The Cosmopolitan Blog

…or rather, to bore you, or not to bore you… with my various states of mind, that it. The more silent I’ve been on my blog lately, the more “stuff” has actually been going around in my head. So the question is, do I bore you with this stuff, or not?

Well, let’s recall the original intention of a blog, yes? A blog is a web log. A log on the web. My diary, online. So, technically, I can say what I want, it doesn’t matter.

Aaah, but this online business, this Internet, it’s a slippery slope. See, the original intention is no longer. Because now that there is an online diary, well now, suddenly, there’s a potential online audience too. So the author is now under obligation to keep this audience happy, entertained, eager to return… technically. In my case, all 3.5 people in my audience

My conclusion: those of you who’ve been perusing this blog all these years, I think you’ll indulge me some soul searching, yes? Thus you’ve been warned as to the nature of upcoming posts.

On a side note: since these introspective posts may become a staple of this blog, i’ve added a new category called “In a New York state of mind” (a reference to the song, to the city that I love and to the introspective mood that New York always puts me in).

On my old PC that died, i had installed an RIA (Rich Internet Application) version of Google Analytics. It was basically a version of Google Analytics that you could install to your desktop (but you need to be connected to the web to have up2date data). I’m looking to re-download it from the web, but it seems that the guys who had it in beta, gave it a new home. But this new home is now capitalizing on it and looking to sell components of it (that’s what it seems like, anyway). So they have no direct link to download this application anymore.

Anyway / anyone know where to find a free download of this?

I like Google, because they don’t seem very egocentric. Let me explain. They often do things without screaming it to the world, they’ve launched beta programs like Google Transit other things without making a big splash.

But sometimes they make corporate changes and i wish they would explain them. The latest is the change in browser favicons. A favicon is a little icon that appears at the top of your browser (near where you type the web URL address) and is associated with a particular website or webpage. Go to http://www.google.com and see for yourself, see the little icon at the top?

Until 2008, Google’s favicon was the first one below. Then they changed it to the middle one below, and now, on January 9, 2009, they changed it again, to the last one below. A few blogs had picked up on it back in 2008, I’ve seen nothing for this latest change though.

While i loved the first one, i was always confused by the second one, it never seemed to gel with Google’s identity. Now this new one is interesting, it’s more artsy… I like. But how long will it stay? Do they have a site that discusses this? What are your thoughts? Does the favicon of a company have an effect on you?

Are you an economist? I’m not. And we’ve already established that I fell asleep in finance classes. So i’m in NO way qualified to understand the differences in stump messages between the Obama and the McCain campaigns when they talk about taxes, mortgages, and other economy issues. Are you?

In the last debate, when speaking about taxes, McCain said Obama would raise taxes. Obama said McCain would raise taxes. HOW DO YOU KNOW WHO’S LYING? The truth is, they both are. They twist the truth to make a point. Today on CNN, i heard that in the past, BOTH McCain and Obama have voted for the highest tax increases in history.

As i mentioned before, it’s about how well each candidate convinces YOU that they will solve your problem. And so, if that’s the case, then it’s not about the economy, stupid, it’s about personality! It’s about how good they are at convincing you that their view on economy is better than the other’s. The truth is, neither will probably do anything that will ACTUALLY put more money in the average Joe-6-pack’s pocket.

This reminds me of Lou Dobbs’ favorite saying “Doesn’t anyone deserve a government that works?”. My answer: no, Lou, that’s the least of the candidate’s concern. You’re right, Lou, we should all be independants!

*Note to self* Must stop quoting Lou Dobbs, i don’t actually like the man!

Part 2 of my effort at fairness, looking at the serious criticism of Obama’s campaign (and of Obama himself).

Issue 2: The ACORN Issue

Arguably, this is a more serious issue than the Ayers issue, I think that was acknowledged by all parties.

1. CLAIM: ACORN has created fake voter registrations by using fake names: for example names of people who are actually deceased, even the name Jimmy Johns, the name of a restaurant where no actual Jimmy Johns worked at, they even created fake registrations for the entire Dallas Cowboys football team. Since Obama is linked to this firm in some way, and since 1+1=3, Obama is rigging the election.
2. FACTS:
   • ACORN has been under investigation for over four years
   • ACORN has created over 5,000 fake voter registrations in at least 6 states and continued to do so until a few days ago when it became a national issue
   • Obama’s campaign used ACORN’s services (it was actually a subsidiary, but fine, let’s simplify) during the primary campaign to register voters at a fee of $800,000.
   • ACORN endorsed Obama for president
3. CONCLUSIONS:
   • Obama used the services of a firm under investigation: YES
   • Should he have? NO
   • Would it have affected the outcome of the primaries NO the number of registrations was a few thousand, Obama won by much more
   • Does it make a difference that ACORN endorsed him? NOT REMOTELY, do you know how many companies endorse each candidate, 1/2 the time without the candidates even knowing it?
   • Will this affect this election? NO, since a. they’ve been caught, b. all registrations (fake or non) coming from them have been pulled, c. this was not actual votes, it was registrations for new voters to be able to vote

COSMOCHICK’S RANT:

While I think this is a more serious issue than Ayers, because Obama’s campaign is to blame for having hired a firm under investigation, the consequences of his actions are, well, non-consequential. Again, this is a political tactic. McCain is trying to put doubts in voters minds by lining up a bunch of things that will make you question his judgment. What McCain doesn’t tell you is that he’s done just as bad, that it’s all part of the game of politics, and that even HE (McCain) doesn’t think this are big deal issues, he’s just grabbing at straws.

However, if you feel that your trust in Obama has gone because a guy who bombed the Pentagon organized a meeting to launch Obama’s campaign, and because he used the services of a firm under investigation, then you have the right to feel that way. That means McCain’s argument was persuasive. And i can’t fault you for this.

What I will say though, is don’t imagine ANYTHING here is black or white (and I’m not talking about the candidates’ skin colors). If you think there’s doubt to be cast on Obama’s campaign practices, then you should know there are is just as much to be cast on McCain? Why? Am i saying this because I’m bitter? No. I’m as calm as i can be when i tell you: it’s the name of the game, politics. You do what you can do to get ahead. You say what you can say.You promise what you need to promise. And if you think McCain is any better, because he seems nice, because he seems approachable, because he could be your next door neighbor, because you can relate to him, because he doesn’t flash a Harvard education around… then think again. He might very well be all of these things, but he’s not become a presidential nominee by being a nice guy, trust me.

And you know what? In 2000 and 2004, we elected and re-elected a guy that seemed nice and approachable. Look where that got us. *sigh* I feel a new post topic coming on whether a POTUS should be just like us… Stay tuned.