Bush supporters point guns at Kerry supporters and try (again) to steal Florida - meanwhile, Ohio does all it can to *not* count votes

I heard Jerry Springer speak today. It was mostly about him wanting to be governor of Ohio (in 2006) and his plans for the state. I'll say, in the last week I got to hear Edward Norton and Jerry Springer. (He looks a lot older in person that I expected. Then again, he said that he was over 60 so that can't be that much of a surprise.)

Oh my gosh. A Bush supporter pointed a gun to the head of a Kerry supporter. That is frightening.

And before the election even starts, Bush is ahead of Kerry. Guess that's what happens when your brother is governor??

And why are they giving provisional ballots if they don't count? Why bother? Here's my concern with provisional ballots. I am voting at a school down the street. EXCEPT - TODAY the street closed for 6 weeks. We can't drive on the street. So in order to vote, everyone will have to WALK there. I don't get it. Why not close the street in a week from today?? I obviously don't need to point out that I live in a largely democratic area...but seriously, my real concern is, where exactly can I vote? I literally have to walk down my street, then down the other street, then down the third street. It's about a mile. How many people are going to walk to vote? I hope that they open the street, but as they just open it today, it doesn't seem likely. It's weird.

I find it interesting reading about Republicans voting against Bush. "I have been a registered Republican since I first became eligible to vote. I've been an Air Force officer for 20 years, first on active duty and now in the reserves. I gladly voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and supported his battle to win the Cold War. If called to serve in Iraq, I would willingly do my duty for my country. You might think I'm a slam-dunk for the Republican ticket this year, but you'd be wrong. I backed John McCain in the 2000 primary, but I did not vote for George W. Bush and I'm even more opposed to him after seeing his performance over the past four years. I can't say I'm a big fan of John Kerry, but he's a smart guy and I'm willing to give him a chance because Bush has done such a bad job and shows so few signs of improvement that he doesn't deserve to get reelected. This letter explains why I'm voting against my Commander in Chief." Check here.

I can't believe that Boston swept the Cardinals. (Are they really America's Team?) Guess when they end the "curse" they do it in style. Oh, and when Jason said that Theo Epstein could sleep with anyone he wanted within a 250 mile radius of Boston, I'd actually expand that. He's "wicked" hot...



And because the Sox won, he was soaked in champagne. Yum...

Finally, I sent an email to several of advertisers concerning the Sinclear anti-Kerry broadcast. Reporting some of their email responses:

Yum Consumer Affairs: Thank you for taking the time to contract us to let us know your perspective about Sinclair Broadcasting's plans to air a controversial film. Please know that we had no plans to advertise on this program. We are very interested in quality television advertising and we encourage advertising on programs that reflect the positive image of our products.Thank you again for writing, we appreciate hearing from you. Yum! Consumer Relations

General Mills (as much as I support free speech...no more Cheerios for me): Thank you for contacting General Mills. Many consumers have written to share their views on this issue. Some have urged General Mills to use its influence as an advertiser to ensure that the media reports the news in an unbiased manner. Some have urged General Mills to continue advertising, and have threatened to withdraw support for our products if we alter our advertising plans. Passions run deep on both sides, particularly this close to an election. Whenever possible, General Mills does strive to preview the programs on which our advertising appears. We do so to assure that we do not advertise on programs inconsistent with the family-oriented nature of our products. This works well with entertainment programs produced and available for advance screening, but pre-screening of news broadcasts is usually not possible. Our view in this area is clear. We believe one of the fundamental elements of our society is the freedom of the press. Companies such as ours, in our view, should not attempt to influence, control or pre-empt the content of news through the leverage of advertising sponsorship. To do so would undermine that fundamental freedom. From time to time, any one of us as viewers may consider a particular news story to be inaccurate or imbalanced. News organizations do err. Judgment is not always well applied. One major news organization recently acknowledged that errors were made in stories relating to the current presidential election. When such errors occur, certainly a price is paid in terms of reputation. But errors and questionable judgment are an acceptable price to pay, in our view, to assure the presence of a free and independent media in our society. As viewers, each of us is free to make a choice. We can choose to patronize or not patronize programs with our viewership. We can choose to patronize or not patronize particular television stations, or even entire networks. Similarly, advertisers may choose not to sponsor certain broadcasts, a particular network or specific publications because of their journalistic standards and judgment. But advertisers should not attempt to control or pre-empt news programming prior to broadcast or publication. That, in our view, would be inappropriate. In this instance, as in the example cited earlier, passionate voices are calling on advertisers to insert themselves into the election by threatening to boycott those who remove or who do not remove their advertising. We choose to stand with freedom of the press. We welcome the views that you and others have shared with us. You may rest assured that we will remind the networks we sponsor that the integrity of their reporting reflects on the companies that advertise during their broadcasts. Hopefully, you will understand our views – and the importance we place on a free press. Again, thank you for taking the time to contact us and share your views. Sincerely, General Mills

Some poor small local business that was just included: To whom it may concern, it is simply amazing the response I have gotten from all over the country in regards to the Sinclair program to be shown. To be listed with the likes of "Arby's, Circuit City and U.S. Cellular, I am wondering if the budget I have spent with channels 18/24 in Milwaukee is to much. I can only imagine that these company's had to spend in the millions to get your attention and Rank & Son has a budget less than $800.00 per month. WOW, talk about getting out to the people! That might sound a little sarcastic, but I am trying to make a point. We are a small metro car dealership in Milwaukee and some how got on this list of company's that literally spend millions. ...

Iams: Dear Concerned Consumer: Thanks for contacting us about Sinclair Broadcast Group's plans to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal." We haven't reviewed the content of this program, nor would we advertise in it. One of our guiding principles is that we don't advertise in programs where there is expression for or against a given political candidate. The way we spend our advertising dollar is important to us. For most TV programming, we're able to review the content on a show by show basis before making any advertising decisions. You may see some of our commercials air on the Sinclair Broadcast Group's network during shows that we've already agreed to appear in. The networks also have control over TV programming and can choose to preempt regularly scheduled programming with different programs, such as this one. We appreciate your comments and I'm sharing them with those responsible for television sponsorship. Sincerely, Marilinn Iams Consumer Care, North America

Just thought I'd put out there the opinions of some advertisers.