Consider this title a pre-emptive apology
Well, back from vacation. There was a certain degree of...excitement upon landing here in Calgary but you will all be happy to know that 12 hours later, everything is worked out except our 3 missing bags.
Yea that's right - 3 bags didn't make it.
Looks like it's back to the grind for now. Thing haven't changed much, and they don't appear to have gotten any significant snow over the break, which is too bad. Still waiting on the best runs to be decent.
I'm going to take this no-real-news opportunity to do something I usually try not to do. I spend a lot of time at work reading up on world news, but lately I've been following American politics very closely. Frankly, it's disturbing. Canadian readers: it's probably best if you just stop reading now and wait for the next post.
To my family and friends in the states,
It's an election year and far be it for me to suggest who you should or should not vote for, or even which party to vote for. (Heck, they're both pretty much the same party anyway.) However, do me the favor of giving me your ear for a moment.
Winston Churchill is credited with quite the quote. He said, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." When I watch newscasts and debates, I can't help but agree with the man. How many questions about gay rights, abortions, gun control, and religion in government do we really need, and how many times must we ask them before we realize that the answers to these questions never change. If insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results, how many times must we ask a presidential candidate his or her views on abortion before we declare ourselves insane?
It's not that the topics are unimportant, it's that their nature does not provide a grounds in which opinions can be changed, or an argument can be won. Somebody who believes in right to life based on religious dogma can find no common ground with a somebody who believes in a woman's right to choose. Remove the conversation from a conversation with friends over a drink to a political stage and you have even less chance for enlightening conversation or debate.
Yet so much of every debate is tied up in these issues that have no resolution in a presidential political forum. They are certainly valid and important issues, but given that the answers today are the same as they were yesterday and will be the same tomorrow, it seems like time would be better spent by simply asking for "yes or no" answers from each candidate and moving on. Late-tuning voters can look up the answer for their favorite hot-button issue later. There are so many huge, multi-faceted and urgent issues in the world now that spending so much time discussing these dead-end arguments is almost as much of a crime as the amount of time the major news networks spend telling us about celebrity birthdays, babies, and eating habits.
Of course, the major news networks don't help. They decide what to air and how to spin it. Yes, spin it. Find me a major, American news network that doesn't spin a news story and I'll simply point at you to show you somebody who agrees with the news network. A right-leaning person finds no bias in Fox News, because you agree with them. A left-leaning person finds no bias in NBC, again, because you agree with them. If you don't believe me, spend a few weeks watching and reading news from several news networks, and include BBC in your list (the British-based news network specializing in world news). You'll never look at Fox, NBC, CNN, or any other American news network the same again.
And how many of you are comfortable with the news networks deciding which candidates have a chance before you do? It's an amazing world when simply reporting polls on a daily basis has an impact on those poll numbers the next day. It would seem that bandwagon fans aren't relegated to solely sports teams; everybody likes to vote for a winner. How comfortable are you that your neighbor may vote for Obama simply because he won in Iowa? Or, alternately, that he may vote for Hillary simply because Obama won in Iowa?
As an onlooker in Canadian elections, I have noticed that most candidates in this country live by the maxim "he who puts up the most campaign signs wins". While Canada is strangely fixated on campaign signs, it is true that a large part of campaigning is simply name-recognition. If you can stand up and talk and wave your arms more than your opponents, you stand a better chance of winning or, at least, being taken seriously. With this in mind, re-watch some of the debates and think about how much chance candidates like Biden, Dodd, Paul, Tancredo, and the like were given by the news networks.
If Joe Biden is allowed, by the moderator (always an employee of the news network), to speak 10% as much as Obama, is it really that much of a surprise that Obama is ahead in the polls? Now before you get all in a huff, consider further that Fred Thompson got more airtime on major news networks for contemplating announcing himself for the presidency than existing candidate Ron Paul. Again, are you comfortable with the news networks narrowing down the candidates for you?
This is getting much more long-winded than I intended, but I have one more thing to say. A plea, if you will. The US government is designed to be slow and inefficient; it is designed so that no one man can wield a disproportionate amount of power. That said, I challenge you to name three significant actions the government has done over the past year. Slow and inefficient doesn't even begin to describe it when the most newsworthy bill the government passed was one condemning that paragon of 3rd Grade Wit "General Betray-us" advertisement. Is this a government you can really be proud of? One where a day doesn't go by where our president doesn't threaten to veto a bill and our Congress doesn't respond with "we will not cooperate with you"?
While one man can't bring about well, anything, on his own, the President is still the single most important political figure in the government. When you vote, vote smart, with real issues in mind. I hear so often that people like certain candidates because they are good looking! We have contests where looks are the deciding factor - they are called beauty pageants. Is the US presidential election a beauty pageant? Would you debase this action of voting, that has taken on near-ritual status in the United States, by voting for somebody because he is more handsome than the other candidates? My response to these people is usually, "do me a favor. please don't vote"
Do the research, find a candidate that epitomizes your beliefs. Don't be a sheep, recognize platitudes when you hear them, and force candidates to be accountable to the questions asked them and the answers they state.
That is all
Yea that's right - 3 bags didn't make it.
Looks like it's back to the grind for now. Thing haven't changed much, and they don't appear to have gotten any significant snow over the break, which is too bad. Still waiting on the best runs to be decent.
I'm going to take this no-real-news opportunity to do something I usually try not to do. I spend a lot of time at work reading up on world news, but lately I've been following American politics very closely. Frankly, it's disturbing. Canadian readers: it's probably best if you just stop reading now and wait for the next post.
To my family and friends in the states,
It's an election year and far be it for me to suggest who you should or should not vote for, or even which party to vote for. (Heck, they're both pretty much the same party anyway.) However, do me the favor of giving me your ear for a moment.
Winston Churchill is credited with quite the quote. He said, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." When I watch newscasts and debates, I can't help but agree with the man. How many questions about gay rights, abortions, gun control, and religion in government do we really need, and how many times must we ask them before we realize that the answers to these questions never change. If insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results, how many times must we ask a presidential candidate his or her views on abortion before we declare ourselves insane?
It's not that the topics are unimportant, it's that their nature does not provide a grounds in which opinions can be changed, or an argument can be won. Somebody who believes in right to life based on religious dogma can find no common ground with a somebody who believes in a woman's right to choose. Remove the conversation from a conversation with friends over a drink to a political stage and you have even less chance for enlightening conversation or debate.
Yet so much of every debate is tied up in these issues that have no resolution in a presidential political forum. They are certainly valid and important issues, but given that the answers today are the same as they were yesterday and will be the same tomorrow, it seems like time would be better spent by simply asking for "yes or no" answers from each candidate and moving on. Late-tuning voters can look up the answer for their favorite hot-button issue later. There are so many huge, multi-faceted and urgent issues in the world now that spending so much time discussing these dead-end arguments is almost as much of a crime as the amount of time the major news networks spend telling us about celebrity birthdays, babies, and eating habits.
Of course, the major news networks don't help. They decide what to air and how to spin it. Yes, spin it. Find me a major, American news network that doesn't spin a news story and I'll simply point at you to show you somebody who agrees with the news network. A right-leaning person finds no bias in Fox News, because you agree with them. A left-leaning person finds no bias in NBC, again, because you agree with them. If you don't believe me, spend a few weeks watching and reading news from several news networks, and include BBC in your list (the British-based news network specializing in world news). You'll never look at Fox, NBC, CNN, or any other American news network the same again.
And how many of you are comfortable with the news networks deciding which candidates have a chance before you do? It's an amazing world when simply reporting polls on a daily basis has an impact on those poll numbers the next day. It would seem that bandwagon fans aren't relegated to solely sports teams; everybody likes to vote for a winner. How comfortable are you that your neighbor may vote for Obama simply because he won in Iowa? Or, alternately, that he may vote for Hillary simply because Obama won in Iowa?
As an onlooker in Canadian elections, I have noticed that most candidates in this country live by the maxim "he who puts up the most campaign signs wins". While Canada is strangely fixated on campaign signs, it is true that a large part of campaigning is simply name-recognition. If you can stand up and talk and wave your arms more than your opponents, you stand a better chance of winning or, at least, being taken seriously. With this in mind, re-watch some of the debates and think about how much chance candidates like Biden, Dodd, Paul, Tancredo, and the like were given by the news networks.
If Joe Biden is allowed, by the moderator (always an employee of the news network), to speak 10% as much as Obama, is it really that much of a surprise that Obama is ahead in the polls? Now before you get all in a huff, consider further that Fred Thompson got more airtime on major news networks for contemplating announcing himself for the presidency than existing candidate Ron Paul. Again, are you comfortable with the news networks narrowing down the candidates for you?
This is getting much more long-winded than I intended, but I have one more thing to say. A plea, if you will. The US government is designed to be slow and inefficient; it is designed so that no one man can wield a disproportionate amount of power. That said, I challenge you to name three significant actions the government has done over the past year. Slow and inefficient doesn't even begin to describe it when the most newsworthy bill the government passed was one condemning that paragon of 3rd Grade Wit "General Betray-us" advertisement. Is this a government you can really be proud of? One where a day doesn't go by where our president doesn't threaten to veto a bill and our Congress doesn't respond with "we will not cooperate with you"?
While one man can't bring about well, anything, on his own, the President is still the single most important political figure in the government. When you vote, vote smart, with real issues in mind. I hear so often that people like certain candidates because they are good looking! We have contests where looks are the deciding factor - they are called beauty pageants. Is the US presidential election a beauty pageant? Would you debase this action of voting, that has taken on near-ritual status in the United States, by voting for somebody because he is more handsome than the other candidates? My response to these people is usually, "do me a favor. please don't vote"
Do the research, find a candidate that epitomizes your beliefs. Don't be a sheep, recognize platitudes when you hear them, and force candidates to be accountable to the questions asked them and the answers they state.
That is all
posted by Anonymous at 11:06 AM
1 Comments:
Wow, Noah, very well written. I hope everyone that reads your blog reads this one thoroughly. What a statement and very eloquently presented. I still think you should be out there running. You know if you are still going to be Emperor of the World you will have to start at the Presidential entry level. Actually, lets keep you up here. Very proud of you honey. You really should consider writing professionally. I think you are missing a calling.
love
mom
Post a Comment
<< Home