Least worst Feb 8, 2008
I haven't voted since the presidential election of 2004, and my reasoning is simple:  Most elections come down to voting for the least worst candidate.  I don't feel that the best way to choose a person who will make significantly important decisions that effect my life, my family, my country, and my planet is to vote for the least worst among the choices.  And that's what elections essentially are.  You vote for someone because it's your civic duty to vote.  It's your right; your privilege.  There was a time when people weren't allowed to vote in our country.  Therefore, we must vote.  Candidate A believes X and Y.  Candidate B believes Y and Z.  I'll vote for Candidate A because he believes in X, despite the fact that he also believes in Y.  Oh well.  At least I voted. 

It's been claimed that my product comparison matrix method of choosing which gadget to buy employs the same methodology of choosing the least worst.  The rationale says that if I wanted the best possible product, I would just buy the one with the most features and the highest price.  And so by buying anything other than that "best product", I'm essentially choosing the least worst.  Simple. 

However, I disagree with this.  The gadget with the best features isn't necessarily the best gadget.  It might not be what I'm looking for, and it might not be the right time.  It all comes down to not only the right array of features, but also what features are most important to me.  In the end, I make a decision because I want the capabilities provided by the new gadget, not because I feel compelled to buy something.  It's about choosing the best option (implying it is in fact an option), not the least worst. 

So until I find a political candidate that doesn't make me feel like I'm choosing him/her out of desperation, I probably won't vote.  Oh, and I live in New Jersey, so unless I vote for a Democrat, my vote doesn't count anyway. #politics
Caucus this Jan 9, 2008
I know nothing about politics and couldn't give an airborne rodent's posterior about current events.  But I think it's funny that the powers that be gave two important political thingies, the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary, to the two biggest loser states in the country.  Seriously, name one thing Iowa is known for besides the fact that it has a college football team.  It's even worse than Idaho, whose only claim to fame is a stupid tuber.  And New Hampshire?  Who even goes there?  Everybody knows about Vermont.  It's for lovers.  People have heard of Maine because it's the farthest state from anything.  But New Hampshire?  Phththbthbbb. 
[Image: caucus.jpg]
And yes, the word "caucus" sounds like there should be an ointment associated with it. #politics
Political phone calls Jun 5, 2007
I got a call from a politician last night.  I'm not planning on voting anyway, but his call made me want to vote for him even less.  I don't know what market research these politicians are using, but hopefully one of them will read this: 
Stop calling me.  I don't want to hear from you.  I don't want to be disturbed, at home, at night, when I'm trying to enjoy my free time and relax.  I don't care what you have to say.  I don't care if you think you can get me to vote.  If I was even slightly interested in politics, I'd look you up online and read about you.  By calling me on my personal home phone, wasting my time, and just generally annoying me, you've driven me farther away from the political system and whatever causes you're trying to promote.
Not only was it a stupid phone call, it was a recording.  I had to get off the couch, answer the phone, and listen to a recording of a guy I've never heard of talk about something I wasn't interested in. #politics
Control Dec 14, 2006
I was listening to the radio a few months ago, and Drew Carey was being interviewed about his libertarianism.  He made an interesting observation:  Most people believe the government is for the people.  Drew believes the government is against the people, what with all the laws, the wiretapping, the copyright punishments, and the war on drugs.  While his views are a little crazy, he at least makes some sort of sense.  The government exists to punish the people who break its laws.  Sure, it provides nice things like highways, censorship, education, tax refunds, and military protection.  But it also does a lot of restricting and punishing. 

I've noticed this same thing with non-political things like the NFL.  NFL games are available on basic cable channels (ABC, NBC, FOX) for little money at all.  But if you happen to live outside your favorite team's hometown, you're out of luck.  NFL Sunday Ticket is a service offered through DirecTV that broadcasts every NFL game of the whole season for something like $80 per year (but only through DirecTV, which is a satellite provider).  The NFL also has a deal with Yahoo to offer streaming online versions of every game, all for the low-low price of $249.99 per year.  Oh, but it's not available in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and several other places, not because it's technologically infeasible but because the NFL doesn't want people to see all the games.  And that's what I don't get.  Why does a sports organization have so many restrictions about who can watch what games when?  Why can't I broadcast a game without the NFL's consent (that's why I think NFL on demand is illegal)?  It just seems like the organization exists solely to create rules and punish rule-breakers.  And that makes me want to become a libertarian. #politics
Elections Nov 7, 2006
Some sort of stupid election is happening right now.  I'm so uninterested, I don't even know what it's for.  Attention politicians:  I'm your unreached demographic.  I know many people like myself who are completely turned off by politics because of the mudslinging and personal bashing that goes on among candidates.  No one knows what anyone stands for; everyone knows what everyone doesn't stand for.  I saw a commercial last night where candidate #1's sole message was that no one knew what candidate #2 stood for because all #2 did was make fun of #1.  What a bunch of idiots.  Filthy, disgusting human beings. 

Since the American political system is in total disarray, I have a few suggestions that could help bring the country back to its feet (or send it further down the hole it's falling into).  The ideal election would consist of the following:   
  1. Feats of strength.  How many push-ups can you do in a minute?  How fast can you climb up a 30-foot rope?  How far can you throw a football?  These things matter more to me than medicare and social security. 
  2. Chubby bunny.  How can I be expected to vote for a person that can only fit 2-3 marshmallows in their mouth while saying "chubby bunny" clearly?  I would need a candidate that could do at least 10. 
  3. Talent show.  Everybody's got a talent.  Can you chug a beer in one gulp?  Can you juggle flaming bowling pins?  Can you do skateboard tricks?  And sorry, Bill, playing the saxophone won't pass my test. 
  4. Swimsuit competition.  Actually, no.  I really don't want to see most political candidates in swimsuits.  Instead, I think they should compete in a fashion contest.  I'd be so much more willing to vote for someone in jeans and a t-shirt than a dork in a suit. 
  5. Hand-to-hand combat.  With UFC rules:  No headbutts, no groin strikes, no hair pulling, no kicks to a downed opponent.  Gloves and mouth guard required.  Everything else goes.  I'd put my full support behind a candidate that could (a) knock a guy out or (b) submit a person with an armbar or rear naked choke.  Plus, how can I be expected to respect a political candidate who can't take a punch? 
In conclusion, I feel that these 5 tests of moral and physical character would be a much more effective way of judging a political candidate's ability to lead his/her people.  Instead of taking shots at the other candidates while standing behind their staff of personal body guards, candidates would be forced to put it all out on the line.  Instead of depending on fancy law degrees from ivy league universities, candidates would be put through a series of unrelated, inconclusive tests that would essentially produce the same outcome as a normal election.  But it would be at least slightly more entertaining. #politics
Stupid political opinions (5) Oct 23, 2006
Whenever people bring up any type of politics in a discussion, I usually keep my mouth shut and refuse to share my opinion.  It's not that I don't have an opinion.  Sometimes I do, and sometimes I don't.  The reason I don't talk is because I don't want to add anything to a conversation that's doomed from the start.  Based on my experience, the overwhelmingly vast majority of people are not only unqualified to give their opinion on politics, but they're also completely biased and usually just plain wrong. 

Let me explain.  I'm an engineer.  When I hear people talking about math and physics, I'm at least slightly qualified to give my input.  But when I hear people talking about brain surgery, I'm unqualified to speak on the subject because I don't know enough about it to give an intelligent opinion.  It's the same with the average person and politics.  Sure, it's quite possible to have a working knowledge of politics based on watching the news and reading some newspapers.  But overall, the average person doesn't know enough about politics and the way the world works to give an intelligent opinion (me included). 

Politics is a biased field.  That's the nature of the beast.  Nothing's neutral.  It can't be.  That's why politics was (were?) invented (huh?).  So any subject that's discussed and any topic that's mentioned has an opinion attached to it.  It's hard to have an intelligent discussion about George W. Bush when a supporter can see no wrong and an opponent can see no right.  It would be different if people didn't make up their minds based on a small amount of information.  But that's the way it happens, so most political discussions (or arguments, depending on how loud they are) are deadlocked from the start. 

Since most people don't do much research on political topics and their opinions are affected by their preconceptions, they're often just plain wrong.  This is another reason why I don't spew out my opinions in the midst of political discussions:  I don't know the whole story and I'm not completely sure of my facts.  (This is also why I usually don't talk much about creation vs. evolution.  There's a lot of information out there, but it's hard to get reliable information when it's biased by either religion or science.  Plus, I just don't have the desire to sift through information sometimes.)  So in this murky lack-of-information pond, people are all too willing to spread false information and argue half-truths. 

In the end, I get a little annoyed whenever people give their stupid political opinions.  My purpose in these conversations is to change the topic as soon as possible.  Nothing good can come from a political discussion.  Except maybe a fist fight. #politics
Voting with marbles Sep 28, 2006
People in the African nation of Gambia vote in elections by placing a marble into a drum that represents their candidate.  As the marble goes into the drum, it rings a bell so the voting officials can make sure people don't vote more than once.  Counting the votes is simple:  All the marbles are placed into a tray with a certain number of marble-shaped spaces.  Sounds quite a bit more effective than those stupidly archaic punch cards and those painfully defective Diebold machines.  (via Neatorama) #politics
Presidential address Sep 11, 2006
I HATE when the president of our country has anything important to say during prime time television.  I can understand when a few news networks want to cover the event, because let's face it, it's usually newsworthy.  But why on earth does every friggin channel on the entire "TV dial" (old person term) need to televise this event?  Is there any reason for this?  Do people stick with their "favorite channel" and watch the stupid thing there?  Do people change the channel back and forth so that their "Nielsen household" can cast a vote across multiple networks?  No matter what the reason, it's a bunch of crap and I hate it.  I would say this makes me more mad than anything else, ever.  I can't even verbalize how mad this makes me. 

For this reason, I was unspeakably happy and excited when I remembered that Monday Night Football moved to ESPN.  ESPN is all about sports, no question asked.  Of course they wouldn't televise some stupid presidential address.  And they didn't.  And I was so happy, I completely forgot about how mad I was to begin with.  God bless football. #politics
National debt Aug 17, 2006
This government site has information about the nation's debt, updated daily.  As of yesterday, the national debt is $8,483,654,083,915.88, which includes debt held by the public as well as intragovernmental holdings.  (via Neatorama) #politics
Wiretap me May 11, 2006
Sometimes, the federal government listens to my phone calls.  Sometimes they record them.  Sometimes they just make a note of who I called.  This is called wiretapping, and it makes a lot of people mad. 

I, for one, couldn't care less.  If George W. wants to listen to my phone calls, he can go right ahead.  He might be sad to find that my phone calls are quite uneventful.  My life isn't very exciting, and my phone calls reflect this.  But if he wants to listen, I don't mind. 

I don't really see what the big deal is.  Actually, I do see what the big deal is:  The government isn't really supposed to invade my privacy.  It has something to do with one of my constitutional rights.  And if the government gets away with listening to my phone calls, they might take it a step further and listen to my brain waves.  And they might take that a step further and send me to jail for committing a crime before I actually commit a crime.  Hello, Minority Report.  And Tom Cruise.  He's weird. 

But I think the key word in the previous paragraph is "might".  The government might do a lot of things.  They might take away my right to vote.  They might prohibit the consumption of alcohol.  They might shut down the internet.  But they didn't.  They didn't do any of these things yet.  And I doubt they will.  I guess my point is that I'll be concerned with government wiretapping as soon as they do something that annoys me.  I don't care if they listen to my phone calls.  I don't care if they know my social security number (since they gave it to me) and my credit card numbers.  But if they publish my phone calls in a book, I might be mad.  If they write me a letter and tell me to stop pretending to know what I'm talking about, I might be a little peeved.  But until something like this happens, I say this:  "Wiretap me". #politics