The score--- Me vs. Bike

5:00 pm--Trying to talk myself back onto the stationary bike this evening. The argument has been heated and included a lot of name calling. We'll see what happens. It is no longer surrounded by a 5 foot high wall of stuff, but the dust will take hours to shovel off. That may buy me an extra day reprieve.

6:05 pm- Score: Me-1, Bike- 0. My brain was against the bike. Then my "seat" piped up with a reminder of how uncomfortable it is to ride. Then the waistline spoke up and said that another winter like last without riding and a new wardrobe would be needed. Then the brain said that all funds for a new wardrobe have been budgeted for next year's trip to Europe. After much yelling and profanity, it was Bike -1, Me-0. But ha, ha! The tires are flat so no riding until I get a pump!! Take that Bike!!

6:50 pm- The bike is downstairs sniffling. I heard it whimper things about "not being appreciated" & "neglect". Upstairs the two "10 minute workout" videos are whispering hopefully, but they are in for a let down as well. They were all smiley and preening when they arrived a week ago. I had given the one a Netflicks trial and had committed myself to 5 nights a week. It worked as long as I knew I was using a "rental" slot to keep it. As soon as my personal copies showed, then "what's the rush?" The dance moves one is probably going to take slow-motion and several tries to even figure out the steps. That was an easy excuse to can it for awhile. I love it when they come with a built in reason why you can't readily use them! Tomorrow I have dinner plans after work and Friday, I'm going to my cousin's to help with the trick or treaters. I might be able to commit to getting the bike pump this weekend but that's all I can promise right now.

8:00--The Sirens that live in the pantry have begun their melodious song as they often do. They know that by mid-evening I'm weak and easily lured by tantalizing promises. They usually take the form of Tostitos, singing of their tasty, salty charms and how "healthy" & delectable they are with salsa: the savory sweetness of the tomatoes, the zesty bite of the peppers, the miraculous blending of their other-worldy deliciousness. If only I could put wax in my ears like Odysseus' men or be tied to my chair like Odysseus himself. But alas, as I sit there, usually watching tv, my ears unplugged and unguarded against their music, I suddenly realize I've made my way to them and have salsa in one hand and a bag of chips in the other. That's when the bike snickers from downstairs. It probably bribes them to sing. The more I fall victim to them, the sooner the bike knows I'll be back!

What constitutes a negative ad & how do we prevent them?

The last debate brought up the issue of the negative ads. I won't pretend here that I haven't chosen sides already. But that said, for me things REALLY get negative when the character attacks start. True, it would be great if a candidate only talked about their own campaign, their own plans and never once mentioned the opponent. I suppose that would constitute only "positive" ads. The downside to that of course is if the positive ads are only full of lies, then how does the truth get out there? And thus it starts. What I really wish was that each candidate could only comment on their own plans and themselves. If the other campaign (Candidate B) thought that there was misleading or erroneous info in that "positive ad" by Candidate A, they could pay a non-partisan, fact-checking group (FCG )to advertise the "inconsistencies". The FCG's could be agreed to in advance. The ad by the FCG would only address the incorrect or misleading info in Candiate A's ad. No comments about Candidate B or their plan. No comparing the two plans. No attacking Candiate A. Just, "This ad by Candidate A said this, but facts say that the following comment is incorrect, over-stated, misleading, whatever. That's it. Just like the news media has been doing after the debates. So-and-so said this number but it's that number.

Everyone from the Sunday Parade Magazine to Newsweek to the Wall Street Journal has been crunching the numbers and reviewing the claims. Why can't this be the way the ads are handled. Not candidate A & B attacking each other and repudiating each other's claims. I have hardly seen any ads from McCain that are really just about McCain. Even if I wanted to vote for McCain I've barely heard anything from his campaign that I would describe as "positive" ads. If Obama correcting the lies being told about him are negative ads, then perhaps Obama has spent a lot of money on negative ads. But a candidate having to restate his position and refute lies being told doesn't really count as a negative ad as far as I'm concerned. The Swiftboat ads were negative ads. Ads that attempt to link Obama to William Ayres and Acorn are negative ads. But I think this all is just the unfortunate way politics is handled. Next time around, I hope a candiate can ONLY talk about themselves. Can only talk about their programs and policies. Can NOT mention or even alude to their opposition. And the ads repudiating has to come from an FCG. If no one wants to spend their money on "correction" ads, they don't have to. But they can't do it themselves. Just a thought.