Misinterpreted.org has a post that rattles off a bunch of things that all add up to an End Times scenario. Among them are the Mark of the Beast, WWIII, the Antichrist, and December 21, 2012.
I agree that there are a lot of things that seem to coincide both temporally and in an End-Time warning sense. There's that whole Pope legend too, where supposedly our next Pope will witness the rise of the Antichrist and the end of the world.
Looks like things are heating up this season. Stay tuned -- to life!
Friday, November 30, 2007
Misinterpreted.org has a post that rattles off a bunch of things that all add up to an End Times scenario. Among them are the Mark of the Beast, WWIII, the Antichrist, and December 21, 2012.
Posted by Guy at 12:50 AM
Thursday, November 29, 2007
This morning I was able to watch some of the debate rebroadcast from last night. It was great seeing real people make contact with presidential candidates. It really hit home how much technology is changing things.
Previously, normal folks would have to get in line in person to ask a single candidate a question at one political event. Now, people can craft eloquent and insightful questions on their own time, submit them, and if they're good/lucky enough, get accepted for airing and answering by many candidates at a time. Of course, there must have been many, many questions that were ignored for one reason or another, but the fact that the people who got through seemed to be normal makes the point that things appear to be opening up to the common man.
I don't think the Republican party really has as big a chance at getting a candidate elected as the Democrats, simply because of all the negativity from the past few months (and years). In spite of that, it looks like there are more than a few men who have good ideas for improving the country.
Posted by Guy at 12:57 PM
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Channel surfing, I came upon an old episode of Mad TV. There was a segment from their old "X News" sketch in which they were complaining about the '96 election and how the candidates were either out of touch with society or were unmemorable.
Of course, at the time we all took the election seriously. It was important. But in hindsight, it feels far less important than the upcoming one. I guess that's because it feels like there's so much riding on it.
Bush has done many things in office that the general public disagrees with. So we are looking for someone who can truly represent us in the White House. Sure, that was also important in the 1996 election, but things weren't so bad in the years leading up to it.
I think the reason 2008 is so important is because we've got a lot of room for improvement on a national scale.
Posted by Guy at 5:09 PM
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
As part of winning the Nobel Prize, Al Gore was invited to the White House, along with other Prize winners. Seeing Gore stand next to Bush in the Oval Office (I think it was), it made me think back to the election, and about all the things Bush has done that have made him less likable than he might otherwise be. I wondered just how much secret animosity Gore felt toward him in the months and years preceding the televised moment in which they stood side by side.
On camera they both appeared normal, happy, and quite friendly. They weren't really interacting, but they were smiling amiably at the men and women in front of them.
It made me wonder whether there were any bad feelings there at all. My theory is that whatever is truly felt is suppressed and hidden for the good of the situation at hand. That detachment from true emotion may be so complete as to sever the ties with the naturally-occurring feelings in favor of more professionally supportive ones. But I guess that's something we all aspire to.
Posted by Guy at 8:21 PM
Monday, November 26, 2007
A recent airing of "The Simpsons" joked about the public's disdain for Jimmy Carter. Some would say he lacked effectiveness as President, and wasn't as aggressive in foreign dealings as he needed to be.
Now we've got a Prez who is most definitely forthright, and gets things done, but not in the interest of the general public. One might argue that he fights for what is truly best for us, but how can that really be when so many people are against it?
It would seem that our new least favorite President became so through emulating the opposite of Jimmy Carter's faults. Could W. Bush be Bizarro Carter?
Posted by Guy at 8:37 PM
Sunday, November 25, 2007
If Hillary Clinton were running on her own and Bill Clinton had never been President, I don't think she'd have as a good a chance at being elected. I think because Bill did such a good job, many are willing to be led by him again, even after his "scandal." A vote for Hillary may seem to be a way to get Bill back into office.
I wonder if that's true. If Hillary is elected, will her Presidency feel like a 3rd term Clinton administration? Or a completely new 1st term Hillary Clinton administration?
Whatever happens, I hope our next President makes things better.
Posted by Guy at 8:02 PM
Saturday, November 24, 2007
The media seems to be screaming that Obama is Hillary's biggest opponent. But other places seem to say that Giuliani is really the one to take on Hillary. In my mind, Hillary doesn't really have an opponent strong enough to present a real challenge. Maybe the media is making Obama seem powerful because of his race? Electing the first black President would be interesting, but maybe there's more to it than that.
On more than one occasion I've heard that Giuliani's platform is more related to 9/11than anything else. I wonder if a national crisis right before elections would sway the public and get us all to believe that we need Giuliani to bail us out? Because if all he's good for is fixing things that are truly messed up, then that may be the only scenario in which he would seem necessary.
Then again, over 70% of Americans (apparently) believe the country is on the wrong path. That in itself is evidence of how messed up things are.
So who will face off with Hillary?
Posted by Guy at 5:44 PM
Friday, November 23, 2007
Watching an ad for an expandable compartmentalized purse alternative, I began to wonder about the Visa Chip. One of the commercial's selling points included an across-the-chest strap for wearing a purse that would prevent would-be thieves.
Like most commercials, this one skewed things. First, a woman was shown sitting at a table with her purse hanging from her chair. A thief snatches it. Then, using their product, the woman wears the purse. No worry about losing it. But who wears a purse when seated? To be fair, she should have been shown wearing her purse in the first scene, too.
Back to the original question. Since the fear of losing a purse is used as a selling point for a "better" purse, could the fear of losing what's in the purse, like credit cards, be used as a selling point for a credit card that, like the advertised purse, you "wear" all the time? A credit card that you wear on, say, the inside of your right hand?
Things don't seem bad enough that fear of theft could be used to sell such a device, but maybe all it takes is some bad neighborhoods to start getting implants. Pretty soon, people are sharing how "convenient" the tracking implant is, and how it makes things "easier." "I never have to worry about losing my money again!" Nor would you need to worry about being truly free, since that ship would have long since sailed.
Posted by Guy at 6:59 PM
Thursday, November 22, 2007
I was watching the news and I saw a clip of George W. Bush and the First Lady walking from one area to another, waving and saying hello to various Americans who had apparently lined up to see them. I found myself wondering why there weren't any scowling faces in the crowd.
My perception was that most people dislike the President and his ways. So it surprised me to see Americans waving and smiling. I figured any place the President is must have its own prerequisites for allowing someone near him. "Are you a fan of the President? Do you like him? Are you a friendly person?" People are probably quickly analyzed on a similar basis for suitability.
But what if that's not it at all? What if people are waving and smiling not because they like him according to the actions he's taken, but rather because of how he acts in public, and because he won't be President for too much longer?
It doesn't feel like he'll declare martial law and suspend all elections, but you never know.
Posted by Guy at 6:03 PM
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Recently, I posted about how The Presidency Is Bigger Than Any One Person. But I'd like to think that the damage that's been done to America and the world in general over the past 8 years can be undone with a better national leader.
When Bill Clinton was in office, he brought the deficit way down. When George W. Bush was President, he sent the deficit way up. Clinton, despite his scandal, did a good job in other areas. The scandal of Bush is that he seems to have done quite poorly in other areas. What does this mean?
If one President can make things good for America, and another can make them bad, then its possible that yet another can make them good again. It's also possible that a new President could make things worse, and continue down the fiery course that has already been set. Time will tell whether the former or latter comes true.
I think that another Clinton administration might just be what we need. But what if I'm wrong?
Posted by Guy at 4:47 PM
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
I read that someday, we'll be able to create supplies of stem cells from skin cells. This means that making use of discarded embryos will no longer be an issue, and can no longer be used as an excuse to delay research into the field of stem cells.
I for one think stem cells have tremendous unexplored potential, with both restorative and preventative applications. Just think, if someone bound to a wheelchair today could walk and function better tomorrow thanks to stem cells, and no unborn children were manipulated to produce that result, then what's to complain about?
I believe this new development will allow legislation permitting stem cell research to get the green light. Good deal.
Posted by Guy at 4:33 PM
Monday, November 19, 2007
How horrible. Has science really become that cruel and twisted that a person doesn't have the right to a natural death? In the old days, you were pronounced dead much earlier than today. We've achieved technology that can keep someone alive long after they've lost all brain activity. And when they're still aware and conscious, the machines that prevent death can themselves provide a feeling of torture.
In hindsight, some survivors may feel that that "short-term" torture was worth it in the end, since they came back from their trauma and are now enjoying a decent quality of life. But shouldn't a person's wishes be honored in the moment? When you've got someone hooked up to machines against their will, isn't it right to honor their request to remove the equipment?
I think so.
Posted by Guy at 4:06 PM
Sunday, November 18, 2007
I've heard this in "Air Force One," and I've heard it elsewhere. "The Presidency is bigger than any one man." So why do we all blame George W. Bush?
It seems like there's much at work behind the scenes that we just don't take into account. On "Inside The Actors Studio," "Tom Cruise" mentioned how when he works on a project, if everything goes very well, he'll give credit to everyone. If the project goes bust, he alone will take the fall. But in our country's case, is it right to focus the blame all on one man?
It's possible Bush is merely a cog in a much bigger machine that has been moving toward our present situation for quite some time. I'll bet some people out there would say that is obvious. I've toyed with this idea before in my "Is George Bush Just A Pawn" entry, but only now does it seem to make much more sense.
The real danger is in thinking that a new President will solve all the problems the old one helped create. If the problem doesn't lie within that single office, and instead originates with the body of influence around the President, there could indeed be continued rough times ahead.
Posted by Guy at 7:59 PM
Saturday, November 17, 2007
I'm no expert, but to me there are flaws with the "Do Not Call List." I've heard that it only blocks calls of a "let me sell you something nature." It doesn't prevent non-profit organizations or poll takers from calling. It doesn't stop political organizations from ringing you either.
I believe that one of people's rights is the right to enjoy sanctuary within their own home. That's the right to be left alone. In Texas, they preserve this right in the extreme, allowing trespassers to be shot and killed without so much as a, "Leave or I'll shoot" from the armed homeowner. Now, sure, a phone call is not the same as a physical guest or trespasser. But hearing that certain companies instruct their employees to call a minimum of 15 times before removing you from the list is just absurd.
If you had a stalker, and they were calling you at all hours, you could get a restraining order. And yet some companies replicate that stalker behavior, and are allowed to do it.
I love having technology connect us all, but what I don't like is the potential for abuse. What I'm waiting for is phone service to catch up to email. That way you can block SPAM calls in such a way that you never even have to hear the phone ring when a SPAMMER calls.
Posted by Guy at 3:59 PM
Friday, November 16, 2007
Every once in a while I'll see an ad that simultaneously engages me and bothers me at the same time. There will be some fun, upbeat scenario, but the ad will be emphasizing taking pills or supersizing myself or something. It points up how much better ads have gotten at hiding their evil undertones.
Not that every ad is evil. But what is the point of advertising? To make the person being advertised to take some action. It could be to pop some pills, eat some food, or go shopping. Whatever. Ads want you to obey.
There's an old idea about how the Devil is extremely attractive. Not only is it necessary in order to convince good people to do wrong, the wrong itself is usually seductive as well. To me, ads are getting more and more seductive, and better at hiding the negative aspects of "just going with the flow." I sometimes wonder if there are people out there who don't comprehend in the least the negative underbelly of ads, and only see what advertisers want them to see. And then they only think what the ads are designed to make them think. "Do this, and all your problems will be solved!"
I've been thinking about buying that new home gym machine...
Posted by Guy at 5:04 PM
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Ever since I was young and heard in movies about how the government spends too much money on things like toilet seats in order to hide other expenditures, I've accepted that there are things that are paid for that the public doesn't know about. On paper, a toilet seat costs hundreds or thousands of dollars. But in reality, it's not the toilet seat that costs so much. It's other stuff.
Hearing about Edwards and his expensive haircut got me wondering. Is this one of the rare times when the public is acquainted with a legitimately expensive purchase? Or is this a cover-up?
I've also come to accept that people running for office probably act just like the government, and spend money in areas that the public isn't supposed to know about. But in Edwards' case, I can believe that he did in fact pay that much for a haircut.
Why? Because I'm also aware of how high-end services in the "make me look good" industry can come with exorbitant price tags. Celebrities were in the news a few months back because of the big money they paid for such things as sunglasses. You can cheaply get a pair that looks just as good as one that cost a celebrity $1000, and yet the celebrity is still willing to pay that much for it.
I think part of the high prices have to do with goods and services being of exceptionally high quality, and part of it has to do with a scam. It's the scam where someone works on someone famous, and that famous person approves and recommends the worker to their high profile friends. Pretty soon the worker is getting paid a lot of money, maybe because they're worth it, but at least partially for the simple reason that the abundantly wealthy people can get used to paying high prices. I think it may even reach the point where rich people overpay out of habit.
So is Edwards' haircut worth that much? I doubt it, unless he has some complex scalp condition. And anything's possible. For all we know, he could be severely balding, and the $400 is paid to a miracle worker to make his hair look as decent as it does.
Posted by Guy at 3:55 PM
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
A while back, one member of the "Dixie Chicks" spoke out onstage saying she regretted that George W. Bush hails from her friend, Texas. After that, they were attacked by the media and general public as being anti-Bush and therefore anti-America. Now, things have come full circle, and the majority of Americans have a low approval of both Bush and the current administration. Now it is fashionable to question our current government. But that was not so a few years ago.
In the wake of terrorist incidents and widespread threats, many people sacrificed freedom for security: the freedom to question one's government, to hold our leaders accountable, to voice disapproval in public. Were we wrong? I think so. Sure, it was a scary time. But when times get tough, you don't just shut down and pretend you've got an infallible hero leading the way. You've got to pay attention and do whatever you can to help. Blind support is not helping. It is hindering.
And yet, it was fashionable, and the "Chicks" ran right up against the worst of it. Pretty soon people stopped buying their music, and radio stations nationwide stopped playing it. The "Dixie Chicks" were seen as unpatriotic. But now we realize the truth -- that they may have been more patriotic than most. The actions they took expressed how much they value our freedoms -- enough to risk a severe backlash from a tightlipped Police State. How long before we reenter such a society? Or maybe we've never left?
Posted by Guy at 4:52 PM
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
The New York Times recently published a story about how biology and DNA are understood well enough now to be used as tools in the race debate. Originally, the idea was to prove that current prejudices are incorrect. For example, African Americans are believed by some to be not as smart as other races. Some wanted DNA evidence to reveal that African Americans are actually smarter than other races, but that wouldn't solve the problem of judging people by their DNA.
If one race is shown or "proven" to be generally superior, no matter what tests are involved, whether they be DNA or physical trials or aptitude tests, there's always the risk that racism will strengthen from that race against others, and vice versa. There must be a way to separate individual qualities from groups of people, so that sweeping generalizations cannot be made.
Unfortunately, we are apparently entering the dangerous time when DNA evidence does seem to be useful in making sweeping generalizations that are not only damaging, but are also considered by some to be scientifically accurate. Gattacca, here we come.
Posted by Guy at 4:50 PM
Monday, November 12, 2007
I was watching the news today, and learned that a new trend among pollsters is to give the citizen being asked questions an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) during the interview. The idea was brought up as the topic of a short segment between a female news anchor and an elderly professional pollster.
The pollster's take was that it's just another "secret weapon" or "edge" that the candidates can use. In a race to be the next President, every bit helps, even if it's bunk. And that's just how he saw the MRI's usage. He said he believed that similar, if not superior results could be obtained from first asking someone how they felt about a candidate, and then following up with, "Why?"
The MRI has revealed that when someone thinks of a certain politician, the emotion areas of their brain light up. So obviously each individual candidate will evoke a different emotional response in different people. The gist of the study, according to the pollster, was that women liked Hillary Clinton, and men like Rudy Giuliani.
The last time I considered Giuliani as a potential winner, I remember hearing on either the "Daily Show" or the "Colbert Report" that he's really running to be "President of 9/11." That got me thinking about how a lot of what he seems to be saying hinges on his experiences in New York. Sure, he did a good job, and we needed him, but a Presidency isn't solely about moments of crisis. At least, it shouldn't be.
Posted by Guy at 4:52 PM
Sunday, November 11, 2007
On an episode of the original "Star Trek," it was revealed that a Federation officer had violated the Prime Directive and interfered in a civilization by teaching them to emulate Nazi Germany. He said he did so because things were falling apart for them, and in all of earth's history (according to him) there was no country more efficient than Nazi Germany. He said at that point in time, the Germans were able to come back from incredible devastation, and triumph over it.
But living in a country like that, a pure Police State, is like living during a perpetual witch hunt. The atrocities are unforgivable. And it appeared the Starfleet officer didn't intend to carry out any new atrocities on the newly-created Nazi planet. He just wanted to make things "better" by solving whatever problems there were with efficiency, through using every resource, and every man, woman, and child as a tool of the State.
Already people have begun to question the current State of the Union. Are we moving toward Fascism? Some think so. Are our civil liberties being broken down for various reasons? Some say yes. When a country meets incredible hardships, it does whatever it takes to overcome them. So the question is, do we feel it necessary to overcome the mounting obstacles with a loss of freedom? Will global warming, fewer resources, and terrorist threats all combine to give us cause to create another pure Police State? A country in which everybody must do their sworn duty for the good of the nation? An America without Freedom? Will all of this come to pass?
Only if we let it.
Posted by Guy at 3:16 PM
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Today it occurred to me that the U.S. government is just like a student body government. Both try to keep the public happy, and both have secret agendas to work for.
I once took part in an instructional seminar about the effects of political power, and the lesson was: those in power will use those not in power to serve them, and to help maintain that power. Apparently, it's basic human nature.
Of course, throughout history there have been select individuals who have risen above the stigma associated with being a normal power-hungry politician. These benevolent souls have aspired to create a nation that is truly free, where power is truly equal among the people. I hope we get another president like that, and soon.
Posted by Guy at 4:59 PM
Friday, November 9, 2007
Today I learned about how the alternative minimum tax is being patched for a year to prevent a middle-income tax hike. But this got me thinking. What if the opposite were to happen?
What if middle-income earning families were suddenly taxed the most, and a majority of tax money were put to use in the military?
It reminds me of the movie, "1984," in which people became cogs in a war machine.
Communism has everybody give up their resources and productivity to the use of the State. If only poor and middle-class people were used as cogs, and the rich were relatively free, what would that make America?
But that probably won't happen, thank goodness.
Posted by Guy at 3:15 PM
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Today I heard that politicians get to be in power by any means necessary, and once they achieve that power, they continue doing whatever it takes to maintain and augment their power base.
This idea was used to explain the rationale for our current President, who was referred to by one person as, "King George," increasing the power and influence held by the Executive Branch.
Someone else pointed out that Hillary Clinton will undoubtedly win the 2008 Presidential election, but won't change anything. What's more, she just may continue to increase the power held by the President, and instate mandated hand chip implants.
It seems like every other day there's something in the news evidencing the negative changes America is currently going through.
I hope there's a positive end to all this, but it just feels like there are too many wheels turning to keep us from a bad scene.
The place I read all that was a page on Digg.com. It was in the comments for a story about how AT&T is like Big Brother, keeping tabs on everyone.
Here it is: They're Doing a Huge Massive Domestic Dragnet on Everybody in the US
Posted by Guy at 6:22 PM
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
I DVR'd "Chuck," "Heroes," and "Journeyman." I noticed special tips for how to go green, both during shows, and during commercials. But what really struck me was the hue they used.
They colored all 3 shows a subtle yet noticeable shade of green. The first time I noticed it was during the Heroes opening -- the eclipse shot. It had a green background, and I just figured it was like when "The X-Files" started using intro messages other than, "The Truth Is Out There." Maybe it had something to do with the biohazard Peter Petrelli just found out about?
But later during "Journeyman" I saw the green hue as just a simple overlay to color all immediate programming. Why?
To get the viewers into the "green mindset." I don't think being energy-efficient is a bad thing, it just surprised me how far NBC was going to convince us to think a certain way. I hadn't even noticed the hue for half of the 3-hour block.
It almost felt like I stumbled upon a subliminal ad, but the fact that I eventually realized what was going on made me just feel mildly oblivious. I'm sure, though, that some viewers probably never even noticed at all -- at least, not consciously.
Posted by Guy at 3:07 PM
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
H.W. Bush was Reagan's VP. So that's 4 years as Vice President. Then H.W. Bush was President. That's another 4 years with the White House.
Bill Clinton was elected President, and then reelected for two total terms in office.
Al Gore won the 2000 election, but W. Bush contested it and ended up winning. Then he was reelected in 2004.
Hillary Clinton runs in 2008. Wins? Or does W. Bush go for a 3rd term?
Posted by Guy at 1:35 PM
Monday, November 5, 2007
I just realized today how simple and easy the internet seems to use, and how powerful and necessary we've made it. I also thought of how devastating it would be to suddenly not have it anymore.
The Net makes possible all kinds of incredible things. To suddenly no longer have access due to a catastrophe, SkyNet, or some government blackout is pretty scary to think about.
I know I've already written on this subject, but it never occurred to me until today how easily we all expect things to just work. "Just do your job, web page!" When something breaks, we become frustrated in the face of our own apparent powerlessness. Sure, the human spirit can triumph, and go on, but a complete shutdown of the Web would be like cutting off 95% of our 5 senses.
We'd no longer be able to communicate as rapidly and effectively, and the world would suddenly become a big, big place again. It's a big world after all...
Posted by Guy at 8:31 PM
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Watching Pakistan, I wonder if our President is considering pulling the same stunt of bending all the rules to maintain his power. If he followed the newly-established Procedure for Presidential Cheating, he'd have to black out the media. What then?
If TV and Radio stations went off the air, we'd turn to the net. But I'm sure there's some mandate out there that could make the internet unavailable. There would be dark times ahead if that were to happen. That's a pretty scary outlook.
I hope it doesn't come down to that.
Posted by Guy at 8:42 PM
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Kirchner is to Hillary as Musharraf is to Bush (a.k.a., First Female President, Or Bush's Third Term)
Recently, foreign news has offered some insight as to what we might expect here in America come election time.
On Sunday, October 28, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner won the election to become Argentina's first democratically elected female President. She is the wife of former Argentine President Nestor Kirchner, whose job she is taking.
"Hey, that's like Hillary! Her husband was President too! Wow, looks like Hillary's going to become the first female American President, after all..."
Not so fast! Today in Pakistan, President Gen. Pervez Musharraf "suspended Pakistan's constitution and deployed troops in the capital ... declaring that rising Islamic extremism had forced him to take emergency measures. He also replaced the nation's chief justice and blacked out the independent media that refused to support him."
"Hey, that's like George W. Bush! He hates the U.S. Constitution, and has a horrible approval rating! Wow, looks like Bush's going to declare a State of Emergency and suspend all future elections. Sorry, Hillary!"
Hmm... It could happen.
Posted by Guy at 6:29 PM
Friday, November 2, 2007
It occurs to me that all the stuff happening with America around the world has been set in motion by our current administration. As the days go by, the public gets wearier and wearier of being led by a man and group that don't have the same goals in mind as we do. All of these major military actions and a lack of homeland focus seem to be adding up toward a final showdown with the major powers of the world. Does anybody besides me have a problem with that?
I was thinking about George W. Bush and co., and I just couldn't wrap my head around them having a reason for making things worse. So I tried to rationalize how they could conceive that the actions they're taking will make things better. Then I realized something.
You can be so intent on one path, that it seems easy to rationalize it. You can be so determined that no amount of resistance, no number of naysayers, will sway you from your decision. Even if you're the President, and the naysayers are three quarters of the American public.
But the President's job is to answer to the people.
The reason I came up with that could be used by our current administration to justify its actions is this: "The public doesn't know what's best for itself. I/We do."
It's like a stubborn father deciding the fate of a teenage child, without heeding the valuable input the child tries to communicate. And most feel good films say that's a bad thing.
Posted by Guy at 4:36 PM
Thursday, November 1, 2007
I remember way back in college being approached by people on the street at election time. These were normal people. Fellow students. But they had been bent to the wills of the campaign managers for various candidates.
"Hey, you gonna go vote?"
"Here, have a piece of paper!"
Let's look at this little blue slip I just got...Hmm...an event is taking place on this campus in the near future...candidate X will be there...
Other student: "Hey, you vote yet?"
Subtext: "Vote for my guy!"
Today, I got two calls from two separate candidates. Recently I got a piece of mail that referenced a prior conversation I supposedly had with someone regarding Obama. Never happened. Various other solicitations have been made as well, but I won't bore you with the details.
I feel so popular!
The point is, in an age with "Do Not Call To Solicit Business" lists, there are people who will call, and write, and show up in person to make sure you know the RIGHT person to vote for.
"None of the Above!"
Or maybe Clinton...or that Colbert guy...or...
Posted by Guy at 4:49 PM