Another blogger has assembled a list of the 15 greatest spaceships of all time. While I disagree with some of the choices, it's an interesting topic of discussion. What do you think the greatest spaceships are?
I think any ship with a holodeck and a food replicator should be bumped up a few notches. Honestly, if we're talking about my personal enjoyment, I'd rather have the Enterprise D than the Death Star (plus you can outrun the Death Star if any Death Star owner gets envious of your superior food and entertainment).
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
So I started a new job yesterday...is it weird that I like working, and I don't mind long days at all, but I am annoyed by getting up early and wearing funny clothes? Seriously, those two things annoy me more than everything else put together. Well, I better stop blogging or I'll be late for work...
Monday, January 28, 2008
Lord Henry commented that John Edwards should drop out of the race, because if he doesn't, Hillary might win. I agree with his goals: it's vastly preferable for Hillary Clinton not to get the nomination. But I disagreed with his conclusion, saying that his idea only works if Edwards supporters would break disproportionately for Obama.
MSNBC has been asking Edwards supporters in exit polls who their second choice would be, and it's about evenly split (neither Obama nor Clinton has an advantage among those voting for Edwards). This means that Edwards can safely stay in the race and not affect the results, which is good, because he's driving the debate. Clinton and Obama want to talk about themselves, while Edwards is forcing the field to debate ideas and make proposals (even the Hillary-endorsing New York Times admits that much). More on this later, perhaps. It's too early to be smart.
MSNBC has been asking Edwards supporters in exit polls who their second choice would be, and it's about evenly split (neither Obama nor Clinton has an advantage among those voting for Edwards). This means that Edwards can safely stay in the race and not affect the results, which is good, because he's driving the debate. Clinton and Obama want to talk about themselves, while Edwards is forcing the field to debate ideas and make proposals (even the Hillary-endorsing New York Times admits that much). More on this later, perhaps. It's too early to be smart.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
My Note on the SC Democratic Primary
So Obama won the Democratic primary in South Carolina, and here have been the stories:
-He won by a wider margin than anyone anticipated (getting just over double the votes of Clinton)
-He won with a record number of black voters
-He beat Hillary Clinton among black women AND white men (so if someone shared a race OR gender with Obama and the other with Hillary, they broke for Obama over Clinton)
-More voters voted for Obama this year than voted in the entire 2004 South Carolina Democratic primary
-Various other stories about demographics, Bill Clinton, and where the campaigns go now
But there's one story that's missing: the difference between the polls and the results. Edwards got the votes he was expected to. Hillary got the votes she was expected to. Obama got WAY more votes than the polls indicated. This means virtually every undecided in the state broke for Obama. That's something incredibly remarkable. If you look at the last 4 polls done in the state (finishing no earlier than 1/23/08), you'd see Edwards projected to get between 17 and 24% of the vote, Clinton projected to get 20 to 30% of the vote, and Obama to get 27% to 43%. Well, the numbers broke down 18% (well predicted), 27% (well predicted) and 55% (blowout).
Granted there were a lot of undecideds in those polls, since the numbers never added up to close to 100%, but the fact is that virtually every undecided voter went for Obama. And that should be the real story. Obama has the momentum, while people are increasingly disenchanted with Hillary and her husband's attack dog strategy. Edwards supporters are holding strong, but not swelling their ranks. The people on the fence, when forced to make a choice, are choosing Obama in huge droves (though interestingly enough, most say they'd be satisfied with the nominee no matter who won).
This is the real story of the week, the real battle in the primaries, and I'm just waiting for the talking heads to realize it. Until then, you can get it here.
-He won by a wider margin than anyone anticipated (getting just over double the votes of Clinton)
-He won with a record number of black voters
-He beat Hillary Clinton among black women AND white men (so if someone shared a race OR gender with Obama and the other with Hillary, they broke for Obama over Clinton)
-More voters voted for Obama this year than voted in the entire 2004 South Carolina Democratic primary
-Various other stories about demographics, Bill Clinton, and where the campaigns go now
But there's one story that's missing: the difference between the polls and the results. Edwards got the votes he was expected to. Hillary got the votes she was expected to. Obama got WAY more votes than the polls indicated. This means virtually every undecided in the state broke for Obama. That's something incredibly remarkable. If you look at the last 4 polls done in the state (finishing no earlier than 1/23/08), you'd see Edwards projected to get between 17 and 24% of the vote, Clinton projected to get 20 to 30% of the vote, and Obama to get 27% to 43%. Well, the numbers broke down 18% (well predicted), 27% (well predicted) and 55% (blowout).
Granted there were a lot of undecideds in those polls, since the numbers never added up to close to 100%, but the fact is that virtually every undecided voter went for Obama. And that should be the real story. Obama has the momentum, while people are increasingly disenchanted with Hillary and her husband's attack dog strategy. Edwards supporters are holding strong, but not swelling their ranks. The people on the fence, when forced to make a choice, are choosing Obama in huge droves (though interestingly enough, most say they'd be satisfied with the nominee no matter who won).
This is the real story of the week, the real battle in the primaries, and I'm just waiting for the talking heads to realize it. Until then, you can get it here.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
My Recession?
The stock markets all over the world have been tanking lately (figures they started right after I invested all the cash I had in my IRA).
To combat the downturn, the fed instituted a surprise cut in interest rates by three times the usual amount, while Bush announced a stimulus package. These have had little effect, and I think I know why.
A good response to an economic downturn affects the cause of the downturn. A mediocre response to an economic downturn is something that would help the stock market anyway. We're in the latter situation right now.
The problem isn't taxes or interest rates or a temporary dip in confidence or an overreaction that will be corrected soon (though I think and hope there's a little bit of that last in there). The problem is more fundamental: we know now that things don't work the way we thought they worked, so the market has to adjust. Wall Street created a hugely complex financial system that we never fully understood.
So while there are a few good ideas out there (Nobel laureate Stiglitz proposed expanding unemployment insurance, since not only will it give those hit hardest a cushion, but it will give money to people who are most likely to spend it immediately), most of them are, as Lord Henry put it, like putting band-aids on hemorrhage: if they do work, it won't be for very long and it won't be very well. And I'll throw in that it does nothing to attack the problem.
The problem-solving is unfortunately coming too-little too-late. Alan Greenspan had furiously fought against the notion of increasing regulation of the lending practices that started this mess, and the efforts to do so now are, as Paul Krugman put it, a little like locking the barn after the horse has escaped. Meanwhile our presidential candidates are weighing in with ideas that should be classified as "dumb and dumber" just for the appearance of decisiveness and leadership.
Instead of instant leadership in the application of band-aids, we need long-term leadership and vision. The thing that will return the American economy to greatness is innovation, not interest rate and tax policy. We need incentives to innovate now more than ever; accelerate our development of 21st century technologies that will both increase what economists call "multi-factor productivity" (essentially how much value we can create with a set amount of people and stuff) and that will kick-start entire sectors of our economy (like a huge push for alternative energy sources--a Manhattan Project style think tank with the promise that the US Government will be the first customer of any company that makes it practical and affordable).
Hopefully once our leaders are finished seeming decisive, they'll realize what's doing on an decide something a little more helpful.
To combat the downturn, the fed instituted a surprise cut in interest rates by three times the usual amount, while Bush announced a stimulus package. These have had little effect, and I think I know why.
A good response to an economic downturn affects the cause of the downturn. A mediocre response to an economic downturn is something that would help the stock market anyway. We're in the latter situation right now.
The problem isn't taxes or interest rates or a temporary dip in confidence or an overreaction that will be corrected soon (though I think and hope there's a little bit of that last in there). The problem is more fundamental: we know now that things don't work the way we thought they worked, so the market has to adjust. Wall Street created a hugely complex financial system that we never fully understood.
So while there are a few good ideas out there (Nobel laureate Stiglitz proposed expanding unemployment insurance, since not only will it give those hit hardest a cushion, but it will give money to people who are most likely to spend it immediately), most of them are, as Lord Henry put it, like putting band-aids on hemorrhage: if they do work, it won't be for very long and it won't be very well. And I'll throw in that it does nothing to attack the problem.
The problem-solving is unfortunately coming too-little too-late. Alan Greenspan had furiously fought against the notion of increasing regulation of the lending practices that started this mess, and the efforts to do so now are, as Paul Krugman put it, a little like locking the barn after the horse has escaped. Meanwhile our presidential candidates are weighing in with ideas that should be classified as "dumb and dumber" just for the appearance of decisiveness and leadership.
Instead of instant leadership in the application of band-aids, we need long-term leadership and vision. The thing that will return the American economy to greatness is innovation, not interest rate and tax policy. We need incentives to innovate now more than ever; accelerate our development of 21st century technologies that will both increase what economists call "multi-factor productivity" (essentially how much value we can create with a set amount of people and stuff) and that will kick-start entire sectors of our economy (like a huge push for alternative energy sources--a Manhattan Project style think tank with the promise that the US Government will be the first customer of any company that makes it practical and affordable).
Hopefully once our leaders are finished seeming decisive, they'll realize what's doing on an decide something a little more helpful.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
My High School Schedule
Once again, the "Paper of Record" is following my lead--several years late. The first time it was the Iraq partition plan, which is finally getting some good press. Now it's how high schoolers should be scheduled.
This editorial pretty much argues what I've been saying all along--but from a much bigger and better credentialed pulpit. The gist of my argument, replicated here, is that high school students would learn better, achieve more, and be better prepared for college and life if school started later and ended later. As Lewis Black said of his 8am economics class in college, "Are you trying to keep this stuff a secret?!"
Study after study has shown that teenagers are biologically different from the rest of us, and do better later in the day. Learning in early the morning is harder and less productive than learning later in the day for the vast majority of youngster's we're preparing to compete in a globalized world.
Our school schedules are a product of an agrarian lifestyle, without much or any electricity (hence the hours) and with a huge demand for kids to help out on the farms (hence our exceedingly long summer vacation).
Students in the United States of America finish near or at the bottom of every list comparing the math and science skills of students in other countries. And here we are with a relic of a schedule that hurts their productivity. We have an opportunity to raise academic achievement all over the country with a measure that would cost virtually nothing. We do everything we're doing...pushed back two hours. Voila. Same effort, same expense, same teachers, same buildings, same buses, same EVERYTHING. And we're virtually guaranteed that the kids will learn more.
Why not do it?
This editorial pretty much argues what I've been saying all along--but from a much bigger and better credentialed pulpit. The gist of my argument, replicated here, is that high school students would learn better, achieve more, and be better prepared for college and life if school started later and ended later. As Lewis Black said of his 8am economics class in college, "Are you trying to keep this stuff a secret?!"
Study after study has shown that teenagers are biologically different from the rest of us, and do better later in the day. Learning in early the morning is harder and less productive than learning later in the day for the vast majority of youngster's we're preparing to compete in a globalized world.
Our school schedules are a product of an agrarian lifestyle, without much or any electricity (hence the hours) and with a huge demand for kids to help out on the farms (hence our exceedingly long summer vacation).
Students in the United States of America finish near or at the bottom of every list comparing the math and science skills of students in other countries. And here we are with a relic of a schedule that hurts their productivity. We have an opportunity to raise academic achievement all over the country with a measure that would cost virtually nothing. We do everything we're doing...pushed back two hours. Voila. Same effort, same expense, same teachers, same buildings, same buses, same EVERYTHING. And we're virtually guaranteed that the kids will learn more.
Why not do it?
Friday, January 18, 2008
My New Subway Line
SEPTA (the South Eastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority) and PATCO (the Port Authority Transit Corporation that operates a Philly-NJ line) are exploring a partnership. That's right, an unprecedented collaboration seeks to combine PATCO's planning and financial strengths with SEPTA's operational strengths (what operational strengths? Well, according to the Inquirer, they managed to operate over 1,800 miles of transportation routes while quite underfunded...if you knew what their budget was like, you'd consider their operation quite impressive too). Though there are currently a few plans, the proposed joint-project would construct a trolley or light-rail line that ran up and down the Philadelphia waterfront (on the Delaware river), and could even extend as far as west as City Hall (which I would love to see, and which would improve access since Philadelphia's 3 other major subway/trolley lines all run through that station). Though 8 to 10 years away, and dependent on some federal funding, it's a good project for the city, and a good sign that local authorities are working together to benefit me, the consumer (and probably some other people as well).
Though the case for the new line is that it will save residents time and money, I think it will actually do far more than expedite travel that would have happened anyway. I believe this project, if completed and connected to City Hall, would encourage Center City residents to spread out more, visit locations up and down the waterfront. And by the same token, it will make it easier for those living up and down the waterfront to enjoy a night on the town in Center City. I think it will create economic activity for the city. And though this may be a pipe dream, I also believe that it may help the city attract businesses and retain college graduates. Convenient public transportation makes the city more attractive to young people--and SEPTA buses just can't compete with Boston's T, NY's MTA or DC's Metro.
For all these reasons and more, I've decided that this blog will make it's second endorsement ever: this project. Nobody Doesn't Like Molten Boron hereby supports, encourages, and endorses the construction of a light rail or trolley line up and down Philly's waterfront, especially if it connects to the City Hall station. This could be a great project for the city and region.
Though the case for the new line is that it will save residents time and money, I think it will actually do far more than expedite travel that would have happened anyway. I believe this project, if completed and connected to City Hall, would encourage Center City residents to spread out more, visit locations up and down the waterfront. And by the same token, it will make it easier for those living up and down the waterfront to enjoy a night on the town in Center City. I think it will create economic activity for the city. And though this may be a pipe dream, I also believe that it may help the city attract businesses and retain college graduates. Convenient public transportation makes the city more attractive to young people--and SEPTA buses just can't compete with Boston's T, NY's MTA or DC's Metro.
For all these reasons and more, I've decided that this blog will make it's second endorsement ever: this project. Nobody Doesn't Like Molten Boron hereby supports, encourages, and endorses the construction of a light rail or trolley line up and down Philly's waterfront, especially if it connects to the City Hall station. This could be a great project for the city and region.
My News Updates
Pennsylvania has reversed it's decision to ban labeling milk as "hormone free" despite evidence that there's no substantive difference to consumers. This is largely in response to consumer demands, proving that at least on unimportant issues that don't affect campaign contributions or lobbyists, the populist spirit can still win out. The hormone treatment for cows is actually illegal in Canada, but not because of effects on consumers--turns out that while it's fine for the drinker, it's not always so good for the cow. Hormone-treated cows can produce around 10% more milk than their natural counterparts.
This comes during the same week that cloned animals have been declared fair game for food. This has produced a lot of commentary, including an interesting editorial cartoon I saw where you have two butchers standing behind a meat counter--a normal-looking guy behind the "Meat" section and a Frankenstein's monster knock-off in front of the "Cloned Meat" section. I'd just like to point out two things: (1) Frankenstein's monster was NOT a clone. He was artificially constructed from dead tissue by a fictional mad scientist. Not the same thing at all. Clones are genetically identical copies of organisms. (2) Given that clones are genetically identical copies, shouldn't we actually PREFER cloned meat? If I had an absolutely delicious steak or burger or chicken sandwich, and I wanted another, I'd relish the opportunity to eat another one just like it. Why roll the dice with a new animal of the same species which might not be quite as delicious? Give me the clone of the cow I just ate.
And finally, the Philadelphia area is going to see two new movie (and potentially TV) studios, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports. These studios, to be constructed in Montgomery and Delaware counties, will effectively more than quintuple the soundstage square footage available to movie-makers. That plus major tax incentives for filming in Pennsylvania should not only draw more silver screen projects, but also help establish a "critical mass" of movie-making capabilities. This will allow skilled movie-making professionals to settle in the area soon, once they're able count on regular work. It should be a boon for the suburban economies, and hopefully some of these movies (and the people working on them) will take advantage of the city of Philadelphia as well. Unlike New York, when Philadelphia appears in movies, it's still standing when the credits roll.
This comes during the same week that cloned animals have been declared fair game for food. This has produced a lot of commentary, including an interesting editorial cartoon I saw where you have two butchers standing behind a meat counter--a normal-looking guy behind the "Meat" section and a Frankenstein's monster knock-off in front of the "Cloned Meat" section. I'd just like to point out two things: (1) Frankenstein's monster was NOT a clone. He was artificially constructed from dead tissue by a fictional mad scientist. Not the same thing at all. Clones are genetically identical copies of organisms. (2) Given that clones are genetically identical copies, shouldn't we actually PREFER cloned meat? If I had an absolutely delicious steak or burger or chicken sandwich, and I wanted another, I'd relish the opportunity to eat another one just like it. Why roll the dice with a new animal of the same species which might not be quite as delicious? Give me the clone of the cow I just ate.
And finally, the Philadelphia area is going to see two new movie (and potentially TV) studios, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports. These studios, to be constructed in Montgomery and Delaware counties, will effectively more than quintuple the soundstage square footage available to movie-makers. That plus major tax incentives for filming in Pennsylvania should not only draw more silver screen projects, but also help establish a "critical mass" of movie-making capabilities. This will allow skilled movie-making professionals to settle in the area soon, once they're able count on regular work. It should be a boon for the suburban economies, and hopefully some of these movies (and the people working on them) will take advantage of the city of Philadelphia as well. Unlike New York, when Philadelphia appears in movies, it's still standing when the credits roll.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
My Philadelphia School System Report Card
The Philadelphia Inquirer published a report card on the Philly public school system. This tracks the district's progress in moving towards a number of goals laid out around the turn of the millennium. While they're nowhere near the set benchmarks, they have improved in almost every category, a good sign. (I should also note that where it says "% change" they actually mean "change in %"--that is, a change from 10% to 20% of students results in a 10% change, not a 100% change.)
What's most distressing to me is one little row. We commonly measure math and reading skills as a benchmark for academic achievement. Only 40.6% of 3rd through 11th graders read at grade level, and only 44.9% of them have grade-level math skills. But that's not the most distressing part: it's the science skills. The SATs don't measure science skills. No Child Left Behind doesn't treat them as important as math or reading. They're not widely publicized. But they are not only crucially important to our nation's future, prosperity and security, when held up against the vaunted "math and reading" scores, can demonstrate just how much we're gaming the system (are we focusing too much on math and reading and just "teaching to the tests"?).
25.5%
That's the science number. Only one in four students in the Philly public schools have science skills commensurate with grade level standards. Not only is this outrageous, but shows where our priorities are. Our focus, once on serving the students, has turned to getting higher test scores and good PR. In a field that will for better or for worse define the 21st century--science and technology--we're letting our kids down. Communications technology, energy technology, information technology...these will be the sectors on which our economy and national strength will rely. And we'll be giving leadership of 21st century Earth away to countries like China and India, because we evaluate teachers, students and schools alike on math test scores, reading test scores, and very little else.
[Editor's Note: The science skills were measure among 2rd to 10th graders, not 3rd through 11th--why the cutoffs are both 1 earlier isn't stated, and may affect results, but shouldn't make too dramatic a difference. If all the difference is accounted for by that discrepancy, then we either have the worst second grade or best 11th grade program in the world, and should study that.]
What's most distressing to me is one little row. We commonly measure math and reading skills as a benchmark for academic achievement. Only 40.6% of 3rd through 11th graders read at grade level, and only 44.9% of them have grade-level math skills. But that's not the most distressing part: it's the science skills. The SATs don't measure science skills. No Child Left Behind doesn't treat them as important as math or reading. They're not widely publicized. But they are not only crucially important to our nation's future, prosperity and security, when held up against the vaunted "math and reading" scores, can demonstrate just how much we're gaming the system (are we focusing too much on math and reading and just "teaching to the tests"?).
25.5%
That's the science number. Only one in four students in the Philly public schools have science skills commensurate with grade level standards. Not only is this outrageous, but shows where our priorities are. Our focus, once on serving the students, has turned to getting higher test scores and good PR. In a field that will for better or for worse define the 21st century--science and technology--we're letting our kids down. Communications technology, energy technology, information technology...these will be the sectors on which our economy and national strength will rely. And we'll be giving leadership of 21st century Earth away to countries like China and India, because we evaluate teachers, students and schools alike on math test scores, reading test scores, and very little else.
[Editor's Note: The science skills were measure among 2rd to 10th graders, not 3rd through 11th--why the cutoffs are both 1 earlier isn't stated, and may affect results, but shouldn't make too dramatic a difference. If all the difference is accounted for by that discrepancy, then we either have the worst second grade or best 11th grade program in the world, and should study that.]
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
My Ridiculous Superbowl Hopes
First Tiger and I have high hopes for this year's Superbowl. It all starts with a matchup between the undefeated New England Patriots, led by pretty-boy quarterback Tom Brady, and the Green Bay Packers, led by the legendary Brett Favre. The following is quite ridiculous, and is provided as support for our theory that, if we wanted to, we could easily fill in for the Hollywood writers currently on strike. (Some links are provided to explain things or give further information. Other links are to illustrations to help storyboard this thing in your mind.)
Allow me to paint you a picture with our imagination brush:
Our ideal Superbowl starts with an early Pats lead, thus deepening their eventual humiliation. The third quarter opens with a series of Packers touchdowns in quick succession--all thrown by Brett Favre himself. This series of touchdowns starts off as a come-from-behind effort full of moxie, and turns into utter domination. Then Tom Brady gets his turn at some comeback heroics, but falls tragically short when he needs to run the ball and gets brutally upended by the Packers defense. At this point, he begins to regret all the mean and cocky things he said before the game started about how great he was.
During a postgame interview with the winning quarterback, Brady trudges, helmet in hand, dejectedly off the field. Brett sees this out of the corner of his eye and says "excuse me one moment." In another feat of amazing athleticism, Favre launches a football high into the air and says "NOW I can retire happily." The interviewer remains confused, until the ball lands--hitting Tom squarely in the back of the head. Stumbling forwards, he hits Bill Belichick, the Pats head coach found guilty of cheating earlier this season, who breaks his hip in the ensuing fall.
CRASH! Both player and coach are on the ground, and as cameras and medical personnel rush over to the sidelines, they see what spilled out of Bill's ridiculous hoodie (that never fooled anyone about how fat he was anyway). It's a collection of miniature but powerful cameras! He didn't stop cheating at all, he just got better at it! Well, as they say in Mexico and certain part of Florida, no mas! Incontrovertible proof that will surely result in heavy penalties for the Patriots, as well as asterisks after--if not outright denial and rejection of--the records they set this season.
But wait! What's this next to the video equipment? It's two syringes full of steroids, one labeled "Brady" and the other "Moss!"
Then in a moment reminiscent of last year's legendary Fiesta Bowl, Mrs. Favre--inexplicably dressed like a cheerleader--runs down to the field to give her husband a big kiss. At this point she reveals that Brett's mail got mixed up with Tom's--and produces a giant stack of homosexual pornography!
Meanwhile, Ian Johnson, hero of last year's Fiesta Bowl, happens to be randomly on the field with his wife, Chrissy, who announced she's pregnant! Confetti falls.
During that announcement, Brady's Victoria's Secret lingerie model girlfriend, Gisele Bundchen, has made her way down to the field to announce that in light of recent events, she's leaving him, and--though disappointed that First Tiger and myself are taken--thinks she'll be very happy with Chuck, my roommate.
And just as things start to quiet down, Eagles running back Brian Westbrook and former Heisman Trophy winner Troy Smith--who have been in the audience the whole time--come onto the field as well, announcing that they've put their heads together and discovered the whereabouts of the wildly unpopular Osama bin Laden. It turns out their predictions are correct, and minutes later the terrorist mastermind is found with several other illegal immigrants in Tom Brady's basement! Oh no!
And to cap off the evening, all of the sudden a group of people HALO drop into the middle of the field! It's Al Gore, with his team of Vice Presidential Action Rangers, asking all of America to write in votes for the former Vice President and actual winner of the 2000 Presidential Election on Super Tuesday--just two days later.
Two days later, Al Gore wins in a landslide.
Allow me to paint you a picture with our imagination brush:
Our ideal Superbowl starts with an early Pats lead, thus deepening their eventual humiliation. The third quarter opens with a series of Packers touchdowns in quick succession--all thrown by Brett Favre himself. This series of touchdowns starts off as a come-from-behind effort full of moxie, and turns into utter domination. Then Tom Brady gets his turn at some comeback heroics, but falls tragically short when he needs to run the ball and gets brutally upended by the Packers defense. At this point, he begins to regret all the mean and cocky things he said before the game started about how great he was.
During a postgame interview with the winning quarterback, Brady trudges, helmet in hand, dejectedly off the field. Brett sees this out of the corner of his eye and says "excuse me one moment." In another feat of amazing athleticism, Favre launches a football high into the air and says "NOW I can retire happily." The interviewer remains confused, until the ball lands--hitting Tom squarely in the back of the head. Stumbling forwards, he hits Bill Belichick, the Pats head coach found guilty of cheating earlier this season, who breaks his hip in the ensuing fall.
CRASH! Both player and coach are on the ground, and as cameras and medical personnel rush over to the sidelines, they see what spilled out of Bill's ridiculous hoodie (that never fooled anyone about how fat he was anyway). It's a collection of miniature but powerful cameras! He didn't stop cheating at all, he just got better at it! Well, as they say in Mexico and certain part of Florida, no mas! Incontrovertible proof that will surely result in heavy penalties for the Patriots, as well as asterisks after--if not outright denial and rejection of--the records they set this season.
But wait! What's this next to the video equipment? It's two syringes full of steroids, one labeled "Brady" and the other "Moss!"
Then in a moment reminiscent of last year's legendary Fiesta Bowl, Mrs. Favre--inexplicably dressed like a cheerleader--runs down to the field to give her husband a big kiss. At this point she reveals that Brett's mail got mixed up with Tom's--and produces a giant stack of homosexual pornography!
Meanwhile, Ian Johnson, hero of last year's Fiesta Bowl, happens to be randomly on the field with his wife, Chrissy, who announced she's pregnant! Confetti falls.
During that announcement, Brady's Victoria's Secret lingerie model girlfriend, Gisele Bundchen, has made her way down to the field to announce that in light of recent events, she's leaving him, and--though disappointed that First Tiger and myself are taken--thinks she'll be very happy with Chuck, my roommate.
And just as things start to quiet down, Eagles running back Brian Westbrook and former Heisman Trophy winner Troy Smith--who have been in the audience the whole time--come onto the field as well, announcing that they've put their heads together and discovered the whereabouts of the wildly unpopular Osama bin Laden. It turns out their predictions are correct, and minutes later the terrorist mastermind is found with several other illegal immigrants in Tom Brady's basement! Oh no!
And to cap off the evening, all of the sudden a group of people HALO drop into the middle of the field! It's Al Gore, with his team of Vice Presidential Action Rangers, asking all of America to write in votes for the former Vice President and actual winner of the 2000 Presidential Election on Super Tuesday--just two days later.
Two days later, Al Gore wins in a landslide.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
My Notes on the January 15th Democratic Debate
I'm currently blogging as I'm watching the debate between the Democratic candidates. I'm not going to do a blow-by-blow analysis, but there are a few things worth pointing out, especially if you missed the debate.
Before I get to the Democratic candidates, it's worth mentioning that Rudy Giuliani has done such a good job positioning himself as the Mayor of 9/11 that the moderator in this debate even mentioned his name in a question that involved 9/11. Anyone else think this is getting out of hand?
On to the debate...
Hillary Clinton has had a number of crash-and-burn moments in answering questions about which she knows nothing. This should help underscore just how poorly being "first lady" prepares one for the presidency. As I'm typing this, she just used the phrase "black-brown" for the second time to refer to African Americans and Hispanics collectively. I'm sure they love that. But of more concern to me are her economic policies--or lack thereof.
She was asked a question about foreign investment in American companies (especially from foreign governments and royals with whom we don't get along very well). At the heart of her response was the need for more regulation and disclosure rules imposed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. She thinks it's essential that these two organizations force regulations on how foreign governments and individuals can invest in American securities. For starters, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund aren't regulatory bodies! Secondly, even if they were, how could they actually make the Chinese government or Saudi princes follow the rules? And thirdly, everything else that's wrong with her bad ideas.
Another time she was asked if she was aware of any side effects her poorly-defined plan to freeze mortgage rates for 5 years would have on the housing market. The answer to this was obviously "No, I'm not an economist; I'm just following the advice of one here." She didn't say that though. She gave a long rambling reply that not only in no way contained an answer to the question, but didn't even make any sense. I'm not even sure she knows what an interest rate is. (Editor's Note: for those of you who may think I just didn't understand her reply, let me offer that I do have a BS in Economics with a concentration in Finance from a pretty good school, and I'm pretty confident that the true answer to the question was simply "No, I'm not.")
Obama, in contrast, has been quiet, thoughtful, fairly accurate, and a little unambitious. He has been careful, and hasn't been talking about specifics very much. He's mostly been trying to present himself as presidential. He's been talking about outlook, the need to bring people together and his ability to do so, his goals, how he thinks campaigns and national discussions should take place, his view of the presidency, and his priorities. His people probably decided that it was far more important for him to seem presidential than to address issues. And he's been doing a pretty good job. He's talked about honesty a lot, and said he feels it's his job to hear input from everyone, bring people together, and be an honest representative and leader of his people. The Obama message of the night is "I'm ready, and you want someone like me."
Edwards has been gutsy. He has by far offered the most specific ideas and plans and goals. He stated what he wanted, what he wanted to fight for, and why. He didn't just say we need healthcare for everyone (which we do and for which he has a great plan). He talked about specific guarantees he wanted to make to veterans; he talked about ways to help young people go to college; he actually offered some specifics about how he wanted to get out of Iraq; and he even proposed a specific plan to index the minimum wage to inflation (so it wouldn't, in effect, be lowered every year by rising prices--he also proposed an increase to $9.50, which won't happen, but he's trying).
One of the most impressive things to me about Edwards this debate was a statement he made that dropped my jaw. He said he would propose a ban on constructing coal-burning power plants. This is HUGE. It's unpopular in a LOT of places, and he has very little to gain politically from it. In the places where people care about coal-specific issues, they love it. As was pointed out very well in "The West Wing," the United States is like the Saudi Arabia of coal. What oil is to them, coal is to many areas in the US. And it's one of the least clean energy sources available to us. Edwards seems to be putting what's best for our children over what's best for his politics, the kind of behavior we should be encouraging in candidates.
Edwards also seemed inspired tonight, getting emotionally invested in his pledge to fight for those who can't fight for themselves. To help people secure healthcare, education, and a home. I really think he believes in what he's doing more than his opponents. He's running for the reasons we want candidates to run, not the reasons they usually do. Hopefully voters will see that too.
Before I get to the Democratic candidates, it's worth mentioning that Rudy Giuliani has done such a good job positioning himself as the Mayor of 9/11 that the moderator in this debate even mentioned his name in a question that involved 9/11. Anyone else think this is getting out of hand?
On to the debate...
Hillary Clinton has had a number of crash-and-burn moments in answering questions about which she knows nothing. This should help underscore just how poorly being "first lady" prepares one for the presidency. As I'm typing this, she just used the phrase "black-brown" for the second time to refer to African Americans and Hispanics collectively. I'm sure they love that. But of more concern to me are her economic policies--or lack thereof.
She was asked a question about foreign investment in American companies (especially from foreign governments and royals with whom we don't get along very well). At the heart of her response was the need for more regulation and disclosure rules imposed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. She thinks it's essential that these two organizations force regulations on how foreign governments and individuals can invest in American securities. For starters, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund aren't regulatory bodies! Secondly, even if they were, how could they actually make the Chinese government or Saudi princes follow the rules? And thirdly, everything else that's wrong with her bad ideas.
Another time she was asked if she was aware of any side effects her poorly-defined plan to freeze mortgage rates for 5 years would have on the housing market. The answer to this was obviously "No, I'm not an economist; I'm just following the advice of one here." She didn't say that though. She gave a long rambling reply that not only in no way contained an answer to the question, but didn't even make any sense. I'm not even sure she knows what an interest rate is. (Editor's Note: for those of you who may think I just didn't understand her reply, let me offer that I do have a BS in Economics with a concentration in Finance from a pretty good school, and I'm pretty confident that the true answer to the question was simply "No, I'm not.")
Obama, in contrast, has been quiet, thoughtful, fairly accurate, and a little unambitious. He has been careful, and hasn't been talking about specifics very much. He's mostly been trying to present himself as presidential. He's been talking about outlook, the need to bring people together and his ability to do so, his goals, how he thinks campaigns and national discussions should take place, his view of the presidency, and his priorities. His people probably decided that it was far more important for him to seem presidential than to address issues. And he's been doing a pretty good job. He's talked about honesty a lot, and said he feels it's his job to hear input from everyone, bring people together, and be an honest representative and leader of his people. The Obama message of the night is "I'm ready, and you want someone like me."
Edwards has been gutsy. He has by far offered the most specific ideas and plans and goals. He stated what he wanted, what he wanted to fight for, and why. He didn't just say we need healthcare for everyone (which we do and for which he has a great plan). He talked about specific guarantees he wanted to make to veterans; he talked about ways to help young people go to college; he actually offered some specifics about how he wanted to get out of Iraq; and he even proposed a specific plan to index the minimum wage to inflation (so it wouldn't, in effect, be lowered every year by rising prices--he also proposed an increase to $9.50, which won't happen, but he's trying).
One of the most impressive things to me about Edwards this debate was a statement he made that dropped my jaw. He said he would propose a ban on constructing coal-burning power plants. This is HUGE. It's unpopular in a LOT of places, and he has very little to gain politically from it. In the places where people care about coal-specific issues, they love it. As was pointed out very well in "The West Wing," the United States is like the Saudi Arabia of coal. What oil is to them, coal is to many areas in the US. And it's one of the least clean energy sources available to us. Edwards seems to be putting what's best for our children over what's best for his politics, the kind of behavior we should be encouraging in candidates.
Edwards also seemed inspired tonight, getting emotionally invested in his pledge to fight for those who can't fight for themselves. To help people secure healthcare, education, and a home. I really think he believes in what he's doing more than his opponents. He's running for the reasons we want candidates to run, not the reasons they usually do. Hopefully voters will see that too.
My Amazon Item
This may be the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen for sale on Amazon.com. I especially like the fact that customers who bought items like that one also bought Bender's Big Score, the new Futurama movie.
This means that somewhere out there, there's someone just like me...in a small civilian tank.
This means that somewhere out there, there's someone just like me...in a small civilian tank.
Monday, January 14, 2008
My Blog Update (Jan 08)
Some fellow bloggers have asked me for permission to link to this blog. I'll say right now that anyone is welcome to link to this blog or any part of it. You can search it on Google, and it's a public blog. The anonymity provided by the "Dramatis Personae" list on the right is in recognition of the fact that anyone can see the content (it protects the privacy of individuals mentioned here). So by all means, if anyone feels inspired to link to this blog or a post in it, go right ahead.
I also know that many people whom I've never met read this blog (I actually met someone last week who was already familiar with it). I also seem to have developed a quasi-regular following with a few people in England and Canada (hi, whoever you are). I suspect they come for my witty and concise take on American politics that you don't get from big media outlets.
If anyone's interested, since I've been keeping track (for roughly the last 700 hits or so), this blog has been visited by people in 26 different countries and 35 of the 50 states in the US.
Finally, a special welcome to a new member of my anonymous character list, Coder, who not only bested me in Futurama trivia, but even pointed out that this blog is inaccurately titled. While it sounded to me (and many others) like the mock-advertisement at the beginning of "The Problem With Popplers" (Season 2, Episode 18) said "Nobody does it like Molten Boron," it turns out that the script says "Nobody doesn't like Molten Boron." Thanks go to Coder, who was actually watching this episode on DVD with the subtitles on.
If I decide to switch to my own domain, I may wind up changing the title again, but for now, welcome to Nobody doesn't like Molten Boron.
Thanks, readers. I'll be back to my less meta-blogging soon.
I also know that many people whom I've never met read this blog (I actually met someone last week who was already familiar with it). I also seem to have developed a quasi-regular following with a few people in England and Canada (hi, whoever you are). I suspect they come for my witty and concise take on American politics that you don't get from big media outlets.
If anyone's interested, since I've been keeping track (for roughly the last 700 hits or so), this blog has been visited by people in 26 different countries and 35 of the 50 states in the US.
Finally, a special welcome to a new member of my anonymous character list, Coder, who not only bested me in Futurama trivia, but even pointed out that this blog is inaccurately titled. While it sounded to me (and many others) like the mock-advertisement at the beginning of "The Problem With Popplers" (Season 2, Episode 18) said "Nobody does it like Molten Boron," it turns out that the script says "Nobody doesn't like Molten Boron." Thanks go to Coder, who was actually watching this episode on DVD with the subtitles on.
If I decide to switch to my own domain, I may wind up changing the title again, but for now, welcome to Nobody doesn't like Molten Boron.
Thanks, readers. I'll be back to my less meta-blogging soon.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
First Tiger and I have determined that Tom Brady is the Steve Holt of the NFL. If the Patriots complete their undefeated season with a Superbowl victory, would any fan of both football and Arrested Development really be all that surprised if the cocky quarterback called a press conference to announce "Tom Brady!" while pumping his fists in the air?
[Editor's Addendum: The picture Rick Blaine linked us to in the comments shows Tom Brady carrying a purse. Responding to DeluxX's suggestion that it's his girlfriend's purse, I feel obligated to point out that another picture in that series shows his girlfriend with him, purse in hand. It's his purse.]
[Editor's Addendum: The picture Rick Blaine linked us to in the comments shows Tom Brady carrying a purse. Responding to DeluxX's suggestion that it's his girlfriend's purse, I feel obligated to point out that another picture in that series shows his girlfriend with him, purse in hand. It's his purse.]
Thursday, January 10, 2008
My Frustration with the Edwards Campaign
After the New Hampshire primary, the John Edwards campaign made yet another huge mistake with his speech. This time it wasn't so much the speech itself, but the timing.
After the polls closed, a large chunk of America was watching. The Republican race clearly went to McCain--who, as Cynara observed, gave his speech as if it were a story on Reading Rainbow--while Obama and Hillary were in a too-close-to-call situation. Meanwhile Edwards was CLEARLY in third (15 points behind the two front-runners and never less than 12 points ahead of fourth). While the two possible winners had to wait to give their speeches, the television analysis grew redundant.
Edwards should have given his speech then.
When 20% of the returns had been counted, it was pretty clear the winner wouldn't be announced in the next 15-30 minutes (i.e., soon enough to interrupt a speech). Meanwhile, as more and more Americans turned off the TV (especially in the Eastern time zone...places like South Carolina), the eventual audience grew smaller and smaller. Even I, an avid follower, got bored and turned the TV off 100 minutes or so after the polls closed. There's no way that any gains to be had by waiting until all the results were in could overcome the cost of waiting.
Why wait? The only reason I can think of would be the risk of getting interrupted by the announcement of a winner. But at the time the odds were small, and the audience was shrinking. I think a calculated risk was in order (what was the expected value for the number of people who would hear his speech depending on when he gave it? I believe it was clearly higher to give it sooner...if you want an explanation, ask and I'll post it in the comments). Other possible reasons for waiting would be to call and congratulate the winner (not a big deal), to be able to name the winner (not a big deal), to wait and hope for a second or first place finish (probability = statistically insignificantly different from zero), or just plain not being ready (screw-up by the campaign...though either way, I'd consider it a screw up--if not in preparation than in the call to wait to get the candidate out in front of a podium).
Speeches on nights when everyone's watching and debates are the two best chances John Edwards has. He can't compete on money and endorsements; he has to compete on ideas. And speeches and debates are the best chances he gets to communicate his ideas on equal footing. And in the two most watched primary contests (and two of the three most followed days in the whole primary process--the third being Super Tuesday), the campaign has blown great chances to hit a home run. After Iowa, they screwed up on the speech. And after New Hampshire, the speech barely mattered, because they didn't even get him out there in time for most people to hear anything he had to say.
At this point I'm starting to hope for an Obama-Edwards ticket that uses the Edwards Plan for health care. An underfunded third-place campaign with great ideas and a popular populist message CAN get the nomination, but not the way they're doing it over at the Edwards campaign. They're running out of chances.
After the polls closed, a large chunk of America was watching. The Republican race clearly went to McCain--who, as Cynara observed, gave his speech as if it were a story on Reading Rainbow--while Obama and Hillary were in a too-close-to-call situation. Meanwhile Edwards was CLEARLY in third (15 points behind the two front-runners and never less than 12 points ahead of fourth). While the two possible winners had to wait to give their speeches, the television analysis grew redundant.
Edwards should have given his speech then.
When 20% of the returns had been counted, it was pretty clear the winner wouldn't be announced in the next 15-30 minutes (i.e., soon enough to interrupt a speech). Meanwhile, as more and more Americans turned off the TV (especially in the Eastern time zone...places like South Carolina), the eventual audience grew smaller and smaller. Even I, an avid follower, got bored and turned the TV off 100 minutes or so after the polls closed. There's no way that any gains to be had by waiting until all the results were in could overcome the cost of waiting.
Why wait? The only reason I can think of would be the risk of getting interrupted by the announcement of a winner. But at the time the odds were small, and the audience was shrinking. I think a calculated risk was in order (what was the expected value for the number of people who would hear his speech depending on when he gave it? I believe it was clearly higher to give it sooner...if you want an explanation, ask and I'll post it in the comments). Other possible reasons for waiting would be to call and congratulate the winner (not a big deal), to be able to name the winner (not a big deal), to wait and hope for a second or first place finish (probability = statistically insignificantly different from zero), or just plain not being ready (screw-up by the campaign...though either way, I'd consider it a screw up--if not in preparation than in the call to wait to get the candidate out in front of a podium).
Speeches on nights when everyone's watching and debates are the two best chances John Edwards has. He can't compete on money and endorsements; he has to compete on ideas. And speeches and debates are the best chances he gets to communicate his ideas on equal footing. And in the two most watched primary contests (and two of the three most followed days in the whole primary process--the third being Super Tuesday), the campaign has blown great chances to hit a home run. After Iowa, they screwed up on the speech. And after New Hampshire, the speech barely mattered, because they didn't even get him out there in time for most people to hear anything he had to say.
At this point I'm starting to hope for an Obama-Edwards ticket that uses the Edwards Plan for health care. An underfunded third-place campaign with great ideas and a popular populist message CAN get the nomination, but not the way they're doing it over at the Edwards campaign. They're running out of chances.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
My Advice to John Edwards
Well, I've returned. And since a lot has happened since I've been gone, let me dive right back into politics. I'll resume a more balanced selection of post topics once the caucus/primary frenzy dies down.
So you all probably know that Obama won Iowa by a wide margin, with Edwards in a distant second and Hillary Clinton in a very close third. The Republicans are probably fairly happy about that, because Obama's probably the second most beatable Democrat in the field right now (the most beatable being the extremely unlikeable Hillary, for reasons I've largely covered).
But the salient takeaway for me from the Iowa Caucuses is simple: John Edwards, my candidate of choice, needs to fire his speech writers. After the caucuses, each candidate gave a speech which amounted to a ton of free media exposure (and since John was outspent 6:1 in Iowa, he could use it). These speeches were shown repeatedly on all the major networks; quotes were used frequently; and overly-thorough analysis was conducted. John needed a home run here. And he didn't get it. While he didn't whiff completely (I'd say he hit a grounder to third for a single), he seemed almost uncomfortable giving his own speech. His content was good, but I'm blaming his speech writers. Ignoring for a moment that they know their candidate so poorly they made him slightly awkward and uncomfortable in the midst of discussing issues about which he is more passionate than anyone in either race at the moment, the whole speech structure was messed up.
There was a large chunk in the speech in which he spent a lot of time talking about how bad things have gotten. He told a lot of sad stories about lack of health insurance and poverty in America. He provided a lot of statistics. And only after he had essentially sent the message that we're headed towards a dystopia unless something is done, did he go back to what pundits have been calling "the politics of hope." The first part of that section was not an appeal to hope, but rather, an appeal to fear.
BIG mistake.
This is a guy who was the poster boy for "the politics of hope" four years ago. And since this speech, Obama has had pretty much a monopoly on being the hopeful candidate. Edwards, through the fear appeal, annihilated any memory voters had of him being the happy hopeful warrior of the working man.
What kills me the most is how easily this could have been fixed. Instead of lots of sad stories, lots of statistics, and an image of a dystopian future followed finally by hope and the word "fight" (which only appeared in the last 30 seconds of the speech), all he needed to do was change the presentation. He could have kept all the content the same. But he needed a syntactic formula more like the following:
1) One or two sad stories highlighting a single problem
2) One or two statistics to multiply that sadness by millions, explaining the problem
3) The statement "We can, we must, and we WILL do better!"
4) A declaration of his intent to fight, which includes the word "fight."
This is how he brands himself as the happy warrior who embodies the politics of hope once again. By the ends of this speech, he's already set up two things which he can clearly state: 1) things are bad, but he expected them to change and 2) there's going to be a fight, and he wants to be in it.
At the end of the speech I'm proposing for him, his message, his conclusion, is simple:
1) We can fix what is wrong, but we have to fight, to create mini revolutions in the way our society works
2) Invoke Thomas Paine's quote: "If there is to be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace."
3) Insist that we fight for these things now. Fight poverty, fight for health insurance for all Americans, fight against fear both domestic and abroad, that we come together with one voice to create new revolutions, so that we, like Thomas Paine, can one day turn to our children and with that same voice teach them of an America better than we ourselves inherited. Say, "Let us spread hope across this nation so that we can lift each other up from these woes; let us start this fight now so no one need suffer or fear needlessly; and let us establish these revolutions to last throughout the generations, so our children and their children never know the fear that grips those in poverty, those without insurance, and those without an education today. Let us start this fight now so we can give to our children a better America, as our parents did for us."
As Teddy Roosevelt said, "We are not building this country of ours for a day. It is to last through the ages."
That should have been the speech John Edwards gave. One with hope and momentum, one that built a thundering crescendo of emotion and ended with the happy warrior using the politics of hope to lead us into a fight we can win, a fight for us, our neighbors and our children. Achieving the American dream through hard work and determination. That should have been John's speech. And it still can be. But he's running out of chances to give it. And he doesn't seem to want to listen to me.
So you all probably know that Obama won Iowa by a wide margin, with Edwards in a distant second and Hillary Clinton in a very close third. The Republicans are probably fairly happy about that, because Obama's probably the second most beatable Democrat in the field right now (the most beatable being the extremely unlikeable Hillary, for reasons I've largely covered).
But the salient takeaway for me from the Iowa Caucuses is simple: John Edwards, my candidate of choice, needs to fire his speech writers. After the caucuses, each candidate gave a speech which amounted to a ton of free media exposure (and since John was outspent 6:1 in Iowa, he could use it). These speeches were shown repeatedly on all the major networks; quotes were used frequently; and overly-thorough analysis was conducted. John needed a home run here. And he didn't get it. While he didn't whiff completely (I'd say he hit a grounder to third for a single), he seemed almost uncomfortable giving his own speech. His content was good, but I'm blaming his speech writers. Ignoring for a moment that they know their candidate so poorly they made him slightly awkward and uncomfortable in the midst of discussing issues about which he is more passionate than anyone in either race at the moment, the whole speech structure was messed up.
There was a large chunk in the speech in which he spent a lot of time talking about how bad things have gotten. He told a lot of sad stories about lack of health insurance and poverty in America. He provided a lot of statistics. And only after he had essentially sent the message that we're headed towards a dystopia unless something is done, did he go back to what pundits have been calling "the politics of hope." The first part of that section was not an appeal to hope, but rather, an appeal to fear.
BIG mistake.
This is a guy who was the poster boy for "the politics of hope" four years ago. And since this speech, Obama has had pretty much a monopoly on being the hopeful candidate. Edwards, through the fear appeal, annihilated any memory voters had of him being the happy hopeful warrior of the working man.
What kills me the most is how easily this could have been fixed. Instead of lots of sad stories, lots of statistics, and an image of a dystopian future followed finally by hope and the word "fight" (which only appeared in the last 30 seconds of the speech), all he needed to do was change the presentation. He could have kept all the content the same. But he needed a syntactic formula more like the following:
1) One or two sad stories highlighting a single problem
2) One or two statistics to multiply that sadness by millions, explaining the problem
3) The statement "We can, we must, and we WILL do better!"
4) A declaration of his intent to fight, which includes the word "fight."
This is how he brands himself as the happy warrior who embodies the politics of hope once again. By the ends of this speech, he's already set up two things which he can clearly state: 1) things are bad, but he expected them to change and 2) there's going to be a fight, and he wants to be in it.
At the end of the speech I'm proposing for him, his message, his conclusion, is simple:
1) We can fix what is wrong, but we have to fight, to create mini revolutions in the way our society works
2) Invoke Thomas Paine's quote: "If there is to be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace."
3) Insist that we fight for these things now. Fight poverty, fight for health insurance for all Americans, fight against fear both domestic and abroad, that we come together with one voice to create new revolutions, so that we, like Thomas Paine, can one day turn to our children and with that same voice teach them of an America better than we ourselves inherited. Say, "Let us spread hope across this nation so that we can lift each other up from these woes; let us start this fight now so no one need suffer or fear needlessly; and let us establish these revolutions to last throughout the generations, so our children and their children never know the fear that grips those in poverty, those without insurance, and those without an education today. Let us start this fight now so we can give to our children a better America, as our parents did for us."
As Teddy Roosevelt said, "We are not building this country of ours for a day. It is to last through the ages."
That should have been the speech John Edwards gave. One with hope and momentum, one that built a thundering crescendo of emotion and ended with the happy warrior using the politics of hope to lead us into a fight we can win, a fight for us, our neighbors and our children. Achieving the American dream through hard work and determination. That should have been John's speech. And it still can be. But he's running out of chances to give it. And he doesn't seem to want to listen to me.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
My Endorsement
I'm going to Rochester, NY for a few days--and I'll be pretty busy for a few days after that--so you can enjoy a brief respite from the droning I throw the way of my readers. I'll be back to my approximate once-to-thrice a week schedule after that.
Meanwhile, Happy New Years to everyone, especially all zero of you who responded to my last post (if you're bored in my absence, feel free to do that).
Finally, since I'll be gone for the Iowa Caucuses, I'd like to encourage any Iowans who may be reading to vote for John Edwards. While I don't know of any Iowans who have ever visited this blog, I'm hoping that if I use the word "Iowa" enough in this paragraph (along with words like "Presidential" and "Caucus"), that someone will find their way here. And to those undecided searchers, I say, vote for John Edwards. He has this blog's endorsement. A good health plan; a sympathy for working Americans; a realistic economic outlook; and an intelligent and intelligible leader. If you don't think I'm smart enough to be making recommendations to you, I invite you to read some of my previous posts on political topics. Also consider that I'm a Republican from Pennsylvania, so there's no party or local loyalty involved here.
I'd also like to recommend John Edwards to any of you undecideds from New Hampshire, or anywhere else in the 50 states.
I'm considering endorsing other things too (other politicians, products, services, courses of action, etc.). It's time I started wielding this blog like the tiny tiny hammer of influence that it is (you know, for the good of mankind). My first round of endorsements will probably be fairly obvious (John Edwards, Futurama, Costco, etc.), but we'll see how this evolves. If my readers would like some advice when making a choice, let me know and maybe you'll get an endorsement (if I have the time to research and think about your dilemma, and I feel confident enough to put the full weight of my considerable reputation behind my choice).
For the time being, though, in the words of Al Gore: "Peace out, y'all."
Meanwhile, Happy New Years to everyone, especially all zero of you who responded to my last post (if you're bored in my absence, feel free to do that).
Finally, since I'll be gone for the Iowa Caucuses, I'd like to encourage any Iowans who may be reading to vote for John Edwards. While I don't know of any Iowans who have ever visited this blog, I'm hoping that if I use the word "Iowa" enough in this paragraph (along with words like "Presidential" and "Caucus"), that someone will find their way here. And to those undecided searchers, I say, vote for John Edwards. He has this blog's endorsement. A good health plan; a sympathy for working Americans; a realistic economic outlook; and an intelligent and intelligible leader. If you don't think I'm smart enough to be making recommendations to you, I invite you to read some of my previous posts on political topics. Also consider that I'm a Republican from Pennsylvania, so there's no party or local loyalty involved here.
I'd also like to recommend John Edwards to any of you undecideds from New Hampshire, or anywhere else in the 50 states.
I'm considering endorsing other things too (other politicians, products, services, courses of action, etc.). It's time I started wielding this blog like the tiny tiny hammer of influence that it is (you know, for the good of mankind). My first round of endorsements will probably be fairly obvious (John Edwards, Futurama, Costco, etc.), but we'll see how this evolves. If my readers would like some advice when making a choice, let me know and maybe you'll get an endorsement (if I have the time to research and think about your dilemma, and I feel confident enough to put the full weight of my considerable reputation behind my choice).
For the time being, though, in the words of Al Gore: "Peace out, y'all."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)