Local vs Global

In the past year or so, I have been flooded with both email and snail mail requests from a variety of groups, all wanting me to donate money to various political candidates.   This is not unusual, of course, since our political system seems to live and breath via fund-raising.   What makes these requests note-worthy is that they are for candidates who live hundreds, if not thousands, of miles from where I live.   Many times, these requests involve Congressional primaries and elections.


Groups such as "Emily's List" and "MoveOn.org" all compile lists of what they consider "progressive" candidates involved in election campaigns around the country.    The groups then solicit funds from hopefully like-minded citizens from throughout the nation.   This first issue I have with this, is I don't really appreciate it when "outsiders" attempt to influence my local elections, and I think it would be inconsistent of me to turn around and send money to candidates in other time zones.


Another issue for me is that often the solicitations contain the most superficial description of the various candidates.   I know from experience that many times I don't agree with all positions a candidate makes, but I may decide to support the candidate based on overall platform.


I have no idea if others have objections to this type of "long distance" fund raising, but I suspect that most people do not.   I'm guessing that these organizations wouldn't be sending out this kind of solicitation if they didn't produce results.  It's like spam email: if a few people didn't respond and make purchases of stuff, the spam email sent to millions of people wouldn't produce financial gain.


Still, I'm uncomfortable with the notion that people around the country think they know what's best for other people around the country.

More Guesses?

A couple of weeks ago, I blogged about a column written by Charles Madigan in the Chicago Tribune, in which Madigan speculated on whether we will see a Republican controlled legislature after the November elections.   He wasn't so sure that the GOP was any more popular than the Democrats are and that predicting the outcome this early is largely a waste of effort.

In his recent column from the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson strolls through a number of current GOP candidates for various offices and points out that several of them seem to be truly "out there."

For example, the GOP candidate for Governor of Colorado apparently is opposed to bicycle paths, because they are part of some sort of United Nations conspiracy to enslave us.  The Republican candidate for US Senate in Nevada wants to privatize Social Security and Medicare.  Robinson reaches a conclusion not unlike Madigan; that this election may end up being just plain weird:

The big political story of the year may turn out to be the consequences of the GOP's foray into extremism and wackiness. It could be that the party acculturates its not-ready-for-prime-time candidates, harnesses the energy of the Tea Party movement and sweeps to a grand old victory. There is also the distinct possibility that the acute philosophical split within the party -- basically, a clash between bedrock conservatism and utter nonsense -- will hand victories to Democrats that they didn't anticipate and frankly might not deserve. 

For those of us who don't think that the "average" American voter has the attention span of a gnat, such predictions are strangely appealing.   Perhaps the GOP and Democratic Parties will both get what they "deserve."   

Vote Green.

What's In A Name?

I came across this political cartoon recently and thought it was pretty funny.   Mike Lester, the cartoonist, has summarized some thoughts we've had in recent years about increasingly strange given names we've come across....

Your Guess Is As Good As Mine

This opinion piece by Charles Madigan in the Chicago Tribune cautions us to not assume that the November elections will be a disaster for the Democrats and a huge success for the Republicans.   He rightfully points out that the only voters who count are the ones who actually show up to vote, and it's not so clear who they might be in November.   I think his conclusion is on point:

Because of all of this, I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that whatever happens, it won't be good.

By the end of the year, I suspect reasonable people will be chased into hiding by grizzly moms from the distant north.

The Democrats will be in a desert someplace, navel gazing.

And President Obama will be sitting in the White House thoughtfully wondering why he couldn't have actually been born in Kenya, because at least in Kenya, he is loved.

 Let's hope we don't end up with the House of Representatives run by John Boehner ("...the brownest white man in all of Ohio thanks to the miracle of tanning...), but beyond that, I'm not guessing.

Will The Economy Get Better-Part 2

Well, since my post on this topic in April, not much has changed.   Unemployment rates are still high, new job creation is elusive, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq grind on, and  political fringe elements in the U.S. are louder and shriller.  Based purely on anecdotal evidence, people hate their jobs more.   I think this "Moderately Confused" comic sums it all up.  This comic is always quite "pithy" and you can find the strips here.