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?