Baseball Playoffs

The playoffs are finally here. My predictions are as follows:

Division Series:
- SF Giants over the Florida Marlins in five. (I have tickets to Game 5 so Bonds better hit a walk-off to end the series on Sunday.)
- Atlanta Braves over the Chicago Cubs in four. (The curse continues...)
- NY Yankees over the Minnesota Twins in four. ($180 million never loses...)
- Oakland Athletics over the Boston Red Sox in five. (The pain continues...)

Championship Series:
- SF Giants over the Atlanta Braves in six. (The G-men repeat as NL Champs.)
- Oakland Athletics over the NY Yankees in seven. (Finally...)

World Series:
- SF Giants over the Oakland Athletics in six. (And another earthquake...)

Lincoln-Douglas Debates

The following is an excerpt (full transcript of excerpt sourced from Northern Illinois University) from the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates. This is specifically from the 'First Joint Debate at Ottawa, August 21, 1858.'

The question: Was Abraham Lincoln a white supremacist, or a racist? I have recently heard this and decided to look up what exactly he had said, and the following is a portion. This has not been edited in any way from the cited source above. I will with no doubt continue my investigation (though how limited it is). I have highlighted interesting statements.

"When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia - to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment is not the sole question, if indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South.

When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one.

But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permitting slavery to go info our own free territory, than it would for reviving the African slave trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slaves from Africa, and that which has so long forbidden the taking of them to Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any moral principle; and the repeal of the former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the latter.

I have reason to know that Judge Douglas knows that I said this. I think he has the answer here to one of the questions he put to me. I do not mean to allow him to catechize me unless he pays back for it in kind. I will not answer questions one after another, unless he reciprocates; but as he has made this inquiry, and I have answered it before, he has got it without my getting anything in return. He has got my answer on the fugitive-slave law.

Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any great length, but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it, and anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, either directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence-the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man."

Camejo’s Closing Statement

The following is a full transcript of California Gubernatorial candidate Peter Miguel Camejo's closing statement at the CBA debate last night. Is there one thing in this statement that is not exactly what California needs? This man should be the next governor.

"We have a fiscal crisis in California. And we're not going to solve it unless we establish a fair tax system.

The wealthiest 1 percent pay a 30 percent lower tax rate than the average person is paying. And they talk about not raising taxes, but they have already raised it on you. But they're not--the wealthy people are not paying their fair tax, nor the corporations.

And we're not going to solve the crisis of education or other crises unless we establish a fair tax.

The amazing thing is that we would have a fairly substantial surplus and we could actually attack these issues. Now, is there waste in our budget? Of course there is. And we should try to find it and stop it and curtail it. That I agree with some of the comments Tom has made. But we are 27th in education. I want to improve that. I want to start affordable housing programs. I want to make renewable energy. I want to make California the leader in renewable energy.

We also have to raise our minimum wage. I want a living wage. Do you know that our minimum wage is 24 percent lower today when adjusted for inflation than it was in 1968 and our economy has improved so much.

We need universal health care. One of the problems that's deeply bothering me and we need a governor that will speak out on this is the issue of civil liberties and our people in California. I'm very concerned about what is happening internationally, because California is a key to this world. We're the fifth largest economy and we must speak out.

Here we were for ten years supporting Saddam Hussein and arming him and now we're illegally occupying that country and destroying the federal budget. No, we need someone who will speak out in support of the Kyoto Agreement and the U.N. charter and the rule of law in the world--and the world court.

What I want to do is fight for the change of our electoral system so that you don't just hear two people in the debates. And it's sad to say that in the next two debates they're trying to exclude me. The League of Women Voters now doesn't want the Green person heard anymore, who's calling for a fair tax. If you believe in Democracy and sustainable economics and if you believe in peace and free elections, vote Green, vote Camejo governor. Thank you."

And the winner is… Camejo

Anyone who watched the gubernatorial debate last night can objectively state that Green Party candidate Peter Miguel Camejo won. Hands down.

He was the only one to speak eloquently about the issues, have concrete ideas on policy, and not bicker with the other fools. He didn't have to either. Being the outsider in politics is a plus only at these few rare times when class and intelligence wins over pomp and showbiz.

I encourage all Californians to read and study last night's debate's transcripts (courtesy of SFGate.com) and reach the conclusion a vote for Camejo is a vote for California.

(Visit Peter Miguel Camejo's campaign website.)

California Recall

I have been holding back on this subject, as I waited for a few candidates to drop out, and the lawsuits and rulings to play out.

In the recall, which I will be partipating in with my vote, the Governor of California, Mr. Gray Davis (Gray is an awful name) will hold his job. Nothing else matters after that.

As a matter of who wins to replace (or not replace) the Governor (even though the tally is moot), the actor from southern California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, will win by a slim and controversial margin.

This upward surge of Arnold voters stems from McClintock stepping aside (likely) and a large third-party vote for Peter Miguel Camejo (not to mention Arianna Huffington). Both of these liberals will take votes from Cruz Bustamante.

I will vote NO on the recall and vote Camejo (Green) to replace the Governor.

1796 Election Results

The following are the results of the 1796 election for President, the third under the Constitution of the United States of America. John Adams became President and Thomas Jefferson Vice President.

John Adams (Ma.) 71
Thomas Jefferson (Va.) 68
Thomas Pinckney (SC) 59
Aaron Burr (NY) 30
Samuel Adams (Ma.) 15
O. Ellsworth (Ct.) 11
George Clinton (NY) 7
John Jay (NY) [1] 5
James Iredell (NC) 3
George Washington (Va.) 2
John Henry (Md.) 2
S. Johnston (NC) 2
C. C. Pinckney (SC) 1

[1] John Jay was the third President of the Continental Congress of the United States of America (served December 10, 1778 to September 28, 1779).

1792 Election Results

The following are the results of the 1792 election for President, the second under the Constitution of the United States of America. George Washington won re-election and John Adams retained his role as Vice President.

George Washington (Va.) 132
John Adams (Ma.) 77
George Clinton (NY) 50
Thomas Jefferson (Va.) 4
Aaron Burr (NY) 1

1788 Election Results

The following are the results of the 1788 election for President, the first under the Constitution of the United States of America. George Washington won the election and John Adams became Vice President.

George Washington 69
John Adams 34
John Jay [1] 9
Robert H. Harrison 6
John Rutledge 6
John Hancock [2] 4
George Clinton 3
Samuel Huntington [3] 2
John Milton 2
John James Armstrong 1
Edward Telfair 1
Benjamin Lincoln 1

[1] John Jay was the third President of the Continental Congress of the United States of America (served December 10, 1778 to September 28, 1779).

[2] John Hancock was the third President of Continental Congress as the United Colonies of America (served October 27, 1775 to July 1, 1776), the first President of the Continental Congress of the United States of America (served July 2, 1776 to October 29, 1777), and the seventh President of the United States in Congress Assembled (served November 23, 1785 to June 6, 1786). The Declaration of Independence is signed: "John Hancock, President." (image)

[3] Samuel Huntington was the fourth President of the Continental Congress of the United States of America (served September 28, 1779 to February 28, 1781) and the first President of the United States in Congress Assembled (served March 1, 1781 to July 6, 1781).

It’s time for the remnants to exit

Now that the General and Doctor are set to contend for the nomination, it is due time for those with no chance to leave the race. A contest among ten becomes obnoxious. (Just imagine if Hillary Rodham or Al Gore join the race.)

I have run previously a series of nine posts recommending who to leave the race and who to continue fighting. I suggested Kucinich, Braun, Edwards, Graham and Lieberman to exit the race, and Kerry, Dean, Gephardt and Sharpton to stay in and battle it out.

But now with Clark in the fray, Edwards (stupidly) committing himself and rumors of Hillary, I must revise my recommendations.

I still maintain that Kucinich, Braun, Graham and Lieberman will suffer great humiliation and that they shall better leave the race now and run re-election campaigns. Since Clark and Edwards are in it for the long haul there is no room for Sharpton either. Or Kerry.

(I have been Pro-Kerry from day one but is now time to move on. Dean is more audacious and Clark has a better resume. Kerry should stay in the Senate.)

Gephardt has the potential to being a great running mate. (As does Kerry.) He should leave eventually but remain for now.

Kerry should possibly think of joining Clark as a running mate right now. (There is no way he will join up with Dean.)

It is then down to four potential nominees: Dean, Clark, Edwards, and, yes, Clinton. I have been denying the rumors from the beginning but now that I take a close look at it, it all makes sense. Bush is vulnerable. And a Clinton clobbers a vulnerable Republican. Hands down.

Any of the following combinations knock off the growingly unpopular Bush: Dean with Gephardt or Clark, Clark with Kerry, Gephardt or Clinton, and Clinton running with Clark or Gephardt.

Whoever fills the ticket (hopefully one of the pairings mentioned above) surely promises to send Bush back to Crawford. And not for another month-long vacation, but for early retirement.

The General Joins the Fracas

The field spreads to ten. Former Gen. Wesley Clark is certainly to be among the frontrunners for the nomination. He being a 4-star general freightens the GOP.

A dream ticket of Clark-Clinton is being rumored but that is not going to happen. (Hillary Clinton wants to be President, not VP, and she will not relinquish Robert F. Kennedy's senate seat for it either.)

I still contend that a Dean-Clark pairing is the dream ticket. Dean will take on Bush and Clark will destroy Cheney in the debates.

Other possibilities that will beat Bush-Cheney in '04: Clark-Gephardt, Dean-Gephardt and Clark-Kerry. (Dean will not be suggested or chosen for VP because he brings little to the table in that case. Clark brings, however, enormous weight as a VP selection.)