CAG@ICH#43
This morning began with a sufficient bout of melancholy to give Bollo's that magic quality typically reserved for the snowy season. This is what happens when you condition yourself to expect <6 hours of sleep per night, then grant yourself 8 hours just because you're too lazy to use your extra time to grade papers. Gotta get with it.
The second presidential debate seems, on the surface, to be the darker, less engaging Temple of Doom to the much livelier and more enlightening University of Mississippi discussion forum-style debate, which leads me to expect a lighter, funnier, but ultimately inferior conclusion to the trilogy at Hofstra. (We might even see a father figure or two.) One trend to which Obama seems to have finally succumbed is to reduce intelligent discussion (at which he excelled during the primaries) to repetitive talking points. Speaking to the population at large, rather than the active Democrats, always seems to make this the most viable option.
However, to me the Nashville debate was the clincher. Check out this stinging question from an audience member, Lindsey Trella, directed at first to Obama:
Senator, selling health care coverage in America as a marketable commodity has become a very profitable industry. Do you believe health care should be treated as a commodity?
Obama of course began with a run-down of the benefits his health care plan would confer upon most Americans, but (check the transcript), in a deviation from his (appreciated) habit of coming back around to the particular question, he let this spiel constitute his answer, even admitting that his plan would, essentially, help Americans buy health care, not give it to them or make it their right as citizens (in contrast to his earlier "opinion" that health care is a right). His unspoken answer, then, was "Yes."; health care should be treated as a commodity.
I find this unacceptable: Health care should not be sold, nor even conferred, but ascribed. People living in a sufficiently wealthy society (such as ours) should have it, no questions. While i've spent this election season on the fence so far, i finally find myself obligated to vote for Cynthia McKinney, the former Democratic Senator and Green Party candidate this season. She agrees. Of course, Virginia being a swing state, i'll be vote-swapping with someone in a less-contested region, but woe be the candidate who relies upon my contribution to the popular vote without promising me an uncontestable spot in the emergency room.
By the way, is anyone else looking maddeningly forward to the day when some inventive state Elector decides to throw off tradition and vote against a state's popular vote? In particular, if some Oklahoman Elector risks a $1000 (maximum) misdemeanor fine for betraying the popular vote, will eir vote still count toward the national election? I would risk $1000 and the end of my political career to make that point.
Politics thrown to the wind, i must return to mathematics. Last night i did some algebraic geometry with Matt and, dealing with actual algebra instead of programming and the quirky combinatorial arguments that have lately comprised the bulk of my research, the session was refreshing. (It turned out that the "little" lemma i'd set out to prove was actually the kernel of Hilbert's Nullstellensatz, as Matt observed after an hour or so of our tedious and misguided approaches.) This will become a habit, and maybe some day i'll learn to recognize the big ones by feel as well as by name.
The second presidential debate seems, on the surface, to be the darker, less engaging Temple of Doom to the much livelier and more enlightening University of Mississippi discussion forum-style debate, which leads me to expect a lighter, funnier, but ultimately inferior conclusion to the trilogy at Hofstra. (We might even see a father figure or two.) One trend to which Obama seems to have finally succumbed is to reduce intelligent discussion (at which he excelled during the primaries) to repetitive talking points. Speaking to the population at large, rather than the active Democrats, always seems to make this the most viable option.
However, to me the Nashville debate was the clincher. Check out this stinging question from an audience member, Lindsey Trella, directed at first to Obama:
Senator, selling health care coverage in America as a marketable commodity has become a very profitable industry. Do you believe health care should be treated as a commodity?
Obama of course began with a run-down of the benefits his health care plan would confer upon most Americans, but (check the transcript), in a deviation from his (appreciated) habit of coming back around to the particular question, he let this spiel constitute his answer, even admitting that his plan would, essentially, help Americans buy health care, not give it to them or make it their right as citizens (in contrast to his earlier "opinion" that health care is a right). His unspoken answer, then, was "Yes."; health care should be treated as a commodity.
I find this unacceptable: Health care should not be sold, nor even conferred, but ascribed. People living in a sufficiently wealthy society (such as ours) should have it, no questions. While i've spent this election season on the fence so far, i finally find myself obligated to vote for Cynthia McKinney, the former Democratic Senator and Green Party candidate this season. She agrees. Of course, Virginia being a swing state, i'll be vote-swapping with someone in a less-contested region, but woe be the candidate who relies upon my contribution to the popular vote without promising me an uncontestable spot in the emergency room.
By the way, is anyone else looking maddeningly forward to the day when some inventive state Elector decides to throw off tradition and vote against a state's popular vote? In particular, if some Oklahoman Elector risks a $1000 (maximum) misdemeanor fine for betraying the popular vote, will eir vote still count toward the national election? I would risk $1000 and the end of my political career to make that point.
Politics thrown to the wind, i must return to mathematics. Last night i did some algebraic geometry with Matt and, dealing with actual algebra instead of programming and the quirky combinatorial arguments that have lately comprised the bulk of my research, the session was refreshing. (It turned out that the "little" lemma i'd set out to prove was actually the kernel of Hilbert's Nullstellensatz, as Matt observed after an hour or so of our tedious and misguided approaches.) This will become a habit, and maybe some day i'll learn to recognize the big ones by feel as well as by name.