September 12, 2008
Corner Pic
Instead of droning on to myself everyday about the Electoral College, I was thinking maybe I'd just try to keep this picture up here in the upper right corner and keep it updated. I'm not married to it, though, so feel free to rebel. Peace.
Oh, and btw, when I said yesterday I thought the election was about 70-30? Yep, I'm a badass.
Oh, and btw, when I said yesterday I thought the election was about 70-30? Yep, I'm a badass.
September 11, 2008
Palin Drops the Ball
I just saw part of the first interview Palin has done since becoming the VP nominee, and she couldn't answer a question about the Bush Doctrine (pre-emptive strike) because she didn't know what it was.
UPDATE: From a 538 commenter:
"I am shocked with the reviews of Palin's interview yesterday. Had it been Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden or any of the people on McCain's short list (Romney, Lieberman or Pawlenty) we would not be hearing things like, "it wasn't a disaster but it wasn't a home run either" or "she passed". We would be saying they are wholly unqualified to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. This is not a high school exam, this is possibly running the most powerful country on earth!
I feel just like I felt when we found out Iraq didn't have any WMDs and that the war was based on a lie - completely and utterly powerless."
UPDATE: From a 538 commenter:
"I am shocked with the reviews of Palin's interview yesterday. Had it been Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden or any of the people on McCain's short list (Romney, Lieberman or Pawlenty) we would not be hearing things like, "it wasn't a disaster but it wasn't a home run either" or "she passed". We would be saying they are wholly unqualified to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. This is not a high school exam, this is possibly running the most powerful country on earth!
I feel just like I felt when we found out Iraq didn't have any WMDs and that the war was based on a lie - completely and utterly powerless."
Undecided voters = unicorns?
Not that I'm trusting National Geographic for election coverage, but this was kind of interesting:
"Undecided" Voters' Minds Already Made Up, Study Says
It supports one of the bedrock ideas behind my attitude towards (and frustration with) Presidential campaigns: Undecided voters don't exist.
Well, they exist, certainly, but not in the numbers that this or any Presidential race would lead us to believe. Especially at a time when the country is so polarized, especially in an election between two fundamentally different candidates, I just don't believe that there are enough people out there who (a) are registered to vote (b) will actually leave their houses on election day, and (c) genuinely don’t know at this point which candidate or party they prefer, to make an inpact on the outcome of the party faithfuls’ vote. In order to be a true undecided in this day and age, you have to feel neutral about so many fundamental issues, like abortion, the economy, and Iraq. Neutral or apathetic, I suppose, and if you’re truly apathetic you’re not going make the effort to vote anyway.
I think that campaigns are (or should) be more about motivating people to actually vote than convincing them to choose you over the other guy. Understanding why your vote counts, how democracy works, and how important it is (how elected officials effect your day-to-day life, forexample) is a bi-(or non-)partisan issue. I was actually more excited about this aspect of Obama’s campaign – the fact that a record number of people voted in the primary, that he got demographics (blacks, young people) out to the polls who hadn’t been there before – than any other, but I feel like it’s been lost since the primaries.
Thoughts?
"Undecided" Voters' Minds Already Made Up, Study Says
It supports one of the bedrock ideas behind my attitude towards (and frustration with) Presidential campaigns: Undecided voters don't exist.
Well, they exist, certainly, but not in the numbers that this or any Presidential race would lead us to believe. Especially at a time when the country is so polarized, especially in an election between two fundamentally different candidates, I just don't believe that there are enough people out there who (a) are registered to vote (b) will actually leave their houses on election day, and (c) genuinely don’t know at this point which candidate or party they prefer, to make an inpact on the outcome of the party faithfuls’ vote. In order to be a true undecided in this day and age, you have to feel neutral about so many fundamental issues, like abortion, the economy, and Iraq. Neutral or apathetic, I suppose, and if you’re truly apathetic you’re not going make the effort to vote anyway.
I think that campaigns are (or should) be more about motivating people to actually vote than convincing them to choose you over the other guy. Understanding why your vote counts, how democracy works, and how important it is (how elected officials effect your day-to-day life, forexample) is a bi-(or non-)partisan issue. I was actually more excited about this aspect of Obama’s campaign – the fact that a record number of people voted in the primary, that he got demographics (blacks, young people) out to the polls who hadn’t been there before – than any other, but I feel like it’s been lost since the primaries.
Thoughts?
Hi
Hi guys,
Thanks for inviting me to contribute!
Just wanted to share two links to begin with: my blog (katiesprobablybored.blogspot.com), which is mostly rantings about Palin, ravings about how much I like TV, and links to New York Times articles I like; and a New York Times article I like - it's a really long but fascinating look at Obama's economic policy - really helped to clarify some issues for me.
-Katie
Thanks for inviting me to contribute!
Just wanted to share two links to begin with: my blog (katiesprobablybored.blogspot.com), which is mostly rantings about Palin, ravings about how much I like TV, and links to New York Times articles I like; and a New York Times article I like - it's a really long but fascinating look at Obama's economic policy - really helped to clarify some issues for me.
-Katie
Discussion Topic: Drilling
What about this article do the American people NOT understand??
I find it clearly explores and highlights some of the issues that continuously baffle me, such as
-Palin and her lies
-oil dependence (foreign or otherwise): independence from foreign nations, still on oil rather than alternative energy solutions
-the ineffectiveness of drilling: not a long-term solution, not even a short-term fix
I find it clearly explores and highlights some of the issues that continuously baffle me, such as
-Palin and her lies
-oil dependence (foreign or otherwise): independence from foreign nations, still on oil rather than alternative energy solutions
-the ineffectiveness of drilling: not a long-term solution, not even a short-term fix
September 09, 2008
Discussion Topic: Senate
The Democrats have an outside shot at a filibuster-proof 60 senators. Let's assume Barack Obama wins the election. Is having one party, even if it is your party, with full control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency a good idea?
September 08, 2008
If you listen carefully, she didn't lie.
"And I told the Congress thanks, but no thanks, on that Bridge to Nowhere."
That's true, except there was a little bit more space in between the "thanks" (read: "please") and the "no thanks." Enough time for her to campaign for it as a gubernatorial candidate.
Cause for Concern
I'll try and get to the point for once: one source of confidence we all have going forward is that on October 2 at Wash U, Joe Biden will spin circles around Sarah Palin so fast she won't even know if Russia is still the country next door to Alaska.
But I saw Biden on "Meet the Press" yesterday. Two things were clear: he knows what he's talking about, and he doesn't know how to talk about the stuff he knows. He ran his mouth too long and presented answers that weren't to the point enough and didn't seal the argument the way he needed to. Essentially, he may well have the same problem Kerry did: by the time he's done with his answer, those still awake won't have any idea what he was trying to say, and then his opponent will have the opportunity to make a quick jab and score the point.
Here's a conversation as I see it going down:
Moderator: Do you still favor negotiating with Iran without preconditions?
Biden: Well, look Bob/John/Steve/Chris/Tom/whomever, it's dangerous not to talk to these countries! It's dangerous to just push these guys around in the name of American ignorance and not give them a voice. And we're doing the same thing with Syria. And this president won't meet with them. And see Tom/Dick/Harry, that's our problem, we've got a ticket we're running against that actually thinks policies like this are a good idea. If we want to meet our goals, we have to talk to Ahmadinejad and see what he wants. (Optional 45 seconds more of unrelated ranting)
Moderator: Governor Palin, your response?
Palin: See what he wants?! You know, for all his experience Joe Biden is still living in a naive fantasy world. In today's dangerous times, when Muslim extremists are trying to attack our country, the Democrats just want to sit down to tea with these guys and see how they're feeling. John McCain won't be appeasing the terrorists, he'll be defending our country, which is what he'll always do, because he'd rather see John McCain lose than see America lose.
But I saw Biden on "Meet the Press" yesterday. Two things were clear: he knows what he's talking about, and he doesn't know how to talk about the stuff he knows. He ran his mouth too long and presented answers that weren't to the point enough and didn't seal the argument the way he needed to. Essentially, he may well have the same problem Kerry did: by the time he's done with his answer, those still awake won't have any idea what he was trying to say, and then his opponent will have the opportunity to make a quick jab and score the point.
Here's a conversation as I see it going down:
Moderator: Do you still favor negotiating with Iran without preconditions?
Biden: Well, look Bob/John/Steve/Chris/Tom/whomever, it's dangerous not to talk to these countries! It's dangerous to just push these guys around in the name of American ignorance and not give them a voice. And we're doing the same thing with Syria. And this president won't meet with them. And see Tom/Dick/Harry, that's our problem, we've got a ticket we're running against that actually thinks policies like this are a good idea. If we want to meet our goals, we have to talk to Ahmadinejad and see what he wants. (Optional 45 seconds more of unrelated ranting)
Moderator: Governor Palin, your response?
Palin: See what he wants?! You know, for all his experience Joe Biden is still living in a naive fantasy world. In today's dangerous times, when Muslim extremists are trying to attack our country, the Democrats just want to sit down to tea with these guys and see how they're feeling. John McCain won't be appeasing the terrorists, he'll be defending our country, which is what he'll always do, because he'd rather see John McCain lose than see America lose.
Making Links
If this is too much work, I totally understand, but I figured I'd put it out there.
To make links on the comment page (why the same linking option doesn't appear to be available is beyond me) do the following.
Say you have a sentence like "... you should read this article to ..." and you want "this article" to be the link to, say, www.bob.com. Type the following:
read (a href="http://www.bob.com")this article(/a) to
(except you need <>'s instead of ()'s)
Not too much to it, just (a href="URL") and then (/a) once your linked text is over.
For reference, you can also use (b) (/b) for bold, (i) (/i) for italics, etc, as long as you use <>'s
To make links on the comment page (why the same linking option doesn't appear to be available is beyond me) do the following.
Say you have a sentence like "... you should read this article to ..." and you want "this article" to be the link to, say, www.bob.com. Type the following:
read (a href="http://www.bob.com")this article(/a) to
(except you need <>'s instead of ()'s)
Not too much to it, just (a href="URL") and then (/a) once your linked text is over.
For reference, you can also use (b) (/b) for bold, (i) (/i) for italics, etc, as long as you use <>'s
September 07, 2008
Creating new context for childhood icons
New perspectives on a few characters who have shaped many childhoods:
- Garfield Minus Garfield
- The Nietzsche Family Circus
- Japanese Mario Fan Art (explore the links on the right side of the main page)
Rude Awakening
My brother called me Friday night. He was volunteering with the Obama campaign on Saturday afternoon and wanted me to join him. Finally, he got me to go.
It turns out we'd be canvassing, going door-to-door to visit registered voters who aren't registered with either party. The guy who was in charge of us didn't know where we were going.
Honestly, I don't know every neighborhood in the whole St. Louis area. But, of those I know, if someone had asked me to name the most conservative neighborhood I knew, I'd have said the Winghaven neighborhood. And Winghaven is where we went.
Many people were polite, but seemed uneasy that I was even on their doorstep. Some said they were undecided, though it was clear they just couldn't admit to my face they supported McCain. Here's what really killed me: a few said they would vote and were currently undecided. When I asked if I could clarify or answer any questions about Obama's positions on any of the issues (or McCain's) I got a "no" every time. How are you undecided, yet don't want any more information on the issues?
One woman was nice enough I guess but an ardent Republican. As we walked away, she shouted "I hope your guy loses!"
The best, was when I knocked on the door of one couple in their younger 30's. The wife answered the door, spitting out an angry "NObama" before I could finish my 3-4 second speech, the husband just shouted "Obama's an asshole!" from his couch as loud as he could, and then the wife told us we needed to get off the property right away, even suggesting we should "run." I was just pissed. We were so polite. Whatever.
I was offered a glimmer of hope when the woman at the second-last house on our 90-house roster was an ardent Obama supporter. Her hushed tones as she gushed for him made it seem like she was operating an underground railroad station. Guessing she was in her late 50's or early 60's (though her obvious smoking habit may have added a few years) she talked about how she sees Kennedy in him, and how depressing it was living it that neighborhood. Honestly, just seeing us invigorated her so much. But every Obama supporter I talked to yesterday, from the campaign office to the homes, has said nothing as energized their Obama support like Sarah Palin's speech. I watch pieces of it whenever I want to get angry. You've probably heard (I'm not sure of the exact numbers) that McCain-Palin raised something like $1.5 million in the 24 hrs after her speech, but that Obama-Biden raised about $10 million. That's all I've got.
It turns out we'd be canvassing, going door-to-door to visit registered voters who aren't registered with either party. The guy who was in charge of us didn't know where we were going.
Honestly, I don't know every neighborhood in the whole St. Louis area. But, of those I know, if someone had asked me to name the most conservative neighborhood I knew, I'd have said the Winghaven neighborhood. And Winghaven is where we went.
Many people were polite, but seemed uneasy that I was even on their doorstep. Some said they were undecided, though it was clear they just couldn't admit to my face they supported McCain. Here's what really killed me: a few said they would vote and were currently undecided. When I asked if I could clarify or answer any questions about Obama's positions on any of the issues (or McCain's) I got a "no" every time. How are you undecided, yet don't want any more information on the issues?
One woman was nice enough I guess but an ardent Republican. As we walked away, she shouted "I hope your guy loses!"
The best, was when I knocked on the door of one couple in their younger 30's. The wife answered the door, spitting out an angry "NObama" before I could finish my 3-4 second speech, the husband just shouted "Obama's an asshole!" from his couch as loud as he could, and then the wife told us we needed to get off the property right away, even suggesting we should "run." I was just pissed. We were so polite. Whatever.
I was offered a glimmer of hope when the woman at the second-last house on our 90-house roster was an ardent Obama supporter. Her hushed tones as she gushed for him made it seem like she was operating an underground railroad station. Guessing she was in her late 50's or early 60's (though her obvious smoking habit may have added a few years) she talked about how she sees Kennedy in him, and how depressing it was living it that neighborhood. Honestly, just seeing us invigorated her so much. But every Obama supporter I talked to yesterday, from the campaign office to the homes, has said nothing as energized their Obama support like Sarah Palin's speech. I watch pieces of it whenever I want to get angry. You've probably heard (I'm not sure of the exact numbers) that McCain-Palin raised something like $1.5 million in the 24 hrs after her speech, but that Obama-Biden raised about $10 million. That's all I've got.