Politics » Stand Aside

Policies of Progress

Written while watching the heat of Super Duper Tuesday 2008:

I realized more than ever that this election is going to be historic, with Barack Obama mobilizing the nation’s youth, and with Hillary Clinton expanding her group of loyal supporters – the first ever potential female or black U.S. president!

This is incredible! The only other place I’ve seen crowds with the energy and size of Obama’s supporters has been major rock concerts. His speech writer is really good, especially when matched with Obama’s vocal expertise.

Hillary Clinton also generates large boisterous crowds. Her support is widespread across the nation. As can be supposed her husband, Bill, is playing a key role in the campaign. I’d have to assume that all her popularity in the past years has carried over well into the primaries and caucuses. [P.S. when you do a google image search for "Hillary Clinton" a lot of funny images are the first to appear.]

I wonder who either dem candidate may take as their VP if elected…

McCain is really old. He is definitely a senior citizen. I really doubt that his age and years in Washington is an advantage this election season. It seems that if he were pitted against Hillary or Barack, they would be running circles around him. The experience McCain has built up is really attractive but I don’t know if his physical condition would make him a good leader to wield that experience.

Huckabee. I really don’t have much to say about him. He is very religious and just seems a little off kilter when discussing topics with the media. I’m not
saying handling the media is easy, but just that being a candidate for President he should be able to handle questions with more thought than he has.

Romney is another who I really don’t have much to say about. I see him as being a third rank candidate.

So as we get ready to send off President Bush into the relaxing days of Texas retirement, lets make sure the next president is able to pick up right where he left off and even go back to fix the overlooked snags in the lines of liberty. [<-- good line!]

Which presidential candidate will meet my goals?

Should I vote for a presidential candidate that will help me satisfy all my goals and beliefs in the next four years?

… that will help me satisfy all my goals/beliefs in the next ten years?
… in the next lifetime?
… ever?

Another question I could ask myself is whether or not this candidate provides for the well-being of myself, my family, my friends, and my country.

Recently, I was conversing with some friends on the current status of our lives, our world, and what may be in store for us in the future. My outlook is broken up into periods- the week ahead, month ahead, 1.5 year ahead, 2.5 year ahead, and then 12.5 year ahead. It is difficult for me to ponder anything beyond that time frame. I plan on picking a candidate that provides for the best environment for me to live my life and for my future to live its life.

We had talked about what we thought were the best ways of going about researching and choosing a candidate that meets our wants and needs. Here are the results, a condensed and paraphrased list of 3 basic steps which we thought worked best:

1. Sketch a rough picture of what you would like to accomplish in the next year and in the next ten years.

This enables you to decide what is important to you in regards to your short-term and long-term goals. It also helped me put a plan together for my future– an enormous confidence booster!

2. Match your ‘rough picture’ of goals and plans to each major issue on the table in this term’s presidential election.

An easy way to do this is to take your list of goals/plans. Number them in order of importance or relevance or even time frame. Go to each candidates website and find the page[s] with their stance on important issues. Rank [easiest to rank on a 1-5 point system] each issue for each candidate as they correspond to your list of goals/plans.

3. Choose whichever candidate you like the best.

For that candidate you LIKE add ten points. Which one came out with the most points? If you like vote for that one. If you feel the candidate with the most points definitely should not be the one you vote for then we have accomplished our goal. You are now educated on each candidate, the issues they stand for, and what is important to you.

I know, seems like a lot of work to choose a candidate to vote for. No one ever said Democracy is easy. A couple friends of mine tried this method and were very impressed with how they felt about their vote.

"I never realized how much my vote affects my life, now and ten years from now!" -R.T.

"This is the first time I’ve ever been completely sure of who I want to be President. It feels kind of good." -A.P.

Political bias in the media, The Fairness Doctrine

Again, Mr. Jay Mundy points us to some more interesting numbers on today’s mainstream media.

Rasmussen Reports states that based on the results of a recent series of polls the Associated Press, local news stations, CNBC, and MSNBC are all seen as having a liberal bias by their viewers. They also state that based on some earlier reports NPR and CNN also lean to the left. Fox News jumps far to the right in political bias. The article also reports: public opinion was such a major force in the immigration debate that now interest on Capitol Hill has peaked in reviving the Fairness Doctrine.

I think that a lot of us realize that such media does present some information with a political bias. But as it is, this could be a lot more valuable than inducing the Fairness Doctrine on the nation’s media. "The Fairness Doctrine was a United States FCC regulation requiring broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance in an honest, equitable and balanced manner", in essence restricting our freedom of the press. The regulations were brought up in federal court as a violation of our First Amendment rights in 1969.

As with the economy and business, healthy competition has the ability to bring up new and innovative information. If that competition within media were to be locked, a result of the Fairness Doctrine, the potential for discovering new information in politics and media would be seriously hampered. I am a big proponent of protecting and preserving our Constitutional Rights and would not like to see these regulations enacted on our public communications. We have a right to know anything and everything about how this nation is being governed and used. I do realize that there may be some restrictions of information in order to protect us from our enemies which in SOME cases, not all, is appropriate.

More to come on this topic. Off to work. Cheers!

Traditional, like stonings in biblical times

Break the boundaries of tradition. Why must everyone look at a groundhog on February 2? Where does it say that women and black people shouldn’t be president of the U.S.? [This is one is getting a run for its money.]

A recent short story I had read for my Amer. Lit. class was entitled "The Lottery" by Shelley Jackson. It described a town which drew lots each year to decide which of their citizens was to be stoned to death. The entire town was supposedly in the drawing, because that was just the way it was. No one questioned the reasoning behind stoning a citizen each year. All thought that it was merely for the benefit of the town; and every person had a chance to throw a stone. [Which may have been a motivating factor for some people.] The only moments in which someone would begin to protest was if there name was drawn as the one to be stoned. A specific scene involved a woman, a wife and mother, preparing to be stoned; her children were present with stones in hand ready to hand their mother her fate.

What struck a chord with me is that no one protested unless they were the one to be killed. It reminds me much of the citizens in this country. Most of the time we do not protest action or non-action [whatever that may be] unless we are specifically being affected by it. At what point do people realize that there may be methods to quash a wrongness before it even happens to someone else? Is it possible for fellow human beings not to feel this compassion for their own kind?

Tradition is another interesting point that pops in to mind. Numerous are traditions which serve little to no purpose. What purpose is there in killing one citizen of this fictional town each year? There is no concrete purpose. It is based upon the comfort that comes from being taught that if one citizen dies the rest of us are in a better place. Translate this idea of tradition to matters involving U.S. government and elections as mentioned above. Until this upcoming election period there has not ever been serious nominees who are of color or a woman. We can watch this tradition start to tip into oblivion from our living rooms and offices. More and more people are realizing this tradition is not needed and has no value. I wonder what other traditions can be sent off into oblivion? Maybe, groundhog day because of the intensifying dynamics of our climate. What other traditions do you see disappearing in the coming future? Might newspapers be in the mix? or reporters? or big business? or, dare I say, digital social networks?

Al Gonzalez doesn’t recall

I just got the chance to start watching MSNBC’s live video of Gonzalez standing before the Senate Judiciary Committee [and article]. See here.

It is seemingly difficult to determine the U.S. Attorney General’s role in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys by his words. In response to multiple questions of how his chief of staff released communique regarding specific attorneys without his approval, the Attorney General stated, "I do not recall". In fact I heard this response from the Attorney General’s mouth numerous times throughout much of the questioning.

True, the committee is investigating the effectiveness of the Gonzalez as U.S. Attorney General. If he cannot control what his staff is doing how can he be effective? It may have not been considered as big a deal at the time to replace these attorneys because of other burdens looming over the AG’s office, this however is no excuse. There is no excuse for firings without professional cause. I believe the AG is stuck between having the burden fall on him for not controlling his staff and having the burden fall on him for not considering this matter to be important during the initial proceedings.

I have not made a decision as of yet on my stance in the case because, still, all of the facts have not been presented. As the case goes on I am sure that the truth will emerge and justice will be served whatever the direction.

[If you watch the video, Sen. Schumer is particularly adamant on Gonzalez resolving how the firing of Attorney Fitzgerald happened while in the middle of an impactful case; and Sen. Graham, in his usual drawl, struggles also to draw Schumer's answer out of Gonzalez.]

[More on this later on.]

Stand Aside

on Marketing, Media, and Technology

Policies of Progress

Which presidential candidate will meet my goals?

Political bias in the media, The Fairness Doctrine

Traditional, like stonings in biblical times

Al Gonzalez doesn’t recall

Archives

My Tweets