Former first daughter Chelsea Clinton missed a way to turn a reporter’s question around:

a reporter for the student paper, The Butler Collegian, asked for her opinion "on the criticism of her mother that how she handled the Lewinsky scandal might be a sign of weakness and she might not be a strong enough candidate to be president".

Instead of showing indignance toward the reporter for asking Chelsea a good question she should have reinforced her mother’s strength in keeping a family together for not quitting in a time of personal crisis. Would it have been better for Hillary to divorce Bill Clinton over the incident? I’m sure some would be criticizing her now if she had. And would she be a serious candidate today if she had gotten a divorce?

Wrong or right, I don’t think so. Voters like me view divorce — except in rare circumstances — as a weakness, not a strength. When you go up there and agree to stand by your spouse in "sickness and health" and in "good times and bad times" that’s a contract to adhere. How do we know for a fact that Hillary didn’t already know about Lewinsky? Who knows, maybe she even approved privately. Whatever the case, if she decided to quit her marriage contract, how can we be sure she would stick by what she said in public office? Fair criticism.

Ask anybody who has ever been divorced if they should have gotten married and how many will answer yes? We all make mistakes, that’s not the point here (and not trying to make those who have been divorced feel like bigger failures either), but a contract of marriage needs to have some amount of importance in society again. Today all too many couples are getting divorced like they’re changing underwear. It’s one thing if no children are involved but quite another when there are.

Choosing the right partner
Thinking of getting married to someone? Make sure it’s the one. Ask yourself how you’ll feel when that person doesn’t look the way they do now? What if s/he becomes ill? Are you willing to stand by and take care of him/her? And are you best friends? Do you like to do a lot of non-sexual activities together? People who aren’t best friends shouldn’t get married. Look, you have very few true best friends in this world, so at least make sure before you marry someone that that person is a best friend.

I believe it’s possible to have more than one best friend and be compatible with more than one person in life, but the bar should be extremely high for your chosen life partner. Right now the bar seems to be way too low. If you’d like more guidance, read past post Does 17 Years Qualify for Giving Marital Advice?

Back to Chelsea
I wonder if Chelsea’s parents schooled her on how to answer this question next time. Staying together shows strength, dedication, resolve. I’m not saying what Bill did with Lewinsky was acceptable behavior in their marriage, but was it enough to break up their family?

Chelsea getting angry only shows a vulnerability and opens the door to future probing on the topic by any skilled reporter. I’d be surprised if she doesn’t receive this question again.

What does the camera eye have against Hillary Clinton?

Far be it to talk about something as superficial as looks with most professions, but the President of the United States needs charisma and polish. An important part of the President’s job — even more so after the mess made by our current Commander in Chief — will be cleaning up America’s reputation diplomatically. As human beings, wrong or right, we’re drawn to looks at least on a subconscious level. Even if you personally aren’t wired that way, a lot of other human beings are and good looks help grease the wheels.

Bill Clinton has plenty of charisma and George Bush has way too little. You’d think that the camera eye would be kinder to Hillary Clinton, but I repeatedly see photos taken of her with these bug-eyed, terrible expressions.

Are photographers trying to catch Hillary and paint her as an ugly duckling on purpose? I think Hillary is a pretty good looking woman. No she’s not hot, definitely not smoking hot, but a lot of the pictures I see on an almost daily basis make her look very dark and sinister. Conversely, Barack Obama seems to get shots that make him look a lot younger and dynamic and less freaked out.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney is leading the pack in the photogenic department. I’m not going to vote for a candidate solely on looks and neither should anybody else but the last thing I want is our President to walk into a room and turn everybody to stone.

Note to the photogs of the world: start taking some better pictures of Hillary. She might not be leading in delegates as of this writing, but for awful photos it’s a landslide. Why?

Got an inside track to who’s going to win the Republican and/or Democrat caucus in New Hampshire today? At Predictify.com you can make a few pennies if you’re right, but hurry and get your votes in.

There is a star system based on user participation ranging from a bronze star at 100 points to a platinum star for 10,000 points. With roughly 30 minutes involvement at the site I’ve made 85 cents and have 62 community points. Being that the minimum payout is $20, talk to me in like, well, a long time to see if Predictify pays. The top earning person on the site has made $113.76 and 76 people have made over $20 as of this writing. In other words, this is not a moneymaking opportunity site.

Community points are received for activities at the site like:

- 10 points: submitting a premium question (this costs $1 per prediction)
- 5 points: referring a new user
- 5 points: submitting a free question (only 200 responses can be received)
- 3 points: send a friend invite that is accepted if you click the Predictify graphic above, that has my referrer code in it)
- 3 points: post a comment
- 1 point: submit a prediction.

It’s strange that the least amount of points is attributed to the most vital part of the site: the predictions. Yes, you need outcomes to predict, but are the questions worth five times the amount of the predictions themselves? I can understand submitting premium questions being more valuable because that’s one of the ways the site is being monetized, but I’d argue that the # of points for predictions, particularly predictions from those who have a higher percentage of predicting the outcome should receive more points.

Predictify does incent those who predict the outcomes more correctly by paying them a higher percentage of the premium questions. I’m at the Scholar level (50-74% accuracy) for Politics, which means if I answer a premium question correctly in this category I’ll receive 1.5 multiplier of the payout. The highest level one can achieve is Guru (90-99% accuracy) which receives 2.0 multiplier. Again, don’t get too excited about the money angle, because there is a small percentage (~5%) of premium questions available.

I didn’t see any banner or contextual ads at Predictify. It appears the only way the site is making money is from taking a cut of the premium questions but I’m guessing at least with the sports outcome questions they could turn around and be selling the Predictify outcomes on a sportsbetting site (outside the US where online gambling is legal, of course). They prevent others for using free questions in certain ways: “Predictify may not be used for securities replication, odds-making, betting, gambling, or wagering.”

The New York Times has a subdomain using Predictify for the NFL playoffs at nytimes.predictify.com.

Not sure the NY Times tie-in as I don’t see any API, but if/when they decide to release one (?) news of this will probably appear first at the official Predictify blog, which uses TypePad.

Summary and grade
There have been so many voting-type sites come and go over the years that the outlook for Predictify is not good. If the site keeps the current clean design and maintains enough interest, they’ll last longer than most. Definitely need a higher percentage of premium questions to help maintain interest and if an API isn’t available, they need one yesterday. Grade: C+

Hope everybody reading who celebrates is having a wonderful holiday week. We are here, despite having no snow.

One of my presents (pictured above) was brought to my attention by reader Ruth who left a comment on the post about the Billy Joel penned song “Christmas in Fallujah.” The first song written about the Iraq war from the soldier perspective wasn’t by Joel, but an artist named Jefferson Pepper who also named his entire CD that name. I wanted to hear the song next to the Joel version sung by Cass Dillon and this morning have been comparing the two songs.

Creative coincidences happen all the time. Sometimes they are a little too similar. I don’t believe other than the name of the song that’s the case here.

The Joel Fallujah is more acoustic rock than Pepper’s. Something Bon Jovi could have sung, while Pepper’s Christmas in Fallujah is more like The Eagles “Lyin Eyes.” Musically the two songs have nothing in common. The words to Pepper’s Fallujah are totally different with disturbing passages like this:

children snuggled in their beds
while the corpses of their parents
dance around in their heads
palaces and bridges
we burned them to the ground
someone got a contract
to rebuild the whole damn town
- Jefferson Pepper “Christmas in Fallujah”

You can buy Jefferson Pepper’s CD “Christmas in Fallujah” as I did from this website for $14.95 + shipping. Unlike the proceeds from the sale of Joel’s same titled song, no charities appear to be involved. The CD contains the following 12 tracks:

Christmas in Fallujah
M-16
Bethelehem, PA
Interstate Highway
Stranded
Back to 1999
Christmas Tree
Deceived
Soldier’s Joy
Why?
Armageddon for Sale
This Land is Your Land (Woody Guthrie cover)

+ one bonus untitled track (”American Woman” ? — and no, not the American Woman titled song, although ironic) that sounds a bit like something by Tom Petty.

“Christmas in Fallujah” is an alright CD if you’re into folk acoustic music. Not really a genre I’m hugely interested in, but Pepper’s lyrics and arrangements are solid. As far as Christmas music goes, if you’re tired of the classics, this is one worth a few listens. Also, it’s a useful reminder of the soldiers who are not home with their families during the holidays. Keep them in your thoughts.

I don’t understand people who register to vote and then don’t. Ok, maybe it makes a little sense if mail-in ballots aren’t allowed, but that’s not the case in Washington state. Time is on the voters side.

And I can also understand, although I strongly disagree, with people like my wife who doesn’t register and doesn’t vote. At least these people are being consistent. I’ve been working on the voting thing with my wife to try and convince her of the importance of voting, how one vote can make a difference. It’s an uphill climb. You’d think it would be a lot harder convincing people who aren’t registered to vote to get registered and then start voting than to get the people already registered to vote.

You’d think.

And the day after the election I’m combing through the Washington state 2007 General Results and seeing that an abysmal 28.43% of the registered voters turned out to vote yesterday. That’s roughly 1 in 4 people who are registered to vote that aren’t doing it.

I don’t get it. Here’s a picture of the state’s results in case you didn’t follow the link above:

I’m starting to wonder what, if anything, I can do to encourage more of the registered voters in this state to vote? In our county alone there was less than the state average.

As readers following this blog closely know, I’m becoming more interested in politics in expectation of the 2008 Presidential election. I’m trying to become more educated about the issues and the candidates. At least in our area and state it appears voter turnout is another issue that needs focus. Should I be out with picket in hand on election day reminding folks to vote? I’ve never done any picketing, but wonder if that would work?

How was voter turnout in your area?

Feels like I’m way behind today with over 100 items on my RSS reader and a long to-do list, but I got in and voted early today. Fewest number of people I’ve ever seen at the polls. There were three, including me, at the local polling place (a church). I imagine more and more people are mailing in their votes for convenience but prefer to go to the polls.

As for how I voted? Pretty much across the board voted down every tax increase. I’m feeling taxed to death and tired of the mismanagement of money at the state and federal level. I also voted down all the extended terms for candidates. I prefer shorter terms for people in office over longer ones. There are times — like now — where I wish the President was a one term gig instead of two. Fresh faces needed.

Washington Ref. 67: Insurance companies vs. attorneys
The major issue on the ballot is Washington’s Ref. 67 where the insurance companies in the against camp are saying if passed will raise rates and the lawyers are saying is necessary to prevent insurance companies from not paying fair claims. Being it’s the four year anniversary of my wife and son being hit in the middle of the crosswalk, I can speak from firsthand experience on this issue. Her insurance claim was sizable. Her medical bills alone were in the tens of thousands and the original company which shall remain nameless originally offered less than the amount of medical bills to settle. My wife did consider getting an attorney at one point when things seemed to be at their worst in the claim but didn’t want to pay 30% or more of the settlement to them when she was the one who was being told even after surgery she might have to live the rest of her life with some amount of pain.

When it became clear my wife wasn’t getting better and surgery was imminent the woman who hit her insurance company did the right thing and paid the policy limits. Because the woman wasn’t adequately insured, we still needed to go under our own underinsured motorist coverage to get the rest of the medical bills paid.

Our own insurance company was very fair with my wife’s insurance settlement.

There really was never any negotiating, per se. The adjuster asked my wife what she wanted and she gave them a number. And after reviewing her thick file and realizing that she was still in pain after surgery, they gave her more. I realize there are cases where some people do not receive fair settlements from insurance companies, but that’s never been the case for us. It’s easy to point at the insurance company and say they are some big, evil organization, but the same could be said of big legal firms.

This is why I voted down Washington’s Ref. 67. I don’t need my premiums going up to pay more money out in claims. The insurance companies already get enough of our money and I believe they will treat us fair if/when we should ever need to use their service — as we did with my wife and son being hit in the middle of the crosswalk.

I’m still disappointed that the woman who hit them, and again she didn’t have enough insurance to pay for all the bills, was able to literally walk away without any requirement to pay back the money our insurance company paid us. She lives less than two blocks from our office and has never chosen to stop by and see how my wife was feeling and apologize for her gross negligence. How much does an apology cost? Please forgive me for repeating this complaint I made originally in May of this year.

Enough remembering an ugly incident in time, unless you want to comment on the mysteriousness of the woman’s behavior below, let’s get back to those touch screens.

Did you try touch screen voting today?
At the polls they offered me the option to try the new touch screen and I passed. Extremely unusual for me to pass on using new technology, but in this case I like the old fashioned paper ballots and ink. Perhaps my reservations over using electronic polling aren’t justified? Maybe I should try them next time?

For those readers who voted today, which method did you use to vote? If touch screen voting was an option did you use that? Why not?

Good “observation piece” as my friend darkmoon puts it who is one of the people behind the ConvergeSouth conference that just finished in Greensboro, North Carolina. I’ve never traveled to the states southeast of Chicago, IL so my comments at least in part in this post are based on looking at how the southern states vote historically in elections: predominantly red (Republican, 2004 election results below).

This logically suggests to me if/when I visit these places I’ll encounter a higher percentage of conservative-leaning people than liberals which are everywhere in this neck of the woods (greater Seattle area). Understood. If I travel to France, I’m probably going to run into a higher percentage of French speaking people. Travel to Mexico and Spanish speaking people will be in higher numbers. Got it.

Darkmoon writes:

Year after year, we always do damage control with people that diss the conference. Usually they’re from people that didn’t go to the conference but insist that there’s some unsaid political agenda. We invite people that use the technology to push their voice and thus fulfilling the vision of the conference. Yet somehow or another, people keep coming back to how it’s more left… and more progressive.. yadda yadda.

As someone who has criticized conferences in the past that I haven’t attended — for lack of perceived value, never for political reasons — I find this a curious subject. We all attend conferences for our own reasons expecting to get something out of them. Maybe it’s more business contacts, more contacts period. It certainly isn’t the WiFi at conferences, because most suck (hint: always bring your own EVDO). In my experience the hallways and networking are vastly more valuable than listening to most speakers, panels and breakout events.

But politics? Really?

Who goes to technical conferences with political agendas? Why? Who started this trend? Was it Chris Pirillo by inviting John Edwards to speak at his annual Gnomedex event? Why didn’t he invite a Republican to counter this? I’m guessing he didn’t have any Republicans who wanted to come? I just pinged him on Skype and asked if any Republicans ever approached him to speak at a tech conference? Maybe he’ll respond below, because he didn’t reply in time before this went to publish. (Update 1:19pm PST: Chris responded — only Edwards)

Recently Republican candidate Mitt Romney responded first to Techcrunch about doing a podcast interview. There were 76 comments, some of them containing some very good possible questions. That seems like a better forum to discuss tech-related political concerns than at a tech conference.

If I want to go to a political event, I’ll go to a rally not a tech conference. I’ll spend time at political websites and interacting at political forums, which is what I’ve been doing the last couple weeks. I’m not saying some new, interesting, cool technology behind a political site shouldn’t be covered at a tech conference, but I don’t go to a tech conference to get the soft or hard sell for a political party or individual candidate, do you?

According to darkmoon’s post, apparently some do.

At least some are very concerned about how partisan a conference is or isn’t and want to voice their frustration about it after the event has ended. When he first mentioned this to me in IRC, I was kind of surprised this was a big deal. Those who are freaking out over partisanship at tech conference planners should keep staying home and letting others go. Or form your own political conference with tech as a secondary focus maybe? Those who are planning TECH conferences should try their best, and darkmoon contends they do, to keep these TECH conferences as non-partisan as possible.

Every conference has their conflicts. As somebody who once was part of a conference that focused on the adult industry, the big deal there was webmistresses (female webmasters) not wanting to be treated like models (content). At those conferences the political concerns centered around 2257 laws. Understandably each type of conference has hot button issues. Easiest way to avoid them? Just tell people to check their hangups at the door or don’t come. And if they can’t follow these rules during the conference politely show them the door.

As for the people who bitch and moan that they aren’t coming? Listen, thank them for the feedback and try to integrate these suggestions into next year’s event if they are the prospective audience you wish to attend.

I’m not into guns personally but this one made me smile. It’s a bit creepy if your friends — and foes — don’t know you for having a twisted sense of humor, so caution advised.

It’s supposed to be for foe’s only, but friends or family might think see this bullet as a joke email. I normally dislike joke email, but personalized joke mail like this once in a great might make me smile. Update: Here’s an example of what the email looks like:

No to ban on assault weapons
And now let me be serious for a moment.

In case you were wondering, despite never owning a gun or being part of the NRA, I’m against a ban on assault weapons. Sorry for shoehorning in something political into a joke post, but at least one reader was curious why I’m against a ban on assault weapons and since I don’t write about guns very often, I figured this was an opportunity. I’m against more government encroachment on our constitutional rights almost 100%. I’m for less government, not more. I’m for fiscal responsibility in government.

And speaking of weapons, and going back to entertainment, Saw 4 this Friday in theaters everywhere.

What a strange post. Hey, it’s almost Halloween. Conveniently categorized in the 666 category.

Kept next to my desk is a $2 bill which to date I’ve always thought of as kind of a novelty.

If the U.S dollar value continues to slide then this $2 bill might move back into fashion someday — seriously. Washington economic consultant Charles McMillion calculates 20.5% of the US dollar’s value has decreased since October 2002. McMillion has his eye on the Australian dollar being possibly the next to pass the US dollar if the situation doesn’t change.

See the downward spiral of the US Dollar using the Yahoo currency converter.

via gulfnews.com:

During that five year period, the dollar is down 43.9 per cent against the euro, down 61.8 per cent against the Canadian dollar, down 10.2 per cent against the Chinese yuan, down 5.6 per cent against the Japanese yen, down 30.6 per cent against the British pound, and up 5.8 per cent against the Mexican peso.

Wow, we’re only gaining ground on the Mexican peso under the Bush administration? Now there’s something to hang your hat on, President Bush. When will somebody in the White House realize we can’t afford the Iraq war? Forget about revenge, nation rebuilding or whatever idealistic middle east fantasies we have, let’s pull the troops out of there ASAP and work on restoring financial stability on our own soil.

Looking over the 24 logos below for the 2008 presidential candidates, which logo do you like best? You can vote on the enlarged versions by clicking the logo you like the best at logovoting.com.

I’m attracted to the American flag, so +1 for Gravel, Hillary, Gore, Pataki, Kucinich and Colbert. Unless you’re photogenic, and most political candidates aren’t, don’t put your photo in your logo, score -5 for Gingrich and Thompson. The cartoon drawing of Thompson makes him look like he’s constipated. Quick, somebody send Thompson some Pepto Bismo.

I like the thought behind the sphere with a sun rising in the distance over the flag in Obama’s logo, but the sun should be yellow and the image is too small. Speaking of too small, Mitt Romney, dude. The text beneath Giuliani’s name is also unreadable. C’mon Mitt and Rudy, only the 18-24 demographic is going to be able to read that font size! Don’t forget the seniors and us 30- and 40-somethings with worsening vision.

I’m not sure what McCain, Tancredo, Edwards, Hagel, Biden, Hunter and the internet favorite Ron Paul are doing with those too simplistic logos. Huckabee’s logo looks like he’s running to be a window washer, not President. Richardson and Brownback must have had the same designer. Gilmore’s flag is off and he’s got too much happening there.

Who’s left? The red on white in Thompson’s logo is a bit hard on the eyes. Dodd? Looks like a license plate, not a logo. And why the two stars on each side with 2008 in the middle? Am I missing something here?

Politics completely aside, and going strictly off logo design attractiveness above, my top three favorites? Gore, Hillary and Gravel. Gore’s logo grabs me, unfortunately Gore has not announced he’s running. So since I’m voting for the Presidential candidate with the best logo I’m going with Hillary with Mike Gravel a close second (sorry Mike, the runner-up click doesn’t count). I’m probably most disappointed with Ron Paul’s and John Edwards’ logos, both of whom have many internet friends and should have been able to create something better.

Your vote for the best logo?
Once you click your choice, you’ll see the vote tallies. I won’t give away the leader as of this writing, but I will spoil that it wasn’t my choice. Now what do you think, which Presidential candidate has the best logo? And did you pick #1?