Election thoughts

So I'm sitting here watching the election results on the AP's cool interactive map which allows you to look at every major race (presidential, governor, senate, house, & voter initiatives) and so I'm seeing an obvious win for Obama and the Democrats. While I'm, of course, disappointed in that outcome for obvious reasons, I do respect democracy and thus, the voters have spoken. It's exactly what I thought in 2006 when voters gave Democrats the majority in both houses of Congress. What I find intriguing is the fact that Congress currently has some of its lowest approval ratings ever, yet voters have decided to increase the majority of the party in power. Hey, I respect the choice even though I think its misguided and shortsighted. Oh well. Come January the Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves when things don't work out since they will have the White House and both houses of Congress for at least two years. Somehow I think they'll still manage to place blame elsewhere since that is what politicians do. I imagine every problem the country faces for the next 20 years will still somehow be President Bush's fault, even ones he wasn't president for when they started (like the banking deregulation!). I find it funny too how when gas was over $4 a gallon just a month ago that too was the fault of President Bush, but now that gas is below $2, of course it had nothing to do with him. I saw a graphic the other day that said "before Bush gas was $1.46 a gallon." I had to roll my eyes at what it was implying. What's even more amusing to me is how quickly people seem to forget history when it suits them and how little most Americans know about presidential policies and budgets.

Little history lesson: I don't remember the price of gas when Bush took office, but let's say it was indeed $1.46 in late 2000/early 2001. I recall a time not too long before that (late 1998 or 1999 or so) when gas was 72 cents a gallon. I also remember driving out west and being horrified at the price of gas being $1.20 a gallon since the highest I had seen in Ohio was around 99 cents. In other words, the gas prices were already climbing quite rapidly before Bush even took office, not to mention the fact that when a president takes office, he begins his part of the process of formulating a budget for the following fiscal year (that process has already begun), which begins in October. In other words, the current budget just began for fiscal year 2009 and will be in effect until the end of September 2009. All new presidents inherit the budget of their predecessor for the first 9 months of their presidency as well as the beginnings of a budget plan for the following fiscal year. So, when people blame Bush for the economic hard times and paint Clinton's presidency as some sort of economic dream, they fail to remember that the economy was in a downturn during 2000 as Clinton was leaving office. The events of September 11, for those who don't remember, were the nail in the coffin as far as a recession was concerned then, the airlines in particular, but few seem to remember that. No Bush policies had been implemented by September 2001, nor was his budget in place by then. Not only that, but Clinton inherited a recovering economy in 1993; he didn't just magically turn it around on his own anymore than Bush Senior personally ran it into the ground. I get tired of people blaming or congratulating the president for things he has little control over. While he certainly has a great deal of influence, he is not God.

Anyway, I'm also watching several of the voter initiatives and am really happy so far with the results. Granted, I have no influence on their specific outcomes, but I'm interested in them nonetheless. Three states have marriage definition amendments on the ballot: Florida, Arizona, and of course California. At this point, all three are passing and it looks for sure that Florida's and Arizona's will pass. California's definitely looks hopeful, though I won't assume anything until all the votes are counted. It's been a bit unnerving witnessing the absolute hate that has been directed at the Church in response to their support of Proposition 8, like the Church is somehow solely responsible for it even being on the ballot. I saw a Youtube video this evening that was a commercial in California urging a "No" vote on 8 and it was just pure evil making it look like the Church was out to "take away rights" from poor defenseless gay couples. Sorry, Mormons don't make up anything close to a majority of California residents, so even if every Mormon voted yes, it still wouldn't pass if there weren't others who also believed the same way. I did see a great Youtube video that featured Elder David Bednar (thanks for the links Rochelle!) talking about the effects of Proposition 8 and why the Church believes as they do. He mentioned a concept he called the "tyranny of tolerance," that is basically us being told to "tolerate" homosexual behavior but in turn, they do not have to "tolerate" our views or beliefs. I've never been a huge David A. Bednar fan, but he explains this really well. It can apply to anyone who supports the belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman and is an institution ordained of God.

How sad that those who are opposed to Proposition 8 accuse the Church of "hating" so their way of expressing that is by using hate directed at the Church. Guess those accusing the Church of hating know all about being hateful! I'm hoping it passes not because I have some sort of vendetta against gays or anything of the sort; I simply believe that God has ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman and I believe in modern-day prophets who have reiterated that as well as the will of the Lord.

Another great item my friend Rochelle posted was a talk given by Elder Neal A. Maxwell, who served in the Quorum of the 12 Apostles until he died a few years ago. Elder Maxwell was an incredibly intelligent and wise man. I always enjoyed hearing him speak, particularly about the "cosmos" which seemed to be a favorite topic. Well, one of the talks he gave not too long ago was about following the First Presidency. For those who aren't familiar, the First Presidency in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is composed of the President and usually 2 counselors. They constitute the leadership of the Church directly under Jesus Christ. Members regard the President of the Church as a living prophet equivalent to Moses or any other Old Testament prophet who speaks with God and acts as his mouthpiece just like in Biblical times. So, when members of the First Presidency, especially the prophet (who is currently Thomas S. Monson) speak, we listen. That doesn't mean we blindly follow, but it does mean we "take heed." Prophets are tools for the Lord to give us counsel, guidance, and general advice. How we apply that counsel is up to us. Well, Elder Maxwell spoke of a time that it would become increasingly more difficult to follow the counsel of the Prophet as the world continues to accept ways and ideas that are inconsistent with scripture, so in following the counsel of the prophet would be less and less popular with those outside the Church. That couldn't be more true today, especially with Proposition 8. I give major "props" (no pun intended!) to all the members and fellow supporters who have had to endure obnoxious chants and harrassment simply because they have a deep-rooted belief in what marriage is and should be and in following the counsel of the prophet. I guess the last days will really "weed" the Church out separating the wheat from the tares. In seeing how Prop 8 has unfolded, I am reminded of the scripture in Isaiah 5:20: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

We still have a long ways to go in learning that to love someone does not mean we condone everything they do. On the flip side, not approving of choices or lifestyles doesn't mean we cannot love someone or be a part of his/her life. And yes, while I don't doubt the feelings are not choices, how we act on our feelings most certainly are choices we make whether those feelings are sexual in nature or not. That said, God loves all his children despite their choices; he does not hate gays. It is certainly possible for all of us to be more loving and understanding without compromising our beliefs.

Can I get a huge DUH??

In a "shocking" study, the Center for Media and Public Affairs found that the media has been quite slanted in their coverage of this presidential election towards Obama. How? This study simply measured negative vs. positive comments made by news sources towards each campaign from reporters, people interviewed, and anchors. The most slanted? CBS and NBC aired by far the most positive comments for Obama and the fewest for McCain. 73% of CBS's comments were positive for Obama but only 31% positive for McCain while NBC aired 65% positive comments for Obama and just 16% for McCain. ABC was the most balanced of the "free" tv networks with 57% positive comments aired for Obama and 42% for McCain. The most balanced? You got it...Fox News Special Report with Brit Hume which the article said was "equally negative" towards each campaign with 39% positive comments for McCain and 29% for Obama. I find that interesting considering the absolute loathing liberals have for Fox News, accusing it of being biased towards the right. Funny thing is, conservatives basically consider every other network and major newspaper as being biased towards the left and studies like this won't do anything to hurt the beliefs of either side. I am someone who doesn't have cable or satellite (one of the last remaining who still use an old-fashioned antenna...mostly out of necessity mind you!), so my primary news sources tend to be online newspapers, our local printed newspaper, and various news websites and blogs. I came across this article on Yahoo.com when I was checking my Yahoo mail. I also frequently read news from the newsfeed that comes on my computer, so from that aspect I get quite a bit of my news from MSNBC just because their articles show up in my news ticker the most. I have been quite disappointed, but hardly all that surprised, in how blatant much of the media is in their support of Obama. And just FYI, this wasn't the only study that found a bias in the media. Another study from The Project for Excellence in Journalism found McCain's coverage has been overwhelmingly negative and Obama's much more mixed since the conventions. All I could do in reading this article was let out a "DUH!"

It's not just broadcast media, it's printed media too. I've been getting the magazine Newsweek for the past few months as a free gift for unused airline miles and have been very disappointed with how slanted it is towards the left. It's not even close to being balanced, and really, I'd much rather have a balanced publication than one slanted to the left or to the right. Basically, if you have a liberal editorial or columnist, you need a conservative one to balance it out. How sad that so many journalists have bought into the idea that it is their job to influence readers rather than to simply present an objective view so the reader can make their own decision. Too often it seems as I've read and heard accounts by reporters their personal opinions injected into the actual reporting. If I wanted your opinion, I'll read the Opinion page or wait for an editorial. Just present me with the facts and leave out personal conjectures. Thanks

In a somewhat related political topic, I found a really interesting blog post from the conservative blogger at Ohio.com, the Akron Beacon-Journal's online version. His most recent post talks about comparing European socialist models to the US and cites a 2004 study from a pair of Swedish economists. As his blog points out, Sweden is one of the countries that liberals point to as a model for the US to follow. The Swedish economists, however, concluded that despite all the socialist aspects present in much of Europe, Europe as a whole continues to lag behind the US in terms of Gross Domestic Product and in how much money its citizens have. Some of the stats I found interesting were: the average living space for "poor" Americans was 1,200 square feet while the average living space for ALL Europeans (rich and poor) was 1,000 square feet; a larger percentage of people in Sweden would be considered living below the poverty line than people in the US despite Sweden's socialist policies; even in the US, a large percentage of "poor" people (45.9%) own their own homes, 72.8% own cars, and a whopping 77% have air conditioning (we don't have AC but again, not by choice!), things still considered luxuries in western Europe. Of course another important point is that the US largely supplies military defense for Europe, so that's a cost they have significantly less than we do, yet despite that we're still ahead economically. Now, bear in mind this study is from 2004 and things have changed, but don't forget that not only is the US in an economic downturn, but Europe is as well.

Another important point the blogger made that I totally agree with is that whenever someone accuses a liberal of having "socialist" ideas, it's taken as a big insult. I guess it's because socialism and communism have become such "bad words" in this country, but at the same time it's amost like those who support socialist policies, even those that lean towards socialism, are afraid to tell it like it is, knowing that any association with "socialism" is a fast-track to failure. I know for me, probably the biggest reason I'm voting for McCain is because Obama's ideas, as I have said, "reek of socialism." Forcing people to give up their income in the name of "spreading the wealth" is a form of socialism. We will never solve the problems of poverty by simply forcing people to give up what is theirs to others. That simply continues, if not exacerbates, the problem because it does not address the root of the problem. Poverty will only be solved when our society accepts the value that having gross excess isn't about "glutting ourselves" (as my mom says) but instead, those who are greatly blessed with material and financial wealth can in turn bless the lives of others. On top of that we have to more equally value the different roles we play in society (meaning entertainment figures like pro-athletes aren't valued way higher than teachers for instance or being a full-time mother is regarded as an actual full-time occupation even though it doesn't bring in a paycheck from an employer). In turn, those who would benefit from that help shouldn't just be given handouts, but aid in being able to sustain their own livelihoods and in turn, help others. Until that becomes voluntary and a core, common value no amount of government-forced "sharing the wealth" will solve poverty or lift the poor out of the gutters as we have seen in countless nations who have tried communism and socialism and even here with our many social welfare programs. And yes, this comes from someone who currently has around $20,000 in loan debt for school and a house that is about to be foreclosed on. I hardly qualify as "wealthy" by ANY financial use of the word (though I consider myself very wealthy in blessings!). The tools available to me, student grants and loans, are a way for me to get an education so I can be an idependent contributor to society. Me paying them back allows others later to enjoy the same opportunities.

My friend Nate (who is also my bishop!) showed me a great verse in the LDS Doctrine and Covenants on Friday and I read it again today during church. We all know the scriptural warnings against the rich, mainly in loving riches over God and our fellow man. These verses address both rich and poor and are found in D&C 56:16-17, a revelation received by Joseph Smith in June 1831 in Kirtland, Ohio:

16 Wo unto you rich men, that will not give your substance to the poor, for your riches will canker your souls; and this shall be your lamentation in the day of visitation, and of judgment, and of indignation: The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and my soul is not saved!

Of course this verse is pretty standard rhetoric to most Christians; that is that worldy riches won't do us much good in the afterlife and loving riches pulls us away from God. There is nothing evil about being rich; only in loving riches more than God. This next verse, though is what stands out to me.

17 Wo unto you poor men, whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not contrite, and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed from laying hold upon other men’s goods, whose eyes are full of greediness, and who will not labor with your own hands!

I added the underlines, but it pretty much sums up my feelings. How often do we see scriptural warnings to poor people? Hardly ever; indeed the next verse is much "nicer" in that the poor shall "see the Kingdom of God" provided they are "poor in spirit" (i.e. humble). Giving our excess to the "poor" isn't about entitlement, it's about helping those that need help so they can have the same opportunities to make their own living and be self-sustaining. For those with great wealth, it falls under "where much is given, much is required" as I mentioned before in terms of being a tool in the hands of God to bless others. For those with little wealth, there is an eternal principle that some type of work is required for blessings, even monetary blessings and again, where much is given, much is required. Really,it would be more correct to say, where anything is given, something is required whether it be some type of service, repayment, or humility.

Pre-election rant

I typically have a pre-election rant, so here it is. This time I'm hitting it a little earlier than normal, though we have only a month until the general election. My objective isn't to tell you who or what to vote for-- I think I've made it pretty clear what I think-- but to encourage any who read this to vote smart. By voting "smart" I don't mean "vote my way" I mean "vote educated." I see too many people who vote for someone/something for superficial reasons and know next-to-nothing about a particular candidate or issue. There are ample resources available to help voters make educated decisions about anything. The simple fact that you are reading this means you can access the many websites for and against a candidate or issue as well as news about them. For candidates we need to look at who they are and ask ourselves questions like, what has this person done in previous experience? Are they things I agree with? Do they stand for the ideals I do? Of course there is never going to be the "perfect" candidate, but there is usually someone that we can identify with more than the other. The same goes with issues: what will passing or rejecting this issue do to the area or to me? Is it positive or negative? Will it cost me money I don't want to or can't afford pay? Will it allow things I consider to be wrong? Granted, not all things you will be voting for are equally important, but it's still a good idea to be familiar. I am a firm believer that a non-educated vote is worse than a non-vote. This is why I'm worried about this drive going on in Ohio to get people to vote. Yes, voting is very important, but it is something that can also be abused. We shouldn't be JUST promoting the act of voting, we should also be advocating the entire process and making educated decisions on who or what to vote for. I don't think I have ever seen any group that promotes voter education outside the local League of Women Voters here in Kent. They publish a non-partisan voter guide before each election that includes basic information about each candidate as well as ballot issues. It's not comprehensive, but does allow voters to make at least a more educated vote than just voting along party lines.

I want to be clear here: I do NOT have a problem with more people or poor people voting; what I have a problem with is just getting them to vote for the sake of voting. I feel like it's being done not to help them make educated choices but just to pad numbers. While there are CERTAINLY people that are educated in regards to the issues and opinionated who now have the opportunity to vote, there are many more that are being courted for the vote for whatever candidate and/or issue the group getting them to vote supports. I think it's taking advantage of people and of the voting system no matter who the party is they support more. I'm also not at all excited about same-day registration. I think it's opening the door to voter fraud and mass confusion in Ohio. This from the same state that just forced Cuyahoga County to spend millions of dollars to get an entirely new voting system and asked many of the rest of the counties to do the same in an effort to reduce voter fraud. The state should be focusing on making elections safe, reliable, and accurate. Instead, we're setting aside the safeguards put in place to make sure that every vote is equally counted and that those who vote are legally allowed to do so.

So, November 4th is coming quickly. If you haven't registered, I think you're out of luck unless you're able to get that same-day registration. Just make sure you make an educated vote no matter which way you lean. If you don't know, don't vote.

VP Thoughts

Well, both major party candidates have made their vice presidential choices with Obama choosing Delaware Senator Joe Biden and McCain picking Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. I have to say that both picks surprised me a little bit, but the more you look at each choice, the more you see why each candidate went in the direction they did.

Obama's pick of Biden was a pretty obvious one: Biden is a long-time Senator who sits on the Foreign Relations committee in Congress. Since Obama lacks both Congressional and foreign policy experience, it only makes sense that he choose a running mate who has substantially more experience in those areas. That said, Obama's message of "change" took a major hit to me by picking a long-time politician who's been part of the status quo Obama is claiming to try and change, though I wasn't exactly convinced Obama's "change" was anything new. McCain's pick of Palin was a bit more surprising to me, though like Obama's pick of Biden it has its own ironies. McCain's biggest criticism of Obama is Obama's lack of experience, yet Palin is equally inexperienced and even more so on the Federal level. Interesting how the VP picks seem to contradict each candidate's main message, huh? Anyway, at first I was a bit disappointed McCain didn't pick Mitt Romney as I'm still a big Romney fan. Him being a fellow Mormon is an added bonus, but I think Romney's business skills and his experience as governor of Massachusetts were valuable tools that could've been used to the country's advantage, particularly in balancing the budget. That said, the more I've read about Palin, the more I like her. For one she has delivered on her campiagn promises as governor of Alaska. While Alaska is hardly the most populous state (ranked 47th), nevertheless fulfilling things that a candidate has promised is something I haven't seen a lot of in politics, especially in regards to ending corruption and reducing spending. She was able to do both in Alaska, even going after members of her own party to reduce wasteful government spending. Her not being afraid to call out members of her own party is something I think is a rare strength in politics today. How often to we see corruption brushed under the rug by people in the same party as the offender? Can you say Lewinsky scandal (among others on BOTH sides)??? Her being a mother of five is a big plus for me too as she understands the pressures and importance of motherhood. I think that plays into her no-nonsense attitude about wasteful spending and corruption as well. About the only thing I disagree with her on is her abortion stance. While I also oppose "abortions of convenience," in cases of rape, incest, or the mother's life is in danger I believe that is a place where the woman should have the choice to abort or not. When people just fool around and then the girl gets pregnant, that was a conscious choice she made (to have sex); rape and incest are not choices; they are violations, so having a choice is something I think should still be available (meaning abortion shouldn't be completely illegal, but it also shouldn't be widely available and promoted as an alternative to common sense and responsible living). Even in cases of rape, incest, or the mother's live being in danger, that is still something that is a very personal choice for the mother and shouldn't be a definite yes or no for every case. So I guess I'm pro-life and pro-responsible choice. =)

The one important thing that Palin brings, albeit very little, is executive experience. As little as she has as governor (two years), she still has two more years than anyone else in the field as McCain, Obama, and Biden have all been legislators. Being Governor is much closer to being President than being a Senator is since they involve much of the same skills in leadsership. I think the ideal candidate for me would be someone with both legislative and executive experience so they not only have the skills to put together a good cabinet, but also understand the legislative process and what needs to go into it to be successful. Senator Voinovich of Ohio comes to mind as he has had extensive experience in both the executive (Mayor of Cleveland and Governor of Ohio) and legislative (Senator). The important thing to keep in mind, however, is that we're voting for President, not Vice President. True, if the President dies the VP takes over, but when you look at history, that isn't exacly a common occurrance. Democrats keep harping on McCain's age like he could die in office just from natural causes-- he could indeed-- but Obama unfortunately has just as much chance of dying from natural causes or even being assassinated as McCain does. It's the sad truth that I hope never happens, but it is certainly possible.

In the end, as someone who is pretty much assured of voting for McCain at this point since I agree with his stances more than Obama's, I'm happy with the choice of Palin as VP. I think she could truly help bring about the real change we need in Washington (responsible spending, accountability). My one concern is the charge against her related to abuse of power. I hope it's not true, but if it is she needs to face the consequences of it. One thing is for sure: whichever tandem wins this election in November WILL make history. Who would've thought that a few months ago? I've also noticed that no matter who McCain or Obama would've chosen, those who are opposed to them would find major faults with their selection. It's just the way we work as humans! And lastly, no, I don't think Obama choosing Clinton would've been an "unstoppable" duo as my experience tells me too many Americans view Obama and Clinton as too far left (I've found most Americans are pretty close to the center politically--moderate-- maybe leaning a little to the right) and Clinton embodies the status quo even more than Biden does, so it would've stood even more in contrast to Obama's message of "change" to have her on the ticket.

McCain Opens Five-point Lead in Latest Poll

I'm not one who really gets into the political polls, though I thought I'd comment on this. Today a new poll was released that has John McCain now leading Barack Obama nationally 46%-41% after Obama had a seven point lead back in July. The other thing that I thought was interesting in the poll was the fact that McCain leads 49%-40% in the category of "who would be the best manager of the economy." It seems that Obama's opposition to off-shore drilling has really hurt him, as has his recent vacation to Hawaii according to the poll analysis.

Now, I'll be the first to say that polls are not a sure thing when it comes to predicting an election. Just see the exit polls from 2004 which showed John Kerry had won the election, when in fact, he didn't. For instance, this poll asked just 1,089 registered voters, a small fraction of the actual number of registered voters in the U.S. Having worked at a call center that did surveys, I know that not everyone who is called responds; in fact the vast majority don't. Most of the people who answered the surveys in my experience were people who had something on their mind. For instance, I did an on-going survey about gasoline. This was in late 2004 when gas prices were just beginning to really start rising (I don't think we had even hit $2.00/gallon yet). Even then, if someone had something to say, the 15-20 minute time of the survey didn't deter them. Most people we called, though, either regarded us as telemarketers, didn't have the time, or just weren't interested and declined. That said, I would be interested to find out if a study has ever been done to find out just WHO answers surveys and if there is a trend in the types of people (idealogical, cultural, etc.) who most often participate. On top of my experience working for that data research company, I also took a class at Kent State in statistics, particularly in political stats. How the questions are structured can greatly influence a poll's results, as well as the random aspect of who is called and who answers. There are many many factors that can influence a poll, not to mention the latest news reports about a certain candidate or news on the economy or world affairs.

That said, even with my initial skepticism of polls like this in general, if I were an Obama supporter, I'd be a little nervous about this poll. My experience has shown me that conservative people, in general, are less likely to respond to polls than a liberal. Conservatives by nature tend to keep to themselves. Seriously, how many huge conservative protests have we seen in this country? Not many. Most of the outgoing, expressive, and vocal people tend to be liberal. It's why liberals tend to be more supportive of the arts than conservatives, since the arts are forms of creative expression (not that conservatives aren't supporters of the arts or don't have creative expression, of course...this is in general!) So, if I'm seeing that McCain now has a lead, as an Obama strategist or supporter I'm worried that the gap could be even bigger than the poll suggests since most conservatives won't express their opinions until they actually vote. That's what I think happened during the 2004 election and the exit poll failure. While we still have the conspiracy theorists that believe Kerry actually won Ohio because of the exit polls, my belief is that most conservatives (who more than likely voted for Bush) didn't respond to the exit polls as they, again, tend to keep to themselves. They did their patriotic duty by voting and that's no one's business but their own.

I want to believe that the poll represents undecided voters beginning to see who Obama really is and that being charismatic and a great speaker, while valuable, does not make someone a great president or even a diplomat. Those are skills that can greatly aid in those responsibilities, but without the proper knowledge, experience, and understanding, they are useless. There is no doubt that Obama can draw a crowd and make great speeches. But is he really in touch with the realities of diplomacy and world politics? I don't think so. Is McCain the best? Hardly, but he has more experience than Obama, not to mention military experience. It makes me laugh when Democrats try and criticize McCain's military service as inadequate. OK, if McCain, who served in Vietnam, is inadequate, what does that make Obama who has never served a DAY in the military?? Seriously...if you're going to criticize someone, make sure YOU are in a position to criticize! As for other factors, I think Obama's initial opposition to off-shore drilling really hurt him with the average American voter. Polls have shown most Amercians do favor off-shore drilling for oil to lesson the nation's dependence on foreign oil, so opposing it doesn't make anyone believe that you want the country to have energy independence. And, with all Obama's talk of "change" I see much of the same. Like any politician he says what he needs to say to win votes and in the end, blames all the nation's ills on the other party while promising to fix everything. No party or politician will be able to fully address the problems we face as a nation until they do with EVERYONE's best interests in line and not just the party's. So far I've been very underwhelmed with Obama's rhetoric and ideas.

Obama Gets the Democratic Nod

It's no secret that I'm interested in politics, so I have been keeping up with the presidential race, the Democratic nomination process in particular. Not only has it been historic because a woman and a person of mixed race (no, sorry, Obama is NOT "black" or "African-American;" he has many other races as part of his family history too) being the two front-runners, but also how long it has gone on. I can't recall a recent primary election cycle that went on as long as this one did with no decision until now. Granted, I haven't exactly been paying attention as much or for that long, but still...it's been awhile since we have seen a primary race this close. Usually, by "Super Tuesday" or soon after, the race is over.

Well, now it appears it is, as Hillary Clinton is about to formally end her campaign even though she is really pushing to be the VP running mate for Obama. A lot of people think the two of them together would be "unstoppable," but I have a hard time seeing them running together. One of the reasons they have had so many disagreements is because they view things in totally different ways. In choosing a running mate, one usually picks someone who agrees with them more and shares common viewpoints, not someone who just engaged in a lengthy battle with them which involved heavy criticism of their ideas and plans. I also personally don't think if they ran together that they would win in any landslide either. Too many Americans regard both Obama and Clinton as too extreme, so McCain, who comes off as more of a moderate than an all-out conservative, will appeal more to them in my opinion. My experience has found that most Americans are fairly moderate in their political views. They want their basic needs met and things to function around them (roads, electricity, water, transportation), but they also want their own freedom with as little governmental interference as possible and of course, as little taxation as possible. Of course that's not everyone, but that's my observation of most people in my readings and travels.

As for my own vote, at this point I would vote for McCain, not because I think he is the best person for the job, but because I think he is better qualified than Obama. Neither have the experience I'd like to see (being in the Senate is not the same as being in the executive branch), but McCain has been in Washington longer so he has more experience working with Congress and a better idea of "how things work" in Washington. Still, I consider McCain the lesser of two evils. Obama's comments have not impressed me and all his talk about change is filled with the same old political rhetoric I have heard at every election about how everything is the other party's fault, yada yada yada. I've never been a big fan of McCain in the Senate, but I've been an even lesser fan of Obama since he started becoming well-known. The people one associates with tells a lot about how that person really is and all the controversy surrounding his religious associates tells me a lot. On top of that, I was never thrilled with his comments about diplomacy or foreign policy either. Yes, we should certainly try to talk and use diplomatic means whenever possible, but evetually you need to take a stand if they don't work. In addition, in order for diplomacy to work both sides and their constituents must value it. In other words, there are instances where diplomacy won't work, in particular with those we have identified as terrorists. Many, if not most, are not interested in discussions...they are interested in winning their war against the West. That war won't end until we either accept their way of life as our own (convert) or we are eliminated. And their war did not start recently...these people come from a culture that still considers the Crusades a recent event (the Crusades came in waves from 1095-1272). It would be similar to Americans still holding resentment to the British for the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812...And those were a LOT more recent than the last Crusade! Yes, I do realize that there have been other negative interactions between the West and the Middle East, but all have been tainted by that lingering mistrust from the Crusades. It's a cultural element that won't disappear overnight or easily. But anyway, that's a whole different blog!

There are many issues I have with both candidates, but in the end I and everyone else needs to remember that the President is not a dictator; he has limits in what he can and cannot do and what he can and cannot control. No matter what you think of President Bush and how he has extended executive powers, he is nowhere NEAR as powerful in this country as a true dictator would be. So, to sum it up, a president won't be able to sweep in and solve all our problems, no matter how charismatic he is, nor can he be the blame of all our problems or successes. We need to choose a candidate who we think will be able to address (and solve) as many of the issues facing our country as possible in ways we think are acceptable.

Go Kent!

Well, I really shouldn't be posting right now as I have two essays to write and one to finish still, all due tomorrow of course. I have a hope that at least morning classes will be cancelled, but I know I can't bank on that, though we are currently under a winter storm warning as I write this with sleet and freezing rain falling outside. Things actually look pretty cool outside with everything coated in ice...like it's all glass or something.

Anyway, I went to the final home game of the season for the Kent State men's basketball team. This game was against Miami (Ohio) and was broadcast nationally on ESPN2. I got there early to get a decent seat in the student section (end zones), plus I wanted to make sure I got a a decent parking spot. Weekday games are OK, but the problem is that people are still in classes, so parking is hard to come by. I managed OK. Katie and her friend Caitlin (known to all of us as Gizmo) came during the first half. Not only was it a big game, but I also got to sing the national anthem one more time. I have to say this one was one of my better performances and it happened rather unexpectedly. I knew coming in that there was a slight chance I could sing, but I honestly didn't think I would. Chris, the guy in charge of that, told me at the KSU-Ball State women's game back in February that he remembered telling someone they could have the March 4th game against Miami, but he couldn't remember who and wasn't sure. So, I had it as a possibility. Well, about 13 minutes before tipoff they introduced the two seniors for their last home game and right as they were finishing up the second one, Chris walked over to near where I was sitting, pointed me out and motioned for me to come over. So basically, I had about three minutes to get ready. I was slightly warmed up "just in case," but not that much. Honestly, though, I thought it went REALLY well. I was hitting my notes with confidence and had some gusto! I was really happy with the end too. I ended it the same way I ended my performance at the game against Akron (the one I put on Youtube) with a really high last note, and this time people actually heard it. I got lots of compliments when I went back to my seat. It was great.

Oh yeah, the game went pretty well too, at least in terms of the outcome. It was quite the defensive and sloppy game, but Kent State pulled out a 50-39 win over the Redhawks to clinch the MAC East division and also won the MAC overall title and the #1 seed in the tournament after Central Michigan knocked off Western Michigan a little while later in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan. The irony was that Bowling Green, which somehow beat Kent State on Saturday, was blasted 96-50 tonight at MAC doormat Buffalo. With the win, Buffalo "improves" to 3-12 in the MAC. Go figure. It is only Kent State's third overall MAC title (2002, 2006, 2008) and their sixth MAC East division title (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008). The MAC has only had divisions since 1998 I believe. Hard to believe Kent State has been in the MAC (Mid-American Conference) since 1951 and only has three overall titles, all in the last decade. This season also saw Kent State achieve their first win over a ranked opponent in the regular season; their first ranking in the regular season (first ever in the AP poll); their 1,000th win in program history; and their tenth-straight 20-win season, not to mention a perfect 16-0 record at home!

I should also point out that YES, I did exercise my patriotic right and duty to vote by voting in Ohio's primary election today on the Republican ticket. Let me just say it was one of the easiest elections I've ever voted on (most weren't even contested) and everything went very smoothly. Can I just say I LOVE voting by touch screen? Not only does it LOOK cool, but it is SO MUCH easier than punch cards or optical scan. I'll be very disappointed if we do away with the touch screen systems like the Ohio Secretary of State wants to. In addition, I saw Liz Bittinger, a friend of mine who I haven't seen in awhile. I went to school with her daughter Jenny and I just have such a high opinion of her and that family in general. Liz's husband Dave is the minister at Kent's Assembly of God. The members of that family, at least in my experience, are some of the most Christ-like people I have ever met. They strive to follow his teachings not only in the choices they make, but also how they treat people. It's nice to see fellow Christians who actually follow the Savior's example. To me, a true Christian is not just someone who believes in Jesus Christ, or wears a golden cross around their neck, or goes to a specific church, but also someone who emulates him and seeks to follow his example. That's why I get so irritated when people try to say that Mormons aren't Christian. We believe in Jesus Christ and we strive to live his teachings in our day to day life. Do we agree with Protestants and Catholics on all the details of the Savior's life? No, but that's not really what's important. It's not so much about which specific denomination you belong to, but more about how you live your life according to your belief.

Notes about the pictures: 1. Katie, her friend Caitlin (aka Gizmo), and me at the KSU-Miami game on March 4th in Kent; 2. The view from our seats. We sat in the fourth row of the south end zone. One of my favorite aspects of the MAC Center at KSU is how close fans are to the game.

Election Day...don't forget to STUDY!

Current mood: determined

I posted this on my Facebook page too, so if you already read it, that's just too bad!

Hopefully everyone remembers that this coming Tuesday, November 7th, is Election Day. Of course you all should remember to vote, but even more, make sure that you study out all the issues and candidates on the ballot so that you can make a well-informed and educated decision. Too often people just vote on little or no information or by superficial things and then get upset when something or someone they voted for doesn't work out like they were "promised." Most issues and candidates have websites both for and against them, so make sure you study up! An uninformed voter can be more dangerous to democracy than a non-voter!

Comments

Nari; November 5, 2006
Great message. I totally agree. I was going over the different issues with my sister so she knows what she's voting for and why.

Kudos to you, Jon!

Jon goes political

Current mood: aggravated

Finally I'm posting my first political blog because mainly I'm tired of being silent. I'm pretty opinionated in politics and I think a lot of flase ideas are being circulated about all sorts of things. This first blog will be about some statewide issues in Ohio that I will be voting on via absentee ballots and why I'm voting the way I am.

ISSUE 2: Minimum Wage- "A Constitutional Amendment that would increase Ohio's minimum wage to $6.85/hr and would reduce employee privacy."

NO: First, I don't think raising the minimum wage is a good idea, not because I'm some rich miser, but because raising the minimum wage has ripple affects on the economy. The ones who end up getting hurt the most are the ones who need the most help financially. Most people think of huge corporations that can probably manage quite well by paying their low-end workers a little more. Unfortunately, the vast majority of businesses are small businesses and most cannot afford to pay employees any more. Let's say Jim and Sue work at a locally owned convenience store for $6 an hour, hardly much of a salary. The minimum wage is raised to $6.85 or 7.15. Chances are the owner himself is barely making it, so he must raise prices to help pay for the increased salaries of Jim and Sue. SO first, while both Jim and Sue have more "disposable income," prices have gone up so the increase is basically cancelled. If the increase in prices doesn't help the owner, then one of them will be let go so that the business can stay in the black. So say Sue remains while Jim gets the pink slip. Sue got a raise, but now she has twice as much work to do and prices are higher, while Jim now has no income at all. Oh yeah, this is coming from someone who barely made above minimum wage this summer. I'm hardly some rich person here. The above scenario is very much on the minds of small business owners and most of them aren't rich either- their business is their livelihood and they themselves don't make much. How is putting minimum wage workers out of work, putting small businesses in the red, and raising prices helping "the little guy?" I'm also voting NO because this is a constitutional amendment and there are better ways to take care of this issue, plus the privacy issue and the paperwork issue just make this a poor ballot issue.

ISSUE 3: Learn & Earn (gambling)- "This issue is a Constitutional Amendment that would provide scholarships to Ohio students funded through expanded legalized gambling."

NO: I am opposed to gambling at any level (including the lottery) and this is a ploy to support gambling. I have moral issues against gambling, but also gambling brings a lot of baggage with it including crime, loss of productivity and money, and addiction which can lead to breaking up of families and other not-so-good stuff. There are other ways to help Ohio students for college too. A good start is to lower the cost of education in Ohio so more families can afford it which needs to start at the university level with greater financial responsibility.

ISSUE 4: "Smoke Less Ohio"- "A Constitutional Amendment that would restricts smoking, while allowing exceptions for bars and certain other businesses."

NO: I am voting NO on this because it is a ploy to continue the status quo of smoking in Ohio and does nothing to protect the health of non-smokers. Further, the main supporters of this bill are tavern owners and the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company itself. Hmmmm. Don't even start about "smokers rights." No one has the "right" to pollute the air I breathe. If the EPA can tell a big company to stop putting harmful chemicals into the air, why can't the state of Ohio tell citizens and businesses the same thing? It's already been proven that second-hand smoke is dangerous to everyone and it's also been proven that separate smoking rooms in buildings don't eliminate the problem of second-hand smoke. After spending a big chunk of my summer breathing in second-hand smoke at Geauga Lake, I have no patience for smokers. Just because you have an addiction doesn't mean I should have to share your consequences. Banning smoking in places like bars, bowling alleys, restaurants, etc. is a good idea not only for patrons, but also for workers, many of who can't just go get another job. Why should they have to breathe second-hand smoke all day to earn a living?

ISSUE 5: SmokeFreeOhio: "A voter initiated statute that would enacts a statewide smoke-free workplaces act that would apply to all public places, and would supersede bans already in place in Ohio cities."

YES: This is a no-brainer. See above. There is no reason that smoking needs to be a part of any business. Further, this is a voter initiated statute and can be altered as needed while issue 4 is a constitutional amendment that would trump issue 5 if both were passed and it would trump exisitng smoking bans in several Ohio cities.

Ballot descriptions from:

Friends of Ohio Hospitals - 2006 Elections

Comments

LDS Drama Queen (Becky); October 5, 2006

I pretty much agree with everything you said. Good for you for speaking up.

Dorese; October 5, 2006

Kudos to you for speaking up! And when you hear people complain about the minimum wage, just remind them that the national minimum wage (and that of the state of Idaho) is only $5.15. And hey, we're surviving... Anyway, I appreciate your sentiments. Thanks for sharing!

Mrs. Lundmark (Kelly); October 5, 2006
Boo yah! Jon Ridinger, you are my hero. Thank you so much for saying what needs to be said about these issues, especially the smoking one! I already joined the Facebook group for SmokeFreeOhio and definitely plan to vote NO on Issue 4 and YES on Issue 5, and I really appreciate your putting out some information on other important issues on the ballot. Rock on!

Nari; October 5, 2006
My vote is no no on the smoking ban. Not that I want to protect a smokers 'right' but because I don't feel like the government should be telling a private business that they can't do something perfectly legal on their private property.

Now...if they want to make tobacco illegal, then that's a different story.