Just started watching the MSNBC Debate from last night. First Topic is Healthcare. They spent a bunch of time on it. They both want universal healthcare, the specifics of their plans differ slightly. But I realize that the nitty gritty details will be worked out as the bill moves through the House and Senate.
The question in my mind, is who can get the job done, who can go beyond the smear politics of "socialized medicine" and convince the 100 senators and 435 house members to move on, and finally get down to business. Americans have been demanding Healthcare for years, it is literally embarrassing that this wealthy and educated nation cannot provide this basic need for its people. The process in Washington has gone nowhere. Which candidate can get the congress and the people to move past the turf wars and smear tactics and get results?
Watch the video for yourself, you'll see Hillary slander her opponent, call him stupid, misrepresent his remarks, and mock his approach. This may be par for the course in Washington, but you're not going to get people
to agree with you. Obama is better at getting people to see where he's coming from and see eye to eye. You need to reach agreement with other people to get things done. Especially if you want to transcend buzz words like "socialized medicine" and "Islamofascism". Hillary is divisive, and Obama can get people to move beyond petty politics.
Watch It
Ralph Nader
I guess I'm one of the few, who don't blame Ralph.
Our election system is broken. We call ourselves a democracy, but we can
Only have
Two choices. And most of the time, one candidate has 5x-10x more money and airtime as the other candidate. In fact, the battle is so difficult over 90% of US House races only have one choice. It's not Ralph's fault.
Here's a quote I hear all the time, but this really bothers and amazes me. "This election is
too important to have a third party." Stop, think about it. You're really saying, "This election is too important, we need fewer choices, fewer ideas, less diversity of opinion, fewer solutions, fewer voices, less discussion, less involvement, please... only two." This is our problem. Important decisions deserve robust discussion, and important elections inspire many candidates and voters to voice their opinion. That is a good thing, why do we think it's ok to limit the debate? Why do we think it's ok to throw out candidates with passion and ambition? Someone decides to run for office because they are so moved and inspired and determined to make a difference in their community. But we think it's ok to get rid of them as quick as possible, just to make the election fit nicely into an ancient and broken electoral system.
So, Ralph, go on with your bad self. And if it pisses off the Democratic Party
good!! Change the system to allow more than two candidates, without "spoiling" the election or "Stealing" votes from the better candidate. There is a nonviolent way to keep Nader, and Bloomberg, and Steve Calvenesso, and every third party candidate in history from ever "Spoiling" another election,
change the system. If the Democratic party is pissed off and scared of Ralph, they had better do something about it.
Solution. In the constitution, States decide independently how they award their electoral votes. They can split them up or do winner take all. Also the vting process is up to them, as long as it is an open fair election.
Get all the Democratic Governors together, and have each state agree to do Instant Runoff Voting (aka. Ranked Choice Voting). In this method we voters rank our candidates in order of preference, (Nader first, Kerry Second). If nobody gets 50% you get rid of the loser (Nader), and his votes are redistributed to the voters second choice (Kerry). Bingo, no constitutional amendment, everyone's vote counts, there is no spoiler candidate, and we don't have to blame people for voting for the person they actually believe in. And we get to rank our choices, which is what we do in our head all the time. (Kucinich, Obama, Edwards, Dodd)
IRV Explained
We can speculate about 2000 and 2004 elections, What if, Ralph didn't run, what if black areas had adequate voting machines, what if Jeb Bush wasn't the Governor of Florida...
Let's think about a different set of What ifs. What if this year, we had a stage full of candidates, Ron Paul, Kucinich, Edwards, Blomberg, Lieberman, Nader, McCain, and Obama. There are a lot of Republicans who will be staying home, if Ron Paul was out there taking the party back from the neo-cons, you know he would get a couple hundred-thousand votes. And you'd have Kucinich calling out hypocrites and sticking to real progressive values as always.
You'd have a real discussion of critical issues. The most public discussion of ideas in the nation is the presidential election, let it be a marketplace of ideas, where people present real and diverse solutions to problems. We'd have near 75% voter turnout, and an informed electorate. If this is truely an important year, and a crossroads for the country, let's have democracy. Government would once again be more engaging than sports and Hollywood.
My Guess, Nader gets at least a few people out to vote who would stay home otherwise, so do Kucinich and Edwards and Ron Paul. Let them participate. I hope Nader Scares the crap out of Democrats, go fix the system, you have the power. I am loyal to no party, I only seek what is best for the American people in the long run.
Vonnegut. Nice. Please add his "Breakfast of Champions" to your now ever growing pile of books to read :) His characters make multiple appearances throughout his works. Excellent excerpt from SH5, too!
I'm a book-eater; tearing through several fiction and non-fiction novels a month...always looking for suggestions and offering them myself. Whether at the same time or one after the other, when selecting a book, I aim for a smart balance of 'brain candy' and 'brain food'. There is just so much great stuff out there. Welcome to the fiction world. Enjoy!!
So it goes - how many caught that in his journal that has read the book? =D I got a kick out of seeing that.
SH5 is his only novel that I've read... there are too many authors out there for me to focus on one for long! Actually looking at my bookshelf I think the only author I've read multiple times is Jack Kerouac. I am reading a couple works by James Joyce though.
Lately I've been interested in Latin American authors as well as exiled (one way or another) Chinese authors. Ha Jin might be one of the only Chinese authors that writes natively in English rather than being translated... Bei Dao is probably the best Chinese exile author out there now. They write pretty frankly about life under communism - the one I want to read is a short story collection by Ha Jin called Ocean of Words, which is a collection of stories that details the extraordinarily harsh existence of being in the Chinese Revolutionary Army... which Ha Jin was in fact a member of prior to staying in America when Tienanmen Square happened.
The Latin American author of note is Jorge Louis Borges - he is a Nobel laureate and is generally considered one of the world's greatest authors of any extraction. He is heavily influenced by William Faulkner, as is another well known author (and a Nobel laureate as well) named Gabriel Garcia Marquez, whose most well known novel "100 Years of Solitude" is considered by many to be the greatest Latin American novel.
Yay, suggestions! I also might read Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
May I recommend C.S. Friedman's Coldfire Trilogy.
I read novels and poetry constantly growing up and currently read almost all non-fiction and poetry. I hope I go through the same thing you are now and rediscover how great the novel can be.
Heyo. I haven't looked too much into this yet, but I saw there is a site called DailyLit that has a bunch of classics for free, right online.
:::link:::
when you finish slaughterhouse five give sirens of titan a whirl :)