Brain Fertilizer: August 2004 Archives

Fun With Language Development « Kidblogging »

Okay, everyone must know by now that my kids are the cutest little critters on the planet. If not, raise your hand and I'll post more pictures.

In any case, my son, just about to turn 5, thinks he's figured out how to shorten words. The first one was when he was two, and noticed that "Daddy" shortened to "Dad", and "Mommy" shortened to "Mom", so "Baba" (Chinese for 'father') should shorten to "Bob", right?

His most recent attempt seems to have come from noticing that "poopoo" shortens to "poop", because he's always saying that he needs to go "peep".

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:32 PM | Comments (1)

The Brainfertilizer Way to Write Novels « The Brain Fertilizer Way »

Well, this "Brain Fertilizer Way" is not well-developed, to tell the truth. Mainly because I still have never finished a novel, so how can I say for sure what works?

But Rae asks some serious questions about my basic approach to writing, and how can I refuse her anything?

So here goes:

Short story writing is a good way to get your feet wet in actually getting stuff written. But it really doesn't help at all in writing a novel. Sure, you can work on word choice, dialogue, scene-setting, and so forth, but they really are two different animals, much like the difference between a sprint and a marathon.

You can write a short story in one sitting. You can (and should!) write a short story with the intent to explore one idea, and everything you do should be subordinate to that idea. Dialogue, character revelation, scene-setting, all should be subordinate to that one idea. You just don't have room for much else.

Whereas a novel gives you much more space to work with. Not only do you have room to explore related and subordinate ideas, a novel demands that you do so. You cannot usually sustain an entire novel with just one idea. But the trade-off is that you can explore more complex issues from several different directions, you can fully develope multiple important characters, you can have rich subplots, you can really heighten tension with delayed resolutions.

For me, however, one of my biggest difficulties is in holding a complete novel story in my head. When conceiving of a novel, I usually think of a problem, or beginning, or hook, and then I have the resolution/end-state clear, but the middle is this big, fuzzy, "something happens" area. I then work from both ends to try and clear up the middle fuzziness, but at some point I have to start writing because that's the only way to see if what I have planned will work or not. I've abandoned at least three novels because my writing skills were insufficient to resolve that middle gray area. The only things I could think of were implausible even to me.

But this novel is different. I've restarted it at least three times (this is the 4th iteration), but each time I clear up some specific problems for myself. I have a good idea of what I want to do at each stage of the novel, and all aspects work together to underscore the main idea I have in mind. Sure, I still don't know how many minor characters I'm going to have or what they're going to do, much less what their names are...but I have such a clear storyline in my head that even if the minor characters do some things I'm not expecting right now, I don't think they can take over the novel.

The only real outline I have is in my head, although I do have a listing of the things I want to have happen in each chapter.

Right now, I'm thinking of each chapter as a bucket of 3,000 words that I have to fill. I'm doing that for pacing and motivation. If I cover all the action in less than 3000 words, then I have to add more words of description. If I take 5000 words to cover everything, I'm going to consider if some of it can't move into an adjacent chapter. I may end up abandoning this attempt, as well, and trying a different way, but even if I do, I will have learned something about writing.

To date, I've learned alot about subplots, foreshadowing, pacing, dialogue, "showing not telling", obstacles to writing, the dangers of momentum, etc. I've shared much of it in this blog and in previous blogs whose archives are lost in the mists of time [alas!], but I'll share with you all as I learn more, and maybe even revisit some of the things I'd learned previously.

The thing is, I think the lessons learned in writing are very personal and performance-based. I can read an excellent book on writing, like the ones written by Lawrence Block, but they can really do no more than give me an idea of the problems I will encounter on my own. They can't really give me any solutions, or help me avoid problems in the first place.

The physical act of typing on a keyboard is not difficult. The process of considering, developing, deciding, critiquing, adjusting, rewriting, and accepting the final product in writing a novel is quite difficult, and may be one of the most difficult things to do in life. You risk your self-esteem. You open up old wounds within yourself. You grow as much as your characters do.

Yeah, it's hard. Don't let anyone tell you differently. But the most worthwhile things in life are hard to obtain. The most worthwhile things in life are worth the effort. Do you want to be a writer? Then the pain and difficulty and effort will be worth it. It may take me 60 years to finish my novel. It will still be worth it.

I admit that I'm not exactly in a rush. I have a family with two young children, a career, a rich life of hobbies (including marksmanship, strategy wargames, reading, guitar, language, and exercise) that take up much time. I want to be a professional writer by the time I finish my military career, partially because finishing my military career dovetails nicely into being a professional writer, in that I can live off of my military retirement if necessary (albeit only simply), so the pension acts as a nice safety net to fill in the times of slow income. I have about 10 years, then, to finish and sell at least my first novel, if not 3-5. But the later ones will take care of themselves. I've got to finish this one first.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:07 AM | Comments (2)

Answering Mr. Kaus « Gun Issues »

Re: Airsoft Guns

On 28 August, (scroll down), Mickey Kaus asks about airsoft guns.

Trend I most need explained to me: Airsoft guns. They shoot plastic pellets, not BBs, right? Who buys them? Adults? Children? What damage can they do? Are they somehow an artifact of gun control laws? Don't the people who use them risk getting shot by cops who think they are regular guns? Instapundit will know ...

As a recent convert to Airsoft, I believe I can explain what I understand.

Airsoft guns were developed in Asia, where people wanted to own guns but where prohibited by national gun-control laws. Apparently, there is something about the look and heft of guns that speaks to the spirit of a person. But CO2 guns are dangerous; they can break windows, injure people and pets, etc. Airsoft weapons shoot the softer plastic pellet at velocities that allow useful target practice at distances up to 100 feet (sometimes more), but won't result in damaged property or injured people.

There are three types of airsoft: Spring-powered (must cock each time, shortest range), Green-gas powered (you refill from a canister rather than using cartridges), and electronic propulsion. The last method uses batteries and a mechanism that is weighty and balanced enough to feel like a real weapon. They are also the most expensive, usually more than $300 each. But they also have the longest range and best accuracy. These are also usually constructed out metal rather than the plastic of the cheaper models, which further adds to the verisimilitude.

Who buys them? Well, kids and adults. The accuracy/range of the pellets rivals paintball but the lack of velocity allows one to dispense with much of the protective gear, so both teens and adults use Airsoft in tactical war games. The problem of knowing for sure whether you hit is more than made up for by the realistic appearance of the guns, adding to the fun of the fantasy. Moreover, the industry is currently developing paint pellets that can be fired without breaking that will burst reliably when it hits a person without breaking the skin. Once that happens, I think you will see paintball be completely superseded.

Personally, I purchased a few handguns and a few rifles so I could work on basic marksmanship skills in my basement rather than having to go to the gun range, expend ammo at the rate of a dime a round, and then having to spend a few hours cleaning. The recoil is not realistic at all, obviously, but I do have the opportunity to work on steady aim, good sight-picture, breath control, and not changing the orientation of the weapon with my trigger squeeze (my biggest problem). It's a nice bonus that I now have realistic-looking weapons that I can use to teach my children safe gun-handling techniques without the possibility of a drastic mistake.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:39 AM | Comments (2)

The Reason Behind the Madness « Social Issues »

People talk about the polarization and anger in politics today, and they point to the 2000 election fiasco, or debate over SSM and/or abortion, or even the internet as the cause of the recent hatred, insanity, and general idiocy.

They're all wrong.

It's late-60's/early-70's fashion. If people are dumb enough to bring back fashions like low-rise jeans, they're dumb enough to blame President Bush for successfully improving the economy and making the country safer. If they're dumb enough to wear dorky glasses like Tina Fey (and worse!) wears, then they're dumb enough to vote for John F. Kerry.

Bring back big hair and garish eye makeup, and I guarantee you conservative voting will rise again!

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 03:22 PM | Comments (2)

A Point « Quotes You Can Steal »

I've had TDY's (temporary duty assignments) that were longer than the time period John F. Kerry is using as the centerpiece of his campaign.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 11:14 AM | Comments (5)

Wasted Effort « Social Issues »

People younger than a certain age may not understand the bliss that used to be eating McDonald's french fries.

There are children growing up today who will never understand french fries that stay good for longer than about 5 minutes, french fries that don't shrivel up and become hard when cold, french fries that still taste good even when not hot.

The Crusadors Who Know What's Good For Everyone decided that using animal fats in fried foods at fast food restaurants should be stopped, because it was bad for the circulatory system.

Perhaps, but now we have crappy-tasting french fries and people still complain that fast food is making them fat against their will.

If people are going to die obese from fast food, can't we at least make sure everyone gets to enjoy the food?

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:59 AM | Comments (4)

More Writing « Writing »

Well, I'm back to working on my novel again.

After a long layoff (3 months?), I'm starting up again. It took a while for me to decide how I wanted to approach it. Plus, I've been busy.

I've finally decided I'm going to just start over from the beginning and merely incorporate some of the passages I've already written, rather than trying to start where I left off.

That means I'm several thousand words "down", but I don't consider it a horserace as much as the move toward a final project. Going from 7000 words done back to 2000 words "done" is still forward progress if, once I get back to 7000 words, the quality is better.

I'll provide random updates, as is my wont.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:31 AM | Comments (1)

I Guess it is All in the Pick-up Line « Social Issues »

This guy is a genius. He's figured out a way to grope women who not only willingly come to him for the privilege, they pay him for it. And he didn't even have to get elected to a position of power like Governor of Arkansas or President of the United States to do it.

Honestly, this sounds like the immature adult version of 'hooking up' to me. People can get non-commitment sex pretty easily, thanks to the erosion of standards exemplified and reinforced by such 'entertainment' products as HBO's Sex in the City, but sex without true intimacy leaves people feeling unfulfilled. So rather than trying to develop a meaningful bond with another person, this guy is trying to satisfy urges through still more impersonal contact. It may feel good for a time, but I'm betting the people feel emptier after it's all over, whether they admit it or not.

Humans are wired a certain way (except for those few humans who seem to have some crossed circuits), whether you believe that hard-wiring was by God or Evolution (I apologize for the redundancy). People thrash around trying to find alternatives, but there is an effective and proven plan for happiness in life, if people would just let go of their prejudices...

Show Comments »

*sigh*

While this is certainly not up my alley, I am disappointed that Malkin didn't delve into this further. People who participate practice saying "NO" to the question "May I kiss you?", clothing is NOT optional, it is a very un-sexual activity.

In this world of being hyper-connected, there are people who are lonelier than ever before. While interning at the hospital many years ago, I was asked if I could just hold someone's hand. Abandoned by her family, no one had communicated with this woman for years, and here she was dying, just wanting someone to finally pay her some attention...to hold her hand. In many ways, we're an emotionally deprived world. We're perfectly willing to let people go without being touched or talked to if it doesn't suit us.

Well, here's a group of people who just decided that there was a way to help them feel better, where they could connect with another person. Like I said, this is so far from "up my alley" it's not even in the same neighborhood. Frankly, even holding a dying woman's hand made me uncomfortable. But for a woman like Malkin, who is a wife and a mother, to ridicule people who want the kind touches she probably receives ten times a day? I think that's pretty self-centered.

posted by Jo on August 30, 2004 07:21 AM

You could make the exact same argument about sex (and many do), and yet most people consider paying someone for sex and 'swinging' groups to be reprehensible.

I understand the importance of touch. Once, on my own for a year without dating anyone, the first touch I had in several months was someone cutting my hair who squeezed my shoulder once. I nearly cried.

But the answer is not to go pay someone to touch you, because without the emotional involvement, it is still as empty of intimacy as going to a prostitute. The answer is to go and develop relationships. There is no one who can't do that. All it takes is giving of yourself.

posted by Nathan on August 30, 2004 07:27 AM

Most of these involve no payment. The article in question just happened to find one that did. Drudge reported on this a few weeks ago.

And the fact is, a lot of people have friends who aren't into "touchiness", as a collective it seems we're just not into hugging these days. So, these people have gone elsewhere.

I don't understand why she invokes "9/10 indulgence", either. So, did a terrorist attack symbolize the end to us seeking personal happiness? I didn't get that memo.

posted by Jo on August 30, 2004 08:19 AM

O.K. I just read about this in either Newsweek or Time and I was unnerved. "Cuddling parties?" The word and idea invokes intimacy, who wants to be touched (and from the article and pictures, this isn't just a shoulder squeeze or a touch on the arm) by complete strangers? Practicing saying no? Isn't that what one does in dating? Or even in high school hallways and classrooms on a daily even hourly basis?

This was just bizarre!

posted by Rae on August 30, 2004 11:51 AM

Hmph. I thought being touched by a complete stranger was sexual harassment.

posted by McGehee on August 30, 2004 02:04 PM

...unless you pay them to, obviously.

posted by Nathan on August 30, 2004 02:05 PM

« Hide Comments

Posted by Nathan at 06:14 AM | Comments (6)

Why Did Al Gore Lose? « Politics As Usual »

Because his strategist doesn't seem all that bright.

If you don't feel like reading tripe written by Donna Brazile (and who does?), I'll summarize it for you:

She offers four things Kerry must do well, in addition to avoiding strategic mistakes.

1) Find a message and stick to it
2) Avoid Mistakes
3) Showing humanity in debates is more important than winning the arguments

That's it. Missing at least one...or two if consider that #2 is the exact same thing as the point added to the original four she promised.
And they're pretty darn useless bits of advice, to tell the truth. They don't have much to do with the problems Kerry is having, except incidentally. All she's really doing is offering an explanation of why Al Gore lost when she thought he was obviously the better candidate. She doesn't get it. Kerry doesn't get it. Most of the Democrat Party doesn't get it. They assume their essentially dishonest methods of campaigning are enough to win a majority of the votes. They take it for granted that a majority of the population is ignorant or uneducatd enough to fall for their glittering generalities and pie-in-the-sky promises. And if the mainstream news media were still the gatekeepers of information, they'd probably be correct.
I almost feel sorry for them. They've spent generations making sure that the education system and news media were overwhelmingly staffed by liberals in order to indoctrinate America, and the internet has sent all that effort down the drain.

Then I think of Jimmy Carter and I don't feel sorry for them anymore.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:21 PM | Comments (0)

KC NOT Looking Good « Kansas City Chiefs »

But all is not lost.

I didn't get to watch the game, but I watched the statistics and read the reviews afterwards. Here's my take:

The rest of the article can be read here.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:53 PM | Comments (0)

Peace Breaking Out All Over « Politics As Usual »

According to the article linked, ...war itself is in decline, peace researchers report.

In fact, the number killed in battle has fallen to its lowest point in the post-World War II period, dipping below 20,000 a year by one measure. Peacemaking missions, meantime, are growing in number.

So, yeah: Bush's policy of pre-emption and fraudulent coalitions have resulted in less chaos and more peace. Some might say that by serving notice to certain warlike nations and leaders that providing a safe haven for terrorists, exporting terrorism, and even merely slaughtering your own people might result in being invaded and overthrown, Bush has sent a message to all rogue nations across the globe, one that goes in a different direction from the liberals' idea of "We'll Take You to [Internation] Court." And the message he sent is obviously more effective.

But myself, I blame Bush's tax cuts.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 03:15 PM | Comments (2)

Further Evidence Most People Are Stupid « Rhetorical Questions »

Any time some group I'm associated with has a pizza party, I ask for Sausage and Mushrooms. Most of the time, I'm refused. "Nobody likes that," I'm told. "No one else ordered anything like that," they say. "We asked around and no one else said they would eat it," they insist. So most of the time, we're stuck with endless iterations of Pepperoni, Supreme, Meat Lovers, and Ham & Pineapple. The Usual.

About 10% of the time the expected order is large enough that I can convince them to go ahead and get one pizza with my favorite two toppings.

And you know what?

I often don't even get one piece, and it invariably is the first pizza finished. And the next time the same group has another pizza party, I have to make the same arguments over again.

Anecdotal evidence says Sausage and Mushroom is the darkhorse favorite, or the favorite no one wants to admit. I'm the one that suffers from the general unwillingness to recognize the superiorty of the Sausage and Mushroom pizza. People are stupid.

Show Comments »

Uhhhh..might want to check your spelling in the subject line, guy...LOL!

But you're right, that is pretty silly. But it just emphasizes what sheep people are...too afraid to be themselves.

BTW, when's the BBQ you keep promising? ;-)

posted by Funkalicious on August 28, 2004 06:55 PM

The next time is happens, be the one to get the pizzas and then sneeze on the Sausage & Mushroom one.

No one will touch it.

posted by Mad Mikey on August 28, 2004 07:09 PM

Almost every pizza ordering event I go to has at least a mushroom pizza and sausage and mushroom isn't unheard of. You need to get different friends. :)

posted by Jordana on August 29, 2004 06:28 PM

Ms. Funkalicious,
Well, it can't be Labor Day weekend, cuz I'm heading out to Seattle. Maybe the weekend after that? One of the things holding me back is location...

posted by Nathan on August 29, 2004 10:59 PM

I love Mushrooms; it's the sausage that gets me. Cheap sausage is typically used and it's too chewy and heavy with fennel.

You know, Nathan, if you're contributing financially, you should have some say, right?

posted by Rae on August 30, 2004 07:16 AM

Lol-"Typically used."

Hmmm, I think I reveresed gears mid-sentence there. Just leave "used" out and you get the message.

:)

posted by Rae on August 30, 2004 07:20 AM

Sure, but when 14 people making equal contributions want Pepperoni or Supreme, the 15th lone voice saying "Sausage and Mushroom" doesn't carry too far.
I would just take it as "the breaks", except for the few times I do get my way, it's like I said: I sometimes don't get even one piece and most of the time don't get even two...which you think I would have half a pizza to myself since no one else claims to like it.

All I'm saying is that "the usual choices" should include Sausage and Mushroom, since so many people seem to enjoy it when it is offered.

posted by nathan on August 30, 2004 07:22 AM

You know, Nathan, I think this goes to show that most people don't even know what they like.

posted by Rae on August 30, 2004 11:47 AM

« Hide Comments

Posted by Nathan at 04:38 PM | Comments (8)

Too Important To Miss « Social Issues »

What happens if the Democrats lose?

It seems all too likely to me. It could be an uncomfortable four years for everyone.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 03:24 PM | Comments (2)

Why Is This Girl Smiling? « Humor »

No, seriously: why?!?!

LONDON -- Actress Alicia Witt models what is claimed to be the most colossal waste of effort in creating stupidest hat ever made, the $2,700,000 Champrau d'Amour, by celebrity couture hat designer Louis Mariette, at Christies in London. The hat is covered entirely in dazzling diamonds and inspired by entwined ivy and bluebells. (06/14/04 AP photo)

Oops, that wasn't exactly what they actually said, was it?

LONDON -- Actress Alicia Witt models what is claimed to be the most expensive hat ever made, the $2,700,000 Champrau d'Amour, by celebrity couture hat designer Louis Mariette, at Christies in London. The hat is covered entirely in dazzling diamonds and inspired by entwined ivy and bluebells. (06/14/04 AP photo)

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 01:33 PM | Comments (3)

Some Things That Frustrate Me About Democrats/Liberals « Politics As Usual »

Blindspots.

That's the simplest and most fair way I can put it.

I have several Democrat/liberal friends, and I'm sure that they will each think this is about them*, and they will all be partially correct.

Rather than 'blindspots', I could also call it childish petulance, because sometimes that's the way it comes across. But all of them are charming, witty, intelligent, thoughtful, caring people in everything besides politics, so I have to assume something else is at work, and 'blindspots' is the only way I can explain it.

When I'm driving, the thing I hate most is someone sitting in my blindspot. I will always adjust my speed to spend as little time in someone's blindspot as I can. Because when you glance to your left, you see your immediate left, and you also see mostly behind you through your sideview mirror...but there is a 'blindspot' big enough to hide a complete vehicle. If one is there, you can't see it, and so it is as if it doesn't exist at all for you. You can't make decisions based on a vehicle that doesn't exist in your experience...and that's how some horribly tragic accidents develop.

Here are two significant blindspots left unchecked by Democrats I often encounter:

They are upset at how Bush is handling the economy. Most of the time, they cite the economic statistics for their own state lagging behind the national recovery. What they ignore is that the states below the average (including Michigan, California, Washington, Oregon) are among the more liberal of states, with larger-than-average entitlements and tax rates. The states hurt least by the economic downturn and who recovered the most quickly are the conservative, low-tax, low-entitlement states whose state government used the same principles as President Bush. So blaming President Bush for your own liberal state's bad economy is like blaming the aspirin for the hangover. Refusing to vote for Bush because you live in a liberal state with a sagging economy is like trying to stay permanently drunk to avoid said hangover.

The unemployment rate is 5.5%. Experts say this level is pretty much full employment. Bickering about the specific number of jobs lost "during the administration" is silly, since it is based on a number that even the office that produces it says is underestimating the number of people working. Factor in the gainfully employed people not covered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Payroll Survey, and we are already seeing a net gain in jobs. And, in fact, by most major indicators, the economy is doing quite well.

Most experts also say the recent recession was much more shallow than expected, and recovery was quicker than expected. We had the best economic growth in 20 years in 2003! Manufacturing growth is at a 30 year high! The only possible way to criticize President Bush for his handling of the economy is to say that he is merely benefiting from natural economic cycles...but then you can't blame him for an economic downturn that began before he even took office, can you?

But the news media still reports the economic situation as bad, and my Democrat/Liberal friends are negative and critical along with it. Without a single fact to support that view, I might add, except that they are convinced things would be even better with Kerry as President. To which, I repeat: without a single fact to support that view. None of these people are dumb or essentially dishonest, so the only way I can explain it is they simply do not see the situation because their ideological views block out good economic news resulting from President Bush's actions as if they don't exist...

Another "blindspot" is concerning their anger that President Bush did not fulfill his promise to "Be a uniter, not a divider." They ignore that President Bush reached out to Democrat leaders from the very beginning, that he met with one of his most vocal critics in Ted Kennedy and worked civilly with him to produce the Education Bill of their dreams.
Things did get worse after that, yes. As President Bush said himself, "The most disappointing thing about his four years in office has been his inability to change the "harsh environment" in Washington."

But Democrats have used his expressed wish to be a uniter against him, demanding that he bow to their every wish or else be labeled "a divider". The Democrats were dividers in how they criticized every step President Bush took in the wake of 9/11. They demanded he come before Congress to get permission to invade Iraq, so he did. They demanded he go to the UN, so he did. They criticized him for appearing to delay until after the 2002 election for political reasons, and then criticized him even more sharply when he accomodated their wishes and made Iraq an issue earlier, in time for it to be an issue for the election. They used a loophole in the Senate to filibuster the majority of his nominees from a minority status, in flagrant disregard for the lesser obstructions of the Republican party under Clinton.
In every single case, President Bush has extended the hand of cooperation, and the Democrats have not only bitten it, they've blamed him for not preventing the biting.

It is extremely biased, negative, and dishonest to blame President Bush for current atmosphere when Democrats have pioneered harsh, partisan tactics at every stage. Unless it is just a blindspot for their own party's activities. I prefer to think of it so.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:31 AM | Comments (3)
» Weekend Pundit links with: More Kerry Stuff

More Caption Fun « Humor »

Yeah, I get 'em all from Drudge. So what?

I'd do one myself, but like I said, ya'll are far better than me at this.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 04:19 PM | Comments (5)

The Crumbling Begins? « Politics As Usual »

You might want to go to Rasumussen Reports (linked in my sidebar). Today they are showing Bush ahead by a percentage point, and Kerry at his lowest percentage since 4 August. This is only the 2nd time this month he has been this low. I'm thinking he'll slide further as the bandwagon effect kicks in.

Of course, it may not. We are a long way from the election and this is all still in the margin of error.

But I'm thinking that the "Deny Them 1st Amendment Rights" response from the Kerry team to the SBVFT hurt Kerry and it is starting to show now.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 11:39 AM | Comments (0)

Individual Liberties « Quotes You Can Steal »

The push for individual liberties has done much to ensure that people can do whatever they want...

...unfortunately, it seems like what most people really want to do is be the biggest jerk they can be.

Read More ""Use Any Weapon"" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:11 AM | Comments (0)
» Mudville Gazette links with: With Friends Like That...

Who Makes the Team? Roster Guesses « Kansas City Chiefs »

It is still early in the preseason, and I'm guessing at how many players Vermeil will keep at each position as much as I am guessing who will make the team. Based on my impressions of their performances thus far, and potential for improvement within the season, I think the final roster will look close to this:

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:01 AM | Comments (0)

I Can't Wait To See The Quotes From This: « Fun With News Headlines »

Kerry's campaign now says is possible first Purple Heart was awarded for unintentional self-inflicted wound...

If true (and Drudge doesn't have a link to anything there), that means that the range of responses to any and all of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are:
1) Stonewalling
2) Threats of lawsuits
3) Undermining the credibility of the SBVFT, rather than addressing the allegations
4) Admitting that perhaps an allegation might, in fact, be true.

This is getting ridiculous. I am feeling some sympathy for the minority of Democrats who were denied their chance to vote for Howard Dean in the election by other Democrats, but I honestly will lose all respect for anyone, anyone, who votes for John Kerry in this election.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:46 AM | Comments (2)

Amateur Eyewitness Report on the KC-STL Game « Kansas City Chiefs »

That idiot 'Brain Fertilizer' has another stupid, overly-optimistic post up again. Blah, blah, blah, KC will win the Superbowl 245-0 over the Denver Broncos, blah, blah, blah. Doesn't this guy ever shut up??!?!?!

Show Comments »

They did look dominating last night.

Impressive.

posted by zombyboy on August 24, 2004 07:21 AM

The thing that stymies me is: the preseason is absolutely illusory and useless as a predictor of success. Except when it isn't. So I am getting my hopes up, but I don't really want to talk smack. Yet.

posted by Nathan on August 24, 2004 07:31 AM

Sorry, but it's FINALLY the Redskins' year to win the NFC. I hope. Next year at the latest ;)

posted by Lenise on August 24, 2004 02:27 PM

No, I'd wait a bit to start talking smack. Pre-season isn't meaningful enough to hang your hat on--but the first four games of the season are vital.

That said, damned if your boys didn't look like world beaters last night.

posted by zombyboy on August 24, 2004 02:34 PM

I like the Chiefs, and living in Philly, came to like Dick Vermeil. The Chiefs might have what it takes this year.

I have less hope for the Iggles.

But no matter -- I'm actually a Jets fan. So at this point I'm mostly scar tissue.

posted by IB Bill on August 25, 2004 06:15 AM

Lenise,
Ummmm...the line was a joke. KC can't play Denver in the Super Bowl...they are both AFC. So Kansas City absolutely doesn't pose any threat to your team's chances to win the NFC.
ZB,
We'll see. The important thing is that unless we have injury problems and collapse, it's going to be a fun season seeing how far they go.
IB Bill,
My condolences for being a Jets fan. Pennington is going to rock this year, I think.

posted by Nathan on August 25, 2004 06:32 AM

Fine! Make me look like a stupid girl. I thought there was something fishy about that, but I KNEW Denver was AFC. Anyway, it was nice to see Marty Schottenheimer get treated well somewhere (KC), and I've had a bit of a soft spot in my heart for the Chiefs since then. Art Modell was totally unclassy to him, as was Mr. Snyder, sadly.

BTW, I loved the old post about the cat and the mug. Nobody ever comments on my kitty photos, which is hard to fathom, since the kitties (especially mine) are so cute.

posted by Lenise on August 26, 2004 06:19 PM

« Hide Comments

Posted by Nathan at 10:02 PM | Comments (7)

"Old Man" Clemens Speaks to His Wife and a Washed-Up Metal Band Simultaneously « Meme Stolen from Jeff G. »

Judas Priest, Barbara, it's one of those flaming bags again.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 02:02 PM | Comments (0)

Nilou Motamed is Very Beautiful « Blogging »

She is the Travel and Leisure editor for CNN. But I can't find an image of her on the web. But then, one of the things I find so attractive about her is the way she smiles while talking, and the sparkle in her eyes...those might not show well in a still photograph.

....just saying, yanno?

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 11:49 AM | Comments (5)

Musings on "The Big Tent" « Politics As Usual »

Both parties like to think they are inclusive. Talk about political parties, and you'll discuss how each party has a moderate wing and an extreme wing. Both parties don't do enough to disavow and marginalize the whackos, perhaps, and Democrats get blamed for PETA and ELF and NARAL as much as Republicans get blamed for Jerry Falwell and white supremacists.

This gets characterized as a "Big Tent"...

Read More "Musings on "The Big Tent"" »

The tent roof encloses the party, and if someone is in your tent, you are responsible for their presence in some way...you didn't hunt them down and throw them out, at the very least. The parties then try to expand the coverage of their tent. Republicans have been conservative, for instance...but as college students have gotten sick of 'speech codes' and extreme political correctness on campuses, being Republican has become somewhat cool, and we have what is known as South Park Republicans...people who agree with very little of the traditional Republican/Conservative background except for small government/fiscal responsibility. They want sex on TV, they like Howard Stern, they see no problem with legalizing drugs, might be weakly pro-choice, push for a more secular society and are weakly to strongly pro-SSM.

I disagree with pretty much all of that except for the 'fiscal responsibilty' part. In the past that would have put me squarely in the center of the party, but these days, I'm considered a right-wing wacko by many members of the same party. And yet I disagree nearly as sharply with Pat Buchanon or Jerry Falwell. Go figure.

I think this happened because President Clinton deliberately emphasized the "moderate" portions of his platform to attract moderate voters...but these people then felt betrayed by his actions and move back to the left after being elected. These are the same people who didn't really like Bush in the first place. These are the same people who are voting for Kerry because they feel like Bush is too conservative on social issues but a Democrat in spending, so they might as well get a Democrat who they feel more comfortable with on social issues. These are the people who are voting for Bush "while holding their nose" because they don't trust Kerry on a significant issue or two.

And that's fine, but it's an uncomfortable fit, sometimes.

Personally, I don't think a "Big Tent" is a very accurate analogy. It implies that you are either in or out. It implies the party has a great deal of control or choice over who is in, but nothing could be further from the truth.

There is a classic war novel that describes someone trying to unite a country through military conquest. It is my intention to rewrite the story as a political battle. Rather than capturing significant cities, the candidates attempt to capture significant issues. For instance, if more people care about retaining the right to abortion, it is a significant issue in one way...but in an entirely different way if more people care about protecting the unborn children. Thus, a candidate must not only stake a position, they must also persuade people to that position. A candidate will naturally try to emphasize an issue they feel they are already strong in. But a candidate who only weakly defends abortion won't win votes even if the overwhelming majority of voters want to retain that right. In the same manner, taking a city doesn't help you if you have to destroy the city to capture it, and if you can win the city's inhabitants so they work with you after capture, so much the better, right? And you start a war with certain cities already within your possession. A great general recruited to lead your battles is equivelant to a great campaign manager, I'd say. A political candidate needs top-notch advisors and assistants just like a conquerer needs the advisors and competent lieutenants.

Thus, I'd compare the parties to conquering armies and the voters to the land they occupy. Think about it, and help me refine this analogy, if you will.

« Hide "Musings on "The Big Tent""

Show Comments »

Hmmm, interesting read.

I'd say Clinton is moderate if you compare him to say, Dennis Kucinich. I'd say Dubya is moderate if you compare him to Tom Delay.

But Clinton is actually pretty liberal and Bush is actually pretty conservative. But neither is in the "extreme" of his party.

Liberals can desert Kerry for Nader. But that is a wasted vote in my opinion. Conservatives won't bolt "W" cuz he is one of them. So Dub has the moderate-right and right while Kerry has the moderate-left and left except for the Naderites. So they fight for that real moderate, center - if it really exists.

I'm not sure about issues, anymore. I'm getting so jaded that I am beginning to think there really is no undecided center that votes on issues.

If each candidate has pretty much sewn up 45% of the vote, finding that last 6% has got to be hard...

posted by Frank Martin on August 23, 2004 12:23 PM

Sure, but only if you accept that the 45%/45% number is accurate.
Remember, the economic indicators are showing Bush is going to win with 55%-60% of the vote.
Whence the dichotomy?
Well, I still think that telephone polling results in costless support. When push comes to shove, I don't think Kerry will have the numbers. Remember what happened to Dean on the basis of a little exuberance? People jumped ship from his campaign in droves, and I think we may see the same thing in the election.
Plus, the margin of error on polling is established from scientific principles...but cellphones, dial-up internet access, caller ID, answering machines, and people just plain not wanting to participate in polls are all-but-proven to be increasing the margin of error far beyond what science says it should be. Telephone polling really isn't reliable anymore, methinks, and this election may well be its death knell.

posted by Nathan on August 23, 2004 01:37 PM

Yeah, but if I remember right, Gore was supposed to beat Dub about 55 to 45.

Your thoughts about telephone polling are well taken.

I think people left Dean in droves when Kerry won Iowa. And in Iowa, while Dean had the coverage, Kerry had the Iowa Dem political establishment. Dean was a media phenomenon. Kerry toughed it out in the trenches. When he won Iowa it was over for Dean and the rest.

Look, Kerry isn't my favorite Democrat. But he has had real tough races before and has prevailed. Give Kerry his due - he's a tough S.O.B. when it comes to elections - for whatever reasons. He shouldn't win. But then Clinton shouldn't have won in '92 either...

posted by Frank Martin on August 23, 2004 03:01 PM

...but Perot isn't running this year. [grin]

In any case, while there are a plethora of models to cite, I think the correct one is Clinton '96, for so many reasons.

posted by Nathan on August 23, 2004 03:03 PM

« Hide Comments

Posted by Nathan at 10:55 PM | Comments (4)

Musings on the Campaign for the Presidency « Politics As Usual »

I'm really not sure Karl Rove is earning his paycheck. Then again, I'm just about absolutely certain John Kerry's campaign manager isn't. You can at least make the argument that Karl Rove is waiting until after the Olympics are over and everyone can truly focus on the campaign before he gets things in gear. But Kerry's campaign took the wrong tack from the beginning, and the Democrat Party went right along with it. It will be their undoing.

Here's why I think that way:

President Bush is the incumbent. As such, his past shouldn't really make much difference. The only possible argument he can really make for his re-election is simply the job he did over the past four years. The flip side of that, however, is that the only valid argument for his defeat is the exact same thing: the last four years.

That's hardly earth-shattering. Many people more experienced and wiser than me have said that elections are pretty much nothing more than referendums on the incumbent's administration.

But if that is true (and I think it is), why did the Democrats worry about having a candidate with war experience? Why did they make the AWOL charge the main attack for more than a month? Has the Democrat Party truly lost every bit of its political sense?

Because by any rational measure, Kerry was toast before he even ran.

The Office of the President is the head of the Executive Branch. As such, you need to convince people that you are the best executive for the job. There are exactly two ways to do this:

1) Provide an excellent example of your executive leadership ability.
2) Be charismatic enough to overcome a weak executive resume.

Every single President over the last 40 years was either a state governer or a Vice President, right? Take that back to Herbert Hoover, and the only exceptions were John F. Kennedy (won on charisma) and Dwight D. Eisenhower, who held the highest military positions (clearly executive excellence).

What on earth convinced the Democrats that they could blaze trails with someone as obviously non-charismatic as John F. Kerry?

Aside from all that, however, John Kerry needed to show the United States public that he has the executive skills to guide the nation more ably than George Bush through any difficulty the nation might encounter. He needed to demonstrate, with examples from his past or clear and specific plans for the future, exactly why he would make a better President, executive, leader, and Commander-In-Chief than PResident Bush has. They dropped the ball when they tried to make a four-month stint as commander of a Swift Boat be the main testimony to his leadership and executive skills. They made further mistakes when they merely criticized how President Bush has handled things and gave vague mumblings of, "I would do better."

No. Not good enough. Since the choice is between someone who has years of executive experience and someone who has little to none, John Kerry should be trying to demonstrate that he has the intelligence, flexibility, humor, aplomb, grace, decisiveness, courage, innovation, etc, to handle any situation. Not only better than Bush, but better than the voters themselves. Because few people really know what it is like to be President, to deal with the leaders of other nations who will do anything to undercut and backstab the United States if it will help their position in the slightest. John Kerry has not demonstrated he even understands that, much less can help the voters understand that.

That means he can't just choose examples of things that went badly (or even things that went fine that were perceived as going badly) over the last four years. He needs to demonstrate a very clear personality, a consistent approach if you will, to any problem that comes up. The best way would be to acknowledge that President Bush has done well, but that the moves were obvious enough that anyone could have done it. Then, point by point, he should have shown exactly how he could have convinced France to get on board despite their obvious commitment to oppose us. ...but the trick would be, to convince us both that it would work, and that he could have thought of it at the time. Running a campaign against a popular former state governer who ran a baseball team and kept things going after 9/11 and turned around a weak and shell-shocked economy in less than 2 years through sticking with his vision (tax cuts) of how to fix it even if it went against conventional wisdom (or what the news media believed/supported, at least)...well, that is nearly an impossible task. Once he won the nomination, Kerry should have built a staff of the most experienced economists and diplomats he could find, who would coach him on every minor mistake President Bush made so that he could offer suggestions off-hand with extreme comfort and naturalness. Like, "President Bush did a fair job assembling a broad coalition of nations for Iraq, but having most of the UN Security Council permanent members against it weakened his case. If he had contacted Chirac behind the scenes and threatened to expose their oil agreements with Saddam Hussein, threatened to deport every terrorist Muslim to Saudi Arabia, threatened to withdraw from the Shanghai Communique agreements and fully support Taiwan's independence unless China agreed and sent troops, and then used economic pressure on Germany, we could truly have made it a world-wide coalition. But I'll forgive him his inexperience, since he was only a baseball manager from Midland, Texas..." Now, the specifics could have been different, I don't know or care. The point is, with 4-5 expert advisors, they should have been able to use hindsight to come with a Me-Too-ism that would convince the average voter that it was the exact and perfect ploy to do better than Bush. He needed to "Monday-morning Quarterback" every major policy decision Bush made. He shouldn't tear down the "No Child Left Behind", but should be able to explain, simply and convincingly, how he wouldn't have had any difficulties funding it fully while still giving the tax cuts. He should denounce how the Democrats filibustered Judicial nominees and explained how simple and easy it is to lend a little political capital to dismantle such roadblocks within days.

John Kerry acts like his methods for dealing with past events should be secret...as if the problems of the future will be the same, and he doesn't want to risk Republicans stealing and adopting his brilliant plans. Well, someone who can win a Presidency has no such fear, because he understands that new and different problems pop up all the time, that his opponents lack the ability and intelligence to implement his plans because he is simply such darn good Presidential material. The way John Kerry handles it, he seems like he thinks that even though he has the right ideas, if he can't be the one to implement them, than the United States can go to Hell in a Handbasket for all he cares. He doesn't show confidence in his natural ability to lead.

It is easy to see that McCain was a better politician than Bush, and Bradley was a better politician than Gore. Howard Dean eliminated Edwards and Leiberman and Gephardt because he was the one with executive experience. He eliminated Clark because Clark really didn't convince anyone he had been a top-notch executive. When Dean imploded, I think the only person he really hadn't vanquished yet was the only person who really hadn't had a strong enough campaign to challenge him...and so being the only semi-viable candidate who hadn't already been rejected, Kerry was nominated by default.

It's sad, really. If Howard Dean hadn't gone crazy (or revealed his unbalanced nature, perhaps?), we could have had a true campaign between executives who both governed well, but with different assumptions and styles. It could have been a true contest.

The numbers make it seem like Kerry has a chance, but I am absolutely certain it will prove to be illusionary in the end. It will probably be bad enough that Democrats will be wondering what happened. The illusion is maintained because it is easy to say you will vote for someone because you don't really like someone else...but when you are actually pulling the lever, when it actually comes down to brass tacks, most people will choose the person with extensive executive experience and demonstrated executive competence over someone with none of either.

Right now, I think I could run Kerry's campaign better than his current manager. And I could be a more credible candidate than John Kerry.

« Hide "Musings on the Campaign for the Presidency"

Show Comments »

Hmmm, after reading your analysis, I guess we should just crown Dubya President. :)

I agree with a lot of what you wrote. But if Kerry is so weak, why is he leading in so many state polls today?

I still say the election is Dub's to lose. And as of today, it is quite possible that he will. Note I say "possible" and not "probable".

posted by Frank Martin on August 23, 2004 05:47 AM

I know you were just jerking my chain...but I want to make it clear: while I think President Bush continues to be the best man for the job, I do not think Bush has earned the right to skip the elections or anything. I am mainly trying to say that Kerry's campaign is going about this the absolutely wrong way. He seems to be trying to just convince people to not vote for Bush rather than give them a really good reason to believe he can run the country more ably than Bush. He can't just say he will, he must demonstrate it, somehow.
And I think Kerry is leading in the polls because the media downplays his shortcomings, and Karl Rove hasn't really started the Bush campaign yet...and probably won't until during the debates. I don't mind you thinking it is possible W could lose: he certainly could. Lots can happen between now and November. But I think Kerry has nowhere to go but down...

posted by Nathan on August 23, 2004 06:26 AM

I'm not yanking your chain. I know you think W is the guy for the job and I know you aren't suggesting skipping elections or anything like that.

I'm pretty much agreeing with you! I don't believe someone can win just by running a negative campaign. Voters need a reason to vote for Kerry as much as a reason to not vote for Dubya.

I don't credit the media for Kerry's lead at this point. If the electorate is polarized at 45% for Kerry and 45% for Dub, well, there isn't much to fight over.

My guess is that it is difficult for either Kerry or Dub to drop much below that 45%. But it is the state-by-state voting that will determine who wins. If all Kerry's votes come from New York, California and Illinois, he can't win. If all Dub's votes come from Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama, he can't win either.

Either guy can win Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, and a handful of other states and he only has to win - it doesn't matter if is .5% or 5% - he just has to win.

I will also suggest that negative campaigning does work. Dub will continue to hammer Kerry, but it will be tough to drive down that approximately 45%! Because that is pretty solid Kerry. Just like additional negative advertising may not drive down Dub's 45%. However, if it suppresses the vote - well that's a different story.

posted by Frank Martin on August 23, 2004 12:35 PM

Oh, the after reading your analysis, I guess we should just crown Dubya President. :) part seemed like a mild teasing; that's the only part I thought you were tugging on any binding devices.

Other than that, I find it interesting that you only refer to Bush as running a negative campaign. The main negative attacks against Kerry are all '527' group ads...so by the same token, Kerry-supporting '527' attack ads are more prevalent and have been running far longer, and yet Bush's numbers don't really go down. F9/11 gave Kerry more bounce than his own convention!
And I credit the mainstream news media for keeping Kerry's campaign afloat because they hammered Bush on the AWOL thing, the Stephanie Plame thing, the Yellowcake thing, the Richard Clarke thing, but have absolutely downplayed the vindicating evidence that might help Bush. Their coverage of the SBVFT was woefully absent; when Kerry finally responded so they could no longer ignore it, they covered it disproportionately from how they handled questions about Bush, and for the most part have spent all their effort attempting to undermine the SBVFT credibility rather than spending time verifying Kerry's now-questionable claims.
But not everyone sees it that way, I know. But I only have my eyes and my mind, so my perspective is pretty hard for me to ignore... [grin]

posted by Nathan on August 23, 2004 01:29 PM

Sorry if I seemed to be suggesting that Dub is running only a negative campaign, he isn't.

Also, I lump the 527s either with Dub or with Kerry - whatever fits. Same for the DNC and RNC. If you want to say the Move On ads are "Kerry's" then I have no real disagreement. Technically they aren't, just as the Swift Boat guys aren't Dub's, but in reality I say they are.

You may think Kerry is getting a free ride from the media and there are others that argue Dub is. Probably neither is, really. But it seems that way to any subjective party.

you wrote: yet Bush's numbers don't really go down. That is my point! The pro-Dub and pro-Kerry support (whatever it is) is so solid right now (for whatever reasons) their support levels don't change that much. They are fighting over about 10% of the voters! And I have no clue what motivates that 10%. Is it issues? I don't know...

Arguing about who gets better media coverage is just an exercise. The media coverage is what it is, you know? That's why you have to depend on paid media and massive GOTV efforts. I think that is where the election will be won or lost - whoever gets their voters to the polls. Dems need a nice, warm, sunny day. The GOP needs cold and rain.

posted by Frank Martin on August 23, 2004 02:54 PM

Yeah, I can go with all that. I don't agree with much of it, but I don't exactly dispute much of it, either. It's well within my margin of error of understanding, I'd say.

posted by Nathan on August 23, 2004 03:01 PM

I think what's going to decide this election is not going to be the swing voters, but the base -- as in, which side's base voters become demoralized by their candidate's lousy campaign and decide to start looking ahead to 2008 before 2004 has even run its course.

But that's what I've been thinking for months now.

posted by McGehee on August 24, 2004 06:11 AM

« Hide Comments

Posted by Nathan at 10:08 PM | Comments (7)

Political Drama Unfolds « Media Distortions »

This is an attempt to leave an impression in the minds of voters, regardless of whether or not the accusation goes anywhere.

And you can bet the New York Times will do all it can to try the case in the court of public opinion with a biased jury.

Show Comments »

I remember when I was a kid, I used to wonder why all the fuss about politics. My folks were active in following the Kennedy campaign and took an active part in the Goldwater campaign, at the grass roots level, some 4 years later. Because of that I was exposed to it rather early, but it wasn't till high school, that it took on some significence.

Now, we face an evil abroad which if allowed to continue unchecked can and will threaten our western civilization as we have come to know it. And at home we face a far sinsiter threat. That of what is fast becoming two polar opposites in our choice for the leader of the free world.

Sometimes I wonder, if it would have been somewhat less stressful 50 years ago...when all we had to worry about was the "Commies" and "The Bomb" (and most times they were one and the same, fear wise).

But come November I shall vote as I have in the last eight elections....for the best man availible for the times and the job. In this case George Bush. And to hell with the NYT!

posted by Guy S. on August 20, 2004 06:22 PM

I just posted a question myself on my blog about all of this veteran crap. Do people actually care about this trivial junk compared to the real issues the U.S. faces?

posted by Warren on August 20, 2004 10:43 PM

Weeellllll, I do care, because I think this is establishing whether or not Kerry tells the truth. If he does not, how can we trust him on any of the real issues? But I'm tired of blogging about it.
In any case, I'm sure they'll discuss issues like Iraq, the War on Terror, the economy and such in the debates.

posted by Nathan on August 21, 2004 08:02 AM

I'm with you on the truth factor. For me that has been established and it seems to be droning on. Perhaps it needs to continue for the rest on the masses to get it.

posted by Warren on August 21, 2004 09:23 AM

I agree that the issue -- why it "matters" -- is because it establishes that John Kerry lies, has lied, is continuing to do so, just to maintain his idea of self-history.

I think he's maintained a finely constructed self-portrait ("it's seared into [him]") about who he THINKS others will believe he is, and that's why it's threatening to such an extent to the Left and to Kerry and now even Edwards (who "defends" Kerry's "military record of service" although Edwards was no where even remotely near Kerry's military service when it took place)...because, it calls into question the fact that some people in the country are ready and willing to follow Mr. Make Believe into oblivion.

The Demos are literally grabbing at straws this evening with anyone and everyone possible as to blame, demands, accusations, about this issue. Everything EXCEPT proving Kerry right, or, providing any iron-clad proof that what the Swiftees have to say is not true.

Instead, they and apologists continue to blame Bush and "call on Bush to renounce the ads (by the Swiftvets)" and the like. Nothing about Kerry's lies, meanwhile, not a peep...

posted by -S- on August 21, 2004 08:21 PM

Yes. And so while I'm personally a little bit tired of it all because I've been convinced of his essential dishonesty and lack of integrity for some time, I don't mind the situation being flogged and blogged for a while yet, for one important: the Democrats and the press are willing to overlook significant integrity and honesty problems of Kerry as long as they can get W out of the White House. Every person who sees the blatant bias in the news and the lack of concern about honesty by the Dems is another person who won't trust those institutions very much in the future.
This isn't just about defeating Kerry anymore, for me (because I think that will happen, easily). It's about Democrats who deliberately conceal their agenda so they can get elected, and the mainstream news media who make it easy for them to do so. I want both institution to collapse. I want an America that demands a reasonable level of honesty from its politicians.

posted by Nathan on August 22, 2004 07:09 AM

Nathan, you make good points. For more on the, "anybody but Bush," zealots, I invite everyone to visit TownHall.com: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/dg20040821.shtml

posted by Tenaj on August 22, 2004 08:48 AM

Does anyone dispute that Kerry served a stint in Vietnam? I don't think so. What we seem to have is some veterans who have a deep personal hatred of Kerry for his activities after his service. Apparently none of his critics were actually there when Kerry supposedly took fire. Read William Rood's account of the February 28 incident - he was there.

It is interesting to me that so much is being made of this Vietnam incident. It happened 35 years ago! It would seem to me that where both men would take us in the next four years should be more important.

Kerry "lied" about wounds he recieved and Bush "lied" about WMDs in Iraq. Call it a wash and move on, fer crying out loud...

posted by Frank Martin on August 23, 2004 05:58 AM

« Hide Comments

Posted by Nathan at 03:37 PM | Comments (8)

An Explanation « Blogging »

...regarding this post:

It's all no big deal. I'm feeling a little disappointed in blogging lately, like I've been spending too much time doing it...and not pleased with my results. I haven't had a post I'm proud of in a while. I haven't had a post with truly original thoughts or development in longer than that, probably. I've been linking stuff I've enjoyed reading, mostly just to get another post up so people will still keep dropping by. And while that's a perfectly valid way to blog, it's not me.

I want to do more posts about China. I want to try some Op-Ed. I want to concentrate on writing some new puns. Goodness knows I'm years overdue for the Pun-Fest that is the Just-Us League.

Bottom line, though, is that I've been doing oodles of politcal and social blogging, particularly over the last year. I'm more than that. The blogosphere is more than that. Sure, the most pressing issue is the Global War on Terror mixed in with the economy and pressing social issues of abortion and homosexual rights, and they all intersect in the 2004 election. The mainstream news media has dropped all pretense of objectivity in trying to get Kerry elected, and the blogosphere plays a very important (if not vital) role in defending the nation from the onslaught against democracy by Democrats.*

But I'm tired of it, and I'm not the only one. I think the blogosphere is going to contract quite a bit, if not actually implode, after the elections in November. We will have a landslide, or at least a clear mandate, and there will be little to fight for once the politicians stop stirring us up and the mainstream news media stops being complete hypocrites and partisans (either because they won and don't have to anymore, or because they lost and ended up selling their integrity and ethics for nothing).

So I want to work on sharing my whole mind, my whole thoughts, and preparing for Blogging Life After November. Sure, not everyone is so wrapped up in it, but I am, and many of the blogs I read are. Some will be so burnt out they will take a break, if not flirt with quitting. I don't want to be burnt out, I don't want to be exhausted. I want to put better quality of posts out, I want to research topics instead of just putting stuff out first draft. I never even 'sanity-check' 'em for grammar/spelling clarity! I think this method has limited my effectiveness as a writer and persuader. I do want to become a professional writer, and one of the choices is as an Op-Ed writer, but you can't just spout of your gut reactions, you have to back it up. I need to develop as a writer.

Don't get me wrong, blogging has gotten me to this step, and I'm betting blogging can take me to the next level, too. But I'm going to have to consciously make a change to do it.

And so look at my posts today. It's a rare thing, indeed, when I only have 3 posts. And I wouldn't have even had this one if it weren't for Casey's comment on the aforementioned post.

Don't worry about me, people. Don't cry for me, Blogentina! I ain't going nowhere! But it is time for me to make a qualitative change. I can feel it. I hope you'll be able to see it.