Thursday, August 30, 2007
Oh! Frabjous Day, Callooh, Callay!
Paradise, I have found thee, and thy name is 'Nestle Signature Treasures Dark Chocolate with Caramel Truffle'.
*clap* *clap* *clap* *clap* Deep In The Heart Of Texas
In a slightly misleadlingly-titled post ("Executing The Innocent", when there is no real doubt that the man in question was guilty of the charges against him) Matt Yglesias rails against the habit, in Texas, of giving criminals the death penalty for so-called felony murder charges, when the person in question is an accomplice to a murder, but did not actually kill anyone.
The Houston Chronicle has since reported that Texas Governor Rick Perry, in a display of liberal namby-pambyishness that former Executioner-In-Chief George W. Bush would undoubtedly decry, has decided to commute the sentence to life in prison. This seems like a pretty reasonable outcome, all told, and one of those reasons that you elect sensible people who, you know, understand and care about what's going on around them.
The death penalty is a tricky question. I am, in theory, in favor of it. I believe that there are crimes which are so awful, so heinous, that the death of the guilty party is the only just outcome. However, the penalty portion of the criminal justice system in the US is, well, criminally unjust. the crack/powder cocaine disparity. The disparity between the indictment-to-trial rates for whites and minorities, the disparity between conviction rates of whites and minorities, and imprisonment rates for said populations. The number of people sentenced to death who were later, through DNA evidence, shown to be altogether not guilty of the crimes for which they were sentenced.
In the end, on the question of the death penalty, I come to the same conclusion that I do for many conservative ideals: in a better world, or at least a world filled with better people, it's a fine idea. In the world we actually live in, it just doesn't work right, and needs to be scrapped.
The Houston Chronicle has since reported that Texas Governor Rick Perry, in a display of liberal namby-pambyishness that former Executioner-In-Chief George W. Bush would undoubtedly decry, has decided to commute the sentence to life in prison. This seems like a pretty reasonable outcome, all told, and one of those reasons that you elect sensible people who, you know, understand and care about what's going on around them.
The death penalty is a tricky question. I am, in theory, in favor of it. I believe that there are crimes which are so awful, so heinous, that the death of the guilty party is the only just outcome. However, the penalty portion of the criminal justice system in the US is, well, criminally unjust. the crack/powder cocaine disparity. The disparity between the indictment-to-trial rates for whites and minorities, the disparity between conviction rates of whites and minorities, and imprisonment rates for said populations. The number of people sentenced to death who were later, through DNA evidence, shown to be altogether not guilty of the crimes for which they were sentenced.
In the end, on the question of the death penalty, I come to the same conclusion that I do for many conservative ideals: in a better world, or at least a world filled with better people, it's a fine idea. In the world we actually live in, it just doesn't work right, and needs to be scrapped.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
I Don't Know What You Call It, But I Don't Like It
Watching the diavlog between Will 'Craftsman' Wilkinson (he's a libertarian tool, but a high quality tool, unlike, say, Megan 'Stanley' McArdle) and Brian Doherty, I'm curious to know what one calls a circle-jerk when there's only two guys involved in it. Because that is most clearly what this was. Two reflexive libertarians congratulating each other for being much smarter than everybody else. The historical parts of the discussion were quite interesting, but the policy portions of the talk were less than uninformative - I am pretty sure I actually know less in this regard than before I listened.
And did Brian really claim that the popular perception is that programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are on their death beds? I think he did...
And did Brian really claim that the popular perception is that programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are on their death beds? I think he did...
New Photos
Hooray! A night in finally gave me the time to do some photoshopping and photopicking, and I got some of my favorites up on Flickr.
You can find my photo page here.
You can find pictures from the eclipse here.
You can find pictures from the motorcycle trip here.
And, finally, you can find the pictures of the baby robins which were born just outside my house here. A little explanation is owed: sometime on the 23rd, suddenly there was only one baby left in the nest. I never saw a dead one, but any of a thousand things could have happened. My best guess is either a squirrel or a crow pulled it out of the nest, although neither could have easily gotten there based on where it was located.
Anyhow, I mourned the disappearance of little Mina, but fortunately Martin was left. He grew quite quickly and sometime between the afternoon of the 29th and the morning of the 30th he disappeared, presumably flown into the wild blue yonder. I have not seen anyone in the nest since. I will leave it there and hopefully we'll get a new brood next spring.
You can find my photo page here.
You can find pictures from the eclipse here.
You can find pictures from the motorcycle trip here.
And, finally, you can find the pictures of the baby robins which were born just outside my house here. A little explanation is owed: sometime on the 23rd, suddenly there was only one baby left in the nest. I never saw a dead one, but any of a thousand things could have happened. My best guess is either a squirrel or a crow pulled it out of the nest, although neither could have easily gotten there based on where it was located.
Anyhow, I mourned the disappearance of little Mina, but fortunately Martin was left. He grew quite quickly and sometime between the afternoon of the 29th and the morning of the 30th he disappeared, presumably flown into the wild blue yonder. I have not seen anyone in the nest since. I will leave it there and hopefully we'll get a new brood next spring.
Dog Tales
I don't remember if I've mentioned that there are now two dogs in residence at The Official House. Two weeks ago, my new roommate Molly showed up from North Carolina, with her yellow lab mix Turtle in tow. Not literally, she was actually sitting in the back seat. But you know what I mean. Simon, The Official Dog of The Consistent Fool, is the chocolate lab on the left in the picture below, Turtle is the one on the right.
It's been great having two dogs in the house. They exhaust each other. They have been a little rough on any stuffed animal toy that Simon once owned (a small piece of debris from such a play session can be seen in the photo). But, all-in-all, having to replace some stuffed animals with some harder toys seems like a totally fair trade to Simon having a best friend in the house all the time.
Tonight, however, was a bit of an adventure. Just before I got home from work, Simon got into Turtle's food bag, which Molly had left in her open closet. She found him with his head buried in it, with paper shreds and food bits all over the floor. Sadly, she cleaned up before I thought to take pictures. Anyhow, you could literally feel the swelling of his stomach, he had eaten so much.
So I've spent all night awaiting the inevitable upchuck (note to self: The Inevitable Upchuck would be a great name for my death-metal band or an Ultimate team. Score!) and, mostly, hoping that it would happen on a hard surface instead of the carpet, which is definitely Simon's vomit medium of preference.
Well, I am happy to report that he just let loose an unholy belch, followed by an equally unholy pile of barely-digested kibble all over my nice tile basement floor. Which I did think to take a picture of, then realized that that would be gross.
I love a story with a happy ending.
It's been great having two dogs in the house. They exhaust each other. They have been a little rough on any stuffed animal toy that Simon once owned (a small piece of debris from such a play session can be seen in the photo). But, all-in-all, having to replace some stuffed animals with some harder toys seems like a totally fair trade to Simon having a best friend in the house all the time.
Tonight, however, was a bit of an adventure. Just before I got home from work, Simon got into Turtle's food bag, which Molly had left in her open closet. She found him with his head buried in it, with paper shreds and food bits all over the floor. Sadly, she cleaned up before I thought to take pictures. Anyhow, you could literally feel the swelling of his stomach, he had eaten so much.
So I've spent all night awaiting the inevitable upchuck (note to self: The Inevitable Upchuck would be a great name for my death-metal band or an Ultimate team. Score!) and, mostly, hoping that it would happen on a hard surface instead of the carpet, which is definitely Simon's vomit medium of preference.
Well, I am happy to report that he just let loose an unholy belch, followed by an equally unholy pile of barely-digested kibble all over my nice tile basement floor. Which I did think to take a picture of, then realized that that would be gross.
I love a story with a happy ending.
The Yuck Factor
I saw a piece on the Today show this morning that they have totally revamped the guidelines for CPR. For nonprofessional, single-person CPR, the new recommendation is chest compressions only, 100 per minute. This is in contrast to the old guidelines, which had alternating chest compressions and mouth-to-mouth breaths, with the ratios of each varying for infants, children, and adults.
Apparently, there was a serious 'yuck factor', and I believe I heard the statistic that 80% of people trained in CPR claimed that they would not do mouth-to-mouth with a total stranger.
All I can say to this is that I cannot wait for the revolution to come, if we have really become a country where 80% of people would not risk the small chance of picking up a cold, or the incredibly miniscule chance of picking up something more serious and less treatable, to possible save the life of a fellow human being. The whole things leaves a bad taste in my mouth, pun not intended.
Apparently, there was a serious 'yuck factor', and I believe I heard the statistic that 80% of people trained in CPR claimed that they would not do mouth-to-mouth with a total stranger.
All I can say to this is that I cannot wait for the revolution to come, if we have really become a country where 80% of people would not risk the small chance of picking up a cold, or the incredibly miniscule chance of picking up something more serious and less treatable, to possible save the life of a fellow human being. The whole things leaves a bad taste in my mouth, pun not intended.
Discussions I Could Not Be Paid To Enter
Wow, I am not touching the material surrounding this comment thread at Ezra's with a 30-foot-pole. I'm not that old, but I've been around the block enough times to know that the question 'What Is Rape?' has nothing but bad, bad answers.
Oh Hypnos, Ye Art Mine Bitch
In another front in the continuing War On Sleep (I think it has a much better ring to it than The Terrorist's War On Us, or whatever crackpots are calling it these days), I have decided to continue trying to catch all the nighttime astronomical phenomena this summer. So, after staying up until after 2 to watch meteors a few weeks ago, I'm now awake at 2 in the morning to go watch the lunar eclipse.
I tried to get photos of the meteors, but of course failed miserably to get anything but blurry sky images. I'm assuming that the moon should be much easier to get a good shot of. I'll be sure to post a good pic.
I tried to get photos of the meteors, but of course failed miserably to get anything but blurry sky images. I'm assuming that the moon should be much easier to get a good shot of. I'll be sure to post a good pic.
Monday, August 27, 2007
One Movie I'll Definitely Be Watching This Summer
See, I know it'll be funny, because it has the word 'Balls' in the title.
Famous Body Parts?
Okay, this is just strange. Hopefully it really is just an excuse to show a cheesecake shot of Sharapova's legs. Although noting 'Zidane's Forehead' is pretty funny, too.
I have two I would like to add to the list, in honor of the upcoming NFL season. One is 'Fred Taylor's Groin', which for several years was the death knell of many a good fantasy team. The other is 'Larry Johnson's ACL', in a premonition of sorts about the upcoming season. Pace The Sports Guy, I wish there was a place I could gamble on things like 'sometime during weeks 2-6 of the season, Larry Johnson's ACL will rip so violently that a piece of it will shoot out of his knee and slap into the face of the umpire so hard that he will lose an eye and be on NFL disability forever.'
If I were LJ, I would have held out the season for anything less than about 30 million in guaranteed money, since it's pretty much guaranteed that this is his last season in the NFL. After something like 730 carries over the last two seasons, history would say that, at this point, his career is being counted down in terms of weeks, not months or years.
I have two I would like to add to the list, in honor of the upcoming NFL season. One is 'Fred Taylor's Groin', which for several years was the death knell of many a good fantasy team. The other is 'Larry Johnson's ACL', in a premonition of sorts about the upcoming season. Pace The Sports Guy, I wish there was a place I could gamble on things like 'sometime during weeks 2-6 of the season, Larry Johnson's ACL will rip so violently that a piece of it will shoot out of his knee and slap into the face of the umpire so hard that he will lose an eye and be on NFL disability forever.'
If I were LJ, I would have held out the season for anything less than about 30 million in guaranteed money, since it's pretty much guaranteed that this is his last season in the NFL. After something like 730 carries over the last two seasons, history would say that, at this point, his career is being counted down in terms of weeks, not months or years.
Don't Worry, Once We Release The Apple iBrain, You Won't Even Think About It Anymore
It sounds like young Ezra's brand new Powerbook laptop has gone kaput. Oh, the humanity!
I am an anti-Macist. I disdain the form-over function motif, although I certainly appreciate the way Apple drives products forward and price points down, as other companies build nearly-equivalent products which they then sell for half the price after Apple proves how it can be done. So I have little sympathy for Ezra and his implicit assumption that, because he bought an Apple product, it was automatically going to work better. Laptops are a hit-and-miss category, which is why they're the only electronic component I will buy an extended warranty for.
I'm also reminded of one of the most brilliant ideas of all time, the Apple iProduct.
I am an anti-Macist. I disdain the form-over function motif, although I certainly appreciate the way Apple drives products forward and price points down, as other companies build nearly-equivalent products which they then sell for half the price after Apple proves how it can be done. So I have little sympathy for Ezra and his implicit assumption that, because he bought an Apple product, it was automatically going to work better. Laptops are a hit-and-miss category, which is why they're the only electronic component I will buy an extended warranty for.
I'm also reminded of one of the most brilliant ideas of all time, the Apple iProduct.
George, The Ocean Called...
After my review yesterday of Stardust, I had a classic l'esprit d'escalier moment with my line about not having a soul, which was something along the lines of 'and you're a Republican, right?' A Republican would have to be pro-Humperdink, yes? Think of all the info we could have gotten out of Khalid Sheik Muhammed with Count Ruggen's Machine!
For those not getting the title or the reference, l'esprit d'escalier literally means 'the wisdom of the staircase'. It's in reference to that absolutely killer joke or line you think of ten minutes too late for it to be topical or funny. Like schadenfreude, it's one of those things that everyone understands, and yet english lacks a term for.
There's a classic Seinfeld episode where, at a meeting, George is pigging out on shrimp. A guy at the meeting makes the joke 'George, the ocean called. They're running out of shrimp!' Of course it kills because, you know, George is fat, so it's funny. George has a l'esprit d'escalier moment when he comes up with the joke 'Well, the jerk store called, and they're running out of you!' Suffice to say, when he finally, through machinations too complicated to relate, gets to give his rejoinder, it falls appropriately flat on its face. I just realized this link this morning.
I always knew Seinfeld was secretly a French show. After all, a show quite famously 'about nothing' has to have something in common with the originating country of existential philosophy and absurdist cinema, right?
For those not getting the title or the reference, l'esprit d'escalier literally means 'the wisdom of the staircase'. It's in reference to that absolutely killer joke or line you think of ten minutes too late for it to be topical or funny. Like schadenfreude, it's one of those things that everyone understands, and yet english lacks a term for.
There's a classic Seinfeld episode where, at a meeting, George is pigging out on shrimp. A guy at the meeting makes the joke 'George, the ocean called. They're running out of shrimp!' Of course it kills because, you know, George is fat, so it's funny. George has a l'esprit d'escalier moment when he comes up with the joke 'Well, the jerk store called, and they're running out of you!' Suffice to say, when he finally, through machinations too complicated to relate, gets to give his rejoinder, it falls appropriately flat on its face. I just realized this link this morning.
I always knew Seinfeld was secretly a French show. After all, a show quite famously 'about nothing' has to have something in common with the originating country of existential philosophy and absurdist cinema, right?
What's Bad For Alberto Gonzales Is Good For America
Hot off the presses, the news that Alberto Gonazles has tendered his resignation as Attorney General of the United States.
There's really not much to say here. I'm sure there are political ramification. For what it's worth, they're probably bad for Democrats; it's 14 months for the short-minded American populace to forget that the Republicans were the party which supported this utter assclown (in the inimitable words of Kathy G.) However, I'm only a moderately partisan fellow. I'd much rather see Republicans doing the right thing, now, then have to wait another year and a half until Obama finally takes the reins of power in January '09. So it's good to see the right thing happening even if, as seems to be the case with almost everything this administration does, it's half as much as should be done, and took them twice as long (or more) to get to that point.
There's really not much to say here. I'm sure there are political ramification. For what it's worth, they're probably bad for Democrats; it's 14 months for the short-minded American populace to forget that the Republicans were the party which supported this utter assclown (in the inimitable words of Kathy G.) However, I'm only a moderately partisan fellow. I'd much rather see Republicans doing the right thing, now, then have to wait another year and a half until Obama finally takes the reins of power in January '09. So it's good to see the right thing happening even if, as seems to be the case with almost everything this administration does, it's half as much as should be done, and took them twice as long (or more) to get to that point.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Drugs!
Speaking of my weekend rant on my love for the imminent world of drugged-up Supermen, Faithful Reader D.C. found an article from Popular Science discussing the new world of these stimulants.
The article includes the names of some of the currently available drugs in this class, adderall and modanifil. Using these, I was able to locate the Slate article which I referenced on Saturday. I like it more than the PopSci article, because it's written by someone who actually took the drug (although I was misremembering some of the details) and talks about, first-person, what it's like to be taking them. Check it out. And send me some Adderall...
The article includes the names of some of the currently available drugs in this class, adderall and modanifil. Using these, I was able to locate the Slate article which I referenced on Saturday. I like it more than the PopSci article, because it's written by someone who actually took the drug (although I was misremembering some of the details) and talks about, first-person, what it's like to be taking them. Check it out. And send me some Adderall...
Movie Recommendations
Okay, I'm going to go without a seriously review here, I'm only going to say that that you need to go see Stardust.
Seriously. If you liked the Princess Bride, you need to stop reading, click on the link, buy some tickets and go see it. You won't regret it. It's the Princess Bride for Generation Z Prime, or whatever the hell they're calling kids who are 7 or 8 years old right now.
If you didn't like the Princess Bride, I only have one question for you: were you born without a soul, or did you lose it in some sort of horrible industrial accident?
Seriously. If you liked the Princess Bride, you need to stop reading, click on the link, buy some tickets and go see it. You won't regret it. It's the Princess Bride for Generation Z Prime, or whatever the hell they're calling kids who are 7 or 8 years old right now.
If you didn't like the Princess Bride, I only have one question for you: were you born without a soul, or did you lose it in some sort of horrible industrial accident?
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Gooooo Democracy!
This is about right. Surely many of you have heard of the Republican-backed attempt to install a new format in California for distributing their electors on a district-by-district basis. While the idea is not, in and of itself, horrible, the fact that the Republicans are trying to pass it only in one of the safest Democratic stronghold reeks of partisan chicanery. It's a not-very-subtle attempt to ensure that Democrats, already disadvantaged by the Electoral College system, basically face an impossible hill in the attempt to win the presidency.
I'm generally in favor of the plan discussed in the piece I linked to at the top. It would require states to give their electors to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of who won that state's votes. In the bill is language ensuring it only goes into effect once enough states to represent 270 electoral votes have signed up.
The standard rejoinder against these types of arguments is that it leaves small states out in the cold. To which I say, so the fuck what? States without people should not have disproportionately large representation. It's enough of a fucking joke that America, mother of democracy, is home to the US Senate, the single most undemocratic institution in the Western world. That we double down on the problem in the election of our president just makes it worse.
For those not in the know, the short version of the argument goes like this: every state is given electors based on the combined # of Senators and Representatives that it has in the US Senate and House. But all states have a minimum of 3 electors, since everyone gets exactly 2 senators, from Alaska's nearly sub-zero population to California's "we are the 8th largest economy in the world." So states with small populations, which are predominantly so-called red states, have disproportionately large influence in the electoral college system.
Unfortunately, they also have incredibly disproportionately large influence in the Senate, which means that no meaningful fixes to this system will ever come from the federal government. To wit, these things are going to have to start in the states.
And so, The Consistent Fool is throwing all of his not-entirely-insignificant behind the National Popular Vote Plan. Go call your Senator.
I'm generally in favor of the plan discussed in the piece I linked to at the top. It would require states to give their electors to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of who won that state's votes. In the bill is language ensuring it only goes into effect once enough states to represent 270 electoral votes have signed up.
The standard rejoinder against these types of arguments is that it leaves small states out in the cold. To which I say, so the fuck what? States without people should not have disproportionately large representation. It's enough of a fucking joke that America, mother of democracy, is home to the US Senate, the single most undemocratic institution in the Western world. That we double down on the problem in the election of our president just makes it worse.
For those not in the know, the short version of the argument goes like this: every state is given electors based on the combined # of Senators and Representatives that it has in the US Senate and House. But all states have a minimum of 3 electors, since everyone gets exactly 2 senators, from Alaska's nearly sub-zero population to California's "we are the 8th largest economy in the world." So states with small populations, which are predominantly so-called red states, have disproportionately large influence in the electoral college system.
Unfortunately, they also have incredibly disproportionately large influence in the Senate, which means that no meaningful fixes to this system will ever come from the federal government. To wit, these things are going to have to start in the states.
And so, The Consistent Fool is throwing all of his not-entirely-insignificant behind the National Popular Vote Plan. Go call your Senator.
Oh Cursed Sleep, Harbringer Of Doom
I have absolutely nothing interesting to say right now, but I feel like I should point out that I think the single biggest challenge facing humanity and holding us back from our rightful place among the stars, much more than global warming or intercultural conflict, is the human need for sleep.
I got just about 8 hours last night, and damn I feel good. This pisses me off, goddammit. We can put a man on the moon, we have probed to the earliest hours of the universe and to the sub-sub-atomic level. But I still need to spend 1/3 of my life lying in a dark room, drooling into a soft object made of memory foam, in order to feel perfect? Ridiculous.
Slate did a human guinea pig column a few years ago about somebody taking a new experimental drug for ADD. Turns out that this drug, much more than Ritalin, is capable of not just moving somebody who lacks the ability to focus naturally into the normal range, it's also capable of taking someone who lacks any particular psychological problems and increasing their ability to focus far beyond the norm.
The column was quite striking - the guy (I believe it was a guy) started writing more, in less time. Sleeping less, to the tune of 3ish hours less a night than he previously needed. He was able to sit at the computer and block out the universe; he felt like a superwriter, although I think he said that his writing lacked a certain flair and personality and was slightly more robotic-feeling.
All I can say is, in the immortal words of John Kerry: Bring. It. On. I hope they start lacing the water supply with this stuff.
I got just about 8 hours last night, and damn I feel good. This pisses me off, goddammit. We can put a man on the moon, we have probed to the earliest hours of the universe and to the sub-sub-atomic level. But I still need to spend 1/3 of my life lying in a dark room, drooling into a soft object made of memory foam, in order to feel perfect? Ridiculous.
Slate did a human guinea pig column a few years ago about somebody taking a new experimental drug for ADD. Turns out that this drug, much more than Ritalin, is capable of not just moving somebody who lacks the ability to focus naturally into the normal range, it's also capable of taking someone who lacks any particular psychological problems and increasing their ability to focus far beyond the norm.
The column was quite striking - the guy (I believe it was a guy) started writing more, in less time. Sleeping less, to the tune of 3ish hours less a night than he previously needed. He was able to sit at the computer and block out the universe; he felt like a superwriter, although I think he said that his writing lacked a certain flair and personality and was slightly more robotic-feeling.
All I can say is, in the immortal words of John Kerry: Bring. It. On. I hope they start lacing the water supply with this stuff.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Let Me Count The Ways
Good to see the New York Times calling for an end to the silliness of blaming Nouri al-Maliki for not being able to personally end the strife and struggle in Iraq.
Maybe it's just because it's Cynical Friday (it's true-check your calendars!) but I feel like we've been around this merry-go-round one or five times before. I don't really see how getting stuck in an argument about whether or not this specific person is the right one for the job of leading Iraq is really going to get us anywhere. I guess the point is that, since the war supporters are going to keep coming up with ridiculous things to say (Let the surge finish! See, less killings in Anbar! It's Sadr's fault! It's al Qaeda! Wait until September! It's al-Maliki!), you have no choice but to keep refuting them one-by-one.
But maybe that's not true. I lived through, but certainly don't remember, the TV debates between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. But my understanding is that one of Reagan's amazing strengths was, by look or word, making it sound like Carter was just spouting complete nonsense (specifically, the 'there you go again' tact.) There was an article in Time recently talking about the way that brand recognition, which is implemented via repetition, is more important than substance when people are deciding what they like. In this case, kids preferred chicken nuggets from a McDonalds bag to the identical chicken nuggets from a generic package.
Surely, there is something that the anti-war forces could come up with to say which was generic, applied to every bullshit formulation they came up with, and happened to have the advantage of being true. Then, every time you're confronted with one of these ridiculous tropes, you could just spout off the generic response. Soon enough it becomes part of the national lexicon and the rather absurd nature of all the pro-war rationales would become apparent.
I'm not a wordsmith, so I don't claim to have any idea of how to come up with such a phrase. But surely if, several times a day, some Dem or anti-war said something like "This is just another excuse to distract you from the fact that no political progress has been or will be made in Iraq. The US military, while extremely competent, cannot stop 700 years of burning hatred. Our presence in Iraq is, at best, postponing a catastrophe that will happen whenever we leave, whether it be tomorrow, next year, or next decade. Meanwhile we are expending our most precious resources, the blood of our finest, in pursuit of a goal which has been 'just 6 months away' for 5 years now. When is enough enough?"
Maybe it's just because it's Cynical Friday (it's true-check your calendars!) but I feel like we've been around this merry-go-round one or five times before. I don't really see how getting stuck in an argument about whether or not this specific person is the right one for the job of leading Iraq is really going to get us anywhere. I guess the point is that, since the war supporters are going to keep coming up with ridiculous things to say (Let the surge finish! See, less killings in Anbar! It's Sadr's fault! It's al Qaeda! Wait until September! It's al-Maliki!), you have no choice but to keep refuting them one-by-one.
But maybe that's not true. I lived through, but certainly don't remember, the TV debates between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. But my understanding is that one of Reagan's amazing strengths was, by look or word, making it sound like Carter was just spouting complete nonsense (specifically, the 'there you go again' tact.) There was an article in Time recently talking about the way that brand recognition, which is implemented via repetition, is more important than substance when people are deciding what they like. In this case, kids preferred chicken nuggets from a McDonalds bag to the identical chicken nuggets from a generic package.
Surely, there is something that the anti-war forces could come up with to say which was generic, applied to every bullshit formulation they came up with, and happened to have the advantage of being true. Then, every time you're confronted with one of these ridiculous tropes, you could just spout off the generic response. Soon enough it becomes part of the national lexicon and the rather absurd nature of all the pro-war rationales would become apparent.
I'm not a wordsmith, so I don't claim to have any idea of how to come up with such a phrase. But surely if, several times a day, some Dem or anti-war said something like "This is just another excuse to distract you from the fact that no political progress has been or will be made in Iraq. The US military, while extremely competent, cannot stop 700 years of burning hatred. Our presence in Iraq is, at best, postponing a catastrophe that will happen whenever we leave, whether it be tomorrow, next year, or next decade. Meanwhile we are expending our most precious resources, the blood of our finest, in pursuit of a goal which has been 'just 6 months away' for 5 years now. When is enough enough?"
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Poetic Waxings On The Joy Of The Monthly
So, in the wake of my acquisition of a fantastically wonderful new laptop (thanks Dad!) I have, finally, canceled my subscription to the Denver paper. I have been realizing more and more often that I have continued to read it, but it's been a more and more joyless experience. Don't know quite why, but I think it's because I'm just at the point where I get most of my news online. I surf the front page of NYTimes.com and CNN.com at least 2 or 3 times a day, and if there's really important news out there, one of the bloggers I read will link to it. So, really, I was paying $6 a month (admittedly, not very much) for the joy of reading the same stories I would be reading otherwise, only on paper and gathered together on the whim of some editor whose priorities I almost certainly don't agree with. And wasting a lot of trees in the process.
Now, with the laptop, I can read the front page of the Times over my eggs if I want.
I have also decided that, sometimes, you just need an actual physical object to read. I've been an on-and-off subscriber to various monthlies over the years. I had a subscription to The New Republic for a while, but they are just too batshit crazy to pay money to. I loved The Economist, but there literally was not enough time in the week to chew through it all, and I'm not a good enough prioritizer to skim something so...interesting. "What's this, an article on the real estate market in Budapest? Fascinating!"
I have settled, for the moment, on The Atlantic. Firstly, they employ Ross and Matt, two bloggers I have much esteem for. Also, the fact that they employ good people from both sides of the spectrum means I should be getting some interesting, equally left- and right-biased pieces, which is all you can ask for. Much more useful than TNR, which gives you either cookie-cutter liberal pieces, or wacky hawkish 'kill-em-all' pieces masquerading as liberal pieces. (Incidentally, for more on this, check out DJ Kathy G's rant over at Ezra's today. Holy cow, remind me never to say anything bad about that woman.)
Anyhow, so far so good. I'm two months in and very much enjoying it. The feature article in this month's was much-linked in the blogosphere, an article about Karl Rove and how he failed in setting off the seismic realignment of the American polity which has been his goal for 20-plus years. It came just before Rove's resignation last week, in a piece of very fortuitous timing.
The Rove piece is very interesting. Mostly, I'm just left agreeing with the author, Joshua Green's, thesis, which is that while Rove was a master political tactician, and quite incredible at winning elections, he was rather terrible at the actual act of enacting policy. For one thing, he had no understanding or respect for the way such things are done in Washington which, for better or worse, is part of the game that you have to play to get things done. For another, his preferred tactics, including labeling your opponents as traitors, don't work as well when your opponents are members of your own party (as in immigration reform.)
Although, one place Green doesn't go that I am incredibly concerned about is what this actually says about our political landscape. It's true that Rove is unique in American political history. In all likelihood, there will never be another adviser with quite as much power and influence, if only because it will be a long time, I hope, before America elects someone with so little interest in the actual workings of the government as W. However, it still remains the case that the skills necessary to get you elected in the modern American political environment are at best orthogonal, at worst diametrically opposed to the skills needed to run the country effectively.
I like to think that it's still possible to have a candidate capable of leading, both in politics and in policy. But I worry that it's becoming less likely every year.
Anyhow, the second article that I found most interesting was about the Air Force's B-2 squadron. Lots of fascinating tidbits, but the one I found most interesting was the fact that the squad's commander is Lt. Colonel Paul 'Nuke' Tibbets IV, grandson of Colonel Paul Tibbets, pilot of the Enola Gay, the plane which dropped the Little Boy atomic bomb on Hiroshima in 1945. Also, the fact that each of these planes costs upwards of 1 billion dollars, along with a maintenance crew of 155, to keep in the air. It takes one C-17 and four C-5 Galaxies to transport the maintenance crew and equipment around. That's, well, crazy. Cool, but crazy.
If future wars, as the article claims, are going to be fought primarily with forces similar in nature to the B-2's, we are in for a hell of a big defense budget on into the sunset...
Now, with the laptop, I can read the front page of the Times over my eggs if I want.
I have also decided that, sometimes, you just need an actual physical object to read. I've been an on-and-off subscriber to various monthlies over the years. I had a subscription to The New Republic for a while, but they are just too batshit crazy to pay money to. I loved The Economist, but there literally was not enough time in the week to chew through it all, and I'm not a good enough prioritizer to skim something so...interesting. "What's this, an article on the real estate market in Budapest? Fascinating!"
I have settled, for the moment, on The Atlantic. Firstly, they employ Ross and Matt, two bloggers I have much esteem for. Also, the fact that they employ good people from both sides of the spectrum means I should be getting some interesting, equally left- and right-biased pieces, which is all you can ask for. Much more useful than TNR, which gives you either cookie-cutter liberal pieces, or wacky hawkish 'kill-em-all' pieces masquerading as liberal pieces. (Incidentally, for more on this, check out DJ Kathy G's rant over at Ezra's today. Holy cow, remind me never to say anything bad about that woman.)
Anyhow, so far so good. I'm two months in and very much enjoying it. The feature article in this month's was much-linked in the blogosphere, an article about Karl Rove and how he failed in setting off the seismic realignment of the American polity which has been his goal for 20-plus years. It came just before Rove's resignation last week, in a piece of very fortuitous timing.
The Rove piece is very interesting. Mostly, I'm just left agreeing with the author, Joshua Green's, thesis, which is that while Rove was a master political tactician, and quite incredible at winning elections, he was rather terrible at the actual act of enacting policy. For one thing, he had no understanding or respect for the way such things are done in Washington which, for better or worse, is part of the game that you have to play to get things done. For another, his preferred tactics, including labeling your opponents as traitors, don't work as well when your opponents are members of your own party (as in immigration reform.)
Although, one place Green doesn't go that I am incredibly concerned about is what this actually says about our political landscape. It's true that Rove is unique in American political history. In all likelihood, there will never be another adviser with quite as much power and influence, if only because it will be a long time, I hope, before America elects someone with so little interest in the actual workings of the government as W. However, it still remains the case that the skills necessary to get you elected in the modern American political environment are at best orthogonal, at worst diametrically opposed to the skills needed to run the country effectively.
I like to think that it's still possible to have a candidate capable of leading, both in politics and in policy. But I worry that it's becoming less likely every year.
Anyhow, the second article that I found most interesting was about the Air Force's B-2 squadron. Lots of fascinating tidbits, but the one I found most interesting was the fact that the squad's commander is Lt. Colonel Paul 'Nuke' Tibbets IV, grandson of Colonel Paul Tibbets, pilot of the Enola Gay, the plane which dropped the Little Boy atomic bomb on Hiroshima in 1945. Also, the fact that each of these planes costs upwards of 1 billion dollars, along with a maintenance crew of 155, to keep in the air. It takes one C-17 and four C-5 Galaxies to transport the maintenance crew and equipment around. That's, well, crazy. Cool, but crazy.
If future wars, as the article claims, are going to be fought primarily with forces similar in nature to the B-2's, we are in for a hell of a big defense budget on into the sunset...
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
DJ Kathy G
A few weeks ago over at Ezra's, a commenter named Kathy G started posting incredibly interesting, well-argued pieces. I called for her to get a coveted spot as one of Ezra's guest bloggers when he was away on vacation. I'm happy to say that the people's (as defined by 'my') voice has been heard, and the inimitable Kathy G now speaks!
She has a fantastic post today about the completely inarguable case for universal Pre-K programs. You should read it. This is one of those issues where I guess it's good that we can make an economic argument, in that it seems like, between reduction in crime rates, high school dropout rates, teen pregnancy, and increased interest in education, community interest, etc. you get a 16-18% return on investment in these types of programs.
But, really, what kind of people are we if we have to resort to economic arguments to claim that the children of single working mothers should be given the opportunity for social interaction with adults and other children in safe, controlled environments?
Also, I do have a bit of an ulterior motive, as I posted what I feel was a pretty well-written comment to her post, which I will copy here for those too lazy to click over.
Kathy G,
She has a fantastic post today about the completely inarguable case for universal Pre-K programs. You should read it. This is one of those issues where I guess it's good that we can make an economic argument, in that it seems like, between reduction in crime rates, high school dropout rates, teen pregnancy, and increased interest in education, community interest, etc. you get a 16-18% return on investment in these types of programs.
But, really, what kind of people are we if we have to resort to economic arguments to claim that the children of single working mothers should be given the opportunity for social interaction with adults and other children in safe, controlled environments?
Also, I do have a bit of an ulterior motive, as I posted what I feel was a pretty well-written comment to her post, which I will copy here for those too lazy to click over.
Kathy G,
I have enjoyed your tenure as a guest-blogger so far, and am proud to have been (I think) the first to call for you to fill said role. However, I think you're being fairly naive with this:
But I also think we can get through to the market-oriented conservatives by making the economic, return-on-investment argument to them.
If the last 7 years have taught us nothing else, it should be that there really is no such thing as a "market-oriented conservative". There are people who use the language of market-orientation to call for government action to bring about their desired outcomes, and there are free-marketeer libertarians, who make up a small portion of the electorate, and an essentially nonexistent portion of the political elite.
For the second group, you are at best going to be able to achieve a tie, since you are fighting the counteracting impulses between increased economic returns and the instinct that the government can't do anything right.
For the first, you are in a lose-lose, as you are fighting for the right to let more women not have to stay home with their children, and you are promoting a program which would have an especially salutary effect on poor, single women with children, which will infuriate the 'responsibility' conservatives who, actual tenets of Christianity aside, are generally only interested in punishing this demographic for the very fact of their existence.
That said, I have enjoyed reading you so far, keep up the good work!
Monday, August 20, 2007
Yes, Virginia, There Is A Santa Claus
One good-ish piece of news out today, as word comes down that Michael Vick is going to be pleading guilty to several charges in association with dogfighting activities on his property.
I want to make some sort of semi-joke here, about an appropriate punishment involving the use of one of the 'rape stands' that were found on his property. But it's not really seemly to do so. If nothing else, Ezra has done a fine job of convincing me that the conditions in our prisons really are abominable, and that this has a significant social consequence. Nonetheless, it is good to see that even a bigwhig with a highfalutin' team of lawyers can get in trouble every once in a while when he really does wrong.
I want to make some sort of semi-joke here, about an appropriate punishment involving the use of one of the 'rape stands' that were found on his property. But it's not really seemly to do so. If nothing else, Ezra has done a fine job of convincing me that the conditions in our prisons really are abominable, and that this has a significant social consequence. Nonetheless, it is good to see that even a bigwhig with a highfalutin' team of lawyers can get in trouble every once in a while when he really does wrong.
A Bleg
One of Matthew Yglesias's funnier aphorisms is the concept of a 'bleg'. Generally speaking, it means 'using your blog to beg for something'. Now, usually he uses it to request free tickets to some alternacrap concert that he wants to go to. I am wanting something much more important: information about what my next mp3 player should be.
My current, very serviceable, one is in its death throes. I have now been through 2 attempted replacements and am wondering if you, Faithful Readers, might be able to help.
Specifically, I have 3 needs and 3 wants from a new player.
The needs are:
1) Must be 1GB or more capacity
2) Must bookmark on shutdown. That is, if you turn it off in the middle of a track, then turn it on, I want it to restart in the same place.
3) Must have at least 3 lines of text for file navigation.
The wants are:
1) Uses AAA batteries instead of Li ion rechargable
2) Has a USB plug built in rather than accepting a USB cable
3) Has a built-in FM radio
Also, you can assume that the #4 need is 'is not an iProduct.'
So, any advice?
My current, very serviceable, one is in its death throes. I have now been through 2 attempted replacements and am wondering if you, Faithful Readers, might be able to help.
Specifically, I have 3 needs and 3 wants from a new player.
The needs are:
1) Must be 1GB or more capacity
2) Must bookmark on shutdown. That is, if you turn it off in the middle of a track, then turn it on, I want it to restart in the same place.
3) Must have at least 3 lines of text for file navigation.
The wants are:
1) Uses AAA batteries instead of Li ion rechargable
2) Has a USB plug built in rather than accepting a USB cable
3) Has a built-in FM radio
Also, you can assume that the #4 need is 'is not an iProduct.'
So, any advice?
Josh Marshall's Pinky Finger
There was a very silly L.A. Times op-ed column this weekend deploring the rise and tone of the blogosphere. I'm not going to get into the particulars of it, because it was just very silly. But I will bring up the one line which is causing a lot of fuss this morning:
Finally, the author of this silliness decries in the blogosphere the lack of "the kind of journalism that makes a difference." Frankly, Josh Marshall has more reporting acumen and ability in his pinky finger than this guy has in his entire silly body, as well as the bodies of any silly children which may have sprung from his very silly loins. The fact that he doesn't any longer work at a mainstream media outlet doesn't alter this fact one whit.
"No man but a blockhead," the stubbornly sensible Samuel Johnson said, "ever wrote but for money." Yet here are people, whole brigades of them, happy to write for free. And not just write. Many of the most active bloggers -- Andrew Sullivan, Matthew Yglesias, Joshua Micah Marshall and the contributors to the Huffington Post -- are insistent partisans in political debate.You can see Marshall's followup here. I have two points to make: one, Andrew and Matt publish their blogs at the website of The Atlantic Monthly, which last time I checked was a subscription-based magazine. You know, subscriptions, those things where people pay money to read the things other people write? Josh Marshall raises money from his site; I know because I have directly donated to him in the past. And the Huffington Post is venture capital-funded with a paid staff. So basically this paragraph is just a bunch of poorly-sourced published lies. And this is what we need a mainstream media for?
Finally, the author of this silliness decries in the blogosphere the lack of "the kind of journalism that makes a difference." Frankly, Josh Marshall has more reporting acumen and ability in his pinky finger than this guy has in his entire silly body, as well as the bodies of any silly children which may have sprung from his very silly loins. The fact that he doesn't any longer work at a mainstream media outlet doesn't alter this fact one whit.
Spare The Pickax, Spoil The Survivor
I heard on NPR this morning that rescue efforts at the coal mine in Huntington, UT are slowly grinding to a halt, as there continues to be less and less evidence that the miners could have found a place with sufficient oxygen to survive for more than a few hours. The second cave-in late last week indicates that rescue efforts which would include actually drilling into the mine again are unsafe and unlikely to happen, and it appears likely that they are lost forever.
My heart goes out to the families of the survivors, especially in light of the fact that it seems almost guaranteed to me that the mine was not taking every imaginable precaution to protect these men working almost 2000 feet below the surface. It's especially galling to me that the major media outlets have simply let the mine's owner control the tone of the debate, reporting disagreements like whether or not the miners were doing 'retreat mining', wherein you actually plan on collapsing the mine behind you as you go, as they-said-he-said matters.
However, when I hear that the survivors are insistent that, even once the miners are given up for dead, rescue efforts continue, at any cost and with the continued risk of life and limb of the rescue workers, because they want to get out the bodies and hold proper burials, my sympathies run out. Let me get this straight...we need to spend millions to dig those bodies up out of the ground so that we can...bury them...in...the ground?
My heart goes out to the families of the survivors, especially in light of the fact that it seems almost guaranteed to me that the mine was not taking every imaginable precaution to protect these men working almost 2000 feet below the surface. It's especially galling to me that the major media outlets have simply let the mine's owner control the tone of the debate, reporting disagreements like whether or not the miners were doing 'retreat mining', wherein you actually plan on collapsing the mine behind you as you go, as they-said-he-said matters.
However, when I hear that the survivors are insistent that, even once the miners are given up for dead, rescue efforts continue, at any cost and with the continued risk of life and limb of the rescue workers, because they want to get out the bodies and hold proper burials, my sympathies run out. Let me get this straight...we need to spend millions to dig those bodies up out of the ground so that we can...bury them...in...the ground?
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Arts and Crafts reviews
Okay, I have a big list of topics I've been wanting to blog about. Many of them are reviews of books and movies I've read/seen this summer. But I know that I'm never going to actually get to blogging about all of these things, so it's time to start summarizing. In brief (spoilers included):
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Don't worry about how the sword gets into the hat. It's magic. The book should be 300 pages shorter and it would be awesome. As it is, we'll have to make due with the fact that it will probably make the best of the movies. In the hands of a semi-competent director who knows how to film a terse action scene, the scene in Godric's Hallow, the flight from Malfoy Mansion, and the heist from Gringott's will be fantastic, and the Battle of Hogwarts should be one of the most exciting action scenes of all time. Except, of course, for the ridiculous finale, where Harry plays the reverse-cliche bad guy by disclosing how he's going to win the fight against Voldemort even as it happens.
At least it's good to get back to the classic Harry Potter formula of 'bunch of stuff happens, then Dumbledore comes back and explains some stuff that would have allowed it to happen in 1/5th the time had we only known then what we know now!'
The Simpsons Movie: See it. Seriously. Log off the computer, get in your car, go to the theater and see it. It's like they strung 3 very good, classic Simpsons episodes back-to-back, only with better animation.
Now, that said, it's not really as good as those classic episodes. For one thing, most of the best episodes are the ones that focus on one of the minor characters (Ralph loves Lisa, Apu travels to the Himalayas to get his store back, or even one-time characters like Hank Scorpio.) But, they didn't seem to be willing to make the decision to quite arbitrarily insert one of the minor characters into the movie, so instead they create Russ Cargill, who sounds eerily like the aforementioned Scorpio, only much less crazy or interesting. So we are stuck with several classic Simpsons cliches, like 'Lisa loves someone exotic', 'Homer is a lazy oaf who messes everything up', and 'Marge loses her patience with Homer, only to later accept him back.'
But still, for my complaints, I loved all the self-referential moments (such as the wrecked ambulance at Springfield Gorge) and the appearance in the background of all the minor characters. Definitely worth the 20-year wait, hopefully it will inspire them to make some more. So go see it.
The Bourne Ultimatum: Why? Why, dear god, Why? That's all I can ask about this movie. I don't get it. I understood it after the first movie. There was this illegal government program which trained people to become killers and then they, you know, killed people. Bourne presumably volunteered and, in the process of his training, they destroyed his memory.
So why is he still 'looking for answers'? Because they are unwilling to just make a movie of him running around and doing badass shit without a skeletal plot to justify it? I'm reminded here of an absolutely brilliant idea Faithful Reader D.C. has explained to me in the past; we need 'violence porn'. Just like porn movies are nothing but a neverending series of sex scenes, with a laughable plot tying them together, we need something similar, only with amazingly cool scenes of violence instead. Like 300, only either half as long, or lacking all the ridiculous scenes with the wife back in Sparta, trying to raise an army.
Or, like the quite incredible fight scenes in The Bourne Ultimatum, without Julia Stiles, about whom the nicest thing that can be said is she barely appears in the movie. And without silly scenes of explanation about something that was pretty well-understood 2 movies ago. It's probably worth seeing entirely for the chase and fight scene that takes place across Tunis. It's one of the best-filmed fight scenes I've ever watched. But the movie could be so much better if they didn't have to waste all this time trying to justify its existence. Kids, say it with me: violence porn.
The Assault on Reason: Al Gore's book, which some consider a primer for a possible presidential bid. It's funny, I haven't really read anything lately about how he's keeping his options open for a run. I think that even a late entrant would have to get into the race by September, so I'm guessing that the fact that nobody's talking about it (whereas people are still talking about Newt's possible entrance) means that we will have to keep living in the sad universe where there never was a President Gore.
Anyhow, I can't really recommend the book. It has some interesting history. In particular, I appreciate that he does such a good job explaining the rise of the modern media, and how it became so much of a monopsony. In fact, he explains how the very idea of radio and TV, the way that they are completely one-way forms of communication, made it almost inevitable that they would come to be dominated by a few major players.
But the political portions of the book, those I don't have nearly as much use for. In every situation, he takes the least-favorable view of Bush, the Republicans, etc. And while there are plenty of good outlets for least-favorable interpretations, I guess I had higher expectations for Gore. He is many things, but he never really struck me as a polemicist, he's really not all that good at it.
Okay, I'm sure there are more things I should be reviewing, but I'll have to get around to it later...
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Don't worry about how the sword gets into the hat. It's magic. The book should be 300 pages shorter and it would be awesome. As it is, we'll have to make due with the fact that it will probably make the best of the movies. In the hands of a semi-competent director who knows how to film a terse action scene, the scene in Godric's Hallow, the flight from Malfoy Mansion, and the heist from Gringott's will be fantastic, and the Battle of Hogwarts should be one of the most exciting action scenes of all time. Except, of course, for the ridiculous finale, where Harry plays the reverse-cliche bad guy by disclosing how he's going to win the fight against Voldemort even as it happens.
At least it's good to get back to the classic Harry Potter formula of 'bunch of stuff happens, then Dumbledore comes back and explains some stuff that would have allowed it to happen in 1/5th the time had we only known then what we know now!'
The Simpsons Movie: See it. Seriously. Log off the computer, get in your car, go to the theater and see it. It's like they strung 3 very good, classic Simpsons episodes back-to-back, only with better animation.
Now, that said, it's not really as good as those classic episodes. For one thing, most of the best episodes are the ones that focus on one of the minor characters (Ralph loves Lisa, Apu travels to the Himalayas to get his store back, or even one-time characters like Hank Scorpio.) But, they didn't seem to be willing to make the decision to quite arbitrarily insert one of the minor characters into the movie, so instead they create Russ Cargill, who sounds eerily like the aforementioned Scorpio, only much less crazy or interesting. So we are stuck with several classic Simpsons cliches, like 'Lisa loves someone exotic', 'Homer is a lazy oaf who messes everything up', and 'Marge loses her patience with Homer, only to later accept him back.'
But still, for my complaints, I loved all the self-referential moments (such as the wrecked ambulance at Springfield Gorge) and the appearance in the background of all the minor characters. Definitely worth the 20-year wait, hopefully it will inspire them to make some more. So go see it.
The Bourne Ultimatum: Why? Why, dear god, Why? That's all I can ask about this movie. I don't get it. I understood it after the first movie. There was this illegal government program which trained people to become killers and then they, you know, killed people. Bourne presumably volunteered and, in the process of his training, they destroyed his memory.
So why is he still 'looking for answers'? Because they are unwilling to just make a movie of him running around and doing badass shit without a skeletal plot to justify it? I'm reminded here of an absolutely brilliant idea Faithful Reader D.C. has explained to me in the past; we need 'violence porn'. Just like porn movies are nothing but a neverending series of sex scenes, with a laughable plot tying them together, we need something similar, only with amazingly cool scenes of violence instead. Like 300, only either half as long, or lacking all the ridiculous scenes with the wife back in Sparta, trying to raise an army.
Or, like the quite incredible fight scenes in The Bourne Ultimatum, without Julia Stiles, about whom the nicest thing that can be said is she barely appears in the movie. And without silly scenes of explanation about something that was pretty well-understood 2 movies ago. It's probably worth seeing entirely for the chase and fight scene that takes place across Tunis. It's one of the best-filmed fight scenes I've ever watched. But the movie could be so much better if they didn't have to waste all this time trying to justify its existence. Kids, say it with me: violence porn.
The Assault on Reason: Al Gore's book, which some consider a primer for a possible presidential bid. It's funny, I haven't really read anything lately about how he's keeping his options open for a run. I think that even a late entrant would have to get into the race by September, so I'm guessing that the fact that nobody's talking about it (whereas people are still talking about Newt's possible entrance) means that we will have to keep living in the sad universe where there never was a President Gore.
Anyhow, I can't really recommend the book. It has some interesting history. In particular, I appreciate that he does such a good job explaining the rise of the modern media, and how it became so much of a monopsony. In fact, he explains how the very idea of radio and TV, the way that they are completely one-way forms of communication, made it almost inevitable that they would come to be dominated by a few major players.
But the political portions of the book, those I don't have nearly as much use for. In every situation, he takes the least-favorable view of Bush, the Republicans, etc. And while there are plenty of good outlets for least-favorable interpretations, I guess I had higher expectations for Gore. He is many things, but he never really struck me as a polemicist, he's really not all that good at it.
Okay, I'm sure there are more things I should be reviewing, but I'll have to get around to it later...
Friday, August 17, 2007
Let Them Eat Cake!
As an amendment to Matt's post this morning, I would point out that it's a bit more complicated than simply saying that things like 401(k)'s, HSA's, and the mortgage interest deduction don't help the little person get ahead. Of course they do. Not too-well-off people can save money using these things.
The point is that, while they are a sop to the poor/middle class, they are really a huge boon to the rich. Middle class types like me definitely get a tax reduction from them, but of course I don't pay nearly as much in taxes as a stockbroker in Manhattan, so he can save a lot more in taxes than I can unless you limit the deductions to certain income ranges. To this extent, the Roth IRA really is something that helps the little guy get ahead, because you can't have one after your income crosses a particular threshold.
So, it's not that Rove et. al. don't care about helping the poor or middle class. They just don't care about helping them nearly as much as they care about helping the rich.
UPDATE: Kevin Drum points out that the whole thesis of the conversation is an outright lie, since the Republicans didn't initiate the home ownership deduction or the 401(k).
The point is that, while they are a sop to the poor/middle class, they are really a huge boon to the rich. Middle class types like me definitely get a tax reduction from them, but of course I don't pay nearly as much in taxes as a stockbroker in Manhattan, so he can save a lot more in taxes than I can unless you limit the deductions to certain income ranges. To this extent, the Roth IRA really is something that helps the little guy get ahead, because you can't have one after your income crosses a particular threshold.
So, it's not that Rove et. al. don't care about helping the poor or middle class. They just don't care about helping them nearly as much as they care about helping the rich.
UPDATE: Kevin Drum points out that the whole thesis of the conversation is an outright lie, since the Republicans didn't initiate the home ownership deduction or the 401(k).
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Dear Prudence
Okay, I have a confession here, which I'm only willing to make because I know that you, my Faithful Reader(s), will hold it near and dear to your hearts. I'm a total sucker for a good advice column. I've really enjoyed 'Dear Prudence' since Emily Yoffe took over Prudie's duties a couple years ago. This week's version had a letter where Prudie's response was so perfect, both in substance and tone, that there's really nothing I can do but paste it here:
Dear Prudence,
My fiance and I have lived together for over a year now, so many of the things we would have registered for, we already have. We're considering registering for more practical types of gifts, and offering our friends and family the option of donating money for our honeymoon or other startup expenses (maybe savings toward the house we want to buy in a couple years). I have thought of asking specific friends for certain types of gifts, as well. For example, one friend is a very talented graphic designer, and I might ask her to design my thank-you cards. She is a recent college graduate like me, so I think this would be easier for her financially, and I would consider it a tremendous gift if she's willing. Is this an appropriate request?—Trying To Be Practical
Dear Trying,
What a great idea to think of your friends as your personal Yellow Pages! If you have one who's a gynecologist, ask her to give you the gift of a premarital pelvic exam. That bartender pal can pour the champagne at the reception. For that writer friend, hand her the list of the gifts you received, and tell her to get to work on the thank-you notes. Or you could think about your wedding as a lovely event to celebrate with your friends, on the beginning of your married life, and stop thinking about how you can get them to provide services for it. As for your graphic designer friend, you could tell her you love her work and ask if you can hire her—at her usual fee—to create your cards.—Prudie
Why HBO Will Save The World
Inspired by The Wire, Ross Douthat muses on the utter failure of our crime prevention strategy of locking up anyone who commits pretty much any crime. Money quote:
There's a Catch-22 at work, too: So long as crime keeps falling, it's taken by most people (the Fox Butterfields of the world aside) as a sign the system is working; but then if crime starts inching back up, as it has the past two years (though there's good news for this year), well, nobody's going to be interested in reforming prisons during an era of rising crime!Ross is spot on here. Much like only Clinton could really make headway in clearing the logjam that was the welfare system in the early 90's (you may or may not have liked his solutions, but hopefully we all agree there were some serious problems), only a Republican can begin us down the path of bringing some marginal amount of sanity to our criminal justice system without being fatally flagged with the epithet of being 'Soft On Crime.'
You Don't Get This Shit On NYTimes.com
Listening to last night's NBC Nightly News, following a story about the contest to crown the first officially sanctioned Elvis Impersonator, Brian Williams signed of by saying saying, "And that wraps up tonight's news. Thank you, thank you very much for joining us." This pretty much explains why, when I do watch the major network news, NBC gets my click.
Apropos of nothing, if you've never seen the movie 'Bubba Ho-Tep', you damn well ought to, if for no other reason than to see Bruce 'Army of Darkness' Campbell's Elvis impersontion, stretched out for 90 minutes. Fan-fucking-tastic. I really don't think anyone else could have carried a movie about Elvis and a man who carries the brain of JFK battling an Egyptian mummy in a nursing home quite like Campbell does. Go to Netflix, and put it at the top of your queue. You'll thank me.
Apropos of nothing, if you've never seen the movie 'Bubba Ho-Tep', you damn well ought to, if for no other reason than to see Bruce 'Army of Darkness' Campbell's Elvis impersontion, stretched out for 90 minutes. Fan-fucking-tastic. I really don't think anyone else could have carried a movie about Elvis and a man who carries the brain of JFK battling an Egyptian mummy in a nursing home quite like Campbell does. Go to Netflix, and put it at the top of your queue. You'll thank me.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Fuck The DLC, And The Fucking Horse They Fucked In On
So I'm listening to the podcast version of this Sunday's Meet The Press, with DLC Chair Harold Ford debating Markos of the Daily Kos. When talking about what a Democrat would have to do to win the presidency, Ford says that any Democrat will have to prove that they are 'trustworthy' on 3 topics: defense, family values, and taxes.
Pardon my French, but from what orifice did he pull this bullshit? I mean, seriously. It's like Karl Rove wrote his talking points for him. The clear indication is that, by their nature, Democrats are 'not to be trusted' on these three issues. If this is the case, you're not going to win much of anything by delivering the 'Republican Lite' version. If people want Republican solutions, they're going to vote for Republicans. We might as well disband the Democrats and move to Scandinavia, home of Amazonian women and good social health care systems. Hmmm, not a bad idea, but off topic for tonight.
I'm sure that, if pressed on the topic, Ford would probably have something reasonable to say on these topics, which I would agree with. Like maybe suggesting that, by dedicating half a trillion dollars of military spending on an unnecessary war in a part of the world where the people are already predisposed to hating us, maybe the Bush Doctrine is actually worsening our security. That things like torture, gaybashing, and eliminating health insurance for children aren't part of any Christian message I ever read. And that yes, Democrats are going to raise some taxes for some people today, but what we're really doing is cutting taxes for your children, and their grandchildren, because we aren't going to run up 4 trillion more dollars in debt over the next 8 years.
Which is great, and I agree with those things. But by admitting that the Democrats have to prove themselves trustworthy on these issues, you've already lost the battle.
There's a fine line between spin and lying, and lord knows I think the Repubs have fallen far to the wrong side of it plenty of late. But, you do have to give them credit - by picking on a preferred nomenclature ('death tax' for instance), or a particular way of talking about an issue (we have to go to Iraq to get those people that attacked us on 9/11!) and sticking to it, week after week and year after year, they really do change public perceptions.
Ford can't be out there talking about how Democrats are 'weak' or 'vulnerable' on these subjects. To do so invites further hot air from the bloviators and means the Dems will continue to have to play defense on these charges. Lead with your attack, then cover your flank if necessary later on - it's the only way you win in the game of political football.
Pardon my French, but from what orifice did he pull this bullshit? I mean, seriously. It's like Karl Rove wrote his talking points for him. The clear indication is that, by their nature, Democrats are 'not to be trusted' on these three issues. If this is the case, you're not going to win much of anything by delivering the 'Republican Lite' version. If people want Republican solutions, they're going to vote for Republicans. We might as well disband the Democrats and move to Scandinavia, home of Amazonian women and good social health care systems. Hmmm, not a bad idea, but off topic for tonight.
I'm sure that, if pressed on the topic, Ford would probably have something reasonable to say on these topics, which I would agree with. Like maybe suggesting that, by dedicating half a trillion dollars of military spending on an unnecessary war in a part of the world where the people are already predisposed to hating us, maybe the Bush Doctrine is actually worsening our security. That things like torture, gaybashing, and eliminating health insurance for children aren't part of any Christian message I ever read. And that yes, Democrats are going to raise some taxes for some people today, but what we're really doing is cutting taxes for your children, and their grandchildren, because we aren't going to run up 4 trillion more dollars in debt over the next 8 years.
Which is great, and I agree with those things. But by admitting that the Democrats have to prove themselves trustworthy on these issues, you've already lost the battle.
There's a fine line between spin and lying, and lord knows I think the Repubs have fallen far to the wrong side of it plenty of late. But, you do have to give them credit - by picking on a preferred nomenclature ('death tax' for instance), or a particular way of talking about an issue (we have to go to Iraq to get those people that attacked us on 9/11!) and sticking to it, week after week and year after year, they really do change public perceptions.
Ford can't be out there talking about how Democrats are 'weak' or 'vulnerable' on these subjects. To do so invites further hot air from the bloviators and means the Dems will continue to have to play defense on these charges. Lead with your attack, then cover your flank if necessary later on - it's the only way you win in the game of political football.
Monday, Bloody Monday
It's been a pretty exciting couple of days around the office, as we had our first set of layoffs in my time at InPhase yesterday. It appears that we have made the executive decision that the ROM project is definitely not being renewed, and so several people who were hired specifically for that project were let go. 3 engineers, gone. 2 chemists, gone. The manager, gone, sort of - he has a month to find a new job.
As an aside, it seems completely ridiculous that the 5 people who are less employable are told to get out that day, while the guy who was probably paid more and certainly has more bankable skills is given a month to cushion the fall. It's hardly a golden parachute, but still.
Anyhow, since the 3 engineers who were let go were pretty much in my position, engineers from ROM who were lent to the archive project temporarily, it's been a somewhat nervous day or so. It appears that I have survived Bloody Monday, which is a Good Thing. I think.
It's irritating that, instead of hiring more people to do the build, we are indeed firing them, apparently under the philosophy that the rest of us can just work 60 hours a week (apparently this was an actual suggestion made by the CEO at a meeting this morning). I'm engaging in some hyperbole when I say this, but it's almost enough to make me miss grad school. Almost.
As an aside, it seems completely ridiculous that the 5 people who are less employable are told to get out that day, while the guy who was probably paid more and certainly has more bankable skills is given a month to cushion the fall. It's hardly a golden parachute, but still.
Anyhow, since the 3 engineers who were let go were pretty much in my position, engineers from ROM who were lent to the archive project temporarily, it's been a somewhat nervous day or so. It appears that I have survived Bloody Monday, which is a Good Thing. I think.
It's irritating that, instead of hiring more people to do the build, we are indeed firing them, apparently under the philosophy that the rest of us can just work 60 hours a week (apparently this was an actual suggestion made by the CEO at a meeting this morning). I'm engaging in some hyperbole when I say this, but it's almost enough to make me miss grad school. Almost.
You Mean, Sedating My Baby With Television Won't Make Her A Genius?
Okay, so I know I'm a week late to the party, but whatever. As far as I am concerned, the biggest dog-bites-man story of the last few weeks is the shocking (shocking!) revelation that watching Baby Einstein videos don't make your child smarter. In fact, they appear to make your child dumber than watching no TV at all.
For a laugh before we dive into the guts of it, here's The Onion's take.
So, I cannot really find words to explain how big a surprise this news is not to me. It seems completely, entirely, absolutely absurd to me to think that watching some characters prancing around on the TV can actually make children smarter. Yes, it's entirely possible that you can learn some math or some Spanish by watching Sesame Street, but hopefully everyone understands that there's a big difference between knowing things and being smart. Being smart is being able to apply the things you know to everyday situations.
I am a big believer in a concept that I, rather vaguely, call 'evolutionary burden.' The best book I've yet seen which discusses it in detail is called The Continuum Concept. In my opinion, anyone who has, or is thinking of having, kids ought to read this book. I don't want to get too deep into it, but briefly put, the thesis of the book is that human beings evolved to 'expect' a particular set of circumstances based on the conditions we experienced during our evolutionary time as humans, the last 200,000 years or so.
These expectations are entirely subconcious, but no less real for that. We see them in the cry of a baby left alone in her crib for the first time (or the second, or sometimes the tenth.) Evolutionarily, that simply would never happen. A baby would be with her mother nonstop, 24/7, for the first two or so years of her life. Finding herself alone would probably mean Mom suffered some sort of awful mishap, and crying was shaped, by natural selection, to alert other members of the tribe to the imminent danger.
Anyhow, the general idea of the evolutionary burden is that we are shaped, body and mind, by the forces of natural selection to thrive in conditions which are similar to those we experienced over the last 200,000 years or so. It's why I eat the way I do (an attempts to simulate the hunter-gatherer diet using modern foods), why I have my beliefs about community and how the feeling of belonging is necessary to happiness, and other wacky beliefs I hold.
Needless to say, we have not evolved to be used to the experience of television. Humans evolved to learn about the world around them in small, protected doses, experienced by being carried around by mother as she goes about her daily tasks. Historically, there was no such thing as child-specific entertainment. In many hunter-gatherer societies, mothers don't even talk to their babies, the babies pick up language by listening to the grownups around them.
It doesn't surprise me at all to find that a baby is entirely overstimulated by the bright lights and wacky sounds of children's TV shows. That's simply more sensory input than they have evolved to be able to handle well. Hell, my friends Drew and Daisy, who have quite a lot more mental complexity than a 6-month-old, are completely absorbed by bright lights on TV sometimes. I would absolutely not expect that this drives babies' brains to develop quicker or more strongly. In fact, I would suspect that they might be driven in the opposite direction, developing more slowly and feebly, especially during the early years when so many brain connections are being made and developed.
Gregg Easterbrook, best known as ESPN.com's Tuesday Morning Quarterback, is also a leading advocate for the proposition that TV, not vaccines, is a major causal factor in the ongoing rise of autism in American children. I am very predisposed to this argument, which I know means I have to take all the evidence I see with a grain of salt, but I found this article, from last October, quite convincing as a first step in making this case.
Anyhow, it certainly remains to be seen whether or not TV is actually harmful in childhood development. For the moment, I am concerned but not panicked about it. But any claim that it can be especially helpful would have to be backed up by a heck of a lot of scientific evidence before I would find it convincing.
For a laugh before we dive into the guts of it, here's The Onion's take.
So, I cannot really find words to explain how big a surprise this news is not to me. It seems completely, entirely, absolutely absurd to me to think that watching some characters prancing around on the TV can actually make children smarter. Yes, it's entirely possible that you can learn some math or some Spanish by watching Sesame Street, but hopefully everyone understands that there's a big difference between knowing things and being smart. Being smart is being able to apply the things you know to everyday situations.
I am a big believer in a concept that I, rather vaguely, call 'evolutionary burden.' The best book I've yet seen which discusses it in detail is called The Continuum Concept. In my opinion, anyone who has, or is thinking of having, kids ought to read this book. I don't want to get too deep into it, but briefly put, the thesis of the book is that human beings evolved to 'expect' a particular set of circumstances based on the conditions we experienced during our evolutionary time as humans, the last 200,000 years or so.
These expectations are entirely subconcious, but no less real for that. We see them in the cry of a baby left alone in her crib for the first time (or the second, or sometimes the tenth.) Evolutionarily, that simply would never happen. A baby would be with her mother nonstop, 24/7, for the first two or so years of her life. Finding herself alone would probably mean Mom suffered some sort of awful mishap, and crying was shaped, by natural selection, to alert other members of the tribe to the imminent danger.
Anyhow, the general idea of the evolutionary burden is that we are shaped, body and mind, by the forces of natural selection to thrive in conditions which are similar to those we experienced over the last 200,000 years or so. It's why I eat the way I do (an attempts to simulate the hunter-gatherer diet using modern foods), why I have my beliefs about community and how the feeling of belonging is necessary to happiness, and other wacky beliefs I hold.
Needless to say, we have not evolved to be used to the experience of television. Humans evolved to learn about the world around them in small, protected doses, experienced by being carried around by mother as she goes about her daily tasks. Historically, there was no such thing as child-specific entertainment. In many hunter-gatherer societies, mothers don't even talk to their babies, the babies pick up language by listening to the grownups around them.
It doesn't surprise me at all to find that a baby is entirely overstimulated by the bright lights and wacky sounds of children's TV shows. That's simply more sensory input than they have evolved to be able to handle well. Hell, my friends Drew and Daisy, who have quite a lot more mental complexity than a 6-month-old, are completely absorbed by bright lights on TV sometimes. I would absolutely not expect that this drives babies' brains to develop quicker or more strongly. In fact, I would suspect that they might be driven in the opposite direction, developing more slowly and feebly, especially during the early years when so many brain connections are being made and developed.
Gregg Easterbrook, best known as ESPN.com's Tuesday Morning Quarterback, is also a leading advocate for the proposition that TV, not vaccines, is a major causal factor in the ongoing rise of autism in American children. I am very predisposed to this argument, which I know means I have to take all the evidence I see with a grain of salt, but I found this article, from last October, quite convincing as a first step in making this case.
Anyhow, it certainly remains to be seen whether or not TV is actually harmful in childhood development. For the moment, I am concerned but not panicked about it. But any claim that it can be especially helpful would have to be backed up by a heck of a lot of scientific evidence before I would find it convincing.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Big Answers To Little Questions
Via Ezra, a fantastic article in the New York Times explaining that, actually, there can't be any difference between the sexual behavior of men and women because, well, the math says so. In short, the article says that all the surveys which claim that men have, on average, 3x the number of sex partners that women do cannot be right, because, assuming you are restricted to heterosexual discussion, every man who has sex requires a woman be involved. Hence, there is an average of exactly one man and woman per sexual coupling, and thus the average number of couplings for each gender must be the same.
The answer I would like to believe as to why this article makes no sense is that most men are so bad at sex that the women in the studies have either forgotten or blocked out their past experiences.
Unfortunately, the more likely answer is that the survey confuses the concepts of median and mean when it comes to the term 'average'. The mean number of sex partners must be the same, for basic math reasons. But the article only ever talks about the median, and median value can be skewed by outliers. The old saw is that if you, a few buddies, and Warren Buffet are in a room together, the average income in the room would be either $50,000 or $1.3 billion, depending on whether you are talking about the median or the mean income.
So median is useful when discussing some concepts - I think we can all agree that the 'average' person in the hypothetical room makes the much lower figure. But it can also be misleading, since when talking about averages in this sense, you have to take the outliers into account. Speaking broadly and entirely in stereotypes, once could imagine that most women have a lower number of sex partners than most men, because women are less apt to jump into bed at the first opportunity.
There may be some small number of women, though, who for concious or unconcious reasons lack the restraints on sexual behavior than most other women have. Those women, being women, have no shortage of sexual opportunities, and find themselves with many times more partners than the more restrained women do. This would not change the median value, but might greatly affect the mode.
Whereas, if men all follow the more usual strategy of 'have sex with anyone who will have sex with you', and the variables are things like attractiveness, intellect, money, etc. then you would expect a more Gaussian distribution of sex partners, and the median and the mode would be very close to one another.
Okay, that's the bell. No homework this week for Statistics and Probabilities 101....
The answer I would like to believe as to why this article makes no sense is that most men are so bad at sex that the women in the studies have either forgotten or blocked out their past experiences.
Unfortunately, the more likely answer is that the survey confuses the concepts of median and mean when it comes to the term 'average'. The mean number of sex partners must be the same, for basic math reasons. But the article only ever talks about the median, and median value can be skewed by outliers. The old saw is that if you, a few buddies, and Warren Buffet are in a room together, the average income in the room would be either $50,000 or $1.3 billion, depending on whether you are talking about the median or the mean income.
So median is useful when discussing some concepts - I think we can all agree that the 'average' person in the hypothetical room makes the much lower figure. But it can also be misleading, since when talking about averages in this sense, you have to take the outliers into account. Speaking broadly and entirely in stereotypes, once could imagine that most women have a lower number of sex partners than most men, because women are less apt to jump into bed at the first opportunity.
There may be some small number of women, though, who for concious or unconcious reasons lack the restraints on sexual behavior than most other women have. Those women, being women, have no shortage of sexual opportunities, and find themselves with many times more partners than the more restrained women do. This would not change the median value, but might greatly affect the mode.
Whereas, if men all follow the more usual strategy of 'have sex with anyone who will have sex with you', and the variables are things like attractiveness, intellect, money, etc. then you would expect a more Gaussian distribution of sex partners, and the median and the mode would be very close to one another.
Okay, that's the bell. No homework this week for Statistics and Probabilities 101....
All Apologies
With apologies to my West Coast Faithful Reader(s), but if you are reading this entry at your laptop over breakfast, you might want to put down the spoon for a few seconds.
I have recently rediscovered beets as really a wonderful thing to eat, as a result of the fact that every booth at the Longmont Farmer's Market sells them. However, I am still up in the air as to whether or not the joy I take in eating them is worth that momentary panic, two days later, when I look down into the toilet bowl and say 'Holy Shit!' (pun not intended) 'Why is everything so red?!'
I have recently rediscovered beets as really a wonderful thing to eat, as a result of the fact that every booth at the Longmont Farmer's Market sells them. However, I am still up in the air as to whether or not the joy I take in eating them is worth that momentary panic, two days later, when I look down into the toilet bowl and say 'Holy Shit!' (pun not intended) 'Why is everything so red?!'
We're Back, We're Bad, You're Black, I'm Mad, Come On!
A fond hello to all my Faithful Readers out there, or at least any who are still checking me out. No good excuses for a week-long gap in postings, except that last weekend was incredibly busy during the tournament, and afterwards I just felt burned out about pretty much everything.
But after a fun and refreshing weekend, which included a great date, a wonderful hike, and the worst Shakespeare play I've ever seen, I'm ready to declare a brand new start. Things I am starting fresh this week:
My new domestic situation. I have a new roommate, Molly, who arrived from North Carolina over the weekend. She seems great, and the best news is that her dog, Turtle, a 9-month old Yellow Lab mix and Simon, the Official Dog of The Consistent Fool, seem to get along great.
My modified version of the 100 Mile Challenge. The original idea of the 100 Mile Diet Challenge is to, for a week or a month, eat only foods that were grown within 100 miles of you. The idea is to reduce energy (specifically oil) usage by not eating things that have been shipped 1500 miles to get to the grocery store.
This isn't very easy in Longmont specifically, since the only area in Colorado that grows significant amounts of fruit, the Palisade area, is more than 100 miles away. So I am going for eating things that were grown within Colorado. Additionally, I am not going to give up on spices, and I have much better things to do with my time than to try and find vinegar that I can be assured was made in Colorado. Plus I can't really give up nuts. So I'm restricting it to fresh produce and meat. Also, I'm too cheap or poor to eat every meal I eat out at The Kitchen (although, for any Faithful Readers who are well-off enough to do this, you should. Also, you should take me.) so I'm restricting it to food I prepare from scratch at home.
I am working through my supply of non-local produce and meats, but at least until the end of August, I will only be buying things that fit the requirements. If all goes well I will continue on into September, and who knows how long after that?
My view on politics. After listening to some of the Sunday Morning chat shows, I realized that I am completely burned out on the horse race aspect of things right now, so I am going to officially Stop Caring about who is leading in polls run by the Des Moines Register of unregistered independents, who are leaning in voting in the Democratic primary and are dominantly left-handed, but play some sports right-handed. They may or may not all be meaningless, but I just don't care right now. So now it's my job to convince you not to care either.
More later, but that's enough new things for one morning.
But after a fun and refreshing weekend, which included a great date, a wonderful hike, and the worst Shakespeare play I've ever seen, I'm ready to declare a brand new start. Things I am starting fresh this week:
My new domestic situation. I have a new roommate, Molly, who arrived from North Carolina over the weekend. She seems great, and the best news is that her dog, Turtle, a 9-month old Yellow Lab mix and Simon, the Official Dog of The Consistent Fool, seem to get along great.
My modified version of the 100 Mile Challenge. The original idea of the 100 Mile Diet Challenge is to, for a week or a month, eat only foods that were grown within 100 miles of you. The idea is to reduce energy (specifically oil) usage by not eating things that have been shipped 1500 miles to get to the grocery store.
This isn't very easy in Longmont specifically, since the only area in Colorado that grows significant amounts of fruit, the Palisade area, is more than 100 miles away. So I am going for eating things that were grown within Colorado. Additionally, I am not going to give up on spices, and I have much better things to do with my time than to try and find vinegar that I can be assured was made in Colorado. Plus I can't really give up nuts. So I'm restricting it to fresh produce and meat. Also, I'm too cheap or poor to eat every meal I eat out at The Kitchen (although, for any Faithful Readers who are well-off enough to do this, you should. Also, you should take me.) so I'm restricting it to food I prepare from scratch at home.
I am working through my supply of non-local produce and meats, but at least until the end of August, I will only be buying things that fit the requirements. If all goes well I will continue on into September, and who knows how long after that?
My view on politics. After listening to some of the Sunday Morning chat shows, I realized that I am completely burned out on the horse race aspect of things right now, so I am going to officially Stop Caring about who is leading in polls run by the Des Moines Register of unregistered independents, who are leaning in voting in the Democratic primary and are dominantly left-handed, but play some sports right-handed. They may or may not all be meaningless, but I just don't care right now. So now it's my job to convince you not to care either.
More later, but that's enough new things for one morning.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
The Sun Even Shines On A Dog's Ass Some Days
I'm beginning to come to the belief that every single thing that's turned out correctly since I was transferred to my new project was entirely due to pure, dumb luck.
This is not, needless to say, a happy revelation.
But at least I know where I stand, which is nice.
This is not, needless to say, a happy revelation.
But at least I know where I stand, which is nice.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
So Many Facts, So Little Time
Shorter Don Rumsfeld: I was too unaware and incompetent to be guilty of covering up anything unsavory in the death of Pat Tillman.
At Long Last, Victory In The War On Sex
Instant Classic line from this week's Savage Love :
The time has come to take the fight to the hormones, Mr. President. The time has come to chemically castrate American teenagers.
Instead of wasting money on failed abstinence-education programs, Mr. President, put Depo-Provera and Tamoxifen, the two most effective chemical-castration drugs, into products consumed by teenagers—Doritos, Mountain Dew, lip gloss, and Axe body spray. (Some adults also consume these products, of course, but not any who we want reproducing.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)