Though I am trying to keep this as non-partisan as possible, I have to comment somewhat on this missing explosives story. I am watching the special pentagon briefing right now, and I need to point one thing out:
They are consistently referring to the missing RDX as "munitions" or "ammunition" and lumping the amount missing in with the other destroyed munitions across Iraq to illuminate this as a small amount. The problem with this is that RDX is not easily comparable to bullets or caches of bombs. RDX is a highly explosive material used not only in the common plastic explosive C-4, but is also the explosive material used to jumpstart nuclear bombs and missiles.
Lumping in this substance with more common military items is not just illogical, but highly misleading to the American public, because finding any amount of this substance would be a terrorists dream, as they could use it effectively in almost any terrorist attack.
The fact that this cache was allowed to be left semi-unguarded after it's initial capture by US forces is a major mistake, no matter who was in charge, because the loss of this substance leaves any American, no matter what party or location, at more risk than before.
Edited - 11/1/04 - I said RDX, when it is, in fact, HMX, which is "the highest-energy solid explosive produced on a large scale in the United States" - something that, though I was wrong on the type of explosive, proves my point even more.
Friday, October 29, 2004
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Using your ad money well
This one goes in the "Call me Crazy" file - Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA) of Arlington County is advertising on NYTimes.com - The NY times being a newspaper in NY... not VA. I mean, I know internet ads are relatively cheap when compared to TV, but how many undecided Arlington County, VA voters either go to or pay enough attention to NYTimes.com?
If I'm wrong, tell me, but this sounds like Moran could use some help figuring out where to place his ads.
If I'm wrong, tell me, but this sounds like Moran could use some help figuring out where to place his ads.
The Winter of my Discontent
First off, congratulations Red Sox Nation - it's about freaking time.
Anyways, on to my discontent, which is even more legitimate now that the Sawx have won. The Yankees haven't won a World Series since 2000, which isn't a big deal, but since they gave up the biggest comeback in the history of Baseball... I am discontent. In honor of this, I now offer up the ways the Yankees can be back next year.
First - sign Carlos Beltran. He's the real deal, and tied a post-season record for homers when he only played in 2 series. Plus, he has AWESOME defense - I see no better potential CF than Carlos. What about Bernie, you ask? He can platoon in RF with Sheffield, each alternating the field and DH, which will prolong each of their usefulness.
Second - get young pitching. Best options? Eric Milton (former Yankee farmhand) and Carl Pavano (whom I am not totally sold on). Coupled with Vazquez, Mussina and Lieber, this could be a good, younger staff. Trading for one of the Oakland big three is also and option (either Hudson or Zito) as is signing Pedro Martinez. One thing is certain - Kevin Brown should never be allowed to pitch in a Yankee uniform again - I don't care if we have to pay a team to take him, he should be gone.
Third - loose ends. Re-sign Miguel Cairo - he plays solid D and can occasionally spark you with his bat - we cannot sacrifice defense all over the field for more bats. Re-sign Olerud for a year - his leadership skills in the clubhouse cannot be underestimated. Trade Brown, Lofton, and whomever else we need to get a good lefty arm in the bullpen. Don't trade Brad Halsey - we need a lefty starter in the future, and Mussina will not last forever. See if you can move Giambi as well, he never meshed as a Yankee.
So, with all that said, here's my lineup/batting order, opening day 2005:
CF Beltran
SS Jeter
3B A-Rod
RF/DH Sheff
LF Matsui
RF/DH Bernie
C Posada
1B Olerud (or Travis Lee, who missed 2004 with a shoulder injury)
2B Cairo
Pitching staff:
Mussina
Lieber
Vazquez
Pavano
Milton
(Halsey AAA)
El Duque and Sturtze for long relief, plus the rest of the bullpen, and find somewhere to stick Heredia so he cannot screw it up anymore.
That's it for baseball... I'll cover politics later on today.
Anyways, on to my discontent, which is even more legitimate now that the Sawx have won. The Yankees haven't won a World Series since 2000, which isn't a big deal, but since they gave up the biggest comeback in the history of Baseball... I am discontent. In honor of this, I now offer up the ways the Yankees can be back next year.
First - sign Carlos Beltran. He's the real deal, and tied a post-season record for homers when he only played in 2 series. Plus, he has AWESOME defense - I see no better potential CF than Carlos. What about Bernie, you ask? He can platoon in RF with Sheffield, each alternating the field and DH, which will prolong each of their usefulness.
Second - get young pitching. Best options? Eric Milton (former Yankee farmhand) and Carl Pavano (whom I am not totally sold on). Coupled with Vazquez, Mussina and Lieber, this could be a good, younger staff. Trading for one of the Oakland big three is also and option (either Hudson or Zito) as is signing Pedro Martinez. One thing is certain - Kevin Brown should never be allowed to pitch in a Yankee uniform again - I don't care if we have to pay a team to take him, he should be gone.
Third - loose ends. Re-sign Miguel Cairo - he plays solid D and can occasionally spark you with his bat - we cannot sacrifice defense all over the field for more bats. Re-sign Olerud for a year - his leadership skills in the clubhouse cannot be underestimated. Trade Brown, Lofton, and whomever else we need to get a good lefty arm in the bullpen. Don't trade Brad Halsey - we need a lefty starter in the future, and Mussina will not last forever. See if you can move Giambi as well, he never meshed as a Yankee.
So, with all that said, here's my lineup/batting order, opening day 2005:
CF Beltran
SS Jeter
3B A-Rod
RF/DH Sheff
LF Matsui
RF/DH Bernie
C Posada
1B Olerud (or Travis Lee, who missed 2004 with a shoulder injury)
2B Cairo
Pitching staff:
Mussina
Lieber
Vazquez
Pavano
Milton
(Halsey AAA)
El Duque and Sturtze for long relief, plus the rest of the bullpen, and find somewhere to stick Heredia so he cannot screw it up anymore.
That's it for baseball... I'll cover politics later on today.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Good Website, then we focus on the Senate
First off, if you need a laugh, go to http://www.borowitzreport.com/ - Andy is a satirist who often appears on CNN and is reliable for a good laugh every morning.
Ok, now on to the Senate. As we enter this election, the senate stands at 48 dems, 51 repubs, and 1 indy (Jeffords, who caucuses with the dems). Though most of the one third of the senate is safe, their are several interesting races that could determine how things shake out.
In Alaska, because of a case of nepotism, former governor Knowles is beating the 2nd year incumbent Lisa Murkowski - a possible pickup for the dems. Also, in Colorado, with a retirement, we have an open seat race with Salazar up over beer mogul Pete Coors - another dem pickup.
But wait - due to 2 retirements in the south, dems are likely to lose Georgia (Isakson up) and South Carolina (DeMint up). Now we're back to all square.
Until we get to Illinois, where yet another retirement has opened up a spot for newly minted dem rockstar Barack Obama, who is beating Alan Keyes by quite a hefty margin.
Where does that leave us, you ask? Tied. I hear you groaning already, so wait, there's more.
We still have tossups in Florida (D), Kentucky (R), Louisiana (D, with a likely runoff - LA is a weird state), and South Dakota (D). Louisiana looks to stay dem once this goes to a runoff, so the whole bag of nuts comes down to the race that, had Senate traditions continued, never would've happened - dem senate leader Daschle versus former Congressman Thune.
In a state where they can pinpoint the exact location of every registered voter and keep track of their views, the polls in South Dakota are very accurate. They have Daschle up 2 points, despite Thune barely losing to Tim Johnson 2 years ago.
The last thing we need as a country, but the most likely scenario to happen right now, is a recount in SD to determine the Senate and recounts elsewhere to determine the presidency.
And you thought Florida in 2000 was bad.
Ok, now on to the Senate. As we enter this election, the senate stands at 48 dems, 51 repubs, and 1 indy (Jeffords, who caucuses with the dems). Though most of the one third of the senate is safe, their are several interesting races that could determine how things shake out.
In Alaska, because of a case of nepotism, former governor Knowles is beating the 2nd year incumbent Lisa Murkowski - a possible pickup for the dems. Also, in Colorado, with a retirement, we have an open seat race with Salazar up over beer mogul Pete Coors - another dem pickup.
But wait - due to 2 retirements in the south, dems are likely to lose Georgia (Isakson up) and South Carolina (DeMint up). Now we're back to all square.
Until we get to Illinois, where yet another retirement has opened up a spot for newly minted dem rockstar Barack Obama, who is beating Alan Keyes by quite a hefty margin.
Where does that leave us, you ask? Tied. I hear you groaning already, so wait, there's more.
We still have tossups in Florida (D), Kentucky (R), Louisiana (D, with a likely runoff - LA is a weird state), and South Dakota (D). Louisiana looks to stay dem once this goes to a runoff, so the whole bag of nuts comes down to the race that, had Senate traditions continued, never would've happened - dem senate leader Daschle versus former Congressman Thune.
In a state where they can pinpoint the exact location of every registered voter and keep track of their views, the polls in South Dakota are very accurate. They have Daschle up 2 points, despite Thune barely losing to Tim Johnson 2 years ago.
The last thing we need as a country, but the most likely scenario to happen right now, is a recount in SD to determine the Senate and recounts elsewhere to determine the presidency.
And you thought Florida in 2000 was bad.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Do the candidate's statements really matter?
Citing my source, the ideas that follow are based off of skimming this article, from today's NY Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/26/politics/campaign/26BUMI.html?oref=login
The article, which is very good, cites the fact that you cannot expect that the candidates can keep with their pledges, as a President's agenda is often dictated to him by outside forces. Based on that - what do we use to judge who to vote for?
Obviously, party ID is huge - a large plurality of voters vote for a party because their parents did, or their faith base told them too, or their spouse has a strong preference in the matter. But their is also a large plurality of voters who base the decision on the candidate, not the party. So what do these people decide upon, if not the plan that each candidate outlines?
Here is my theory - when a candidate starts talking, people zone out after a few minutes and then perk up at the end. They don't really hear the nuance of the position - hence the success of the Bush campaign in 2000 and 2004 keeping messages simple and succinct. But even then, if the message is irrelevant, based on the premise that outside influences determine the course of a presidency, what now? The answer - non-verbals. How a candidate looks, reacts, speaks, how a candidate feels to the voter. It's a scary thought, but people react much more, in my mind, to the perception of the candidate - Bush as the Cowboy, Kerry as the War veteran - than to anything that comes out of their mouth.
Feel free to argue. I'm probably wrong. It's an interesting topic nonetheless.
The article, which is very good, cites the fact that you cannot expect that the candidates can keep with their pledges, as a President's agenda is often dictated to him by outside forces. Based on that - what do we use to judge who to vote for?
Obviously, party ID is huge - a large plurality of voters vote for a party because their parents did, or their faith base told them too, or their spouse has a strong preference in the matter. But their is also a large plurality of voters who base the decision on the candidate, not the party. So what do these people decide upon, if not the plan that each candidate outlines?
Here is my theory - when a candidate starts talking, people zone out after a few minutes and then perk up at the end. They don't really hear the nuance of the position - hence the success of the Bush campaign in 2000 and 2004 keeping messages simple and succinct. But even then, if the message is irrelevant, based on the premise that outside influences determine the course of a presidency, what now? The answer - non-verbals. How a candidate looks, reacts, speaks, how a candidate feels to the voter. It's a scary thought, but people react much more, in my mind, to the perception of the candidate - Bush as the Cowboy, Kerry as the War veteran - than to anything that comes out of their mouth.
Feel free to argue. I'm probably wrong. It's an interesting topic nonetheless.
Halo 2
Ladies and Gentlemen - the countdown is at 14 days! Then the greatest first person shooter in the history of the Xbox will be released and I will spend all day on November 11th shooting it up with my friends.
You can check it out at http://www.xbox.com/en-us/halo2/ or http://xbox.ign.com/objects/482/482228.html
See - I told you all that this would be about more than just Politics!
You can check it out at http://www.xbox.com/en-us/halo2/ or http://xbox.ign.com/objects/482/482228.html
See - I told you all that this would be about more than just Politics!
Two Points
...because it's a slow day thus far.
Check out the folks at http://www.electoral-vote.com/ - they do a great analysis of the plethora of polls out there, combine them, and set them up for your consumption in an easy to use format. By the way, it all comes down to, as of today (anything can change tomorrow) Ohio and Wisconsin.
An interesting phenomenon to check out - http://www.wolfpacksfortruth.org/ - have the 527 groups finally pushed their luck too far, and created spoof sites as a by-product of trying to get around campaign finance law? Or is this a real organization, like the "I thought they were fake but they aren't" http://www.footballfansfortruth.us/
Check out the folks at http://www.electoral-vote.com/ - they do a great analysis of the plethora of polls out there, combine them, and set them up for your consumption in an easy to use format. By the way, it all comes down to, as of today (anything can change tomorrow) Ohio and Wisconsin.
An interesting phenomenon to check out - http://www.wolfpacksfortruth.org/ - have the 527 groups finally pushed their luck too far, and created spoof sites as a by-product of trying to get around campaign finance law? Or is this a real organization, like the "I thought they were fake but they aren't" http://www.footballfansfortruth.us/
Politics and IM
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, some smart individual made the next giant leap into political advertising on the internet - I saw my first political ad on my AOL IM this morning - a window that stated "How John Edwards can be bad for your health." This linked to a site that's against trial lawyers. Now, since I don't have any particular issues with trial lawyers, nor do I think they are akin to the anti-Christ, I'm not providing you with the site - you're smart enough to find it yourself.
The interesting point in all this is the new steps individual groups are taking to get their message out beyond the traditional television media. Though website ads are a great idea and certainly can raise the profile of your business/campaign/non-profit, many people have learned to ignore these flashing boxes, just as people ignore TV or Radio ads. By reaching for us in new environments, like placing political ads on an instant messaging program, you can reach a new audience that may generally ignore your ads in other mediums, and for a lot cheaper as well.
Finally, the 3rd portion of interest - the fact that IM is an application fundamentally used by either those 30 and under who, to an extent, grew up with this or people at work, who are still under retirement age. Will this depth of advertising have an effect on those disaffected by politics - the 18-30 year olds? That, I cannot answer right now. We'll have to wait a week and check on turnout.
Also - anyone know if AOL's ad-buying policy is a wide-spectrum buy of all IM windows or do they let you segment your buy based on user statistics - i.e., could an interest group purchase ad space on the IM windows of only those who were of voting age, as opposed to purchasing ad space for all IM windows? If you know, please reply to this post - might come in handy to know this in the future.
I'll be back later with more random thoughts, including wolves, and whether or not we should actually base our vote on what a candidate says on the trail.
The interesting point in all this is the new steps individual groups are taking to get their message out beyond the traditional television media. Though website ads are a great idea and certainly can raise the profile of your business/campaign/non-profit, many people have learned to ignore these flashing boxes, just as people ignore TV or Radio ads. By reaching for us in new environments, like placing political ads on an instant messaging program, you can reach a new audience that may generally ignore your ads in other mediums, and for a lot cheaper as well.
Finally, the 3rd portion of interest - the fact that IM is an application fundamentally used by either those 30 and under who, to an extent, grew up with this or people at work, who are still under retirement age. Will this depth of advertising have an effect on those disaffected by politics - the 18-30 year olds? That, I cannot answer right now. We'll have to wait a week and check on turnout.
Also - anyone know if AOL's ad-buying policy is a wide-spectrum buy of all IM windows or do they let you segment your buy based on user statistics - i.e., could an interest group purchase ad space on the IM windows of only those who were of voting age, as opposed to purchasing ad space for all IM windows? If you know, please reply to this post - might come in handy to know this in the future.
I'll be back later with more random thoughts, including wolves, and whether or not we should actually base our vote on what a candidate says on the trail.
Monday, October 25, 2004
Welcome
Welcome to my new project - the Blog! Most of this is a test run, but one can hope that eventually someone will read my slightly insane ramblings and be spurred on to a thought they might not have had. I'll try and keep this as news oriented as possible, though it's entirely likely that I'll digress towards random happenings in my life.
I'll be back later, and those of you I tell about this can read my initial post then!
I'll be back later, and those of you I tell about this can read my initial post then!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)