what people type in the search engines to get my blog. some are odd, some are just cuz of misspellings... some are funny.. i am sleepy
getting the paddle in highschool
world cup sponsor conspiracy nike
hijack airplane elal
national food surpluss
"beer belly" "college" "male"
hairy afghans women armpits
events in Chechnya nowdays
"Julias Caesar" quote
guidelines of tourguides for highschool tours - my site's the ONLY one found
Ariplane mortality rates - my site's the ONLY one found
+average +flacid +size
"daniel perl video"
cartoons 2 squirels
picture of the sopranos with tell us where bin ladin is
latin "Beware the leader who bangs the"
I believe that the trend of 3rd parties being included in debates will pick up within the next few years. One of the main reasons the Greens encouraged votes for Nader even at the expense of handing the presidency to Bush rather than Gore is that if enough people voted for Nader (over 5% of the voting public?) he'd qualify to be present in the next debates. If this happens, won't the country as a whole find it a lot more normal to have 3rd party at the debates?
Note: my memory ain't what it used to be, so I may be wrong about this whole thing (hey at least I am honest).
About Torricelli and the Democrats' attempt to run a new candidate - and the Republican objections. It doesn't matter if he's Republican, Democrat, corrupt or innocent. The laws are laws, and if there's a law in NJ (which there is) that says you can't change candidates at this point, then you can't change candidates at this point, period.
My heart goes out to the people of New Jersey, who apparently will not be able to vote for a Democratic senator this election. However, this "disfranchisement" comes not as the result of Republican actions, but out of the inability of the Democratic party to produce a candidate at the appropriate time. If it's any relief to think about it in different terms, consider this: If Torricelli had remained as a candidate, he would have undoubtedly lost (at least, the polls indicate this with certainty) and the Republican would have taken the seat anyway. Rather than lose outright, Torricelli realized he will be losing and quit, without bothering to go through the process all the way. The end result is the same. Imagine the objections the Democrats would have if the Republicans tried to substitute an unpopular candidate with a more viable one just a few days before the election. They would be the same exact objections we're hearing out of Republicans today.
Being able to run another candidate will give the democrats a double shot at the seat. If they felt they could win with Torricelli, they'd keep him. Now they're asking to try their luck with someone else. It's like changing your bets once the roulette wheel has stoped.
Here in the states now, we accept our past. Civil War, segregation, slavery, and all. We look at them as growing experiences, and we (generally) don't look back and think the people of the times were evil. We can admire Jefferson for what he did for this country, even though he owned slaves, and we find slavery abhorrent in our time.
Russia has not been able to do it. When I lived there under the Soviet rule, tsarist history was rejected. We heard about great Russian victories in 1812, etc, but it's as if we as people were ashamed of the way the country was prior to 1917. And certainly in Latvia, my soviet republic, the (pro-Nazi, by the way) pre-Soviet past was never talked about.
In America, life is generally good, so change is gradual, political, and generally calm (occasional riots not withstanding.) In the USSR the negative economic conditions, internal pressures, ethnic friction, etc. required dramatic change. It was one of those "you wake up one morning and your life is different" kind of deals, so there was a lot more drama and symbolism to it. Rather than slowly transforming from one way of life to another, the people were tearing down the statues of Lenin because that was just about the only way to explore their new-found freedom. That mentality holds still - the current generations in the former USSR are ashamed of all the past prior to 1992. Or more percisely, between 1917 and 1992. Tsarist things are en vogue, religion is making a comeback. But that's no way to live. Most people alive today spent the majority of their lives under the Soviet regime. They were born, educated, probably married, in that stage of Russian history. To reject that part of their history is to reject that part of themselves. And that's no way to live, spiritually. If the Russians learned to embrace their past, they'd learn to get along with themselves domestically far better than they're currently able to, and they'd probably be more determined in their international affairs than they currently are.
I am not sure if they should put back the statue of Iron Felix. If they hadn't taken it down before, I'd say let it stay - or else you'd be like the Taliban blowing up Budhist statues. But now that it's down, there'd be certain symbolism to putting it back up, and I am not sure if that's positive symbolism. It's a shame that the Russians can't make this decision, either.
Where do we get off thinking we can replace warlord rule with democracy to Afghanistan, when we haven't even gotten rid of the British monarchy in the half-century we've been running the place.
We're on a serious decline of relevance here.