![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I only saw a little bit of last night's (Tuesday night's, that is, since I probably won't get around to posting this until it's technically Thursday) Democratic debate, which featured only the top three candidates. While I don't have that much against any of them, it does seem like our supposed democracy doesn't really give The People (whoever THEY are) that much power in choosing presidential candidates. Before there were any primaries or caucuses, the media had pretty much already decided that Hillary and Obama [1] would be the top two, and then they gave them the most attention in news coverage and the early debates. And sure enough, now they're the top two. Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, really. It's quite possible they would have been the top two anyway, but it seems like none of the others really got a chance, you know? That's one reason why, even though I wouldn't want Ron Paul as president, I can appreciate that he's an unusual candidate who's getting some grassroots support and, while not making excellent showings, has been doing about as well as Giuliani (whom some thought would be the front runner) in the primaries so far.
One question in the debate that I DID see answered pertained to nuclear power, and Edwards said he didn't want to build any more nuclear plants. I guess I have to say I'm kind of on the fence about this issue, because I don't really know that much of the science involved. It seems like a lot of the objections to nuclear power are based largely on an "OMG, that's dangerous!!!!111" gut reaction, but maybe they have a point. I'd love to see a viable source for the mass generation of solar, wind, cold fusion, or magic power (not Mako, though, as that sucks out the lifeblood of the planet), but I don't know that it's viable at this point, and I kind of have to think that the pollution from coal and oil plants is a more serious danger than the possibility of a meltdown or some such. As I've said, though, I don't really know much of the science.
Speaking of Edwards, I also saw a little bit of Bill O'Reilly criticizing him for his belief that the odds are stacked against poor and working-class people. It's no surprise that O'Reilly would favor the rich, but I think Edwards is the only one of the top three Democratic candidates who's really addressing this issue. That ANYONE can make it in this country is one of the great American myths. Sure, it's more possible here than it is in a communist or fascist dictatorship, but it's just not as easy as the believers in good old-fashioned gumption want you to think. When these people point out someone who's become incredibly successful despite humble beginnings (and it's not someone who actually DIDN'T have particularly humble beginnings, which happens sometimes; I think I've even heard it suggested that Bill Gates is a self-made man, which is totally untrue), there are usually some other factors at work that don't come into play for everyone, like skill in business and the right connections. As inspirational as stories about some guy who came up with a brilliant idea that propelled them into fame and fortune might be, does that mean that those of us who DON'T have practically inventive minds and good business sense (or a friend who does) deserve to live on government cheese? (And people like O'Reilly might well think that even the cheese is a waste of taxpayer money.) And that's not even mentioning the huge role that luck plays. There might not be any such thing as luck in Obi-Wan Kenobi's experience, but I don't think that holds true for this galaxy.
( Click here for a collage and a quiz result. )
[1] It's kind of weird that, of all the current presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton is the only one I consistently refer to by her first name (although I usually use both of Ron Paul's names). That's probably true of the media as well, although I think there's something in my subconscious that makes it sound wrong to refer to a woman by just her last name. Kind of sexist, isn't it? I think there might be a societal thing that suggests women's last names aren't all that important. After all, a lot of females change them entirely when they get married. I think I also have a habit, at least on this journal, of referring to people I like by their first names and people I don't by their surnames, but I'm not going to look back at my old posts and see if this is actually true. Hillary isn't my favorite candidate, though, so I think it's more of the woman thing in her case.
One question in the debate that I DID see answered pertained to nuclear power, and Edwards said he didn't want to build any more nuclear plants. I guess I have to say I'm kind of on the fence about this issue, because I don't really know that much of the science involved. It seems like a lot of the objections to nuclear power are based largely on an "OMG, that's dangerous!!!!111" gut reaction, but maybe they have a point. I'd love to see a viable source for the mass generation of solar, wind, cold fusion, or magic power (not Mako, though, as that sucks out the lifeblood of the planet), but I don't know that it's viable at this point, and I kind of have to think that the pollution from coal and oil plants is a more serious danger than the possibility of a meltdown or some such. As I've said, though, I don't really know much of the science.
Speaking of Edwards, I also saw a little bit of Bill O'Reilly criticizing him for his belief that the odds are stacked against poor and working-class people. It's no surprise that O'Reilly would favor the rich, but I think Edwards is the only one of the top three Democratic candidates who's really addressing this issue. That ANYONE can make it in this country is one of the great American myths. Sure, it's more possible here than it is in a communist or fascist dictatorship, but it's just not as easy as the believers in good old-fashioned gumption want you to think. When these people point out someone who's become incredibly successful despite humble beginnings (and it's not someone who actually DIDN'T have particularly humble beginnings, which happens sometimes; I think I've even heard it suggested that Bill Gates is a self-made man, which is totally untrue), there are usually some other factors at work that don't come into play for everyone, like skill in business and the right connections. As inspirational as stories about some guy who came up with a brilliant idea that propelled them into fame and fortune might be, does that mean that those of us who DON'T have practically inventive minds and good business sense (or a friend who does) deserve to live on government cheese? (And people like O'Reilly might well think that even the cheese is a waste of taxpayer money.) And that's not even mentioning the huge role that luck plays. There might not be any such thing as luck in Obi-Wan Kenobi's experience, but I don't think that holds true for this galaxy.
( Click here for a collage and a quiz result. )
[1] It's kind of weird that, of all the current presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton is the only one I consistently refer to by her first name (although I usually use both of Ron Paul's names). That's probably true of the media as well, although I think there's something in my subconscious that makes it sound wrong to refer to a woman by just her last name. Kind of sexist, isn't it? I think there might be a societal thing that suggests women's last names aren't all that important. After all, a lot of females change them entirely when they get married. I think I also have a habit, at least on this journal, of referring to people I like by their first names and people I don't by their surnames, but I'm not going to look back at my old posts and see if this is actually true. Hillary isn't my favorite candidate, though, so I think it's more of the woman thing in her case.
