I was reading a portion of the USA today that was comparing and contrasting the overall facts and figures of the two parties. I wish that for the frist time in the running of the presidential elections that one of their foremost topics would be agriculture. I wish that the candidates would understand that they will not be able to celebrate their White House victory without some good ole' American raised beef and potatoes.
It almost scares me how little the candidates even talk about agriculture as a whole. The USA Today article then urges readers to look at the candidates websites' and form opinions for ourselves, not just what the commericials are telling us. So, I did exactly that.
I was still dissappointed in the lack of agricultural coverage and little worry about the American farmer trying to prosper. Not everything will survive through a factory farms and the importation of goods.
I would like there to be a representative of each candidate directly address the needs of people and ideals we trully need to be concerned about: agriculture.
My vote goes to the candidate who wants to take care of the small farm and farmer.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Activist for First Lady
I just read an article in the USA Today about the differences and similarities in Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain. What I think is so interesting about article is that it points out a good fact about American voters: we do not just vote for president we also vote for everything he or she comes with, including their spouse.
Is it really that important to list and understand about the possible first ladies? Of course! We make life-changing decisions all throughout our lives and we are scrutinized for them. The presidential candidates are no different when under scrutiny.
I feel a presidential candidates spouse could/will play a huge role during the term. Take JFK and Jackie Kennedy for example. She was a model citizen, role model and inspiration to women all over the country. She promoted children and family welfare. We can also look to Eleanor Roosevelt who was one of the most active first ladies to date.
The first lady will have just as large of an impact on the country as the president. When I look at Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama, there are more differences than similarities. Cindy is very reserved. She reminds me of a Bess Truman, who felt her job was just to be next to the president and fix his tie if needed. Michelle Obama is on the opposite side of the spectrum. She is a activist, like Eleanor or Hillary Clinton. She will have an office in the White House with political pull.
Which one is better? I always joke with one of my good friends who is a Hillary fanatic, the President Bill Clinton was like a marionette with Hillary behind him. I feel that Cindy McCain is a good representation of the people John McCain highly supports, whereas Michelle Obama pulls my care-giving nurturing strings because of her young children.
What is a first lady’s actually job or role? I believe that when citizens go to the polls, they need to consider everything that comes with the voting for a certain party. The first lady is a crucial part of that vote. I know I would like to see a first lady that has the ability to move people, to be an inspiration and to take advocate what is right for America. I would like to see a first lady staying out of policy, and venturing into the needs of her people.
This article articulates the different first ladies of our time, and the one that is possibly in our future. Although it does not say whom would be best suited for the role.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-10-21-first-ladies-main_N.htm
Is it really that important to list and understand about the possible first ladies? Of course! We make life-changing decisions all throughout our lives and we are scrutinized for them. The presidential candidates are no different when under scrutiny.
I feel a presidential candidates spouse could/will play a huge role during the term. Take JFK and Jackie Kennedy for example. She was a model citizen, role model and inspiration to women all over the country. She promoted children and family welfare. We can also look to Eleanor Roosevelt who was one of the most active first ladies to date.
The first lady will have just as large of an impact on the country as the president. When I look at Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama, there are more differences than similarities. Cindy is very reserved. She reminds me of a Bess Truman, who felt her job was just to be next to the president and fix his tie if needed. Michelle Obama is on the opposite side of the spectrum. She is a activist, like Eleanor or Hillary Clinton. She will have an office in the White House with political pull.
Which one is better? I always joke with one of my good friends who is a Hillary fanatic, the President Bill Clinton was like a marionette with Hillary behind him. I feel that Cindy McCain is a good representation of the people John McCain highly supports, whereas Michelle Obama pulls my care-giving nurturing strings because of her young children.
What is a first lady’s actually job or role? I believe that when citizens go to the polls, they need to consider everything that comes with the voting for a certain party. The first lady is a crucial part of that vote. I know I would like to see a first lady that has the ability to move people, to be an inspiration and to take advocate what is right for America. I would like to see a first lady staying out of policy, and venturing into the needs of her people.
This article articulates the different first ladies of our time, and the one that is possibly in our future. Although it does not say whom would be best suited for the role.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-10-21-first-ladies-main_N.htm
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Presidential Debates and Downfalls
I worked Tuesday night during the second round of presidential debates. Thankfully, I had the opportunity to watch the cat-fight on our 72" flat screen in the lobby of our hotel. I was joined by some of our guests: three Senator McCain supporters and one Senator Obama fan. I am on the fence still. Some issues are clear as day to me, as to knowing who I would vote for, but I don’t feel comfortable convincing myself yet of whom I am voting for. I was wondering how many people are in the exact spot that I am in.
According to this article published on Obama, it says that the debate actually helped him. One of the greatest lessons I have ever learned was from my agriculture teaching about persuasive and extemporaneous speaking. Obama definitely has that going for him, which is why the polls seem to shift. He has been saying the exact same thing for the past few months, but with Obama it is not what he is saying, but how he is saying it. Senator McCain made some awesome points against Obama, yet Obama stood up, completely composed and came back with a fierce rebuttal and defended himself. I asked my co-worker if he thought the campaign was based on facts or figure. He said, “Without a doubt figure.” Obama has the composure, poise and extemporaneous answers that is lacking in the McCain campaign.
This is not to say I am pro-Obama, but he has got what it takes to win a public speaking award in my book. I just hope that American’s vote on facts and real quotes and not just on the flamboyantly filled words that come out on debate night.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/10/gallup-poll-sig.html
According to this article published on Obama, it says that the debate actually helped him. One of the greatest lessons I have ever learned was from my agriculture teaching about persuasive and extemporaneous speaking. Obama definitely has that going for him, which is why the polls seem to shift. He has been saying the exact same thing for the past few months, but with Obama it is not what he is saying, but how he is saying it. Senator McCain made some awesome points against Obama, yet Obama stood up, completely composed and came back with a fierce rebuttal and defended himself. I asked my co-worker if he thought the campaign was based on facts or figure. He said, “Without a doubt figure.” Obama has the composure, poise and extemporaneous answers that is lacking in the McCain campaign.
This is not to say I am pro-Obama, but he has got what it takes to win a public speaking award in my book. I just hope that American’s vote on facts and real quotes and not just on the flamboyantly filled words that come out on debate night.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/10/gallup-poll-sig.html
Thursday, October 2, 2008
C.O.O.L.
I was a junior in high school the first time that I heard about C.O.O.L. A Michigan State Officer, Aaron Preston, gave his National FFA prepared public speaking speech on this topic. I learned more in his eight minute presentation than i had while doing all the reasearch for my speech. Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) has beent alked about in the agriculture industry for a while now. With the recent E-Coli outbreaks, consumers are constantly wanting to know "Where?" their food comes from.
According to the October 1 issue of the USAtoday, food labeling went into full effect on Tuesday.
Good news or bad news?
As a consumer, I like to see the "Fresh from Florida" logo, or the "California Grown" logo. Although, with the increasing prices through the grocery store, the cheaper Mexican grown or other country of origin is much moee appealing to my shrinking wallet.
I think the C.O.O.L. labeling will instill more trust in the American farmer from the consumers, but I also think it will surprise most consumers how many products are imported onto our grocers' shelves.
This also can effect some agriculture industries in a negative way. For example, the beef industry moves cattle from country to country, state to state, depending on the process taking place: feed lot, slaughter, the buying and selling. How are we going to label those meats products "Dual Citizenship: Born in Canada, raised in Texas." This poses an issue for producers.
As a consumer, I like the new labeling. I have always liked knowing I was buying a product that was supporting Florida farmers. On the down side, if the product is cheaper and it is labeled "Produced in Uruguay," you can bet that barcode will register on my receipt.
According to the October 1 issue of the USAtoday, food labeling went into full effect on Tuesday.
Good news or bad news?
As a consumer, I like to see the "Fresh from Florida" logo, or the "California Grown" logo. Although, with the increasing prices through the grocery store, the cheaper Mexican grown or other country of origin is much moee appealing to my shrinking wallet.
I think the C.O.O.L. labeling will instill more trust in the American farmer from the consumers, but I also think it will surprise most consumers how many products are imported onto our grocers' shelves.
This also can effect some agriculture industries in a negative way. For example, the beef industry moves cattle from country to country, state to state, depending on the process taking place: feed lot, slaughter, the buying and selling. How are we going to label those meats products "Dual Citizenship: Born in Canada, raised in Texas." This poses an issue for producers.
As a consumer, I like the new labeling. I have always liked knowing I was buying a product that was supporting Florida farmers. On the down side, if the product is cheaper and it is labeled "Produced in Uruguay," you can bet that barcode will register on my receipt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)