|
|
|
|
|
Archive |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archive |
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
There is no such thing as a "popular vote." There is only the artifact of adding up the vote totals for each candidate. But, since the system doesn't work as a popular vote, the total is meaningless. Neither candidate was striving to win a "popular vote." They were campaigning in a way to win the vote of the Electoral College. So, the contention is false, and yet is repeated ad nauseam. The editorial goes on to call for the abolition of the Electoral College so as to make the election "more democratic." It is perhaps the best example of shallow thinking that I can come up with right now. All voting schemes suffer from inconsistencies, paradoxes and inefficiencies. Even majority rule. That's why we have certain rights that majorities can't take away. Even if a majority vote to throw you in jail for burning the American flag, the courts will say that is unconstitutional. So, there are limits to majority rule. Which brings me to the reason for my deferred reaction to this editorial. I had written a letter years ago in response to another like-minded editorial. I hunted around for both off and on since last October and have finally found them. In November of 2000, right after the election, the Daily Sun ran the editorial on this subject, written by Steven Hill and Rob Richie, titled, "Bush, Gore should scrap Electoral College." In that editorial, Hill and Richie pour on absurdity after absurdity. How "will we explain to young people" that Gore won more votes but lost? Well, granted that young people are rather stupid and superficial, you could just try and explain how the system works. Further, they likened this process to declaring the loser in the Super Bowl as the winner. Well, that's what got me onto my computer. In part, here's what I wrote (published as a letter at/about November 21, 2000, about two weeks after the Hill and Richie commentary):
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
Read
the full story, A
Return to O'Neill Spring |
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
Also, I have finally finished my daily blogs for my Antarctic Journal. Well, that only took years and years! Actually, I only had the last two days, spent in Hobart, Tasmania, to wrap up and I just kept putting it off. Until just yesterday. So, that story is now wrapped up. Or, is it? I still have movies I have been meaning to include but . . . Lastly, at least for now, I have added a new section, called The Grand Canyon Essays. This is an index page to all of my various essays that have to do with the Grand Canyon. Essays of a political, economic and philosophical nature, that is. All the essays were already here and many had links to others, but this will help me better keep track of this major area of interest to me. I ordered them from newest to oldest, for lack of any better idea in this regard. The very first entry (i.e., the oldest material) is actually the paper I wrote for the Goldwater Institute. It is the only one that doesn't appear in the Kaibab Journal. I have added a link to this section in the center column. I do have some other canyon related sections listed there and I may yet retool some of those pages at a later date. |
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
So, I was immediately remembering how, as a child, my mother used to drill into us the phrase, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me." I took it for granted that everyone knew that. But, am I the only one? Well, me and my sisters. The idea of some kind of word prohibition not only infers the intent of some speaker/s, it also gives it even greater weight! That would seem to be self-defeating, at best. Why can't I say that someone is retarded in a purely objective, value-free, manner? Apparently, I can't. And, so, I began to think that this whole issue - of "banning" words - is totally bogus. I am quite accepting of societal norms in this regard, and notions of polite behavior, but it can't be important enough to get this much attention. Just think about it. The uttering of particular sounds through our vocal cords can constitute some kind of hate crime? Is that the issue? And, of course, it isn't a hate crime to those that don't speak the language. To them, it is just so much gibberish. I can't think of a better definition of insanity than a proscription against particular sounds. Indeed, the whole point of that childhood rhyme is to ignore the absurdity of words (or, sounds) in favor of focusing on actions. That is, if someone does attack me physically, that is cause for legal involvement, not if someone's words offend me.
I was also reminded of an incident in college. During one of the
many false fire alarms we had to put up with, the Resident Assistant
for my dorm got into a bit of a verbal dust-up with one of the
residents. I don't recall the exact nature of the argument, but
the student resident was "charged" with some violation and
"tried" before a university judicial council (made up in
part, if not in Recently, I was watching a comedy special featuring Louis CK, who can be rolling-on-the-floor funny. He was expressing his distain for people who use the phrase, "the N-word." That is, he said (Google it on your own to find it), because we are all saying the actual word in our heads! Exactly! Either we know what it means - so why use the euphemism - or, we don't - so, why do it at all? Maybe what we really need to do is force people to say these words every day, so that they will lose their negative connotations? Or, maybe we should just repeat the childhood rhyme about sticks and stones. Otherwise, this whole debate is . . . well, retarded. |
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
So, let's take risks. As we are still two, or three, months away from serious campaigning for the November election, I see definite signs that this closeness will evaporate. Obama has made many missteps as of late, whether he recognizes them or not. He is spending a lot of political capital to hold onto his base, which is never likely to vote against him, but may not vote at all. Instead of a close race, I am thinking it could be something of a blowout, although not as big as 1980 was - the last time a Democrat incumbent lost. In that election, Reagan got the astounding total of 489 Electoral College votes. In fact, I don't think it will be as big a victory as Bill Clinton had over the first President Bush in 1992, when Clinton got 370 Electoral College votes. My prognostication has Romney at 335 votes, which is still impressive and, perhaps, more so when you look at the map of his victory, above. [Click to see a bigger version. The map can be replicated at 270towin.] I see him losing the west coast and the bulk of New England, but not much beyond that. I predict he'll capture the Midwest with the exception of Obama's non-Kenyan home state of Illinois and the auto-influenced Michigan. But, I do think he'll sweep up Wisconsin and Minnesota as well as the expected swing state of Ohio. This is just a speculative "what-if?" exercise and I could be totally wrong. But, the problems with the economy, the Attorney General, ObamaCare, the debt crisis (exemplified by European problems), the lack of transparency, the energy swindles and Obama's own cavalier attitude toward the office will not be overcome by pandering to specific voter groups. [I think Presidents almost always become insular and, therefore, delusional.] His call to spend more money just isn't going to resonate like it did in 2008. And, clearly, he can't claim to want to "heal" the nation's divide. No matter what you think President Bush is responsible for, the partisan political divisions we see exhibited today are a direct result of President Obama's actions. Related
blogs from the past: |
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||||
