wow. voter turnout nationally was 40%. and they're saying this is the highest since 1982. sheesh.
it's been reported that "high voter turnout" increases the odds of democrats winning vs. republicans. so, what's "low voter turnout"? 5%?
6 out of ten adult americans chose not to vote. or does this only count registered voters? in that case it gets worse.

sometimes i go out and shoot the camera.

sometimes i stay in, get ripped and shoot the cameraman.

From Nancy Pelosi came this statement either this morning or last night:
“Democrats intend to lead the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history.”
Those of us who voted Democrat need to make sure she and our Party live up to that or this election will have meant nothing. Actually, worse than nothing. A failure to live out those words will put Democrats and government at large into an even deeper hole than it already is. So, no more hiding perverts, money launderers, liars or thiefs.
Of course, that could mean that Dick Cheney has to step in to break a Senate vote tied at one to one.

while there are still some fallings out from the last post i did that i am not bothering to address (because i no longer give a shit) and i had flirted with the idea of not posting again for a while (because certain among us make it not nearly as much fun as it used to be before the warring was determined to be worth gerrymandering), i have just one thing to say:
does saddam hussein's surprise guilty verdict (i know i was on the edge of my seat) in any way influence the manner in which you will vote this week? i mean, what a whopper. who knew after a 12 month trial financially sponsored almost entirely by our government that saddam would be found guilty in a matter of nanoseconds? and who knew that it would happen right before an american election that decides the fate of a "war president" and his ideology that we are in the "end times"?
do you think that republicans involved in crimes (legal and ethical and moral) at a rate not ever seen before deserve punishment?
do you think that wimpy democrats with no unified message can be trusted to take over both Houses?
does ted haggard represent the entire conservative community when it comes to denying one's own urges in order to maintain political power?
will bill o'reilly lose his job on foxnews if the democrats win the house and senate? will he lose his job anyway if the democrats win either, because the conservatives see him as a divider in a time when they realize that division is a losing proposition even though they totally believe in division if they're in charge?
will the neocons maintain any semblance of credibility given that they were the primary architects of our current foreign and domestic policies?
if there is a swing in majority parties, will the gays and lesbians get any more arrogant (if possible)?
what will happen within the black community if kenneth blackwell loses in ohio and condoleeza rice watches as her administration becomes worse than a lame duck? and obama barack's star continues to rise as a possible 2008 presidential candidate?
just thoughts of mine before these next couple of days unfold.
by the way (and i'm breaking my above promise to not editorialize):
did you ever wonder what the definition of common courtesy was? so did i. it turns out to be whatever the person calling for it deems it to be. common courtesy has no real definition (other than the overarching societal one), because it must always be placed within the context of the situation. at a dinner party, a thrown and shattered glass on the head of another goer could be considered improper...unless the party givers were members of Capital Punishment. so, it seems to me that instructing people on internet hygeine is as useful and educational as the pope leading a seminar on proper penis/vagina insertion with or without a condom.
each of us has a manner in which we approach our use of the internet. and the rest of us have another.
all of which leads me back to my last post...and so i must say "fuck all of this" if no one can keep their egos and angst to themselves. not that i will either, because it's so damn fun to piss people off in any way that i can...and angst sometimes must be put out there for examination by others in order to get a committee's look at an internal problem.
ego, on the other hand, should get in line with porn and slap itself on the sidelines.