Yeah.
In California
 |
Home |
About |
My Photo Gallery |
 Subscribe
|
October 30, 2003
October 28, 2003
California On Fire
In California
So the bottom half of my state is on fire. That is
usually normal at the end of summer / early fall, since everything is dry.
There are usually at least a few major fires at the end of summer / early fall.
Oh... wait. This is different. 600,000 acres have been burned thus far. The
fires are marginally contained. Damn. The San Bernardino fire is starting to
creep up into the mountains. That is
REALLY
bad, especially for me. San Bernardino National Forrest has just had one of the
worst droughts ever. I've heard that there are somewhere in the order of
1,000,000 dead trees between where the fire is and where my dad's house is in
the mountains.
That's why my dad just got evacuated this afternoon. He had to get out pretty quick. He took photos and video of the house and its inside for when the insurance company tries to screw him, packed antiques from his grandparents, old pictures, my cap, gown, diploma, any other essential things. He got the dogs and took off. From what I hear it was quite a mad rush. People were being told to pick up their kids at school when no busses were running, stores were packed, and the town was crowded because Big Bear was where people from other areas had to evacuate to. How ironic.
Anyhow, here are some maps I took from NASA and GEOMAC detailing where I'm at with regard to these fires.
That's why my dad just got evacuated this afternoon. He had to get out pretty quick. He took photos and video of the house and its inside for when the insurance company tries to screw him, packed antiques from his grandparents, old pictures, my cap, gown, diploma, any other essential things. He got the dogs and took off. From what I hear it was quite a mad rush. People were being told to pick up their kids at school when no busses were running, stores were packed, and the town was crowded because Big Bear was where people from other areas had to evacuate to. How ironic.
Anyhow, here are some maps I took from NASA and GEOMAC detailing where I'm at with regard to these fires.
October 21, 2003
*NATIONAL* SHARPTON AT UVA COVERAGE
In UVA
From ABC News 'The
Note:'
A New York Post editorial suggests that a Golisano/Sharpton alliance, if one exists, "won't contribute anything to the public interest." From ABC News' Sharpton campaign reporter Beth Loyd:
"Frank Watkins, Sharpton's former campaign manager was recently quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch as saying that the Sharpton campaign is much more like Jesse Jackson's campaign in 1984 (rather than in '88) because Sharpton has 'no money and no organization.' Sharpton, after putting on a too-tight red University Democrats T-shirt that was given to him at the University of Virginia, responded to Watkins' comment. 'That's not true, my campaign is more organized and has more money now.' Afterwards, while strolling through the lawn at UVA, still wearing the too-tight red T-shirt, he offered a bit more insight. He said Frank Watkins, 'is a great guy but he ran a national campaign 20 years ago. Things are different now. We need to get out there and talk to the people, not sit around and talk theory. And the money is not going to come from the same places Jesse got it, it will come from doing things like this at the universities.'"
Mickey Kaus' Blog:
ABC News' Beth Lloyd reports (in the 10/20 "Note") that Rev. Al Sharpton changed his stump speech for a large, virtually all-white college audience at the University of Virginia:
Gone were the criticism of hip-hop music and the tone of urgency to continue the civil rights struggle that Sharpton always includes when addressing students at historically black colleges. Instead, Sharpton focused on policy, Bush-bashing and getting out the vote ... [Emphasis added]
Why not criticize hip-hop before a white crowd? Is Sharpton perversely refusing to pander to whites while speaking hard truths to blacks? Or, given hip-hop's heavily white audience, is he actually pandering to a white U. Va crowd that probably could use hearing his criticism? ... P.S.: What does Sharpton say about hip-hop? Here's a sample (from FNV Newsletter):
Unfortunately, much of what they're selling is a fraud. They spew hedonism, misogyny, and self-hate. They glorify the prison culture, the pimp culture, and drug culture. They tell the young that they're not worthy unless they're "rocking" Chanel, Gucci, or wearing platinum and diamonds. Not only is this message immoral, but it is also flawed. It's a lie.
Words that should be heard by all concerned Americans. I'm serious! Most of my friend's kids listen to hip-hop. It can't be good for them. [You're turning into ... Gregg Easterbrook!-ed. And what about those rap music executives? They're ... Stop!-ed. Thank God I have an editor.] 1:49 A.M
A New York Post editorial suggests that a Golisano/Sharpton alliance, if one exists, "won't contribute anything to the public interest." From ABC News' Sharpton campaign reporter Beth Loyd:
"Frank Watkins, Sharpton's former campaign manager was recently quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch as saying that the Sharpton campaign is much more like Jesse Jackson's campaign in 1984 (rather than in '88) because Sharpton has 'no money and no organization.' Sharpton, after putting on a too-tight red University Democrats T-shirt that was given to him at the University of Virginia, responded to Watkins' comment. 'That's not true, my campaign is more organized and has more money now.' Afterwards, while strolling through the lawn at UVA, still wearing the too-tight red T-shirt, he offered a bit more insight. He said Frank Watkins, 'is a great guy but he ran a national campaign 20 years ago. Things are different now. We need to get out there and talk to the people, not sit around and talk theory. And the money is not going to come from the same places Jesse got it, it will come from doing things like this at the universities.'"
Mickey Kaus' Blog:
ABC News' Beth Lloyd reports (in the 10/20 "Note") that Rev. Al Sharpton changed his stump speech for a large, virtually all-white college audience at the University of Virginia:
Gone were the criticism of hip-hop music and the tone of urgency to continue the civil rights struggle that Sharpton always includes when addressing students at historically black colleges. Instead, Sharpton focused on policy, Bush-bashing and getting out the vote ... [Emphasis added]
Why not criticize hip-hop before a white crowd? Is Sharpton perversely refusing to pander to whites while speaking hard truths to blacks? Or, given hip-hop's heavily white audience, is he actually pandering to a white U. Va crowd that probably could use hearing his criticism? ... P.S.: What does Sharpton say about hip-hop? Here's a sample (from FNV Newsletter):
Unfortunately, much of what they're selling is a fraud. They spew hedonism, misogyny, and self-hate. They glorify the prison culture, the pimp culture, and drug culture. They tell the young that they're not worthy unless they're "rocking" Chanel, Gucci, or wearing platinum and diamonds. Not only is this message immoral, but it is also flawed. It's a lie.
Words that should be heard by all concerned Americans. I'm serious! Most of my friend's kids listen to hip-hop. It can't be good for them. [You're turning into ... Gregg Easterbrook!-ed. And what about those rap music executives? They're ... Stop!-ed. Thank God I have an editor.] 1:49 A.M
October 20, 2003
More Sharpton
In UVA
*** UPDATE
***
Here is the Daily Progress article. Pretty good coverage there too.
Here is the Cav Daily article that we got. Pretty good ,except they failed to specifically note that it was a UDems event. It's pretty apparent, though. I heard that he was on MSNBC or something today and noted that he was at UVA yesterday, which is pretty hot.
I was reading some polls today and the Reverend is polling in around 2-3% of Dem Primary voters. Woo!
Here is the Daily Progress article. Pretty good coverage there too.
Here is the Cav Daily article that we got. Pretty good ,except they failed to specifically note that it was a UDems event. It's pretty apparent, though. I heard that he was on MSNBC or something today and noted that he was at UVA yesterday, which is pretty hot.
I was reading some polls today and the Reverend is polling in around 2-3% of Dem Primary voters. Woo!
October 19, 2003
Al Sharpton at UVA
In UVA
Well it's finally over. We've been busting our butts all week because Al Sharpton finally scheduled a visit to UVA. On all accounts it was a huge success, despite how late he was showing up.
We had a fundraiser for him before his speech, which he completely missed. The fundraiser went pretty well. Raising $350 on $10 and $25 tickets was pretty good, especially since a lot of people don't like him. I was pulling my hair out because everyone at the fundraiser was getting pretty restless. But, we had a make-up reception after he gave his speech and it was ok.
What mattered most was that we filled Old Cabell Hall, which is something like 870 seats, for his speech. That was money. Here are some highlights from his speech:
- He put on the UDems shirt that we gave him in front of the crowd and the crowd cheered.
- Referred to Ian as both "Brother Ian" and "Reverend Ian"
- Said, "Now, I didn't go to UVA, but I know what 'imminent' means," when referring to Bush claims of Iraq being an 'imminent danger.'
I'll post some of the press that we get for the thing tomorrow.
Well it's finally over. We've been busting our butts all week because Al Sharpton finally scheduled a visit to UVA. On all accounts it was a huge success, despite how late he was showing up.
We had a fundraiser for him before his speech, which he completely missed. The fundraiser went pretty well. Raising $350 on $10 and $25 tickets was pretty good, especially since a lot of people don't like him. I was pulling my hair out because everyone at the fundraiser was getting pretty restless. But, we had a make-up reception after he gave his speech and it was ok.
What mattered most was that we filled Old Cabell Hall, which is something like 870 seats, for his speech. That was money. Here are some highlights from his speech:
- He put on the UDems shirt that we gave him in front of the crowd and the crowd cheered.
- Referred to Ian as both "Brother Ian" and "Reverend Ian"
- Said, "Now, I didn't go to UVA, but I know what 'imminent' means," when referring to Bush claims of Iraq being an 'imminent danger.'
I'll post some of the press that we get for the thing tomorrow.
October 15, 2003
On My Honor...
In UVA
Do you believe you have committed an Honor
offense while a student at the University? (Remember, your answer is completely
confidential.)
Yes, 5.40 %
No, 74.42 %
Maybe, 14.01%
Not sure / Not applicable, 6.04 %
(Not Answered), 0.13 %
This is from a simple random sample poll that was conducted last year at UVA. First off, you know that they Maybes are probably in the Yes category. Second, let's be realistic. Most people wouldn't come right out and say, "Yeah, I did something that is expellable" to a UVA sanctioned poll.
Aside from all the problems of the Honor system targeting minority students, is it even effective as a whole? Apparently not.
Yes, 5.40 %
No, 74.42 %
Maybe, 14.01%
Not sure / Not applicable, 6.04 %
(Not Answered), 0.13 %
This is from a simple random sample poll that was conducted last year at UVA. First off, you know that they Maybes are probably in the Yes category. Second, let's be realistic. Most people wouldn't come right out and say, "Yeah, I did something that is expellable" to a UVA sanctioned poll.
Aside from all the problems of the Honor system targeting minority students, is it even effective as a whole? Apparently not.
October 12, 2003
28 Days Later
In Movies
It isn't often that I get to see movies at school because I'm constantly broke and busy. But, seeing as it is Fall break and 28 Days Later went to the Jefferson (which costs $3), Ally dragged me out to see it. Before seeing it I heard it described as a movie about a spreading disease and as a "zombie movie." I must say that it was very far from both these things. I consider Outbreak to be the "spreading disease" movie where the plot is to contain the disease. This was definitely not that. And it also wasn't so much a "zombie" movie either, where survival from zombies is the only theme of the movie.
To me, the movie is also about how fragile our world is. As a world we've come pretty far with regard to developing institutions and societies. 28 Days Later turns all that on its head. In a mere 28 days Great Britain is thrown into a state of anarchy from the spreading disease. The anarchy breeds themes of patriarchy and totalitarianism. It's pretty much like the state building process that happened across Europe.
Anyhow, it's a pretty damn good movie. I highly recommend it. I'm going back to see it tonight because I'm going to write a paper for my Women's Studies class on it.
It isn't often that I get to see movies at school because I'm constantly broke and busy. But, seeing as it is Fall break and 28 Days Later went to the Jefferson (which costs $3), Ally dragged me out to see it. Before seeing it I heard it described as a movie about a spreading disease and as a "zombie movie." I must say that it was very far from both these things. I consider Outbreak to be the "spreading disease" movie where the plot is to contain the disease. This was definitely not that. And it also wasn't so much a "zombie" movie either, where survival from zombies is the only theme of the movie.
To me, the movie is also about how fragile our world is. As a world we've come pretty far with regard to developing institutions and societies. 28 Days Later turns all that on its head. In a mere 28 days Great Britain is thrown into a state of anarchy from the spreading disease. The anarchy breeds themes of patriarchy and totalitarianism. It's pretty much like the state building process that happened across Europe.
Anyhow, it's a pretty damn good movie. I highly recommend it. I'm going back to see it tonight because I'm going to write a paper for my Women's Studies class on it.
October 10, 2003
Gray Davis' Top 10 Tips For Ahhnuld
In California
After being recalled from office, Gray Davis finally
found the sense of humor I always knew he had. He gave one of the "Top 10"
lists on Letterman. The 10 items were tips for Ahhnuld. Here they
are:
10. Governor, when you realize you don't know what you're doing, give me a call.
9. Body-building oil will stain the mansion's Italian silk sofa.
8. Listen to your constituents -- except Michael Jackson.
7. (Sorry, joke number 7 was recalled.)
6. To improve your approval ratings, go on Leno - when you get kicked out, go on Letterman.
5. Study the master -- George W. Bush.
4. You could solve the deficit problem simply by donating your salary from 'Terminator 3.'
3. If things are bad, just yell, 'Save us, Superman!'
2. While giving a speech, never say, "Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara ... same thing."
1. It's pronounced "California."
10. Governor, when you realize you don't know what you're doing, give me a call.
9. Body-building oil will stain the mansion's Italian silk sofa.
8. Listen to your constituents -- except Michael Jackson.
7. (Sorry, joke number 7 was recalled.)
6. To improve your approval ratings, go on Leno - when you get kicked out, go on Letterman.
5. Study the master -- George W. Bush.
4. You could solve the deficit problem simply by donating your salary from 'Terminator 3.'
3. If things are bad, just yell, 'Save us, Superman!'
2. While giving a speech, never say, "Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara ... same thing."
1. It's pronounced "California."
October 9, 2003
A Beatable Bush
In Column
Here's a column I wrote in the Cavalier Daily. They told me to be as partisan as I wanted, so here you go.
A Beatable Bush
Ryan Hughes
Cavalier Daily University Forum
NOW THAT we know the Republicans have stolen yet another election and put the Grope-inator in charge of the world's 5th largest economy, America will turn it's attention away from the Golden State and center it on the 2004 presidential election. This begs the question: Can Democrats win in 2004? I offer you a resounding yes. In order to win in 2004, the sitting President must be vulnerable, Democrats must have a viable candidate and the electoral environment must be conducive to changing the administration. All of these factors are already present in America today, and we will see a Democrat take command of America's highest office in January 2005 because of it.
Political scientists have long defined periods of American history as being dominated by one political party over another. But there is an overwhelming agreement that, since 1968, America has been split politically. Although the partisan split is not as apparent as it was during the Vietnam era, it is still present, as shown by how close Al Gore won the presidency in 2000. This gap took a temporary hiatus, though, after September 11 in favor of Republicans. However, the gap is back and is as prevalent as ever. In recent weeks, Bush's approval ratings have finally dropped back to pre-September 11 levels. What's more interesting is that a bi-partisan opinion poll, released late last month, says that 41 percent of the population thinks that someone new should "definitely" be elected in 2004 while only 39 percent say Bush should "definitely" be re-elected. So is the sitting President vulnerable? He is without a doubt.
In order for the Democrats to exploit this weakness, though, we need a viable nominee. There is no question that any of the three front-runners will be not only viable, but a formidable challenge to the Bush regime. Gen. Wesley Clark, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, and Sen. John Kerry are all extraordinary candidates.
Democrats pushing for Wesley Clark say that he presents the biggest threat to Bush, and they may have a point. National security is going to be a central theme in 2004, and this is where Gen. Clark shines. Michael Moore put it best when he said, "The General versus the Texas Air National Guard deserter! I want to see that debate." On the social front Clark is in line with core values of the Democratic Party. Despite his background and achievements, Clark does have a weakness. It turns out that he is a long time supporter of Republican candidates, even up to 2001 when he praised Bush's tax cuts at a GOP fundraiser, which may not play out well with the core Democrats that would nominate him in the primary. In essence, if Clark makes it out of the primary he will without question be a very challenging candidate for Bush to beat.
Next on the slate is Howard Dean, former Governor of Vermont. Dean has described himself as being from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." The quote has some truth to it. Dean embodies issues central to the Democratic Party, but is more than just some fringe candidate. The defining characteristic that sets him apart is his grassroots following that no other candidate can closely match. Through Meetup.com, Dean has registered over 120,000 supporters to rally for his cause. This high level of organization at the local level is invigorating people politically, a new phenomenon in a world of political apathy. Despite the momentum behind him, critics charge at Dean with being too liberal and thus unelectable, like Michael Dukakis or George McGovern. However, Dean does have some moderate qualities as well. The NRA gives him high ratings, and he has been a long-time proponent of balanced budgets. Provided that his message resonates with voters, Dean's following will without a doubt present Bush with an uphill battle.
Finally, we have Sen. John Kerry from Massachusetts. Kerry, like Clark and Dean, stands for most issues central to the Democratic Party. Kerry is distinguishable, though, as he is a decorated Vietnam veteran. More than this, though, the Massachusetts senator has a presidential eloquence to the way he carries himself that Dean, Clark and most certainly Bush have not developed. He has been compared to John F. Kennedy numerous times in this respect. If he clenches the Democratic nomination he too will without a doubt be a threat to Bush.
Any of the frontrunners will present a daunting challenge to Bush in 2004. But the Republican spin is that all of these candidates are too liberal and therefore unelectable. The fact of the matter, though, is that strategists on both sides acknowledge that mobilizing the bases of both parties is going to be the key to winning in 2004. Appealing to the median "soccer mom" of the 1990s, as it was dubbed, is no longer the strategy.
Even with great candidates and a weak sitting president, we Democrats still need an electorate that wants to change the administration. It isn't hard to see that we do have this. People need only ask themselves a few simple questions before they realize that we need change. Is a $300 tax return worth skyrocketing college tuition costs? Are schools improving? Do we have more jobs? Have we found weapons of mass destruction? Are our troops coming home safely? Are my drinking water and air cleaner? In short, are we better off now than we were four years ago?
(Ryan Hughes is vice-president of the University Democrats. He is a fourth-year College student.)
A Beatable Bush
Ryan Hughes
Cavalier Daily University Forum
NOW THAT we know the Republicans have stolen yet another election and put the Grope-inator in charge of the world's 5th largest economy, America will turn it's attention away from the Golden State and center it on the 2004 presidential election. This begs the question: Can Democrats win in 2004? I offer you a resounding yes. In order to win in 2004, the sitting President must be vulnerable, Democrats must have a viable candidate and the electoral environment must be conducive to changing the administration. All of these factors are already present in America today, and we will see a Democrat take command of America's highest office in January 2005 because of it.
Political scientists have long defined periods of American history as being dominated by one political party over another. But there is an overwhelming agreement that, since 1968, America has been split politically. Although the partisan split is not as apparent as it was during the Vietnam era, it is still present, as shown by how close Al Gore won the presidency in 2000. This gap took a temporary hiatus, though, after September 11 in favor of Republicans. However, the gap is back and is as prevalent as ever. In recent weeks, Bush's approval ratings have finally dropped back to pre-September 11 levels. What's more interesting is that a bi-partisan opinion poll, released late last month, says that 41 percent of the population thinks that someone new should "definitely" be elected in 2004 while only 39 percent say Bush should "definitely" be re-elected. So is the sitting President vulnerable? He is without a doubt.
In order for the Democrats to exploit this weakness, though, we need a viable nominee. There is no question that any of the three front-runners will be not only viable, but a formidable challenge to the Bush regime. Gen. Wesley Clark, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, and Sen. John Kerry are all extraordinary candidates.
Democrats pushing for Wesley Clark say that he presents the biggest threat to Bush, and they may have a point. National security is going to be a central theme in 2004, and this is where Gen. Clark shines. Michael Moore put it best when he said, "The General versus the Texas Air National Guard deserter! I want to see that debate." On the social front Clark is in line with core values of the Democratic Party. Despite his background and achievements, Clark does have a weakness. It turns out that he is a long time supporter of Republican candidates, even up to 2001 when he praised Bush's tax cuts at a GOP fundraiser, which may not play out well with the core Democrats that would nominate him in the primary. In essence, if Clark makes it out of the primary he will without question be a very challenging candidate for Bush to beat.
Next on the slate is Howard Dean, former Governor of Vermont. Dean has described himself as being from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." The quote has some truth to it. Dean embodies issues central to the Democratic Party, but is more than just some fringe candidate. The defining characteristic that sets him apart is his grassroots following that no other candidate can closely match. Through Meetup.com, Dean has registered over 120,000 supporters to rally for his cause. This high level of organization at the local level is invigorating people politically, a new phenomenon in a world of political apathy. Despite the momentum behind him, critics charge at Dean with being too liberal and thus unelectable, like Michael Dukakis or George McGovern. However, Dean does have some moderate qualities as well. The NRA gives him high ratings, and he has been a long-time proponent of balanced budgets. Provided that his message resonates with voters, Dean's following will without a doubt present Bush with an uphill battle.
Finally, we have Sen. John Kerry from Massachusetts. Kerry, like Clark and Dean, stands for most issues central to the Democratic Party. Kerry is distinguishable, though, as he is a decorated Vietnam veteran. More than this, though, the Massachusetts senator has a presidential eloquence to the way he carries himself that Dean, Clark and most certainly Bush have not developed. He has been compared to John F. Kennedy numerous times in this respect. If he clenches the Democratic nomination he too will without a doubt be a threat to Bush.
Any of the frontrunners will present a daunting challenge to Bush in 2004. But the Republican spin is that all of these candidates are too liberal and therefore unelectable. The fact of the matter, though, is that strategists on both sides acknowledge that mobilizing the bases of both parties is going to be the key to winning in 2004. Appealing to the median "soccer mom" of the 1990s, as it was dubbed, is no longer the strategy.
Even with great candidates and a weak sitting president, we Democrats still need an electorate that wants to change the administration. It isn't hard to see that we do have this. People need only ask themselves a few simple questions before they realize that we need change. Is a $300 tax return worth skyrocketing college tuition costs? Are schools improving? Do we have more jobs? Have we found weapons of mass destruction? Are our troops coming home safely? Are my drinking water and air cleaner? In short, are we better off now than we were four years ago?
(Ryan Hughes is vice-president of the University Democrats. He is a fourth-year College student.)
October 8, 2003
Recall Election Results
In California
Well, guess what county I'm going to be living in:
Search
Archives
- October 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- November 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003