Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Friday, February 8, 2008
Candidates for office - why we choose to vote for who we vote
I can never remember a year in my life when I actually knew people who voted during the caucus. I remember hearing of Super Tuesday, but I swear that was during the actual election. This year's presidential race apparently turned out more caucus voters than ever before. People cared about who represented each party. Romney vs McCain. Obama vs Hillary. Throw in a couple of Huckabees, Guilianis, Thompsons, etc and the race was all over the place. So the question is, why do we vote for who we vote for? The common answer is "well the issues." But what does that mean? Is it practical or even smart?
There was this web phenomenon this year of web sites that have these Q & A's that you answer the questions and indicated how strongly you feel about each question and then it tells you who you should vote for. Now while these sites can be fun and they are informative on where each candidate stands on the issues, should you really vote for that person? Isn't this type of selection really just one big compromise? All these sites do is match you with the candidate using a most common denominator type method. Is this how we should select our candidate for president?
Is the candidate's collective stance on the "issues" the most important variable in selecting the President of the United States?
Its not like the "issues" ever change. There is always a "leading" issue in every Presidential election. This year its universal health care. In the past its been the economy. Or war policies. Or abortion. Or gay rights. Or the environment. Or flag burning. Or the war on drugs. Or gang violence. The list goes one.
My point is that these issues will always arise and due to our checks and balances system, the Senate and the House will always have a say in these issues. There will always be compromise. Unless there is an issue that is more important than any other issue, maybe the issues are not the most important factor in choosing a president. When it comes to choosing the leader of the free world, we need a strong leader. A figure head. A non-political intelligent honest person who has not been whored out to the lobbyists. A president that we can look to and say "now THAT person is presidential!" Of the 4 leading party leaders this year, the order of "Presidentialness" is Romney, Obama, McCain, and then Hillary. Romney is the most genuine, honest, business-like leader. Obama also has those qualities and does not come across as "political". McCain and Hillary seem too political to me. They are too well connected to Washington.
This country needs a strong, hard working leader who can be turned to in a time of crisis. (Romney) One who can make good decisions without consulting the polls. (Obama) Not one who might die of a heart attack in the first year of office. (McCain) And definitely not one who is over politically connected and over lobbied. (Hillary)
Do the issues have a place in our decision making? Of course they do. But are they the biggest factor in deciding the President? Well... maybe they're not.
- Demosthenes
There was this web phenomenon this year of web sites that have these Q & A's that you answer the questions and indicated how strongly you feel about each question and then it tells you who you should vote for. Now while these sites can be fun and they are informative on where each candidate stands on the issues, should you really vote for that person? Isn't this type of selection really just one big compromise? All these sites do is match you with the candidate using a most common denominator type method. Is this how we should select our candidate for president?
Is the candidate's collective stance on the "issues" the most important variable in selecting the President of the United States?
Its not like the "issues" ever change. There is always a "leading" issue in every Presidential election. This year its universal health care. In the past its been the economy. Or war policies. Or abortion. Or gay rights. Or the environment. Or flag burning. Or the war on drugs. Or gang violence. The list goes one.
My point is that these issues will always arise and due to our checks and balances system, the Senate and the House will always have a say in these issues. There will always be compromise. Unless there is an issue that is more important than any other issue, maybe the issues are not the most important factor in choosing a president. When it comes to choosing the leader of the free world, we need a strong leader. A figure head. A non-political intelligent honest person who has not been whored out to the lobbyists. A president that we can look to and say "now THAT person is presidential!" Of the 4 leading party leaders this year, the order of "Presidentialness" is Romney, Obama, McCain, and then Hillary. Romney is the most genuine, honest, business-like leader. Obama also has those qualities and does not come across as "political". McCain and Hillary seem too political to me. They are too well connected to Washington.
This country needs a strong, hard working leader who can be turned to in a time of crisis. (Romney) One who can make good decisions without consulting the polls. (Obama) Not one who might die of a heart attack in the first year of office. (McCain) And definitely not one who is over politically connected and over lobbied. (Hillary)
Do the issues have a place in our decision making? Of course they do. But are they the biggest factor in deciding the President? Well... maybe they're not.
- Demosthenes
Friday, November 16, 2007
College Athletes - Why aren't they paid?
Did you have a job in college? Did you have to work to pay for school, housing, social life, books, car, insurance, family, etc?
Now imagine that you are a college athlete. You work hard for your sport. You sacrifice your time and your body for your school. You work at least as hard and more likely harder than anyone else in school and yet you don't get financially compensated for it. Many argue that scholarships are compensation; maybe. I say thats not nearly enough.
Now before you revert back to old stereotypes, hear me out. I've had many friends that were athletes in college. My favorite college job was in the computer lab in the Smith Field House at BYU helping out college athletes. They work hard! If they are not traveling for games they are in the weight room or swimming pool or running across the country. All colleges and universities, on some level, point to their athletic progam as a status symbol. These athlete bring status and prestige to their schools. Other departments do it too. They point to their medical program or business school and say "See... Look! We have one of the top programs in the country!" Why do they do this? One word: Money. Schools need money. The reason schools build gigantic stadiums that only get used a handful of times per year is because of money. They make money. I once heard that the football program brings in enough money to cover its own costs AND cover ALL THE OTHER SPORTS (except men's basketball). Football pays the bills.
Coach K from Duke does commercials and gets paid for them. Local coaches have their faces on billboards for car dealerships and communication companies. Athletes, those who actually do the work, get nothing. Is this fair? I say no! Of course not. The only reason they don't get paid is because of the concern that athletes will be swayed by boosters. Well... so what? If a computer scientist writes a program at school for a project and then sells that program, he gets paid for it. Whats the difference? I say none.
Many would argue that universities are institutes of higher learning and emphasis should not be placed on athletics. That we go there to learn, study, and broaden our minds. That's true. Kinda. Most of us go to college so we can have a better job. Make more money. I know, I know... the purists will tell me they went to learn. I did too. But at the same time if we all did that we would just study the philosophy of whatever subject we majored in. But that's not all of it. Universities as I see it are to make people better. Physically, mentally, spiritually, socially, or whatever. The same people that posit the same argument also argue that everyone is different and have different skills. I say that's true. Some people are born athletes. Some are born scientists. One gets paid, so should the other one.
If students are allowed to major in what interests them, then I say let the athletes major in athletics if they want to. Why put up with the sham majors? During college football season they run commercials that say something to the effect of "student athletes, 95% of us don't go on to play professional sports". So I says they should major in something that can provide them with a better lifestyle. Let the other 5% major in sports.
Please. Disagree with me. I would like some feedback.
- Demosthenes
Now imagine that you are a college athlete. You work hard for your sport. You sacrifice your time and your body for your school. You work at least as hard and more likely harder than anyone else in school and yet you don't get financially compensated for it. Many argue that scholarships are compensation; maybe. I say thats not nearly enough.
Now before you revert back to old stereotypes, hear me out. I've had many friends that were athletes in college. My favorite college job was in the computer lab in the Smith Field House at BYU helping out college athletes. They work hard! If they are not traveling for games they are in the weight room or swimming pool or running across the country. All colleges and universities, on some level, point to their athletic progam as a status symbol. These athlete bring status and prestige to their schools. Other departments do it too. They point to their medical program or business school and say "See... Look! We have one of the top programs in the country!" Why do they do this? One word: Money. Schools need money. The reason schools build gigantic stadiums that only get used a handful of times per year is because of money. They make money. I once heard that the football program brings in enough money to cover its own costs AND cover ALL THE OTHER SPORTS (except men's basketball). Football pays the bills.
Coach K from Duke does commercials and gets paid for them. Local coaches have their faces on billboards for car dealerships and communication companies. Athletes, those who actually do the work, get nothing. Is this fair? I say no! Of course not. The only reason they don't get paid is because of the concern that athletes will be swayed by boosters. Well... so what? If a computer scientist writes a program at school for a project and then sells that program, he gets paid for it. Whats the difference? I say none.
Many would argue that universities are institutes of higher learning and emphasis should not be placed on athletics. That we go there to learn, study, and broaden our minds. That's true. Kinda. Most of us go to college so we can have a better job. Make more money. I know, I know... the purists will tell me they went to learn. I did too. But at the same time if we all did that we would just study the philosophy of whatever subject we majored in. But that's not all of it. Universities as I see it are to make people better. Physically, mentally, spiritually, socially, or whatever. The same people that posit the same argument also argue that everyone is different and have different skills. I say that's true. Some people are born athletes. Some are born scientists. One gets paid, so should the other one.
If students are allowed to major in what interests them, then I say let the athletes major in athletics if they want to. Why put up with the sham majors? During college football season they run commercials that say something to the effect of "student athletes, 95% of us don't go on to play professional sports". So I says they should major in something that can provide them with a better lifestyle. Let the other 5% major in sports.
Please. Disagree with me. I would like some feedback.
- Demosthenes
Friday, November 2, 2007
Utah's Referendum 1 - A Study on Proper forums for Public Debate
The big issue on the ballot this year in Utah is referendum 1 in regards to vouchers for students attending private schools. Both sides of the issue have been quite heated. Salt Lake City is voting for a new mayor, but the voucher debate has been more publicized and more contentious. I don't want to use this venue to discuss the pro's or con's of the issue, but rather to discuss the proper forum for the discussion of such topics.
One of my friends works at a large local business. The owner of the business sent out an email to all the employees stating his position on the referendum and reasons for his position. He invited whomever wished to "reply to all" if they wanted to support his position or offer a counter position. He opened debate for all without work repercussions. Many employees responded back on both sides of the debate. Feelings were hurt and contention was high, creating an atmosphere that was not very agreeable. My friend that works at the business felt that it was inappropriate for the owner to send out the email. She referred to the employee handbook that states that work email can only be used for work purposes. She also expressed the feeling of uneasiness at work for the remainder of the day.
My opinion on the matter differs from my friend's. I'm actually ok with the owner of this business stating his opinion and inviting an open discussion at work. Its his company. He can do with it as he pleases. I think it would be inappropriate for an employee to use work property for the debate without the owners consent, but I think it shows some civic and social responsibility to allow public policy to be debated where we work. There might be legal ramifications if this were a publicly traded company or if pay or advancement in the company is influenced by a persons opinion. But a private business can be a good forum for public debate.
In regards to the ill-feeling at work, people need more debate in their lives and the chance to stand up for what they believe in. Many people are too easily offended if someone else doesn't agree. If the debate is rational, focused on the topic at hand, and does not include personal attacks or labels, then it is good for the people involved. More debate could influence the way people handle controversy and facilitate more open discussions on minor issues, ones where people usually stay silent to "avoid confrontation". This George McFly like change could be a good thing.
Related to this discussion is the question 'Where are the proper forums for debate?' In the LDS culture, every election a letter is sent by the first presidency and read to the congregation that encourages its members to vote for who they think is right. It explicitly states that the church does not advocate any candidate over another. Occasionally the church will speak out against certain issues, but the congregation is at liberty to vote for whomever or whatever they want. An example of this is President Heber J. Grant, who was was a strong advocate of the 18th amendment, but despite his urging, Utah helped ratify the 21st amendment repealing prohibition. Many times in public fast and testimony meetings or the occasional Sunday school class, a member of the congregation will introduce public policy/controversial topics into the lesson or talk. And while I agree that is inappropriate to use testimony meeting for something other than testimony, I don't thing its inappropriate to discuss politics in church. Maybe a fireside or a ward activity would be appropriate. But I think discussing politics with people who have the same values and beliefs as you is a good idea. The United States has demonstrated over and over that is more of a Republic than a Democracy. Protecting the rights of the minority takes precedence over the ruling of the majority. A church group is a powerful special interest group and should be united in its political stance.
This is an odd choice for a first discussion considering I have never much cared for politics. But please share your ideas or thoughts.
- Locke
One of my friends works at a large local business. The owner of the business sent out an email to all the employees stating his position on the referendum and reasons for his position. He invited whomever wished to "reply to all" if they wanted to support his position or offer a counter position. He opened debate for all without work repercussions. Many employees responded back on both sides of the debate. Feelings were hurt and contention was high, creating an atmosphere that was not very agreeable. My friend that works at the business felt that it was inappropriate for the owner to send out the email. She referred to the employee handbook that states that work email can only be used for work purposes. She also expressed the feeling of uneasiness at work for the remainder of the day.
My opinion on the matter differs from my friend's. I'm actually ok with the owner of this business stating his opinion and inviting an open discussion at work. Its his company. He can do with it as he pleases. I think it would be inappropriate for an employee to use work property for the debate without the owners consent, but I think it shows some civic and social responsibility to allow public policy to be debated where we work. There might be legal ramifications if this were a publicly traded company or if pay or advancement in the company is influenced by a persons opinion. But a private business can be a good forum for public debate.
In regards to the ill-feeling at work, people need more debate in their lives and the chance to stand up for what they believe in. Many people are too easily offended if someone else doesn't agree. If the debate is rational, focused on the topic at hand, and does not include personal attacks or labels, then it is good for the people involved. More debate could influence the way people handle controversy and facilitate more open discussions on minor issues, ones where people usually stay silent to "avoid confrontation". This George McFly like change could be a good thing.
Related to this discussion is the question 'Where are the proper forums for debate?' In the LDS culture, every election a letter is sent by the first presidency and read to the congregation that encourages its members to vote for who they think is right. It explicitly states that the church does not advocate any candidate over another. Occasionally the church will speak out against certain issues, but the congregation is at liberty to vote for whomever or whatever they want. An example of this is President Heber J. Grant, who was was a strong advocate of the 18th amendment, but despite his urging, Utah helped ratify the 21st amendment repealing prohibition. Many times in public fast and testimony meetings or the occasional Sunday school class, a member of the congregation will introduce public policy/controversial topics into the lesson or talk. And while I agree that is inappropriate to use testimony meeting for something other than testimony, I don't thing its inappropriate to discuss politics in church. Maybe a fireside or a ward activity would be appropriate. But I think discussing politics with people who have the same values and beliefs as you is a good idea. The United States has demonstrated over and over that is more of a Republic than a Democracy. Protecting the rights of the minority takes precedence over the ruling of the majority. A church group is a powerful special interest group and should be united in its political stance.
This is an odd choice for a first discussion considering I have never much cared for politics. But please share your ideas or thoughts.
- Locke
Locke vs Demosthenes: Introduction and Purpose
Many times in my life certain issues arise that I find myself in disagreement with the general consensus. The disagreements may arise due to a lack of understanding or knowledge, different views on the topic, or simply that everyone else is wrong, but you are right!
This blog is meant to be a forum for topics such as those. I have a few ideas already that I want to pontificate on, but please send in any suggestions or topics, they would be welcomed.
The title of this blog is taken from Ender's Game. Peter Wiggen is Ender's brother and plans to take over the world by disguising himself and his sister Valentine as 2 political figures, Locke and Demosthenes, in the "net" forums. (A cool thing about Ender's Game is that it was written long before the internet was widely used, but it is very similar to the future he envisioned at the time. Similar to 1984.) He uses them to polarize political thinking into 2 sides and raise himself as Hegemon. I recommend Ender's Game to anyone. (For some reason, even though the book is science fiction, every girl that I or my friends have recommended it to have enjoyed it.)
I hope you enjoy this blog. Whether it facilitates a discussion, acts as a source of random information, or just dies into the nether-world of the internet.
- Locke
This blog is meant to be a forum for topics such as those. I have a few ideas already that I want to pontificate on, but please send in any suggestions or topics, they would be welcomed.
The title of this blog is taken from Ender's Game. Peter Wiggen is Ender's brother and plans to take over the world by disguising himself and his sister Valentine as 2 political figures, Locke and Demosthenes, in the "net" forums. (A cool thing about Ender's Game is that it was written long before the internet was widely used, but it is very similar to the future he envisioned at the time. Similar to 1984.) He uses them to polarize political thinking into 2 sides and raise himself as Hegemon. I recommend Ender's Game to anyone. (For some reason, even though the book is science fiction, every girl that I or my friends have recommended it to have enjoyed it.)
I hope you enjoy this blog. Whether it facilitates a discussion, acts as a source of random information, or just dies into the nether-world of the internet.
- Locke
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
