Big, Important Things!

I was browsing my Facebook news feed when a friend linked an article where one of the presidential candidates (and it will be transparent to most who this is, but this post is not about him so I'm omitting his name) indicated he would put a filter on all new U.S. computers to block pornography.  My first instinct was to respond with this:

How much taxpayer money will be spent on a filter that can never possibly work?  How much taxpayer money will be spent on laws and litigation for people who bypass the filter?  How much will the value of old computers go up because they are "filter-free?"

People have values that they want to sell during an election, that's fine.  But if you're serious about it, have a REAL plan, right?

I didn't post that because I didn't really want to fight about it, mostly because there are probably really transparent answers to all those questions: 1. the filters exist already in some form; 2. the filter is optional, but included automatically so parents can protect children; 3. see #2, it's a non-issue.

But the part that would remain unanswered, or maybe I just wouldn't be satisfied with the answer, is the last questions: if you're serious, have a REAL plan, right?  (Which may only be technically called a question because it does in fact end in a question mark, though really it is probably only a statement.)  That's kind of what this post is about.

People running for office, incumbents or otherwise (though perhaps this problem is more likely to occur in fiction rather than reality), seemingly often have plans to do X, Y or Z.  Often these comments referring to this plan seem to indicate that the plan is going to be mind-blowingly awesome, linked to iterations of "when I'm president," the plan will go into effect, and everyone will win.

My problem with this is, why is the plan conditional upon winning office?  One thought is that, as awesome as the plan is to the candidate, in reality the plan is only awesome for one party or those who lean left or lean right, and that the other party will find the plan horrible and dedicate time and resources into defeating the plan.  This makes sense on its face, with the example of the pornography filter: there are a lot of folks, many of which fall on the left side of the aisle, that don't want their internet content regulated by the government.  The plan is great for some, but awful for others.

But what if the candidate truly believes the plan IS great for everyone, regardless of political ties and impending opposition?  If you're American enough to believe that you love the country so much that you are the one most qualified to lead it, doesn't it follow that any plan that would benefit America is a plan that shouldn't wait, that shouldn't be conditional upon your winning office?

If you have a real plan to block pornography on the internet, why not try to implement it now, regardless of whether you get credit for the idea?  If you have a plan to fix social security, if you have a plan to boost the economy, if you have a plan to improve education, why should it wait?

I think I understand the idea that, once you're in power, you have the ability to do these great things; without that power, these things may not come to fruition.  At the same time, if a candidate, through his power as the party leader and/or the potential president, could use that status as candidate to sway other politicians to start implementing the plan... I mean, doesn't being the party front runner and potential election winner carry enough weight to get the ball rolling?  If you roll out an awesome plan and it starts to get implemented even before you're in office, isn't that a signal to the electorate that you can in fact deliver on these great plans once you get even more power?

Don't we as Americans deserve your effort to those ends, anyway?

I would love it, love it if a candidate said "I want to fix the pornography problem in America (sidenote: I know that presumes that there is a pornography problem in America, so that's obviously an ideology thing, but keep reading because that's not the important part, just the example).  I don't know how to do that at the moment.  The ideas we have aren't there yet--I can't just install a button that blocks pornography on every PC.  It's a complicated problem from a technical and legal standpoint.  But I'm dedicated to getting it done, and my colleagues and I continue to brainstorm and research how to reach this end.  If we figure it out before I am elected president, we won't hesitate to do what we can to implement it now."

Maybe candidates do say things like that, on perhaps more important issues that everyone already understands is complicated technically and legally.  Or maybe they avoid statements that will be pointed to as failure if they don't get it done.  Personally, I'd be impressed with the sentiment and the honesty.

I've rambled on long enough, am out of time, and can't salvage this anyway.  Did I forget to say this wasn't recommended?  Sorry, but maybe you should have known better?

Necropost: Tim Tebow is my Homeboy

Note: While I was contemplating a new post, I looked through my old posts and realized I started something on 4/23/10 on the eve of the NFL Draft where the Broncos drafted Tim Tebow, but I never finished it or posted it.  So what I'm gonna do is leave in the original post, then follow up.  This, of course, is not recommended.

THEN: 

Right?

Last night: "The Broncos drafted Tim Tebow IN THE FIRST ROUND??????"
Today: "Hey, the Broncos got Tim Tebow! Sweet!"

What changed? The flavor of the Kool-Aid.

But the pick is refreshing, and here's why. Towards the end of Mike Shanahan's reign, I felt he was a reactionary. Screw up a few times, you're gone; I'll go with the devil I don't know over the one I already know (I stumbled over that, but I'm reversing a well-known phrase for effect and it was bound to be clunky). He took a big chance on Plummer, and in my opinion everything was working... until he allegedly bombed in the AFC Championship (you can't ignore that the whole team was awful, but the QB took the heat). Somewhere in Plummer's three meaningful years there, Shanahan lost his edge and just started booting people. Bertrand Berry and Trevor Pryce are two good examples (though Pryce may have been gone before Plummer arrived, I can't remember). The rotating door at RB is perhaps the only area where Shanahan was trying to be proactive... but he let his past success with Terrell Davis boost his ego to the point where he thought he could do it again, and it never really panned out (and he never gave it the chance to, either).

Josh McDaniels? He has his issues, but his moves have been proactive. Remember, moving Cutler was always his idea, it just didn't work out the way he initially planned. He is Belicheck-esque in his demeanor: he's the boss, if you're going to run your mouth, you can do it somewhere else. That's why Cutler, Marshall and Scheffler are out of town despite their talent. But you know what? McDaniels isn't going to wait for their "talent" to let us down to get rid of them (and let's be honest, what did those clowns do for Denver while they were here? Three 8-8 seasons? Some talent.).

Long story short: Even if Josh McDaniels is wrong, at least he's making proactive moves he feels are necessary, rather than  (abrupt end of post)

NOW:

Well, I never got to expound on why I thought Tim Tebow himself was a good pick for the Broncos, but I probably didn't even know.  But today, here's where I stand:

I'm a card-carrying member of Tebowmania, way more so than at the time of the original post, except for that there is no club, no memberships and no cards.  Still, I'm sold, I hoped he would remain a Bronco, but Elway's ego got in the way.  Hey, I'm looking forward to the Manning era in Denver, no doubt, I only hoped Tebow could be the back up and learn from the master.  But I got to see Tebow play the Steelers in the playoffs in person, got to see the overtime victory, got to see the great run of wins that shouldn't have been.  Tebow has swagger, and his inspiration is his faith.  I want to see great things happen for him, and I want to see him do great things.

I stand by my comments about Shanahan.  He's still washed up, and he shouldn't have been so quick to shove Plummer down the stairs.

I was wrong about McDaniels, though not entirely so.  Cutler, Marshall and Scheffler, I'm still not fans of theirs.  But McDaniels did a poor job of replacing them--his draft picks didn't hold up.  I guess I can still admire his pluck, even if he was wrong, he did it his way (or Belichick's way, or something, or whatever).

Hopefully Elway and Fox know what they're doing, and hopefully Manning leads the Broncos to the playoffs each of his five years under his contract.