I'm from the school of thought that if you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the election result. No vote is a vote for apathy; a write-in says I care enough to vote and could have voted for your candidate if you'd offered a better one. A write-in sends a very different message to the people who run the political parties, in my opinion. If "none of the above" got more than half the vote, it would show that someone other than a Republocrat or a Demoplican could have won, and maybe someone else will step up. Both major parties feel to me as though they've been hijacked by their extremists (the Republicans more so) and aren't really serving the majority of the voting public.
I'm more than a little mystified at how some people choose who they're going to vote for. I'm personally willing to do a certain amount of research, but admittedly not as much as some other people. I don't understand people who always vote for one particular party, or based on one particular issue, or just because someone "seems like such a nice man". I've actually heard that one as the sole reason a woman I know voted for a candidate for president of the U.S. It suggests that the voter doesn't consider the decision as worthy of any real amount of thought. Please, folks, really think about your vote. It really does matter who is in charge, and one vote can make a difference, because a couple of thousand people who don't think they make a difference may have, if they'd voted.
As for this year's presidential election, I'm still undecided to an extent. I'm not voting for McCain; the question is whether I vote for Obama or vote for an independent candidate (likely Bob Barr). I find it interesting that both major candidates undercut their own argument against their opponent in their choice of VP. McCain's VP candidate is under qualified and Obama's VP candidate is very much part of the political establishment. It doesn't give me a lot of faith in either one. Conventional political wisdom is that the VP choice doesn't matter, but it matters to me in this case. I could live with Biden as president if need be; I believe Palin would be downright dangerous as president (even worse than George W.), and considering McCain's age and health, that alone is a big reason for me not to vote for that ticket.
Both major candidates for president seem to believe that a big honkin' government program of some kind is the solution to the problems facing this country, and I couldn't disagree more. There are situations where government must step in, but I think those situations must be carefully chosen. Government should stay out of the lives of people as much as possible and consider what incentives can be given to private interests to serve the public interests when it can. I'm not hearing that philosophy from either of them (except from McCain, to a slight extent).
I like Obama's apparent thoughtfulness and calm, but I'm not altogether convinced that that thoughtfulness is real. I hear a lot of talk about change, and not very many satisfactory answers regarding exactly what he plans to change and how. Some of the specifics I do hear I find disturbing.
I strongly dislike McCain's very negative and occasionally intentionally misleading campaign. When a candidate spends more time telling me why I shouldn't vote for his opponent than why I should vote for him, it suggests a lack of ideas.
I know that conventional wisdom in American politics is that it doesn't pay for candidates to get too far into specifics because most of the public supposedly can't follow the logic of the arguments. The philosophy is to keep things simple because most people won't understand it and will end up voting for the other guy they can understand. Does anyone else find this disturbing? I personally would honestly prefer to be educated so I can make an intelligent choice rather than trying to sift through emotionally charged and often misleading sound bites looking for substance.
Showing posts with label political. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political. Show all posts
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Thursday, April 19, 2007
The Next Cho Seung-Hui is Watching
I'm going to take you back in time several days and give you a nifty new job. You're in charge of the news at NBC, and you receive the package with the video footage mailed by Cho Seung-Hui, the guy who recently killed a large number of people at Virginia Tech. So do you put any of this on the air?
Well, there's no question that it's newsworthy. It's one of the biggest stories in the country right now, people are very interested in knowing why, and some of the answers to that question are in your hands at this very moment. Ratings will be good if you show it, and they say the public has a right to know.
On the other hand, by showing it, you're enabling him to achieve one of the main things he set out to do, which was to get his ideas out into the public eye on a national scale.
Apparently, just about everybody who runs television news would show it, because that's exactly what they did.
Now I'm going to give you a not-so-nifty job. You're a troubled individual with an agenda, and you don't much care whether you live or die anymore, but you've got something to say that you want the whole country to hear. You make a video of yourself stating your case, mail it to a major TV news outlet, and gather your guns and ammo. You can get on national television. All you need to do is kill enough people before they take you down or you have to kill yourself. After all, it worked for somebody else before.
The quality of the ideas is irrelevant as long as the troubled individual believes in them. I know that the people at NBC turned the footage over to the authorities first, as was appropriate, but they could've just broadcast a story about the contents without actually showing it. But hey, it wouldn't have been nearly as dramatic and visually interesting, which is true. Sleep well, those of you who made a decision to show the footage, because I'm sure you're going to have an incident to answer for down the line.
Well, there's no question that it's newsworthy. It's one of the biggest stories in the country right now, people are very interested in knowing why, and some of the answers to that question are in your hands at this very moment. Ratings will be good if you show it, and they say the public has a right to know.
On the other hand, by showing it, you're enabling him to achieve one of the main things he set out to do, which was to get his ideas out into the public eye on a national scale.
Apparently, just about everybody who runs television news would show it, because that's exactly what they did.
Now I'm going to give you a not-so-nifty job. You're a troubled individual with an agenda, and you don't much care whether you live or die anymore, but you've got something to say that you want the whole country to hear. You make a video of yourself stating your case, mail it to a major TV news outlet, and gather your guns and ammo. You can get on national television. All you need to do is kill enough people before they take you down or you have to kill yourself. After all, it worked for somebody else before.
The quality of the ideas is irrelevant as long as the troubled individual believes in them. I know that the people at NBC turned the footage over to the authorities first, as was appropriate, but they could've just broadcast a story about the contents without actually showing it. But hey, it wouldn't have been nearly as dramatic and visually interesting, which is true. Sleep well, those of you who made a decision to show the footage, because I'm sure you're going to have an incident to answer for down the line.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Diversity
I believe diversity is a Good Thing, but have to laugh at some of the things done in attempts to create diversity, especially in the workplace. The company I'm about to discuss shall remain nameless to protect the not-so-innocent, but the following is factual. For the record, the company involved is not my own employer.
The Company published a diversity-themed calendar this year, with each month featuring a different ethnicity. No problem there. The Company also has a monthly get-together for the employees, where volunteers bring food in, and people who don't usually have reason to interact in the workplace get to spend some time together. Again, there's nothing wrong with that, and it almost certainly helps to reduce territoriality in the workplace.
Here's where things get foolish: An Executive decides that the Company needs to take action to promote diversity in the workplace. Lacking creativity (and probably having a calendar right in front of him/her), that individual decides to make it mandatory that all offices use a diversity theme for the monthly get-togethers, said theme to be based on the ethnicity-of-the-month on the calendar. It has to be mandatory because you don't want someone in one office fussing because another office did "African American" month (just for an example, so feel free to plug in the ethnicity of your choice) and theirs didn't. The Executive also decides to make attendance at the monthly get-together mandatory, which was not previously the case. The reason for this is less clear to me, but I'll assume that there is some good reason. Maybe it was so that nobody felt snubbed because somebody else didn't attend their ethnicity's get-together. The Executive moves on with his/her day, believing the task accomplished.
The problem is that the Executive moved on without thinking this through. Let's say that there is only one person of the ethnicity-of-the-month in an office of approximately sixty people. The food is supposed to be themed to the ethnicity, and what if that one person is literally the only person in the office who knows how to make that food? Is that one person supposed to make enough food for sixty people alone? That doesn't seem right. I suppose that person could recruit help, and might be able to teach others how to make their particular ethnic specialty (assuming preparation doesn't require specialized skills), but you've still put them in charge of the undertaking, like it or not. What if that person has other projects (professional or personal) due this month and doesn't have time right now? Too bad, because you have to go by the calendar!
What if said person happens to be single, living far from family, and doesn't happen to enjoy cooking? I suppose you could order from an appropriately specialized restaurant, if there is one available, but what if there isn't?
What if your particular office just doesn't happen to have anyone of the ethnicity-of-the-month? Who is going to take charge and provide the food? The restaurant option may also apply here, but again, what if there isn't an appropriate one available in your area?
What if there are ethnicities in the office that are not represented on the calendar? As it happens, in the office I'm talking about, there is such a situation. Most ethnicities were covered in the calendar, but not this particular one. So someone is left out who may well have wanted to be involved.
There is a gay/lesbian month on the calendar. What food do you serve for gay/lesbian month? As far as I know, they eat the same food everybody else does.
Lest you think I'm just throwing bricks without suggesting a viable alternative, I do have one. Why not just do a diversity month (or a couple of months) and ask volunteers to bring food representing whatever their particular background happens to be? You should get true diversity out of that without becoming bogged down in a host of ludicrous possibilities.
A little thought could have made this a great idea instead of a bad joke, but obviously somebody couldn't be bothered to think that much.
The Company published a diversity-themed calendar this year, with each month featuring a different ethnicity. No problem there. The Company also has a monthly get-together for the employees, where volunteers bring food in, and people who don't usually have reason to interact in the workplace get to spend some time together. Again, there's nothing wrong with that, and it almost certainly helps to reduce territoriality in the workplace.
Here's where things get foolish: An Executive decides that the Company needs to take action to promote diversity in the workplace. Lacking creativity (and probably having a calendar right in front of him/her), that individual decides to make it mandatory that all offices use a diversity theme for the monthly get-togethers, said theme to be based on the ethnicity-of-the-month on the calendar. It has to be mandatory because you don't want someone in one office fussing because another office did "African American" month (just for an example, so feel free to plug in the ethnicity of your choice) and theirs didn't. The Executive also decides to make attendance at the monthly get-together mandatory, which was not previously the case. The reason for this is less clear to me, but I'll assume that there is some good reason. Maybe it was so that nobody felt snubbed because somebody else didn't attend their ethnicity's get-together. The Executive moves on with his/her day, believing the task accomplished.
The problem is that the Executive moved on without thinking this through. Let's say that there is only one person of the ethnicity-of-the-month in an office of approximately sixty people. The food is supposed to be themed to the ethnicity, and what if that one person is literally the only person in the office who knows how to make that food? Is that one person supposed to make enough food for sixty people alone? That doesn't seem right. I suppose that person could recruit help, and might be able to teach others how to make their particular ethnic specialty (assuming preparation doesn't require specialized skills), but you've still put them in charge of the undertaking, like it or not. What if that person has other projects (professional or personal) due this month and doesn't have time right now? Too bad, because you have to go by the calendar!
What if said person happens to be single, living far from family, and doesn't happen to enjoy cooking? I suppose you could order from an appropriately specialized restaurant, if there is one available, but what if there isn't?
What if your particular office just doesn't happen to have anyone of the ethnicity-of-the-month? Who is going to take charge and provide the food? The restaurant option may also apply here, but again, what if there isn't an appropriate one available in your area?
What if there are ethnicities in the office that are not represented on the calendar? As it happens, in the office I'm talking about, there is such a situation. Most ethnicities were covered in the calendar, but not this particular one. So someone is left out who may well have wanted to be involved.
There is a gay/lesbian month on the calendar. What food do you serve for gay/lesbian month? As far as I know, they eat the same food everybody else does.
Lest you think I'm just throwing bricks without suggesting a viable alternative, I do have one. Why not just do a diversity month (or a couple of months) and ask volunteers to bring food representing whatever their particular background happens to be? You should get true diversity out of that without becoming bogged down in a host of ludicrous possibilities.
A little thought could have made this a great idea instead of a bad joke, but obviously somebody couldn't be bothered to think that much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
