The run-up to the Democratic convention was interesting. Obama's lead faded gradually, at one point leaving national races tied (and electoral college votes likely within 4 either way). Obama had a very successful international tour, and then a vacation; while on vacation, the McCain camp apparently decided that since they weren't doing well at all on issues, it was time to fight dirty. Considering McCain's hiring most of Bush's campaign team (the most successful negative/dirty fighting team so far), that's hardly surprising. They spewed forth everything from Obama working with a former terrorist (from when Obama was aged in single digits!), to Rezko (real estate issue), and of course - youth and inexperience.
The Democratic convention initially looked like Clinton was going to wreck things, but it turned around pretty well. Obama's selection of Biden for his VP slot is interesting - and very solid, if not brilliant. Biden really is good in just about every position in which Obama is weak - and would definitely be ready (in terms of experience/knowledge/leadership skills) for the top-job should Obama vanish for whatever reason. Biden's gaffe habit could be a problem, but so far he's been very disciplined. During the convention, the McCain negative attack ads intensified - quoting Hillary Clinton against Obama, bringing up experience again, etc. Interestingly, Obama floated a few negative response ads also - such as "how many houses does McCain have?" (apparently triggering a second set of Rezko attack ads back).
The result? A convention bounce from level to 9 points ahead on some averages, 6 on others. That's a pre-Obama address bounce, so who knows what the final bounce will be... or how short it will be, given McCain's next-day VP announcement.
So finally, McCain picks Sarah Palin. It's widely reported that he really wanted Lieberman or Ridge, or maybe even Romney - but two of those are pro-choice, one isn't even a Republican, and one is a Mormon. There were rumblings all week that if McCain picked one of his choices, his base would abandon him (maybe they would, who knows?). The result is that we have a really bizarre VP pick. It's either a brilliant move, or only mildly less ridiculous than Dan Quayle talking about Mars. Snap polling today says 14% of Americans approve of Palin, 17% dissaprove, and 68% don't know who she is. Until recently, you could definitely put me in the 68% camp!
So... who is she? Palin grew up in small town Alaska, and was heavily into sport. She has a degree in journalism, and has worked in tourism, sport, and as a beauty model (runner-up in Miss Alaska, presumably the only pageant involving parkas!). She apparently hunts, fishes, and has lots of children. She's a die-hard mega-conservative who makes Margaret Thatcher look like a leftist. She was a town (of 6,000 people, give or take a few) mayor, and then usurped an incumbent Republican governor in the primaries to steal his job - which she has had for 20 months (her only state-wide experience). She obtained her first passport last year, travelling to Kuwait to visit the Alaska national guard - her first trip outside of the country. A few months ago, she admitted that she (a) didn't know what a VP does, and (b) doesn't think it would be a very productive job. Lets hope for her sake that someone explained the role to her!
In the primary campaign for governor,
It will be really interesting to see how she fares. It's tempting to dismiss her as a lightweight, but that was the former Alaska governor's fate: he tried to talk issues, she was nice (and apparently hot - there are bumper stickers around saying "Alaska - we're cold, but our governor's hot"). That may be enough to win Alaska, but I really hope that being hot isn't enough for the country...
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Parmesan Round Steak
Credit: Diana Rattray, About.com
An easy family meal, made with economical round steak, Parmesan cheese, and tomatoes.
An easy family meal, made with economical round steak, Parmesan cheese, and tomatoes.
Cook Time: 1 hour, 15 minutes
Ingredients:
- 1 1/2 to 2 pounds beef round steak, about 3/4 inches thick
- 3 tablespoons flour
- 1/2 teaspoon salt
- 1/8 teaspoon pepper
- 1 egg, slightly beaten
- 1 tablespoon water
- 1/2 cup fine dry bread crumbs
- 1/2 teaspoon dried leaf basil
- 3 tablespoons cooking oil or shortening
- 1 can (15 1/2 ounces} diced tomatoes
- 1 can (8 ounces) tomato sauce
- 1/4 cup grated Parmesan cheese
- 2 tablespoons dry red wine
- 1 teaspoon sugar
- 1/2 teaspoon dried leaf oregano
- 1/4 teaspoon salt
- 1/2 to 1 cup shredded Mozzarella cheese
Preparation:
Cut round steak in 6 serving-size pieces. Combine flour, salt and pepper; dredge meat and pound on both sides to tenderize and flatten. Mix egg with water. Combine bread crumbs and basil leaves. Dip each piece of meat in egg mixture and then dredge in bread crumb mixture, coating thoroughly and evenly. Brown in hot cooking oil or shortening in large skillet over medium-high heat. Combine tomatoes, tomato sauce, Parmesan cheese, wine, sugar, oregano and salt. Place meat in a 13x9x2-inch baking dish and pour sauce over meat. Cover tightly with foil and bake at 350° for 1 hour and 10 minutes or until tender. Sprinkle cheese on top of meat and continue baking for about 5 minutes or until cheese melts. Makes 6 servings of round steak Parmesan.Sunday, June 1, 2008
Generational power transition, and the 2008 Presidential Election
Two things have really stuck me about the run-up to the 2008 election: the ages of the candidates, and the continual voter outcry for "change." More on the former in a bit; the rallying cry for "change" is interesting in that it echoes the not-so-successful Howard Dean campaign of 2004, and had shadows (poorly portrayed) in John Kerry's eventual bid for power. It also echoes the 1997 UK election, in which Blair and New Labour heavily touted their credentials to change Britain (this is not all that surprising, as political trends in Europe are typically 10-15 years ahead of those found in the USA). Unlike in 2004, when a highly-vocal but poorly motivated young crowd support Dean, this time the changists are well-organized, and are making heavy - and very successful - use of the modern communications landscape. That said, it remains to be seen if 2008 is the year for change; it is still entirely possible that McCain's "steady as she goes" approach will defeat Obama's hungry youth.
The age of various recent presidential candidates/Presidents may provide a clue towards the "anythink but what we have now" mentality of many younger voters. President Reagan was born in 1911, meaning that World War II and the rise of the Soviet Union would mark his likely formative influences. Presient George H. Bush Senior was born in 1921; like Reagan, that would make WWII and the 1950s his formative influences. (Interestingly, Dick Cheney - to whom both Presidents ascribed a strong influence to the point that some commentators have referred to three Presidencies as being Cheney's legacy was born in 1941; more on this below.). President Clinton was born in 1946, making the Vietnam war a formative influence on his youth, as well as the assassination of Kennedy, the moon-landing, and the 70s depression. President George W. Bush Jnr. was also born in 1946.
Current candidates: Senator John McCain was born in 1936, making him only 10 at the end of WWII, rendering the 1950s his formative years, and Vietnam (in which he served, and was captured as a prisoner of war) a likely pivotal moment. Hillary Clinton was born in 1947, very close to her husband. Barack Obama was born in 1961 - meaning that his formative influences would be the late 1970s, Reaganomics, and the slow-death of the Cold War. Howard Dean, interestingly, was born in 1948 - placing him in the same generation as the Clintons.
Why is this relevant? Much academic mileage has resulted from discussions of the various generations in America. You have the Baby Boomers (1946-1958), the Echo Boomers (a.k.a Jones' Boomers; 1958-early 1960s), Generation X (1960s-1970s), Generation Y (1980s-90s) etc. Traditionally, generations have been assigned some general traits. In particular, Baby Boomers are known for fierce individualism, lack of long-term planning, criticizing modern youth (mostly regarding work ethic and achivement), sometimes for excessive feathering of their own nests, and being the first generation to be sandwiched between still-living relatives and children. The Echo Boomers are more of a bridge-generation; they suffered through some of Vietnam and the 70s, and were often quite polarized by the Reagan years. Generation X are known for being cynical, anti-establishment, and trying to find a balance between personal space and work; GenX is often cited as the first generation to say en-masse that a little-less pay is acceptable for more time with their family. GenX are also fiercely critical of many of the Boomers, often indicate resentment as to the world handed down to them, and are known for not believing in company loyalty (often stating that it is a bad thing, given that companies don't show any loyalty back).
Reagan, Bush Senior and McCain pre-date the boomers - although all three have advisors and political circles heavily dominated by boomers (in particular Dick Cheney and his neo-con cohorts). Both Clintons, Bush Junior, and Howard Dean are all Boomer-generation. Obama is somewhere between an Echo Boomer and an early Generation X. (Tony Blair was born in 1953, but is considered post-boom because the UK Baby Boom didn't last very long at all).
It would appear that there are three generations here, although the Echo Boom is more of a transitional period than a well-defined sociological period; the pre-boomers (advised by boomers), the boomers (advised by GenX), and a GenX candidate (advised by GenX and Y).
Is it possible that the mantra for "change" is really a restatement of the need for the Boomer generation to pass the torch on to their younger brethren? It will happen inevitably, but the divisive, nasty politics of the late-Boomers has left many younger generations dissilusioned, and fearful for the future.
The age of various recent presidential candidates/Presidents may provide a clue towards the "anythink but what we have now" mentality of many younger voters. President Reagan was born in 1911, meaning that World War II and the rise of the Soviet Union would mark his likely formative influences. Presient George H. Bush Senior was born in 1921; like Reagan, that would make WWII and the 1950s his formative influences. (Interestingly, Dick Cheney - to whom both Presidents ascribed a strong influence to the point that some commentators have referred to three Presidencies as being Cheney's legacy was born in 1941; more on this below.). President Clinton was born in 1946, making the Vietnam war a formative influence on his youth, as well as the assassination of Kennedy, the moon-landing, and the 70s depression. President George W. Bush Jnr. was also born in 1946.
Current candidates: Senator John McCain was born in 1936, making him only 10 at the end of WWII, rendering the 1950s his formative years, and Vietnam (in which he served, and was captured as a prisoner of war) a likely pivotal moment. Hillary Clinton was born in 1947, very close to her husband. Barack Obama was born in 1961 - meaning that his formative influences would be the late 1970s, Reaganomics, and the slow-death of the Cold War. Howard Dean, interestingly, was born in 1948 - placing him in the same generation as the Clintons.
Why is this relevant? Much academic mileage has resulted from discussions of the various generations in America. You have the Baby Boomers (1946-1958), the Echo Boomers (a.k.a Jones' Boomers; 1958-early 1960s), Generation X (1960s-1970s), Generation Y (1980s-90s) etc. Traditionally, generations have been assigned some general traits. In particular, Baby Boomers are known for fierce individualism, lack of long-term planning, criticizing modern youth (mostly regarding work ethic and achivement), sometimes for excessive feathering of their own nests, and being the first generation to be sandwiched between still-living relatives and children. The Echo Boomers are more of a bridge-generation; they suffered through some of Vietnam and the 70s, and were often quite polarized by the Reagan years. Generation X are known for being cynical, anti-establishment, and trying to find a balance between personal space and work; GenX is often cited as the first generation to say en-masse that a little-less pay is acceptable for more time with their family. GenX are also fiercely critical of many of the Boomers, often indicate resentment as to the world handed down to them, and are known for not believing in company loyalty (often stating that it is a bad thing, given that companies don't show any loyalty back).
Reagan, Bush Senior and McCain pre-date the boomers - although all three have advisors and political circles heavily dominated by boomers (in particular Dick Cheney and his neo-con cohorts). Both Clintons, Bush Junior, and Howard Dean are all Boomer-generation. Obama is somewhere between an Echo Boomer and an early Generation X. (Tony Blair was born in 1953, but is considered post-boom because the UK Baby Boom didn't last very long at all).
It would appear that there are three generations here, although the Echo Boom is more of a transitional period than a well-defined sociological period; the pre-boomers (advised by boomers), the boomers (advised by GenX), and a GenX candidate (advised by GenX and Y).
Is it possible that the mantra for "change" is really a restatement of the need for the Boomer generation to pass the torch on to their younger brethren? It will happen inevitably, but the divisive, nasty politics of the late-Boomers has left many younger generations dissilusioned, and fearful for the future.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Who says I don't like eye-candy?
I've been playing with ObjectDock and Window Blinds from Stardock. Vista was, frankly, really annoying me with its look/feel. I couldn't easily tell which windows were active (title bars are too similar in colour), the inability to "roll up" a window was annoying, and the task bar is ridiculously restrictive - and tends to fill up with crap. Here's one of my two monitors (the other has a dock showing running tasks):
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Portal - The Cake is a Lie!
I just can't get this song out of my head! Highly recommended: http://www.hwhq.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4323
This was triumph.
I'm making a note here:
HUGE SUCCESS.
It's hard to overstate
my satisfaction.
Aperture Science
We do what we must
because we can.
For the good of all of us.
Except the ones who are dead.
Overall, I have to say that Portal is one of the best games I've played in years. :-)
This was triumph.
I'm making a note here:
HUGE SUCCESS.
It's hard to overstate
my satisfaction.
Aperture Science
We do what we must
because we can.
For the good of all of us.
Except the ones who are dead.
Overall, I have to say that Portal is one of the best games I've played in years. :-)
Sunday, January 13, 2008
On Free Will
The conflict between free-will and fatalism/determinism is a very old one. With the traditional predicate of a being (God) who is aware of the entire future, how does an individual truly have free will if their future is entirely deterministic? Or, to put it another way, if the actions (A) of an actor (X) at a point in time (T) are predicated on entirely upon the position with time (T-1), how does one derive a function in which AX is relevant to A at any given value of T?
There are a number of approaches to date. One is to argue that the question is irrelevant, because if the actions of T require a future belief of T-1, then ad nauseum (and by golly!), X's beliefs at T-1 will match those beliefs (a simplified Aristotilian Sea Battle argument; similar I believe to Aquinas's writings also). That seems to miss the point, in that if by definition X will hold the beliefs required to perform A at T - then X doesn't have free will, and his/her beliefs aren't really relevant - the same problem.
Another argument (Bohm, and derived dimensionality theory, also Boertism/Augustine's "God is beyond time" argument) is that space/time are actually just 4 dimensions, and any being who can perceive all 4 can therefore perceive everything that has, will and is happening from the point of view of a 3.5-dimensional being like ourselves - because time is an illusion and the whole of reality as we perceive it has already happened from the perspective of 4+ dimensional being. (Logically, this could be extended to state that the activities of any N dimensional being are predetermined from the point of view of any N+X dimensional being for values of X greater than or equal to 1). Again, this leaves the rather interesting state of affairs that nothing we do in any way, shape or form is free - or even will affect the outcome of anything.
Outside of the hard incompatibilist thinkers, you find the compatibilist mode of thought. This has appeared in writings from Hobbes, Hume and others and essentially states that one is free within constraints, but that while one's activities are predetermined - one appears to have free will at the time, and therefore free will is maintained. Ignoring the glaring problem with this (illusory freedom isn't particularly free!), one could build a philosophy based on the idea that one will act according to one's will - but the outcome is determined anyway. Catholics make this argument sometimes. Calvinism presents a somewhat bizarre attempt at compatibility, arguing that God has sovereignty over wisdom/power, but only offers his way as a life-raft to free-willed individuals. They state that his followers are pre-selected, and everyone else is free to do whatever they want on the way to hell. Charming. It also seems to raise an interesting question - if a loving God hand-picked the few to not have meaningful free will, why bother with the rest of creation if its entire purpose is to burn? Is heaven short of fuel?
A more interesting (and definitely more well thought-out than Calvinism) approach is taken by the Jewish faith, who openly admit that it is a paradox and they don't have an answer. At least they are honest.
On the other end of the spectrum, the libertarian camp argue that nothing is determined in advance and that therefore free will is exactly what it says. They reject the paradox by rejecting the deterministic aspect. This does not preclude religion; some modern Open Theists, and is found in some post-evangelical protestant groups. A very interesting proposition, technically only incompatible with hard incompatibilism because it rejects the issue entirely.
An extension of the modern Open Theists (and an attempt to once-again reconcile with determinism!) draws upon concepts of quantum uncertainty, and infinite parallel universes (the last explanation of this I read drew upon an 11-dimensional multiverse with some dimensions representing possible outcomes). Basically, you have the 4-dimension frozen universe model - but with an infinite number of frozen universes, one for each possible outcome of anything. The path we perceive selects branches as we progress - but other copies of us in (3.5D)(T)(number of choices+1) perceive the other choices. Theists can then extend that with the N+X dimensional model I mentioned above (in an 11-dimensional multiverse, God has 12+ dimensions) so that God then knows every possible past, present and future for everyone. Free will is maintained for the progression through time in that all choices are actually available - but all choices will be chosen, so on aggregate you have an infinite number of deterministic outcomes. That should give anyone a headache if you think about it long enough!
(As an aside... suppose heaven/hell, and an (effectively) infinite number of Herberts, and we make every possible decision through a chain of infinite dimensions. Do you end up with different fractions of infinite Herberts in heaven and hell?)
Obviously, I don't have a solution to this. I tend towards the libertarian or hard incompatibilist groups, and find the quantum concept fascinating. More thinking to do!
There are a number of approaches to date. One is to argue that the question is irrelevant, because if the actions of T require a future belief of T-1, then ad nauseum (and by golly!), X's beliefs at T-1 will match those beliefs (a simplified Aristotilian Sea Battle argument; similar I believe to Aquinas's writings also). That seems to miss the point, in that if by definition X will hold the beliefs required to perform A at T - then X doesn't have free will, and his/her beliefs aren't really relevant - the same problem.
Another argument (Bohm, and derived dimensionality theory, also Boertism/Augustine's "God is beyond time" argument) is that space/time are actually just 4 dimensions, and any being who can perceive all 4 can therefore perceive everything that has, will and is happening from the point of view of a 3.5-dimensional being like ourselves - because time is an illusion and the whole of reality as we perceive it has already happened from the perspective of 4+ dimensional being. (Logically, this could be extended to state that the activities of any N dimensional being are predetermined from the point of view of any N+X dimensional being for values of X greater than or equal to 1). Again, this leaves the rather interesting state of affairs that nothing we do in any way, shape or form is free - or even will affect the outcome of anything.
Outside of the hard incompatibilist thinkers, you find the compatibilist mode of thought. This has appeared in writings from Hobbes, Hume and others and essentially states that one is free within constraints, but that while one's activities are predetermined - one appears to have free will at the time, and therefore free will is maintained. Ignoring the glaring problem with this (illusory freedom isn't particularly free!), one could build a philosophy based on the idea that one will act according to one's will - but the outcome is determined anyway. Catholics make this argument sometimes. Calvinism presents a somewhat bizarre attempt at compatibility, arguing that God has sovereignty over wisdom/power, but only offers his way as a life-raft to free-willed individuals. They state that his followers are pre-selected, and everyone else is free to do whatever they want on the way to hell. Charming. It also seems to raise an interesting question - if a loving God hand-picked the few to not have meaningful free will, why bother with the rest of creation if its entire purpose is to burn? Is heaven short of fuel?
A more interesting (and definitely more well thought-out than Calvinism) approach is taken by the Jewish faith, who openly admit that it is a paradox and they don't have an answer. At least they are honest.
On the other end of the spectrum, the libertarian camp argue that nothing is determined in advance and that therefore free will is exactly what it says. They reject the paradox by rejecting the deterministic aspect. This does not preclude religion; some modern Open Theists, and is found in some post-evangelical protestant groups. A very interesting proposition, technically only incompatible with hard incompatibilism because it rejects the issue entirely.
An extension of the modern Open Theists (and an attempt to once-again reconcile with determinism!) draws upon concepts of quantum uncertainty, and infinite parallel universes (the last explanation of this I read drew upon an 11-dimensional multiverse with some dimensions representing possible outcomes). Basically, you have the 4-dimension frozen universe model - but with an infinite number of frozen universes, one for each possible outcome of anything. The path we perceive selects branches as we progress - but other copies of us in (3.5D)(T)(number of choices+1) perceive the other choices. Theists can then extend that with the N+X dimensional model I mentioned above (in an 11-dimensional multiverse, God has 12+ dimensions) so that God then knows every possible past, present and future for everyone. Free will is maintained for the progression through time in that all choices are actually available - but all choices will be chosen, so on aggregate you have an infinite number of deterministic outcomes. That should give anyone a headache if you think about it long enough!
(As an aside... suppose heaven/hell, and an (effectively) infinite number of Herberts, and we make every possible decision through a chain of infinite dimensions. Do you end up with different fractions of infinite Herberts in heaven and hell?)
Obviously, I don't have a solution to this. I tend towards the libertarian or hard incompatibilist groups, and find the quantum concept fascinating. More thinking to do!
Friday, January 4, 2008
Hats off to Obama - and his speechwriter!
It is too early to say, but I may have guessed wrongly about Obama. If Iowa is any indication, he really is tapping into this country's desire for change in a very strong way. I still think that Clinton will prove hard to beat, because of her experience, political tenacity, and shoulder-rubbing with the bigwigs; but Obama really seems well-placed to slingshot the giant.
I really have to tip my hat to Obama's speechwriter(s). His acceptance speech was excellent. It's great to hear a speech without attacks on other candidates, just focussed on positives and campaign objectives - and while it's very populist, the populism is nicely tinged with potential reality and existing achievements (such as health-care reform in Illinois).
At this point, I hope he wins. My heart is for him, my head still fears he may not be ready.
On the Republican side, it was interesting to see how well Huckabee did. The evangelical bloc is very powerful in some states - so it will be even more enlightening to see how he does in New Hampshire. If he puts on a strong-showing there, in a state that typically isn't swayed by faith-based candidacy, then he really is tapping into the "Washington must change" vibe. If he doesn't, then it will be very interesting to see how it plays out: Bush got much of his support from the evangelical bloc, but also appealed to moderates and populists (many of whom regret their choice, I'm sure!).
I worry a little about the Republicans this time around. Huckabee seems quite pleasant these days, although his "no more income tax" (replaced entirely with sales tax) is a lot more regressive than people think. Above all, some of his comments from the past - particularly regarding homosexuality, AIDS, and women's rights (including abortion) are troublesome. He's recanted on two of those three - but do we really want a President who can't understand "Congress shall make no law..."
Romney is also an odd one. He has an odd mix of policies, and was definitely hampered in Iowa by being a Mormon. The LDS (Latter Day Saints) aren't very popular in any state they used to be based in - Missouri, Iowa, Illinois, especially. While I don't think Romney wants to overthrow the State Militia in armed struggle (that didn't work so well for Joseph Smith!), I do think that in the Midwest he is going to have a very hard time. Conversely, he might do well in Utah, Nevada, and the traditionally "couldn't care less about your faith" states. Polls currently show Romney and McCain as the only two candidates with any momentum in New Hampshire.
Finally, there's McCain. He's honest, I'll give him that. I disagree with much of what he says (particularly Iraq), but I never find myself disliking him - just his positions. He might make a decent President, although I'm not sure how well he'll do overall.
Ok, that wasn't finally. Lets not forget "Mr I.R.A.", Guilliani! He has the strangest strategy every seen in a set of primaries, seeking only to really fight the Super Tuesday states. If his gamble pays off and he does well on that day - he could win. I'll go out on a limb and say that he won't - by the time Super Tuesday comes along, other candidates will have momentum and positive press building. Super Tuesday almost always backs someone who has effectively already won...
I really have to tip my hat to Obama's speechwriter(s). His acceptance speech was excellent. It's great to hear a speech without attacks on other candidates, just focussed on positives and campaign objectives - and while it's very populist, the populism is nicely tinged with potential reality and existing achievements (such as health-care reform in Illinois).
At this point, I hope he wins. My heart is for him, my head still fears he may not be ready.
On the Republican side, it was interesting to see how well Huckabee did. The evangelical bloc is very powerful in some states - so it will be even more enlightening to see how he does in New Hampshire. If he puts on a strong-showing there, in a state that typically isn't swayed by faith-based candidacy, then he really is tapping into the "Washington must change" vibe. If he doesn't, then it will be very interesting to see how it plays out: Bush got much of his support from the evangelical bloc, but also appealed to moderates and populists (many of whom regret their choice, I'm sure!).
I worry a little about the Republicans this time around. Huckabee seems quite pleasant these days, although his "no more income tax" (replaced entirely with sales tax) is a lot more regressive than people think. Above all, some of his comments from the past - particularly regarding homosexuality, AIDS, and women's rights (including abortion) are troublesome. He's recanted on two of those three - but do we really want a President who can't understand "Congress shall make no law..."
Romney is also an odd one. He has an odd mix of policies, and was definitely hampered in Iowa by being a Mormon. The LDS (Latter Day Saints) aren't very popular in any state they used to be based in - Missouri, Iowa, Illinois, especially. While I don't think Romney wants to overthrow the State Militia in armed struggle (that didn't work so well for Joseph Smith!), I do think that in the Midwest he is going to have a very hard time. Conversely, he might do well in Utah, Nevada, and the traditionally "couldn't care less about your faith" states. Polls currently show Romney and McCain as the only two candidates with any momentum in New Hampshire.
Finally, there's McCain. He's honest, I'll give him that. I disagree with much of what he says (particularly Iraq), but I never find myself disliking him - just his positions. He might make a decent President, although I'm not sure how well he'll do overall.
Ok, that wasn't finally. Lets not forget "Mr I.R.A.", Guilliani! He has the strangest strategy every seen in a set of primaries, seeking only to really fight the Super Tuesday states. If his gamble pays off and he does well on that day - he could win. I'll go out on a limb and say that he won't - by the time Super Tuesday comes along, other candidates will have momentum and positive press building. Super Tuesday almost always backs someone who has effectively already won...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
