 |
|
 |
|||||
links
|
|
Friday, October 29, 2004I told you Curt Schilling was cool. posted by Nate on 10:41 PM link Thursday, October 28, 2004Writing about the World Series Losing Manager Interview, Bob Cook has the line of the year: To paraphrase Leo Tolstoy, every happy team is alike, but every unhappy team is unhappy in its own way. Improbably, the Red Sox win sets up the most improbable World Series ever: my Cubs, the all-time losers at 96 years and counting, versus their cross-town counterparts, the White Sox (87 years). Hopefully there will be some good juju for the Cubs next year, like how that foul ball hit a guy who used to live in Babe Ruth's house(!), how Johnny Damon immediately hugged Gabe Kapler (number 19 hugging number 18), or how the Sox lost tragically in 1986, but 18 years to the day won the Series, marking their first title in 86 years. Since 1918. On the night of a lunar eclipse. I have hope for next year; if the Sawks can do it, so can we. There has to be some sort of Leon Durham ground ball retribution thing working for the North Siders next year, I tell you. Either that, or we'll proudly go 0-for-the-century, and Jay Mariotti will write a book about the Bane of Tinker-to-Evers-to-Chance, or something. posted by Nate on 8:47 PM link Wednesday, October 27, 2004On the way home from work today I was listening to the radio. The Hourly News Update (TM) was about the presidential candidates campaigning in Wisconsin. Bush was pledging his allegiance to the lower income earners, while Kerry was talking about how he would be be a better wartime leader. Wait a minute-- the Republican is appealing to the downtrodden, while the Democrat is promising a tougher line on the war?!? Have I woken up in Bizarro Land or something? Things used to be so clear cut-- hawkish, cold-hearted Republican versus dovish, compassioniate Democrat-- but now the election is about duping a larger number of people in five or seven swing states into thinking that you are exactly like your opponent, but Slightly Better. I suppose that if I were a cynical Kerry advisor, I would create a commercial that would appeal to Republicans and Moderates alike: "Vote for John Kerry. He's a terrible candidate and will certainly be a one term President, and he'll prevent that psycho wench Hillary Clinton from getting the nomination in 2008. Seriously, which do you prefer, a flip-flopper or a true believer?" I have a confession to make: I could live with a Kerry presidency. It would be like Bill Clinton triangulating, only more PR conscious and less sexual harrassment-y. We'd likely get some stupid health care bills that would be immediately vetoed, and some weird consideration of what the f@$ced-up, nihilistic government of France has to say on "occupation" of the Middle East. I guess France has valuable input on the matter since they occupied Vietnam in the 1950's (John Kerry served for the U.S. military there, if you haven't heard). The main issue for me, though, is the Supreme Court; we'll likely get two or three appointments in the next term, and activist Living Constitution judges could really be a problem, what with issues like federal funding of stem cell research and the Patriot Act on the table. I'd prefer judges who will analyze the Constitution, rather than make up some shit about a Living Constitution when it fits their political agenda. The Founding Fathers should be taken seriously rather than demonized as crusty Caucasian slaveholders. They were were some smart political theory mofos, likely becuase they didn't have their concetration broken by Rebel Billionaire reruns or Ashlee Simpson. Instead, they had an unhealthy fixation on John Locke the way twelve year old girls worship Britney Spears. (However, John Locke didn't have near as nice titties.) Ahem... I guess if it weren't for the political appointments, I might vote Libertarian this year, since I'm not 100% happy with Bush. But as it is I think another GWB term will cause less long-term damage that JFK. (JFK-- Why oh why couldn't he have been more like Ted and vehicularly homicided some people? That would make last election's DWI October Surpise look like a kitten-petting, baby-kissing photo-op.) But that's just my opinion. If you are easily swayed by my words, I have a suggestion: don't vote. Seriously. If you have no idea what you or the candidates stand for, then stay at home. Don't fuck it up for everyone else. Lately there has been a fetishiation of the process of voting, where MTV says it's cool to make yourself heard. But life is hard enough; if you would rather bury yourself in your family and job and not pay attention to the vast differences between the political parties, that's your business. Just don't vote arbitrarily based on a sound bite or who your buddies at work say is cool. Let me put it this way; remember how in high school the Class President race was a popularity contest between the biggest douche bags around? Think of the U.S. Presidential campagin as a battle royale featuring the creme de le creme of douche bags. If you don't bother to familiarize yourself with who they'll appoint to their cabinet or to the courts, you're just voting for the guy with the best smile. Let the people who are passionate about politics choose the best leader. Either that, or turn off Fear Factor and read a fricking book for a change. posted by Nate on 1:21 AM link
|
|
words
of wisdom
|
|||
| Copyright 2004. All
your stolen base are belong to Rickey Henderson. Questions or comments? Email nate@swankypimp.com |
|||||||
