I meant to write this weeks ago. I shouldn't allow myself to talk me out of things.
Vote!
This election isn't about economics. Don't let the debates and political ads fool you.
There is so much more at stake this election. Economic hardships can be altered by congressional cooperation or by the money hungry board members of huge conglomerates deciding to actually BE part of America and not just bleed Americans dry. Economic changes need not require laws to be passed, and do not take a Supreme Court decision to reverse.
What this election is actually about is civil and human rights. Once a law is passed denying anyone civil rights such as marriage or human rights such as health care, it takes many years and several appellate courts often reaching the Supreme Court to be declared unconstitutional before a law is overturned for good.
A president, congressman, senator, or neighbor who sees humans as having equal rights, will also be more likely to see humans as equal in other aspects as well.
Vote on human rights with your ballot, vote on the economy with your wallet.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Thursday, October 4, 2012
The 1st Presidential Debate of the 2012 Election
Okay, so I didn't post every week about new things I learned or did. It doesn't mean I didn't do new things. I, just haven't updated in a little while few months several long whiles. ;) I will write a 'How I Spent My Summer': Fall Edition soon. I promise.
First though, I have to talk about the Presidential Debate and subsequent expert commentary last night. I'm not going to point-by-point the entire evening. I girl can only take so much childish behavior things turn bad. Once was enough. Plus, after the opening remarks nothing was actually accomplished.
Let's dispense right away with oft touted, "Romney won this debate." There was no debate last night. There was an introduction to a debate, and a stating of positions, then there was school yard bullying and disrespect run rampant. So there was no actual debate to win. Romney was not eloquent in speech or mannerism. He did not relay his position convincingly nor persuasively. The only thing that he did very well was to unmistakably convey his belief in his own importance and the inferiority of all others.
At the start of the night things looked good. Jim Lehrer explained the format of the debate and welcomed the candidates to the stage.
The opening question, "What are the major differences between the two of you about how you would go about creating jobs?"
Obama: Used 'we' almost exclusively. "We all know that we've still got a lot of work to do." "The question tonight is not where we've been, but where we're going." "We need to..." "We can..." etc.
Romney: Tells anecdotes about he and Ann being approached at separate functions being asked by women if said Romney could help their out of work family. Romney's reply, "We (he and Ann, not 'we the people of the United States') can help, but it's gonna take a different path. Not the one we've been on. Not the one the President describes as top-down, cut-taxes-for-the-rich, that's not what I'm gonna do. My plan has five basic points."
So, debate wise, Romney just said that he's going to do everything that Obama said that he wants 'us' to work to do. The exception being (and this was never brought up as a point of debate) Romney wants to open up trading while Obama wants to work on winding down two wars he inherited. Instead of Jim Lehrer suggesting that Obama explain with detail, one of these points that Romney has decided are now part of his platform too, Lehrer asks Obama to respond to Romney calling his plan 'Trickle-Down Government'. ::bangsheadondesk:: Lehrer walked right into that one. Trickle-down is a term used to take away credibility from an idea. It's a pretty commonly accepted fact that Trickle-down economics didn't work. But it was a republican president's platform ideal, and Romney didn't even use it in the correct context. Government in it's structure is fairly motionless, and Obama's plans have nothing to do with federal government, affecting the next step down of state government. No, Obama's plans talk of the federal government enacting policies that will benefit the American people on an individual level. It was a bad question to ask, and Obama couldn't have answered it directly without effectively calling Romney an idiot.So Obama begins to go into more detail regarding his plans, and this is where I deviate from a detailed analysis.
Commentators mentioned Romney's passion, confidence. and relaxed demeanor as points that 'won' him the debate. Well, Romney wasn't actually passionate, confident, or relaxed. Are we honestly to a point where our professional journalists and political commentators can't read a person's expression? He's not even a good actor people!
Romney was stiff when Obama greeted him with a handshake and elbow-grab. Romney's nonverbal communications were saying, "OMG! He's touching me! Get him away from me! Oh, must remember to smile. ::tightfakesmile::" As he was making the obligatory acknowledgments at the beginning of his opening remarks, he ticked them off with a nod of his head and eyes that were dull with systematic niceties. That's not relaxed or confident. That's a child who is at the formal dinner 'final' for his etiquette class.
The debate format fell away into nothingness never to be seen again when Romney began ignoring the time constraints of each rebuttal. He wasn't stopped effectively the first time, so he went further and further over the time limit, then began talking over, interrupting, and ignoring Lehrer. He went so far as to interrupt the President and proceed to talk over him. That's not passionate. That's childish behavior. It's essentially yelling and plugging your ears so that you can't hear when you're told you're wrong. It's a filibuster in attempt to control a format that's intended to be an even ground. It's arrogance, rudeness, disrespect for the process, disrespect for his fellow candidate and for the moderator. His constant insistence that 'I will...' shows a disrespect for and superiority to the American people. That's not passion. That's raising your voice with increased agitation and desperation to control.
If you look at Romney's eyes, eye lids, breathing, and posture while he's talking about the points of his plan, you can see that he doesn't really believe in himself either. He simply believes that he deserves the job.
No, Mitt Romney did not 'win' the debate, such as it was. Mitt Romney puffed up his peacock feathers prettier than Obama did. Obama realized that you can't have a legitimate debate with a crazy person who can't even remember what he included in his platform on the campaign trail. When your opponent is effectively arguing both sides, which position do you take? Romney lied so many times and contradicted himself and shamelessly argued with the moderator about whether or not he was going to talk. Oh! I stand corrected. Romney did win that debate. He definitely beat Lehrer out for position of moderator.
First though, I have to talk about the Presidential Debate and subsequent expert commentary last night. I'm not going to point-by-point the entire evening. I girl can only take so much childish behavior things turn bad. Once was enough. Plus, after the opening remarks nothing was actually accomplished.
Let's dispense right away with oft touted, "Romney won this debate." There was no debate last night. There was an introduction to a debate, and a stating of positions, then there was school yard bullying and disrespect run rampant. So there was no actual debate to win. Romney was not eloquent in speech or mannerism. He did not relay his position convincingly nor persuasively. The only thing that he did very well was to unmistakably convey his belief in his own importance and the inferiority of all others.
At the start of the night things looked good. Jim Lehrer explained the format of the debate and welcomed the candidates to the stage.
The opening question, "What are the major differences between the two of you about how you would go about creating jobs?"
Obama: Used 'we' almost exclusively. "We all know that we've still got a lot of work to do." "The question tonight is not where we've been, but where we're going." "We need to..." "We can..." etc.
- Invest in education and training.
- Develop new sources of energy here in America.
- Change our tax code to make sure that we're helping small businesses and companies that are investing here in the United States.
- Take money that we're saving as we wind down two wars to rebuild America.
- That we reduce our deficit in a balance way that allows us to make these critical investments.
He finishes by saying that it's ultimately up to the voter to decide which path they want to take. "Do you want to double down on the 'Top-down' economics that got us into this mess? Or embrace new economic patriotism that says, 'America does best when the middle class does best'? "...I'm looking forward to that debate."Oh, President Obama, Sir. I too was looking forward to that debate, and sadly I still am.
Romney: Tells anecdotes about he and Ann being approached at separate functions being asked by women if said Romney could help their out of work family. Romney's reply, "We (he and Ann, not 'we the people of the United States') can help, but it's gonna take a different path. Not the one we've been on. Not the one the President describes as top-down, cut-taxes-for-the-rich, that's not what I'm gonna do. My plan has five basic points."
- Get us American energy independent...North American energy independent. "That creates about 4 million jobs"
- Open up more trade, particularly in Latin America. Crack down on China if and when they cheat.
- Make sure our people have the skills they need to succeed, and the best schools in the world. We're far away from that now.
- Get us to a balanced budget.
- Champion small business. It's small business that creates the jobs in America and over the last four years small business people have decided that America may not be the place to open a new business, because new business start-ups dropped to a thirty-year low.
He ends with: "I know what it takes to get small business going again. To hire people. Now I'm concerned that the path that we're on has just been unsuccessful. The President has a view very similar to the view he had when her ran four years ago: that a bigger government spending more, taxing more, regulating more, if you will 'Trickle Down Government' would work. That's not the right answer for America. I'll restore the vitality that gets America working again.
So, debate wise, Romney just said that he's going to do everything that Obama said that he wants 'us' to work to do. The exception being (and this was never brought up as a point of debate) Romney wants to open up trading while Obama wants to work on winding down two wars he inherited. Instead of Jim Lehrer suggesting that Obama explain with detail, one of these points that Romney has decided are now part of his platform too, Lehrer asks Obama to respond to Romney calling his plan 'Trickle-Down Government'. ::bangsheadondesk:: Lehrer walked right into that one. Trickle-down is a term used to take away credibility from an idea. It's a pretty commonly accepted fact that Trickle-down economics didn't work. But it was a republican president's platform ideal, and Romney didn't even use it in the correct context. Government in it's structure is fairly motionless, and Obama's plans have nothing to do with federal government, affecting the next step down of state government. No, Obama's plans talk of the federal government enacting policies that will benefit the American people on an individual level. It was a bad question to ask, and Obama couldn't have answered it directly without effectively calling Romney an idiot.So Obama begins to go into more detail regarding his plans, and this is where I deviate from a detailed analysis.
Commentators mentioned Romney's passion, confidence. and relaxed demeanor as points that 'won' him the debate. Well, Romney wasn't actually passionate, confident, or relaxed. Are we honestly to a point where our professional journalists and political commentators can't read a person's expression? He's not even a good actor people!
Romney was stiff when Obama greeted him with a handshake and elbow-grab. Romney's nonverbal communications were saying, "OMG! He's touching me! Get him away from me! Oh, must remember to smile. ::tightfakesmile::" As he was making the obligatory acknowledgments at the beginning of his opening remarks, he ticked them off with a nod of his head and eyes that were dull with systematic niceties. That's not relaxed or confident. That's a child who is at the formal dinner 'final' for his etiquette class.
The debate format fell away into nothingness never to be seen again when Romney began ignoring the time constraints of each rebuttal. He wasn't stopped effectively the first time, so he went further and further over the time limit, then began talking over, interrupting, and ignoring Lehrer. He went so far as to interrupt the President and proceed to talk over him. That's not passionate. That's childish behavior. It's essentially yelling and plugging your ears so that you can't hear when you're told you're wrong. It's a filibuster in attempt to control a format that's intended to be an even ground. It's arrogance, rudeness, disrespect for the process, disrespect for his fellow candidate and for the moderator. His constant insistence that 'I will...' shows a disrespect for and superiority to the American people. That's not passion. That's raising your voice with increased agitation and desperation to control.
If you look at Romney's eyes, eye lids, breathing, and posture while he's talking about the points of his plan, you can see that he doesn't really believe in himself either. He simply believes that he deserves the job.
No, Mitt Romney did not 'win' the debate, such as it was. Mitt Romney puffed up his peacock feathers prettier than Obama did. Obama realized that you can't have a legitimate debate with a crazy person who can't even remember what he included in his platform on the campaign trail. When your opponent is effectively arguing both sides, which position do you take? Romney lied so many times and contradicted himself and shamelessly argued with the moderator about whether or not he was going to talk. Oh! I stand corrected. Romney did win that debate. He definitely beat Lehrer out for position of moderator.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
More New Things
New things this week:
- I had dinner with my brother, sister-in-law, and dad.
- I had asparagus stuffed chicken for the first time. Yummy!
- Watched a BBC show called Top Gear, and learned that a Nissan pickup converted to an amphibious vehicle (correctly of course) can make it from England to France across the English Channel.
- While playing a game of Trivial Pursuit I learned that Ben and Jerry's retired flavors go to the Flavor Graveyard. I love that the cartouche on each gravestone has angel wings on the ice cream cone. My brother pointed that out to me. That still cracks me up. http://www.benjerry.com/fun/halloween/?fg=1
- Chemistry:
- Well, I learned that I need a lower lever class right now, since I've forgotten so much. I don't know a covalent bond from a Sean Connery Bond. ;)
- Switched to Principles of Chemical Science.
- The first video lecture was an introduction of the professors. Both are women, which makes me happy.
- Calculus:
- I learned that I can take 3 pages of notes and still not understand what he was writing on the blackboard. :)
- I'll have to do some background reading on polynomials brush up on Algebra III.
- I was reading the lecture notes for the chemistry class and they mentioned rules and policies regarding 'clicker use'. I had no idea what they were talking about. The first thing that came to mind was those noise making clickers that some dog trainers use. I knew that couldn't be right. So I found out that many colleges are using 'clickers' to encourage interaction in classrooms. Village Voice wrote an article about clickers last year. http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-01-05/news/the-rise-of-clickers-is-starting-to-change-how-college-professors-run-their-classrooms/2/
- Oooo! And, I learned how to turn off the 'Sidebar' and the 'Ticker' on Facebook. Woohoo!
 |
| To make the ticker go away. Click the icon (circled in purple in this picture) on your Facebook page. |
 |
| To make the sidebar go away. Click the icon (circled in pink in this picture) on your Facebook page. |
Not A bad job for my first week of learning new things. :D
Oh! Also, I learned that Google Chrome's built-in spell checker, is kind of lacking. It didn't recognize 'cartouche' or 'covalent' and I double checked them on Dictionary.com.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
New Things
I lack discipline. Let me clarify. I lack discipline when it comes to doing things for my own benefit. I can focus on a project and be so organized and driven you'd think I was powered by Duracell when that project involves other people. But I can always find an excuse to put off doing something for myself. Soooo I'm challenging myself to learn, learn about, or do at least one new thing each week and write about it here.
To start off I've selected a new theme for my blog. The raspberry colored theme I used previously was evidently the same theme chosen by a friend for her blog. Oops. Great minds, right? :) But that' s not the real reason. Now I have one of my paintings as the background and that makes me smile. Now on to things I've learned.
This past month there has been an image going around Facebook regarding the Girl Scouts. The image looked like a news bulletin with a broken Trefoil cookie as the logo. It listed several reasons why Girl Scouts should not be supported. Each of which made me want to support them all the more. However I don't take things at Facebook value without digging a little deeper. At the same time I saw a friend from high school posting about her daughter joining American Heritage Girls. So then I start wondering about this other group? I looked up the websites for both organizations and did a little research. Now I know more about both.
In researching I found a link to another (non-scouting) organization called The Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media.
Lastly I went looking for something math and/or science related to learn. What I found presented me with so many choices I think my brain shut down from over stimulation. Apparently M.I.T. (yes THE M.I.T.) has a program called OpenCourseWare that compiles lecture notes, class assignments, videos and exams for almost every course offered at the real live 3D version of the institute. While you can't take courses for credits, the information is available for free, to everyone with internet access. You don't need to register or join or pay any fees of any kind. Just click on the website and pick something to learn. I have decided to learn a little 'Principles of Inorganic Chemistry II' and brush up on 'Single Variable Calculus.' Sadly I remember very little from the last Calc. and Chem classes I took over 15 years ago.
I'll report back next week to see what I've learned. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)