Chewie And R2 Vs. Darth Vader?

A rewriting of the incidents of Star Wars chapter IV in light of the developments revealed by the ought-to-be-destroyed chapters I-III. A little long, but pretty funny.

Beaten To The Punch

In wake of the news that Giuliani is planning on dropping out of the race after losing in Florida, I think we can all agree with Matt that today is a day all Americans can celebrate. I feel like it ought to be a new National Holiday. No-Rudy Day, or something.

So, thank you, Republicans of Florida, for sparing us all the sight of so many more 9/11 references, implicit and explicit, as the election approached. Thank you for sparing us all the increased medical bills from all the heart attacks and ulcers which would have been caused by the 'all terror, all the time' Giuliani Plan For America.

I'm not desperately in love with any of the 3 remaining Republican frontrunners, but I'm a hell of a lot less afraid of them than I was of Giuliani. McCain is a hawk, to be sure, and certainly lets his mouth and his opinions get ahead of his brain on too many occasions. But, at heart, he's a fairly honorable guy, and while he is as guilty of pandering as anyone, at least he's honest enough to admit it (see, for instance, what he has to say about the Confederate flag question in SC, or his 'message heard' answer as to why he is harder on the immigration question right now.)

Romney doesn't scare me at all. Of course, if he actually governs as the 'double Guantanamo' whacko of the primary, I might be worried. But, really, does anyone expect that person to survive into the general election, let alone into a first term?

Huckabee is certainly scary, mostly insofar as he is an entirely unfinished portrait with regards to issues other than those important to social conservatives. So, as with Bush, it depends a lot on who his advisors are, and if he ends up with Norm Podhoretz running his foreign policy, he could be Giuliani-level terrifying. But, at the moment, there's at least a possibility that he won't be that, unlike Rudy.

So, today, I say thanks to the good people of Florida who, even if they can't design a functional balloting system, at least had the good sense not to be hornswaggled by a madman.

Tough Crowd

Wow, the commenters are being pretty harsh on Gov. Sebelius over at Matt's. I don't really agree. Sure, she didn't really light any fires, but the fact is that the response to the SOTU address isn't supposed to be a really big deal. It's a small speech - it's bound to be. No huge room, no Congressional audience, no corpses-dressed-in-robes-a.k.a. the Supreme Court. I think her words were good, and her delivery was even-keel and reasonable.

Dunno if she could be an attack dog type of pol, but what the hell - if Obama is going to try and shift paradigms, might as well change that one as well!

Holy Crap

Okay, I've heard of Gov. Sebelius before, but never seen her speak. She's good. Damn good.

Rumors have it that she is going to be endorsing Obama in the next day or so. Even juicier rumors have her pegged as a potential VP for him, should the opportunity present itself.

I don't know much about her yet, but from what I've seen so far, I'm down.

Dirty Thoughts

Is there such a thing as a GILF?

If so, Governor Seb. definitely has my vote.

Whoops

Make that 'Sebelius.'

Sorry, Governor.

Final Thoughts

A brief, completely uninteresting speech. Nothing new or exciting - about what I would have expected from a completely lame duck President.

It's a shame that, due to the silly term-based nature of the American government, we have an almost entirely pointless year ahead of us. We'll get lots of campaigning, but very little in the way of ongoing government work.

Another year of Iraqi mishaps - as soon as we stop paying the militias, they are going to turn on the government forces there.

Another year of no solutions to the questions of illegal immigration, as people stream across the border in order to be overworked, unpaid, exploited by the corporations who couldn't maintain profit margins without them. The worst of all possible worlds.

Another year of fiscal irresponsibility, as we foolishly throw money at those who need it least - oil companies, big agro, big pharma, to ensure that they...I don't know quite what. Can keep handsomely rewarding their executives and shareholders for doing the tough service of producing products that enable them to make record profits, year after year?

Let's hope Sebalius' response is a bit more exciting. More on that in a sec.

A Foolish Consistency

As you hopefully know, this blog is named after the quote from Emerson, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a little mind." Apparently, our beloved President is not little-minded, as consistency is not one of his virtues.

He threw significant weight behind the most recent incarnation of the farm bill, pointing out that it's important to make sure that our farmers' crops are not undercut by competition from third-world farmers. Tonight, he tells us that he wants to pass a new program to encourage purchasing crops from said third-world farmers, to help "break the cycle of famine."

Please explain to me...how does taking food out of third-world countries helps reduce the amount of famine there?

Remind Me Again

So, we're not breaking the law with regards to our warrantless wiretapping, but it's absolutely vital that we give immunity to companies who may or may not have been involved in these activities, which may or may not have happened, but definitely were not illegal if they did.

Why?

Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran

I'm sure I've written about this before, but it's not really diplomacy if you require that the other party do what you are asking them to do as a precondition to negotiations. If we want Iran to stop enriching uranium, you can't just say "stop enriching, and then we can talk." Diplomacy is not something out of Peter Pan, where if you close your eyes, and wish hard enough, and say "stop enrichment" enough times, it'll just happen.

Hear, Hear

What Matt said:

“We trust that people when given the chance will choose a future of freedom and peace” -- remember when conservatism was based on a dour, realistic view of human nature and the human condition? I miss those days. There's no time right now for a treatise on the full sociological naiveté of this bizarre statement but it's obviously -- obviously -- false that liberal democracy is some kind of human default condition. It took thousands of years to emerge! Constructing stable, legitimate political institutions is difficult.

Public Service Announcement

Every time President Bush talks about Al Qaeda and Iraq in the same sentence, please remember that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to our invasion. Specifically, they weren't there until we disbanded the army and the civil service and left a complete vacuum of authority in the country, a gap which people like Al-Zarqawi were only too happy to fill.

The Best Defense Is A Good O-fence. You Know Who Said That? Mel, The Cook On 'Alice'.

We will stay on offense against the terrahists, by continuing to attack countries which have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the people who attacked us on 9/11!

An Air Of Entitlement

President Bush just called for Congress to come together for a bipartisan solution to save Social Security and Medicare from their future budget shortcomings (you mean, like the ones which would be caused by a massive, pork-laden prescription drug bill effectively written by the pharmaceutical industry?)

And, by 'save', he means 'eliminate'. You say tomato, I say tomahto...

The Physical Sciences

Bush just called on doubling funds for basic research in the physical sciences.

So long as, you know, they still teach creationism in public schools. That's completely different from those useful sciences. How many flat-screen TV's did Darwin ever bring us?

Who Was That Dead Man?

NBC just stayed with a delayed shot on the face of some extremely old, droopy man, who was outright asleep. I wonder who he is?

See Dick. See Dick Clap.

When Bush talks about the Federal Government's responsibility to help those whose jobs are displaced by trade, Dick Cheney's clapping is only two notches above a sarcastic slow clap. At least he's giving an effort, though; it's hard enough for a vampire to appear underneath all these bright TV lights.

Earmarks - It's All Good Fun Until Someone Puts A Bridge Out

It's amazing how this new practice of 'earmarks' just sprung on us, unannounced and unprecedented, in the last year.

Wait, you're saying that they exponentially multiplied under Republican Congressional control?

I never would have known that, given that the Bush administration has only been talking about them for a year.

Wait, what else happened a year ago? The Democrats took control of Congress? And, suddenly, earmarks were a bane and a blemish on the unmarred facade of the government? Stunning, that.

What Was Just Said

During the round of applause following the line 'make the tax relief permanent!', Nancy Pelosi leaned over to Dick Cheney and whispered something. I would, seriously, give like $20 to find out what she said. I hope it was something like 'I look forward to the chance to relieve my taxes all over your corpse when you die.' But I kind of doubt it.

To Grandmother's House We Go

I think Nancy Pelosi is sucking on some sort of hard candy, or else she is working very hard to keep her lower intestine from leaping up through her throat and choking the President of the United States on live TV.

Found In Translation

When President Bush says 'let's show the Americans how we can all cooperate', I keep hearing him say 'pass my agenda, bitches!'

SOTU Liveblogging

I meant to put up a post earlier today warning that I'd be doing this, but I forgot to. I'll be liveblogging the final State of the Union address given by any member of the Bush family, good lord willing.

A few first thoughts:

1) Doesn't Sec. of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff look kind of like what Reggie Miller would look like if he died and came back as a zombie?

2) Tim Russert says that Bush claimed in an earlier conversation that he is not at all nostalgic about this being his final SOTU address.

You and me both, pal. You and me both.

3) I think Joseph Lieberman just slipped him a little tongue.

The Soft Bigotry Of Low Performance

I was listening to the podcast of Olberman's Countdown this morning, and one of his guests said that John Edwards has a big opportunity in the Dem race right now, because he is seen as a breath of fresh air in the field, as the debate between Sens. Obama and Clinton becomes ever more rancorous.

I have call bullshit here. The only reason that Edwards isn't getting beat up is because the other two no longer consider him serious competition. Which, in a way, is a shame, because he's done a whole lot to pull the center of the conversation on the Dem side to the left this time around, and he deserves a whole lot of credit for that.

But Edwards is certainly not afraid of getting his hands dirty, if the moment called for it, but he would have to be a fool to just start laying waste to the landscape, Godzilla-style, the way that Clinton and Obama have been trying to do. His best, and only, bet left is to hope that they both destroy each other and leave him to pick up the pieces.

And yes, I know that Shane threw down the gauntlet in my general direction on Saturday. I will get back to him eventually, but haven't had time to do the appropriate research yet.

Valuable Life Lessons

Faithful Reader D.R. sense along a link to this paper, about the massive failures of the way in which scientific research is pursued in the current era. I don't think the paper is entirely right - at least in some fields, you ought to have to justify your research and show a real result every once in a while to maintain funding - but the paper has lots to recommend it. This passage hit especially close to home for me:

...there is the way that science is done and papers are authored. These measures are pushing people into having larger groups. It is a simple matter of arithmetic. Since the group leader authors all the papers, the more people, the more papers. If a larger proportion of young scientists in a larger group fail, as I suspect, this is not recorded. And because no account is taken of wasted lives and broken dreams, these failures do not make a group leader look less productive.

I know several once-and-previously scientists read this space from time to time. Any thoughts to share?

Even More Football!

Faithful Reader LT, whose wit and wisdom we have sorely missed in these pages, comments on yesterday's post about the NFL Championship round games. She writes:

I have to take issue with your line "while both teams were competitive in the NFC Championship". It was a tight, barn-burner of a game, but I feel that saying that both teams were competitive implies that both teams were played well and close to the best that they can play. That was certainly not the Packers. yes the Giants played well, but the Packers played horribly. And while the Giants were better that game (which is what matters), I wouldn't blanketly say they're a better team, but I'm a biased Packers fan...

I certainly agree that the Giants are not better than the Packers. The Packers are younger and faster than the Giants. They insisted on manning up on Plaxico about 3 quarters longer than they ought to have done, but you dance with the girl what brung ya, and Al Harris beating the snot out of the opposing team's leading receiver is what got them to that game.

Other than that, though, I thought that the Packers played fine, with the rather notable exception of Mr. Brett Favre, who had probably his worst game of the year at rather the wrong time. While Tom Coughlin looked like his face was about to peel off, Favre was huddled in a cape which looked something like those emergency shelters the firefighters in California this summer carried with them, with a balaclava covering his whole face. I would argue that this was just simple smart behavior, but the fact is also that, when you think about the weather, it affects how you perform, and Favre was clearly unnerved by the cold, winging balls higgledy-piggledy all over the field.

So, I about half-agree with LT. One really bad player, one really bad strategy, but otherwise I really thought the Packers were good enough to win the game.

Every Time I Think I'm Out...

It's been a pretty miserable last month-plus reading Bill Simmons' work on ESPN.com, due to his absolute insufferable glee at the fortunes of his hometown Celtics and Pats this year. I've ever skipped a few of his podcasts and columns because of it.

However, there's a reason I just can't quit his writing. Stuff like this:

The John Madden's Eyebrows Award for "Funniest ongoing subplot in HD"
Thanks to the freezing temperatures in Green Bay, poor Tom Coughlin's face turned a color of red that nobody even knew existed. In fact, Crayola needs to release a new blood-red crayon and call it "Tom Coughlin's Freezing Face." Out of all the e-mails we received about it, my favorite came from Adam Z. in Carolina: "It looks like Hannibal Lecter peeled Coughlin's face off. Someone get that man a hot towel, for the love of god!"

Although, thank god that the Mike Vrabel blatantly-illegal leg sweep of Philip Rivers, leading to an interception, didn't happen to Tom Brady and cause the Pats to lose the game. Page 2 would just now be posting his 110,000 word manifesto about it, which would devolve into utter incoherence after about 40,000 words, the point at which he would have gone 36 hours entirely without sleep. As it is, since the Pats were the guilty party in the affair, we just get a brief paragraph about it.

Not that this penalty cost the Chargers the game - the fact that they weren't as good as the Pats and Norv gutlessly kicked three field goals inside the 10 and punted three times in Pats territory were sufficient for that. But still.

Of Knees And Super Bowls

Pretty amazing news tonight, as it is revealed that Philip Rivers played the entire AFC championship game on a torn ACL, suffered last week in Indianapolis. Having gone through two of those in my life, I must say that I'm quite impressed. When I tore the first, I knew that I had done something, but didn't think it was very severe, and I played a half-dozen more points on it that game, which happened to be the last of the day. The second, although less serious-looking, was quite a bit more painful, and I definitely knew that my weekend was over when it happened.

But either way, there was no way in hell I would have been back on the field 7 days later - it was 4 or 5 days before I was walking without a decided limp.

Although, watching Rivers yesterday, he still had a pretty decided limp, so maybe it's just that he's much, much tougher than me. I'm damn impressed that he was able to get around the field at all, although he was clearly pretty gimpy, and amazed at how well he threw, given that he couldn't really push off his back foot.

Shame the Chargers were laid so low by injuries. I don't hold anything against Tomlinson for not being able to play; the differences in the physical requirements between playing quarterback and running back are pretty vast. It would be impossible for a running back to run with Rivers' injury, and while a partially torn MCL isn't nearly as serious, it's still enough to keep him from being anywhere near 100%, and that's probably enough to make him functionally useless as a running back in a playoff game.

So, of the games, clearly the second one was the better one. Neither teams in the early game were playing particularly well, while both teams were competitive in the NFC Championship. I thought the Giants were pretty clearly playing better - the Packers benefited from one 90 yard pass play that resulted from a blown coverage, a dead-ball personal foul that kept a drive alive, and a very questionable roughing the passer call. So I'm glad the better team won.

I don't really understand why the Patriots keep getting favored by double digits in these games. They've really been eking out a lot of wins the last 6 games or so. And I know that they keep winning. I'm on record as saying that if they win the Super Bowl they'll be the best team in NFL history, and I'll stand by that. But, of course, the lines are designed to split the betting action, not to act as a prediction of the outcome, so I guess the lines stay high because people keep betting on the Pats.

And, can I just say - thank goodness we get a chance to have another Boston/New York matchup in a major sports event. Those are two cities that have just been underexposed the last few years.

What Needs To Be Said

Okay, there's been lots of talk about Jonah Goldberg's new book, Liberal Facism.

I just finished listening to Goldberg's interview with Will Wilkinson over at Bloggingheads.tv. And oh, sweet merciful Jesus, what a waste of time. But, that's the sort of sacrifice that I am willing to go through for you, Faithful Reader. And, after listening to Goldberg blather on and on (and on, and on), I feel fairly safe in saying that there are, undoubtedly, an absolute ton of facts in the book. Goldberg is certainly well-educated, and knows lots of historical stuff.

But knowing lots of historical stuff is not knowing history, and Goldberg makes a nearly uncountable number of complete non sequiturs just during this one hour discussion with a very friendly interlocutor. I have no clue how many he might make during the course of the actual book. I don't have the intestinal fortitude to go back and re-listen to the interview in order to put together a link to one of the many examples, so you'll either have to take my word for it or listen to it yourself. I certainly have no intention of buying the book after listening to Goldberg's defense of it.

Look, it's not really surprising that a book with a name like Liberal Facism ought not to be taken seriously, and it's rather comical that Goldberg has been taking so much offense at the way that nobody from across the aisle is, well, taking his book seriously. For what it's worth, after listening to both of them get interviewed on bhTV, I think that Ramesh Ponnuru actually had a fairly reasonable argument to make when he wrote The Party of Death.

Still, if you want your book to be taken seriously, you ought not to give it a title so blatantly meant to do nothing more than inflame emotions. Emotional readers are kind of the opposite of rational debaters. So, although I think I would probably learn something and be forced to think quite a bit about something from reading Ponnuru's text, I can't do it. I can't reward that sort of behavior.

I don't read Michael Moore's books, I don't read Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, and I'm sure as hell not going to read crap written for the red-meat lovers on the other side of the political debate.

A Holiday Thought

I know that MLK day is one of those 'pretend holidays', which used to mean something when I was in grad school but is now just another day when my garbage doesn't get collected.

And I know that I, personally, don't really have a good appreciation for how much Martin Luther King, Jr. meant for a seriously large number of people in the US in the 50's and 60's. I don't have a good sense for how radical his ideas probably seemed, both to those on the right (the rights he expected for blacks) and to the left (his belief in nonviolence, even in the face of terrible violence against his person.)

But, reading Matt Yglesias' most excellent post about MLK and Vietnam, I am struck by two things. One is that Matt is absolutely right; it is an act of extreme moral courage to stand up against something that you believe is wrong, when doing so pits you against your erstwhile allies in the cause which is most important to you. The second is that King is capable of rhetoric the likes of which I have never seen in my lifetime. Check this shit out:

The time has come for America to hear the truth about this tragic war. In international conflicts, the truth is hard to come by because most nations are deceived about themselves. Rationalizations and the incessant search for scapegoats are the psychological cataracts that blind us to our sins. But the day has passed for superficial patriotism. He who lives with untruth lives in spiritual slavery. Freedom is still the bonus we receive for knowing the truth. "Ye shall know the truth," says Jesus, "and the truth shall set you free."

'The psychological cataracts that blind us to our sins'? That's some good stuff, right there. I can't imagine any serious public figure speaking like this today, if only because it's too complicated, not 'folksy' enough. It doesn't sound bite well.

I don't really have the right words to describe how I feel when I'm reading those words, so I'll just ask, instead, that you go read them again and think about it. Seems like a worthy tribute to a great man on his dedicated day.

Au Contraire

Shane, in making a slightly half-hearted, but unusually well-thought out (for Shane) argument in favor of John Edwards, says

Senator Obama's message of change centers on him, as an individual, while Senator Edwards is focused on changing the system. The message that I keep picking up from him is that he, as a person, is the focal point of his technique of change. I am very skeptical of the ability of one person, no matter how charismatic, to implement any sort of lasting change.

I think that Shane is falling prey to the conventional wisdom just a little bit here. I definitely agree that the media narrative of the Obama campaign is that he is the central locus of change. Atrios summed it up quite clearly when he wrote in December that Obama's message is "The system sucks, but I'm so awesome that it'll melt away before me."

I don't see it that way at all. I remember hearing on Chris Matthews, the night after Iowa, quotes from Senators Clinton and Obama. The remarkable thing, and Matthews noticed it in one of his lucid moments, was that Sen. Clinton was talking all about herself. I will do this, and I will make this happen, and I will fight for you. But Sen. Obama talks all about you, about us. About what you can do, and what you can make happen. As many have pointed out, it's the classic language of a community organizer, convincing you that you have the power to change your environment.

That's the aspect of the Obama message that I think Shane is missing out on. It's not about what he can do. It's about what we, the American people, can do. I've written about this before, I'm sure, but I'm a bit too lazy to go back and find it. But I don't think the way that things get done in America is through the agency of the Presidency. Well, in the last 7 years all sorts of things have been done purely through the executive branch, but I don't like that system, and would much prefer a return to something closer to the ideal, where the legislative branch makes the laws, and the executive interprets and enforces them.

Anyhow, my point is that the way laws, especially laws that go against the bogeyman Special Interests, get passed is when they are popular enough that congressmen fear popular backlash if they don't vote for them. That's why it's easy to pass laws to, say, help people who are behind on their mortgage only when it becomes a big enough phenomenon that everyone gets concerned about it and Demands Action.

So, the way to pass real progressive reform is a two-part plan. One is to elect a more progressive Congress. There's a very valid argument that Sen. Edwards would be more effective in this regard, but it's really a crapshoot. I think we can all agree that both Sens. Edwards and Obama have a better chance of having long coattails for this purpose than Sen. Clinton. The second part, though, which is equally important, is convincing the American people that the reform in question is important. Vital. Absolutely necessary to preserve the future of America.

That's the part that Sen. Obama is thinking about when he brought up Saint Reagan this week in an interview. And I think he's right. Reagan had a remarkable ability to bring The People around to his side of the argument. And, for all of our bitching and moaning about the Special Interests, The People are still pretty damn powerful when it comes to getting the rules changed. And here is where I think Sen. Obama has the best hole cards. I think he, with his soaring rhetoric and cross-partisan appeal, has the best chance of convincing the American people of the rightness of the progressive cause. Which is why I'll be voting (well, caucusing) for him on February 5th.

Riding The Wave

Commenter Jenny asks "So DID you sign up with Obama's campaign?"

I'm pleased to say that the answer is yes! I am an official Precinct Captain for the Obama campaign for the February 5th Colorado Democratic Caucus. So far, this has consisted of me reading a bunch of material and looking over a list of every registered Dem in my neighborhood. My next job is to start talking to the people on the list that I know (which turns out to be about 8 or so people, mostly immediate neighbors plus a few random types) and try to convince them to caucus with me for Obama.

I'm actually pretty excited to get started. One of those random things that I've been thinking about lately is how exactly it is that I ought to get started putting into practice some of these crazy ideas I have about how to live a better life.

I think there are some moves already in progress that will help me head in that direction, which I'm sure I'll be explaining in more detail in this space in the future. But something that seems to me would be a good start would be to start living a little less for myself and a little more for things a bit bigger than me. I don't know for sure, but it seems like a political campaign I really believe in is a good start.

Ugh

What a week.

I won't get too bogged down in the details, because frankly they're a bit depressing, and I've spent much of the evening trying to kill the relevant brain cells with homebrew. But it was a rough one at work - too many hours, doing frustrating and unrewarding work. Then, on Thursday, we got the least inspirational corporate speech I think we've ever received.

I know lots of you have heard some of the various stories/complaints of mine about work recently, as my company moves from fun, researchy place to a more corporate atmosphere, as we go from the development part of our project towards production.

It's understandable - the work is more serious, and we have to start tracking the details of our process much more carefully if we aim to get to production mode. But it's also a hell of a lot less fun.

It was cool to be working for less money than I could be making in a more corporate environment when I was really having fun working. When they told us that in order to get a bonus this year, we would have to take a temporary pay cut, and the raise was dependent on hitting a schedule which was something between optimistic and unrealistic, that was pretty damn annoying, but I got over it.

But on Thursday, when we were told that, because we were now behind the schedule, everyone is being asked to work harder, and more, and that, to encourage this new policy, there was going to be catered lunch on Saturday? Well, suffice to say, at some point, if you keep asking people to work more, and get paid the same, or even less?

Well, that's just a bad week.

Well, How Did I Get Here?

Sorry for the long gap in postings. What can I say - Faithful Reader T.N. told me last week that I had been posting too often, and he had been spending too much of his life finding out what to think by reading what I had to say.

Plus, I just haven't felt like I've had too much to say in the last few days.

A few random thoughts from the weekend:

I think one of the things I really like about football is the way 'home field advantage' varies so wildly from city to city. It's the only sport where, really, you will see an almost completely different sport, depending on where the matchup is happening. It's great. The difference between the track meet between the Colts and the Chargers and the slogfest that was Green Bay beating the living snot out of Seattle in a driving blizzard was absolutely huge, and quite entertaining.

That said, I think those who doubt the potency of the eventual NFC champ do so at their own risk. Both teams have one absolutely dominating line unit - Green Bay's offensive line, and the Giants' defensive front 4. Big, strong, and wickedly well-conditioned. Both started so-so, but got stronger as the game wore on. In the fourth quarter of Saturday's game, Ryan Grant was getting deep into the secondary before getting brushed by defenders, and poor Tony Romo couldn't complete a 5-step drop without having an extremely large man running at him at high speed.

NFL games are won along the lines, and I think the Packers' O line and Giants' D line are the best two units left in the playoffs. (Before you mention them, I agree that the Patriots' O line is clearly a marvelous pass blocking group, but their run blocking is so-so, I would say.) So, I would say that each of those groups gives their respective teams a shot against the Pats in Phoenix.

Politically, I am fairly disappointed with the turn the Clinton campaign took against Obama in the last week. I know that I am wildly biased here, but I really feel like Obama has been trying to make a positive case for his candidacy, about what he brings to the table that nobody else in the race does.

Clinton, when madly ahead in the poll numbers, was happy to play suit, but now that she is in a dogfight, the tactics have changed. Rather than talk up Hillary's qualifications, they now get stuck in the mire of denying any real difference in Obama's stances, saying that he is, basically, just another liberal politician with views just like hers.

For example, when talking on Meet the Press about Obama's claim that his opposition to our misadventure in Iraq back in 2002 shows him to have better judgment than she, rather than deal with the question at hand, she instead attacks his integrity and consistency:

And let me address the point that Bill was making. Because, again, I think it's been unfairly and inaccurately characterized. What he was talking about was very directly about the story of Senator Obama's campaign, being premised on a speech he gave in 2002. And that was to his credit. He gave a speech opposing the war in Iraq. He gave a very impassioned speech against it and consistently said that he was against the war, he would vote against the funding for the war. By 2003, that speech was off his Web site. By 2004, he was saying that he didn't really disagree with the way George Bush was conducting the war. And by 2005, '6 and '7, he was voting for $300 billion in funding for the war. The story of his campaign is really the story of that speech and his opposition to Iraq.

It's lame. To go all cliche on you, it is absolutely 'politics as usual.' And it won't get things done.

If Hillary really thinks, as she appears to, that her vote in 2003 was right, then she should say exactly that. She can admit that the vote was a mistake, while still arguing that she was making the best decision she could, with the imperfect information she had.

But, no, that would be too hard. Much easier to just attack someone else instead about whether he is being honest about the things he said, than to have to deal with the much tougher question about whether or not you believe in the things you said.

But don't listen to me, listen to Reihan, who frankly knows many more things than I do and isn't afraid to speak up about it.

So was your judgment lacking, Senator Clinton? No, because President Bush lied to me about how aggressively and seriously he’d pursue a diplomatic solution. But then, almost by definition, you were misled. Judgment is, in no small part, about being able to tell when people are lying to you, isn’t it? Perhaps Senator Clinton believes that no one will ever again try to mislead her. I’m reminded of President Bush’s brilliant “fool me once” remark: Fool me twice! You can’t … you can’t fool me twice! This seems to be Clinton’s basic understanding of how the world should work, which suggests a level of ingenuousness far beyond that of the junior senator from Illinois.

Lastly, 16 days until Lost returns! Woohoo!

The Maths Iz Phun!

Checking out the weather.com homepage for Longmont right now, I see this:

It's a little complicated, but the gist I want to get out is that the current temperature is 44 F, while the forecast high for today is 38 F.

Shouldn't there be some sort of failsafe against this happening? Some little piece of code which says, 'if the current temperature is higher than the predicted high, revise the predicted high to 3 degrees above the current temperature' or something like that?

Seems like one of those little things which would be easy to do, and really saves some of your credibility. Isn't this kind of like me staking my reputation, today, on the fact that Barack Obama will win the 2008 New Hampshire primary? I mean, I can't win...

Regrets And Apologies

It's a bad day when, an hour after you get to work, you realize that the shirt you have on is the one you wore last week, after your massage, and that the scent of week-old massage oil is simply, well, not a good one at all. Especially when your schedule for the day doesn't leave time to get home at lunch for a change or a shower.

Of course, it's an even worse day when you are the guy assigned to work with that guy all day.

So, to Mr. C.A. (not his real initials) of InPhase, I am humbly and terribly sorry for the day-long assault that was launched on your nasal passages today, and I hope that I can be forgiven for it.

The Clintonomenon

Less of a happy morning today for me. I'm not going to spin any of the typical campaign BS, and tell you how a small loss was actually a victory for Obama in New Hampshire. I heard Obama saying something quite similar on Today this morning (it's mornings like this, more than anything, when I miss having CNN.) I understand why he has to say 'well, Matt, we were down 20 points here just a few weeks ago, so to get this close is a big victory for our campaign.' I don't like it, of course. It would be super-duper if he would have the cojones to spurn the consultants and say 'well, of course I would have preferred to win here. But, I didn't, so I congratulate Senator Clinton on her excellent campaign and look forward to continuing the debate in Michigan, South Carolina, and beyond.'

But, of course, the mere fact of admitting defeat would be spun by the punditocracy of an admission of, well, defeat, and we can't have that!

That said, my feelings of the night pretty closely match what Kevin Drum said yesterday. In particular, I am very glad that, although it renders my prediction wrong, the New Hampshire result means that Iowa's ridiculous position didn't entirely decide the nomination.

Also, I am very excited about the fact that it looks like the question will not be decided on February 5th, which means that for the first time in my adult life, my primary vote may actually mean something! I have already gone to sign up as a volunteer at the Obama campaign to try and work in the Colorado caucus process.

So, a disappointing morning, but hardly the end of the world. As I've said many times, it's not like I think Hillary is a bad candidate, and I think she's make a good, competent president. I just think we can do better...

Vote For Edwards! (No, Not That One...)

Ezra got himself a sit-down with Mrs. Edwards and posted up the entire interview. There's been lots of talk, especially back last year when it was revealed that her cancer had reappeared, that Elizabeth is really the motor that drives the Edwards machine. She would not let him quit on account of her health. The campaign really reflects her passion, her thoughts, and John is only a mirror of those things, like Plato's shadows on the wall of the cave.

When I read things like

Congressmen take the money because they think it'll help them get votes. If they think the votes will be taken away from them rather than given to them, they'll vote the right way. And my guess is that John won't have to visit that many districts to make that happen Now, there may be some congressmen who vote that way out of conviction, and if so, let them defend it to their constituents. But if it's really all about money, they'll be outed.

it makes me very sad, indeed, that I don't have the chance to vote for Mrs. Edwards this time around. Either way, hopefully we can find a way to get her some influence in the next administration. She is one smart cookie.

This might be the single smartest thing I've read this year about politics. The problem with politics is not money, per se. The problem is the way that money buys votes.

The briefest explanation of the democratic ideal, to me, is that politicians adopt positions, based either on their conviction or on the belief that they are popular. People vote for the politician who holds the views most like their own. Thus, popular opinions are enacted into law. The competition is for votes, and the currency is the candidates' opinions.

There are many, many ways in which the American system falls short of this ideal. But the worst, to my mind, is the way that votes can be bought using money, rather than opionions, as currency. People, just by virtue of being human beings, with all the strange and funny fallacies that that evolutionary history puts on their psychology, are too easily swayed by a smart commercial, a funny quip, or a sound bite. It's much easier to plant a false impression in someone's mind than to unplant it.

The best way to 'fix' this problem would be to improve people, so that they are more interested in digging deeper into issues, finding out when a 'he-said, she-said' is really a 'he-lied, she-didn't'. The least ideal, but easiest, is to move all the way from the ultimate cause to the proximate one, and remove the money which makes so easy the corruption of the ideal.

I love that Elizabeth Edwards is aiming for that first goal; even if you can't fix people, maybe if you fight back hard enough, and passionately enough, you can make people a little better than they are.

I don't know if it would work or not, but it's a damn admirable goal. I hope someone in the Obama campaign is taking notes.

Roundup Of Stuff

Okay, busy day at work, but my tabs are filling up with things I've been meaning to link to. So, briefly:

1) Christopher Hitchens is a very angry person. I don't know quite what he's angry about, or even who he's angry at. But he sure is angry.

2) After a few very slow weeks over the holidays, The American Scene is really doing some great, thought-provoking blogging right now. Reihan certainly has gathered up a serious set of conservative thinkers, and I have been finding myself re-reading and re-re-reading many of the entiries of late.

I'll link to my favorite two recent ones, one from Reihan about the way technological advancements are bound to render the insurance paradigm obsolete, and a second from James Poulos about one issue where I really think well-intentioned liberals and conservatives can come together, the question of how to increase human happiness in a world of ever-increasing material comfort, coincident with ever-decreasing spiritual satisfaction. Call it The Progress Paradox zone.

Hopefully I'll have a chance to come back to these two posts in the near future and write a bit more about my thoughts on them, but you should check them out, either way.

Well, Then

Okay, I may not have been too excited about the game heading in, but that was one hell of a first half. The LSU interception was absolutely brilliant defensive football. Ohio State has their work cut out for them in the second half...

Old Dogs And New Tricks

Very oddly, one of the events that I have come to really look forward to in my weekend is my weekly phone call with the Parental Units. Mom keeps me up to date on all the day-to-day stuff, including family gossip, reminders about big events (did you get tickets for your nephew's Bar Mitzvah yet?), and how their horse-dog, Leo, is doing.

Dad and I, especially of late, have been having some very interesting, and wide-ranging discussions. My parents are, in many ways, classic neoconservatives, in the original sense of 'Jewish liberals whose opinions about the Muslim world led them to become much more hawkish on this set of policy questions.'

And it's a pretty hard hawkishness. Last summer, my dad told me that the only way you can have civil relations with a Muslim (or maybe Arab - I don't remember exactly) country was to beat the snot out of it militarily. He said that the Israeli/Egyptian peace was a result entirely of Israel completely demolishing the Egyptian military in the Six Days' War. And, thus, he was entirely in favor of Israel's attack on Lebanon, which was taking place at the time, because it was the only way they were going to halt the missile attacks from the Golan Heights.

But, amazingly, while we were talking about Obama this weekend (my dad, not surprisingly, is a Hillary fan, but is coming around a bit), he actually admitted that, to paraphrase, during his 'saner moments', he's able to understand, and maybe even agree, that the concept of attacking Muslim countries may, actually, have some counterproductive, blowback effects.

The specific point I was trying to make is that if you believe, as I do, that a large part of the Muslim antipathy towards the West has to do with the vast difference in relative economic success between the two regions (and the way the Western countries have been so exploitive of the Middle East's resources), then you don't reduce that anger by blowing the already-poor further back in time towards the Stone Age.

And, once again I really cannot overemphasize how unusual this is, my dad actually said that he understands how that needs to be a part of US foreign policy, and maybe even a part of Israel's as well.

Maybe, if nothing else good comes from this trillion-dollar boondoggle, this will be one good outcome of our misadventures in Mesopotamia. If significant numbers of people start to realize that when a group of people really hate you, you don't reduce the hate by blowing them up, that's a pretty good silver lining.

Krugman: Right On The Economy, Right For America

Hard to argue with Paul Krugman's editorial from this morning. He's talking about the remarkable, gymnast-like flexibility of the conservative arguments in favor of tax cuts.

The policies never change — but the arguments for these policies turn on a dime.

When the economy is doing reasonably well, the debate is dominated by hype — by the claim that America’s prosperity is truly wondrous, and that conservative economic policies deserve all the credit.

But when things turn down, there is a seamless transition from “It’s morning in America! Hurray for tax cuts!” to “The economy is slumping! Raising taxes would be a disaster!”

I have always wanted to hear the answer that someone like, say George W. Bush, would give if asked the following question: "When you first entered office in 2001, you said that the economy was growing so quickly, and overall government tax receipts surging so much, that the only responsible thing to do was to 'return the money to the taxpayer.' Then, when it became apparent that the economy was, in fact, already slowing down, you then said that the only option available was to cut taxes, which would spur economic growth. Now, with stagnant economic growth and a possible recession on the horizon, we're told that to do anything other than make permanent the aforementioned tax cuts would doom the economy. So, if economic times both good and bad, and anything in between, are the proper time to cut taxes, is there a time when you ever think raising taxes would be an appropriate course of action?"

I know it's a pipe dream that you'll ever have a media personality ask this question, or that you'll get anything like an honest response out of a halfway intelligent conservative pol who is asked it. But hey, it's my blog. I can dream, right?

Are You Ready For Some (More) Football?

Well, tonight is the "big" night, as Ohio State and LSU get ready for the big BCS National Championship tilt.

Am I the only one who isn't really all that excited about this game?

Over the weekend, Shane wrote about the uneven performance of various teams in their bowl games, arguing that parity was wrecking the college system, which stresses the importance of regular-season records, writing

In such an environment, how futile is it to try to pick 2 team to contend for a "Championship"?

In thinking about it some more, I'm actually coming more around to the opposite side of things. I don't mean to go all George Will on you, but one of the beautiful things of College Football is the way people care about games that may not, in the 'grand scheme' of things, matter all that much.

There are plenty of examples of this - intrastate rivalries like Alabama/Auburn. Great September rivalries like USC/Notre Dame. Great annual end-of-season events like Michigan/Ohio State. Even when these games have no reference to the championship picture, people care. They're fun. Even half-way sports fans like myself tend to care about games like this.

When it comes to Bowl Season, the games tend to have less general appeal, but still - even if there's only a few tens of thousands of alums who care about, or are even aware of, the Poop.com bowl, that's still a lot more fans than are getting to cheer for the Cleveland Browns right now, to pick an example out of a hat.

And, of course, to completely contradict myself, another part of what makes those September games really exciting is how important they may be with regards to the final championship lineup. One bad week in September can completely ruin an otherwise perfect season, which really gives those early games meaning.

Compare and contrast to NCAA basketball, where the regular season has become nearly meaningless. Now, I'm not saying that an 8-team playoff would make every regular season game meaningless. Obviously not. But they would become a bit less meaningful.

Now, the down side of this system is what I was talking about earlier. Namely, since the championship game isn't the end of a tournament-style event, it feels fairly disconnected from the rest of the season. Of course, the 30-some day layoff between the end of the regular season and the BCS championship doesn't help.

I guess, to me, it comes down to a choice between two systems, one where every game is incredibly important but can end kind of disappointingly, and another where the championship game feels like a much bigger event, but reducing the excitement of more run-of-the-mill regular season games.

Personally, I think I prefer the first, if only because the NFL gives us a really good example of the second, and I'm a big believer in diversity. But, I can clearly understand how people might prefer the second, and that's cool too. They have the right to their opinions, even when they're wrong.

Are You Ready For Some Football?

Okay, that's probably the most cliche title I've ever had for a blog post. Whatever.

So, big weekend, as the NFL Playoffs kick off about, oh...20 minutes ago or so.

For what it's worth, here are my picks:
Seahawks easy over R*dskins (hate that name.) Seahawks D is much better than they get credit for.

Jacksonville tight over Steelers, although I hate going with the crowd here. I'm glad I don't gamble - this is a total trap game.

Tampa over the New Jersey Giants. I know the Giants play better on the road, and Tampa really struggled late. But still, Gruden and Garcia, vs. Coughlin and Eli Manning? No contest.

San Diego over Tennessee, also easy. I don't see how the Vince Young-led offense can possibly get going against that D, which is really playing well of late, although you can't rule out hte possibility that Philip Rivers will just be god-awful and blow it.

Somehow, I'm not really that excited about these games. Probably because the Eagles aren't involved, the only team I care about in the NFC playoffs is the Packers (well, other than hating the 3 NFC East teams that got in, of course). The AFC will get better next week, everyone is excited for the possibility of Jacksonville/New England and the San Diego/Indy game we all wanted last year.

Fun With Voices!

I'm not sure if I've ever written in this space before to recommend that everyone in America read themselves some Dan Savage. He is, without a doubt, the best sex advice columnist in America. He's not quite as funny as the classic Lovelines, back when Adam Corrola was teaming up with Dr. Drew. But he's plenty funny, and his advice is approximately 1000% more useful and applicable than theirs ever was. You can read his columns and download his live podcasts from The Stranger's website.

I really can't describe the column. It's a great mix of completely normal straight sex questions, followed by ridiculous questions about Donkey Punches and Hot Karl's (I'm sure as shit not going to explain here - go Google them if you must.)

His column is definitely adults-only. The topics and language are absolutely grown-up in nature. He's been doing a podcast for about a year now, and I have to say, it's absolutely amazing how slick and witty he manages to be while taping responses, often while actually talking live on the phone with the people who call in questions.

Faithful Reader E.S., after getting turned on by me to Savage's writings, e-mails to say

So I've been listening to the Savage Love podcasts for a few days now, and you are right, they are totally amazing. Dan's personality comes shining through, and I agree with his advice about 99% of the time. But I have discovered something, something that you should have told me a long time ago.

You and Dan Savage are the same person.

I'm not sure if you are his alter-ego, or vise versa -- maybe you are identical twins. But your voices sound EXACTLY THE SAME. Your speech patterns are EXACTLY THE SAME. I think I could record you saying, "Santorum: The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex," and not be able to tell which of you was speaking. It's creepy.

I must say, I really don't hear it. But, then again, I have absolutely no concept of what I actually sound like. Every time I hear my voice recorded I'm thoroughly disappointed by how un-suave and deep it is, compared to how it sounds from inside my own head. I think that I sound vaguely like Morpheus, but, in actuality, I'm much closer to Cypher.

So, I wonder if E.S. is right. Fortunately, through the wonders of the internet, we can actually find out! Here's a clip from Savage's latest podcast.



And here's me, reading the same thing.



What do you think? I think E.S. is probably on to something...

Ah, but that's not all. With the wonders of my new freeware audio program, here's me and Dan, talking over each other. It is a little creepy in the middle, when we are actually overlapping perfectly.



Here's Dan, talking chipmunk-style.



And here's me, like Zeus talking down from Mount Olympus.



Isn't technology keen?

The Obamanomenon: You Say You Want A Revolution

Okay, I received this video in the mail from Barack Obama's campaign. It's his victory speech from the Iowa caucus last night. It's good. Really good. I'm going to try and join, say, 2006 technology, by embedding the video here. Let's see how it goes.

It's a bit long, but you should really watch it. I hope and believe you are seeing the next President of the US speaking, so it's probably worth knowing what he has to say...

The Obamanomenon: I Don't Think We're In Kansas Anymore

I ran straight to the laptop upon waking up this morning to make sure that I really remembered the outcomes of last night's caucuses correctly. Thankfully, I did.

Also, for the first time in what feels like decades, it's actually warm this morning, like it's a new morning in America, or at least in Longmont.

It's a Good Day.

The Obamanomenon

I haven't spent a whole lot of time in this space talking about the horserace for the nominations recently. For a variety of reasons, I mostly tired of the endless speculation, the ebbs and flows, and the ridiculous what-iffing of 'if Huckabee wins Iowa, then McCain in New Hampshire, and Fred Thompson can somehow eke out a victory in South Carolina, then clearly Giuliani is the nominee.'

Whatever.

But, tonight, we reengage with the political process. Pedal to the metal, full-speed ahead.

I don't have a whole lot to add to the commentary of the night (see Ezra, Ezra, Ezra, Ezra, and Matt for more interesting thoughts than I could ever have.) I will say that, while I agree with Shane that you can't really call the national process over yet, at the same time I just don't think I see a likely path for anyone but Obama to win the Dem nomination at this point. Edwards just doesn't have the cash to compete, and Hilary's entire raison d'etre, the fact that she was the most competent, the best organized, the inevitable winner of the entire race, just went out the window.

I like Hilary. In most elections, I would proudly pull the lever for her. I'm a big fan of competent, reasonable government, and I think it's important to know how to Get Stuff Done, and that's a lady who knows how to do so. But this year, pardon my French, fuck competence.

The world, and, hopefully, the citizenry of the US of A, has seen the absolute clusterfuck that results from electing an entire government of people who don't believe in the ability of government to actually accomplish positive things in the world. You get corporate governance in the absolutely worst sense of the word, with selfish yahoos looking to get ahead in the game, only interested in their own well-being.

The American system has always been, at its heart, a bit utopian. We are always hoping for the right person to come along, to Fix The System, to make a difference in the world. This year, I fervently believe that we actually have a chance to take a step in that direction. I don't know what the future holds, if Obama wins the nomination.

I'm quite confident that we will see the ugliest negative campaigns that have ever been mounted on a national scale. But, if he can overcome these attacks by fighting back honestly, and smartly, and strongly, I honestly believe that Barack Obama can revive the promise that an entire generation once felt was embodied in Bobby Kennedy.

Maybe the conservatives will continue to live out their history, throwing roadblocks in the way of progress and engaging in dishonest discourse to get their way. But maybe, just maybe, Obama can prove to be such a transcendent figure, such an inspiration, that he can render irrelevant these tactics. If he can bring 57 Democrats to the Senate in 2009, maybe the reptilian brains of the Republican leadership will process the fact that the train is leaving the station, and they better hop on board or get left behind.

It's a long shot, I know, but, like Andy Dufresne says in The Shawshank Redemption, hope is a good thing; maybe, the best of things, and no good thing ever dies. Isn't the possibility worth taking the chance? You'll never fly without taking the chance of falling, but the worlds that open up make it all worth the risk.

I will leave quoting Ezra, who most pithily summed up my feelings for the night:

It's a remarkable night. Not just for Obama, or for Democrats, or for political junkies. For the country.

Department Of Corrections, Plus: Free Stuff!

Hooray for my blog, as it has earned me all manner of national acclaim and accord.

Well, free coffee anyhow.

New (and, I hope, to become Faithful) Reader M.S., an employee of Allegro coffee, e-mails me to say:

The Brewing Market isn’t actually part of the Whole Foods family. In 1985 when the Cohn’s sold the retail division of their coffee company (Brewing Market), that retail side became a completely different company from the wholesale side. Wholesale became Allegro which was then bought by Whole Foods, but the Brewing Market is still a privately owned company.

Additionally, he offers me a free sample of Allegro's coffee, if I'm interested. So, hooray for free stuff!

The Wonders Of Technology

Damn Ezra, and his boyish good looks, and his moving his blog to the Prospect Website.

I was trying to post a comment, and the A.P. website makes you enter one of those silly codes, where the letters are hidden on a funky background, to guarantee that I'm a real person. Only, I can't seem to read it. Here's the logo I'm supposed to be reading:

On my 17" LCD screen, I read that as 'kmztjm'. Only, according to the Prospect website, that's not right.

Anyone else have any suggestions? Sadly, this process has become onerous enough (specifically, their codes are really difficult for me to read somehow), that I'm no longer going to be commenting on Ezra's site.

Sex With Dolls

It's pretty obvious to me why it's a bit weirder to rent a sex doll than to just buy one, for the obvious sanitation reasons. To my knowledge, even the most ecologically aware, pro-recycling types don't advocate implementing reusable toilet paper, especially in public restrooms. That would be significantly more icky than single-use toilet paper.

Similarly, when you are having sex with a sex doll, you're having sex with everyone who's ever had sex with that sex doll. And while the concept of sex with myself is a bit weird, the concept of sex with hundreds of unknown, unseen strangers is much, much worse.

Although, I do think that there is a horizon of creepiness, call it the Icky Event Horizon. And, much like once something goes beyond the event horizon of a black hole, we can no longer say what happens to it, because all information is lost, all things that take place on the far end of the IEH are simply equally icky, because there's nothing but badness that takes place there. A rented sex toy absolutely takes place beyond the IEH.

That said, you really ought to go check out the comments on Matt's post. They truly run the gamut from ridiculous to absolutely sublime. My favorite so far:

Well, but on the other hand, the authorities frown on boiling your new human girlfriend before sleeping with her. Advantage, RealDoll!

It's All About Me

Frequent reader and one-time frequent commenter Michelle told me, several months ago, that I should check out a new bloggy project that she is participating in, Project W.A.R.P.E.D. It's the story of a group of geeks with way too much time on their hands trying to take high-resolution high-altitude photographs by sticking a digital camera on, essentially, a weather balloon. I had kinda forgotten about it, I'm ashamed to say, but then I was Googling myself and found that I had been referred to in one of the posts there.

As I say, a too-much-time kind of project. But a pretty entertaining read, nonetheless. So, if you are also one of those too much time on your hands types, check it out!

There's No Place Like Home

It was a pretty exciting weekend, as I got to experience the mountain side of the massive shutdown of the I-70 Corridor. I got to Breckenridge at about 2 on Sunday. The drive up wasn't too bad; a little blowing snow and reduced visibility, but nothing traumatizing. But the winds just kept getting worse, with steady 40 to 50 mph speeds and gusts up around 90 mph.

Conditions on the mountain were nothing to write home about, with really bad visibility, cold temps, and every lift on the upper half of the mountain shut down due to the winds. I got in literally one run: it took me about 25 minutes to just get on the lift, and when I got back to the bottom the line was literally twice as long as before, so I bailed and got up to Jeff and Keenan's condo.

News reports were starting to say that conditions were getting pretty treacherous, as blowing snow was leading to literally zero visibility conditions, and deep drifts were starting to collect on the highways. Scott and Scott, two of the people in the condo, were planning on heading back to Boulder to their wife and fiance, respectively, that night. Only, at about 6:30 or so, they shut down the Eisenhower tunnel, in fact shutting down I-70 from Vail to Floyd Hill.

The tunnel stayed closed almost all day Monday, only opening around 3:30 or so in the afternoon, after many hours of intentional avalanche-setting, stranded car-saving, and road-plowing.

The best part was that, with the winds still fairly high, the weather reports appeared to scare all the potential skiers. Amazingly, even the local Breck station's weatherman was recommending that people stay off the slopes. I can only assume he's been killed by some resort employees and his body buried in a snow drift by now, only to be discovered in the spring thaw.

So Monday was perfect - great powder and no crowds. Cold, to be sure, but you can always dress for that.

Tuesday dawned clear and sunny. The crowds were still pretty small, since most of the non-locals had to head down the hill to catch their flights home. The powder was a little less exciting than on Monday, but it was still a damn fine day to be on a snowboard. I left the resort at about 2:30, and was delayed maybe 40 minutes total by traffic on the ride home.

Compared to Shane's misadventures with O'Hare International Airport, I really have nothing to complain about. I was sure that I've written about this topic previously, but I can't actually find any such post. I am not a religious man, but if and when I found Daveism, one of its precepts will be that O'Hare International Airport is the source of all evil in the universe. You would have to pay me, and generously, to get me to agree to fly through that cesspool of an airport anywhere between December 20th and January 2nd or so.

It appears that Shane has survived his brush with the profane with nothing more than a story about a delay and a missed destination, for which he should count his blessings. He didn't have to participate in any human sacrifices or anything in order to escape.

I Hate People Like Me

As someone who has been known to occasionally consider himself an expert on one topic or another, there are really few things quite as annoying to an actual expert as someone who Googles a topic, finds some total crackpot website making some completely outrageous claim (did you know that it's a proven fact that the milk they sell in grocery stores actually comes from diseased, half-rotten cows that are only kept alive using respiratory machinery?), then repeats it to their doctor, or whoever. Then, when the doc tries to respond using some form of rational conversation, the person just assumes that the doc is just another part of the conspiracy, cashing checks from the Milk Lobby and laughing all the way to the morgue to identify yet another one of his or her patients, just another innocent victim in the Lactose War.

But, nonetheless, here I am, Googling 'salicylate nasal polyp' and seeing what comes of it. The only thing that makes me feel a touch better about myself for doing this is that the sites which say something along the lines of "you're right, the doc is completely overreacting. There's no reason whatsoever to make such drastic change in your diet based on such limited evidence" seem much more reasonable, including an actual peer-reviewed journal article from 2002. See here and here for representative examples (the second link is the journal article.)

The short version of the argument is that there is, absolutely, a condition called aspirin-sensitive asthma (ASA). ASA is often correlated with rhinosinusitis, like what I have. But there's no real reason to assume that someone with rhinosinusitis, who otherwise shows no symptoms of ASA, has it. Additionally, according to the journal article, scientific studies show no positive link between reduction of salicylates in the diet and reduction in ASA symptoms, although it does leave open the possibility that this is due to poor compliance in the diet, rather than actual ineffectiveness of the strategy.

Whereas, the kind of sites which talk about the link between other asymptomatic polyps and salicylates are like this one, low production-value sites with no apparent medical connection whatsoever.

Now, maybe this is all a big conspiracy from the Salicylate Lobby, and the last site is just the few truthspeakers fighting the power, but if so, they're doing a bad job of conspiratorializing, since my very vanilla-seeming doctor tried to get me on this completely crazy diet.

So, Daisy, I'm sorry to say that I will be keeping possession of the homebrew for the moment. Good try, though...

My Little Drugstore

With respect to my comments on Starbucks last week, commenter Jenny asks:

So, where do you like to go for your fix?

I presume she's asking where I go to get coffee, although lord only knows, if I wanted another kind of fix, I'm sure that between Boulder and Longmont I could get that itch scratched as well.

My personal preference is the Brewing Market franchise, a Colorado local company. They make a pretty fine cup of joe. But, of course, being Jewish like I am (Jewish, in the sense of 'painfully frugal'), I very rarely buy cups of coffee there. Instead, I buy beans, which I grind at home to make both drip coffee and espresso.

Here is where Brewing Market really shines. Their coffee is good, but the beans are really quite excellent. And, since they do all their roasting in Boulder, the beans are always very fresh, usually roasted within the week or so. When I make espresso, I can really tell the difference between beans I just brought home from the shop and beans a week later, so this really makes a difference vs. a national distribution network like Starbucks or Peet's.

I just found out (scroll down to 'History of Allegro Coffee') that Brewing Market is actually a part of the Whole Foods family of companies. This doesn't really affect me one way or the other, but probably doesn't surprise me. Brewing Market beans aren't cheap ($12 a pound for the Italian Cafe Blend that I use for espresso), but they are damn good.

Happy New Year! You Will Never Be Drunk Again...

Warning: this post is a little graphic, and entirely self-centered. Read on at your own risk.

Many of you know that I've been dealing with a fairly constantly stuffed-up nose for many, many years now. The clinical term for this is 'chronic sinusitis'.

It's a weird world to live in, where you blithely go through your day, ignorant of most of the smells around you, until all of a sudden something shifts inside your nose, and for 2 or 3 minutes, there's a whole new world of smells revealed. Then, just like that, it's gone again, for a few minutes or a few weeks, you never really know. I'm also very prone to fairly severe sinus infections, which is just a not-fun thing to have to go through every single year.

I've been seeing an ENT (Ear, Nose, Throat) specialist for several years, and she said that I have nasal polyps, basically big lumps growing inside my nose, which restrict the nasal passages. They can be reduced through a 'burst' of oral steroids (basically, taking a large amount of prednazone at once, then slowly reducing the dose day-by-day to prevent rebound symptoms. In some cases, they can actually be kept away through daily application of nasal steroids.

Now, I would think that putting a bunch of steroids in your nose would just make the polyps larger, and angrier. Kind of like Barry Bonds polyps, only without all the 30/30 seasons. But, that's just me. Doc says it's good, so I'm willing to give it a shot.

Anyhow, in my case, the steroids alone have not been enough to keep them away. There are also surgical methods - basically, they go in and cut the polyps out. My doctor has been recommending that we try a round of surgery, and see what happens.

For a variety of reasons which are too arcane to go into here, I had to change ENT's. I had my first appointment with the new doc today, and I'm mostly gratified that he doesn't think surgery is the right answer for me - to go through all that pain and such for a course of action that only has a so-so chance of permanently helping doesn't sound so fun to me.

However, I'm pretty sure that his proposed solution is even worse. Apparently, many people with polyps have a sensitivity to salicylates, a family of chemicals of which aspirin, acetylsalicylic acid, is the most famous.

So, as something to try, he suggested a salicylate-restricted diet. Which doesn't sound so bad. No aspirin, but I never take aspirin anyway, so what's the big deal, right?

Oh, not so fast. Check out this list of restricted foods on the low-salicylate diet. In particular, look at the restricted beverages:

• Beer, birch beer, and root beer
• Bubbly drinks (like soda pop or sparkling water)
• Distilled drinks (like whiskey, vodka, bourbon, or gin
• Tea
• Wine

Yes, that's right. No beer. No wine. No distilled beverages (according to a separate sheet I got, vodka is still okay.) No soda (although, again, the separate sheet said 7-Up is apparently fine?)

Yeah, this isn't going to be so much fun. I know that if this does work, and we get back to the 'reintroducing foods to see if they make a difference' phase, beer is sure as shit going to be the first thing we try out. I have about 48 bottles of freshly-bottled homebrew coffee stout sitting in my living room, crying out to be drunk.

So, tonight, a veritable bacchanlia of restricted foods. Then, tomorrow, we give this craziness a try.

So, Happy New Year to me, right?