"If I could change the world..."

Although I wouldn't call this blog political, it seems to be the theme lately (and for good reason). The recent election seems to have brought the good and the bad out of everyone. Although my political preference may be obvious, I'm going to try to keep this post as neutral as possible. So here goes:

In my opinion, "trash talking" the current president-elect is pointless. The Democratic candidate won (and by a fairly large margin) and any arguments that can be made about why he shouldn't have been elected will not change the results. As someone who believes that the best form of  election publicity is to promote one's strengths rather than expose the opponent's weaknesses, I don't believe that this kind of talk works before election day, much less after. Both candidates had, in my opinion, good and bad things to offer, and now all that America can do is see what happens. 

Also, while I'm on the subject, although I'd like to believe that every person who voted is educated about the decision they made, I know that this isn't the case. It makes me think of one of the possible essay questions I could have answered in a local pageant I was in. Although I didn't choose to write about this question, I think about it a lot; the question was:

"Do you believe that a woman is capable of being the next president of the United States?"

Now, although I know that this question was asked because we were young high school women expected to write about woman's rights, I think that this question was very irrelevant. Do I believe that a woman is capable of being the next president? Of course, a woman is just as capable as anyone else. Would I choose a candidate because she's a woman and I want a woman to be president? No way. President's should be chosen for one reason and one reason only: their stance on the issues and what they plan to do. Picking a president should be done with eyes closed. I wouldn't vote for someone because they were white or because they have something in common with me, and other voters shouldn't either.

Then again, these ideas are all pretty irrelevant now that the election is over. Promise me you'll keep it in mind for in four years?

Until then, here's something funny to ease all the post-election tension! Enjoy.

 

DON'T VOTE

Caught you off guard didn't I? We're so use to hearing "Vote", "Rock the Vote", "Get out and Vote", that the thought of someone encouraging us not to vote is almost crazy. I personally don't think I could make a strong case to anyone as to why voting would not benefit them. Although individual reasons for voting may not be the same, the outcome is: change. Change: a chance to have a say in what's happening where we live, where our parents live, where our children (will) live. 

As a PR student, I found this particular YouTube Ad to be pretty powerful. Maybe I was first drawn in because of the big names in it, but I continued watching it because it is real; real passion, real ideas, a real message. Sure it's humorous at times, but the message is such a serious one. Today is  November 4th 2008, have you voted yet?

"Whatever you like.."

Two posts in two days! No, I'm not going crazy... I just came across something that I thought was worth sharing. Click here to see why I still believe that America has a promising future. Please still check out my last post "My First PRSuccess" story. I know it looks long and the title is a little bland compared to my previous posts but I think that you just might learn something from it...or if you knew it all already, maybe you have something I can add!

Thanks for stopping by!

"Oh baby, baby it's a wild world"

I'm not going to lie, when I was a freshman in high school journalism and politics were not on my mind. Sure, I was in American History where I memorized facts about the three branches of government and tried to have intelligent conversations, but let's face it: I was clueless when it came to real politics.

I became aware of this fact today during Journalism 101, where we watched a grad-student produced film entitled "How Ohio Pulled It Off". Now, I could go on and on about the smart and well-organized journalism that went into this piece or the amazing amount of appropriate footage collected, but what really made this film memorable to me was that it made my blood-boil.

Four years ago (when I was shielded from the complex problems of the government in my conservative hometown), millions of black, underclass voters were denied the access to vote due to limited polling booths. Hopeful voters waited in line anywhere from 3 to 7 hours to vote and countless were turned away due to lack of time, mysterious "you're name is not on our list" incidents, and even threats (not to mention the amount of people who came, saw the line, and left). With a Republican Secretary of State (Blackwell) who undeniably pulled for Bush, nothing was done to prevent or right this wrong. 

Although it is obvious that if it had not been for this situation, we could currently be living with a Bush-free government, it is nearly pointless now to take action. What I wonder, however, is : what will they do this year to alter the results of the election?  I mean, I think of myself as a fairly clever person but I know that I would have never thought that doing away with a poll booth or two would turn our "democracy" upside down; so, what will they do this time?

I would like to think that I can trust what's going on in my country, but it has lately become evident to me that most politicians work to benefit either (1) themselves or (2) their constituents. What does this mean? What is being done is not focused on what is best for the nation, but on who it benefits in election. I understand, but do not agree with this process.

That's all I have for now. If you have the documentary channel, I recommend checking out "How Ohio Pulled It Off" at eight p.m. on Monday night.   

"Stop, hey, what's that sound?"

"There is a loftier ambition than merely to stand high in the world. 

It is to stoop down and lift mankind a little higher"

-Henry Van Dyke

Sounds like an innocent statement right? On a personal level, it might be easily done, but it was apparent to me today in my Political Science class with Prof. Suzuki that the world has a long way to go

The prisoner's dilemma. Although many forms of this situation were discussed today (one of which involved stags and a rabbit...you can understand why I came up with my own version), I couldn't help but think of the old, low-budget television show Friend or Foe.

As with any game show, the major premise was to (what else) win money. How they went about filling their bank account is not relevant to my point but in the end, the top two contestants had to make one of two choices which, combined, came out to four outcomes. The choices were friend or foe and neither contestant knew prior to their choice what the other had or would pick. 

If both chose friend, they would split the money. If both chose foe, neither would get the money. If one chose foe and the other, friend, the contestant who chose foe would get the entire prize to himself. 

So what would you chose? For a single contestant's ideal outcome, he would chose foe, although this is in hopes that the other contestant would chose friend. For the best outcome for both, one would chose friend, but this is taking the risk that the other will not chose foe and, thus, take all of the winnings. 

The point is, you can never count on what the other person will do. So is it every man for himself, or do you try to be the "better" person? Is this situation proving the idea that "nice guys finish last" or is re-enforcing the fact that we can all come out a little bit better if we compromise.

If you've kept up, you can understand that the "prisoner's dilemma" is very similar to the world's "security dilemma".  Or even the world's struggle with capping ozone-eating smokestacks. In any case, it's hard to count on what