patrick.net

And can I further surmise, oh my heart be still, that you do not simply “dislike” our next president, Hilary, but the thought of her as President makes your skin crawl a titch?

Just the thought gives me the heebie jeebies. I'm hoping that because she is not as outgoing (hah!) as her husband, people won't warm to her enough to vote her in. Unfortunately in a world where people vote based on what they see on the Tonight Show, personality seems to be one of the main criteria on which people vote.

Yeah, well, I'm on the record a year ago saying she'll win and she'll win easily.

I figure she'll play the Caesar card. She'll wait until the 3 or 4 patsies who come out early have come off their intro momentum. Then, as close to the primaries as possible, she'll announce. She'll dominate the primaries and blow out her comptetition, who will not criticize her and who will fall in line behind her quick enough, hoping to get the VP nod or catch some other scraps that are left in her wake.

She won something like 65% of the NY women vote. Yow. That's a huge number. I figure she wins 60% of the women vote nationally, 45% of the mens, and wins in a blowout, regardless who the opposiiton is.

Funny thing. I hear a lot of women say, "I don't like Hillary and I wouldn't vote for her." Then I ask, "Yeah? What if she was running against [fill in prominent Republican]," to which they always respond, "God, not him!"

So what many many women seem to think is, "I'd love to have a reason not to vote for her." Given that the Republicans have no stand out candidates, I think she wins . . .

easy.

I hope you're wrong, but I'm not holding out hope either. I won't vote for her. What if Rudy Giuliani ran? Do you think the lustre from 9/11 could carry him far enough?

Given that the Republicans have no stand out candidates, I think she wins . . .

*cough* Jeb?

Personally, I think Rove/RNC wants to keep the Bush juggernaut going as a dynastic thing. First, Jeb in '08 & '12, then maybe Laura as 1st woman President in '16 & '20. That'll warm up the public for the really big surprise in '24 & '28: Jenna & Barbara serving together as co-Presidents (Presidents-gone-Wild!).

Jenna & Barbara serving together as co-Presidents (Presidents-gone-Wild!).

lol

Can't you just see the "lost" video tapes that surface during that administration?

Well, I don't think any man beats her. That's the funny thing. I think the only hope the right has got is to run a woman. In that way, you don't automatically lose some portion of the vote based on gender.

The way I see it, the few idiot men who would vote against Hilary because of her gender would have voted againt any democrat.
OTOH, the foolish women who will vote for Hilary only because she is a woman are going to be a small but important part of the swing vote.

So if I was asked by the right, I'd say pick your best woman and run with her. Get gender out of the race, and let it be issues based.

But the right loses on issues too. Sure, there's been a conservative swing, but, if it goes how I see it going, the country is going to be swirling in the toilet by 08, and any change will be perceived as a good change.

Whoever in the Republican party wants to be president should be coming out now to speak out against bush . . . and say . . .

end the war,
cut spending,
balance the budget,
get our fiscal house in order - the American family is about to go under. THen you'd look like a prophet instead of a "I can give more handouts than Hilary" johny come lately.

end the war,
cut spending,
balance the budget,
get our fiscal house in order - the American family is about to go under. THen you’d look like a prophet instead of a “I can give more handouts than Hilary” johny come lately.

At the end of any administration the pendulum does tend to swing in the opposite direction. I'm not sure the right would need a woman, but Hillary is already known and the gender+recognition factor will be a potent combo. Personally I think most candidates are going to promise the above agenda.... delivery is another matter altogether.

OK SactoQT, one more question before I leave my wife for you . . .

What did you think of the following movies . . .

Lost in Translation
Groundhogs Day
Ghost
Razor's Edge

Ahhhh, you must be a Bill Murray fan. ( Except Ghost)

Lost in Translation-- haven't seen yet.
Groundhog's Day-- one of the funniest movies ever (liked What About Bob too)
Ghost-- Liked it when I saw it in the theatre, but I remember it being a bit predictable.
Razor's Edge-havent' seen.

OK.

If you want me to pack up and move out west, you're going to have to check out the other two movies.

Funny thing is, I was never a Bill Murray fan. I very much dislike him in stupid comedic roles. Everything he did on SNL. Stripes. Ghostbusters. All those, to me, were really crap comedy that anybody with a skosh of talent on coke could do.

But when I saw him in GHD, where he mixes humor with seriousness, I thought he was awesome.

As for LIT and Razor's edge, all I can say is that, compared to most of the crap coming out of HW today, each of those movies is worth a watch.

I remember coming out of LIT and hearing a young woman say, "I didn't get it," and I thought, "how very very sad."

As far as movies generally go, I'm kind of goofy. I'm not a girly girl movie wise. I'm an action movie kind of gal. I also like some science fiction, and I'll watch an Indian Jones movie at the drop of a hat. I really liked Batman Begins but I'm not a fan of earlier Batman movies. I like black comedies too. Mr. and Mrs. Smith was hilarious.

Is my wife the only spouse who read this blog?

Before you think I'm a complete idiot, here's my take on movies and books (I'm an avid reader too).

I think they should be pretty much pure entertainment. I think my everyday life is tedious enough without my entertainment being that way too. I'll never be an Oprah book club fan because who wants to read some depressing story about a woman who's child drowns and her "journey" after that? I sure don't. Give me a John Sanford good old detective novel and I'm happy. Movies can fit into multiple categories. I like mindless action, it's all in good fun. Drama's have got to be smart but if they're too depressing I tend to tune out. Comedies should be smart too. I'm not a big fan of slapstick.

Is my wife the only spouse who read this blog?

It would seem that way. We're just joking, aren't we?

Alright, I'm probably gunnuh b takin a powder for a week or two. I can barely see my monitor over the work that's piling up.

What's that Nietze said? Pride at a days work well done is simply a way to keep a man from thinking about things that matter? Something like that. Always loved that quote.

Peter P - Seriously, would your wife mind? If my wife gave me crap about writing on a bulletin board, jeez, that would be too much. Someone that crazy jealous would be tough to deal with.

Good night and take care of your neighbor - even if em doesn't deserve it . . .

Oh, you were just joking?

;-)

I like dark movies that are thought-provocative. Here are some of my all time favorites:

The Manchurian Candidate (1962)
The Wicker Man (1973)
Fahrenheit 451 (1966)
Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970)

One last thought . . .

I'm a horrible person for finding the following laugh out loud funny . . .

who wants to read some depressing story about a woman who’s child drowns and her “journey” after that?

Bad bad bad man.

Nite all.

Peter P - Seriously, would your wife mind? If my wife gave me crap about writing on a bulletin board, jeez, that would be too much. Someone that crazy jealous would be tough to deal with.

I was joking too. ;)

I’m a horrible person for finding the following laugh out loud funny . . .

Bad bad bad man.

I guess I'm worse for having written it. What can I say?

So we are wandering far afield here, but I really have to ask this question, since I have wondered this for a long time and you two have opinions I respect:

What is it about Bill Clinton that makes you dislike him so?

I don't have particularly strong feelings about him one way or another. I thought he was a decent president, better than average, but not great by any means. I don't particularly like him as a person, but I don't particularly dislike him either. I think he has an unusually strong desire to be liked by people, especially for one as old and successful as he is. I find that a bit sad, even slightly pathetic. Is that it?

I was astonished by the strong personal smear campaign against him. I even grew to feel a bit sorry for him after all the etc..gate, mostly made up attempts, imho, to try and sling mud at him.

I don't think he should have had an affair with Monica Lewinksi, and I think he handled it wrong when it came out. I think he just should have stood on his right to privacy, rather than lying to America about it.

But is there something else, something more visceral? I can certainly understand the visceral thing, since Bush generates an unreasonable loathing in me. I can explain why if you like, but suffice to say that I recognize it as unreasonable and shouldn't really get in my way of my ability to assess his quality as a president, but it does.

But is there something else, something more visceral? I can certainly understand the visceral thing, since Bush generates an unreasonable loathing in me. I can explain why if you like, but suffice to say that I recognize it as unreasonable and shouldn’t really get in my way of my ability to assess his quality as a president, but it does.

It was visceral for me. It wasn't as much that he lied but that he was so good at it that was disturbing to me. I also found his ability to cry at opportune moments disturbing. He just always seemed so phony to me. I felt he was more concerned about appearances than reality and I thought he catered his administration to what the polls were saying rather than what was right for the country. Just my opinion.

SQT,
Love Sandford books! Not much to brag about but I'm pretty sure I've read every "prey" novel (I don't read much "meaningful" stuff either...except some history of science lit).
Lucas Davenport is the most hilarious detective character I've ever come across.
g'nite.

Ok, I was asked, so . . .

First, Bush rubs me the wrong way because I perceive 1.- he lied about Iraq 2.-he ran as a fiscal conservative but he's really a borrow and spend liberal 3.-he puts corporate success before all else. Other than that, I think he's a decent man. I wouldn't choose him as my president, but I would be comfortable with one of my daughters visiting his ranch.

Carter, for example, i liked very much. I consider him to be a fine human being. Miserably incorrect with regards to how to run a government, but that doesn't make me dislike him.

Bill, on the other hand, I find to generally be a dispicable human being. I think he'd sell his grandmother for 10 bucks, and then keep the money and welch on the deal so he can resell her.

He is, put differently, a scoundrel of the worst kind. What gets lost in the whole lewinsky thing is that this guy lies about everything and anything. I loathe liars. The people who support this guy - I can only guess because they find him charming or they like his politics - tend to focus on the whole "privacy issue" of the lewinsky thing. What gets left out and ignored when they do that, however, is the following list of personality flaws . . .

1. The guy lies about everything. He'll lie to Peter to try to get into heavan. He won't. One of my few consolations if I go south when I die is I'm going to have a little fun with Bill.
2. The guy has been involved in so many questionable dealings, it's hard to imagine that the guy is not dirty.
3. The guy seems to have no priciples other than "do what's best for me." Ask the gay community what Bill did for them. Why didn't he help more? Because backing the gays might have cost him reelection. So much for principle.

There's a lot more, but why go on. The man lacks character more than most human beings, and that, to me, is really saying something.
As embarrasses as I am to have Bush as our president, at least I can look at somebody and say, "well, maybe he is no smarter than a well-trained chimp, but he's a decent man who cares about your children."

So if me and Bush, Bush II, Carter, Reagan, lots of ex prezs were in the bush in Vietnam surrounded by Vietcong who we knew were goiing to torture us to death, I'd look over at them and we'd agree we're going down fighting.

Clinton? He'd nod, "yeah DC, we're going down fighting." Then he'd shoot me in the back and try to negotiate with the VC.

I don't know how else to say it. I think the guy did a damn good moderate job as President. He did less damage than either Bush did. But he's a piece of human garbage.

Can't find the post, but somebody recently posted on one of the primary issues with health care in the US - that old, dying folks are kept alive at a huge expense. Here're some numbers . . .

"For instance, the study found that new pacemakers could cost Medicare and other insurers $1.4 million for every extra year of life they add. In comparison, healthcare economists often use $100,000 per added year of life as the maximum of benefit worth paying by the government insurer. In another example, the study predicted the use of tumor-strangling drugs would mean $498,809 per additional life-year."

Big big numbers.

Another thing about Clinton. When I went to school in Japan (pre-Lewinsky) the students I talked to thought it was hilarious that we had Clinton as our president. They would actually laugh when talking about him. This was the first time I got the impression that he was a joke to the rest of the world. Obviously Bush hasn't made a more favorable impression but at least other nations know he'll put his money where his mouth is. They knew Clinton wouldn't.

Many people dislike Bush because of the war in Iraq. However, they should be reminded that the war in Kosovo under Clinton was illegal.

I also have to address my earlier post before everyone thinks I have no heart.

who wants to read some depressing story about a woman who’s child drowns and her “journey” after that?

The reason I can't read something like this is that it hits too close to home. I don't want to stay up all night weeping over a fictitious story that makes me think "what if this happened to my child?" Oprah always has books that are about "life journeys" and they usually involve humans treating eachother in the worst ways humanly possible. I'm sorry but that's not entertainment to me. If I am going to spend some time winding down with a book or movie I want it to make me forget the things that depress me. I hope that makes sense.

I actually don't think Bush lied. Maybe that makes me naive. But does anyone really think Saddam was the kind of guy who would give up anything just because the US told him to? How long did we spend waiting while the UN inspectors went in and out of Iraq-- long enough for Saddam to ship anything he didn't want us to find out of the country. Syria has been a pretty open ally, do you think they wouldn't agree to hide weapons for Saddam? I think they would. I also watched an interview with a nuclear scientist who said Saddam tortured him in order to coerce him into building him a nuclear bomb. I don't think the guy was making it up.

I also read another book (I'll have to look up which one) that documented incidences of UN inspectors giving the all clear to facilities in Iraq that were later found to have been producing Anthrax. When confronted with it Saddam basically shrugged and went "my bad." The guy repeatedly did whatever the hell he wanted to and thumbed his nose at the US because he knew Russia and Germany, who had all kinds of deals going with him that benefitted them financially, would try to keep the US out of Iraq, and that's exactly what they did.

I gotta go now, but I'll try to find some of the sources I've read on the subject.

Don’t you think we would have found SOMETHING there? Just seems strange that we’ve basically found nothing, not a trace (or so it would seem).

From what I've read there were UN inspectors who were from countries that were doing back-door deals with Saddam and basically encouraged to look the other way. I'm not saying all the inspectors were dirty, but I understand that there were times when there were chemical and biological weapons being produced but the inspectors claimed to find nothing. After the US entered, who can say?

I guess it boils down to what we believe in our guts. I believe Saddam is evil and that we have seen proof enough of what he is capable of doing. I just don't believe he would give up weapons once he had his hands on them.

Do I think the Bush administration made the threat seem much more imminent than it was? Yes I do? Do I think the world is a better place without Saddam in power? Yes.

Do I think the world is a better place without Saddam in power? Yes.

Is Saddam evil? Yes. Is the world better without him? I do not know. What if someone more evil somehow took his place because of a power vacuum?

That said, I do not blame Bush for this war in particular.

Is Saddam evil? Yes. Is the world better without him? I do not know. What if someone more evil somehow took his place because of a power vacuum?

Yeah, always a potential for that. I'm just glad Saddam's son's can't take power.

I’m just glad Saddam’s son’s can’t take power.

Absolutely. I worried a lot more about Uday than Saddam himself.

Yeah, I agree, I’m VERY interested to see what comes of the whole mess with Annan’s son, not because I’m anti-UN, but because a good Enron/Worldcom shakeout is good for all in the end.

I am not anti-UN because there is no need to oppose a rubber stamp.

There’s one thing that I think separates the value of overthrowing Iraq from, say, the value of overthrowing brutal leaders in Sudan, Rwanda, etc, and that thing is oil.

Sadly, we will see more and more global conflicts due to resources like oil.

Sleepless

Excellent excellent points. It's always made me uncomfortable when we go to war to overthrow one evil leader and ignore atrocities committed elsewhere. You are absolutely right that there has to be another motivation. Bush claimed it was an imminent threat to the US, others say oil.

One question, how does the war benefit us in regards to oil? I honestly have never heard it spelled out in a way that makes it beneficial for the US to spend so much and what the returns might be.

There was an excellent PBS documentary on the subject, basically the invasion is part of the "Bush Doctrine". A wholesale remaking of the middle east. It is similiar to the old dominio theory of commie expansion.

Look, the point was already made, I just reiterate.

We aren't in Iraq to be the good guys. There are plenty of places where goodness is needed. There are sex slaves in Thailand. There are regular slaves in africa. There are child laborers in China. There are mass ethnic killings in Africa.

Even if I swallowed the big pill and concluded the guy didn't exagerate/lie to us to get us into war in the Middle East, I still think "WMD" was no reason to go.

Hussein didn't want anything other than to stay in power and get fat. He wasn't a threat to us. Just my opinion.

With regards to McCain - Saw him in Hartford about 6 years ago. The guy was great in person. I liked this quote . . .
"Remember what Chairman Mao always says . . . It's always darkest before it's absolutely black."

I like McCain. If he teams with Hillary, they could beat Reagan and FDR.

One problem I have with the guy is during his last campaign he freely used the word "gook" around reporters. I don't think that's ok, regardless of your honorable military past.

To tie in to the clinton/bush thoughts - McCain is an honorable man, and for that I will find him more tolerable than most.

While I am not condoning Sen. McCain's slur, I think that his time in the Hanoi Hilton gives him a bit of leeway on using it. My Grandfather could never refer to the Japanese as anything other than japs or even worse, nips. I think when one is tortured by another group it clouds your feelings for said group, forever.

"One question, how does the war benefit us in regards to oil?"

People like me see Iraq as our warning shot over the bow to the rest of the world.

Our govt. knows that the end of cheap oil is near. They further know that our greatest vulnerability as a nation is energy. Certainly the current oil/gas/ngas prices support that.

Japan had the same issue when they attacked us - they knew we would choke off their resources and they'd lose.

So one view - mine - is that Iraq was our way of saying to the world - "when the shit gets tight, the line starts right here, behind us." I read that in some article, and I think it's right.

That's what really bugs me about the whole war -the pretense - we're their to protect our economy, not to rescue Iraqis.