Tuesday, January 29, 2008
However, in "today's age " where a candidate can literally make it to 3 or 4 campaign locations, in different states, on the same day. In a time where campaign squabbles can be read about in the U.K. before lunch, this "tiered" approach only does one thing for the American people: "It ensure Americans choose the candidate(s) we are suppose too." Now, before you start screaming how I've fallen off the rocking horse into conspiracy lunacy, here me out. I'm not saying we no longer choose or vote for the next Nominee, we just vote the way the media tells us too.
While your digesting that, I'll give you an example. If you take a group of 1000 people, place a jar full of marbles on a podium and ask everyone to write down the number of marbles in the jar. On a whole, if participates answered in the blind they will guess correctly more often than if they were showed how their peers were guessing. By showing how people guessed or voted, you can change the outcome of their guess/ vote total(for better or worse).
This is exactly what happens in todays presidential primaries. We know instantly how the polls in New Hampshire closed. Then the media comes out and says: "So & SO gaining momentum in N.M or Iowa,etc Primary watch out for him/her!" Wait, what? How does this give people momentum? So what if New Hampshire thought this guy was better than that guy, different place, different state. However, what we aren't paying attention to is how much our elections are being shaped by the people who are supposed to be brining us the information. The media. Call me stupid, but I thought the job of the media was to bring the American Public an Unbiased report of whats happening. How are they able to keep an Unbiased view when Newspapers and News Stations are ENDORSING CANDIDATES! They endorse candidate A, then for the next x days, weeks, months all they print / talk about is Candidate A. Geee, I wonder why that person is coming up in the polls.
Every time you read / listen to the news all you every here about are the top 2 or 3 candidates of each party. The response of media outlets has always been "Their the front runner, of course we are going to talk and print stories about them."
However, Which is the cause, and which is the effect? (Front runner = More Stores or is it More stores = front runner)??
My whole point in witting all of this, besides ranting, was to say that the tiered primary systems has outlived its usefulness. It is now causing more harm than good. The American public deserves to hear what all of the candidate have to say. After which, the entire country holds a national primary on one day, not over the course of 3 months. I know the politicians will bitch and moan, but what else is new? This would level the playing field, the media will not longer be able to give a candidate "momentum", and the people will ultimately choose the candidate they like best. We could even take it one step further and say that all Mainstream news sources should give each candidate x min per month to come on and be heard, above and beyond all other news stories. What a concept!
Friday, January 25, 2008
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
So I popped over to the BBC website today to see what the current news and headlines are across the pond. So I was reading through all the article headlines when it happened. Almost instantaneously my blood pressure shoots up faster than the NASA space shuttle on launch day, I get a stabbing pain in my head and an almost irresistible urge to gouge out my eyes and start running around the office screaming at the top of my lungs. What was the root cause of my midday meltdown.
" Three Little Pigs 'too offensive" in big bold letters.
I'll say it again, since I had to read it about 4 times just for it to sink in, the "Three little pigs too offense!" Are you F'ing kidding me?!?!?!?! What the hell can a story about three runt little bastards getting their house blown down by the big bad wolf could possible be offensive?!?! Apparently, if your are a Muslim the story of the three pigs could be just to much. The mere sight of these four legged pigs walking upright could simply be TOO much for your simpleton cognitive to properly comprehend and you will go out and blow..., that is, it will send you reeling about the horrible offensive material you have just read. The earth will end, brimstone will fall from the sky,...you get the point.
There comes and time when you have to say "enough is F'ing enough." I understand this particular even happened over seas, but it doesn't matter. Why is it that every religion, I repeat (emphatically) every single religion can get made fun of or offended...EXCEPT for the almighty Muslims. It's part of the world culture to poke fun, laugh and joke with and at our neighbors. Christians make fun of the Catholics for: the pope's freaking humongous hat, horribly boring masses and loooong weddings, the Christians think that gays can be converted and they HAVE to SAVE everyone, Jews...no more need be said. However, Muslims are beyond reproach. Anything that has been written or published, recently, that could offend our Muslim brethren is redacted. We saw it with the danish cartoons, and countless other "Muslim Sensitive" publications. Every time, the Muslim countries rise up and call for blood. "Our religion has been offended, we have to kill them you scum!"
Or something equally as juvenile. Why does the world governments placate this kind of crap.
Let me ask you a question, if all the Atheist in the U.S. decided the were going to riot and demand blood every time they saw the word GOD, or when they couldn't buy Alcohol on Sunday because of the blue laws. Would we stand for such childish behavior, HELL NO! We would treate them like the childern they are portarying and either ignore or punish them. However, free speach is being squashed and walked on when it comes to Muslim opposition to publication of "Muslim Sensative" material. We need to stand up and say we will not take it anymore!
Look, there is no law, constitution, or unalienable right to not be offended. No matters if its about Religion, race, gender, etc. What makes us higher than primates on the evolutionary ladder is what we do after being offended. That is how society as a whole is defined and measure.
We, as a society, need to get back to a couple of basic principles:
1. If you don't like what someone says on a radio station: Turn the station and don't listen to them. Find someone you do like to listen too, or start speaking yourself (On a blog, radio, etc).
2. If you don't agree with certain broadcasts on TV, Don't watch them! Use the damn remote.
3. Don't operated under what I refer to as the "Illusion of Un-offendablity" , your going to be offended, period, deal with it. But, is it such a bad thing? It does make life interesting, and gives us lots of stories to tell.
4. Don't fear dissent (Dissenting views can lead to someone being offended). I would be terrible unhappy, and really really afraid, if I agreed with everyone. Dissent is what makes society work. Dissent makes progress possible. Every single great historical figure was a "dissenter" at one point in time or another. Don't be scared of it, encourage it, participate it in, you might like it. Healthy dissent is why we are the USA and not the Empire of England (or part of France, or Germany in later years). Jesus was , arguable, the Greatest dissenter of all time. Dissent can lead to Influence (sometimes only after you die). I could go on (and on, and on), but I digress.
5. The right for someone to express their opioin out weight your non-existent right to not be offended. I have chosen my next words very carefully, I absolutely HATE/WANT TO STRANGLE Hilary and/ or Bill Clinton. HOWEVER, I would fight tooth and nail with anyone who would try to silence either of them. I can't stand them, but I welcome their dissent.I might get disinherited for doing so (I joke, I joke), but I would not allow them, until my last breath I took, to be silenced. That's the biggest thing we are missing as a society. Just because you can not stand what someone else is saying or it offends you, is never reason enough to silence them. Because you could always be next.
Monday, January 21, 2008
No matter how many times I hear the democratic parties talk about the future of power I still cannot get used to hearing them repeatedly slam Nuclear power, over and over and over and over. I get the feeling that the only reason they slam it sooo hard is that they believe the American public at large is just to stupid to differentiate between Nuclear Power and Nuclear Bomb. I fully believe that if someone brought a power plan to Hilliary, Edwards or Obama and replace a few key words such as:
1. Nuclear = Solar combustion or Flux capacitor
2.Reactor = Water Power Plant
3.Fuel Rods = Solid Combustibles
4. Waste = By Product
And leave every thing else the exact same these morons would think that its the greatest thing since sliced bread. Not only would they embrace it, the would fully support and tout this new found efficient , LIMITLESS, energy. It's absurd!
Why is American politics so polarized on this one issue? I can only speculate.
I think they ever single person who is against Nuclear Power (besides the fossil fuel bastards) because of one or two incidents involving the Nuclear Power Plants: Chernobyl & Three Mile Island. Lets look at these two incidents a little closer.
I will not go into the all the tedious details of why Chernobyl happened. The entire account is available to anyone via wikipedia. Chernobyl happened because of human stupidity. The Russians wanted to know what would happen if turned WATER coolers OFF!! They purposefully conducted a test, which should and could have been aborted MANY, Many, Many times to find out just "what would happened" if the main water coolers were suddenly turned off in the middle of operation. Not only did they turn off the water coolers, and because of how bad they botched this experiment, in the process they also turned off allot of the back-ups and fail safes. Upon reading the actually accounting of what happened in Chernobyl it reads as if they WANTED the damn thing to go critical. After reading the the Russians put that damn reactor through in before it went critical only reaffirms to me, how safe Nuke power can actually be. Its also good to note that the Chernobyl operators who were not Trained or were very experienced violated plant procedure where was the ultimate cause of the disaster.
Three Mile Island (TMI):
Before I talk about three mile island, I have to give everyone a Nuclear Reactor 101 lesson. All American Reactors are what we call "Built to fail." Meaning, if everyone on a power plant was to up and walk out, the reactor would Fail, meaning turn off, on its own accord. We have to constantly give fuel to a Nuclear Reactor in for it to continue running.
Now, I will preface talking about TMI by saying this, even with a half a core meltdown the reactor vessel maintained integrity and contained the damaged fuel. Also, the incident happened over a 16 hours period. TMI shows what happens when equipment is not properly maintained and certain design flaws, which have been corrected, are not completely understood. TMI happened, essentially, because of lack of knowledge available to the operators, a very key pressure valve never closed and the back up water pump valves were closed after a round of maintenance. The operators invloved also thought they "knew" what to do in order to FIX the system. Instead of letting the system fail, like it was suppose to, they decided to keep it running and try to fix it. Boy and Girls, as safe as Nuclear Power is, if something happens let the god damn thing shut it self off. After is off find the issue, fix it and then turn it back on. Even if people have to go with out power for a little while (the company can always buy more power for their grid) I'm not go overly in-depth about TMI except to say that yet again human ignorance and break in procedure was yet again the reason for an incident.
Also, an interesting tid-bit of information. Most of you may not know this, all power plants bid for hours per Kilowatt on the power grid. Because Nuclear power is so much cheaper and far more efficient that some coal plant, a common practice for coal plants is to buy a good portion of their power from Nuke Plants (when their close enough) and use that energy for their market. So even if you live close to a fossil fuel plant, its very possible that some of your energy comes from a Nuclear Power Plant.
/I apologize of any grammar typos that I may have, and probably did, miss but its late and I want to goto bed.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Up first, everyones favorite In Example Abbreviation....or is it? Actually, no, here is what I.E. really means.
I.E. = that is
Thats right, I.E. does not mean (In Example)
And that would mean E.G. means:
E.G. = 1) Latin exempli gratia (for example) 2) for example; for the sake of example; such as.
Hilary Clinton Recently said:
"I would also work to reinstate the assault-weapons ban. We now have, once again, police deaths going up around the country, and in large measure because bad guys now have assault weapons again. We stopped it for awhile. Now they're back on the streets." Full Article Here
WHAT?!?!?!? By we, I'm assuming she is referring to Bill Clinton & the Brady Campaign's Assault-Weapons ban of 1994. And since she was married to Bill "used car slime ball" Clinton, any and everything done during his presidency she can claim credit as being apart of. I'm going to ignore the fact that this was actually written and introduced by the Brady Campaign and latter sponsored by the President . I'm not even going to tackle the validity of her actually playing a part in the bill. We all know that when a politician says "we" or "I" they use it in the lossiest possible fashion. I'll give you another example of Hilary using the "We" term: During one of the first DEM presidential debates, she said: "We have all been against this war from the very beginning." By "We" she meant "Herself , then everyone else on the stage" and "beginning" was referring to the "beginning" of the presidential debate.
Putting all that aside, I would like to know from what black hole Hilary was able to pull the statistics she stated above. After about five mintues of digging I came accross this little nugget of information: "study commissioned by the DOJ found that "Assault weapons (AW) were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%. Most of the assault weapons used in crime are assault pistols rather than assault rifles." Further more, statics has shown (DOJ Reports and others) that the Assault weapons ban had no discernible effects on crime during or after the 2004 expiration of the ban.
While I'm sure a the act of a politician completely fabricating statics and facts comes as no shock to anyone, we need to be extra carefully about who is elected in 2008 or rhetoric like this will become common place (even more common then it currently is)
Friday, January 11, 2008
1) Dennis is under no illusions that he did not win the Primary.
2. For once, someone is putting their MONEY where their mouth is.
Dennis has agreed , so far, to pay for the recount. Of course, in the grand scheme of things the 2K he is going spend on this will be a proverbial "drop in the bucket" compared with all other expenditures. Whats more shocking, to me at lest, is that the Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan is not the lest bit concerned about this recount. His attitude thus far is "This will just prove that the ballot numbers were accurate this first time around." Absolutely amazing! No gripping or winning about their results shouldn't need to be reconfirmed or how much time it will take, yadda yadda. Assuming the recount turns up the same numbers (within an acceptable margin of error maybe +/- <1%) as the originally count, we should get NH counters to help others states, who just can't seem to get it right...Florida comes to mind, especially Volusha (sp) county. Maybe with a little training on how numbers and votes actually are suppose to add up, not subtract will actually see something more than "Hmm thats funny" when a candidate receives NEGATIVE votes...... One can only hope.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Unfortunately, I think that not only must America answer the question of “Should Mrs. Clinton be the next president" but rather, “Should Mrs. Clinton be the first woman president." I feel there is more “up for grabs “than one presidency. Let me quantify my statement.
When our current president Bush leaves office, no matter if history portrays him has a great or horrible president, he will just be another WASP in the long line of presidential tradition (I use the term loosely). When stacked up next to all who have come before him, not much will truly stand out. We've had bad and good presidents before, but they will all be lumped together in our history text books under different chapters.
Now, to be the first WOMAN president is truly, a noteworthy honor. The world and history has shown us that woman can lead as good (and sometimes better) than any man. However, to be the first comes with allot of added, perhaps unnecessary, pressure. IF, Hillary is elected president and performs well, then we will see more women running for higher offices. This would also open the door for other minorities who have never held this office. But, the reverse would also be true. If, Hillary is a horrible / bad / ineffective president it could place a stigma on all future "would be Women or Minority" presidents. In short, to be the first you have to be stellar if you want to ensure that you will not be the last for a long time to come.
To put this into business perspective, let’s assume that two candidates are trying to become a CEO for a huge fortune 500 company. The first candidate is extremely young by CEO terms, while the other candidate fits the middle-aged look for most top end CEO’s currently on the market. If the younger CEO is selected and performs poorly, then the board may not be as willing to take a risk on an “out of the norm” CEO in the future. However, if the younger CEO comes in , delivers and does an absolute stellar job, it could change not only what that board looks for in a future CEO but could impact how other boards determine and select CEOs. By contrast, if the “normal” candidate is selected for CEO, it doesn’t really matter if he does good or bad. The next CEO will probably be another candidate that fits into that “normal” niche.
With that being said, my question is not "Should Hillary be the next president?" but "Should she be the first woman president, one that will usher in a new age in politics and open the political doors to Men and Women of all races and religions." That’s the question we have to answer._____
Of course, I would sooner burn my voter card than vote for HS. But, I thought this would be an interesting way of looking at the currently election. Especially for allot of women voters how are voting for her, because she is a women. Be careful what you wish for.