Thursday, January 31, 2008
Critique Group
This is from my other blog about my first published novel. Click the title of this post to get to it there.
*****************
I thought I might never make any more progress on this project. It was moribund, that's more-eee-bund-o, my friend, but finally I am involved in a critique group. The first ten pages need lots of work, and will for a while because what I do is apply the advice to the next ten pages each week. And, boy the advice is fantastic! Finally, I have somewhere to go with making this thing fit to read. I can tell it's a good story, because my readers all want to know what happens next. I thought so, now I know so. Anyhow, it will take approximately 21 more weeks to go throught the whole thing, at which time I think I'll have something to show the world at last. Thank you to my critique partners (they know who they are) and thank you for reading this. Wow. I'll keep this posted as things go along. Later . . .
*****************
I thought I might never make any more progress on this project. It was moribund, that's more-eee-bund-o, my friend, but finally I am involved in a critique group. The first ten pages need lots of work, and will for a while because what I do is apply the advice to the next ten pages each week. And, boy the advice is fantastic! Finally, I have somewhere to go with making this thing fit to read. I can tell it's a good story, because my readers all want to know what happens next. I thought so, now I know so. Anyhow, it will take approximately 21 more weeks to go throught the whole thing, at which time I think I'll have something to show the world at last. Thank you to my critique partners (they know who they are) and thank you for reading this. Wow. I'll keep this posted as things go along. Later . . .
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Goodbye, Farewell, and, um, Amen?
Today John Edwards bailed on the Democratic race, and Rudy Giuliani left the Republican field. That leaves a much smaller bunch running, after Richardson and Kucinich had already signed off. I think that leaves Obama, Clinton, McCain, Romney and Huckabee still striving mightily. So, pedantry front and center, let me analyze, dissect, consider, and opine about what is going to happen now.
On the Democratic front, I'll bet that super Tuesday will be a split. Neither candidate will be a front runner next week, any more than they are now. Much like in Nevada, where Clinton won but Obama gets one more delegate (the press knows nothing of Nevada, obviously, since they didn't know what to make of that), Hillary and Barak will both have something for which to claim victory. They will both be wrong.
On the part of the Republicans, McCain is, as I said before, their best hope. It may not be a great hope, as for one thing the man is older than you can imagine anyone being who is trying to be President, but still he's their best hope. That said, he may well not win. Or, he may. This is a hard to call hors race here. Huckabee is playing to the traditional base of religious conservatives, which unfortunately for him limits his backing a lot more than he'd like to believe. On the other hand, Romney is a Mormon, which doesn't bother anyone in Nevada, but probably does among, well, Huckabee's base, for one group, and maybe others. There's not a Mormon polygamist in the known universe, but that will come up, just you wait, and it is gnawing at the back of a lot of people's minds. Personally I don't find Mormon beliefs any stranger than a lot of people's, but that's just me. My point it that Mitt will have trouble because of his religion, and Mike will have trouble because of his base (and their religion) which actually might give McCain a real boost, assuming he doesn't go broke within the next week. Super Tuesday would likely knock Romney out, but he's got a lot of cash and he isn't afraid to spend it, so I suspect he'll stick around no matter how the day comes out. Huckabee might fold if he does badly enough, but odds are he'll take a enough states to keep his hat in. McCain will either come out looking good, or looking like a loser. I'm thinking the former, but hey, you never know.
On the Democratic front, I'll bet that super Tuesday will be a split. Neither candidate will be a front runner next week, any more than they are now. Much like in Nevada, where Clinton won but Obama gets one more delegate (the press knows nothing of Nevada, obviously, since they didn't know what to make of that), Hillary and Barak will both have something for which to claim victory. They will both be wrong.
On the part of the Republicans, McCain is, as I said before, their best hope. It may not be a great hope, as for one thing the man is older than you can imagine anyone being who is trying to be President, but still he's their best hope. That said, he may well not win. Or, he may. This is a hard to call hors race here. Huckabee is playing to the traditional base of religious conservatives, which unfortunately for him limits his backing a lot more than he'd like to believe. On the other hand, Romney is a Mormon, which doesn't bother anyone in Nevada, but probably does among, well, Huckabee's base, for one group, and maybe others. There's not a Mormon polygamist in the known universe, but that will come up, just you wait, and it is gnawing at the back of a lot of people's minds. Personally I don't find Mormon beliefs any stranger than a lot of people's, but that's just me. My point it that Mitt will have trouble because of his religion, and Mike will have trouble because of his base (and their religion) which actually might give McCain a real boost, assuming he doesn't go broke within the next week. Super Tuesday would likely knock Romney out, but he's got a lot of cash and he isn't afraid to spend it, so I suspect he'll stick around no matter how the day comes out. Huckabee might fold if he does badly enough, but odds are he'll take a enough states to keep his hat in. McCain will either come out looking good, or looking like a loser. I'm thinking the former, but hey, you never know.
Labels: Politics, Religion, Social Commentary
Monday, January 21, 2008
Deja Vu Again
I know that I was done with England, but just this one more thing. Friday was the last day of finals week where I teach, and some of my fellow teachers and I were going out to lunch. I got directions, then I got lost, which immediately reminded me of England. I was lost most of the time driving there, but we always arrived in time so it was okay. Here I was again, in an unfamiliar part of the valley, lost, and what do I come across but not one but two roundabouts. They seemed a bit odd as I turned right to get onto them. Oddly, they didn't bother me much. My only worry was that the other drivers might not know how to handle them. One week and already I'm an expert, huh? Anyway, there I was, lost on a roundabout. Made me nostalgic for the Midlands, it did.
Never did find the restaurant, by the way.
Never did find the restaurant, by the way.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
A Christian in the White House?
Mike Huckabee's comment to the faithful in South Carolina really seems odd. Easier to amend the constitution than change the will of the everliving god. Yeah, but I get to choose the god, if you don't mind. But it was a comment from a voter in that state that really struck me. The person said that we needed a "Christian in the White House." Well, then so far as I can tell, we've had one for quite a long time. What in heck did that person mean, really?
I'm one of those contrary Unitarians, as I've said before. I was raised in the Methodist church, though, which I'm not sure that person in Carolina would agree, but which most would, is a Christian organization. I'm even sort of proud of that old firebrand Wesley, and his brother Charles wrote a good hymn too boot. But my point is that I've read the bible, more than once, and I've heard the Apostle's Creed recited, and recited it myself, a whole lot of times, and I really wonder what the issue is with the Christianity of the President. See, I know that all you really have to do to be Christian, at the bottom of it all, is accept that Jesus died for you, and that he rose from the dead and now lives in Heaven. That's really it. Accept Jesus and you're Christian: there is no other qualification mentioned in the book.
So, to an outsider, anyone who says he or she is a Christian must be. I don't read minds, so when such diverse people as JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and every single current candidate tells me that they've met the qualifications of being a Christian, well, then that's okay with me. They may not agree with all the other Christians in the world on everything, in fact I guess it's a pretty good bet that they don't. But they are Christian if they say so, unless I can somehow prove beyond a doubt that they're lying about it. So what then, I ask myself, is the problem with the person in Carolina who doesn't think the incumbent is a Christian? He never visits your church? Well, he lives a long way off, you know. He doesn't spend his time reaffirming how right you are about things? Well, that's nobody's job, you know. Heck, you could even be wrong once in a while.
From my point of view, it's pretty scary that a candidate would be playing to a crowd that has such a narrow definition even of Christianity that they exclude all but a select few. I mean, is that faith, or is it more like Narcissus and Echo? You may say it's faith, but I think only Echo could love someone like that. Maybe, it occurs to me, that's what they're really worried about.
Meantime I'll rest assured (or not rest but still be assured of this at least) that our next President will be, no matter what else he or she may be, Christian. For what that's worth.
I'm one of those contrary Unitarians, as I've said before. I was raised in the Methodist church, though, which I'm not sure that person in Carolina would agree, but which most would, is a Christian organization. I'm even sort of proud of that old firebrand Wesley, and his brother Charles wrote a good hymn too boot. But my point is that I've read the bible, more than once, and I've heard the Apostle's Creed recited, and recited it myself, a whole lot of times, and I really wonder what the issue is with the Christianity of the President. See, I know that all you really have to do to be Christian, at the bottom of it all, is accept that Jesus died for you, and that he rose from the dead and now lives in Heaven. That's really it. Accept Jesus and you're Christian: there is no other qualification mentioned in the book.
So, to an outsider, anyone who says he or she is a Christian must be. I don't read minds, so when such diverse people as JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and every single current candidate tells me that they've met the qualifications of being a Christian, well, then that's okay with me. They may not agree with all the other Christians in the world on everything, in fact I guess it's a pretty good bet that they don't. But they are Christian if they say so, unless I can somehow prove beyond a doubt that they're lying about it. So what then, I ask myself, is the problem with the person in Carolina who doesn't think the incumbent is a Christian? He never visits your church? Well, he lives a long way off, you know. He doesn't spend his time reaffirming how right you are about things? Well, that's nobody's job, you know. Heck, you could even be wrong once in a while.
From my point of view, it's pretty scary that a candidate would be playing to a crowd that has such a narrow definition even of Christianity that they exclude all but a select few. I mean, is that faith, or is it more like Narcissus and Echo? You may say it's faith, but I think only Echo could love someone like that. Maybe, it occurs to me, that's what they're really worried about.
Meantime I'll rest assured (or not rest but still be assured of this at least) that our next President will be, no matter what else he or she may be, Christian. For what that's worth.
Labels: Politics, Religion, Social Commentary
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Apple Pi?
So, here's the thing about Apple. For me, I mean. The company makes a decent computer, a slick phone, and a fancy MP3 player with pretensions. I'm willing to admit that their OS might be a bit better than Windows, but we'll never really know, because the company also engages in behavior that ought to give anyone thinking critically some serious pause for reflection.
Take the Apple Exposition, in which just the other day Steve Jobs introduced a new, thin little notebook that's sure to be the darling of the gotta have the latest crowd for a while. I'm sure that the thing works fine, but the cheap one is about eighteen hundred bucks, and the top of the line one, with the flash memory, is about thirty-eight hundred bucks. Thirty-eight hundred bucks? The thing better cook and do windows (the kind in a house, not on a desktop) for that kind of money. Apple never bothers with the Consumer Electronics Show, a yearly staple in Vegas, because, well, because they're Apple, and their stuff is just too wonderful and leading edge to mingle with ordinary consumer goods. In fact, if you take what Apple implies to the logical limit, Apple stuff isn't consumer goods at all, but another level of existence, reserved only for the very smart, very cool, or, to judge by the prices, very rich. The same level of exclusivity one sees in the IPhone one also sees in the IPod and in this new slick thin computer.
So, if it's so leading edge and slick and wonderful, why doesn't Apple compete in the marketplace with all of the other consumer goods (because that's what Apple makes, of course: consumer goods)? Why don't they simply sell their OS for PCs, since they are now using the same essential hardware as those nasty old-fashioned PCs Apple likes to poke fun at? You don't think so? The beta version of the Intel MacOS ran on PCs. It was only for the release that they made it need the special chips Apple uses only in its computers, chips which, apparently, serve only to let the OS know that it's okay to run since this isn't some inferior product. Consider that the computer I"m working on right now can run any version of Windows ever produced, any version of MS-DOS ever produced, FreeBSD, any flavor of Linux out there, IBM's erstwhile OS2, several versions of UNIX, and SUN Solaris, and if I wanted to I could write something myself that would work on this box. The only OS it for sure will not run is the MAC OS. I really don't think that this is because of any inherent superiority in MAC OS. If anything, it must be an inherent inferiority that Apple would rather the hard core believers never discover, but that's unfair speculation on my part. Right.
Apple is great in design, I'll give them that. The IPhone is one slick package. That's all it is, though, is a package. I have an old beat-up LG phone in my pocket that will actually do everything the IPhone will do. Yes, I can surf the Internet, use GPS, send and receive files and text, photos, videos (in Apple's format, no less) and it's a phone. The IPhone has slickness, which has of course been duplicated by several other manufacturers, but that's the only advantage it gives. Same with the IPod. It was some time after the device was introduced that a diskless model came out. A diskless music player has a number of advantages: among others it doesn't skip if it's bounced around, it lasts longer, and it has an expandable capacity for songs and files. I had one several years before the first IPod came out, and even longer before Apple came out with a diskless IPod. What's the IPod got that other music players ain't got? Slickness.
Maybe Apple uses brainwashing. I once overheard a couple of Mac aficionados talking about how their Macs never crashed like Windows machines. Then, one sentence later, they talked about how the latest OS update had solved the problems they'd been having with programs locking up forcing them to restart. (?) And Windows 2000, which came out almost a year before the MAC OSX, had something called Preemptive Multitasking, which prior to OS X no MAC had at all. Preemptive Multitasking is what lets you stop one program that's locked up so that you don't have to reboot just because you froze up your word processor again. Windows, and OS2 from IBM, had had that in the NT (short for New Technology) line for years before Apple developed a version. Technical superiority? Maybe to Fox News and Apple Fans, but not to anyone else.
So now they've done it again. They have a flash memory computer available, which is great, and available elsewhere for less. They claim as a feature that you can run Windows on the same Apple computer as the MAC OS, an interesting feature if there ever was one, and they have a lot of slickness. Yep, Apple has done it again!
When Apple decides to compete in the real world, we'll see if it's "really" superior. Until then, my "old windows machine" is still working fine.
Take the Apple Exposition, in which just the other day Steve Jobs introduced a new, thin little notebook that's sure to be the darling of the gotta have the latest crowd for a while. I'm sure that the thing works fine, but the cheap one is about eighteen hundred bucks, and the top of the line one, with the flash memory, is about thirty-eight hundred bucks. Thirty-eight hundred bucks? The thing better cook and do windows (the kind in a house, not on a desktop) for that kind of money. Apple never bothers with the Consumer Electronics Show, a yearly staple in Vegas, because, well, because they're Apple, and their stuff is just too wonderful and leading edge to mingle with ordinary consumer goods. In fact, if you take what Apple implies to the logical limit, Apple stuff isn't consumer goods at all, but another level of existence, reserved only for the very smart, very cool, or, to judge by the prices, very rich. The same level of exclusivity one sees in the IPhone one also sees in the IPod and in this new slick thin computer.
So, if it's so leading edge and slick and wonderful, why doesn't Apple compete in the marketplace with all of the other consumer goods (because that's what Apple makes, of course: consumer goods)? Why don't they simply sell their OS for PCs, since they are now using the same essential hardware as those nasty old-fashioned PCs Apple likes to poke fun at? You don't think so? The beta version of the Intel MacOS ran on PCs. It was only for the release that they made it need the special chips Apple uses only in its computers, chips which, apparently, serve only to let the OS know that it's okay to run since this isn't some inferior product. Consider that the computer I"m working on right now can run any version of Windows ever produced, any version of MS-DOS ever produced, FreeBSD, any flavor of Linux out there, IBM's erstwhile OS2, several versions of UNIX, and SUN Solaris, and if I wanted to I could write something myself that would work on this box. The only OS it for sure will not run is the MAC OS. I really don't think that this is because of any inherent superiority in MAC OS. If anything, it must be an inherent inferiority that Apple would rather the hard core believers never discover, but that's unfair speculation on my part. Right.
Apple is great in design, I'll give them that. The IPhone is one slick package. That's all it is, though, is a package. I have an old beat-up LG phone in my pocket that will actually do everything the IPhone will do. Yes, I can surf the Internet, use GPS, send and receive files and text, photos, videos (in Apple's format, no less) and it's a phone. The IPhone has slickness, which has of course been duplicated by several other manufacturers, but that's the only advantage it gives. Same with the IPod. It was some time after the device was introduced that a diskless model came out. A diskless music player has a number of advantages: among others it doesn't skip if it's bounced around, it lasts longer, and it has an expandable capacity for songs and files. I had one several years before the first IPod came out, and even longer before Apple came out with a diskless IPod. What's the IPod got that other music players ain't got? Slickness.
Maybe Apple uses brainwashing. I once overheard a couple of Mac aficionados talking about how their Macs never crashed like Windows machines. Then, one sentence later, they talked about how the latest OS update had solved the problems they'd been having with programs locking up forcing them to restart. (?) And Windows 2000, which came out almost a year before the MAC OSX, had something called Preemptive Multitasking, which prior to OS X no MAC had at all. Preemptive Multitasking is what lets you stop one program that's locked up so that you don't have to reboot just because you froze up your word processor again. Windows, and OS2 from IBM, had had that in the NT (short for New Technology) line for years before Apple developed a version. Technical superiority? Maybe to Fox News and Apple Fans, but not to anyone else.
So now they've done it again. They have a flash memory computer available, which is great, and available elsewhere for less. They claim as a feature that you can run Windows on the same Apple computer as the MAC OS, an interesting feature if there ever was one, and they have a lot of slickness. Yep, Apple has done it again!
When Apple decides to compete in the real world, we'll see if it's "really" superior. Until then, my "old windows machine" is still working fine.
Labels: Social Commentary
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Debate Puts Candidates on Dehook?
The Nevada debate just ended. And, um. Well, it's like this. That is. Okay. Well, Obama said it's time to end the politics of fear. At last a position I can unequivocally agree with. That's one. I'm hoping for one or two more by november.
Cashman Center, by the way, is the redheaded stepchild of Vegas convention facilities. Nice to see it get an airing.
As for the candidates, I'm looking forward to Sunday.
Cashman Center, by the way, is the redheaded stepchild of Vegas convention facilities. Nice to see it get an airing.
As for the candidates, I'm looking forward to Sunday.
Labels: Politics
Friday, January 11, 2008
Addendum to the last post
I forgot to mention that Mitt Romney is considered a shoo-in in Nevada owing to our large population of Mormons. Maybe, maybe not, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Labels: Politics
Cauc-a-Doodle-Doo
First, I'm standing by my such as they were predictions. That is especially easy on the Republican side, as I didn't really predict any winner. McCain did surprise me in New Hampshire, I'll say that. But, that's one small state, after all.
What prompted my post is that I got my first call from John Edwards's campaign today. I was in the middle of a possibly new record setting game of solitaire, the phone rings, and that's who it was. Well, it's a bit late in the game to be thinking of me now. Clinton and Obama have each sent personal representatives to my door, which is better than a phone call interrupting some goofing off. Which illustrates part of why I don't think that Edwards will be on the ticket: he doesn't have the resources to get people really behind him. He's sort of a Ron Paul for the left, I guess, certainly no worse than Ron Paul, probably saner, but equally unable to talk to most of us.
Hillary had a surprise loss in Iowa but now she's stomping hard in Nevada. Yesterday she was going around a neighborhood in Las Vegas trying to find union members with whom to shake hands. I guess she found some, too. Obama, meanwhile, has the endorsement of the largest union in the state, which is the Culinary Workers. If you've ever been to Vegas on vacation you've probably dealt with some of their members. I have no idea if that matters these days as the unions in Vegas are relatively weaker due to the large influx of non blue-collar types, some of whom at least are, or were before it became a bad word, neoconservatives (which is what 'neocon' means, and it's not an insult, in spite of what you might think.)
Meanwhile Mr. Obama continues to stomp here as well, and is speaking at a big rally as I write. Well, good for him. I doubt if I'll go to the caucus because I really don't much care who they nominate, but I do like an excuse to pontificate once in a while. Thanks for giving me one.
What prompted my post is that I got my first call from John Edwards's campaign today. I was in the middle of a possibly new record setting game of solitaire, the phone rings, and that's who it was. Well, it's a bit late in the game to be thinking of me now. Clinton and Obama have each sent personal representatives to my door, which is better than a phone call interrupting some goofing off. Which illustrates part of why I don't think that Edwards will be on the ticket: he doesn't have the resources to get people really behind him. He's sort of a Ron Paul for the left, I guess, certainly no worse than Ron Paul, probably saner, but equally unable to talk to most of us.
Hillary had a surprise loss in Iowa but now she's stomping hard in Nevada. Yesterday she was going around a neighborhood in Las Vegas trying to find union members with whom to shake hands. I guess she found some, too. Obama, meanwhile, has the endorsement of the largest union in the state, which is the Culinary Workers. If you've ever been to Vegas on vacation you've probably dealt with some of their members. I have no idea if that matters these days as the unions in Vegas are relatively weaker due to the large influx of non blue-collar types, some of whom at least are, or were before it became a bad word, neoconservatives (which is what 'neocon' means, and it's not an insult, in spite of what you might think.)
Meanwhile Mr. Obama continues to stomp here as well, and is speaking at a big rally as I write. Well, good for him. I doubt if I'll go to the caucus because I really don't much care who they nominate, but I do like an excuse to pontificate once in a while. Thanks for giving me one.
Labels: Politics, Social Commentary
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
I Made Top 5!
I've been sending material to Top5.com for years. They've used a few Ruminations, and I've gotten into the Runner-up and Honorable Mention lists a few times, but as of yesterday my contribution was #2! Yowzers! Click the title to this post to see the list, and be sure to check the credits at the bottom.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Caucuses (Cauci?) and Results
The Nevada caucus is coming right up. It’s on a Saturday, but I probably won’t be attending, because frankly I don’t like to be a party member in the first place. However, that doesn’t stop me from becoming a pundit when the occasion warrants. Punditry is, I believe, warranted at this point. Because, why not, eh?
*************************
First, I’m fairly sure that the Republicans could run a Jesus/Mohammed ticket and not get elected at this point. That’s because they have taken to bickering so much amongst their base that it is unlikely that any candidate will stand the litmus test of true belief, religious or otherwise, that will cause them to vote as a common bloc as they have done for the past twenty five years. I know that a majority of people who might agree with the Republican position in general probably do not fit my definition of “true believer”, but a lot of those people are not, in fact Republicans, and besides, there’s a national trend to believe that “it’s time for a change”, whatever that really means. But, let’s do a little choosing amongst the candidates anyway, okay?
Rudy Giuliani, the hero of 9/11. Okay, then. That’s what he is. That’s not enough any more. We’re pretty much sick of 9/11, and ready to get on with being angry at that weasel for attacking us instead of being afraid all the time. He ain’t gonna make it to the candidacy. If somehow he does, he most likely won’t win a lot of states.
Mike Huckabee. Nice name, and I mean that. Remember the movie called I (heart) Huckabees? Quirky little film but it makes me like him right off. Of course, he’s an evangelical of a certain stripe. I’m not sure of the evangelicals of other stripes are going to like him, because evangelicals tend to be true believers, and true believers tend to bog themselves down on trivial points of difference. He’s also a member of the most famous part of W. Bush’s base, which is a point against him by now. He may get nominated, but I doubt he could get elected.
Duncan Hunter. Who? Need I say more?
Alan Keyes. Diplomat with foreign policy expertise. Intelligent guy. Currently on the ballot in eighteen states. Tends to be thoughtful in response to questions, which will most likely disqualify him in the eyes of the nominating convention. Nice try, but no.
John McCain was the biggest threat the Republicans had until he sort of went off the deep end in support of Bush’s policies. That may not be a bad thing in the abstract, but everybody loves to hate Bush and his policies right now, so I think he won’t be their candidate, which is too bad for them. Before wigging out, he could’ve drawn a lot of centrist Democrats and independents. C’est la vie.
Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian last time. He believes in the “NAFTA Superhighway” that conspiracy theorists love to hate. They won’t nominate him because they think he’s a whack job. I have no idea what would happen if they did. He could drive the final nail into the Republican campaign coffin if he goes third party again.
Mitt Romney is a Mormon. He’s been foolish enough to engage people on that point. For contrast, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a Mormon. Anybody called him on it lately? Those two illustrate an important point about Romney’s religion: it’s practical as all get out, even if others think it’s weird, and does not attempt to influence members’ political stances as do some other religions, although both Reid and Romney will tell you that they try to live up to the principles on which they were raised. Well, so does Bill Clinton, and so does George W. Bush. Any other questions? Trouble is for Romney that he didn’t do like John Kennedy and say that it really didn’t matter, which is really doesn’t. Instead he engaged the questioners on the issue, which will drive people away from him. If Reid’s performance for Nevada is any guide, that’s too bad, but there it is.
Fred Thompson is a serious-minded man with well thought out ideas about the issues of the day, which is another way of saying he doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in Hell of getting elected. Remember John Kerry?
***********************
The Democrats, since the Republicans seem to have killed their own chances, could possibly run Daffy Duck and stand a chance. Here’s hoping they don’t do just that. Now, back to the punditry.
Joe Biden. Anybody heard from him lately? Exactly.
Hillary Rodham Clinton. Anybody heard from . . . oh, yes, we have, haven’t we? So here’s the scoop. She, being the wife, undoubtedly had a large influence on Bill’s tenure in the White House. That she failed to kill him after that Lewinsky thing is evidence right there. So, if you liked Clinton’s way of doing business, you’d like her, or at least that seems likely. Clinton was, in spite of his legion of detractors, a very popular president. I don’t know if they’ll nominate her, but of all their people she has the best chance of being elected. Members of Bush’s base take note: Canada is to the North of everywhere but Detroit. There it’s to the South.
Christopher Dodd. He’s still running?
John Edwards. Nice looking, youthful, frankly it would be a shame to spoil his looks by making him president. His best asset is that so far he has run zero negative ads. Heck, maybe he’ll win on that basis, but in truth I think he’s going to come in third. He could push for a Veep position, if he wants it.
Mike Gravel. Who in heck is Mike Gravel?
Dennis Kucinich. If anybody thinks Mitt Romney’s beliefs are suspect, what about the guy who sees UFOs? He’s from Ohio, and so was I, but I don’t think he’s going much further.
Barak Obama. I like him because he is not a boomer. Other than that, he’s as much an unknown as any candidate. He does run a good campaign, and will most likely be a force at the convention. Just imagine the stir if we had a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket. Wowzers! As of this writing, we most likely will, by the way. Only Al Gore could spoil their plans. I know that different people are definitely going to feel differently about that possibility.
Bill Richardson is one of those ‘straight-talking westerners’ we like to talk about. The trouble is, outside of the West, and California is for political purposes not in the West, he doesn’t carry much weight. Westerners haven’t done all that well, historically. I know, Texas, sure, but most of Texas isn’t really in the West, they just want to believe it so much that they convince others that it is.
*****************
You’ll notice that I didn’t predict an outcome on the Republican side. That’s because I really can’t tell. It’s a mess, and I’m glad I’m not somebody trying to sort it out. For you Republicans out there: have fun with that. And for you Democrats: don’t let all this go to your head. You can be just as idiotic, if not more so. Remember the seventies?
*************************
First, I’m fairly sure that the Republicans could run a Jesus/Mohammed ticket and not get elected at this point. That’s because they have taken to bickering so much amongst their base that it is unlikely that any candidate will stand the litmus test of true belief, religious or otherwise, that will cause them to vote as a common bloc as they have done for the past twenty five years. I know that a majority of people who might agree with the Republican position in general probably do not fit my definition of “true believer”, but a lot of those people are not, in fact Republicans, and besides, there’s a national trend to believe that “it’s time for a change”, whatever that really means. But, let’s do a little choosing amongst the candidates anyway, okay?
Rudy Giuliani, the hero of 9/11. Okay, then. That’s what he is. That’s not enough any more. We’re pretty much sick of 9/11, and ready to get on with being angry at that weasel for attacking us instead of being afraid all the time. He ain’t gonna make it to the candidacy. If somehow he does, he most likely won’t win a lot of states.
Mike Huckabee. Nice name, and I mean that. Remember the movie called I (heart) Huckabees? Quirky little film but it makes me like him right off. Of course, he’s an evangelical of a certain stripe. I’m not sure of the evangelicals of other stripes are going to like him, because evangelicals tend to be true believers, and true believers tend to bog themselves down on trivial points of difference. He’s also a member of the most famous part of W. Bush’s base, which is a point against him by now. He may get nominated, but I doubt he could get elected.
Duncan Hunter. Who? Need I say more?
Alan Keyes. Diplomat with foreign policy expertise. Intelligent guy. Currently on the ballot in eighteen states. Tends to be thoughtful in response to questions, which will most likely disqualify him in the eyes of the nominating convention. Nice try, but no.
John McCain was the biggest threat the Republicans had until he sort of went off the deep end in support of Bush’s policies. That may not be a bad thing in the abstract, but everybody loves to hate Bush and his policies right now, so I think he won’t be their candidate, which is too bad for them. Before wigging out, he could’ve drawn a lot of centrist Democrats and independents. C’est la vie.
Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian last time. He believes in the “NAFTA Superhighway” that conspiracy theorists love to hate. They won’t nominate him because they think he’s a whack job. I have no idea what would happen if they did. He could drive the final nail into the Republican campaign coffin if he goes third party again.
Mitt Romney is a Mormon. He’s been foolish enough to engage people on that point. For contrast, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a Mormon. Anybody called him on it lately? Those two illustrate an important point about Romney’s religion: it’s practical as all get out, even if others think it’s weird, and does not attempt to influence members’ political stances as do some other religions, although both Reid and Romney will tell you that they try to live up to the principles on which they were raised. Well, so does Bill Clinton, and so does George W. Bush. Any other questions? Trouble is for Romney that he didn’t do like John Kennedy and say that it really didn’t matter, which is really doesn’t. Instead he engaged the questioners on the issue, which will drive people away from him. If Reid’s performance for Nevada is any guide, that’s too bad, but there it is.
Fred Thompson is a serious-minded man with well thought out ideas about the issues of the day, which is another way of saying he doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in Hell of getting elected. Remember John Kerry?
***********************
The Democrats, since the Republicans seem to have killed their own chances, could possibly run Daffy Duck and stand a chance. Here’s hoping they don’t do just that. Now, back to the punditry.
Joe Biden. Anybody heard from him lately? Exactly.
Hillary Rodham Clinton. Anybody heard from . . . oh, yes, we have, haven’t we? So here’s the scoop. She, being the wife, undoubtedly had a large influence on Bill’s tenure in the White House. That she failed to kill him after that Lewinsky thing is evidence right there. So, if you liked Clinton’s way of doing business, you’d like her, or at least that seems likely. Clinton was, in spite of his legion of detractors, a very popular president. I don’t know if they’ll nominate her, but of all their people she has the best chance of being elected. Members of Bush’s base take note: Canada is to the North of everywhere but Detroit. There it’s to the South.
Christopher Dodd. He’s still running?
John Edwards. Nice looking, youthful, frankly it would be a shame to spoil his looks by making him president. His best asset is that so far he has run zero negative ads. Heck, maybe he’ll win on that basis, but in truth I think he’s going to come in third. He could push for a Veep position, if he wants it.
Mike Gravel. Who in heck is Mike Gravel?
Dennis Kucinich. If anybody thinks Mitt Romney’s beliefs are suspect, what about the guy who sees UFOs? He’s from Ohio, and so was I, but I don’t think he’s going much further.
Barak Obama. I like him because he is not a boomer. Other than that, he’s as much an unknown as any candidate. He does run a good campaign, and will most likely be a force at the convention. Just imagine the stir if we had a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket. Wowzers! As of this writing, we most likely will, by the way. Only Al Gore could spoil their plans. I know that different people are definitely going to feel differently about that possibility.
Bill Richardson is one of those ‘straight-talking westerners’ we like to talk about. The trouble is, outside of the West, and California is for political purposes not in the West, he doesn’t carry much weight. Westerners haven’t done all that well, historically. I know, Texas, sure, but most of Texas isn’t really in the West, they just want to believe it so much that they convince others that it is.
*****************
You’ll notice that I didn’t predict an outcome on the Republican side. That’s because I really can’t tell. It’s a mess, and I’m glad I’m not somebody trying to sort it out. For you Republicans out there: have fun with that. And for you Democrats: don’t let all this go to your head. You can be just as idiotic, if not more so. Remember the seventies?
Labels: Politics, Social Commentary
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
In Summary, England
There are two distinct Englands. One is seen on the left below. That photo was taken in a bird sanctuary in East Anglia right next to the North Sea. On the right is Tower Bridge in London. (London Bridge, the scenic one, is in Arizona.
)
In between the two extremes are many towns and cities such as Nottingham, Leicester, Stratford and hundreds more that make up the England in which most English people live and work.
I learned some things about England which I did not know. I knew, for example, that England went Metric a long time ago. I'd never driven in England, though, and thought that only beer was still availble in the old measures (pints, to be exact.) In fact, the highways are signed in miles and yards, and the speedometer on the car I rented was exactly like an American one, with the Kilometers in little numbers inside of the list of "real" speeds in miles per hour. Petrol (gasoline) is sold by the litre (liter) though, at just over a pound per litre. Since a Pound generally buys the same thing a dollar will buy in America, gas isn't all that god awful more expensive than it is in Nevada, maybe 25 percent or so more, which is less of a difference than I'd been expecting. Of course, right now the dollar isn't worth what it ought to be, so pounds are expensive for an American to buy. On the other hand, if you have pounds and want to visit America, I can tell you that you'll find it remarkably cheap. Come to Vegas, because everybody loves Las Vegas, and I'm not kidding. You'll have a good time. We even have some roundabouts, if you're feeling homesick. Also our petrol is cheaper.
You might think I enjoyed my stay in Britain, and you'd be right. It felt homey, in a good way, and the people were very friendly and tolerant of my American ways. One man even thanked me for bailing them out in World War Two, as if I'd had anything to do with it. Well, officially then, you are all very welcome, by British friends. Think nothing of it. Think of me the next time you're in Boots buying batteries. Finally, in gratitude for being shown a great deal of hospitality, here's something distinctly British, and even red, white and blue:
)
In between the two extremes are many towns and cities such as Nottingham, Leicester, Stratford and hundreds more that make up the England in which most English people live and work.
I learned some things about England which I did not know. I knew, for example, that England went Metric a long time ago. I'd never driven in England, though, and thought that only beer was still availble in the old measures (pints, to be exact.) In fact, the highways are signed in miles and yards, and the speedometer on the car I rented was exactly like an American one, with the Kilometers in little numbers inside of the list of "real" speeds in miles per hour. Petrol (gasoline) is sold by the litre (liter) though, at just over a pound per litre. Since a Pound generally buys the same thing a dollar will buy in America, gas isn't all that god awful more expensive than it is in Nevada, maybe 25 percent or so more, which is less of a difference than I'd been expecting. Of course, right now the dollar isn't worth what it ought to be, so pounds are expensive for an American to buy. On the other hand, if you have pounds and want to visit America, I can tell you that you'll find it remarkably cheap. Come to Vegas, because everybody loves Las Vegas, and I'm not kidding. You'll have a good time. We even have some roundabouts, if you're feeling homesick. Also our petrol is cheaper.
You might think I enjoyed my stay in Britain, and you'd be right. It felt homey, in a good way, and the people were very friendly and tolerant of my American ways. One man even thanked me for bailing them out in World War Two, as if I'd had anything to do with it. Well, officially then, you are all very welcome, by British friends. Think nothing of it. Think of me the next time you're in Boots buying batteries. Finally, in gratitude for being shown a great deal of hospitality, here's something distinctly British, and even red, white and blue:
Labels: England, Holidays, Info
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
National Treasure Book of Secrets
So often a sequel fails to live up to the level of entertainment provided by the original movie. This time, for example.
Labels: Reviews
