Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Lunch
to wait. There were people in the shot!
Monday, September 29, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
The debate
While watching the first presidential debate, I found both candidates to be very fluid and articulate, and both gave the impression that they were very knowledgeable about pretty much everything they spoke on. I've slept on it, and my opinion hasn't really changed. I don't see a clear winner of this debate.
Obviously, the two have different opinions, but in terms of expressing those opinions clearly and in a striking way, I think McCain and Obama were about equal.
A CNN poll indicates that Obama is the winner, but once you adjust it for the disproportionate number of Democratic respondents, it comes out even.
Each of the candidates has posted some "fact checks" on the web. McCain's list is here; Obama's is here. FactCheck.org also has a list. (Shockingly Snopes doesn't have anything up yet, but I expect they will soon enough.)
Other than a couple of inflated/outdated numbers from both candidates, I don't think either one did all that badly in terms of misrepresenting facts. They were more like minor quibbles than major issues. I think the candidates did well in responding at times when factual errors were presented, so I don't think the errors will have too much of a negative effect.
There was one odd thing, a seeming role-reversal that kind of put me off-balance. In this debate, McCain seemed to be the one advocating diplomacy and non-warlike solutions to problems with other countries, while Obama seemed to be more hard-nosed. I would never have expected Obama to suggest that, if Pakistan was unable or unwilling to work with us, we "take them out". (McCain was almost gleeful at this; can't say that I blame him.)
As expected, McCain came across as better-versed in military strategy, while Obama seemed more in touch with the American middle class. They both made very good points on their pet issues.
McCain succeeded to a certain degree in highlighting Obama's inexperience with foreign policy. The Pakistan gaffe didn't help much. But it wasn't damaging, I think, because the issue is a double-edged sword for McCain. He claims over and over that he's a maverick, but he's quick to point out opinions that were not formed through years of experience doing things the way we've always done them. This has the unfortunate effect of implying that he's the best man for the job because he is not a maverick; because he knows "how things are done". McCain eagerly jumped on the "change" bandwagon, but he defeats himself with this sort of argument.
All in all, though, I was pretty impressed by both candidates. I've said before that I think it'll be okay regardless of who wins. My opinion of McCain has dipped, especially in light of some of his recent decisions, but last night proved at least that he can plan for talks and think on his feet. Obama, as usual, spoke fluidly and passionately, and was able to clarify his positions immediately and decisively.
The next debate should be interesting.
Obviously, the two have different opinions, but in terms of expressing those opinions clearly and in a striking way, I think McCain and Obama were about equal.
A CNN poll indicates that Obama is the winner, but once you adjust it for the disproportionate number of Democratic respondents, it comes out even.
Each of the candidates has posted some "fact checks" on the web. McCain's list is here; Obama's is here. FactCheck.org also has a list. (Shockingly Snopes doesn't have anything up yet, but I expect they will soon enough.)
Other than a couple of inflated/outdated numbers from both candidates, I don't think either one did all that badly in terms of misrepresenting facts. They were more like minor quibbles than major issues. I think the candidates did well in responding at times when factual errors were presented, so I don't think the errors will have too much of a negative effect.
There was one odd thing, a seeming role-reversal that kind of put me off-balance. In this debate, McCain seemed to be the one advocating diplomacy and non-warlike solutions to problems with other countries, while Obama seemed to be more hard-nosed. I would never have expected Obama to suggest that, if Pakistan was unable or unwilling to work with us, we "take them out". (McCain was almost gleeful at this; can't say that I blame him.)
As expected, McCain came across as better-versed in military strategy, while Obama seemed more in touch with the American middle class. They both made very good points on their pet issues.
McCain succeeded to a certain degree in highlighting Obama's inexperience with foreign policy. The Pakistan gaffe didn't help much. But it wasn't damaging, I think, because the issue is a double-edged sword for McCain. He claims over and over that he's a maverick, but he's quick to point out opinions that were not formed through years of experience doing things the way we've always done them. This has the unfortunate effect of implying that he's the best man for the job because he is not a maverick; because he knows "how things are done". McCain eagerly jumped on the "change" bandwagon, but he defeats himself with this sort of argument.
All in all, though, I was pretty impressed by both candidates. I've said before that I think it'll be okay regardless of who wins. My opinion of McCain has dipped, especially in light of some of his recent decisions, but last night proved at least that he can plan for talks and think on his feet. Obama, as usual, spoke fluidly and passionately, and was able to clarify his positions immediately and decisively.
The next debate should be interesting.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Presidential Debates
The following came to me at work as a news release. I don't know how accurate the contents are, but I do know that third party candidates aren't allowed in major debates, and I've never thought that was fair or made any amount of sense, given the values our country was founded on.
This essay is obviously pro-Nader; the original urged people to contact John McCain and Barack Obama and tell them to push for Nader to be allowed in the debates. But the issue extends to all third-party candidates. I'd like to see this change.
Feel free to discuss!
Presidential Debates
Right now, they are limited to the candidates from the two corporate parties.
The debates are controlled by the so-called Commission on Presidential Debates, a private corporation which was created by the Democratic and Republican Parties in 1987.
The Commission is headed by Frank Fahrenkopf -- the former head of the Republican National Committee, and Paul Kirk -- the former head of Democratic National Committee.
Fahrenkopf is a lobbyist for gambling interests, Kirk for pharmaceutical companies.
Debate sponsors have included Anheuser-Busch, Phillip Morris, Ford Motor Co., Yahoo Inc., 3Com, among other companies who gave soft money to the two parties' national committees.
In 2000, some in the press dubbed the debates as the "Anheuser-Bush-Gore" debates.
In a memo by the CPD, the avowed goal for forming the commission was to "strengthen the two parties."
In 1988, the Commission seized control of the debates from the League of Women Voters.
The League had a history of allowing third party candidates to participate in the debates. In 1980 the League invited Congressman John Anderson to join Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan in the debates.
Anderson was given a boost from the public debates. At one point the polls had him at 21%. He won 7% of the vote.
When Jesse Ventura ran for Governor in Minnesota he was polling at 10 percent in the polls before the debates. After ten statewide debates he rose to 38 percent and won a 3-way race.
The Commission on Presidential Debates took a different tack from the League of Women Voters.
This Commission/corporation has excluded Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan from the debates.
In 1996 Ross Perot was excluded from the debates. Even with all his money and after having won nearly 19 percent of the vote in 1992 it was determined that he did not have "a chance to win," despite the fact that he even led in the polls at one point in 1992.
Walter Cronkite called the presidential debates under the CPD an "unconscionable fraud" because the CPD format "defies meaningful discourse."
In early years the CPD determined who could be in a debate by vague criteria including interviews with columnists, pollsters and consultants who determined whether a candidate could win.
In the year 2000, the CPD changed their criteria for third party and independent candidates -- a candidate now needed 15 percent or more support as measured by the average of five private polling organizations -- which just happen to be owned by several major newspaper and television conglomerates.
In 2000, Ralph Nader was excluded from the debates because the parent corporations that conduct these polls were giving him scant attention.
Without the mainstream media attention there is no moving up, and without moving up, candidates like Nader do not get into the debates and reach tens of millions of people.
In 2000, a Fox poll revealed that 64% of likely voters wanted to see 'other candidates' including Ralph Nader in the debates.
Other polls in 2004 showed similar results.
But it didn't happen, thanks to the Commission on Presidential Debates.
Independents voices and third party candidates, including the Abolitionist, Women's Suffrage Movement, Worker Protection, and Farmer Populace Party, have brought about many of the major changes in this country.
When Abraham Lincoln ran for office, the two major parties were the Whigs and the Democrats.
As a Republican, Lincoln was elected as a third party candidate -- even after being left off the ballot in the 11 states that seceded from the Union.
In 2004, 17 national civic leaders from the left, center and right of political spectrum - including Paul Weyrich, Chellie Pingree of Common Cause, Alan Keyes, Tom Gerety of the Brennan Center for Justice, Bay Buchanan, Randall Robinson, former FEC General Counsel Larry Noble, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, and Jehmu Green of Rock the Vote - created the Citizens' Debate Commission.
Bolstered by an advisory board comprised of 60 diverse civic groups, the Citizens' Debate Commission goal is to sponsor presidential debates that serves the American people, not political parties, first.
References:
Open Debates
No Debate by George Farah
This essay is obviously pro-Nader; the original urged people to contact John McCain and Barack Obama and tell them to push for Nader to be allowed in the debates. But the issue extends to all third-party candidates. I'd like to see this change.
Feel free to discuss!
Presidential Debates
Right now, they are limited to the candidates from the two corporate parties.
The debates are controlled by the so-called Commission on Presidential Debates, a private corporation which was created by the Democratic and Republican Parties in 1987.
The Commission is headed by Frank Fahrenkopf -- the former head of the Republican National Committee, and Paul Kirk -- the former head of Democratic National Committee.
Fahrenkopf is a lobbyist for gambling interests, Kirk for pharmaceutical companies.
Debate sponsors have included Anheuser-Busch, Phillip Morris, Ford Motor Co., Yahoo Inc., 3Com, among other companies who gave soft money to the two parties' national committees.
In 2000, some in the press dubbed the debates as the "Anheuser-Bush-Gore" debates.
In a memo by the CPD, the avowed goal for forming the commission was to "strengthen the two parties."
In 1988, the Commission seized control of the debates from the League of Women Voters.
The League had a history of allowing third party candidates to participate in the debates. In 1980 the League invited Congressman John Anderson to join Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan in the debates.
Anderson was given a boost from the public debates. At one point the polls had him at 21%. He won 7% of the vote.
When Jesse Ventura ran for Governor in Minnesota he was polling at 10 percent in the polls before the debates. After ten statewide debates he rose to 38 percent and won a 3-way race.
The Commission on Presidential Debates took a different tack from the League of Women Voters.
This Commission/corporation has excluded Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan from the debates.
In 1996 Ross Perot was excluded from the debates. Even with all his money and after having won nearly 19 percent of the vote in 1992 it was determined that he did not have "a chance to win," despite the fact that he even led in the polls at one point in 1992.
Walter Cronkite called the presidential debates under the CPD an "unconscionable fraud" because the CPD format "defies meaningful discourse."
In early years the CPD determined who could be in a debate by vague criteria including interviews with columnists, pollsters and consultants who determined whether a candidate could win.
In the year 2000, the CPD changed their criteria for third party and independent candidates -- a candidate now needed 15 percent or more support as measured by the average of five private polling organizations -- which just happen to be owned by several major newspaper and television conglomerates.
In 2000, Ralph Nader was excluded from the debates because the parent corporations that conduct these polls were giving him scant attention.
Without the mainstream media attention there is no moving up, and without moving up, candidates like Nader do not get into the debates and reach tens of millions of people.
In 2000, a Fox poll revealed that 64% of likely voters wanted to see 'other candidates' including Ralph Nader in the debates.
Other polls in 2004 showed similar results.
But it didn't happen, thanks to the Commission on Presidential Debates.
Independents voices and third party candidates, including the Abolitionist, Women's Suffrage Movement, Worker Protection, and Farmer Populace Party, have brought about many of the major changes in this country.
When Abraham Lincoln ran for office, the two major parties were the Whigs and the Democrats.
As a Republican, Lincoln was elected as a third party candidate -- even after being left off the ballot in the 11 states that seceded from the Union.
In 2004, 17 national civic leaders from the left, center and right of political spectrum - including Paul Weyrich, Chellie Pingree of Common Cause, Alan Keyes, Tom Gerety of the Brennan Center for Justice, Bay Buchanan, Randall Robinson, former FEC General Counsel Larry Noble, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, and Jehmu Green of Rock the Vote - created the Citizens' Debate Commission.
Bolstered by an advisory board comprised of 60 diverse civic groups, the Citizens' Debate Commission goal is to sponsor presidential debates that serves the American people, not political parties, first.
References:
Open Debates
No Debate by George Farah
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Ducks!
and singing Happy Birthday to himself. I knew instantly that he was a
panhandler, but I said anyway, "It's your birthday?"
"Happy Birthday to me," the man replied. "Can I ask you a question?"
Ah well.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Chicken souvlaki and bottled water
friend, who made a face. The punchline: "He's a doctor."
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Clouds
think I would express it fully enough.
Negotiation
Me: I'm going for a bike ride. Be back in a couple of hours.
Sean: A couple of hours? That's a long time! What am I supposed to do without you?
Me: Well, it takes that long...I have to get there, and then I have to ride, and then I have to come back.
Sean: I suppose I'm not allowed to watch Smallville while you're gone.
Me: No!
Sean: And I know I can't watch Monk either.
Me: No, you can't.
Sean: So what am I supposed to do?
Me: Isn't there some sort of quest you can go on?
Sean: I can't save the world all the time. Sometimes, other people have to do it.
Me: Would you rather I not go?
Sean: No, I want you to go. I just want to watch Smallville while you're gone.
Me: Well, if you do that you'll have to watch the same episodes again when I get back.
Sean: Okay, fine. I give in to your demands. The plane will be waiting at the airport.
Me: Don't forget the $30 million.
Sean: Whatever, terrorist.
Sean: A couple of hours? That's a long time! What am I supposed to do without you?
Me: Well, it takes that long...I have to get there, and then I have to ride, and then I have to come back.
Sean: I suppose I'm not allowed to watch Smallville while you're gone.
Me: No!
Sean: And I know I can't watch Monk either.
Me: No, you can't.
Sean: So what am I supposed to do?
Me: Isn't there some sort of quest you can go on?
Sean: I can't save the world all the time. Sometimes, other people have to do it.
Me: Would you rather I not go?
Sean: No, I want you to go. I just want to watch Smallville while you're gone.
Me: Well, if you do that you'll have to watch the same episodes again when I get back.
Sean: Okay, fine. I give in to your demands. The plane will be waiting at the airport.
Me: Don't forget the $30 million.
Sean: Whatever, terrorist.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
7 Random or Weird Facts
I have been tagged by Chuck...and you all know how much I love being tagged :D It's taken me a month to get around to it. I may be slow, but I do get things done eventually!
Here are the rules:
1. Link to your tagger and post these rules on your blog.
2. Share 7 facts about yourself on your blog; some random, some weird.
3. Tag 7 people at the end of your post by leaving their names as well as links to their blogs.
4. Let them know they are tagged by leaving a comment on their blog.
It gets harder and harder over the years to come up with unique things. But I'll do my best!
FACT 1: I used to have a lot of trouble forming social relationships. I rarely looked people in the eye. I was so afraid of looking stupid that I never reached out to anyone. If a person latched on to me, I latched back, regardless of whether or not the relationship was healthy. It took a long time for me to break the cycle. I still have trouble with either being too aloof or too involved. But now I'm outgoing and even snarky. The internet really helped--being able to have real conversations with people without all the face-to-face distractions made me crave that kind of connection in all my relationships. My current job has also been a blessing. I meet so many new people each year that I just about have to be sociable. All in all, I'm really happy with where I am now.
FACT 2: I suffer from a completely illogical guilt complex. When I got cancer, I felt guilty that my parents had to pay for my treatment and make my car payment while I couldn't work. When our apartment burned down, I felt guilty that I had ever married Sean in the first place, because after all, if he'd never met me, he wouldn't have been living there, so he would still have all his stuff. And I felt guilty that family members had given me hand-me-downs and they'd all been destroyed. When I discovered Magazine Man's identity, I felt guilty for the way I'd done it, even though dozens of people figured it out that way...and that guilt has made it hard for me to relate to him, to this day.
You may not believe this, but I'm better--at least a little bit--than I used to be. When I have to give up on something, when I don't have time or circumstances change, I don't beat myself up about it nearly as much as I used to. But it's still a problem for me.
FACT 3: I only have one mole. It's on my stomach. And it doesn't stick out or anything, so it may as well be a huge freckle. I have lots of freckles.
FACT 4: The big toe on my right foot sticks out more than the one on my left. It's hard for me to move it inwards. The other one moves back and forth just fine.
FACT 5: I am always having ideas, often for websites, for things that I think would be cool to design--not just graphically, but organizationally. But the thought of maintaining those things usually deters me. I think my strength lies in setting things up, and then letting other people use them.
FACT 6: I can, and do, pop almost every joint on my body.
FACT 7: I love rotenburos. A rotenburo is an outdoor Japanese bath. Yes, you go into it naked, with other people around. I've never gone to a co-ed onsen, but I honestly think I would try it. I think this is due to a random fact we'll call 7A: when I'm not wearing my glasses, I'm less self-conscious about how I look.
There you go, Chuck! Sorry it took so long!
Update: I realized after posting that I totally forgot to tag others. I tag: Brooke, Mari, Charles, and Kayo. I realize that's not seven, but I don't read a lot of blogs, and of the ones I do read most have already done this questionnaire recently. So if there's someone out there I didn't name who wants to do this, let me know in the comments :)
Here are the rules:
1. Link to your tagger and post these rules on your blog.
2. Share 7 facts about yourself on your blog; some random, some weird.
3. Tag 7 people at the end of your post by leaving their names as well as links to their blogs.
4. Let them know they are tagged by leaving a comment on their blog.
It gets harder and harder over the years to come up with unique things. But I'll do my best!
FACT 1: I used to have a lot of trouble forming social relationships. I rarely looked people in the eye. I was so afraid of looking stupid that I never reached out to anyone. If a person latched on to me, I latched back, regardless of whether or not the relationship was healthy. It took a long time for me to break the cycle. I still have trouble with either being too aloof or too involved. But now I'm outgoing and even snarky. The internet really helped--being able to have real conversations with people without all the face-to-face distractions made me crave that kind of connection in all my relationships. My current job has also been a blessing. I meet so many new people each year that I just about have to be sociable. All in all, I'm really happy with where I am now.
FACT 2: I suffer from a completely illogical guilt complex. When I got cancer, I felt guilty that my parents had to pay for my treatment and make my car payment while I couldn't work. When our apartment burned down, I felt guilty that I had ever married Sean in the first place, because after all, if he'd never met me, he wouldn't have been living there, so he would still have all his stuff. And I felt guilty that family members had given me hand-me-downs and they'd all been destroyed. When I discovered Magazine Man's identity, I felt guilty for the way I'd done it, even though dozens of people figured it out that way...and that guilt has made it hard for me to relate to him, to this day.
You may not believe this, but I'm better--at least a little bit--than I used to be. When I have to give up on something, when I don't have time or circumstances change, I don't beat myself up about it nearly as much as I used to. But it's still a problem for me.
FACT 3: I only have one mole. It's on my stomach. And it doesn't stick out or anything, so it may as well be a huge freckle. I have lots of freckles.
FACT 4: The big toe on my right foot sticks out more than the one on my left. It's hard for me to move it inwards. The other one moves back and forth just fine.
FACT 5: I am always having ideas, often for websites, for things that I think would be cool to design--not just graphically, but organizationally. But the thought of maintaining those things usually deters me. I think my strength lies in setting things up, and then letting other people use them.
FACT 6: I can, and do, pop almost every joint on my body.
FACT 7: I love rotenburos. A rotenburo is an outdoor Japanese bath. Yes, you go into it naked, with other people around. I've never gone to a co-ed onsen, but I honestly think I would try it. I think this is due to a random fact we'll call 7A: when I'm not wearing my glasses, I'm less self-conscious about how I look.
There you go, Chuck! Sorry it took so long!
Update: I realized after posting that I totally forgot to tag others. I tag: Brooke, Mari, Charles, and Kayo. I realize that's not seven, but I don't read a lot of blogs, and of the ones I do read most have already done this questionnaire recently. So if there's someone out there I didn't name who wants to do this, let me know in the comments :)
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
I'm back, baby
I went to Riverwalk for a walk during my break today, as I've been trying to get in the habit of doing. I've been going there intermittently just to look around, but since I got serious with my exercise habits I've been trying to do more. Today, for the first time, I tried jogging. Also for the first time, I went around twice.
My first lap, I jogged as much as I could, striding briskly in between. I used my iPhone's stopwatch to see how I did: 19:26.9.
For the second lap, I was quite winded, so I resolved to walk it and see how long that took. While striding along, I held my arms straight out, then straight up; then I did curls up and out to the side; then I did some punches. I was trying to simultaneously stay focused and give my arms a workout. It worked! The stopwatch says my walking time was 22:16.8.
Obviously I have a long way to go to improve my jogging. I've never been much of a runner. I always got a stitch in my side, even when I was at my best physical condition--back during the kung fu years. Today that didn't happen, but I did get pretty winded after what I consider brief periods of jogging.
But the point is I tried, and now I have a time I can work on beating.
I headed back to work feeling almost giddy. Working out hard like that is such a good feeling. I need to always hold on to that fact so I will keep doing it.
As I hung my sweat-soaked clothes on the back of the door to dry, I remembered: I used to do this. I used to get all sweaty at lunch and hang up my clothes afterwards. Back when I first started working here, I was in total explore-mode and would walk all around the area. After awhile I got out of the habit, and then I always felt that it would be so inconvenient to bring workout clothes every day, and get sweaty and then have to keep working with no time for a shower.
I don't feel that way anymore. I've been bringing workout clothes every day for weeks now, whether I actually use them or not. It's become a habit. And today's rush of good feeling proved to me that being sweaty is hardly worth worrying about.
I think I've finally purged some pretty self-destructive habits, and built some constructive ones. :)
My first lap, I jogged as much as I could, striding briskly in between. I used my iPhone's stopwatch to see how I did: 19:26.9.
For the second lap, I was quite winded, so I resolved to walk it and see how long that took. While striding along, I held my arms straight out, then straight up; then I did curls up and out to the side; then I did some punches. I was trying to simultaneously stay focused and give my arms a workout. It worked! The stopwatch says my walking time was 22:16.8.
Obviously I have a long way to go to improve my jogging. I've never been much of a runner. I always got a stitch in my side, even when I was at my best physical condition--back during the kung fu years. Today that didn't happen, but I did get pretty winded after what I consider brief periods of jogging.
But the point is I tried, and now I have a time I can work on beating.
I headed back to work feeling almost giddy. Working out hard like that is such a good feeling. I need to always hold on to that fact so I will keep doing it.
As I hung my sweat-soaked clothes on the back of the door to dry, I remembered: I used to do this. I used to get all sweaty at lunch and hang up my clothes afterwards. Back when I first started working here, I was in total explore-mode and would walk all around the area. After awhile I got out of the habit, and then I always felt that it would be so inconvenient to bring workout clothes every day, and get sweaty and then have to keep working with no time for a shower.
I don't feel that way anymore. I've been bringing workout clothes every day for weeks now, whether I actually use them or not. It's become a habit. And today's rush of good feeling proved to me that being sweaty is hardly worth worrying about.
I think I've finally purged some pretty self-destructive habits, and built some constructive ones. :)
Monday, September 8, 2008
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Friday, September 5, 2008
Monday, September 1, 2008
What is she wearing?
A polo shirt would have been far more suitable for field anchoring Gustav coverage. Heck, almost anything would have been more suitable...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
