Friday, October 29, 2004
Surprise, the Democratic Candidate Resurrects Kennedy. Second Surprise, it Works this Time.It's part of the election year script, after all. The Democratic candidate compared the current Republican candidate to Kennedy. This time, however, the comparison was fair, and results in an incredible contrast. First, if anyone can find the text of yesterday's speech, please forward it to me. I can't find the whole speech, but I heard a snippet on NPR, and it was so brilliant it nearly brought me to tears. Democrats would typically want Americans to forget that the Bay of Pigs was linked to JFK, but Kerry brought up this blight on the Democratic record on purpose. Because when the Bay of Pigs met its catastrophic failure, JFK went before the nation and said, "I am responsible." He did not skirt the blame, or, as some might call it, he did not "stand resolute amid the chorus of critics." He shut everyone up by saying he was wrong to do it. WOW. JFK had a little thing called accountability. And JFK could have very easily blamed bad intelligence because that is exactly why the Bay of Pigs failed. Kennedy believed his intelligence reports that said the Cuban populace would rise up and join the Americans. They didn't. American soldiers were slaughtered. Kennedy took responsibility. But when Iraq failed--and it has, miserably--Bush has never come before the nation and taken responsibility for the mayhem, confusion, and death. Nor has he taken responsibility for his bad intelligence. Instead he blamed the intelligence gatherers, and has stood resolute amid the ... blah blah blah. I was saddened yesterday to watch two guys go at it in the comments of this blog. One is an old friend, and one is someone I like (and agree with) but have never met. What saddened me is that in the face of such an utter preponderance of evidence--of truth--that some people simply cannot, or will not, see it. In an effort to keep an open mind, I tell myself that Bush supporters say the same things about liberals. They think we cannot see what is plainly true. The difference between the two, however, a difference that I am seeing as an absolute constant in this referrendum on Bush, is that us liberals offer facts, while the conservatives can only offer platitudes, and attack our attitudes. (Hey, that rhymes.) For conservatives, the plain truth based on facts is that liberals are simply out to "get Bush." To support this theory, they offer lots of facts. Well, duh! Yes we are out to get Bush! And that is based on our plain truth, which is that Bush has been an abysmal failure. And to support that, we can offer facts as well. Egad. I'm ranting. Four more days ...
Thursday, October 28, 2004
A Voice of ReasonAnd from whence does it come? Nowhere but from an "American Conservative Magazine" article. I'm actually jealous of what a good writer this guy Scott McConnell is. I wish I had his chops. In a way, he explains why Bush's administration will serve as a lynch pin of American History. But he also goes on to explain how this won't be a good thing. Quote: " ... it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy." Actually, ever paragraph I read could be quoted. Please follow the link and enjoy.
The Little Conspiracy that Couldn'tThe Swift Boaters were at it again earlier this week when they tried to summon a conspiracy against Kerry. Conservative bloggers all over the place pounced on the notion with all the forethought a puppy has when pouncing on its vittles. Here's what allegedly happened: Jerome Corsi (Swift Boat Veteran for Truth) and his buddy went to the Vietnam War Archive and uncovered this document. It is a circular distributed within Vietnamese communists in Vietnam wherein they are given an update on the anti-war movements within the U.S. It gives strategic direction on how to instruct, influence these anti-war people. File this under "Obvious." If you read it, you will not find Kerry's name mentioned. Nor will you find the "Vietnam Veterans Against the War," which was Kerry's group, mentioned. The circular particularly targets two other groups. The second document is considered the "Smoking Gun," but it just isn't. The top of the document says DIRECTIVE, and it actually is a directive, but the first half of the memo recounts issues that have already happened. They talk about protests that Kerry was involved with, and that Vietnam Vets threw away their medals. Then it says "Taking advantage of this occasion, all local areas should do the following:" and the actual directive begins. What Corsi and the vets are implying, is that the anti-war movement in the United States was somehow part of the machinations of the Communist endeavor, and that Kerry was a cog in that machine. But here's the rub. Although this "breaking news" was plastered all over the internet, and on many conservative blogs. The best this "news" could do was make it to the NY Sun. In that article, they merely imply that Vietnam Communists approved of Kerry's anti-war activities. Well, duh? Of course they did. But implying that this means that Kerry was wrong is argumentum ad hominem. Just because communists like it doesn't mean it's bad, people. Kerry's anti-war activities were legitimate, valid, and I think--good. Wake up and smell the 21st Century Swift Boaters. Communism isn't a menace anymore. So ... the news that the blogosphere inferred from this never actually bubbled up to the legitimate press. Why? Because beneath all the foam, there is actually very little beer. What Corsi managed to cobble together was a series of dotted lines that vaguely form a shape of a conspiracy--the worst of which would mean that Kerry was unwittingly a rube 33 years ago. There is no story here. Go back to what you were doing. The scary thing is, it almost became a story by virtue of the madness of the crowd among whom this information was passing. Case in point. Wizbang says, and I quote: "I have not even read this yet so I can't make any judgments on its merits." But because it was kibbles, they bit. It was posted and the meme spread faster than the bit about Richard Gere's evening with the gerbil. Conservatives will say that this story never made it to the mainstream press because of a liberal bias. Yawn. The Conservatives will also point to "Rathergate" and say that the Liberal press pounced on THAT story. Correct, but that is different. The memo used by Dan Rather in that story would have been an actual smoking gun, and later it turned out to be falsified. Corsi's memo is real, but it is not a smoking gun. It's more like a ... steaming yo-yo.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Oh, this is rich ...Today George W. Bush responded to Kerry's attacks about the lost munitions by saying, "A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief." Amen, my forgetful Commander-in-Chief, amen! GWB did not know the facts about Iraq before jumping to conclusions, which led to over 11,000 people dead and hundreds of billions of American dollars wasted. Therefore, by George's own advise, we should not vote for him. Case closed.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
This is how much I want Kerry to WinI will shave my head with the #1 clipper setting and post a picture here if GWB wins the election. IF (and only if) a GWB supporter agrees to do the same if Kerry wins, and will supply me with a digital picture. I don't have any particular GWB supporter in mind, but if your name begins with "T" and ends with "odd" ... you are certainly welcome to participate. (And yes, I'll allow you to post my pic on your blog if GWB wins.) Any takers?
Monday, October 25, 2004
Countdown to November 2ndSo far, this is the most empassioned (and exhausting) election of my lifetime. With eight days left before the big day, I am going to try to post every day to unleash my unholy anger upon the voting public. With nothing left but empty platitudes to justify his war in Iraq, George W. Bush has still not shown the kind of accountability the leader of the free world needs to have. He owes the world an apology. He owes the U.N. an apology. He owes the 11,000+ families of those who died because of his war an apology. His war has done egregious damage to our country, and yet he still stands with firm conviction that his actions have all been 100% correct. It baffles me that there are so many Bush supporters who are in favor of whooping ass on a country even though all the original justifications have been proven wrong. The only argument they have left is that "they might have attacked us." Not good enough, people. Wake up and smell the lack of an argument. Folks, it was a big country attacking a little country who did not deserve it based on the reasons GWB stated. It is very similar to the scenario when Iraq attacked Kuwait. And when that happened, the U.S. marched in to save them because Iraq was the bad guys. In the words of George Herbert Walker Bush: "This aggression will not stand." And in regard to GWB's unchecked aggression, I will quote "The Dude:" "This aggression will not stand, man." For anyone who wants the strongest nation in history to keep its integrity, I ask all of you to vote for Kerry next Tuesday.
Friday, October 22, 2004
Kerry Grows Beard Overnight!In an effort of one-upsmanship in the battle with Bush over who is the bigger he-man, Senator John Kerry made a show of force by not shaving one day. His thick burly beard proves his testosterone levels are certainly high ... (Kidding aside, this picture appeared in an article in Yahoo! News today. Ummm what were they thinking?)
A Very Zesty EnterpriseAfter yesterday's overly cerebral post, I'm happy to bring it down about 8 notches by making public my new penis name. By following the link provided by Chuck, I found that my penis is named for my most favorite movie!
|Your Penis Name is: Big Lebowski|
F'n A, man!
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Our God-Inspired PresidentGeorge W. Bush has made it clear that he gets his direction from The Lord. If anyone doubts this, just say so and I will show the facts to back up this assertion. But I will assume that this is a given: the President believes he is doing The Lord's will. Okay? Okay. For many religious people, this is a positive change to our political climate. In their minds, there have been too many godless men leading the country, so it's about time that a man have God's interest in mind when directing the nation. Others treat the President’s feelings on this issue with respect. After all, we are all free to have our beliefs, right? How many powerful leaders in history have believed they were doing the Lord's will? Prior to the industrial revolution, nearly all of them claimed to be the hand of God in some form. This "God-inspired" leadership led to such things as the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, etc. Our founding fathers were smart enough to see that the link between the hand of God and a powerful leader was a dangerous one. Because of that, they specifically crafted the constitution to make it difficult for a leader to unilaterally define The Lord’s will. Smart thinking! This bright notion, however, has waxed and waned throughout America’s history. Right now it is barely a crescent. When JFK ran for President, he almost didn’t win because of his Catholic affiliations. Namely, Americans feared he would take orders from the Pope. However, he made it clear that he wouldn’t be a Catholic President; he would be a President who happens to be Catholic. The difference was subtle. He was saying he would put his duties as a President before his loyalties as a Catholic. Another fine example of this difference can be found in Abraham Lincoln. Here is an excerpt from the book Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents by Franklin Steiner (1936): “I am not a Christian -- God knows I would be one but I have carefully read the Bible, and I do not understand this book … These men know that I am for freedom in the territories, freedom everywhere as far as the Constitution and the laws will permit, and that my opponents are for slavery. They know this, and yet, with this book in their hands, in the light of which human bondage cannot live a moment, they are going to vote against me. I do not understand it at all.'” Abraham Lincoln put his duties as President first. He clearly had the desire to “be a Christian” but his own convictions—-based on the realities of his day—-drove his policies. The danger posed by a leader who seeks god’s will is when the following parameters are true: 1. When "God’s will" is put before facts. 2. When dialog about "God's will" is not allowed. 3. When "God’s will" is put before basic humanistic principles like those found in our Constitution. I think the current President’s overt insertion of religion (namely the public announcement that he prays to seek the Lord’s Will) into his policy-making decisions is not healthy for our nation because all three of the above parameters are flagged as "true" in my opinion. By feeling safe in knowing that George W. Bush is doing "The Lord's will," one must assume that George W. Bush's ability to hear "The Lord" is perfect. Otherwise, George W. Bush may insert his own will into his actions and believe that it is The Lord's will. In fact, it was GWB’s own will that wanted to attack Iraq, even though in the book “Plan of Attack,” he said of his decision to attack Iraq: “Going into this period, I was praying for strength to do the Lord’s will…I’m surely not going to justify the war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case, I pray to be as good a messenger of his will as possible.” The Lord guided him to attack Iraq because, at least as he stated, Iraq had WMD’s and ties to Al Quaeda. But George W. Bush did not want to debate this. As found in this article, (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?pagewanted=all&position=&oref=regi) George Bush called together a group of congress members and said, "Look, I want your vote. I’m not going to debate it with you." And when one of the senators began to ask a question, Bush snapped, "Look, I’m not going to debate it with you." Clearly, facts were not a concern for George Bush. And it’s a shame, too, because the facts have clearly pointed out since then that Iraq had no WMDs, and had no ties to Al Quaeda. George W. Bush put "God’s will" before facts. George W. Bush attacked Iraq because he thought God wanted him to. This is the worst of all possible reasons to fight terrorism. Terrorists, after all, have enough faith to strap bombs to themselves and kill innocents because it is "God’s will." Abraham Lincoln’s contemporaries thought slavery was "God’s will." Clearly a man can think he is doing "God’s will" and be wrong. Furthermore, by bringing God into the equation, he is taking America down to the level of our terrorist enemies and validating their jihad as an issue of Allah vs. Jehovah, instead of fanaticism vs. basic human rights issues. If he waged his war on Terrorism on the basis of principles (human rights) instead of religion ("Axis of Evil"), we might have a chance to win the war because we are forcing the fanatics (and the world) to view it in a more sane arena that can be discussed. Instead, the President who claims he is the most qualified at battling terrorism is really fomenting terrorism by keeping the battle in the arena of religious ideals, which cannot be discussed. But it's all in the name of the Lord ...
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
To Whom It May ConcernIf you're the person who found my website by searching for "Calvin pissing on kerry," I'd first like to scold you for not capitalizing Kerry. Secondly, I'm curious why you were searching for this. Were you hoping to find a means to purchase a sticker to put on your car? If so, were you hoping that such a sticker would: A) Convince others to vote for Kerry B) Convince others to become Calvinists C) Just be funny because no one had ever seen Calvin pissing on something before? I can't imagine the mental calisthenics you must have gone through to come up with this brilliant idea. "Calvin pissing on ... Hmmm what don't I like ... Osama bin Laden? No, I've seen that. Saddam Hussein? Naw, who cares. Tubby girls? No, I might actually regret that one ... Ummmmmmmmm ... I know! kerry!"
Recurring NightmareIn 2000 the Florida voting debacle was truly a national nightmare, and people who still look at the current administration with a jaundiced eye because of it. Unfortunately, nothing substantial was done to reform our voting process. Sadly, it comes as no surprise that there are several instances of voter fraud bubbling up in the news. I started doing some internet searches and found so many instances where fraud is being alleged, that it was depressing. Very damn depressing. The burning question is this: did last election's fiasco cause undue scrutiny into this election? Is that why there are so voting cheaters being discovered? If that's the case, have there always been this much of a problem? If that's *not* the case, then why is there such a horrid problem now? I think Americans have been lulled into a state of complacency. We hear "voter fraud" and in our minds it is a low-brow, archaic practice like ballet-box stuffing that happens in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, or Nazi Germany. In today's U.S., however, the process of voting has become so damn complicated that in an election as close as the one we're about to have, tiny illegal and complex tweaks--potential hanging chads dotting the countryside--can have a scale-tipping effect on the outcome of this election. And it IS happening. If you do a search in any major online news organization for "vote AND fraud" you will find scores of issues all over the United States. Ironically, you will also find many articles coming out of Afghanistan--the democracy that we just "created." God bless America. What have we become? Whoever wins will be faced with the responsibility of vote reform: - Get rid of the Electoral College - Make registration easy, instant, and verifiable - Have the polls open and close at the same time nationwide Freedom and democracy are subject to entropy. We need to fight to keep them.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
This t-shirt is available from the Curmudgeon in Training here Timely, refined, poignant. (hehehe!)
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Ohio in the FallYa know, I've been less than kind to Ohio in my previous descriptions. Today one of the execs was driving us back to the customer site and took a detour. After a few minutes, we found ourselves driving through the back woods of suburban Cleveland, and pretty soon, rural Ohio. "Ron, where are you taking me? I feel like I'm in an episode of the Sopranos." He just smiled and kept driving. I've been on the west coast most of my life, and otherwise lived in Colorado, Nevada, and Oregon, where the trees are mostly evergreen. Never have I seen such a beautiful array of the turning trees of autumn. The bronzes, the coppers, the orange, yellows. Oh my, it was truly beautiful. Flying home tomorrow though. Back to smoggy L.A. Can't wait. :)
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Real-Time Debate BlogI'm here watching the debate, giving you my blow-by-blow description ... LIVE on The Meat of The Matter! OK, so you won't see them until I publish them at the end of the debate, but hey ... at least my news will be given at "Internets Speed." 1. Blue Suits. Red Ties. They must have called each other before the debate! 2. Bush is trying a little to hard to smile, and thus smiling at times that aren't appropriate. Later, Kerry does too. 3. Question 2: President Bush asked the younger people to not get a flu vaccine so they could prioritize who gets the vaccine. I'm 42. Am I elderly enough to get a flu vaccine this year? Kerry's response to the question was very effective, and George's rebuttal was pretty good too. Except Bush had a little fleck of spittle gathering at the corner of his mouth (truly) so unfortunately no one heard it. 4. Oooh more spittle fleck, mixed with insincere smile. Bad news for Bush. Maybe it's just the lighting?? It's not going away!! This is clear evidence that Carl Rove is NOT speaking into his ear because if he was, he'd say "Mr. President, wipe your mouth." 5. Kerry: "Being lectured about fiscal reponsibility by this president is a lot like Tony Soprano lecturing on Law & Order." Zing! 6. Kerry's bit about outsourcing was just outstanding. This man clearly has a command of his topics. So far Kerry is clearly the winner. But the night is young ... 7. Why ask a question about gay marriage if both candidates are going to spout the same pablum? Bah! Their answers were both effete and worthless. 8. Bush's description about Health Care problems was intelligent. His solution really started slipping though. Health Care doesn't use Information Technology? How does he figure? Kerry's description was even better because he dealt in specifics (no competition allowed for medicare drug spending). OK, did I see this right? The President interrupted the moderator to rebut a statement about health care. He said Kerry had "no record" for health care reform, but then (surprise!) the moderator gave Senator Kerry 30 seconds. While Senator Kerry was saying he had actually authored 57 health care bills, President Bush looked at the moderator as if to say "I didn't know you would give him a chance to talk." 9. OOoops! President Bush started to say, "In my opinion it's not really credible to quote leading newspapers--Oh nevermind." Then he chuckled in a very juvenile way. What a dork!! He showed his hand, but was afraid to really say it because he was afraid of pissing off "leading newspapers." 10. Kerry's command of the facts regarding salvaging social security was far more impressive than the President's. 11. Finally the spittle is gone. Phew. That was a bad break for Bush. 12. I'm hearing consistently that Bush speaks in generalities (i.e. "the borders are tighter.", and Kerry speaks using hard facts ("4,000 people cross the border every day.") 13. Kerry's answer on Roe v. Wade was bold, and I respected it. Bush's answer equivocated and did not take a stand. 14. Kerry's answer on the assault weapons ban was excellent. He is *really* kicking ass in this debate. 15. Kerry accused Bush of not meeting the Black Congressional Caucus, or the NAACP. Bush replied that he DID meet with the BCC at the White House. We'll see tomorrow who was wrong. 16. Bush said that he prays a lot. Then he says his faith is personal. Then he says he prays a lot some more. Then he talks about his faith for a long time. Sorry, that's not "personal faith"; that is very public faith. 17. Kerry complimented Bush on this performance right after 9/11. Nice job, and well deserved. 18. Bush's daughters are hot. 19. In the end, I would call this a bit more of a victory for Kerry than the 2nd debate.
Egad!All the content in my sidebar vanished!
This ad says it allCheck this out, especially if you are undecided about who you are voting for. It beautifully illustrates the basic reason why I am voting against Bush on November 2nd.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Repeat PredictionOK, G.W. is down in the polls now, 49% to 48%. The last time I made a prediction, my crystal ball had not been polished. Well, I polished it. What I meant to predict is that at TOMORROW'S debate some new, damning accusation will come from the Republicans, attempting to soil the sterling reputation of Sen. Kerry. After all, it's the last debate, and there won't be another chance to lose face. I might be wrong, though. I hope I am.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Hello from Mason, OhioI'm here in Mason, Ohio (suburb of Cincinnati) until Wednesday when I drive to Painesville, Ohio (suberb of Cleveland) until Friday, when I fly home. The only good thing about this trip so far is the free XM radio I got in the Cadillac I rented. I've always wanted to try it. You can be assured that if anything interesting happens here, I'll be sure to post it. But don't hold your breath.
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Last Night's DebateMy overall impression of last night's debates was that it was, like the election, a dead heat. GW was less consistent, seeming at times practically shrill in his defenses, but at other times working the audience. For example, Kerry said he owned a lumber company, and Bush stood up and said, "really? That's news to me." Then he paused, and looked at the moderator and said, "Need some wood?" I thought that probably scored him some points. Although if it turns out he really DOES own a lumber company, subtract even more. I thought the director might have been a bit pro-Kerry. Here's why. When Kerry would say something pointed and accusing, the camera would zoom in on Bush (hoping for a scowl, perhaps?) But when Bush would say something DUMB, (Like "You gotta be right 100% of the time!") the camera would zoom in on Kerry, giving him a chance to smile sardonically in agreement. Here are a few other random notes: 1. Kerry and Bush re-enacted the SAME play as the last debate, ending with Kerry's zinger "I made a mistake with words. He made a mistake with invading Iraq." Did one of them forget that conversation prior? 2. Bush winked at someone in the audience. How statesmanly. 3. George Bush used the word "Internets." Hoohah! 4. Bush first blamed the current deficit on the fact that we are in a recession. THEN he said that his tax cut at the beginning of his incumbency made this the shortest recession in history. Huh? 5. When the moderator asked Bush to stop, Bush didn't and muscled his way into a few more seconds of grandstanding. When the moderator asked Kerry to stop, Kerry did. 6. GW tried to hoodwink all the stupid voters at the end of the debate. First GW accused Kerry of not voting against the partial birth abortion amendment. Then Kerry stood up and said it was because the bill did not make allowances to save the life of the mother, and that he could not vote for such a bill. This seemed like a damn good reason to me. Then GW got the last word and said, "Well you didn't vote against the partial birth abortion bill and that says it all." Not a snappy comeback, George. Anyway, I haven't read anything else yet, but it seems to me like last night's debate was sort of a wash. What I did learn was that these two candidates differ on one primary world viewpoint: Kerry sees the world as complex, resulting in more complex answers. Bush sees the world as simple, resulting in direct, simple, declarative soundbyte answers. If I make make a sweeping generalization, I would say the voters back the candidate who sees the world as they see it. And I guess I was wrong. Nothing came out of left field from the Bush campaign.
Friday, October 08, 2004
Tonight's DebateThis week has been chock-full o' bad news for the Bush campaign. 1. Bush finally admitted that the whole WMD thing was wrong. 2. Today's unemployment numbers showed weaker-than-expected results. 3. Tonight's debate is town-hall style. George will show that he can't think on his feet. Bush is expected to be very much on the defensive tonight, which would only make matters worse for him. Therefore, I predict that something -- SOMETHING -- out of left field will come from the Bush campaign and attack Kerry and/or Edwards tonight. They must shift the offensive back to their side or their downward trend will continue. You heard it here first, folks. "Something" is going to happen tonight! I for one will be watching and taking notes.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
More Non-political FodderI was just reminded of this story from a comment Chuck made to me on his blog. File this one under "incredibly stupid things people do in corporate America." I used to work for a very large healthcare organization. I found out that one of my employees was printing out company business cards calling himself "Dr. Robert Namewithheld." Since after inheriting this employee (I did not hire him), I knew he was a compulsive liar in a very serious and psychotic way. We had already discovered that he had lied about his education on his resume, but HR was too chicken to allow us to fire him. "Ah ha!" I thought, when I found out he was portraying himself as a doctor. "This is my way of firing this weirdo." My boss and I called him into our office and inquired about his Doctoral status. He said he wasn't lying, and that he had just achieved his doctorate. I asked him what his doctorate was in and he replied "Divinity." I had gone to seminary myself, so I was curious which seminary he went to. "ULC," he said. "What's that stand for?" I asked. He couldn't remember what it stood for. Warning flag! He said I could look it up on the web. My boss and I excused him and as soon as he left, I also excused myself and told my boss I would be back in a moment. My hunch was correct: I came back in two minutes as an Ordained Minister from the Universal Life Church. W00t! Even after hearing this story, Human Resources STILL wouldn't let us fire Mr. Namewithheld, because he actually had gotten a Doctorate degree (pay $50 and you can too). I guess it didn't matter that it was not from an accredited institution. But they did say we could make him stop passing out the cards saying he was a Doctor. Crazy ass people in this world. Oh yeah. Chuck is ordained by them too!
Fair WarningIn about 27 days, "The Meat of the Matter" is most likely going to change focus entirely. Until that time, there is nothing more important for me to think about or write about or act upon than our national election. But I must admit that I'm growing weary of all the politics. Unless something unforeseen happens (like another botched election, or Nader wins) I will, on November 3rd or so, switch my focus to the real meat of the matter, which is love, art, music, poetry, literature, and humanity. That is, if it's still allowed. What you have been reading up until this point has actually be "The Spam of the Matter." Thank you. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Last Night's DebateThe headlines are calling it a draw, and that's how I saw it too. Apparently both sides told half-truths and distorted truths. Cheney looked incredibly composed and relaxed albeit hangdog and stodgy. Next to him Edwards looked a little flighty. Also, Edwards eyes were doing weird things. It's possible the bright lights were bothering him but it looked wierd. (I'm seeing this through the eyes of people to whom these things matter.) My theory is that Cheney had smoked a dube and that Edwards is on Belladonna. The only thing that got my blood boiling was Edwards' equivocation on the gay marriage issue. He brings up Cheney's gay daughter (Hello? Who cares?) and then says he and Kerry believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman BUT that gay people should be treated with respect blah blah blah. The moderator (I forget her name) asked the germane question: "Aren't you trying to have it both ways?" Edwards' answer: "Blah blah blah (yes) blah blah blah." Come on guys. Show some spine!
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
This is how Kerry is depicted at Landover Baptist!
Random Utopian MumblingsTruth be told, I'm feeling a bit ill, so this odd ecstatic moment I'm feeling might be composed of some weird chemical soup in my brain, but here it is: I think Kerry is going to win. I just feel it. The number of voters who registered was uncharacteristically high. My non-scientific reasoning is that only the people who are angered by Bush would feel compelled to actually vote when they otherwise wouldn't. The Gallup polls are correcting what was obviously flawed statistics posted before the debate. Now they are showing a dead heat. Imagine that. I'm thinking tonight's debate might get a few votes for very lame reasons. (But hey, a vote for whose prettier will still be a vote for the good guys in this case.) Bush is on the defensive. Let's keep it that way!
Monday, October 04, 2004
No Child's Behind LeftIn spite of the highest budget deficit in history, President Bush just signed another tax-cut. This one might have some lucky timing issues what with his own re-election vote being in 29 days and all. I was an English major, so I'm not sure the math is right, but Bush is spending roughly $1000 a second on the war in Iraq, yet cuts our taxes by $131,400,000,000. George! That could have paid for over 361 more years of war! Apparently his re-election is worth a hell of a lot of money. Our kids will be paying for it for the rest of their lives.
Firefox Rox!My web-surfing joy had recently become pure hell by using Internet Explorer by Microsoft. In spite of all my anti-pop-up, spam-blocking, virus-shield, bad-person-spanking software, my IE was about as untouched as a Hollywood Whore. So many ads were popping up I felt like I was playing whack-a-mole. Enter Firefox, stage left. Since then I've said "bye bye" to those problems -- ALL of them. But Firefox did not like my blog. It pushed all the content on the left sidebar to the bottom. But with some help from Perotheus, and my 12-year-old daughter, the blog is fixed. (Thank you sweetie! And thanks to you too, Pero!)
Friday, October 01, 2004
Oh Happy Day!I missed the debates last night. It was "Back to School" night and I found myself at an ice cream social on the grass in front of a tiny library at my kids' Catholic school in a tiny beach community of Southern California. When I had to choose between this activity and sitting at home watching the debates, I deliberated for about one nano-second. I knew that I would get a full recount this morning about what happened. I was right. Besides, this is my kids I'm talking about here ... This morning, everyone in blogdom is talking about the debate. Everyone (even Republican bloggers) is saying that Kerry clearly won. Oh happy day! To quote Martin Luther King: "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice."