So, after our collective exhale, I think it is interesting to look a little deeper into some of the electoral trends we witnessed this last Tuesday.
I ran across this very cool map on NPR's website. What is does is this: It takes our map of the USA and turns it into a cartogram -- a representation of population rather than geographic size.
What is striking to me (but not surprising, being that we here at Mid-America Calling are all about bi-partisianship!) is the amount of purple you see.
We truly are a nation of people who want to see our country be all it can be... we may have differences of opinion on how to make it so, but as you can see from the map, our population is NOT divided by partisian bickering.
Let's hope our elected leaders take that cue, and get to work with a bi-partisian spirit.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
OK, Collective Exhale...
A couple days late, sure, but isn't that symbolic in itself? It's been a pretty wild and wooly election, one of the most hardly fought in history, and to be perfectly honest I could not tear my eyes away from it in order to update this ole project. Sorry. But truth be told, not sure if we can compete with the big dogs, trying as we are to refrain from partisanship, which is kind of the order of the day.
That said:
It is truly a fantastic time to be an American. For a long time now, our mainstream media has been pummeling us with assumptions, that the result on Election Day would never have been possible with a divided, latently racist, lazy, disinterested and moronic electorate. We've been told that we'd never elect a black man. We've been told that he's scary, he's a mystery, that he has secret plans and secret friends and is definitely not a friend of us. Even his name became ambiguously threatening.
But like Fox News' Brit Hume said, all those accusations didn't add up to what we saw on the screen. Not by a longshot. And by a notable margin, we the people showed those that make a living telling us about ourselves that they really don't know a damn thing. People came together across ideological, racial and class divides to cast a vote in favor of a truly amorphous idea- change. What does it mean? There's as many answers to that as there are people. But with that vote, Americans nationwide put their foot down in favor of change, and in essence declared their great faith in themselves and their countrymen to come together. We demand it of our government, and each other, so that we all may prosper.
For all the subplots and deeper meanings, that's what this election meant to me. It meant an open opportunity to get to work. It means a president who is open and willing to hearing what everyone has to say, as opposed to one who seeks the approval of 50% plus one. If you have an idea, the president-elect wants to hear it. So bend his ear. Let him know. We are all in this together, now. It's all on us.
So I ask you all, let's get ready to roll up our sleeves. Don't retreat back into the living room, whether you knocked on doors for either candidate, in self-satisfied elation or bitterness. We need to get to work. There's a lot of things that need fixing in our beautiful land, and there is no time to lose. I, for one, am chomping at the bit to get down with it. Let's go.
That said:
It is truly a fantastic time to be an American. For a long time now, our mainstream media has been pummeling us with assumptions, that the result on Election Day would never have been possible with a divided, latently racist, lazy, disinterested and moronic electorate. We've been told that we'd never elect a black man. We've been told that he's scary, he's a mystery, that he has secret plans and secret friends and is definitely not a friend of us. Even his name became ambiguously threatening.
But like Fox News' Brit Hume said, all those accusations didn't add up to what we saw on the screen. Not by a longshot. And by a notable margin, we the people showed those that make a living telling us about ourselves that they really don't know a damn thing. People came together across ideological, racial and class divides to cast a vote in favor of a truly amorphous idea- change. What does it mean? There's as many answers to that as there are people. But with that vote, Americans nationwide put their foot down in favor of change, and in essence declared their great faith in themselves and their countrymen to come together. We demand it of our government, and each other, so that we all may prosper.
For all the subplots and deeper meanings, that's what this election meant to me. It meant an open opportunity to get to work. It means a president who is open and willing to hearing what everyone has to say, as opposed to one who seeks the approval of 50% plus one. If you have an idea, the president-elect wants to hear it. So bend his ear. Let him know. We are all in this together, now. It's all on us.
So I ask you all, let's get ready to roll up our sleeves. Don't retreat back into the living room, whether you knocked on doors for either candidate, in self-satisfied elation or bitterness. We need to get to work. There's a lot of things that need fixing in our beautiful land, and there is no time to lose. I, for one, am chomping at the bit to get down with it. Let's go.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
National Gas Prices
I just stumbled across this tool for getting a comparison of gas prices between locations in the US. Hopefully not sounding like a shill, Gas Buddy has the linked "temperature map" so you can gauge how high the prices are in your area. The map is remarkably interactive, and you just might learn something that can save you some money. For instance, Kansas City has one of the lowest price/gallon costs in the nation- indeed, most the of Great Plains is uniformly cheap. In comparison, North Carolina and Georgia come in almost uniformly expensive, nearing the $4.00/gallon mark.
Here's hoping you find this a useful or interesting tool. I know I am. Let's see if I can make that move to KC, start saving some money.
Here's hoping you find this a useful or interesting tool. I know I am. Let's see if I can make that move to KC, start saving some money.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Mid-American Musings, Vol. 1
OK, I've been MIA for quite some time, I know. Been out to Utah, Colorado, Kansas and Missouri since I last posted, killed a computer, bought a computer, was shoveled a heavier workload at the job, and finally got internet reconnected. Excuses excuses. Please accept this meager post, with the aims of stoking the fires and getting back to work. Thanks all.
I had a discussion with a friend last night about... truthfully, I don't remember what, but somehow the topic of whaling came up. He explained to me that he didn't care what happened to whales, because the issue didn't directly impact him, and what has a whale ever done for him anyways? I pointed out that the whaling industry was integral to building several industries and markets in its heyday, be it shipbuilding, foundries, undergarments or perfume, but that's neither here nor there. I was rather surprised at his flippant attitude in dismissing the issue because it wasn't a "direct impact" on his daily life. A direct impact? What is that, exactly?
I'm going to submit that everything impacts you. When our neighbors cannot pay their mortgages, does it not affect you? Does the prospect of abandoned homes, a gutted neighborhood and a hollowed-out community sound appealing? When graduation rates go down, the available pool of labor shrinks, and either the local economy shrinks with it or imports labor from elsewhere. What does this mean for your town? You can't just tighten up a cordon around your life and ignore things because they are not in-your-face issues. Problems, much like opportunities, are never contained in a little sphere, only touching those that deal with them directly. Think of them as gases, following the winds, wafting over everything they come across, leaving a residue or a smell to remember them by, be it poisonous or pleasing.
It's not a big deal for me if you are pro- or anti- something; we're all entitled to our opinions and our conceptions of the world we want to live in. The point of contention for me is taking up an issue based on how heavily it directly impacts you. Naturally, we will feel most passionate about issues that we deal with daily, much as we care much more for our family than the wellbeing of some stranger on the street. This is unavoidable, and if you weren't like this, I'd say you were a little off in the head. But here is the question- does it really not affect you? When you write off some pressing social issue, be it schools, public safety, healthcare, any of the non-sexy causes that are paid lip-service by politicians, are you really insulated from the impacts? What is the standard of 'impact?'
As much as we want to trumpet the ideal of total individuality, that someone else's problems are never our own, we cannot ignore what happens in our circles of family, friends and community. Generally speaking, we know problems when we see them, and know that we want to dispose of them. We need to have a hope for the world, and work towards achieving it, be it through doing our jobs, raising our families, voting, getting involved in the community, or volunteering. My conception of the world is an ideal, I'll be the first to tell you, but it is definitely worth working and fighting for. It's based on the idea that if you do wrong by my friend, my neighbor, my community, you do wrong by me, because we're all in this together. Everything is an impact. It all needs to be addressed.
What does your ideal world look like? Inquiring minds want to know, or to at least raise the question in your heads, for you to chew on. Have at it.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Censorship in America
Project Censored has recently published its list of the top 25 censored stories for 2009 (yeah, I don't know why they say 2009, but whatever...)
You can see the list here: http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/category/y-2009/
You can see the list here: http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/category/y-2009/
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Bailing Out on the American People
Now, I'm no economic expert, which may become painfully apparent with what I'm about to suggest.
But, I would like somebody to tell me why something like the following wouldn't work better than the current plan by Treasury Secretary Paulson. Essentially, Paulson wants the US Taxpayers to put up something like $700 billion to put into his hands, so that he can use somewhat cryptic means to fix the problem in our financial markets.
He says Congress should make this "clean and quick." That, to me, sounds like he's wanting a rubber stamp put on a plan with very little stipulations, and very little details on how this plan will actually be a wise move for American taxpayers.
So, here's what I'm thinking, and I want you all to tell me why it wouldn't work (or at least have as much a chance of working as a full-on bailout of moronic financial investment banks on Wall St.)
Firstly, though, for a good refresher on what has led up to this crises, see the following article from the Washington Post.
If the American taxpayers are going to be asked to foot a $700 billion dollar bill no matter what, why not target that money to where it is going to do the most good? Why not use a large chunk of that money to pay down the principle on so many of these bad mortgages these investment banks dolled out? Doing this would 1) lower the balance on these mostly worthless 'assets' held by all the investors out there who grabbed up these mortgages, thereby raising their value somewhat; 2) it would greatly LOWER the mortgage payments that American families would be spending each and every month to pay off their homes, putting more money directly into the hands of American taxpayers and providing a stimulus to the economy.
Secondly, LET THESE IRRESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT BANKS FAIL!! Recklessness, irresponsibility, and in some cases, outright fraud should not be tolerated or rewarded by a government taxpayer bail-out. Period.
Now, I understand that making sure people have the ability to borrow money is important. If solvency is not restored then we can see small businesses fail all across the country, which would have a rundown effect throughout every level of this economy. So, what I suggest is that we instead inject all this money into whatever RESPONSIBLE investment banks still exist (if there are any), rather than the ones which have shown their inability to run a solvent institution.
This serves two purposes -- it gets rid of these banks which have ruined confidence in the financial system AND makes sure that money is still available for people who need loans by helping the smaller, more responsible investment firms to pick up the slack left behind by the failing giants of the industry. As an added bonus, people can be confident knowing that only the responsible banks are left, and have more assurances that they would be borrowing and/or investing in assets properly screened.
To me, this makes FAR more sense than what is being proposed by Secretary Paulson. But, maybe I'm just an economic novice and missing something. I just don't see how giving a $700 billion check to the executive branch with no-strings attached is a responsible use of taxpayer money.
Now, start telling me why I'm wrong...
But, I would like somebody to tell me why something like the following wouldn't work better than the current plan by Treasury Secretary Paulson. Essentially, Paulson wants the US Taxpayers to put up something like $700 billion to put into his hands, so that he can use somewhat cryptic means to fix the problem in our financial markets.
He says Congress should make this "clean and quick." That, to me, sounds like he's wanting a rubber stamp put on a plan with very little stipulations, and very little details on how this plan will actually be a wise move for American taxpayers.
So, here's what I'm thinking, and I want you all to tell me why it wouldn't work (or at least have as much a chance of working as a full-on bailout of moronic financial investment banks on Wall St.)
Firstly, though, for a good refresher on what has led up to this crises, see the following article from the Washington Post.
If the American taxpayers are going to be asked to foot a $700 billion dollar bill no matter what, why not target that money to where it is going to do the most good? Why not use a large chunk of that money to pay down the principle on so many of these bad mortgages these investment banks dolled out? Doing this would 1) lower the balance on these mostly worthless 'assets' held by all the investors out there who grabbed up these mortgages, thereby raising their value somewhat; 2) it would greatly LOWER the mortgage payments that American families would be spending each and every month to pay off their homes, putting more money directly into the hands of American taxpayers and providing a stimulus to the economy.
Secondly, LET THESE IRRESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT BANKS FAIL!! Recklessness, irresponsibility, and in some cases, outright fraud should not be tolerated or rewarded by a government taxpayer bail-out. Period.
Now, I understand that making sure people have the ability to borrow money is important. If solvency is not restored then we can see small businesses fail all across the country, which would have a rundown effect throughout every level of this economy. So, what I suggest is that we instead inject all this money into whatever RESPONSIBLE investment banks still exist (if there are any), rather than the ones which have shown their inability to run a solvent institution.
This serves two purposes -- it gets rid of these banks which have ruined confidence in the financial system AND makes sure that money is still available for people who need loans by helping the smaller, more responsible investment firms to pick up the slack left behind by the failing giants of the industry. As an added bonus, people can be confident knowing that only the responsible banks are left, and have more assurances that they would be borrowing and/or investing in assets properly screened.
To me, this makes FAR more sense than what is being proposed by Secretary Paulson. But, maybe I'm just an economic novice and missing something. I just don't see how giving a $700 billion check to the executive branch with no-strings attached is a responsible use of taxpayer money.
Now, start telling me why I'm wrong...
Monday, August 18, 2008
Mid-America in the Saddle(back)
I don't know how many of you had the opportunity to watch the "Faith Forum" hosted by pastor Rick Warren (of "The Purpose Driven Life" fame) at his Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, CA on Saturday, but I hope you did. If not, you can catch it online here, courtesy of CNN.
Warren began the forum by making a point which is too often forgotten during the height of election-year politics: Both candidates are patriots who love their country. This is a point which we here at Mid-America Calling try to make ourselves. It was refreshing to see coverage of an event which was designed to simply inform viewers of the candidates and their positions on issues, rather than a competition in which each candidate is hoping the other slips up, or is looking for opportunities to cry "gotcha!"
So, for two hours (one for each candidate) we got to hear them talk about a range of issues which will all come into play during a Presidential administration of either - leadership, abortion, their view on "evil" and what to do about it, the moral failings of their own lives and that of America, Supreme Court justices, etc.
So, for the sake of conversation, I thought it would be fun to talk about one of these issues here at the ol' blog, and see where it goes.
My topic of choice: Abortion.
The question in the faith forum was having to do with the moment at which an embryo is entitled to human rights... in other words, when does "life" begin? Or when is an embryo a full-fledged human being?
The Obama answer, described by pundits as "nuanced" repeatedly, was actually rather simply put: "It's above my pay grade." He went on to describe how his Presidency would be concerned with how to lower the number of abortions which take place, and talked about his willingness to limit late-term abortions provided there was an exception for the mother's health. His answer seemed rather cautiously accepted by the crowd at the Saddleback Church.
McCain, on the other hand, drew wild applause with his response: that human rights are required "at the moment of conception." He went on to tell the crowd about his long record of being pro-life, and that his Presidency would have "pro-life policies."
Now, here's where it gets dicey... While McCain's answer is a simple one, the practicality of it is not so simple. TIME takes a look at how this view would have far-reaching effects beyond the obvious availability of abortions. What about the period of time between when an egg is fertilized and when it actually implants in the womb and begins growing? As the article points out:
"all kinds of embryo research become questionable, starting with the stem-cell research McCain says he favors. Couples who undergo in vitro fertilization and then choose not to implant all the embryos are surely violating the rights of those that are discarded or frozen. Some forms of contraception, such as IUDs and the morning-after pill, would presumably be illegal if they affect the ability of an egg to implant. Abortion opponents contend that the birth control pill itself, while designed to prevent ovulation so no egg is fertilized in the first place, may also have the effect of blocking implantation of any egg that sneaks through. Suddenly, a whole range of reproductive choices comes into question."
As I think about this issue, I am reminded of Rick Warren's assertion that it is important not to "demonize" those who think differently than ourselves. There seems to be no other issue in America where that is so easy to do as the abortion issue. As, Obama pointed out in his answer, the "pro-choice" standpoint isn't a "pro-abortion" stance, by any means. The goal is to reduce abortions in America -- the debate should be about how to do that.
Clearly, a simplistic answer about how human rights begin "at the moment of conception" sounds terrific for those who identify as "pro-life." But the reality of the situation is that the policies this viewpoint would enact would almost undoubtedly lead to an INCREASE in unwanted pregnancies... which, after all, is the reason we have people seeking abortions to begin with.
Pro-choice and Pro-life proponents need to understand that the age-old debate has not changed the reality on the ground... and it won't, until both sides focus on the common goal of lowering the amount of abortions which take place, and figuring out how to bring that goal about.
To me, having a short answer to a complex problem is not a good thing... The answer to this issue is one which requires far more work and thought than simply saying "life begins at conception, therefore abortions and anything else which hinders the growth of life is illegal."
So, that's my piece! Start calling!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
