Okay, after a couple of weeks of too much work, not enough fun, I am getting the hell out of Dodge.
I'm off to Beaver Creek for two days, with no computer. I'll be taking my cell phone, but hope to hell not to use it. I'm looking forward to a couple of days 'off the grid'.
So, in my absence, go learn something new. Make a friend. Feed a tree. Have fun! I know I will be. And, I'll be back and in a more...sociable mood come Sunday.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Legends Of The Absurd
I'm glad that I will never be famous, because if I did become famous, some day Michael Kinsley might write an article about me, like today's take-down of the New York Times for its mismanagement of the McCain/Iseman story of last week.
What I wrote was that some people had expressed concern that the Times article might have created the appearance of charging that McCain had had an affair. My critics have charged that I was charging the Times with charging McCain with having had an affair. Such a charge would be unfair to the New York Times, since the Times article, if you read it carefully (very carefully), does not make any charge against McCain except that people in a meeting eight years ago had suggested that other people eight years ago might reach a conclusion—about which the Times expressed no view whatsoever—that McCain was having an affair. I have no evidence to suggest that the New York Times suggested with no evidence that McCain was having an affair.And, if ever such a thing were to be written about me, I should be very sad, indeed. Although, it would be pretty fucking cool if Mike Kinsley knew who I was. That might make it all worthwhile.
From The Not-Quite-So-Funny File
And, not so much funny 'ha-ha' as funny 'hmmmm', apparent astronomical evidence of the existence of large pockets of dark matter. I'm very skeptical about concepts like Dark Energy and Dark Matter: just like string theory, they upset my notion that in order to qualify as science, a theory damn well ought to be testable. To explain the problem of cosmological reacceleration (the fact that the rate of cosmological expansion, in the wake of the Big Bang, slowed for several billion years, then started to accelerate again), I prefer theories of Modified Newtonian Dynamics.
Traditional Newtonian Laws of Dynamics are just approximations, which quantum laws approach as you change the scale from the micro to the macro (the so-called Correspondence Principle). You need quantum mechanics to describe the actions of a single electron, but if you start talking about amps of current flowing through a resistor, traditional electrodynamics do the job just fine.
Similarly, MOND posits that our traditional law of gravity is also just an approximation, perfectly describing the behavior of balls falling through air, or planets flying around a sun. But when you start to talk about extremely large distances, like that between various galaxies, maybe the rules change a bit. That could explain the reacceleration in a way that avoids having to propose that we don't know where 95% of the mass-energy of the Universe is hiding, as dark matter/dark energy theories claim.
Anyhow, my point is just that if, as claimed, we've seen some real evidence for the existence of dark matter (large pockets of mass whose existence we can presume from experimental evidence, although we cannot see it directly), that is a big feather in the cap of Dark Matter/Energy theorists.
Like any good modern physics argument, this one probably won't be solved anytime soon. But it's something worth keeping an eye out, at least if you are one of the 14 or so people not actually working in the field who still cares about this stuff.
Traditional Newtonian Laws of Dynamics are just approximations, which quantum laws approach as you change the scale from the micro to the macro (the so-called Correspondence Principle). You need quantum mechanics to describe the actions of a single electron, but if you start talking about amps of current flowing through a resistor, traditional electrodynamics do the job just fine.
Similarly, MOND posits that our traditional law of gravity is also just an approximation, perfectly describing the behavior of balls falling through air, or planets flying around a sun. But when you start to talk about extremely large distances, like that between various galaxies, maybe the rules change a bit. That could explain the reacceleration in a way that avoids having to propose that we don't know where 95% of the mass-energy of the Universe is hiding, as dark matter/dark energy theories claim.
Anyhow, my point is just that if, as claimed, we've seen some real evidence for the existence of dark matter (large pockets of mass whose existence we can presume from experimental evidence, although we cannot see it directly), that is a big feather in the cap of Dark Matter/Energy theorists.
Like any good modern physics argument, this one probably won't be solved anytime soon. But it's something worth keeping an eye out, at least if you are one of the 14 or so people not actually working in the field who still cares about this stuff.
Tuesday Laughs
For a few yuks on this fairly apolitical Tuesday:
Cracked.com's list of the 5 Most Badass American Presidents. About Teddy Roosevelt:
And, from the home of funny, something vaguely political: "Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results of 2008 Election Early."
Cracked.com's list of the 5 Most Badass American Presidents. About Teddy Roosevelt:
Did we mention he had asthma growing up? He did, and after he beat asthma to death, he ate asthma's raw flesh and ran 100 straight miles off the energy it gave him.Even better, the 9 Manliest Names In The World. All I can say about this is "Staff Sgt. Max Fightmaster."
And, from the home of funny, something vaguely political: "Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results of 2008 Election Early."
The Death Of Conservatism Redux
Okay, after re-reading my rant from yesterday, I realized that I didn't quite get around to making the point that I was trying to get at, which was that conservatism, as it is currently constituted, is going to have to figure out a way of adapting to a Brave New World if it is going to survive.
Both conservatism and liberalism make a lot of coin playing off the concept of tribalism. But there is a distinct difference, in my mind, in the way that they do so. Liberalism plays off tribalism in an inherently positive sense: the explicit goal of affirmative action is not to bring down whites, but to raise up blacks, for instance. Not to say that it doesn't sometimes come with some ugly undercurrents of quotas and guilt-tripping, but they're just that - undercurrents.
Conservatism, on the other hand, uses the definitions of 'self' and 'other' in a more negative sense. Keep those (blacks, women, convicted felons) from getting the right to vote. Keep those (interracial couples, gays) from getting the chance to marry. Keep those (Germans, Irish, Mexicans) back on the other side of the border, where they belong.
And that's an inherent problem. While we're always going to have tribal identities, at least so long as we are members of the species homo sapiens, the ongoing march of technological advancement is going to break down our ability to ignore the unhappiness of others.
Which is not to say that there won't be conservatism. There always will be. For one thing, so long as there are tribes (which, again, will be the case so long as we're human beings), there will be wars, and arguments about which ones are good ones (all of them, if your last name happens to be Kristol) and which ones are not. But it is sure as shit going to have to reconstitute itself on several axes. That's what I mean about the imminent death of conservatism; conservatism, as we know it, will not exist in 50 years. About that, I am quite confident.
Both conservatism and liberalism make a lot of coin playing off the concept of tribalism. But there is a distinct difference, in my mind, in the way that they do so. Liberalism plays off tribalism in an inherently positive sense: the explicit goal of affirmative action is not to bring down whites, but to raise up blacks, for instance. Not to say that it doesn't sometimes come with some ugly undercurrents of quotas and guilt-tripping, but they're just that - undercurrents.
Conservatism, on the other hand, uses the definitions of 'self' and 'other' in a more negative sense. Keep those (blacks, women, convicted felons) from getting the right to vote. Keep those (interracial couples, gays) from getting the chance to marry. Keep those (Germans, Irish, Mexicans) back on the other side of the border, where they belong.
And that's an inherent problem. While we're always going to have tribal identities, at least so long as we are members of the species homo sapiens, the ongoing march of technological advancement is going to break down our ability to ignore the unhappiness of others.
Which is not to say that there won't be conservatism. There always will be. For one thing, so long as there are tribes (which, again, will be the case so long as we're human beings), there will be wars, and arguments about which ones are good ones (all of them, if your last name happens to be Kristol) and which ones are not. But it is sure as shit going to have to reconstitute itself on several axes. That's what I mean about the imminent death of conservatism; conservatism, as we know it, will not exist in 50 years. About that, I am quite confident.
Monday, February 25, 2008
The Death Of Conservatism
I've mentioned before, I think, about how ridiculous the current hullabaloo about the 'Defense of Marriage' is. For starters, it's a completely ridiculous argument, one which does not hold up to the slightest bit of critical scrutiny. I think of myself as fairly intelligent, and I've never been able to figure out how two dudes in San Francisco tying the knot affects my ability to get married, or the decision-making process that leads me there. For another, and more important, it's a completely wasted rearguard action, since I am 100% confident that my grandchildren will someday think it absolutely as weird that two men weren't able to get married as I think it that, in the not-so-distant past, people of two different races couldn't get married.
In large ways, the ongoing and never-ending march of technological progress has a lot to do with these events. As technology opens our minds, expands our horizons, and forces us to interact daily with people and places and events that, previously, would never have even made it onto our radar screens, we grow to learn that other people are, well, people too, and equally deserving of our respect and the protection of law as we ourselves are.
Anyhow, the point of this meandering is that the technological march of progress will not be stopped, and Reihan is absolute right: if conservatives want to avoid a future which includes universal, government-delivered health care, they had better get off their ass and figure out a way to beat it. As technology gives us, and our doctors, and the insurance companies, more and more information about what the future holds for us (such as the likelihood of developing various diseases), more and more people are going to be dealt out of the private insurance game.
As Reihan said: read the N.Y. Times article on how this trend is already beginning, then read Stephen Cecchetti to learn about how its progression is inevitable, and what the only possible outcome may well be. As Cecchetti says, as markets fail, which the health insurance market is bound to do, in the long run, the government is always the body to step in and pick up the pieces.
Personally, I think it would be just super if we could, for once in the history of this godforsakenly shortsighted country, actually see this latent emergency as it's developing, rather than in hindsight, and actually take proactive steps to grease the wheels, rather than enact more shortsighted legislation to try and take care of an ongoing emergency.
But, having lived for 30 long years in said country, I'm not quite so naive as to expect it to actually happen. But still; a guy can dream, right?
In large ways, the ongoing and never-ending march of technological progress has a lot to do with these events. As technology opens our minds, expands our horizons, and forces us to interact daily with people and places and events that, previously, would never have even made it onto our radar screens, we grow to learn that other people are, well, people too, and equally deserving of our respect and the protection of law as we ourselves are.
Anyhow, the point of this meandering is that the technological march of progress will not be stopped, and Reihan is absolute right: if conservatives want to avoid a future which includes universal, government-delivered health care, they had better get off their ass and figure out a way to beat it. As technology gives us, and our doctors, and the insurance companies, more and more information about what the future holds for us (such as the likelihood of developing various diseases), more and more people are going to be dealt out of the private insurance game.
As Reihan said: read the N.Y. Times article on how this trend is already beginning, then read Stephen Cecchetti to learn about how its progression is inevitable, and what the only possible outcome may well be. As Cecchetti says, as markets fail, which the health insurance market is bound to do, in the long run, the government is always the body to step in and pick up the pieces.
Personally, I think it would be just super if we could, for once in the history of this godforsakenly shortsighted country, actually see this latent emergency as it's developing, rather than in hindsight, and actually take proactive steps to grease the wheels, rather than enact more shortsighted legislation to try and take care of an ongoing emergency.
But, having lived for 30 long years in said country, I'm not quite so naive as to expect it to actually happen. But still; a guy can dream, right?
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Feminism Is Funny!
Via Matt (who got it via Jessica Valenti), the funniest video I've seen about feminism, well, ever.
The best line? Definitely 'Which means she kept her name, mother****ers!'
The best line? Definitely 'Which means she kept her name, mother****ers!'
Friday, February 22, 2008
Yes, Yes
Via Ezra, Publius, and god knows how many other mushy liberal bloggers, the best comic ever, thanks to XKCD.
See, it's funny, because on the Internet, people are wrong all the time. And if one were to stay up every time they found something inaccurate, then they would...never...oh, nevermind.
See, it's funny, because on the Internet, people are wrong all the time. And if one were to stay up every time they found something inaccurate, then they would...never...oh, nevermind.
National Treasure
I try not to throw around phrases like 'National Treasure' lightly, but I do firmly believe that Fred Kaplan, who often pens explanatory pieces about the military and national defense at Slate, fits that profile to a T.
His latest piece, on this week's Navy shoot-down of a falling satellite, is a good representative of his too-often unheralded quality.
A lot of the coverage this week has made the implication, although it's never outright stated, that this is somehow a good indicator of our ability to develop a functional missile-defense program. And make no mistake - a bullseye hit on a flying satellite is a remarkable achievement. As Kaplan says:
But, as Kaplan points out, like the much-ballyhooed successful missile defense shield tests, all this test proves is that we can build a shield capable of protecting us from a single projectile, launched at a known time, from a known place, flying ballistically (i.e. launched to a high speed, but now flying only under the influence of gravity, like a very large cannonball.) Or, as Kaplan succinctly puts it:
The fact is, it's much cheaper to build a missile than a missile defense, so any expenditure on a shield system could be counteracted by a much smaller expenditure by whatever enemy nation we're supposedly protecting ourselves from, while the vastly larger number of missiles in the world increases the chance of an accidental launch, or the missile falling into the wrong hands, or any of a dozen other calamitous possibilities.
Finally, as Kaplan says:
His latest piece, on this week's Navy shoot-down of a falling satellite, is a good representative of his too-often unheralded quality.
A lot of the coverage this week has made the implication, although it's never outright stated, that this is somehow a good indicator of our ability to develop a functional missile-defense program. And make no mistake - a bullseye hit on a flying satellite is a remarkable achievement. As Kaplan says:
Think of it: An SM-3 missile, fired from a cruiser in the Pacific Ocean, ascending 133 miles and colliding dead-on with an object the size of an SUV that's zooming through outer space at 17,000 miles per hour. Truly remarkable!Remarkable, indeed.
But, as Kaplan points out, like the much-ballyhooed successful missile defense shield tests, all this test proves is that we can build a shield capable of protecting us from a single projectile, launched at a known time, from a known place, flying ballistically (i.e. launched to a high speed, but now flying only under the influence of gravity, like a very large cannonball.) Or, as Kaplan succinctly puts it:
The satellite shoot-down, as well as some previous testing, suggests that the missile-defense system, once it's installed, might be able to shoot down a) one decoy-less missile b) fired from a distant, known site c) along an arc within range of our radars and interceptors.But the key point, really, is that even if we could overcome every technical obstacle, the concept of a missile shield is almost self-defeating. No shield could possible defend against hundreds of missiles, launched from multiple sites towards multiple targets almost simultaneously. So, the existence of a missile shield encourages our enemies to radically build their stock of deadly weapons, not exactly an ideal outcome for anyone who likes being alive and wishes to minimize the chances of those events which might alter that status.
The fact is, it's much cheaper to build a missile than a missile defense, so any expenditure on a shield system could be counteracted by a much smaller expenditure by whatever enemy nation we're supposedly protecting ourselves from, while the vastly larger number of missiles in the world increases the chance of an accidental launch, or the missile falling into the wrong hands, or any of a dozen other calamitous possibilities.
Finally, as Kaplan says:
The smart way to play an arms race is to develop weapons that force the enemy to spend more money to counter them. A ballistic-missile-defense system pushes the enemy toward alternatives that cost less.Submarine-based cruise missiles, attacks on a subway system, or even Eli Lake's wet dream of a suitcase bomb set off in an American city. These are the sorts of things that we really ought to be defending against. Instead, we are spending $10 billion a year to defend ourselves from an attack that only a madman would dare attempt to perpetrate. It's enough to make even this Fool feel a little cynical about the whole affair.
What I'm Watching
Right now, the opening scenes of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Quite enthralling; I don't want to say only Kubrick could do it, but it certainly takes a talented director to make scenes of monkeys dancing around and howling so interesting to watch. His eye for how to frame a scene is just about perfect.
It strikes me that this kind of movie could never be made today. No Hollywood flick would have 10 minutes with no dialogue, with no introduction or explanation of what the hell is going on beyond the line 'The Dawn Of Man' flashed at the beginning. If I recall correctly, the movie is quite short on explication of what exactly is going on; much is left up to the viewer to decipher.
Movies simply aren't made like that anymore. It can't be assumed that the viewer is intelligent enough to figure out anything on their own, and must have their hand held through the whole experience like a gaggle of giggling schoolgirls.
Whether through the Star Trek-ian 'Captain's Log' entries, the awful 'how we got here' stories in the Transformers embarrassment of last summer, or the ubiquitous voiceover by Morgan Freeman, any movie with an non-trivial background story has to have every detail spelled out, because the worst impossible thing would be to challenge the audience to actually think for themselves.
After all, we all know that thinking leads to reading, which leads to, you know, critical thinking, which leads to lower profits for the crap-machine known as Hollywood.
I'm not sure what my actual point is here - after all, I appear to lack the attention span to watch a very richly detailed movie without blogging about it at the same time. Maybe I'm just another child of my generation after all...
It strikes me that this kind of movie could never be made today. No Hollywood flick would have 10 minutes with no dialogue, with no introduction or explanation of what the hell is going on beyond the line 'The Dawn Of Man' flashed at the beginning. If I recall correctly, the movie is quite short on explication of what exactly is going on; much is left up to the viewer to decipher.
Movies simply aren't made like that anymore. It can't be assumed that the viewer is intelligent enough to figure out anything on their own, and must have their hand held through the whole experience like a gaggle of giggling schoolgirls.
Whether through the Star Trek-ian 'Captain's Log' entries, the awful 'how we got here' stories in the Transformers embarrassment of last summer, or the ubiquitous voiceover by Morgan Freeman, any movie with an non-trivial background story has to have every detail spelled out, because the worst impossible thing would be to challenge the audience to actually think for themselves.
After all, we all know that thinking leads to reading, which leads to, you know, critical thinking, which leads to lower profits for the crap-machine known as Hollywood.
I'm not sure what my actual point is here - after all, I appear to lack the attention span to watch a very richly detailed movie without blogging about it at the same time. Maybe I'm just another child of my generation after all...
A Cynic's Take
A cynic might look at the fact that the Republican party has apparently decided to double-down on the idea that electing a Democrat is, in effect, opening the door for another terrorist attack to occur on American soil, and the fact that the Republican party is currently in charge of the security apparatus in America, and conclude that we are in for a royal ass-fucking sometime between now and November.
A cynic would think that.
He might also note that it's somewhat ironic that the Republicans have become, in essence, the party in search of bad news. I remember that, in the early days of the insurgency in Iraq, it was fashionable for Republican blathering heads to talk about how horrible, truly awful!, it was that the Democrats (or, in the rightist parlance, 'members of the Democrat Party'), were, basically, hoping for bad things to happen to our brave sons and daughters, in the front line War on Terror in Baghdad, and Mosul, and Faluja. How unpatriotic it was for the Democrats to opening be cheering for the terrorists, since that was the only route they could regain power in Washington.
Well, a cynic might point out that the Republicans, who have adopted the mantle of the Party of Terror, have adopted the same position with regards to an attack on our home soil.
I wouldn't say such a thing, because while I think the Republicans have some awfully juvenile and shortsighted ideas as to how to prevent terror attacks from happening, it would never occur to me to suggest that they don't have the best interests of America at heart.
But a cynic? He might say such things.
A cynic would think that.
He might also note that it's somewhat ironic that the Republicans have become, in essence, the party in search of bad news. I remember that, in the early days of the insurgency in Iraq, it was fashionable for Republican blathering heads to talk about how horrible, truly awful!, it was that the Democrats (or, in the rightist parlance, 'members of the Democrat Party'), were, basically, hoping for bad things to happen to our brave sons and daughters, in the front line War on Terror in Baghdad, and Mosul, and Faluja. How unpatriotic it was for the Democrats to opening be cheering for the terrorists, since that was the only route they could regain power in Washington.
Well, a cynic might point out that the Republicans, who have adopted the mantle of the Party of Terror, have adopted the same position with regards to an attack on our home soil.
I wouldn't say such a thing, because while I think the Republicans have some awfully juvenile and shortsighted ideas as to how to prevent terror attacks from happening, it would never occur to me to suggest that they don't have the best interests of America at heart.
But a cynic? He might say such things.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Captain Obvious To The Rescue!
With all apologies to Faithful Reader M.S., who is the original Captain Obvious, she's been promoted to Major Obvious, and the title of Captain has been bestowed on Jim Manzi, primarily for a post he had yesterday, while guesting at Andrew Sullivan's, on the subject of poverty and behavior.
I like Jim's writing; he's been one of the people I most enjoy reading at The American Scene. But his piece really struck me as quite inane. I don't know if it's supposed to be some sort of Telling Truth To Power, but when he says
Of course he's right. There I would go further and say that, with the exception of people who are really mentally deficient, only human agency matters. Our reaction to events affects our circumstances, and especially our attitudes about them, much more strongly than the actual events.
But it's incredibly simplistic to say that Adam Shepard, the kid written about in the post, had no advantages over the other folks in the homeless shelter he showed up at. He's a college-educated, young male. Jim admits this point, but tries to gloss over it, saying
Let's do a thought experiment. Andrew and another fellow, Bob, from the homeless shelter both decide they want to apply for a job, say as a sales clerk at Office Max. Imagine they are both white, with similar age, health, and other demographics. But, while Andrew is a college grad, Bob didn't finish high school. Andrew can speak in complex sentences, using grammatically correct English, while Bob speaks the local street slang, the only language he's ever really known.
Assuming that Andrew and Bob give the exact same answers to every question the interviewer asks, the only difference being Andrew speaking all civilized-like, who do you think is going to get that job?
And, I would argue, the question of grammar is a very small example of Andrew's vast inherent advantages over Bob in the competitive job market. There's knowledge, self-confidence, the fact that Andrew has a lifelong habit of waking up at a certain time because he's knows he has to be somewhere (job, class, swim team practice) by a certain time. Maybe Bob has never held a steady job, and he hasn't woken up at a particular time since he was in sixth grade. That might be a tough thing to learn how to do at the age of 25 years old.
These are the sorts of things that I sort-of take for granted. I'm damn sure Jim does, at least while he was writing this post. I've had limited experience with folks who didn't have the advantages I had growing up, of a set of educated parents who had high expectations of me, but also high confidence in me, and raised me to believe that I could accomplish anything I set my mind to. I know that things that seem as obvious to me as walking or breathing are absolutely not that way for them.
While I may not make millions in this life, I know that I will never starve, because I was raised, as I expect Andrew was, to understand and be able to execute the sorts of things that are necessary to get ahead in our culture - punctuality, neatness, the ability to understand new problems and apply my intelligence to figure out how to solve them.
I'm not saying that these skills can't be gained later in life. But I think it is pretty obvious, bordering almost on tautological, to say that it was a hell of lot easier to gain them when they were part of the background noise of my life growing up than it would be to pick them up in adulthood.
So, while I would never argue that people are slaves to their circumstances, and would agree that people can have remarkable success coming from the roughest of backgrounds, the sort of attitude that 'we just have to expect people to act better' is really, well, unhelpful. Behavior does matter more than circumstances, but lifelong circumstances shape behavior, and failure to acknowledge this is a serious flaw in any political worldview.
I like Jim's writing; he's been one of the people I most enjoy reading at The American Scene. But his piece really struck me as quite inane. I don't know if it's supposed to be some sort of Telling Truth To Power, but when he says
Human agency matters. Many people have it within their control to improve their economic standing.I really don't know how I'm supposed to respond. Should I be slapping my forehead in shock? "Oh, Dear Lord! He's right! Human agency does matter!"
Of course he's right. There I would go further and say that, with the exception of people who are really mentally deficient, only human agency matters. Our reaction to events affects our circumstances, and especially our attitudes about them, much more strongly than the actual events.
But it's incredibly simplistic to say that Adam Shepard, the kid written about in the post, had no advantages over the other folks in the homeless shelter he showed up at. He's a college-educated, young male. Jim admits this point, but tries to gloss over it, saying
He also had the accumulated social capital represented by his upbringing and education.There's a whole lot of weight being carried by that phrase, 'accumulated social capital.'
Let's do a thought experiment. Andrew and another fellow, Bob, from the homeless shelter both decide they want to apply for a job, say as a sales clerk at Office Max. Imagine they are both white, with similar age, health, and other demographics. But, while Andrew is a college grad, Bob didn't finish high school. Andrew can speak in complex sentences, using grammatically correct English, while Bob speaks the local street slang, the only language he's ever really known.
Assuming that Andrew and Bob give the exact same answers to every question the interviewer asks, the only difference being Andrew speaking all civilized-like, who do you think is going to get that job?
And, I would argue, the question of grammar is a very small example of Andrew's vast inherent advantages over Bob in the competitive job market. There's knowledge, self-confidence, the fact that Andrew has a lifelong habit of waking up at a certain time because he's knows he has to be somewhere (job, class, swim team practice) by a certain time. Maybe Bob has never held a steady job, and he hasn't woken up at a particular time since he was in sixth grade. That might be a tough thing to learn how to do at the age of 25 years old.
These are the sorts of things that I sort-of take for granted. I'm damn sure Jim does, at least while he was writing this post. I've had limited experience with folks who didn't have the advantages I had growing up, of a set of educated parents who had high expectations of me, but also high confidence in me, and raised me to believe that I could accomplish anything I set my mind to. I know that things that seem as obvious to me as walking or breathing are absolutely not that way for them.
While I may not make millions in this life, I know that I will never starve, because I was raised, as I expect Andrew was, to understand and be able to execute the sorts of things that are necessary to get ahead in our culture - punctuality, neatness, the ability to understand new problems and apply my intelligence to figure out how to solve them.
I'm not saying that these skills can't be gained later in life. But I think it is pretty obvious, bordering almost on tautological, to say that it was a hell of lot easier to gain them when they were part of the background noise of my life growing up than it would be to pick them up in adulthood.
So, while I would never argue that people are slaves to their circumstances, and would agree that people can have remarkable success coming from the roughest of backgrounds, the sort of attitude that 'we just have to expect people to act better' is really, well, unhelpful. Behavior does matter more than circumstances, but lifelong circumstances shape behavior, and failure to acknowledge this is a serious flaw in any political worldview.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Look, Ma, Look At The Horsey!
I've been avoiding saying much in the way of direct horserace coverage of late, mostly because my predictive abilities have proven to be significantly inferior to those of Princess the football game-picking camel. I have realized that I, lacking the information of political insiders, but believing myself to possess a modicum more humility and common sense, ought to be smart enough to realize that trying to predict the outcome of a tight political race is as foolish as trying to time the stock market.
But, after tonight, I do feel obligated to jump in with a little bit of roundup coverage.
According to Nick Beaudrot (who ought to be Cajun, if he's not. I'm envisioning Wilford Brimley's Uncle Douvee from Hard Target shouting 'Nic-o-las! Nic-o-las! Get your littol Beaudrot ass over he-yah!'), Obama won every major demographic in today's election except for older women, even achieving marginal victories in demo groups like 'all women', and 'high school grads'. Since those are, traditionally, his weakest areas, I think that shows the upwards momentum of his trajectory. A 17-point win in a state where the Clinton campaign chose to actually try, unlike the 'if we don't try, it doesn't count' strategy they employed along the Chesapeake last week, is definitely a meaningful win.
Now, especially in the Feiler-Faster era in which we live, the two weeks between today and Texas/Ohio are, essentially, three eternities, plus a really long time on top. There's enough times for things to change, un-change, re-change, and un-re-change by then. So I'm not foolish enough to speculate about what the long-term prospects for the campaign are.
The only two things I think I can say without a doubt are first, that Obama is trending upwards, with polls moving in his direction in Texas (haven't seen any recent Ohio polls), and second, that we have not seen the last of the Clinton campaign. If they go down, they will go down fighting, and pulling no punches. I don't think Clinton will really go dirty; she knows that the best she could achieve there would be the Pyhhric victory of winning the nomination, only to lose the general. But you will certainly see the campaign do its best to besmirch Obama's fairly saintly reputation.
It's already beginning; see these posts by Kevin Drum for more info.
But, still; a good night for this Obamaniac.
But, after tonight, I do feel obligated to jump in with a little bit of roundup coverage.
According to Nick Beaudrot (who ought to be Cajun, if he's not. I'm envisioning Wilford Brimley's Uncle Douvee from Hard Target shouting 'Nic-o-las! Nic-o-las! Get your littol Beaudrot ass over he-yah!'), Obama won every major demographic in today's election except for older women, even achieving marginal victories in demo groups like 'all women', and 'high school grads'. Since those are, traditionally, his weakest areas, I think that shows the upwards momentum of his trajectory. A 17-point win in a state where the Clinton campaign chose to actually try, unlike the 'if we don't try, it doesn't count' strategy they employed along the Chesapeake last week, is definitely a meaningful win.
Now, especially in the Feiler-Faster era in which we live, the two weeks between today and Texas/Ohio are, essentially, three eternities, plus a really long time on top. There's enough times for things to change, un-change, re-change, and un-re-change by then. So I'm not foolish enough to speculate about what the long-term prospects for the campaign are.
The only two things I think I can say without a doubt are first, that Obama is trending upwards, with polls moving in his direction in Texas (haven't seen any recent Ohio polls), and second, that we have not seen the last of the Clinton campaign. If they go down, they will go down fighting, and pulling no punches. I don't think Clinton will really go dirty; she knows that the best she could achieve there would be the Pyhhric victory of winning the nomination, only to lose the general. But you will certainly see the campaign do its best to besmirch Obama's fairly saintly reputation.
It's already beginning; see these posts by Kevin Drum for more info.
But, still; a good night for this Obamaniac.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Frogs!
From the News Of The Weird file, the announcement of the discovery of fossils of Beezebufo the Devil Toad, a 10 pound amphibian once living in Madagascar.
I have no comment about this development, except to say that a 10 pound frog would be either very cool, or scary as shit. Also, I wonder why God didn't drop a big handful of those motherfuckers on the Egyptians back in the day. Now that's a plague.
I have no comment about this development, except to say that a 10 pound frog would be either very cool, or scary as shit. Also, I wonder why God didn't drop a big handful of those motherfuckers on the Egyptians back in the day. Now that's a plague.
Confusion About What To Be Confused About
Add me to the list of people, like Matt Yglesias, distinctly unhappy with this line from Senator Clinton last week.
This is the kind of thing that gets picked up by the wingnut factory. I don't know whether it actually was mentioned, but I can certainly see Hannity or Limbaugh taking this sort of line and twisting it into 'Hillary Clinton wants the government to pay your bills! Hillary Clinton wants to buy your gas! Hillary Clinton wants to make all your problems just go away...'
I'm a liberal. Proud of it. I think it's a fine philosophy, with solid underpinnings which are based with a pretty equal measure of realism about the way people actually are and optimism for what our society could become. But, I'm also aware that the word is pretty loaded. For better or worse, most people in America think that they're conservative, although I would definitely argue that point, since most people are in favor of things like equal rights for women and minorities, Social Security, and protection of civil liberties from bodies both corporate and public.
But, again, the reality of the situation doesn't matter against the perception, which is that most people think of themselves as 'conservative', and have an inherent distrust of the concept of 'goverment', even though the actuality is very different (what comes to mind is the old story of one of John Breaux's constituent's coming to him and telling him 'Senator, make sure you go to Washington and keep the government's hands off my Medicare!')
So, when Senator Clinton comes out and talks about things like how speeches don't put gas in your tank, it sounds like she's implying that her brand of government can do just that. And I don't like the sound of that. It's bad policy, something I don't really agree with - I think the job of government is to ensure equality of opportunity, not to make sure gas is cheap. But, even more seriously, it's really tone deaf to start making extravagant promises about what your administration can achieve. It's too easily parodied, too easily plays into the unjustified fears people have about liberals. And, maybe it's playing a bit too scared, but I'm still concerned about what effects such an attack could have in the fall's campaign...
Speeches don't put food on the table. Speeches don't fill up your tank, or fill up your prescription, or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night. My opponent gives speeches. I offer solutions.But, chalk me up as being in distinct disagreement as to the actual point of disagreement. Matt says
And, clearly, speeches don't put food on the table. But it's not as if Hillary Clinton doesn't give speeches. Giving speeches is part of being a presidential candidate. Indeed, it's also part of being president. And, again, both candidates deliver speeches. So it would seem that Clinton is accusing Obama of giving speeches well.And, indeed, it's not so much that I disagree with Matt. It's more that I find other aspects of what Senator Clinton had to say much more risible. Frankly, I don't want the government to fill up my tank, or to do anything about my bills. And I'm a fucking liberal!
This is the kind of thing that gets picked up by the wingnut factory. I don't know whether it actually was mentioned, but I can certainly see Hannity or Limbaugh taking this sort of line and twisting it into 'Hillary Clinton wants the government to pay your bills! Hillary Clinton wants to buy your gas! Hillary Clinton wants to make all your problems just go away...'
I'm a liberal. Proud of it. I think it's a fine philosophy, with solid underpinnings which are based with a pretty equal measure of realism about the way people actually are and optimism for what our society could become. But, I'm also aware that the word is pretty loaded. For better or worse, most people in America think that they're conservative, although I would definitely argue that point, since most people are in favor of things like equal rights for women and minorities, Social Security, and protection of civil liberties from bodies both corporate and public.
But, again, the reality of the situation doesn't matter against the perception, which is that most people think of themselves as 'conservative', and have an inherent distrust of the concept of 'goverment', even though the actuality is very different (what comes to mind is the old story of one of John Breaux's constituent's coming to him and telling him 'Senator, make sure you go to Washington and keep the government's hands off my Medicare!')
So, when Senator Clinton comes out and talks about things like how speeches don't put gas in your tank, it sounds like she's implying that her brand of government can do just that. And I don't like the sound of that. It's bad policy, something I don't really agree with - I think the job of government is to ensure equality of opportunity, not to make sure gas is cheap. But, even more seriously, it's really tone deaf to start making extravagant promises about what your administration can achieve. It's too easily parodied, too easily plays into the unjustified fears people have about liberals. And, maybe it's playing a bit too scared, but I'm still concerned about what effects such an attack could have in the fall's campaign...
I Wish I Could Quit You
I find myself at a bit of a crossroads today, pondering one of the great existential questions of our time:
Is it possible to have a simultaneous man-crush on two completely different bloggers?
My feelings for Ezra Klein are well-known and, I believe, quite understandable. He has much the same politics as I, cares deeply about the issue of public health, which is something I am also quite interested in, and he's so damn cute! Plus, he's a Good Jewish Boy, which would make those Faithful Readers who happen to be my mother happy.
Also, apropos of very little, I tried his most recent kung pao tofu recipe with Faithful Reader Daisy Saturday night, and holy crap! it is good. You should try it. It would work fine with chicken, for the soy-phobic amongst you. I made the following substitutions, due to the fact that I live in white trash-ville, and Safeway was the most diverse place I could shop for ingredients: plain black peppercorns instead of Sichuan, dry red cooking wine instead of rice wine, a 50/50 mix of balsamic and white vinegar instead of Chinese black vinegar, and small dried new mexico chiles for Chinese peppers. But still, it is fantastic.
Anyhow, the point is, I am also starting to get that little murmur of my heart beating extra fast in my chest these days when I read Reihan Salam as well. It's a bit less expected, though, I must admit. We have somewhat different politics, and I really don't know what mom would say if I brought a shaved-head Bangladeshi neoconservative to dinner.
But still, I dare you to read musings like this, posted while he is guest-blogging at Andrew Sullivan's house, and declare him not to be a national treasure:
Also, he is in fine form carrying Kerry Howley through this entire diavlog over at BH.tv. I don't know why some people are so impressed that Reihan stood through the entire conversation - I'm pretty sure I can stand for an hour without too much trouble - but regardless of that, it's a great performance by Reihan and you should check it out.
Is it possible to have a simultaneous man-crush on two completely different bloggers?
My feelings for Ezra Klein are well-known and, I believe, quite understandable. He has much the same politics as I, cares deeply about the issue of public health, which is something I am also quite interested in, and he's so damn cute! Plus, he's a Good Jewish Boy, which would make those Faithful Readers who happen to be my mother happy.
Also, apropos of very little, I tried his most recent kung pao tofu recipe with Faithful Reader Daisy Saturday night, and holy crap! it is good. You should try it. It would work fine with chicken, for the soy-phobic amongst you. I made the following substitutions, due to the fact that I live in white trash-ville, and Safeway was the most diverse place I could shop for ingredients: plain black peppercorns instead of Sichuan, dry red cooking wine instead of rice wine, a 50/50 mix of balsamic and white vinegar instead of Chinese black vinegar, and small dried new mexico chiles for Chinese peppers. But still, it is fantastic.
Anyhow, the point is, I am also starting to get that little murmur of my heart beating extra fast in my chest these days when I read Reihan Salam as well. It's a bit less expected, though, I must admit. We have somewhat different politics, and I really don't know what mom would say if I brought a shaved-head Bangladeshi neoconservative to dinner.
But still, I dare you to read musings like this, posted while he is guest-blogging at Andrew Sullivan's house, and declare him not to be a national treasure:
And what will follow Generation Z, you ask? I see two distinct possibilities: (a) all of our celebrities will be digital composites, Max Headroom-style or (b) we are headed straight for something like the Biblical apocalypse. Which is why I'm investing in gold doubloons. (See Chapter 5 of Captain Jack's Guide to Management.)You see? Precious!
Also, he is in fine form carrying Kerry Howley through this entire diavlog over at BH.tv. I don't know why some people are so impressed that Reihan stood through the entire conversation - I'm pretty sure I can stand for an hour without too much trouble - but regardless of that, it's a great performance by Reihan and you should check it out.
Thoughts From A Ski Day
A few random thoughts from my trip to Keystone ski resort yesterday.
- The 5 AM alarm is a hateful, hateful thing. But achieving the final goal of the exercise, which is to beat traffic up I-70 and get first tracks in the fresh powder, is absolutely worth it.
- I have no idea who the 11,000 people are that suddenly arrived at the Outback Express lift roundabout 11:30 in the morning, but I'm glad that it took you so long, so I could get my satisfactory half-day in before you showed up and wrecked everything.
- Many thanks to Occasional Readers Jess and Nate, for providing a place to hang out for a few hours afterwards, along with a very yummy free dinner, although it would have been cooler if you'd had a hot tub. Just sayin'.
- To all the people braking their way down I-70 coming out of the Eisenhower Tunnel last night: Please, for the love of whatever you may find holy in the world, learn to fucking drive. A slightly wet road does not obligate you to drive 20 MPH on an interstate highway, at least not in the left lane.
- A special shoutout to the cock-knocking ass-pony in the blue XTerra: Especially once you get to the point where the road is completely dry, it no longer qualifies as 'passing' to be driving 37 MPH, past a long line of cars doing 35, in a 65 zone. Also, just because the people in the right hand lane brake, doesn't mean you have to also. Also also, that guy behind you, flashing his high beams, with the line of about 30 cars behind him, when you have a quarter-mile gap in front of you in the lane? Yeah, he wants you to do something. Use that high school edumacation and see if you can deduce what it might be.
- The 5 AM alarm is a hateful, hateful thing. But achieving the final goal of the exercise, which is to beat traffic up I-70 and get first tracks in the fresh powder, is absolutely worth it.
- I have no idea who the 11,000 people are that suddenly arrived at the Outback Express lift roundabout 11:30 in the morning, but I'm glad that it took you so long, so I could get my satisfactory half-day in before you showed up and wrecked everything.
- Many thanks to Occasional Readers Jess and Nate, for providing a place to hang out for a few hours afterwards, along with a very yummy free dinner, although it would have been cooler if you'd had a hot tub. Just sayin'.
- To all the people braking their way down I-70 coming out of the Eisenhower Tunnel last night: Please, for the love of whatever you may find holy in the world, learn to fucking drive. A slightly wet road does not obligate you to drive 20 MPH on an interstate highway, at least not in the left lane.
- A special shoutout to the cock-knocking ass-pony in the blue XTerra: Especially once you get to the point where the road is completely dry, it no longer qualifies as 'passing' to be driving 37 MPH, past a long line of cars doing 35, in a 65 zone. Also, just because the people in the right hand lane brake, doesn't mean you have to also. Also also, that guy behind you, flashing his high beams, with the line of about 30 cars behind him, when you have a quarter-mile gap in front of you in the lane? Yeah, he wants you to do something. Use that high school edumacation and see if you can deduce what it might be.
Happy Dead White Guys Day!
It's a bit trite, but happy President's Day nonetheless. Hope everyone else has the day off, like me, and better things to do with their time than be reading this pure and utter waste-of-time post.
Seriously. Go buy a couch, or something. It's President's Day!
Seriously. Go buy a couch, or something. It's President's Day!
Friday, February 15, 2008
Your Daily Moment Of 'What The Fuck???'
For your enjoyment, a wonderful article in Rolling Stone, from last year, about how America lost the so-called 'War on Drugs.'
I know, on some visceral level, that so much of politics, from both sides of the spectrum (although especially the conservative side), is conducted from a position of faith. Our policies on drugs are no exception - instead of using the methods which have been proven to actually reduce drug problems, such as treatment of addiction, concerted efforts to sever the link between drugs and violence, and the like, we continue to use outmoded, often entirely counterproductive, processes instead.
Things like mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders, '3-strikes' policies, and funneling untold billions to the Columbian government have proven to be nothing but disasters. But, because it would Be Wrong to implement compassionate, rather than punitive, measures, we keep making the same damn mistakes, over and over and over again, all in pursuit of a goal, the eradication of illicit drugs in America, whose achievement has never seemed possible to any clear-minded observer.
It's enough to make me want to go smoke a bowl and eat a big bowl of Cheetos...
I know, on some visceral level, that so much of politics, from both sides of the spectrum (although especially the conservative side), is conducted from a position of faith. Our policies on drugs are no exception - instead of using the methods which have been proven to actually reduce drug problems, such as treatment of addiction, concerted efforts to sever the link between drugs and violence, and the like, we continue to use outmoded, often entirely counterproductive, processes instead.
Things like mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders, '3-strikes' policies, and funneling untold billions to the Columbian government have proven to be nothing but disasters. But, because it would Be Wrong to implement compassionate, rather than punitive, measures, we keep making the same damn mistakes, over and over and over again, all in pursuit of a goal, the eradication of illicit drugs in America, whose achievement has never seemed possible to any clear-minded observer.
It's enough to make me want to go smoke a bowl and eat a big bowl of Cheetos...
Monday, February 11, 2008
Like Hope, But Different
Yes, yes, just like I linked to Scarlett Johansen looking all hot in the services of Obama, here's the best Youtube response so far. Inspiration, thy name is John McCain.
That Is The Sound Of...Inevitability
I know that the act of doing your taxes is supposed to be this harrumphing affair, full of stress and strain and leaving me incredibly pissed off at how big a chunk of my income the government is confiscating (which must have been the 'Word of the Day' in the Karl Rove's Power Vocabulary Calendar recently, from what I can see in the Republican campaign.)
But, really, after doing mine on Saturday, I just don't see what's so difficult.
Yes, I'm sure if I was a day trader and have 300 stock transactions to track, I'd find keeping count of all the capital gains and losses to be a hassle. Likewise, if I was personally incorporated or self-employed, it would be a more difficult process.
But, for me, it's pretty simple. And any hour-and-a-half long process which ends up with me getting a check for well north of $3000 is time I consider well-spent.
Now, of course, it is the case that I am giving the federal government an interest-free loan of that money all year. But, you know what? That's okay. I really do get stuff for that money - nice roads, all those beautiful national parks I got to enjoy this year, the convenience of not being able to take a bottle of Coke through the x-ray machine at the airport. For what I pay for these issues, I have no complaints.
Hooray, Government!
But, really, after doing mine on Saturday, I just don't see what's so difficult.
Yes, I'm sure if I was a day trader and have 300 stock transactions to track, I'd find keeping count of all the capital gains and losses to be a hassle. Likewise, if I was personally incorporated or self-employed, it would be a more difficult process.
But, for me, it's pretty simple. And any hour-and-a-half long process which ends up with me getting a check for well north of $3000 is time I consider well-spent.
Now, of course, it is the case that I am giving the federal government an interest-free loan of that money all year. But, you know what? That's okay. I really do get stuff for that money - nice roads, all those beautiful national parks I got to enjoy this year, the convenience of not being able to take a bottle of Coke through the x-ray machine at the airport. For what I pay for these issues, I have no complaints.
Hooray, Government!
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Frisbee!
Occasional Faithful Reader LJ once showed me a video who had on his DVR of a show called 'Cheap Seats' on ESPN Classic, which showed an old video profile of NY NY, the best Ultimate team of the late 80's, and their mercurial, troll-like captain, Kenny Dobyns. Who, I should say, is one hell of an Ultimate player, especially, you know, for a troll.
Anyhow, Faithful Reader WS sent me an online link to the video, which I offer for your enjoyment here. You should check it out. Really. It's awesome, and not at all a waste of your time. The fashion disasters alone are worth your time. Money line from the fairly nerdy hosts: "Now, I never thought we'd meet someone who needed more help meeting women than [competetive juggler] Jason Garfield. And then we met Ken Dobyns."
Anyhow, Faithful Reader WS sent me an online link to the video, which I offer for your enjoyment here. You should check it out. Really. It's awesome, and not at all a waste of your time. The fashion disasters alone are worth your time. Money line from the fairly nerdy hosts: "Now, I never thought we'd meet someone who needed more help meeting women than [competetive juggler] Jason Garfield. And then we met Ken Dobyns."
Comments On Comments
A few responses to recent comments:
Commenter Jenny asks, with regards to my statement that ABC did a remarkably good job with their 'the story so far' episode of Lost,
I was talking about this with one of my former coworkers today, who also happens to own Simon's best doggy friend, while the two of them were attempting to set land-speed records for circumnavigating the dog park. And, really, what's so impressive about the show is the way that almost every revelation raises at least as many questions as it answers.
Presumably, at some point, Abrams and co. will have to start wrapping up plotlines, so that the show has some sort of ending. But, clearly, they don't think that we're at that point yet, as even the revelations this week about the team searching the island from the boat leave me entirely mystified about what the hell is going on, but anxiously awaiting next week's revelations nonetheless.
Also, Jenny respectfully disagrees with me about the quality of Obama's response to the final State of the Union Address of the Bush Administration, saying
But, look. At this point, he's been speaking for over a year. He's said, literally, everything there is that he can say, unless he starts speaking in tongues on the stump or something like that.
The YouTube was not intended for political junkies; they are the ones reading white papers (or, even more remarkably, preparing detailed summaries of the white papers of multiple candidates on an array of issues). Instead, the intended audience was people for whom the State of the Union might be one of the few ways they engage with the political process all year. For those sorts of people, you don't get deep in the weeds with your specific arguments in favor of cap-and-trade and against a carbon tax, especially not in a 5-minute video. And it's totally fine to re-use the lines from your stump speech that you think have the best resonance.
Likewise, while watching Hilary's interview with Katie Couric on 60 minutes tonight, I thought she did a great job, although I didn't actually learn anything I hadn't heard before in the campaign. But, for those in Texas and Ohio who are just tuning in for the first time, it was a very nice introduction to who Hilary is, and what she stands for, as a candidate.
Oh, and to Daniel and LT: Fuck You and your ice-melting temperatures.
Commenter Jenny asks, with regards to my statement that ABC did a remarkably good job with their 'the story so far' episode of Lost,
Although, it almost makes me think, "Why the hell did that take 48 (or however many) hours to tell in the first place?"I think this is totally the wrong question to ask. The right question, instead, is 'how do they take a story, which can be so easily summarized in an hour, and stretch it out to 70-some hours so far, while keeping it completely fascinating?'
I was talking about this with one of my former coworkers today, who also happens to own Simon's best doggy friend, while the two of them were attempting to set land-speed records for circumnavigating the dog park. And, really, what's so impressive about the show is the way that almost every revelation raises at least as many questions as it answers.
Presumably, at some point, Abrams and co. will have to start wrapping up plotlines, so that the show has some sort of ending. But, clearly, they don't think that we're at that point yet, as even the revelations this week about the team searching the island from the boat leave me entirely mystified about what the hell is going on, but anxiously awaiting next week's revelations nonetheless.
Also, Jenny respectfully disagrees with me about the quality of Obama's response to the final State of the Union Address of the Bush Administration, saying
I felt it was very generic and it was a lot of repackaged material from previous speechesAs someone who actually stops on C-SPAN when Barack is giving his stump speech, I definitely agree with the statement. It was generic, and there wasn't anything new in it.
But, look. At this point, he's been speaking for over a year. He's said, literally, everything there is that he can say, unless he starts speaking in tongues on the stump or something like that.
The YouTube was not intended for political junkies; they are the ones reading white papers (or, even more remarkably, preparing detailed summaries of the white papers of multiple candidates on an array of issues). Instead, the intended audience was people for whom the State of the Union might be one of the few ways they engage with the political process all year. For those sorts of people, you don't get deep in the weeds with your specific arguments in favor of cap-and-trade and against a carbon tax, especially not in a 5-minute video. And it's totally fine to re-use the lines from your stump speech that you think have the best resonance.
Likewise, while watching Hilary's interview with Katie Couric on 60 minutes tonight, I thought she did a great job, although I didn't actually learn anything I hadn't heard before in the campaign. But, for those in Texas and Ohio who are just tuning in for the first time, it was a very nice introduction to who Hilary is, and what she stands for, as a candidate.
Oh, and to Daniel and LT: Fuck You and your ice-melting temperatures.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Ice To Meet You
With all due respect to my European, Centigrade-using friends, I decided this morning that all the good temperatures are above zero.
It was -2 when I walked to the car to head to the gym at 7, and that's just not okay. Especially because I was wearing shorts and a sweatshirt, sicne I was going to the gym. Which was, admittedly, not exactly "brilliant" on my part. But still; all things being equal, I'd rather a day with temps well above zero than with them at or below it.
See, this is the kind of in-depth insight that keeps you coming back for more, Faithful Readers...
It was -2 when I walked to the car to head to the gym at 7, and that's just not okay. Especially because I was wearing shorts and a sweatshirt, sicne I was going to the gym. Which was, admittedly, not exactly "brilliant" on my part. But still; all things being equal, I'd rather a day with temps well above zero than with them at or below it.
See, this is the kind of in-depth insight that keeps you coming back for more, Faithful Readers...
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Marketing Tool, Or Just A Tool?
To the guy at the Longmont Rec Center this morning who was decked out in black matching skull cap, tight-fitting T, and sweatpants from Under Armor: Stop it. Just, stop it.
Or, alternatively, you might be happy to know that Under Armor just debuted a new line of cross-trainer sneakers, so that you don't have to ruin your fully-branded monotonous look with those silly Nike kicks.
Jackass.
Or, alternatively, you might be happy to know that Under Armor just debuted a new line of cross-trainer sneakers, so that you don't have to ruin your fully-branded monotonous look with those silly Nike kicks.
Jackass.
A-Caucusin' We Will Go...
Entertaining night.
Entertaining last few days, really.
On Sunday, before the Super Bowl, I spent a couple hours knocking on doors in my neighborhood for Obama. It was mostly an entertaining experience. About 1/3 of the people either weren't home, or the person I was looking for (I was working from a list of registered Dems in my precinct) didn't live there any longer. Of the remainder, about 1/3 were rude or just not interested, plus one very entertaining incredibly hostile guy ("I don't want his literature. I don't want any of their literature. You, them, everything, the whole system is completely fucked up!")
But the rest were somewhere between neutral to excited to talk about the caucus, and Obama. It was fun. The last person I spoke to all day was a fence-sitter, but after speaking for about 5 minutes, she decided that she was going to caucus for Obama. That gave me a good warm feeling.
Although, the fact that she didn't actually show up to the caucus tonight took a little bit of the shine off.
But, all that said, my precinct broke 22-7 for Obama, which meant a delegate count of 4-1 in Obama's favor.
It was my first time being involved in a caucus in which anything at all mattered - 4 years ago it was John Kerry or Uncommitted, which is an official choice in Colorado. I voted Uncommitted, because 'John Kerry is a total douchebag' was not an option on the ballot. But Uncommitted didn't pass the 15% threshold, so my vote was for naught.
Anyhow, my first real caucus experience was kinda fun! Lots of good discussion, a chance to really meet my neighbors (my precinct is basically the eastern half of my neighborhood.) I volunteered to help out the Boulder County Dems when the race has settled its way out, whoever ends up being the nominee.
Right now, I'm just sitting and watching the results poor in. Decent night for Obama, but not fantastic. Obviously, my post-Iowa prediction of 'Obama Inevitable' was sorely, sorely mistaken. For the Repubs, looks like it'll be McCain, amazingly enough. The concept of a McCain/Huckabee administration kinda worries me - there's a whole assload of ignorance on that ticket. A guy who doesn't know or care about the economy, combined with a guy who makes up his policies and he goes along on any issue where the Bible doesn't tell him what to think? At least their ignorances are fairly complementary, but still...
Entertaining last few days, really.
On Sunday, before the Super Bowl, I spent a couple hours knocking on doors in my neighborhood for Obama. It was mostly an entertaining experience. About 1/3 of the people either weren't home, or the person I was looking for (I was working from a list of registered Dems in my precinct) didn't live there any longer. Of the remainder, about 1/3 were rude or just not interested, plus one very entertaining incredibly hostile guy ("I don't want his literature. I don't want any of their literature. You, them, everything, the whole system is completely fucked up!")
But the rest were somewhere between neutral to excited to talk about the caucus, and Obama. It was fun. The last person I spoke to all day was a fence-sitter, but after speaking for about 5 minutes, she decided that she was going to caucus for Obama. That gave me a good warm feeling.
Although, the fact that she didn't actually show up to the caucus tonight took a little bit of the shine off.
But, all that said, my precinct broke 22-7 for Obama, which meant a delegate count of 4-1 in Obama's favor.
It was my first time being involved in a caucus in which anything at all mattered - 4 years ago it was John Kerry or Uncommitted, which is an official choice in Colorado. I voted Uncommitted, because 'John Kerry is a total douchebag' was not an option on the ballot. But Uncommitted didn't pass the 15% threshold, so my vote was for naught.
Anyhow, my first real caucus experience was kinda fun! Lots of good discussion, a chance to really meet my neighbors (my precinct is basically the eastern half of my neighborhood.) I volunteered to help out the Boulder County Dems when the race has settled its way out, whoever ends up being the nominee.
Right now, I'm just sitting and watching the results poor in. Decent night for Obama, but not fantastic. Obviously, my post-Iowa prediction of 'Obama Inevitable' was sorely, sorely mistaken. For the Repubs, looks like it'll be McCain, amazingly enough. The concept of a McCain/Huckabee administration kinda worries me - there's a whole assload of ignorance on that ticket. A guy who doesn't know or care about the economy, combined with a guy who makes up his policies and he goes along on any issue where the Bible doesn't tell him what to think? At least their ignorances are fairly complementary, but still...
Saturday, February 2, 2008
3 Years Of My Life, Reduced To One Hour?
ABC actually did a pretty good job Thursday night with their one hour summary of Lost so far, entitled 'Lost: Past, Present, and Future.' You can view it here.
If you aren't watching The Greatest Show In The History Of Network Television already, and don't feel like dedicating sixty-some hours of your life watching the back episodes on DVD, this is a decent way to get caught up.
It's not too late - you, too, can still join the Lost Revolution!
If you aren't watching The Greatest Show In The History Of Network Television already, and don't feel like dedicating sixty-some hours of your life watching the back episodes on DVD, this is a decent way to get caught up.
It's not too late - you, too, can still join the Lost Revolution!
Yes We Can
Via Ezra, this video, of clips from Obama's victory speech in South Carolina set to music, is pretty beautiful stuff.
I'm not suggesting this as a major reason to vote for Obama. In my opinion, there are many, and the lyricism of his speech is fairly far down on the list (although it is part and parcel with his general inspirational speaking ability, which I think is a legitimate reason to consider voting for someone.)
Nonetheless, pretty good stuff.
I'm not suggesting this as a major reason to vote for Obama. In my opinion, there are many, and the lyricism of his speech is fairly far down on the list (although it is part and parcel with his general inspirational speaking ability, which I think is a legitimate reason to consider voting for someone.)
Nonetheless, pretty good stuff.
So Much To Say, So Much To Say
Wow, it's ridiculous how many thoughts gather up in my eensy little head when I don't have time to get them out.
It's funny how, now that I've gotten fairly used to having this blog, my first thought on reading or seeing something really interesting is no longer "I can't wait to tell X about this," where X is the friend or family member who is most likely to be knowledgeable or interested in the subject at hand. Instead, it's "I can't wait to blog about this!"
I see my traffic numbers, or lack thereof. I know that it's literally dozen of friends of mine who read this (not dozens, mind you, just dozen.) But, still. It's nice, somehow, to have a permanent record of whatever thoughts occur to me, rather than having them disappear into the ether when the conversation of the moment is over.
Anyhow - I'm not entirely sure what my point is. It's a shame I've been working so damn much, and spending another significant chunk of my free time working for the Obama campaign. I got a list of registered Dems in my neighborhood from the campaign, and I've been knocking on doors and talking to people, trying to raise a team of at least 5 to go caucus with me. I've hit that number already, but I'm going to put in another hour or two tomorrow before the Big Game. It's been good to do that, much less fun working all the extra hours, and, well, I haven't had as much time as I would have liked to spend writing here.
I hope to keep up a little better in the near future, but I know better than to make promises about it.
It's funny how, now that I've gotten fairly used to having this blog, my first thought on reading or seeing something really interesting is no longer "I can't wait to tell X about this," where X is the friend or family member who is most likely to be knowledgeable or interested in the subject at hand. Instead, it's "I can't wait to blog about this!"
I see my traffic numbers, or lack thereof. I know that it's literally dozen of friends of mine who read this (not dozens, mind you, just dozen.) But, still. It's nice, somehow, to have a permanent record of whatever thoughts occur to me, rather than having them disappear into the ether when the conversation of the moment is over.
Anyhow - I'm not entirely sure what my point is. It's a shame I've been working so damn much, and spending another significant chunk of my free time working for the Obama campaign. I got a list of registered Dems in my neighborhood from the campaign, and I've been knocking on doors and talking to people, trying to raise a team of at least 5 to go caucus with me. I've hit that number already, but I'm going to put in another hour or two tomorrow before the Big Game. It's been good to do that, much less fun working all the extra hours, and, well, I haven't had as much time as I would have liked to spend writing here.
I hope to keep up a little better in the near future, but I know better than to make promises about it.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Rethinkeration
Okay, lots of commentators wrote this week about how absolutely god-awful Kathleen Sebelius' response to the State of the Union Address was (including, of course, Shane's requisite personal call-out of my diminished mental capacities, supposedly due to Obamania, but actually due to excessive consumption of alcohol.)
So, I went and watched it again. And, yeah, you're all right. It kind of sucks. Vague on policy, soft on politics, and choosing inexplicably to completely avoid the most obvious opportunities to hit the Bush administration on, for instance, their veto of the sCHIP renewal bill.
The best defenses I have for my previous statements are that 1) after watching a completely chickenass, lame, State of the Union address, almost anything would seem inspirational by comparison and 2) I'm an idiot.
If you're hard-up for some good content, Obama, unsurprisingly, does a much better Obama impersonation than Sebelius did. He recorded his own excellent response to the State of the Union Address.
So, I went and watched it again. And, yeah, you're all right. It kind of sucks. Vague on policy, soft on politics, and choosing inexplicably to completely avoid the most obvious opportunities to hit the Bush administration on, for instance, their veto of the sCHIP renewal bill.
The best defenses I have for my previous statements are that 1) after watching a completely chickenass, lame, State of the Union address, almost anything would seem inspirational by comparison and 2) I'm an idiot.
If you're hard-up for some good content, Obama, unsurprisingly, does a much better Obama impersonation than Sebelius did. He recorded his own excellent response to the State of the Union Address.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)