don't see this
latest comments:
Yes, Kerry won substantively.
Unfortunately, that's not the issue. Much like in 2000, it only took a few minutes for the anchors at CNN et al. to start focusing on style rather than substance, detracting points for facial expressions and mannerisms.
Except this time, it wasn't the Democrat. It was Bush.
When Helena spoke to me during the debate, she mentioned Kerry wasn't looking at the camera. That got no play in the press this morning. Instead, every single anchor noticed Bush "making faces" as Kerry spoke. By contrast, when Bush spoke, Kerry just lit up a soon-to-be-trademarked smile, nodding occasionally.
The technique was effective. Instead of looking angry or dismissive, Kerry looked like he was agreeing with Bush. Then he'd open his mouth, and as one would chastise a petulant child, would tell Bush that sadly, thing were wrong.
I don't know what the intentions were from the Kerry camp, but the effect was striking: Bush was coming unhinged. He oscillated between confusion and anger, often returning to his stump points even when they made little sense. He botched North Korea. He said "nukular". He just fell apart.
The spin today, is of course, important. But far more important was the moment minutes after the debate when the CNN anchors said, "Frankly, John Kerry did better than we thought....Bush kept smirking." The media collective has agreed: Bush got Gored.
And that's good news for us.
I know what you're thinking - why is Brad not only not out at this time of night on a Thursday, but he's actually typing on a computer? The rain perhaps? The overpriced drinks at Redline?
Nah, it's the debate. And though the whirling dervishes haven't yet settled down, I think the verdict is clear. Kerry blasted this one out of the park.
Sure some might have been nervous, but not after the incredibly brilliant lowering of expectations done by the Kerryites. The media expected a long-winded self-contradicting bore and a charming, plain-spoken president, and instead they got a forceful, incisive leader and an annoyed, confused uncle. Even Bush's jokes seemed to fall flat, as the inability of an audience to respond seemed to deflate those lines that he seemed to think were winners.
In the end, though there were several great lines, the best wasn't a sound bite at all. It was Kerry's ability to describe his position on Iraq succinctly and in a way that every American could understand. Kerry knew Hussein was a threat, but there was a right way and a wrong way to disarm him. Bush did it the wrong way. Simple, eh?
I should know better than to be happy right now, as I thought Gore won his debates pretty handily, but in this case even the go-bots at Fox admitted the obvious - Bush lost. Big-time.
Sure it's unscientific, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be influential.
go to this poll and click on 'grays', and let's see if we can't get us into first place. The poll must be new because there aren't more than a couple hundred votes...time to push the system!
So I began to design a logo for the Senators, based on the fonts/styles used in the various department press rooms around the district. The trouble is, that damn blue background goes so poorly with the red district star that every effort ended up looking cheesy.
So I finally switched the background to gray, then minutes later read Brad's post. It hit me:
Good colors. Good logo possibilities, and a great color scheme. Plus, it still has the White House font, so it looks far classier than these crappy ideas.
I'm now officially down with the Grays.
Wilbon weighs in and I'm beginning to come around to his point of view.
Sure, 'Senators' has a nice ring to it, and already has good name recognition, but let's face it, they sucked. Badly. And even if the Expos manage to pull out a halfway good season, the first time they lose a couple of games, the sportswriters will be all over the cliches.
You know, like 'Washington is first in war, first in peace, and last in the american league...'
The Grays, on the other hand, only managed to blast away the competition in an unparalleled streak of excellence. It would almost be insulting not to choose the name, especially considering that the district is essentially the last colony. Though 'Senators' might highlight our lack of voting representation, 'Grays' would highlight the racism that prevents us from ever getting that representation.
And on a lighter note, let's face the uniform facts. Anyone ready for a red, white and blue monstrosity? I'm already cringing...but the Grays not only kicked ass, they looked awesome too. Do the research, check out the unis, and you'll be sold too. If baseball is all about merchandising, then Grays will win every time.
So I'm coding a new site for work and it's now to the point where I'd like to get feedback on it.
The temporary site is right here and the only two pages you should look at are the main page and the news page. (I'm still working on few lines of css code in the "services" page.)
If you're using Firefox, be sure to click in the lower right-hand corner where the stylesheet switcher lives to see the other two style sheets in action. I particularly like the third one.
Oh, and if anyone tells me I should use Flash, I'll rip their head off. So don't try.
We got baseball. Yay! Let the naming wars commence...
I, for one, think "The Washington Senators" is the best name, followed possibly by "The Washington Greys", the name of the old Negro League team that kicked ass while the Senators were dragging it.
The reason I prefer the Senators is that I think the name, naysayers to the contrary, would highlight our ridiculous lack of representation in the Senate.
It's true. You're being watched..
I can see it from my office building, hovering a bit North and East of my location. Hooray for Big Brother Blimp!
Throughout the week, the 178-foot-long lighter-than-air craft will conduct test runs over the Washington area designed to determine how effective electro-optical and infrared cameras aboard are at detecting potentially threatening movements on the ground.
The equipment already is used in Iraq and Afghanistan to identify enemy troop movement, but in combat zones it is attached to a static inflatable device that looks like a giant, blimp-shaped balloon.
Clearly, those enemy troop movements will be a result of the new handgun law push...
This site is bizarre. Written by a conservative self-proclaimed "policy guy", it is little more than a screed against liberal government. To see the worst aspect, however, one must visit the site and then read this bizarre conservative logic:
Thanks for stopping by. My name is John R. LaPlante, and I am the author of the PolicyGuy blog.
If you know your fonts, you will know that the header on this page is in the "comic" font. There's a reason for that. Public policy is serious business. Arrogance leads to all sorts of policy flaws: not invented here, we've always done it that way, we're armed with advanced degrees and we're help you, and so forth. Flawed policies have terrible effects on society, the economy, families, individuals and communities. It's important then, if you work in policy, to not take yourself too seriously.
So, because policy is important, policy people should not be serious. And they should use comic sans for websites. Wow. I can only conclude one thing: that this guy must be the sort of person who thought implementing a "flat tax" in Iraq would solve problems. "See? It's a flat tax! It's funny! It's not serious! You get to keep more of your money!"
Where do these people come from? I don't want to slur the buckeyes but...
This article seemed normal until I came upon the following paragraph:
With the booster program by then 161/27 years behind schedule, Pentagon officials approved a plan to re-bid the project. To increase the chance of getting an effective booster, they decided in early 2002 to authorize two separate development efforts based on two different designs.
Um, 161/27 years? It's too early for math like that...
For the record, I'm not even sure the diamonds are "conflict diamonds". All I know is that the area in which the mine exists used to be in a state of war.
So I think the easiest solution is to simply ask where the mine is located, and work from there. That way I get all the facts out first, and if the area is in a government held territory, I can do the job with a clean conscience.
Speaking of caving in for money, look at what google just decided they would do in China. Yeah, that's right. They caved. Sell-outs. Think of how ill-informed Americans are and we have a free press. Now think of China.
Comic sans...that's the font. See this site to understand.
I can see the argument that perhaps more good could be done by sabotaging the guy's evildoing. Not a game I would engage in, but I believe that if you contract to do a job, you should do that job to the best of your ability, while factoring in reasonable excuses for a social life and sleep.
The argument that someone else will do the job anyway is bad, and you know it, Brad. You can't free yourself of the moral responsibility for your own behavior, simply because someone else would engage in the behavior if you don't. There is something to be said for not being the guy who does the rotten thing, even if the rotten thing gets done anyway.
You know Ed has plenty to spend on your birthday -- the guy could probably buy you a lamborghini with all the credit he has to his name. Has there ever been a month when Ed was not hard-up? And yet his lunchtime adventures continue unabated...
actually, i've got a couple of questions straight off. first, is ed just posting this question or is he the one who is conflicted? it sure sounds like ed, especially the whining about money and the inability to say no to dumbass requests.
and if it is ed, then my birthday is coming up, and i could use some serious gifts this time around instead of the usual 'hey it wasn't what you said you wanted but instead is a lousy knock-off that blows mountain goats...' so i guess i've got a dog in this fight as well.
now i know what helena is thinking. brad gets called the 'embodiment of evil' once and now he thinks he's on the dark side, so he can get away with ethically troubling advice. but i have a higher purpose this time than getting prezzed up nice and all. and that's knocking some sense into ed/poster person. because if the cash man is going to ask somebody else to do it, then there's no reason he shouldn't just do a lousy job and still take the money.
that way he maximizes the chance of conflict dude's presentation falling flat, while minimizing his own effort, and at the same time, ensuring that conflict dude has no time to get the presentation fixed up by other means. i mean, if he 'refuses' out of principle, conflict guy will simply get someone else to do it, because there are always low-lifes out there who'll do anything for a buck.
so the real question is - how can i make an elegant powerpoint presentation that does the exact opposite of what its owner wants? i think something that turns a boring, yet bad, proposal into an over-the-top vegas presentation. throw in a bunch of animated diamonds (preferably anthropomorphic ones with googly eyes), really annoying blinking text (preferably in an absurd font...what was that one that helena and ed hated?) and some codewords and euphemisms for the morally suspect.
as the cheshire cat says, 'come on, it'll be loads of fun...'
While I am lucky enough to work each day toward a cause I believe in, I can certainly reconcile doing neutral work. I really don't think that you should work for some guy looking to make a buck off the diamond trade. Evil, evil!
(For the record, in the circles I move in, soon-to-be-engaged women describe their perfect ring as blah-de-blah cut, NON-RECENTLY-MINED diamond, blah-de-blah setting... Heath knows he has to give me a hand-me-down diamond. In plenty of circles, no one bats an eye at new diamonds.)
But the question isn't whether the diamond mine is evil -- you believe that it is. You can't do it. You aren't that hard-up. I know you aren't. Go watch In America. I saw it just last night. You'll feel alot less sorry for yourself. Money's cheap; integrity's more useful.
Dear Dredwerkz,
A former co-worker, who continues to do business with the firm I work for, called me up today. In the past, I have helped him setup a new computer, troubleshoot when his box was infected with a virus, etc. I was expecting more of the same today.
Instead, he said he needed some help putting together a powerpoint presentation. He described to me what he needed and said he'd compensate me for my time. The problem? The presentation is so that he can get people to invest in his conflict-diamond mine in Africa.
Normally, I'd say no on principle, but I am very hard up for funds this month and I could surely use some easy work. So I told him yes, and got off the phone. Now I'm rethinking my position.
Unlike the death star contractor debate, I'm not worried about the risks. I'm more worried that someone's hand will get hacked off because I want to make a few franklins. Which makes me want to go ahead and do the presentation , but do a really bad job so that no one buys shares in this guy's efforts.
Or perhaps I should just ask him what he thinks of the situation. I don't know where to turn. What do you guys think?
Sincerely, A Conflicted Pauper
This is hilarious. The heroes page is also good.
The Metro police nailed another person recently, this time for cursing loudly into her cell-phone.
Again, I think this is fine. A few high-profile incidents like this, and people will start to treat the Metro with more respect. A zero-tolerance policy is exactly why Metro has remained so good, despite its lousy service. If you're going to be packed like sardines into a car and have every other escalator broken, at least you can appreciate the calm, quiet commute.
I saw a prostitute near my old house today.
It was early in the morning.
So yesterday good ole' rummy said elections in most of iraq were acceptable. in fact, he said, "...so you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet."
yikes, stop, hold your horses. elections in most places are ok? this sort of controvenes the universal suffrage form of democracy we tend to espouse. what's next? only male iraqis owning 2 acres of land an not living in fallujah can vote?
let's forget for a moment the practical reasons rushing elections can be a disaster. bosnia held elections very quickly and elected a nationalist government. afghanistan's elections put election workers into an environment where they create violence. instead, let's just remember that we may not want the world to observe how we talked a great game about bringing democracy to iraq, and then turned the country into florida.
Read Milbank's latest article. I still would like to see anyone name a reporter from that other paper who is as skilled. And, unlike previous times, this time the editors moved the article to A1. All Dana needs now is to sneak above the fold to cement the WaPo's status as the best paper in the country. The other paper, by contrast, today ran a front-page story on the last time Kerry lost a campaign, which, unsurprisingly, has nothing to do with today.
Again, I think the other paper has a better editorial page. And I think the LA Times has terrific international news coverage. But for domestic politics and coverage of this administration, you can't beat the Washington Post.
Wow. Kerry looks so much stronger on offense than defense. His speech at Temple University today was a knockout punch. The video isn't up yet, but when it is, I encourage everyone to go watch it. In the interim, go read the speech.