October 2008 Archives

The final stretch of election season is upon us. We've been inundated with election news for almost two years now. We've stayed up late to see primary results, and we've watched every aching minute of every debate and each convention. And we're not sure, but we think our eyes are permanently bloodshot.

Now we know each candidate's positions better than they do. We also know about every piece of gum they stuck under the chair in elementary school, every cigarette they smoked in high school bathroom stalls and every Nazi they ever associated with in college. So what's next?

Predicting the winner, of course.

And at a time when the recent polls show Obama leading by anywhere from three to 15 points, we need to resort to alternative methods.

Jason Kincaid of TechCrunch.com suggests each candidate's website traffic could indicate the next president of these United States. His August data showed a close race, but they haven't released the latest information. We at the Morning After hope Kincaid updates the figures before Tuesday. But just in case he doesn't, we have other crystal balls to turn to.

7-11, perhaps sensing pressure to compete with other convenience stores, has decided to diversify. Now they too offer election-predicting services. At the time of this writing, Barack Obama coffee cups have been purchased by 60 percent of participants while John McCain has only garned 40 percent of the vote. 7-11 was able to accurately predict the last two presidential elections, according to their website.

With Halloween coming up, the one method comes to mind: mask sales. Buycostumes.com says rubber Halloween mask sales have been able to accurately predict the winner of the last six elections going back to the Reagan era, USA Today reports.


And then, there's a predictor with a track record. From 1936 until 2000, the incumbent party has won the White House when the Washington Redskins win their last home game before the election. Even with 2004's inaccuracy, this method still retains a 94.4 percent rating. The 6-2 Redskins host the 5-2 Steelers Monday night.

Fellow election junkies, we've been through enough over the past 20-odd months. With all of these tarot cards and horoscopes and voodoo dolls before us, I have one question:

If the Redskins tie, should Nader start writing his inauguration speech?

By Heather Smith

Society has become a scary place for women. Seventy years ago, we were wearing cute sundresses, baking cookies for the kids and kissing our husbands when they came home from work just before eating dinner, which was on the table at exactly 5 p.m. Now sundresses have been replaced by power suits, and we grab dinner on the way home from work after picking the kids up from daycare and leaving some pizza in the fridge for our husbands when they come home at exactly 10 p.m. Or 11. Or 12. Or 4, once they've gotten the lipstick off their collars.

In any case, more is expected from us now. Why? Because we are women. Therefore, we are perfectly capable of standing on our own two feet, receiving a degree in Thermocalcuphysiometry, contributing to/making our own income and, basically, changing the world. On top of this, we can pop out babies and bleed without dying.

But what about those women who still remain at home, taking care of the kids and making dinner every night for their husbands? If they're older--I'd say 40 and up--it's okay. Because they were raised way back when, while we women were still oppressed and hadn't yet unleashed the power of our roar. It's true that they still have the opportunity to better themselves--it's never too late for college--but if they don't, it's still okay because "they're just set in their ways."

Now think about the younger people who are "home makers." Who first comes to mind is a girl who got pregnant at 15, possibly received her G.E.D., got married to the first guy that would take her and now cleans her trailer compulsively because it's the only skill they have.

Okay, that may be a bit extreme.

But it's undeniable that modern women who choose to stay at home to take care of the house and kids are looked down upon. It's as if they're disgracing all the work that women have done throughout the years to prove that we can do more than just cook and clean. The only women who should ever stoop that low again are those who are unable to do any better.

Time out.

Feminism is about women being equal to men. Therefore, we can say what we want to say, act how we want to act and do what we want to do. And no man can tell us otherwise. But what's wrong with women wanting to focus their attention on the home and family? That's right. A modern young woman who wants to knit her husband a sweater while she watches Oprah and taps the baby bouncer with her foot. I'll wait for you to pick your jaw up off the floor.

We should at least have a choice. After all, that's what feminism promotes: the choice to branch out and compete with men in the workplace. We just forget that there are other choices we can make, and that one of them is to be a homemaker. To be at every parent-teacher conference, to make your home a place to be proud of, to have a fresh, warm meal on the table when your husband gets home from work--to do anything and everything that may otherwise be impossible as a woman with a career.

Commendations to CBS New's Bob Schieffer, for expertly moderating last Wednesday's presidential debate. Rather than follow the model of the other moderators, he decided to serve as more than a springboard for the candidates' talking points. He was tough on both candidates and used independent sources to back up the claims he made in his questioning. He asked questions that the candidates hadn't seen before, and the candid dialogue that followed was new and intriguing, which led to 68% of AOL.com poll respondents choosing Schieffer as the best of the four moderators.

Condemnations to Barack Obama, for continuing to use the race card to his advantage at the debate. John McCain brought up remarks by someone he calls "an American hero," Democratic Rep. John Lewis from Georgia that compared McCain's campaign to notorious segregationist George Wallace. Instead of repudiating the claims, Obama changed the subject. (Appealing to dishonesty, he cited unfounded reports that someone yelled "Kill him!" upon the mention of his name.) When prompted again by McCain, he went no further than saying the comments were "inappropriate." Refusal to condemn false allegations of racism is not the candor of a man who transcends race.

On the other hand, commendations to Obama for being absolutely ready when McCain shot out his most memorable zinger of the night: "If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago." The Illinois senator replied effortlessly, although , that if he gets Bush and McCain confused, it's because of their similar economic policies.

Condemnations to McCain for continuing to hypocritically play the low-spending angle. As Schieffer pointed out, citing an independent source, McCain along with his opponent would increase the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars if their policies were all enacted. He accuses Obama of "throwing money at the problem," but in many of his own proposals would do just that. The way I see it, McCain has two choices: stop talking about how he's going to take a hatchet to spending, or actually BE an advocate of low spending and renounce his support of big government programs like the "rescue package."

But in all fairness, commendations to McCain for his persistent references to "Joe the Plumber." He managed to cast doubt over Obama's tax plan and to frame him as a big government liberal. Miraculously, he made America realize that someone who earns $250,000/yr. isn't necessarily sitting on gold -plated toilets. McCain's theme culminated in what may dubbed as the flub of the year: "Senator Government."

This post is in response to an "assignment" from a reader. JB, I hope this meets your expectations.

The ideals of democracy and freedom have been linked by thinkers for thousands of years. It was Aristotle who said, "The basis of a democratic state is liberty." From then until now, politicians have been echoing that sentiment to the point that the two entities are treated like synonyms. Installing a democracy in Iraq, for example, means "liberating" its people. But this conceptual fusion results directly from a collective ignorance of the true meanings.

When the founders spoke and wrote of freedom, it wasn't the perverse way the word is used today, dealing in entitlements. It was in the Lockean sense: the natural rights to life, liberty and property. No one has the right to endanger your health, restrict your actions or steal or alter your possessions.

And a democracy is not, as it is commonly understood, a government of, by and for the people. It isn't a form of governance in which all voices are heard and heeded. Democracy means the majority rules, and it is the voices of the majority that are heard and heeded. Pay no attention to the "restrictions" on majority rule like a Constitution. Even if those in the federal government had faithfully obeyed the document, it takes only a (specific type of) majority to change what it dictates.

Plain and simple, the two concepts have nothing to do with one another. Freedom means no one can take my life. Democracy means it's okay if the majority consents. Freedom means no one can tell me what to do. Democracy means it's okay if the majority consents. Freedom means no one can tell me what to own. Democracy means it's okay if the majority consents. Freedom means individualism, personal rights. Democracy means collectivism, might makes right. Freedom means day. Democracy means night.

Somewhere between Aristotle and now, a group of men knew these definitions. We may do well--as a nation, as a race, as a global community--to remember them.

A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party.

-James Madison

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it.

-Thomas Jefferson

By Tami Rasel

My husband and I live in a small rancher that sits well off the beaten path. Very few people even realize there is a home that sits so far back from the main road. But as a couple we enjoy the privacy of being hidden away from the world back in the woods. We have never had one trick-or-treater knock on our door; we don't ever see Jehovah's Witnesses, door-to-door salesmen, or ambitious politicians on our doorstep. Recently, however, that all changed. One beautiful autumn day down our dusty road came a nervous looking middle-aged man. He shook our hands, introduced himself and began to tell us of his goal to be a member of the House of Representatives. Then he asked if he could count on our vote to get him there. We were both shocked to see him, and even inquired as to how he had found our hideaway. It occurred to my husband and I that this man was desperate to speak with We the People to share his policies and make everyone in our area aware of what he was going to do for us if elected.

Last night as I watched the presidential debate, which was held as a town hall meeting--a term that simply means the politicians speak directly to the audience and not into the cameras--I noticed how each candidate listened intently to the questions asked, even walking up to the individual they were addressing and speaking directly to them. The next day as I saw those same candidates campaigning in different states, they were shaking hands with We the People, promising better times ahead to We the People and speaking within ear shot of We the People. Often as these politicians give their campaign speeches they mention the simple folk they have met along the way. They always tell the hard luck stories that were shared by those folks they met and express their empathy for that individual or family--always assuring the listeners that if they are elected, things will change. Over this past campaign season we have witnessed (via the media) these same politicians speaking in small-town diners with the local residents, going door to door and speaking with the community, offering rides--at their own expense--to the voting booth for those who have no transportation, and even chugging down a drink with the average "Joe-six-pack." During the campaign phase they are truly of the people, by the people and for the people. On Election Day, however, that all changes.

Suddenly that same candidate, who was anxious to shake our hands, kiss our babies and hear about our struggles, is now shut up behind tinted limo windows, guarded doors and a team of agents whose guns strapped at their side scream to the voters, "stay away!" Only a few privileged elite are now allowed to speak directly to the candidate we took the time to elect. This candidate now has "employees" who answer the phone and laugh at the attempt to speak with the President of The United States. They now have "employees" who might take the time to read the many letters and emails expressing an issue, need, or concern, they now have "employees" to deal with, or in most cases, not deal with We the People. Politicians who were so anxious to travel all over this country and spend almost each and every day of their lives campaigning and meeting the locals, hearing their desires for this nation and promising all of us better tomorrows are no longer available.

Many would quickly state this to be an impossible task, the president doesn't have time to listen or address, general public, they have more important task at hand. Many would state that the resident can't answer phones, read emails or answer concerns of, the average American; they are much too busy to hear the little man. Many would even argue that it is too dangerous for the President of the United States of America to mingle with the average middle-class, or, heaven forbid, those living in poverty--they are too busy meeting with celebrities, sports figures, Heads of State, Congress and the occasional rock star--no time for We the People.

History teaches us of presidents like Andrew Jackson (The People's President) who actually invited the entire nation to his home for a party. (Today we would need a bigger lawn.) Many presidents from the past answered the phone at the White House and listened to the concerns of the speaker on the other end. Some of those historical presidents even answered their own mail, actually hand writing their response. However, even with all our technology and speed today, that would be an impossible expectation for the President of the United States. After all, it is not the president's job to deal with the concerns, problems, hardships of the very public who elected them.

Four years later, however, when it is time for re-election, that same president, who did not have any time for the folks who put them in office; that same president who had to be locked up and guarded against the American people for their own safety, is once again out in public shaking hands, kissing babies, knocking on doors, walking down dusty lanes, and chugging another drink with the average "Joe-six-pack." That same president, who was unavailable to all who had voted for them in the past election, is once again available, concerned, and very anxious to deal with issues and make new promises to, We the People.

By Andrea K. Lerew

I'm at the point in my senior year where I should have already taken the time to decide whether or not graduate school is in the cards for me. If you would have asked me at the close of my junior year, I would have proudly stated, "Yes, I am going to graduate school, and I am getting my Master's degree." In only four short months my mindset has changed, and now I am teetering on the fence between pursuing a Master's degree or a full-time job.

Senioritis. We all know what it means, how it feels. I've never wanted to finish school so badly. With 222 days left until graduation, I'm already seeing the tell-tale signs of senioritis myself: I'm jittery, easily bored, easily distracted and unmotivated. These are not the attributes that graduate schools are looking for in prospective students. I'm beginning to think that I should have made a concrete decision about graduate school during my junior year when I was ambitious and hungry for education. Now, I hardly have the patience to sit down at my computer and research these schools. I've been pondering the possibility that I have more options to consider before committing to another two years of schooling.

My internship as a grant writer at Martin Library has opened up so many doors for me. In my opinion, grant writing is one of the most rewarding ways to make a career out of writing. Since I have this amazing job, I've been questioning whether or not I should give it up for graduate school. The closest graduate school that has a writing program is one and a half hours away, and I'm unsure whether I'll be able to stick with an online program. Though my grant writing position is not officially secured upon graduation, I'd like to believe that I have a pretty good shot at being offered a full-time job. If this is the case, I must choose one or the other--graduate school or a full-time grant writing position.

A Master's degree may be better in the long run (only time will tell), but a full-time job is definitely better for the short term. Grant writing experience may even top a Master's degree in some cases. Most graduate students have had a limited amount of field experience whereas I've already had nine months hands-on and a refined portfolio to boot. As I'm reading this over, I can easily see which side I am leaning toward.

Now that I've worked this all out in writing, I suppose I do not have to choose between the two right away. Graduate school will always be there, but this job position will not. I will live in the present and hopefully it will turn out to be the best for my future. But like I said before...only time will tell.

The two-party system in this country seems more like a one-party system with each passing year. The electoral implication, of course, is that it doesn't matter which party you vote for because you'll get the same results either way. To put this theory to the test, I decided to compile a list of basic actions and results of the last five presidents with their names--and party affiliations--withheld. Let me know if you can see a difference between the Democrats and Republicans:

President A

• Initiated US involvement in a military conflict
• Oversaw inflation, but at a low rate
• Lowered taxes
• Served in the military
• Served two terms
• Former governor
• Oversaw reduced unemployment

President B

• Initiated US involvement in a military conflict
• Oversaw inflation, but at a low rate
• Raised some taxes, lowered others
• Served two terms
• Former governor
• Oversaw reduced unemployment

President C

• Initiated US involvement in a military conflict
• Oversaw inflation at an increased rate
• Raised taxes
• Oversaw energy crisis
• Served in the military
• Served one term
• Former governor
• Oversaw reduced unemployment

President D

• Initiated US involvement in a military conflict
• Oversaw inflation at an increased rate
• Lowered taxes
• Oversaw energy crisis
• Served two terms
• Former governor
• Oversaw increased unemployment

President E

• Initiated US involvement in a military conflict
• Oversaw inflation, but at a low rate
• Raised taxes
• Served in the military
• Served one term
• Oversaw increased unemployment

Okay, that's all of them. Can you tell the difference between a Republicrat and a Demoblican? Try your best to guess! Answers are under the jump.

When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was the freedom from responsibility then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again.   

- Edward Gibbon

We as Americans have spent the better part of the last two years asking questions like: Is the US ready for a female/Mormon/black/old/Hispanic president? The answer has always been unclear, but one thing remains certain. As a whole, we are not ready to be free.

All too similar are we to the ancient Athenians. We have relinquished responsibility at every turn. If we live in an unsafe neighborhood, we hold not ourselves but the government responsible for our protection. It doesn't matter to us that we are the ones who chose to live in that neighborhood, nor does it matter to us that we can take care of ourselves. Accountability? What's that?

If we fall under hard times, we spend half of our hours blaming people and the other half expecting someone to bail us out. We demand that the responsible people, taxpayers, pay for the mistakes of the irresponsible people. Don't get me wrong--I have nothing against voluntary charity. But when it is mandatory and the receiver does nothing but sit and wait for it, the entire process is bastardized.

If we took out a loan that we can't afford to pay back, we blame the lender for not knowing any better. Or we blame the government for not making a law that stops companies from practicing unsound business, or for making lenders approve loans for all under the guise of "fairness" and "equality." No one wins in a game of pass-the-buck.

Without individual responsibility, freedom is the chaotic free-for-all that typically comes to mind upon hearing the word "anarchy." With it, freedom means I can't force you to pay for my protection, and you can't force me to pay for yours. Freedom means that our neighbors can't force us to live only in a way that they approve. Freedom means each person taking it upon themselves to protect their own rights and account for their own successes or failures. Freedom means that your neighbors' failures don't get funded by your successes.

We may be ready for a woman, a Mormon, a black man, an old man or even a Hispanic man as president. But are we ready for freedom? No way.