Plum Crazy

Belated Thanksgiving Joke

Forwarded to me by my father.

A young man named John received a parrot as a gift. The parrot had a bad attitude and an even worse vocabulary. Every word out of the bird's mouth was rude, obnoxious and laced with profanity.

John tried and tried to change the bird's attitude by consistently saying only polite words, playing soft music and anything else he could think of to "clean up" the bird's vocabulary.

Finally, John was fed up, and he yelled at the parrot. The parrot yelled back. John shook the parrot, and the parrot got angrier and even ruder. In desperation, John threw up his hands, grabbed the bird, and put him in the freezer.

For a few minutes the parrot squawked and kicked and screamed. Then suddenly there was total quiet. Not a peep was heard for over a minute. Fearing that he'd hurt the parrot, John quickly opened the door to the freezer.

The parrot calmly stepped out onto John's outstretched arm and said, "I believe I may have offended you with my rude language and actions. I'm sincerely remorseful for my inappropriate transgressions, and I fully intend to do everything I can to correct my rude and unforgivable behavior."

John was stunned at the change in the bird's attitude. As he was about to ask the parrot what had made such a dramatic change in his behavior, the bird continued:

"May I ask what the turkey did?"

Carnival of the Cats

The 36th Carnival of the Cats is up at Watermark. Lots of kitty goodness (and Emma and Jane making their debut appearance).

Rock Around the Clock

Come to think of it, why isn't "Rock Around the Clock" in the top 20 oldies of all time? After all, with its use in "Blackboard Jungle" isn't it the song that launched the rock and roll era? Aside from the fact that the song is a total blast, it deserves to be all the way at the top for the influence it had.

Top 20 Oldies

Listeners of WCBS FM in NYC have spoken and chosen their top 500 oldies of all time. As always, there's a ton of Beatles, Simon & Garfunkel, and Diana Ross on the list. I must have missed the Elvis because I haven't heard anything from him yet.

What's debatable is the top 20. I just don't know how many of these I would put among the best oldies of all time or what order I would put them in. But I can certainly say that Boogie Oogie Oogie is not the fourth best of all time, that My Girl is not even the best Temptations song ever, and where oh where is Aretha? My girlfriend Marian is aghast at the selction of Hey Jude as the overall number one and would rank American Pie higher.

For your consideration and input, I present the top 20 in reverse order.

20 Set Me Free
19 For What It's Worth
18 Yesterday
17 Dancing in the Streets
16 Runaround Sue
15 In the Still of the Night
14 Nights in White Satin
13 Let It Be
12 Can't Get Enough of Your Love
11 Grease
10 Heard It Through the Grapevine
9 American Pie
8 Ain't No Mountain High Enough
7 Bridge Over Troubled Water
6 Stand by Me
5 Unchained Melody
4 Boogie Oogie Oogie
3 Mack the Knife
2 My Girl
1 Hey Jude

Yet More Guilty Pleasures

Just one guilty admission this time. "I Will Survive" by Gloria Gaynor is one of the best songs of the disco era. It rocks. Or should that be, it discos?

Friday Catblogging

Everybody loves the new chair!

Jane and Emma showing how detente works:

Jane all curled up in a ball of kitty fur:

Emma looking up at me like I'm some kind of camera-toting freak:

Yawn. Yay.

Soon available on DVD:

1. The Ultimate Matrix Collection. Ho hum. I'll stick with the first movie, thank you.

2. The Lord of the Rings extended version trilogy. Right on! That my friends is an ultimate DVD collection. The ultimate DVD collection.

More Miscasting

A while back I mused about George Lucas’ casting errors in the current “Star Wars” episodes. Oliver Stone’s “Alexander” seems to suffer from even more fatal casting errors.

Where to start in playing casting critic for “Alexander?” Let’s see, there’s Angelina Jolie cast as Alexander’s mother. That would be okay if, say, Haley Joel Osmont were cast as Alexander the teen tyrant, but in the lead is Colin Farrell. He’s 28, she’s 29. Add Val Kilmer, who’s not much older, and we have casting that stretches the bounds of believability. Plus does anyone really buy Farrell as a blond bisexual pretty boy, which is what Alexander apparently was?

Let’s start from scratch here. Into the role of Alexander we’ll plug Jude Law or Guy Pearce, still the right age, closer to the look, and more capable of capturing the nuances between being straight and gay. As the mom, Susan Sarandon is exactly the right age (58), and in my book, she is still as awesome as Jolie. (Visions of her in “Rocky Horror.”) Michelle Pfeiffer, at 46, is a little on the young side, but not as much so as Jolie, is also smoking hot and is an excellent actress. Either would be top choices. For papa Alexander, how about Brian Cox? Like Sarandon, he’s in his mid 50’s, and he’s a much better actor than Kilmer could be in his best dreams. Finally, we'll slide Jolie into the role of Alexander's wife and Farrell into the role of his lover to keep them in the flick. Recasting in this vein might not save the apparently putrid film but it’s a start.

Movie Reviewing 101: Don't Summarize The Plot

As a once-upon-a-time journalist, I've written all types of stories: straight news, features, sports, and even movie reviews. Aside from the inverted pyramid style, one of the main things I was taught is not to summarize plots when reviewing movies. Yet movie reviewers today apparently have forgotten or never learned this lesson. They spend more time summarizing the plot than critiquing the movie. Even that bastion of journalism, The New York Times, is guilty.

In his review of "Christmas with the Kranks," all Stephen Holden does is plot summary (registration required). There is no review at all. No way to sense what he thought of the movie, making it a worthless review. Help me out here, Stephen, and tell me whether it's a good movie or a bad movie and why. Knowing only the what does me no good in helping me decide whether to attend a movie.

Fallacious Comparison

In the wake of the Pistons-Pacers brawl last week, there have been numerous commentaries defending the players by positing what would happen if a player showed up at people’s workplaces and started heckling them. Wouldn’t we be within our rights to defend ourselves?

I see two problems with this line of reasoning. On Friday, no one got directly in Ron Artest’s face and started harassing him until after Artest entered the stands. Someone threw a cup of beer at him from a distance. Had the person stood right in front of Artest and threw the beer, Artest would have had every right to defend himself. Not, however, by beating the guy mercilessly as he did the fan he wrongly singled out.

But more importantly, athletes know and accept the fact that they will be in the limelight when they step onto the court or field. They get paid obscene amounts of money or receive college scholarships to play before thousands of people. It is why they call it “spectator sports.” Last time I checked I don’t work in spectator transportation planning. If someone comes into my workplace and starts harassing me, it’s called trespassing.

Not that I am defending the fans who got out of hand. They were wrong just like the players and deserve to be punished. It’s just that the players have to expect a certain level of abuse, right or wrong, and when it happens, to let security take care of it unless they are in imminent danger. No one but the fans were in imminent danger on Friday.

Book to Movie

You know how most of the time when a book is made into a movie, the book far surpasses the movie? I was just watching the movie version of Mansfield Park when it hit me that, in a reversal of the usual, I actually prefer the movie to the book. Jane Austen's "Mansfield Park" is, indeed, an excellent book, full of the characterizations and social satire for which she is best known. Yet its heroine, Fanny Price, is, unlike other Austen heroines, thorougly insipid. She annoys me.

In the movie, the screenwriters have conflated the character of Fanny with that of Jane Austen herself. Fanny becomes a writer and, when quoting from letters she has written, the screenwriters quote letters written by Jane Austen. This amalgamation of the two women, fictional and real, gives Fanny the spunk and spark she is sorely missing in the book. The character of Edmund comes off as much less priggish in the movie as well.

If you're a Jane Austen fan and haven't seen this movie, I highly recommend it.

My Real Guilty Pleasures

As my brother really knows, this post was not about my guilty pleasures. I don't consider brie, latte, pate, cheeseburgers, etc. to be guilty pleasures. The post was me making fun of people who make derisive comments about "brie-eating, latte-swilling New Yorkers" and "NASCAR dads". Okay, I'm not a NASCAR dad, but the point still stands. Expressing feelings of superiority over others due to their food preferences and entertainment choices is rather silly.

I do, however, have some actual guilty pleasures:

1. Degrassi: The Next Generation. Yes, I'm 40. Still, I enjoy watching a program about high school students. I used to watch Degrassi Junior High, which then morphed into Degrassi High, and now I'm watching Degrassi: The Next Generation.

2. Contrary to my brother's belief, I actually do like a Madonna song. Just the one, but still. It's "Get Into the Groove" from Desperately Seeking Susan.

3. I totally love the "The Chipmunk Song". You know, the "Christmas, Christmas time is near. Time for toys, and time for cheer." song. Be quiet.

4. One movie I will generally watch when it comes around on cable is Jawbreaker. This isn't one of your really good high school culture dark satire films like Heathers. This is a rather cheesy little satire on the popularity culture of high school.

5. Stephen King novels. He's not a great writer, admittedly, but he is a great storyteller. In fact, I just finished "The Dark Tower". Long, but ultimately enjoyable.

6. Julie Andrews! Sure, I wouldn't normally consider this a guilty pleasure, but there are those who regularly mock Julie Andrews movies. Yes, dammit, I love The Sound of Music, Mary Poppins, Victor/Victoria, The Princess Diaries, etc.! So there!

Beyond the Sea

With a Bobby Darin movie opening this week, "Beyond the Sea" starring Kevin Spacey, once again I'm reminded of all the music I love but still don't own. Darin is high on the list along with another incomparable star who had a bio-pic open this fall. I speak, of course, of Ray Charles.

Who else? Frankie Vallie and the Four Seasons, Abba, and Tommy James come to mind straight off.

Hmm, I was thinking of the new Phil Simms book as a potential Chanukah gift from Mom & Dad. Might need to change to that one of the above. Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge. Say no more, say no more.

Guilty Pleasures

Belatedly inspired by Lesley's courage in admitting her guilty pleasures, here are some of mine:

1. I still enjoy "Smokey & The Bandit" to this day. Fast cars, great music by Jerry Reed, and can anything with Jackie Gleason be all that bad? Ok, except for "The Toy", which is one of the most disgraceful and insulting movies of all time.

2. Like Lesley, I love Abba, and probably unlike her, I actually like two Madonna songs: "Borderline" and "Holiday." Should I crawl under a rock now? Update: how could I forget Hall & Oates? Most of their stuff is drek, but they did three outstanding songs: "Rich Girl," "Sarah Smile," and "She's Gone."

3. Both "Buffy" the movie and TV series rock. The show was spooky and dark - the two things that attract me to a movie or TV show more than anything else - and was actually quite intelligent with a good sense of humor.

4. I still eat PB&J sandwiches and have cereal at all times of the day, including dinner. My favorite is probably Life, but if Captain Crunch didn't shred the roof of my mouth, I'd eat more of that.

5. I still haven't gotten over Hakeem Olajuwan deflecting John Stark's three-point shot attempt that might have - nay, would have - won the NBA title for the Knicks in 1994. Starks was so silly hot that had someone picked Olajuwon off the play, the shot would have hit nothing but net. (Ok, maybe it isn't a pleasure, but you think I'd have recovered by now. Doesn't bode well for the Yanks choke job this year, does it?)

The Aftermath

The NBA’s reaction to last night’s riot in Detroit was swift. The NBA has indefinitely suspended four players – Ron Artest, Stephen Jackson, Jermaine O’Neal, and Ben Wallace – pending an investigation, which it expects to complete by tomorrow.

Kudos to the NBA for moving quickly. It also needs to act harshly against all those involved, issuing record fines and suspensions, to minimize the chances of a repeat. If you’re interested in my two cents on what should happen, read on.

The players
Ron Artest and Stephen Jackson, who charged the stands, should be arrested on felony charges and sentenced like everyone else is sentenced for assault. They should be suspended from the NBA indefinitely and reinstated only after they have served whatever jail time they’re sentenced to and after they’ve satisfactorily completed a league-sanctioned counseling program.

Jermaine O’Neal, who punched a fan who went onto the court, should be suspended for ten games. Ben Wallace, whose shove in response to an Artest foul started the melee, should be suspended for five games.

All the suspensions should be without pay.

The teams
Both organizations should be fined a minimum of $250,000, with the proceeds donated to anti-violence charities.

Detroit should voluntarily agree to forfeit a home game in order to send a message to fans that their behavior is reprehensible and not to be tolerated under any circumstances. If Detroit doesn’t forfeit a game, the NBA should force them to forfeit if it has legal authority to do so. The lost proceeds from the game should be donated to charity. In the event that a game isn’t forfeit, Detroit’s fine should be increased to include the proceeds from a game.

The fans
The fans involved in the brawl must be identified, arrested, and sentenced to a fine, probation, or preferably, jail. The fans should be banned from games for at least the rest of the season, ideally for the rest of their lives, with season ticket holders having their tickets revoked.

Detroit
Obviously you cannot punish an entire city, but it’s not the first time Detroit fans have rioted, and where were the police? The city needs to form a commission to determine how to prevent these incidents from occurring in the future and to ensure that there is adequate security at all sporting events within the city.

Concluding thoughts
Will all of the above happen? Probably not. Hopefully, though, the punishment will come close to fitting the crime.

He Died Happy

The world's oldest man passed away on Friday. Still, he lived long enough to see his beloved Red Sox win their first World Series in 86 years. Born in 1890, he lived through all six World Series the Sox won.

Basketbrawl

How many decades will Ron Artest be suspended following his latest blow-up? Towards the end of last night's game, he and Pacers' teammate Stephen Jackson went into the stands and assaulted fans who had started throwing things at the players. Artest is beginning to make Dennis Rodman and Latrell "How Can I Feed My Family" Sprewell look like model citizens.

Not that Artest deserves all the blame. It's a sad moment all around when fans get violent and the players respond in kind.

Update: In apparent defense of Artest and Jackson, Lakers forward Lamar Odom said, "When you see things like that just think about what it takes for a NBA player to go in the crowd. I never hear anyone say the fan was wrong. Sometimes the fans can get out of hand." Sorry, Lamar, you're wrong. If the fans come onto the court, the players have every right to defend themselves if necessary, but if someone throws something from the stands, then it's up to security to handle it. In my opinion, the suspensions should be indefinite until the players involved can establish they're ready to re-enter the league. Artest especially needs to undergo counseling.

More TV Trivia

Yesterday's bit of trivia was that James Arness is actually James Aurness and is Peter Graves' brother. For today, three more facts about Gunsmoke and two about The Rockford Files.

Gunsmoke remains the longest running drama in television history. It was on the air for twenty years, yes twenty!. It premiered in 1955 and didn’t end its run until 1975. Imagine if they put it on DVD. That would easily set you back a grand or more.

Gunsmoke was briefly cancelled in 1967, but was saved by the president of CBS, who was a fan. Ending the longest three-hour tour in maritime history, he pulled the anchor on Gilligan’s Island to make a place for Gunsmoke on Monday nights. Aside from nudging Gilligan’s Island off the schedule, Gunsmoke helped to launch the career of Burt Reynolds, who played the role of Quint Asper from 1962 to 1965.

Two other well-known leading men can thank The Rockford Files for helping launch them to prominence. In back-to-back weeks in October 1978, Tom Selleck and Ed Harris had guest roles on the show. Harris’ role was smaller – not to mention his hair line, which was already receding at the tender age of 28 – as he played a murderous cop who had maybe 10 minutes of air time. If that. Selleck, on the other hand, starred as Lance White, Rockford’s sort-of PI buddy, in two of the show’s most enduring episodes. Selleck’s portrayal of White, who is a cross between James Bond and an overgrown boy scout, landed him the role of Magnum PI. In an interesting twist, both Harris and Selleck had minor roles in Coma the same year.

Enough trivia for today. However, there will be a quiz tomorrow. So study up!

The Aurness Brothers

Here's something I didn't know. James Arness is really James Aurness, and he's also Peter Graves' brother. Just learned this now as I was trolling the internet for information on Gunsmoke, which I've taken to watching from time to time on The Western Channel.

Scroll all the way to the end of this photo gallery to see them together with their father.

Somebody Else Said It Better

I was considering writing a post about how both sides tend to misrepresent each other, but I don't need to. Steven Waldman said it better than I ever could.

I must confess that I find something rather disheartening. I first saw this article on a politics forum I used to participate in but now only occasionally lurk in. It was posted there by regular blog reader Margot (aka lanya). I stopped participating in the forum because it was proving deleterious to my mental health. I wound up getting very frustrated by the lack of actual dialogue, by the talking past each other, by the constant "gotchas". I don't feel any particular need to spend my leisure time on activities that frustrate me more than they reward me.

Margot posted this article, and no one in the forum picked up on it. It's a very nice, balanced article. I'm sure this is why no one commented on it. What's the fun of commenting on an article that doesn't give you fodder to bash the opposing side? Two hours later, Margot posted something from another blog which was quite condescending towards conservatives. The guy who wrote it had an actual point in the midst of the condescension, but it was lost because of his tone. This entry caused a lot of disapproving comments. No one took into account that she had posted a quite balanced article earlier with an approving post title. That was lost in the atmosphere of "gotcha". I fear this is typical of most online political debate these days. It all seems to be just one giant bash and gotcha fest. Regardless of side. There are exceptions, but they are just that - exceptions.

Oh well.

Blahs

There's a lot I've been thinking about lately regarding the rather human propensity to self-identify with groups that we consider to exemplify whatever virtues we hold most dear (intelligence, tolerance, family values, etc.) and how this is playing into a lot of the crowing we're hearing on both sides (Kerry supporters are smarter than Bush supporters; Bush supporters are more moral than Kerry supporters). But I'm currently suffering a case of the blahs and can't quite bring myself to sit down and write it.

Phooey.

Minute Rice

Took W. scant more than an instant to appoint Condoleezza Rice as Colin Powell's replacement. Beyond my clever play on words, I have no more to say on the matter.

V. Cute

Saw "Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason" today. Enjoyed self v. much. Bruce also enjoyed it, despite status as chick flick. Highly recommend.

Surviving

You would think that having survived 9/11, this week would be a cakewalk. It wasn't. It wasn't anything like 9/11, but it was still a hard week. Knowing that people I'd worked with for years, some friends, many who had escaped being sacrificed on the altar of religious fanaticism were now going to be sacrificed on the altar of greed was very difficult. Not as difficult as actually being laid off, though. Although my boss had told me previously that I wasn't going to be laid off, there was still the underlying fear that he had changed his mind. Fortunately, he didn't. I am still employed. Everyone on my team is still employed. At least for now. Others are not so fortunate.

I'm tired. I'm drained. I'm nervous.

I'm actually quite lucky.

Now On A DVD Near Me

The Rockford Files! But just on a DVD near me, not you. Sorry. A few weeks ago I purchased a DVD recorder, mainly to get the Rockford Files on DVD. I started seriously recording last week and now have my first full DVD. Seven episodes and counting. Take that Universal!

Three Predictions

1. Bush will use his election and the seats his party gained in Congress to try to push through his agenda, much as any Democrat would do in the same situation.

2. The Democrats will try to prevent this from happening to the degree they are able, much as the Republicans would do in the same situation.

3. Both sides will squeal in horror and outrage as these inevitabilities play themselves out.

May the best party whine.

Rocket's Red Glare

Add another Cy Young award to Roger Clemen's trophy case. Although Randy Johnson in my view deserved the award more than Clemens did, Clemen's better won-loss record earned him his record seventh Cy Young award this season.

Some impressive facts about the Rocket's award totals: he joined Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, and Gaylord Perry as the only pitchers to win a Cy Young in both leagues; he's now won the award on all four teams he's pitched for; and in an amazing testament to how long he's pitched at a high level, he won his first award in 1986, 19 seasons ago.

One of the neat things about baseball is being able to share your experiences with different generations. I used to ask my parents about what it was like to see some of the all-time greats. One day I will be able to tell my kids what it was like to watch one of the greatest pitchers, maybe the greatest pitcher, of all time.

Bad Week

It's been a rough week for me and my two cats, Scooter and Huck. Last Tuesday, I brought Scooter in to have his teeth cleaned, and he hasn't been right since then. I've had to force medicine on him that he doesn't want, he's had negative reactions to the medicine on a couple of occasions, Huck has been hostile to him because he doesn't recognize his scent, and he's gone back to the vet twice (once because of his reaction to the medicine and again because it seemed like he had a cold). He has been through the wringer and is one unhappy, moping, and stressed cat. Thankfully, the vet says he appears to be fine aside from the psychological burden, but I don't ever want him to go through this again. Not to mention me or Huck. Because this whole thing has put us through the wringer, too. Huck from having to deal with this “strange” cat, and me from having to put up with the stress of feeling Scooter’s stress.

Quickie Election Analysis

From a tour around the blogosphere, there appear to be three main theories as to why Bush won the election.

1. More Americans trusted him on matters of security.

2. Republicans are just ignorant Jesus freaks.

3. Democrats are just big meanies who think they're smarter than most people.

The analysis of the exit polls, when you factor out things like separating terrorism (19%) from Iraq (15%) and economy/jobs (20%) from taxes (5%) indicate that more people cared about foreign policy (34%) and economic policy (25%) than moral values (22%). Furthermore, evangelicals turned out in the same numbers as they did in 2000 (20%). Being pissed off about intellectual snobbishness didn't even make the list.

Finally!

A reason to see Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith other than a sick need to complete seeing the series. James Earl Jones will be doing the voice of Darth Vader! I was sure that was his voice I heard during the preview I saw today. Yes!

I'm A Latte-Swilling, Hot Dog-Loving Freak

My name is Lesley, and I have some confessions to make.

I love latte. Not just any latte, but Starbucks non-fat vanilla latte. Even more, I love Seattle's Best non-fat Irish Cream latte, but I can't get those in New York.

Today for lunch, I had a brie and apple omelette. It was a tasty omelette. I know, can you imagine that? I ate brie. And liked it!

Oh and pate and caviar. Okay, I did not eat those for lunch today, but I love them. Especially foie gras and Beluga. On those rare occasions I eat caviar, though, I usually wind up with Osetra. Beluga and even Sevruga cost more than I'm usually willing to shell out. But I actually know that the 3 best caviars are considered to be, in order, Beluga, Sevruga, and Osetra.

Red wine. I like to drink red wine. And not just the omnipresent merlot or cabernet, although they'll do in a pinch. I especially like shiraz or syrah.

I also have gone to the opera. What's worse, I've enjoyed it. I am especially fond of Don Giovanni. All those bass voices. Don Giovanni, Leporello, and Il Commendatore. Yummy.

I realize that today, in the eyes of some, those are pejoratives. I am one of those brie-eating, latte-swilling New Yorkers you read so much about. If I didn't live in the New York metro area, I'd be practically ashamed to show my face in public.

But you know what else? I love cheeseburgers, french fries, and chocolate milkshakes. I love eating hot dogs at the ballpark. A good, greasy slice of pizza sometimes tastes better than anything else. I love reading Stephen King and seeing movies about superheroes. Soap operas. I'm a veritable fount of soap opera trivia. That's not very New York elitist, is it? Rather more like what the New York elitists look down on (and, yes, I have sometimes run into people who do look down on those things).

I'm so confused. I don't know which negative stereotype I belong to. Ah the hell with it. I am not a stereotype! I am a human being!

Just like everyone else.

UPDATE: Funny thing how people seem to get the same ideas around the same time. I was thinking about this very post as I was eating my brie and apple omelette, write it, and then read this post over at Heretical Ideas.

Hey, I'm Famous!

I garnered second Quote of the Day over at The Rant for something I said in response to a comment on this Rant post.

What I said was this (bold emphasizes the part that made me famous):

The liberals say they call the conservatives names in retaliation to conservative name-calling. The conservatives say they call the liberals names in retaliation to liberal name-calling. We've been reduced to a nation of 5-year-olds screaming "It's not my fault! He started it!"

Who even knows "who started it"? Politics has always been ugly and divisive, with opposing sides calling each other names. Go back hundreds of years and see if it was any different. Each side should stop pretending that it's really quite civil at heart and only being mean in "retaliation" to the bad behavior of the other side. Own the bad behavior. Don't blame other people for it. If your 5-year-old tried that, you'd rightfully tell him/her to cut it out. Please, let's not hold 5-year-olds to higher standards than we hold ourselves.

Thanks, Dietz!

Journeys

Michele ruminates on how the more extreme factions of our two major parties are tearing at the center, which causes me to ponder about my own political journey.

Once upon a time, in my wayward youth, I was a Republican. This is because, when I first registered to vote, I thought Republicans were all like the Republicans I had grown up with. The Northeastern Republicans, formerly known as Rockefeller Republicans. Socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. Like me. I knew that the Democrats weren't like me. They were socially liberal, but also fiscally liberal. I didn't like that last part, so I didn't join the party.

One day I discovered that a lot of Republicans throughout the country, the ones that were leading the national party, were not like me. They were socially conservative and fiscally conservative. Well, I didn't like that first part, so I left the party. Actually, I think it was the term "Moral Majority" that convinced me to leave the party. On issues of abortion, school prayer, and a host of myriad issues (add gay marriage to that now), I was on the opposite side. By that definition, I had to be part of an "immoral minority." While it is certainly anyone's right to label me as they see fit, I am not required to embrace those who label me negatively. In fact, I won't embrace those who label me negatively. If I am of no use to them, neither are they of any use to me.

Since that time I have not been a member of any party. I have most often voted for Republicans on the state and local level, because those are the Northeastern Republicans. On the national level, up until 1992, I voted Democrat for President. I figured that if I had to choose between a government that would legislate my life or my wallet, I'd opt against my wallet.

Then one day it occurred to me that was a false choice. Granted, one or the other would wind up in power, but I didn't have to choose either one of them. I could vote for something different (no, I did not vote for that nutjob Ross Perot). So I voted Libertarian for President (although not this year, as I do not like Badnarik). In fairness, seeds of my third party votes were in evidence at the age of 16. I wasn't old enough to vote in 1980, but I really wanted to vote for John Anderson (a former Republican, might I add). Had I been two years older, I would have voted for John Anderson. I lost sight of that for awhile, though, coming back to it 12 years later.

Since that time, I have never regretted my decision to not join a political party. Over the years, my views have altered slightly, but are, basically, still the same. During that time period, though, the more extreme edges of both parties have become more influential. More vocal. Many of those who fall towards the extremes have embraced a notion of associative guilt for the other side I find both hypocritical and disturbing. Many of those are also more intolerant of dissent whether inside or outside their own ranks. Things are more stark. The other side is collectively identified as evil. I prefer to be independent of all that. So I can't vote in the primaries. For me, a small price to pay.

Hobbes* once wrote that a nation with an assembly as its sovereign was a nation doomed to be at war with itself. Well, I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it. I think he had a point and that we are seeing it manifest today. We are not literally at war with ourselves, but we are figuratively so. Neither side has a significant enough advantage to squash the opposition and declare total victory. Our only hope, therefore, is that enough of us will eventually tire of the war that we will sue for peace amongst ourselves. I hope that day comes before the day that our factionalism has grown so strong that we cease to function effectively as a country.

*Please don't take the fact that I think Hobbes has a point regarding factionalism that I agree with everything he wrote. I am NOT advocating a monarchy or any kind of authoritarian regime. I do not think that a country divided is the worst possible thing that could happen. I consider the negatives of authoritarian regimes to be much worse, unlike Hobbes.

They Did What?

Morons. They're absolute morons. Why not just buy out Mike Mussina's contract while they're at it? Who needs starting pitching anyway? All I can say is that they better have a deal in the works to bring Lieber back.

Did He or Didn't He? Nope, He Didn't

All in all it's been a bad week for my cat Scooter, who had his teeth cleaned on Tuesday. The ordeal of the procedure, being at the vet for a day and a half, his brother having no clue who he is right now and giving him what-for, and having me force medicine down his throat (just about literally).

Then it appeared to me Scooter threw up twice, presumably from the antibiotic. Not that I actually witnessed it but saw what appeared to be clear stomach contents on the kitchen floor. Home today to keep an eye on him, I've seen him get feisty with the water bowl, dipping his paw in and slapping at the water. He managed to spill a decent amount on the floor just now, making me wonder, did he just spill a ton of water on the floor and not actually throw up? And as I watch the water run a couple of feet away from the water bowl, the answer is definitely yes. Silly cat. He earned a trip to the vet earlier because of it. Oh well, at least his stomach is for sure fine.

A Sight I Hope To See Again

My Pledge

Pledges regarding the Presidency seem to be a fad right now, so I'm going to make one of my own:

I pledge to treat President Bush precisely as I would treat any other President. I will support him on the issues I agree with him on (and there are some). I will criticize him, respectfully, on the issues I disagree with him on.

I think that's about as much as any reasonable person can ask of any other reasonable person*.

*Yes, I consider myself a reasonable person. Your mileage may vary. Or not.

You're Hired. Wait, You're Fired.

Is this some extreme version of Donald Trump's "The Apprentice" in which you're hired only to be fired days later? Ask Wally Backman, who was named the Diamondbacks new manager earlier this week only to be fired today following revelations of a checkered past.

In other news, Carlos Beltran's agent has announced he wants a 10-year deal. Fat chance. On the one hand, it's important to Beltran to play for a team that will consistently contend, yet he's asking for a commitment from his new team that will seriously impede its flexibility to field a winning squad. Make up your mind, Carlos.

You Think This Would Have Lesley Jazzed

Send sister a link to a story about Tino's possible return to the Bronx and let her be the one to write the post because she's the number one Tino fan in the family. Maybe the world. Does she post it? Nope. Decides to write some more stuff about the election. So now not only must she burn her Matsui shirt, she must burn her Tino shirt, too, since she's clearly not the fan we thought she was.

New Form of Government

From the amount of times I've seen the picture located at this link regarding the Bush/Kerry split of counties posted across the Internet, I've come to the conclusion that some of our citizens believe we have instituted a new form of government. Instead of being a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, we've become a government of the acreage, by the acreage, and for the acreage.

The colors on the map are pretty, though.

Targeted Advertising

I was reading this article at WSJ.com (registration required) about the insurance industry* scandal, when I saw the funniest, absolutely most apropos click-through ad:

I thought that was just brilliant.

*Is it just me, or does anyone else find it odd that this scandal has gotten virtually no mention in the blogosphere? It is easily one of the biggest financial scandals of the last 10 years, and not a mention of it on any of the big blogs. I haven't really mentioned it, other than one post wondering when Greenberg's resignation would occur, because it just hits too close to home, and I work in a part of the business that has nothing to do with insurance whatsoever. I am the controller for the technology department. Well, they call me CFO for technology, but I always find that title to be a bit of overkill. Business unit controller describes my function quite well.

Math Mythbusters

I have this thing wherein errors in statistics and/or math just drive me nuts. So when I read that based on the exit polls, more people voted against Bush than voted for Kerry, I'm driven nuts. Let's examine the exit polls (scroll down to the "Your Vote for President Was Mostly") :

YOUR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT WAS MOSTLY...

	BUSH	KERRY	NADER
For Your Candidate (69%)	59%	40%	0%
Against His Opponent (25%)	30%	70%	0%

What does this tell us? It tells us that 40% of the 69% of all voters who voted for candidate voted for Kerry. In other words, 27.6% of voters voted for Kerry (do the math). Furthermore, 70% of the 25% of all voters who voted against opponent voted against Bush. This equals 17.5% of voters who voted against Bush. Presumably the remaining 6% either refused to answer, had a different answer, or some combination of the two. Let's even assume that, worst-case scenario, those 6% really belong in the vote against opponent category, 70% of whom voted against Bush. This would mean that 21.7% of voters voted against Bush.

In other words, more voters voted for Kerry than voted against Bush. Not by a lot, but nonetheless.

Don't mess with my mad math skillz.

Wholesale Rejection?

I've read a few comments round and about that suggest that last night's election was some kind of wholesale rejection of liberalism. Let me point a couple of things out:

1. Bush won 51% of the popular vote

2. Kerry and Nader combined won 49% of the popular vote

I think it's fair to say that Kerry and Nader voters represent the liberal contingent. So while 51% is a majority, it's a slim one. I realize that moral issues were a determining factor in this election, but 51% is still a slim majority. That's just reality.

I've also read a few people quote the positively meaningless feel-good fact that Bush won more votes than any other candidate in American history. Yeah, the population is bigger now than it has been at any other time in American history. 51% of a larger population will, in fact, equal more votes than, say, the 54.8% of the smaller population that voted for FDR in 1940. Maybe it's just that I work in finance*, so these things jump right out at me, but I'm really not sure what this fact is supposed to prove. If people were saying that Bush got relatively and absolutely more votes than Clinton, I could understand what that fact is supposed to prove. This one, though, is just lost on me. I know it sounds nice. Maybe that's it's only purpose.

*It actually reminds me a bit of budget games people sometimes try to play. Like "Look, my budget is flat year over year!" Then I point out something like "Yes, but your headcount has decreased, so you're actually spending more per capita." As if I wouldn't pick up on something like that. Bwahahahaha!

Cornering the Market

First A-Rod, now Nomar? Top shortstop Nomar Garciaparra, late of the Red Sox and the Cubs, has said he'd entertain a position switch to third base or second base. The pronouncement has fueled speculation about whether the Yankees would make a run for him and add him to a growing stable of elite shortstops. I don't see it, but you never know, and if they do sign him, Miguel Tejada must be next to play first base.

Assessing the Election Outcome

CNN has excellent data on exit polls that provide an interesting insight into factors that influenced last night's outcome. One of the most critical factors seems to be the issue of gay marriage. Bans on gay marriage were on the ballots in 11 states and not only won in each state but were apparently a key impetus in Bush winning nine of the eleven states. Nowhere was this more crucial to Bush's victory than in Ohio, which was the difference in the election.

Exit polls in Ohio reveal that moral values were the second most important issue to voters, garnering 23% of responses to 24% for the economy. Of this 23%, which amounts to about 1.25 million of the approximate 5.5 million votes tallied so far, 85% voted for Bush. That adds up to over 1 million Bush voters whose most important issue was moral values, which can be seen as a surrogate for gay marriage. Essentially, 20% of the voters in Ohio cast their vote for Bush because they prefer him on moral issues to Kerry. Viewed in this light, gay marriage might be the singular issue that won the election for Bush.

If the Democratic party wishes to regain control of the federal government, it likely will need to move closer to the center on key moral issues. Not a brilliant or groundbreaking insight on my part, but a harsh truth that Democrats remain reluctant to learn. Bill Clinton learned it and earned two terms in the White House.

Going forward, Democrats need to embrace more moderate leaders, rather than someone such as Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco. Ultimately, it might have been his outspoken push on gay marriage that turned it into an election issue that doomed his party to defeat. Like it or not, the country has experienced a conservative revolution started by President Reagan and continued by the current President Bush.

The Important Winners!

Okay, enough with the Presidential elections. Now let's talk about something really important - Regular reader Justin's son being on the championship football team of the Clearwater League 3rd/4th graders! Sure, you'll see lots of pictures of Bush celebrating his victory around the Internet today. But where else can you get pictures of Sam (#4) and his best friend (at least one of the thousands of Sam's best friends) celebrating their victory?

Congratulations President Bush

I realize that it's not "technically" over, but for all intents and purposes, it's over and George W. Bush was reelected as President of the United States. With 100% of precincts reporting, Bush has a lead of 136,221 votes over Kerry. Although the Ohio Secretary of State has said that there might be as many as 175,000 provisional ballots to be counted, it's highly unlikely that all of them will (a) prove to be valid and (b) go for Kerry in large enough numbers to overcome his vote deficit. There's also the issue of overseas military ballots, which are not included in the 175,000 provisional ballots and will almost certainly go for Bush. Bush also leads by 3 points or 3.5 million votes in the popular vote. It's not a landslide, but it's decisive enough.

I hope that once the final numbers of provisional ballots are known, Kerry will realize that he has virtually no chance of beating Bush and do the best thing for the country (IMO) - concede. The last thing this country needs is to go through another 2000. We don't need weeks of recounts and lawsuits. We need to move on with the business of being a country.

The GOP also picked up seats in both the House and the Senate. I won't pretend that this last event makes me particularly happy. I am a fan of divided government. Both parties have tendencies that I dislike. Give them enough power, and they will take those tendencies to extremes that I consider bad for the country. It is a virtual certainty that the Republicans will now push harder for their agenda. Delay said it himself:

"With a bigger majority, we can do even more exciting things," DeLay told a local TV station in Texas

I'm curious to see how the country will feel about all those "exciting things" in 2008. I believe this will largely depend on how safe we feel in 2008. With 10% of Democrats switching over to vote for Bush, I am speculating this had more to do with the threat of terrorism than it did with domestic issues. The 7% of Republicans who switched over to vote for Kerry, however, I would speculate did so based on domestic issues, not terrorism. If the 7% of Republicans who switched vote for the Democratic candidate in 2008 and most of the Democrats who switched vote Democrat again in 2008, all else equal, the Democrats will regain the Presidency at that time. If, on the other hand, terrorism remains a major concern, the Republicans will probably keep the Presidency. I'm not sure what will happen to Congress in either scenario.

Well, four years isn't that long. As I said on Sunday*, I really believe the country will survive. In the meantime, Bush is the President. Of course, that won't stop me from criticizing him (and Congress) as I see fit, any more than a Kerry win would have stopped me from criticizing him. It's my right as an American, damn it!

*Oh yeah, I also claim psychic victory on the Bush prediction.

Indeed All Ohio

I was right the first time. It has all come down to Ohio. Right now Bush is ahead by 136,000 votes based on my math, 145,000 votes according to news reports. Either way, Kerry needs to win a huge majority of the provisional ballots out there to carry the state and the White House. He probably shouldn't concede until all the votes are counted because you never know what will happen, but it does look Bush has won reelection.

Coming Down To Ohio & New Mexico

Maybe I'm seeing this through rose-colored glasses, but I can't agree with all the pundits who say Kerry must carry Ohio to win the election. There are still enough other states out there in which Kerry has a lead that he could win without Ohio. It would come down to New Mexico in that case. Bush needs Ohio and New Mexico. If he loses one of those two states - he's leading in both - he loses the election. If he wins both, he wins. Simple as that? Don't know. We'll find out.

Update: It is as simple as Bush winning Ohio and New Mexico because that will give him 271 electoral votes. I did forget about New Hampshire, which is in Kerry's favor right now. Make that three states on which the election hinges.

Ohio, It's All On You

Whoever wins Ohio will win the White House. Simple as that.

Update: Well, maybe not that simple. Kerry could lose Ohio but snag all the other outstanding states and still win. Unfortunately, he's behind in New Mexico.

Oops

I found it quite surprising that New Jersey was supposed to be a swing state. Maybe not.

Memorex Blogging

I won't be live-blogging the election, but other sites are. Check them out.

The Rant
Outside the Beltway
Command Post
Vodka Pundit

Site Molasses

The comments are running really slow tonight. I don't know why, although it may have something to do with why other Hosting Matters blogs are having problems. At any rate, if your comment doesn't post immediately, please, don't repost it or hit refresh.

Yours in the bond of blogging,

The Management

Why I Am Not Voting for Kerry

Check out the photo accompanying this article.

With apologies to Lesley for copycatting her idea.

Update: I caved and voted for Kerry. George Steinbrenner has already called to tell me I am blacklisted from Yankee Stadium for the next four years and to confiscate all my Yankees merchandise.

Dull and Humorless

The next time someone refers to the left as dull and humorless, they must be pointed towards some of the responses to Jim Treacher's piece in today's "Opinion Journal". It's a very funny satirical piece entitled "No More Years: Ten reasons I'm not voting for you, Mr. George W. Bush". Some highlights (italics mine):

10. Do you really think it's a good idea to be Hitler, George? Hitler killed millions of people and his approval ratings are in the toilet. Why can't you be somebody people like? Regis, maybe, or the Prophet Mohammed. Anybody but Hitler! Being Hitler = BAD IDEA.

9. Two words: You. Are. Dumb. This reason right here should have given it away as a joke. I mean, come on!

6. I mean, black hoods? Fa-shion dis-a-a-a-ster. Wasn't Abu Ghraib dreary enough already? (More like Abu Drab!) I would have started a riot--a laugh riot. While pointing at you! Again, obvious clue that it's satire! Has anyone actually criticized Abu Ghraib for being a fashion disaster? I think not.

5. How dare you taunt a dying Christopher Reeve with a big brown bottle of stem cells? The man was on his deathbed, you sick monster. Why did you have to hold the spoon right in front of his lips? "C'mon, Chrissy, it's right here. You can do it, bwah! Just another coupla inches. Oooh, yer close. Close!" Shame on you, Dubya. Do you know of anyone who thinks Bush taunted Reeves on his deathbed with a spoonful of stem cells? No, I didn't think you did. Sarcasm alert.

The Opinion Journal obviously got enough hate mail that it felt the need to post an update telling people it was satire. Sometimes I fear for our collective sense of humor.

For or Against

I've read a lot of people lately bemoan the fact that many Kerry voters seem to be voting against Bush, not for Kerry. I've also seen a lot of "endorsements" of Bush, incidentally, that read a lot more like a vote against Kerry than a vote for Bush, but few people bemoaning that fact. Mostly, I suspect, because Kerry isn't the incumbent. Were the situations reversed, I'm sure these stats would be reversed as well.

Nonetheless. Just what the hell is wrong with voting against one of the two major candidates? Why is this pumped up like it's some horrid ethical lapse? It's not. Pretend that you're a businessman for a moment. You have this employee whom you think is doing a really lousy job. Do you wait to fire the guy just because you haven't found someone you think would do a great job? Some of you might say "Yes. I'd wait until I found the right guy for the job." In some circumstances, you might. In others, you wouldn't. It would, in large part, depend on how lousy a job you thought the guy was doing.

But now let's add a constraint to the problem. You only get one shot to fire the guy on one specific day. You can't just fire him any time you like. You have to wait until the first Tuesday of every fourth November. If you don't fire him then, you're required to keep him around for another four years. Given that set of circumstances, do you not fire him because you don't have another candidate you think is great? Of course not. That would be inefficient. You fire him.

Let's add another two constraints to the problem. Not only can you fire the guy on just one specific day, but you have a limited number of replacement candidates to choose from, none of whom you had any great say in selecting. You decide that one of the replacement candidates wouldn't do a great job but would still be better than the current guy. You also need to fill this position. You can't just leave it empty. Do you not fire the current guy and replace him with the better, albeit not great, candidate? Come on. Of course you do. So you don't love the replacement candidate. Your major concern is not how much you should love the replacement, but how bad a job you think the incumbent is doing. At the moment, this is what affects your business most. Sure, you might be wrong about the replacement doing a better job. You won't know for sure until you hire him. But you might be right. If you think the incumbent is doing a bad enough job, you're going to take that risk, rather than suffer the known consequences to your business.

Would it be better to hire a replacement you think would do a great job? Of course. But like it or not, these are the basic constraints we face on Election Day. You don't have to like them (I don't), but they are real. So please stop whining about people voting against one of the candidates*. It's not like we can fire the President whenever we want.

*I find this whining quite ironic when it comes from the same people who consider those of us who like to vote third party to have "wasted" our votes. Really, if voting against one of the two major candidates is a sad statement on anything, it's a sad statement on the crap our two major parties serve up to us. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Those who criticize voting against a major candidate and voting for a third party are people to whom there is only one right answer - their answer. Thanks, but not interested.

One of The Important Issues of the Day

Does the new U2 song "Vertigo" rock or what?

Monster Chiller Theatre Name That Tune - Answers

Either only Dietz actually knew the answers or no one else cared. I'm going with both.

Song #1 is "Everyday is Halloween" by Ministry. It is quite fitting for the holiday. It also reminds me of my punk rock days, when I sported a flat top and yellow hair. Despite what my mother says, those were fun days.

Song #2 is "Bela Lugosi's Dead" by Bauhaus. Awesome song.

A Cat's View of the Election

Emma sleeps through the whole thing

Jane hides in her cave

Red-Eyed Sox

Now that's what I call a loose team.

The Amazing Lesley

I'm going to try out my psychic powers* and make a couple of political predictions.

1. Bush will win the election. I'm not basing this on anything scientific, just my hunch. Besides, if I based it on something scientific, how could I be trying out my psychic powers?

2. The country will manage to survive just fine regardless of who wins the election. Yes, rabid ABBers, if Bush wins, the country will survive. Yes, rabid Kerry haters, if Kerry wins, the country will survive. To paraphrase the prayer for the Czar from "Fiddler on the Roof" - Let the doom and gloomers live long, happy lives. Far away from me." Take your lack of faith in this country and its citizens and begone from my sight. Personally, I find the Chicken Little hysteria to be much more harmful to this country than I do either candidate. And given my dislike of pretty much any politician, that's saying something.

*I don't really believe in psychic powers, let alone that I have any. So feel free not to comment on how irrational and/or insane I am on that basis.

Also please note that I am referring to the rabid ABBers and Kerry haters. If you don't think horrible things will happen if the candidate not of your choice wins, I'm not talking about you.