Why don’t we talk about what we know October 31, 2008

It seems a lot of pundits, and that could include sportscasters or political pundits, spend a lot of time writing about what could happen. So and so has better defense, but the other team has a great QB and overall, so and so is going to win. Exhibit A: “Which Obama Could America Get?” by Stuart Taylor Jr in the National Journal Magazine. Exhibit B: “Why McCain Will Lose” by James Carville in the Financial Times. Exhibit C: “For Many Americans, Tuesday Will Be a Leap of Faith” by Chuck Raasch. I suppose these sorts of things have value especially in politics. I don’t think it’s worth anything in sports (sorry!). Or at least not worth spending more than 30 seconds to decide. People want to know what WILL happen. Because we live linearly–there is no way to predict because, as they say, time will reveal itself. Is that how they say it? Anyway, people want assurances–what will happen if they vote for Obama? And no one really knows. Electing a president IS a leap of faith. Hopefully you know them well because you know their history. They’ve said stuff and made promises–hopefully they are trustworthy, but ultimately, we don’t know what they’ll do once we elect them. That’s why I think we should talk about what we know. Then we stuff happens, we can decide if it’s what we want or not, because we’ll have something to compare it to i.e. our ideas.