soup in my fly

A lot has happened and almost none of it positive.  So here are my New Years Resolutions:

Write more.

I actually started writing more this year. Although it's still pretty few and in-between when I write. I started a dream journal - which was good for a week and then I got into the same old routine of saying "later" and forgetting the dream. I've seldom written in my normal journal, but there is a big chunk of about 4 years where I didn't. So this is a positive sign.

Read more.

I think I got though two books. I need to read more. I'm going to reread "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" in the coming weeks. I listened to the radio plays and re-watched the TV series and movie this week. To put an exclamation point on it I'm going to finish the last part.

Do unfinished tasks.

Knitting. Calligraphy. Programming. Drawing. HTML/CSS. I've had an ungodly amount of free time and not started one of them. That needs to change.

... and learn a language.

Hopefully I'll blog more too.

Happy New Year!

* taps fingers on Wacom tablet *

I spent 150 bucks on a 9X11 Intros 2 about 3-4 months ago. It isn't a purchase that I regret totally, but I'm having problems sitting down and drawing anything on it. I fully INTEND to draw on it, yet I don't.

I was away for a month. I didn't achieve anything that I wished to achieve. Sort of the story of my life. Like school, I fully INTEND to go in there and make straight A's. I could. I'm not stupid. I know how the game is played. But for some reason I don't. Usually by the end of the semester I'm gasping for grades that will keep my head above water. Motivation I guess.

I've had library books for way past the due date. I fully intended (no CAPs, got to change it up) to read them. I can't bring myself to actually read them. I'm like a guy who has thousands of books and never reads them. Are you a collector? Yes. Why? Pretty, pretty books. What? Have you looked at my cars, they go VROOM.

Meh.

Post upcoming.

Scientists (social, natural and the like) stretch for meaning with anything. It's what they are supposed to do mind you, but especially with social scientists they tend to get things wrong with that stretch for meaning with two totally different things.

Here's my attempt to be wrong.

Max was the son of Sweat-Pea and Bogey.

He was a happy go lucky type of dog. Sweat-Pea was more the cuddler and Bogey... well he was mean. He wasn't always mean, he was always a bit skiddish but he was basically non-mean. Until he choked on a piece of cheese. He almost died and that changed his demenor a tad. He was still Bogey, but now he was skiddish with mean. I guess almost choking does that to beings.

Max got beat up by his old man until he was one or two. Even after he outweighed Boggy (because Max was in a litter of one) and was an inch or two taller still Bogey would terrorize Max mercilessly. Until Max thought to himself, hey I'm bigger than Bogey - I'll just beat him up for a change. This went on until Max died. Bogey always seemed to be the aggressor. Bogey has mellowed out considerably since his sons death, but I guess having no one to growl at continuously sort of makes beings seem more controlled. Makes me think Bogey's meanness was all a dominance game (that he almost always lost).

What does that have to do with politics?

This is where I stretch. The United States is Bogey. Always growling and getting into fights it can't possibly win. Can it win? Sure, but it lacks the basic knowledge (or care) of how to win the fight. It will never learn that you need to temper your response to the situation so that you come out ahead and the other party comes out ahead.

Anyhow, Max was a great dog. I still go out into the garage expecting to have him jump on me and lick my face for what seemed like forever. I never got that with Sweat-pea or Bogey. He will be missed greatly in my heart.

And with that I'm going to leave the web for a month to get my orders straightened out. I have been spinning my wheels on the internet for way to long. I'll start posting more regularly when I come back. Probably not.

Technorati Tags: Dogs, Politics

I've started to become more proactive in hunting for people on the internet.

My Trillian contact lists once stood as a shining beacon of wasteable time, now sits as a withered remnant for its once former glory. So not to bog down this entry with a bunch of needless facts I'll just say around 2004 I stopped adding people. I stopped looking for people. My list wasn't that populated either, I had about 20 people to which 8 or 9 I spoke regularly.

As the years wore on I deleted the people who were never on line anymore and the contact lists grew smaller and smaller until this year only 3 people remained. A friend from uni that I talk to once a month, a girl from round' abouts Chicago that rarely comes on anymore, and a girl from England a started talking to before I went over there on my Cambridge excursion.

Bogged.

The only problem is every instant message service has a crappy search for feature. I've found a few unaffiliated sites that have searches that are better, but you have to join.

The ICQ (my first messager, and has been unpopulated the longest) is probably the best one - but either it's bogged down by spammers or most of the people aren't there. AIM and MSN you can search, but there is no online/offline option and they are pretty much clusterfucks (AIM being the better of the two). And Yahoo. It says there is a look up area, but there isn't a lookup area. You are pretty much better off just looking in the other three.

So, does anyone know any good search engines for IMers?

Technorati Tags: IM

That is a bit misleading. I read all the time. I read websites and articles and school textbooks (sometimes). The greater brunt of my reading comes from the web.

I don't read books. That's better. There is no reason for me not to read books. In fact I should have learned four languages, how to play the piano, draw like Leonardo and look like Brock Samson by now with the abundance of free time I have (and a few other things, like now I'm "in" to calligraphy).

But I don't.

I renewed interest in getting books from the library and not reading them... the two books I've checked out the most and I would like to read are Catch-22 and Don Quixote.

One day.

I have done something though. Something most commonly unlike me. I've read a book. In 2004ish I started reading Wil Wheaton's temp website and I saw that he put a out a few books that I wanted to read - Just a Geek in particular. I didn't want to buy it and I couldn't find a torrent of it so I went to the original warez site, the library. No dice. It was probably in one of the state wide catalogs, but I didn't have the patience to look though all of them.

So there it sat in my personal want to read list. Until a month ago.

I joined the city library because I thought (and they were) they would have access to more books. I've put orders out for a lot of books, Ancient Greek, Latin, webcomics, bunch of others. I remembered that I'd wanted Just a Geek and low and behold there it was in some other library. Needless to say I also checked my old library, andtheyhaditsoicheckeditoutthereinstead.

I had a lot of books to be read and I wasn't reading them. Last week rolls up and I start reading. It took until yesterday to finish, but I am proud of myself. One down...

... oh, the book sort of sucked.

Technorati Tags: Book, Reading

The 2008 elections are shaping up to be a huge let-down for the Democrats.

In 2004 even though the historic precedent sided against the Democrats they felt they could take the presidency. Bush was unpopular and the Congress wasn't accomplishing much. The left-wing blogs were abuzz with the Democrats chance to take back the White House. We all know how that ended.

Fast-forward to now.

The Democrats have a historic chance to sweep into the Congress (more-so than they did in 2006) and Bush is as unpopular as ever with approval ratings being south of 50% for much of his second term. Left-leaning blogs are abuzz with Obama's message of "change" and McCain's inability to distance himself from Bush's failed policies.

Even with all of the "indicators" showing that this election season will be monumental for the Democrats, I plead with them and the left leaning blogs to err on the side of caution. We've been down this road before and it promises to be every bit as ugly as 2000 and 2004.

Indicators like polls. Around this time in the 2004 elections Kerry was up 5-8 points in the national polling. Gore was actually down in the days leading up to the 2000 election. Polls are a decent indicator of what is happening at that moment. A snapshot of time. Between now and election day though, they are pretty much worthless to anyone involved in a campaign.

Aura of inevitability.

People, blogs, whoever will say they aren't saying their candidate/party will win in 2008. But, they are in the very fact that "glow" about their candidates positives and dwell on the other candidates negatives. The smaller blogs I can see, but the bigger blogs (Powerline, DailyKos, Huffington Post, Drudge Report - to name a few) I believe have a duty to call it down the middle. Not go for the common lowest denominator. They don't have to run towards the center, they just have to be fair in their reporting/editorializing.

Why Al Franken is looked over and Ann Coulter is demonized in books is not because of their politics. It's because Coulter makes things up and Franken (usually) fact checks. Extensively.

I just ask, please, don't get ahead of yourselves in naming a president either directly or indirectly before hand.

You never know who will be president-elect November 5th.

I need to set up my hotlink again. Yay.

This is my first email, I'm so proud. :: wipes tears from eye ::

Do you think Barack Obama will win the Democratic primary?

First I'll start off by saying I hate people who give answers like the one I'm about to give. I'm not an Obama supporter, as I said in a previous post.

I think Obama will win the primary. Obama's almost insurmountable delegate lead and the fact that that he only needs 40-50 of the remaining 200 or so super-delegates pretty much closes any chance on Clinton coming back.

... however, Clinton might not go off into the cold night like she probably should. Change "might" to probably will not. It's that triangulation I was talking about. Her campaign is hoping that Obama will do something so bad people will switch their votes. What's worse, I believe, is that even if something doesn't happen to Obama she starting her 2012 Presidential bid. Slash and burn baby! I mean, who will remember what she's done in four years? Reagan was probably the most corrupt president (sans Bush II) of the modern era and we still have "Reagan Democrats." TWENTY YEARS LATER.

The only saving grace is that John McCain's so inept I believe if Clinton doesn't pull a 180 (a la Lieberman) and support McCain whatever is done in the primary can be undone. But you're not asking that question.

I think Obama will win the primary.

I think George Carlin said it best,

"Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents, and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do, folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces. Garbage in, garbage out!"

Until we, the people of America, take an active role in politics (and a longer attention span than that of a gnat... ouu, a shiny penny) we deserve what we get, period. I could come on here and post every day about the injustices and the corruption in my state, in our country, but what would it matter? Sure, I'd get more readers but most would share my political views. People would say, "YEAH DAMN RIGHT!" but they just continue looking at like minded sites doing nothing. It's sad.

We don't take an active role in politics. We give our donations. We might give some spare time. Once it's over we move on. We bitch about something, we talk about how we held our nose for the elections, we do whatever it is our heart fancies. This... is wrong. But... you don't care.

According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but
with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps, the
answer is simple: Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he
exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to
Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his
agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat.

[new york magizine] - 28 March 2008

This is the problem with politics.

Who do you support in a race? The person who shares a few of your ideas/beliefs or the person who you think doesn't really share you're beliefs and will put on the best game face telling you he/she cares? Why does it either have to be a a if/or decision? Why does Edwards have to support anyone but the Democratic nominee?

If Edwards believed that either one shared his view (and would commit to the views) he would have supported them. Well, in a perfect world. On this earth, if this article is somewhat correct, if someone has a prickly demeanor you'll throw him/her under the bus even though they would support your plans. Edwards didn't support either, so probably neither of them were up to his goals.

I believe this is just the media trying to stir the pot, so it might be less with politics and more with media.

[psst] I hear McCain has some pretty insane wackjobs supporting him. ATTACK!

Well,

I really need to find a better file host.

Election, 2008

I was for Edwards in the beginning. Even though he did some pretty nefarious stuff to make sure Howard Dean didn't get the nod in 2004, I felt he had a few ideas that were good for the nation and there wasn't anyone who could take on Clinton nor Obama. He failed. Spectacularly.

The Clinton's make my skin crawl. Maybe not before, but now I really am over all things Clinton. I dislike their triangulation. I dislike their tactics (or lack therefor) and most of all I hate how they injected race into a seemingly race-less primary. Yes, the Republican's would bring it up if Barrack Obama made it to the election cycle (ugh, I hate "cycles") but that's something you'd expect.

Obama, while cut from the same centrist cloth as Clinton, is at least a real change. Now, I understand he'll probably be similar to the Clinton presidency, but if what Hillary said was true - I have 35 years experience (some of that in Bill's term) - I think this nation just wants a break, new blood. I really am surprised how many Clinton supporters there are, to be quite honest.

Hopefully, Dean's 50 state strategy is working and will work in the future.

Hopefully, someone will clean the mess Bush has left in his wake.

Hopefully, John McCain won't be elected.