| Home Page Two Columnists Q&A Submit an Article FAQs Contact Author Login |
Globally RationalShan-ul-Hai (161) ![]() ![]() Shan-ul-Hai ![]() Globally Rational Decide Based On Credentials... Not FacesPosted Monday, June 23, 2008 (1 year 138 days ago.) Viewed 126 times. Back in February 2007, USA Today/Gallup asked Americans the following question: "Between now and the 2008 political conventions, there will be discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates -- their education, age, religion, race, and so on. If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be 72 years old, would you vote for that person?" 42% of people said "no" and 15% were undecided. That means that if their party nominated a 72 year-old, 3 out of 7 people would vote for somebody else. In the same poll, 48-50% of people supported Obama or Hillary in a November election against McCain. That would lead a person to believe that, since 42% of people should technically vote against McCain solely because of his age, only 6-8% of people actually supported Obama or Hillary. In fact, I think it's much easier to vote for McCain when you attach a name to his age... people were averse to voting for a 72 year-old, but plenty of people were willing to vote for McCain. Are we serious? In a perfect world, I think we'd remove all of the faces from political elections. If we only knew a candidate's political stances and credentials (and we never saw their faces until after they get elected), I think more people would dismiss McCain just because they don't want to vote for a guy who'd be 80 years old by the time he finishes his second term. What do you think? I like looking at data and studies... they cast a lot of light on reality. I've noticed plenty of people say things like "I don't care about the numbers, this is what my experience says"... but I don't think that any single person's experience is as valuable as the experience of the thousands of people involved in the study. If we weren't willing to vote for a 72 year-old, then why were we willing to vote for McCain? I like McCain... I won't vote for him (not because of his age, but because of his stance on the issues), but I do like him. I think that he's better than Hillary and that he's not as good as Obama... but that's irrelevant. The question here is about numbers; if we weren't willing to vote for a 72 year-old, then why were we willing to vote for McCain? Permalink Comments (1) The Supreme Court has “legacies?”Posted Tuesday, June 10, 2008 (1 year 150 days ago.) Viewed 78 times.
I saw an article today in USA Today suggesting that the legacy of Sandra Day O'Connor, America's first female Supreme Court justice, has been fading since she retired in January 2006 (after a tenure of over two decades). The article mentions that the new Court has "undercut several of her most important rulings on issues such as abortion rights, campaign finance law and government policies intended to help racial minorities." Among other things, the article mentions the following changes in the Court's policies since O'Connor retired and Chief Justice William Rehnquist died:
What interests me the most about this article is the fact that the Supreme Court's political leanings have obviously changed thanks to the justices appointed by President Bush II. While Rehnquist and O'Connor were known to make apolitical decisions on a case-by-case basis, their replacements (John Roberts and Samuel Alito, respectively) are generally considered as members of the Court's "conservative wing". Since when is a legal system, particularly the Supreme Court, allowed to have a "conservative wing?" It's about time that we start appointing justices based upon their accomplishments rather than their political leanings. Aside from the Presidents Bush, all US Presidents have appointed justices who make highly rational, apolitical decisions. Why do we let it fly when an active member of either political party is allowed to join the Court? Alito, Roberts, and Clarence Thomas (who was appointed by Bush Sr.) are the only current justices who weren't approved by at least 85% of Senators (Alto had 58%, Roberts had 78%, and Thomas had a mere 52%). The other six justices made it in almost unanimously… why is it that the Bushes couldn't do the same thing that Ford, Reagan, Nixon, and Clinton were able to do? The purpose of the Judicial Branch of the US government is to interpret and enforce the laws. As long as the members of the highest court are affiliated with a political party, how can we possibly guarantee neutrality? You can see articles right after they're published by visiting the author's blog (click here) or subscribing to his RSS feed (click here).
Permalink Comments (1) Howard Dean: A Window into Obama's FuturePosted Friday, June 06, 2008 (1 year 155 days ago.) Viewed 129 times. It's common for a Presidential nominee to replace the chair of his party with one of his own people. Although Barack Obama's recent decision to keep Howard Dean as the DNC chair was minor news at best, I think it's much more important than the media has made it seem. I think the foreshadowing is undeniable; this will tell us a lot about what a potential Obama presidency would be like. Here are some things that jump out at me:
I'm hoping that this is a positive sign for Obama's campaign and, eventually, his Presidency. It's no secret to my regular readers that I'm a bit biased (I've supported Obama ever since Ron Paul fell into oblivion and McCain started to turn into another Bush), but am I wrong? You can see articles right after they're published by visiting the author's blog (click here) or subscribing to his RSS feed (click here). Permalink Comments (6) Why do we care?Posted Thursday, June 05, 2008 (1 year 156 days ago.) Viewed 48 times. There are plenty of social issues that are important in politics these days. Everybody seems to be highly concerned with what everybody else is doing. With these issues, I like to ask myself "is it really worth the effort to oppose an issue that some people care so dearly about?" Some examples:
A lot of it (i.e. gay marriage, abortion, polygamy) comes down to religious issues. Although the term "separation of Church and State" is thrown around all over the place, it seems like people generally ignore it. Why was it such a big deal that some people thought Barack Obama might be Muslim? Why does the government think of marriage as a holy bond between a man and a woman? Sure, religion has a place in a person's life; honestly, I wouldn't even mind it if the US declared itself to be a Christian nation. But as long as we maintain the concept of "religious freedom," we cannot make policy decisions that involve religious values. Permalink Comments (1) |
Archives:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Home |
Page Two |
FAQ's |
Contact |
Terms of Service |
Article Submission Guidelines |
Questions & Answers |
Privacy |
Mission / About
Copyright © 1999-2009 SearchWarp.com, All Rights Reserved - SearchWarp.com is an IcoLogic, Inc. Company