WalMart
The addition of Walmart in this is kind of interesting. How can there be two (or more) sides to a store? I think actually that there can be two sides to it.
Walmart is good:
Walmart is a huge company, and so has a lot of positive spin off effects as well as direct effects. WalMart employs many thousands of people; one of the largest employers in the US and Canada. This has a great positive effect on communities that are dependant on the jobs that are provided by Walmart – without Walmart, these communities would likely cease to exist.
Also, as any person who has shopped at Wal-Mart can tell you, they are cheap.This is a huge benefit for people who have less money; especially those with kids. Kids clothes, diapers, baby food, toys, food in some places, is cheaper at Walmart than any other store. Some people definitely have a higher standard of living because of the cheap goods available at Walmart. Also, the spin off industries, such as construction, trucking, and the other stores that spring up around WalMart all benefit from WalMart’s existence.
There are some indirect benefits to Walmart as well. Walmart unquestionably lowers prices for consumers at other stores, because they have to compete. If other stores don’t have comparable prices, Walmart will be the store of choice for people who have price as the primary concern. Walmart also forces it’s suppliers to be more efficient, by refusing to pay higher prices to it’s suppliers higher prices. This is a good thing overall: efficiency is the key to successful business. Walmart is also responsible for a lot of imports from all over the world – factories exist in places that didn’t before Walmart – so Walmart is a global economic driver. There is a strong argument that when a community loses manufacturing and other blue collar jobs, the void is filled by retail; and WalMart is one of the few retailers that can provide enough jobs to replace an entire factory.
Jobs are also available for seniors and teenagers – one of the few places that does not see age when it hires.
WalMart is also a social place. Many people make trips to Walmart with friends and family – for some people, it is there only time to get out. Plus, with all the restaurants and other stores that surround it, a trip to WalMart can be a day out. You can do almost all your household shopping at Walmart, if you want.
Lastly, Walmart stock consistently does well. It is blue chip, but has a decent return, and is constantly looking to improve it’s share price and dividends, which it does by expanding. It is a part of many mutual funds, and a good part of a balanced portfolio. It is an American company, which is important for some people; they want to invest in America, not some other country.
Walmart is Evil:
This is an opinion held by many people. They believe that Walmart, essentially, drains the soul out of a town. When a Walmart comes to an area, particularly smaller centres, it puts all the small retailers, the mom and pops who have a stake in the town, out of business. Walmart has no stake in a town – it is there to make money and too bad if some less efficient businesses go under.
There are other problems with Walmart. They pay low – they have to keep their prices low. Maybe people who did work in manufacturing end up at WAlmart, but that’s only because there is no where else to go. Walmart can also be blamed for the loss of those same manufacturing jobs – by demanding such a low price for goods that it retails, manufacturers in the US and Canada have had to shut down when they could not meet these demands – and the jobs went overseas. Walmart buys most of its goods from China now, which is giving more and more clout to the Chinese manufacturers while taking it away from the American ones.
There are ethical issues with Walmart as well. Walmart has many products made in sweatshops, which a lot of people have a moral concern with, especially when child labour is involved. They also have a history of not promoting women or minorities – effectively, institutionalized racism and sexism.
Walmarts are also considered a blight on the suburban and urban landscape. They are ugly to look at, surrounded by a massive parking lot with no trees or grass anywhere near them. They are unaccessable except by car, which makes them an environmental liability. The buildings themselves are huge drains on power to keep them warm and cold. And of they ever decide to move, the location is essentially ruined for any other business, simply because of it’s size.
Where I Stand:
I think that Walmarts are evil, plain and simple. But I still shop there from time to time, because some things are just so much cheaper that it is hard not to; so I guess that makes me evil too. I also feel that Walmart make people ugly. Whenever you enter a Walmart, there are no attractive people anywhere – including in the mirror. I think that this is because an ugly store makes it customers, staff, and suppliers ugly. And the lighting doesn’t help. But overall, I think that the positives Walmart does have are far outweighed by the negatives that it brings to the world. I do think that there is certain bit of irony, lost on most people, that a company like Walmart, the quintessential American company, is responsible in part for the destruction of the traditional American way of life. It is also appropriate – for the enemy is always closer at hand. We have met the enemy, and they are us.
How I relate:
I have never worked for a Walmart, but know many people who have; and those who have good things to say about it are few and far between. Further, people who yell about how great the free market is and Walmart is a shining example of it, don’t work or shop there; nor do they want their families too. I think that it is a well run multinational; I think that it’s growth prospects are limited, though. I have thought that Walmart needs to take a few bold steps to really dominate the American market on a few more levels.
I think they need to start selling those really cheap Chinese cars; and they need to start building apartments above their stores. And soon, there will be a whole new city type, called Waltown. I truly believe that this will happen. I try to shop at Walmart as little as possible, and I refuse to buy groceries at Walmart. I also think, though, that companies like that tend to self destruct after a certain point, and I could see Walmart falling apart if they make a few really bad decisions – and those decisions will be related to cheap goods from China, and labour and safety laws.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Monday, June 16, 2008
Music Downloads
Buying music vs downloading it for free
So this entry might seem a few years too late – I mean, the issue has been resolved, hasn’t it? Everyone just gets their music for free. Actually, no.
While they are dropping, there are still CD (and other media) sales. There are people who buy their music online, itunes being the biggest seller, but through a variety of other online providers as well. So it is not a dead issue, just most people seem to have taken a position.
Buying music:
Music, songs, videos, poems, etc are all the intellectual property of the people who created them. If you want to listen to a recording of a song, you should, legally, pay for it. But leaving aside the legal issue, it is a moral issue. Intellectual property is no different than physical property.
Downloading a song illegally is no different, morally, than stealing a CD from someone’s car. If you won’t do the latter, you shouldn’t do the former. There is the biblical point of view, too: Thou shalt not steal. This means every kind of property.
Next, by purchasing music, you are supporting the artists who have worked hard to produce the music for your entertainment / enjoyment. This is their bread and butter, and by not purchasing music you listen to, you are taking food out of their mouths. Maybe the big stars don’t need your 99 cents, but the smaller musicians do.
From a business point of view, if you download music illegally at your workplace, this is an offence you can be fired for – using work computers for the commission of a crime. And if you are a boss, how can you tell employees not to steal from you if they see you stealing from others?
Why should todays artists suffer from the mistakes of the past? If the artists don’t get to make a living doing what they do, soon the music will stop.
Free downloading
First, the music industry, including the artists, have been ripping off the average consumer for years. Artists would release an album with only 1 or 2 good songs and you would have to pay for the whole album. And calling them artists isn’t really accurate anyway; most performers are more interested in making money than making music. Just look at the manufactured groups out there. And even if they are artists, they can, and do, make plenty of money from their fashion lines, t shirt sales at concerts, concerts themselves, and licensing songs to ads.
And it’s not like CD prices went down as the technology got cheaper – they stayed at $20 a CD until the free downloading forced CD makers to drop their prices. It’s a good economic thing for the consumer. In fact, anything that lowers prices is good. It will force the lousy performers out of the market.
Some people have bought the same album on 3 or 4 types of media – record, cassette, CD, video, DVD. Why should they have to pay for the same recording over and over again? Nobody really believes the "remastered"
thing they put on the recordings to make you pay for them again. Also, the songs have always been available for free – on the radio, on MTV (when it played music, anyway), at bars and restaurants, and even in elevators.
In most places, if you buy a blank CD or DVD, you pay a hidden fee anyway to cover the "pirate" costs. Since you don’t get a discount when you buy your songs legally – you’ve effectively paid for the song with the purchase of a blank CD.
And the stars certainly aren’t hurting. They have enough money coming in. I don’t see EMI going bankrupt ay time soon. And besides, the record companies just take all the revenue from the purchase of music anyway, so buying songs legally won’t help the performers anyway. It’s just like the home taping thing of a few years ago, just faster.
Where I stand:
I stand mostly on the side of paying for music – and I do. I buy my music from Itunes, mostly, as well as the odd CD if I really like the artist or it’s cheap at a pawn shop or garage sale. I do really dislike paying for music that I have bought already – so most of my old stuff on CD’s I won’t pay for again. And the downloading phenom has also forced artists to tour more, which I think is a good thing. But I don’t complain if someone gives me a burnt CD; and I had Kazaa on my computer for a while until I realized that most of what you get there is crap.
How I relate:
I am related to some semi professional musicians, and I would like to see them get paid for all their music. But I think that the smaller musicians are just looking for exposure and if 1 million people downloaded their song for free, that would be just ducky to them. This is because to the smaller musician, while they certainly still want the dollar bills, they are also happy to just perform – they make music for the feeling it gives them as much for the monetary potential. I am also used to paying for music – that is, I’m not 18 and have been always getting it for free. I think in the future that it could go two ways – either CD and other media sales fall off the face of the earth, or the record companies come up with a better way to protect their music – and I think the latter is more likely. It’s a big business, and if they can’t protect their artists, they’ll cease to exist, and no big business wants to cease to exist. And while the issue is comparable to the "home taping" thing of the late 80’s – it’s not on the same scale. Besides, the record companies are in on that – they make the blank CD’s now just as they used to make the blank tapes. And they made stereo systems with high speed dubbing then, and they make stereos that play MP3s and MP4s now, so they implicitly encourage it.
So this entry might seem a few years too late – I mean, the issue has been resolved, hasn’t it? Everyone just gets their music for free. Actually, no.
While they are dropping, there are still CD (and other media) sales. There are people who buy their music online, itunes being the biggest seller, but through a variety of other online providers as well. So it is not a dead issue, just most people seem to have taken a position.
Buying music:
Music, songs, videos, poems, etc are all the intellectual property of the people who created them. If you want to listen to a recording of a song, you should, legally, pay for it. But leaving aside the legal issue, it is a moral issue. Intellectual property is no different than physical property.
Downloading a song illegally is no different, morally, than stealing a CD from someone’s car. If you won’t do the latter, you shouldn’t do the former. There is the biblical point of view, too: Thou shalt not steal. This means every kind of property.
Next, by purchasing music, you are supporting the artists who have worked hard to produce the music for your entertainment / enjoyment. This is their bread and butter, and by not purchasing music you listen to, you are taking food out of their mouths. Maybe the big stars don’t need your 99 cents, but the smaller musicians do.
From a business point of view, if you download music illegally at your workplace, this is an offence you can be fired for – using work computers for the commission of a crime. And if you are a boss, how can you tell employees not to steal from you if they see you stealing from others?
Why should todays artists suffer from the mistakes of the past? If the artists don’t get to make a living doing what they do, soon the music will stop.
Free downloading
First, the music industry, including the artists, have been ripping off the average consumer for years. Artists would release an album with only 1 or 2 good songs and you would have to pay for the whole album. And calling them artists isn’t really accurate anyway; most performers are more interested in making money than making music. Just look at the manufactured groups out there. And even if they are artists, they can, and do, make plenty of money from their fashion lines, t shirt sales at concerts, concerts themselves, and licensing songs to ads.
And it’s not like CD prices went down as the technology got cheaper – they stayed at $20 a CD until the free downloading forced CD makers to drop their prices. It’s a good economic thing for the consumer. In fact, anything that lowers prices is good. It will force the lousy performers out of the market.
Some people have bought the same album on 3 or 4 types of media – record, cassette, CD, video, DVD. Why should they have to pay for the same recording over and over again? Nobody really believes the "remastered"
thing they put on the recordings to make you pay for them again. Also, the songs have always been available for free – on the radio, on MTV (when it played music, anyway), at bars and restaurants, and even in elevators.
In most places, if you buy a blank CD or DVD, you pay a hidden fee anyway to cover the "pirate" costs. Since you don’t get a discount when you buy your songs legally – you’ve effectively paid for the song with the purchase of a blank CD.
And the stars certainly aren’t hurting. They have enough money coming in. I don’t see EMI going bankrupt ay time soon. And besides, the record companies just take all the revenue from the purchase of music anyway, so buying songs legally won’t help the performers anyway. It’s just like the home taping thing of a few years ago, just faster.
Where I stand:
I stand mostly on the side of paying for music – and I do. I buy my music from Itunes, mostly, as well as the odd CD if I really like the artist or it’s cheap at a pawn shop or garage sale. I do really dislike paying for music that I have bought already – so most of my old stuff on CD’s I won’t pay for again. And the downloading phenom has also forced artists to tour more, which I think is a good thing. But I don’t complain if someone gives me a burnt CD; and I had Kazaa on my computer for a while until I realized that most of what you get there is crap.
How I relate:
I am related to some semi professional musicians, and I would like to see them get paid for all their music. But I think that the smaller musicians are just looking for exposure and if 1 million people downloaded their song for free, that would be just ducky to them. This is because to the smaller musician, while they certainly still want the dollar bills, they are also happy to just perform – they make music for the feeling it gives them as much for the monetary potential. I am also used to paying for music – that is, I’m not 18 and have been always getting it for free. I think in the future that it could go two ways – either CD and other media sales fall off the face of the earth, or the record companies come up with a better way to protect their music – and I think the latter is more likely. It’s a big business, and if they can’t protect their artists, they’ll cease to exist, and no big business wants to cease to exist. And while the issue is comparable to the "home taping" thing of the late 80’s – it’s not on the same scale. Besides, the record companies are in on that – they make the blank CD’s now just as they used to make the blank tapes. And they made stereo systems with high speed dubbing then, and they make stereos that play MP3s and MP4s now, so they implicitly encourage it.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
After high school comes:
For this entry, I thought I would deepen the topic a bit. I will discuss:
the value of post secondary education. There are a few positions I could take on it, so I will.
First, we have to consider what, exactly, post secondary education means.
There are a great deal of institutions that offer schooling beyond high school. But are the schools that advertise during daytime and late night TV giving the same value as, say, a university? I would posit that this is not really a valid question; but they do give some value. This is an issue which on the surface, seems straightforward, but can quickly move into class politics. So I will approach the issue from just a university versus trade / tech school.
University: Statistics have shown that university graduated make, on average, more than any other segment of the population. The average university wage will be about $20,000 higher than that of someone with a high school education, and $10,000 higher than someone with trade / technical school education. Also, university gives its students a more rounded education – usually requiring students to take some courses out of their chosen discipline. This, in turn, is why university graduates are often supporters of the arts, sports, and theatre, even if they have seemingly no connection to it. Universities also give students a whole different society, and the friends that people make in university are friends for life. The bonds formed in student organizations, particularly fraternities and sororities, are quite strong.
But is the extra money the point of the education? There are many examples of people who are university drop outs, or never even went, but are ridiculously successful – Bill Gates and Richard Branson but 2 examples.
This may mean that university stifles creativity, and that university may hold some people back. But put the money aside; is that why you go to university – to get a better paying job? And if you don’t get a better paying job, are you then disappointed? And if money is not the point, then what is? To grow as a person, or "reach your potential"? Going to classes, joining clubs, writing papers that no one will read after you are done school is not part of your potential; and for the limited few who make the jump to their Masters or Doctorates – the whole system can’t exist just for them. But it will make you interested in things outside of your own small comfort zone, and maybe it will take you to places where you didn’t think it would.
Most people who go to university are middle class or higher. So maybe university is just a middle class institution that keeps the class divisions intact – and they only let in the "best’ - smartest of the lower classes; thereby lowering the potential for the lower class and upping the potential for the middle class.
Trade / Technical school:
Lately, people with trades have been making more and more money. This is in the information fields, construction, the medical trades (nursing, EMT, dental hygenists), and a few others. So going to these types of schools may offer a comparable salary for their graduates, plus the opportunity to work while going to school. The schooling is shorter – often only 6 weeks of class a year. And you only learn stuff that is directly related to the work. A plumber will not have to take a course in sociology, for example.
But this strength can also be a limitation. There is nothing wrong with learning more about the world, and learning more might encourage people to seek new direction.
A problem with the dollar aspect of trade school is that you tend to top out earlier – after you get your ticket, your wage doesn’t go much higher.
But at advantage here is that the wage goes up faster. Someone just out of trade school will likely make a higher wage than someone just out of university, but in 10 years, the person with the university education will be making more.
The class problem exists here as well. It is mostly the lower classes that go to trade and technical schools, keeping the classes separate. Even people who have successful trade / technical based businesses tend to want their children to attend university, not trade school. I’m not sure why that is, but it is a trend I’ve noticed. Often, the standards for getting into trade school are lower than getting into universities, which could be a positive or a negative, depending on your point of view. There are technical school courses that are similar to university courses, but are not as in depth. For example, you can learn bookkeeping at a tech school, but accounting at a university.
What I think:
I believe that one is not better than the other. I think that it depends on the individual. I think that for those people out there who just want to learn the one skill or trade, the trade schools serve a vital and necessary function; but for those who want more in depth, university is a better option. Universities are more prestigious, but that had to do more with the amount pad for enrollment than anything else. I do believe that the social experience offered university students is better than the trade school experience. At a university, you are exposed to pretty much the whole spectrum of everything; but at a trade school you tend to only be exposed to people like yourself, going into the same job. I believe the class issue is relevant, and it would be better for society as a whole if there could be some balance their, but I offer no insight in how to achieve that.
How I relate:
This would be my personal bias from above – I just finished university. It was well worth it; but most people I know outside of university are in the trades. So they are mostly making more money than me right now, but their work is also taking a toll on their bodies. And much as I might have complained about my courses I had to take outside my discipline, I enjoyed them because they had a different perspective, and helped me look at things in a different way. There are a few people who are comfortable in both worlds – a friend of mine who just got her business degree wants to go back to school for the culinary arts – and good for her. My former bosses at the trucking company where I work had both their class 1 licenses and their business degrees. So they can go together, but most don’t. And most people aren’t happy with whichever one they have anyway. And even after I do get a different job, I'll have to effectively take trade courses in my chosen field - the education process never stops.
Cheers,
the value of post secondary education. There are a few positions I could take on it, so I will.
First, we have to consider what, exactly, post secondary education means.
There are a great deal of institutions that offer schooling beyond high school. But are the schools that advertise during daytime and late night TV giving the same value as, say, a university? I would posit that this is not really a valid question; but they do give some value. This is an issue which on the surface, seems straightforward, but can quickly move into class politics. So I will approach the issue from just a university versus trade / tech school.
University: Statistics have shown that university graduated make, on average, more than any other segment of the population. The average university wage will be about $20,000 higher than that of someone with a high school education, and $10,000 higher than someone with trade / technical school education. Also, university gives its students a more rounded education – usually requiring students to take some courses out of their chosen discipline. This, in turn, is why university graduates are often supporters of the arts, sports, and theatre, even if they have seemingly no connection to it. Universities also give students a whole different society, and the friends that people make in university are friends for life. The bonds formed in student organizations, particularly fraternities and sororities, are quite strong.
But is the extra money the point of the education? There are many examples of people who are university drop outs, or never even went, but are ridiculously successful – Bill Gates and Richard Branson but 2 examples.
This may mean that university stifles creativity, and that university may hold some people back. But put the money aside; is that why you go to university – to get a better paying job? And if you don’t get a better paying job, are you then disappointed? And if money is not the point, then what is? To grow as a person, or "reach your potential"? Going to classes, joining clubs, writing papers that no one will read after you are done school is not part of your potential; and for the limited few who make the jump to their Masters or Doctorates – the whole system can’t exist just for them. But it will make you interested in things outside of your own small comfort zone, and maybe it will take you to places where you didn’t think it would.
Most people who go to university are middle class or higher. So maybe university is just a middle class institution that keeps the class divisions intact – and they only let in the "best’ - smartest of the lower classes; thereby lowering the potential for the lower class and upping the potential for the middle class.
Trade / Technical school:
Lately, people with trades have been making more and more money. This is in the information fields, construction, the medical trades (nursing, EMT, dental hygenists), and a few others. So going to these types of schools may offer a comparable salary for their graduates, plus the opportunity to work while going to school. The schooling is shorter – often only 6 weeks of class a year. And you only learn stuff that is directly related to the work. A plumber will not have to take a course in sociology, for example.
But this strength can also be a limitation. There is nothing wrong with learning more about the world, and learning more might encourage people to seek new direction.
A problem with the dollar aspect of trade school is that you tend to top out earlier – after you get your ticket, your wage doesn’t go much higher.
But at advantage here is that the wage goes up faster. Someone just out of trade school will likely make a higher wage than someone just out of university, but in 10 years, the person with the university education will be making more.
The class problem exists here as well. It is mostly the lower classes that go to trade and technical schools, keeping the classes separate. Even people who have successful trade / technical based businesses tend to want their children to attend university, not trade school. I’m not sure why that is, but it is a trend I’ve noticed. Often, the standards for getting into trade school are lower than getting into universities, which could be a positive or a negative, depending on your point of view. There are technical school courses that are similar to university courses, but are not as in depth. For example, you can learn bookkeeping at a tech school, but accounting at a university.
What I think:
I believe that one is not better than the other. I think that it depends on the individual. I think that for those people out there who just want to learn the one skill or trade, the trade schools serve a vital and necessary function; but for those who want more in depth, university is a better option. Universities are more prestigious, but that had to do more with the amount pad for enrollment than anything else. I do believe that the social experience offered university students is better than the trade school experience. At a university, you are exposed to pretty much the whole spectrum of everything; but at a trade school you tend to only be exposed to people like yourself, going into the same job. I believe the class issue is relevant, and it would be better for society as a whole if there could be some balance their, but I offer no insight in how to achieve that.
How I relate:
This would be my personal bias from above – I just finished university. It was well worth it; but most people I know outside of university are in the trades. So they are mostly making more money than me right now, but their work is also taking a toll on their bodies. And much as I might have complained about my courses I had to take outside my discipline, I enjoyed them because they had a different perspective, and helped me look at things in a different way. There are a few people who are comfortable in both worlds – a friend of mine who just got her business degree wants to go back to school for the culinary arts – and good for her. My former bosses at the trucking company where I work had both their class 1 licenses and their business degrees. So they can go together, but most don’t. And most people aren’t happy with whichever one they have anyway. And even after I do get a different job, I'll have to effectively take trade courses in my chosen field - the education process never stops.
Cheers,
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Starting on the light side
The new blog.
So, just because I thought that I should do this, here is my new blog.
There is no real reason for doing it, but I though that it might keep me busy, and give me space to focus my thoughts. But I don’t want to just put my daily random thoughts on the screen; there’s enough people out there who do that already. So I decided on some structure.
What I will try to is this: 4 parts to each blog entry. Because people tend to just seek out information that reaffirms their already formed opinion, I will try to take an issue, likely a moral one, and in parts 1 and 2, presents both sides to it. Part 3 will then give my opinion on it, with qualifiers. And part 4 of the blog will relate the issue to my personal life in some way. It will not be essay for, lest you are worried about that.
Because of this structure, I am not going to introduce myself, and tell you stuff about me; stuff about me will reveal itself as time progresses. And that’s how you get to know people anyway – a bit at a time.
Some caveats: I am not a scholar, and therefore do not expect a scholarly analysis. It will be a brief overview at best, 1-2 paragraphs for each part of the blog. I do have other stuff to do. My opinions will be flawed, and I rarely see things in black and white, so don’t expect a definite "this is right" from me. I’m not quite a cultural relativist, but close. Lastly, I don’t know that I will cover every issue out there. I may cover mundane issues such as "paper" vs "plastic" and as broad as "the creation of a Palestinian state". In between, I suspect a lot will be missed. Last, feel free to post comments after my entries (of course) but I would like to see you own opinions, not a link to some other site that explains the issue in detail. We can all do our own research if we want, but where I think the relevant discourse comes in is from actual independent thought. The best interpretation of current events often comes in the "letters" page of the newspaper, not in the articles themselves. Also, if you have any ideas for a blog post, let me know.
And I should probably let you know right now that I have had a long standing policy on not discussing abortion. Both sides are jerks. And it’s been debated elsewhere more effectively by far more critical minds than mine. So don’t expect to see topic that any time soon. But I suspect there will be common threads running through the topics.
And so, without further delay, the first topic is:
Obama vs Clinton. No preamble needed, I think. This will be shorter than most, as I’ve already used up a lot of space.
Obama: The main thing in his favour is that he is not the establishment, at least as much as someone running for president can be. He has some experience, he is smart, charismatic, and has the support of just over half the Democratic party. And apparently he is black, though some would have you believe is not black enough, whatever that means. When I say he is not part of the establishment, I mean that in contrast to all the other people running for president; but he does have a good bit of cash. The main problem with Obama is that young people may like him, but young people don’t vote; and African –Americans are much less in number than women.
Hillary: She is the one with experience, politically. She has been in public service in one way or another for over 30 years. She is smart, a bit less charismatic but empathetic, and has the support of just less that half the Democratic party, notwithstanding the voting scandal of the early primaries. And she is female. She would be the second major female candidate in the US. Her main flaw is that she is establishment – she represents the old school, and there are some memories of Bill in the populace’s mind. She's more of just the same old, same old.
What I think:
As I write this, it’s pretty much decided that Obama will take the nomination. I like him; I like that he is not establishment. I like Hillary too, though, and I was hoping for her to win. What I don’t understand is why they don’t bury the hatchet and decide that one can run as president and one can run as VP. I suppose that they have the mentality of "second place is the first loser" which won’t help them or the US any. If they keep on infighting, they may do more damage than good to the Democratic party.
Not that it really matters to me - I won’t be voting for either (or McCain, for that matter). But I wanted Hillary to win because she’s female, and the US needs a female president, if only for symbolic purposes.
How I relate:
I’ve taken a few classes on women in the workplace, and the disparity between men and women in the workplace in the US are still quite large. A symbolic female leader would help change things quickly, I think; more than having a symbolic black head of state. As I mentioned, there are more women than other minorities in the US, so it would make a bigger positive difference for more people than it would if Obama were to win. This does not mean, though, that I think that either one will win the election. I think that Hillary had the best shot at defeating the Republicans, but the Democratic edge will be lost by the time of the election. The symbolic head of state if the US has an effect on a few things – not just symbolically.
You’ll notice I don’t really talk about their politics – that’s because they are pretty much the same, and not much different from McCain, either.
The more elections I see, the more I think that whoever wants to be elected shouldn’t be trusted to lead. Every person I know who has ever been elected to anything turned into a politician.
That’s my first entry. Are you not entertained?
So, just because I thought that I should do this, here is my new blog.
There is no real reason for doing it, but I though that it might keep me busy, and give me space to focus my thoughts. But I don’t want to just put my daily random thoughts on the screen; there’s enough people out there who do that already. So I decided on some structure.
What I will try to is this: 4 parts to each blog entry. Because people tend to just seek out information that reaffirms their already formed opinion, I will try to take an issue, likely a moral one, and in parts 1 and 2, presents both sides to it. Part 3 will then give my opinion on it, with qualifiers. And part 4 of the blog will relate the issue to my personal life in some way. It will not be essay for, lest you are worried about that.
Because of this structure, I am not going to introduce myself, and tell you stuff about me; stuff about me will reveal itself as time progresses. And that’s how you get to know people anyway – a bit at a time.
Some caveats: I am not a scholar, and therefore do not expect a scholarly analysis. It will be a brief overview at best, 1-2 paragraphs for each part of the blog. I do have other stuff to do. My opinions will be flawed, and I rarely see things in black and white, so don’t expect a definite "this is right" from me. I’m not quite a cultural relativist, but close. Lastly, I don’t know that I will cover every issue out there. I may cover mundane issues such as "paper" vs "plastic" and as broad as "the creation of a Palestinian state". In between, I suspect a lot will be missed. Last, feel free to post comments after my entries (of course) but I would like to see you own opinions, not a link to some other site that explains the issue in detail. We can all do our own research if we want, but where I think the relevant discourse comes in is from actual independent thought. The best interpretation of current events often comes in the "letters" page of the newspaper, not in the articles themselves. Also, if you have any ideas for a blog post, let me know.
And I should probably let you know right now that I have had a long standing policy on not discussing abortion. Both sides are jerks. And it’s been debated elsewhere more effectively by far more critical minds than mine. So don’t expect to see topic that any time soon. But I suspect there will be common threads running through the topics.
And so, without further delay, the first topic is:
Obama vs Clinton. No preamble needed, I think. This will be shorter than most, as I’ve already used up a lot of space.
Obama: The main thing in his favour is that he is not the establishment, at least as much as someone running for president can be. He has some experience, he is smart, charismatic, and has the support of just over half the Democratic party. And apparently he is black, though some would have you believe is not black enough, whatever that means. When I say he is not part of the establishment, I mean that in contrast to all the other people running for president; but he does have a good bit of cash. The main problem with Obama is that young people may like him, but young people don’t vote; and African –Americans are much less in number than women.
Hillary: She is the one with experience, politically. She has been in public service in one way or another for over 30 years. She is smart, a bit less charismatic but empathetic, and has the support of just less that half the Democratic party, notwithstanding the voting scandal of the early primaries. And she is female. She would be the second major female candidate in the US. Her main flaw is that she is establishment – she represents the old school, and there are some memories of Bill in the populace’s mind. She's more of just the same old, same old.
What I think:
As I write this, it’s pretty much decided that Obama will take the nomination. I like him; I like that he is not establishment. I like Hillary too, though, and I was hoping for her to win. What I don’t understand is why they don’t bury the hatchet and decide that one can run as president and one can run as VP. I suppose that they have the mentality of "second place is the first loser" which won’t help them or the US any. If they keep on infighting, they may do more damage than good to the Democratic party.
Not that it really matters to me - I won’t be voting for either (or McCain, for that matter). But I wanted Hillary to win because she’s female, and the US needs a female president, if only for symbolic purposes.
How I relate:
I’ve taken a few classes on women in the workplace, and the disparity between men and women in the workplace in the US are still quite large. A symbolic female leader would help change things quickly, I think; more than having a symbolic black head of state. As I mentioned, there are more women than other minorities in the US, so it would make a bigger positive difference for more people than it would if Obama were to win. This does not mean, though, that I think that either one will win the election. I think that Hillary had the best shot at defeating the Republicans, but the Democratic edge will be lost by the time of the election. The symbolic head of state if the US has an effect on a few things – not just symbolically.
You’ll notice I don’t really talk about their politics – that’s because they are pretty much the same, and not much different from McCain, either.
The more elections I see, the more I think that whoever wants to be elected shouldn’t be trusted to lead. Every person I know who has ever been elected to anything turned into a politician.
That’s my first entry. Are you not entertained?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
