About This Blog
A blog about my life, universe, etc. At any given time you might find something endlessly interesting or just me ruminating on something else, which no one (not even myself) finds interesting. That's the way blogs go, I suppose. Anyway, I was eleventh in line, and you weren't. Hah!
Scripture of the Moment 2 Nephi 2:27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.
The views and opinions expressed herein are not attributable to my employer, Blogger, Google, those who link to me, or anyone other than the author (as indicated). Comments of visitors are the responsibility of the invididuals posting. No responsibility is taken for the content of materials linked to from this site. Any questions relating to the administration of this site or its content should be directed to Sarah Marie Parker-Allen, at email@example.com.
-- If I mention something that's been published and is still available on the Internet, I will link to it. Well, if I know it's there, anyway.
-- Once I've posted something, I will not make substantive changes to the body of the post. Any changes will be noted with an "EDIT" tag at the bottom of the post in question, or will be noted in a subsequent post. Typos, stylistic errors, and link updates will occur, without time limit (though if it's been a while, I'll let you know). If I really really regret a post, it's likely I'll post about cats or something for a while in pennance. You've been warned.
-- If I find something through the efforts of another blogger (in fact, of anyone I can link to), I'll credit them with a link (the style of such a link is pretty much up to my mood, so don't expect consistency in that area).
-- My comment policy is listed below.
I like comments, and I'll keep them activated. HOWEVER, if you want to start a flamewar, go somewhere else. If you want to get me to start arguing with you about Ohio State vs. Michigan, whether Mormons are Christian, how stupid being spoiler free is, or pretty much anything else inflamatory (inflamatory is in the eye of me in this case -- if you don't trust my judgement, too bad), go somewhere else. All links to pornography, all instances of vulgar language, and anything else I don't think is appropriate for my sisters, brother, neice, and nephew to see (ages 1-18), or quite frankly appropriate for ME to see, will be edited as I see fit (probably with links to something else, or alternate words, or what have you). All spam comments, including blatant off-topic self-promotion, will be deleted. If you've been banned, feel free to email me; if you're uncivil, please know that I'm interested in finding out exactly how many people I can add to my killfile without bringing my processer speed to zero, and don't mind using your address in my experiments. I reserve the right to delete and/or ban anyone I want. If you need to say it that badly, go get your own blog. They're free, you know.
A Note About Chatting and Emails
I'm not what you would call an extremely social or extraverted person. As a matter of fact, I tend to test 100% introvert on Myer-Briggs and other personality profile tests. Therefore, please be aware that most of the time, if I don't already know you (either in person or through weeks/months/years of email contact) the chances are I won't be very talkative if you IM me. I like having a long time to consider what I say, and that goes double for what I say to total strangers. Please don't think me scary, rude, hateful, or even just someone in a perpetual bad mood, if chat efforts are unsuccessful. Quite frankly, it's probably better for you to go find someone else to chat with, unless you have something significant to say. And if it's that important, you should probably email me. Which reminds me to let you know now that if you do choose to email me, it might be days, weeks, months, years, or never before I email you back. It takes a lot of energy for me to come up with replies to random inquiries from strangers, and most of the time there's something I'd rather be doing instead. Your understanding is appreciated. I'm not saying don't try, I'm just saying -- have minimal expectations, okay? Thanks. Oh, and if you DO know me, don't treat this statement as an excellent excuse not to talk to me. You know who you are.
Amongst the Presidential candidates, I got the following scores of agreement:
Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) -- 2,000 George Bush (Republican) -- 1,400 Michael A. Peroutka (Constitution) -- 1,400 John F. Kerry (Democratic) -- -200
As to the Senatorial race in Ohio, the results were similar:
George Voinovich (Republican) -- 1,150 Eric D. Fingerhut (Democratic) -- -200
And, for my Congressional district... (the Ohio 7th)
Dave Hobson (Republican) -- 1,850 Kara Anastasio (Democratic) -- -750
What's interesting to me? My congressional Republican candidate ranks higher than the President, while my senatorial Republican candidate ranks lower than the Constitution party Presidential candidate (!!!). More interestingly, the congressional candidate, Hobson, ranks closer to the Libertarian candidate (overall, though not much on the specific issues) than the President does. Weird. I have to wonder if the senatorial Democratic candidate, Fingerhut, has the same platform as Kerry. That would seem to me an unwise tactic, and there are other reasons to explain why he and Kerry have identical agreement scores (when compared to me), since of course this thing is based on calculating "distance from agreement" and then adding "how relevant to the voter" multipliers. In other words, there are many roads that lead to a -200 score.
And meanwhile, I don't feel nearly as bad about voting a "party" ticket as I usually do (it seems intellectually weak), as the agreement scores here are pretty straightforward. I have no intention of voting for the Constitution party candidate, and I feel that in this case, in this place, a vote for Badnarik would be irresponsible. It's mildly comforting that he and I agree overall, but when you look at some of the places where we disagree most strongly (i.e. where I said "very important" he said "not important", or he said "strongly disagree" to my "strongly agree"), it's quite frankly a matter of non-negotiable matters. I wouldn't go so far as to take a "single issue voter" stance ala InstaPundit, but I can't in good conscience take the Libertarian party seriously this year.
Last time around (my first election EVER) was different. We weren't at war. For crying out loud, look at what was dominating the news cycle from April 2000 to September 10th 2001. Doesn't anyone else remember how much airtime was being granted to Gary Condit? It was easy, and largely relevant, to sit in a nifty "debate watching" event with John Glenn and say on regional news networks that I didn't see any material difference between the two candidates, based on what they were saying. I see a difference now. End of story.
The fact that I agree with Bush so much more than I agree with Kerry is, quite frankly, icing on the cake of responsibility. posted by Sarah at 2:20 AM. |