Thursday, October 26, 2006

Bombs Away

MediaPost, my favorite industry newsletter, has an interesting article today highlighting democratic bloggers' strategy for the upcoming elections. It involves a Google Bomb. Details below:

A GOOGLE SEARCH ON THE name "George Allen"--a Republican U.S. Senator from Virginia running to retain his seat--now returns his official Senate page as the top organic result. But if some bloggers have their way, the top result will instead be "New 'N Word' Woe For George Allen," a CBS News article from September, highlighting the Senator's alleged use of a racial slur.
A coalition of Democratic-leaning bloggers are planning an en masse search engine optimization campaign, in the form of "Google bombs," in hopes of highlighting negative stories about GOP candidates. The bloggers plan to manipulate the search engine's results via blog posts that link the candidates' names to unflattering articles.

Past political Google bombs have included linking the biography pages for President George W. Bush and former President Jimmy Carter to the phrase "miserable failure," and the John Kerry senatorial Web site to the word "Waffles" during the 2004 Presidential campaigns.

But, although "bombing" has worked in the past, Google says it has recently tweaked its algorithms to prevent people from bombing. "We make changes to the algorithms to make the searches better," a spokesman said. "Invariably, this does take care of some of these attempts at Google bombing which are not true organic results."

This election cycle's Google bombing is being masterminded by Chris Bowers, author of the popular liberal blog On Tuesday, Bowers posted the code for 52 links to news articles and Wikipedia entries detailing scandals that Republican candidates and incumbents for the Senate and House have been involved in. Bowers on Tuesday asked that blog authors post the links in their own blogs with the candidate's name as the link text--thus creating inbound links on those articles, and driving up the page rank for those pages and raising them in Google's natural search results.

Read the rest here.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Josh Schroeder Hates Me

With only .1% uncertainty, Josh Schroeder predicts he will be making a move to Missouri within the next year.

Now, it just so happens that Josh knows of my distaste for a particular city in that state, and seeing how everything is about me, I can only assume he's doing it to spite me. In fact, I once offered to buy him a fine bourbon, and he turned me down. Not just any old bourbon, but some of the good stuff. And he turned me down!

Using my deductive skills, well-honed from years of reading Encyclopedia Brown, I must come to the conclusion he hates me.

Nevertheless, I'm always looking for the silver lining. It would appear that Josh will have an excellent opportunity to start another chapter of Drinking Right!

Unless, that is, someone in another city would care to beat him to it.

Madison, I'm looking at you.

Friday, October 20, 2006

Kane Watch: May? Partly?

In his Thursday column, Eugene Kane discusses how parents may sometimes be blind to their children's bad sides in the context of Michael Ray Green, who killed Jimmy John's driver Joseph Munz, and the two suspects in the murder of Betty Jones and her two sons.

Regarding the latter, Kane says...

Suspects are in custody for the murders; it's a safe bet the parents of these
young black suspects - one just a boy at 15 - can't recognize their children
either. And yes, that may be partly their fault.

The boy is fifteen. FIFTEEN! I could understand how someone who may be in their mid-twenties, long seperated from the daily influence of their parents, may not be able to attribute too much blame to their parents, but the kid is FIFTEEN!

May and partly have no place in that sentence.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Kane Watch: Little Mr. Crabby Pants

When I was a kid, and my sister was all kinds of crabby about something, my dad would taunt her by calling her, "Little Ms. Crabby Pants." Usually it provided for good fun. It seems our boy Gene needs some teasing because something crawled up his ass today. I'm going to ignore everything in his most recent post, except for this:

Anybody who reads history knows King was about equal rights, affirmative action, helping the poor and compassion for the most powerless people in society. Does that really sound like a Republican to you?

Since he asked, I guess that doesn't sound like a Republican to me at all. At least, not in the way Kane means it.

Republicans (in general) support the equal rights of, not just Americans, but those in other countries as well. Democrats, on the other hand, don't think the rights of Iraqis or Afghanis, for example, are worth fighting for.

Republicans think the way to help the poor is not through hand-outs, but rather education. If hand-outs were the way to go, wouldn't the situation of the poor have gotten better by now? Anyone? Hello? Perhaps, and I'm gonna get real crazy here, but just perhaps if the role of the male in poor families hadn't been replaced by food stamps and aide, there would still be a family unit and the concept of parenting. Maybe the children in poor communities would actually go to school, get educated and figure out how to make a life for themselves. Just an idea.

But seriously....all those tax dollars and programs, all of that, real big help to the poor. I guess it is if your idea of helping someone is to get them from one day to the next. Republicans like to think in bigger time frames.

Gene thinks Affirmative Action, or rather the republican stance against it, is further proof of the callous nature of the party. Hmmm let's take a good look at Affirmative Action, shall we? Republicans against qualifying certain people as not smart enough to hold a certain job and the lowering of standards for those people...there's a winning attitude. "Hey, if you're black we don't expect much from you, so we'll lower the standards and give you the job anyway." Affirmative Action? What is it you want affirmed, Gene? Your own racist beliefs that minorities are stupid?

Republicans are against Affirmative Action because, gasp, Republicans have a deeply rooted belief that all people are equal. Whereas people like Gene want everyone to believe that minorities can't be held to the same standards, Republicans think that is nonsense. Which, I suppose, takes us back to the first point: Republicans believe in equal rights for everyone.

And Gene, tomorrow, try waking up on the other side of the bed.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Net Neutrality: Ninja Style

I haven't seen much around the cheddarsphere regarding net neutrality.

If you don't know much about it yet, here is Ninja's explanation.


-I highly doubt the series of deaths in La Crosse is the act of a serial killer. However, I'm not entirely willing to rule out the possibility that there might be a serial pusher.

-If you're walking across a street against a light, please try to pick up the pace. It may be illegal to hit a pedestrian, but do you really care to see that law in action?

-Cantankerous recently told me I have a tendency to be attracted to women who aren't very "warm." I'm hoping this never develops into a problem with necrophelia.

-Lately I've been thinking a lot about abortion. Then I get ready to write a huge post about it. Then I stop. Then I get angry. Really, really angry. So I end up just thinking about it again. The worst part is that I hate thinking about abortion just as much as I hate abortion itself.

-I love origin stories, particularly when they're about the villain and you finally discover what made him or her so bad in the first place. I have a strong feeling someone should start taking notes now, because someday, someone is going to want to know what my origin story is.

-Don't look at me that way.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

November Drinking Right

A special message to all attendees of Drinking Right, both past and present.

The November D.R. will be held on the first Tuesday of the month so that we may all get together and follow the returns as one big happy group.

Not only that, but if you attend in November, you'll also have the opportunity to join in Casper's Election Night "Victory" Celebration. I've been writing up my "victory" speeches for some time now as I'm sure I'll have plenty to make.

Papa's has been gracious enough to not only host this event, but also asked another candidate to move their Election Night headquarters next door!

So, let's just say there may actually be some press in the place.

If you're not one of those more politically involved people (Fraley, Wiggy, Fred, Josh...I'm looking at you), now's your chance to be at a campaign headquarters as the results pour in!

Either way, though, it really is about the drinking.

Mark your calendars now! Go out and vote! Then stop in at Drinking Right!

Monday, October 09, 2006

Hey Elliot: Why I Support the Death Penalty

Elliot started up a good topic, and asked why some people are in favor of the death penalty. He says that for those of us who support the death penalty, it's now our chance to change his mind.

Well, Elliot, ask and you shall receive. Here are just two of the many reasons I could give for supporting the death penalty: Richard Davis and Dena Riley.

What did they do that was so horrible? I think it was put best by Clay County prosecutor Dan White, who, when describing this particular case said, "the crime against Ricci qualifies for the death penalty because it was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman and involved depravity of mind."

If you want to know the details, you can find them here.

Some people argue that the death penalty should be in place because it will prevent crime. I disagree with that. I have a hard time believing that the death penalty would stop even one-tenth of the murders that go on in Milwaukee.

Others argue that the death penalty should be in place so that the state shouldn't have to pay for these people to live. The counter-argument usually goes something like: It costs more to kill a person than it does to feed them. I don't know which is true; I don't care, either.

I support the death penalty because I can't think of a more terrifying way to die than to know exactly when it was going to happen. I also believe that people like Richard Davis and Dena Kelly deserve the most terrifying death they can legally receive. At the very least, they deserve a good tattoo.

Personally, I'd be more happy if they could be ripped limb, from limb and fed to dogs, but I don't foresee that happening. Luckily, in Missouri, these pigs will be put to death, one way or another.

Elliot, it's my opinion that if a crime can be summarized as outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman and involving depravity of mind then I really don't have a problem with a civilized society doing away with the source of it.

I don't believe that the "Right to Life" protects anyone who has murdered, in a vile and unscrupulous way, another individual. I believe, to quote Walter Sobchak, "Over this line you do not cross!"

I believe evil people can be put to death for the same reasons I believe evil governments can be overthrown. Both situations rest on qualifying myself or others as capable of determining that someone or something is "evil" to begin with.

And besides, at least when a criminal dies from lethal injection or electrocution they are given a certain amount of dignity their victims never received: A judge, a jury and advocates to ensure that they are treated humanely.

All About the Benjamin$

Now here's one priest who speaks the truth.

A priest who allegedly misappropriated millions of dollars from a Delray Beach Catholic church told police he saw himself as the CEO of a multimillion-dollar company who wasn't properly compensated, according to a search warrant.

Praise be the Lord! And don't forget to leave your donation in the basket! You can take that to the bank!


Drinking Right is tomorrow night.

Pass it on.

(And yes, I do think they have blended drinks)

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Hey Fatty

I've always been amazed by how in the United States it's possible to be both poor and overweight.

Well, now we find that it's also possible be a Gitmo detainee and double your girth!

For the sake of comparison, here's a picture of a WWII POW at the Rokuroshi Camp in Japan.

[h/t Jessica McBride]

Tuesday, October 03, 2006


A couple of weeks ago a friend of mine was trying to reach me both at home and at work in order to set up an evening out with another friend.

Once we got together, he revealed to me that he also checked Ask Me Later, figuring that if I was out of town I would have announced it here.

So, knowing that now, hi Steve!

And just today while talking to my mom she asked if I ever found the red head.


Anyway, hi Mom!

Monday, October 02, 2006

In your face!

Elliot says he plans on voting against Wisconsin's gay marriage amendment, but then adds:

But I have to admit, every time I hear someone advocating against
the amendment it makes me want to vote for it.

Why, Elliot, is that?

(Since I'll have to wait for him to respond, if he so chooses, I'm going to make an assumption. And I should also note that I plan on voting against it as well.)

Is it because opponents to the amendment are always in your face?

Stick with me here...

I've known quite a few gay men over the years, both liberal and conservative. One constant among many of them is how much they despise being generally represented (or perceived as represented) by a small group of gays who seemed to constantly want to shove homosexuality down everyone else's throats. Certainly these men would vote against the amendment (though I met one who actually voiced his support for it), but they felt it counterproductive to have some of the loudest voices speaking up for gay rights being the type of people most likely to turn off potential supporters. Overly aggressive in their tactics and approaches, they seemed to make enemies first and label anyone who disagreed with them homophobes. At that point, any chance of discourse is lost.

But this seems to be a constant theme among many liberal approaches to contentious topics. And I'd argue it's one that hurts liberal causes more than helps. Rarely are conservatives seen protesting anything. I can't remember ever having someone knock on my door to get me to sign a petition or donate money to support a conservative cause. Yet for every issue there is, you're guaranteed a liberal rally, demonstration, sit-in, canvassing, what have you, almost as much as the sun will rise in the morning.

Here in the blogosphere we have a lot of people who thrive on the day to day happenings in politics. And it's good that we have that. But it's an anomaly when compared to the greater population. For many people, all across the political spectrum, political ideology is as private (or non-existent) a matter to them as is their religion. Just as they may never think about or discuss religion unless it's a holiday or their on there way to church/synagogue/mosque, they probably don't think about the issues in politics until they walk into the voting booth.

If they ever do.

So when someone like many of the people I know, who don't feel strongly about some issues one way or the other, is suddenly having their dinner interrupted by someone who's very adamant about an issue and won't take no for answer, or has to go out of their way because a protest is jamming up city streets, and was teetering on the fence up to that point, how do you think they'll vote?

As Twain is famously quoted as saying, "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

Just something to think about.

Sunday, October 01, 2006


Answer the following:

Why are you conservative?


Why are you liberal?

Discuss among yourselves.

(But comments would be appreciated.)