TwoPennies

On the Nevada Senate Race

If you've been following this blog for a while, you may have noticed... there's been nothing to follow for a while.  Mostly that's because politics, the favored topic of discussion around here, has been so damn depressing of late.  But with early voting now started in Nevada, I do feel compelled to write about an important issue -- the Senate race between Democratic incumbent Harry Reid, and Republican challenger Sharron Angle.

If you live in this fine state, you've almost certainly received a ton of direct mail pieces from both candidates (or their allies).  Unless you've been living under a rock, you've been unable to avoid the deluge of attack ads on TV.  In more than 20 years of actively following politics, I can't personally recall an election cycle that involved more mud being slung than this one.

For those Nevadans who have not yet decided how to vote, and especially for those who may have decided to cast their votes for Nevada's unique "None of these candidates" option in protest, I would like to offer a few thoughts for your consideration.

First, please consider this political reality:  either Sharron Angle or Harry Reid will be elected this year.  There is no other viable candidate, period.  No matter whom you may throw your support behind, nor even if you register a protest with "None of these candidates", there are only two possible outcomes.  Given that reality, it behooves one to consider which outcome is most desirable.  Or, perhaps, least undesirable.  And, once that determination is made, give consideration to whether your vote will make your preferred outcome more or less likely to occur.

As the incumbent, Harry Reid's re-election is the default outcome of the election (not, of course, as a matter of law, but as a practical matter it is his election to lose).  The only thing that can prevent Reid from being re-elected is if Angle is elected instead.  So the question really boils down to a simple one:

If you want to see Harry Reid re-elected, vote for anyone at all except Sharron Angle.  If you do NOT want to see Harry Reid re-elected, then you MUST vote for Sharron Angle.

Many people in this state are unhappy with Harry Reid, and do not wish to vote for him, but also do not wish to associate with Mrs. Angle.  I understand this position.  I really do.  I find Sharron Angle to be a distasteful candidate, and I actually agree with many of her positions which her opponent has attacked repeatedly (while those positions I agree with can easily be reached through principled critical thought processes, I am not at all confident that Mrs. Angle has done so, alas).  

Mr. Reid portrays his opponent as "too extreme for Nevada" -- his entire defense rests on instilling fear of Mrs. Angle in the electorate.  He knows that many people are unhappy with him, so he is relying on making his opponent out to be far worse (downright scary, actually) in the hopes that if you won't vote for him, you at least won't vote for her either.

Even if you do think that Mrs. Angle's positions are "too extreme", however, please consider this.  Harry Reid is not merely the incumbent Democrat for Nevada.  He is senate majority leader, the TOP Democrat in that body, part of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate responsible for driving their party's agenda at the federal level.  He is presumably in no danger of losing his leadership position if re-elected.  So, if you like what the Democrats have done so far, his re-election will certainly help to bring more of it in the future.  But then, if you like what the Democrats have done so far, you're probably going to vote for Harry Reid anyway.

On the other hand, should Sharron Angle be elected, she would be one of the most junior members of the senate (from either party).  It appears increasingly likely that the Republicans will be unable to achieve a majority in the senate this year, so she would be one of the most junior members of the minority party -- let alone, one who reportedly does not get along well with party leadership in Washington -- and so her positions, no matter how "extreme" they may be, would have virtually no impact on the agenda in Washington.

Put another way:  Harry Reid has the power and influence to get what he wants in Washington.  If you want what he wants, then his election would be a good thing for you.  Sharron Angle would have very little power and even less influence in Washington.  If you don't want what Harry Reid wants, Sharron Angle is still a "mostly harmless" alternative even if you find her positions scary.

So, why not just vote for "None of these candidates", if you don't like either of your options?

Simply this: a vote "against" Harry Reid only really counts if it takes the form of a vote for Sharron Angle.  

Voting for anyone else may deny Mr. Reid a majority of the votes, but he doesn't need a majority to win.  

He just needs to get more votes than Mrs. Angle.

So a vote for anyone other than Reid or Angle is effectively a vote to let other people decide the outcome.  I wish that weren't true, because this country desperately needs an alternative to the Democrat/Republican duopoly on political power.  But unfortunately that is the reality of the situation.

One other "big picture" pitch for you -- if, like me, you're unhappy with the agendas of both parties, then the most dangerous situation we can have in government is one-party control, which we've seen over the past two years as the Democrats have been running the whole show.  The safest form of government is divided government, where the built-in system of checks and balances that is the genius of our constitution can provide protection not just against the encroachment of one branch of government upon the power of another, but against one ideology reigning unfettered across the land.  Since the White House is under the control of Democrats for at least the next 2 years, Congress must for the good of the country go to the Republicans during that time.  As I said, I don't think the senate will actually change hands this year, but any erosion in the Democratic majority in that chamber will be helpful in restoring balance, which is reason enough (regardless of the individual candidates involved) to vote Republican in this election.

Thanks for reading (if you made it this far...)  Topical, thoughtful comments are always welcome.

Financial Advice?

I have this older friend who is in serious financial distress.  

Unfortunately, this friend has gotten himself deeply into debt, and continues to spend way more than he brings home every year.  Consider these details:

• For the last few years, my friend has been making around $24K-$25K in net take-home pay.  But he's been spending more than he brings home each year, borrowing anywhere from about $1,500 to $4,500 annually to make up the difference.
   
• In 2009, with a down economy, he had a modest $20,740 in net take-home pay.  However, he also increased spending significantly.  So he found that he needed to charge an additional $20,530 on credit cards, plus borrow from his own 401(k) savings in the amount of $1,730.  This brings his total credit card debt to $78,560 and his total 401(k) self-loan to $43,560 at the end of 2009, for a grand total debt of $122,120 (as I mentioned my friend is older, and has been borrowing thousands of dollars a year for many years).
   
• His expectation for 2010 is to have a slight improvement in net take-home pay, up to $22,640.  Of course, he also expects to continue his high-spending ways and to finance this he plans to charge an additional $17,190 on credit cards, while taking out an additional $1,570 in 401(k) self-loans.
   
• This means that at the end of 2010, he expects to have a total credit card debt of $95,750 and a total 401(k) loan to himself of $45,130, grand total debt of $140,880.
   

Given all of the above -- what advice would you give to my friend?

Obviously he's on an unsustainable financial path.

He could work on increasing his income, certainly, though when he borrows nearly as much as he makes every year just to pay the bills there's only so much that can be done in that regard.

He could, like most people in such situations, work on cutting expenses -- generally much easier to control than income -- however deleterious to one's standard of living that may be.  Anybody with half a brain can recognize that if you're in a deep hole, the first thing to do is STOP DIGGING!

I expect most financial advisors would seriously urge my friend to consider bankruptcy as the most viable option available, given his crushing debt-to-income ratio (at the end of 2010 he expects to owe more than 6 times his total annual take-home pay!)

There are no easy answers or painless solutions to my friend's financial woes, and I worry about his future.  The longer he puts off addressing his serious debt issues, the more painful the ultimate fix will be.

Oh, did I mention?

My "friend" is the U.S. Federal Government.

Of course, the Federal budget deals with billions and trillions, so for my story (which is admittedly a greatly-simplified analogy) I scaled down the numbers to a range most people could more easily relate to.  If you want to see the real-life numbers, just add eight (8) zeros to the end of everything.

EIGHT ZEROS.

Think about that for just a moment, please.  

Think about how the government borrows significant amounts from itself and has been for years.  What does the 401(k) self-loan represent in my little story?  Mostly, that's the Social Security Trust Fund.  In other words, for years as the government has needed to fill annual budget deficits, it has taken part of the money from Social Security and put an I.O.U. in its place.

Think about how, unlike with individuals such as you and me, bankruptcy is not actually a viable option for the U.S. government.

With bankruptcy off the table, think about what it's going to take to eventually pay off all that debt.

Think about what it would mean to your family, if you owed more than 6 times your own take-home income, and expected that debt to continue to grow significantly over the next several years even as your income (hopefully) increases over time.

Think about what those whom we've elected at the Federal level have been doing to our country's finances for many years.

And think about how an election decision you might make matters, not just in the short term but potentially for decades to come.

---

Note:  Budget numbers and historical data were taken from the following, as provided by the United States Government Printing Office web site:

Federal FY 2010 Budget, Mid-Session Review

Federal FY 2010 Budget, Historical Tables

Quote of the Day

"Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something."

-- Robert Heinlein

A Trip to Red Rock Canyon

I’ve been meaning to do the Red Rock Canyon scenic drive ever since I got the convertible, and since I’m off work for a couple of days I thought I’d drop the top and check it out.  It was quite nice if a bit breezy to start – but then the weather got a bit more ominous and the wind REALLY picked up.  Here’s a handy tip – when you’re driving topless at 35 mph and there’s a 40 mph cross-wind, it can be hard to breathe normally!  So halfway through the drive the top came up, but the scenery was still amazing.

 

Anyhow, I took my camera along and stopped at a few of the overlooks along the way.  And thanks to the magic of free Microsoft bloat-ware for stitching photos together, I’ve managed to kill a few hours this evening making panoramic images for your viewing pleasure.  These are monster-ginormous pictures, so I’m using thumbnails here – click the “little” picture to load the big picture and get ready to scroll around (if you’ve got a monitor big enough to view the largest of these photos at full size without scrolling… I hate you.)  ;-)

 

The scenic drive is about 14 miles of twisty road that snakes through the canyon area (there are several canyons around with a variety of colors and textures to them).  It costs $5 per car per day to get into the place (officially it’s called “Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area”).  There’s a visitor center when you first enter the area, so the first picture was taken from there, looking towards the signature red rocks:

 

The visitor center is small but has some interesting displays about the local wildlife, rock formations, and general history of the area.

The drive goes up into the canyons, and at the highest elevation there’s an overlook of the entire area:

From the overlook, I took pictures in all directions – this panoramic image was “stitched together” from 15 separate photos (here’s another handy tip – if you intend to stitch photos together, be sure to turn off the automatic date/time stamp on your camera!!!)  The red rocks are in the center of this image, and if you squint real hard and look in the far distance beyond and above the red rocks, you can maybe see some of the Las Vegas skyline (about 20 miles or so away from this point).  This is a 360-degree panorama, notice the light-colored pickup truck on both the left and right sides of this image.

 

After you’re done with the drive, and start to head back to Vegas, there’s an overlook area off of the public highway (no fee required).  It’s got nice views of the area but I do think it’s worth the small fee to get up close and personal with the scenery.  The best view is of the Southern canyons in the area:

My Own Private Stimulus

Yeah, get your mind out of the gutter... I'm talkin' about a nice little free spin bonus I had recently in one of my favorite slot machines, "Moon Festival".  The bonus is 10 free spins with "sticky wilds" -- any wild symbols (in this case, the moon) that show up during a free spin stick in that position for all subsequent spins.  So you can end up collecting quite a few wild symbols by the end of the run, where most every spin pays off huge.

In this particular case, my first free spin got me a couple of wilds in the 2nd and 3rd reels, and as you can see by the end of my run half of the symbols on the screen were wild.  It helped a lot that the last spin started with the stack of highest-paying symbols in the game.  So all told, I scored over $350 on a $2.50 bet.  Not half bad... and for those who have asked, THIS is why I like to play this game!

Quote of the Day

"I hope than when I die, people say about me, 'Boy, that guy sure owed me a lot of money!'"

-- Jack Handy

Nerd Humor

So if you're a fan of the original Star Trek TV show, AND a fan of Will Ferrell's Old School, AND a fan of The 40-Year-Old Virgin, AND a fan of Stephen Colbert, AND a fan of more cowbell (and hey, who ISN'T a fan of all those things?) you're gonna love this (some NSFW language in here...)

(Hat tip to SciFi Wire)

Some people just don't get it...

Saw this headline on my Google News this morning:

French Workers Strike to Protest Economy

Friggin' brilliant.  Struggling economy got you down?  Stop working, that'll fix things!

 

Lovin' Vegas

One of many reasons I enjoy living in Sin City:

It's the middle of freakin' JANUARY and I'm able to drive around with the top down... what a life...

Reinventing the Wheel

After a solid 20+ years of being a staunch IBM PC-compatible kinda guy, I've been thinking recently about (gasp) maybe getting a Mac, too.  The problem I have with that is they're so darn expensive for what you get... just yesterday I was browsing the Mac store on-line and saw the "top of the line" MacBook Pro 17" model for just under $2900, while a comparable model from Dell (same processor, memory, display, hard drive, etc.) was just under $2200.  To be sure, I could find a 17" Windows-based laptop for significantly less than that even, but I wanted to try to compare... well... Apples to Apples, so to speak.

Anyhow, news comes today that Apple has just unveiled the NEW version of the 17" MacBook Pro, with the same nifty sleek design as was previously only available on smaller models.  And it's got a supposedly wonderful long-lasting battery.  It's definitely the coolest-looking big laptop that I've seen.

And it's still $2900, which is just too damn much for a computer that I'd then need to buy a bunch more software for in order to make it useful (as opposed to simply transferring my existing Windows software).  So, no MacBook for me, at least for the foreseeable future.

But lo, what's this I see?  It appears that Apple recently introduced the Next Big Thing in user interfaces, so I might just need to Think Different about my anti-Apple bias (big tip o' the hat to my main man Voltaire):

Apple Introduces Revolutionary New Laptop With No Keyboard

Day of Reckoning

So election day is finally here.  At last, our long national nightmare is about to be over.

And a new long national nightmare is about to begin.  No matter who ends up being elected today.

Assuming, of course, that the election is actually over today.

For some time now I've been checking and re-checking the electoral college map for some way that McCain can pull this off.  His chances are grim, indeed, but not completely lost.

The most optimistic (yet still halfway reasonable) scenario that I've been able to come up with has McCain tied with Obama 269-269 at the end of the day.  That would, of course, throw the election to the House of Representatives, in the new Congress, wherein each state delegation would get one vote.  So everything there would depend upon how many states have majority-Republican delegations.  And we won't know that until after the election, as well.

As I said, that's the optimistic but reasonable assumption about everything breaking McCain's way, and it ends in a tie.  But, that scenario leaves out a few key states that are leaning Blue but just might break Red after all.

Including my own state of Nevada, where I'm about to go cast my vote.

I've struggled with this since the convention over the summer.  The imperative for me is that the Democrats not hold power throughout the government -- as I've said before, mixed government is best for the country.  Congress is hopelessly lost to the Democrats, so Obama can't be elected without, as I said above, a new long national nightmare to begin.

But, as much as I admired McCain 2000, can I really vote for McCain 2008?  He's a different candidate than he was 8 years ago.

In discussing this with my boss a few weeks back, when I told him I couldn't vote for Obama, he asked if I was then just not going to vote.  It's an interesting thought.  Nevada offers a choice of "None of the Above" in our elections, so I could actually vote against Obama without voting for anyone else.  It's an intriguing possibility.

But, fundamentally, it'd be a selfish choice.  Voting "None of the Above" might ease my conscience, but it's as bad (or worse) than Obama voting "Present" on all those tough decisions.  Yes, the choices this year suck, but "None of the Above" isn't a viable option.  "None of the Above" has less chance than Bob Barr or Ralph Nader of being elected President.

One way or another, either Barack Obama or John McCain is going to be the next President of the United States.  Voting for anyone (or anything) other than those two is voting to have someone else make the call, period.

I wasn't going to vote for Obama in any event, so voting "Nobody" doesn't hurt his chances in any way.  Withholding my vote for McCain in fact would help Obama's chances.

As I said, the choices this year suck, as they have for many years past.  The next few years are going to suck, no matter who is ultimately elected.  But who in the next four years has the greater potential to do more long-term damage to the country?  With a compliant Congress, there's no question that Obama is that man.  I may not be able to stop him, but I'll be damned if I'm going to help him into office.

So, I'll be holding my nose and voting for McCain regardless.  I don't think it'll make much difference in the big picture, but it might.  And at least I'll have done whatever I could to try to prevent that new nightmare from happening, however futile the attempt.

Who's your man?

A friend passed this link along to me this afternoon (thanks Kelley!), it's an interesting little quickie barometer for figuring out how closely aligned you are with the two major Presidential candidates' quotes on certain key issues.

No surprise for me, I came out favoring McCain on more than 60% of the statements.  But of course, that means that I favor Obama on the other 40% -- a decisive edge to McCain, but not a hyper-partisan one (though to be fair, a couple of questions were tough calls for picking only one statement to agree with, and those both came out as Obama points... so my "support" for Obama is weaker than the quiz would indicate).

There's lots more political stuff to talk about when I get a chance, but hopefully this will spark some discussion in the mean time.  Who did you come out most in favor of, and by how much? 

Were you surprised by the author of any particular statements?  The illegal immigration quotes were a bit unexpected for me.

Feel free to leave your observations/results in the comments below...

What's this? Enthusiasm!?!?

As discussed yesterday, and continued a bit elsewhere today, I didn't think that John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin was necessarily a great choice, but an understandable sop to the social conservatives of his party.  I resigned myself to grudgingly cast my vote for McCain despite his VP.

I caught a bit of the end of Mitt Romney's speech this evening from work, and thought this guy's positioning himself to be the next traditional Republican candidate in 2012, with a lame run-down of all the standard talking points and using the term "liberal" as an insult in and of itself (no need to justify why "liberal" is a bad thing, after all, any God-fearing, America-loving, French-hating patriot just knows in his bones that this is so!)

Then later I caught most of Rudy Giuliani's speech, which was delivered much more engagingly and with humor, but was just kind of mean.  Oh, and somebody please tell this man that while national security is important, and 9/11 was a tragedy, there are many other important issues as well and it's time to move forward.

Then I watched Sarah Palin speak.

Wow.

Just... Wow.

Granted, expectations were set a bit low -- she benefits from some of that "misunderestimation" I mentioned in my last post.  From the few public remarks of hers that I'd seen, I was concerned that she would come off as being way out of her depth in the political arena.

I figured she'd either have the deer-in-the-headlights thing going on, or else fall into the creepy Stepford Wife category that so many Republican political spouses have perfected.

Hot damn, was I wrong.  To quote Michael Palin (whom I referenced earlier):  "The little wascal has spiwit... bwavado... a touch of dewwing-do!"

She has humor, and grace, and genuine down-home likeability.  And she's not afraid to go after the other team, but not in a mean-spirited way to pick on her opponents (like Romney and Giuliani did).  She comes off more as a mama bear -- you poke her with a stick, she'll fight back and tell you what's what.

I'm starting to actually love this choice.  And I think that McCain is now at least partially vindicated for his decision -- you could sense the relief in his voice at the end when he came on to the stage and said something to the effect of (I don't have the actual transcript available):  "Aren't you glad she was our choice for VP?"

I still don't think she was the best available choice. 

I still don't think I would have picked her if I was in McCain's position. 

But he clearly was not insane for selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate, as some across the country have suggested. 

He made a bold, risky move -- a maneuver befitting a fighter pilot (excuse me, "Naval Aviator") -- and I think it might just pay off after all. 

Granted, she hasn't yet had to withstand the direct media onslaught on the campaign trail, so she could still fold up under that pressure.  But she clearly is not just fundamentalist arm candy.  I'm genuinely excited (and significantly more optimistic) to see how she does over the next couple of weeks.

Hell, I might even throw a few bucks their way now.  Enthusiastically.  Which is something I would not have said a week ago.

John McCain, you sly son of a bitch...  you give me hope again.

Political Round-Up

So last week, as I often do, I happened to be skimming headlines on Google.  The link said:

McCain picks Palin for VP

And, I shit you not, my first thought was:  "Michael Palin?  That's kind of a ballsy move."  (Which should give you some idea of how my brain is wired.)

My second thought was:  "Well, of course it isn't Michael Palin.  So who the HELL is that?"  And, the intertubes being all clicky and everything, I followed the link to find out.

Now, I'm no longer the 24/7 political junkie that I was before I moved to Las Vegas and got, you know, (kind of) a life.  I simply have more pressing daily responsibilities than keeping up with every last detail of the political scene. 

But I'm pretty good with names, and I do at least try to pay attention to national figures.  So if I've never heard of someone before, you know they're waaaaaaay off the mainstream radar screen.

If you're reading this page, you're obviously on the internet already so there's no need to explain who Sarah Palin is.  So, here's a few of my quick thoughts on this pick:

• Seriously, WHO?

• Ready to be president on day one:  No.

• Ready to be vice-president on day one:  Maybe.  Depends on how she handles herself over the next couple of weeks.

• Washington outsider?  Good.  It doesn't get much more "outside" than Alaska.

• Governmental experience?  Not-so-good.  Not actually bad, mind you -- even at less than two years in the governor's mansion in Juneau (and six years as the mayor of a tiny town), she's got more executive experience than the other three people on both parties' tickets COMBINED.  So there's that, depressing though that point may be.  But presiding, even as chief executive, over a town of less than 10,000 people just doesn't count for much when faced with the prospect of potentially needing to step up and preside over a country of more than 300,000,000.

• Policy positions?  Who really cares?  With the notable (and highly aberrant) exception of Dick Cheney, no Vice President has had much of an impact on administration policies.  To the extent that they align with McCain's policies, they are redundant.  To the extent that they differ from McCain's policies, they are irrelevant.

• Unwed teenage daughter pregnant?  Irrelevant.  Sucks to be her (Bristol, that is), for sure, but that's properly a private family matter.  Of course the media won't let it be a private family matter, so it doubly sucks to be her.  And the bit about Palin's "abstinence-only sex education" policy being thoroughly discredited because of the example of her own daughter?  Puh-leeze.  As if no teen who ever had the benefit of accurate, explicit sex-ed in school has ever gotten pregnant.  (That's not, by the way, a defense of "abstinence-only", simply a rejection of the argument against it based on a single example, however prominent.)

• Brilliant ploy to snatch up support from Hillary's "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuits"?  UTTERLY LAUGHABLE.  No self-respecting, Hillary-supporting, left-leaning, "feminazi" (as Rush so endearingly calls them) would seriously consider voting for McCain instead of Obama simply because he put a chick on the ticket.  Seriously, where can I get some of THAT crack?

• Former beauty queen and runner-up as Miss Alaska?  What does that have to do with anything?  Sure politics is supposed to be "Show business for ugly people", but that doesn't preclude attractive folks from being successful.  They're awfully easy to misunderestimate, which can certainly work to their advantage.  Simply being easy on the eyes doesn't have any bearing on your ability to do the job.  Seems kind of sexist for people to imply that a (female) beauty queen must only be getting by on her looks, but an attractive dude who is successful might actually have substance.

• Irresponsible parent for taking up the burden of the campaign (and potentially the office) with a young family to raise, including an infant?  Also patently sexist.  Barack Obama has two young daughters, yet nobody even hints that for him to spend the past 20 months campaigning, or (should he be elected) the next 4-8 years of his daughters' lives in the most demanding office in the world, somehow makes him an irresponsible parent.  However, if a woman dares to exhibit ambition for herself, apparently with the full support of her family, she's a bad mother?

Bottom line on all of this, McCain made a risky move picking a relative neophyte as a sop to the conservative base of his own party.  Which is annoying to me if for no other reason (and there are others) than it reminds me of why I'm a former Republican myself.  It used to be that the party stood for entirely reasonable, solid philosophical positions regarding the proper role of government.  Then they went and threw religion into the mix (along with a dramatic misunderstanding and misapplication of the Laffer Curve), and it's all gone to hell in a handbasket.  Make no mistake, Governor Palin was selected precisely because she has the "right" religious views for the "values voters" bloc of the Republican party, period.  It certainly isn't because she is one of the top... oh, let's say ONE HUNDRED... most qualified Republicans (and one "Democrat" from Connecticut) that McCain could have chosen.

If, however (and this is a HUGE if), this pick allows McCain the maneuvering room to get back to his more moderate, independent roots, I think it'll be a good thing.  If she can placate the far-right base, while McCain can appeal to moderate independents, he just might pull it off.

But if Sarah Palin flames out (and if it happens, it'll happen fairly early -- within the next couple of weeks -- and not because of any scandal or media story, but because she'll implode on the campaign trail) then McCain will go down the tubes with her.  And it'll be four years of Obama before the Republicans can take back the White House and try to undo that damage.

So, am I happy with the Palin pick?  No.  Is it the worst possible pick McCain could have made?  No.  Does it make me change my opinion on the correct way to vote in this election?  Not in the least.

Look, this election isn't about Obama or McCain.  It's about far, far larger issues than that.  With the Democrats virtually guaranteed to build on their control of Congress, the choice is really pretty simple:

Do we give one party entire control of the government, with the inevitable Democratic overreaction/backlash after years of Republican abuse (leading inexorably to the next backlash the other way when the Republicans eventually return to power)?

Or do we safely divide government, protecting the country from the overzealous agenda of either party, by requiring the cooperation of both to get anything done?

McCain could have picked a ham sandwich (to paraphrase) as his running mate, and I still would have to vote for him for the good of the country.  That I happen to like him, and distrust Obama, makes that choice easier.  That he made a questionable pick for VP is a bit troublesome, but I understand entirely why he made that choice.  I'd have chosen differently, myself, but that's OK.

By the way, I find it fascinating that McCain made a poor VP choice for the country, but possibly an excellent choice for him -- while Obama in my opinion made an outstanding VP choice for the country (Joe Biden is possibly the most qualified person on either ticket for the #1 job) but a terrible choice for him. 

Seriously, Mr. "Hope-You-Can-Believe-In-Change" selects a 35-year Washington veteran and consummate insider as his running mate? 

Doesn't exactly fit the theme, does it?  But that's perhaps a topic for another post...

My Happy Ending

I’ve been out of it for a while now--that song fits.  Sometimes life hands you lemons, from which you can make delicious lemonade.  Somewhat less well known, however, is that sometimes life kicks you squarely in the junk, rips your still-beating heart from your chest and stomps it into thousand little pieces.  What do you do with that? 

On a more positive side, the running thing has been going well.  I ran 10 miles for the first time in July, which gave me a lot of confidence for the half marathon.  After moving in late July I got to take the girls up to Oregon for a week.  We first went to my sister’s house in Eugene, and the girls became best friends with their cousins (they are the same ages).  I went to a Eugene Emeralds baseball game with my dad, brother and brother in law.  It was nice to just hang out and watch the game, even though I didn’t know the names of anyone playing.  The leadoff hitter was maybe the shortest baseball player I’ve seen, but he was ridiculously fast.  His little legs were wheeling around like a cartoon character!  I believe this was also the first time I heard my dad offer to buy me a beer.  I KNOW it was the first time my brother bought me a beer! 

The next day my sister made the best pancakes I think I ever had.  I think she puts crack in them.  The girls and I headed to McMinnville to meet their aunt at the Evergreen Air and Space Museum.  The air museum is where the Spruce Goose looms over a bunch of other (far smaller) aircraft.  The buildings and grounds are spectacular, and the exhibits aren’t bad either.  It’s a nice place to check out.  I even had a bison burger while there (it was a bit dry, but good). 

My sister brought her kids up to my parents’ house in Buxton, so the girls were happy.  I took my sister’s dog Cody with me on a run up the Banks-Vernonia trail that runs behind my parents’ house.  It was a nice run up and down hills, but it was shady and cool compared to L.A. weather.  I ended up running 14 miles, but Cody quit at about 13 so I beat the dog! 

We also managed to hit the Newport Aquarium and do some tax-free shopping before we left OR.  I also got to spend some time with my friends Courtney, Jennifer and David.

Now I’m getting ready for the Disneyland Half Marathon, which starts at 6am Sunday morning.  I have to head down to Anaheim today to pick up my race stuff, check into my hotel and try to get some sleep.  At least it won’t be very hot at 6am!

His wife ain't too shabby, either...

I haven't been watching the convention as it happens, so I've been getting bits and pieces out of order as I try to catch up.  I didn't see Hillary's big speech until after I saw Bill's, so here's the clip of her big moment:

As I mentioned over a year ago, I think the Democrats are missing an opportunity by passing over Hillary for Barack.  I don't necessarily agree with her policies, but she's a significantly more engaging personality.  I honestly think her speech was better than Bill's.

It's just as well, I've got to vote for the Republican ticket no matter what, and it's a lot easier for me to do with Obama on the other side.  More important than any one leader is maintaining divided government -- Congress is lost to the Dems so the White House has got to go to the Republicans, for the good of the country.  If Congress was in the hands of the Republicans, I'd hold my nose and vote for Obama, despite my many reservations about the man.

Dude gives a good speech...

Probably the most gifted orator of the past 50 years... never mind that some of his points are rather specious, the man is just awesome at working a crowd. Notice, however, how he speaks to "My fellow Democrats", not "My fellow Americans". Yes he's at the Democratic convention, but he's on national (if not world-wide) TV, his audience is much broader than that.

Anyhow, others may have a different read on this, but it seems to me like he's going through the motions, saying what he needs to say about his party's nominee more out of obligation than out of conviction.

It's been a while...

Been busy with work and other things... and haven't had much to say of late.  But last night I picked up my new (used) toy and thought I should share:

It's a 2005 BMW 330ci, and while I had never driven a BMW until less than a week ago, I have to say that I'm a big fan now.  Man, is this a sweet ride.

I've been wanting to get a new car ever since moving to Vegas, but of course I figured I needed to buy a house first.  And that took a couple of years longer than I expected... but now that I'm more or less settled into the house, I started looking around at cars again.  I've been wanting something sporty (as a contrast to the Explorer that I've been driving for -- *gasp* -- 12 years now!)  And I've always been partial to convertibles.  I've been looking at the BMW 3-series for a while, and the brand new models are gorgeous -- but freakin' expensive, too.

Enter CarMax.  They had a few models to choose from, mostly 2005 and 2006 (lease returns, as mine was) and the prices are about half what a new 3-series would cost.  I have to say, the CarMax experience was generally quite good -- although my sales guy flaked out on me a bit when it came time to meet him to actually pick up the vehicle, keeping me waiting for half an hour before he showed up -- and I really appreciate the no-haggle price policy (particularly with used cars, which can be a major pain to negotiate).  I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them to others, and I expect the next time I'm looking for a car, I'll probably start there.

So, as of this writing I've had the car for about 24 hours, and it's been topless for about 22 of them...

And I've already been caught in the rain (yes, in Las Vegas, it does occasionally rain) -- fortunately I was able to pull over right away and put up the top so no harm done.

Since this isn't exactly the very most practical car for hauling things, I kept the Exploder as well.  Oh, yeah, and SUVs have about a five dollar trade-in value now, so there was that.

My friend George at work, who previously owned a 3-series sedan, was very excited to learn of my purchase.  He warned me, however, to be careful -- as he described it, his car had been a lemon: the chick magnet on his BMW was broken!  Time will tell on this car, but hey, I've still got a year left on the factory warranty... so no worries...  :-D

Today was the worst day of my life. 

96 Degrees in the Shade

It’s been hot.  Really, really hot, and not a desert heat with a nice wind.  Last Thursday I had the joy of spending the day running about—mostly driving and talking on the cell like my fellow L.A. peeps, and it just so happened that it was 107 degrees outside.  I tried to hang out at Starbucks but they were packed inside, so I was outdoors near a tree that smelled like pee.  Not so fun fact: there are about a hundred million places to pee in a toilet in L.A., but still I come across a lot of (human) pee smells outdoors, in parking garages, in staircases, etc.  It might just be me.  It stayed over 100 through Sunday just to make the weekend annoying. 

I did get to run today—6.5 miles.  I'm halfway to my half-marathon distance.  My knees and I have a bit of détente going on, and I can work with that for now.  I even ran with a 10 minute/mile pace, which isn’t too bad considering I haven’t been doing this for very long.   

It also appears that there is a presidential election campaign going on.  I thought I would be so pumped up by this election, but for some reason not so much.  Barack Obama sounds cool and all, but policy?  Hmm.  McCain was nifty in 2000 but the right wingers all hate him.  Thanks David for the post on Obama’s “rebate” check, by the way.