Friday, October 01, 2004

Cubs turn out to be ... the Cubs

How inappropriate that on the day that Cubs lose their fourth straight, and are all but eliminated from the Wild Card, post this on their site. This was their top headline prior to the loss.

This year's Cubs is considered to one of the most dislikable. They have turned from the lovable losers into just... the losers. The big story today is how Cubs manager Dusty Baker and Cubs management are all upset with critical comments made by Cubs' color analyst Steve Stone. Stone made comments yesterday about how the Cubs did themselves in. This turns into such a media firestorm that Stone had to meet with Cubs GM Andy McPhail prior to today's broadcast. The team is on the edge of falling out of playoff contention and their biggest concern is whether their analyst is too critical? What a sad team they are.

[Update]Part of the Outside the Beltway Traffic Jam.

Who Won?

Glenn Reynold's wife thought that Bush won. My wife didn't think that Bush did well but she wasn't impressed by Kerry either. She is still ambivalent about the two (although she says she'll vote for Bush). She is not much of a political observer but she definitely has the opinion that Kerry is a flip-flopper.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I think Bush did terribly. All Kerry did was talk about diplomacy (except for North Korea where we must be bi-lateral), summits, meetings, sanctions, and more resolutions. He did not strike me as a strong person, but as one who will bend to whims of the world.

Unfortunately, Bush was completely unable to argue the folly of what Kerry was saying. Bush has a chance to put Kerry away last night and he fumbled big time. I am extremely disappointed with him.

Thursday, September 30, 2004

Thoughts on the Debate

Hugh Hewitt calls it a "Big win" for Bush. I disagree.

Many of the bloggers that I have been reading believe that Kerry did slightly better. I think so to. Bush, with a few exceptions here and there, was awful tonight. He repeated some lines too often, like Kerry constantly changing positions. He repeated the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" too often. I think you lose impact by repeating the same phrases too many times. It made Bush sound like he couldn't think of anything else to say. I have heard make more compelling arguments for the war many times, but he couldn't seem to pull it together tonight.

Kerry said that he has always been consistent. Like Glenn Reynolds, if you have been paying attention you know that consistent is one thing he has not been, but casual observers might believe him.

Nothing major happened in the debate that will have a big impact on the polls, but I for one, was very disappointed in the President's performance. The MSM is going to hammer him on it over the next week. (Fortunately, the MSM has little credibility with anybody anymore).

[UPDATE] I think Kerry was weak on several points which I will outline later, but overall I believe he did much better than the President.

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Article of Note

It came out several weeks ago, but I wanted to make note of the article "The Power of No" by Newsweek(It was their cover story).

Many of the observations that were made in that article rang true. It was an article that I had to share with my wife right away. I am constantly encouraging her (as she puts it - "arguing with her") to set limits on the children. I believe that this is critical and I don't think that she does them any favors by caving in. I watch my wife's 15-year old nag her as much as any little one I have been around. When she wants her way, she wants her way and saying no a dozen times will not stop her because more often than not my wife will eventually give in. I know it frustrates my wife and I have talked the situation over with her many time, but she finds it hard to just ignore the nagging. I tell her to make her mind and stick to it, letting whatever her daugher says go in one ear and out the other, but she just can't seem to do it. (Oddly, she has no trouble allowing my pearls of wisdom to go in one ear and out the other, hmmm...)

Ann Pleshette Murphy, former editor, Parents Magazine; author of “The Seven Stages of Motherhood” says the following:
Parents must form a united front. The minute you crack the door to the possibility of a yes, your child is guaranteed to hurl his body through that door. If one parent is the good cop, the other the bad cop, you're going to get nowhere.

'Tis the truth.

Secret Plans

Jim Geraghty notes the many times that Kerry has accused the President of having a "secret plan" to do various bad things to the good people of America. Some of them are:

  • Call up more troops after an election
  • Suggest that Bush may re-implement the draft (This has been directly stated by others campaigning for Kerry - such as Howard Dean)
  • Hurt Milk Producers
  • Many others provide by Slings And Arrows

Margin of Error

Prompting my first post in over a year was this post by James Joyner. It reminded my of something that I read recently by Mark Blumenthal:
Since the margin of error applies separately to each candidate’s support, the margin of error effectively doubles when applied to the margin between candidates.

Consider an example: If a single survey with a sampling error of 3% (based on a 95% confidence level) shows Bush at 49%, we know with 95% confidence that if every voter in the country were interviewed for that survey, Bush’ support would lie somewhere between 46% and 52%. If the same survey has Kerry at 42%, his support could range from 39% to 46%. Thus, the 49% to 42% survey tells us with 95% confidence that the race could be anywhere from a dead heat to a 14-point Bush lead.

Friday, April 11, 2003


This war has demonstrated what certain aspects of the Left are all about. As a believer in healthy debate (which most of the debate in the previous months being unhealthy), it is encouraging that some on the Left have recognized the emptiness of many of the arguments against this war. John Lloyd, ex-editor of the New Statesman, explains this view:
The crimes of Saddam Hussein's regime - its support for terrorism, its aggression toward its neighbours and its brutality against its own people - are dismissed either by referring to the left's own past protests against it, or to reminders that a slew of western, especially American, political and corporate leaders did business with, and supported, that regime.

Even the "moderate" opposition has been couched in tones of exasperation that Blair "doesn't get it" - about the Arab world, about the Americans, about his own party's opposition. The conclusion of this view is that, although Saddam is a nasty bit of work who may have weapons of mass destruction, he can be contained. Relativism is crucial to this argument: others are as bad; others have weapons of mass destruction; others have attacked neighbours. Why pick on Iraq? Why pick on anyone? What moral basis can the developed west possibly claim?