|
epinghung
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Eping
Country: United States
State: Georgia
Birthday: 11/6/1976
Gender: Male
Interests: wiffleball, movies, reading, writing, cooking/hosting dinner
Occupation: Computer related (Internet)
Industry: Computers (Internet)
Message: message meEmail: email me
Member Since:
7/28/2004
|
|
| I've started another blog at http://joffa.wordpress.com/. I'm hoping a change of locations will nudge me to write more regularly. Drop by if you get a chance. I've written two posts already today.
(Just recently I've had more time to write b/c I've gone part-time. Long-ish story.)
| | |
| Just received an email to the congregation from the senior pastor at my church reminding us that Lent starts next Wednesday, Feb 6th. The email contained a link to this document which is one of the better I've read on the subject.
In case you're too lazy to click through, as I often am, here's a snippet to whet your appetite:
Lent, therefore, is a time for focusing on the heart, a time for asking questions about our spiritual health:
- What are my characteristic sins, and how can I work and pray for change?
- What idols have captured my imagination so that my love for the living God has grown cold?
- In what ways is my devotion to Christ and his church less than wholehearted?
The Lenten season is the spiritual equivalent of an annual physical exam; it’s a time to take stock of our lives, our hearts.
Uh, so maybe those questions make the document seem like it's just a big guilt-trip. It's not meant to be. Just part of the Lenten process. I'd better include one more snippet:
With all this emphasis on self-examination, however, it is crucial to keep your focus the gospel: All of us are more sinful and helpless than we would’ve ever dared admit, yet it Christ we are more accepted and forgiven than we would’ve ever dared hope. Be careful that your self-examination is centered on this good news. There is always the danger of falling into morbid introspection, which can lead to despair over your own spiritual health and to a harsh legalism toward others.
I'm thinking of trying something different this season: instead of giving up certain actions, I'm considering giving up certain patterns of thought. I'm not completely sure what that means, or if it's even possible. And there's a hint of cultish-ness about the idea. But really, is giving up thought-patterns that much different from giving up behavioral-patterns? I say no. We'll see what I come up with. | | |
| Campaigning for 2008's Presidential election began a while ago, but the YouTube debate has finally piqued my interested in it.
So, I asked my wife last night over dinner what the most important issues were in the coming election, and the thing that came immediately to her mind was the Iraq War. After a bit of thought, the second thing she mentioned was healthcare. Very good answers.
Of course, I asked that question under the assumption that we'd be voting for the candidate who had the best plan for the most important issues--but is that the best way to choose a candidate? Here are some general thoughts about the criteria people tend to use when choosing a candidate.
The Issues
=======
Candidates have to do their homework and they have to come up with a game plan on how to approach each of the major issues facing the nation. Then, you vote for someone whose stance on the issues is similar to yours. Sounds easy, but rarely is there a candidate whose stance on the issues mirrors perfectly your own. In previous elections, I used online tools that figure out which candidate had the most similar stance on the issues as I had, but none of them could take into account that I considered some issues more important that others.
Character
======
Still important--no, even more important--since the Clinton administration and the Bush administration have put Presidential character to question. Clinton for his adultery, and Bush for his lying/misdirection. This also is one of the more difficult things to determine in a candidate--after all candidates offer many more words than actions during a campaign. And, as Clinton and Bush have both proved--you can't base character on what someone says. Clinton could charm the masses, and Bush spoke perfect Christianese, but their records tell a different story.
Perhaps the better judge of character during a campaign is how the candidate runs his campaign. Does he respect or smear his opponent? Does he explain his record or does he apply generous amounts of spin? When he messes up, how does he respond?
Experience
=======
I used to connote "incumbent" with "bad" and think "fresh blood" in Washington was "good." No such much anymore. Experience in politics helps in determining how successful a President will be. Has he worked well with other politicians previously? Does he have the respect of his peers? What does his record reveal about his political leanings?
Background & Education
================
Likely the least important of the criteria, especially if he's proven himself as a politician. But it helps to have a candidate who doesn't have a sheltered background and has had to work hard to get where he is.
Communication Skills
==============
The more I work on this list, the more I realize it looks like a job posting. As well it should. How Bush managed to convince people that background, education, and experience didn't matter--that was a pretty darn good spin job. Anyways--good communication skills is a must. It is in part why both Kerry and Gore failed in their election campaigns.
Leadership Skills
===========
I suppose this is what separates a good President from merely a good legislator or good judge. Bush has proven to be a surprisingly effective leader--he just happenned to lead in the wrong direction.
Image
====
Not really a criteria, but it makes a difference.
Values
====
I'm more and more convinced that "values" are more campaign speak than anything. When do you ever hear about "values" after someone gets elected? Never. It stops being important after the election. And, if anything, you should be able to determine what the candidate values based on the decisions he's made in his personal life, and by his voting record. Speaking of personal life...
Personal life
========
Should this have any bearing? Does bad personal life mean bad character? Or is it possible to have good character in the midst of a bad personal life? Is it too much to want our President to have both good character and an orderly personal life? Or has a string of Presidents with bad personal lives conditioned us to not expect it? I don't know...
Gosh, this list turned out longer than I thought it would. But it comes as no surprise that a Presidential candidate should have to fill so many criteria. How do you balance all of these things? Maybe that'll be another post for another day... | | |
| Work is killin' me this week.
Sunday night, up until 4:30am,
Monday night, up until 2:00am,
Tuesday night, up until 5:30am,
tonight...who knows?
I'm having a hard time focussing during the day, or any other time for that matter. How did I ever get through college? | | |
| It's a little late to chime in about Scooter Libby's prison sentence being commuted, but I just realized the following:
Scooter Libby, convicted on federal charges for obstruction of justice and multiple counts of perjury: 0 days in jail.
Paris Hilton, guilty of violating the terms of her probation stemming from a DUI: 23 days in jail.
Libby also had to pay a $250,000 fine, but still...George Bush found a way to make Paris Hilton look like a martyr. | | |
|
