Daily GUIDE-ance:

Monday, July 5, 2010


While Liz was gone on vacation, I got so bored at night, what with the chess fast still on, that I found myself passing the time by writing long treatises on boring things. How boring? One about politics, one about economics and one about religion. Yeah.

The first one was a letter I wrote to a guy I knew about 20 years ago who sent me a friend request on facebook because he is running for congress. (yes That congress). So I looked up his political views online to see if they were any good. They turned out to be annoyingly vague and ambigious, so I figured, since I know the guy (or did once, enough for him to FB me), that I would try to touch base with him and ask for some specifics.

Welp, he never responded, which, is fine I suppose, but I haven't even gotten an automated "Gorg, Gorg, Gorg, we acknowledge your presence, blah, blip, I am actually an electronic secretary, shpa, noy hummmmm..." Coming up on 2 weeks now. So I find this annoying. I'd probably find it less annoying if so many people I know on FB hadn't signed on to his campaign based on the miniature amount of information he gives about his views online.

So here's what I wrote him. I can't blame you for not reading it, it looks dirt boring even to me, but here it is anyway. I wonder if I should accept this guy's friend request, just so I could repost my questions on his public wall?

I've read your three Key Issues and could use some clarification. In fact, I think anyone reading them would have similar questions.

1) You describe yourself as a "Fiscal Conservative", which is a bit like telling us you have one blue eye. We all immediately want to know what's up with your OTHER eye! So how about putting some easier to find info up on your web pages about your views on Social issues, especially on the “Life vs Choice” abortion debate. Also helpful would be your views on the definition of marriage. Would you have voted for the recent Health Care reform? Do you consider Health Care reform to be a social or fiscal issue?

2) Interested to know your views on Energy Policy. What do you think of Obama's handling of the BP crisis? And- I mean this last question in all seriousness- Can you give a scientific definition of the term “Watt”? As a professional engineer working in the energy industry, I see a lot of simple, technical ignorance of basic, high school level concepts evident in too many governmental policy decisions. A congressman making energy policy without a practical understanding of this basic term is like a board member voting on the allocation of funds without really knowing what a “dollar” is.

I’m a Missouri voter, (not in your district unfortunately). I’d like to support you, but your web pages don’t really tell enough about you as a potential congressman. I came away from reading them with more questions than when I started. I applaud your call for openness and clarity in government, but I’d have to have more clarity on who you are politically to consider supporting you. I’m all about independent thinking, but can you please post what some of your independent thoughts are?

So that’s it from John the Missouri Citizen.

Then there was a small amount of blabber of a minor, personal nature.


Dana Cheryl said...

If a candidate had the guts to answer simple questions like these I think I'd vote for him/her regardless of the answers. The double/triple/quadruple candidate speech is wearying.

timpani76 said...

Ok, I'll be honest, I just thought it was cool that someone I know was running for congress. I probably would have added him as a friend even if his main talking point was "freedom for bi-racial clowns who no longer feel the circus is the life for them".

So, you want to start giving IQ tests for congressman and senators? They have to have master's degrees? What would they get them in I wonder? Science? Sociology? Economics? I mean, don't they pay people to fill them in on all the stuff they could not possibly have degrees in?

Eyepoke said...

One of these days I am going to write a boring treatise on the definition if "Watt", because it really is an incredibly simple concept that anyone at all, even Gump could understand. And they could understand it in about 5 minutes.

And it would flip energy policy on its ear. Increasing one's vocab by this one word is probably the "greenest" thing anybody can do.

Bruce said...

v times a. is that a good enough def. i have had some pipe dreams of running for some sort of office. i considered doing something crazy. i would be me. say what i thought and admit the things i dont know and vow to have better info before i voted on some thing. tell the people that "you may not always agree with me, but you will know that i will always do what i think is best to make things better." i would tell the truth and if there where instances when i could not give all the info i would say "i cant give all the info at this time." all this "my most honest and respected colleague" crap drives me nuts. tell me what you think. i may not agree but i will at least know where i stand.

Eyepoke said...

Volts x Amps is right of course, as long as you know what an Amp and a Volt is. But for folks with less electrical savvy, there is an equally true defination without the electrical terms.
Watts isn't a measure of electricty, it's a measure of work done per time. Volts is work per charge and Amps is charge per second, so the electricity cancels out when you mulity them into Watts, leaving you with work per second.


timpani76 said...

mulity them?

I didn't understand much of what you said in your last comment John, but I caught the word error. Does that count for something?

Anonymous said...

smart alec!