Math is Hard!
I have been plaqued by serious writer's block the last few weeks, thus the lack of posts. It isn't so much that I haven't had anything to say, since I should follow up on my Christmas O' Plenty, and I'm really dying to solicit feelings on the political primary season, but I just can't think of any way to make either of those topics interesting to anyone, even me. Just as I was about to doubt the future of this blog, my students gave me this ammunition (I swear all of this was said with deathly seriousness):Me: You have 60 seconds to finish this assignment.
Polly (The names are changed to protect the goofy): Mister, isn't 60 seconds a minute?
Me: Yup.
Mark: Nu-Uh! I thought a minute was 100 seconds.
Me: Uh, Nope.
Brenda (Who really is usually smart): No, Stupid. A minute is 60 seconds. 100 seconds is 90 seconds.
Me: What? *Stifled Laughter*
Brenda: No, I mean 100 seconds is a minute and a half. *Big Confident Smile*
Me: Darn, our minute is up. Go ahead and turn your work in (and stop sleeping in math class!).
posted by Phylemon at 5:44 PM
20 Comments:
Maybe we should play Fantasy Primary to get people interested. It works for football.
I was distrubed while reading an article on the Iowa caucus to learn that it is basically musical chairs without the music followed by a game of Red Rover Red Rover. Candiates spend so much money on Iowa and that's how they decided it.
I'm excited about Barack Obama. He is the most exciting and interesting candidate to come along in a long time. If he can beat Hillary, he should dominate in the general election.
Randy,
If you think the Red Rover / Musical Chairs plan was bad, you should have seen when it was a massive game of Rock, Paper, Scissors.
Kent,
Call me an agent of the Status Quo, but I think Obama may be one of the least qualified candidates a major party has ever fielded. I like some of what he has talked about (his feelings on health care are far better than Hillary's at least), but being a one term Senator doesn't give a man enough Gravitas to be the Chief Executive.
I haven't chosen a candidate yet, but I'm leaning towards Romney or Huckabee. Of the field, they are the only ones (other than the unelectable Bill Richardson) who have prior experience in the executive branch of government.
I still say Rudy should have run in the last election. I think he would have won.
I'm sure I'm alone here, but I would have voted for Condaleeza Rice in a heartbeat. I also thought that Donald Rumsfeld had a refreshing directness that would have made for a great president.
Oh. My. Goodness. That story scares me.
Since the politics discussion has begun...in my ideal/imaginary world, I kind of like the ieaa of an Obama/McCain ticket.
There are a few things about Huckabee I like. Romney just seems a little too mechanical and polished for me.
Although I may get blasted for this, I do have to say that I haven't quite figured out why people hate Hillary Clinton so much.
I think people don't like Hillary Clinton because of her sports instability.
When Bill Clinton was running for office, I remember her reminding everyone she was from Illinois and what a big Cubs fan she was. But as soon as they move out of the White House, she sets up shop in New York with her Yankees cap on.
Which is it? You can't claim both the lovable losers and the evil empire.
I don't know much about Obama. A lot of people that happen to not be in New Hampshire seem to like him. I'm not really sure what his platform is; all I know is that Oprah is for him so I must be against him.
Kelly,
For me, my objection to Hillary is similar to your objections to Romney. She also has that too self assured and polished thing going on. I also think that she is ham strung by the positive media attention. You can only hear how she is, "the smartest woman in the world" for so long before you root to see her fall. She seems too elitist for me.
On the other hand, she also has the same problem that I see with Obama, and that is a lack of credible experience. Objectively speaking, the only thing she has accomplished in the public sector is being the Junior Senator from New York, which is great, but doesn't necesarily qualify you to be the Chief Executive.
In fairness, she has had some pretty good moments in debates lately, especially when she was asked about her lack of a "likability factor". She responded tongue in cheek, "Well, that hurts my feelings!" It's the only moment so far when I laughed out loud at a debate. This doesn't make up, however, for the views that she has that I strongly disagree with.
Paul-
I can see the experience argument but I think he would surround himself with a lot of experienced, competent people and that that would not be a factor. A good leader is a good leader and there is just a feeling I get with him that he would be a good leader. I mean, if we are going by experience doesn't that mean we have to elect McCain?
I also kind of like Huckabee. He is a fellow preacher who actually talks about poverty and other social issues. It's refreshing for a religiously-based candidate, which he is, to get away from the homosexual/abortion issue and talk about issues like health care and poverty. He is intriguing. But, at the same time he doesn't believe in evolution. Maybe Carl Everett could be his running mate.
Kent,
I'm using "experience" in a very specific way that I probably should explain. In the last 50 years, there has not been a President who did not hold a prior position in the executive branch of government, either as the vice president or as a governor of a state. This holds true through much of our 200 plus year history, with only three or four presidents not having such experience on their resume.
Although it is clearly not a consitutional requirement, my opinion is that if we are electing someone to be the head of our executive branch of government, that they should have some prior experience dealing with the executive branch of government. To me, it would be like picking your dry cleaner as your doctor because he's done such a good job as a dry cleaner. To that end, I don't vote for Senators (Obama, Clinton, or McCain), which are part of the legislative branch of government, unless they have something else to recommend them.
The funny part of that is that by that rule, I would vote for Al Gore before I voted for Sen. McCain, even though philosophically I agree with McCain more than the former VP (although not by much).
Oops. I meant in the last 40 years there hasn't been a chief executive without experience in the executive branch of government.
At the risk of having this conversation with myself, I did some further research on the resumes of our former presidents. Of the 42 men who have held the office, only ten of these did not have prior experience in the executive brach of government (either vice-presidents, governors, or members of the President's cabinent). Those ten men are:
1. George Washington
2. Andrew Jackson
3. Zachary Taylor
4. Franklin Pierce
5. Abraham Lincoln
6. Ulysses S. Grant
7. James Garfield
8. Benjamin Harrison
9. Dwight Eisenhower
10. John Kennedy
While this seems like a large number (roughly 25%), it is important to note that half of these men were significant military generals in major wars. Since the military is technically part of the executive branch, these do not count either. Our War Heroes are:
1. Washington- Commander of the Army in the American Revolution
2. Andrew Jackson- General in the War of 1812.
3. Zachary Taylor- Commander during the Mexican American War.
4. Ulysses S. Grant- Commanding General during the Civil War
5. Dwight Eisenhower- Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in WWII.
Of the last five, four (Pierce, Garfield, Harrison, and Kennedy) had distinquished carreers in the military without being major leaders. Of these four, three men came to power under controversial terms:
1. It is an accepted fact by historians today that Benjamin Harrison's 1888 election was the result of widespread voter fraud, particularly in Indiana and New York. The man who was cheated out of the presidency, John Sherman, was a member of Rutherford B. Hayes' cabinent.
2. Allegations of fraud have long been alleged in the 1960 election that made Kennedy president, although it is more difficult to prove in this case. Kennedy's election was also the closest election in the 20th century, with Kennedy receiving 49.7% of votes and former Vice President Nixon getting 49.5% of the votes.
3.Franklin Pierce won fair and square, but only because his primary opponent, Secretary of State Daniel Webster, died two weeks before election day.
By my admittedly bias accounting, therefore, there are only two presidents who legitimately won the presidency without previously being a part of the executive branch of government.
1. Abraham Lincoln- who only won the election because there were three pro-slavery candidates in the election of 1860 and Lincoln was the lone anti-slavery candidate. Most people did not want Lincoln as president, but they split their votes.
2. James Garfield- Who was assasinated four months into his presidency.
So, what I'm saying is that a vote for Clinton or Obama (or, sadly, Fred Thompson for that matter) is a vote for a second civil war or an assasination (or both).
phylemon, that breakdown is very interesting.
If Thompson wins, maybe they could just cancel Law & Order instead of having an assignation.
In your mind, does Clinton not get at least a little credit for having been married to the highest executive at both the state and federal level?
I'm not qualified to teach math, and I wouldn't want LaRae looking over my taxes, so, no, Hillary doesn't get points for her choice in men.
Despite everything that I've said, I still like Thompson. He may be the closest to me conceptually on the issues. Also, there would be no tears on my part if Law & Order left the airwaves.
Don't underestimate LaRae's ability to do taxes. She's much better at it than I am.
Is Thompson running as his character from Law & Order? Or his character from The Hunt for Red October? Or his character from Days of Thunder?
I've found the real reason you like Thompson. According to IMDB.com, Thompson was in a movie playing General Grant earlier this year.
Who else was in it? They guy that plays J. Jonah Jameson in the Spiderman movies series and the actress that plays Rogue in the Xmen series.
So for you, phylemon, Thompson is the perfect storm of history, television, and comics book. Have him do a documentary on Brazilian steakhouses and he's your dream canidate.
Fred who? I can't figure him out. He was so much of a bigger deal before he said he was running.
I also don't get Guiliani's (not sure on the spelling) strategy of staying in Florida. I will be very curious to see if it works.
As I said, I do like aspects of Huckabee, but I don't think he could when the big vote against any of the top 3 Democrats.
Someone on one of this week's Colbert Reports (still good even without writers) had a good point about Obama. He said that Obama would not only represent change to the U.S., but also to our global allies (who are becoming much more annoyed with us).
As with a CEO of a company, I don't expect the President to be all things to all people and have a picure perfect resume of experience. I expect him to surround himself with the people that do.
Sorry for all of my random comments. We just watched 3 Colberts, so I'm feeling all political! :)
Kelly-
We love your random comments, so keep them coming.
I'm also not sure about Thompson. There was a lot of eagerness to see him announce, he announced, and then the whole thing kind of stalled. I think he, like Guliani
(that is a tough spelling), is doing the whole, "pick your battles" thing. Which is really odd if you ask me.
As to your other point, I agree that the President doesn't need a perfect resume of experience, but some level of experience in the job we are hiring them for would be appreciated.
The three branches of government are very distinctive from one another, just as our founders intended. Being competent in one branch says absolutely nothing on your ability to suceed at either of the other two.
Fred Thompson actually grew up in the Church of Christ in Tennessee. He admits that he doesn't go to church anymore but should that count for anything?
Also, it has been awhile since a senator was elected President. Paul, you could speak to this better than I can, but I can't remember the last one (maybe LBJ?). I always thought, though, that it was because they had extensive voting records that could be attacked in the general elections. If we use that logic then Huckabee would be the winner. And Huckabee is an interesting guy. He is a Republican but, like Bush, in his time as governor of Arkansas he was able to reach across the aisle and work with Democrats. I still prefer Obama but he really interests me. Plus I find it fascinating that he is also from Hope, which is where Bill Clinton is from. I have been through Hope before and it is about as bland a place as you can imagine. I don't know what it is about that place that spawns presidential candidates. Also, I find it interesting that Michael Stipe of REM, the ultimate liberal, is smitten with Huckabee. Maybe REM needs a new bass player.
"Everybody VOTES...sometimes."
Post a Comment
<< Home