I’ve waited a week to blog about the presidential election. Part of the reason for the delay is that I wanted to have a little perspective on events. The other reason is that I had foot surgery and I’m not sure that my Percocet influenced musings would have made any sense. On the other hand, even in my compromised lucidity I probably would have still offered more substantive insight than much of what I saw being spewed by pundits from across the political spectrum.
In a previous post, I reviewed the RNC platform’s key points in comparison to my personal views. I promised to do the same with The Democratic National Convention’s platform, so here it is.
As acknowledged last time, I know that a platform isn’t written by a party’s candidate. The platform tends to be a summary of a party’s traditional positions worded with a nod to current events. I also know that the platform is more of a reflection of a party’s leadership – the insiders – than it is of the thousands of registered members who don’t go to conventions. That’s why it tends to take traditional positions rather than reveal how a party is evolving. Specific points of the platform may or may not reflect Barack Obama’s priorities. My review is not an evaluation of how accurately the platform represents the President or the majority of the Democratic Party, but whether or not I personally would stand on this platform.
With the protests, counter-protests, kiss-ins, boycotts, and shouting back and forth surrounding a fast food chicken restaurant, I think the conversation has gotten off track. Is this about gay rights? Freedom of speech? Personal values? Community values? All that and more?
Before I can even enter the conversation I feel like I need to list my positions. Maybe that list will be my contribution to the discussion.
I am a Christian.
I do not oppose same-sex marriage.
I eat at Chick-Fil-A because they have good food, friendly service, and outstanding lemonade.
The GSA mission is to use expertise to provide innovative solutions for our customers in support of their missions, and by so doing, foster an effective, sustainable, and transparent government for the American people.
Thus reads the mission statement of the General Services Administration of the United States’ federal government.
The GSA’s main responsibility is handling supplies and contracts for the federal government so that it can be handled more efficiently than if each government department handled these tasks on their own. This is supposed to save tax dollars.
In my last post I discussed why I love the game of golf.
I shared that my approach to golf partly reflects my approach to life and that in my next post (this one) I’d elaborate on the part that’s not covered by golf. So it may be best if you read that post before you read this one.
Yoga has helped my golf game and my quality of life immensely. The health benefits of yoga are well documented. Check out WebMD and the Mayo Clinic website.
For me, the most noticeable physical benefits are flexibility and energy.
As a youth, I did not believe golf to even be a sport.
It made no sense to me that anyone could find it appealing. It seemed like an undertaking pursued by those who lacked the talent for engaging in anything genuinely challenging.
While I was in college, a friend I’d known most of my life joined the army. Even though I’m sure his opinions of golf were similar to mine, he took up the game. Maybe out of boredom. Maybe due to peer pressure. Maybe because the base where he was stationed had a gorgeous and challenging course that he could play for peanuts.
I just watched a panel of political pundits on television arguing over which presidential candidate, including the incumbent, would be the best for business. The debate was less about who would make the best president than it was about what the question really meant.
I question how important it is that a president be “business friendly”.
I know I don’t want government to be business antagonistic. It seems there should be some sort of congeniality between government and business. But do they really need to be friends?
I believed that I have mentioned before in this space that I only go to the theater if I think a movie needs the big screen experience in order to be properly enjoyed1. That was the case with all three of these movies.
Mission: Impossible and Sherlock Holmes both were action-packed joyrides. No surprise there. M:I was my favorite since the first movie in the M:I series. Holmes, while still enjoyable, was not quite as good as its predecessor.