The Big 3-0-0: Looking Back at What My Blog Was & What It Has Become

The blogs are starting to add up. Now serving #300.

I'm delighted to get to such a high number. When I first starting writing these in September 2010 under the blogger.com domain, I wasn't sure how long I'd be writing these for. Other attempts at maintaining blogs failed miserably. For the life of me, I can't remember the blog site that I wrote a couple dozen postings on during my college years, and I probably deleted most/all of the posts as I became more aware of the permanence of all things Internets. Then, Myspace entered the picture and I was able to share with everyone my emotion at the time of writing the blog as well as a song to go with it. I finally got around to deactivating my Myspace about a year ago.

I'm not even sure what got me writing again. I guess it was the easiest way for me to express my sports thoughts. It may have been out of boredom, not really sure. -My first blog set the tone somewhat for what was to come with this setting: a blog about sports, gambling, and uhhh, sports. From there, there was a fair share of immature, pointless blogs (kinda like this one). The blog after that was titled, "Florida: America's Wang." Classy, I know.

But I believe it has become a tad more mature and a lot more well-rounded. I've tackled some issues that have bothered me. I've had fun at my dad's expense, although I'm not sure where the picture for this blog went. I've tried to predict the past three seasons (including this season) of baseball, basketball and football, at a very low success rate. I believe the only prediction that's come close to being right was predicting Miami over OKC last year in the NBA Finals - didn't really take a brain surgeon for that.

I've also gotten political lately, starting with last year's SOPA madness that resulted in me writing a few letters to my local senators, even getting a nice response back from Mark Kirk. I won't bother linking the Dick Durbin one since, well...yeah. I also threw my support behind a president for the first time in my life. The last time I voted before 2012 was for John Kerry (as reluctantly as one could vote for someone), so these writings about Gary Johnson were refreshing to transcribe, as his beliefs align with my own about government's role in our lives and our society.

But what really took my blog into a new readership was the introduction into my online dating life. Based on the enormous views that I got from those blogs (three of my top 10 viewed blogs came from that seven-chapter series), there's nothing y'all like more than the juicy tidbits of single people's love lives. One of these top-viewed blogs comes from my date with the lovely and beautiful Jen, who I am still with to this day. One thing that came out of this blog series, outside of people being really curious with my love life, was the realization that my blogs about personal stuff (not the "what I ate for dinner" crap but more the "here's a fun new thing I'm trying out or a realization I've come to") were well-received and well-read. That doesn't mean I've abandoned my bread-and-butter which is sports, but I've kept that in mind while trying to balance the sports stuff with the fun, random life observations.

There's plenty of other things I could link up that I'm proud of writing, like my series on fans of out-of-town teams (I am looking to expand on that for next season - goal is to get at least 6-8 more fan bases represented). It was fun to get people to interact with me and make their stories come to life a little bit.

I originally titled this blog Hawaii 3-0-0, thinking I might end up writing about my pending Hawaii trip. As I've been known to do, I went off on a little tangent and ended up writing exactly one paragraph about it. Which reminds me, I created an urban dictionary word five years ago when hanging out with my cousin Frank. I found it as I was looking for the old blogging page that I used in 2004/2005. Here's the word, in case you are interested in looking at it: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tangentation.

Anywho, I hope you all continue to read my blogs, no matter the subject. I hope to come up with some new ideas for blogs in the near future, including some potential new series of blogs.

Thanks for reading. Hope you continue to read for another 300 more and beyond.

Politics (Not) As Usual - My First Year w/ Interest & Some Fun Political Stories & Facts

From the onset of 2012, this felt like a different year to me.

A year where I started to feel that standing on the sidelines as it relates to the political process was no longer an option.

Sure, it started with the trendy SOPA stuff--and from everything I've learned about politics in the past year, Congress will attempt to pass through similar legislation that could continue to threaten freedom of speech. But as I learned, sometimes it takes something relevant to an individual to say, "Wait a minute, maybe I should start educating myself on this stuff."

There are also plenty of other things I learned over the course of this year (and election season) that has me both optimistic about the future of our country and some things that have me disgusted with the process. I get that people are passionate about their politics. But please - (a) keep it civil, (b) keep it factual, and (c) keep it positive.

In too many cases, folks on both sides of the major parties could recite more negative stuff about the other guy than positive about their own. That's not a good sign for your guy if you're doing that.

Anywho, onward to the talking points:

The True 1%

While everyone was clamoring to see whether Obama would be able to survive this election season against his Republican opponent, history was made of a different kind for the bronze medalist in the presidential race.

Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson received over a million votes (a record for Libertarians) and about 1% of the vote (just short of the party record). Considering the two big dogs spent almost 1000 times more combined than Johnson's campaign (2 billion to 3 million -> source) and got about 1000 times more coverage than former New Mexico governor, it is quite the accomplishment.

I don't know the exact number of votes he got from me and people I know, but it was at least a half dozen. Considering my circle of people isn't all that big, it's much larger than the national percentage. If Gary gives it another run in 2016, I will likely vote for him again, barring some other solid candidate would enter the race.

And no, once again, I wouldn't be wasting my vote.


Stat in the Hat

If you voted for Romney and didn't see this coming, you haven't been studying the stats.

And no, I don't mean the partisan polls on these slanted news networks. I mean Nate Silver's 538 blog, which was running on the NY Times website throughout the election.

If you haven't heard of him, Nate became a polarizing figure over the election cycle with his projections of the election through personalized statistical models, all of which showed Obama taking the electoral college by a much wider margin than expected and winning the popular vote by 2+% (both of these occurred).

Before the election, Republicans argued to no end that his statistical models were wrong and that Romney would win the election with no problem. As is the case with politics as I've found out, people get really f-ing angry when what they are reading or seeing doesn't correspond with a favorable view/rating of the person they are supporting (at least this holds up in general). If you take a look at the comments Silver got from the right, you'd think Silver just made up the stats.

Sports folks among my friend base might recognize Silver's name from his work as a sabermetrics guy and occasional author on various sports websites. In Silver's first analysis of the electoral college in 2008, he projected 49 out of 50 states correctly (he projected Indiana for McCain). He also predicted all 35 Senate races correctly that year.

I'm not sure how many swing states there were in 2008, but all things considered, missing one state in two elections shows me that this guy has a damn good statistical model going here. Stay tuned for his blog in 2016 to see what we should expect.

More Fun Political Stats

Here are a few fun political facts and figures that I found as I kept a really close eye on the Google Election Center, by far the most detailed political map that I came across as I looked for updated statistics on the election:

1. Roseanne Barr finished fifth overall in the popular vote. Yes, the sitcom star and everyone's favorite husky 1990s TV mom finished behind Obama, Romney, Johnson and Jill Stein (Green Party) in the popular vote. Barr's vote total was just a shade under 50,000, which was roughly eight times less than Stein's total. It's not like she came close to winning, but she finished fifth. Her name was on the ballot in Florida, Colorado & California. Welcome to Uhmerica.
2. "None of these candidates" is a voting option in Nevada. If you didn't want to vote for any of the candidates listed on the Nevada ballot, you can place a vote for nobody. Yes, there's an option on their ballots to vote for "None of these candidates". Interestingly enough, this "candidate" finished fourth behind Obama, Romney and Johnson. Sorry Virgil Goode - the Constitution Party candidate literally got beat by no one (None of these candidates got almost double the votes as Goode did in the state).
3. Nothing screams "I'm Fiscally Responsible" like spending billions on a presidential election. As of 10-26-12, Barack & Mitt spent over $2 billion combined on their campaigns combined (source). I'm guessing that total rose over the final couple weeks of the election. In fact, if you break it down by state, Obama spent the most in Illinois (over $39M), which is considered his adopted home state. Likewise, Romney spent the most in his state of Massachusetts ($115M). In both states, the winner was fairly well known before the election began (Obama). Why spend that much in your home states? The site doesn't break down costs, so it's hard to say what this was spent (or wasted) on. Still, it seems ridiculous that each guy would spend so much in a state whose winner was widely known before the election even began.

And one more thing...

Let's not make a mention of the 2016 election for a while. We don't need to encourage these bozos to make this a non-stop thing. My Gary mention is not included in on this - mainly because it's my blog and I'll cry if I want to.

That's all I got. I hope you're as happy as I am for this season to be over. Now, time to watch the Colts/Jaguars game.

On second thought, maybe another election cycle isn't so bad to watch.

Rocking the Vote: How I Went From Politically Disengaged to Actually Giving a Crap About Politics

Starting back in January when I wrote a little bit about SOPA, the law that could essentially give government the right to control the Internet and censor a good chunk of it, is when I started to become political. Probably for the first time in my life.

Disengaged from Politics

I have voted in two elections in my lifetime, with my first ever vote being for the wonderful Rod Blagojevich for Illinois governor in 2002 and my last vote in 2004 for the ever-charismatic John Kerry for US President (among other candidates on the ballot). Admittedly, I knew little about the people I was voting for. I grew up in a liberal household, so naturally, my tendencies of voting were Democrat-Centric.

When I placed those votes, I don't remember having any feeling of "Hey, my guy is gonna make a difference" or "I'm proud of myself for voting for a guy whose views I respect and generally agree with". I placed these votes mainly because of my upbringing - which many people do. And trust me, there was absolutely nothing wrong with my upbringing, but my impression of "the other party" was not as favorable with what they stood for and what they wanted out of government.

After the 2004 election, I became disillusioned completely with government processes. When I moved back home with my parents, I never renewed my voting information from the time I voted as a senior in college. The limited stuff I read about politics in-between 2004 and January 2012 was basically such garbage on both sides that it made it impossible to follow for someone who just doesn't care.

And that's where they get you! All those negative ads that both parties run, it's not necessarily to get you to vote for the candidate who is funding the commercial. It's to get people to not vote for the opponent or just not vote at all! At the end of the day, one non-vote for someone's opponent is just as good as a vote for the candidate engaging in the negative ad campaign.

I'm sure there's books on all this stuff, with people who are smarter than me and more engaged in these processes that could better explain how these two parties seem more focused on negative campaigning against their opponent rather than actually presenting their own views - of which the main parties share way way more than either party could ever admit. The negative campaigning does its job a lot of times in keeping people who were unsure of who they were voting for (but maybe leaning a certain way) out of the voting booth altogether. I can say it honestly worked on me - I haven't gave a crap about politics my whole life, particularly the past 7 years before 2012.

Obama ran on a platform of "Change", which was wildly popular and very effective in its messaging of moving on from the presidency of George W. Bush. I don't know why I didn't bother voting in 2008 - maybe it was because I knew Obama was going to win our state and electoral votes anyways, or maybe there was a skeptical part of me that thought this guy was too good to be true. (Now I've realized that local elections are probably more important than the Presidential vote due to their more personal, direct effect on your everyday life, so my attitude has changed on this for sure).

In his four years as President, I wouldn't say he's been the worst president we've ever had (as some Republican folks would tell you - although I'm not politically savvy enough to rank presidents from best to worst), but I certainly would say he's fallen way short on a lot of the campaign change he promised. Guantanamo never closed, unfettered executive powers expanded (including indefinite imprisonment of Americans without trial), and withdrawing from Afghanistan - what happened with that? All of this was definitely not the "Change" that he promised from George W. Actually, it was pretty much more of the same.

What Changed for Me

When the SOPA/PIPA stuff started trending in January, I decided to write our US senators Mark Kirk and Richard Durbin about how in its current form, SOPA would be a dangerous bill that would hinder many of the freedoms that the Internet allows. You can say all you want that the government would enforce it strictly along the lines of copyright, but do you really buy that?

I was encouraged to get a response from Senator Mark Kirk in a relatively quick manner. He expressed his distaste with SOPA in its current form as well as the same worries I had about censorship of the Internet and stifling the innovation that the Internet creates (I later learned he voted for the National Defense Authorization Act, which is a direct violation of the Sixth Amendment for the right to a trial by jury - so much for being about freedoms).

I got a response from Dick Durbin, who I later found was one of the senators pushing for this legislation, that basically gave a cookie-cutter explanation for why SOPA/PIPA needed to be passed to protect copyrights and all that jazz. Durbin has a stranglehold on his Illinois Senate seat, so he doesn't need to worry about supporting legislation like this.

This is the problem! Guys like this shouldn't just be able to stay in power for unlimited terms, presenting the same stale ideas that didn't work before, won't work now, and will not work in the future. Certain areas of the country will always be Democrat while some will be conservative - I get that. But I also don't get it at the same time. When politicians know that their seat in government is essentially protected based on whatever district/ward/state they live in, they don't have as much incentive to do their due diligence when it comes to representing the people that voted him or her into office.

If people who voted for Durbin and are against SOPA/PIPA actually knew what Durbin stood for (and who he stands with) on this issue, do you think they'd be less inclined to vote for him in the future? Perhaps, or perhaps it's a case where we'd rather have Durbin in there because he is "the lesser of two evils", with the potential "worse" evil being another Republican Senator.

Lesser of Two Evils - What Garbage

That term has always cracked me up - lesser of two evils. It's as if you're knowingly and willingly voting for a shit head who you know is probably not going to live up to half of the stuff he or she said on the campaign trail. It's one thing if you actually like the political views of Obama and Romney and actually want to vote for them (hint: I do not). I respect the voting process and believe people should vote for the candidate that they believe best represents what their vision is for the most ideal government for America. However, I cannot stand, and will not stand for, people voting for one of the two major parties based on the notion that they're voting for the guy who seems less evil. In many ways, I'd rather people who vote like this not vote at all. But really, I'd just like people to find another candidate to vote for.

Why I Am Voting Now

If you've read this far, I appreciate your interest in my renewed interest (or you could say my initial interest) in politics. With this interest, I will likely tout some of the stuff of people who I plan on voting for from time to time. However, my goal is not necessarily to get you to vote for the guy(s)/gal(s) I'm voting for - I can't lie, that may end up being an implicit message when I express these views. I will also refrain from the vicious name-calling and other negative attacks that really have nothing to do (or should have nothing to do) with the political process.

I will be looking to inform my friends and family - the people I care deeply for - about policies and ideas that candidates who I am interested in represent.

I get it - I know many of  the folks in my social group and social network sites who will likely be unswayed and will stick to the candidate who represents their party, and that's perfectly fine. I just want to make sure that different views are at least being presented, perhaps a new way of looking at something that may open your eyes on a particular issue.

Based on my research of the candidates in the Presidential election, I will likely be voting for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. I'm willing to bet many people who are voting this year haven't even heard of Johnson, yet alone know all of the ideas and views that he represents. I recommend doing some Internet research on Johnson, former Republican governor of New Mexico who is well-known for his vetoing of bills and being elected twice as governor in a predominately Democratic state.

A Wasted Vote? Nope.

Some might say I am wasting my vote because Johnson won't win, but my viewpoint on this has changed 180 since I was voting initially. Why the hell should I vote for a guy who won't win? No one wants to vote for a guy who is going to lose - what's the point?

This viewpoint is likely held by many who may actually agree more with a third party candidate like Johnson (or perhaps Bob Barr, Ralph Nader or Ross Perot, et al.) in other elections but decide to vote for a Democrat or Republican because a third-party vote is a waste. This falls right into the hands of the two-party system, which is set up in such a way that third parties have a very limited platform to express their views and often fight legal battles just to be on the ballots in some states. Democrats and Republicans want to keep it a two-party system to keep the cycle of politics going.

While Johnson will be hard-pressed to make a run for the White House, I will be voting for a candidate who represents who I am and what I want out of government the best. At the end of the day, I can live with myself knowing that I voted for a guy (win or lose) that I believed would be the best guy to run our country's executive branch for the next four years. Personally, I see too many similarities between the major parties to vote for either one of them. You may disagree, but that's the way I see it.

Vote how you will, and I encourage people, especially those who feel disengaged from the process and hate politics, to take the time to look into these candidates a little and make an effort to vote. I just hope people vote for the right reasons.

If you vote for Romney, vote for him because you believe in him and what he stands for, not because "Obama is evil" and/or "Romney is the lesser of two evils".

If you vote for Obama, likewise, vote for him because you believe in him and what he stands for, not because "Romney is evil" and/or "Obama is the lesser of two evils".

And any other candidate you vote for, especially in your local elections, carry the same attitude with you. Just be as smart and educated as you can be before entering the voting booth in November. I have a lot to read up on in the meantime myself, so I'll be right there with some of you (hopefully).

Any who, I'm done with this political brouhaha for now. I hope you got something out of this.

In the meantime, let's try being as civil as we can this election season. Easier said than done, I know.