I saw this article in my local paper this morning. I'm always fascinated by the game of chess. I'm familiar with the pieces and the rules of engagement, though I could never fully grasp the all-important mid-game strategy (planning three, four, six, eight moves ahead). It makes my head hurt to think that far ahead. Though I always enjoyed following the "big matches," and Kasparov has been the best for a very, very long time.
I wish him luck in his political future in Russia. He certainly has the mind for it. And it appears that he has the passion, as well. Putin may have met his match (pun intended):
MOSCOW - Garry Kasparov, the brilliant and aggressive tactician regarded by many as the greatest chess player of all time, announced his retirement from professional play. He said he plans to write books and become more active in the politics of Russia, a country that's "headed down the wrong path."
The 41-year-old Kasparov has been ranked No. 1 in the world since 1984, dominating chess for two decades with formidable energy, discipline and intellect. His announcement came shortly after he won the 14-match Linares tournament in Spain.
Kasparov's mastery of chess seemed sometimes to be superhuman, and perhaps his most famous loss was a 1997 match against IBM supercomputer Deep Blue.
Shay Bushinsky, a programmer behind another chess computer, told The Associated Press that as a chess player Kasparov was "the closest thing to a computer that I know as a man. Sometimes I think he has silicon running in his veins."
But Kasparov also became famous for his colorful and vibrant personality. He was seen as an especially vital and well-rounded person in a pursuit where top players often have the image of not having interests besides chess.
"He isn't just a pawn; and he isn't just a database, either, an inflated cerebellum, a throbbing maniac in the closed system of 64 squares," novelist Martin Amis wrote of him in a 1993 essay.
Among Kasparov's interests is politics. A Russian citizen, Kasparov has emerged as an outspoken critic of President Vladimir Putin and is playing a leading role in the Committee 2008: Free Choice, a group formed by liberal opposition leaders.
But he was increasingly exasperated with the politics of the chess world, which has been bitterly divided since 1993 into two rival federations with rival champions. In his retirement announcement Thursday, he reiterated that he was disappointed with a failed campaign to reunify the title.
He also said part of the reason he was retiring was that he saw no real goals in professional chess.
"As a chess player, I did everything I could, even more. Now I want to use my intellect and strategic thinking in Russian politics," Kasparov said Friday in a statement cited by the Interfax news agency.
"I believe that at the moment the country is moving in the wrong direction, therefore it is necessary to help Russia, to help Russian citizens to make the country comfortable, just and free," he said in the statement.
"I will do everything in my power to resist Putin's dictatorship," he said. "It is very difficult to play for a country whose authorities are anti-democratic."
Kasparov said he would continue to play chess, write books about it and take part in tournaments, such as events in which he plays many opponents at once, or in speed-chess games.
Alexander Roshal, chief editor of a popular Russian chess magazine called 64, said Kasparov had no peers in the chess world.
"There's no one else of his caliber. No one comes close. He saw that, and said 'you go on without me,'" he said.
Kasparov evidently was thinking about retiring for a long time after it became clear the reunification title match would not happen soon, Roshal said.
"He won more than 40 super-tournaments and in a month he'll be 42," Roshal said. "For chess, that's not young, and he has no reason to waste time preparing for another tournament. He's not going to be greater than he was or is."
Born in Baku in the then-Soviet republic of Azerbaijan, Kasparov is thought by many to be the best chess player in history. His defeat by Deep Blue was seen as a watershed moment in technological advancement, but in 2003 he averted a similar defeat when he agreed to a draw in the last game of his series against Deep Junior, which could process 3 million chess moves per second.
"Kasparov has the most incredible look-ahead and memory capabilities I have ever seen," said Bushinsky, one of two Israelis who helped design Deep Junior.
Kasparov's chess talent was apparent at an early age. At 12 he became the youngest player ever to win the USSR Junior Championship. Four years later, he won the World Junior Championship, and achieved the title of grandmaster on his 17th birthday.
His first title match, from September 1984 to February 1985 against Anatoly Karpov, was the longest in chess history. After 48 games, the psychological and physical strain on Karpov, who was leading but appeared likely to lose, caused chess authorities to end the match inconclusively amid controversy.
Kasparov won a rematch six months later, becoming the youngest world champion ever. He defended his title against Karpov in 1986, 1987 and 1990.
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Is 3-D TV on the horizon?
Since holography (as a field of study) was my first love, (although this isn't technically "holographic" television), I wanted to post this recent article:
New 3D Screen Requires No Special Goggles
HANOVER, Germany (Reuters) - A German research institute has developed a screen that requires no special glasses to display three-dimensional images and can be viewed even from the side.
The display is meant to help architects and engineers visualize their designs or to make flight simulators more realistic. Doctors at the German University of Tuebingen have used it to train for minimally invasive surgery.
The screen, developed by the Fraunhofer Institute for Telecommunications and displayed at the annual CeBIT technology fair in the German city of Hannover on Thursday, generates two slightly different images to make objects appear three-dimensional.
A lens in front of the display directs one beam of light toward the left eye of the viewer and a second beam toward the right, making 3D goggles unnecessary.
If the viewer moves to the side, a camera at the top of the display registers the movement and adjusts the lens.
The Berlin-based Fraunhofer Institute also shows a "3D kiosk" that uses the display, intended for high-tech showrooms.
The screen is mounted on a table that has cameras and infrared sensors hidden below the surface, which pick up on gestures, allowing the viewer to skip through images or rotate a three-dimensional object by pointing and moving the hand.
Consumer electronics companies Philips from the Netherlands and Sharp from Japan are also developing 3D displays that do not require special glasses. But because they do not yet track the viewer's movements, they require a viewer to choose the best position and remain there.
More articles and websites can be found here, here, here and here.
New 3D Screen Requires No Special Goggles
HANOVER, Germany (Reuters) - A German research institute has developed a screen that requires no special glasses to display three-dimensional images and can be viewed even from the side.
The display is meant to help architects and engineers visualize their designs or to make flight simulators more realistic. Doctors at the German University of Tuebingen have used it to train for minimally invasive surgery.
The screen, developed by the Fraunhofer Institute for Telecommunications and displayed at the annual CeBIT technology fair in the German city of Hannover on Thursday, generates two slightly different images to make objects appear three-dimensional.
A lens in front of the display directs one beam of light toward the left eye of the viewer and a second beam toward the right, making 3D goggles unnecessary.
If the viewer moves to the side, a camera at the top of the display registers the movement and adjusts the lens.
The Berlin-based Fraunhofer Institute also shows a "3D kiosk" that uses the display, intended for high-tech showrooms.
The screen is mounted on a table that has cameras and infrared sensors hidden below the surface, which pick up on gestures, allowing the viewer to skip through images or rotate a three-dimensional object by pointing and moving the hand.
Consumer electronics companies Philips from the Netherlands and Sharp from Japan are also developing 3D displays that do not require special glasses. But because they do not yet track the viewer's movements, they require a viewer to choose the best position and remain there.
More articles and websites can be found here, here, here and here.
Laser co-inventor wins religion award
As someone who initially studied physics in college before turning to the arts (after hitting a brick wall named calculus), I found this article not only intriguing but also heartening. My passion in physics at the time was in the fields of holography, lasers and optics.
Laser co-inventor wins religion award
(AP - March 9, 2005)
NEW YORK - Charles Townes, co-inventor of the laser and a Nobel Prize winner in physics, was named Wednesday as the recipient of a religion award billed as the world’s richest annual prize.
Townes, 89, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, won the Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities. The award is worth 795,000 British pounds — more than $1.5 million — and Townes was honored for talks and writings about the importance of relating science and religion.
He first addressed that topic in 1964, the same year he shared the Nobel with two Russians for research on principles underlying the laser (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation) and maser (microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation).
Townes said in remarks prepared for the announcement that his first talk about religion, to the men’s Bible class of New York City’s Riverside Church, was later published in IBM’s Think magazine and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology alumni magazine.
After the second article, a prominent alumnus threatened to cease all involvement with MIT if anything like it were ever published again, Townes said. He also recalled that, years before, his doctoral adviser at California Institute of Technology “jumped on me for being religiously oriented.”
“Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. But nothing is absolutely proved,” Townes said. “Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic.”
He has compared his flash 1951 discovery of maser principles, while sitting on park bench in Washington, D.C., with the revelations depicted in the Bible.
Townes said that, with findings of modern physics, it “seems extremely unlikely” that the existence of life and humanity are “just accidental,” which inevitably raises religious questions about whether the universe was planned.
A native of Greenville, S.C., Townes graduated from local Furman University before earning graduate degrees at Duke University and Caltech. He was a Bell Labs radar researcher during World War II and taught at Columbia University and MIT.
In 1961, Townes began another long-running interest, using optical searches for intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
Townes receives the prize May 4 in a private ceremony at London’s Buckingham Palace.
He plans to donate a major portion of the money to Furman University, the Pacific School of Religion, the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, the Berkeley Ecumenical Chaplaincy to the Homeless and Berkeley’s First Congregational Church.
The Templeton Foundation of West Conshohocken, Pa., which sponsors various projects on science and religion, was founded by mutual funds entrepreneur Sir John M. Templeton.
Until 2002, its annual award was known as the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion. The first went to Mother Teresa in 1973.
Laser co-inventor wins religion award
(AP - March 9, 2005)
NEW YORK - Charles Townes, co-inventor of the laser and a Nobel Prize winner in physics, was named Wednesday as the recipient of a religion award billed as the world’s richest annual prize.
Townes, 89, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, won the Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities. The award is worth 795,000 British pounds — more than $1.5 million — and Townes was honored for talks and writings about the importance of relating science and religion.
He first addressed that topic in 1964, the same year he shared the Nobel with two Russians for research on principles underlying the laser (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation) and maser (microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation).
Townes said in remarks prepared for the announcement that his first talk about religion, to the men’s Bible class of New York City’s Riverside Church, was later published in IBM’s Think magazine and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology alumni magazine.
After the second article, a prominent alumnus threatened to cease all involvement with MIT if anything like it were ever published again, Townes said. He also recalled that, years before, his doctoral adviser at California Institute of Technology “jumped on me for being religiously oriented.”
“Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. But nothing is absolutely proved,” Townes said. “Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic.”
He has compared his flash 1951 discovery of maser principles, while sitting on park bench in Washington, D.C., with the revelations depicted in the Bible.
Townes said that, with findings of modern physics, it “seems extremely unlikely” that the existence of life and humanity are “just accidental,” which inevitably raises religious questions about whether the universe was planned.
A native of Greenville, S.C., Townes graduated from local Furman University before earning graduate degrees at Duke University and Caltech. He was a Bell Labs radar researcher during World War II and taught at Columbia University and MIT.
In 1961, Townes began another long-running interest, using optical searches for intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
Townes receives the prize May 4 in a private ceremony at London’s Buckingham Palace.
He plans to donate a major portion of the money to Furman University, the Pacific School of Religion, the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, the Berkeley Ecumenical Chaplaincy to the Homeless and Berkeley’s First Congregational Church.
The Templeton Foundation of West Conshohocken, Pa., which sponsors various projects on science and religion, was founded by mutual funds entrepreneur Sir John M. Templeton.
Until 2002, its annual award was known as the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion. The first went to Mother Teresa in 1973.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
EC:WC FCA - The Notebook
a West Coast Critic review
I had the pleasure of renting and watching the DVD release of "The Notebook" - a touching love story set in '40s flashback. Don't let the fact that Nick Cassavetes is the director of this film dissuade you. Although he's better known for such harsh films as The Wraith, Blind Fury, Face/Off and Blow, he divested himself of his previous directorial incarnations and has handled this wonderful story with proper care.
This is the third movie to be made based on a novel by Nicholas Sparks (the others being Message In A Bottle and A Walk To Remember). Sparks' success came out of nowhere fast, having bolted out of the blocks running with his first novel (The Notebook) - a manuscript that caused Warner Books to offer him one million dollars to publish (a fledgling writer's dream come true). Ten years later, his success continues to gain momentum.
I have not read any of his novels, so I cannot compare the book to the film. But The Notebook is a tender story about summer love between two wild-eyed teens from opposite ends of the economic spectrum. Noah is the humble yet daring lumber mill worker who becomes smitten with Allie, a bright and spritely girl who's family comes from old southern money.
It's your typical boy-wants-girl, boy-gets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-tries-to-get-girl-back kind of story that has been well-worn in story after story. But there's a certain freshness to this retelling. In part, it's due to the wonderful performance by the young lead actors: Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams. But what really helps give this story fresh legs is the "present day" performances by James Garner and Gena Rowlands. Garner plays the character of Duke, who reads to the bewildered Rowlands character who is suffering through the end stage of dementia - a debilitating mental disease similar to Alzheimers. The tender love and care and eagerness that Duke displays as he takes his time reading to Rowlands, attempting with unshakeable hope to reawaken her lost memories, is a testament to the kind of love and sacrifice that is all too often missing in today's culture (certainly in today's movies).
There are some weaknesses to the movie. One being a certain amount of predictability to the story. A second being Cassavetes' attempt to throw up some half-hearted red herrings to keep you guessing who the older characters really are. You pretty much know from the get-go who is who, and the film at a certain point actually pretty much tells you straight out. So the red herrings weren't really necessary.
Also, the way Cassavetes attempts to end the film felt a bit clumsy, as though you were brought to what you thought was the end... then it continues a bit further... and when you thought it had then reached it's denouement... it went just a little bit more. The ending itself is not bad. It's actually very poignant. It just wasn't as well executed as I would have expected given the wonderful pace of the rest of the film.
I'll be generous and forgiving, and give this warmhearted yet forgotten film 4 out of 5 wine bottles. Keep a box of Kleenex handy.
I had the pleasure of renting and watching the DVD release of "The Notebook" - a touching love story set in '40s flashback. Don't let the fact that Nick Cassavetes is the director of this film dissuade you. Although he's better known for such harsh films as The Wraith, Blind Fury, Face/Off and Blow, he divested himself of his previous directorial incarnations and has handled this wonderful story with proper care.
This is the third movie to be made based on a novel by Nicholas Sparks (the others being Message In A Bottle and A Walk To Remember). Sparks' success came out of nowhere fast, having bolted out of the blocks running with his first novel (The Notebook) - a manuscript that caused Warner Books to offer him one million dollars to publish (a fledgling writer's dream come true). Ten years later, his success continues to gain momentum.
I have not read any of his novels, so I cannot compare the book to the film. But The Notebook is a tender story about summer love between two wild-eyed teens from opposite ends of the economic spectrum. Noah is the humble yet daring lumber mill worker who becomes smitten with Allie, a bright and spritely girl who's family comes from old southern money.
It's your typical boy-wants-girl, boy-gets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-tries-to-get-girl-back kind of story that has been well-worn in story after story. But there's a certain freshness to this retelling. In part, it's due to the wonderful performance by the young lead actors: Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams. But what really helps give this story fresh legs is the "present day" performances by James Garner and Gena Rowlands. Garner plays the character of Duke, who reads to the bewildered Rowlands character who is suffering through the end stage of dementia - a debilitating mental disease similar to Alzheimers. The tender love and care and eagerness that Duke displays as he takes his time reading to Rowlands, attempting with unshakeable hope to reawaken her lost memories, is a testament to the kind of love and sacrifice that is all too often missing in today's culture (certainly in today's movies).
There are some weaknesses to the movie. One being a certain amount of predictability to the story. A second being Cassavetes' attempt to throw up some half-hearted red herrings to keep you guessing who the older characters really are. You pretty much know from the get-go who is who, and the film at a certain point actually pretty much tells you straight out. So the red herrings weren't really necessary.
Also, the way Cassavetes attempts to end the film felt a bit clumsy, as though you were brought to what you thought was the end... then it continues a bit further... and when you thought it had then reached it's denouement... it went just a little bit more. The ending itself is not bad. It's actually very poignant. It just wasn't as well executed as I would have expected given the wonderful pace of the rest of the film.
I'll be generous and forgiving, and give this warmhearted yet forgotten film 4 out of 5 wine bottles. Keep a box of Kleenex handy.
Monday, February 28, 2005
And the Oscar goes to...
Well, yet again, the Academy displayed their annual mutual admiration society awards for all to see. And, once again, they didn't disappoint in revealing their mastery of cluelessness, self-absorption, arrogance, and vacuousness.
Let me be upfront here. I've studied film & theater in both the undergraduate and graduate level. I've studied acting at a small, regional but well-respected theater group, and I attended a few screenwriting workshops at an Ivy League institution. I did screenwriting for several years, and I was involved in the music industry for over a decade. I'm someone who was (and in someways, still is) immersed in the arts, and who for awhile dreamed of winning one or more of the "Big 4" awards.
I document this not to toot my own horn, nor as a precursor of picked sour grapes. Instead, I disclose this to show that I have I lot of knowledge, love and respect for the arts. But, I am also able to distance myself (and it gets easier with age) from the hype and hoopla that comes with the territory.
Separate for a moment the arguments on whether one film or acting role is "better" or "more deserving" than another. That's beside the point. Rather, take a look at the types of role and the types of film that get honored (in both the nomination and the winning phases).
I've stated in previous posts that, by far, the best film for 2004 was "The Passion of the Christ." It was bold, it was controversial, it was cinematically breathtaking, it was emotionally wringing, it was truthful, it was successful (despite all that was against it), and it stepped beyond the bounds of typical movie magic and became for most viewers an unforgettable and moving experience.
But, while "The Passion" was practically ignored in the nomination process (only having been nominated in Cinematography, Makeup, and Original Score), and was shut out for even those well-deserved awards, what were the films and roles that "The Academy" chose to honor and admire?
Vera Drake - which glorifies abortion
Million Dollar Baby - which justifies euthanasia
Closer - which takes sexual perversion to an even lower level
Kinsey - which honors a demented pervert
Sideways - (a film that, for the most part, I enjoyed) to a certain extent mocks the institution of marriage
Maria Full Of Grace - which turns the holy and prayerful phrase "Hail Mary Full of Grace" into a film title about a drug "mule"
These are the types of films and roles that Hollywood holds up for honor and adulation??? They seem to go out of their way to praise films and roles that either tear apart or mock the family, the faithful, the middle class, the military, the American ideal, the honorable, the virtuous, the religious, the good.
It's a damning testimony, and it's nothing new (American Beauty was "best" picture for 1999???... oh, please).
And they still just don't get it.
Let me be upfront here. I've studied film & theater in both the undergraduate and graduate level. I've studied acting at a small, regional but well-respected theater group, and I attended a few screenwriting workshops at an Ivy League institution. I did screenwriting for several years, and I was involved in the music industry for over a decade. I'm someone who was (and in someways, still is) immersed in the arts, and who for awhile dreamed of winning one or more of the "Big 4" awards.
I document this not to toot my own horn, nor as a precursor of picked sour grapes. Instead, I disclose this to show that I have I lot of knowledge, love and respect for the arts. But, I am also able to distance myself (and it gets easier with age) from the hype and hoopla that comes with the territory.
Separate for a moment the arguments on whether one film or acting role is "better" or "more deserving" than another. That's beside the point. Rather, take a look at the types of role and the types of film that get honored (in both the nomination and the winning phases).
I've stated in previous posts that, by far, the best film for 2004 was "The Passion of the Christ." It was bold, it was controversial, it was cinematically breathtaking, it was emotionally wringing, it was truthful, it was successful (despite all that was against it), and it stepped beyond the bounds of typical movie magic and became for most viewers an unforgettable and moving experience.
But, while "The Passion" was practically ignored in the nomination process (only having been nominated in Cinematography, Makeup, and Original Score), and was shut out for even those well-deserved awards, what were the films and roles that "The Academy" chose to honor and admire?
Vera Drake - which glorifies abortion
Million Dollar Baby - which justifies euthanasia
Closer - which takes sexual perversion to an even lower level
Kinsey - which honors a demented pervert
Sideways - (a film that, for the most part, I enjoyed) to a certain extent mocks the institution of marriage
Maria Full Of Grace - which turns the holy and prayerful phrase "Hail Mary Full of Grace" into a film title about a drug "mule"
These are the types of films and roles that Hollywood holds up for honor and adulation??? They seem to go out of their way to praise films and roles that either tear apart or mock the family, the faithful, the middle class, the military, the American ideal, the honorable, the virtuous, the religious, the good.
It's a damning testimony, and it's nothing new (American Beauty was "best" picture for 1999???... oh, please).
And they still just don't get it.
Saturday, February 26, 2005
The 10 Underreported Stories of 2004
WND posted their annual list of the Top 10 Most Underreported News Stories for 2004. It's an intriguing list, including:
* Sandy Berger's stuffing of classified FBI files in his pants.
* The U.S. border issues.
* The U.N. Oil-for-Fraud... ummm, Food program.
* And the full extent of the on-going Darfur tragedy (a Rwanda redux).
It's definitely worth the read, and there are related links.
Also, in 2003, their #4 underreported story was one that should be in the Top 10 every year:
4. Persecution of Christians worldwide, especially those in countries seen as "friends" of the U.S.
Once again, one of the establishment press' great unreported stories this year has been the extent and brutality of persecution of Christians around the world – even in nations America considers friendly, moderate, "partners" in the war on terror.
As it has in previous years, WorldNetDaily reported during 2003 on the widespread persecution of Christians around the world, in "unfriendly" places, such as:
* The sad story of the Palestinian Christian who was slaughtered by Islamic extremists and his body returned to his Palestinian wife and two small children – in four pieces; and
* The Christian pastor in Sudan who was burned to death, along with his family, by military forces led by that nations' militant Islamist regime. In all, this particular massacre resulted in the deaths of 59 unarmed villagers.
But increasingly on our radar were stories of the persecution, imprisonment and murder of Christians in so-called "friendly" nations. A few examples:
* A 15-year-old Pakistani Christian boy named Zeeshan Gill was kidnapped and taken to a strict Islamic religious school where he was beaten until he converted to Islam. His captors warned if he tried to flee or return to Christianity, they would kill him.
* A Chinese Christian man named Zhang Yi-nan was severely beaten after arriving at a "re-education through labor" camp. Another Chinese Christian, Xiao Bi-guang, charged with "subverting" the Chinese government and "socialist system" was released from prison after publicity from his case elicited the prayers and protests of Christians worldwide. In fact, Xiao attributed his release to reports on the Internet, saying a policeman asked him: "How did you get your story on the Internet?"
* A court in Egypt acquitted nearly all 96 suspects charged with killing atrocities that resulted in the deaths of 21 Christians.
* And in Pakistan, America's "partner" in the terror war, a Pakistani court issued a sentence of life imprisonment to an illiterate Christian man charged with writing defamatory words about Islam's prophet Muhammad. Aslam Masih, a shepherd from the village of Mammun Kanjun in Pakistan's Faisalabad district, had been sentenced under the country's notorious blasphemy law. The 46-year-old Masih was accused of writing blasphemous words about Islam's founder on an amulet tied around the neck of a dog to help it win a dogfight. Ultimately, the court dismissed the life sentence.
Number two for 2003 was:
2. NASA's use of a green-friendly but inferior material on heat shields that broke up prior to the shuttle disaster
One day after last February's tragic re-entry explosion of the Columbia space shuttle, WorldNetDaily revealed in an exclusive report that the irreparable launch-time damage to the external tank's foam insulation, which broke free and slammed into the leading edge of the left wing, was likely due to environmental correctness.
With the help of internal NASA documents, WND showed that for the past six years America's federal space agency has used a more "environmentally friendly" – and inferior – material for foam insulation.
"In other words," WND founder Joseph Farah wrote in July, "human lives and millions of dollars in technology were put at risk because of the environmental fad."
Back in 1997, wrote Farah, during the 87th space shuttle mission, similar tile damage to the Columbia's was experienced during launch when the external tank foam crashed into some tiles during the stress of takeoff. Although the damage in that case was not catastrophic, investigators then noted the damage followed changes in the methods of "foaming" the external tank – changes mandated by concerns about being "environmentally friendly."
Here's what that NASA report said: "During the ... mission, there was a change made on the external tank. Because of NASA's goal to use environmentally friendly products, a new method of 'foaming' the external tank had been used for this mission and the (previous) mission. It is suspected that large amounts of foam separated from the external tank and impacted the orbiter. This caused significant damage to the protective tiles of the orbiter."
Ultimately, NASA's more environmentally friendly "foaming" methods ended in one of the great tragedies of 2003.
In 2002 (following the "environmental" note):
Congressional hearing proves questionable environmental science contributed to World Trade Center towers' early collapse.
WorldNetDaily's Whistleblower magazine reported that the original design for the twin towers stipulated asbestos covering for the steel support beams.
Environmentalists, however, objected to the use of the fire retardant material and New York City enacted a ban on its use during the time of the towers' construction in 1971, as pointed out during a June 2002 congressional hearing. Had it not been for the poorly installed insulation and the lack of asbestos in the upper floors of the towers, scientists testifying before Congress agreed, the towers would have stayed standing longer, undoubtedly saving many lives as occupants would have had time to escape.
"Asbestos was an early victim of junk science and enviro-fear propaganda," said Arthur Robinson, who is also a founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Environmental activists "were joined by opportunistic lawyers and businessmen who reaped large profits from the anti-asbestos program. There was not a shred of evidence that insulating buildings with asbestos was harmful to human health," he added.
Those last two "environmental" stories go under the phrase: "Something I did not know."
* Sandy Berger's stuffing of classified FBI files in his pants.
* The U.S. border issues.
* The U.N. Oil-for-Fraud... ummm, Food program.
* And the full extent of the on-going Darfur tragedy (a Rwanda redux).
It's definitely worth the read, and there are related links.
Also, in 2003, their #4 underreported story was one that should be in the Top 10 every year:
4. Persecution of Christians worldwide, especially those in countries seen as "friends" of the U.S.
Once again, one of the establishment press' great unreported stories this year has been the extent and brutality of persecution of Christians around the world – even in nations America considers friendly, moderate, "partners" in the war on terror.
As it has in previous years, WorldNetDaily reported during 2003 on the widespread persecution of Christians around the world, in "unfriendly" places, such as:
* The sad story of the Palestinian Christian who was slaughtered by Islamic extremists and his body returned to his Palestinian wife and two small children – in four pieces; and
* The Christian pastor in Sudan who was burned to death, along with his family, by military forces led by that nations' militant Islamist regime. In all, this particular massacre resulted in the deaths of 59 unarmed villagers.
But increasingly on our radar were stories of the persecution, imprisonment and murder of Christians in so-called "friendly" nations. A few examples:
* A 15-year-old Pakistani Christian boy named Zeeshan Gill was kidnapped and taken to a strict Islamic religious school where he was beaten until he converted to Islam. His captors warned if he tried to flee or return to Christianity, they would kill him.
* A Chinese Christian man named Zhang Yi-nan was severely beaten after arriving at a "re-education through labor" camp. Another Chinese Christian, Xiao Bi-guang, charged with "subverting" the Chinese government and "socialist system" was released from prison after publicity from his case elicited the prayers and protests of Christians worldwide. In fact, Xiao attributed his release to reports on the Internet, saying a policeman asked him: "How did you get your story on the Internet?"
* A court in Egypt acquitted nearly all 96 suspects charged with killing atrocities that resulted in the deaths of 21 Christians.
* And in Pakistan, America's "partner" in the terror war, a Pakistani court issued a sentence of life imprisonment to an illiterate Christian man charged with writing defamatory words about Islam's prophet Muhammad. Aslam Masih, a shepherd from the village of Mammun Kanjun in Pakistan's Faisalabad district, had been sentenced under the country's notorious blasphemy law. The 46-year-old Masih was accused of writing blasphemous words about Islam's founder on an amulet tied around the neck of a dog to help it win a dogfight. Ultimately, the court dismissed the life sentence.
Number two for 2003 was:
2. NASA's use of a green-friendly but inferior material on heat shields that broke up prior to the shuttle disaster
One day after last February's tragic re-entry explosion of the Columbia space shuttle, WorldNetDaily revealed in an exclusive report that the irreparable launch-time damage to the external tank's foam insulation, which broke free and slammed into the leading edge of the left wing, was likely due to environmental correctness.
With the help of internal NASA documents, WND showed that for the past six years America's federal space agency has used a more "environmentally friendly" – and inferior – material for foam insulation.
"In other words," WND founder Joseph Farah wrote in July, "human lives and millions of dollars in technology were put at risk because of the environmental fad."
Back in 1997, wrote Farah, during the 87th space shuttle mission, similar tile damage to the Columbia's was experienced during launch when the external tank foam crashed into some tiles during the stress of takeoff. Although the damage in that case was not catastrophic, investigators then noted the damage followed changes in the methods of "foaming" the external tank – changes mandated by concerns about being "environmentally friendly."
Here's what that NASA report said: "During the ... mission, there was a change made on the external tank. Because of NASA's goal to use environmentally friendly products, a new method of 'foaming' the external tank had been used for this mission and the (previous) mission. It is suspected that large amounts of foam separated from the external tank and impacted the orbiter. This caused significant damage to the protective tiles of the orbiter."
Ultimately, NASA's more environmentally friendly "foaming" methods ended in one of the great tragedies of 2003.
In 2002 (following the "environmental" note):
Congressional hearing proves questionable environmental science contributed to World Trade Center towers' early collapse.
WorldNetDaily's Whistleblower magazine reported that the original design for the twin towers stipulated asbestos covering for the steel support beams.
Environmentalists, however, objected to the use of the fire retardant material and New York City enacted a ban on its use during the time of the towers' construction in 1971, as pointed out during a June 2002 congressional hearing. Had it not been for the poorly installed insulation and the lack of asbestos in the upper floors of the towers, scientists testifying before Congress agreed, the towers would have stayed standing longer, undoubtedly saving many lives as occupants would have had time to escape.
"Asbestos was an early victim of junk science and enviro-fear propaganda," said Arthur Robinson, who is also a founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Environmental activists "were joined by opportunistic lawyers and businessmen who reaped large profits from the anti-asbestos program. There was not a shred of evidence that insulating buildings with asbestos was harmful to human health," he added.
Those last two "environmental" stories go under the phrase: "Something I did not know."
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Yes... it's been awhile.
Sorry for the long drought of posts. Real life has a tendancy to sneak up on you. I've just been busy with my 9-to-5 job, plus.... other things.
I haven't seen any new movies since "Sideways," so there hasn't been anything for me to review.
The weather here in Southern California has just been plain nasty. For awhile there I was seriously considering building an Ark (if only I knew what a "cubit" was).
I came very close - verrrrrrry close - to posting at length on one of the hot button social issues in today's culture. I was promtped by a recent episode of "ER" (a TV show I only watch because of Maura Tierney, I might add). After a few days had passed, I decided to hold off on making my post. I just felt that I wasn't quite ready yet to take that serious commentary leap. Although, I may do so in the future.
It's basically centered around the false ideal in today's society that some individuals would rather reject love for acceptance... and not acceptance of themselves as persons, but acceptance of their lifestyle - as if that was the sole defining characteristic of themselves as human beings. They'll even go so far as to quote Jesus in the bible, but they always cherry pick their quotes, taking passages out of context. And they always leave out the last few words of Jesus in John 8:11.
But, that detailed and heartfelt commentary will be saved for another day.
Until next time... hang in there. Winter's almost over.
And I promise to push myself to post here more often.
I haven't seen any new movies since "Sideways," so there hasn't been anything for me to review.
The weather here in Southern California has just been plain nasty. For awhile there I was seriously considering building an Ark (if only I knew what a "cubit" was).
I came very close - verrrrrrry close - to posting at length on one of the hot button social issues in today's culture. I was promtped by a recent episode of "ER" (a TV show I only watch because of Maura Tierney, I might add). After a few days had passed, I decided to hold off on making my post. I just felt that I wasn't quite ready yet to take that serious commentary leap. Although, I may do so in the future.
It's basically centered around the false ideal in today's society that some individuals would rather reject love for acceptance... and not acceptance of themselves as persons, but acceptance of their lifestyle - as if that was the sole defining characteristic of themselves as human beings. They'll even go so far as to quote Jesus in the bible, but they always cherry pick their quotes, taking passages out of context. And they always leave out the last few words of Jesus in John 8:11.
But, that detailed and heartfelt commentary will be saved for another day.
Until next time... hang in there. Winter's almost over.
And I promise to push myself to post here more often.
Saturday, January 01, 2005
EC:WC FCA - Sideways
Hello, this is Trubador here as the West Coast member of the "East Coast:West Coast Film Critics Association." As some of you may already know, this esteemed association consists of two people - myself and my brother (known as "Vic" the East Coast critic). We occasionally view a film and then verbalize our opinions. Take it as you see fit. Though don't be surprised if you find our reviews a bit more reliable than Mr. Ebert's.
“Sideways” is as mysterious and temperamental as both Miles, the main character of this film, and his favorite wine grape – Pinot Noir. It’s a rich little film that takes you on a tour through California’s Central Coast wine country, while at the same time guiding you through a tour of the lives of two middle-aged men who’ve been friends since college.
Miles, a long-struggling novelist, is an uptight yet depressed wine snob (in the best sense of the words). Divorced two years prior, Miles wants to give his best friend Jack a proper pre-nuptial send-off. This would entail lots of wine tasting throughout the gorgeous coastal wineries and vineyards, sumptuous meals, and a few rounds of golf.
Jack is a happy-go-luck failing actor who just wants to sow his wild oats (again) one last time (or two) before tying the knot. So off they go for a week whereupon Miles gets an opportunity to see Maya, a waitress at his favorite haunt who’s putting herself through graduate school. He’s been attracted to her for some time, but hasn’t the nerve to do anything about it. Jack, on the other hand, meets Maya’s friend Stephanie during a wine tasting tour. One taste of her, and Jack wants to drink even more of her charm and warmth. Basically, feckless Jack just wants to get laid, and he wants his best man to get some noogy too. It’s an automobile accident just waiting to happen (in more ways than one).
It’s a witty and well-written movie that explores the bonds of friendship, the wounds of broken marriages, and the complexities of the human heart. There is some foul language and a couple scenes of sexual conduct (in quite side-splitting circumstances, I might add). There is also a scene near the end that on the surface makes you wonder if there is a certain mocking of the institution of marriage. But as you savor and reflect on the film (as you would a glass of fine wine) you come away with a better understanding of all that’s been involved to make these rich characters come to life.
There has been a lot of critical praise for this film, which has already started winning several awards. Talk is that it’s the sleeper that may snirch a few Oscars. I don’t know about that. It’s a great little film: finely written, well acted, funny, rich and heart-warming. But any Academy voter worth his or her wine cellar knows that “The Passion of the Christ,” it’s director Mel Gibson, and actors Jim Caviezel (Jesus) and Maia Morgenstern (Jesus’ Mother, Mary) are far more deserving. I’ll be surprised, though, if that happens.
As far as “Sideways” is concerned, it’s definitely in the Top-10 for 2004, and I give this film 4-and-1/2 wine bottles out of 5 (Pinot Noir, of course).
Oh… and the important question is… when is the perfect time and what is the perfect meal to go with your preciously saved bottle of ’61 vino?
“Sideways” is as mysterious and temperamental as both Miles, the main character of this film, and his favorite wine grape – Pinot Noir. It’s a rich little film that takes you on a tour through California’s Central Coast wine country, while at the same time guiding you through a tour of the lives of two middle-aged men who’ve been friends since college.
Miles, a long-struggling novelist, is an uptight yet depressed wine snob (in the best sense of the words). Divorced two years prior, Miles wants to give his best friend Jack a proper pre-nuptial send-off. This would entail lots of wine tasting throughout the gorgeous coastal wineries and vineyards, sumptuous meals, and a few rounds of golf.
Jack is a happy-go-luck failing actor who just wants to sow his wild oats (again) one last time (or two) before tying the knot. So off they go for a week whereupon Miles gets an opportunity to see Maya, a waitress at his favorite haunt who’s putting herself through graduate school. He’s been attracted to her for some time, but hasn’t the nerve to do anything about it. Jack, on the other hand, meets Maya’s friend Stephanie during a wine tasting tour. One taste of her, and Jack wants to drink even more of her charm and warmth. Basically, feckless Jack just wants to get laid, and he wants his best man to get some noogy too. It’s an automobile accident just waiting to happen (in more ways than one).
It’s a witty and well-written movie that explores the bonds of friendship, the wounds of broken marriages, and the complexities of the human heart. There is some foul language and a couple scenes of sexual conduct (in quite side-splitting circumstances, I might add). There is also a scene near the end that on the surface makes you wonder if there is a certain mocking of the institution of marriage. But as you savor and reflect on the film (as you would a glass of fine wine) you come away with a better understanding of all that’s been involved to make these rich characters come to life.
There has been a lot of critical praise for this film, which has already started winning several awards. Talk is that it’s the sleeper that may snirch a few Oscars. I don’t know about that. It’s a great little film: finely written, well acted, funny, rich and heart-warming. But any Academy voter worth his or her wine cellar knows that “The Passion of the Christ,” it’s director Mel Gibson, and actors Jim Caviezel (Jesus) and Maia Morgenstern (Jesus’ Mother, Mary) are far more deserving. I’ll be surprised, though, if that happens.
As far as “Sideways” is concerned, it’s definitely in the Top-10 for 2004, and I give this film 4-and-1/2 wine bottles out of 5 (Pinot Noir, of course).
Oh… and the important question is… when is the perfect time and what is the perfect meal to go with your preciously saved bottle of ’61 vino?
Friday, December 31, 2004
Where the frell have I been all this time???
I know... I know...
It's been quite awhile. Real life kinda sneaks up on yah, yah know what I mean? Between all the holiday rushes, to an unusually busy last quarter at work, through some minor but annoying medical issues, plus the general need for some serious political decompression after the election. I haven't even been reading other people's blogs as often as I used to, though I have touched base with a few of my favorites from time to time.
But, I promise that the new year (a mere few hours away, if you can believe it) will bring my return to these pages on a more regular basis. I want to open the spectrum of topics. There will be some political commentary from time-to-time, but you can expect a much more varied array of issues brought forward. Some will be serious while others will be light-hearted; some will be personal, while others will be more universal in nature. I'm hoping to use this blog in 2005 as a chance to exercise my fledgling literary muscles. Expect it to get quite philosophical and theological in nature.
In the meantime... have an emotion optional annual recycling of arbitrary calender dates.
In other politically incorrect words, HAVE A HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!
It's been quite awhile. Real life kinda sneaks up on yah, yah know what I mean? Between all the holiday rushes, to an unusually busy last quarter at work, through some minor but annoying medical issues, plus the general need for some serious political decompression after the election. I haven't even been reading other people's blogs as often as I used to, though I have touched base with a few of my favorites from time to time.
But, I promise that the new year (a mere few hours away, if you can believe it) will bring my return to these pages on a more regular basis. I want to open the spectrum of topics. There will be some political commentary from time-to-time, but you can expect a much more varied array of issues brought forward. Some will be serious while others will be light-hearted; some will be personal, while others will be more universal in nature. I'm hoping to use this blog in 2005 as a chance to exercise my fledgling literary muscles. Expect it to get quite philosophical and theological in nature.
In the meantime... have an emotion optional annual recycling of arbitrary calender dates.
In other politically incorrect words, HAVE A HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!
Sunday, November 28, 2004
Scoop Trubador's 2004 Farscape Convention Report
Sorry for the long time away. Been busy... very busy. Though I did have the opportunity to attend my third straight Official Farscape Convention in Burbank last weekend. Farscape is (in my humble opinion) by far the best science fiction TV program yet to be produced. The program aired for four seasons on the Sci-Fi cable network, then was cancelled before they had the chance to produce and air the promised fifth season.
The fans (worldwide) didn't care for that treatment of our weekly hour of fun, so we loosely organized a campaign to save our show. The result? Two years later, we got a 4-hour mini series which aired in October. And the future of Farscape appears to be on "The Big Screen" (here's hoping)!
Last weekend was the 5th Annual Official Farscape Convention at the Burbank Hilton, with quite a number of cast & production people from the show - including series creator Rockne O'Bannon, mini series director (and Henson Company co-owner) Brian Henson, actors Ben Browder, Claudia Black, Gigi Edgley, and many others.
Follow this link for my detailed report on the fun and festivities at the Convention. While you're there, poke around in that web site for more information about the show and the campaign.
If, in two years, we were able to bring back a TV show... imagine what we as a human race could do in trying to improve our culture, our society, our world.
The fans (worldwide) didn't care for that treatment of our weekly hour of fun, so we loosely organized a campaign to save our show. The result? Two years later, we got a 4-hour mini series which aired in October. And the future of Farscape appears to be on "The Big Screen" (here's hoping)!
Last weekend was the 5th Annual Official Farscape Convention at the Burbank Hilton, with quite a number of cast & production people from the show - including series creator Rockne O'Bannon, mini series director (and Henson Company co-owner) Brian Henson, actors Ben Browder, Claudia Black, Gigi Edgley, and many others.
Follow this link for my detailed report on the fun and festivities at the Convention. While you're there, poke around in that web site for more information about the show and the campaign.
If, in two years, we were able to bring back a TV show... imagine what we as a human race could do in trying to improve our culture, our society, our world.
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
Why, HELLO there!
It's been two weeks since I last posted here. Election Year Burnout, plus "real life" taking precedence. I'll be away for quite a few more days, but I promise to return soon. Although I will continue to bring up important political topics (as they arise, or as they move/prompt me), I will tend to post in more varied fields ranging from issues of faith and family, film reviews and music interests, general commentary on society and culture, and other oddities and levity.
I'll be back soon... I promise.
In the meantime, for general political day-to-day discussions I'd highly suggest Hugh Hewitt, Capt. Ed, and PowerLine. For the GWOT, definitely read the Belmont Club. For news headlines commentary, Betsy's Page. And, for faith and society topics, I'd recommend Mark Shea and Gerard's "Blogs for Lovers".
All links can be found to the right. Enjoy! ---->
I'll be back soon... I promise.
In the meantime, for general political day-to-day discussions I'd highly suggest Hugh Hewitt, Capt. Ed, and PowerLine. For the GWOT, definitely read the Belmont Club. For news headlines commentary, Betsy's Page. And, for faith and society topics, I'd recommend Mark Shea and Gerard's "Blogs for Lovers".
All links can be found to the right. Enjoy! ---->
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Monday, November 01, 2004
Sunday, October 31, 2004
And then there's the other 12 minutes of the Bin Laden tape...
The New York Post reports that the media have only released 6 of the full 18 minutes of the recent Osama Bin Laden videotape. What can we glean from the other 12 minutes?
"Osama bin Laden doesn't seem nearly so cocky in the unedited version of a videotape aired on al-Jazeera, complaining that the manhunt against him has hampered al Qaeda...
"...bin Laden bemoans the recent democratic elections in Afghanistan and the lack of violence involved with it.
"On the tape, bin Laden also says his terror organization has been hurt by the U.S. military's unrelenting manhunt for him and his cohorts on the Afghan-Pakistani border."
As Charles at LGF states:
"This is outrageous. After three years unseen, Osama bin Laden releases a video acknowledging the Bush administration’s record of success in Afghanistan, and in hunting down the Al Qaeda network, and showing his particular hatred for the man who brought this ruin upon him—but the media doesn’t think we should see it? Instead we get a whitewashed, edited version that seems to be equally critical of Bush and Kerry, and wire stories extolling Bin Laden’s confidence and health?"
It's to be expected from the MSM (mainstream media). Hat-tip to Capt. Ed and LFG.
"Osama bin Laden doesn't seem nearly so cocky in the unedited version of a videotape aired on al-Jazeera, complaining that the manhunt against him has hampered al Qaeda...
"...bin Laden bemoans the recent democratic elections in Afghanistan and the lack of violence involved with it.
"On the tape, bin Laden also says his terror organization has been hurt by the U.S. military's unrelenting manhunt for him and his cohorts on the Afghan-Pakistani border."
As Charles at LGF states:
"This is outrageous. After three years unseen, Osama bin Laden releases a video acknowledging the Bush administration’s record of success in Afghanistan, and in hunting down the Al Qaeda network, and showing his particular hatred for the man who brought this ruin upon him—but the media doesn’t think we should see it? Instead we get a whitewashed, edited version that seems to be equally critical of Bush and Kerry, and wire stories extolling Bin Laden’s confidence and health?"
It's to be expected from the MSM (mainstream media). Hat-tip to Capt. Ed and LFG.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Of Integrity and Al Qaqaa (or is that "all caca"?)
The Washington Times has broken two great stories this week.
1) Kerry's claim that he met with all 15 members of the UN Security Council just before the vote for Resolution 1441... it didn't happen. Redstate also has a great analysis.
2) So what happened to the 380 tons (that's three quarters of a million pounds, people) of explosives/weapons in Al Qaqaa? Maybe over the Syrian border (with the help of the Russians)?
I urge all of you to read the entire week's worth of posts at the following places. In fact, read every post in these places from October 25th through to Election Day!:
Hugh Hewitt
Captain's Quarters
PowerLine
RedState
Belmont Club
Little Green Footballs
Kerry Spot
1) Kerry's claim that he met with all 15 members of the UN Security Council just before the vote for Resolution 1441... it didn't happen. Redstate also has a great analysis.
2) So what happened to the 380 tons (that's three quarters of a million pounds, people) of explosives/weapons in Al Qaqaa? Maybe over the Syrian border (with the help of the Russians)?
I urge all of you to read the entire week's worth of posts at the following places. In fact, read every post in these places from October 25th through to Election Day!:
Hugh Hewitt
Captain's Quarters
PowerLine
RedState
Belmont Club
Little Green Footballs
Kerry Spot
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Weekend Odds & Ends
Little Green Footballs has Kerry's list of Senate accomplishments.
The NY Post has info on Tereza's taxes.
Victor David Hanson gives six reasons why people have a problem with Kerry as a presidential candidate.
Lawrence O'Donnell blows a gasket (following in the footsteps of Howard Dean, Al Gore, John Kerry, Chris Matthews, Terry McAuliff, Michael Moore, and Al Franken).
The AP has a news report on the FBI's dogged determination to track down anybody with any information about potential terrorist attacks before the election.
And there's word out (via PowerLine) that come Monday morning one of the major newspapers will break a big story regarding Kerry (possibly uncovering a discrepancy about a specific foreign policy stance or statement of his). Should be interesting, I'm sure.
The NY Post has info on Tereza's taxes.
Victor David Hanson gives six reasons why people have a problem with Kerry as a presidential candidate.
Lawrence O'Donnell blows a gasket (following in the footsteps of Howard Dean, Al Gore, John Kerry, Chris Matthews, Terry McAuliff, Michael Moore, and Al Franken).
The AP has a news report on the FBI's dogged determination to track down anybody with any information about potential terrorist attacks before the election.
And there's word out (via PowerLine) that come Monday morning one of the major newspapers will break a big story regarding Kerry (possibly uncovering a discrepancy about a specific foreign policy stance or statement of his). Should be interesting, I'm sure.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
How I think it'll break down on Nov. 2nd
As I had stated way back in July when I first started this blog, there is only one true “national” election every four years. And, going back to the earliest presidential election that records popular votes (1824), you will always find a minimum of approximately 40% of the population that will always vote for the losing candidate no matter what. There are a couple rare exceptions to this rule, but even that secures 35% to the loser.
What does this mean? It means that any given election will have 40% of the population on either side of the electoral divide, leaving the remaining “middle” 20% for the candidates to fight over. In some elections, this “middle” group of citizens will make up less than 20% of the electorate (such as in 2000), in other cases you find them so disenfranchised (I hate that word, but you get my drift) that they take their vote elsewhere (see the 19% Perot got in 1992). They may just stay at home and not even bother to vote.
But, in the end, there’s always… ALWAYS… a 10-20% middle group that determines which way the election will go.
Now, this middle 10-20% is a feckless bunch. They don’t take politics too seriously. They make up their minds in the last few weeks of the campaign. They sway in the breeze on issues that the majority of the voters take very seriously. Sometimes they may include the odd mix of the pro-life or fiscal-conservative democrat, or the pro-abortion or social liberal republican, thereby never fully happy with the choices at hand. They complain about being in the minority and not being given any attention to. Yet, this group is exactly who gets the most attention in each election. And they have more power than they even realize. This group drives the other 80% of the population (and the politicians) absolutely crazy.
This is NOT a monolithic bunch that can be swayed as a whole. Each tiny segment of this small group of the electorate is made up of a multitude of views with varying positions, differing emotions, shifting priorities. But, each individual will be ultimately affected by that one key issue (whatever that is for that individual) that will determine whether he or she votes D or R, something else, or not at all.
Of this year’s 10-20% (my best guess is that this year there’s approx. 15%... less than in 1992 but more than in 2000), who has Kerry lost?
• The segment of that 15% who are veterans who have total disdain of his anti-war activities when he returned from Vietnam. Nothing Kerry can do will sway this group. He sealed his fate in 1971, and saluting at the July convention didn’t help. The SwiftVets remind them in case they should forget.
• The segment of that 15% who classify themselves as “reasonable” on the issue of abortion. They are against partial-birth abortion, and they are for parental notification for minors. With abortion as a whole they may have varying views, but on these two points they all agree. Kerry made it clear in the last two debates that he’s against these two positions.
• The segment of that 15% who want the institution of marriage to remain as between a man and a woman. They may not have a strong position on homosexuality as a whole, but on this issue they feel reasonable to place a line in the sand when it comes to defining marriage. This segment takes their marriages and their children seriously. They see and hear Bush speak about his wife and kids and they see genuineness. They look and hear Kerry, and they do NOT see genuineness. They are also disgusted with Kerry’s tactless mention of the VP’s daughter in the last debate, done for obvious political purposes.
• A significant portion of the segment of that 15% who are under 30. They’re sharper than people think they are. They’re informed (thanks to the internet). They see through BS. And Kerry BS’ed them with the false claim that Bush will re-institute the draft. They also are the most concerned about Social Security, and they are the most vocal about wanting to be able to invest that money (their money) as they see fit – to get a better rate of return over the long haul. In debate #3, Kerry just shut them out completely by denying them that issue.
• The so-called “Security Mom’s.” Actually, they’re moms AND dads. Similar (but not the same as) the “Reagan Democrats” of the 80s, I call these people the “9/11 Democrats & Independents.” They GET 9/11. They don’t forget 9/11. They may not like parts of the Iraq situation, but overall they “get it” – “it” being the global war on terror. Kerry keeps stating he “has a plan” (ad infinitem), yet he never explains the plan. What details he does eventually give ends up being nothing different from what Bush is already doing (except wanting to get the approval or support of France & Germany). This group hears “global test” and they wretch.
• The segment of that 15% who own their own businesses. Especially those who lost their jobs after 9/11 and started up their own business when they couldn’t find work anywhere else. They’ve finally gotten a leg up on their finances. Kerry lost them with his tax plan. They know if his plan goes through, their taxes go up significantly.
• The segment of that 15% who never thought they’d ever be able to own a home, and now they do. It wasn’t Kerry’s policies that helped them in this regard.
• The segment of that 15% who just want someone to take a position on an issue and stick with it. Doesn’t matter whether they agree with the stance, just be resolute. And Kerry’s consistent and persistent flip-flopping just rubs them the wrong way.
• The segment of that 15% that never knew of Kerry’s 20 year senate record. And now that they know, aren’t too happy with it (or the lack thereof).
• The segment of that 15% that will vote for a change for change’s sack, but only if the opposing candidate offers something clearly different. And they look at Kerry and the can’t see him clearly at all.
Who has Bush lost?
• The segment of that 15% that lost their job during the last three years, and are not happy with their current financial or career situation. They don’t care about how 9/11 or the recession or the tech bubble affected things. They don’t care how things got the way they are, they just want to be in a better place and are frustrated.
• The segment of that 15% that does not like the Iraq war. They consider it a distraction. They buy into the “Bush Lied, People Died” rhetoric. They prefer focusing on OBL and Al Quaida only.
• The segment of that 15% that feels uncomfortable with his outspokenness about faith and religion.
What does all of this mean come November 2nd? I said it before, and I’ll say it again:
BUSH – 55-56% (35-38 States)
KERRY – 42-43% (12-15 States)
NADER – 1-2%
Another thing of note... I was at the local Blockbuster a couple times this past week (in southern California). “The Passion of the Christ” has been out for seven weeks now, yet there seemed to be about as many copies of that film rented out as there was “Fahrenheit 911” which was just released this passed Wednesday. The handful of copies of the counter-documentary “Fahren-Hype 9/11” were completely rented out.
What does this mean? It means that any given election will have 40% of the population on either side of the electoral divide, leaving the remaining “middle” 20% for the candidates to fight over. In some elections, this “middle” group of citizens will make up less than 20% of the electorate (such as in 2000), in other cases you find them so disenfranchised (I hate that word, but you get my drift) that they take their vote elsewhere (see the 19% Perot got in 1992). They may just stay at home and not even bother to vote.
But, in the end, there’s always… ALWAYS… a 10-20% middle group that determines which way the election will go.
Now, this middle 10-20% is a feckless bunch. They don’t take politics too seriously. They make up their minds in the last few weeks of the campaign. They sway in the breeze on issues that the majority of the voters take very seriously. Sometimes they may include the odd mix of the pro-life or fiscal-conservative democrat, or the pro-abortion or social liberal republican, thereby never fully happy with the choices at hand. They complain about being in the minority and not being given any attention to. Yet, this group is exactly who gets the most attention in each election. And they have more power than they even realize. This group drives the other 80% of the population (and the politicians) absolutely crazy.
This is NOT a monolithic bunch that can be swayed as a whole. Each tiny segment of this small group of the electorate is made up of a multitude of views with varying positions, differing emotions, shifting priorities. But, each individual will be ultimately affected by that one key issue (whatever that is for that individual) that will determine whether he or she votes D or R, something else, or not at all.
Of this year’s 10-20% (my best guess is that this year there’s approx. 15%... less than in 1992 but more than in 2000), who has Kerry lost?
• The segment of that 15% who are veterans who have total disdain of his anti-war activities when he returned from Vietnam. Nothing Kerry can do will sway this group. He sealed his fate in 1971, and saluting at the July convention didn’t help. The SwiftVets remind them in case they should forget.
• The segment of that 15% who classify themselves as “reasonable” on the issue of abortion. They are against partial-birth abortion, and they are for parental notification for minors. With abortion as a whole they may have varying views, but on these two points they all agree. Kerry made it clear in the last two debates that he’s against these two positions.
• The segment of that 15% who want the institution of marriage to remain as between a man and a woman. They may not have a strong position on homosexuality as a whole, but on this issue they feel reasonable to place a line in the sand when it comes to defining marriage. This segment takes their marriages and their children seriously. They see and hear Bush speak about his wife and kids and they see genuineness. They look and hear Kerry, and they do NOT see genuineness. They are also disgusted with Kerry’s tactless mention of the VP’s daughter in the last debate, done for obvious political purposes.
• A significant portion of the segment of that 15% who are under 30. They’re sharper than people think they are. They’re informed (thanks to the internet). They see through BS. And Kerry BS’ed them with the false claim that Bush will re-institute the draft. They also are the most concerned about Social Security, and they are the most vocal about wanting to be able to invest that money (their money) as they see fit – to get a better rate of return over the long haul. In debate #3, Kerry just shut them out completely by denying them that issue.
• The so-called “Security Mom’s.” Actually, they’re moms AND dads. Similar (but not the same as) the “Reagan Democrats” of the 80s, I call these people the “9/11 Democrats & Independents.” They GET 9/11. They don’t forget 9/11. They may not like parts of the Iraq situation, but overall they “get it” – “it” being the global war on terror. Kerry keeps stating he “has a plan” (ad infinitem), yet he never explains the plan. What details he does eventually give ends up being nothing different from what Bush is already doing (except wanting to get the approval or support of France & Germany). This group hears “global test” and they wretch.
• The segment of that 15% who own their own businesses. Especially those who lost their jobs after 9/11 and started up their own business when they couldn’t find work anywhere else. They’ve finally gotten a leg up on their finances. Kerry lost them with his tax plan. They know if his plan goes through, their taxes go up significantly.
• The segment of that 15% who never thought they’d ever be able to own a home, and now they do. It wasn’t Kerry’s policies that helped them in this regard.
• The segment of that 15% who just want someone to take a position on an issue and stick with it. Doesn’t matter whether they agree with the stance, just be resolute. And Kerry’s consistent and persistent flip-flopping just rubs them the wrong way.
• The segment of that 15% that never knew of Kerry’s 20 year senate record. And now that they know, aren’t too happy with it (or the lack thereof).
• The segment of that 15% that will vote for a change for change’s sack, but only if the opposing candidate offers something clearly different. And they look at Kerry and the can’t see him clearly at all.
Who has Bush lost?
• The segment of that 15% that lost their job during the last three years, and are not happy with their current financial or career situation. They don’t care about how 9/11 or the recession or the tech bubble affected things. They don’t care how things got the way they are, they just want to be in a better place and are frustrated.
• The segment of that 15% that does not like the Iraq war. They consider it a distraction. They buy into the “Bush Lied, People Died” rhetoric. They prefer focusing on OBL and Al Quaida only.
• The segment of that 15% that feels uncomfortable with his outspokenness about faith and religion.
What does all of this mean come November 2nd? I said it before, and I’ll say it again:
BUSH – 55-56% (35-38 States)
KERRY – 42-43% (12-15 States)
NADER – 1-2%
Another thing of note... I was at the local Blockbuster a couple times this past week (in southern California). “The Passion of the Christ” has been out for seven weeks now, yet there seemed to be about as many copies of that film rented out as there was “Fahrenheit 911” which was just released this passed Wednesday. The handful of copies of the counter-documentary “Fahren-Hype 9/11” were completely rented out.
Friday, October 15, 2004
FARSCAPE: THE PEACEKEEPER WARS
Watch the new two-part mini-series, FARSCAPE: THE PEACEKEEPER WARS, airing this Sunday and Monday (October 17th & 18th) at 9:00 PM --- on the Sci-Fi Network.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)