Haven't had time to post on the amazing craziness surrounding the elections - partially due to kids and school - partially due to the overwhelming amount of confusion from all different directions regarding the elections. I honestly "gave up" a little because it was emotional overload. And, I am learning that I need to keep my eye on bigger truths than what's constantly happening in politics. It's important to be a responsible citizen - i.e. get informed and GO VOTE! But it's also not the answer to everything worth seeking.
Couldn't pass up this article that the hubby sent. For all of you that are certain of Obama's victory, here's some food for thought from "toast" by Sean Malstrom (link to follow):
I am not running for President. You, the gentle reader, are not running for President. The only two people who are running for President, Obama and McCain, are going to states and sending advertising money to other states that don’t even match the public polls. For example, Pennslyvania is colored a ‘dark blue’, yet both Obama and McCain are visiting the state. ‘Dark blue’ or ‘light blue’ is the color of Iowa, yet both Obama and McCain are there. Many polls say that Georgia is a ‘toss-up’, yet neither Obama or McCain are visiting that state. Since the only two people running for President are performing actions entirely differently than the public polling, one can either say that the presidential candidates are just running around states randomly and are dumb, or it is the possibility that the public polling is not accurate.
I told my husband to stop listening and reading about polls two weeks ago - personally, they make me crazy because they are trying to predict the future - which we all know is just an educated guess. With the polling data being all over the place and Gallop having three different formulas for obtaining data, you'd think people would get the idea that this year in particular the pollsters are not even confident they are close to the mark. In addition, I firmly believe what Malstrom explains in more detail, that polls are a product being sold to an audience too. If you know the answer people want to hear, it's easier to sell the product. Same goes for exit polling, unfortunately. People can sense when their choice is undesired by those asking the questions and have been known to change their answers or decline to particpate. Those are two reasons why exit polls sometimes don't match election resuls.
For more information on how the so-called impossible might be possible, check out the full post.
Part of the product these polls and the media are selling (I think), is that people will "buy in" to their results. I think this product is going to add to the anger people will feel if the result of the election is different than predicted. Great, let's get a divided country even more hostile toward each other.
The polls and the media can cause even more division by calling states before the votes are counted (quoted from the same post as above):
In 2004, the media wisely delayed calling states when voting hadn’t been completed (such as Florida in 2000). There will be none of that delay in 2008. I suspect we will have many states called for Obama before the voting is even done. The state that will be erroneously called for Obama will be Pennslyvania. In Pennslyvania, all the Obama votes are mostly in the Philly and Pittsburg area and Obama will comfortably carry those areas. And those areas are the eastern part of Pennslyvania with the western part being more rural. With the ‘Obama leads’ that Philly and Pittsburg area comes in, and the myth that Obama is ahead 25 points (or whatever) in PA being believed by the anchors, they will call PA early. But once all the rest of the state votes, they will have to turn it into a toss-up. They will be EXTREMELY reluctant to call the state for McCain even when the votes clearly show he has won there (and he *will* win there.)"
I know there will be many people very upset if Obama does not come out the victor in this long, serious race. There are many divisions in this country that face the new president, and we each of probably felt that friction personally. If McCain wins, I believe there are people out there who will have such sour grapes that they will do everything to misrepresent and devalue his efforts to heal old wounds and the successes he will have as president (exhibit A: Bush after 2004). The bickering and complaining will create more and more divisions. So regardless of who wins, can we agree to be civil to each other, to pick up the broken pieces of our country, and to work together?
And remember, the enthusiasm behind a vote does not change how much it is weighted. The opinions heard most loudly in the media and out in public do not eliminate the need for the actual election. These factors are not an infringement on free speech, but rather a degree of intimidation that can also disenfranchise voters - or at the very least, change their responses in polls.
Just some thoughts for the day. I hope you have a good one, and regardless of the weather - make informed decisions and VOTE!
GT <><
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Hindsight is 20/20
More articles today on the last two years.
Thomas Sowell from Townhall.com writes more about what Obama and McCain were doing the last two years related to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in particular. What strikes me is that Bush, Allen Greenspan, and others in Bush's administration warned that Freddie and Fannie needed more regulation. While Republicans are known to be for deregulation, this is a time they supported it more regulation, and yet the Democrats now claim the opposite. And Obama himself has benefited handsomely from Fannie Mae's contributions. Why isn't this covered by mainstream media - even if just to show their was no impropriety?
"Facts don't matter much politically if they are not reported." ~ Sowell, Townhall.com 10/03/2008
Self censurship is one step toward government sanctioned censorship.
Orson Scott Card also wants his fellow reporters to step up to the plate and do good reporting work - whether it supports their favorite candidate or not.
"Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?" ~ Card, http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html, 10/21/2008
I cannot grasp why the news is so slow when so many historic things are taking place. Friends and family have remarked to me that they've never heard so much talk in public places about politics. And yet news outlets and journalists have such a slow day, they have to report on Palin's wardrobe. And let's see the figures for Obama and McCain to be fair - since we have nothing else to talk about.
May history uncover and write about the things that have thus far been ignored.
GT <><
Thomas Sowell from Townhall.com writes more about what Obama and McCain were doing the last two years related to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in particular. What strikes me is that Bush, Allen Greenspan, and others in Bush's administration warned that Freddie and Fannie needed more regulation. While Republicans are known to be for deregulation, this is a time they supported it more regulation, and yet the Democrats now claim the opposite. And Obama himself has benefited handsomely from Fannie Mae's contributions. Why isn't this covered by mainstream media - even if just to show their was no impropriety?
"Facts don't matter much politically if they are not reported." ~ Sowell, Townhall.com 10/03/2008
Self censurship is one step toward government sanctioned censorship.
Orson Scott Card also wants his fellow reporters to step up to the plate and do good reporting work - whether it supports their favorite candidate or not.
"Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?" ~ Card, http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html, 10/21/2008
I cannot grasp why the news is so slow when so many historic things are taking place. Friends and family have remarked to me that they've never heard so much talk in public places about politics. And yet news outlets and journalists have such a slow day, they have to report on Palin's wardrobe. And let's see the figures for Obama and McCain to be fair - since we have nothing else to talk about.
May history uncover and write about the things that have thus far been ignored.
GT <><
Monday, October 20, 2008
It's past "enough already" - McCain is NOT Bush!
I'm so tired of hearing McCain = Bush, especially because it's a slight of hand. It's not true, but if they say it enough times, it must be true? Is that why Obama's people are so worried about Ayers being mentioned over and over? They don't like a taste of their own medicine? That might be a petty take, but we know campaigns can be petty. I do think the Ayers thing is petty, but only because no one did a great job at annunciating the arguement or really putting the dots together. There's still time for a shocking discovery though...
I think McCain's camp didn't know to respond to that line of reasoning because it was so off the mark, who could take it seriously? Before all this started, nobody would have confused McCain with Bush. In fact, most "true blue" conservatives didn't like McCain because he was known to be centrist. Why isn't that coming out in all the media coverage?
But let's visit the real issue. Randall Hoven from American Thinker raised some good points about the last two years versus the next four. An intellectual and well supported way to say Republicans can get a bad wrap even when they do good things. It also reminds me, Bush doesn't beat his own drum and doesn't run after every naysayer. Thank goodness he doesn't waste his energy there; there are plenty of other things he is attending too, whether the average person appreciates him for it or not.
Also, this speech gives me hope that people can see through the media haze and discern a better future for our country. Check out Lynette Long's path from the Democratic Party to the McCain/Palin ticket this November 4th. I praise her for her new solutions to old problems. I dearly hope others can find the strength and courage to see that McCain is NOT the same as Bush, despite Obama's seductive pull over the media and the masses.
Keep fighting for freedom,
GT <><
I think McCain's camp didn't know to respond to that line of reasoning because it was so off the mark, who could take it seriously? Before all this started, nobody would have confused McCain with Bush. In fact, most "true blue" conservatives didn't like McCain because he was known to be centrist. Why isn't that coming out in all the media coverage?
But let's visit the real issue. Randall Hoven from American Thinker raised some good points about the last two years versus the next four. An intellectual and well supported way to say Republicans can get a bad wrap even when they do good things. It also reminds me, Bush doesn't beat his own drum and doesn't run after every naysayer. Thank goodness he doesn't waste his energy there; there are plenty of other things he is attending too, whether the average person appreciates him for it or not.
Also, this speech gives me hope that people can see through the media haze and discern a better future for our country. Check out Lynette Long's path from the Democratic Party to the McCain/Palin ticket this November 4th. I praise her for her new solutions to old problems. I dearly hope others can find the strength and courage to see that McCain is NOT the same as Bush, despite Obama's seductive pull over the media and the masses.
Keep fighting for freedom,
GT <><
Friday, October 17, 2008
Health Care Debate
A recent article from money.CNN.com on the pros and cons of both McCain's and Obama's health-care plans. Let's not be coy - there IS a big transition in the health-care industry ahead, whichever candidate we choose. And remember, both situations are plans and ideals - we don't know if/how each one will operate in reality.
My summary of the article, follows.
McCain's plan:
- First, McCain's plan will probably cause employers to drop their health-care coverage (but so will Obama's, so read on...). In turn, McCain's plan is more likely to force the industry to lower health care costs because of free-market competition. It's a way for the market to check escalating costs.
- If you don't need certain aspects of care (Alzheimer's care for a young person, for example), you don't pay for it. Each person and family chooses the plan suited to the individual(s).
- You should get the money your employer was paying for your health-care, and the government makes a little money taxing that new income. Then, McCain gives you back most of the money in the form of a tax credit.
Sum up: There will be ample money for most people to pay for medical, plus some left over if you're healthy. This will also increase the potential for raises from companies to employees because they are not burdened by the escalating insurance costs. I think this might also work as motivation for people to get preventive care, live healthier lifestyles, and take responsibilities for those variables we can control.
BIG CON: If you are already sicker and/or older than most people, they are unsure if this will cover your needs. These details NEED answers before we transition or we risk hurting people. Not sure how many people fall into this category - and that unknown tends to make the imagination go into overload whether or not that's the case.
Obama's plan:
- Companies will either contribute toward benefits or be fined. This article believes the trend will run toward paying the fine 1) because health-care costs currently rise faster than wages, and 2) because the benefits paid for by the government have low premiums and lots of benefits. So, the Dem's also promote a health-care plan that will not be available through work.
- Obama's plan is more likely to cause costs to steadily go up, much like utility expenses. There's no guarantee we can control the rate at which it increases, and there will be no competition to drive it down.
BIG CON: The consumer has very little motivation to care about costs. As patients, we often opt for "the works" without knowing the costs (you know, sometimes you really NEED the works, but sometimes you don't). And we can't compare different prices from different providers because it's all covered anyway. We will pay taxes to cover everything, almost like a blank check. Also, there is no built in value for personal responsibility because we're covered to fix everything, therefore less motivation for preventitive care.
More of my thoughts:
We value money more than health insurance sometimes, that is a fault. But we also feel entitled to every care option out there, that too is a fault. Obviously the best plan would get everyone what they NEED, without wasting and overtaxing the system. I think McCain's plan is going to do that better than Obama's. But it relies a lot on the individual to responsibly pick a plan. Also, many Republican plans count on the generosity of people to take care of each other (Republicans give much more generously to non-profits, not just in total but also based on % of income). Maybe non-profits burst up to pick up the slack for the sicker and/or older people we were taking about in McCain's plan. In my mind, it's easier to figure out new solutions to gaps in the plan, than it is to cut back from a plan that could easily overburden the tax payers.
Both plans are missing a crucial element; The need for educated workers goes hand in hand with escalating costs. More educators and more educated people working in the health care industry will also help to keep costs more reasonable.
The morale of the story: We really do have to care for each other - both with our money and with our hands.
GT <><
My summary of the article, follows.
McCain's plan:
- First, McCain's plan will probably cause employers to drop their health-care coverage (but so will Obama's, so read on...). In turn, McCain's plan is more likely to force the industry to lower health care costs because of free-market competition. It's a way for the market to check escalating costs.
- If you don't need certain aspects of care (Alzheimer's care for a young person, for example), you don't pay for it. Each person and family chooses the plan suited to the individual(s).
- You should get the money your employer was paying for your health-care, and the government makes a little money taxing that new income. Then, McCain gives you back most of the money in the form of a tax credit.
Sum up: There will be ample money for most people to pay for medical, plus some left over if you're healthy. This will also increase the potential for raises from companies to employees because they are not burdened by the escalating insurance costs. I think this might also work as motivation for people to get preventive care, live healthier lifestyles, and take responsibilities for those variables we can control.
BIG CON: If you are already sicker and/or older than most people, they are unsure if this will cover your needs. These details NEED answers before we transition or we risk hurting people. Not sure how many people fall into this category - and that unknown tends to make the imagination go into overload whether or not that's the case.
Obama's plan:
- Companies will either contribute toward benefits or be fined. This article believes the trend will run toward paying the fine 1) because health-care costs currently rise faster than wages, and 2) because the benefits paid for by the government have low premiums and lots of benefits. So, the Dem's also promote a health-care plan that will not be available through work.
- Obama's plan is more likely to cause costs to steadily go up, much like utility expenses. There's no guarantee we can control the rate at which it increases, and there will be no competition to drive it down.
BIG CON: The consumer has very little motivation to care about costs. As patients, we often opt for "the works" without knowing the costs (you know, sometimes you really NEED the works, but sometimes you don't). And we can't compare different prices from different providers because it's all covered anyway. We will pay taxes to cover everything, almost like a blank check. Also, there is no built in value for personal responsibility because we're covered to fix everything, therefore less motivation for preventitive care.
More of my thoughts:
We value money more than health insurance sometimes, that is a fault. But we also feel entitled to every care option out there, that too is a fault. Obviously the best plan would get everyone what they NEED, without wasting and overtaxing the system. I think McCain's plan is going to do that better than Obama's. But it relies a lot on the individual to responsibly pick a plan. Also, many Republican plans count on the generosity of people to take care of each other (Republicans give much more generously to non-profits, not just in total but also based on % of income). Maybe non-profits burst up to pick up the slack for the sicker and/or older people we were taking about in McCain's plan. In my mind, it's easier to figure out new solutions to gaps in the plan, than it is to cut back from a plan that could easily overburden the tax payers.
Both plans are missing a crucial element; The need for educated workers goes hand in hand with escalating costs. More educators and more educated people working in the health care industry will also help to keep costs more reasonable.
The morale of the story: We really do have to care for each other - both with our money and with our hands.
GT <><
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Obama on abortion
Obama's answer on abortion last night was eloquent. Too eloquent. If you think his views on abortion are "not so bad" - he wants good things for mothers and wishes abortions didn't happen - do so some more research and think about it again.
Let's juxtapose what he said last night with what he has already said to planned parenthood. Look at FOCA, which he promised to sign if he comes into office. If he voted against infanticide because there was already a similar law on the books, then why sign FOCA when Roe vs. Wade already exists? It's because FOCA will force all states to legalize abortion, even ones who already have a different law on their books.
Also, check out this article from The Witherspoon Institute on what Obama has already fought for regarding abortion and pro-life issues.
There is another side to his story. He spoke very eloquently at the debate, but I can't believe it illuminated his true views or the pro-abortion agenda he will pursue doggedly if he is elected.
Pray diligently,
GT <><
Let's juxtapose what he said last night with what he has already said to planned parenthood. Look at FOCA, which he promised to sign if he comes into office. If he voted against infanticide because there was already a similar law on the books, then why sign FOCA when Roe vs. Wade already exists? It's because FOCA will force all states to legalize abortion, even ones who already have a different law on their books.
Also, check out this article from The Witherspoon Institute on what Obama has already fought for regarding abortion and pro-life issues.
There is another side to his story. He spoke very eloquently at the debate, but I can't believe it illuminated his true views or the pro-abortion agenda he will pursue doggedly if he is elected.
Pray diligently,
GT <><
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Should I be surprised?
A self proclaimed "liberal democrat" has an article in the LA Times. No surprise there.
But the discussion of same sex marriage is refreshingly unexpected.
What I'd like to comment on is how angry people get. Disagreeing may be an American pastime, but why do we attack the other person? It took 20 comments before a positive post popped up. Both negative and positive comments are empatically so. Many angry people think the author is very wrong, but being angry doesn't make them right.
After all the screaming at the author, I don't think it's tolerance they are fighting for - it's fear of being the last one standing called a bigot. Let's not forget, being called a bigot and being one can be very different.
GT <><
But the discussion of same sex marriage is refreshingly unexpected.
What I'd like to comment on is how angry people get. Disagreeing may be an American pastime, but why do we attack the other person? It took 20 comments before a positive post popped up. Both negative and positive comments are empatically so. Many angry people think the author is very wrong, but being angry doesn't make them right.
After all the screaming at the author, I don't think it's tolerance they are fighting for - it's fear of being the last one standing called a bigot. Let's not forget, being called a bigot and being one can be very different.
GT <><
Friday, October 10, 2008
Brand new blog
Welcome to another adventure in blogging!
Really, it's my adventure, but thanks for humoring me =)
This is my first post, and I don't really know how to begin, so I'll save all the fireworks for a future post. Nothing heavy today.
So what weighs more? A pound of feathers or a pound of bricks?
Yes, that was "so second grade."
Okay, smart stuff, what weighs less: a squirming toddler? or a sleeping toddler?
Whichever one my husband's carrying ;-)
Thanks, honey.
GT <><
Really, it's my adventure, but thanks for humoring me =)
This is my first post, and I don't really know how to begin, so I'll save all the fireworks for a future post. Nothing heavy today.
So what weighs more? A pound of feathers or a pound of bricks?
Yes, that was "so second grade."
Okay, smart stuff, what weighs less: a squirming toddler? or a sleeping toddler?
Whichever one my husband's carrying ;-)
Thanks, honey.
GT <><
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)