Skip to main content

Campaign Reform

Sadly, most of the items that pop up in my newsfeed are now from my liberal friends.  I have to go hunting for the conservative ones.  I think that Penn Jillette speaks wisdom when he says that he likes to hear what people who disagree with him say.  I've seen several of my friends become so radical (far left or far right) that their words seem completely disconnected from reality.  I don't want that to happen to me.

At any rate, one of the main things I'm seeing my liberal friends post today is criticism of rich people funding republican races that failed.  In fact, here's a picture of it.  I agree with the sentiment that this is extremely wasteful and (at least in this case) ultimately futile.  I agree with the arguments that have been posed that this money would be better spent creating actual jobs for the American people--jobs where we actually produce something--rather than funding childish TV ads and giving away free buttons to supporters.

However, I can't help but notice the hypocrisy in posts of this type.  Surely my liberal friends are aware that democrats also spent millions on elections.  Yes, they may have won (some) of those elections, and therefore the argument might be made that the money wasn't as futile as the elections that were lost.  However, I don't think that's relevant in the slightest.  I think it's still the case that the money used on campaigns would have been better spent on actual jobs where actual goods and services are provided.

Now, of course, any money spent anywhere creates jobs for someone.  The people at the TV stations made money from the ads run by the various campaigns.  Billboard owners and sign-making companies, etc etc.  They all got some revenue, and this created some sort of job.  So, it's not all wasted.  But, I think that it would be put to far better use to have jobs like NASA, space exploration, performing arts, engineering, etc that will improve not only our current situation but also our future.  The future of the world is in science.  We need to do research.  Explore space.  Smash atoms.  Build nano-machines.  All of this stuff will improve our way of life now and will also improve the quality of life for the future.

Personally, I think we should streamline campaigns a lot.  There should be one website/phone hotline where each candidate submits eir own policies.  Then voters can go to one centralized place and compare all of the candidates based on their statements and their voting records (for anyone who has already held a public office).  No TV ads.  No campaign trails.  No speeches.  No debates.  Just issues.  No spending millions of dollars.  No endless and pointless mudslinging.

Popular posts from this blog

What's a gainer?

If you haven't already done so, I would suggest reading my previous post before reading this one.  It's sort of an introduction and gives the motivation.  Also, by way of disclosure, this post is not sexually explicit but it does touch on the topic of sexuality and how that relates to the subject at hand.

So, what is a gainer?  I'll relate, as best I can, the experiences I have gone through myself to help answer the question.  I remember when I was a young boy--perhaps around 6 or 7--I would have various fantasies.  Not sexual fantasies, just daydreaming about hypothetical situations that I thought were interesting or entertaining.  I had many different fantasies.  Sometimes I would fantasize about becoming very muscular, sometimes about becoming very fat.  
These fantasies varied in degree of magnitude and the subject of the fantasy.  Sometimes I myself would change weight--I would become muscular or fat.  Other times, I would do something to make other people fat or musc…

The scientific method vs the religious method

I find it interesting when people cite the fact that science keeps changing as a reason to disbelieve it and to believe instead in the "eternal" doctrines taught by some church or other.  Let's examine why science keeps changing.  Here's the scientific method.

Develop a hypothesis (this means "have a belief").Design an experiment to test the hypothesis.Conduct the experiment.Determine whether the hypothesis is believable based on the results of the experiment. This is why science keeps changing--because people notice flaws in it and correct them.  People once thought the solar system was geocentric, but now know that it's heliocentric.  How did this happen?  By using the scientific method.  Scientists are willing to admit that they're wrong.  They're willing to give up a bad idea when they see evidence that it makes no sense.  Contrast this with the religious method (simplified version). Have a belief.Look for evidence to support that belief.Ignor…

Cancel the gym

After I went to the gym this morning, I pulled in to the McDonald's drive through.  While waiting for my food, I played out in my mind a possible conversation I might have with someone concerning just this.  In fact, I have had many real conversations of similar nature.
"How was your morning?"
"It was good.  I went to the gym.  Then I grabbed a late breakfast at McDonald's on my way to work."
"Won't that cancel out?"
"Cancel what?"
"Going to McDonald's after the gym.  Won't that undo all the work you just did?"

I understand the humor.  I laugh about it.  It's funny.  And I think humor is an important thing, and that we should all laugh a little bit more and be offended a little bit less.  And so I write this not up-in-arms, but in the attempts of perhaps reaching some of those who literally believe this line of reasoning.

To the person who asserts that eating "cancels out" going to the gym, I ask just this…