Well, we're at the end of 2004. I've had my blog for almost four months now. I know I don't have too many regular followers, except my loyal faithful Sanguine and The Local Superhero. Thanks, you guys rock!
Anyway, for 2005, Edmond resolves to continue to comment on politics and world events to inform you and entertain you. Edmond would also like it if more people discovered and liked his blog.
Thanks to you all for your support, and Happy New Year!
Edmond the Hun
Friday, December 31, 2004
Current Events: Aid $ Keeps Rising
The death toll from the earthquake/tsunamis keeps growing at about 30 to 40 thousand per day. But the money pledged by other countries in aid keep growing, too. And some of it's just really cool!
You have Britian collecting $39 million in a day from their top 12 charities. You have Finns lining up to give money --- raising about $4 million, and they only have a population of 5 million. You hvae Microsoft and employees donating $5 million. You have Amazon.com shoppers donating $5 million. You have the American Red Cross collecting $18 million. You have Italians donating $17 million. You have at least four European countries donating over $50 million each. The World Bank, whatever that is, is offering $250 million. When you add it all up from all the various sources, it's over $500 million.
Isn't that just so cool how everyone's coming together to give money to aid the unfortunate survivors of the tsunamis?
And then you have the United States government, which has only pledged $35 million. Now I know there's only so much in certain funds, and you have to go through Congress and all that, but come on! We shelled out $80 billion for the war in Iraq! And we're only giving 35 million! Finland's individual giving amounts to about eighty cents a person. The US government's pledge is more like an average of fourteen cents a person. I agree with those who say our initial pledge was "stingy." Come on, government, join the rest of the world!
But aside from our poor government, I still think it's really awesome how people all over the world are giving money to help their fellow man. To slightly misquote a famous line, "There's (still) some good in this world, Mr. Frodo, and it's worth giving for."
'Tis better to give than receive. Kudos to the world.
Edmond the Hun
You have Britian collecting $39 million in a day from their top 12 charities. You have Finns lining up to give money --- raising about $4 million, and they only have a population of 5 million. You hvae Microsoft and employees donating $5 million. You have Amazon.com shoppers donating $5 million. You have the American Red Cross collecting $18 million. You have Italians donating $17 million. You have at least four European countries donating over $50 million each. The World Bank, whatever that is, is offering $250 million. When you add it all up from all the various sources, it's over $500 million.
Isn't that just so cool how everyone's coming together to give money to aid the unfortunate survivors of the tsunamis?
And then you have the United States government, which has only pledged $35 million. Now I know there's only so much in certain funds, and you have to go through Congress and all that, but come on! We shelled out $80 billion for the war in Iraq! And we're only giving 35 million! Finland's individual giving amounts to about eighty cents a person. The US government's pledge is more like an average of fourteen cents a person. I agree with those who say our initial pledge was "stingy." Come on, government, join the rest of the world!
But aside from our poor government, I still think it's really awesome how people all over the world are giving money to help their fellow man. To slightly misquote a famous line, "There's (still) some good in this world, Mr. Frodo, and it's worth giving for."
'Tis better to give than receive. Kudos to the world.
Edmond the Hun
Monday, December 27, 2004
Current Events: Huge Quake, Tsunamis in Indian Ocean
Early Sunday morning (or late Saturday night, USA time) an incredibly devasting 9.0 earthquake went off in the Indian Ocean, a hundred miles or so off the coast of Indonesia. It caused enormous tidal waves to hit the coasts of several countries, including ones in southern Asia and all the way to the eastern coast of Africa. The death toll is 22,000 and constantly rising. Millions are homeless.
The United States and other countries are offering assistance and aid, although I haven't actually seen any of them do anything yet.
So, as you're enjoying your Christmas presents, be thankful that you didn't drown in the Indian Ocean or that your home wasn't destroyed by the huge tsunamis.
Edmond the Hun
Palestine Politics: Replacing Arafat
Elections for the replacement of Arafat are on January 9, and this could mean a lot for the future of Israel and Palestine as states. Recently, about 600 leaders of various positions signed a petition that called for an end to violence against Israel in order to boost the credibilitiy of their cause for statehood. In other words, stop attacking Israel, cuz it makes us look bad. Mahmoud Abbas is the champion of this peaceful policy, and he is supposedly in some sort of majority. On the other hand, there is a group named Hamas, who is overtly anti-Semetic and would never want to stop attacking the Jews. They don't have anyone going for prime minister, but the group did suprisingly well in local polls (I don't understand it entirely - I guess the polls were for a legislative body of sorts).
So we have two major groups: One that wants to abandon violence, and one that never will. Has a desire of most Palestinains for statehood finally replaced their desire of the to kick the Jews out of the Middle East? The elections may give us an answer.
But there is also a subtle revelation of motives in this petition from the leaders. Perhaps I am reading too much into this. But listen: The leaders did not say they want to stop violence because they no longer hate the Jews and want to kill them all. They said they want to stop violence because it makes them look bad internationally. Does this mean that they still hate the Jews? That if they finally achieve statehood, they will then return to their original plans of attacking and killing Jews, which they have been doing ever since Jews starting fleeing from Europe to join the small pockets of Jews that were already in Palestine? Only time will tell.
Edmond the Hun
Ukraine Politics: Yush Wins (Maybe?)
Millions of Ukrainians came out to vote yesterday. With 99% of the votes counted, Yushchenko was up 52%-44%. Apparently the Ukrainians really want to head in a deomcratic direction and break off their ties with Russia. The only question is whether the corrupted government will allow it or not. The opposition vows to challenge the results, filing complaints to the Central Election Commission. Ukraine's voting issues makes Florida and Ohio look like nothing! If the government tries too hard to retain power, I smell the beginnings of a revolution.
Edmond the Hun
Sports: Manning (Humbly) Breaks Record
Indianapolis Colts star quarterback Peyton Manning has finally broken the record for single-season touchdown passes. Dan Marino threw 48 in 1984, and Manning threw two yesterday to bring his total to 49 in an overtime win over San Diego.
The funny thing is, Manning doesn't really care. At least that's what he says. In the weeks leading up to this record-breaking moment, Manning kept saying things like "I just can't get into it" and "I just want to win and get our team in the playoffs." In an age where you have players dancing around the endzone, players mocking other players dancing around the endzone... this guy is incredibly humble!
Even when he threw the passes that tied and broke the records, he wasn't celebrating because of the record --- you could tell he was only celebrating the fact that the team had scored. They were both important scores too, because the Colts were losing, and they needed both touchdowns to tie the game to go into overtime, where they got a field goal. The game was an important one to win, too, because the Colts and the Chargers were both 11-3 and fighting for the third seed in the playoffs.
Maybe it's all a facade, and he really is excited about breaking one of the oldest and biggest records of the NFL. But unless he's a really good faker, he's sure not proud or haughty about it. He just wants his team to win!
And that makes him a likable, cool guy.
Edmond the Hun
The funny thing is, Manning doesn't really care. At least that's what he says. In the weeks leading up to this record-breaking moment, Manning kept saying things like "I just can't get into it" and "I just want to win and get our team in the playoffs." In an age where you have players dancing around the endzone, players mocking other players dancing around the endzone... this guy is incredibly humble!
Even when he threw the passes that tied and broke the records, he wasn't celebrating because of the record --- you could tell he was only celebrating the fact that the team had scored. They were both important scores too, because the Colts were losing, and they needed both touchdowns to tie the game to go into overtime, where they got a field goal. The game was an important one to win, too, because the Colts and the Chargers were both 11-3 and fighting for the third seed in the playoffs.
Maybe it's all a facade, and he really is excited about breaking one of the oldest and biggest records of the NFL. But unless he's a really good faker, he's sure not proud or haughty about it. He just wants his team to win!
And that makes him a likable, cool guy.
Edmond the Hun
Sunday, December 26, 2004
Politics: Donald's Signatures
Donald Rumsfeld sends out letters of condolences to the families of those who have lost loved ones in Iraq. He also signs them personally.
Or so we thought.
Recently, it was revealed that the signatures were made by a machine. Rumsfeld did not take the time to personally sign all the letters. Democrats are quick to pounce on this as saying that this shows he doesn't really care about the dead soldiers. They tell stories of families (with names and ages!) who are appalled by the news and don't think Rumsfeld cares about them.
Republicans, on the other hand, produce stories of families (with names and ages too!) who say the letter didn't matter at all to them, it was his personal visit to them that showed them he really does care.
So, do I condemn or defend this guy?
I think it's apparent that Rumsfeld (and Bush) really are very concerned about the war and about the loss of life involved. Rumsfeld and Bush make personal visits to the families of loved ones, which takes more time than it does to write a name. And what does it really matter whether Rumsfeld actually signs his signature or not? Shouldn't we worry about more important things, like the war itself?
The only problem is if people were given the impression that he really did sign them. Then it's like lying. But I don't know if they had that impression in the first place. And overall, I don't think it's really a big deal. If he signs them or not -- it's just a letter. He really does care.
Edmond the Hun
Or so we thought.
Recently, it was revealed that the signatures were made by a machine. Rumsfeld did not take the time to personally sign all the letters. Democrats are quick to pounce on this as saying that this shows he doesn't really care about the dead soldiers. They tell stories of families (with names and ages!) who are appalled by the news and don't think Rumsfeld cares about them.
Republicans, on the other hand, produce stories of families (with names and ages too!) who say the letter didn't matter at all to them, it was his personal visit to them that showed them he really does care.
So, do I condemn or defend this guy?
I think it's apparent that Rumsfeld (and Bush) really are very concerned about the war and about the loss of life involved. Rumsfeld and Bush make personal visits to the families of loved ones, which takes more time than it does to write a name. And what does it really matter whether Rumsfeld actually signs his signature or not? Shouldn't we worry about more important things, like the war itself?
The only problem is if people were given the impression that he really did sign them. Then it's like lying. But I don't know if they had that impression in the first place. And overall, I don't think it's really a big deal. If he signs them or not -- it's just a letter. He really does care.
Edmond the Hun
Current Events: Ukraine Votes Again
Alrighty, the elections are under way in Ukraine for the third time in eight weeks. The first election had no candidate with enough votes to meet the requirements, so they had a runoff with the top two. Western-supporting Yushchenko won the exit polls, but the corrupted government said Russian-backed Yanukovych won (Yush was also poisioned). After much protest and debate, they're having a re-election today, December 26.
Once again, exit polls have Yushchenko winning. We'll have to wait til the polls close to see if the bad guys try to mix things up again. I'm rooting for Yush.
Edmond the Hun
Once again, exit polls have Yushchenko winning. We'll have to wait til the polls close to see if the bad guys try to mix things up again. I'm rooting for Yush.
Edmond the Hun
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Politics: ReDefeat Bush?
Or, Defeating Democracy In Deomocracy's Name
With www.redefeatbush.com, some liberals are trying to stage a riot/protest during Bush's inaugaration next month. It's OK if they don't like the fact that more people voted for Bush than Kerry. What's not OK is that they're planning a protest for it. And what really gets me is that they're doing it in the name of democracy!
Hello?! The people have spoken! We want Bush! If Kerry had won, I would be upset, yes. I would be disappointed, yes. But I would not be staging a riot to protest his inaugaration! There's something wrong with you if you can't accept the fact that other people don't believe the same things you believe. And that's exactly what we have here.
What someone needs to do is stage an assembly at the same time and place for the purpose of supporting Bush. This would counteract and defeat the purpose of this liberal's anti-Bush parade. Unfortunately, I don't have enough of a voice or the means to do that.
Edmond the Hun
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Defending Christmas
Once again, this Christmas we are confronted with the dissenting atheistic absolute-less minority that wants to banish Christmas and any mention or implication of the word from our country. For example, one parent got upset because they didn't want their child exposed to the word "Christmas" in school. We're not even talking Jesus and the manger---just the word "Christmas." So if a couple people get offended, we have to cater to them? Frankly, I don't get it. They're being hypocritical, close-minded, and selfish. Let me elaborate.
First, they are in the minority. The elections drove this point home, but the majority of the nation are either religious conservatives or at least people who think they are or don't have a problem with them. The people that have a problem with anything Christian are the ones in the minority. So, we have a couple people getting offended, and the rest of us have to change for them. What about all the religious conservatives getting offended by the minority? Shouldn't we change for them. No, of course not. And where's the logic in this?
Second, as a radio talk show guy brought out, the Constitution does not give you the right to not be offended! To be offended is not a crime! And if it is, the religious conservative minority is being a lot more offended than the atheistic minority.
Third, let me show you an easy way where the logic falls apart: Guess what, guys? I don't believe in Santa Claus! And you know what, I can't stand the disgusting thought of my kids being exposed to Santa Claus! So, since I'm being offended by all the Santa Claus references and songs and posters out there, I'm going to cry out to get rid of them all to save my kids from being exposed to that. Because it offends me! I don't care what the majority of the people think about Santa Claus. I don't care that they're allowed to believe in him or not. I don't care! All I care is that since I don't believe in him, that means we have to get rid of everything that even implies the word Santa Claus. Kick him out of the malls! Get rid of the songs! The movies! The decorations! Why? Because I'm one little minority person who doesn't want to be offended!
Do you see how stupid that is? Of course, Santa Claus would never be deleted from the holiday season! So why is it any different than Jesus? Why do we have to cover him up and any little reference to him, all because of a few offended people? Why are we walking on eggshells so we're careful not to offend a few people? These kinds of people tell us to be tolerant and inclusive, but they don't want to be tolerant of the religious conservative majority. The fact of the matter is, they just don't like God. And they don't care what anyone else thinks about God. They just want to get rid of him. And they have no right to do so.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!
Edmond the Hun
Movie Review: Unfortunate Events (4 of 5)
(Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events)
Based on the first three books of Lemony Snicket's series, this movie is not your typical happy kid's movie. A lot of bad things happen, and they don't try to feed you the happy Disney line that if you believe in yourself the world will be perfect. You can look at it in one of two ways: First, it's a dark and morbid tale that's too disturbing for kids to see. Or, second, it's a realistic tale that shows that the world's not really perfect and sometimes, you just have to deal with it.
While it is kinda dark and morbid, it's not that disturbing. The tone of the books it is based on is actually rather light-hearted, and the movie carries that feeling to some degree. There are many funny moments, eccentric characters, and off-the-wall circumstances. The baby Sunny's ga-ga comments (which are translated at the bottom of the screen) are often quite hilarious. The only parts that are kinda disturbing are when they imply the deaths of a couple of their relatives, which seems kinda, well, disturbing, given the general light-heartedness of the kid's film. But I prefer that over the typical the-world-is-perfect junk. And what offsets the dark circumstances is the cleverness and bravery of the intelligent children, who time after time find a way to save themselves from whatever Count Olaf is throwing at them.
Reviews for this movie conflict with each other, but one thing everyone agrees on: The sets are stupendous! Forget all the computer-generated hype of the 21st century---it's the real live sets that carry this movie. From Aunt Josephine's rickety house to Count Olaf's scary "abode," everything is just jaw-droppingly, well, cool-looking!
Inevitably, the books are better. But not incredibly better. The problem was that they tried to rush things a little too much, often not putting enough emphasis on things. They also mixed the plot around slightly, if only to offer a better climax at the end. Even so, they changed the clever way the conflict was resolved. Instead, they added a whole mystery thing with spyglasses and fires and whatnot. We can only guess and ponder if these additions have anything to do with the book mysteries, and will be revealed in the last two books, or if they just made it up.
For the most part, Lemony Snicket's movie is a clever, light-hearted realistic tale with a slight shade of dark and morbidness. May not be what your used to, but then you might like a change.
Edmond the Hun
Based on the first three books of Lemony Snicket's series, this movie is not your typical happy kid's movie. A lot of bad things happen, and they don't try to feed you the happy Disney line that if you believe in yourself the world will be perfect. You can look at it in one of two ways: First, it's a dark and morbid tale that's too disturbing for kids to see. Or, second, it's a realistic tale that shows that the world's not really perfect and sometimes, you just have to deal with it.
While it is kinda dark and morbid, it's not that disturbing. The tone of the books it is based on is actually rather light-hearted, and the movie carries that feeling to some degree. There are many funny moments, eccentric characters, and off-the-wall circumstances. The baby Sunny's ga-ga comments (which are translated at the bottom of the screen) are often quite hilarious. The only parts that are kinda disturbing are when they imply the deaths of a couple of their relatives, which seems kinda, well, disturbing, given the general light-heartedness of the kid's film. But I prefer that over the typical the-world-is-perfect junk. And what offsets the dark circumstances is the cleverness and bravery of the intelligent children, who time after time find a way to save themselves from whatever Count Olaf is throwing at them.
Reviews for this movie conflict with each other, but one thing everyone agrees on: The sets are stupendous! Forget all the computer-generated hype of the 21st century---it's the real live sets that carry this movie. From Aunt Josephine's rickety house to Count Olaf's scary "abode," everything is just jaw-droppingly, well, cool-looking!
Inevitably, the books are better. But not incredibly better. The problem was that they tried to rush things a little too much, often not putting enough emphasis on things. They also mixed the plot around slightly, if only to offer a better climax at the end. Even so, they changed the clever way the conflict was resolved. Instead, they added a whole mystery thing with spyglasses and fires and whatnot. We can only guess and ponder if these additions have anything to do with the book mysteries, and will be revealed in the last two books, or if they just made it up.
For the most part, Lemony Snicket's movie is a clever, light-hearted realistic tale with a slight shade of dark and morbidness. May not be what your used to, but then you might like a change.
Edmond the Hun
Monday, December 20, 2004
Defending the War In Iraq
I get upset every time I read an editorial where someone calls the war in Iraq worthless, needless, or a waste of time and money (they also usually manage to throw in a bash at Bush too). I'm tired of explaining why we went to Iraq---it's simple logistics: We gave Saddam an ultimatum, and he refused to comply. If we don't provide consequences for that, then America has no power to defend itself. If they won't let us come in to look for weapons, and we don't care if they don't, then they have the implied authority to make weapons all they want to, because they know we won't do anything about it. We couldn't let that happen, and we didn't.
However, we are now getting stuck in a "quagmire" that reminds too many people of Vietnam. Insurgents are still daily attacking and killing, which doesn't bode well for the elections that are supposed to happen in a month and a half. Recently, I have found a reason for staying in Iraq---and it has nothing to do with politics.
There are innocent, oppressed civilians in Iraq, and it is our moral and humanitarian obligation to help them, since we have the ability to help them. Don't roll your eyes at me---hear me out. Why do we have policemen in America? To protect the innocent civilians from those who wish to oppress them. Now, why shouldn't this belief carry over to the war in Iraq? These people who say it's a needless war are implying American egocentricity---that Americans are better and worth more than other people.
The war-bashers say that this war doesn't involve us. I beg to differ. Surely these people believe in our police force. Aren't we all humans? If innocent Americans deserve to be protected from oppressors, why don't innocent Iraqis? We should endeavor to protect all innocent humans from oppression. I realize that is not plausible, but right now, it is plausible for Iraq.
To say that innocent Iraqis don't deserve to be protected when we have the power to protect them is to say that Americans are worth more than other humans. It doesn't look as bad as Hitler and the Jews, but it's the same underlying principle. If I'm wrong, post a comment and debate me. I rest my case.
Edmond the Hun
News Blurb 2
1) Now there are gay couples in Massachusetts who want to get divorced. I can't even think up a worthy response to this...
2) Miami heat center and former Lakers star Shaquille O'Neal wants to be a sheriff in Florida. Seriously---he's even going through the proper steps to get qualified and certified. Just another proof (i.e. Ricky Williams) that sports and fame and fortune don't fill the empty void inside. (Can anybody say...Jesus?)
3) From his prison cell, Saddam Hussein told Iraqis to remain united against Americans. He said "Kurds, Arabs, Shiites, Sunnis, and Christians are all Iraqis who all have to stand united against the American plot." Wait a minute... since when did Saddam care about Christians?
Edmond the Hun
Current Events: Ukraine, Continued
Ukraine's gonna have a re-election on December 26. Turns out the vote really was completely filled with fraud to ensure that Yushchenko (our more or less "good guy") didn't win. Yush was also poisioned -- He had some kind of dioxin in his body, and the count of it in his blood cells was the second-highest ever recorded!
Ukraine's trying to be a democracy, and it's obvious that the people want that to happen. It's obvious that Yush wants that to happen, too, which is why most of the people want him to win. It's also obvious, via the fraud and the poisioning, that the communists/dictators don't want to lose their power. The world already has their eye on them, so I suspect this election will be a cleaner one. I predict Yush will win by a landslide, followed by several more assassination attempts. Whether Ukraine can truly become democratic or not is something we'll have to wait on.
Edmond the Hun
Ukraine's trying to be a democracy, and it's obvious that the people want that to happen. It's obvious that Yush wants that to happen, too, which is why most of the people want him to win. It's also obvious, via the fraud and the poisioning, that the communists/dictators don't want to lose their power. The world already has their eye on them, so I suspect this election will be a cleaner one. I predict Yush will win by a landslide, followed by several more assassination attempts. Whether Ukraine can truly become democratic or not is something we'll have to wait on.
Edmond the Hun
Saturday, November 27, 2004
News Blurb 1
I'm starting a new thing called the News Blurb. I'm just listing some of the bigger things that have been in the news the past few weeks, things I don't have time to expound on them or spin my opinions on them (at least, not very much). But it's still stuff you should know, so I'm at least giving you a quick blurb.
1) Bush appoints Condoleeza Rice to replace Colin Powell as secretary of state. Some question her qualifications in that area.
2) Dan Rather steps down as CBS anchor. And of course they say it has NOTHING to do with the Bush memo scandal.
3) ABC incites mass outrage and criticism for their Monday Night Football opening skit involving Terrell Owens and a controversially clothed (or, rather, unclothed) actress from "Desperate Housewives." Did they learn nothing from CBS and the Superbowl?
4) There's some kind of controversy in Wisconsin as a hunter got shot. I don't know if it was deliberate or accidental, if it was over a turkey or whatnot. But it's still in the news.
5) Ron Artest is the Pacers player who asked for some time off because of his busy schedule, which included promoting his new rap CD. Now he has all the time he wants. In a recent brawl that included fans, Artest was suspended for the rest of the season. Ouch!
Edmond the Hun
1) Bush appoints Condoleeza Rice to replace Colin Powell as secretary of state. Some question her qualifications in that area.
2) Dan Rather steps down as CBS anchor. And of course they say it has NOTHING to do with the Bush memo scandal.
3) ABC incites mass outrage and criticism for their Monday Night Football opening skit involving Terrell Owens and a controversially clothed (or, rather, unclothed) actress from "Desperate Housewives." Did they learn nothing from CBS and the Superbowl?
4) There's some kind of controversy in Wisconsin as a hunter got shot. I don't know if it was deliberate or accidental, if it was over a turkey or whatnot. But it's still in the news.
5) Ron Artest is the Pacers player who asked for some time off because of his busy schedule, which included promoting his new rap CD. Now he has all the time he wants. In a recent brawl that included fans, Artest was suspended for the rest of the season. Ouch!
Edmond the Hun
Current Events: Ukraine Elections, Cont'd
Apparently the presidential election in Ukraine was more interesting than I first believed. To set the stage again, it was Viktor Yanukovych vs. Viktor Yushchenko. (Forgive me for calling them Yanu and Yush from here on out, but their names are too similar). All I knew was that, in the middle of counting the votes, Yanu was winning even though Yush had won the exit polls. It struck me as funny and ironic, nothing more.
But many more events have transpired in the last few days:
First off, I know a little more about the candidates now. Yanu is supported by the current president, Kuchma or something, as well as Russia. He's more or less the "bad guy," as far as Americans are concerned. Yush, on the other hand, likes Europe and the West. He's more or less the "good guy." (I still have a very shallow understanding about them, but it appears as if we would like Yush to win the Ukrainian presidency, if we care at all.)
Second, the election was surrounded in controversy even greater than Florida in 2000. Fraud, mistakes, intimidation---the whole bit. So when somebody announced that the official results were that Yanu beat Yush 49%-46%, Yush's folks wouldn't buy it. Neither did the U.S. or other western nations. There were huge protests on the streets. Surprisingly, they were all pretty peaceful. Yush tried to stage a huge strike, but that didn't go too well.
At first, leaders were ready to declare Yanu the new president, but then they decided to go to the complicated court system. They have said that there's no clear winner, and the results are invaldi, and now there's the possibility of a whole new election.
I still don't know why we should care who's the president of Ukraine, but I'm sure the people of Ukraine do care. A lot. We're not the only country with election issues. We're not the only country that's "divided." But from what I've heard, Ukraine is a lot less bitter than we are. Both sides believe they have won, but they seem to place the true decision of the people higher than their own political gain. The quotes I've read---they just sound so much nicer than what I'm used to hearing. And it's not just the politicians, too. The reports I read of the "riots" and rallies---everyone was getting along, respecting the policemen, and just being nice to each other. Could that have happened in America? I have my doubts.
Again, I have a shallow understanding of this, and I could be wrong. But perhaps we can learn a lesson from the Ukrainians:
Be nice!
Edmond the Hun
But many more events have transpired in the last few days:
First off, I know a little more about the candidates now. Yanu is supported by the current president, Kuchma or something, as well as Russia. He's more or less the "bad guy," as far as Americans are concerned. Yush, on the other hand, likes Europe and the West. He's more or less the "good guy." (I still have a very shallow understanding about them, but it appears as if we would like Yush to win the Ukrainian presidency, if we care at all.)
Second, the election was surrounded in controversy even greater than Florida in 2000. Fraud, mistakes, intimidation---the whole bit. So when somebody announced that the official results were that Yanu beat Yush 49%-46%, Yush's folks wouldn't buy it. Neither did the U.S. or other western nations. There were huge protests on the streets. Surprisingly, they were all pretty peaceful. Yush tried to stage a huge strike, but that didn't go too well.
At first, leaders were ready to declare Yanu the new president, but then they decided to go to the complicated court system. They have said that there's no clear winner, and the results are invaldi, and now there's the possibility of a whole new election.
I still don't know why we should care who's the president of Ukraine, but I'm sure the people of Ukraine do care. A lot. We're not the only country with election issues. We're not the only country that's "divided." But from what I've heard, Ukraine is a lot less bitter than we are. Both sides believe they have won, but they seem to place the true decision of the people higher than their own political gain. The quotes I've read---they just sound so much nicer than what I'm used to hearing. And it's not just the politicians, too. The reports I read of the "riots" and rallies---everyone was getting along, respecting the policemen, and just being nice to each other. Could that have happened in America? I have my doubts.
Again, I have a shallow understanding of this, and I could be wrong. But perhaps we can learn a lesson from the Ukrainians:
Be nice!
Edmond the Hun
Movie Review: National Treasure (3 of 5)
I found National Treasure to be a typical average action-type movie. The music was very good. The plot-line was at least intriguing. The special effects were awesome. And there are lots of funny moments. Nothing extraordinary or spectacular---just a good ol' average movie.
Nicholas Cage stars as a guy named Ben Gates, whose family has for generations believed that the founding fathers (i.e. Washington, Franklin, etc) left us clues to find a huge buried treasure, consisting of valuable items dating back to Roman times and all that good stuff. A guy looking for treasure---not exactly a plot-line that's never been done before, and it's a little far-fetched. But it is pretty neat how they go from one clue to the next, and how they deduce and infer and figure out and solve things.
Of course, it's not as simple as that. Half of Ben's crew turns on him early on, led by Ian something (Sean Bean). They continually try to thwart the efforts of Ben, his electronics-whiz-but-otherwise-dumb comic-relief guy Riley, and Dr. Angela Chase, who's in charge at the National Archives Museum but soon gets caught up in the events, besides the developing romance between her and Ben. The bad guys usually don't figure out the clues, but try to take advantage of it when the good guys do. Nice and intriguing and sort of a plot "twist." There's also some nice character development between Ben and his father, who didn't believe in the legend and thought it was a waste of time.
It's pretty clean, too. Chase's clothing is annoying for a few minutes after she leaves the formal party, but then she changes (and that event in itself is borderline---Chase and Ben change behind those door-stall-things in clothing department stores. You don't really see anything, of course, but still...) But come on, who cares about modesty these days, right? There's little violence and practically no blood, and, suprisingly, only one guy dies! (Although I did wonder how many times the bad guys were gonna miss everytime they shot at Ben) And despite the romance, there's a suprising absence of sexual jokes or innuendoes or the like. In other words, it's pretty clean.
Unfortunately, it's also predictable. When Ben lets Ian get the Declaration of Independence, you just know that it's not the real one. You just know that---well, I won't give too much away. But it's not too hard to figure out what's gonna happen next. And of course the whole things is just kinda far-fetched. Come on, another treasure? Like there's really a map on the back of the Declaration of Independence! Like the clock on the back of the $100 bill really means something! However, it'll probably inspire interest in Washington D.C.'s history and all that. You know, people wondering, so how much of that is actually true?
So, here's the final verdict: It's a good typical action movie, with nice music and special effects and humor. It's also far-fetched and predictable, and there's nothing specactular about it. But if you're willing to suspend a little disbelief, it's an enjoyable movie.
Edmond the Hun
Nicholas Cage stars as a guy named Ben Gates, whose family has for generations believed that the founding fathers (i.e. Washington, Franklin, etc) left us clues to find a huge buried treasure, consisting of valuable items dating back to Roman times and all that good stuff. A guy looking for treasure---not exactly a plot-line that's never been done before, and it's a little far-fetched. But it is pretty neat how they go from one clue to the next, and how they deduce and infer and figure out and solve things.
Of course, it's not as simple as that. Half of Ben's crew turns on him early on, led by Ian something (Sean Bean). They continually try to thwart the efforts of Ben, his electronics-whiz-but-otherwise-dumb comic-relief guy Riley, and Dr. Angela Chase, who's in charge at the National Archives Museum but soon gets caught up in the events, besides the developing romance between her and Ben. The bad guys usually don't figure out the clues, but try to take advantage of it when the good guys do. Nice and intriguing and sort of a plot "twist." There's also some nice character development between Ben and his father, who didn't believe in the legend and thought it was a waste of time.
It's pretty clean, too. Chase's clothing is annoying for a few minutes after she leaves the formal party, but then she changes (and that event in itself is borderline---Chase and Ben change behind those door-stall-things in clothing department stores. You don't really see anything, of course, but still...) But come on, who cares about modesty these days, right? There's little violence and practically no blood, and, suprisingly, only one guy dies! (Although I did wonder how many times the bad guys were gonna miss everytime they shot at Ben) And despite the romance, there's a suprising absence of sexual jokes or innuendoes or the like. In other words, it's pretty clean.
Unfortunately, it's also predictable. When Ben lets Ian get the Declaration of Independence, you just know that it's not the real one. You just know that---well, I won't give too much away. But it's not too hard to figure out what's gonna happen next. And of course the whole things is just kinda far-fetched. Come on, another treasure? Like there's really a map on the back of the Declaration of Independence! Like the clock on the back of the $100 bill really means something! However, it'll probably inspire interest in Washington D.C.'s history and all that. You know, people wondering, so how much of that is actually true?
So, here's the final verdict: It's a good typical action movie, with nice music and special effects and humor. It's also far-fetched and predictable, and there's nothing specactular about it. But if you're willing to suspend a little disbelief, it's an enjoyable movie.
Edmond the Hun
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Decay of Society 2 & 3
And the hope therein which has not yet perished
Decay 2: Video Games & JFK
On the 41st anniversary of President Kennedy's death, a new Internet game was released on JFKreloaded.com, in which the player pretends to be Lee Harvey Oswald and assassinate the president. As if that wasn't enough, it costs money to play and they're offering $100,000 for whoever can shoot JFK at the exact time and angle that Oswald did. The creators say it's educational, that this "new form of interactive entertainment brings history to life and will stimulate a younger generation of players to take an interest in this fascinating episode of American history."
This is getting a lot of response and criticism. A spokesmen for a family member of Kennedy's said it's "despicable." It's evoking outrage from many other sources too. Video games have been getting more graphic and violent for years, but at least you're usually a good guy. This is not more grisly graphics; this is a repulsive twist of morals and ethics.
The creators have a lot of nice arguments to "prove" that what they have done is all good and OK. But come on, here! What's next? A game where you have to blow up a building in Oklahoma City? A game where you have to fly in jets to bomb Pearl Harbor? A game where you have to fly a plane into the World Trade Center? I'm sorry, but JFK Reloaded goes too far. If you truly want to mix games and history, don't glorify the ruthless. I hope it gets taken off the 'net, but I don't expect that to happen.
(Sources: www.washingtonpost.com, news.independent.co.uk)
Decay 3: Alexander the Gay
I saw a preview for the movie Alexander, which is about Alexander the Great. It was filled with a combination of intense cool-looking medieval fight scenes and, uh, love scenes. Looked similar to Troy, an ancient war movie that might be great to watch without the unnecessary immoral content. But, wait, it gets worse.
In the movie, not only does Alexander sleep with women, he sleeps with... men. It's so disgusting I can barely bring myself to write it. It has the Greeks in an outrage at this destruction of history. Some are threatening to sue (which won't work---the movie isn't being presented as a documentary. It's a Hollywood movie---they have no obligations to be accurate to anything). Although it is ironic that Yannis Varnakos, the leading threatener, used JFK in an analogy: "We cannot come out and say that President John F. Kennedy was a shooting guard for the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team and so Warner cannot come out and say Alexander was gay."
The movie director insists that Alexander was in fact bisexual, or homosexual, or whatever you want to call it, and this is not a new idea. But, whether it was true or not, you don't have to make a movie about it! At least Alexander is getting terrible reviews. Washington Post didn't even like the special effects or the storyline or practically anything about the movie. I hope it's a box office failure, but I don't expect that to happen, either.
(Sources: courttv.com, www.washingtonpost.com)
-----
So, what do these events have in common? Two things. One, they're both taking history and twisting it and using it in ways it shouldn't be used. Two, it's evoking outrage and criticism from lots of people. Which means our society, as bad and immoral as it has become and is becoming, is not totally hopeless. People are still getting upset about things. But will it make any difference in how many people play the game or see the movie? Probably not.
Edmond the Hun
Decay 2: Video Games & JFK
On the 41st anniversary of President Kennedy's death, a new Internet game was released on JFKreloaded.com, in which the player pretends to be Lee Harvey Oswald and assassinate the president. As if that wasn't enough, it costs money to play and they're offering $100,000 for whoever can shoot JFK at the exact time and angle that Oswald did. The creators say it's educational, that this "new form of interactive entertainment brings history to life and will stimulate a younger generation of players to take an interest in this fascinating episode of American history."
This is getting a lot of response and criticism. A spokesmen for a family member of Kennedy's said it's "despicable." It's evoking outrage from many other sources too. Video games have been getting more graphic and violent for years, but at least you're usually a good guy. This is not more grisly graphics; this is a repulsive twist of morals and ethics.
The creators have a lot of nice arguments to "prove" that what they have done is all good and OK. But come on, here! What's next? A game where you have to blow up a building in Oklahoma City? A game where you have to fly in jets to bomb Pearl Harbor? A game where you have to fly a plane into the World Trade Center? I'm sorry, but JFK Reloaded goes too far. If you truly want to mix games and history, don't glorify the ruthless. I hope it gets taken off the 'net, but I don't expect that to happen.
(Sources: www.washingtonpost.com, news.independent.co.uk)
Decay 3: Alexander the Gay
I saw a preview for the movie Alexander, which is about Alexander the Great. It was filled with a combination of intense cool-looking medieval fight scenes and, uh, love scenes. Looked similar to Troy, an ancient war movie that might be great to watch without the unnecessary immoral content. But, wait, it gets worse.
In the movie, not only does Alexander sleep with women, he sleeps with... men. It's so disgusting I can barely bring myself to write it. It has the Greeks in an outrage at this destruction of history. Some are threatening to sue (which won't work---the movie isn't being presented as a documentary. It's a Hollywood movie---they have no obligations to be accurate to anything). Although it is ironic that Yannis Varnakos, the leading threatener, used JFK in an analogy: "We cannot come out and say that President John F. Kennedy was a shooting guard for the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team and so Warner cannot come out and say Alexander was gay."
The movie director insists that Alexander was in fact bisexual, or homosexual, or whatever you want to call it, and this is not a new idea. But, whether it was true or not, you don't have to make a movie about it! At least Alexander is getting terrible reviews. Washington Post didn't even like the special effects or the storyline or practically anything about the movie. I hope it's a box office failure, but I don't expect that to happen, either.
(Sources: courttv.com, www.washingtonpost.com)
-----
So, what do these events have in common? Two things. One, they're both taking history and twisting it and using it in ways it shouldn't be used. Two, it's evoking outrage and criticism from lots of people. Which means our society, as bad and immoral as it has become and is becoming, is not totally hopeless. People are still getting upset about things. But will it make any difference in how many people play the game or see the movie? Probably not.
Edmond the Hun
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Exit Polls ~ Will They Never Learn?
The first exit polls that were leaked during our presidential election on Nov 2 said that Kerry was ahead in Ohio and Florida. He lost both states. The exit polls were wrong. This anamoly may not be confined to the United States.
There's a presidential election going on in Ukraine: Viktor Yanukovich vs. Viktor Yushchenko. I have no idea who these people are, and I don't really care. Ukraine doesn't have enough power in the world to make me care. So why am I telling you this?
Because with 26% of the ballots counted, Yanu is ahead, even though Yush won the exit polls by a considerable margin. Based on the precincts they are from, it's possible that Yush will still end up winning. But ignore that possibility for the moment. The point is - the exit polls are wrong. Again.
And why am I not surprised?
Edmond the Hun
There's a presidential election going on in Ukraine: Viktor Yanukovich vs. Viktor Yushchenko. I have no idea who these people are, and I don't really care. Ukraine doesn't have enough power in the world to make me care. So why am I telling you this?
Because with 26% of the ballots counted, Yanu is ahead, even though Yush won the exit polls by a considerable margin. Based on the precincts they are from, it's possible that Yush will still end up winning. But ignore that possibility for the moment. The point is - the exit polls are wrong. Again.
And why am I not surprised?
Edmond the Hun
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Movie Review: The Incredibles (5 of 5)
Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Monster's Inc, Finding Nemo... Pixar has yet to fail. The Incredibles is no exception. It's awesome and hilarious. And it's not a silly kiddie superhero movie, either. If anything, it's more intense than anything Pixar has done yet. There's gunfire, explosions, and a lot of implied death, some of which would be rather gruesome. But this is the cleanest movie I have seen all year ('course, it's not worth much when you're comparing it to The Passion or I, Robot, but still...)
The plot is excellent. Admittedly, there are some instances that feel like superhero stereotypes, but for the most part, it is original, amusing, and even realistic. For example, the reason the superheroes have to retire is because they get sued by people who didn't want to be saved. Is that not something that would happen in today's society? It's brilliant! The fast-paced action and the wide array of superpowers keep the movie interesting, and the dialogue ("Where is ma Supa Suit?", eccentric characters (Edna, Bob's boss), and random situations (Elastigirl getting stuck between three sliding doors) keep it hilarious. I laughed pretty much the whole way through.
The moral lessons are good too. Brother and sister don't fight too much, which is good, but they still fight, which is realistic. The dad hides his coming-out-of-retirement from his wife, and this causes bad results and is presented as a bad thing. Bob's boss gets mad at him for trying to help a client, and the boss is portrayed as the bad guy in that situation, like he should be. In more than one bad-guy-fighting scene, they superheroes all work together to defeat the bad guys, advocating teamwork. The one rought spot: the baby's superpower (revealed at the end---I won't give it away here) was just a tad disturbing and potentially non-kid-friendly, and they probably could have come up with something better, but it's not that bad---in other words, most people will overlook it.
Anyway, I give The Incredibles a 5 out of 5 rating. You should all go see it. Now.
Edmond the Hun
The plot is excellent. Admittedly, there are some instances that feel like superhero stereotypes, but for the most part, it is original, amusing, and even realistic. For example, the reason the superheroes have to retire is because they get sued by people who didn't want to be saved. Is that not something that would happen in today's society? It's brilliant! The fast-paced action and the wide array of superpowers keep the movie interesting, and the dialogue ("Where is ma Supa Suit?", eccentric characters (Edna, Bob's boss), and random situations (Elastigirl getting stuck between three sliding doors) keep it hilarious. I laughed pretty much the whole way through.
The moral lessons are good too. Brother and sister don't fight too much, which is good, but they still fight, which is realistic. The dad hides his coming-out-of-retirement from his wife, and this causes bad results and is presented as a bad thing. Bob's boss gets mad at him for trying to help a client, and the boss is portrayed as the bad guy in that situation, like he should be. In more than one bad-guy-fighting scene, they superheroes all work together to defeat the bad guys, advocating teamwork. The one rought spot: the baby's superpower (revealed at the end---I won't give it away here) was just a tad disturbing and potentially non-kid-friendly, and they probably could have come up with something better, but it's not that bad---in other words, most people will overlook it.
Anyway, I give The Incredibles a 5 out of 5 rating. You should all go see it. Now.
Edmond the Hun
Current Events: Yasser Arafat's Death
So now it's official. The Palestinian leader who had been in a coma for the last few days is now dead. The Palestinians want a homeland for themselves, and they want to steal it from Israel. Actually, they want to wipe Jews off the face of the earth, but they tend to leave that part out. They claim to have legitimate causes, and they try to make it sound like they used to have land but Israel took it away from them, and all they want is to have it back. Israel's been conceding to the Palestinians for years, but they'll never get peace out of it.
Bush doesn't have the best policy here, either. He is for giving the Palestinians a homeland. This will not make things better. It's tempting to think that if we give them what they want, they'll stop attacking Israel, and everyone will be happy. Not a chance. They'll find some other excuse to continue wiping Jews off the face of the earth, except now they'll have a legitimate base for their operations.
So what does Arafat's death mean for Israel? I don't know. Their best chance is that the remaining PLO leaders will fight each other for control and give Israel a break for a little bit. I'm not sure if anyone's next in line for power and/or if there will be a struggle. But two things are certain: The Palestinians will keep trying to get their own land, and they will keep attacking Israel.
Edmond the Hun
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Sad News: Michael Phelps, Drunk Driver
Remember Michael Phelps, the amazing six-gold-medal-winning nineteen-year-old swimmer in the Olympics? Yeah, he's been charged with driving under the influence in Maryland. He did apologize and all that, but that means nothing.
It's sad that an American hero has been revealed to be unworthy of role-modeling, but on the other hand, it's not much of a surprise. Phelps never seemed to want to be a role-model. During the Olympics we heard reports about his car that was ridiculously vamped up with all sorts of musical and electronical accesories. We heard that he gets pumped up by listening to Eminem, who's not much of a role model himself.
I don't mean to demean Phelps. I almost feel sorry for him. How many other nineteen year olds get charged for drunk driving but never have it plastered all over the news? He does, simply because he happened to win six gold medals a few months back. Now this incident will be forever an asterisk on his career. A simple but stark result of not considering the consequences.
He would do good to get Relient K's new CD and listen to "I So Hate Consequences." (And I will be reviewing that CD in the near future.)
Edmond the Hun
Cultural Icon: Halo 2
OK, folks, this is insane. The creators of Halo did something right, because everyone seems to love that game, or at least, just about every male teenager, as well as large numbers of other demographs and genders. Anyway, the release of the sequel to the first-person shooter game, Halo 2, came out at midnight today. There were already 1.5 million pre-orders for it (1.5 MILLION!), and tons of people went to buy it at midnight as well. Two kids (at least) in my class stayed up all night and beat the one-player storyline, then went to school. Halo 2 is expected to make $100 million today alone.
What is it about this game that makes it so popular? This is not the only first-person shooter game on the market, but it is the best loved and most played, by far. Is it the intricate multi-player settings, that allow for unlimited hours of fun and increasing your skill? I've played it a few times at friends' houses. It's alright. I have minimal skill. But there is nothing obviously innovative about it, nothing that stands out that you can point to and say, "Ah ha, this is why everyone loves it! This is why kids will lose sleep to play it!" Why is it such an icon? Why?
Edmond the Hun
What is it about this game that makes it so popular? This is not the only first-person shooter game on the market, but it is the best loved and most played, by far. Is it the intricate multi-player settings, that allow for unlimited hours of fun and increasing your skill? I've played it a few times at friends' houses. It's alright. I have minimal skill. But there is nothing obviously innovative about it, nothing that stands out that you can point to and say, "Ah ha, this is why everyone loves it! This is why kids will lose sleep to play it!" Why is it such an icon? Why?
Edmond the Hun
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Random Post-Election Thoughts
1. Gay marriage bans passed by overwhelming margins in all 11 states that it was on the ballot. This is interesting, especially because of the apparent decay of morality in our country. Those issues also helped Bush win, I think, because some Christians (who otherwise might not have voted) went out and voted to vote against gay marriage, also voting for Bush in the process.
It's surprising that Kerry and the Democrats support gay marriage despite the obvious national sentiment against it. Will they change, or will the nation change?
2. More proof that the media is liberal (as if we needed any). USATODAY.com called California as soon as the polls closed, before any numbers were in, because pre-election polls showed that Kerry had a huge margin in that state, and exit polls confirmed that.
In Alaska, however, pre-election polls gave Bush a huge lead, but it was not immediately called. Even with 28% precincts in and Bush with a 65%-35% lead, they still did not call it for Bush. Only after over half the precincts were in did they call it for Bush, yet they called California for Kerry right away, and he won that state by a smaller margin than Bush won Alaska.
Also, the Post-Dispatch buried a single sentence about all the gay marriage bans inside an entire article about California's passing of the stem cell research and other ballot measures across the nation.
3. I did not know this: Kerry's senate term is not up, and since he did not win the Presidency, he returns to being a Senator for Massachusetts. I just though that was interesting.
Edmond the Hun
It's surprising that Kerry and the Democrats support gay marriage despite the obvious national sentiment against it. Will they change, or will the nation change?
2. More proof that the media is liberal (as if we needed any). USATODAY.com called California as soon as the polls closed, before any numbers were in, because pre-election polls showed that Kerry had a huge margin in that state, and exit polls confirmed that.
In Alaska, however, pre-election polls gave Bush a huge lead, but it was not immediately called. Even with 28% precincts in and Bush with a 65%-35% lead, they still did not call it for Bush. Only after over half the precincts were in did they call it for Bush, yet they called California for Kerry right away, and he won that state by a smaller margin than Bush won Alaska.
Also, the Post-Dispatch buried a single sentence about all the gay marriage bans inside an entire article about California's passing of the stem cell research and other ballot measures across the nation.
3. I did not know this: Kerry's senate term is not up, and since he did not win the Presidency, he returns to being a Senator for Massachusetts. I just though that was interesting.
Edmond the Hun
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Election Live Update 12
I'm about ready to go to bed here. Kerry's pulled ahead in some more swing states. Even if he gets all the upper midwest swing states (except Ohio) Bush will still win with 274 to Kerry's 260, and Hawaii still pending but basically irrelevant. That's a worst case scenario---Bush could still pull back ahead in Wisconsin or Iowa.
I'm calling New Hampshire for Kerry---he's up by 8K with 81%. I'm also calling for Kerry Michigan (80K at 43%) and Minnesota (130K at 46%). He's got a slight margin in Nevada and a pretty good margin in Wisconsin but I can't call them.
For Bush, I'm calling Colorado (110K at 70%) and New Mexico (12K at70%). That puts our new status at BUSH 260 ; Kerry 245. If the rest of the swing states don't change and Kerry gets Hawaii, then the final result (and my prediction---although Bush could get more, but I don't see how Kerry could) will be:
BUSH 274 ; Kerry 264
Bush wins the presidency. Goodnight.
Edmond the Hun
I'm calling New Hampshire for Kerry---he's up by 8K with 81%. I'm also calling for Kerry Michigan (80K at 43%) and Minnesota (130K at 46%). He's got a slight margin in Nevada and a pretty good margin in Wisconsin but I can't call them.
For Bush, I'm calling Colorado (110K at 70%) and New Mexico (12K at70%). That puts our new status at BUSH 260 ; Kerry 245. If the rest of the swing states don't change and Kerry gets Hawaii, then the final result (and my prediction---although Bush could get more, but I don't see how Kerry could) will be:
BUSH 274 ; Kerry 264
Bush wins the presidency. Goodnight.
Edmond the Hun
Election Live Update 11
New Hampshire: Bush up by 9 (yes, that's 9) with 49% reporting
Michigan: Bush up by 50K with 10%
Minnesota: Kerry up by 40K with 12%
Wisconsin: Bush up by 60K with 16%
Iowa: Kerry up by 11K with 7%
Colorado: Bush up by 60K with 11%
New Mexico: Bush up by 15K with 13%
Nevada: No results yet.
Bush has pulled NH back to a tie; Kerry's now leading in Minnesota and Iowa. In all the rest, Bush still has a very good lead --- and he now only needs one or two of the states above to get over 270.
There have been 0 surprises with all of my non-swing states. So, the original projection holds, plus Florida and Ohio for Bush, and plus Pennsylvania for Kerry:
Projection: BUSH 260 ; KERRY 207
Michigan: Bush up by 50K with 10%
Minnesota: Kerry up by 40K with 12%
Wisconsin: Bush up by 60K with 16%
Iowa: Kerry up by 11K with 7%
Colorado: Bush up by 60K with 11%
New Mexico: Bush up by 15K with 13%
Nevada: No results yet.
Bush has pulled NH back to a tie; Kerry's now leading in Minnesota and Iowa. In all the rest, Bush still has a very good lead --- and he now only needs one or two of the states above to get over 270.
There have been 0 surprises with all of my non-swing states. So, the original projection holds, plus Florida and Ohio for Bush, and plus Pennsylvania for Kerry:
Projection: BUSH 260 ; KERRY 207
Election Live Update 10 (10 to go)
I'm calling Ohio and Pennsylvania. That gives Bush only 10 to go.
Ohio: Bush up by 92K with 30%
Pennsylvania: Kerry up by 260K with 45%
New Hampshire: Kerry up by 5K with 43% - still too close to call
Michigan: Bush up by 40K with 8%
Minnesota: Kerry up by 30K with 10%
Wisconsin: Bush up by 42K with 22%
New Mexico: Bush up by 12K with 8%
Colorado: Bush up 52K with 7%
Iowa: Bush up by 1K with less than 1%
Election Live Update 9
Bush is up in every single swing state but Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, which wasn't much of a swing state anyway.
Ohio: Bush up by 80K with 25%
Pennsylvania: Kerry up by 350K with 36%
New Hampshire: Kerry up by 7K with 38%
Michigan: Bush up by 30K with 6%
Minnesota: Bush up by 8K with 2%
Wisconsin: Bush up by 44K with 9%
New Mexico: Bush up by 9K with 5%
Colorado: Bush up by 50K with 6%
Iowa: Bush up by 400 with less than 1%
Ohio: Bush up by 80K with 25%
Pennsylvania: Kerry up by 350K with 36%
New Hampshire: Kerry up by 7K with 38%
Michigan: Bush up by 30K with 6%
Minnesota: Bush up by 8K with 2%
Wisconsin: Bush up by 44K with 9%
New Mexico: Bush up by 9K with 5%
Colorado: Bush up by 50K with 6%
Iowa: Bush up by 400 with less than 1%
Election Live Update 8
Ohio: Bush up by 45K (increasing slightly) at 15%
New Hampshire: Kerry up by 4K (low movement) at 28% --- will be too close to call at 30%
Pennsylvania: Kerry up by 200K (increasing steadily) at 18%
Michigan: Bush up 7K with 3%
Minnesota: Bush up 3K with 1%
Wisconsin: Bush up 15K with 3%
New Mexico: Kerry up 2K with 1%
Colorado: Kerry up 9K with less than 1%
What that means: If Bush gets Ohio, he only needs 10 more. If he gets ANY ONE of these: Michigan, Minnesota, or Wisconsin (and he is currently up in ALL of them) he will be guaranteed a win. In that event, NM and CO wouldn't even matter, nor Iowa, Nevada, or Hawaii, where polls have not yet closed.
New Hampshire: Kerry up by 4K (low movement) at 28% --- will be too close to call at 30%
Pennsylvania: Kerry up by 200K (increasing steadily) at 18%
Michigan: Bush up 7K with 3%
Minnesota: Bush up 3K with 1%
Wisconsin: Bush up 15K with 3%
New Mexico: Kerry up 2K with 1%
Colorado: Kerry up 9K with less than 1%
What that means: If Bush gets Ohio, he only needs 10 more. If he gets ANY ONE of these: Michigan, Minnesota, or Wisconsin (and he is currently up in ALL of them) he will be guaranteed a win. In that event, NM and CO wouldn't even matter, nor Iowa, Nevada, or Hawaii, where polls have not yet closed.
Election Live Update 7
New Hampshire: Kerry up by 3K (lead decreasing slightly) with 18%
Ohio: Bush up by 34K (lead increasing heavily) with 8%
Pennsylvania: Kerry up 60K with 6%
Michigan: Bush up by 4K with 4%
Numbers are coming from Wisconsin and Minnesota, but well under 0%. Still nothing from Iowa.
PROJECTION STILL AT: BUSH 240 ; KERRY 186
If the NH and OH don't change, it will be: BUSH 260 ; KERRY 190
Ohio: Bush up by 34K (lead increasing heavily) with 8%
Pennsylvania: Kerry up 60K with 6%
Michigan: Bush up by 4K with 4%
Numbers are coming from Wisconsin and Minnesota, but well under 0%. Still nothing from Iowa.
PROJECTION STILL AT: BUSH 240 ; KERRY 186
If the NH and OH don't change, it will be: BUSH 260 ; KERRY 190
Election Live Update 6
In Florida with 36% Bush is up by 370K. He definitely won it. No more updates needed here.
In Ohio, Kerry's 18K lead kept getting chopped into. With 4%, Bush is now ahead by 5K. If he gts Ohio, he'll only need 10 more swing state votes to guarnantee the Presidency.
In New Hampshire, Kerry's up by 8K with 12%.
Numbers are starting to come in from Michigan and Pennsylvania. With Less than 1% from Michigan, Bush is up by 5K. But Kerry is up by 40K in Pennsylvania with 3%.
No numbers yet from Minnesota, Iowa, or Wisconsin.
In Ohio, Kerry's 18K lead kept getting chopped into. With 4%, Bush is now ahead by 5K. If he gts Ohio, he'll only need 10 more swing state votes to guarnantee the Presidency.
In New Hampshire, Kerry's up by 8K with 12%.
Numbers are starting to come in from Michigan and Pennsylvania. With Less than 1% from Michigan, Bush is up by 5K. But Kerry is up by 40K in Pennsylvania with 3%.
No numbers yet from Minnesota, Iowa, or Wisconsin.
Election Live Update 5 (30 TO GO)
I'm calling Florida. With 30% in, Bush has maintained his lead and is up by almost 300K, a margin that has literally increased every minute.
In Ohio, Kerry is up by 10K with 2% in. Still impossible to tell there.
In New Hampshire, Kerry is about by 5K with 7%.
In New Jersey, which I did not have as a swing state (instead, for Kerry), although some did, Bush is actually ahead by less than a hundred 4%. That would be a major upset.
As it stands now, with Florida, the projection is:
BUSH 240 ; KERRY 186
30 to go for Bush
In Ohio, Kerry is up by 10K with 2% in. Still impossible to tell there.
In New Hampshire, Kerry is about by 5K with 7%.
In New Jersey, which I did not have as a swing state (instead, for Kerry), although some did, Bush is actually ahead by less than a hundred 4%. That would be a major upset.
As it stands now, with Florida, the projection is:
BUSH 240 ; KERRY 186
30 to go for Bush
Election Live Update 4
With 22% reporting, Bush has a 180K lead in Florida. Once it gets to 30% I'm calling it for Bush.
In Ohio Kerry's up by 20K but still with less than 1% reporting.
In New Hampshire Kerry has a 3K lead with 3% reporting. Again, at 30% I'll call it for Kerry.
They're saying BUSH 66 ; KERRY 77 but it's really still BUSH 213 ; KERRY 186
In Ohio Kerry's up by 20K but still with less than 1% reporting.
In New Hampshire Kerry has a 3K lead with 3% reporting. Again, at 30% I'll call it for Kerry.
They're saying BUSH 66 ; KERRY 77 but it's really still BUSH 213 ; KERRY 186
Election Live Update 3
Florida (27) still has not stats at MSNBC, but at www.usatoday.com, Bush was up by 40K votes with 3%, then 80K with 6%. Now 85K with 9%. Bush is looking to get this important swing state.
In Ohio (20) Bush is up 8,800 to 8,500, or practically nothing.
In New Hampshire (4), Kerry is up 7K to 4K. He'll probably get that swing state.
Still Bush 283 to Kerry 186
In Ohio (20) Bush is up 8,800 to 8,500, or practically nothing.
In New Hampshire (4), Kerry is up 7K to 4K. He'll probably get that swing state.
Still Bush 283 to Kerry 186
Election Live Update 2
Bush was up in Florida by 35,000 and increasing, and polls in the heavily Republican Panhandle in the central time zone haven't even closed yet. Then MSNBC retracted the numbers and put them back at 0. Don't know what's up there.
Virginia's close, with Bush up by 4,000 with 2% precincts reporting. Then up by 9,000 with 3%. Looking good.
Ohio just closed, making it the first of the three big swing states (PA, FL) to officially close everywhere. The numbers are awaited with anticipation.
All the major news networks have coverage, but www.msnbc.com has actual voting numbers for everything.
Virginia's close, with Bush up by 4,000 with 2% precincts reporting. Then up by 9,000 with 3%. Looking good.
Ohio just closed, making it the first of the three big swing states (PA, FL) to officially close everywhere. The numbers are awaited with anticipation.
All the major news networks have coverage, but www.msnbc.com has actual voting numbers for everything.
Election Live Update 1
I was wrong: all the eastern time zone polls do not close at 6. The only ones that have currently closed are: Indiana, Kentucky, Georgia, and Vermont. None are swing states; the first 3 were going to Bush and the last to Kerry. The results so far indicate no surprises.
As it stands with those states: BUSH 34, KERRY 3. (Projection is still BUSH 213, Kerry, 186)
Also of note is a defense of marriage amendment in Kentucky that is being voted yes at a landslide of 65%-35% with over a fifth of precincts reporting.
Edmond the Hun
As it stands with those states: BUSH 34, KERRY 3. (Projection is still BUSH 213, Kerry, 186)
Also of note is a defense of marriage amendment in Kentucky that is being voted yes at a landslide of 65%-35% with over a fifth of precincts reporting.
Edmond the Hun
2 HOURS ; 57 ELECTORAL VOTES
At 7:30 last night, there was breaking news that Ohio's Court had ruled that the Republicans could indeed station people at the polls to check for faulty ID's. Kudos to the Court for following what's written in their state's constituion. This is a major break for Bush, especially with him barely up in the latest polls in Ohio.
By comparing several electoral maps/polls/projections, it appears that 38 of the 50 states are already decided, unless something incredibly drastic happens. From those 38, Bush has 213 electoral votes and Kerry has 186. 270 is needed to win.
The countdown begins. Bush only needs 57 votes out of 139 that are up for grabs. The three biggest states are Florida (27), Pennsylvanis (21), and Florida (20). All three are in the eastern time zone, along with New Hampshire, which means the first polls will close at seven (their time), in two hours.
I expect Bush to get Ohio, Kerry to get Pennsylvania, and either one to Florida, but most likely Bush. If Bush gets any one of these three, he'll only need 37 or less of the remaining swing states, and he's barely up in most of the latest polls in Wisconsin (10), Iowa (7), and Michigan (17), which takes care of 34 of the 37 or less. He should also get Colorado (9).
I plan to update periodically as results come in.
Four more years!!
Edmond the Hun
By comparing several electoral maps/polls/projections, it appears that 38 of the 50 states are already decided, unless something incredibly drastic happens. From those 38, Bush has 213 electoral votes and Kerry has 186. 270 is needed to win.
The countdown begins. Bush only needs 57 votes out of 139 that are up for grabs. The three biggest states are Florida (27), Pennsylvanis (21), and Florida (20). All three are in the eastern time zone, along with New Hampshire, which means the first polls will close at seven (their time), in two hours.
I expect Bush to get Ohio, Kerry to get Pennsylvania, and either one to Florida, but most likely Bush. If Bush gets any one of these three, he'll only need 37 or less of the remaining swing states, and he's barely up in most of the latest polls in Wisconsin (10), Iowa (7), and Michigan (17), which takes care of 34 of the 37 or less. He should also get Colorado (9).
I plan to update periodically as results come in.
Four more years!!
Edmond the Hun
Monday, November 01, 2004
T minus 1
Alright, folks, we only have one more day til the election, and then I can get back to normal stuff, like the discovery of skeletons of a new hobbit-sized species of humans, or the Relient K CD that comes out tomorrow, etc, etc. Until then...
The military votes are in a quandry. We currently have over 160,000 people serving overseas, and it's expected that for various reasons, including shipping problems and deadlines and whatnot, 20 to 40 percent of the military may not get to vote or may not get their vote counted. This is important---because the military is expected to vote 70% Bush. Pray that these votes will get counted!
The polls are basically in a dead heat, so what's gonna make the difference is which side gets the most people to come to the polls and vote. Don't think your vote won't count! And if you're not old enough to vote, make sure your parents get out and vote, unless they're voting for Kerry, in which case you should convince them to stay home. Seriously, though, pray that Christians will realize it is their duty as a Christian and a citizen to vote and be involved in the government!
Ironic Quote of the Day: John Kerry, speaking at a black church, "There is a standard by which we have to live. Coming to church on Sundays and talking about faith isn't the whole deal." John Kerry is the one talking about hypocrisy? Don't even get me started...
My only regret is that my blogging voice has not become loud enough to persuade voters to my position. However, there's always '08. And prayer is a potent voice.
Edmond the Hun
The military votes are in a quandry. We currently have over 160,000 people serving overseas, and it's expected that for various reasons, including shipping problems and deadlines and whatnot, 20 to 40 percent of the military may not get to vote or may not get their vote counted. This is important---because the military is expected to vote 70% Bush. Pray that these votes will get counted!
The polls are basically in a dead heat, so what's gonna make the difference is which side gets the most people to come to the polls and vote. Don't think your vote won't count! And if you're not old enough to vote, make sure your parents get out and vote, unless they're voting for Kerry, in which case you should convince them to stay home. Seriously, though, pray that Christians will realize it is their duty as a Christian and a citizen to vote and be involved in the government!
Ironic Quote of the Day: John Kerry, speaking at a black church, "There is a standard by which we have to live. Coming to church on Sundays and talking about faith isn't the whole deal." John Kerry is the one talking about hypocrisy? Don't even get me started...
My only regret is that my blogging voice has not become loud enough to persuade voters to my position. However, there's always '08. And prayer is a potent voice.
Edmond the Hun
Thursday, October 28, 2004
New Hardee's Commericial
I love the new Hardee's commercial...all the politicians talking about how big they are. And of course, John Kerry is way off, what's new? I get the background music stuck in my head, too. And it certainly beats the previous advertisement. Kudos for Hardee's for being funny, non-partisan, non-crude all at once!
And, by the way, I've had one of those Western Bacon Cheeseburgers, and they are awesome!They got some funny-looking stuff on them that I still don't know what they are, but they didn't taste too bad, so I ate them. Good stuff!
Edmond the Hun
My Anti-Endorsement for John Kerry
(Or, Why Kerry's Not Good Enough to Be the President)
OK, so all these close-minded papers are endorsing Kerry for President, so here goes my Anti-Endorsement.
Why Kerry's Unqualified:
1. He thinks the President is an all-powerful king. First, listen to all the things he blames Bush for. He blames Bush for the flu vaccine shortage. He blames Bush for the fact that Afghanistan produces 75% of the world's opium. How does Bush control that? He also blamed Bush for letting some weapons go missing to terrorists in Iraq. Actually, those weapons went missing before the war. Besides, I thought Iraq wasn't a terrorist threat anyway, according to other things Kerry says. He blames Bush for not passing a good energy bill. Actually, Kerry's the one in Congress who should be voting on these energy bills, and he's missed so many senate votes that it's more his fault than Bush's.
Second, listen to all the things he promises about education, social security, healthcare, etc, etc, but he still plans to cut the budget in half?
He seems to think that the President is in control of everything in the world, from the flu to opium in Afghanistan, and that the President has unlimited money supplies as well. Does a man with such misunderstanding deserve the White House?
2. He will say and do anything to please everyone. This one bugs me more than the first one. Back in spring, he told some auto people in Detroit about all the big SUVs his family owns, just to impress them. Then later he talked to some environmentalists, and when they asked him about the Detroit deal, he said, "Oh, I don't own them, my famliy owns them," just to impress them. Kerry talks about supporting the troops in Iraq, but he voted against a big war bill back when he was still vying for position within his own party. Bush and Cheney both brought it up in debates, accusing him and Edwards of voting that way only because Howard Dean was making progress on a big anti-war campaign, and they had to copy him or lose support. I thought those accusations were a little stretched, but in the debates neither Kerry nor Edwards defended themselves. Is it true, then?
Kerry has repeatedly voted against guns, voting to ban them and things. But he had to impress the gun people, so he bought a camo jacket, and got some pictures taken of him going goose-hunting, just to impress them. The gun he was carrying was a gun he had voted to ban! Kerry supports marriage between a man and a woman (to impress those people), but not as a constitutional amendment, and he wants gay people to have the same rights married people has (to impress those people).
Time after time, on issue after issue, Kerry does whatever he thinks will get him the most support at the time. And the sad thing is, it's working. These aren't exaggerated opinions here! I haven't even mentioned the controversial Swift Boat Vets, which probably have some truth to them anyways. I'm just using cold hard facts...things Kerry has said and done!
I'm not a die-hard radical conservative who just wants to bash Kerry. I'm not overly impressed with Bush. I'm really not. But compared to this guy who doesn't understand the limits of the presidential office, who will say and do anything to try to please everyone and get elected... John Kerry has no integrity.
Bush, on the other hand, has experience, first as a governor, and now four years as President. Kerry has never served in a top position role like a governor or president. He's just been a senator---and he's hardly there to vote for anything anyway! Bush made some mistakes in Iraq, but things are getting better, and it's only a matter of time before we find bin Laden in Afghanistan, too.
Vote for Bush.
Edmond the Hun
OK, so all these close-minded papers are endorsing Kerry for President, so here goes my Anti-Endorsement.
Why Kerry's Unqualified:
1. He thinks the President is an all-powerful king. First, listen to all the things he blames Bush for. He blames Bush for the flu vaccine shortage. He blames Bush for the fact that Afghanistan produces 75% of the world's opium. How does Bush control that? He also blamed Bush for letting some weapons go missing to terrorists in Iraq. Actually, those weapons went missing before the war. Besides, I thought Iraq wasn't a terrorist threat anyway, according to other things Kerry says. He blames Bush for not passing a good energy bill. Actually, Kerry's the one in Congress who should be voting on these energy bills, and he's missed so many senate votes that it's more his fault than Bush's.
Second, listen to all the things he promises about education, social security, healthcare, etc, etc, but he still plans to cut the budget in half?
He seems to think that the President is in control of everything in the world, from the flu to opium in Afghanistan, and that the President has unlimited money supplies as well. Does a man with such misunderstanding deserve the White House?
2. He will say and do anything to please everyone. This one bugs me more than the first one. Back in spring, he told some auto people in Detroit about all the big SUVs his family owns, just to impress them. Then later he talked to some environmentalists, and when they asked him about the Detroit deal, he said, "Oh, I don't own them, my famliy owns them," just to impress them. Kerry talks about supporting the troops in Iraq, but he voted against a big war bill back when he was still vying for position within his own party. Bush and Cheney both brought it up in debates, accusing him and Edwards of voting that way only because Howard Dean was making progress on a big anti-war campaign, and they had to copy him or lose support. I thought those accusations were a little stretched, but in the debates neither Kerry nor Edwards defended themselves. Is it true, then?
Kerry has repeatedly voted against guns, voting to ban them and things. But he had to impress the gun people, so he bought a camo jacket, and got some pictures taken of him going goose-hunting, just to impress them. The gun he was carrying was a gun he had voted to ban! Kerry supports marriage between a man and a woman (to impress those people), but not as a constitutional amendment, and he wants gay people to have the same rights married people has (to impress those people).
Time after time, on issue after issue, Kerry does whatever he thinks will get him the most support at the time. And the sad thing is, it's working. These aren't exaggerated opinions here! I haven't even mentioned the controversial Swift Boat Vets, which probably have some truth to them anyways. I'm just using cold hard facts...things Kerry has said and done!
I'm not a die-hard radical conservative who just wants to bash Kerry. I'm not overly impressed with Bush. I'm really not. But compared to this guy who doesn't understand the limits of the presidential office, who will say and do anything to try to please everyone and get elected... John Kerry has no integrity.
Bush, on the other hand, has experience, first as a governor, and now four years as President. Kerry has never served in a top position role like a governor or president. He's just been a senator---and he's hardly there to vote for anything anyway! Bush made some mistakes in Iraq, but things are getting better, and it's only a matter of time before we find bin Laden in Afghanistan, too.
Vote for Bush.
Edmond the Hun
Sports: For the Superstitious
Between 1918 and 2004, it was nice for the Red Sox to be able to blame their winless woes on the "Cures of the Bambino," when they traded Babe Ruth to the Yankees. However, when it looked like the curse might be broken, they had to come up with some new theories to keep the superstition alive. Take your pick:
#1: The curse had nothing to do with Babe Ruth. After the Red Sox won the World Series in 1918, some of the players held out for more money. After all, they were World Series champs, so they thought they deserved more. The Red Sox didn't give in, though, and they even withheld their W.S. rings. Just before the latest season started, however, the Red Sox searched out those guys and gave them their rings back. And now look what happened.
#2: After the Red Sox went down 3-0 against the Yankees, the mayor of Boston had had enough. There was an old house of Babe Ruth's that still existed, but it wasn't in great shape. So the mayor ordered it to be torn down and demolished. By noon, the place was cleared out. The Red Sox have not lost a game since.
These anecdotes are both second-hand, but my sources believed them to be the sure truth.
Is there any credibility to either of these stories? Possibly. I wouldn't put it past God to let amusing things like this happen, and I wouldn't put it past demons to do things to promote beliefs in curses and whatnot. But I'm more prone to think they're just coincedences. For one thing, these stories haven't come out or weren't promoted until AFTER the Red Sox started winning big (and one or both of them may be exaggerated or hearsay). If the Yanks or Cards had beaten them, we probably never would have heard either of these stories, and they would have just blamed the good 'ol original curse. See? No matter what happens, they'll find a way to make something spooky out of it. It's unfalsifiable. Ah well, let them have their fun.
Edmond the Hun
#1: The curse had nothing to do with Babe Ruth. After the Red Sox won the World Series in 1918, some of the players held out for more money. After all, they were World Series champs, so they thought they deserved more. The Red Sox didn't give in, though, and they even withheld their W.S. rings. Just before the latest season started, however, the Red Sox searched out those guys and gave them their rings back. And now look what happened.
#2: After the Red Sox went down 3-0 against the Yankees, the mayor of Boston had had enough. There was an old house of Babe Ruth's that still existed, but it wasn't in great shape. So the mayor ordered it to be torn down and demolished. By noon, the place was cleared out. The Red Sox have not lost a game since.
These anecdotes are both second-hand, but my sources believed them to be the sure truth.
Is there any credibility to either of these stories? Possibly. I wouldn't put it past God to let amusing things like this happen, and I wouldn't put it past demons to do things to promote beliefs in curses and whatnot. But I'm more prone to think they're just coincedences. For one thing, these stories haven't come out or weren't promoted until AFTER the Red Sox started winning big (and one or both of them may be exaggerated or hearsay). If the Yanks or Cards had beaten them, we probably never would have heard either of these stories, and they would have just blamed the good 'ol original curse. See? No matter what happens, they'll find a way to make something spooky out of it. It's unfalsifiable. Ah well, let them have their fun.
Edmond the Hun
Monday, October 25, 2004
It's An Oddball World 3: Rock Paper Scissors
There is no more need for arguing about the proper way to play America's favorite pastime. Baseball? Football? Curling? No.... Rock, Paper, Scissors.
"The Official Rock Paper Scissors Strategy Guide" by Douglas and Graham Walker explains it all... photos of proper executions of movements, how to intimidate your opponents, feints, tournament etiquette, and much more! 208 pages of expert strategies and tips!
Only $9.95. Get yours today!
(Yes, this is real)
Edmond the Hun
"The Official Rock Paper Scissors Strategy Guide" by Douglas and Graham Walker explains it all... photos of proper executions of movements, how to intimidate your opponents, feints, tournament etiquette, and much more! 208 pages of expert strategies and tips!
Only $9.95. Get yours today!
(Yes, this is real)
Edmond the Hun
It's An Oddball World 2: Random Burglar
Beverly Mitchell went to Greece for a couple weeks. She came back, and the light in her house was on. 54-year-old Beverly Valentine had broken into the house and was living in it. She had ripped up the carpet, replaced Mitchell's pictures with her own, and even begun wearing her clothes. She had also moved in a washer and dryer and her dog.
Valentine said she was renting the home, but then admitted that she had broken in with a shovel. She is now on a $20,000 bond and could face up to 20 years in jail.
Chief Sheriff’s Deputy Stan Copeland said, “In 28 years, I’ve never seen something this strange."
Odd.
(Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch 10/23/04; msnbc.msn.com)
Edmond the Hun
Valentine said she was renting the home, but then admitted that she had broken in with a shovel. She is now on a $20,000 bond and could face up to 20 years in jail.
Chief Sheriff’s Deputy Stan Copeland said, “In 28 years, I’ve never seen something this strange."
Odd.
(Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch 10/23/04; msnbc.msn.com)
Edmond the Hun
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Sports: Red vs. Red
The Cardinals silenced any talks of a Presidential World Series with a resounding 5-2 win over Roger Clemens and the Astros in Game 7 of the NLCS last night.
In Game 1 of the World Series, they scored nine runs, loaded the bases more than once, and the Red Sox had four errors.
They still lost.
Currently in Game 2, as I write this, they're down 6-1. I hope they can do better at home.
Edmond the Hun
Friday, October 22, 2004
Politics: Kerry's Amazing Gun Strategy!!!!!
Gun rights groups don't like Kerry because he has a voting record against gun rights, banning things and supporting gun control and all that. Uh-oh, Kerry, you need to do something to get their votes. I know! First, talk about how much you like to hunt. Second, go buy a camouflage jacket. Third, get the media to take pictures of you in your camo holding a gun going on a goose hunt. Brilliant!! People of America, please, please tell me you're not stupid enough to fall for this...
Who's the real goose here?
(Sources: St. Louis Post-Dispatch 10/22/04)
Edmond the Hun
Who's the real goose here?
(Sources: St. Louis Post-Dispatch 10/22/04)
Edmond the Hun
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Politics: Ingenious Cheaters Update
After three days of monitoring the Vote Pair statistics for the Kerry-Nader trader cheaters, they appear to be getting about 70-75 new pairs per day, which sounds like a lot, but only about 10 pairs for Florida per day, which means they'll be about 500 pairs by the time the election comes around. That's enough votes to possibly change the outcome of that state. All the rest, though, two hundred or less is too small a number to (hopefully) make much difference.
Edmond the Hun
Edmond the Hun
Sports: The Unprecedented Red Sox
In the first round of the playoffs (in which you must win three games), the Red Sox swept their first oppenent and won in three games. In the second round (in which you must win four games) against the Yankees, the Red Sox quickly found themselves down 3-0. No team in the history of major league baseball had ever, EVER, come back to win a best-of-seven series after being down 3-0. Not only were they down 3-0, the last two games would be in New York.
And then it began. They won the last two games in Boston, now only down 3-2. They went back to New York. A crucial infraction by A-Rod in the eighth helped the Red Sox win yet again. Now they had tied it. Even that had never happened before---tying it after being down 3-0---much less winning.
In Game 7, they stomped all over the Yankees. 10-3. They didn't even need the grand slam in the second. And they made history. No team in baseball had ever won a series after being down 3-0. No team in basketball has ever done it, either. And it has only been done twice in the NHL (which might not exist anymore, but that's another story).
And the Red Sox are in the World Series. If the Cards win tonight, the Sox will have to face a formidable lineup and not-so-formidable pitching. If Roger Clemens wins tonight, then it will be a Presidential World Series, Texas vs. Massachusetts.
Bring it on.
Edmond the Hun
And then it began. They won the last two games in Boston, now only down 3-2. They went back to New York. A crucial infraction by A-Rod in the eighth helped the Red Sox win yet again. Now they had tied it. Even that had never happened before---tying it after being down 3-0---much less winning.
In Game 7, they stomped all over the Yankees. 10-3. They didn't even need the grand slam in the second. And they made history. No team in baseball had ever won a series after being down 3-0. No team in basketball has ever done it, either. And it has only been done twice in the NHL (which might not exist anymore, but that's another story).
And the Red Sox are in the World Series. If the Cards win tonight, the Sox will have to face a formidable lineup and not-so-formidable pitching. If Roger Clemens wins tonight, then it will be a Presidential World Series, Texas vs. Massachusetts.
Bring it on.
Edmond the Hun
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Hello Tuesday
Well, there's not much new to talk about. Kerry is still blaming Bush for the vaccine shortage. Just like Kerry blames Bush for the Iraq war, Kerry blames Bush for Afghanistan's opium production, Kerry blames Bush for everything wrong in America even though the president is not the king. What's next, "Kerry blames Bush for bad weather"? I wouldn't be surprised...
Those Astros are being mighty feisty. The Cards will have to win both games at home to get to the World Series. As for the Yankess and Red Sox, no team has ever come back from a 3-0 deficit, but the Red Sox have pulled it to 3-2 and they're hungry, but they'll have to win both of the remaining games in New York to make it.
Wouldn't it be funny, though, if the underdogs pulled it out and it was Houston vs. Boston? Especially because the World Series is like a week before the elections, and Bush is from Texas, and Kerry is from Massachusetts? Interesting.
Edmond the Hun
Those Astros are being mighty feisty. The Cards will have to win both games at home to get to the World Series. As for the Yankess and Red Sox, no team has ever come back from a 3-0 deficit, but the Red Sox have pulled it to 3-2 and they're hungry, but they'll have to win both of the remaining games in New York to make it.
Wouldn't it be funny, though, if the underdogs pulled it out and it was Houston vs. Boston? Especially because the World Series is like a week before the elections, and Bush is from Texas, and Kerry is from Massachusetts? Interesting.
Edmond the Hun
Monday, October 18, 2004
Politics 8: I will NOT...just kidding?
Both Bush and Kerry have made some emphatic "I will not" promises in the last week or so. But are they telling the truth, or is it just wishful thinking?
Bush has said that he will NOT bring back the draft, that we will remain an all-volunteer army. Now that's kind of a tough thing to guarantee. We don't know what might come up in the world in the next four years. We may need a draft to properly protect this country! However, the numbers seem to be very comfortable right now, and we are not currently having a shortage. Besides, as the Iraqis learn to govern themselves, American troop numbers will start to diminish there. And it's only a matter of time before we get bin Laden, and troops can start coming home from there, too.
So even if something else bad happens, we'll have more than enough volunteer military. CHANCE OF KEEPING PROMISE: GOOD TO VERY GOOD
Kerry has said that he will NOT raise taxes on the middle class. I'm trying to be unbiased here, but I really don't see how Senator Kerry is going to do that. In his speeches, he's been saying a whole load of Zeus about all the ways he's going to fix every problem in America, whether it's health care, or social security, or education, etc, etc. Now, I want to know, how is going to do all that AND not raise taxes? The government's not exactly rolling in dough right now.
Most likely, Kerry is just trying to paint a perfect idealistic picture that is incredibly and impossibly unrealisitic. CHANCE OF KEEPING PROMISE: POOR TO NIL
I'm gonna start keeping score now. Bush 1, Kerry 0.
Edmond the Hun
Bush has said that he will NOT bring back the draft, that we will remain an all-volunteer army. Now that's kind of a tough thing to guarantee. We don't know what might come up in the world in the next four years. We may need a draft to properly protect this country! However, the numbers seem to be very comfortable right now, and we are not currently having a shortage. Besides, as the Iraqis learn to govern themselves, American troop numbers will start to diminish there. And it's only a matter of time before we get bin Laden, and troops can start coming home from there, too.
So even if something else bad happens, we'll have more than enough volunteer military. CHANCE OF KEEPING PROMISE: GOOD TO VERY GOOD
Kerry has said that he will NOT raise taxes on the middle class. I'm trying to be unbiased here, but I really don't see how Senator Kerry is going to do that. In his speeches, he's been saying a whole load of Zeus about all the ways he's going to fix every problem in America, whether it's health care, or social security, or education, etc, etc. Now, I want to know, how is going to do all that AND not raise taxes? The government's not exactly rolling in dough right now.
Most likely, Kerry is just trying to paint a perfect idealistic picture that is incredibly and impossibly unrealisitic. CHANCE OF KEEPING PROMISE: POOR TO NIL
I'm gonna start keeping score now. Bush 1, Kerry 0.
Edmond the Hun
Politics 7: Ingenious Cheaters
Our electoral college system is really odd and unique, and some people are exploiting its finer details. Some people in swing states (states that are up for grabs) want to vote for Nader, but they know that if too many people do, it'll take away votes from Kerry (because Nader is kinda liberal) and Bush will win the state. But they still want Nader to get a numerical vote. So here's what's happening. With www.votepair.org, Nader fans in swing states are finding Kerry fans in solid states (where someone is pretty much guaranteed to win), and swapping votes.
This means Nader still gets the same amount of votes as before, but Kerry gets more votes in a state where he needs them. This is a direct attempt to exploit the electoral college system!! On the one hand, it's ingenious, but it's also cheating!! Because the system is not popular majority, these people are trying to move Kerry votes around to help him win the most states! This is diabolical! And it's completely legal!!
All you Republicans out there in swing states need to sign up and say you'll vote for Kerry if they'll vote for Nader, and then still vote for Bush. That way, Kerry loses votes in his solid states and still doesn't get them in the swing states. They only have 1005 pairs so far, and less than 100 in most states. But Florida's got 230 Nader-fan Kerry votes, and if that grows, it could change the outcome, since Bush only won Florida last time by a few hundred.
I never understood why we use the electoral college system. My history teacher says there's good reasons, and I'm really glad Gore didn't become president off the popular vote in 2000, but the whole thing is so illogical! And it's finally being exploited.
Edmond the Hun
This means Nader still gets the same amount of votes as before, but Kerry gets more votes in a state where he needs them. This is a direct attempt to exploit the electoral college system!! On the one hand, it's ingenious, but it's also cheating!! Because the system is not popular majority, these people are trying to move Kerry votes around to help him win the most states! This is diabolical! And it's completely legal!!
All you Republicans out there in swing states need to sign up and say you'll vote for Kerry if they'll vote for Nader, and then still vote for Bush. That way, Kerry loses votes in his solid states and still doesn't get them in the swing states. They only have 1005 pairs so far, and less than 100 in most states. But Florida's got 230 Nader-fan Kerry votes, and if that grows, it could change the outcome, since Bush only won Florida last time by a few hundred.
I never understood why we use the electoral college system. My history teacher says there's good reasons, and I'm really glad Gore didn't become president off the popular vote in 2000, but the whole thing is so illogical! And it's finally being exploited.
Edmond the Hun
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Guys Who Won't Win 1: Michael Strauss
(From Mike's Party)
Well, I was going to do some random specials on random candidates running for President. I thought Mike Strauss, running from Mike's party, sounded like a good goofball to do a special on. The only problem is, I can't find any information on him, except that his home city is Newburyport, Massachusetts, and he also ran in 2000.
Other than that, this guy keeps a low profile. I'm not sure how he made it on the list, since he doesn't even appear to be trying.
What a bummer! I was hoping to make fun of him. Next I'll pick the guy from the United Fascist party---Jackson Kirk Grimes (And he actually has a website). Maybe he's one of those real crazy guys who actually thinks he has good things to offer.
Edmond the Hun
Well, I was going to do some random specials on random candidates running for President. I thought Mike Strauss, running from Mike's party, sounded like a good goofball to do a special on. The only problem is, I can't find any information on him, except that his home city is Newburyport, Massachusetts, and he also ran in 2000.
Other than that, this guy keeps a low profile. I'm not sure how he made it on the list, since he doesn't even appear to be trying.
What a bummer! I was hoping to make fun of him. Next I'll pick the guy from the United Fascist party---Jackson Kirk Grimes (And he actually has a website). Maybe he's one of those real crazy guys who actually thinks he has good things to offer.
Edmond the Hun
Hero Time: Vika Kallogova
This month's hero, well, actually, last month's hero, is Vika Kallogova, a Russian 13-year-old who was involved in the terrorist attack on the school in Beslan, when militants arrived and set siege to the school from Sept. 1-3
Vika was among a group of about 30 who managed to hide and get away, but she realized she didn't know where her 8-year-old sister Olya was. So she went back in with the rest of the hostages and stayed with her sister for three days until Russian security forces swept in and ousted the terrorists.
To add to the drama: While hiding amidst the gunfire between bad guys and good guys, Vika pulled shrapnel from her own foot and her sister's arm. Quite a brave little girl.
Terrorists are at work all over the region of the Caucasus mountains in southern Russia, and things to don't look to be getting more stable any time soon. Let's hope and pray that the Russian security forces can prevent another hundred children dying in another school siege. But we all know that terrorists don't care at all about killing civilians.
(Sources: http://www.contracostatimes.com; http://www.cnn.com)
Edmond the Hun
Vika was among a group of about 30 who managed to hide and get away, but she realized she didn't know where her 8-year-old sister Olya was. So she went back in with the rest of the hostages and stayed with her sister for three days until Russian security forces swept in and ousted the terrorists.
To add to the drama: While hiding amidst the gunfire between bad guys and good guys, Vika pulled shrapnel from her own foot and her sister's arm. Quite a brave little girl.
Terrorists are at work all over the region of the Caucasus mountains in southern Russia, and things to don't look to be getting more stable any time soon. Let's hope and pray that the Russian security forces can prevent another hundred children dying in another school siege. But we all know that terrorists don't care at all about killing civilians.
(Sources: http://www.contracostatimes.com; http://www.cnn.com)
Edmond the Hun
Friday, October 15, 2004
More on Relient K
It has been suggested and requested that I expand beyond politics, and especially, talk more about Relient K. Well, I am mixing it up. I've got some news on Narnia and the Cardinals.
As for Relient K...there's not a whole lot of new stuff until MMHMM comes out November 2. www.purevolume.com/relientk has another song, totalling 3, but my connection is so slow that I could only listen to it in intermittent segments of about five seconds each, so I can't really tell you how good it was.
MMHMM releases in 18 days.
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe releases in 420 days.
Edmond the Hun
As for Relient K...there's not a whole lot of new stuff until MMHMM comes out November 2. www.purevolume.com/relientk has another song, totalling 3, but my connection is so slow that I could only listen to it in intermittent segments of about five seconds each, so I can't really tell you how good it was.
MMHMM releases in 18 days.
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe releases in 420 days.
Edmond the Hun
Narnia Movie
"The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" is being made into a movie. It's being done by Disney, but don't worry, it's not really being done by Disney, and supposedly the Christian symbolism is not supposed to be lost. I'll be reporting on this periodically as new info comes out.
The movie set to release in Christmas 2005. For the latest updates and information, go to www.narniaweb.com. That site carries all the info and news on the movie prodcution since it began. I also just found www.theonelion.net, but I haven't looked at it too much yet.
By the way, if you've never heard of it, "The Lion..." is the first book in the Chronicles of Narnia series by C. S. Lewis. Very good. I've read the whole series four or five times. Can't wait for the movie.
Edmond the Hun
The movie set to release in Christmas 2005. For the latest updates and information, go to www.narniaweb.com. That site carries all the info and news on the movie prodcution since it began. I also just found www.theonelion.net, but I haven't looked at it too much yet.
By the way, if you've never heard of it, "The Lion..." is the first book in the Chronicles of Narnia series by C. S. Lewis. Very good. I've read the whole series four or five times. Can't wait for the movie.
Edmond the Hun
Go Cards!
In the second round of the baseball playoffs, the Cardinals pulled off another victory to put the Astros down 2-0. The Astros were the only team that won more games against the Cards than the Cards won against them, but that statistic isn't helping them any.
Last night in St. Louis, the Cards were shut out for four innings, down 3-0. Then started the fifth inning. With two outs, Walker hit a 2-run homer. Then Pujols got on base, and Scott Rolen, who had been experiencing a post-season slump (only 1 hit so far), hit another 2-run homer. Later, in the eighth inning, he hit another home run. The Cards won 6-4.
They face a formidable Roger Clemens in Houston tomorrow night, where potentially the next three games will be played. Cards will be starting Jeff Suppan, who is 11-1 on the road. Two more wins and the Cardinals go to the World Series, most likely to face the Yankess, who are also up 2-0 against the Red Sox.
Edmond the Hun
Last night in St. Louis, the Cards were shut out for four innings, down 3-0. Then started the fifth inning. With two outs, Walker hit a 2-run homer. Then Pujols got on base, and Scott Rolen, who had been experiencing a post-season slump (only 1 hit so far), hit another 2-run homer. Later, in the eighth inning, he hit another home run. The Cards won 6-4.
They face a formidable Roger Clemens in Houston tomorrow night, where potentially the next three games will be played. Cards will be starting Jeff Suppan, who is 11-1 on the road. Two more wins and the Cardinals go to the World Series, most likely to face the Yankess, who are also up 2-0 against the Red Sox.
Edmond the Hun
Thursday, October 14, 2004
I'm Still Alive, and More Politics
It's been a week since I last updated. Don't worry, I haven't died. I've just been busy.
I missed the last two Presidential debates, so I don't have a lot to comment on. Except that I laughed when I read that Kerry said, "I have been completely consistent about Iraq" in the second debate, because even the liberal media has been consenting that he's been inconsistent.
I also thought it was comical what I read in the paper yesterday. Kerry was criticizing Bush and he said that another session of Congress ended without a good energy bill being passed. And this is the President's fault? If anything, he's incriminating himself---he's the one in Congress! (In fact, this website: http://www.noticias.info/ says that Bush proposed an energy bill that failed to pass by two votes. Can you name two senators who didn't show up to vote? Yep, our buddies Kerry and Edwards) I don't think Kerry has a proper understanding of what the President's position is.
Just another reason why he shouldn't be President.
I found a neat website, www.electoral-vote.com, that keeps track, update daily, of who's projected to win each state, and, likewise, the most electoral votes. Can't say how accurate it is, but it's based on mulitple polls, and it's interesting if nothing else.
I'll be back
Edmond the Hun
I missed the last two Presidential debates, so I don't have a lot to comment on. Except that I laughed when I read that Kerry said, "I have been completely consistent about Iraq" in the second debate, because even the liberal media has been consenting that he's been inconsistent.
I also thought it was comical what I read in the paper yesterday. Kerry was criticizing Bush and he said that another session of Congress ended without a good energy bill being passed. And this is the President's fault? If anything, he's incriminating himself---he's the one in Congress! (In fact, this website: http://www.noticias.info/ says that Bush proposed an energy bill that failed to pass by two votes. Can you name two senators who didn't show up to vote? Yep, our buddies Kerry and Edwards) I don't think Kerry has a proper understanding of what the President's position is.
Just another reason why he shouldn't be President.
I found a neat website, www.electoral-vote.com, that keeps track, update daily, of who's projected to win each state, and, likewise, the most electoral votes. Can't say how accurate it is, but it's based on mulitple polls, and it's interesting if nothing else.
I'll be back
Edmond the Hun
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Polirics 6 - VP Debate Analysis
This is long but stay with me. Especially if you support Kerry and Edwards.
Both candidates were good speakers. Republican fans didn't have to worry about a hesitant and stuttering President Bush coming up against a renowned debater in John Kerry. I was actually very impressed with Dick Cheney's performance. He always seemed like this quiet, old, fat guy, but he's really brilliant! He stayed calm and collected the entire time, acting very professional and "in control." John Edwards also did a fine job, but he often came across as arrogant and whiny.
There was some deja vu, as both candidates repeated key phrases from the first presidential debate Thursday, especially in the opening moments. But for the most part this debate stood apart as its own entity. Gwyn Ifill, the moderator, asked John Edwards some very good questions. In fact, she seemed like a biased Republican. She asked things like, "You've said you'll do this and this and this...how?" or "You did this, but then you did the opposite. Can you explain?" etc, etc.
I've come to realize that when a candidate has a bad spot and he knows it but obviously doesn't want to admit it, there are two ways to get around it. One is to cleverly avoid the question by subtly changing the subject. For example, when asked if Saddam would still be in power had Kerry and Edwards been in office... Edwards hardly even mentioned Saddam! He just went on and on about how there was no link, no link at all, we need to get bin Laden, there was no link! Why? Because he knew that Saddam really would still be in power because they wouldn't have gone to war. But of course he couldn't tell the American people that---they'd lose lots of votes.
Again, when asked about gay marriage, Edwards evaded and flip-flopped himself dizzy in an attempt to please everybody. I got a kick out of his response! Marriage is only between a man and a woman, he says, but they oppose a constutional amendment for it, and they want to give gay people all the rights that married people get, oh, but marriage is only between a man and a woman! That marriage phrase means nothing---they're obviously pro-gay. But so many people ardently believe in that marriage phrase that they have to stick it in there, or else lose lots of votes.
The second way for a candidate to avoid exposing his bad spot is to find that bad spot, or pretend to find that bad spot, in the other candidate. Edwards, what about Kerry's really bad and inconsistent record? Well, uh, Cheney's got a bad record! Edwards, how are you and Kerry gonna get more allies? Well, uh, they didn't get very many allies! Edwards, what about your bad voting record, and not voting 75% of the time? Well, uh, Cheney was one of only 10 people to vote for this. (So, at least he voted!) Edwards, what about your tax loophole? Well, uh, Cheney's got a tax loophole too!
To be fair, Cheney did some blame-shifting himself, and some of Edwards' attacks are or may be true for Cheney too. But when you compare the two, Edwards looks a lot worse. And when a candidate doesn't defend himself against a bad spot, but merely tries to get you to ignore it, what else can that mean but that those bad spots are true? Not looking good for Edwards.
Edwards also tried to make a big deal out of all these things him and Kerry were gonna do to make the world a perfect place. They're gonna do this, and pass this bill, and give money for this, and this, and that. Oh, yeah, and we're gonna cut the deficit in half, too! Huh?
After Cheny said, we try to attack the terrorists before they attack us, that's why we went to Iraq... then Edwards said, Saddam didn't attack us, and went on the old "no link" theme again. Is Edwards implying that we're going to wait until terrorists attack us before we attack them? Is that what he means by all this anti-Iraq war talk? Surely not.
Dick Cheney seemed to have a lot more facts than Edwards, and this lended more credibility to his side. Edwards had facts too, but overall, Cheney blew him away. He seemed to have some convincing pro-Bush and/or anti-Kerry statistics for just about every one of his comments. He did a great job defending the war and the president's positions, and he did a superb job attacking Kerry's and Edwards's inconsistencies.
After Edwards said, "Kerry has been completely consistent about the war," Cheney said, "I can think of a lot of words to describe Kerry's position on the war, and consistent is not one of them." He then listed half of dozen or more quotes and votes by Kerry over the years, half of them saying one thing and half saying the other. He said K and E only voted against one particular war bill because at that time Howard Dean was up in the Democratic polls running on an anti-war strategy, and they had to appear anti-war too to stay in the running. Sound far-fetched? Edwards didn't defend it at all. Is it true, then, that K and E will say and do whatever's necessary to please enough people to win the election? Surely not.
Cheney has a lot more experience than Edwards, who has only been a senator for one term. Cheney knows what he's doing. Edwards is an inexperienced blaming whiner who wants to broadcast every existing problem in Iraq and Afghanistan as if it's the president's fault. So what if Afghanistan produces 75% of the world's opium? As if the President caused that? We've taken out 75% of Al-quida (however you spell that) too!
Both sides have issues and unanswered questions. Neither Bush nor Cheney have contradicted what K and E said about us letting the Afghan military try to get bin Laden when we had him cornered instead of doing it ourselves. It looks like there's some money issues with Haliburton, too. But compared to K and E!! They have been inconsistent about the war, about gay marriage---blame-shifting and evading questions, implying that many accusations are true, and saying and doing whatever it takes so Kerry can become president. As Cheney said, "I don't think Kerry has the qualities needed to be Commander in Chief!"
Vote for Bush. I rest my case.
Edmond the Hun
Both candidates were good speakers. Republican fans didn't have to worry about a hesitant and stuttering President Bush coming up against a renowned debater in John Kerry. I was actually very impressed with Dick Cheney's performance. He always seemed like this quiet, old, fat guy, but he's really brilliant! He stayed calm and collected the entire time, acting very professional and "in control." John Edwards also did a fine job, but he often came across as arrogant and whiny.
There was some deja vu, as both candidates repeated key phrases from the first presidential debate Thursday, especially in the opening moments. But for the most part this debate stood apart as its own entity. Gwyn Ifill, the moderator, asked John Edwards some very good questions. In fact, she seemed like a biased Republican. She asked things like, "You've said you'll do this and this and this...how?" or "You did this, but then you did the opposite. Can you explain?" etc, etc.
I've come to realize that when a candidate has a bad spot and he knows it but obviously doesn't want to admit it, there are two ways to get around it. One is to cleverly avoid the question by subtly changing the subject. For example, when asked if Saddam would still be in power had Kerry and Edwards been in office... Edwards hardly even mentioned Saddam! He just went on and on about how there was no link, no link at all, we need to get bin Laden, there was no link! Why? Because he knew that Saddam really would still be in power because they wouldn't have gone to war. But of course he couldn't tell the American people that---they'd lose lots of votes.
Again, when asked about gay marriage, Edwards evaded and flip-flopped himself dizzy in an attempt to please everybody. I got a kick out of his response! Marriage is only between a man and a woman, he says, but they oppose a constutional amendment for it, and they want to give gay people all the rights that married people get, oh, but marriage is only between a man and a woman! That marriage phrase means nothing---they're obviously pro-gay. But so many people ardently believe in that marriage phrase that they have to stick it in there, or else lose lots of votes.
The second way for a candidate to avoid exposing his bad spot is to find that bad spot, or pretend to find that bad spot, in the other candidate. Edwards, what about Kerry's really bad and inconsistent record? Well, uh, Cheney's got a bad record! Edwards, how are you and Kerry gonna get more allies? Well, uh, they didn't get very many allies! Edwards, what about your bad voting record, and not voting 75% of the time? Well, uh, Cheney was one of only 10 people to vote for this. (So, at least he voted!) Edwards, what about your tax loophole? Well, uh, Cheney's got a tax loophole too!
To be fair, Cheney did some blame-shifting himself, and some of Edwards' attacks are or may be true for Cheney too. But when you compare the two, Edwards looks a lot worse. And when a candidate doesn't defend himself against a bad spot, but merely tries to get you to ignore it, what else can that mean but that those bad spots are true? Not looking good for Edwards.
Edwards also tried to make a big deal out of all these things him and Kerry were gonna do to make the world a perfect place. They're gonna do this, and pass this bill, and give money for this, and this, and that. Oh, yeah, and we're gonna cut the deficit in half, too! Huh?
After Cheny said, we try to attack the terrorists before they attack us, that's why we went to Iraq... then Edwards said, Saddam didn't attack us, and went on the old "no link" theme again. Is Edwards implying that we're going to wait until terrorists attack us before we attack them? Is that what he means by all this anti-Iraq war talk? Surely not.
Dick Cheney seemed to have a lot more facts than Edwards, and this lended more credibility to his side. Edwards had facts too, but overall, Cheney blew him away. He seemed to have some convincing pro-Bush and/or anti-Kerry statistics for just about every one of his comments. He did a great job defending the war and the president's positions, and he did a superb job attacking Kerry's and Edwards's inconsistencies.
After Edwards said, "Kerry has been completely consistent about the war," Cheney said, "I can think of a lot of words to describe Kerry's position on the war, and consistent is not one of them." He then listed half of dozen or more quotes and votes by Kerry over the years, half of them saying one thing and half saying the other. He said K and E only voted against one particular war bill because at that time Howard Dean was up in the Democratic polls running on an anti-war strategy, and they had to appear anti-war too to stay in the running. Sound far-fetched? Edwards didn't defend it at all. Is it true, then, that K and E will say and do whatever's necessary to please enough people to win the election? Surely not.
Cheney has a lot more experience than Edwards, who has only been a senator for one term. Cheney knows what he's doing. Edwards is an inexperienced blaming whiner who wants to broadcast every existing problem in Iraq and Afghanistan as if it's the president's fault. So what if Afghanistan produces 75% of the world's opium? As if the President caused that? We've taken out 75% of Al-quida (however you spell that) too!
Both sides have issues and unanswered questions. Neither Bush nor Cheney have contradicted what K and E said about us letting the Afghan military try to get bin Laden when we had him cornered instead of doing it ourselves. It looks like there's some money issues with Haliburton, too. But compared to K and E!! They have been inconsistent about the war, about gay marriage---blame-shifting and evading questions, implying that many accusations are true, and saying and doing whatever it takes so Kerry can become president. As Cheney said, "I don't think Kerry has the qualities needed to be Commander in Chief!"
Vote for Bush. I rest my case.
Edmond the Hun
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Current Events 2 - A Memorial For What???
A British Columbian group was going to make a memorial to the draft dodgers who fled to Canada to avoid the draft. The good new is they met with so much opposition, especially from American vets, that they backed off. The bad news is now I don't get to rant about it. Well, not quite as much.
They've merely "changed" the memorial to be about "peace and refuge monument for all groups that have come to Canada and sought assistance." Huh? And the difference is...? That's just a re-wording of the original draft dodgers plan. I hope they get opposition for this one too. Why should there be anything that even attempts at honoring the cowards who ran away because they didn't have enough guts or pride to die for their country? This is outrageous!
(Source: http://www.cbc.ca)
Edmond the Hun
They've merely "changed" the memorial to be about "peace and refuge monument for all groups that have come to Canada and sought assistance." Huh? And the difference is...? That's just a re-wording of the original draft dodgers plan. I hope they get opposition for this one too. Why should there be anything that even attempts at honoring the cowards who ran away because they didn't have enough guts or pride to die for their country? This is outrageous!
(Source: http://www.cbc.ca)
Edmond the Hun
Current Events 1 - Helens is gonna blow!
Over the last few days Mt. St. Helens in Washigton has been quaking and steaming, getting ready for its first eruption since May 18, 1980. Hopefully, this time it can avoid causing 57 deaths. No word yet on when the volcano is expected to blow its top. But since it only happens every 20 years or so, it's somewhat interesting.
We had a family reunion in Washington three summers ago, and we visited the Mt. St. Helens area. It was very impressive, especially all the trees that had just been totally knocked over by the 1980 blast, and the ones farther out that just had all their leaves and twigs incinerated. Or, as Uncle Lowell termed it, "Flying Beaver Damage." There should be a lot more Flying Beaver Damage after Mt. St. Helens goes off again.
Edmond the Hun
We had a family reunion in Washington three summers ago, and we visited the Mt. St. Helens area. It was very impressive, especially all the trees that had just been totally knocked over by the 1980 blast, and the ones farther out that just had all their leaves and twigs incinerated. Or, as Uncle Lowell termed it, "Flying Beaver Damage." There should be a lot more Flying Beaver Damage after Mt. St. Helens goes off again.
Edmond the Hun
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Politics 5 - Debate Analysis
First off, neither of the candidates said or did anything ridiculous or embarrassing, or any other related thing that would automatically knock one of them out of the race. Kerry is a better speaker than Bush. He talked a lot faster and seemed to have more things to say, while Bush talked slower, made frequent pauses, and seemed to run out of things to say at points. However, both managed to criticize each other a good deal. They also said key phrases that sound good by themselves, although with some context Kerry's excerpts fall flat.
Bush did a good job of pointing out Kerry's inconsistencies. He mentioned how Kerry looked at the same intelligence Bush did and voted for authorization of force, but now he says it's the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time (Bush repeated thiat catch phrase almost to the point of annoyance). He discussed Kerry's plans to recruit allies, while at the same time Kerry's criticism of our allies. Bush also did a good job of reminding people why we went to war: The United Nations passed a resolution. Saddam Hussein did not comply. We had to give him a consequence for not complying, so we used force. Simple and logical. It had nothing to do with 9/11.
And therin lies Bush's mistake. He is still trying to make a link where there is none. I winced when he said, the enemy attacked us, thus the war in Iraq. Kerry was quick to pounce on it, too, discussing how we should focus on getting bin Laden instead of the "diversion" of Iraq. Did that give Kerry an edge? Not really.
Kerry firmly said that the war on Iraq was a mistake, that Saddam was a threat, there was a right way and a wrong way to deal with him, and Bush chose the wrong way. Now hold on just a minute. What is this "wrong way" that Bush chose? Using force to get rid of Saddam? Well, Kerry, in Congress you voted to authorize that. Now about this "right way" that Bush didn't choose, what is that? Diplomacy? The UN had already passed 16 resolutions that didn't work, and Saddam didn't comply to the 17th one either. So not only did Kerry choose the same "wrong way" that he accuses Bush of, but the "right way" had already been tried, unsuccessfully. So by calling Iraq and mistake and a diversion, Kerry is just using a bunch of words to make Bush look bad. If only the rest of the world would think that through.
Kerry's second mistake was his vagueness. For example, three times he said that at Bush's pace it would take him 13 years to track down Russia's nuclear stuff, but "I'll do it in four." Yet never once did Kerry even hint at mentioning how he would accomplish this thing. Does he have some sort of plan? Is he gonna go in there himself? Or maybe he's just picking a number like "4" because it sounds better than "13."
Third, Kerry still insisted on making contradictions. In his closing remarks, Kerry proudly said something like, I defended you in Vietnam, and I'll defend you now. Hold up again. When he came back from Vietnam, Kerry was calling that war a mistake and making all sorts of noise against it. And now he's saying he's proud of serving in it? As Bush said, "The only consistent thing about my opponent---is his inconsistency."
So how will this debate affect the polls? If the American people look on the surface, Kerry won the debate. He looked better and smarter, and he made many accusations against Bush in an effort to make himself appear more perfect. If people look deeper, they will see that Kerry's accusations actually point at the inconsistencies and incompetence of himself, and they will think Bush won the debate. However, if everyone did that, Kerry would have no supporters at all. I expect the polls to show Kerry gaining a little bit on Bush.
NEXT UP:
- Tuesday, October 5: Cleveland (A Vice-presedential debate between Cheney and Edwards)
- Friday, October 8: St. Louis (Bush vs. Kerry)
- Wednesday, October 13: Tempe, Arizona (Bush vs. Kerry)
I'll be analyzing those too, if I have time to watch them.
Edmond the Hun
Bush did a good job of pointing out Kerry's inconsistencies. He mentioned how Kerry looked at the same intelligence Bush did and voted for authorization of force, but now he says it's the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time (Bush repeated thiat catch phrase almost to the point of annoyance). He discussed Kerry's plans to recruit allies, while at the same time Kerry's criticism of our allies. Bush also did a good job of reminding people why we went to war: The United Nations passed a resolution. Saddam Hussein did not comply. We had to give him a consequence for not complying, so we used force. Simple and logical. It had nothing to do with 9/11.
And therin lies Bush's mistake. He is still trying to make a link where there is none. I winced when he said, the enemy attacked us, thus the war in Iraq. Kerry was quick to pounce on it, too, discussing how we should focus on getting bin Laden instead of the "diversion" of Iraq. Did that give Kerry an edge? Not really.
Kerry firmly said that the war on Iraq was a mistake, that Saddam was a threat, there was a right way and a wrong way to deal with him, and Bush chose the wrong way. Now hold on just a minute. What is this "wrong way" that Bush chose? Using force to get rid of Saddam? Well, Kerry, in Congress you voted to authorize that. Now about this "right way" that Bush didn't choose, what is that? Diplomacy? The UN had already passed 16 resolutions that didn't work, and Saddam didn't comply to the 17th one either. So not only did Kerry choose the same "wrong way" that he accuses Bush of, but the "right way" had already been tried, unsuccessfully. So by calling Iraq and mistake and a diversion, Kerry is just using a bunch of words to make Bush look bad. If only the rest of the world would think that through.
Kerry's second mistake was his vagueness. For example, three times he said that at Bush's pace it would take him 13 years to track down Russia's nuclear stuff, but "I'll do it in four." Yet never once did Kerry even hint at mentioning how he would accomplish this thing. Does he have some sort of plan? Is he gonna go in there himself? Or maybe he's just picking a number like "4" because it sounds better than "13."
Third, Kerry still insisted on making contradictions. In his closing remarks, Kerry proudly said something like, I defended you in Vietnam, and I'll defend you now. Hold up again. When he came back from Vietnam, Kerry was calling that war a mistake and making all sorts of noise against it. And now he's saying he's proud of serving in it? As Bush said, "The only consistent thing about my opponent---is his inconsistency."
So how will this debate affect the polls? If the American people look on the surface, Kerry won the debate. He looked better and smarter, and he made many accusations against Bush in an effort to make himself appear more perfect. If people look deeper, they will see that Kerry's accusations actually point at the inconsistencies and incompetence of himself, and they will think Bush won the debate. However, if everyone did that, Kerry would have no supporters at all. I expect the polls to show Kerry gaining a little bit on Bush.
NEXT UP:
- Tuesday, October 5: Cleveland (A Vice-presedential debate between Cheney and Edwards)
- Friday, October 8: St. Louis (Bush vs. Kerry)
- Wednesday, October 13: Tempe, Arizona (Bush vs. Kerry)
I'll be analyzing those too, if I have time to watch them.
Edmond the Hun
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Politics 4 - Where are the Third Parties?
Are you voting for Kerry? Or Bush? Democrat? Or Republican? Did you know that there are even other parties that exist out there? Lots of people are dissatisfied with Bush and the alleged "quagmire" in Iraq and all that media-twisted stuff, and lots of people don't like Kerry because he can't make up his mind. So, if there was any election in recent years for some of the lesser-known parties to have some tiny chance at acquring anything in the electoral collage---this is it. So why aren't they campaigning? I honestly can't tell you anything about any of the other parties, except that Ralph Nader is in one of them.
So, if I get bored before Nov. 2, I'll be doing some research on some of these third parties that no one knows about. The Libertarians? The Green Party? The United Fascist Party? Mike's Party? (yes, that one really exists) Who knows? We'll just have to see. (go here: http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president_party.php?party_name=All for a list of all the candidates)
Don't forget to watch the debates tonight at 9 PM Eastern.
Edmond the Hun
So, if I get bored before Nov. 2, I'll be doing some research on some of these third parties that no one knows about. The Libertarians? The Green Party? The United Fascist Party? Mike's Party? (yes, that one really exists) Who knows? We'll just have to see. (go here: http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president_party.php?party_name=All for a list of all the candidates)
Don't forget to watch the debates tonight at 9 PM Eastern.
Edmond the Hun
It's An Oddball World 1 - Japan and the Pillow Man
Wow...talk about weird and strange! In Japan, there's a new answer for lonely women: The Boyfriend's Arm Pillow, sold for $80 by the Kaemo Corp. It's a torso-shaped pillow with an arm, and it's supposed to comfort women who don't have to sleep by themselves. Over 1000 pillows have been sold. This is serious stuff. Click on the first link below for a picture of a woman sleeping with the pillow. 34-year-old DJ Junko Suzuki is a big promoter of it. She says, "I like to sleep holding some one's hand." Even if that someone is a pillow. What will they think of next?
(Sources: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6141895/; http://www.guardian.co.uk/japan/story/0,7369,1316049,00.html)
Edmond the Hun
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Hello Tuesday
Yay! I got my first comment! I'm not posting in vain! People are actually reading the things I write! OK, enough of that.
An anyonymous commenter (I'll call him Fred) said he's not really into politics but I should talk more about football and music and stuff. (He even suggested writing about AP History, which coincidentally I'm taking too. We'll see, Fred) Anyway, I've decided that maybe all-political posting IS kinda boring, so I'm gonna start throwing in some music and football and stuff like that. I'll still label everything so you can skip one or the other if you don't care about it.
How's that Fred? Or did you ever come back?
Edmond the Hun
An anyonymous commenter (I'll call him Fred) said he's not really into politics but I should talk more about football and music and stuff. (He even suggested writing about AP History, which coincidentally I'm taking too. We'll see, Fred) Anyway, I've decided that maybe all-political posting IS kinda boring, so I'm gonna start throwing in some music and football and stuff like that. I'll still label everything so you can skip one or the other if you don't care about it.
How's that Fred? Or did you ever come back?
Edmond the Hun
Music 1 - Relient K? MMHMM!
Relient K is an extremely creative Christian punk/rock band. They have a new CD coming out November 2, and true to their creative album-naming spirit, this one's called "MMHMM." If you go to their website at www.relientk.com you will find some links to listen to some of the songs on the CD before it comes out. The only one I've had time and patience to listen to (with our dial-up connection) is "The One I'm Waiting For," which is something about a girl. This will be their fourth full album (not counting the Christmas one).
If you've never heard of Relient K, they like to sing about God, girls, college, and cars, all with catchy upbeat rhythms and creativity all-around, whether it's with clever word puns and rhymes or intricate tempo changes and cut-offs. I'll review MMHMM when it comes out.
If you've never heard of Relient K, they like to sing about God, girls, college, and cars, all with catchy upbeat rhythms and creativity all-around, whether it's with clever word puns and rhymes or intricate tempo changes and cut-offs. I'll review MMHMM when it comes out.
Politics 3 - Debate on Thursday
The first of three political debates is on Thursday in Miami. Interestingly enough, both campaigns had to agree to a 32-page document of rules covering everything from candidate conduct to podium sizes. The only significant one is that the Bush and Kerry can't speak directly to each other---they can only answer questions from the moderator.
The debate will be at 9 PM Eastern Time, and I haven't figured out what channels it's gonna be on but it will probably be on more than one of them. This is a must-see. I will talk about the debate after it occurs.
Edmond the Hun
The debate will be at 9 PM Eastern Time, and I haven't figured out what channels it's gonna be on but it will probably be on more than one of them. This is a must-see. I will talk about the debate after it occurs.
Edmond the Hun
Decay of Society 1.5
I fear I did not make my position clear yesterday, so let me clarify. I am not complaining against this specific movie, First Daughter. I'm not saying it's an evil movie and you shouldn't watch it or anything like that. If you're a mature teenager and you like that silly stuff, go ahead. All I'm saying is---watch as the lines get pushed further and further.
Monday, September 27, 2004
Hello Monday
It's Monday, and this marks my second consecutive blogging day. I was gonna do a post about some football highlights from yesterday but I decided that's relatively irrelevant. If you really care about football you probably already know everything or you can just go to www.nfl.com. (However, Manning's five first-half TDs were pretty sweet)
That being said, today I have another post about politics. These will appear with great frequency in the next month and a half as we get ready for the big election November 2. Don't forget to watch the first presidential debate on Thursday. It's in Miami (great decision on location, considering the weather) and I believe they're discussing foreign policy. It might just be a contest to see who's better at dodging questions, but it might provide some great insights. I'll provide more information on the debate before it happens and I'll analyze it after it happens.
I also have my first post about the decay of society. These will happen whenver something immoral and sinful happens that our society deems acceptable.
Edmond the Hun
Politics 2 - Absentee Action
Absentee ballots are going to be more popular this election. The original purpose of absentess was for people who couldn't vote on election day---disability, being out of state, etc. But for this election rules have changed in many states to turn it into more of a convenience thing. Maybe you'll be too busy November 2, and it's such a hassle to wait in those lines, and, man, wouldn't it just be so much easier to vote whenever you want during the next month? This "Vote Early" stuff will undoubtedly affect the candidates' campaign strategies.
They will have to work harder and quicker, because they never know when people are going to cast their vote. This gives much clout to emotional voters, who might vote right after a debate speech if a certain candidate looked really good in it. The problem is, once their vote is cast, I don't see any measures for a recanting. What if they change their mind before November 2? Then it's too late.
Last year 14% of the votes were from absentee ballots. This number is expected to be much higher this election---one estimate has 19%. If many voters vote early, who does this hurt more, Bush or Kerry? Well, it depends on what happens in the next month. If we catch bin Laden, Bush's ratings will undoubtedly go through the roof. Sure, some left radicals will accuse him of waiting to announce it until election time or some junk like that, but regardless, Bush would easily soar---he caught the mastermind of 9/11!. But what if significant amounts of votes had been already cast? It might not matter if more people voted for Bush, if enough early voters had already cast their vote for Kerry. On the other hand, if something really dirty and convicting was dug up about, say, Bush's record, giving Kerry a big advantage, it might be too late if enough votes had already been made for Bush.
Really though, I think my above scenarios are rather exaggerated. The capturing of bin Laden is certainly a possibility, but I doubt anything newsbreaking or poll-shattering will happen that will majorly unbalance things either way. And I wouldn't expect a huge increase in absentee ballots either. First off, not all states are making things as convenient as I've made it sound---26 still require valid absences. Second, many people will consider it just as much of an inconvenience to go out, get an absentee ballot, go back and return it, or whatever all they do...it wouldn't be much more convenient than standing around at a poll booth. It may affect the campaign strategies, but not the election.
(Sources: St. Louis Post-Dispatch - 9/27/04; http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=CAMPAIGN-ABSENTEE-09-27-04&cat=PP)
\Edmond the Hun
Decay of Society 1 - First Daughter, Moral Slaughter
We don't have enough sappy cheesy predictable chick flicks out there, so they made another one, The First Daughter. Some stupid storyline about the president's daughter falling in love and la-de-da-de-da. It only raked in about $4 million over the weekend (which is about 10% percent of what Spiderman 2 made on its opening DAY), so it's going to be another dud, like most chick flicks are.
But I'm griping about another silly chick flick. There's something else that gets me. This movie was rated, according to the little box under the rating in the newspaper ad, for "Language, Sexual Situation, and Alchohol-Related Material." And the rating is only PG! This is at least the second movie released this year as PG (The Prince and Me) with sexual-related content. OK, so they didn't really do anything. But still, try to tell me there was some other purpose for that scene than to imply that they wanted to have sex. Yet it's only PG! With this sort of precedent, how long will it be before more explicit stuff falls under a "PG" heading?
Really, though, this shoudn't surprise you, if you think about it. How many commercials on regular television these days have the same kind of implications? It's mostly beer commercials, but even Hardee's is running a commercial with a model riding a bucking bronco, and I'd love to hear someone try to justify that. It's bad enough that it's virtually impossible to watch a football game without turning the channel, or at least turning my head, but if the PG rating has been infiltrated, we can't guarantee that any movies are safe either.
Then again, with America's increasing rejection of Christianity and morals in general, what else can we expect?
Edmond the Hun
But I'm griping about another silly chick flick. There's something else that gets me. This movie was rated, according to the little box under the rating in the newspaper ad, for "Language, Sexual Situation, and Alchohol-Related Material." And the rating is only PG! This is at least the second movie released this year as PG (The Prince and Me) with sexual-related content. OK, so they didn't really do anything. But still, try to tell me there was some other purpose for that scene than to imply that they wanted to have sex. Yet it's only PG! With this sort of precedent, how long will it be before more explicit stuff falls under a "PG" heading?
Really, though, this shoudn't surprise you, if you think about it. How many commercials on regular television these days have the same kind of implications? It's mostly beer commercials, but even Hardee's is running a commercial with a model riding a bucking bronco, and I'd love to hear someone try to justify that. It's bad enough that it's virtually impossible to watch a football game without turning the channel, or at least turning my head, but if the PG rating has been infiltrated, we can't guarantee that any movies are safe either.
Then again, with America's increasing rejection of Christianity and morals in general, what else can we expect?
Edmond the Hun
Sunday, September 26, 2004
Politics Post 1 - Kerry's PLAN?
In the last week or so Kerry has outlined his plan for Iraq. But is it really his plan? Kerry says he will "internationalize" support and get help from our allies. Hello?? Is this not what Bush has been trying to do every since we went to war? Didn't he go before the UN on Tuesday and defend his cause and try to get more support?
If Kerry is going to do a better job at getting allies to help us than Bush has, please tell me how. It looks to me all Kerry is doing is taking what Bush has tried unsuccessfully to do and saying he'll do the same thing successfully, without explaining how. Can this really be called a plan?
Edmond the Hun
If Kerry is going to do a better job at getting allies to help us than Bush has, please tell me how. It looks to me all Kerry is doing is taking what Bush has tried unsuccessfully to do and saying he'll do the same thing successfully, without explaining how. Can this really be called a plan?
Edmond the Hun
Hello World
I have exited my cave of uninvolvement to join the anonymity of the mass blogger world. I intend to comment on world events and post my thoughts and perspectives. My updating may be sporadic. You have been fair warned
Until next time
Edmund the Hun
Until next time
Edmund the Hun
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)