<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Thursday, December 18, 2003

Lord of the Rings on Saturday. Whoo-hoo! More swords! More elves! More Sam! I've finally decided that Sam is the only reason I made it through the whole bloody trilogy on paper. Sam's the one you identify with, really, or maybe the guy you wish you had at your side. Love, loyalty and encouragement, always at the ready: Who could ask for anything more?
Frodo and Sam are so perfect together that I imagine that even in the pre-slash world of Tolkien's contemporaries (and yes, I know there was plenty of homosexual behavior then, but you all know what I'm talking about) readers must've wondered a little bit about Sam's wife Rosie. She's only mentioned a couple of times... Sam seems to have been happy, though. But then, at the end of the book, he and Frodo enter the Havens together... sometimes it would be nice to go back in your time machine and see how The Average Contemporary Reader interpreted this whole thing.

Tuesday, December 16, 2003

The good news: not only did we capture Saddam, we used information from the capture to capture more people, people screwing around with bombs and stuff rather than hiding out. Coolies!

The bad news: 11 protesters dead. I'm not saying it's the soldiers' fault-- haven't a clue-- but that there's enough unrest going on, still, is bad.

The really good news: Maybe we really will get to keep reasonably free and fair elections as a cornerstone of our democracy after all. More criticism of electronic voting-- yay! Electronic voting could be a godsend-- relatively cheap and easy (ATMs come to mind). But the process has to be open, difficult to hack, and easy to inspect. I still think a paper trail (like ATM receipts) is the only way to go.

Monday, December 15, 2003

Oh, I knew I had the wrong screename but this is the firey proof:

A new obnoxious form of cybercrime, and the new obnoxious nickname.

Damn.
Salon has a piece on Wes Clark today which has Clark saying-- very clearly-- that Dean can't win because *any* Democratic candidate will have to have strong foreign policy experience to go against Bush next year. See, that's a real argument. But of course, the only person with that kind of experience is Wes Clark, so the real argument is "I'm the best candidate 'cause I'm the only person with substantial foreign policy experience." (Serving on a foreign affairs committee *should* count toward electability, but I really don't think it does as far as the electorate is concerned, if you're following me.)

Clark may be right, and people seem to like him. But even after gathering up that draft-Clark machine, people don't seem to be rallying behind him the way I expected people to (and I imagine Clark expected the same thing). Granted, it's only been three months, and Dean was running for president two years ago. It'll be interesting to see how New Hampshire goes-- if Clark makes a strong showing there, he'll be a contender (see Bill Clinton back in '92 if you don't believe me). Then the media will have an underdog story to report... hmm... maybe there *is* a reason there's so much focus on Dean as the frontrunner. It's all a big pro-Clark conspiracy! Yeah! Or not. ;-)

I hope he does come in second-- the Kerry campaign bothers me a little more each week, it seems... if they're not blundering they're just plain being offensive. They'll have to be even more on the ball in a national campaign and they just don't seem like they're up to the challenge. (See, there's another real criticism: Kerry's not electable because his pr machine sucks.)

Sunday, December 14, 2003

This is a modification of something I posted over at Atrios:

I'm really tired of people complaining that Howard Dean's not 'electable.' What makes a candidate electable, anyway? Gephardt and Edwards are stalled, Kerry is imploding, and Clark's never run for elected office in his life. What do they have that Howard Dean's missing?

This is the reason people say 'we're tired of hearing the electablility issue'-- we have no idea what the flying fuck that issue's supposed to mean. Is it possible lack of black support? Is it that he'd be percieved as 'too liberal'? It's impossible to argue with the statement 'he's not electable' because it's such a damn koan. I feel like the appropriate response is putting a shoe on my head.

Dean has plenty of vulnerabilties, and I'm probably too close to see the good ones, being a Vermonter (though I've thought of a couple, some of which are right up there in the previous paragraph). Why the hell not hit him there? This 'electability' bullshit is just that: bullshit. Honestly? I wish Edwards was the front-runner; I was hoping for an Edwards-Dean ticket. But he ain't. Let's deal with it. Kwitcherbitchin; if you think your guy's more electable, get out there and help him win a damn primary or two, huh?

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?