Politicastrology

GEMINI (May 21-June 20): As the most powerful nation prepares to choose the world's most powerful leader, we all have a stake in the proceedings. Whether or not you're an American, the candidate who wins the presidential election will deeply affect your personal future.

In my estimation, John Kerry is far more likely to have a benevolent impact, George W. Bush a negative one. I've arrived at this conclusion by carefully paring away my emotional biases and taking an objective look at long- term planetary omens. In my capacity as your astrological advisor, then, I urge you to visualize Kerry being inaugurated as president next January.

Now here's your homework: Meditate on Pericles' assertion that "Just because you don't take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you."

http://www.freewillastrology.com

Google Launches Desktop Search

Just when you were wondering what they'd do next, Google launches a Desktop Search tool. Never again will I have to rely on the Microsoft doggie to try and sniff out a file that I'm looking for, or wait while Outlook painfully tries to figure out who I've emailed with a certain subject line.

It also gives me the option to see any local results when I do a normal web search through Google's website.

I think this is one of the best advances in search I've seen in a long time, and as Google says: "it's always been a bit strange that you could find what you were looking for more easily if it were hidden on a website in Irkutsk than in a corner of the hard drive sitting right in front of you"

Considering the vulnerabilities that Google faces amidst more integrated competitors like Microsoft, this is definately a step in the right direction to ensure the dependancy on their product.

Privacy is an obvious issue for everyone, and I'm glad to see they've hit it head on and are being pro-active about it. In the long run, I think Google's biggest asset will be TRUST. They've rarely steered me wrong, and their manstra of "do no evil" is one that I can certainly get behind.

http://desktop.google.com/

Unhappy About No Weapons?

Pardon the continued political pundrity folks, but I can't help myself.

During the second presidental debate, Bush said: "I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons, and we've got an intelligence group together to figure out why."

Obviously he was upset that his rationale for going to war did not pan out to be truthful. Still, he continues to say that it was the right thing to do and given a choice he'd do it all over again.

Strangely though, were his choice of words. I believe the president was responding to the public's outcry for answers, as people are clearly distraught that our movitations were based on faulty intelligence. We aren't, however, upset that there are no weapons. It's great to know that this country was actually not a terror network in the world and we were actually safe all along. What we're really upset by is that you took us to war saying there would be weapons. There's a big difference, and when you speak of intelligence groups, I doubt their mission will be investigating your war.

I've seen this quote mentioned in the news the past few days, but I'm not sure if anybody is reading into it with the questions that have been floating around my head for the last 48 hours. Was he really serious? Was he truly un-happy that they didn't pose a threat? Is he really that so concerned with being right rather than doing what is right?

It's easy to look at this statement both ways, but I think this could be one of the only situations in recent memory where the man was actually telling the truth - he was legitimately unhappy that they didn't find WMDs in Iraq...

Go figure.

Consistently Wrong

"Only fools and dead people don’t change their minds, said John II Patterson. "Fools won’t. Dead people can’t."

I'm so glad that our society is finally getting back to the fundamental life lesson that no matter how committed, steadfast, persistent and determined you are - it doesn't matter if you're WRONG!

It only took John Kerry 75 minutes in last week's debate to point out this fact, and I for one think it's really the only clear answer or retort to the flip-flopper label he's given. These are complex issues with a lot of nuance, sure - but your answer doesn't have to be. Yes, it was wrong to go into Iraq. If he had to do it all over again, no - he shouldn't have voted to give the authority. It was wrong, let's all admit it now together once and for all.

I was confused and disallusioned with W's answers in response that to say it was the "wrong war at the wrong time" is "bad for the troops" - but if we made the right decision in the first place, the troops wouldn't be there. Given the circular paradoxial nature of where we are, I can see why everybody's head is spinning and we're all just a tad bit dizzy.

But one thing is for certain, when these two men stood side by side on stage for an hour and 1/2 and retorted back and forth - it was Kerry who actually made sense a few times, and it was Kerry who actually said things that made me think he knew what he was talking about. I can't say the same for George.

The biggest threat to John Kerry's presidental bid is if people think he's not going to win. For whatever reason or another (maybe our love for sports), Americans don't want to bet on a loser. So if we think our candidate doesn't have a shot, some people might actually not bother to vote. Don't buy into it - don't ever quit - it's never over.

Regardless of how you feel about the electoral process, and you're very welcome to be exhausted by it, go out and vote on November 2nd. Just to feel like you at least gave it a shot and did your part. It is litrerally the LEAST you can do.

...be sure to also check out John Perry Barlow's take on the election as well.