Even though I'm Canadian I've been following American politics fairly closely since the famous Florida debacle. It's not that I'm a big fan of our southern neighbours, but as a nation the U.S. of A. weilds a lot of sway throughout the world and I figure what happens there affects us all to some degree.
Lately I have been following the primaries and potential next presidents (mostly the Democrats, but I've been paying attention to the Republicans). I have started to get really frustrated with one theme that many people and media outlets are using over and over. To be fair, I had been on that particular bandwagon for some time - and in the recent past. What I'm talking about is the thought that the U.S. will be (likely) electing either it's first female or first black President. Now I'm not one to argue about the odds of one of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama winning the presidency (I would actually be very surprised if it wasn't one of the two of them), but rather the emphasis.
If they win, they will indeed be the first president of their kind, but is that important in the grand scheme of things? I think it says a lot that both a woman and a black man have as much support as they do in their efforts. My intentions are not to belittle the struggles of any minorities, but should that even be the focus? If this is a theme that is so prevalent in the discourse, should we not be asking ourselves: are we voting for these people because they belong to their respective minorities? I can't speak for anyone, but I would imagine that they are voting for Obama and Clinton because of what they "stand for." So why is the media talking about the skin colour and gender? No doubt the two candidates face more obstacles than those who were born white and male, but it seems not to have hindered either of them. But to me that is only the subject of a human interest story.
I think someone should be elected (or given a job) based on their abilities and their work ethic (and other factors depending upon the position). It is definitely a sign of good times when we can support someone for what they stand for and do and not what demographic they fit into.
I will leave you with two video clips that made gave me hope for a better tomorrow:
I think this world would be a much friendlier and peaceful place if everyone saw each other as one people with differences that make us all unique. May the best person become president - regardless of gender or skin tone.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
Thought Provoking Magazines
Working at a library I get to see thousands of books, movies and magazines each day. More often than not I'll take a book out and not have time to read it (my latest failure - only due to being busy trying to move - is Naiomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine, which if the first chapter and a half would indicate, is a very engrossing book).
Magazines, however, are much easier to get through since they are often full of shorter articles. I have found two (well two and a half, but everyone knows about National Geographic already) that have been full of interesting and relevant articles (at least to me): Scientific American (this isn't something I discovered, but rather something I read a few times) and the New Internationalist (which I had never heard of until I saw it on the shelf one day).
A couple of examples as to why I enjoyed these magazines (which might spur you on or make you stay away from them):
- Scientific American recently did a huge feature issue on food and it's many issues. It talked about why there are discrepancies between food advice taken from studies (apparently scientists are only looking at nutrients in isolation and in fact they act together in your body - the best way to stay healthy is to eat a balanced diet with natural foods, lots of vegetables, few servings of junk food, and to get regular exercise - advice that is as simple as it is tried, tested and true). The issue also dealt with obesity (in developed and developing countries) and how food can be addictive. It was very informative and based in facts not some fad diet guru trying to sell his newest plan to lose weight and be lazy at the same time. The potential downside to this magazine is that often the language is very complex and hard to understand (in a scientific kind of way, not in a Chaucer kind of way)
- New Internationalist frequently does similar things in each issue. It takes a topic (depleted uranium, corporate responsibility and Darfur are three recent examples) and discuess different aspects of them at length. It gives facts and statistics to help paint an accurate picture of the topics. This magazine is definitely not for those who aren't into international issues.
So if you're interested, check out their websites, read them in libraries and if you like them, subscribe.
Magazines, however, are much easier to get through since they are often full of shorter articles. I have found two (well two and a half, but everyone knows about National Geographic already) that have been full of interesting and relevant articles (at least to me): Scientific American (this isn't something I discovered, but rather something I read a few times) and the New Internationalist (which I had never heard of until I saw it on the shelf one day).
A couple of examples as to why I enjoyed these magazines (which might spur you on or make you stay away from them):
- Scientific American recently did a huge feature issue on food and it's many issues. It talked about why there are discrepancies between food advice taken from studies (apparently scientists are only looking at nutrients in isolation and in fact they act together in your body - the best way to stay healthy is to eat a balanced diet with natural foods, lots of vegetables, few servings of junk food, and to get regular exercise - advice that is as simple as it is tried, tested and true). The issue also dealt with obesity (in developed and developing countries) and how food can be addictive. It was very informative and based in facts not some fad diet guru trying to sell his newest plan to lose weight and be lazy at the same time. The potential downside to this magazine is that often the language is very complex and hard to understand (in a scientific kind of way, not in a Chaucer kind of way)
- New Internationalist frequently does similar things in each issue. It takes a topic (depleted uranium, corporate responsibility and Darfur are three recent examples) and discuess different aspects of them at length. It gives facts and statistics to help paint an accurate picture of the topics. This magazine is definitely not for those who aren't into international issues.
So if you're interested, check out their websites, read them in libraries and if you like them, subscribe.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Consume this...
I read this editorial in NY Times online edition a day or two ago and thought it would be a good thing to share. In a break from my usual tradition, I'm not going to make any comments on what is written beyond the fact that I think that what is written about is something we all need to contemplate (and more importantly act on).
Enjoy!
p.s. if you find yourself nodding in agreement the whole time and wanting more of the author's (Jared Diamond) perspective you can try reading his books: The Third Chimpanzee, Collapse, and Guns, Germs and Steel. I have read two of the and am planning on reading the third in the near future. Or if you're really lazy, National Geographic made a video series for Guns, Germs and Steel.
Enjoy!
p.s. if you find yourself nodding in agreement the whole time and wanting more of the author's (Jared Diamond) perspective you can try reading his books: The Third Chimpanzee, Collapse, and Guns, Germs and Steel. I have read two of the and am planning on reading the third in the near future. Or if you're really lazy, National Geographic made a video series for Guns, Germs and Steel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
