VOTE FOR THESE PEOPLE! . . . and for me in 2008.
UNITED STATES PRESIDENT: George W. Bush. No 'lesser of two evils' in my opinion. I wholeheartedly support Bush and agree with him on all issues I consider major.
UNITED STATES VICE PRESIDENT: Dick Cheney. I'm not quite as passionate about Cheney as I am about Bush, but he won me over in the VP debate. And it would be kinda silly to endorse Bush without endorsing Cheney, since it's a paired ballot.
UNITES STATES SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS: Don McArthur-Self. Although I endorsed Alan Keyes for President in '96 and I agree with him on most of the issues, this year's campaign has caused me to doubt Keyes's character. The carpet-bagging issue, the slave reparations, and multiple other things leave a bad taste in my mouth. McArthur-Self agrees with my positions on abortion, the war on terror, Iraq, and many other things, so my endorsement goes to him as an official write-in candidate.
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE, ILLINOIS 2ND DISTRICT: Stephanie Kennedy Sailor. Unlike Bush vs Kerry, I believe that Kennedy vs Jackson is a lesser-of-two-evils style matchup. I don't agree with the Libertarian Party platform with respect to abortion, the war on terror, and many other things. But for one thing, I'm not sure whether Kennedy Sailor completely matches the platform, since her website does not details her platform on specific issues -- she is running completely on a small-government plank, which I agree with in theory. For another thing, I generally agree with the Libertarian Party more than I agree with the Democratic Party. Thing number three, I completely disagree with Jesse Jackson, Jr, on about every issue imaginable (although I would choose him over his father if forced). And thing number four and last, this is a binary decision -- the Republicans have failed to put up a candidate at all (paving the way for JOSH PERSONS 2008!), and there are no write-in candidates whatsoever.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Friday, October 29, 2004
Possible Sosa Trade?
Just got this via the Die Hard Cubs Fan Club group list:
I googled it, and here are some stories on the possible Sosa trade here and here. Both stories are especially interesting -- and I'm giving a little credence to them -- because one comes from the Chicago Tribune and the other comes from Newsday. The Chicago Tribune, Newsday and the Cubs (as well as the LA Times, WGN, and many other media outlets) are all owned by the Tribune Company.
This morning's Trib mentions a possible trade of Sosa
to the Mets, saying, "Cubs general manager Jim Hendry
declined comment on the Newsday report, but sources
said his tribune Co. bosses have told him to do
whatever it takes to find Sosa a new home."
The article goes on to suggest one possible trade
would include Cliff Floyd who would provide a lefty
bat in left field and a back up to Lee at first.
I see no way this happens. There is no way the Cubs
are better off replacing Alou with Floyd and losing
Sosa. I think the Cubs are more likely to eat a
portion of Sosa's contract than pick up a guy like
Floyd and his contract.
I googled it, and here are some stories on the possible Sosa trade here and here. Both stories are especially interesting -- and I'm giving a little credence to them -- because one comes from the Chicago Tribune and the other comes from Newsday. The Chicago Tribune, Newsday and the Cubs (as well as the LA Times, WGN, and many other media outlets) are all owned by the Tribune Company.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
RED SOX WIN! RED SOX WIN!
Not quite the Cubbies, but I'll take it :).
UPDATE: An article looking at the new champions from Chicagoans' perspectives here. From the Kansas City Star. *scratches head*
UPDATE: An article looking at the new champions from Chicagoans' perspectives here. From the Kansas City Star. *scratches head*
Monday, October 25, 2004
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Relatives
Just doing some random geneaological stuff, moving information from some family books into the computer. I'm tracking down names and histories on the Internet as I go. This guy is my dad's third cousin, and the Persons on this page is his father (Mark's, not my dad's).
I guess I'll have to see Silent Running now.
And I know I'm related to this guy somehow, although I haven't worked on my mother's side of the family yet.
As always, more updates as they come along.
I guess I'll have to see Silent Running now.
And I know I'm related to this guy somehow, although I haven't worked on my mother's side of the family yet.
As always, more updates as they come along.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Trib Backs Bush
The Chicago Tribune officially announces its backing of George W Bush here. They supported Bush in 2000 also, as did the Sun Times, IIRC. So I pretty much expected it, although I don't fully understand it; my opinion of the Trib is that it's generally liberal, and Chicago is obviously a liberal town. But I'm not going to look gift horses in the mouth :). Via LGF.
60:40 odds the Sun Times follows suit. Or maybe they have already; I'll do a quick search and get back to you on that.
60:40 odds the Sun Times follows suit. Or maybe they have already; I'll do a quick search and get back to you on that.
Using Photography To Make A Political Statement
Cheap Juxtaposition Tricks 101: How many allegorical signs can you fit into one picture? Via Lileks.
My Uneducated Prediction
Posted by Hello
After I took the picture, I edited the insanely high "within 4%" prediction to 25. Which is probably still way too high.
Anyways, you can make your own prediction here, and maybe win a plasma TV.
I may update this post with an electoral count for this prediction. BTW, DC isn't included above; my prediction is Kerry.
Friday, October 15, 2004
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Political Civility
Go check out this post by Lara, a quick rant about the lack of civility in political conversation recently.
For me, it's not so much the yelling, the anger, the passion. If you can get passionate about this country's electoral process, that's a lot better than being apathetic about it :). What does bother me a lot -- and I come across it both online and in person, although luckily most of my friends are good about it -- is when someone can't understand the brute fact that the person on the other side of the political spectrum may be as intelligent and well-informed as you are. The next time I hear "They're too stupid to be allowed the right to vote", "You simply haven't looked into all the facts", "He just isn't old enough yet to have the right perspective on things", "Bush is a moron", "Kerry is an empty suit", the conversation is over. Done. And you've lost, no matter whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.
Political discourse needs to have as its goal two things. The first is a revelation of the facts of the matter. Perhaps the person with which you're talking/discussing/disagreeing/arguing/fighting is in reality not informed. Then don't fall back on "You don't have all the facts." Instead, present the facts, and say, "Have you considered X?" or "How does your position take into account Y?" And be prepared to show proof of X or Y, or for the purposes of the discussion you're as uninformed as your partner/opponent.
The second goal of political discourse should be an examination of assumptions. Once all the facts are out on the table, and there's still a difference of opinions, the discussion should find its way to a point where it's assumption versus assumption. For example, in discussion of abortion, my basic assumptions that inform my position include the assumptions that a human life is valuable, that viability is meaningless, that extra-marital sex is immoral, that personhood is inherent at conception, and I'm sure there are others. And eventually, if the discussion with a proponent of the pro-choice/pro-abortion position is going well, we'll be able to pinpoint the difference in assumptions -- either my opponent will admit the assumption that human life is not valuable (and yes, I've had people admit this before!), or the assumption that viability somehow makes a moral difference, or the opposite of one my other assumptions. At this point, I and my opponent must step back, take a look at our respective assumptions, and each ask ourselves, "Am I comfortable with my assumption?"
That's why I talk politics with people. It's definitely not to score points. It's not to change anybody's mind -- only two people can change your mind, and I'm not one of them. My first goal is to spread and receive information. My second goal, and the more important one in my opinion, is to get both you and me to examine our assumptions ourselves. And if I think your assumptions are wrong -- as I often will -- there's nothing more I can do to change them, after the facts are known and the assumptions are uncovered. I won't throw out some relativistic nonsense that we're both right for ourselves. One of us is right and one is wrong, but further discussion is fruitless, so let's talk about baseball.
I know I'll be comfortable with my assumptions, as long as their foundation is what it should be. And what about you? What's yours?
UPDATE: Crossposted at RedState
UPDATE 2: Crossposted at You've Lost
For me, it's not so much the yelling, the anger, the passion. If you can get passionate about this country's electoral process, that's a lot better than being apathetic about it :). What does bother me a lot -- and I come across it both online and in person, although luckily most of my friends are good about it -- is when someone can't understand the brute fact that the person on the other side of the political spectrum may be as intelligent and well-informed as you are. The next time I hear "They're too stupid to be allowed the right to vote", "You simply haven't looked into all the facts", "He just isn't old enough yet to have the right perspective on things", "Bush is a moron", "Kerry is an empty suit", the conversation is over. Done. And you've lost, no matter whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.
Political discourse needs to have as its goal two things. The first is a revelation of the facts of the matter. Perhaps the person with which you're talking/discussing/disagreeing/arguing/fighting is in reality not informed. Then don't fall back on "You don't have all the facts." Instead, present the facts, and say, "Have you considered X?" or "How does your position take into account Y?" And be prepared to show proof of X or Y, or for the purposes of the discussion you're as uninformed as your partner/opponent.
The second goal of political discourse should be an examination of assumptions. Once all the facts are out on the table, and there's still a difference of opinions, the discussion should find its way to a point where it's assumption versus assumption. For example, in discussion of abortion, my basic assumptions that inform my position include the assumptions that a human life is valuable, that viability is meaningless, that extra-marital sex is immoral, that personhood is inherent at conception, and I'm sure there are others. And eventually, if the discussion with a proponent of the pro-choice/pro-abortion position is going well, we'll be able to pinpoint the difference in assumptions -- either my opponent will admit the assumption that human life is not valuable (and yes, I've had people admit this before!), or the assumption that viability somehow makes a moral difference, or the opposite of one my other assumptions. At this point, I and my opponent must step back, take a look at our respective assumptions, and each ask ourselves, "Am I comfortable with my assumption?"
That's why I talk politics with people. It's definitely not to score points. It's not to change anybody's mind -- only two people can change your mind, and I'm not one of them. My first goal is to spread and receive information. My second goal, and the more important one in my opinion, is to get both you and me to examine our assumptions ourselves. And if I think your assumptions are wrong -- as I often will -- there's nothing more I can do to change them, after the facts are known and the assumptions are uncovered. I won't throw out some relativistic nonsense that we're both right for ourselves. One of us is right and one is wrong, but further discussion is fruitless, so let's talk about baseball.
I know I'll be comfortable with my assumptions, as long as their foundation is what it should be. And what about you? What's yours?
UPDATE: Crossposted at RedState
UPDATE 2: Crossposted at You've Lost
Democrats vs The Special Olympics
Michelle Malkin is reporting that this flyer is being handed out from the offices of Craig Fitzhugh, a Democrat running for office in Tennessee House District 82. Story here.
If you want to crack jokes at Bush's expense, fine. If you want to insult those who are voting for Bush, go ahead. But don't do it at the expense of disabled children. Don't let the Special Olympics be caught in the crossfire.
This is disgusting.
NOTE: At this point, the story seems to be valid, but has not been fully corroborated. I'll let you guys know once someone gets to the bottom of this. Or, you can follow the Malkin link above -- she and TVC (who keep spamming me, or else I'd link to them) are the story breakers, so she'll probably stay on top of it.
UPDATE: Check Bill Hobbs for updates. He's keeping a close watch on the story.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Ghosts?
I've been browsing this Illinois-based ghost site a little bit -- pretty cool, and it mentions Bachelor's Grove, which I've been to a couple times. Anyone want to take a road trip to one of these other places sometime?
Also, be sure to check out here, sent to me by TekieCid. It's an actual video. I think I see something next to the car, but I'm not sure.
Also, be sure to check out here, sent to me by TekieCid. It's an actual video. I think I see something next to the car, but I'm not sure.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
9/11 Profiteering
Does this bother anyone else?
I'm not sure if the Flash ad, which I've attempted to paste above, will show correctly. I saw it on an article page for The American Spectator, and it directs to this page, where you can see what is being sold.
UPDATE: Yahoo is carrying a story here. The sale of these coins has been halted pending a fraud investigation.
I'm not sure if the Flash ad, which I've attempted to paste above, will show correctly. I saw it on an article page for The American Spectator, and it directs to this page, where you can see what is being sold.
UPDATE: Yahoo is carrying a story here. The sale of these coins has been halted pending a fraud investigation.
Inverse Random Blogs
Here are two blogs to think about, both of which have randomly provided links to me via the Blogger bar. That's the thing you see at the top of my webpage, as well as any other Blogger/blogspot.com page.
Worst blog ever? Well, probably top five at least, right here.
On the other side of the blog quality spectrum is this one. Not much on current events, but can you get more quality than a Roman poet from the first century AD?
Worst blog ever? Well, probably top five at least, right here.
On the other side of the blog quality spectrum is this one. Not much on current events, but can you get more quality than a Roman poet from the first century AD?
Monday, October 11, 2004
GO CONRAD!
Conrad is always on my wavelength; or maybe I'm always on his because I got brainwashed by Ghoti Hook (RIP) when I was in college. Anyways, he has two new editorials posted on his website, Decapolis. One is about Sky Captain, and the other is about the economy.
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Stavesacre Member Injured
Just received this email:
Unfortunately ... Stavesacre is going to have to cancel tonight's show in
Bakersfield. We apologize to our fans and all the great people at Station 3:16.
Dirk has suffered a major back injury and is unable to get out of bed. He went
in for x-rays yesterday but the Doctor isn't sure how long it will for him to
recover.
Your prayers and thoughts are appreciated.
The rest of the bands on the bill will be playing tonight at Station 3:16.
Please show your support for the venue and bands who have worked hard to make
this a great show for us. Keep checking the website for our rescheduled
appearance at Station 3:16. We have NOT canceled the other 2 shows later in
month.
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Smart City Grinds
Azusa, CA
7pm
w/ NOISE RATCHET
$12 tix available @ www.itickets.com
635 N. Azusa Ave.
626.945.7773
http://www.smartcitygrinds.com
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Hills Park Ampitheater
Las Vegas, NV
Noon- 10pm
w/ Staple, Mortal Treason, and many more
$10 in advance www.itickets.com / $15 gate / kids under 10 yrs free
9000 Hillspointe Road
702-220-8811
http://www.freakshow13.com
Stavesacre plays at 8:30 pm
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Read This Essay, Now
Bill Whittle at Eject!Eject!Eject! has written the best blog post ever. I'm completely serious -- it's long, but you must read it. Read it all -- don't miss the second part, which you can get to by clicking the Part 2 link at the top of the page or by going here. Think about it, digest it, disagree with it if you will. But don't ignore it, and if you dismiss it as the rantings of a right-wing neocon, I will whack you upside the head.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
