So What Exactly Are Our Politicians Doing?

Did anyone watch the presidential debate on Friday? I did, and I thought the candidates held their own pretty well although the debate didn’t change who I’m voting for. Some of the things the other side said sounded awesome I must admit, but when either candidate is elected, can they pull off the strategies they so solidly spoke of?

As I was watching the debate, I couldn’t really see how it was different from the last debate four years ago with John Kerry and George W. Bush. The only difference I could tell from the last debate was that the Republican seemed to do more of the attacking, and when I say attacking I mean not rolling over and letting his opponent end his talk time, this time around and there also didn’t seem to be so much down talk amongst the candidates which was nice.

The topics included the war, not only in Iraq but Afghanistan and Iran, the economy, energy, and government spending which could also be put into the economy but apparently was one of the “fundamental” reasons that everything seems to be going wrong right now. One candidate promised a plan that would free America from foreign oil in 10 years. Sounds wonderful right? Right. Too bad that’s what every presidential candidate for the last 50 years has been promising. Now if they could just pull it off, that would be another story.

After the debate I got to thinking, and what I came up with was a desire to know more about what’s going on in our country today. After we elect a president wouldn’t it be nice to actually know what is being improved and what isn’t? After all it seems like the only time we ever get a 411 on the status of the country is when the President gives a State of the Union address which is according to each one’s pleasure, or during a debate because a debate is the time to tell about results to reel people in. Personally, I think there should be a State of the Union address at least every six months just to let us know how things are going or maybe something not even as formal maybe something casual that doesn’t require a speechwriter. I know there is one every year but it doesn’t seem frequent enough. After all, Roosevelt’s fireside chats were incredibly helpful to his career and let people know what exactly he was doing with the power they gave him. Not to mention he gave them very frequently. How about some sort of article released every month on the status of the country? Sure, that would be a huge job but we just need big ideas not every detail. So can this enormous lack of information be fixed?

Game Day

I have been reading the “Daily Campus” almost every day since school started because its articles are very informative, entertaining, and interesting. However, among these articles I have noticed a certain one article, an editorial, written by a Daily Campus columnist in which the student body is criticized, twice in two different issues that I have observed, for not attending an SMU football game or a viewing of such for its entirety.
Quite frankly I was not amused and didn’t think that was necessary to put into a paper. I can see how hardcore football fans might think “They don’t care enough about the team if they don’t stay the whole game” but on the other hand who cares if that is the case? If you love football great, if you don’t, I think that’s ok too! The fact is some people have better things to do than watch a lost cause of a game or even an easy anticipated win. Sometimes people plan to attend events for a little while and choose to leave because they have something they need, or want to do but that doesn’t mean they love their team or the sport less.
I think most people are excited about June Jones and are optimistic about what he will turn the Mustangs into but Rome wasn’t built in a day, and people decide the opportunity cost, little economics there, everyday for the things they choose to do. I don’t mean to say by any means that people who do go to games for their entirety are wasting their time because they aren’t, that’s just how they are choosing so spend their time. Personally I think what keeps people in their seats is an exciting close game full of insult, injury, and great plays. Am I wrong? Seriously is it so bad to walk out on a game at halftime to beat the crowds, get some errands done, or study for that huge test the next week?
Being at the game for however short or long a time does constitute a display of support but I think if you watch the game from any medium and can talk about it with some degree of knowledge that that is also support. There’s enough stuff going on in life without having to worry about whether or not you were at your team’s football game faithfully cheering until you didn’t have a voice the next day. How would you react to being chastised for not attending a game either at all or for its duration?

Blog Comments

I posted on Paris Hilton's blog about attendance. 9/5
I posted on Almost Famous' blog "Ivy League Janitor". 9/14
I posted on hunter01's blog "My Facebook Addiction". 9/25
I posted on greek girl's blog "Going Home". 10/20
I posted on Patrick S.'s blog "Mountain Man or Prince Charming?" 10/28
I posted on Gary's blog "Rethinking Your Friends" 10/30
I posted on Rochelle's blog "'Breathing is Easy, it's Easy To Do'". 10/30
I posted on CEC's blog "What's Wrong with this Picture?" 11/5
I posted on blogger012's blog "Laundry, Homework, and Voting, Oh My!" 11/22
I posted on New Kid On the Block's blog "A Life and Death Decision?" 11/22

To Go or Not To Go, That is the Question

So you’ve chosen SMU as your college of choice. Or maybe it’s a stepping stone to another college but either way you’re here. So how did you make that decision? Was it based on distance? I think many students make their college decision based solely or at least mostly because of how far it is from home. That was certainly one of my factors but not the only factor. If you’re close to home at SMU and can get home whenever you like, how would you feel going to a college on the other side of the country or even out of the country? If you live far from home since coming to SMU, how would you like to live within 20 miles of your home while going to college? Obviously you’ve already made up your mind on these questions because you’re here, but looking back on the college selection process, what do you make of these questions now?
Those questions are some things I thought about while performing the college search and I chose the “live close to home” option for a few reasons. One reason is because home is where the money is. I don’t mean to sound shallow or greedy in any way it’s just that for me, it made the most sense to be able to see my parents face to face whenever I need some cash. Another reason is the move in. I’ve been in a dorm for almost 2 weeks now and I’m still thinking of stuff I need to bring back from home that would help dorm life so living close makes it easy to go get things. Next reason, the commute. Who wants to spend hundreds of dollars for a few hours in the air every time they come home or for that matter who wants to spend the possible hundreds in gas to drive home! If you live close the cost is cut down quite possibly exponentially. Ok that might be a bit of an exaggeration but you get the point. Also going along with the commute, I’m familiar with the area much more so than I would be if I were from out of state.
While going to a far away college can help get you out of your comfort zone and often times teach you new ways of life in new areas, living close to home can do much the same thing. So which is better? By coming to SMU you’ve already made that choice but are you rethinking it yet?