Parity Violation

If Al Gore hasn’t already decided, he should seriously consider running for president in 2008. You may think I’m crazy but think about it. He’s the only candidate who didn’t vote for the Iraq War. In fact, he came out against it. He gave an incredible speech about domestic spying and executive power(that’s a Real Video link so if it opens in quicktime or something, copy the URL and use Open Location in Real Player) which you should check out from C-span.org. He has bonafide national security credientials. He won more votes than Bush in 2000. He’ll have no Clinton fatigue issues – if anything there’s Clinton nostalagia.

Also, he’s not the same boring wooden personality he was in 2000. I think he would be the front-runner if he ran. I don’t think Hillary Clinton will run and if she does I don’t think she’d win either the nomination or the general. So, I say Run, Al, Run.

Well, for now at least comments are enabled. We’ll see how long they stay that way. I’ve taken some anti-spam measures. We’ll see if they work.

Recently I received an email that’s subject had “re:” in it but was not in fact in reply to any email I had sent. This got me wondering about proper Re: usage – and sent me searching for some authority on email ettiquete (or perhaps netiquette). Try googling re: subject line and you get a bunch of junk, btw.

Well, no authority other than the great Heinz Tschabitscher(I think that name is made up) has weighed in on the subject with the About.com post Re: is for Replies. Apparently in the old days of paper memorandum – Re: meant “Regarding.” So, the Re: line was like just the subject line. But as Heinz points out – email subject lines say subject right there, so a Re: for Regarding would be redundant.

I guess sometimes the paper world doesn’t translate to the internet age. this is reminding of some other argument I got into – where in email or on the web or whatever something meant something different than in the rest of reality. Can’t remember now though, but maybe it’ll come to me.