My Crazy Color Theory

Okay, before I begin, I was looking through my old posts to make sure I had never gone over this before, and I came across this entry about honesty. Here it is:

http://brainhickey.blogspot.com/2006/02/random-rant-about-honesty.html

If you want to read the whole thing, cool. But what I noticed was this passage:

I’ve always believed I would do something great in life; that’s what my mother always told me and I guess I always believed her. But I don’t have a clue what that something will be. Maybe I’ll be a published writer, maybe the mother of the next President of the USA (like his t-shirt says), or maybe I’ll develop some charity or something to really help the world.

So my first thought as I read this was, hey, if Sarah Palin can be the next-to-next President, heck, I'm in the PTA, I'm a soccer mom, I'm over 35. I can be president too. Now if we can just get rid of that pesky "born in the USA" rule...

The second thing I noticed was my mention of developing some charity. Perhaps the seed for Summer Santa had been planted long ago and I couldn't help but do it. Hmmm...

Now back to My Crazy Color Theory (can it really be going back to it if I never started explaining it?)

I've been reading to my two year old, and one of the books he likes is about colors. Each page mentions one color, and as (or after) you read, you point out things that are the same color as the ones mentioned in the book. The actual title doesn't matter, because that's the same point in all of the books. You provide examples of items in a particular color and teach the child to refer to all different things of the same hue value by a particular name. Different languages have different names for the same color, but that's just translation. A stop sign is red, the grass is green.

So we know that color blindness is when people can't see certain colors, or cannot detect the differences between certain colors. Or something like that (in the past, I would have spent a couple of hours googling and researching color blindness for this post; these days I'm lucky to get this far! Sorry!)

So here's my issue. We all agree that a stop sign is red, and we all call the color that we see on the stop sign "red". But how do we know that we all perceive the color the same way? How do we know that what I see as red is not what you see as blue, but we both call items of that color by the same name, so we assume we see the same thing the same way?

Think about it. Computer programs, color theory, paint samples. These all present a pretty consistent array of colors, organizing them by numeric values of hue, saturation, and value. There is a gradient progression of these colors. Go into your local paint store, or the paint section of your local big box hardware store, and you'll find a nicely-arranged display of color swatches. So it seems to make sense that we all view these colors such that this progression of colors makes sense to all of us.

But what if the differences are subtle? Maybe it's not blue to red or green to purple, but rather red to pink, or mauve to lavender? What if the differences between how your eyes perceive a particular color and how my eyes perceive that particular color are only slight? Then I would posit that the two people's perceptions of what colors complement each other would vary, so that what clashes to one person actually matches to another.

At least that's the excuse I'm going to use the next time my much-more-fashionable-than-me husband looks at me at my feeble attempts at coordinating my own outfits.

Pushing for Obama

The soapbox is coming out.

I spent a couple of hours today writing postcards to undecided voters, hoping to convince them to vote for Barack Obama. A friend of mine organized this event, so I spent most of today thinking about what I would write, how I would convince people I never met that Barack Obama really is the right choice for the next President of the United States.

I can't simply express my personal feelings - that the idea of Sarah Palin taking over as President scares the crap out of me. She's inexperienced, yet won't admit what she doesn't know. Her government experience has been defined by cronyism to the extreme. As my friend pointed out, she's George Bush all over again. This country will not be in a better place four years from now if McCain/Palin take over. It's just not going to happen. And I'm not willing to give up hope for my kids' future just yet. In a blog entry a while ago, I had mentioned that I disliked John Maher's song 'Waiting for the World to Change' because it took active out of activism. Don't just sit around and wait, do something. Power of the people. Community Activism. All that really works. Heck, I was preaching this long before Summer Santa. So there, I can back up my rhetoric with proof.

But anyhow, back to the matter at hand. I got some feedback when I asked some individuals who are well-read in this election for some talking points, and did some of my own research, and here is a concise list of reasons why I am voting for Barack Obama, and why undecideds should perhaps decide to vote for Obama as well:

10. McCain and Palin differ on many issues. I used to totally respect McCain for his integrity, but the fact that he would 1) flip-flop on his stance on Arctic Drilling and 2) pick a running mate that will help win him votes but is so diametrically opposed to his own "belief system" makes it impossible for me to support him. He's proven that he can, in fact, be bought. The issue at hand this election is not so much of policy, because while the president may spearhead certain issues, he will not accomplish much without Congress proposing desired bills; the issue is integrity.

I've learned of a site called http://www.politifact.com that recently won a Knight Batten award. It's a collaborative effort between St. Petersburg Times and the Congressional Quarterly. It identifies false or partially true statements in the 2008 presidential campaign. It's a useful tool when you realize you can't take a politician's word that the ads he's airing are true.

9. Palin is the opposite of Hillary Clinton, who defended civil liberties and did not plan to continue to turn America into an Orwellian Big Brother nation.

8. After insulting Hillary for whining, now she's honoring her for breaking the glass ceiling; a little hypocritical and self-serving.

7. Overstating her experience is not a risk I'm willing to take for my kids

6. As Palin said during her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, "I guess a smalltown mayor is kind of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities."

How incredibly insulting. In taking a jab at Barack Obama's previous experience, she's alienating a lot of politically active individuals.

5. Palin also said during that speech, "You can be certain that wherever he goes, or whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man."

One statement, two liars. He's flip flopped on his stance on drilling in the Arctic. He's flipped his decision on abortion. I believe he's also been swayed to be more pro-gun. If he really spent his whole career on one side of the issue, which side can actually trust him to rule in their favor when the election is over? (visit http://www.politifact.com to learn more)

4. And perhaps this should come higher. Palin has an extreme anti-conservation record on issues ranging from global warming (doubts human factor in causing it), energy and drilling to wildlife and habitat protection.
www.defendersactionfund.org/newsroom/sarah-palin.html

3. Financially speaking, it's worth looking at the facts. It's hard to wade through all the information that's coming out, and harder still to know what "facts" to trust. So, I have found a couple of sites that have summed up the information:

Look here to compare tax plans of the different candidates:
- www.taxfoundation.org/candidates08

Here's CNN's analysis comparing your tax impact:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm

2. For all you Hillary Supporters out there:

Here's a quote from someone unsure who to vote for:
"This is a hard decision for me personally because frankly I don't like him. I feel like he is an elitist. I feel like he has not given me reason to trust him."

That sentiment may be sending some Clinton fans into Sen. John McCain's court.

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released last week, Clinton supporters who say they plan to defect to McCain's camp is down from a month ago, but those who say they plan to vote for Obama is also down, and a growing number say they may not vote at all.

This I totally do not understand. Why would you not vote? Or, why would you vote for someone (Palin) who was endorsed by Phyllis Schafly, a woman who stopped the Equal Rights Amendment and who started an organization (EagleForum.com) to spread her message about how a woman's place is in the home raising her children. For her to turn around and support a mother of five, including a 4 month old Downs' baby, makes little sense to me. But if you're interested in this, do a google search for Phyllis Schafly and Sarah Palin.

But here's another response I received in regards to the "elitist" issue:

Over the course of the last 45 or 50 years, it seems to me, Americans increasingly have sought mediocrity in preference to superiority.
To classify those who are intelligent and well educated as somehow being elitist is fallacious, and can only work to the detriment of
the country as a whole.


Looked at objectively, the various candidates’ records are indeed telling. However, to look at such things is to have an “elitist” attitude. Strangely enough, such things as education are exactly what is taken into account in making hiring decisions.

Education? Let’s see:

John S. McCain – Graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1958 with a class standing of 894 out of 899. Not a bad school, but his entrance certainly was facilitated by his being the son of his father.

Sarah Palin – Attended five different schools (one twice) before finally getting a Bachelor of Arts degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho in 1987. (From Wikipedia: In 1982, Palin enrolled at Hawaii Pacific College but left after her first semester, transferring in 1983 to North Idaho College and then to the University of Idaho. She attended Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska for one term, returning to the University of Idaho to complete her Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism, graduating in 1987. – Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin.)

Barack Obama – Two years at Occidental College, then transferred to Columbia University. Graduated in 1983 with a Bachelor of Arts in political science with a specialization in international relations. Graduated from Harvard Law School in 1991 with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree, magna cum laude. Editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_obama.) (There may be some indication of some “smarts” there . . . .)

Joe Biden – Graduated from the University of Delaware in 1965 with a double major in history and political science, ranked 506th of 688 in his class. Graduated from Syracuse University College of Law in 1968 with a juris doctor (J.D.) degree, and ranked 76th of 85 students

While education certainly is not the only discriminator, the track records here certainly indicate some qualitative differences.
In most job applications, these differences would be weighted more heavily than they seem to be during the current Presidential campaign.

1. Thinking about qualifications to be president ....

It's out of fashion in our anti-intellectual times, and not much help in writing to rural Pennsylvanians, but Barack Obama's academic background is a serious discriminator. He was President of the Harvard Law Review -- this doesn't happen to mediocre students or by accident. He was also Larry Tribe's research assistant for several years at Harvard and his engagement at the University of Chicago as a law professor with faculty members and students of all political and ideological stripes means that he has thought much more deeply about government and the law than either Sarah Palin or John McCain--and certainly more than George Bush.

Starting up an effective presidential campaign from scratch is in some ways a tougher leadership and organizational task than
anything McCain or Palin has done-- recall that McCain nearly ran out of money and if I recall correctly only his wife's wealth
(in the form of a mortgage on one of the houses) allowed him to continue.

Temperament and ability to listen, as well as regard for reality, and finally the ability to pose issues truthfully and understandably to the Congress and the American people are key requirements for a successful presidency in my book -- and
here there is no contest between Obama and McCain/Palin.

So there you have it
My top ten reasons for supporting Barack Obama/Joe Biden.

Yes, I've heard the comments that Joe Biden made that are anti-Indian (he said something like, there's so many Indian immigrants in my home state of Delaware that "you can't even go into a Dunkin Donuts or a 7Eleven without an Indian accent"). Incredibly stupid, yes. Racist? perhaps borderline - at least unfair stereotyping for the sake of a laugh. Who's never done that? Ill-timed, and not a luxury a politician should be afforded, yes. But I'd rather deal (or rather, continue to deal) with breaking stereotypes about Indians than let Palin choose another ultra-conservative Supreme Court Justice who decides that whether I one day choose to have an abortion is the government's business.

And yes, I do still think that Hillary would have made a better president, but that's not really an option anymore, is it? And the crazy thing is, the Democratic race was so absurd in that Hillary and Barack agreed on so much, and it was mainly the experience where they differed. So if the ideology is so much the same, and it's obviously what you believe in, then why not choose the candidate that stands for what Hillary stands for?

As Hillary herself put it, "My friends, it is time to take back the country we love.

Whether you voted for me, or voted for Barack, the time is now to unite as a single party with a single purpose. We are on the same team, and none of us can sit on the sidelines.

This is a fight for the future. And it’s a fight we must win.

I haven’t spent the past 35 years in the trenches advocating for children, campaigning for universal health care, helping parents balance work and family, and fighting for women’s rights at home and around the world . . . to see another Republican in the White House squander the promise of our country and the hopes of our people.

And you haven’t worked so hard over the last 18 months, or endured the last eight years, to suffer through more failed leadership.

No way. No how. No McCain."

A few anecdotes

You know, I promised myself this wouldn't be about my kids. But:

While taking a walk today, my four-year-old pretended to be playing with a "mawn lower".

As he was learning to talk, my two-year-old used to call every drink "juice". When he wanted milk, he would still say "jus", but couple it with a fist with his thumb pointing up, representing the tiny bit of sign language I managed to teach him. Well, wanting to improve his vocabulary, I tried to make him repeat the word "milk" before handing him his sippy cup. "Jus" became "Juk", which is now "dok". All attempts to retrain him are met with patient chuckles (by him). The night before his first day of school, I came up with the idea that he could use a tshirt with a translation guide so people other than me could understand him. But now, instead of stressing over my son's speech development difficulties, I am simply enjoying the relative quiet (compared to how much chatter will be orbitting around me once I have three talking children), and get him ready for bedtime by asking if he's ready for his "dok" and bok.

My seven-year-old created a Mii named Butaxe.

When my four-year-old has to take a dump, he says he has to go "the badliest".

My two-year-old likes to fake burp.

My four-year-old doesn't like orgle borgles because they have "inappropriate words in them".

These guys are characters, and while they manage to drive me crazy in the morning when they can't make it downstairs by seven-thirty for breakfast to have enough time to eat breakfast by eight so we can get ready and out the door and make it to school by eight-fifteen (yes, I'm a little hyper-sensitive to schedules), they make my life worthwhile. I need to make sure to tell them that more often. (And seeing as they respond incredibly well to compliments, and incredibly counter-productively to criticism and my yelling at the top of my lungs, you'd think I'd learn).