Please do your part...

...and let's rid this nation of the phrase "at the end of the day." A day does not go by when I don't hear that cliche multiple times from professors, news anchors, politicians, pundits. I beg of you, come up with something different. The only thing that happens at the end of the day is you brush your teeth and go to sleep...or something along those lines. So let's leave it it that. Then, when it's all said and done, we can sleep easily.

Random Friday Night Stuff

So here's a few late night random thoughts. Hopefully by getting these out of my head, I'll be able to focus more on my paper due Monday morning.

• John McCain is really a good guy when he's not debating. I think he is suffering from the Bob Dole/Al Gore Syndrome where he is over advised and doesn't act like himself when he's in the spotlight. This is the first election that I can remember where I like both of the candidates (not so much their running mates).
• If our lexicon can change so quickly as to add google as a verb and badonkadonk as a noun, why can't we add a non-gender specific pronoun (along with a possessive form to boot)? It's politically incorrect to use 'he' when talking about some person and using 'she' makes it seem like you're an activist and detracts from the readers' attention(Maybe I'm chauvinist, but every time I read a she, the first thing I think is, "Oh, that person is sensitive to the hundreds of years of using 'he' and 'man' for both genders and is now making up for that by randomly using 'she'." Then I have to go back and reread that sentence). Using the vague 'one' or 'a person/that person' lacks oomph. Randomly going back and forth between the two is confusing, but not quite has bad as trying to read 's/he'. I don't think I've ever met a 's/he' before. How about 'zee'? He, she, zee. His, her, zer.
  For example:
  "A person is liable for damages when zee acts unreasonably, or, if an agent under zer control acts unreasonably."
  
• Does anyone else see the cruel irony in our economic mess? Homeowners are in trouble because they borrowed too much and have nothing in savings. Companies are in trouble because they used borrowed money to lend to people who can't pay them back. Our government is in trouble because it spends too much and has to borrow money from China and Saudi Arabia, and is now borrowing more money in order to lend to those troubled companies so that they can lend to more borrowers. In response to all this, the Federal Reserve is lowering interest rates so that it can be easier to borrow money. What am I missing here? I'm no Einstein, but it seems to me that fixing over-borrowing and overspending with more spending and more borrowing is like fighting fire with fire.

Captain Chipmunk - The Pundit

Ok, first, law school is going great. I love my classes and the challenge; although my butt is sore from all the sitting (if I could only find a way to highlight effectively on the treadmill).

Now, I'm trying to read for my class in an hour and can't because last nights VP debate is killing me. So I write in hopes of clearing the insanity!

I try my darndest (to use Palin-speak) to not be partisan. It's easier and easier as it becomes clearer that both sides of the aisle are merely puppets of big business. But I'll save that discussion for another day.

I think issues and beliefs are important in choosing a candidate, however, I think competency should trump belief. I think the last 8 years are proof of the what happens when one allows beliefs to control choice.

In the case of Obama & McCain I think both are competent to handle the job. To decide, I can turn to my value set and decide which candidate will support my views.

Turning to the VP debate last night, I tried to set aside all prejudice and beliefs (if that's possible) and judge the candidates solely on their competency: knowledge, poise, intellect, speaking skills, etc. If you were to blindly grade both candidates on these considerations, who would win?

By the end of the debate, I found that, whether I agreed with him or not, Biden showed knowledge of every question asked, provided examples and spoke intelligently with out talking down to people. I got the sense that if you were sitting down to dinner with him and wanted to talk at length about any of the topics presented at the debate(Iraq, energy, nuclear weapons, Isreal, Iran, Wall Street) he could carry on with an engaging conversation. He seemed to know more than just talking points.

On the other hand, I got the sense that Palin was one follow up question away from disaster. While straying from topics and tapdancing around answers is commonplace in politics, she lacked coherence and depth. Both candidates had talking points, sure, but Palin did not go beyond those flash cards.

Is that being partisan? I don't think so. Am I being elitist. Sure! There is a reason it's hard to get into Yale. There's a reason why only one person can be editor-in-chier of the law review or graduate top of their class. That's the kind of person I want removing a tumor, representing me in court and talking to crazy foreign leaders with nukes.

Does that mean only those types of people are capable of such tasks? Certainly not. It's not a requirment, but the difference is if you graduate from the Du Loc Community School for Jazz Dance and want to be a doctor or a head of state, you must prove that you are at the caliber of those who did graduate from, say, an ivy league school.

Coming back to the election at hand. How can anyone say that Palin is at all competent to be second in command for one of the most powerful countries in the world? I just hope those who do think that way don't ever sit on the board examinations for my brain surgeon, God forbid I ever need one.

If you've made it this far, I'm sorry, but I feel better now.