Well, it's been a solid year since I last wrote upon these not so hallowed walls. A buddy of mine mentioned he started a blog, so I thought maybe I we revive this short-lived project of mine.
I will however be taking a mild turn in content, and will be focusing on the realm of education, academia, and policies that concern these areas. Not to say that I won't take the occasional jab at stupidity in other areas, but I will try to write with more purpose and keep if up for more than a few weeks.
Let's see.
First real re-blog start coming soon.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Lieberman vs Lamont
All my life I've wanted the chance to make an active political choice, especially one that wasn't necessarily the presidency. I'm finally given the chance and I can't make up my damn mind. As a result, in this blog, I will work it out and try to either make a decision or find out what I need to know next to be able to make the decision.
Lets break down what I know (or at least think I know about the candidates) and whether that's a positive or a negative.
Lieberman:
18 Year Senate (overall neutral)
Has clout and seniority (even as the CT Junior Senator) positive
I haven't been real happy with the legislative branch lately, including some Lieberman decisions negative
Has a strong positive record concerning the environment, education, health care and many core liberal areas positive
His record in the above areas has gone moderate in an effort to unite the Senate and get things done negative
He has not stood up against Republican/Conservative bills and values and has left his roots to enable action regardless of that actions implications very negative
Lamont
He's new to the Political Arena neutral
He hasn't been politically conditioned and will bring a new viewpoint on many issues positive
He has absolutely no experience and could be a weak political link negative
He has very little record, but has said that he stands with the liberal party on almost all issues. Essentially, he's Lieberman without the moderation neutral
He's outspoken about getting out of Iraq, which speaks well towards keeping out of future involvement. positive
He's a polarizing figure and even if he personally doesn't do a whole lot in office, he will open the floodgates of holding Senate Lifers accountable and, if he wins, will help the extreme left regain some attention positive
Summary
I have to say I like Lamont mostly because he's not Lieberman. It's difficult for me to support a candidate when his greatest asset is his lack of negative record. However, as I've posted here before, I'm tired of there being Moderates and Conservatives represented. Even though I'm largely a slightly left moderate, I don't feel that Moderate candidates help protect my interests. That is to say, the extremes of the right are too far out for moderates to have a chance of compromise that's anywhere near the center. I truly feel that the Senate needs some extreme lefts to average out the extreme rights, and because of that, I will probably support Lamont.
That said, I wish I had the ability to elect both men since I see the need for both. The Senate desperately needs a moderate facilitator like Lieberman, and I would be happy to see a left leaning moderate in there. Unfortunately, what I need to do with my vote, trumps my thoughts of what the Senate needs.
This all ties in with my observation/over-generalization that Democrats tend to be more logical and be so widespread that their backing is unfocused. I think that a very liberal candidate helps bring the polarization back towards the left and will help stop some of the Bush Atrocities in his last two lame duck years.
Lets break down what I know (or at least think I know about the candidates) and whether that's a positive or a negative.
Lieberman:
18 Year Senate (overall neutral)
Has clout and seniority (even as the CT Junior Senator) positive
I haven't been real happy with the legislative branch lately, including some Lieberman decisions negative
Has a strong positive record concerning the environment, education, health care and many core liberal areas positive
His record in the above areas has gone moderate in an effort to unite the Senate and get things done negative
He has not stood up against Republican/Conservative bills and values and has left his roots to enable action regardless of that actions implications very negative
Lamont
He's new to the Political Arena neutral
He hasn't been politically conditioned and will bring a new viewpoint on many issues positive
He has absolutely no experience and could be a weak political link negative
He has very little record, but has said that he stands with the liberal party on almost all issues. Essentially, he's Lieberman without the moderation neutral
He's outspoken about getting out of Iraq, which speaks well towards keeping out of future involvement. positive
He's a polarizing figure and even if he personally doesn't do a whole lot in office, he will open the floodgates of holding Senate Lifers accountable and, if he wins, will help the extreme left regain some attention positive
Summary
I have to say I like Lamont mostly because he's not Lieberman. It's difficult for me to support a candidate when his greatest asset is his lack of negative record. However, as I've posted here before, I'm tired of there being Moderates and Conservatives represented. Even though I'm largely a slightly left moderate, I don't feel that Moderate candidates help protect my interests. That is to say, the extremes of the right are too far out for moderates to have a chance of compromise that's anywhere near the center. I truly feel that the Senate needs some extreme lefts to average out the extreme rights, and because of that, I will probably support Lamont.
That said, I wish I had the ability to elect both men since I see the need for both. The Senate desperately needs a moderate facilitator like Lieberman, and I would be happy to see a left leaning moderate in there. Unfortunately, what I need to do with my vote, trumps my thoughts of what the Senate needs.
This all ties in with my observation/over-generalization that Democrats tend to be more logical and be so widespread that their backing is unfocused. I think that a very liberal candidate helps bring the polarization back towards the left and will help stop some of the Bush Atrocities in his last two lame duck years.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
George W. Bush is a moron, and it hurts me that he's our president
Well, like Rocky VI I'll be using blunt f0rce trama for this one. Bush is quite dumb. He's an idiot among men and he does his best to surround himself with two types of people. 1) People just like him. 2) People who want jobs or power or influence (no blowjobs though for this administration) so they know enough to act dumb, at least until they've acted it for so long that it becomes second nature.
By "people like him" I would be referring to idiots. Leaders tend to be one of a few stereotypes in most ways. There are those who are dreamers and visionaries of what will be, and there are those who are nostalgic for a time that never was and do whatever they can to invoke hints of this non-existent time gone by. There are other types, sure, but I don't need to mention them since I seem to have found the mold most closely suited to Bushy (which sounds more degrading, Bushy or Bushie?).
The latest development in idiocracy was well documented here
Essentially Bush left a microphone on when it wasn't supposed to be, and spouted out his rhetoric of stupidity. Who knows if it was left on by mistake or if it was a clever ploy to let the world know what he really thought of Diet Coke.
Its been six weeks since I've written about this or anything else for that matter, and I remember that one of the reasons I had stopped writing was the weight of examining our administration everyday. Not that I was doing heavy hitting research or anything of that like, but I was essentially angering myself everyday to no gain. I suppose that means I should buck up and affect some change, or shut up and take it.
This brings me to the perpetual disappointment that Bush was re-elected. I do take some pleasure in knowing that it won't happen again, but am sorry that I will not be able to once again cast my vote for "someone who isn't Bush."
I'm rambling and thats all I got. Hopefully it won't be another six weeks, since that would be after the CT primary (something that I plan on writing about once I have formed an opinion).
By "people like him" I would be referring to idiots. Leaders tend to be one of a few stereotypes in most ways. There are those who are dreamers and visionaries of what will be, and there are those who are nostalgic for a time that never was and do whatever they can to invoke hints of this non-existent time gone by. There are other types, sure, but I don't need to mention them since I seem to have found the mold most closely suited to Bushy (which sounds more degrading, Bushy or Bushie?).
The latest development in idiocracy was well documented here
Essentially Bush left a microphone on when it wasn't supposed to be, and spouted out his rhetoric of stupidity. Who knows if it was left on by mistake or if it was a clever ploy to let the world know what he really thought of Diet Coke.
Its been six weeks since I've written about this or anything else for that matter, and I remember that one of the reasons I had stopped writing was the weight of examining our administration everyday. Not that I was doing heavy hitting research or anything of that like, but I was essentially angering myself everyday to no gain. I suppose that means I should buck up and affect some change, or shut up and take it.
This brings me to the perpetual disappointment that Bush was re-elected. I do take some pleasure in knowing that it won't happen again, but am sorry that I will not be able to once again cast my vote for "someone who isn't Bush."
I'm rambling and thats all I got. Hopefully it won't be another six weeks, since that would be after the CT primary (something that I plan on writing about once I have formed an opinion).
Thursday, June 01, 2006
yer takin our jerbs
Part II, as promised.
Yesterday I started talking about eternal debates, namely ones involving "do it for the children" and ones in spewing "that will take our jobs".
Today we're (well I'm) looking at the loss of jobs. Here's the thing. Jobs don't need to stay the same. In fact, doing the same job for many years often leads to a sense of stagnation that can't be overcome. While this doesn't apply to everyone and every job, it is certainly something to consider.
Having lived in Cleveland for several years, I was able to see what happened when a town that had boomed under steel starting closing the steel mills. It was not good, to say the least. That said, it was not good for the short term, who knows how it will play out in the long term. Over time, losing that city center, which was going to become outdated sometime, forces the city and its residents to look for new ways of generating revenue on the collective and individual sides.
In relation to yesterday's post, I do not believe that the loss of delivery jobs will significantly affect the economic situation of the CT region. The truth is that the CT economy is largely based on technological jobs as well as high-flying corporations. Who it will affect are the individuals who lose a route and therefore a job, but, it is my belief that you can't hold the inconvience of one person (or even an entire family) over the possibility of moving forward. If this person's only skill is delivering, they should be able to find another job using similar skills for different venues of a different agency altogether.
In the extreme case, we wouldn't make the argument that cocaine should be legalized because we feel that the cocaine dealer does not get a fair shake with it being illegal. In fact, I think the largest reason why cigarettes and gasoline are still the high grossing products they are is largely because people are afraid to eliminate those businesses because so many people make their living doing it. If cigarettes didn't offer lucrative business careers, those working so hard to continue their market dominance would be working elsewhere finding something else to peddle. Think what would happen if all those minds were used to promote biodiesel or even promote the US to other countries instead of their current endeavours.
The point is, why not encourage people to branch out? I'm not for mandatory job loss, but I think the world would be a hell of a lot more refined if people must, out of nessicity, find new ways to think and apply their skills and talents.
Of course this could all be the by-product of me not really knowing what the hell I should get really good at.
Yesterday I started talking about eternal debates, namely ones involving "do it for the children" and ones in spewing "that will take our jobs".
Today we're (well I'm) looking at the loss of jobs. Here's the thing. Jobs don't need to stay the same. In fact, doing the same job for many years often leads to a sense of stagnation that can't be overcome. While this doesn't apply to everyone and every job, it is certainly something to consider.
Having lived in Cleveland for several years, I was able to see what happened when a town that had boomed under steel starting closing the steel mills. It was not good, to say the least. That said, it was not good for the short term, who knows how it will play out in the long term. Over time, losing that city center, which was going to become outdated sometime, forces the city and its residents to look for new ways of generating revenue on the collective and individual sides.
In relation to yesterday's post, I do not believe that the loss of delivery jobs will significantly affect the economic situation of the CT region. The truth is that the CT economy is largely based on technological jobs as well as high-flying corporations. Who it will affect are the individuals who lose a route and therefore a job, but, it is my belief that you can't hold the inconvience of one person (or even an entire family) over the possibility of moving forward. If this person's only skill is delivering, they should be able to find another job using similar skills for different venues of a different agency altogether.
In the extreme case, we wouldn't make the argument that cocaine should be legalized because we feel that the cocaine dealer does not get a fair shake with it being illegal. In fact, I think the largest reason why cigarettes and gasoline are still the high grossing products they are is largely because people are afraid to eliminate those businesses because so many people make their living doing it. If cigarettes didn't offer lucrative business careers, those working so hard to continue their market dominance would be working elsewhere finding something else to peddle. Think what would happen if all those minds were used to promote biodiesel or even promote the US to other countries instead of their current endeavours.
The point is, why not encourage people to branch out? I'm not for mandatory job loss, but I think the world would be a hell of a lot more refined if people must, out of nessicity, find new ways to think and apply their skills and talents.
Of course this could all be the by-product of me not really knowing what the hell I should get really good at.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Food Comma
Connecticut recently passed some legislation restricting the sale of sugar drinks in public schools. It did not pass without much consternation, especially from the larger cola groups commenting on the number of jobs such a ban would inflict. First off, I hate the rather cliche "fear of jobs" vs "good for our children" debate, because in most cases its not great for either side, but an attempt to hang on to what has already been established. In any case, I'm posting to complain about both sides rather independently.
First, the no soda contingent:
I don't drink soda. Or pop. Or fizzy juice. At least not on a regular basis. In most cases I drink about a glass or bottle of it about once every 3 months, sometimes more, sometimes less. I stopped when it was affecting my voice (I had a bunch of singing training some years back). I also stopped when I couldn't sleep (I still avoid caffeine because I'm wired enough as it is). I also stopped because i would rather have a beer than a soda.
In any case, no one had to take the soda from me. Making the soda unavailable at school will be about as effective as not allowing alcohol at school or even marijuana. This has worked so well as a prevention method that almost no high school student drinks or smokes... ever.
Even looking at the younger aged children, theres no reason that the selling of soda should have affected them in the first place. After working in an elementary school, I can assure you that there was never a time when I let my 10 year old students out of the classroom to go purchase a soda. Even if they brought a soda from home, they didn't drink it in my class, so it didn't affect me.
This is not to say that I think that the cafeteria's should make it easily accessible, but the beverage alternatives are never that great either. Sports drinks, juice boxes, and whatever else is there is not as good for you as water, but people are going to drink them. I drink them. It's a person's own choice, and not having those choices in one aspect of life will a) not stop people from using them and b) not mean that they will instantly become healthy.
On the subject of my time teaching, I was often deeply troubled when I saw students (many) who were on free or reduced lunch spend $5 (the full lunch cost 3.25) on bags of cheetos and candy bars. There were several levels to my annoyance including the fact that they shouldn't be spending extra money on crap food and that I would have to then deal with a student who was covered in orange finger marks. Forget keeping their attention, try getting those marks off the hand drums.
I digress...
I'm glad to see soda out of schools, but I don't think it will do much good. In most cases, I think the school is losing more than its gaining unless it spends time talking about positive healthy alternatives. Students have so many options in front of them in and out of school that the goal for educators (when it comes to health) really has to be lifestyle education. This, of course, means getting parents involved in their students education which is never easy, but almost always beneficial to all involved (except for the crazy bastard children and crazy bastard parents). That said, I think its worth it, in the long run, to find ways to get the healthy information out to the next generation. Even with this in mind, I have read several articles
that really point out some of the flaws in the teaching of healthy concepts. Not the least of which is that we're never quite sure what "healthy" actually means. When a child is going through that awkward 9-13 stage, its really difficult to tell how healthy and active a child is by their appearance. It's not that I think the world should be fat, but I do think that being thin doesn't mean being healthy. That wouldn't be an issue except for a lot of what's taught about health in public schools is how to get or stay small. What you can not do so that you don't end up like (pan to 300lb cow pic).
I was going to talk about the other half of the vs, and I will, but it will have to wait till tomorrow. Don't want to waste all my good material on one post.
First, the no soda contingent:
I don't drink soda. Or pop. Or fizzy juice. At least not on a regular basis. In most cases I drink about a glass or bottle of it about once every 3 months, sometimes more, sometimes less. I stopped when it was affecting my voice (I had a bunch of singing training some years back). I also stopped when I couldn't sleep (I still avoid caffeine because I'm wired enough as it is). I also stopped because i would rather have a beer than a soda.
In any case, no one had to take the soda from me. Making the soda unavailable at school will be about as effective as not allowing alcohol at school or even marijuana. This has worked so well as a prevention method that almost no high school student drinks or smokes... ever.
Even looking at the younger aged children, theres no reason that the selling of soda should have affected them in the first place. After working in an elementary school, I can assure you that there was never a time when I let my 10 year old students out of the classroom to go purchase a soda. Even if they brought a soda from home, they didn't drink it in my class, so it didn't affect me.
This is not to say that I think that the cafeteria's should make it easily accessible, but the beverage alternatives are never that great either. Sports drinks, juice boxes, and whatever else is there is not as good for you as water, but people are going to drink them. I drink them. It's a person's own choice, and not having those choices in one aspect of life will a) not stop people from using them and b) not mean that they will instantly become healthy.
On the subject of my time teaching, I was often deeply troubled when I saw students (many) who were on free or reduced lunch spend $5 (the full lunch cost 3.25) on bags of cheetos and candy bars. There were several levels to my annoyance including the fact that they shouldn't be spending extra money on crap food and that I would have to then deal with a student who was covered in orange finger marks. Forget keeping their attention, try getting those marks off the hand drums.
I digress...
I'm glad to see soda out of schools, but I don't think it will do much good. In most cases, I think the school is losing more than its gaining unless it spends time talking about positive healthy alternatives. Students have so many options in front of them in and out of school that the goal for educators (when it comes to health) really has to be lifestyle education. This, of course, means getting parents involved in their students education which is never easy, but almost always beneficial to all involved (except for the crazy bastard children and crazy bastard parents). That said, I think its worth it, in the long run, to find ways to get the healthy information out to the next generation. Even with this in mind, I have read several articles
that really point out some of the flaws in the teaching of healthy concepts. Not the least of which is that we're never quite sure what "healthy" actually means. When a child is going through that awkward 9-13 stage, its really difficult to tell how healthy and active a child is by their appearance. It's not that I think the world should be fat, but I do think that being thin doesn't mean being healthy. That wouldn't be an issue except for a lot of what's taught about health in public schools is how to get or stay small. What you can not do so that you don't end up like (pan to 300lb cow pic).
I was going to talk about the other half of the vs, and I will, but it will have to wait till tomorrow. Don't want to waste all my good material on one post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
