Today was baseball day. After a good breakfast with some great friends we headed down to the ball park. It was a beautiful day for baseball. And it was one hell of a game. The Cubs got 7 runs in the second inning, which in most cases would mean smooth sailing. But for a Cubs/Cards game, you can't predict anything. There's a reason that the rivalry between these teams is as big as it is. They feed off of each other, when one team plays well, the other somehow takes off and steps it up a notch more. The Cardinals fought their way back, and thanks to some fairly poor relief pitching on our part, they got the lead. It was good baseball. It's why I watch the game.
And then, at the end of the top of the ninth inning, things got a little strange. Yadier Molina was up, and the bat went sailing out of his hand down the first base line. The next pitch... his bat went flying out of his hands again, this time towards the pitcher's mound. It seems strange to me that a professional ball player would lose control of the bat like that twice in a row. Not to say that it looked like he threw the bat at the Cubs players. It really did look like he just plain lost his grip on it. Our pitcher, Hawkins, apparently had some questions for the umpire about this, and while everything appeared to be civil at first, it quickly escalated and Hawkins was being bodily dragged off the field by Dusty Baker and others from the Cubs dugout. At one point it even appeared that Hawkins made an attempt to take a swing at the ump. This, of course, was very, very stuipd and Hawkins deserves at least a fine, if not a suspension. I in no way condone the idea of players in any way threatening the umps. But... But... why in the hell do the umps follow a player in that situation to the dugout? Why, when the player is clearly being removed by their own team mates, is it okay for the ump to continue to get in the player's face? If the ump stayed at the plate, the situation would have been over. Hawkins would have been in the clubhouse, the ump would have been on the field and the game could go on. But not only the home plate ump, but the other three were on the dugout side of the third baseline, two of them right in with the Cubs team members who were trying to get Hawkins off the field, the other two stalking up and down in front of the Cubs dugout, glaring into the dugout. At least that's how it appeared to me in the stands. Still... I've never heard of an ump being fined or suspended for fighting. If a player touches an ump the player is automatically suspended, but there doesn't seem to be anything to prevent the umps from following a player and instigating the fighting. To use a cliche, with great power comes great responsibility. On a babseball diamond, the umpires' power is unquestionable. But with that power, is there not a responsibility to do whatever they can to diffuse a situation, not prolong it?
Obviously, I was not on the field, I did not hear what was being said. But from my point of view, the situation could have been better handled if the ump had just walked away... or even just stood still. It's crazy.
After this interlude, the bottom of the ninth progressed to get our hopes up and then cruely dash them upon the rocks of reality. But as a Cubs fan, I've learned to roll with those punches. During the game, I found out that I'll also be able to go to the game on Thursday.
After the game, we decided that ice cream was needed to soothe the pain of the loss (actually, since I went to the game with TBWITWW, and two White Sox fans, I guess I'm the only one with pain to soothe), so we headed to the Diner around the corner. Where I had buffalo wings and a rootbeer float. (also consumed were a milkshake, a banana split, some assorted fried food and a hot fudge sundae). So, despite the loss... it was a good day.

This morning has been a good one. I got my collapsable links working, although I'm still trying to get them to load already collapsed, but that's not a big deal. Had Angel Food Cake and strawberries for breakfast because it's my birthday damn it. So I can do whatever the hell I want. So there. Oh well... I have to go to work though.
This should be a busy week. In addition to more sorting and cleaning in preperation for [the baby] there is a Cubs game to attend tomorrow, New shelves to add to the kitchen, and work. Always with the work.
Oh well... I'm in a good mood.

From Burningbird: Political Games

After all, can’t elect a man just because he’s not George Bush, can we?

Voting for someone because they're not George Bush is about the worst reason I can think of to vote for anyone. Hitler's not George Bush, Pol Pot's not George Bush, Hussein's not George Bush. But if your only standard is "not George Bush" than these people are acceptable. I've said it before. Why the hell should we have to vote for someone because the only qualification they have is that they're not the other guy?

They pro-Bush camp is joined by Ralph Nader and his supporters in this, hoping to drain off just enough of the votes from Kerry to Nader to put Bush back into the White House, while giving Nader the ego boost he seems to desperately need.

And this, right here, is why... because most Americans think we live in a two-part country. Which it has been, pretty much without exception, since the 3rd Presidential election. But as long as third party candidates are seen as "taking votes away" from The Parties, there's no chance for any real change. People who vote for Nader aren't voting for him to help Bush get into office. They're voting for Nader because they believe that Kerry is as unfit for the presidency as Bush. If they want Kerry to be president, they'll vote for Kerry. These aren't votes that Kerry is losing. He can't lose them, because he never had them in the first place.

What the parties involved forget is that for many elections, many of us vote for the best of a lot we don’t care for, making determinations that we’d rather have someone who is inactively good, than actively bad.

I am voting for Kerry and Edwards because, first of all, they are not Bush and Cheney. Even if Kerry spent the next four years, comatose at his desk and didn’t do a damn thing, he would be a better President than George W. Bush in the White House for four more years without the constraints of worrying about a future re-election

Possibly, if Kerry didn't do anything at all in the White House, he wouln't be as bad as Bush. But the thing is, he will do things in the White House. But you're chosing to vote not on what he may do, but on what someone else has done. You're not voting for Kerry, you're voting against Bush. But you're doing it in the least informed, least intellegent way imaginable. Nader isn't Bush, the National Socialist Party candidate isn't Bush, the Natural Law Party candidate isn't Bush... why aren't you voting for them? By voting someone, not because they deserve to be president, or even are the best choice on the ticket, but merely because they have the best chance of beating the guy you don't like, you are voting from fear, from ignorance, from intimidation. You're letting the Democratic Party tell you that what you actually believe is not important. That the person you choose to represent you doesn't have to believe anything that you believe, so long as he disagrees with Bush on a few issues that make headlines. You are giving up the power in the Constitution that you so desperately want to protect.

(Oh, and for those critical of Edwards and Kerry for not being present for this vote, be aware that the members of Congress almost always know how a vote will go before it happens. A favorite election year gambit is to use this knowledge ahead of time to make those who are running for office seem negligent when they aren’t available for a vote. Members of a party will actually change their vote on a measure to make the vote seem much closer than it would really be, just to generate bad publicity for a candidate. Yeah, I know: devious. And both parties are guilty of it. So take the cries of, “But they didn’t vote” with a grain of salty sand.)

Why does it matter how close the vote was, or who cheated? The issue, to me, isn't "Did Kerry's vote affect the outcome?" it's "Was Kerry doing the job that he was elected to do?" The people of his state chose to be represented in the Senate by Kerry. But he's off campaigning for President. This is the same as using the company time to write your resume, company stamps and envelopes to mail it and the company phone to interview with other companies. It's stealing. But on a much larger level. Why should we trust Kerry to have the job of President when he doesn't seem to be doing the job he has now of Senator?
No, I won't be voting for Bush come November. As I've said before I don't believe he's fit for the job. But as things stand now, I won't be voting for Kerry either. I haven't decided who I will vote for, but it will be for the person I believe is the best person for the job given the people I can choose from.

I got a great comment on a recent post that I'd like to respond to.

If you have the logical mind and work ethic to make this site, you can write well. It just takes the committment to do so, and the guts to be both self-critical enough to edit yourself, and self-permissive enough to hit the Post button when more editing would only be getting in the way of the topic.
...
The universal truths of our lives are most evident at the macro and micro ends of the scale.
...
"Ships are safe in the harbor, but that is not why ships are built."
You built this boat, time to sail her"

First, I'd like to thank phaTTboi for a well written comment. But here's the thing, when I say I'm not a writer, I say it with no regret. Writing, as phaTTboi pointed out, requires work ethic. I don't have that. Not when it comes to writing. There are things I have done that I had no interest in, but that I needed to do. I've waited tables, made fried chicken, janitored, worked in warehouses, and other things that ranged from interesting (Chicago carriage driver) to just plain awful (concrete plant with klansmen). But none of these things were things I thought, for even a moment, I would make a lasting part of my life.
Then there are the things that I do, because I want to do them. Pay or no pay. This is what theatre is to me (By the way in my world theatre is the art and craft, theater is the building.) I will always do theatre. If it is, one day, not my profession, it will always be my vocation. I love photography. And I love building web pages, crazy as that may be.
Then there's the things I've tried, that interest me, but I know that I will not pursue. Acting, painting... and writing. These things take lots of hard work to do well. I think I could do it if I put forth the effort needed. But that's the thing. To me, the reward is not in proportion to the work. Never when I was acting would I feel as content at the end of a show as I do when I watch the opening from the house and know I put the lights up. Seeing a painting come together doesn't excite me the way coding a page does. And I've seen good writing. I love good writing, but my writing isn't great, and I don't care enough about how great my writing is to put forth the effort to make it great. I know that. It's not where my passion lies. I believe [my brother] can be a great writer, and he wants to be a great writer. So I encourage him to write. He can write while I code and waste film.
I'm exceptionally lucky in that one of my passions is also my profession. I hope that remains true throughout my life. If I get one good picture out of a roll of film, I'm happy. When a show goes up and I get that momentary thrill, it makes the weeks of pain that it takes to get there seem insignificant. My writing will never be that way to me... and I don't mind. I'll keep writing, but I'll never be a writer. But I'll never be a chicken, and that doesn't bother me either.

I had an idea... I'd like to make my links list a little less unruly. What I'd like to do is have the various categories only display 5 links, and a "More" button (if there are, in fact, more than 5 links in a category) which expands that category to show all links and also has a less button to collapse the category back down to 5. I could probably implement this without too much difficulty (well some difficulty) except for the fact that some categories have less than 5 entries, and the "Quickies" category should only display 5 at all.
so, I don't really know where to begin. Any thoughts would be welcome.