandment in the bible, 'thou shall not kill'. There is a lot of killing going on in this world - how, in their mind, does abortion rate the number one position in the list of 'killing to oppose'? How about some of these?
1) Vehicular;
2) War;
3) Genocide, Ethnic cleansing;
4) Disease;
5) Crime.
The list is really quite long. I want to include long term killing as well - things that could eventually kill millions, like poisoning rivers, which creates huge dead zones in the oceans and seas, and could eventually lead to the complete destruction of life in the ocean - which would in turn probably result in termination of life on earth; or deforestation and destruction of habitat for the diverse species needed to sustain a balanced ecology, again possibly resulting in the planet no longer being capable of sustaining life.
Yes, these are all subjects of other essays, but they are related to abortion. They are related in this way. The same group that professes to oppose abortion, the Republicans, do not recognize these things as a problem, and therefore have no plan to address them. To me that seems like such a total contradiction within their own philosophy that I don't see how they can remain sane! Okay, that's a little extreme, perhaps, but really, it boils down to 'acceptable killing' and 'unacceptable killing'.
If you don't like abortion, don't do it. That's simple minded, I agree, but that is, to me, what it boils down to. Practice your beliefs. Don't impose your beliefs on me. Please.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
From Jon Stewart
The Daily Show was exceptional Friday after the Republican convention was over.
Watch this video - especially from 4:50 - 5:50 - it says it all.
And what that video doesn't say, this one does - in spades! especially from 3:30 on.
Watch this video - especially from 4:50 - 5:50 - it says it all.
And what that video doesn't say, this one does - in spades! especially from 3:30 on.
Friday, September 5, 2008
The conventions are over
Hi.
Both parties have had their parties. Quite something, were they not?
Our road trip is over and a lot of things are 'back to normal' here at home.
I'm going to try to say something in this blog every day until the election. Let me know what you think (I know you will).
Today, while I was cutting the grass, here is what I was thinking. You have to think about something while cutting grass - usually I'm remembering parts of my childhood, most specifically my Mother chiding me for the patterns I cut in the grass. Before you go down the wrong path, the patterns she saw were what to me were the natural curvatures and boundaries within the yard - a bank here, a tree there. I wasn't doing graffiti, or anything obscene.
I respect and admire John McCain. I'm not just saying that, I sincerely mean it. I don't agree with him on many things. He has my respect and admiration because of his military performance - he is truly a hero. And he truly loves America, as do we all.
It is possible, as has been proven many times, for a well respected person to lose that respect, usually by doing something heinous - breaking the law, lying about getting a blow job, whatever. There is a very real danger that John McCain could lose at least some of the respect and admiration he enjoys in this country. That danger is this: going too far negative and far too negative in the remaining campaign. By attacking people instead of issues. By total misrepresentation (lying?) about the position/plan of the other guy.
This has been, historically, a big part of the Republican way of doing things, and it apparently works. It certainly did work in the two previous elections. The Democrats are not above this either, but in my opinion they either are not as good at doing it or they can't stomach the concept of lying to win. They tend to just put their position on the table and expect the American people to recognize 1) what the truth is, and 2) which plan is better, more to their liking. The problem is that with the absolute ocean of information and misinformation it isn't possible for the average Jill or Jack to weed through it all - and by the way, that certainly includes me.
We all can recognize a positive campaign and a negative campaign. Ask yourself, which do you appreciate and believe? I can only answer for my self - I want a positive campaign. I want a campaign where the candidates push their own programs, their own plans, their platform. And I want the candidates to be able to compare their plans with the plan of their opponent. I want (I want, I want.....) discussions to stay on point.
Here's a simple example of what I mean by that. When discussing plans for education, stick to plans for education. Debate the merits of the voucher program for instance. Debate what our educational priorities should be. Debate the concepts. Debate the details. Debate the cost. Debate the return. But don't transition the debate to taxes (HOW are you going to pay for it?). When this happens, all of the important (red meat) of the discussion is lost. Taxes are a separate issue, to be debated at length. Paying for a program is certainly a part of the discussion of that program, government income and outgo (budget, balanced?) is a big enough subject in itself.
So stay on point.
I haven't done a good job of saying on point in this blog. Perhaps that's why I'm not a candidate?!
Both parties have had their parties. Quite something, were they not?
Our road trip is over and a lot of things are 'back to normal' here at home.
I'm going to try to say something in this blog every day until the election. Let me know what you think (I know you will).
Today, while I was cutting the grass, here is what I was thinking. You have to think about something while cutting grass - usually I'm remembering parts of my childhood, most specifically my Mother chiding me for the patterns I cut in the grass. Before you go down the wrong path, the patterns she saw were what to me were the natural curvatures and boundaries within the yard - a bank here, a tree there. I wasn't doing graffiti, or anything obscene.
I respect and admire John McCain. I'm not just saying that, I sincerely mean it. I don't agree with him on many things. He has my respect and admiration because of his military performance - he is truly a hero. And he truly loves America, as do we all.
It is possible, as has been proven many times, for a well respected person to lose that respect, usually by doing something heinous - breaking the law, lying about getting a blow job, whatever. There is a very real danger that John McCain could lose at least some of the respect and admiration he enjoys in this country. That danger is this: going too far negative and far too negative in the remaining campaign. By attacking people instead of issues. By total misrepresentation (lying?) about the position/plan of the other guy.
This has been, historically, a big part of the Republican way of doing things, and it apparently works. It certainly did work in the two previous elections. The Democrats are not above this either, but in my opinion they either are not as good at doing it or they can't stomach the concept of lying to win. They tend to just put their position on the table and expect the American people to recognize 1) what the truth is, and 2) which plan is better, more to their liking. The problem is that with the absolute ocean of information and misinformation it isn't possible for the average Jill or Jack to weed through it all - and by the way, that certainly includes me.
We all can recognize a positive campaign and a negative campaign. Ask yourself, which do you appreciate and believe? I can only answer for my self - I want a positive campaign. I want a campaign where the candidates push their own programs, their own plans, their platform. And I want the candidates to be able to compare their plans with the plan of their opponent. I want (I want, I want.....) discussions to stay on point.
Here's a simple example of what I mean by that. When discussing plans for education, stick to plans for education. Debate the merits of the voucher program for instance. Debate what our educational priorities should be. Debate the concepts. Debate the details. Debate the cost. Debate the return. But don't transition the debate to taxes (HOW are you going to pay for it?). When this happens, all of the important (red meat) of the discussion is lost. Taxes are a separate issue, to be debated at length. Paying for a program is certainly a part of the discussion of that program, government income and outgo (budget, balanced?) is a big enough subject in itself.
So stay on point.
I haven't done a good job of saying on point in this blog. Perhaps that's why I'm not a candidate?!
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Science
Please check out http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=40. You'll find a fairly comprehensive plan and policy that Barack Obama has established. Warning! It is not sound bytes, and will take some time to read.
I feel that this demonstrates the positive and eliminates the negative. It is what he will do. There are only two negative references to the Bush administration.
There is certainly a lot of room for discussion, but this is a clear starting point, and it is a starting point I can accept and embrace. I just wish I could help, and be a part of it. Maybe I can.
I feel that this demonstrates the positive and eliminates the negative. It is what he will do. There are only two negative references to the Bush administration.
There is certainly a lot of room for discussion, but this is a clear starting point, and it is a starting point I can accept and embrace. I just wish I could help, and be a part of it. Maybe I can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)