| I'd like to clarify a detail in my last entry. Not only was there a DNA-stealing stalker hiding behind the tree, but he was *naked*. I'm a bad joke-teller, and apparently that's the one detail that made things so hysterical the other night. Calvin just wanted to let you all know. Three people signed up for my notify list yesterday. That thrilled me to no end - the fact that there's even *one* regular reader out there tickles me. Now, I do have a question for those of you who monitor your web stats. I checked out my stats at Dreamhost, where I host my site, and I had a total of 84 visitors yesterday according to them. Then I checked out my stats at SiteMeter, and they claim that I had 25. Now, I would prefer to believe Dreamhost over SiteMeter, but shouldn't they both be reading the same thing? I'm confused. Oh, well, no matter. There are somewhere between 25 and 84 people out there who care. ~waives~ Hi, there! AcronymCo is jumping on the "VOTE!" bandwagon this year. We had one of those "State of the Union" meetings yesterday, and after all the technical/business/prioritization goo, the chair stuck in his little blurb about how voting is our privilege, right and responsibility. He also demurred very nicely when asked which way *he* voted. Now, first off, why is asking "Who are *you* voting for?" such a touchy question? It's not like asking about someone's sexual orientation or if they're good boys and girls and call their parents every Sunday. I can understand a person's right to privacy and all that, but what's the harm in knowing if you're a Gore-ite or a Bush-ite? I'm not going to hate anyone for their political orientation, and if I were voting I wouldn't sway my opinion just because a person I respect (or not) is going "the other way". Which brings me to my next subject. I'm not a registered voter. Neither is Calvin. Now, before you start filling my mail-box with messages of "every vote counts" and "if every person felt the way you did, no one would vote", let me just emphasize that we *know* all that. Yes, each vote adds up, and yes, we lose the right to complain about the way things are if we do nothing to *change* the way things are. But I disagree with the use of *electoral* votes as opposed to *individual* votes. Calvin and I had a hard time explaining to Marie that even if a candidate gets the most actual votes, he can still lose. I have a hard time explaining it to myself. I'm not anti-government by any stretch of the imagination. *And* I think Clinton did a pretty good job running the country, moral issues aside. I think Gore is doing himself a disservice by trying to distance himself so much from Clinton. The man actually set Gore up for success if he'd just keep the momentum going. People don't like change, and people certainly don't like change when things are going good. What Gore should have done is emphasize that he's not changing the things that are working right now. Instead there's all this talk about a "new administration" and "shaking things up", all because of the moral issues that Clinton had which have absolutely nothing to do with the running of a country. I haven't given much thought about Bush, except for the fact that *my opinion* is that he's riding a bit too much on Daddy's coat-tails, and he's pushing the Clinton morality thing too hard when he's not *running* against Clinton. I also think he's probably not experienced enough to be qualified, though the polls apparently say 50% of the voters feel he's qualified enough. I think what aggravated me the most about this election is all the flap about personality and appeal. "Bush is more charismatic!" "Gore was on Oprah first!" Who the hell cares if you can crack a joke, or what kind of jammies you wear to bed? You don't run a country based on your personality or your predilection for flannel. You run it on intelligence, and experience, and a surrounding staff which (pray God) is competent and balanced. I've heard the suggestion that we should swap the Presidential candidates out for the Vice Presidential candidates. It really is too bad that a VP doesn't have much in the way of responsibility or visibility. At least in comparing the first Pres. debate with the VP debate, they seem to be much more competent. I also thought it was hysterical how the second Pres. debate showed Gore and Bush "straightened up and flying right". Kind of like they were lectured "Why can't you be more like your VP candidates?" ala perfect big-brother style. Okay, I'm off my soapbox now. What knowledge I have about politics, or the positions of the candidates, could fill a thimble. I probably don't have enough to qualify to have an opinion. I will say I'm leaning Gore-ward, based on what I *do* know. But the point is moot, since I'm not voting anyway. But for those of you that do, and that are, more power to you! Perhaps I'll change my mind about it one day, but not today. I'm too cynical about the whole process. |