Tondar's Daily Rant

Prepare yourself for the writings of Tondar the Destroyer, Baron of Atlanta, Rightful Heir to the Throne of Spain, from whom all babies come. As his will be blogged, so let it be done.

Saturday, July 10, 2004

KEEP ON ROCKIN' IN THE JAIL CELL

So you got sent away for "Extreme DUI," what better way to pass the time in jail than to sing "Rhinestone Cowboy" for the kids.
RETURN OF THE BRUNETTE

Since Ole Tondar has been staying with the Aunt in Atlanta I have spent alotta time with my 10 year old cousin. She's a good kid but unfortunately she is at that junior high age where sneers, dirty looks, and commentary are a way of life. Nothing is off limits; from my hair being slightly askew, to wearing a Senor Frog's T-shirt to bed, to liking frosting, I have certainly had my life scrutinized and needless to say, she disapproves.

Now of course to Tondar the Dumbsian attitude still holds true. Your problem is me so, DEAL WITH IT! But nevertheless, since I can't unload on family, she is getting to me. For the last 2 weeks I have averaged about 4 high school flash back dreams a week. Of course the fact that high school may take on the appearance of the Vatican, or that I take classes in Captain America sheild throwing is not really the point. The point is she came to visit me again. Yes, the Brunette. In this dream I was taking a pointless science class that I didn't need so I transfered to a creative writing class where who should be there tall, thin, and smiling? Yes, it was the Brunette looking just as cute as ever. This time she was wearing a pink tank top and her long straight hair came halfway down her back. Despite the high school circumstances, it was a good dream :)
HALLOWEEN BACK IN THE DAY

From the Frank Archives 5/28/04...

To All:

Man, these Halloween costumes are from hilarious to down right creepy.
YA GOTTA DO WHAT YA GOTTA DO

From the Frank Archives 5/28/04

Friday, July 09, 2004

THE BATTLE OF MIDDLE EARTH

For all the LoTR fans out there check out this analysis of the Battle for Middle Earth. Looks like Gandalf played right into the hands of Sauron and still found a way to win.
ECONOMICS OF MP3s II

Well it seems this study isn't quite all that afterall. Especially after Oblivion guitarist Ben points out the shotty methodology of their research...

"While I agree that file sharing is only one factor that contributed to poor music sales, the critics of this study are right; the study was done incorrectly. The correct way to do it is with a control group, a group of non-downloaders whose music buying habits are also downloaded. If the results from this group are the same as the downloaders music buying habits, THEN they can suggest music downloading has no effect. Furthermore, this study only analyzed one age-range, which is a very poor way to make a general conclusion. So, hate to say it, but this study proves nothing.

And who said Communications majors don't learn anything???"

Despite the studies and methods the problems are still there for the recording industry, and Seth points that out while agreeing with Ole Tondar...

"I think we knew this.

Part of this whole problem is that the music industry was already
running heavier than their demand - as any business tries to do. Rather than develop bands with good albums, their strategy in the MTV era has been to find a band with one hit single, promote the song on MTV, radio, and every other media outlet they control, and then only offer it with a 13-song album - for which you have to pay full 13-song album fare. The acts that sell a lot of CDs these days - N'Sync, Brittney Spears, Good Charlotte, Kid Rock, Eminem -they all follow this model.

CD consumers are probably not like my friends and I - who buy CDs to
"support the band" and specifically target albums that are produced by
independent labels. Our music is certainly helped by file sharing, but that's only because that type of consumer (the article calls us "samplers") wants to purchase an album as a body of work.

For independent labels, the file sharing is a huge promotional tool.
They can't get played on the radio - virtually every new music station
is owned by either Viacom or Clear Channel, who have an exclusive deal
with major labels. So as the article says, P2P allows them to get equal
listen time with, say, a new band being promoted by Sony. Again, their
customers being the "sampler" type, when Tres sends Seth a weird song by
Deerhoof with the lyrics "Stop... Stop... The man at the top" Seth can
then find the band online and order the CD. It's a much more direct
market capitalism, and necessary to the independent label industry
because they can't get their CDs into Best Buy (or played at the major
media stores, which is a major marketing tool these days), on the radio,
on the huge summer concert tour, or any other major showcase denied to
them. In addition, because they're selling primarily new music, someone has to buy the CD in the first place. It doesn't magically appear widely available as an mp3. For all of the P2P sharing that goes on, you still need to have some number of CDs purchased for so many networks - which adds up to more than enough for an album to go Gold.

The major labels - EMI, Time Warner, Sony, Universal, and BMG (they're
not really 5 because they have merged and intermarried so many portions of
their businesses, subsidaries, and partent companies as to be one acting
trust) are hurt the most by file sharing. There are a number of reasons behind this.

To begin with, the majors sell to a much broader audience. They have
their share of "samplers", but then again, they have their share of
every market and spend a lot of effort in creating, shaping, prodding,
and sometimes discovering new markets. What they don't have so much is
that sampler loyalty - few CD purchasers are out there saying to their
Best Buy salesman, "I want to purchase the new Limp Bizkit album because
I want to use my money to support a Sony record executive." The bands on
major labels make less than a cent on each CD sold - their money comes
from touring. So with the loyalty gone, I think consumers are more apt
to be okay with downloading that one hit song rather than buying the
album.

The big labels were never really in danger of having people download
those entire new albums, as the research in this article demonstrates. They want the hits - the ones playing on the radio already. But the article also mentions that most of these people weren't going to buy the new Limp Bizkit album anyway. Of course not; look at the demographic of new music consumers and they're overwhelmingly kids. Kids are broke. Anyone really surprised here?

Nobody ever liked 10 of the songs on Good Charlotte's album in the first
place - even the band (according to a kid I worked with in Ann Arbor who
knew them). They spend time on the 3 singles to be made into videos, but
the rest of the songs on a major record label are churned out and
packaged in less time than Oblivion spends deciding on a time signature.
It's business - making a full album of 13 complete songs takes well over
a year with all of the effects and mastering and recording do-overs. And
if you're selling a band like Good Charlotte - pop punk that hates teeny
boppers but acts exactly like them - you need kick out as many albums as
possible before the band's fans grow too old to have such bad taste and
the younger generation finds their own big thing.

What the danger is, and what the article absolutely misses, and what
everyone in the industry knows and nobody is willing to say, is that the
current music stinks right now and the consumers know it. How does this relate to file sharing? Think of your "typical" new CD-buyer in 2004.

Seeing Abby?

You're wrong, pop. It's you.

You and countless other Baby Boomers and working Generation Xers who
have the funds to buy music, are not connected to networks (like, say, the
college dorms) on which the P2P downloads are accessible, and only have
broadband at work. The music this demographic buys is not the new stuff; it's the Beatles. It's the Stones. It's Rush and Queen and U2 and the Doors and Dylan and Simon&Garfunkel and Country Joe and the Fish. These bands are not making
new
songs - drugs and the '60s seeems to have taken care of that - but they
are
making collections of their hits. Just last year, Metallica, Led Zepplin
and
the Rolling Stones all spent time atop the charts with large collection
releases.

And this demographic has one other major thing in common: they don't
want to
break the law.

Steven King wrote that being 19 is when you're at your cockiest and also
the
most knowledgeable about the world around you - before one has to shrink
the
world so their petty adult life will fit in it. So take that cocky
19-year-old, stick him in a dorm with a T3 line and thousands of songs
to pick from off of the South Quad network, and see how much he cares
that a kid in Pawtucket got hit with a fine. You'll never stop the young
from sharing mp3s.

But those of us with jobs and lives don't have the luxury of 19-year-old
invincibility. So when we see that normal, white, upper-middle-class,
smart kid get hammered by the long arm of the law for downloading music,
we panic, we imagine the repurcussions of getting caught, no matter how
remote the chance, and cancel the download. The same holds true for the
industry's biggest cash cow, Country and Western Music. Say all you want
about the hicks and hick wannabes who buy that crap; they're much better
about respecting the law if scared into doing so than, say, I was at 19.

And I'd bet every CD in my collection that the major labels know it.
Illegal
file-sharing has gone up but their real worry is it leaving the young
demographic, where samplers are still common, and drying up the well of
Beatlemania. So the goal is to make file-sharing, if not gone, at least
taboo among those who would stop buying as many CDs. Taboo enough to delay the inevitable move from CD players to mp3 players in new cars and squeeze out a few million dollars from their ownership of songs made by paragons long
dead.

And also taboo enough to squeeze out a few billion dollars from those
nasty college kids who for too long used being broke as an excuse for not
buying Limp Bizkit CDs. After all, a $100,000 lawsuit against an
invincible 19-year-old and his parents' not-so-invincible college
savings accounts - not to mention a $1.2 million lawsuit against every
institute of higher learning that allowed the recording industry's
"intellectual property" to be shared over their networks - that's all
just one more revenue stream, right?"

To ole Tondar this reinforces the difference between the singles oriented UK vs. the album buying USA. If the MTV model continues to hold for the music industry we may see angst filled teenagers wise up and start investing in only singles while us older folks spend on quality albums. I remember when I was that age and I rarely bought any "new" music. I would always buy classic albums because they were cheaper and they had a good selection of quality songs.

Though on the other hand, maybe Oblivion drummer Scott is right, maybe Seth "talks too much."
WHERE'S MICHAEL MOORE ON THIS ONE?

The left is famous for their conspiracies of corrupt government in action. However, it seems that the Kerrys also have ties to Enron and Ken Lay.

On top of that, how does Kerry expect to be commander in chief if he can't even find time to get briefed on terrorism.

Though between these two stories we will never hear Dan Rather and the liberal media question Kerry's integrity or his commitment to American security. These criticisms are to be reserved for only the evil bourgeois Republicans.

Thursday, July 08, 2004

2 FROM THE PEN

From Pigpen...

"Given my hatred and contempt for the post-1988 version of Micheal Moore, Moorewatch.com is now my second favorite site on the same internet that GW Bush probably conspired against, right after Gore invented it (or something to that effect). All of this second to The Daily Rant of course - my source for all things retarded and Seth.

Also check out right-thinking.com"

Glad I'm still top of somebody's shit-list. And as always, I'm always glad to post anybody's idea and point of view (within reason).
THE ECONOMICS OF MP3s

Seth sent me this interesting article that discusses the economics of file-swapping with actual scientific evidence. Turns out that file swapping really has no negative effect on the recording industry's profits. I wonder if it's possible that 10 years of boy bands and manufactured crap, instead of trying produce quality and talent has finally come back to bite them in their rear? Just a theory. Though it makes sense when pop-punk is being crammed down my throat while VAST, At The Drive In, Iron & Wine, and Oblivion aren't even allowed to request music on the radio. Though I'm interested to hear what y'all think on this one?

(yes, I said y'all)
RICHARD'S RAGE AT 30,000 FT

Shoulda quit drinkin' 8 hrs before the flight instead of 7. At least, it wasn't like those cheap-o airlines like Easy-Jet, or Rhine-Air where the pilots drink 5 O'Clock and Mohawk instead of Chivas or Grey Goose.

Wednesday, July 07, 2004

FRANCE'S DANGEROUS GAME

It's now obvious that no country should ever enter into an alliance with France. Afterall, look how they treat their Polish, Turkish, and American "friends." If you read Bill O'Reilly's latest column, he chronicles how France is not only actively working against President Bush, but also against international security and doing the right thing on the world stage.

When I visited the United Nations, the B.O. guide told us two things. First, that the U.N. was not a world government. At the present time, no. However, they are doing what all governments in history do. They are taking more and more power from those that have created the beast. Afterall, just look at the LOST treaty with it's built in enforcement mechanism. Secondly, Li'l Miss Stinky told us that the U.N. was only as strong as it's most selfish nation. This obviously is Chirac's France, which stands in the way of peace and progress to cover their own illegal ties with Iraq and hopefully boost polling data among Muslim immigrants. Seth always talks about needing to get the international community involved. However, because of the often self-serving nature of certain members, international treaties are not binding in a system based on anarchy.

It would be interesting to see estimates on how many Americans died as a result of France playing politics with the UN, and NATO, instead of helping to train the new Iraqi government, and rebuilding the country as a functioning democracy.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE IV

James Strikes back...

"As per your instructions, i reread your argument. this is what you wrote:

"Money does not equal speech. Money is quantifiable, currency. Speech is incalculable and inherently of variating value. A dollar is a dollar, of dollar worth. A voiced opinion can be thoughtful, well researched, fallacious, or an outright lie and either way the listener can still decide the opinion's value on an individual basis. Campaign Finance in no way restricts what you can say. Rather, its goal is to thwart the use of money to drown out the voice of opposition."

But more importantly, money is spread very unequally through the populace and in a democratic society, it's absolutely imperative that the ability to voice your opinion is shared as equally as possible among the population"


then here is what i wrote:

"just because money is quantifiable and speech is not doesn't necessarily break the correlation. printed words are easily quantifiable, every book has a price tag. does that mean then that books aren't protected under free speech because they are quantifiable? limiting an individual's ability to contribute to a campaign limits their ability to participate in government; its just like limiting the number of books a year a person may write and publish."

the c.s. lewis reference went over my head, as i've never read it. your counter argument seems to be "So if you read "money is quantifiable" and there's a comma right after that, followed by a one-word qualifier, then to grasp the author's statement, you must take the comment in context." the following qualifier was "currency". the statement read, "Money is quantifiable, currency." i fail to see how this qualifies anything. the fact that money is currency seems self evident to me. how does this present a logical fallacy? or change the statement or your argument? what i said was limiting how much a person can spend on our political process limits their ability to participate in government, therefore it infringes on their political rights covered broadly in the first amendment clause we often refer to as freedom of speech, but more loosely interpreted by the supreme court as freedom of communication. you never really explained why this isn't so, except with the statement that "money will never be equal. yet speech has to be". on this i disagree. everyone has the right to speak as much as they can (within certain boundaries, of course), yet that doesn't necessarily make the corner crazy hobos' schizophrenic rantations of equal value as those of the corner U of M professor. nobody pays to hear the bum talk, but we've all paid a fair share to hear the professor rant. the two have equal rights to speak, yes. are their speeches equal? no.

next you wrote the following:

"We can pause here for you to scroll down and read what you wrote one more time.

Can you use money to buy drugs? How about for funding terrorists? Or to hire an assassin? Isn't that just an expression of free speech?

When I get a raise, did I just earn more speech? When bums break into our house, do they steal my speech?

The answer, my friend, is after the aformentioned comma."


here i still fail to see the relevance of the comma. however i will address your concerns in short answers: no, you can't use money to buy drugs, to fund terrorists, or to hire an assassin. those things are illegal, just as using your free speech to slander someone verbally is illegal. free speech is not without limits, as you cannot use your freedom of speech to break laws (libel) or to infringe upon the rights of others (yelling fire in a crowded theater). i fail to see how this relates to the argument at hand, as i never proposed using money to break the law. is contributing to a campaign breaking the law?

also you wrote:

"Politicians love to do this because if the opponent defends himself, you've now got him off the topic. I'll make this one easy on you: I was talking about campaign finance reform - not just the current law but the greater picture. I think that was pretty clear throughout the article".


it wasn't pretty clear to me how corporate donations to campaigns is correlated to the argument about individuals' campaign contributions. so i stick to my original rebuttal: 2.ohio energy's donation isn't at all related to individual campaign contributions, so your example isn't really relevant. the stress here is on the qualifier "individual".

finally, the sentence "One man one vote." stuck out to me. historically, this has not been true. our electoral college is a multi-member plurality. as our last election proved, one man does not get one vote. i would certainly be willing to entertain the debate over reforming the electoral college, but i think you stray pretty far off topic here.

when you are done re-reading your argument and mine you can "slap yourself upside the head for me."

Tuesday, July 06, 2004

CAMPAIGN FINANCE III

From the Seth Angry Archives 6/18/04...

"How can we argue if I have to keep explaining what I said?

Read what I wrote again. Then read your response.

You know what makes Conservatism seem so fallacious at times? The rhetoric. It's like the chief dufflepud we meet in Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Rather than attempt to understand the world around him, the lead dufflepud answers every statement by the Narnian travelers with some nonsensical comment that seems like and is treated as wit. C.S. Lewis, old fuddy-duddy Torrie that he was, apparently never forgave the politicians of his day for turning into "let them eat cake" logicians.

Read your comment again. See it yet?

Sometimes, in writing, the author will choose to make a statement that isn't exactly self evident. However, reading the next line, and the one after that, will usually allow the reader to make sense of what the author is saying. So if you read "money is quantifiable" and there's a comma right after that, followed by a one-word qualifier, then to grasp the author's statement, you must take the comment in context. Failure to do so is how a gaggle of fools could mistake the line "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet," which referenced Gore's tireless legislative work on behalf of Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn. Throughout the process of developing the critical protocols of the Internet, Gore was Cerf's and Kahn's first and greatest bureaocratic ally. Every American politician in the country, today, would have liked to make that claim. However, as Gore's opponent at the time had never backed anything more successful than luring Nolan Ryan to the Texan Rangers, the right's spin doctors added the word "invented" to Gore's comment and made sure the country could hear the comment taken out of context throughout the election.

Now look at your response. Stop me anytime.

A good deductive argument requires reasoning. If A is true, and B is true, then AB must be true. A fallacy is a failure at argument so that even if the premises were both true, the conclusion is still not proven. If A is true, and B is true, then C must be true. However, fallacious arguements can be powerful tools for making your case. I think this is because people just listen for the conclusion of your argument and accept whatever you said just before that as proof. Thus, so long as you're up for fooling people, you can basically use fallacy to say whatever the hell you want to. For example: campaign finance reformers want to tell you how many books you can publish. Or more simply: Money is speech.

You can also use this power conversely - i.e. rather than attempt to discredit a good argument by going after its conclusion, you can try to disqualify some of the evidence to make your opponent's argument seem to be fallacious. Politicians love to do this because if the opponent defends himself, you've now got him off the topic. I'll make this one easy on you: I was talking about campaign finance reform - not just the current law but the greater picture. I think that was pretty clear throughout the article. So yes, Ohio Energy and their $800,000 check to Bush to get out of the NSR lawsuit that they had already agreed to settle and then backed out on right before mailing the check, they qualify.

We can pause here for you to scroll down and read what you wrote one more time.
Can you use money to buy drugs? How about for funding terrorists? Or to hire an assassin? Isn't that just an expression of free speech?

When I get a raise, did I just earn more speech? When bums break into our house, do they steal my speech?

The answer, my friend, is after the aformentioned comma.

Now think about that bum who just stole some of my 'speech.' Do I deserve to have a greater say in U.S. government than he. Well, that's debatable. I think I'm more qualified than a theiving herione addict to pick federal, state and local representatives. But the Constitution and the spirit of democracy would disagree. One man one vote. If we can't give me more of a say in politics because I'm well educated, don't use drugs, don't break the law, go to work at 6 a.m. every morning and get back at 7 at night, pay rent and pay taxes, we certainly can't give me more of a say because I make more money.

If we were communists (economically speaking) money might equal speech - because it's doled out by the government in equal shares. We here in the U.S. decided to make capitalism and democracy work together. I think it was the right choice, but that's another debate. But they're still not one and the same. For one, Capitalism favors the wealthy minority, Democracy the majority. Some of our nation's founders thought this meant that the two should both temper each other (Madison, Monroe, the Federalists). Others thought that the two should remain completely aloof from each other (Jefferson, the Classic Liberals, the first Libertarians). If you want to reopen this debate, I'd be glad to have it, but I think society got enough evidence in the early 20th century to demonstrate that Democracy needs to temper Capitalism a little but is best off if the favor is not returned.

The point: money will never be equal. Speech has to be.

Go back, read it, then slap yourself upside the head for me.

3. Good point. I think once we agree that we need to stop the bridge from collapsing, we can have a great discussion about where to put the new pylons."

Campaign finance is far too sticky for Tondar to get involved, yet I just can't help but respond to statements like this...

"You know what makes Conservatism seem so fallacious at times? The rhetoric..."

Later followed by...

"Go back, read it, then slap yourself upside the head for me."

Nothing like bad mouthing the rhetoric of your opponent right before suggesting they should slap themselves upside the head. Yep, Argumentum ad Hominem: Attack directed against the person instead of his or her argument.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE II

From James...

"there are a few errors with Seth's idea:

1. just because money is quantifiable and speech is not doesn't necessarily break the correlation. printed words are easily quantifiable, every book has a price tag. does that mean then that books aren't protected under free speech because they are quantifiable? limiting an individual's ability to contribute to a campaign limits their ability to participate in government; its just like limiting the number of books a year a person may write and publish.

2.Ohio energy's donation isn't at all related to individual campaign contributions, so your example isn't really relevant.

3.Free air time is a bad idea because implementing it is so problematic. on what channels? to whom? to individual candidates? there were over 100 candidates in the california governor's election alone. what about all the individuals running for state and federal congress? or would you give it to parties? which parties? do the greens get time? can the yeza party get as much time as the democrats? i still don't see it solving any of the problem inherent in the current electoral system.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE I

From the Seth Archives 6/16/04...

E.J. responds to specific critics of campaign finance reform who want to throw the baby out with the bathwater or those who simply want to undermine reform altogether by pointing out the ineffectitude of the current law.

A good, short rant, he touches on a number of subjects.

As I told James last night after getting labeled a "Union Lover" that I'd trade them all for campaign finance reform.

One thing that E.J. didn't touch on was the legal debate on the issue, namely, the money equals speech fallacy.

Money does not equal speech. Money is quantifiable, currency. Speech is incalculable and inherently of variating value. A dollar is a dollar, of dollar worth. A voiced opinion can be thoughtful, well researched, fallacious, or an outright lie and either way the listener can still decide the opinion's value on an individual basis. Campaign Finance in no way restricts what you can say. Rather, its goal is to thwart the use of money to drown out the voice of opposition.

But more importantly, money is spread very unequally through the populace and in a democratic society, it's absolutely imperative that the ability to voice your opinion is shared as equally as possible among the population.

When AEDCo. or Ohio Energy gives an $800,000 donation to the Bush re-election campaign, it's not because they want to get their voice heard - tell their side of the story. They're buying the president's ear - not toward them but away from the demands of the democratic society who want the grossly lawbreaking polluters to clean up their act or pay the penalty of not doing so. The ads they buy don't say anything about the politics of these companies. They're favors. Hey, Mr. President, here's 800 grand to beef up your re-election campaign so when it's over, you'll owe us. You can't tell me that's free speech. It's pure corruption.

And the final rub is, as E.J. points out, the corruption goes two ways. Most donaters aren't criminals trying to get around the law by purchasing the law. They're corporations or organizations who are directly affected by the law and get pulled in so they won't be forgotten. I'm willing to bet that most labor groups are damn sick of local and national Democrats calling up and saying "are you with me this time? Please respond in green." I'm equally sure that coal-burning power companies would have a lot more in the budget to purchase air toxic control equipment if the local Republicans weren't demanding "pay up, or we throw you to the mercy of the millions you gave bronchitis to."

And it's so easy to accomplish: give the candidates free air time.

We own the broadcast networks. But UPN, CBS, NBC, ABC et al. and their parent companies channel a massive flow of campaign cash to both parties so that we won't balk at them charging Superbowl rates for a spot during Law & Order reruns. Why do we accept their table scraps when the dinner table belongs to us, the American people.

Give the candidates free air time.

Suddenly, labor unions don't need a tenth of their current cash flow from their members - generally people who will spend a hundred dollars on consumer goods if they get it. Suddenly, religious organizations can take their big donation plates and put it toward researching methods for fetal transfer to a maternal surrogate - you know, give pregnant women an alternative to abortion instead of financing some right wing looney who passes "groundbreaking" legislation to outlaw a procedure used once every 10 years.

Give the candidates free air time

Simply imagine the boon to the economy and our capitalist system if the billions spent in campaign TV ads never left the wallets of the contributers. Bill Gates can't pay off high ranking politicians to allow Microsoft to maintain a monopoly on all computer programming - aw, shucks, I guess he'll just have to take the corporation's $9 million budget for campaign donations and put it into developing an OS and browser that are simply better than their competitions'. Or call it profits and watch the corporate stock soar; it's a free country. MTV can't stick their money deep enough into the FEC to curb an investigation into their non-voting, extortionary system for choosing which video airs on TRL; darn. rats. I guess they'll just have to go back to finding good music and rewarding artists for their work. Don't worry too much for the recording companies - not having to win an auction on behalf of their bands to get them on TV might make it a lot more economically feasible for their bands to earn some press for themselves. Earning. Competition. Innovation. Isn't that the goal of a solid economy?

Give the candidates free air time, and watch how fast we become a what we should have been all along: a great, wealthy and free society. Or, you know, ignore the corruption, mouth the rhetoric that so much money was spent to smear on your lips, let the pursuit of wealth be granted only to those who have it, and forget the first truth that we once held self-evident.
IT'S OFFICIAL

John Kerry selected, no, not Dick Gephardt as the Post reported, but John Edwards as his running mate today. In some ways it is a good decision. Edwards brings a centrist popularity and regional balance to the ticket. Afterall Carter, and Clnton were both moderate Democrats that emerged from the Republican South. But on the other hand, Edwards also lacks experience, especially the executive experience such as a governor would provide. On top of that, Kerry-Edwards ignores the biggest issue of our time providing no clear leadership for the war on terror. Edwards is a good pick for that 1/3 of Americans that will always vote Democrat. Personally, I don't see this selection attracting too much of the 1/3 of swing voters that win elections.
UH-OH

Looks like the Jazz went ahead and offered Mehmet Okur that HUGE contract giving him $9 million more than the Pistons. This puts the Pistons in a difficult position because they need Okur if they can't get Sheed to re-sign. But right now Sheed's still "spending time with his family." So the Pistons can either match this offer and lose possibly not have enough money for Sheed, or let Okur go and hope that Sheed comes around for contract talks soon. Of course the Pistons can do without Okur on the bench but they will need Darko to step up and provide good rebounding and about 5.0 ppg off the bench.

Sunday, July 04, 2004

SO LONG GODFATHER

From the Seth Archives 7/2/04...

"Remember, whoever approaches you; he's the one who betrayed the family."