Is it just me?

Am I just out of touch? I don't watch the news much because it's mostly doom & gloom and I really don't need to see an hour of bad news right before going to bed. Instead I rely on the TV in the bus, a discarded newspaper, my coworkers, or my mate who has his finger on the political pulse of the country (because that's his job).

But it seems to me that the current regime is a lot more of a one-man show than the last gig. Of course maybe that's because the last front man was a bit of a cowboy. He made for great TV, especially Late Night whose writers really loved him, but you also got to see and hear a lot about Cheney, Condy, and the rest of the team.

With the current group I'm seeing a lot of their front man but I hardly ever see anything from Biden or Hillary. I do see Hillary occasionally, but man! What has Biden been doing? Is he back packing through Pakistan trying to find Osama? Where is he? And who else is there? It's almost as if there's nobody on the team but the Big O.

But maybe the ubiquitous "they" like it that way. Maybe Obama is being set up to succeed, or fail, all on his own, which is smart politics if you ask me (and even if you don't).

If it turns out Obama is a success, his team will come out of the wood work and say, "That's our boy!" (Is it racist to use the term "That's our boy!" to refer to our black President, even when "That's my/our boy!" is a well known term of endearment with no racial connotations?)

And if he fails they'll still rear their heads - this time in mock horror - as they exclaim, "You did what?"

They'll either ride his coat tails to victory, or wash their hands of him, and if you've taken the fast track to the top, you really shouldn't be surprised when the ride down the other side is even faster still.

Welcome to the new regime

Now with hand-picked press conferences.

According to Chicago Sun-Times Journalist Carol Marin, many of the journalists at press conferences for President-elect Barack Obama (what? You thought this was about G.W.?) "don't even bother raising our hands any more to ask questions because Obama always has before him a list of correspondents who've been advised they will be called upon that day."

So certain Journalists at the press conferences are pre-approved to ask questions, and if you're not on that pre-approved list, don't even bother trying to get the President-elect's attention.

Yeah, so what if this has been going on down through the ages? So what if G.W. did it, too. It's too late to go Bush Bashing (unless you've got a Holden Ute, then I'm in), we're entering the Age of Obama, baby!

And all I have to say to that is: Don't blame me. I voted Libertarian.

A hypothetical

John Doe, a U.S. Presidential candidate, collects 62,000,000 "popular" votes, three million more than his opponent. He also wins 30 states, 50 per cent more than his opponent.

With an Electoral College tally of 278, the winning candidate is...John Doe's opponent???

That is what almost happened in 2004.

John Kerry received three million fewer popular votes than GW, he also won just 19 states. It doesn't matter which way you look at it Kerry was clearly not the popular candidate, and yet if he'd won Florida...

You give credit where it's due and this is why I respect the Democrats, because they clearly know how to play the game. (That doesn't mean I support them, just respect them, big difference.)

The 2008 Election was practically a reverse of '04. The Democrats won the same number of states as GW in '04, but their Electoral College tally was almost 80 points higher. A clear and decisive win by a party that knows how to play the game.

If the Democrats can get their shit together, the Republican party will never be in power again. That's not a good thing. As it stands now it's either Republican or Democrat, there's no real choice. If you remove the Republicans it becomes all Democrat, all the time. That's not a good thing.

Congratulations? I'm confused.

Tobold, I'm not sure what you're congratulating us for. All we did was elect a politician to the office of President of the United States. We do that every four years, you know. (And yes, I know; technically our Electoral College system means that We, The People, don't really elect our President.)

So what if he's Black? Why is that such a big deal? It might look like we overcame our prejudice and elected a Black President, but Californians still voted to discriminate against homosexuals and deny them the same rights the State bestows upon heterosexuals. We're not exactly the forward thinking nation you perceive us to be.

Record turn out? Hardly. Obama got (approx.) 63,350,000 votes, while McCain got 56,000,000. That's 119,350,000 votes.

In 2004, Bush & Kerry got 121,000,000 votes between them. They beat the Obama/McCain team by 1,650,000 votes.

Also Obama got just 1.3 million more votes than Bush did in 2004. That's hardly an example of overwhelming support or inspiring a nation.

Considering the approx. adult population of the U.S. is 220 million, slightly more than half of those eligible actually voted. (Yes, I know. Some of those adults are Felons, Residential Aliens, or Illegals, none of whom can vote.) But what does it really say about someone who realistically only garnered the support of a quarter of the population?

American's two-party system also practically handpicks the candidates the Public think they're voting on, so by "electing" a Black President it's not like we did anything amazing. We flipped a coin, and this time it came up heads. A black head, sure, but it's still just the head of a Politician. What's the big deal?

By the way, this is not Sour Grapes, I'm not a sore loser (didn't the pro-homosexual rights statement give that away?) because I'm not a Republican. I'm an Independent-Libertarian who is disillusioned with the U.S. political system, and I'm neither rich nor powerful enough to change it.

Change? Ha!

Obama is a Politician. You know he lied during his campaign because he has the exact same tell as every other Politician who's gone before him: Their lips moved.

Communist China?

This is what happens when you let your government oppress you.

First your government takes away your guns.

Then they want to restrict your access to information.

Then they deny you a voice and try to silence their critics.

No, this is not China, folks; I'm sad to report that this is my former homeland. This is what's happening in Australia, right now.

Fucking brilliant!!!

So I've been reading a few Yahoo! Answers lately, and I ran across this one, which asked "Can you tell me why your[sic] voting for the candidate that you are?"

One of the respondents wrote (IMHO) this Fucking Brilliant Gem of a response.

* * * * *
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read: 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on an 'Obama '08' tie. Again I laughed--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came, I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama 'Redistribution of Wealth' concept. He stood there in disbelief as I told him I was going to redistribute his tip to someone I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $5 and told him to thank the server inside. He looked at me questioningly, so I explained that even though the server did the work and had earned the money, I decided that he, the homeless guy, was more in need of the money. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment, it had been clearly proven that while the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, the waiter was very angry that I gave away the money he did earn, even though the actual recipient deserved the money more.

It seems redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept, than in practical application.........

You want me to give your hard earned money to someone else. This is what I will continue to do daily until the day Obama is out of Office, that is if he makes it.

Vote for the closet Democrat over the flaming Socialist any day.
* * * * *

The lesser of two evils?

It doesn't have to be this way, so don't be a sheep and don't allow the media to brainwash you. A vote for someone other than one of the two evils is not a wasted vote.

When it's not compulsory to vote you should be free to vote for the candidate of your choice, in fact you should be commended for taking an interest in the running of your country, not made to feel guilty for doing so.

The truth is if everyone who could legally vote did so, and if everyone voted for the candidate of their choice, not just for one of the two evils, then both evils would probably be more than a little shocked at the result.

Although I am the famous Wizard 101 Blogger, I don't claim to have a huge readership, but perhaps the following will inspire others to get the message out and together we can educate the masses.

You have a choice, and it's your own choice to make. Don't make a choice out of fear, don't feel you have to vote for one of the two evils. Vote for the candidate you think actually has the knowledge and experience to run the country.

Because they already get enough air time I'm not going to name either of the two evils here (or even link to their pages), instead, here are the people the two evils would probably much rather you didn't know about.

The Libertarian Party candidate, Congressman Bob Barr.

The Constitution Party candidate, Pastor Chuck Baldwin.

The Green Party candidate, former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney.

Independent candidate Ralph Nader.

Of particular note is that Cynthia McKinney is not just a woman, but an African-American woman! Now why the hell isn't she getting more press time?

Because the media want you to vote for one of the two evils, so they promote them and forsake everyone else.

Don't let the wolf lead you astray, or the shepherd pull the wool over your eyes.

Vote (or don't vote) for the candidate of your choice. Now if your choice is one of the two evils, good for you, but be true to yourself, make sure it's your choice, not that of the media.

President Harry

Hmmm...would you vote for this man?

Maybe it's just me...

although from what I read on the Internet, it's not, but Russell Brand, the alleged comedian who hosted last night's MTV VMAs, didn't seem that funny to me.

For starters, when has MTV been about politics? Is there a silent (invisible) P in there somewhere?

Two, if there's a good reason to vote for Obama, "To prove you're not a racist" is not it. How would you feel about someone who said, "Obama has done nothing which warrants him being a Presidential candidate, but I don't want people thinking I'm racist so I'm going to vote for him, anyway..."?

Three, George W. is a "retarded cowboy"? How long did it take Brand to come up with that drivel? Or did he just watch the last few VMAs and steal Chris Rock's gag? Perhaps he just watched reruns of The Tonight Show, or The Late Show. A "retarded cowboy"? Wow. He insulted retards, cowboys, and most of Texas, all in one hit. Actually, that's pretty good.

Four, I fail to see the humor in making fun of a group that, while working in an industry that surrounds them with promiscuity, still tries to promote a message that abstinence is A-OK. In a world where teen pregnancy is rampant to such an extent that (at least) 17 High School-aged girls made a pact to deliberately get themselves pregnant (thanks, Wolfgang ;), we have Pop Stars (who are role models, as much as real moms and dads might wish otherwise) who are trying to promote abstinence and say "It's okay to say No to sex", and this idiot is making fun of them. Maybe I'm just old fashioned.

I will say this, though. Russell Brand has a lot going on up top; It's just a pity all of the activity seems to be occurring on the outside of his head.

I'm already being watched...

(I think) so fuck it. Let's take this ball and run with it :D

The problem with a political system where you really only have a choice between two parties (because a vote for anyone else is just wasted) is that neither party serves your best interest, in fact neither party really serves anyone's interest except for those people closely associated with those two parties.

In the U.S., the Democrats and the Republicans cooperate and work a lot more closely together than the public realizes.

Paranoid? Conspiracy Theorist? Moi? Heavens no. Sarcastic bastard? Maybe just a little.

But if I'm paranoid, explain why a Presidential candidate would threaten to walk out on a nationally televised debate if anyone other than The Other Party's candidate was present?

The Big Players in the Democrat and Republican parties know how fragile their hold is. They know a Two-Party system doesn't serve the people's best interests, and they don't care. What a Two-Party system does do is make it a lot easier for either Party to retain power, or help them regain it.

Think about it. It's you and one other guy. Would you want a third person coming in to the mix and reducing your chances of winning? Hell, no! So you form an alliance with the other guy to keep everyone else out. Only we're not talking about two guys, we're talking about two political parties, working together, to ensure anyone else is labeled as a crackpot or a whacko or just plain paranoid.

Are you reading this right now and thinking, "He think's the Dems and Pubs actually work together? What a crackpot!"

I'm not a crackpot. You're blind to the truth.

See how that works? We keep on insulting each other and what do we accomplish? Nothing.

What do the Dems and Pubs accomplish? One thing, but it's a Big Thing.

They accomplish Everything.

They kept us fighting each other instead of working together, because the minute we stop fighting each other and see through their facade and begin working together, they lose everything.

Can you imagine a Presidential debate set up between three candidates? I can't.

When I put a third person into the mix, I see Black and White on each side...and a Mediator in the middle. I can't even imagine a three-way debate. The system is not designed to facilitate a three-way debate. You've got a candidate on each side of the stage and...where does the third candidate go?

Between them? So he gets attacked from both sides?

Maybe between them, but set back a little? Where he won't appear quite as important as the two front guys.

Maybe we should just have them all sitting down at one long table.

Maybe I just haven't participated in enough formal debates. I wasn't on the debate team in High School or College, but my recollection of Debates was always the Pro-side and the Con-side. But running a country is not about Pros and Cons, there's a lot of Gray areas.

Where's the Party that thinks it's ok to execute criminals, but won't automatically treat gun owners as such?

Where's the Party that makes the distinction between Church and State, and realizes Marriage has nothing to do with a State-recognized Union?

Where's the Party that thinks homosexuals (of legal age) should be allowed to enter into a State-recognized Union and receive the same Rights accorded to heterosexual partners entering into the same?

Where's the Party that advocates less government interference and involvement in individuals lives? (Are you serious? A Party that wants to put itself out of a job???)

Those are my biggest concerns.

The first labels me as a Republican, while the next two make me...a Democrat???

And that last one? Less government interference?

That last concern labels me a 'crackpot' Libertarian, which is what I really am, and which is what most people in the U.S. are, too.

Most people in the U.S. just want to go about their own life and make their own choices, and they don't really mind what their neighbors do, as long as nobody gets hurt and no laws get broken. If that's you, you're probably a Libertarian.

But the Democrats and Republicans made "Libertarian" a dirty word, an undesirable label, much like Socialist and Fascist, which is why the Democrats and Republicans prefer their current labels.

More people in the U.S. are Libertarians than the Democrats and Republicans would like you to believe, possibly more Libertarians than Dems and Pubs put together, which is why they're labeled crackpots. Nobody wants to be labeled a crackpot, so you reluctantly put yourself down as a Republican or a Democrat, even though you're a gun owning, anti-criminal, pro-homosexual rights kind of guy.

Libertarians? Bunch of paranoid crackpots, if you ask me.

Not counting your chickens...

From Wolfgang's Blog I got a couple of ideas on how it might be possible to improve the electoral system in the U.S. and make it more fair for every voter.

As it currently exists the Primary Elections are a war of attrition. Candidates can be eliminated and resign when they lose crucial states, or stay in the game by winning the same. People in several states have already had their say, and regardless of how you look at it, their vote is more important than yours because their vote has caused some candidates to concede. Too bad for you if you liked Hunter, Thompson, Richardson, or Kucinich. For the Republicans the race is down to McCain and Romney, while the Democrats have no real choice other than Clinton and Obama. I like Ron Paul but he's pretty much out of the running (although he hasn't resigned, yet), and Romney, my second choice, needs to win a few big states if he's to challenge McCain, who leaped to the front after winning Florida.

You can argue until you're blue in the face, but letting some people cast their votes early, counting those votes, and making the results known, does not make for a fair election. So the first change I'd recommend is every Primary Election in every State be held on the same day, no exceptions.

The second change I'd make is not allowing the results to be released early. Count the ballots and tally them up, sure, but having a running tally as the day goes on only hurts one person...you, the voter.

Why?

Let's use the Democrats as an example, and let them choose between Clinton and Obama.

When the polls open all of Clinton's followers turn out and vote. The News people conduct exit polls and see that for every one person who voted for Obama, ten people have cast their vote for Clinton. By mid-afternoon close to 90% of Clinton's supporters (being your stereotypical Peggy Bundy, Bon Bon eating, stay-at-home Moms. Yes, I'm being facetious here.) have cast their vote. Around this time most of Obama's voters (all blue collar laborers or businessmen, yes, another facetious, tongue-in-cheek generalization) are getting off work and planning to vote for their hero, but turning on the radio in their car what do they hear? Clinton is beating Obama by a landslide! That's it, they think, my man has lost. And so they don't go to the polls but go straight home and sure enough, Clinton wins by a landslide, because all of Obama's voters heard the news and instead of voting they all went straight home.

So not only should everyone be voting on the same day, but nobody should have access to the results prior to the close of Polls. And this brings us to one final change.

When the polls close at 8pm along the east coast and the ballots are tallied and the results are known by 9pm, those results should not be released to the public, for the exact same reason as above. 9pm in Florida is only 6pm in California, so people in California still have 2 hours to get to the Polls. Many people in California are just coming home from work at 6pm, but they plan to stop and vote on their way. When they turn on their radio and hear the results of the east coast elections, how a certain candidate is winning by a landslide, that can have a demoralizing effect, of course it can also work both ways. "Oh, my guy's already won; I don't need to vote." Then the next morning they get up and find their guy lost.

I mention Florida specifically not just because of the Miami-Dade debacle of a few years ago, but because Florida didn't have to be the tight race that it became. Florida actually spans two time zones, so when the polls closed in eastern Florida, they were still open for another hour in western Florida. Allegedly many voters in Florida don't come out until the last hour or so because it's cooler in the evening, but throughout the afternoon the western Florida voters had been hearing the results of the east Florida elections, and apparently turn outs in western Florida were extremely low, unusually low. The people in western Florida figured their candidate was winning (or had already lost) so they didn't bother coming out to vote, which skewed the results.

Elections are important. Every person is supposed to be able to have their say, and every vote is supposed to carry equal weight, but when the people who vote first are able to affect the decision of later voters, the system becomes biased towards those first voters. Unfortunately the Me Generation is also the Now Generation, and that has affected the entire population. Why should I have to wait for tomorrow? I want the results NOW!

Imagine an election for Class President where 8 people like Joe and 9 like Ted, and it just so happens that Joe's people all sit on one side of the classroom. The teacher running the poll doesn't ask for a show of hands, but instead asks the first student who he's voting for, then the second, then the third, and so on. By the time she gets to the eighth student it seems support for Joe is unanimous so Ted, knowing Joe needs just one more vote to win, concedes...and Joe is elected Class President, even though Ted would have won if every vote had been counted.

This is the situation we have today, and it's not fair in the classroom or the real world. The electoral college system could remain, nothing would need to be changed about that, the only change would be everyone votes on the same day, and the results are not released until all the results, nationwide, have been officially tallied.

And...Survey says?

Out of curiousity I ran a Facebook Groups search on the major candidates for the 2008 U.S. Primary Elections, and discovered the following...

The top four Groups for Hillary Clinton are actually anti-Hillary:
Stop Hillary Clinton: (One Million Strong AGAINST Hillary), with 681,000 members;
ANTI Hillary Clinton for president '08 with 64,600;
Hillary Clinton: Stop Running for President and Make Me a Sandwich with 28,600; and
Life's a bitch, why vote for one? Anti-Hillary '08 with 13,600.
The first pro-Hillary Clinton Group is the fifth most populated, being Hillary Clinton for President - One Million STRONG with 12,425 members.

By contrast, the most populated Facebook groups for the other candidates are all for those candidates, but don't let their numbers fool you. Many people opposed to a candidate will join that candidate's group in order to challenge, debate with, and just generally piss off that candidate's supporters.

Barack Obama's group Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack) is the clear front runner with 418,797 members.

Ron Paul's group Congressman Ron Paul for President 2008 at number two with 62,885 members still has a clear lead over the rest of the pack.

Mike Huckabee's group Mike Huckabee for President 2008! has 28,237 members.

Mitt Romney's group Mitt Romney (One Million Strong for Mitt) has 19,954 members.

Hillary's group would be here, with its 12,500 members.

Fred Thompson's group Fred Thompson '08 has 6,179 members.

Dennis Kucinich's group Dennis Kucinich for President in 2008 is close behind with 6,007 members.

John Edwards' group Edwards 2008 has 5,771 members

Mike Gravel 2008 has 3,578 members.

John McCain for President has 2,660 members.

Bill Richardson's group makes the hard-to-believe claim America for Bill Richardson, considering it has just 2,477 members.

Duncan Hunter for President in 2008 has 943 members.

Despite the real man's popularity Rudy Guiliani for President in 2008 has a pathetic Facebook representation with just 872 members.

And bringing up the rear (because someone has to) is Alan Keyes For President In 2008! with 311 members.

What does this tell us? Not a lot, really. It's not a real poll. People join Facebook groups for various reasons, not always because they believe in the group, but because, as I said, they want to troll the boards and piss off the real members. And although we're well and truly embracing the Internet age where someone like my Mum could marry a guy she met online, there's a large percentage of the population who are willing & able voters, but who will only show their support at the Polls, nowhere else. Not to a Telephone Pollster, or a Petitioner outside a market, and certainly not online.

Still, looking at Barack Obama's and Ron Paul's Facebook numbers, I would expect both of them to gather a lot of real support (not just online) as more people have their say in the coming months and upcoming Primaries.

Learning from VA Tech

I've refrained from commenting on this, mainly because my comments are not that which would "go with the flow", but I've decided I'm going to speak up anyway.

I'm very pro-gun. I see these shootings not as excuses or wake-up calls that we need to tighten gun laws or remove guns from society, but as wake-up calls that we need to be more aware of our fellow man (& woman), we need to become familiar with the signs that someone might be building up to become a "shooter", and we need to be willing to step in and get involved (by alerting the appropriate authorities) if we do suspect a shooting is a distinct possibility in the near future.

In 1996 Martin Bryant allegedly shot and killed 35 people in Port Arthur, Tasmania. I was living in Australia at the time, self-employed as a gardener for various clients, including an elderly lady from my church who lived on her family farm just outside town. One of my self-appointed duties was to cull the rabbits that were tearing up her property, so with my client's permission I'd visit her property late in the evening and eliminate a few of the rabbits with my trusty shotgun. After the Port Arthur incident the Aussie government decided shotguns like mine were dangerous (and they were, as many a rabbit found out) so they implemented what they called a Buyback plan to buy back a majority of privately owned firearms. Essentially confiscation with compensation. Despite many, many guns being removed from the public, shootings still occurred. There hasn't been another "Port Arthur" incident since, but that's not surprising considering that in Australia's 200 year history that was the only one of its kind. What has happened though it that a college student legally gained access to a handgun (an extremely highly regulated firearm in Australia) and shot several of his fellow students, while another fellow got hold of a sword, again a highly regulated item in Australia, and ran amok stabbing people.

Easy access to guns does not facilitate these kind of activities. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had several plans for obtaining firearms, and were apparently willing to obtain them through illegal channels if necessary. George Weller didn't even need a firearm to kill 9 people in Santa Monica in 2006.

Then there's Joel Myrick, who was the assistant principal of Pearl Middle School in Mississippi in 1997, when Luke Woodham shot and killed two girls, one of who was his girlfriend. Luke then shot and wounded 7 other students before starting to cross the road to the Junior High School where he claimed he intended to shoot more students. That was when Myrick finally returned after running 1/4 mile to his car and back to get his legally owned and stored handgun. Myrick prevented any further deaths by holding Luke at gunpoint until the police arrived.

The anti-gun people like to say a law is worthy if it saves just one life. Using their logic, the law that allowed Myrick to legally own and store a handgun in his car is also worthy. Lives were saved that day because a private citizen was armed. That's enough proof right there that guns save lives. I only need to reference one case because it's all that's needed.

The truth is if someone is determined to get a gun, they will. If someone is determined to kill someone, unless they're stupid, it's almost impossible to prevent them from doing so.

What, me worry?

Condoleeza Rice : No better friend...

Wow ! ! !

One of the girls at the office who has a bit of trouble walking (& who hadn't eaten that morning) requested someone get her Carl's Jr., the only place in downtown that was both within walking distance AND open. When I went around to see her she offered to buy my lunch as well, so off I went to 7th & Broadway, which is one of the intersections the protestors passed through. This was at 10:30am and the crowds had already began gathering and marching. The roads were quiet, the sidewalks were empty, but as I got close to Carl's Jr. I could hear the noise of the crowd. Oddly enough the Carl's Jr. was also very quiet, with very few customers inside. Many people were still obeying the directive "No shopping". I purchased our lunch and made my way back to the office.

While having lunch with the girls (I'm the only guy in my unit) we decided to visit 6th & Broadway, which is one block from the office and another intersection through which the protestors would be passing.

At 6th & Broadway we stood in the middle of the sidewalk and watched the crowds pass by chanting "Si su puede" and "Aqui estamos y no nos vamos", which mean Yes, we can, and We're here and not leaving.

The protestors were mostly in the road, walking in front of us, but a few people were up on the sidewalk, and they walked around us as they went, and then there were more people walking around us, and then, had I not been a six-foot tall macho gringo, my girls might have been swept away with the crowd. As it was people would still almost walk into us before realizing that just like them, we were here and not leaving, either!

I stood there, arms crossed, and attempted to look friendly but also a little intimidating (a nod and a smile, and a pair of sunglasses help in those situations), and everyone was forced to move around me and thus around the girls. At one point a gap appeared between us and couple of guys in front of us, also just standing, watching the crowd, so we quickly stepped forward and joined ranks with them, and the crowd continued to flow around us, chanting, singing, cheering, waving their flags, etc.


We were in the middle of everything for I don't know how long, but it seemed like a long time, and it was intense. Finally there was a substantial break in the crowd, not that all of the protestors had passed us by, just they were all stopped down at 7th Street doing crowdy things, chanting, etc.

We decided we'd had enough viva la revolución for one day so back to the office we strolled, only to see down at 7th & Spring the same crowd we'd left at 7th & Broadway, and they were heading up Spring. We stood out the front of our building and watched everyone march past. Being that this was not the planned route, several cars and a bus were forced to turn around and head back up to 6th and make a detour.

Wow ! ! ! It was an amazing experience!

This is going to be BIG!!!

There are two illegal immigrant protests scheduled for today in downtown Los Angeles. Government officials estimate the number of potential protesors to be approximately half a million, combined, but there were that many for just one protest in March, and that was almost twice as many as they were expecting. I would not be surprised if more than a million protestors turn out today; that's at each protest, not just combined.

This morning while waiting for my bus I noticed a lot less traffic on the roads than usual. My bus was a lot emptier than usual. The freeway was a lot emptier than usual. A coworker who rides the train just confirmed that her train...was a lot emptier than usual.

Why is that significant?

Because today's protests are being run under a "No Business As Usual" slogan, meaning illegals should not go to work, or school, or shopping, etc. They should not do any of the things they'd normally do, except for the protest, they can go to that. So the fact that the buses & trains roads and freeways are emptier than usual means a lot of immigrants are not going to work or school, etc, but are taking the day off for the protest.

This is going to be big.

To top it off, our Mayor sent out a memo saying if we want to take part in the protest, or just take the day off, that we need to use our own time and request it in advance...but of course the Mayor can go to the protest, on City time. I find that just a little hypocritical.

A very Bushy vacation

Please pay close attention to the following picture. Note the clarity and the detail in the photograph. Notice the crispness of the subjects in the foreground, and the slightly out-of-focus look to the subjects and scenery in the background.

If you're going to photoshop a picture, this is a perfect example of how to do it. While software tools exist to facilitate the merging of two photographs, as has obviously been done with this picture, it still takes skills to produce a piece of this caliber. Although it's obvious where the separation line between the two merged photos must be, the only visible indication is the slight blurriness of the water next to the tail of the fish. Yes, the subjects in the foreground are very clear compared to the slightly out-of-focus background, but that's not a flaw or a sign of a photoshopped picture; blurriness of the background is to be expected if the camera is focused on the subjects closest to the lens.

Whoever created this masterpiece really knows their stuff. I am very impressed.

Ladies & Gentlemen, I give you, a very Bushy Vacation: