A Plea for Political Ads

I will be the first person to tell you that I am not politically motivated.  I have no interest in office politics (ask any boss I’ve ever worked for) or personal politics, nor do I have all that much interest in Politics with a capital P.

So it will come as no surprise to you that after seeing my first political ad on TV for the upcoming presidential election, I’m done.  I don’t need to see another one.  Not because I don’t care but because I don’t believe anything they say anyhow.

I have an idea. Maybe more like a plea to the major political candidates.

Instead of spending your time and money telling me how bad the other guy is and telling me what he does or doesn’t believe and how it isn’t in my best interest, how about you tell me what YOUR views are.  Tell me what YOU believe.  Tell me what YOUR plans are and what YOU would like to accomplish.  Then let me make up my own mind.

This whole idea of getting elected  ”the enemy of my enemy is my friend” approach doesn’t work. It doesn’t work in geo-politics (we backed Iraq against Iran, and the Taliban in Afghanistan against the Russians - see how well all that turned out?) and it doesn’t work in domestic politics.

Furthermore, using tactics like “Joe Dorknut voted against additional funding for cleaning up the environment” assumes that I know so little about how bills are voted on, that I don’t know that what Joe Dorknut voted against was NOT the additional funding, but against the rider that was attached to the bill that would have given Bob Chubbypants 200 new “No Parking” signs for his neighborhood.

What bothers me is that negative political ads don’t give me the whole story.  And in order for me to get the whole story, I have to spend my time looking up the accusations to see whether or not they’re true. Wouldn’t it be better if I was spending my time confirming what you told me about yourself instead of trying to verify what you told me about the other guy?

Let’s look at it this way:

Let’s say that you are out with a small group of your friends and you spy a very attractive woman. Your friends have spied her too.  And she has seen you and your group. 

So you sneak away from your friends to go have a chat with her.  Basically what you are going to try to do is to sell yourself to her.  Furthermore, you know that at least one of your friends is going to try to do the same thing at some point during the course of the evening.

Now in order to get her attention and to get her to go out with you, you probably try to sell your best points - convince her why she should take you up on your offer of a date, that she’d have a great time and it would make her happy.  What you probably DON’T do is spend your time trying to convince her why she should not go out with any of your friends.  You probably don’t say “That guy, he votes pro-life.  And the other one over there?  He cheats on his girlfriends.  The one in the red shirt spends more money than he makes.”

You don’t do this because if you did, the impression you would ACTUALLY make upon her is that a) You have no actual merits of your own to tout, and b) You spend a lot of time criticizing other people instead of bettering yourself.  Furthermore, you have now demoted yourself to being only “the best that group has to offer” instead of “the best possible choice there is.”  And if she’s smart, she’s also now offended that you think that her mind is so easily molded that your opinion of these other people will automatically now be HER opinion of these other people.

Does this sound at all familiar?

Studies show that our reactions to politicians is very much an emotional response - not unlike our reactions to our favorite sports teams.  While we rationalize and rationalize and rationalize why we vote this way or that way, in a lot of cases it comes down to “I feel this way about this person” or this party or this political view.

And I think this is why negative ads are at best, ineffective, and at worst, insulting. 

So please, stop it.  Stop it.  Stop it. Stop it.  Tell me why YOU are the person I should vote for, not why he/she is the person I should vote against.  Because if I don’t agree with your reasons why I should vote against that person, and you haven’t told me why I should vote for you, then maybe I just won’t bother to vote at all.

And we wonder why we have such a low percentage of voter turnout compared to other democratic countries.

“Values Voters”

Again with the CNN.com stories that I probably shouldn’t look at. 

Analysis: Candidates can’t ignore values-based voters 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/15/value.voters/index.html

Now before you think that “value voters” means they’re inexpensive (Value voters - they all live in Value City), the article uses the term “values voters” to (apparently) mean “socially conservative Christians over the age of 18 who intend to cast a ballot in November.”

The article also appears to interchange the terms “faith” and “values” as it pertains to political conservatism.

I think I’m offended.

The implication being made here is that because I am not part of the “christian right” that I do not vote based on my values.  OR the implication is that my values are not based in my faith.

Crap.

I think maybe this is again one of those instances where because there is a group that yells loudly, the presumption is that it must be the voice of the majority.

Also Crap.

I have values.  I have faith.  Sometimes the two meet. But I DON’T think that those things are relevant to selecting who runs our government.  Furthermore, just because someone’s religious beliefs or personal moral values don’t necessarily jibe with mine doesn’t mean they’re not good at their job.  Truthfully I don’t CARE what your personal choices are — just do your job.

Which is not to say that I never vote from a “values” standpoint.

Anyone who knows me knows that I am vehemently pro-choice.  Not because of any particular opinion I have about abortion, but because I don’t think it’s anyone’s business but my own what choices I make. I don’t think it’s right for someone…ANYONE to tell me what is right and what is wrong based on THEIR belief system.  Furthermore I think it is completely wrong for those people to pass laws that foist their morality onto large groups of others.  Preach your beliefs all you want, but keep your morals off my body.

That being said, I don’t typically make election decisions based on my pro-choice stance. Unless, however, the alternative candidate is so pro-life that their being elected has a significant chance of rescinding my right to choose.  

(And for all you conservatives reading this, when you are finished rolling your eyes, consider the fact that the NRA uses exactly this argument to persuade you to vote for their preferred candidate.)

I take this same stance with pro-gay marriage candidates.  I don’t typically vote based on my stance on this issue unless the alternative candidate is bound and determined to remove or limit existing rights and freedoms for gays.  I think they have no business doing this for a variety of reasons I will get into some other day.

So maybe my strongest values are those that believe that we do and should have free will and the ability to make our own choices.  If you strongly believe that abortion is wrong and that gay marriage is wrong that’s fine.  If your religion tells you these things are evil, then fine.  Those who participate in these behaviors will be punished ultimately, yes?  

Religions typically contain an “after life” clause that indicates that if you break the divine laws set down for you, that you will pay the price (sometimes karmically in this life, often in your next life, be it here as a new life-form or in heaven or hell).  So if your belief is so strong that what I may be doing is wrong, then your belief should be strong enough to know that I will pay the price.  You may try to convert me but you cannot force me to believe what you do.  You certainly cannot legislate it.

So we’re back to that.  Legislating morality.  Voting based on values or faith.  Is it really the way we should select our candidates?  Furthermore, is it really the way our candidates should be trying to get elected?

One more thing I’d like you to think about: Our current international issues are complicated by the fact that the states we are dealing with (like Iran) are Theocracies — governments headed by religious leaders and ruled based on the laws laid down in the religious texts. They act based on their religious belief system. We here in the US, who live in what has been a reasonably successful Democratic Republic system of government, complete (ostensibly) with the separation of church and state, tend to see some of these actions and activities as cruel and barbaric. These governments also tend to be oppressive, particularly to the rights of those who do not follow the religion or belief system of the ruling party.

Hmmmmm…

I leave you with these lyrics from the immortal Frank Zappa:

Whoever we are, wherever we’re from
We should have notice by now our behavior is dumb.
And if our chances expect to improve,
It’s gonna take a lot more than trying to remove
The other race, or the other whatever
From the face of the planet altogether. 

You can’t run a race by a book of religion
Not by a heap or a lump or a smidgen.
The foolish rules of ancient date
Designed to make us all feel great
While we fold, spindle and mutilate
Those unbelievers from the neighboring state. 

Politicians and Umpires

I hate it when Politicians say one thing and do another.  Or when you hear things on TV or Radio or read in the Newspaper how some guy has “waffled” on an issue or changed their mind or said something that seems opposite of what they said before.

Who can blame them?  They spend a lot of time worrying about what people think of them (elections have a way of doing that) and then catering to whoever is screaming loudest about the issue du jour (which is not always the same as “popular opinion”).

So I think that all Politicians should spend time in Umpiring school.  There they would learn a valuable lesson that could lead them all the way through their careers. It is this:

Just because they’re yelling at you doesn’t mean you’re wrong.

Courtesy of Joe Garagiola (I think).

Mens 4×100m Gold Medal Race

I’m a huge fan of the Summer Olympics and it’s been very cool to be able to see them broadcast live, even if it means I’m missing some sleep.  As “Mother” used to say, “sleep when you’re dead.”

So unsurprisingly, Sunday night I stayed up late to watch the olympics.  Mostly to see the Mens 4×100m relay race - the one potentially serious hitch in Michael Phelps’ bid for 8 gold medals.

As veteran olympic swimmer and relay team anchor Jason Lezak drafted, pulled even with, then ever so slightly ahead of the French team anchor Alain Bernard, I was excited.  Very excited.  Had it not been nearly midnight and both my son and my visiting uncle not been sleeping, I would have been yelling and jumping up and down.

The USA was not supposed to win this race. As I’m sure you know by now, they did win.

And as I watched the improbable happen, and as the reality sunk in, I, along with everyone else who was watching, pondered this question:

What the hell is holding up Michael Phelps’ pants?  

In honor of the Olympics…

My six-year-old son knows very little about the olympics or basketball.

He knows something about Legos though.

This morning he showed both my husband and I this conglomoration of Lego Knights he’d put together. 

Unbeknownst to my son, he has created the newest hot Lego toy for the fall…the Yao Ming Lego action figure:

Don’t Wait!  Get Yours Today!!

The “oil crisis”

Okay - now I’m annoyed.  I had a feeling I shouldn’t have bothered with Glenn Beck’s column (posted on cnn.com) today. But I did.  And now, I’m annoyed.

I don’t know that reading that particular article is necessary to follow my thread, but if you want to, you can find it here: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/07/beck.energy/index.html

So everyone is in a snit about the “oil crisis” which I put into quotes because that’s not what it is.  What we have is a supply and demand situation that EVERYONE knew was coming.  Everyone has known it was coming for many many years.  Yes, we’ve ignored it.  But everyone knew it was coming.  So by that measure, I don’t think you can call it a “crisis.”  It comes under the same category as the boss guy who screwed off getting a presentation done for three weeks, finally finishes it the day before he needs to present it, then hands it off to his already overworked secretary at 5:30pm saying, “I need this re-done in our company format and 300 color copies.  But I need to leave here by 7am tomorrow, so can you have it on my desk so I can pick it up?  Great. Thanks.  If you need me I’ll be at Morton’s having dinner with my wife.”

That’s not a crisis; that’s bad planning.  And as all of us ex-secretaries know, “Poor planning on your part does NOT constitute a crisis on MY part.”

So okay - here we are, reliant on a fossil fuel that is becoming more scarce and which we buy a good bit of from countries whose politics, religions, and general social behaviors we don’t entirely agree with.

The newly popular answer is to drill for domestic oil in places that drilling is banned.  Now the thing is, that drilling has been banned in those places for what I consider to be really good reasons.  Mostly environmental.  It was banned at a time when cooler heads prevailed because it was determined that leaving those areas alone and NOT putting any sort of industrial stuff in there was a gosh darned good idea.

I suppose that once your wallet gets hit, though, what is and what is not a good idea tends to change, no?

See this is where I get irritated.  We spend (and have spent) a lot of time and money preaching to other countries about how great capitalism is. Look! If you don’t artificially control prices, the market takes care of it.  If manufacturers make cheap products, people will buy them, unless they’re of terrible quality, in which case people will buy something else.  The market fixes this stuff.

So now - oil is expensive.  Making gas expensive.  Welcome to capitalism.  See how cool it is?

But here’s the thing - it is cool because you know what’s going to happen now?

Companies that can, in order to retain good employees, are going to create and offer programs for telecommuting and for flex schedules and for compressed schedules, to allow their employees to spend less money on gas by spending less time in their cars.  This reduces the amount of gas used, as well as the amount of pollutants put into the air by our vehicles.

To accommodate the volume of new telecommuters, communications companies are going to invest in research and technology that will increase the speed and availablility of internet access. This will help get cheaper and better internet access into the very rural and low-income urban places that need it.

Car companies, because there is going to be a market, will begin spending more money on research and technology to develop actual, usable alternative-fuel cars.  There’s no point in paying people to develop these things if you know you’re not going to be able to sell them.  If you ARE going to be able to, then you bother.  

Energy companies, because again, there will be a market, will begin spending more money on research and techology to develop actual, usable, alternative energy-producing methods (wind, more efficient hydro-electric, solar).  

Supply/Demand - see how this works?

Look - I’m no economist for certain, and I’m definitely not all about letting the market run itself.  I have much more liberal views on the whole economy thing.  I grew up lower-middle income in the shiny, indulgent 80’s - I know what “letting the market work” can do to families.  And I feel for people who have to make the choice between gas in the car and meat on the table.

And short term, things are gonna suck for a while.  But putting a band-aid on the oil problem by drilling for a limited supply just isn’t the answer either - and I would bet that the negative effects that the drilling leaves behind would significantly outlives the 86 million barrels we MIGHT get out of the ground.

What you have to keep in mind is that there is “oil” and then there is “usable oil” - meaning that we’re not going to get every drop out of the ground. You only drill for oil as long as it is economically feasible to do so (there’s that economy thing again).  So when you say “86 million barrels” that’s how much there is - not how much we’d get.

But if you let the market and the society do what it always does, you will find that people are pretty damned resourceful as far as getting around a problem.  It’s what we’ve always done.  Necessity is the Mother of Invention. Well - if people can’t afford gas and can’t afford to heat their homes, I’d say that Mother Necessity is going to be a pretty busy woman for a while.

I’d be willing to bet that there are LOTS of people out there who have ideas - who have HAD good energy ideas over the last 30 years, but because there was no money in it, because it wasn’t economically feasible, they didn’t bother to pursue them.  And I’d be willing to bet that some of those ideas are going to start coming out of the closets and desk drawers and people are going to be taking another look.

The point I guess I’m trying to make is that I don’t want to see politicians or big industry get in the way by artificially pumping oil supply at us.  We’re going to run out of usable oil eventually - and before that happens, it’s going to become WAY expensive.  It’s just how it is.  Pretending that drilling in our own protected areas will change that is stupid.  And just delays the inevitable.

We’ll figure it out.  We always do.  Instead of opening up oil drilling, how about mandating that companies create telecommuting, flex-time, or compressed schedules for their employees?  Yes, I know companies talk a good game but anyone who’s actually WORKED for a company knows that the old-boy management types don’t like telecommuting. They like to see “cows in their fields.”  Mandate it, and things might change.

It doesn’t matter though.  Those things will happen anyhow.  And the beauty of it is, that once that door is open, you can’t close it again.  Once you’ve provided those sorts of options to employees, you can’t take them back.  It’s already started in some places.  Let it happen. See where it goes.  Please don’t try to “fix” the “oil crisis.”  Because I think if you look out ahead a little ways, you’ll find that it fixes itself.  Have some vision and some faith that we can work this out.

Thanks Eddie.

So I have a new friend.  Eddie.  No, he’s a real person and yes that’s his real name. It sounds fake but it’s real. I only change names to protect the guilty - the innocent so rarely need that sort of protection.    

He’s not a Jack Russell terrier either.

Anyway, Eddie and I are friends for a wide variety of reasons - we’re different enough to find each other interesting, but similar enough to have what seem to be comparable frames of reference for stuff.

But the biggest reason Eddie and I are friends is because of this absolutely brilliant line he sent to me during one of our recent email exchanges:

I’m not a perfectionist. I have had to apply the “good enough” principle to plenty of projects to meet deadlines. It’s just that I’m simply appalled by what [most] people consider “good enough.”

This is a man I can’t WAIT to have dinner and drinks with.

Jay Payton - Centerfield STUD

Jay Payton is the biggest center field stud EVER.

Christ he looks like Jim Edmunds out there (ironic given that the O’s are playing the Angels).

He stole a home run from just over the wall and then made another catch (next inning) that would have bounced off the wall and been trouble.

See - I don’t just complain…I give dap when it’s called for…

And how about that rookie left fielder - hits a home run in his first major league at bat.  Whoo - that’s gotta feel good…

The apple doesn’t fall far…

My son and I hung out at my friend’s house this evening, but came home just after 8pm.  Just in time for him to get a shower and brush his teeth and sit down to watch a little of the O’s/Yanks game.

In fact, just in time to see the 6th inning.

Cooper (the son in question) is obsessed with grand slams. Ever since he found out what one is, he does the little mental permutations (out loud) for what would have to happen for the bases to be loaded and the next batter to hit a grand slam.  I’ve tried to make it clear to him that not every batter who comes up is a “home run hitter” so he takes that into consideration when doing his little situational gymnastics.

But we saw the Orioles load the bases and then watched Adam Jones hit a grand slam to move the score from 7-0 to 11-0.  He says, “I just don’t know what to say.  I’m so happy.  I could cry.  I can’t believe he hit a grand slam and I got to SEE it!”

I’m so proud…

Whatever happened to Sniglets?

So my husband came up with a great word today.  It would be a “sniglet” if anyone knew whatever happened to using the term “sniglet” for describing these kinds of words.  Where is Rich Hall when you need him…

The term works especially well around the Washington DC area, or anywhere there are scads of government agencies and the alphabet soup of the professional services, government contracting companies who do work for them.  It describes what happens to you when you get a new job or transfer to a new position or contract and you have to re-establish new logins for everything; your own company’s HR system, the government computer login, the intranet site, blah blah blah.  

You get PINUNDATED.   8-)

« Previous entries