Happy New Year!

Well what better time than now to review the year that has gone by.

-The news of the year was dominated by the U.S. Presidential Election, in the end nothing changed as Bush was reelected for four more years. For once I had an interest in politics because I felt that my candidate had a better chance of positively affecting my life than his opposition. It was a fun and interesting experience learning so much about both candidates and their politics.
-In sports the year started out strong for UCF as our basketball team won their conference and made an appearance in the NCAA tournament. I attended the largest crowd for a UCF basketball game and like most games it was fun (even though we lost that game).
-The sports year would later turn sour with the disastrous Miami Dolphins and UCF Knights football seasons, and the extremely dissapointing UM Hurricanes season. It would end well as the Dolphins finally got a new coach in Nick Saban and the Hurricanes would win their bowl game against the hated UF Gators.
-The basketball season ended strong in 2004 with the 13 game winning streak the Miami Heat are currently on, with the help of their new center Shaquille O'Neal.
-In 2004 the curse of the Bambino was finally lifted as the Boston Red Sox won the World Series for the first time since they traded Babe Ruth. The Yankee fan in me cried. Good luck next year Cubs!
-In movie news Mel Gibson stirred audiences with his The Passion of the Christ. In my opinion one of the greatest movies ever made.
-Michael Moore stirred movie audiences in a different way with the release of his contreversial documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. The movie would go on to become the highest grossing documentary of all time.
-The war in Iraq continued to get worse as the death toll steadily rose. Currently elections seem in jeopardy.
-In Aerospace news the first commercial space flight was completed and the coveted X-Prize was won by Burt Rutan and Scaled Composites with their SpaceShipOne space vehicle. The future looks brighter than ever.
-The year ended with some both amazing and terrible environmental news. The state of Florida was hit by four hurricanes, three of them going over Central Florida. In even worse news on the day after Christmas a terrible typhoon hit South Asia and eastern Africa as a result of a magnitude 9.0 earthquake. The death toll continues to rise and is currently at 150,000.

some of the year's events could have been predicted, others were unpredictable but they all defined 2004. Hopefully 2005 will bring a safer world, a healthier world, a more loving world, and a better football season for me. I wish the same for all of you out there.

Happy New Year 2005!

for a review of my personal 2004 experience visit http://www.livejournal.com/users/skyofoctober/

Merry Christmas everyone (one day late)! It's a special day for those in my faith because yesterday (Christmas) was a celebration of the human birth of our God. Christians celebrate this day because this day is practically the beginning of Christianity (otherwise known as Judaisim Part 2).

Recently I have begun to have a problem with people not of the Christian religion celebrating this most holy day. I do not have a problem with non-believers celebrating ON this day, but instead it is a problem with non-believers celebrating on this day in the name of Christmas. These people do not believe in the religious importance of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, yet they celebrate as if they did. I appreciate it when Pagans (not devil woshipping in case you were confused) celebrate near this time and call it Yule. They don't believe in Christianity and therefore do not celebrate the Christmas holiday. You don't see Christians celebrating Hannukah or Ramadan. In fact it would almost seem mocking if they did.

Even more preposterous is the idea of things like Chrismaka (aka Christmas and Hannukah combined). The only way I see this working if the person who celebrates it is Christian and also wishes to celebrate the Jewish holidays (for religious reasons, not for the purpose of receiving gifts). For a Jew to celebrate this is both an insult to Christianity and Judaism. A celebration of Christmas implies a belief in the birth of Christ, something that Judaism obviously lacks.

Someone should set up a non-religious holiday for the non-religious to celebrate on Christmas. I don't want anyone to be left out of the joys of gift giving and receiving, but I would like that Christmas be kept out of it. In fact here is what I propose: Christmas is about the birth of Jesus Christ, it should focus on him and nothing else. Let's not give gifts on Christmas day. For Christians we should spend this time meditating and praying on this blessed event (in whichever way they feel is best, whether that means going to church or whatever). Let's move this gift giving away from Christmas and establish a new holiday. I propose a date inbetween Christmas and New Year's Day. On this day we will all (all faiths and all beliefs) wake up in the morning and find presents under our tree (this pine tree really has nothing to do with Christianity anyways). This day will be a day where we will celebrate the love we have for our fellow human beings no matter their race or religion. We will celebrate this by giving each other gifts and good wishes for the new year. One day dedicated to leaving our differences aside and just enjoying our fellow man. I think all religions would agree that such unity would be approved by our loving God (or Gods).

I think a good date would be December 31st, so that we can end every year on a good note. So on December 31st I wish you all a very happy and joyous...ummm....I need to work on the name....but...Day!

Want a FREE XBOX? or a FREE Playstation 2? or maybe a FREE GameCube?

If so click here: http://consoles.prizecube.com/?ref=8307

all you have to do is sign up for one of the offers (lots of free trials) and then refer three other people. It does work! I've seen it work! So help me out by getting yourself a free game system.

remember you must click here: http://consoles.prizecube.com/?ref=8307

I recently came across this website (http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm) that tried to correlate state IQs with who they voted for in the last presidential election. The writer boasted how "in the first 24 hours over 540,000+ people viewed this page!" I know it has become on the internet a popular point among those defeated Kerryites. But the fact is that the chart was false. In fact the website itself mentions how a similar chart published in 2000 by the Economist was found to be untrue.

From the Economist:
"Last week we published a list that purported to show the IQs of states voting for George Bush and Al Gore in 2000. Alas, we were the victim of a hoax: no such data exists."

This new chart is as much a misrepresentation of the truth as that one made in 2000.

From isteve.com:

"To give you a sense of why people familiar with IQ testing instantly scoffed at the validity of the hoax data claiming the average IQ in Connecticut was 113 and in Utah was 87, it's important to understand how IQ tests are scored. The mean is typically set at 100 and the standard deviation at 15. This means that Utah's average person would fall 1 and 11/15th standard deviations lower than the average person in Connecticut. Using the Normdist function in Excel, you can easily put this on a percentile basis. This hoax data therefore implies that a Utah resident of average intelligence (50th percentile) would be only at the 4th percentile in Connecticut. The average person in Connecticut (50th percentile) would suddenly be at the 96th percentile if they moved to Utah. Well, that's nonsense."

In fact here's a complete debunking of all these charts:

http://www.isteve.com/Web_Exclusives_Archive-May2004.htm#38115.6465670139

but wait there's more! Here's a seperate chart with different results:
http://sq.4mg.com/IQpolitics.htm

What I think is really happenning here is sore loser liberals who are trying to make excuses for their losses in 2000 and 2004. It seems thats they want to make themselves feel superior to those who think differently than they do. Well they are somewhat accomplishing that. It has become clear after this last election (where the Democrats lost the presidency and seats in both house of Congress) that the majority (yes over 50% is the majority) of Americans feel disconnected with the Democratic party. This has become a party that many Americans see as serving Hollywood and the elite. The common American feels it can not vote for a party that seems so far from their core values.

To but it bluntly, the Democratic party is in deep shit. The Republicans have controlled Congress since the first years of the Clinton presidency. Their power has increased with time, and is now stronger than ever. Its no surprise that Democrats are talking about change within the party. They need it. Clinto was a bright light in a Democratic black hole. Lets think about this in terms of Presidents. Starting with the results of 2004: Republican, Republican, Democrat, Democrat, Republican, Republican, Republican, Democrat, Republican, Republican, Democrat, Democrat, Republican....

In the present the reality is this: The Democratic party continues to lose seats in Congress, the Republicans have the majority of Governers, and the President is a Republican. Even more amazing is that the Democrats lost the Presidency after 8 very prosperous years for the country, the Democrats then lost the Presidency again to an incumbent President (incumbents usually lose) who presided over an unpopular war and an economic downturn. This is a major failure.

Now, people are talking about a possible Hillary Clinton run in 2008 and making Howard Dean the new Democratic National Commitee chair, and it just seems to me that the Democrats aren't learning their lesson. Both of these candidates both are heroes among the Democratic elite, but to the average American they are that very same elite that they feel disconnected from. Clinton was able to reach out to most Americans, Bush has done the same, now why can't the Democrats learn this lesson? They ran a robot in 2000 and Frankenstein in 2004. Will they ever learn?

I'm voting for Bush. That's right President George W. Bush is getting my vote for re-election. How could I vote for that Nazi bastard you ask? Well I have two words for you: Space Travel. Oh yeah and Bush is not a Nazi, but back to Space Travel. I am a Rocket Scientist in training and as a Rocket Scientist in training my future is dependent on the advancement of human space flight. As some of you may have heard Bush has pushed for NASA to send humans back to the Moon and then to Mars. When he made that announcement he was guaranteed my vote. But how could you vote for a man based on such a small thing you ask? Well its not a small thing for me, its my future, but I'll give you more reasons. Actually, what I will do is disprove every reason people have given for voting against our current president.

iraq

When some world leaders disagreed with our decision to invade Iraq it was regretful, their help was and is still needed, but we must not leave our foreign policy in the hands of anyone but ourselves. People criticize Bush for invading Iraq for personal reasons. I believe that in fact he did invade for personal reasons (partially to fix his father's failures, to remove a thorn on America's side, and a deeply personal belief that the removal of Hussein was essential to the good of the world). But do not think for a second that the greatest dissenters of this war did not make their vote based on unselfish reasons. Both France and Germany were making millions in business with the Hussein regime. A regime change would have been very bad to them, so obviously they voted against the war. That was the correct course of action for them.

SO why was it right for us? I can't tell you why it was right for you, but I can tell you why it was right for me. Saddam Hussein is a monster, a monster who gassed, tortured, and killed his own people. I can not stand by and watch men of such evil hold so much power. This man had controled Iraq for decades and he had ruled with an iron fist. When he first came to power he had all government officials meet in the capital. And in that meeting he named government officials that were political enemies of his, and one by one these people were escorted out of the building. Needless to say these men were never heard from again. I have seen video of this event (which by the way was televised on Iraqi national tv for all to see) and it is terrible to see the horror on the faces of these men, when their names were being called. Saddam began his rule by instilling fear on all who would oppose him.

During his many years in power he has also participated in the elimination of certain ethnic groups in Iraq. He has used chemical weapons against his own people. I have also seen video of this. Video of an entire town dead, bodies lying everywhere. The people look like they just fell asleep as they went about their daily lives. The gas that was used, killed these people a few minutes after they inhaled it. It is a sad sight to see a mother holding her baby, both lying on the floor dead.

Saddam hasn't been too friendly to his neighbors either. He has fought for several years in a war against Iran, and he invaded the small neighboring country of Kuwait. Not to mention that during the Gulf War he launched missiles at many other countries.

He had to be removed from power loooong ago. It should have been the U.N. who did this, but they did not. The U.N. did what it always does, it waited around for the problem to fix itself.

The war in Iraq was the correct course of action. The only mistake of that war was the inadequate preparation for the aftermath. But even with the best preparation this insurgency would have still happenned. This is a place where power is up for grabs, it is no wonder that fighting has sprung up. Regarding the deaths of American soldiers I deeply regret it, I regret the death of any human being. But this is not a draft military, these men chose to be there, this is not Vietnam. If this was Vietnam and there was a draft and there were soldiers there who did not want to fight, I would feel differently. But the military of today is all voluntary, they want to do this, they are paid to do this, let them do their job. I'm sorry that they have families who suffer for them, but they chose this course.

economic policy

Here is an issue that at first was going to be the Democrat's main attack on Bush. Under Bush it is no secret that the economy has suffered terribly, but the fact of the matter is that he can not be blamed for this. Back in 2000, when everyone was worrying about hanging chads, reports were coming in about a declining U.S. economy. Partly due to the boom and bust era of online businesses, and party due to the cyclic nature of world economies. I even commented at the time to a friend of mine who was an ardent Bush supporter that he should hope Bush loses the election, because whoever wins will not win reelection because he will be blamed for the failings of the economy. My prediction has come true, and the attacks on 9/11 did not help the economy at all. The aerospace industry is an industry I'm very familiar with, and it was hit hard by those attacks. Business slowed, and slowed, and continued to slow. Airlines were hurt and so were airplane manufacturers. Many people criticize Bush's tax cut, a tax cut which espouses the idea of trickle down economics. The problem with this idea is that it takes time to take effect. Companies make more money and therefore hire more employees, whether this is true or not is hard to predict. But look at it this way, if a tax cut is given only to the poor what happens? The poor get more money one year, but they're still unemployed. AT least the trickle down idea gives the possibility of more job creation.

Whats wrong with John Kerry?
Well lets keep this simple and focus on his vision for the future of America. He envisions a future where we are less dependent on foreign oil. I don't know if anyone has noticed this, but this has been promised by every presidential candidate in the past half century. Unless Kerry wants to drill Alaska (like Bush) he is going to be just as dependent. No new form of energy production is going to be created in the next 4 years.

Kerry wants to add more troops to the military, and he says Bush wants a draft? Where is the logic in this? Speaking of the troops how can this man lead the troops? This is the same man who called soldiers in Vietnam war criminals, this is the man who wouldn't approve sending troops when Iraq INVADED Kuwait, this is the man who calls our current war a a war in the wrong place and wrong time. How can our troops follow a man who believes what they do is wrong?

His economic policy is the same liberal socialistic ideals of old. Free medicare, social security, unemployment, etc etc. Ladies and gentlemen thats socialism. You know what that means? That means more governmental control of your life. Thats means more taxes. Americans need to finally decide what they want. A socialistic society with high taxes but many government services or a non-socialistic society with low taxes with minimum government services. Its all a matter of control, do you wish to control your life? Then don't vote Kerry and his socialistic ideals into office. Like communism, it's great in theory but in practice its a freaking mess.


final thoughts
and you know what I'm damn tired of all this trendy 'Bush is Hitler' or 'Bush sucks' bullshit from fucking liberal two year olds who have no fucking idea what they are talking about. My best reason to vote for Bush is to spite all you ignorant assholes.

Let me break it down for you:

Bush-Less Government
-War on Terror (broad in scope, preventive)
-Trickle Down Economics (money for the rich, so that they'll hire the poor)
-Conservative appointment of Judges
-Pro advancement in space and military applications (Space missions, jet fighters, tanks, etc.) and science research applications (new drugs, new medical capabilities)
-Pro-Life (anti-abortion)
-Likes guns

Kerry-More Government
-War on Terror (focused on specific threats, reactionary)
-Trickle Up Economics (money for the poor, so that they can last another month being poor)
-Liberal appointment of Judges
-Pro advancement in science research (Funding for research in the sciences with focus on new ideas less applications)
-Pro-Choice (pro abortion)
-Likes guns

They say this is the most important election of our lifetimes, it WILL be close, every vote WILL make a difference, the winner will decide the future course for our country and his legacy will last longer than the 4 years he will be voted into. A wrong choice will have a drastic effect on world history. Don't make the wrong choice...

From the Orlando Sentinel:

"Hurricanes that blew through Florida cost the state 9,500 jobs in September, the first time its booming employment market declined in three years, state officials said today."

Is this the beginning of the end of Bush's chances in Florida? Will W go down the same way his father did in 1992 after Hurricane Andrew?

What a painful football season this is becoming. UCF starts 0-5 and The Miami Dolphins start 0-5 (for the first time ever). With UCF it's more of the same ol' same ol', it's been a long time since UCF has started the season with a winning record. It's not all bad news though since this is still a very young team playing some very good teams (ehem…except Buffalo) . Not to mention I've seen steady improvements which give hope to maybe not this season but to the future of the team. But the Dolphins….now that’s another story. This team might as well be competing for the worst in the nation. The team can't do anything right and if this doesn't get Coach Dave Wannestedt fired then I don't know what will. Just watching them play is agonizing. I remember going to the preseason game against the Jacksonville Jaguars and thinking to myself "This is going to be a loooong season". I think at this point the best thing to root for is the worst record in the NFL, that way we can get the #1 draft pick. I know it’s a defeatist attitude to say that, but reality says it’s the only thing to look forward to. This team needs to be completely reworked starting from the top all the way to the bottom. This may be what this franchise has needed, so many years of being good but not good enough have ruined Miami's chances of getting the best young players in the nation. Now the chance to grab the best talent graduating college will come. Let's just hope they don't screw that up too.

The bright spot of this season has been the Miami Hurricanes and the Jacksonville Jaguars. Miami has once again started 3-0 (although only 1 of those games was a real challenge) and the Jaguars are tied for a league best 3-0. Usually, I'm not a fan of the Jaguars but I have become one since Byron Leftwich became quarterback for the team. For those of you that don't know, Byron was QB at Marshall. What has made Leftwich a favorite for me is what he did his senior season against the University of Akron. In that game both his legs were broken, this usually being a game ending injury (I mean how do you play with two broken legs?) But instead he stayed in the game! He played with two broken legs! Whenever he made a long completion his offensive linemen had to literally pick him up and move him to the new line of scrimmage. In football you always hear that you must play when you're hurt, but this takes it to new extremes. This man played with two broken legs in what became a losing battle. From that game on he has earned my utmost respect and I will always follow his career closely and root for his successes.

Oh…and the Buccaneers suck too.

This is just for you Diane and Clif:

Newsflash! The last two entries have ME saying NOTHING about a timber company. No opinion is given on the matter. The first entry has a New York Times writer commenting on the 2nd presidential debate. The only opinion I gave there was that I thought Bush won the debate. I'm not even quoting FOX news for God's sake, I'm quoting the MOST LIBERAL NEWSPAPER IN THE NATION!

Then on the next entry I take a direct quote from the non-partisan factcheck.org. This entry was specifically made as a reference to this:

"I don't know alot about George Bush but I do know that he did own a small timber company at one point and filled it in his income tax return. Kerry's comment was actually aimed at making fun of this.

Clif"

I just wanted to check what Clif claimed, and lo and behold he was right! But somehow thats construed as:

"Kerry: Bush owns a small timber company.
Dave: Bush owns part of a small timber company."

or even better:

"So, is the point of this to try and mock Kerry's comment again? Because it really doesn't help your cause any. It just proves that Kerry was indeed right about yet another thing and Bush comes off looking retarded for claiming no knowledge about something that's filed on his own financial forms. You need to be less biased and look at all of this more objectively :P"

Where do I claim to make any belief on that matter? And Diane... I really do try to look at things objectively. Which is why I take particular offense to this:

"You damn republicans make me sick."

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, and for that matter I am not a Democrat either. Unlike some people I know I do not let others decide what I believe. Do I tend to agree with Republicans more? Yes I do. Does that make me a Republican? No. Just ask Joe how many times I've fought with him over the evils of the Republican party.

Now since you all seem to want to hear my opinion on the timber company subject I'll give it to you. Does Bush own part of a timber company? Yes. Does he know about it? Maybe not, remember Bush owns the Trust, which in part owns 50% of the timber company. The fact that an oil and gas production trust owns a part of a timber company shouldn't be surprising. Sometimes you've got to cut down some trees to install gas and oil lines. Also, Bush might not even know they own the timber company because he probably did not make the decision to buy it. ANd regarding Bush looking retarded because he didn't know what he has filed on his tax return: Bush is a millionare, you think millionares file their tax return? You realize how many loopholes needed to be exploited? I'm pretty sure Bush hasn't seen a tax return form in quite some time. But in the end all this is irrelevent. We may now have all the facts, but what matters is what people saw in the debate. Most people won't check anything. Thats why Kerry, Bush, and every other politician can make hundreds of promises with no details to back it up. Now THATS politics Clif.

According to FactCheck.org:

"What we originally reported as a "timber-growing" enterprise is actually described on Bush's tax return as an "oil and gas production" concern, the Lone Star Trust. We were confused because The Lone Star Trust currently owns 50% of another company, "LSTF, LLC", described on Bush’s 2003 financial disclosure forms as a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." So, Bush does own part interest in a tree-growing company, but the $84 came from an oil and gas company and we should have reported it as such"

I've said all I want to say about the debates, I believe Bush won this one. But don't want to leave my readers with nothing so here are some quotes from the New York Times LIVE analysis:

"10:10 p.m.
Bush blinks back in amazement when Kerry says, "The President got $84 from a timber company that he owns that he's counted as a small business.'' Bush's timing is impeccable: "I own a timber company?" Pause. "News to me!" Pause. "Need some wood?" Let's hope Kerry comes back and explains this one. "

"10:20 p.m.
Bush seems to have the crowd, which we hear laugh for the first time when he is asked who he would pick for the Supreme Court. "I'm not tellin'!" A sign of confidence. "

"9:34 p.m.
Bush overrides Charlie Gibson to express outrage at Kerry. Bush is forceful tonight, much less hesitant than in the first debate and does not seem to be just filling out his time. He's feisty. Kerry seems wordy. "

I've recently been talking alot of politics here on this website and some of you might find it boring, but never fear I have a football post thats been all written up for over a week now but has been pushed back thanks to all the political talk. But lets get back to politics for a moment.

Why watch the debates? Why care at all when there are other things to do? Well I have to say that if you don't watch the debates you might as well not vote. The debates are usually the place where the candidates are asked important questions and we can see how they compare with each other. Many times I find that people form opinions on certain political candidates just based on hearsay. I have to admit that I am guilty of this also. But this can easily be fixed just by listening to these men speak, to hear it directly from the horse's mouth (in Kerry's case thats quite literal, in Bush's case the chimp's mouth would be more appropriate). So my distinguished viewer please don't be ignorant, please watch the debates, please learn about both candidates instead of just listening to just one side. This election (like every election) is important. It's unfortunate that many times we have to choose from the lesser of two evils, but let's try to choose the less painful route.

P.S. Whoever wins Florida wins the election as long as the states that are Strongly Bush and Strongly Kerry remain the same. Even if Kerry wins all the other swing states it won't matter, Florida WILL decide the winner of this election. (Go check it out on the New York Times graphic at http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/2004_ELECTIONGUIDE_GRAPHIC/?oref=login
you must be a member to use it. )

Tonight was the vice presidential debate and it was of course Dick "The Ice Man" Cheney versus John "Pretty Boy" Edwards. Once again, like the last debate, I believe both candidates did a reasonable job presenting their cases. John Edwards (unlike his running mate) did not look nervous in the least and seemed extremely confident in his case. This of course is not surprising since he is a trial lawyer. Dick Cheney on the other hand also looked confident in what he said, but his stance was less than desirable I would have to say. Cheney's posture was not very good and not very welcoming, but this is not surprising after observing him for four years. Both men exude what they are: Edwards a successful lawyer and Cheney a successful businessman.

In regards to the issues let me talk about gay marriage first. Cheney was obviously uncomfortable with this issue, since he himself is the father of a lesbian. He did not like speaking on the subject, and when he did he did not mention his personal views but the party line. What we did learn was that both presidential tickets do not disagree on the subject. They both are against gay marriage. They both want the states to decide the issue, but their preference is that gay marriage not be legalized. The End.

Once again the topic of Iraq was brought up, and nothing new was presented here. Here we have two candidates with two fundamentally different positions on the same events. Bush-Cheney see it as a positive event that while difficult is improving. Kerry-Edwards see it as a negative that is getting worse as time goes on. Cheney brought hope into the situation when he mentioned similar events in recent world history and their positive outcome. He also mentioned Libya's disarmament (supposedly as a direct result of the attack on Iraq). He also talked about the terrorists in Iraq that were supported under Saddam.

What Cheney did not answer was how under this administration Iran has advanced its missile technology to the point it is at now. Iran now has the ability to attack Europe or Israel with a missile attack (with nuclear weapons not being out of the question). How did this happen? If there is one thing I must criticize this administration on is the complete change in Iran I have seen. Prior to the Bush presidency Iran seemed to be making headway into becoming more moderate in its world views. Then 9/11 happened, and next thing we knew Iran was part of the Axis of Evil. I think we took 20 steps back that Presidential Address. It's no surprise that since then Iran has definitely cooled off on its relationship with us and its progress toward becoming a more moderate state. Unfortunately Edwards didn't give me much to hope for in this situation either, but in the Kerry camp's defense they really don't have much to work with. The situation in Iran is extremely volatile and I see it as extremely dangerous. This is much worse than North Korea because of the region it is located in. The Bush's administration's failure to properly deal with Iran could have an extremely negative effect on the well being of the Western world. That’s all I have to say about that for the time being.

Now back to the debate…Vice President Cheney clearly showed the total inexperience of his opponent. John Edwards has barely been in the senate and if he wins this election he will be a heartbeat away from the presidency. I don't know about you, but I find this to be totally ridiculous. Experience isn't everything, but I must say its worth a lot. Luckily for the Kerry-Edwards ticket, the presidential candidate has 30 years experience in the field. What I also saw in Edwards was a move back to the idea of the meaningless Vice President. Edwards was all John Kerry this, John Kerry that, I didn't see a man who was going to contribute anything special to his position (a position that really goes undefined into what his job is exactly). Cheney seemed more part of "the team", a real advisor with real input. This is something that I enjoy in the Bush presidency, the idea of its not just one man, but a team working together to make decisions. Kerry-Edwards definitely do not look like this.

In the end who would I say won the debate? Last time I said that either Bush won or they tied, and it seems most analysts disagreed with me on that position. Upon reconsideration I believe that the last debate was a tie on the issues and a Kerry win on presentation. In that last debate Bush's um..umms had more of an effect on people's perceptions of him than I would have imagined (you'd think people would be used to it by now). People as usual ignored the fact that Kerry was all talk with nothing to back him up (and in fairness I would have to say I ignored the fact that Bush was a broken record repeating the same thing over and over without adding anything new). The last debate was boring; this one…was less boring. Every once in awhile we saw some tempers flare, and seeing Iceman Cheney was entertaining to watch. But let me get back to the point. Who won? I would have to say neither made leeway into the issues, neither made his views absolutely superior to the others. But like I said before Cheney clearly brought to light Edwards' slim resume in regards to political experience (and apparently Senate attendance). Edwards didn't bring anything new to the table, and for every personal criticism he threw at Cheney he was guilty of the same. Cheney won this debate, but the question is not who won the debate but who is perceived to have won the debate. There is a fundamental difference between the two, and for the perception I can not say. The polls will reveal that to us.

On a side note, since the last debate Kerry has made significant advances in the polls. What used to be a slight Bush lead has become a virtual tie. This is obviously good news. But let me remind you, my gentle readers, that we do not elect presidents based on the popular vote. This was made clear last election when Gore won the popular vote, yet was not proclaimed the winner of the election. The Electoral College is what counts, and so what really counts is individual state polls. Under these polls Bush has a (close but) strong lead. If the election were to occur today, Bush would be reelected. Remember, the polls although good for gauging the opinion of the nation are completely meaningless in predicting the winner of this election.

Saw round one of the Presidential debates tonight right here in Florida at the University of Miami. I think that both candidates did a good job in the debate and I didn't see any huge mistakes by either one. It was a pretty plain and unsurprising debate. But mistakes were definitely made on both sides. Kerry's first mistake and I think maybe one of the more dangerous mistakes he could have made was his lack of looking directly into the camera. While Bush from the get go looked directly into the camera (and in effect was speaking directly to the American people), Kerry took a long time to first look into that camera. Kerry was following the traditional rules of debate (which traditionally in scholarly settings are not taped) and looked directly at Jim Leherer (the moderator) and sometimes at the audience. While this should make no difference in people's opinions, in reality it affects people's perception of the candidate. This makes Kerry look somewhat untrustworthy and it makes Bush look like a confident leader. I'm sure this will be corrected by the next debate.

Both candidates showed that they were nervous, but this was especially pronounced in Kerry's case (I don't blame the guy). He was visibly shaken and he became so stiff and wooden it seemed he was doing an Al Gore impression. Luckily for him he really loosened up a lot towards the middle. And by loosened up I mean he looked slightly human.

A few times while talking, Bush got lost in what he was trying to say. A few um…um…ums were mixed into what he said, which (as everyone knows) is a big no-no in public speaking. I know people think Bush is a chimp but he really shouldn't try to give them sound clips. Kerry did not make this verbal gaffe at all, and he gets two style points for that.

Another thing I noticed was that while Kerry spoke Bush looked directly at Kerry, while on the other hand when Bush spoke Kerry never looked at Bush and was taking notes hardcore. Don't see any major significance in that, just thought I'd mention it. So remember, if you vote Kerry he'll take note!

Both candidates tried to look caring and compassionate by mentioning their meetings with the families of fallen soldiers. I think that was a good move (and a very predictable move), but Bush seemed to have pulled it off better. Kerry seemed too factual about it (something I can't put my finger on). Bush seemed…I don't know…more fatherly. This also isn't surprising since Bush (much like Clinton) has a very personal touch (which works greatly in his favor just liked it worked for Clinton). Everyone knows people like to be touched.

Now let's get into the nitty-gritty about what they said. The details (which were not clearly given) about the whole thing. The thrust of the debate if you will.

Kerry said that under the Bush administration not enough has been done to protect America, that there are still holes in which the terrorists can slip through our grasps. That’s probably true, and I would say that’s true no matter who is president, when there's a will there is always a way. The specific comment that caught my attention was regarding x-raying luggage that goes into commercial airplanes. Kerry said that we x-ray the luggage but then we don't x-ray the cargo-hold in which the luggage goes in. Now let's think about this for a little bit here. X-Ray the cargo-hold? How in God's name do you do that? Are we supposed to build an airplane sized X-ray machine? (I'm sorry; the engineer in me won't let that slide)

Did anyone else notice Kerry likes the word "kill"?

Did anyone else notice Bush thinks the Iraqi quagmire (ha! I love that word) is a lot of "hard work"?

I think the candidates definitely needed to repeat themselves more. I sure like repetition.

For those of you that saw the debate you know that very little was said about Iraq. I tried to grasp what the candidates wanted to say about this little problem and summarized it here for you to read:
Bush's plan for Iraq is simple: Stay the course, get the job done, use voluntary troops, let freedom ring, Amen, Halleluiah. Kerry's plan for Iraq is a little different: Do a better job (somehow), add two new military divisions and more special forces (from the magical land of make believe apparently), get world approval ("the global test" if you will), and wham bam thank you ma'mm start to move out of Iraq in six months. Now let's get back to reality ladies and gentlemen. Where does Kerry plan to get these new soldiers? People say Bush wants a draft, but under Kerry's plan we'll NEED a draft. Regarding the "global test", Bush said it best when he said: "trying to be popular when it's not in our best interest makes no sense."

If there's one thing Kerry definitely is, it's that he is ambitious. He plans to fix Iraq in six months and start to move out (which is funny since most analysts believe that this is going to be a decade long stay to get the job done correctly). He also has plans to get rid of North Korea's nuclear weapons (I guess he wants to go back to the good ol' days, a.k.a. the past 50 years, when we just bribed the North Koreans to keep it in their pants) Most impressive of all is that he plans to get rid of all nuclear arms in Russia in less than four years! Sure, Superman did it all in one day when he threw them into the sun, but that’s just ridiculous! Four years? That’s impressive stuff right there ladies and gentlemen.

Oh oh I almost forgot, did anyone know that John Kerry fought in Vietnam? I mean before this debate I had no idea! I'm sure glad he kept reminding us so frequently, you know how we Americans have such small attention spans. Thanks John!

There's so much more to talk about this debate, but I think this post has been long enough. So let me summarize it quickly for you.
Bush: Protect America
Kerry: Protect America

Best remark of the night was when Bush said: "won't hold anything against him that he went to Yale"

Skull and Bones: 1 - World: 0

Recently, I had a discussion with a friend about several controversial topics that we disagree on. This was as a result of a previous discussion on who we are voting for in the upcoming presidential election. All this got me thinking as to the sad situation we have in this country. The presidential election is no longer a time to pick the best candidate, but a time to pick the least harmful candidate. In this election we are once again put up against two extremes of the line, Bush leaning strongly to the right and Kerry leaning strongly to the left. Between the two they are fighting to look like they lean slightly more to the middle. Where have all the moderates gone? The only ones I see are Colin Powell, Joe Lieberman, and John McCain. Extreme is the word in American politics today, and its very scary. Moral choices must be thrown out the window because each candidate makes immoral stands on issues. One candidate (Bush) strongly opposes equal rights for all Americans (gay marriage) but supports the protection of life (abortion) and then goes ahead and supports the destruction of life (death penalty). The other candidate (Kerry) supports equal rights for all Americans (gay marriage) but supports the destruction of life (abortion). The fact is that both candidates support morally abhorrent things, and in effect to choose a candidate our morals must be thrown out the window and we must be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.

Something else that scares me about this election is the baseless blaming for anything wrong with the nation. Bush has consistently been slammed by his opponent for the state of the U.S. economy. But the fact of the matter is that the President can not be blamed for the current economic situation. First of all lets look back at when this economic slump began, you'll find this back in the Summer of 2000, long before Bush was elected president (which he was, ladies and gentlemen, he was, no one stole the election, that’s the American electoral college at work for ya, which by the way neither Democrats or Republicans want to change). So how can you blame Bush for a slump that actually started under Clinton? And also let's not forget the negative effect that the attacks of 9/11 added. The fact that the economy is steadily improving is great news (4 years is not a long time in terms of economics). But can Bush take all the credit for this? I'm no economic expert, so I can't say for sure, but what I've heard from some economists is that in effect he can not. The economy, although slightly affected by presidential economic policies, is cyclic in nature. In other words, there are cycles of up swings and down swings. Up and down the economy goes where it will stop nobody knows. So no matter who you elect, you can expect those same swings. In the 2000 election I predicted that whoever became President would be blamed for the economic downturn (DING! Points for me), now for the 2004 election let me predict that whoever wins this election will be praised for leading the economy to an upturn.

Something else that strikes me hilarious about this election is the fighting over Bush's service in the National Guard and Kerry's service in Vietnam. If people want real war heroes then why isn't John McCain, Colin Powell, Bob Dole, or Wesley Clark running for President? The fact is that people really don't care. In 1992 Republicans made a big deal of Bill Clinton dodging the draft and running to England during Vietnam, but the Democrats ignored it and fully supported Mr. Clinton. Now the Democrats are slamming Bush for getting his cushy National Guard service during Vietnam. Why do the Democrats care all of a sudden about service during Vietnam? And can the Republicans really talk about Kerry's Vietnam service, when their candidate was flying around Texas while other Americans were getting killed in Vietnam?

Oh and lets not forget both sides trying to reach out to the poor and try to look like they are one of them. The fact is that both of these guys are richer than any American can ever hope to be. I don't care how many times you hang out at your ranch, or how many times you pose with the factory workers, you're both a bunch of rich Yale boys.

And one more thing…does anybody else realize that both of these guys are member of the same secret society? Both are members of the highly prestigious and highly secretive Skull and Bones Society. So in other words Skull and Bones will have another president in office for the next 4 years.

Whoever wins….we lose?

...and since when did 9/11 become Patriot's Day?

I've decided that for my next update (this very one) I will tell you (my faithful readers) two blogs that I think are very good (they're actually my favorite blogs) and are worth a look (do these constant parantheses interruptions bother you? its like director's commentary, but crappy!)

The first I want to mention is Ghetropolitan Journal , I don't remember how I found this specific blog but I'm happy I did. Every entry is worthwhile reading and very interesting. I'm not too sure of the exact location of this blogger (he keeps mentioning Ghetropolis like a city, but that can't be the name of a real city could it?) but it seems he lives somewhere in the Detroit area (I could be completly off here). His entries vary from long stories to just a bunch of pictures, but no matter what it is, it's interesting.

The second blog I wanted to mention was idiot blog, I found this blog through one of the links in the Ghetropolitan Journal (I think they might be friends). This blog is just as good and very similar to the other one, but with a slight difference. The idiot blog is mainly pictures with little talk.

What these blogs have in common is the pictures (from the Detroit area) they post. The term they use for what they do is urban exploration (according to the webring the idiot blog is a part of). They go around the city and they take pictures of buildings and other things. Many of the places they take pictures of are abandoned. It's all very interesting stuff, and I recommend every one go and visit these two excellent blogs.

On a side note, while writing this entry I noticed that the idiot blog has me listed as a link. If you're reading this I'd like to give you my thanks, I really appreciate it.

Not to sound like a complete nerd but...

THE FREAKING BATMAN BEGINS TRAILER IS OUT!!!!

Holy crap...I've been waiting for so long for this trailer to come out. When it was rumored that it would come out with Catwoman I actually considered going to see that abomination of a movie (thankfully it didn't come to that) just to see it.

Well here it is in all its moody glory: Batman Begins Teaser

Although this trailer barely reveals anything about the movie, I think it's very well done. The fact that we only see Batman in costume at the very end for a millisecond is a very bold and smart move. In fact, without that brief glimpse of Batman and the bat-signal at the end most people might not even realize its a comic book movie. This teaser is trying to show off the dramatic aspects of the movie and less of the superheroes in tights that we've come to expect from comics. If the movie is anything like this trailer then I think we have on our hands the definitive Batman (and maybe comic book) movie. But then again...I'm basing all this on less than a minute of footage, but so what? SO sue me! I'm a freaking comic book nerd! The second I saw that this trailer was online I almost crapped myself. For GOD'S SAKE ITS FREAKING BATMAN!!! BATMAN!!!!

That's right we have reached 300 visitors! And the lucky 300 was 168-215-149-120.gen.twtelecom.net a Windows 2000 user with a resolution of 1024x768

WHO ARE YOU???

EDIT: The 300th visitor has been discovered!!! It was aerodrummer! Go check out his livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/aerodrummer/ 

Thanks for visiting!

I saw I, Robot (starring Will Smith) last night and it was better than I expected it to be. There were several things in the movie that made no sense, but if you just ignore that, the movie was enjoyable enough. The special effects were great and I think the design of the world over 30 years in the future was pretty well done. There were several scenes in the movie that were supposed to be funny (I know this because the audience laughed) but I didn't find funny at all. It was weird, everyone was laughing except me. From what I've been told this movie has absolutely nothing to do with the book (which is a collection of short stories) except for the 3 robot laws. The laws are actually what make this movie enjoyable, and the conclusion that is made in regards to the laws (which wasn't done in the book) I thought was pretty smart and interesting. Overall, the movie is worth seeing if you have nothing to do (and you've seen Spiderman 2 already). It's definitely at least a rental.

I've been wanting to write something up on this blog for some time now but I couldn't come up with anything I'd be interested in writing on. On my last post I called out to you, my loyal readers, to give me some ideas. I've decided to use none of the ideas Joe gave me (seriously Joe...could you get any more general with those? jeez). Instead I will write about a topic that I think about a lot (and hopefully will be somewhat controversial enough for people to comment on it...please comment...please....) What topic is that? RELIGION....dum dum dummmmmm

Now before we begin let me give this little disclaimer: I am a Roman Catholic, but I do not necessarily believe or follow all the rules given to us by the church. I do not hate or dislike any religion, my general idea in regards to other religions is that if you believe in God then good for you.

Now lets get started.

What the hell is wrong with you people? I mean seriously folks..come on! Has anyone else noticed how freaking insane most religions are? I mean lets start off with the Jews. Has anyone read their holy books? Holy freaking shit. The stuff that happens in the Jewish Bible is insane. How can anyone take that stuff and believe it literally? This goes for some of you Protestants too. There is no way you can take what you read in the Old Testament and believe that stuff actually happened. I'm sure a lot of it is based on some sort of past historical events, but lets just say a lot of literary license has been taken (to say the least). One thing I like about Catholicism is that we don't believe that stuff literally happened (most of them are just stories trying to prove a point). It comes to no surprise to me that the people who take this stuff literally are the same people who won't believe in evolution and think the Earth is only a couple thousand years old (cause hell let's disregard all scientific knowledge).

Oh boy and speaking of crazy religious books lets not forget about the Mormons. The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints. These people have an extra book to add to the Bible called the Book of Mormon written by its founder Joseph Smith Jr (I'm sorry...revealed to him by God). The story of the writing of this religious book is quite an....interesting...story. I suggest you read about it, to explain it here would involve a lot of writing. But hoo boy is it...interesting.

But the religious text craziness doesn't end here! I don't want to exclude the world famous Scientologists. Some of your favorite celebrities are members of this little religion, people like Tom Cruise and John Travolta, just to name a few. My favorite part of this religion is that it is based on the book  Dianetics written by L. Ron Hubbard. For those of you that don't know Mr. Hubbard has also written other books such as Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000. If you haven't guessed it already the man is a science fiction writer. Yes..That's right...the founder of a religion was a sci-fi writer. Make your own conclusions here.

I love how every religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. etc.) explains away why their specific books are right.
Timmy: How do we know our books are true?
Guy: Cause God said so.
Timmy: But wait weren't these books written by religious men?
Guy: NO! The men were only tools! God was the true writer.
Timmy: But what about those other religions that say their books were written by holy inspiration?
Guy: Well....they're liars! Only we are right! Do you want to burn in hell Timmy?!!
Timmy: Oh gee...no sir...

But let's get back to the Jews. What's the deal with the kosher stuff? and the not eating pork? Are you freaking kidding me? It's just food! I really doubt God's going to be pissed that you ate one specific type of animal. Does anyone else realize that the reason these rules were set up in the first place was because of health concerns thousands of years ago? And the Catholics too! Us with our little don't eat any meat on Fridays during Lent (but fish is ok for some reason). I shouldn't be one to criticize since I follow the rules of Lent (I do it for reasons of sacrifice, cause mmm mmm I love my meat and to not eat it is truly a sacrifice) but come on!

And what's up with some of those ultra-conservative protestants with rules like don't drink and don't dance? I'm not sure, but I think these are also the same people that like to follow the writings of the Bible fanatically. Last time I checked I remember many of the holiest people in the Bible doing those two things, namely drinking and dancing. So I really don't know where they get that.

Oh man...and what's the deal with religion and sex? Those two don't like to mix at all do they? I love (insert sarcasm) the Catholic church's stand that the use of condoms and contraceptives is forbidden. I mean I understand why they say it (because people shouldn't be having sex unless they plan to procreate) but seriously that's the worst thing to tell people. People are going to have sex no matter what, the end result of this policy is the AIDS epidemic in Africa and the poor having 20 million children when they can only afford one. I especially love the Shakers. Those people have the best ideas in regards to sex. None. Zero. Zilch. No sex between any people, at any time, no matter if you're married or not. As you might have guessed this has had a significant effect on their population (I believe there are two Shakers left in the entire world). Good job people, you managed to wipe yourselves off the face of the Earth.

And now the most relevant topic in regards to religion and the headlines of the day: fighting. The Muslims hate the Jews. The Jews hate the Muslims. The Protestants hate the Catholics. The Catholics hate the Protestants. Oh what a wonderful world we live in! Why do they hate each other so much? It all comes down to this: My religion is better that your religion, so suck on it! Pretty mature huh? And even though all these religions seem to have a big thing against killing and hurting your neighbors they have no problem doing these things to...those other people. I mean the hypocrisy is insane right there, how can they not see it? Unfortunately this isn't anything new. From the murder of Christians in Roman times, to the murder of Muslims and Jews in Crusades times, to the murder of Jews during WW2, to the events occurring in our world today, our history (and our future) is tainted with the blood of innocents murdered for their beliefs.

All these crazy things all because of a thing called organized religion. Now you might be wondering what was the point of all this. You may be asking yourself why I decided to make fun of so many religions. To insult the basic principles of many people's lives (including my own). The answer is simple. The answer is because all this shit is insane. For once people need to realize that we are only separated by little irrelevant details. Who cares if you eat pork? Who cares if you eat meat? Who cares who wrote what, and who inspired who? The point is that if you just look at the basics, whether it be the basics of Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, Catholicism, Judaism, or whatever, you will find the same basic ideas and beliefs. We all agree in whats really important. We believe in a being who created us and we believe that we must respect the lives of the people we share the world with. If only we could ignore our little quirks what a wonderful and peaceful world we could live in. I think this idea was best described by John Lennon in his classic song Imagine.
 
Imagine there's no heaven/ It's easy if you try/No hell below us/ Above us only sky/ Imagine all the people/ Living for today... /Imagine there's no countries/ It isn't hard to do/ Nothing to kill or die for/ And no religion too/ Imagine all the people/ Living life in peace.../  You may say I'm a dreamer/ But I'm not the only one/ I hope someday you'll join us/ And the world will be as one / Imagine no possessions/ I wonder if you can/ No need for greed or hunger/ A brotherhood of man/ Imagine all the people/ Sharing all the world... / You may say I'm a dreamer/ But I'm not the only one/ I hope someday you'll join us/ And the world will live as one

....I'm going to church.