Perhaps the most personal aspect of a woman’s physiology, other than opening her most private self during sex, is her menstrual process. Menstruation begins deep inside a woman’s body, but it becomes an external part of her whenever she is discharging the fluids from her womb. In addition to the emotional responses to this process, a woman has to deal with the physical reality of the discharging fluids. Some days, this is a minimal amount, but other days it can become a torrent of discharge that is difficult to manage. It always has an identifiable odor associated with it that most women try to avoid disclosing by using tampons, internal protection that should do the job, but often does not.
Napkins absorb much more menstrual fluid than tampons, but by inserting tampons inside the body, women think they are better protected, especially against odor. The problem is that it’s more difficult to know if a tampon leaks than it is to tell that an external pad has reached maximum absorption; in either case, once the absorption is maxed out, both kinds of products have to be changed or there could be visible evidence that the woman is in her period. Most women respond kindly in this situation, offering to help by standing/walking behind the woman in distress, offering clean pads/tampons, and/or doing whatever it takes to help the embarrassed woman deal with the immediate issue of cleaning herself and replacing the absorption product and, sometimes, even her clothes. Seldom would any woman publicly make an issue of the failed absorption or bring it to the attention of others, especially strangers.
However, on yesterday’s The Talk, not only was the apparent failure of personal protection products brought up as a topic of discussion, but the women panelists seemed to delight in discussing in explicit detail what a photograph showed, as well as how “gross” it was. As the conversation continued for several minutes, the panelists increased their personal pleasure in enlarging the issue, laughing at what on earth that “fluid” could be, but not one of the women protected the victim of their inappropriate verbal assault or shielded her identity from the curious public.
I am appalled that this conversation took place and outraged that the women were so callous in discussing what has to be the penultimate embarrassment for any woman, but most especially for an entertainer photographed while performing in a public venue.
The thought came to mind that there, but for the Grace of God, goes each of us, one time or another. Some women suffer from severe discharge during their periods, while others deal with excessive discharge following childbirth, and almost all women have to deal with disgusting discharge during the perimenopausal phase of their "change of life" process. When it is their turn to get through this difficult time, I hope that the women on The Talk have a kinder, more supportive group of women to help them than they were to a young woman singing a tribute at the funeral of Etta James last weekend. It must have taken courage to realize that “something” was going on while she was performing, but finish the performance in spite of her personal discomfort.
What no woman needs is a group of “mean girls” pointing out a personal problem to the public who really did not need to know what happened or how funny those women all thought it was.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
Food + Fast + Friendly-- or NOT
When I walk into a fast-food outlet, I expect okay food, fast service, and friendly personnel behind the counter. Yesterday, I walked into a Jack in the Box with my friend after attending a showing of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (over the top excellent, by the way) and there were no employees visible. At first, I thought the restaurant was closed, but a group of 4 students came into the lobby, huddled at the corner of the counter for what looked like a group drug deal, and then fumbled their way through ... ordering their food!
This was the first time I have been required to use a kiosk to order, pay for, and then submit my meal order to personnel who only come into view to call the order number when the food is on the delivery tray!! Believe me, it's not an experience I will repeat as I expect PEOPLE to work in a restaurant, not fast food self-service. I was in the restaurant for fully 10 minutes before I had any contact with an employee, reading the menu board behind the counter, waiting to be greeted, finally asking the group of people at the end of the counter if the business was open, and then, when they departed the area, figuring out that the machine they huddled around was not an ATM but the only option I had for ordering my meal.
My initial reaction was to leave, but I already had invested time in the process, so I stumbled my way through ordering my meal and then helped my friend order hers, forgoing the option of extra cheese on her sandwich because that option was not in the kiosk option menu.
Requiring guests to use the ordering kiosk should not take the place of a human greeting. Seeing an employee behind the counter would have given me a clue that there were employees somewhere in the building, rather than wondering if I needed to return later, when someone showed up for work. Especially in a down economy, I question the wisdom of cutting people from the payroll in favor of an ordering kiosk that allows the employees who are on the clock to avoid customer contact, and, thus, avoid providing basic customer service.
I'm scratching Jack in the Box off my list of fast-food stops and sticking with live employees with whom I can ask questions and request accommodations so the food comes reasonably close to the way I like it. If they all go the way of Jack in the Box, I'll stop eating at fast food restaurants. Win-win for me, but I'm not so sure about the Jack in the Box franchisees.
This was the first time I have been required to use a kiosk to order, pay for, and then submit my meal order to personnel who only come into view to call the order number when the food is on the delivery tray!! Believe me, it's not an experience I will repeat as I expect PEOPLE to work in a restaurant, not fast food self-service. I was in the restaurant for fully 10 minutes before I had any contact with an employee, reading the menu board behind the counter, waiting to be greeted, finally asking the group of people at the end of the counter if the business was open, and then, when they departed the area, figuring out that the machine they huddled around was not an ATM but the only option I had for ordering my meal.
My initial reaction was to leave, but I already had invested time in the process, so I stumbled my way through ordering my meal and then helped my friend order hers, forgoing the option of extra cheese on her sandwich because that option was not in the kiosk option menu.
Requiring guests to use the ordering kiosk should not take the place of a human greeting. Seeing an employee behind the counter would have given me a clue that there were employees somewhere in the building, rather than wondering if I needed to return later, when someone showed up for work. Especially in a down economy, I question the wisdom of cutting people from the payroll in favor of an ordering kiosk that allows the employees who are on the clock to avoid customer contact, and, thus, avoid providing basic customer service.
I'm scratching Jack in the Box off my list of fast-food stops and sticking with live employees with whom I can ask questions and request accommodations so the food comes reasonably close to the way I like it. If they all go the way of Jack in the Box, I'll stop eating at fast food restaurants. Win-win for me, but I'm not so sure about the Jack in the Box franchisees.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Obfuscation with Rhetoric
Let me be perfectly clear: there is a chasm of difference between creating new jobs and filling existing jobs with people who may be unemployed, thus lowering the unemployment rate. Attrition means that people are fired, people retire, people quit existing jobs to accept another position, and, sometimes, people simply quit working for personal reasons. Filling these vacancies is NOT creating new jobs, but merely restaffing existing positions.
Obama’s claim is that "In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly four million jobs. And we lost another four million before our policies were in full effect." But he argues that the country is turning around under his policies, pointing to 3 million new jobs created in the last 22 months. President Obama brags about all the new jobs his policies and practices have created – but does not provide documentation of where, when and how, referring instead to the decline in unemployment rates to support his claims.
For instance, an existing business in the desert that was in financial jeopardy announced it was closing its doors, putting 300 current employees out of work. About 4 months later, government incentives were provided to help the business keep its doors open, as well as the 300 employees working. For publicity purposes, this becomes “creating new jobs” to enhance the President’s image – but isn't it redistributing government funding to stop the hemorrhaging across the nation caused by businesses closing their doors and adding to the unemployment rosters?
Ditto with all the local road construction clogging Interstate 10 and the 3 major cross-overs that allow residents to get to work each day. Did the government provide funding that keeps current employees working, as well as hiring back those who lost their jobs when the funds ran out a few years ago, or is this another example of “creating new jobs that put Americans to work"? These over-pass projects have been on the books literally for more than a decade, but no money was available either to begin or finish them, so the plans gathered dust while workers were let go. Hiring unemployed employees is not the same as creating new jobs; it is filling pre-existing jobs with unemployed workers, but that isn’t a sound bite the media will chew.
The Keystone XL oil pipeline is a proposed new project that could create tens of thousands new jobs and revenue for the people/states involved in the planning and execution of that project, but Obama refuses to sign approval for that new project. Keystone XL would originate in Alberta, Canada and travel across many US states to its destination in the Gulf Coast, but a string of objections to the project creates a stalling tactic that will be addressed only after the 2012 election. President Obama does not want to risk potential environmental issues damaging his re-election hopes, and, if he's not sitting in the White House at the end of the year, he dodges a bullet if anything negative comes of the project in the future.
Creating NEW jobs is what this nation needs, as well as keeping the doors open for existing businesses, but when there is an opportunity to create new jobs, the President balks or makes massive mistakes, such as backing the solar business in the desert that went belly up after throwing away $500 million in government funding. Yes, $500 million. The flawed business plan was questioned and then rejected by the outgoing Bush administration, but President Obama bum-rushed the project through to enhance his plan to create new businesses, especially those that are eco-friendly, while ignoring the advice of advisors who said "Don't do this." The advisors were correct, but the mistake was made, and the media, rather than putting this blunder onto the front page, swept it into the back pages as ... insignificant? Not only were jobs lost when the doors closed on this new jobs project, but the people's federal monies were also gone.
The rhetoric may make a great sound bite and stir up supporters, but the reality is that politicians need to say what they mean, and then mean what they say.
Obama’s claim is that "In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly four million jobs. And we lost another four million before our policies were in full effect." But he argues that the country is turning around under his policies, pointing to 3 million new jobs created in the last 22 months. President Obama brags about all the new jobs his policies and practices have created – but does not provide documentation of where, when and how, referring instead to the decline in unemployment rates to support his claims.
For instance, an existing business in the desert that was in financial jeopardy announced it was closing its doors, putting 300 current employees out of work. About 4 months later, government incentives were provided to help the business keep its doors open, as well as the 300 employees working. For publicity purposes, this becomes “creating new jobs” to enhance the President’s image – but isn't it redistributing government funding to stop the hemorrhaging across the nation caused by businesses closing their doors and adding to the unemployment rosters?
Ditto with all the local road construction clogging Interstate 10 and the 3 major cross-overs that allow residents to get to work each day. Did the government provide funding that keeps current employees working, as well as hiring back those who lost their jobs when the funds ran out a few years ago, or is this another example of “creating new jobs that put Americans to work"? These over-pass projects have been on the books literally for more than a decade, but no money was available either to begin or finish them, so the plans gathered dust while workers were let go. Hiring unemployed employees is not the same as creating new jobs; it is filling pre-existing jobs with unemployed workers, but that isn’t a sound bite the media will chew.
The Keystone XL oil pipeline is a proposed new project that could create tens of thousands new jobs and revenue for the people/states involved in the planning and execution of that project, but Obama refuses to sign approval for that new project. Keystone XL would originate in Alberta, Canada and travel across many US states to its destination in the Gulf Coast, but a string of objections to the project creates a stalling tactic that will be addressed only after the 2012 election. President Obama does not want to risk potential environmental issues damaging his re-election hopes, and, if he's not sitting in the White House at the end of the year, he dodges a bullet if anything negative comes of the project in the future.
Creating NEW jobs is what this nation needs, as well as keeping the doors open for existing businesses, but when there is an opportunity to create new jobs, the President balks or makes massive mistakes, such as backing the solar business in the desert that went belly up after throwing away $500 million in government funding. Yes, $500 million. The flawed business plan was questioned and then rejected by the outgoing Bush administration, but President Obama bum-rushed the project through to enhance his plan to create new businesses, especially those that are eco-friendly, while ignoring the advice of advisors who said "Don't do this." The advisors were correct, but the mistake was made, and the media, rather than putting this blunder onto the front page, swept it into the back pages as ... insignificant? Not only were jobs lost when the doors closed on this new jobs project, but the people's federal monies were also gone.
The rhetoric may make a great sound bite and stir up supporters, but the reality is that politicians need to say what they mean, and then mean what they say.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Stranded, NOT Abandoned
If one only reads the headlines, it must have been awful for the hikers “Abandoned on the Tram,” a headline that leads readers to think that the hikers were dangling from a Tram car on its way down the mountain, suspended over the gorge thousands of feet below, while the winds whipped the car to and fro. Actually, however, the hikers were stranded on the mountain, safe and sound, waiting out the sudden storm that shut down the Tram when it was no longer safe to operate.
The opening ‘graph (and accompanying photo) portrays 17 people left out in the fierce winds and winter weather that forced the Tram to suspend operations at 2pm. Alas, these poor abandoned hikers, appropriately dressed for a winter hike and carrying food, were left to fend for themselves at the top of the mountain, taking shelter in an old, drafty mule shed and making it through the worst night of their lives (www.mydesert.com).
A picture, however, is worth a thousand words, and one of the (other) published pictures shows that the hikers were in a metal mule shed that they fortified with plywood flooring and a “sliding door” they constructed as protection from the winter weather.
(www.mydesert.com) The spacious metal building the hikers occupied is not the height of luxury by any means, but it kept the hikers safe for the night and protected them from the worst of the winter weather. The tram car arrived at 8am to take them down to the parking lot. They were tired, cold and hungry, but safe, a fact that seems not worth mentioning by the reporter whose focus for the ending of the story is on a back window of one hiker's car smashed out by debris from the ferocious storm that came through the Valley while the hikers were stranded on the mountain.
The reader has to get well into the long article to learn that a ranger stayed at the top of the mountain to wait for the hikers to return to the ranger station, and provided the hikers with adequate shelter, as well as blankets and sleeping bags. Sure, he did not have the key to the Tram station, nor did he feel that he could accommodate that many strangers in the ranger station, but he did do what he could to help with this emergency. Things could have been a whole lot worse for the hikers, but not to worry: the ranger's name is on the list of people who ought to be fired for what they did to these poor abandoned hikers -- who obviously were NOT abandoned at all!
Lots of corny platitudes come to mind, such as "be prepared," “think before you act,” and “plan for the worst, then expect the best,” especially when weather reports called for winter weather conditions and unusually high winds, 90 mph winds that forced the emergency shut-down and evacuation of the gala Humana Golf Challenge the same day and also over-qualified for emergency shut down of the tram! Trees were uprooted, power poles felled, businesses and homes damaged, and a carport collapsed onto residents' cars at an apartment building. Lots of citizens were without power during the horrendous storm, but the sole focus of today's news is the hikers, dressed for a winter hike, "Abandoned (Stranded overnight) on the Tram (mountain)."
Imagine how upset the hikers' families would have been had the hikers been crowded into a tram car, started down the mountain in obviously unsafe conditions, and ended their trip with a free-fall thousands of feet below onto the rocks! Now that would be something about which to complain, but an uncomfortable overnight emergency shelter at the top of the mountain is simply a great story to tell the grandkids!
The opening ‘graph (and accompanying photo) portrays 17 people left out in the fierce winds and winter weather that forced the Tram to suspend operations at 2pm. Alas, these poor abandoned hikers, appropriately dressed for a winter hike and carrying food, were left to fend for themselves at the top of the mountain, taking shelter in an old, drafty mule shed and making it through the worst night of their lives (www.mydesert.com).
A picture, however, is worth a thousand words, and one of the (other) published pictures shows that the hikers were in a metal mule shed that they fortified with plywood flooring and a “sliding door” they constructed as protection from the winter weather.
The reader has to get well into the long article to learn that a ranger stayed at the top of the mountain to wait for the hikers to return to the ranger station, and provided the hikers with adequate shelter, as well as blankets and sleeping bags. Sure, he did not have the key to the Tram station, nor did he feel that he could accommodate that many strangers in the ranger station, but he did do what he could to help with this emergency. Things could have been a whole lot worse for the hikers, but not to worry: the ranger's name is on the list of people who ought to be fired for what they did to these poor abandoned hikers -- who obviously were NOT abandoned at all!
Lots of corny platitudes come to mind, such as "be prepared," “think before you act,” and “plan for the worst, then expect the best,” especially when weather reports called for winter weather conditions and unusually high winds, 90 mph winds that forced the emergency shut-down and evacuation of the gala Humana Golf Challenge the same day and also over-qualified for emergency shut down of the tram! Trees were uprooted, power poles felled, businesses and homes damaged, and a carport collapsed onto residents' cars at an apartment building. Lots of citizens were without power during the horrendous storm, but the sole focus of today's news is the hikers, dressed for a winter hike, "Abandoned (Stranded overnight) on the Tram (mountain)."
Imagine how upset the hikers' families would have been had the hikers been crowded into a tram car, started down the mountain in obviously unsafe conditions, and ended their trip with a free-fall thousands of feet below onto the rocks! Now that would be something about which to complain, but an uncomfortable overnight emergency shelter at the top of the mountain is simply a great story to tell the grandkids!
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Pond Scum Rises to the Surface
As primarily a Republican in my general political philosophy, I feel disenfranchised by an electoral system that dismisses potential presidential candidates 5 months before my state’s primary elections! No matter how long the list of candidates vying for my vote, the last person I would consider is Newt Gingrich because his past is also his present when it comes to both his politics and his personal life. However, if one believes today’s media hyperbole, Gingrich is the Republican candidate for President in November 2012, the only candidate who can beat Obama, say some political pundits. Really? He’s been there, done that, and had to step down for ethical considerations, so why elevate his status again? Some men cannot handle power, and Gingrich is a living, breathing example of a man for whom absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Sure, everyone has past misdeeds, but Gingrich was a political legend who acted with impunity regardless of how egregious his conduct, and he brings with him today a past that shapes his present. When asked about his sexual misconduct, he could have been forthcoming: it is important to know how honest any candidate is, and Newt side-stepped honesty by turning on the commentator who asked the question. The bottom line is, Newt, did you, while actively engaged in a sexual affair with the woman who presently serves as your wife, ask your legal wife at that time to give her permission for you to continue with your extra-marital affair by suggesting she agree to an open marriage? Wasn’t it enough that your wife repeatedly turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to what you were already doing without her permission?
It is a fair question and it speaks to the basic integrity of the man behind the series of affairs, as well as the question of wanting his wife’s permission to do what he was already doing – keeping her in his control by suggesting that she approve his actions. His pattern and practice of disloyalty to his wives is important because a man who cheats in his marriage cheats in other aspects of his life, as evidenced by his actions during the 1990s, which Gingrich probably also does not want to revisit, featuring a 1990 ethics investigation that led to the first congressional reprimand of a House speaker.
According to many sources and summarized by www.washington post.com, Members of the ethics committee may have been divided and partisan in their political ideology, but the group decided almost unanimously that Gingrich had violated ethics standards. The same goes for Congress, which voted overwhelmingly to reprimand the former speaker.
Gingrich’s history with ethics investigations — both his own and that of Wright — serve as proof that those who live by the sword die by the sword. He has little room to complain about Democrats having brought charges against him, nor does he have any basis to suggest the panel made a partisan decision to reprimand him.
In fact, the only thing provably (sic) “partisan” in Gingrich’s case was the former speaker’s college course. The ethics committee used that exact word to describe it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs /fact-checker/post/newt-gingrich-tries-to-re-write-history-of-his-ethics-scandal-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/14/ gIQA4AOcwO_blog.html).
In January, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida hold primaries; by the time the first month of the presidential primaries closes, the determination of the Republican Party’s official candidate will be determined by … the media’s bias and coverage of the candidates’ personal and political lives. As one pundit puts it, “The truth is that about three quarters of the Republican voters really don't like Mitt Romney. They see him as a slick phony who doesn't have any core principles at all, let alone conservative ones. But the problem is that all the other candidates are deeply flawed” (www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012).
Whose truth is that? The truth of the South Carolina voters who surprisingly thrust Gingrich into front-runner status after the media put him onto the front page of every media outlet in the nation? I’m going to guess that three-quarters of the Republican voters have not made a choice because only 3 states have conducted primaries, which leaves 47 states left to determine who the Republican candidate will be! Going into Florida, the last January primary, the media has determined that Gingrich is the front-runner because his misdeeds are a better front page story than Mitt Romney’s religious beliefs, Rick Santorum’s youthful inexperience, and Ron Paul’s advanced age, as these and other potential nominees continue a steady climb toward the Republican Convention.
The media has far too much influence on the people’s choice of candidates, using front page coverage either to hype or disparage a candidate with the media version of “the truth.” Making Gingrich the Republican darling because he refuses to respond to legitimate questions about his personal and political ethics is reprehensible, especially when it encourages the candidate not to respond honestly. Gingrich says that his second wife’s allegations are a lie, but when Newt doesn’t like the accusations, he denies them, twisting the truth to better fit what he wants people to know about him:
Gingrich earns four Pinocchios for suggesting the ethics committee acted in partisan fashion, and for trying to rewrite history by pretending he succumbed to Democratic attacks when he actually acknowledged wrong doing. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/).
Newt Gingrich is a dishonest man in both his personal and his public life and is not a candidate I will support, but that may be a moot point because any candidate I may consider in the June Presidential primary may not be on the ballot by the first of February! It is time for a nationwide primary to determine who the people want on the ballot, not who some voters in some states determine get a state’s electoral votes months before other voters are allowed to voice an opinion. The media outlets won’t have nearly the power to make or break a candidate week-by-week, state-by-state, primary-by-primary, depending on which way the political winds blow on any given day, if we all go to the primary polls on the same day.
Sure, everyone has past misdeeds, but Gingrich was a political legend who acted with impunity regardless of how egregious his conduct, and he brings with him today a past that shapes his present. When asked about his sexual misconduct, he could have been forthcoming: it is important to know how honest any candidate is, and Newt side-stepped honesty by turning on the commentator who asked the question. The bottom line is, Newt, did you, while actively engaged in a sexual affair with the woman who presently serves as your wife, ask your legal wife at that time to give her permission for you to continue with your extra-marital affair by suggesting she agree to an open marriage? Wasn’t it enough that your wife repeatedly turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to what you were already doing without her permission?
It is a fair question and it speaks to the basic integrity of the man behind the series of affairs, as well as the question of wanting his wife’s permission to do what he was already doing – keeping her in his control by suggesting that she approve his actions. His pattern and practice of disloyalty to his wives is important because a man who cheats in his marriage cheats in other aspects of his life, as evidenced by his actions during the 1990s, which Gingrich probably also does not want to revisit, featuring a 1990 ethics investigation that led to the first congressional reprimand of a House speaker.
According to many sources and summarized by www.washington post.com, Members of the ethics committee may have been divided and partisan in their political ideology, but the group decided almost unanimously that Gingrich had violated ethics standards. The same goes for Congress, which voted overwhelmingly to reprimand the former speaker.
Gingrich’s history with ethics investigations — both his own and that of Wright — serve as proof that those who live by the sword die by the sword. He has little room to complain about Democrats having brought charges against him, nor does he have any basis to suggest the panel made a partisan decision to reprimand him.
In fact, the only thing provably (sic) “partisan” in Gingrich’s case was the former speaker’s college course. The ethics committee used that exact word to describe it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs /fact-checker/post/newt-gingrich-tries-to-re-write-history-of-his-ethics-scandal-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/14/ gIQA4AOcwO_blog.html).
In January, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida hold primaries; by the time the first month of the presidential primaries closes, the determination of the Republican Party’s official candidate will be determined by … the media’s bias and coverage of the candidates’ personal and political lives. As one pundit puts it, “The truth is that about three quarters of the Republican voters really don't like Mitt Romney. They see him as a slick phony who doesn't have any core principles at all, let alone conservative ones. But the problem is that all the other candidates are deeply flawed” (www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012).
Whose truth is that? The truth of the South Carolina voters who surprisingly thrust Gingrich into front-runner status after the media put him onto the front page of every media outlet in the nation? I’m going to guess that three-quarters of the Republican voters have not made a choice because only 3 states have conducted primaries, which leaves 47 states left to determine who the Republican candidate will be! Going into Florida, the last January primary, the media has determined that Gingrich is the front-runner because his misdeeds are a better front page story than Mitt Romney’s religious beliefs, Rick Santorum’s youthful inexperience, and Ron Paul’s advanced age, as these and other potential nominees continue a steady climb toward the Republican Convention.
The media has far too much influence on the people’s choice of candidates, using front page coverage either to hype or disparage a candidate with the media version of “the truth.” Making Gingrich the Republican darling because he refuses to respond to legitimate questions about his personal and political ethics is reprehensible, especially when it encourages the candidate not to respond honestly. Gingrich says that his second wife’s allegations are a lie, but when Newt doesn’t like the accusations, he denies them, twisting the truth to better fit what he wants people to know about him:
Gingrich earns four Pinocchios for suggesting the ethics committee acted in partisan fashion, and for trying to rewrite history by pretending he succumbed to Democratic attacks when he actually acknowledged wrong doing. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/).
Newt Gingrich is a dishonest man in both his personal and his public life and is not a candidate I will support, but that may be a moot point because any candidate I may consider in the June Presidential primary may not be on the ballot by the first of February! It is time for a nationwide primary to determine who the people want on the ballot, not who some voters in some states determine get a state’s electoral votes months before other voters are allowed to voice an opinion. The media outlets won’t have nearly the power to make or break a candidate week-by-week, state-by-state, primary-by-primary, depending on which way the political winds blow on any given day, if we all go to the primary polls on the same day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)