Nice laid-back weekend, once again the witch-project was neglected as I worked mainly on my own computer and upgrading our TiVo. In one of the easiest mods I’ve ever done, Erik and I slapped in an extra 120GB drive and upping the recording capacity from 40hrs to 141rs. Not that I was really using all 40hrs or anything, it just seemed like a fun thing to try. Now I can keep unlimited amounts of old Andy Griffith and Leave it to Beaver, for, something.
Last week I went back and read the transcript of Thursday’s debate, and believe me it resonated much more in writing when I had time to re-read and digest it all. If you missed the debate, or even if you saw it, I’d recommend reading the words in print. Sometimes, when watching it on TV it’s easy, at least for me, to get distracted – and the candidate’s answers end up sounding like random strings of politic-talk. In writing however, it’s much easier, again, for me, to see the point each was trying to make – and the intelligence and speaking skills of each comes through better. Anyway, reading it again drew out the hermit-of-a political commentator in me, but I shall not bore you, or shall I?
If there was a candidate who was pledging to kill babies if elected, but place no restrictions on gun ownership, and a candidate that wanted to heavily restrict gun ownership to small firearms for self-protection but would kill no babies – who would you vote for? It’s an unfair question, I know – but I’m trying to use it to illustrate a point. I just think, for this election, there are some issues that should bear more weight on peoples’ votes than “pet” issues. And I’m not trying to water down any one issue – if it’s important to you it should bear in your choice – but maybe, just perhaps, in the times and age we live in right now, voters may want to make some concessions to their idea of a “perfect” candidate, in order to avoid catastrophe.
There, I’ve said it, and I know the argument is full of holes and not really well-thought-out, but I think maybe, with a stretch, you can see what I’m driving at. Are you fiercely anti-bovine-growth-hormone? Great, glad you’re opinionated? but perhaps, in light of what’s going on in the world today – you’d better serve our country by voting for someone who’s less anti-BGH than you, in the interest of solving bigger, badder problems first. Then, next time around, when we have some peace and aren’t under threat of attack – then, then you can cast your votes based on the candidates’ stances on bovine growth hormones. Does that make sense?
I know, enough about politics right? But they’re just so dang interesting, I mean, but watch this video, and then read the latest over at Drudge’s place – Kerry is a no-good cheater! It’s like a big, terrible soap opera. We can watch the whole terrible, awkward drama unfold a little more this week with the vice debate on Tuesday and the second presidential debate on Friday – both of which are set to record on my newly-hugified TiVo. Bring on the politics.
I don’t even know, I’m not writing anymore. I’m going to bed. Dave out.
Also written on this day...
- mario - 2023
- a day in a tent - 2007
- buy a new shirt and practice using your wang - 2006
I´m impressed that you were able to tie in the daily photo with the blog content. Just when I had gotten used to the photos being completely random, you surprise us all by slipping a related one in.
i try 😉
usually the image mouseovers give some clue to how i think they´re related. but yeah, sometimes they´re just out of a hat.
so basically you´re saying petty issues distract from the real issues… like banning gay unions will make us forget that more than one thousand US soldiers have died protecting us from WMD´s in Iraq? Maybe ´cheating´ at the debate will distract us from the fact that no reasonable answers have been given for the real pressing questions "why have no have WMD´s been found, where is the real threat to this country? Osama? Why didn´t we attack a countries that we know are building a Nuclear arsenals (India, North Korea, Pakistan). Who´s really cheating this country.
lively today. no?
if i´m reading everything right here, i think a sarcastic entry has elicited a sarcastic comment. but yes, i think there are some issues which may be "secondary" to a greater good under special circumstances.
what i was trying to say (i think), is that maybe, with this country at war, there are some issues which voters would be better served by "letting it slide" this time. maybe ignore the fact that candidate A has a less-than-strong record on a "minor" issue because he will do something better than candidate B on a "huge" issue.
make sense? -dave
It totally makes sense, its a very good point, well written too. Dave your blog is super entertaining, I was looking for an update on Ben´s adventure in Europe and somehow made my way here. I´ve so far managed to waste a good hour or two of company time. thanks for helping stick it to the man.
"super entertaining" eh? if you only knew how much that means to me 😉
i´ll try and keep it up.