Them that's got shall have, them that's not shall lose

[vovat]

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.

What I've been journaling about!

 Create your own! By ga_woo using Web Services by Yahoo!

Your Score: Gust

~ 55% Water ~ 66% Wind ~ 29% Earth ~ 59% Fire ~

I want to live where the sky is big

Simple and free...

Let's see... your personality reminds me of the...

...cool Sapphire, the non-red corundum, or its little brother, the Blue Topaz. Your colours are azure, indigo, and a bright yellow or gold.

Interpretation:

Out of the seven chakras, the Throat Chakra, which is associated with the element of wind and represents our desire to learn and communicate, seems to be predominant in you. Though this means you are probably the smartest one among your friends, it may result in feeling stressed or nervous or becoming too much of a perfectionist.

You can balance it by wearing a Rose Quartz; its soothing attributes help unwind, enable you to "love thyself", and accept limitations.

A Tarot references concerning your predominant element:

If you are a young lass or lad and still unmarried your card is the Page of Swords. Young women, especially married ones, identify with the Queen of Swords, also known as the Queen of Spades. If you are a young, unmarried man, you are the Knight of Swords, and married or 'mature' males are identified with the King of Sword, commonly known as the King of Spades. Ladies and gentlemen, here is your intelligent man you've been looking for.

These are the results you will get if you score highly on...

None of the four elements: Balance Wind: Gust Fire: Blaze Water: River Earth: Valley Wind & Fire: Thunder Wind & Water: Clouds Wind & Earth: Canyon Fire & Earth: Lava Fire & Water: Tornado Water & Earth: Trees Wind, Fire & Earth: Storm Wind, Fire & Water: Stars Wind, Water & Earth: Forest Fire, Water & Earth: Avalanche All four elements: Harmony

Link: The Elemental Balance Test written by Nitsuki on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the The Dating Persona Test View My Profile(Nitsuki)

[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.

Comments

calling hillary by her first name

[annarama.livejournal.com]

another thing is, when i hear the name "clinton" i automatically think of bill clinton, not hillary. and since he has been stumping for her, his name has been in the news a lot, too. it might be that people are referring to hillary by her first name just to differentiate her from bill.

Re: calling hillary by her first name

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that sounds likely. I guess if we ever get a female candidate whose husband hasn't already been President, we'll have more of an idea as to whether that's true.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

Wow, your collage made the fan in this laptop freak out. I'm actually doing LiveJournal at work right now, OOOO-- which is why I'm using a laptop.

Anyway.

Yeah, it seems kind of funny that people who are so gung-ho about alternative energy seem to draw the line at nuclear. It's like it's automatically associated with A-bombs in people's minds and therefore nothing good can ever come of it. Personally I think if it's dangerous now, maybe that's a good reason to do more research to figure out how to make it NOT so dangerous? I mean, rather than scrapping it entirely so as to continue beating about the bush on other forms of alternate energy and never getting anywhere. I mean, it would probably be better to use water or wind or solar power in the areas where those options are convenient, but maybe nuclear's a good option for the places where those other options are not.

'Course, in my area of the country there is such a HISTORY in coal mining that the coal mining industry is being QUITE,um, lobby-licious about it. I mean, if you're not using coal energy, you're turning your back on the entire economic foundation of Western Pennsylvania! Never mind most of the people who took jobs in coal mines did it just because they couldn't find any better work, and would have gladly taken ANYtHING else....

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Wow, your collage made the fan in this laptop freak out.

It's BIG, isn't it? I'm not sure how far back it goes, or what all of the pictures actually indicate.

Personally I think if it's dangerous now, maybe that's a good reason to do more research to figure out how to make it NOT so dangerous? I mean, rather than scrapping it entirely so as to continue beating about the bush on other forms of alternate energy and never getting anywhere.

That's pretty much how I feel. For that matter, I'm not sure there have even been any major nuclear plant disasters since Three Mile Island, although this site (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001457.html) mentions a few more minor (but still serious) ones from recent years.