"I need a running partner" written by Janelle on estrip.org

08/30/08 09:06 - 68ºF - ID#45507

I need a running partner

Anyone interested in running the Linda Yalem Safety Run? It's a 5k. I don't really want to go by myself. (e:drew) can't do it because it's on a Sunday.

Let me know if you're interested. Here's the info on it:

Permalink: I_need_a_running_partner.html
Words: 49
Location: Buffalo , NY

08/29/08 01:10 - 69ºF - ID#45497

The election just got interesting to me

I am thoroughly interested in McCain's announcement of his Vice Presidential Candidate, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska.

Commentators are already noting the irony that Obama with his Change America campaign has picked a politican who's been around the block in the Capitol City. McCain on the other hand has picked a little known woman Governor whose life in Alaska represents the American spirit in a way that will resonate with a lot of Americans. One more red flag in my head for Obama.

Governor Sarah Palin isn't enough for the McCain-Palin ticket to win my vote, but a review of her Wikipedia entry has me fascinated.

In Drew Style, I'll do a post on the 10 things (in no particular order) that I already like about Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin.

1. She embodies the spirit of feminism.

2. She is secure enough to be a feminist and a Republican.

3. She is secure enought to be a feminist and Pro-Life.

4. As a Republican, she was willing to tackle unethical behavior among her fellow Republicans.

5. She has the Alaskan Frontier Spirit.

6. She has the spirit of the Green Party wrapped up in a Republican body.

7. She hunts, snowmobiles, eats moose, ice fishes and has posed for Vogue fashion magazine.

8. She has shown that a woman can be a mother to five kids (one with downs syndrome) and a successful politican ... not that anyone ever questions male politicians ability to be fathers and politicians.

9. She's my sister in faith.

10. Like me, she played a wind instrument and was point guard for her basketball team.

janelle writes at 02:56:34 08/31/08 - Comment #38399: I guess this is the fundamental misunderstanding between us so far, I never said I supported Palin.

ajay writes at 02:09:03 08/31/08 - Comment #38398: (e:janelle) , I'm just trying to have a dialog here, and to get some understanding.

Consider abortion. Palin is vehemently opposed to abortion.

The Green Party says, and I quote, "Women's right to control their bodies is non-negotiable. It is essential that the option of a safe, legal abortion remains available."

One would think that "non-negotiable" basically means, non-negotiable and not open to interpretation.

Do you, as a member of the Green Party, support a woman's right to abortion?

On drilling for oil: the Green Party is strongly opposed to all new drilling, anywhere (hence the name "Green Party", I guess). She wants to drill all over the North Slope. Is there some room for nuance here? Aren't these two diametrically opposite?

And on Global Warming: the Greens believe that humans are mostly responsible for global warming, and have called for Bush's impeachment for trying to suppress the science :::link::: . But Palin agrees with Bush and doesn't think so.

I guess I'm trying to figure out why a GP member would support Palin at all, if almost everything she stands for goes against the core GP principles ? A "litmus test" is usually 1 issue, and I agree that you can't decide everything on just 1 issue; but I've listed 3 (out of many) different core issues above.

I'm not questioning your support; you are free to support anybody. I'd just like to know the rationale behind it; maybe you're seeing things that I'm not. No harm in a little dialog....

janelle writes at 01:43:05 08/31/08 - Comment #38397

link* not *like*

janelle writes at 01:42:00 08/31/08 - Comment #38396: Ajay, I already said that I agree she doesn't align with the Green Party, so why are you still pushing the issue?

My second point was that the Green Party is more nuanced than, "Pro-this" or "anti-that" and you can't use such things as a litmus test for who's a Green Party member.

I'd like to think that as someone who identifies with the Green Party and who has a brother heavily involved in Green Party politics in Maryland that I don't need you sending me a like explaining my party's stand on the hot button issues. Thanks, anyway.

ajay writes at 12:37:07 08/31/08 - Comment #38391: (e:janelle) , here's a link to the Green Party's stand on most of the 'hot button' issues: :::link:::

You'd be hard-pressed to find someone more diametrically opposite to their platform than Palin.
Examples: She's anti-choice; GP is pro-choice. She's anti-gun-control; GP is pro-gun-control. She's anti-gay-marriage; GP is pro-gay-marriage. She's pro drilling for oil; GP is opposed to that. And so on . . .

janelle writes at 08:09:11 08/30/08 - Comment #38375: (e:Ajay), My initial impression of her based on the wiki page I linked to was that she emphasized grass roots democracy and decentralization, two key principles of the Green Party.

As more and more comes out about her, I would agree, she doesn't fit into the Green party as well as I had first hoped.

However, I would hardly consider drilling in the ANWR or gay marriage to be a litmus test for the Green party, Ajay. In fact, the Green Party takes more nuanced views on these hot button issues than Republicans or Democrats who often stand on opposite sides.

ajay writes at 06:55:15 08/30/08 - Comment #38374: "Spirit of the Green Party wrapped up in a Republican body" ?!??!? Wow... we must be reading a different biography.

She's for drilling all over the ANWR. She's against making Polar bears an endangered species. She's against gay marriage. Need I go on?

I got a chuckle out of this: :::link:::

Lol... I'm still ROTFL at the Republicans trying so hard to justify her selection. Ever seen a guy in a straightjacket, struggling hard to get out? Republicans are acting like that. Only more insane.

metalpeter writes at 03:13:22 08/30/08 - Comment #38372: I think a monkey could be president look at George W., HA. Seriously though I think she could and here is why. She would learn the job as she goes along and watches what is done. The second reason is that presidents have all kinds of advisers from what I hear. You listen to them and then decide what is best.

james writes at 08:22:16 08/29/08 - Comment #38348: On point 4: her administration is already plagued with the trooper-gate scandal.

But it certainly is a more interesting choice.

janelle writes at 04:08:04 08/29/08 - Comment #38339: (e:Drew), your affirmative comment is a cheap shot at Republicans. It's not affirmative action at work; it's pandering to a demographic audience - all part of the world of politics. Democrats do it too.

drew writes at 03:36:00 08/29/08 - Comment #38338: It's funny that Republicans are against affirmative action, but seem to be practicing it.

Seriously, would a short-term governor of a small state (population-wise)with little other experience get considered if she wasn't a woman?

Lauren, I'm with you on the pro-life thing. Very few people in this world are pro-all-life (isn't that sad?)

I'm not going to say whether she is a feminist or not. It's not mine to say.

But here's the more important question: can she be president? McCain in no young man. If he's elected, she has a higher chance than most VPs of serving.

Regardless, I agree with almost all ten things, even though I think McCain would be more likely to win with Romney on the ticket. Phil Graham, with all that he has been wrong on recently, would still have been a better choice. If he really wanted to pick a woman, Condi Rice is better prepared to be president.

Personally, I think more than one person said no before she got the invite (no evidence, though)

dcoffee writes at 02:10:56 08/29/08 - Comment #38333: She's no Hillary Clinton. I like Obama's abortion platform "We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country." I don't realy think she's qualified, she was mayor of a town/city of 8,000 people, Buffalo is 250,000, and she's been governor for under 2 years. Also, predictably, she wants to drill in ANWR.

I can also relate though Janelle. Very interesting that the Republicans chose a somewhat independent minded woman. She did get elected on the idea of getting rid of corruption, and bringing transparency to the government. I think it's a testament to how pissed off Americans are at the status quo.

jason writes at 02:06:00 08/29/08 - Comment #38331: I look forward to chatting with you and (e:Drew) about this pick!

janelle writes at 02:02:55 08/29/08 - Comment #38330: (e:brit) I was thinking more along the lines of being a Republican or Democrat but not feeling constrained to act according to traditional Republican or Democrat standards. The ability to think through an issue and come to an independent conclusion that might take you outside of party lines. The reason some people like Obama is that he does seem to see outside of the Democrat party line.

A more personal example for me would be that I am a Presbyterian Christian who through studying my faith has come to conclusions different than most Presbyterians, but I still overall consider myself Presbyterian.

joshua writes at 02:00:18 08/29/08 - Comment #38329: Anyway, I think Sarah Palin was a surprise pick that was astute and clever. It wasn't going to be Romney - the two do not get along. I thought it would be Pawlenty.

There are millions of Hillary fence sitters (50% of all Hillary supporters) and Palin represents the one demographic where Obama is getting crushed - women 40 and older. I expect the left wing ladies to attack her. Personally I think this might add another dimension of intrigue to the debates. Regardless of what is coming out of her mouth, people are going to be paying a lot of attention to how Biden treats her in a debate setting. Let's face it, I love Biden but the guy is boorish and clumsy at times. I can't imagine him stomping all over her - it would look devastating on television.

The Obama campaign has already criticized her lack of experience sharply, perhaps not realizing that both Palin and Biden are technically more qualified for the office than Obama is. It isn't a credible criticism and it will be thrashed. She also has genuine reform credibility within the GOP, which I think will appeal to a lot of people. Additionally, she is exactly what the conservative base wanted and it was those people that McCain had to satisfy first. People are already calling the pick a game changer - we'll see. I think it does absolute wonders for the McCain campaign. They were in desperate need of a vibrant personality.

I think the only question left relates to how many Hillary votes she will take from the Democrats. This stuff about party unity is ludicrous, otherwise we would not be having half of Hillarydom looking for a good excuse to jump ship.

brit writes at 01:56:22 08/29/08 - Comment #38327: claiming a category then not letting your 'conscience' be dictated to by that category? I choose pacifism.... except when violence is called for of course

brit writes at 01:49:42 08/29/08 - Comment #38326: hey, I am just saying feminism has traditionally fought for women's bodily and reproductive rights. Maybe she is a feminist in all but that case...good for her....

lauren writes at 01:47:49 08/29/08 - Comment #38325: Maybe you were expecting this from me but, so it goes...just one issue that i will pull out of the many to choose from...this is a quote from your wiki link:

"Palin is strongly opposed to abortion and supports capital punishment"

I am sorry but calling someone "pro-life" just because they are against abortion does not work for me. if you are so pro-life, why do you support human beings killing other living, fully developed, already born human beings while being so adamently against abortion? If women don't have the right to choose whether or not to give birth, then how is it ok to give the right to choose if a life is to be taken or not? This makes no sense to me. I might be a little more sympathetic to people who consider themselves so pro-life if they were equally as adament agaist the death penalty.
I won't get into the who gets to be a feminist debate, but i will say that just because a woman does things that are not expected of women does not make her a feminist, not even by a long shot.

joshua writes at 01:40:13 08/29/08 - Comment #38323: (e:brit) the answer is yes - the NARAL/NOW crowd doesn't own license regarding the definition of feminism, nor do they have the right to construct a litmus test for anybody who wants to use the term. The implication is that you cannot be a feminist without supporting abortion, which is a fallacious statement.

janelle writes at 01:37:46 08/29/08 - Comment #38322: Obviously, yes, I think a person can be a feminist and pro-life.

My point in listing it is mainly that I appreciate people who can claim a category of being yet not allow their conscience to be entirely restrained by that category. I think it's an incredibly important characteristic for politicians.

I'm not particularly interested in arguing whether someone can be a feminist and pro life in regards to my comment, but it would be an interesting comment if someone else wants to run with it.

brit writes at 01:27:12 08/29/08 - Comment #38321: can you really be a feminist if you are willing to 1) Give up your control over your body to the government 2) Work to force other women into the same headlock?

Permalink: The_election_just_got_interesting_to_me.html
Words: 275
Location: Buffalo , NY

08/20/08 03:14 - 72ºF - ID#45379

My supervisor

makes me cry.

Permalink: My_supervisor.html
Words: 3
Location: Buffalo , NY

07/29/08 03:34 - 72ºF - ID#45184

I know an Olympian...sort of....

I ran track in junior highschool with this woman who qualified for the 1500m in the Olympics:

I'm excited for her and I definitely want to try to catch the race if I can. I'm a little bit jealous and a little bit regretful and I have to wonder ... if some girl from my little hometown in the midwest with whom I ran track made it, could I have? But I gave up sports to put my all into music... and this girl ran like it was her job so I know she deserves it and I'm so impressed.

Permalink: I_know_an_Olympian_sort_of_.html
Words: 110
Location: Buffalo , NY

07/25/08 12:27 - 76ºF - ID#45138

Hot dog kind of day

Today was a perfect hot dog day.

I went to the hot dog stand near work.

I bought a hot dog and covered it with mustard, ketchup, a slice of pickle on either side, and slivers of onion on top.

Sat in the warm sun with a cool breeze on a wood bench.

Heavenly. What a needed break from my cubicle and fluourescent lights.

Permalink: Hot_dog_kind_of_day.html
Words: 64
Location: Buffalo , NY

Category: food

07/15/08 09:28 - 72ºF - ID#45030

The fruits of my labor

Full shot of the garden

Cucumbers vining on the trellis.

Cucumbers ready to pick!

Okra blossom

First hint of okra...really excited, never grown it before. Can't wait to fry it in cornmeal batter.

The sturdy squash plant rapidly taking over the garden

Plenty of squash to come.

I finally have peppers growing rather successfully. In my first attempt two years ago, my peppers were consumed by some sort of blight. Last year when I tried to grow pepper plants from seed and puzzled over why they weren't growing, I discovered the cat peeing in the pot!

The fruits of my labor...two yellow squash and one cucumber which I promptly cut up, salted and peppered, sprinkled with balsamic vinegar and consumed. Sweet, juicy, seedy cucumber.

Permalink: The_fruits_of_my_labor.html
Words: 144
Location: Buffalo , NY

07/09/08 07:39 - 74ºF - ID#44914

Pastor Wife Humor

Permalink: Pastor_Wife_Humor.html
Words: 12
Location: Buffalo , NY

07/06/08 03:25 - 83ºF - ID#44880

Jim List of Christian Beliefs

(e:Drew) responded to (e:Jim)'s post with a little code explaining what he believes and doesn't believe. I thought it seemed fun to see where I stand on these things versus Drew as a non-seminary educated Christian.

I wanted to use the same key as Drew, but I am introducing a category of, I believe something but do not see it as essential to the faith which will be @

@ = I believe this but don't necessarily see it as an essential of the faith.

X = I do not believe this

= There is a nuance to this belief.

+ = This belief really is central to the faith, as I see it. (maybe or maybe not necessary, depending on who you ask)

+ That God exists.
+That God is still involved in the universe he created.
+That God cares about us.
@That God cares what religion you are in.

That God is the Christian God, not the Jewish, Islam, Baha'i, Mormonism, etc.
That all other religions are in grave error. (despite those faiths having equally compelling claims and theology to lay claim to this honor)

+ That God interacted directly with humanity in the past, and chose the Jews as his people above all others.
@That God guided the oral history of the Jews.
@ That God wrote the Bible, indirectly.
@ That God edited the Bible into its present form, indirectly.
X That God prevents textual errors from being introduced during copying, indirectly.
X That God would not allow the Bible to mislead us, but would allow other religious texts to mislead us.

That sins are against God, instead of against other humans.
That we have original sin that needs to be redeemed.

+ That virgin births can occur.
+ That Jesus was born to Mary as the Son of God.
+ That Jesus is in fact, God.
+ That Jesus could redeem sins through his death and resurrection.

That Jesus' death is the only way to cause that to happen.

+ That Jesus rose from the dead.

That the story of Jesus was accurately told orally for a hundred years.

X That the hundreds of contradictory written fragments and letters from the time after that don't matter, because:
X The editing process to sort everything out was also guided by God, again, indirectly.
X That the Gospels were then transmitted down with no textual errors in copying or translation thereafter, thanks to God, indirectly.
XThat the parts of the Bible and the Gospels that don't make sense don't contradict any of the above.
X That if you choose wrong, despite this inconsistent and inexplicable chain, you are damned to hell.

I think I definitely might come off as more conservative. Boy, that's a switch from the days when we were dating.

Permalink: Jim_List_of_Christian_Beliefs.html
Words: 453
Location: Buffalo , NY

06/30/08 11:14 - 70ºF - ID#44829

Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra

SECOND REMINDER!!!

For those of you who enjoy classical music, the orchestra will be playing at Bidwell Parkway, Tuesday July 1st, 7pm.

(e:Drew) and I will be meeting folks at Lafayette Presbyterian Church in the parking lot at Elmwood ave and Lafayette ave. at 6:30pm to walk down together...if you don't want to meet us at the church, we'll catch up with you at Bidwell.

Hope to see you there!

Permalink: Buffalo_Philharmonic_Orchestra.html
Words: 72
Location: Buffalo , NY

06/26/08 02:55 - 73ºF - ID#44792

My Supreme Court Hobby

I look forward to the two times of the year when the Supreme Court reads its decisions.

After taking an intense graduate level class in Criminal Justice and Law in which I plowed through several Supreme Court decisions and wrote several papers, I have an appreciation for and understanding of how decisions are made to a small extent. And because I've read a number of cases, I am sometimes familiar with the prececdents preceding a current case. It really is a fun hobby.

I am currently reading through the majority opinion of the court on the DC handgun case. I'm fascinated to read that, to date, Supreme Court cases have addressed the right to bear weapons in terms of the types of weapons (i.e. restrictions on assault rifles) and the types of persons (i.e. offenders). But this case explores whether the constitution intended for the right to bear arms to be a collective right (i.e. a militia) or individuals (Joe Schmoe down the street owning it for self defense). The decision to go down in history is that the constitution provides this right to the individuals.

I've only begun to dig in, but so far the majority opinion seems dead on, but I'm sure once I read the minority opinion, it will give me something to chew over.

So far, I am pleased that Scalia made clear that the right of the individual to bear weapons does not negate the laws that exist to regulate the types of weapons and who possesses those weapons (i.e. it's perfectly reasonable to make illegal the possession of nuclear weapons by the dude who has spent time in a psych hospital - my example, not Scalia's, lol).

I have a few more thoughts on the topic, but I want to finish reading the decision. Here's the link if you want to join me.

tinypliny writes at 02:31:16 06/29/08 - Comment #36573: An extremely interesting epidemiological perspective amidst all this legalese:
:::link:::

janelle writes at 10:12:17 06/27/08 - Comment #36531: Jason, Scalia makes really clear that regulations are entirely reasonable. The line he uses is whether or not it is reasonable to own a particular weapon for self defense. So it would be reasonable to regulate a weapon that is incredibly powerful and would far exceed the need for self defense. For example, a handgun would do the job whereas a fully automatic would be a bit excessive. However, that regulation, I assume, is up to state legislators.

I have a feeling that we're going to see one or two more cases that will define the types of weaponry that can be banned or regulated. Already the NRA is planning on challenging other city's ordinances that they find similar to DC's hand gun laws.

jason writes at 09:49:42 06/26/08 - Comment #36510: Nope, I stand corrected, I'm not 100% sure on the details but I'm told you CAN buy a fully automatic in the US, but the distribution of licenses is limited, and they are fairly expensive.

jason writes at 08:54:29 06/26/08 - Comment #36509: I believe the line is drawn at military hardware. For example, I don't think you are allowed to have a fully automatic M4, but you can buy a semi automatic AR-15.

I was surprised at how inexpensive it is to buy a semi automatic rifle. I could be wrong on this, but the DC ban was on handguns. I'm sure an AR-15 would make any intruder poop.

I haven't read the opinions yet, but I wonder how it could have been close. I believe in the 2nd Amendment, but also responsible regulation.

jim writes at 07:31:06 06/26/08 - Comment #36508: Sorry for the jokes. :)

jim writes at 07:30:30 06/26/08 - Comment #36507: But, what about my right to keep armed bears?

janelle writes at 06:38:04 06/26/08 - Comment #36506: While I find gun ownership to be constitutional, e-Drew and I don't care for guns. You won't find one in our house, even though I grew up with guns in the house.

janelle writes at 06:36:37 06/26/08 - Comment #36505: I'm not sure how you find the definition of "arms" to be circular, Ajay. I'll have to go back and reread, I guess

And I don't understand what you mean when you say it doesn't cover machine-guns, guns with silencers, etc...

The main point of argument seems to be whether or not the individual or the collective has the rights to bear arms.

Other cases have already defined the right to bear certain types of arms.

jim writes at 06:21:41 06/26/08 - Comment #36504: I call shotgun!

ajay writes at 05:41:05 06/26/08 - Comment #36503: While I agree with the decisions, I find it interesting that "arms" is defined in a circular way. Why doesn't it cover machine-guns, gins with silencers, etc.?

Again: I'm not against gun ownership (and am looking forward to getting a couple of sweet pieces myself real soon), but I wonder where the line needs to be drawn...

joshua writes at 04:23:40 06/26/08 - Comment #36501: Incidentally, I also agree with the other SCOTUS decision this week regarding capital punishment for people who did not kill somebody. The majority (5-4 again!) struck down death sentences for people on death row who didn't actually kill anybody. They suggest the punishment is disproportionate... I agree, but only barely. Should a child rapist be given the same sentence as a serial killer? Apparently Obama is more hardline than I am on this one!

joshua writes at 04:21:15 06/26/08 - Comment #36500: It is a LONG opinion... I don't have time to read it while I work. :( Overall though, I think the majority were correct in this case, particularly with the point Scalia made that you've highlighted.

The opinions are interesting insofar as they provide a window into the process SCOTUS undertakes - thats the big thing for me anyway. It is nice to learn about how these guys and gals formulate their final thoughts.

Permalink: My_Supreme_Court_Hobby.html
Words: 321
Location: Buffalo , NY