A Little Distracted

Neko Case

2009-05-21T19:04:00.001-07:00

View all Houston events on Eventful

Crisis of Credit

2009-03-14T07:38:00.001-07:00

The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.

Making Iowa Cool

2008-12-22T04:42:00.001-08:00

Smash

For example

39 Channels

2008-12-13T17:45:00.000-08:00

Less is more.

Finally having TV again, I'm constantly surprised how little is on.

Fortunately with DISH satellite, you can delete channels, so they don't show up any more. So as of 8pm, I have 39 channels.

Your job? Tell me what's the best channel I'm missing, to make a nice round 40.

(No extra costs allowed, so Showtime, HBO etc are out.)

Locals - 2,8,11HD,13HD,20,26HD,39HD
TNT, TBS, USA HD, WGN HD, SPIKE, Bravo HD
Comedy Central, FX, SciFi HD
Food Network HD, Home & Garden TV HD, Discovery HD
Learning Channel HD, Animal Planet HD
A&E HD, History HD, Smithsonian HD
Discovery Health, Documentary
IFC, HD Theatre, HD Movie, Ovation
MTV, G4, PLDIA (some concert channel)
ESPN HD, ESPN2 HD
CNN HD, MSNBC, Weather Channel HD
True Stories

What other channel has the most programs actually worth watching?

Election night 2008

2008-10-23T19:07:00.000-07:00

It's November 4. You're watching the election results come in. What should you expect?

==============
7:00pm Eastern

First polls close. McCain is out to an early lead with wins in Kentucky, South Carolina, and Georgia (which will take a little longer to call). Kentucky's McConnell and Georgia's Saxby Chambliss will be talked about, how if either loses (unlikely) the Democrats have a shot at a fillibuster-proof 60 Senate seats. Indiana is too close to call. Obama wins tiny Vermont. And Virginia ... Virginia is what you should really care about. If Obama wins Virginia, he will force McCain to win Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri, North Carolina, and any one of New Hampshire/Colorado/New Mexico/(most likely) Nevada. Since Virginia is such a critical state, networks may be slow to call it.

McCain 31, Obama 3, Too Close 24 (Indiana, Virginia)

==============
7:30pm Eastern

Polls close in Ohio and West Virginia. West Virginia is called for McCain, with Ohio too close to call. Ohio is absolutely critical to McCain; an unexpected call for Obama means you can go to sleep. The longer it takes to call West Virginia, the better for Obama, as it means McCain will have trouble in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

McCain 36, Obama 3, Too Close 44 (Ohio, Indiana, Virginia)

==============
8:00pm Eastern

Now it gets busy. Obama evens it up as northeast polls close . Immediate calls in Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and probably Maine. McCain gets easy calls in Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Oklahoma. Missouri and Florida will be too close to call. Obama would love a quick call in New Hampshire, which he'll need if the night goes badly. But the most important call all night will be Pennsylvania. Like Virginia, this may be an early call for Obama. If it is, the election is essentially over. Pennsylvania is McCain's Alamo, the toughest state for him that he absolutely must have. For this reason, analysts will be very careful not to call this one too soon (see Florida, 2000).

One of the Mississippi senate races, Wicker-Musgrove, may be close, though the Republican is favored. The Democratic challenger Shaheen is favored slightly in the New Hampshire senate race.

McCain 69, Obama 78, Too Close 107 (Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia)

==============
8:30pm Eastern

Republicans grit their teeth. The only new state called is Arkansas, for McCain. But Republican North Carolina is too close to call. And with 2 hours' votes and little news, Virginia is probably called for Obama. Indiana, though, may be called for McCain. If not, bad news for McCain. An Obama win in Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri or North Carolina effectively ends it. (Some attention for NC senate race, with incumbent Elizabeth Dole the underdog.)

McCain 86, Obama 91, Too Close 98 (North Carolina, Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio)

==============
9:00pm Eastern

The beginning of the end. Easy calls for McCain in Arizona, Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, Wyoming, Nebraska, and South Dakota. Slow South Dakota call is bad news for McCain, as it means neighboring Montana or North Dakota may slip away. Democratic New York and Rhode Island are called for Obama, followed soon after by former battleground states of Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Obama backup-plan New Mexico and Colorado may start out too close to call, ditto the Senate race between favored Democrat Udall and Republican Shaffer. Minnesota's senate race between Republican incumbent Coleman and Democrat Franken may be the closest of the night. A close race for Cornyn in Texas would be the sign of a terrible night for Republicans.

With few new tossups, and only 4 states reporting in the next two hours, the attention turns to calling existing states. New Hampshire should have enough votes in to be called for Obama. There will be pressure to make a call in Pennsylvania or Ohio, since a close call in one means the other's likely not so close. If Pennsylvania is still uncalled, Nevada talk begins.

McCain 156, Obama 167, Too Close 108 (Colorado, New Mexico, North Carolina, Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Ohio)

==============
10:00pm Eastern

Utah rivals Wyoming for McCain's biggest margins of the night. McCain also hopes for sparsely populated Montana to be called his way after 30-45 minutes. Much is made of Iowa's vote for Obama, how it voted Bush last time, but was the start of Obama's surprise win of the Democratic nomination. Filler stories about Obama's ground game, how the long primary allowed him to expand his Iowa-style organization across the country.

The real story may be Nevada. New Mexico and Colorado may be called for Obama by now. Assuming Obama has won Virginia and New Hampshire, a win in Nevada pretty much seals the deal; Obama could lose Florida, Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina and even Pennsylvania and still win the presidency. Since no remaining state but North Dakota will even be close, it will all be about returns in the toss-ups.

McCain 164, Obama 187, Too Close 99 (Nevada, North Carolina, Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Ohio)

==============
11:00pm Eastern

Except for Alaska (with Ted Steven's close re-election bid), all state polls are now closed. Idaho is called for McCain, but North Dakota takes longer. Meanwhile, the West Coast comes in big for Obama. California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii all go big for Obama (though Washington and Oregon may take 15-30 minutes to call). Obama's 77 additional electoral votes bring him to 264, assuming he hasn't won Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina, or Nevada. The night ends when one of these goes Obama, or all go McCain.

In the Senate, Oregon Republican incumbent Smith is in for a nail-biter against Merkley. If Obama has an early win, suppressed turnout may help the Democrat.

McCain 171, Obama 264, Too Close 103 (Nevada, North Carolina, Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Ohio)

Polls at Oct 22:
NV = barely Obama
NC = tie
FL = tie
PA = lean Obama
MO = barely Obama
OH = barely Obama

Other possibilities: Obama is a slight underdog to take Montana, North Dakota, and Indiana. The last of these would also end things early.

Powell Endorsement

2008-10-19T10:57:00.001-07:00

And Sarah Palin iz ur new Michael Scott

2008-10-02T19:12:00.000-07:00

Someone needs to do this YouTube Mashup. Really.

FailBlog iz ur new cheezburger

2008-10-02T16:12:00.000-07:00

FailBlog.org

Don't Vote

2008-10-01T20:11:00.001-07:00

Oh, that's it...

2008-10-01T17:20:00.000-07:00

Intolerant Chic

Couldn't (didn't) say it better myself.

Out of Touch

2008-10-01T16:26:00.001-07:00

I used to take pride in the fact that I understood the "man on the street." When talking with friends about politics, I could instinctively get what a typical voter would think about whatever was being said.

I still have some of it, when I wince at the idea of impeaching Bush, or whatever Michael Moore has most recently come up with.

But as I've increasingly spent time surrounded by highly educated economic conservatives, I feel myself losing touch with the concerns of normal families.

I mention this because there is a debate tomorrow night between Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin. Columnist David Brooks has (insightfully) described her as a product of the populist wing of the Republican Party. While I understood why people would vote for Bush over Gore (pompous) or Kerry (effete and patrician), I don't get Palin. Or maybe I half do, but I can't nail it down.

Katherine told me once that Bush was a disaster, when she was living in Texas. Palin seems to be a reincarnation of Bush, in the form of a WWE wrestling teen's wet dream.

I just watched a video on the NYTimes web site that showed Palin's past debates. She avoided detailed questions and mouthed banalities (an accusation made not unfairly about Obama at times). Her Republican primary opponents called her directly on talking utter nonsense. And she trounced them.

I find myself wondering how much of modern American culture is not about economics, or social/religious views, but rather about class. Class is both surprisingly absent and unmentionable in the US, compared to other countries. It has not been a defining element of politics (or named as such). But I think we may be seeing it come to the fore.

I suspect "Southerner" has been a code for "working class". Clinton ran as the McDonald's candidate against yuppie Bush. Intellectual Gore vs Cowboy Bush Jr went the other way.

This is rambling (and I have food in the oven), but the point is, everyone is saying Palin will be an embarrassment to McCain. Some intellectual conservatives have already called for her to resign.

But what if, the average American is so angry at the "Masters of the Universe" -- Wall St brokers, politicians, lawyers, etc -- as a result of decades of not getting ahead, as a symptom of the increasing gap between the haves and have nots... even if I believe that this is a result of conservative politics ... but if the party of wall street decides (as the House Republicans did) that the revolt of mad as hell (not to say "bitter") voters is something to align with...

What if the Republican working class formerly Dixiecrat base is so pissed at rich educated people who screw the country up (Bush was the first MBA president) that they want to vote for someone who is blithely ignorant about the world? Can Palin stroke class resentment *on behalf of Republicans*, against Professor Obama and Oracle Biden, in a kind of double-down on the original Bush strategy?

Far too long-winded this, but my point is, if Palin gets up and does a George Bush "gee shucks these smarty-pants in Washington need some of my down-home wisdom to shake them up", surely the people won't fall for that. Surely. Right?

I wish my working class gut could be more sure.

Heartbeat Away?

2008-09-26T17:38:00.000-07:00

Wow. You owe it to yourself (and the country) to watch these at least once. There's some laughs at least in the last one.

I mean, seriously? Seriously?

There's more...

And finally, this commentary from conservative (but straight-shooting) columnist David Brooks.

Regurgitating The Atlantic

2008-09-23T18:47:00.000-07:00

There's a debate on Friday between Senators McCain and Obama. It's going to be on foreign policy, not the economy (which is the topic du jour).

The article "The Petraeus Doctrine" in this month's Atlantic provides an interesting, and I think important, subtext for this debate.

Put simply, does America's future hold more Iraqs or not?

If the world is a place where failed and rogue states will attempt to attack the US or its allies and interests, and we intend to defend ourselves, then we may end up trying to establish stability (the Petraeus Doctrine) to win hearts and minds in foreign countries. This worldview holds that Iraq is winnable and we are winning, and that perhaps even Vietnam was winnable. You just need enough force going in and enough subtlety (cultural and language training, etc) and patience to see it through. You can't bomb your way to security, but you can occupy and stabilize your way to security. In fact, you have to if you want to fight terrorism.

The other worldview holds that these kinds of fights cannot be won by the military, at least for an acceptable cost. Iraq's current stability should not be viewed as evidence of a repeatable strategy for successfully occupying conquered states. Rather, it is a result of a complex series of political calculations, including expected American withdrawal. The ability to successfully extract the America military without leaving a raging civil war, while to be welcomed, is not a blueprint for future military actions. In short, this is not a "win" we should look to repeat.

My sense is that John McCain takes the first view... you can win these things if you are patient and smart enough. It may require enormous sacrifice, but he has made enormous sacrifice and can marshal the country to do so. He sees a violent world where "there will be more wars", and you have to be smarter and more willing to fight than the other guy to win. If you're lucky, you may not have to fight. But you have to be willing to, and in an unstable world, the US's responsibility (with other countries) is to fight those fights.

A soldier's view.

My sense is that Barack Obama takes the latter view. That the military can tip the scales between two opposing power structures, but cannot nurture a power structure up from scratch. Or perhaps, that if such things can be done, the military is not the right arm of government to do so. And further, that with limited resources, the military should be used sparingly, and only when the objectives are more simply and conventionally defined. (In that sense, Obama is conservative while McCain is neoconserative.) The downside of this is, you have to both be willing to not fight some fights you could win (because they are too expensive) ... such as Iran or North Korea getting nukes, or more precisely you have to empower some bad guys (buying them off rather than fighting). Also, you have to believe that enough fights can be avoided.

This is where I suspect the worldview comes in. McCain has seen a world of conflict, was 3rd generation Navy with an Admiral father. His frame of reference has been conflict. He has seen cruelty up close. He knows sometimes you have to be willing to fight.

Obama has seen a world of diversity. He has preached understanding. He's never been in the military, and has based his campaign on overcoming traditional political infighting ("games" he calls them) to reach a common purpose.

In Obama's worldview, the Iraqs and Vietnams of the world can and must be avoided, and the military cannot fundamentally alter the reality on the ground. In McCain's worldview, the Iraqs and Vietnams of the world can't be avoided, only ignored as the cost grows, and a willingness to fight and persevere is required.

On the foreign policy side, that's the debate. The inital vote against Iraq is Obama's proxy for saying, "you have to be wise enough to see these things never go as well as you think and are a waste of precious resources." The success of the surge is McCain's proxy for saying "you have to be willing to have faith and persevere, and I have those traits."

What do you think?

Oh hell

2008-09-22T19:24:00.000-07:00

Those library books? That I was going to return? That weekend? When the storm was going to hit? Before I got moved to Dallas? Like two weeks ago?

The books that were already overdue?

Oh hell.

The Financial Crisis, Pt 1

2008-09-21T19:24:00.000-07:00

Quote

Although I agree broadly with Hatzius, I quibble with his idea that the goal is to avoid a sharp contraction in lending. The US needs to wean itself of unsustainable overconsumption, and since consumption has come to depend on growth in indebtedness, a reversal, however painful, is necessary. Our excesses have been so great that there is no way out of this that does not lead to a general fall in living standards (note that the officialdom in the UK is willing to say that, but since perpetual prosperity is a God-given right in America, admitting we will be getting poorer is verboten). Thus, a sharp contraction in lending seems inevitable; the trick is to prevent it from crossing the tipping point into a vicious, accelerating downward spiral.

Unquote

Another letter to Congress

2008-09-21T18:01:00.000-07:00

This email is regarding the proposed legislation to bail out the financial markets. I appreciate that there may be no good options, and that avoiding moral hazard here may lead to unacceptable impact on "Main St."

But with this administration's poor record of following the rules (Justice Dept for example), and with news of bankrupt Lehman keeping $2.5B for their best and brightest, the Congress should NOT be issuing blank checks and retroactive pardons to those raiding the taxpayers' pockets (however necessary the raiding).

There has been too much unaccountability already.

Please insist on the Congress and courts' proper role of oversight and review.

Obama Ad

2008-09-18T16:37:00.002-07:00

My Boy Biden

2008-09-18T16:37:00.001-07:00

You Go Joe

Hubris - Part 2

2008-08-08T13:16:00.000-07:00

On July 26 I wrote:

My prediction is that it will take two weeks tops for this to be in the headlines.

Two weeks later

Wish I were happier about it.

Why I should write documentation for SAP

2008-08-05T11:04:00.000-07:00

Quote

If an error return code of the DBMS for which a database reconnect is useful is not contained in the reconnect, a database reconnect is not executed.

Unquote

Surely, surely, there is a better way to say that.

Surely.

The wasted hours...

iPhone 3G - Contrarian View

2008-07-31T22:05:00.000-07:00

I've reviewed some features of the new iPhone previously, and I've even come around a little on some things (the shape is nicer as time goes by, the black plastic not so bad).

But in reading the following, I couldn't help but mostly agree. If you're going to get a phone, the iPhone is the one to get. And if you are going to get an iPhone, there's no good reason not to get the 3G. But, unless you have specific needs, the benefit of upgrading from the previous model consists mostly of what you sometimes get to do, what might be coming in the future. After the expectation-trouncing success of the first generation iPhone, this one can't help but leave you underwhelmed. So merely very good, so almost great.

http://www.iphoneatlas.com/2008/07/28/columnted-iphone-3g-and-mobileme-new-features-add-little-value

Hubris

2008-07-26T19:20:00.000-07:00

In 2006 Democrats delighted at the scandal-ridden Republicans. Pedophilia, restroom solicitation, lobbying corruption, DoJ politicization. Gone were the days of House post office scandals, of Gary Hart and Bill Clinton. Democrats would clean things up.

With word that Senate Majority leader Harry Reid is engaging in Tom Delay-style K Street lobbying shakedowns, I suppose I also shouldn't be surprised that John Edwards (yes, that John Edwards) is keeping a low profile after being confronted by National Enquirer reporters in the wee hours of the morning in a hotel where the the woman the Enquirer called the mother of his "love child" was staying (with child).

The required caveat is that there may be an explanation, and Edwards may have a legitimate reason for not wanting to talk about it, and for giving non-denial denials. Thus, what follows may be unfair. If so, my apologies.

But really.

No, Really.

I too first dismissed this as tabloid trash. But let's remember this is the same tabloid that produced a photo of Donna Rice on Gary Hart's lap (in front the boat "Monkey Business"). Who surfaced the story of Jesse Jackson's love child, silencing the once-family-values preacher (who later went after Obama for criticizing absent fathers). Who managed to find THAT blue dress that nearly brought down the Clinton White House and probably cost Al Gore the White House.

The Enquirer had already set its sights on the Golden Boy from North Carolina last Fall. When they seemed close to pinning something on Edwards (who was then a candidate for President), the Edwards campaign produce the married-with-kids-campaign-staffer Andrew Young, who then claimed to be the father. Of the kid whose mother later came over for dinner with the whole family. Sure.

But fishy as it all sounded, there was no proof of anything. With Edwards out of the race, there was no real story.

Now the blogosphere is positively abuzz with whether the mainstream press should talk about this. My prediction is that it will take two weeks tops for this to be in the headlines. Like the much-predicted bird flu, no matter how carefully the borders are guarded, there are too many ways in and the material is too contagious to keep out.

Earlier this week, Barack Obama's written prayer deposited in the Wailing Wall in Israel was stolen and broadcast on international websites, despite its insignificant contents. Many conservative bloggers decried this, even while saying they did not support Obama.

In that spirit, though I support John Edwards' campaign to help alleviate poverty in America, I can't offer any defense for him. With sympathy to his wife Elizabeth, who is battling terminal cancer, I have to say Edwards (like Clinton before him) is looking more like the caricature conservatives always claimed him to be: a pious phony who calls others to sacrifice but isn't willing to sacrifice his own libido.

A word of warning to other Democratic politicians: when you tap into a powerful truth about the world, and hold it up to the world, it will attract others. They will often confuse the idea and the person. Their youth and inspiration can also attract you, and remind you of your youth. That idea can also be confused with a person. But trying to grab hold of inspiration or youth gets you neither. It gets you National Enquirer reporters chasing you into restrooms.

So for Eliot Spitzer, and that governor from New Jersey or wherever, and Hart and Jackson and Clinton and Edwards, do us a favor and find another line of work. Kennedy doesn't get Marilyn anymore. I know the family-values conservative crowd have their share of hypocrites, too. They can police their own.

I'm tired of making excuses.

Asshole.

(Oh, and to the liberal bloggers: cut out that "well at least they were women" bullshit. I mean, are you serious? Only two years back into power, a useless Congress, "Bros Before Hos" Obama voters and "Party Unity My Ass" PUMA Democrats who want to vote McCain, and now we're trying to out-gay-bash Republicans? Isn't anybody motivated by the issues any more?)

Election Puzzle

2008-07-26T08:33:00.001-07:00

Reflections

2008-07-23T22:45:00.000-07:00

Controls Meetings

2008-07-21T12:16:00.001-07:00

Aaarrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhh!

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: Tuner

2008-07-20T10:43:00.001-07:00

$6

Nullriver Tuner has quickly become a killer app for me. Tuner is a streaming Internet radio client. What this means is, you either select one of the 500 or so pre-loaded stations (URLs) or you enter your own. The player then loads up the station.

Why pay $6 for this when AOL radio is free on iPhone, as is Pandora? It's all about selection. Pandora is great for music, but doesn't do news. AOL radio has all of 4 stations in Houston. Not knocking that, glad to have them. The point is unless you want those (mainstream radio) stations, no local radio for you.

Me, I like Houston's KUHF NPR station. KUHF plays news at rush hour (and a bit on weekends), but is classical the rest of the time. They actually have an HD radio signal that broadcasts news 24/7 (ditto classical and Spanish language). But unless you want to pay $200 for an HD tuner, no 24/7 news. Thankfully, they also stream the HD channel online, and using Tuner I can listen to it.

Tuner has some shortcomings though. Signals drop too often, and I'm not sure if Edge is fast enough to stream all channels (the bit rate - quality and bandwidth required - is shown next to each station). But the core functionality -- streaming customizable Internet radio -- is a winner, and well worth $6.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: Units

2008-07-20T10:26:00.001-07:00

$1

$1 for an application that just does conversions. I had my doubts. First, it seems a bit like that kitchen gizmo that you take out only once a year. That's part of what I like about the iPhone: it doesn't have a gazillion barely-used apps.

Or it didn't until the App Store.

But I digress. I like Units. When you open it, you see what looks like a Calculator. Three customizable buttons on the right let you choose measurement categories: currency, energy, temperature, time, length, weight, speed, volume, area. Each have icons. You also choose what "to" and "from" units it starts with.

You click the category button (say Temperature) and then put in one value, and the converted value appears above it. There's a handy switch button that reverses the to/from units so you can enter data the other way round. You can also cycle through other units (e.g. degrees Kelvin) and each of the categories.

Most people won't need most categories, but dollars to British pounds and Celsius to Fahrenheit (when overseas with no network connection) are worth $1. Automatic currency rate update option would be nice though (have to do 2 clicks to update).

Recommended for those with the need.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

Big Long Test Post

2008-07-14T18:17:00.001-07:00

So supposedly some people have seen long post issues and some not,with LifeCast. So I'm trying another long one.

Maybe it will work, maybe not. Bug to do the test I need to write stuff. Anything really. In fact, arguably it would be better to just start writing stuff, whatever comes to mind, rather than sitting around trying to figure out what to say.

And perhaps that would be a better way to blog. Especially with the onscreen keyboard on the iPhone, which I have to say seems to have even better corrective text than before. I almost have to work to get typos.

Anyhow, the folks at LifeCast have been very helpful in following up on this long post issue, so I thought the least I could do is to try another long post.

Sure, you might argue, do a long post, but why not post *about* something. Something, like, important. (I know you'd say "like" too; you're like that).

So why blog about nothing at all?

Well, first, since I don't actually expect this to post, I'll be much less annoyed if it doesn't than I would if I spent real time (and thought) on it. Heck, if this posts, I may even have to go back and make that last sentence grammatical.

Two iPhone screens long, this, if you're counting.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: LifeCast

2008-07-13T19:18:00.001-07:00

Free.

This blog post, like all the others today, are written on the iPhone in LifeCast. You give Lifecast your Blogger or Tumblr (only) blog login, and then type your 1 page of text and click submit. Longer then 1 screen of data hasn't worked for me; it hangs submitting.

On Tumblr, you can also submit photos, and photos plus text (and other blog sites) are expected in future.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: Urbanspoon

2008-07-13T19:13:00.001-07:00

Free.

Restaurant guide as slot machine. Detects your location, then random spins location (actually picks this one but can select others), cuisine and cost, then picks a random matching restaurant. Don't like the pick? Lock in what you do like. Oh, did I mention you shake the phone to spin the tumblers?

Fun, useful app.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: vSNAX

2008-07-13T19:09:00.001-07:00

Free.

A video application that streams CBS news and entertainment clips. Slightly sluggish navigation but beautiful video on iPhone.

Content isn't terribly compelling but has fair variety (news, game trailers, celebrity gossip, etc). Probably good to pass some boredom if trapped and not in the mood to web browse.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: Bloomberg

2008-07-13T19:06:00.001-07:00

Free.

An upgrade to the delivered Stocks application. You can see markets around the world, both indexes and individual stocks. For each stock, you get news and charts. Touching the news (not obvious) gives a list of articles. Turning phone to landscape gives a few charts, going back 5 years. (Basic Stocks app has a 2 year view missing here, but that's as far back as it goes.)

Totally different look, less friendly than Stocks, but more info.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone App: BoxOffice

2008-07-13T19:00:00.001-07:00

Free.

Like Movies.app, BoxOffice asks for Zip or GPS location, then shows movies by title or cinema.

BoxOffice's strength is that it shows movie ratings from RottenTomatos, by high score or title. You can also set the radius you want to search, and it will show those within radius first. Another big plus is that you can see the showtimes across multiple cinemas all on one screen. This plus the ratings make BoxOffice the better app to find a movie to go to today.

Movie.app is better for planning ahead, but takes longer to use.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: Movies.app

2008-07-13T18:54:00.001-07:00

Free.

I've tried two movie finders (Movies.app, BoxOffice), each with their own strengths.

Both apps ask for your ZIP code (or use GPS) and then show you local movies, both by movie or by location.

What's good about Movies.app is that it lets you look a couple days ahead, tells you how much money each movie has made, shows you coming attractions, and has links to movie trailers and IMDB.

Movies.app is worth downloading for when you want to look ahead and find out more about movies.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: Currency

2008-07-13T18:45:00.001-07:00

Free.

Fast and simple. Single page of current exchange rates. You choose the currency it's based on (defaults to dollars), but can't tell it to invert. For example it shows .50 pounds to the dollar, not 2 dollars to the pound.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: AOL Radio

2008-07-13T18:42:00.001-07:00

Free.

Dozens (hundreds?) of CBS radio stations sorted by genre and location. Quality is good, but there are no NPR or BBC radio stations, which is all I'm usually interested in.

Still, if you do like normal music or talk radio, this is worth a download. Like Pandora, this app has to be the open one to play, no switching to browser.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: Enigmo

2008-07-13T18:39:00.001-07:00

$10

This is an excellent puzzle game. You try to direct different color bouncing water drops from faucets into recepticles, using a limited number of springs, slides, sponges and guns to navigate an obstacle course.

Each level takes several minutes, and the game is addictive. You save automatically after each level, and can pause at any time.

1 player

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: Pandora Radio

2008-07-13T18:35:00.001-07:00

Free.

Pandora is a music streaming "Internet radio" application. You sign up (free), enter some music you like, and it starts playing similar music. You can click the info button to find out why Pandora thinks you will like the tune. If you don't like it, hit the thumbs down icon and/or click next. If you do like it, hit thumbs up. You can tag the artist or song as favorite. You can also tag the song to buy in iTunes.

Or you can also just sit back and enjoy the music. However, if you change to another app, the music stops.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: MPG (Green)

2008-07-13T18:28:00.001-07:00

$1

There were two apps called MPG. This is the green one. You put in the date, # of miles on tripometer (not odometer), # of gallons and cost. It charts MPG for you, tells you average, last tank, etc.

You'll want to delete the example car first and add yours.

Works well.

The black MPG app (renamed FuelGage) didn't work as well for me (forget why), and was same price.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: PhoneSaber

2008-07-13T18:19:00.001-07:00

Free.

A gimmick app, but the most popular at work. Launch it and you see a Star Wars light saber handle. Five colors are on the left.

Touch the handle (or a desired color), and the light saber blade appears. So far do boring. But the sound effects... A perfect capture of the sounds from the movies: a low hum, a groaning whirr when moved, a crashing sound of contact when direction suddenly changes.

Perfect to take out and express your frustration with the office, the phone conference, the traffic (from the passenger seat, of course).

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: Remote

2008-07-13T18:13:00.001-07:00

Free.

This is the first app to download. You need to be on your home wireless network. Open the app and you get a 4 digit number. Go to iTunes and type it in (you may need iTunes open first).

Now when you open Remote, it will connect to iTunes and show you the currently playing song (if playing) or your library (if not). You can browse the library, not just the songs on your iPhone. The iTunes volume on the PC is adjusted by the volume slider in the Remote app.

This is easily the best free app, and has gotten universal acclaim.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: App Store

2008-07-13T18:09:00.001-07:00

Well technically this isn't an app.

App Store is available in iTunes and on the phone. Apps are a few MB max; you don't need to be on wireless to download, like you do with iTunes store on the phone.

When you sync to iTunes, apps bought on phone go to iTunes, and vice-versa.

On wireless/3G, apps take about a minute to download and install. In iTunes downloads are almost instantaneous.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone 2.0 Software Review

2008-07-13T18:04:00.001-07:00

There's a new Contacts icon, like the contacts tab under Phone, except it has search. Eh.

The calculator turns into a scientific calculator in landscape.

Support is added for stuff that most people don't use: foreign language, Exchange and MobileMe, PowerPoint viewing.

Google Maps now has GPS, so you get a blue pulsing dot when you move. Very cool to play with. Nice for finding places, rather than having to look for street signs and house numbers.

Then there's the App Store. This IS iPhone 2.0.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone 3G Review II

2008-07-13T16:12:00.001-07:00

9. Volume rocker is noticeably less "clicky". Preferred the old one, could feel it through trouser pockets and could tell when it was pushed. This one you can't much tell without listening.

10. Headphone jack is flush, meaning any standard headphones can fit without adapters. Last "click" is very firm, meaning the fit is as tight as the first generation. This is a very good thing; 2/3rds of my drops have been bungee-corded by the headphones. Improvement.

11. Maybe it's just me, but both screen and home button seem a little less sensitive. Maybe it's a case of "breaking in", and some may like it more this way. Home button more seamless, which is nice. Sensitivity takes some getting used to.

12. Stereo speakers noticeably (~30%) louder on new iPhone. More depth as well, richer.

Review of iPhone 2.0 software coming.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone 3G Review

2008-07-13T15:39:00.003-07:00

Day 2 with the new iPhone 3G. First impressions:

1. 90% the same as first generation.

2. Feels sleeker, less durable than original iPhone. Fits the palm more smoothly, due to more rounded edges. Not fragile, but without the metal I'm not as inclined to bang it on a desk or duel with it.

3. Black seems to be more popular than white, though the white is only available on the more expensive 16Gb model.

4. 3G call quality much better. More like landline.

5. The 3G was $325 including tax, and $15 a month more than the 1st gen iPhone. 8GB model is $100 less. Existing non-iPhone AT&T customers not due for upgrade pay $200 more. 2 year contract, 900 rollover minutes, 200 domestic SMS texts and unlimited data for $95/month. 450 minutes is $20 less, unlimited SMS $15 more.

6. Battery life meant to be longer, but only if you turn off the new features: 3G, GPS, etc. And don't play those new games. In practice, battery life is noticeably shorter, enough that I'll probably need to start being aware of it (old phone never ran out during the day; recharge overnight).

7. Charger is a tiny block that goes onto the USB cable. Fits standard socket, unlike old oversized block that took up 3 spaces and had annoying blue light. Nice improvement, Apple.

8. No charger dock included; don't know if old one fits.

To be continued...

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

Father's Day

2008-06-15T19:58:00.001-07:00

Super Tuesday Revisited

2008-04-24T20:26:00.001-07:00

Back on Super Tuesday, I said that Barack Obama had shown he was a stronger general election candidate than Hillary Clinton. He proceeded to reel off a string of 11 wins in a row, followed by a occasional big state losses in Ohio, Texas*, and Pennsylvania.

So the chattering classes now ask, is he really the stronger candidate?

To answer the question, I ask some of my own: which states are likely to be "in play" in 2008? Do Obama or Clinton play notably better?

States in Play

Game Changers
(Toss ups now and in the past)

Colorado 9 (Obama+3, Clinton-14, Kerry-5, Gore-9) - OBAMA ADD

New Mexico 5 (Obama-1, Clinton-3, Kerry-1, Gore+1) - WASH

Michigan 17 (Obama+2, Clinton-9, Kerry+3, Gore+5) - CLINTON DROP

Ohio 20 (Obama-4, Clinton+3, Kerry-2, Gore-4) - CLINTON ADD

New Hampshire 4 (Obama-3, Clinton-6, Kerry+1, Gore-1) - WASH

Washington 11 (Obama+13, Clinton+3, Kerry+7, Gore+5) - CLINTON DROP

Oregon 7 (Obama+9, Clinton+1, Kerry+4, Gore+1) - CLINTON DROP

Wisconsin 10 (Obama+5, Clinton+0, Kerry+1, Gore+0) - CLINTON DROP

Minnesota 10 (Obama+6, Clinton+1, Kerry+3, Gore+2) - CLINTON DROP

Missouri 11 (Obama-8, Clinton+1, Kerry-7, Gore-3) - CLINTON ADD

Florida 27 (Obama-15, Clinton+1, Kerry-5, Gore-1) - CLINTON ADD

Iowa 7 (Obama+7, Clinton-6, Kerry-1, Gore+1) - OBAMA ADD

Observations: There are 3 close states where Clinton plays notably better Obama: Ohio, Missouri and Florida (58 electoral votes). These are states Democrats have come close to winning in 2000 and 2004, but lost both each time. Clinton can claim putting these states in play much more than Obama. If the Democrats are to win Ohio or Florida, Clinton is much more likely to do so. Note however she leads McCain by 3,1 and 1 points respectively - none are guaranteed or even likely wins. They are just in play.

At the same time, there are 7 close states where Obama plays notably better than Clinton. Five of these are states where Democrats have won the last two elections, but Clinton polls badly (Michigan 17) or polls almost even with McCain (Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, Minnesota 38). Obama also plays much better in perenial toss-up state Iowa. He meanwhile uniquely puts Colorado 9 into play, a state that has gone Republican in recent history. In 4 of these 6 Obama has a big lead and the risk is Clinton losing a Democratic state. Meanwhile, Obama's Michigan lead is only 3, not a guarantee.

Essentially, each candidate may put about 60-70 different electoral votes in play, Clinton via the traditional Democratic strategy of big states where Obama does poorly, and Obama through Western and Midwestern states, many Democratic, where Clinton plays poorly.

On to the long shots...

Hopes and Fears
(Close now but not in the past)

Texas 34 (Obama-1, Clinton-9, Kerry-23, Gore-21) - OBAMA ADD?

Nebraska 5 (Obama-3, Clinton-27, Kerry-29, Gore-35) - OBAMA ADD?

New Jersey 15(Obama+2, Clinton+1, Kerry+6, Gore+16) - WASH

Massachusetts 12(Obama+2, Clinton+15, Kerry+22, Gore+27) - OBAMA DROP?

North Carolina 15(Obama+0, Clinton-11, Kerry-13, Gore-12) - OBAMA ADD?

South Carolina 8 (Obama-3, Clinton-6, Kerry-17, Gore-16) - WASH

West Virginia 5 (Obama-18, Clinton+5, Kerry-13, Gore-6) - CLINTON ADD?

Connecticut 7 (Obama+17, Clinton+3, Kerry+10, Gore+18) - CLINTON DROP?

Kentucky 8 (Obama-34, Clinton-2, Kerry-20, Gore-15) - CLINTON DROP?

Obama looks to put Republican Texas, North Carolina and Nebraska into play, while risking Democratic Massachusetts, but none of these seem likely given their history. Obama may get 3 electoral votes from Nebraska, though. Clinton also appears to risk Democratic Connecticut while having a shot at Republican Kentucky, but this too seems unlikely. Clinton does get credit for putting West Virginia 5 into play.

Thus each candidate again puts a few more electoral votes in play, Clinton in the east and Obama in the west.

Conclusion

Both candidates seem equally strong in the general election. Obama secures much of the traditional Democratic states, while putting some western and midwestern toss up states in play. Clinton has more upside and downside potential, with weakness in some base Democratic states, but the only real shot at some big swing states that have trended Republican.

Obama would pick the Republicans apart with many little states, Clinton a few big.

Green Lantern

2008-03-25T08:19:00.000-07:00

What a good idea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/science/25tier.html?8dpc

Crayon Physics Deluxe

2008-03-20T17:24:00.001-07:00

oh yes.

Energy Markets

2008-03-18T20:27:00.000-07:00

These aren't my words, but are from an old article I clipped. Safer to keep it here, and rarely were truer words spoken.

"Fundamentally, the energy market isn't really a market -- it is rigged by nationally run oil monopolies that dictate the supply and prices of crude oil, individually within their own borders and globally through the OPEC cartel. In that system, private firms such as Exxon Mobil and Chevron are mere price-takers. But they are also willing free-riders who benefit handsomely from the price-fixing of others.

Obama's speech on race (37 min)

2008-03-17T21:36:00.000-07:00

I know it's a long speech. Get a drink and have a seat. But listen to it.

What I posted to CNN

2008-03-12T12:28:00.001-07:00

The idea that being a black man is an advantage in American politics (even Democratic politics) is laughable. Senator Obama is not the first African-American man (or woman) to run for president. He started the campaign running against a well-liked frontrunner who enjoyed the support of the majority of African-Americans. It is not Senator Obama's race that is the secret to his success. It is his powerful vision for what the country and its politics can be, which has attracted so many people.

It is perfectly fair to question this vision, and whether it is realistic.

It is also perfectly fair to "throw the kitchen sink", praise the Republican, offer the 2nd job, for when you are behind you want to start a fight to change the dynamic.

But listening to the conspicuous non-denouncements ('people are entitled to their opinions') of supporters, I now see a more disturbing pattern.

* Attempting to define Obama by his race (Mr. Clinton: doesn't he remind you of Jesse Jackson?)

* Encouraging racial division (Texas Latino leader Adelfa Callejo: blacks didn't support us... we're not going to get over it soon)

* Stoking resentment to affirmative action (Ferraro: the black man is getting the job the white person should be getting)

* Reminding superdelegates that there are a lot of racists out there (PA governor Ed Rendell: lots of people here won't vote for a black man).

Even if I give Hillary the benefit of the doubt on the "as far as I know" religion comment, I can't help but see a campaign strategy at work.

* Attack Obama until he responds angrily on something.
* Portray Obama as the big angry scary black man who attacks the white women, takes the white people's jobs, and is on the other side of a racial struggle against Hispanics.
* Stir up enough racial animosity that superdelegates fear a racial backlash against Obama in November and give the nomination to Clinton "for the greater good"

I hope I am wrong. As a former Clinton supporter (met her and liked her, encouraged people to vote for her last year), I am deeply ashamed of this campaign's behavior.

She seems willing to "cut the child in two"; I wish the superdelegates the wisdom of Solomon.

Michelle

2008-02-18T00:16:00.000-08:00

I heard she was pretty smart, but this was the first extended interview I've seen. It also reinforces a lot of what I am thinking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyBc33UjvDU

Obamacycling

2008-02-16T12:24:00.000-08:00

Check this out:

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/barack-obama-supporters-learn-to-obamacycle/161582213

And see it in action:

http://www.obamacycle.com/forum/topic/show?id=1997397%3ATopic%3A1935&page=1&commentId=1997397%3AComment%3A5058&x=1

Oh what the heck, one more here:

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/video-interviewer-picks-the-wrong-obama-supporter-to-try-to-railroad/

How conspiracy theories are born

2008-02-14T11:11:00.000-08:00

Dateline: Houston, Texas

Approximately 1:05 pm, February 14

Office phone rings. My phone is 713-4xx-xxxx... this is important.

It's a recording. Male voice says, this is a short 4 question political survey done on behalf of the American Research Group (a legit polling company, by the way).

Press (1) for Democratic Primary, (2) for Republican Primary. [1]

First Question: Hillary Clinton: (1) only person you'd vote for (2) preferred candidate, (3) acceptable but not preferred, (4) haven't heard of her, ... [3]

Second Question: Barack Obama: (1) only person you'd vote for (2) preferred candidate, (3) acceptable but not preferred, ... [2]

Third Question: Are you definitely planning to vote in the Primary on February 12? Press...

then the phone cuts out.

Now.

First of all, it is 100% possible the phone just cut off. We use wireless phones and they can be spotty. Now I've never had a line drop out during a call, but there was interference I could hear. So I'm willing to accept that the poll just happened to abort after I selected my preferred candidate.

But.

It cut off right on the words "February 12". Leaving them lingering in my mind.

Because the Texas primary is March 4.

Two coincidences?

Actually, it probably is. If you wanted to turn off someone's voters, you'd tell them the primary was *later* than it is, because believe me everyone will hear about the primary over the next 3 weeks. And there were elections in Virginia on Feb 12, and we have offices in Virginia, and though a Texas number was called...

See, it doesn't make sense either way. But, I tell you, that's how conspiracy theories are born.

And if anyone knows the phone # or email for American Research Group, I'd love to hear it.

[Edit #1: Found the number and left them a message.]

[Edit #2: Got a call from American Research Group. Their mistake, poll was being worked on and wasn't supposed to be running yet. They apologized and said it was fixed, thanks to my call. Totally true story. And why, perhaps, I'm not a conspiracy theorist at heart.]

[Edit #3: and the results]

The kind of things you don't read blogs for

2008-02-09T00:01:00.000-08:00

Who said a blog can't be an electronic notepad?

Who said you can't use it to write up all the tedious things you've learned in one evening about home networking, such as:

You can't string wireless routers together. Those are bridges.

AT&T customer support doesn't care if the tech already told you it was the line coming into the apartment. They will make you get the modem off the carpet and remove the router.

AT&T customer support doesn't care if you've told them that the problem is intermittent, they will still ask you after each test "is it working now?"

AT&T customer support are very patient and polite, but have little sense of humor when you respond to their instruction to "now wait until the connection stabilizes" with a pithy "I've been waiting for two weeks now."

AT&T's DSL technicians are the kind of folks you want as a neighbor to help you with projects. The kind that give you their phone number to call them directly next time. And they laugh. Now where was that number?

Number of new networking devices purchased in the past 2 weeks: 4

Number not actually needed: 2

Number of additional network devices to be purchased this weekend: 2

Things that can mess up your DSL line: other unfiltered phones, the test ringer the phone company puts on your line, dimmer switches, TVs, modems on carpet, aged modems, phone cords running parallel to the power cords, thin phone cords, long phone cords, logical network routers you cannot see, and apparently at least one more thing yet to be determined.

Current Internet Crush: Slate magazine. Articles on "Stop hating on the new compact flourescent bulbs" plus a 30+ minute audio book club discussing Eat Pray Love. These are the people I want to invite over to drink the good stuff.

Single worst thing your router can do to you: give bogus DHCP addresses. Hardcoded IP, subnet mask, default gateway, and DNS servers Ahoy! Remember to reprogram every time you plug directly into the modem to troubleshoot your DSL. And forget about talking to non-PC devices on your network. You don't even want to see the workaround.

Why your Belkin Network USB hub won't let you connect to your USB devices: Because when you moved your PC and hub onto a new router daisy-chained to the old router, so your DHCP would work and they'd be on the same subnet, the Windows Firewall would not open up as many ports as the original setup, and your UDP packets would be dropped. Which you would see once you read all about the new Vista advanced firewall, with 3 separate modes and rule-builder interface. It's UDP port 19540 inbound that is being dropped, by the way. And no, it's not in the guide. [edit: okay, so it is in the troublehooting help... but who reads that?]

Chance of your Voice-over-IP wireless router still giving you a dial tone after you daisy-chain it off the wired router that gives out proper DHCP addresses: Guess.

Reason the remote iPod will not show up in iTunes while the remote digicam will copy pictures: not a clue

It's one thing troubleshooting stuff like this for 7.5 hours. It's another to do so when your Internet connection bounces up and down constantly for hours at a time.

Do dentists wander around looking at people's teeth in their spare time? This computer stuff is like Invasion of the Body Snatchers sometimes.

Super Tuesday lessons

2008-02-05T22:05:00.000-08:00

Here is what I expect we'll see tomorrow.

McCain has it won, not because he won everything (he won less than I thought), but because Huckabee won the south. Huck won 5 or so states, so he will not drop out. Neither will Romney, though Romney has to keep lending his own campaign money, while Huckabee gets by on free publicity. With both in, McCain builds a lead that is insurmountable.

Why won't one of them (Huck, Mitt) get out? Each thinks the other is a fake conservative, that is, Huck thinks Mitt isn't really a social conservative (those Mormons think Jesus and the Devil are brothers, right Mike?), while Mitt thinks Huck isn't a real economic conservative. Huck loathes the Wall Street crowd, and Mitt can't stand Mike's piousness... neither will back down and each would rather see McCain the nominee. They will both get their wish.

But the point of this blog was to analyze the Democratic results. There are too many easy headlines for the right one to be written, but luckily you came here.

The headline is, with McCain the Republican nominee, Obama has shown that he can compete in the swing states that will decide the election better than Clinton can.

Let's break it down.

Here is how the states will probably come out:

Clinton: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennesee. She previously won New Hampshire and Nevada. (Florida and Michigan were uncontested.)

Obama: Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah. Previously: Iowa, South Carolina.

Obama got more states, Clinton got bigger ones, and the easy headline is "Split Decision" and stay tuned to sell more horserace newspapers. And certainly it is a tight race.

But.

In the 2004 election, 12 of the 50 states were decided by 5% or less. Six went Republican, six Democrat. Clinton doing well in Massachusetts or Obama doing well in Utah means little, as everybody knows how those states will vote.

Not everyone knows how these states will vote:
Colorado (+5%R)
Florida (+5%R)
Nevada (+3%R)
Ohio (+2%R)
Iowa (+1%R)
New Mexico (+1%R)

Wisconsin (+1%D)
New Hampshire (+1%D)
Michigan (+3%D)
Minnesota (+3%D)
Pennsylvania (+3%D)
Oregon (+4%D)

To win the 2008 Presidential election, Clinton or Obama needs to do well in these states. Maybe Virginia (+8%R) will be in play after electing its second straight Democratic governor and a Democratic senator. Other states may be up for grabs. Mostly it's about those above.

So let's break them down.

Colorado (+5%R) Obama by +33%
Florida (+5%R) not contested due to party rules
Nevada (+3%R) Clinton by 6%
Ohio (+2%R) not yet held (borders Obama's Illinois)
Iowa (+1%R) Obama by 8%
New Mexico (+1%R) exit polls show Obama by 5-10%
Wisconsin (+1%D) not yet held (borders Obama's Illinois and Minnesota below)
New Hampshire (+1%D) Clinton by 3%
Michigan (+3%D) not contested due to party rules
Minnesota (+3%D) Obama by 33%
Pennsylvania (+3%D) not yet held
Oregon (+4%D) not yet held

So the Clinton has won two contested presidential toss-up states (Nevada and New Hampshire) by an average of 5%, while Obama has won four by an average of 20%, with two more likely wins (Wisconsin, Ohio).

If Clinton has demonstrated an electability advantage, it is not in the midwest battleground states, but in strong support from Latino voters. Latino voters make up a sizable share in Florida, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. Republicans will win Texas, and Democrats California. Republicans will also win Arizona, especially with McCain as their nominee. McCain's moderate and politically brave positions on immigration will make him competitive in Florida and New Mexico. Clinton won both Arizona and California tonight, but neither are tossups. She also won Florida, but as a front-runner with name recognition in an uncontested race. The only relevant Latino-heavy battleground she contested was New Mexico, which it seems she lost (or certainly did not dominate).

The point of all of that is to say, Clinton showed dominance in some Southwestern states, but not the one that mattered (save Nevada). All the other states she won tonight were either her home states, or their neighbors: New York plus Jersey and Massachusetts, and Arkansas plus Oklahoma and Tennessee. Democrats who know her well (home states and neighbors) are loyal to her. And she has a notable advantage over Obama in the Hispanic community, but that doesn't translate (except perhaps in Florida) to an electoral advantage.

Meanwhile, Obama plays well in the western states (Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico) that will be 2008 toss-ups, and has the potential through both increased African-American turnout and religious-inflected oratory worthy of a Southern preacher , to force a non-Southern non-evangelical McCain to play defense in states like Virginia and Louisiana.

Simply put, Obama probably plays better in Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Wisconsin, while Clinton probably only plays better in Florida and Nevada. New Mexico and Nevada are useful but ultimately likely to go to the Arizonan McCain.

To put a further, harsher, light on it, Democratic primary voters have been about 60% women, and the white and Latino women have tended to vote for Clinton. The (fewer) men (all races) have voted more heavily for Obama. In a general election, there will not be a 20% surplus of women voters, so the likely results in a general election in these tossup states would be more strongly for Obama.

Also, some states have closed primaries not allowing crucial swing independent voters. Now I think it is an easy mistake to make, to assume that the candidate with most crossover appeal will do the best, because political moderates usually fail to attract the kind of fanatic support needed to fight a general election. Here, though, Obama's crossover support from Independents and Republicans comes in spite of his most-liberal-in-the-senate voting record (Clinton is #16), and Obama no doubt has fanatic followers. So his crossover appeal doesn't come with the usual downside (ref: the attacks on McCain coming from Limbaugh and Co). And in an open contest (as the general election is), his comparative strength vs Clinton in e.g. New Mexico (closed) and California (closed) would be better.

Conclusion

Clinton has shown she can win in the Northeast, in her home states of Arkansas and New York, in their neighbors, and among Latino voter and older women. Obama has been able to win further outside his (smaller) "comfort zone", including important toss-up states and constituencies that will likely decide the 2008 election.

Hillary Clinton could win the 2008 election, but she would likely need to follow Al Gore's and John Kerry's electoral strategy, but either win Florida or Ohio, while defending marginal upper midwestern and rust belt states. Obama has more strategies available, being able to bring southern border states into play, likely having a native son advantage in the swing states of the upper midwest, with the ability to fight McCain for independents while having a comparatively more motivated political base.

Tonight showed (me at least) that Obama has a far greater chance of winning the presidency than Clinton does.

Key dates and questions ahead:

Saturday: Louisiana and Washington State. Can Obama energize enough turnout to potentially bring the Southern state into play? Or does the Arkansas-neighbor factor work in Clinton's favor? The Washington caucus gives a good sense of who is most competitive in the Northwest, ~+3% Democratic territory that must usually be defended in the general election. Chance for either candidate to demonstrate some electability chops.

Sunday: Maine caucus. Clinton won neighboring NH. Mostly a chance for a winner's picture in the Monday paper.

Tuesday: DC, Maryland, Virginia. DC will go huge Obama, not necessarily a great PR thing as it brings up the race issue. Maryland is reliable Democrat. Virginia is a potential swing state. A big win by Clinton or Obama here gets electability points.

Week Tuesday (Feb 19). Wisconsin. Obama should romp here as a setup to Ohio below. If so, great mo. If not, will send wave of second thoughts.

March 4. Texas and Ohio. Beginning of the end. If Obama can win Ohio (a critical swing state with a modified-open primary), while holding his own in Texas (unwinnable for Dems but demonstrating reasonable competitiveness for Latino voters), he will make a strong case for the electability crown and try to get the establishment (especially superdelegates) behind him. Clinton will spin Ohio as home-field advantage for Obama and hold out for April 22 in Pennsylvania. But that is 6 weeks later, and McCain will be running ads for the general election. Dems will want to shut this game down. Besides, Ohio/Texas is a lot of delegates. If either candidate is within shouting distance of the nomination, there will be tremendous pressure for superdelegates to line up and end it. Obama's trump card is hope that the electability scenario peels off Clinton's superdelegates. Clinton's trump is trying to reinstate the Florida and Michigan delegates she won uncontested.

Stay tuned.

quick funny

2008-01-22T20:39:00.000-08:00

Today's smile: http://lolinator.com/lol/alittledistracted.blogspot.com/

What New Hampshire tells us about identity politics

2008-01-11T06:53:00.001-08:00

I've heard a lot of questions about what happened in New Hampshire. That is, (1) why were the polls for the Democratic primary off by such a large amount, and (2) how did Hillary Clinton recover so much in the last day or so before the vote?

The answer may include the Iowa "bounce" subsiding after polls ended, independents voting McCain due to Obama being a "lock", and of course, the "tears". The last is most commonly cited, but least understood.

I believe the way to understand this is in terms of Clinton successfully awakening older women to their gender identity. An excellent article on this:

http://iht.com/articles/2008/01/10/america/women.php

The end of that article includes the following point:

In interviews, some Democratic women over 40, who said they had experienced stinging sexism, seemed to long for the election of a female president - they said Clinton would fill the role just fine - as a grand moment of validation.

But younger women, who have grown up in a world of greater parity, seemed less likely to allow gender to influence their vote.

In some cases, this split is playing out within families. Myra Dinnerstein, 73, a former professor of women's studies at the University of Arizona, said Clinton's setbacks had saddened and angered her.

"I used to tell my students that I would never live to see a woman president, and now that there has been a golden opportunity, we are letting it slip away," Dinnerstein said.

A few hours later, after hearing about Clinton's victory in the New Hampshire primary, she sent out a celebratory e-mail message: "Hurrah! I think women got as mad as I was, seeing Hillary trashed. I think they realized that 'the gender thing' exists."

But Dinnerstein's daughter, Julie Dinnerstein, 39, who works for a nonprofit feminist organization in New York, said she would vote for Obama in the Feb. 5 primary.

"Senator Clinton's struggles are not my own, and they are not those of my generation of women," the younger Dinnerstein said. "The idea of a woman being president just does not seem to be as powerful or as revolutionary to me as it does to feminists of my mother's generation."

This reminds me of comments I saw after Obama's surge, and that I continue to see, talking about race. For the generation of people in their 40s and older, who grew up in the 60s, there is a great consciousness of race and gender that filters how they see politics and life. This consciousness enabled many to push for important changes. It also led to (or merely flushed out latent) resentment among others at these changes.

The sometimes bitter irony of the struggle for change is that it often obsoletes the reason for its existence. Progress has been made; both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are entirely credible and viable presidential candidates. Part of this, however, is because they are not primarily seen in terms of their gender or race, respectively.

That's not to say that all problems and prejudices are past. Rather, to paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke, it's that folks learn that hating someone based on their gender or race is sloppy, when if you get to know people there are so many better reasons to hate them. The political left and right have both seen Margaret Thatchers and Clarence Thomases. For every sexist who grudgingly admits that a woman can run a good war, there's a progressive dismayed that someone's skin color doesn't make them an ally. As a generation grows up with consumption- and ambition-driven two-income families, as new external enemies are defined and new waves of discomforting immigrants arrive, the old lower social classes (like the Italians, Irish, Poles, non-landowning, etc) earn their stripes, become the upperclassmen.

As a society, we are slowly moving past the identity politics of the 60s. The 21st century identity politics are those of religion and language. Perhaps in 2040 we will make a fuss of the agnostic or Muslim candidate, or the Spanish-speaking nominee whose parents were granted amnesty by Reagan. Her conservative politics will make us voice suspicion or dismay, and our children will wonder what the fuss is.

Today, though, Democratic voters are in a tug of war between the grandparents who aspire to win the battles of their lives through Hillary Clinton, and their children who look to move past both those battles and the identity politics they represent through Barack Obama.

First podcast attempt

2007-12-09T00:32:00.000-08:00

First try. About 10 minutes of news from Friday, Dec 8.

Update: You can now subscribe to the podcast using the "Subscribe in iTunes" link on the right. This will launch iTunes and add the podcast to your "Podcasts" list. New episodes will be downloaded automatically, and you can put them on your iPods or other MP3 devices.

Alternative: Go to iTunes, Advanced menu, Subscribe to Podcast, enter:

http://feeds.feedburner.com/distractedaudio

Podcasts will be over on distractedaudio.blogspot.com, not here. If you subscribe, you won't need to check that site.

The podcast may show up in iTunes Music Store in a few days, search for "heyjebbo". You can subscribe using the method above now.

Enjoy!

La Javanaise

2007-10-25T21:26:00.000-07:00

I've probably never better understood KP's feelings about the woefulness of translating poetry until now.

La Javanaise is a bittersweet French love song by Serge Gainsbourg. The refrain is (badly translated) "If you don't mind, while dancing the Javanaise, our love lasted long as a song."

But the Javanaise isn't a dance. It's a slang. A French slang where you keep slipping in V's where they don't belong (think pig Latin).

Almost every stressed syllable in the verses begins with V's. If you don't mind, love in Javanaise, as long as a song. I'm just... that's... yeah. Wow.

More Harry Potter news

2007-10-21T06:35:00.001-07:00

Jo Rowling at Carnegie Hall

Fresh air

2007-10-17T21:38:00.001-07:00

I personally like "...before it was cool"

Vent

2007-10-15T17:01:00.000-07:00

T. once told me of his ride in the back of a landscaping truck with a bunch of good old boys who told racist jokes along the way. What offended him, he said, was not so much the jokes (we've all heard offensive jokes) but rather that these guys had judged him to be someone who would find such things funny. I related to that.

I believe that with power comes responsibility. It offends me when those in positions of power do not use their power to lift up (or protect) those with less power. Perhaps the ideal of equality is less widely or genuinely held than I would like to believe. Perhaps people are just short-sighted. But I expect men to speak out against sexism, whites against racism, natives against xenophobia, heterosexuals against homophobia, Christians against religious bigotry. Not because a white straight Protestant American male is better or nobler or stronger than anyone else; rather because he is given the most power in society.

I spent my teens growing accustomed to social conservatism, the desire of people in various majorities to conserve the social status and power they held. I never grew accustomed to economic conservatism, though, perhaps because I didn't grow up surrounded by people with lots of money. I spent my twenties neither rich nor poor, needing to watch my money but confident in my future. On the eve of my thirtieth birthday I spoke to C. in England, and said that I felt I had enough income to live comfortably.

2002 was a watershed year. I turned thirty. America went to war. I went to America. My income and net worth began a steady climb. And I began to be surrounded for the first time with true economic conservatives.

I had always considered the best parts of my life to be mainly due to the good fortune and charity of others: my parents and grandparents who loved me, taught me values and looked out for me; teachers who showed belief in me and gave me opportunities; cousins and friends who shared themselves with me and gave me the confidence to be myself with them,; charitable people who funded scholarships and assistantships; taxpayers who subsidized my education; I could go on. I did my part, but it seemed a vanishingly small part.

So when I was surrounded by other people who were experiencing financial success, I expected to find a community of humble, grateful people who were energized by the possibility of what a difference they could make in the lives of others. Instead I found people who, while on the whole very affable and kind, were mainly preoccupied with the resolution of their new television, the features of their new car, the size of their new deck. These were not bad people; I like many of them. I just could not relate to the lack of humility or sense of responsibility.

Now thirty-five and in Texas, I find a different sort of economic conservative. Jealous of his money, he sees the world conspiring to mug him. He seeks to conserve his economic position, while dismissing equally the distasteful rants of the social conservatives (those nice Untouchables will work for less) and the tiresome complaints of the downtrodden (we can't afford to touch everyone).

But this is not what offends me. I am offended by this: on a weekly basis I am subjected to conspiratorial theses or jokes by those who seem desperate to convince themselves that anyone who would claim wealth carries responsibilities is motivated by greed or stupidity. Not greedy or stupid, us, we privileged.

Perhaps I am unfair. But to hear complaints about entitlement programs from those whose lives (like mine) *are* entitlement programs... it feels insulting, and with hot blood in the face I bite my tongue. Because wealth does carry responsibility, and my responsibility is not to waste the good I can do on self-defeating office rants. Too easy.

But still, another evening gone.

Evolution

2007-10-13T14:55:00.000-07:00

"the implication of Wolpert's argument is that, at least under some circumstances, it is better to persist in an irrational belief than to vacillate, even if new evidence or ratiocination favours a change."

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

If you are familiar with the Prisoner's Dilemna (Wikipedia it), it is interesting to me the parallels between the selfish benefits of selflessness and the problem of natural selection of irrational belief. Coincidence? I think not.

Burning Supplies

2007-10-02T19:57:00.000-07:00

I do keep thinking of stuff to blog, but as stated in a long past blog, good writing requires you to - in a sense - stop thinking long enough to express a past thought well. My mind hasn't been amenable to stopping, so no real blogs.

This one is practical, though. I am doing a cleanup of the flat, and have several pages of "things to buy for burning man." I've been holding on to them b/c I haven't wanted to throw them out without reviewing them. Specifically, what did I think I needed but didn't, or vice versa.

Without further ado,

**************************
Burning Man Supplies Recap
**************************

AAA Card - good idea but not necessary. Terrain isn't that harsh, and lots of people on the roads, but it is in the middle of nowhere and gas is hard to come by.

batteries - yeah, but didn't use that many. It's not that dark at night, so headlamps aren't on all the time. Maybe a half dozen or so.

beef jerky - i did eat it all, so that's good, but you really don't want things that make you thirsty. I hated it by the end. Get real meat (ham with water added) instead.

bicycles - again, yes and no. It's not *that* bad to walk. Cycling is much faster (water run in 10 minutes rather than 40) but the "roads" kill your rear end. Either pad the seat, make a mutant vehicle, or walk. That said, small cheapo bike is fine, just tighten it.

bike bell - nah

bike carrier (car) - absolute must

bike headlamps - yes

bike locks - absolutely

bike rack for back of bike - nah, but a front basket is great

bike repair kit - eh

bike taillight - not so important really so long as you have headlamp

bike water bottle - eh

binoculars - didn't have, small and light would have been good, as lots to see.

breads - yes for sandwiches. Keep it moist

breakfast bars - didn't have, wouldn't recommend

bug spray - no

bungee cords - yes, for stringing up stuff in tent. 4-6 is fine.

camelback - yes, light one, put ice in it YUM

gifts - fewer, smaller, relevant

chapstick - yes, 1-2 sticks

collapsible shovel - no

compass - nah

cooler - essential. Wheeled is great.

costumes - yes (1-3)

disposable camera - ok

dust mask - either that or bandana is absolute necessity

earplugs - if light sleeper. yes, to be safe

fire extinguisher - suppose

first aid - must

fix a flat - nah, have AAA

flashlights - use headlamp

fleece/sweater - 1 is fine

frisbee - ok, but do you want to carry?

fruit cocktail - would have been great

gatorade - hated it. hated it. Sprite was a godsend.

gloves - didn't use, but did get a blister, so I suppose good.

goggles - essential only behind water

GPS - unnecessary

hand sanitizer - yes, 2-3 little bottles from Target hooked to beltloop

hat with chinstrap - yes, though no necessary if sunscreened

head lamps - yes, can serve as bike headlamp probably

high wind candles - no

ice insulated bags - yes, but *must* be very strong, or else have an outer bag to carry

instant cooked food - hit or miss. oatmeat good, lasagne passable, rice dishes blandly icky

lawnchair - yes, but nice if one is there, tend to be some around

lemonade mix - ick. ick ick, at least instant.

luggage - well yeah, but it *will* get dust embedded in it for eternity

matches/lighters - 1 lighter

nuts - awful. dries the mouth, intolerable. threw them out.

pb&j - would have been okay maybe with a drink (the J part), but nah

plastic bottles/tennis balls - to cover stakes. Use bright orange stakes instead, else yes.

portable shower w drain - cheated this. tough one; yes but drain is something to still figure out.

power charger for car - yes.

pyjamas - yes

multitool - yes, for the scissors/knife and pliers part.

road atlas - yes, or AAA maps

sandals - yes, but remember sunscreen for feet!

long shirt - ok, tho for coverage not warmth

short shirt - yes

shorts - yes, or swimtrunks / cool undies

sleeping bag - yes

soap - liquid better

socks - nah

spray mist bottle - yes, 1

stove - nah, but if no access then no "just add hot water" foods

tarot deck - didn't use, no unless built into something

tarp/plastic sheeting - yes yes yes. car, tent, inside after you leave, bring 3x what you think you need.

tent - yes, unvented if possible. all about the dust

tire pump - for bike, yeah i suppose

toilet paper - yes, but less than you think (some there, and you go less than you'd expect)

toothbrush/paste - yes

towels - yes, 1 each + 1 in case

trash bags - yes, though we went ovweboard. needed about 15 all told.

travel neck pillow - good not essential

tripod light/lantern - used overhead light; want some fixed source for tent.

trousers - not really, 1 for travel back (hot day, costume night)

umbrella/shade structure - if none for camp. not stay in tent, too hot, need breeze.

utensils - depends on food.

vienna sausages - didn't take, suspect would be OK but need drink.

visine - yes, but clean eyelashes first w/ water else salt runs in eyes, makes worse. get normal kind, not allergy watery-eye

walkie talkie - nah

washbasin - nah

washcloth/puff - 1 ok, not critical, but exfoliating puff afterwards is great

water - yes, 2 gal/day fine

sunscreen - yes, and use it

wet naps - yes, but didn't use tons.

windbreaker - ok, wasn't cold in '07

zip ties - optional

ziplock bags - ok, but NOT repeat NOT waterproof. if could find waterproof would be great

blanket - ok, want some kind of underneath layer below sleeping bags (little rocks)

advil - should be part of good 1st aid kit

kite - ok, good environment if you get out into playa

videocam - yes, but need approval and keep it polite (good for surveying art, capturing vibe)

plastic cups - yes, lots if serving drinks but mind disposal

skin lotion - good idea

Wish we'd had:

more juicy stuff (think nectarine not apple)

soda

more ham

more cheese

So that's that. And now back to our regularly scheduled procrastination...

Why is it that

2007-09-20T18:34:00.000-07:00

...everything that makes us feel alive escapes language?

Or worse, seems capturable in language (hence poetry) but fades so quickly in the noise and fog of convention?

Sitting in the car, not dreading the work to be done back at the computer and voice conference, but already missing the heartbeat and perspective, navigating thoughts and words like landmines, psychic black holes on an astral plane returning us too quickly to the conventional sleep of consciousness.

Burning Wine

2007-09-04T19:21:00.000-07:00

I don't know what to say about the vacation I just got back from. It's one of those things that you want to come up casually in conversation. But as I'm not conversing with anyone at the moment, I'll just jump right in.

This was a 3-part trip, of which I participated in 2 parts.

First was California. About 5 days. First night San Francisco. Next day to Monterey for whale watching and south to Big Sur. Next day to Calistoga in Napa valley and wine tasting. Next day to Healdsburg in northern Sonoma valley and more wine tasting. Then back to San Francisco (Richmond) for clothes and camping gear.

Then to Nevada for part 2 of the trip.

On our way to Reno, we headed through Donner Pass. Then on to Sparks, Fernley, and up to Empire and Gerlach. Finally around 10pm, we pull into Camp Fishie in Black Rock City, aka the Burning Man festival. Sandstorms and headaches, red eyes, dust everywhere, sore bottoms from cycling on washboard earth, punishing heat, more sandstorms, and thumping music. I can't possibly do it justice except to say that we all wanted to leave, we all seemed to lose valuable things there, and yet... It was like being a kid in a grown-up Disney, with all the hassle, noise, exhaustion, and amazement. I saw maybe 1/2 of 1% of it in 4 days, and I already wish I could go back.

More Pictures:

Someone else's Burning Man slideshow

Video to come.

Taking out the wallet

2007-08-22T12:17:00.001-07:00

Read this today:

Lives, like money, are spent. What are you buying with yours?
- Roy H. Williams

Cry

2007-08-11T08:49:00.000-07:00

I'm writing quick because once I find out for sure, I will be too gutted to type.

So there's a new version of iTunes. Update, sure, get some iPhone bug fixes. I say yes to update iPhone, but it fails, says I have to Restore it. Okay, no biggie, guess I better make sure I have whatever I need off it first. Oh, can't get into it. Um, where does it sync all the photos, notes, contacts, etc I've been making.

It doesn't.

That is, I can configure it to talk to some Mac software, or to Outlook for contacts. I just assumed it backed it up into iTunes.

Gone.

The contacts suck, but I can recreate them.

But all my holiday photos and wine notes, seem gone.

Here it comes, rebooting.

Hold your breath.

Booklist

2007-07-29T20:03:00.000-07:00

I go through periods of no books for months, then I actually read for a while. Reading phase currently. Last few months:

1 Castle of Crossed Destinies, Italo Calvino
2 Fooled by Randomness, Nassim Taleb
3 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Jo Rowling
4 The Social Climber's Guide to High School, Robyn Schneider
5 Still Life with Woodpecker, Tom Robbins
6 Another Roadside Attraction, Tom Robbins (there ya go bro!)
7 Going Postal, Terry Pratchett

1 - eh. indulgent etude.
2 - annoying but turns very good in the last 3rd
3 - see elsewhere
4 - cotton candy
5 - light, funky
6 - meatier version of 5, adjusts life attitude (a la Zen...)
7 - Very funny, love Pratchett's humor, good you don't have to have read his others

A Lesson in Procrastination

2007-07-29T17:46:00.000-07:00

I can't decide whether it is better to do the review of the movie I just watched or the phone I got a few weeks ago.

Procrastination Method #1. Make a post referencing each. C'est cool, non?

Then... go get a drink!

Nice.

Okay, movie wins.

Heights. Has Glenn Close and one of the blonde actresses who look like Tea Leoni. Everyone (guys included) is attractive and messed up. What a good textured movie. Not a laugh riot, this, but what did you expect from my NetFlix queue? There is this certain kind of movie I love, in pacing and setting and character and plot. Ruby in Paradise is the closest I've seen, or maybe Go Fish. Heights is close to that kind of movie, but set in Manhattan. Which has the added benefit of giving me a sense of the emotional texture I might have related to had I been a big city kid. In any event it makes me want to move to Manhattan.

Now the iPhone. It's hard to "review" it because everyone else has already, and they all say pretty much the same thing, and they are all correct. So what else is left to say?

How about what surprised me.

It's heavy, in a car made of iron not plastic sort of way. Good heavy. The battery life is excellent, much better than my 30GB video iPod. The screen has adjustable brightness and fully bright it is beautiful. Has external speakers, which are surprisingly quite loud but blatty (no bass).

There are 16 "applications" on the home screen. You can't add more.

SMS - very pretty, but I keep getting MySpace SMS messages that I can't stop. Grrr! Mostly an annoyance because of that. 200 free SMS (not international), 20 cents each after that, and unlimited is available (like more than $10, less than $27; don't recall). There is no IM (AOL, MSN etc).

Calendar - Also very pretty. No week view, only day/month. That's annoying. Easy to add stuff. Good overall.

Photos and Camera - these two are linked. Uses the 4-8GB onboard, can't use removable cards. Can email pix. 2 megapixel, good colors. No flash, no video. Viewing and scrolling is very very nice.

YouTube - Never been a big fan. Quality is good over Wi-fi, not over normal AT&T. Hard to find stuff on search.

Stocks and Weather - Stocks is okay. Weather is particularly attractive; it gets "wow"s. You select your cities and scroll.

(Google) Maps - Unless you bookmark things it is tricky to use. For example, if you are looking at an address and you want to drive there, you have to put in the address again. But if you bookmark everything, it works very well. It has driving directions but no GPS; you select Start then go Next Next Next and it animates the movement. Has satellite view but no hybrid. Multi-touch works here and is very good. Multi-touch is where you pinch and pull the screen with 2 fingers, and double-tap to zoom in/out.

Clock - seems superficial but has more to it than meets the eye: World clock displays multiple cities. Alarm can set multiple alarms with selected tones, but not music from the iPod. Stopwatch is self-explanatory, ticking off to 1/10 of a second. Timer counts down to zero rather than up, and can be set to sleep iPod so you can run music for say 30 minutes at bedtime.

Calculator - seems superficial and so far, is. I guess it's handy if you need a calculator.

Notes - is probably the one application that seems deficient. Typing in landscape would be a serious help (it's easier than typing in portrait). Moreso, the ability to categorize notes would be a huge help. As it is, they all go in one long list. You can email notes. You can't seem to import existing notes from other sources (another drawback for me).

Then there are the main 4 apps: Phone, Mail, Safari (Internet), and iPod.

Phone - has 5 screens. One is your "Favorites", phone numbers you have chosen to be on the quick list. One tap calls. "Recents" lists incoming and outgoing calls, including missed, with time and number. "Contacts" is the big list, including photos, email, phone #s, address, birthday, and whatever else you save. "Keypad" is what it sounds like; touch numbers and tap Call. "Voicemail" is the big surprise feature; you don't have to call voicemail and listen through menus. Instead, voicemails appear here like emails would, with name or number. Tap one and it plays immediately, no "Press 7 to go to next message". Works like they say it does, very nice.

The phone also integrates with the iPod. You can answer or send calls to voicemail using the earphone, which also has a mike for handsfree. If music is playing it will fade and pause, resuming after the call.

Mail will syncronize with most major email providers. Mine is GMail. Only complaints are that when you send an email from the phone it shows up in your inbox on the phone, and the read/unread status is not maintained well during syncs (if you read on phone it is still unread in Gmail). Otherwise it works as advertised. You can set up multiple email accounts. Not sure about Hotmail, need to check.

Safari. This is the killer app on the iPhone. If you want to read all about it, go see the demo on Apple's web site and know that works like that. Surprises? That you don't have to pinch/pull to zoom on most web sites; a double tap will zoom correctly. The fonts resize and sharpen at each resolution, making it very easy on the eyes. You can open multiple windows at once. It remembers cookies, that is, you don't have to keep logging in to pages each time you turn on the phone. Bookmarking is as expected. It displays every page correctly, with exception of not playing Java and Flash (which I don't think any other phone does anyway, certainly not my old Treo). Flash they say is coming. But... but... AT&T is slow. At 4-5 bars it's like dial-up. At 1-2 bars it's like dial-up with that old 9.8K modem. Wireless is a joy, though. You can't seem to check SSL certificates (I haven't found how) but most normal humans don't do that regularly.

iPod. My surprise was that not only did they bundle a good phone and great browser with the iPod, but that they made a much better iPod than before, too. Coverflow is a real pleasure, dragging the albums around. Most missing album is added with two clicks in iTunes. Videos in particular are lovely; you really could watch movies on this. And I hear music battery life is ~23 hours. I did ~11 and had half-battery, so I believe it. (Wireless web browsing with bright screen eats battery though, I doubt you'd get 7-8 hours of that, maybe more like 4-5?).

Most iPod attachments don't work, depending on what they do. There is limited bluetooth (can use mono headset), no infrared. No voice calling. I can charge it from my car stereo iPod adapter, but not play music on car stereo itself. The headphone jack is recessed so many headphones won't work with it. Has external volume up/down (good for out and about) and a silent switch.

The AT&T plan is $60 for 450 airtime minutes, $80 for 900, plus bigger plans. Minutes roll over. All plans have unlimited data in the USA. $4 for overseas calling plan but you need a credit check if new customer. Same $200 early termination.

It's very good. It makes the day more pleasurable. Isn't that what you want from your gadgets?

Done

2007-07-21T22:14:00.000-07:00

12 hours.

Maintaining radio silence.

Comments available upon request.

Candy

2007-07-19T21:04:00.000-07:00

The Candy Heart You Should Give Is:

To: Annette
From: Jeff

What Candy Heart Should You Give?

You Are Expressionism

Moody, emotional, and even a bit angsty... you certainly know how to express your emotions.
At times, you tend to lack perspective on your life, probably as a result of looking inward too much.
This introspection does give you a flair for the dramatic. And it's even maybe made you cultivate some artistic talents!
You have a true artist's temperament... which is a blessing and a curse.

What Art Movement Are You?

American Cities That Best Fit You:

65% Atlanta

55% Miami

55% Washington, DC

50% Austin

50% Chicago

Which American Cities Best Fit You?

Your Dosha is Kapha

Calm and grounded, you are not prone to mood swings or anger.
However, once you do get angry, it takes a lot to cool you down.
You tend to think a little slower than most people, but your logic is astounding.
Overall, you very loyal and trustworthy. You're not scared of being who you really are.

With friends: You enjoy their company, but often listen more than talk

In love: You crave connection and affection. It's hard for you to be single.

To achieve more balance: Exercise vigorously (especially in the sun) and let go of attachments.

What's Your Dosha?

Your Halloween Costume Should Be

Candy Corn

What Should You Be For Halloween?

You Are The Devil

You don't represent evil, but you do represent the animalistic side of humans.

You demonstrate what happens when we listen to our first instincts.

At times you tend to be materialistic and hedonistic, giving in to temptation.

Admit it, you're guilty of acting first - and forgetting to think later!

Your fortune:

Right now, you may be having a difficult time as a result of choices you have made.

You need to think about what's important in your life, and discover what chains you down.

It is the time to acknowledge your faults and take steps to overcome them.

It's also the time to let go of any fears or inhibitions that are holding you back.

What Tarot Card Are You?

You Belong in London

A little old fashioned, and a little modern.
A little traditional, and a little bit punk rock.
A unique soul like you needs a city that offers everything.
No wonder you and London will get along so well.

What City Do You Belong In?

You Should Get a PhD in Liberal Arts (like political science, literature, or philosophy)

You're a great thinker and a true philosopher.
You'd make a talented professor or writer.

What Advanced Degree Should You Get?

You Are 47% American

America: You don't love it or want to leave it.
But you wouldn't mind giving it an extreme make over.
On the 4th of July, you'll fly a freak flag instead...
And give Uncle Sam a sucker punch!

How American Are You?

You Are Midnight

You are more than a little eccentric, and you're apt to keep very unusual habits.
Whether you're a nightowl, living in a commune, or taking a vow of silence - you like to experiment with your lifestyle.
Expressing your individuality is important to you, and you often lie awake in bed thinking about the world and your place in it.
You enjoy staying home, but that doesn't mean you're a hermit. You also appreciate quality time with family and close friends.

What Time Of Day Are You?

You Are Pretty Happy

You generally have a happy, fulfilling life.
But things could be a little better, and deep down, you know it.
Maybe you need more supportive friends or a more challenging career.
Something is preventing you from being totally happy. You just need to figure out what it is!

How Happy Are You, Really?

Your Political Profile:

Overall: 35% Conservative, 65% Liberal

Social Issues: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal

Personal Responsibility: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal

Fiscal Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Ethics: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal

Defense and Crime: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

How Liberal Or Conservative Are You?

Your Linguistic Profile:

50% General American English

30% Dixie

15% Yankee

0% Midwestern

0% Upper Midwestern

What Kind of American English Do You Speak?

You Are 67% Pure

You're pretty pure, and you have no plans on changing that.
You do have a devilish side though... and it will probably get the better of you.

The 100 Question Purity Test

Politics Update

2007-07-16T17:57:00.000-07:00

Kennedy had TV.

Clinton had Arsenio Hall.

We have...the first YouTube election.

Artemidoris

2007-07-16T17:18:00.000-07:00

Gate check

2007-07-06T18:44:00.000-07:00

45 days of rain in Texas is enough to delay flights by almost 3
hours. Headed out to UK, be back on July 16. Photos may have to wait
til I return, but I'll have some then.

The only way to work

2007-07-05T17:43:00.000-07:00

Testing 123

2007-07-04T22:06:00.001-07:00

Test post from phone...

Why I enjoy Zogby polls

2007-06-25T18:45:00.001-07:00

Not reading them, though I like that, too ... but not as much as those Pew polls... no, I enjoy participating. You can sign up to be one of those people who gets polled (by web, not phone calls). Anyway, I'm currently staring at this one:

In a recent survey Zogby International conducted about what Americans see as important in our next president, there was a 30-point difference between those who said a "good, moral personal life" vs. those who said "someone with good Christian values." Which of the following do you think best describes the difference between someone with a good moral personal life and someone with good Chrisitian values?

People with Christian values are more moral
People with Christian values are not necessarily more moral
Religious affiliation is not a factor in one's values and morals
Not sure

Now tell me that isn't fun.

Iraq again?

2007-06-19T19:57:00.001-07:00

I remember my editor at Auburn saying "Bosnia again?" when I wrote the second or third Bosnia opinion column in three or four weeks. It wasn't really on the front pages yet; we hadn't sent troops or bombed yet. I certainly hadn't had the experience of trying to make the world better (as opposed to just killing the bad guys/commies etc) and making an utter disaster of it yet.

I thought that we could use our strength to make a better world. I think we did in Bosnia. Somalia should have been a warning.

Anyway, I want to talk about Iraq again. Sorry, Seth, wherever you are.

What I want to say is, we / the left (can I count myself among "we"? I guess that's another topic...) are on the chariot... we are riding high politically on anger at Iraq. But I don't know that we know what we want. Or, I think we have a coalition of people with different values who are having a party of convenience but don't realize how potentially deep their disagreements are.

Or maybe I'm just hoping for company in my internal conflicts.

I've always been embarrassed by how much I supported the aims of the war. I mean, not just that I hoped it worked - given the lives at stake I certainly hope everyone wanted it to work. But for some reason (Bosnia?) I thought it could. I missed the same things that the administration did. Yeah I was skeptical of the rosy scenarios. Of course I have excuses: I'm not an expert, the media was fed a line, etc. But at the end of the day, I thought Iraq would be better off. I thought we would be despised, but I thought Iraq would be better. No death squads. No sanctions starving babies.

I was wrong.

And so I question myself now when I look at my fears for what comes next.

The surge is not working. The country wants its troops home. Liberals/the left want an end to a foreign policy premised on launching preemptive wars, and a debacle in Iraq suits that well. I do not mean to suggest that the left hopes the war goes still worse; I fully believe they think the war is lost, and negative signs are just taken as a hopeful sign that others will see this and stop the madness.

But.

And this is where my conflict is.

What happens next? The hopeful scenario is that, with the Americans going, both sides size each other up properly, make the appropriate political compromises to reflect that power (im)balance (fairness be damned) and the fighting actually goes down. In this view, our presence acts as a fuel to the fire, an itch that is scratched with suicide bombings. Maybe. We certainly embolden the Shiite majority to not make deals, as they know we won't stand by and let their government fall. Maybe they'll cut a deal without us.

But I doubt it. I fear that is the same "hope over experience" thinking that got us and the Iraqis into this. More likely I think, the Shiites know our time is limited; they are using our presence to consolidate as much power as possible so that on our exit they are well positioned to "finish the job" and wage a more full-on civil war with the Sunnis. I believe the police and military are branches of the Shiite militia, and will be used as such the moment we leave. I also think the only leverage we have is offering to leave or stay based on the behavior of the Shiite government, but the Republican good cop ('we will stand down when they stand up') and the Democratic bad cop ('we will stand down, then maybe they will stand up') leave no allowance for different actions on our part. Let me say that more clearly. I think the Iraqis figure we are gonna do what we are gonna do (whether leave or stay), so they are best served by maxing their power while we are there and then starting the real war when we leave.

Here is my moral dilemma. For all the political energy on the left about ending the war, I don't think it ends when we leave. I pray it does, but I doubt it. I think we just change the channel now our kids are home, we say any loss of life is the Iraqis' fault (we gave them a chance), and while we are pressing the Sudanese to stop the genocide there, and threatening to send troops, a genocide may happen in Iraq with no credible threat of outside intervention. I think Iran and Saudi Arabia may play out a war in Iraq, and the loss of life will be terrible.

Let's say I'm right (while hoping otherwise).

#1 Maybe we should get out anyway. If the endgame is a political settlement, and too much has happened to get a settlement until a real fight balances the anger with sorrow, then maybe we have to get out of the way and let the sorrow begin. Maybe. But that is nothing to celebrate or be proud of. It's a cold, cold calculation.

#2 Or maybe, we face a question of whether, having broken Iraq, we have a moral duty to police it, and to spend our blood to try to protect all the innocents there who will otherwise die. That assumes our presence, say with another 50k troops and a commitment of 5-10 years, can allow peace to be reached without genocide. I don't know, but it's possible. If so, how do we weigh the moral obligations of our nation to defend life we've put at risk by our policies, with what we owe to our soldiers?

I guess where I am right now is, I think the public says, in effect, screw Iraq if they can't take care of themselves, and we have a bunch of folks on the left who don't like war, and want to see a black mark against the preemptive war policy, and that creates a marriage of convenience. But when we start pulling out because in Republicans are afraid of voters in 2008, if - if - we see blood really flowing in the streets, I wonder...

I wonder if the military guys who see the situation on the ground, who see that with more troops we can maintain a low-grade civil war, and that the alternative is worse from a humanitarian situation ... I wonder if they have it easy. They just have to do the job we give them. We have to ask whether it is worth sacrificing American lives to save Iraqi ones. I think we will choose not to, and I think that will be a winning political decision. Maybe it's morally necessary - who am I to ask someone to die for another, to die for mistakes those soldiers did not make? But if I see the left celebrating a pullout while a civil war we facilitated spins out of control, I will feel a sickness in my stomach.

Let me be clear: I think we probably have to leave, as I am not sure our sacrifices are lessening the chance of an eventual massacre. And if we are viewed as an occupying force, it makes the world - especially the middle east - a more dangerous place (regardless of our good intentions). But the moral core of what makes me a liberal is ashamed and saddened by this failure of power to make things better. It doesn't believe it is possible the "end" the war any more than it is possible to "win" it. It sees a 2009 with Americans being as obnoxious about the Iraqis as they were about the French, while Iraqi kids are blown up. And it expects to be ashamed at the pride with which the left holds itself for having achieved this tragic and morally dubious "end."

Wiiiiiiiiiiiiii

2007-06-13T17:36:00.000-07:00

Okay, confessions first.

I've never owned a Nintendo.

My first computer was a Sears Telegames, which was the Sunshine cookie to Atari's Oreo 2600. Having said that, I loved that system like crazy. I remember the dump-dump-dump of Asteroids. It was like kissing a girl. Of course, maybe a lot of things are like that when you are a kid, and maybe that's why kids smile so much.

I also had a Coleco Adam with a tape drive, which was just as fun. But my friend Mark had a Commodore 64, and that was even cooler. I always seemed to have not quite to coolest thing going, but thankfully didn't care too much. (Thanks Mom & Dad for good values.)

I went several years with nothing until the Sony Playstation came out. I had about 5 games for that, 3 of them football. Jumping Flash was most fun; the Japanese make wonderfully ridiculous games. I got a PS2 about 5 years later because it had a US-Region DVD player and I didn't. Also had about 5 games for that. I got rid of it about six months ago; I just didn't play it, didn't find it that much fun. Took more of my time and life than I wanted to spend on games.

Then last weekend A and I got a Wii.

Oh man.

How do I love Wii? Let me count the ways.

1) Not $600, or even $400. $300 with 2 controllers and 2 sets of games. Not that I couldn't afford more, but you spend that much and you feel bad if you aren't orgasming over the graphics and playing games constantly. And what games do you really want to play?

2) Games I really want to play. I know that it's beautiful how the bullets reflect in the sunlight off the translucent blood in the PS3Box version of Tom Clancy's Oblivion War Hero Resurrection 2K7 XTreme Street Hockey Beatdown. But really now. Games are supposed to be fun, right? Like, something you do and it makes you laugh and relax? The Wii I got came with very simple Baseball, Bowling, Golf, Tennis and Boxing games. The extra controller came with several others, like a little tank hunt, stampeding cows in a cornfield, 9-ball, cartoon fishing. They make me laugh. XBox and PS3 games are basically shooting, racing and sports. Nintendo games are *games* (though they are making a lot of the sports for Wii).

3) Speaking of boxing. A and I were both sore in every muscle in our body after about 3 hours of Wii. We were changing into lighter clothes. My fan came out of the closet yesterday once I started facing boxers who could lean and avoid my punches. Some of this stuff is practically aerobics, yet crazy fun. Exercise from games? Imagine that.

4) The music. Maybe kids would hate it. But dang, it's soothing. I have the Wii Start page right now, and it sounds like an instrumental interlude from something off Sarah McLachlan's Surfacing. Just peaceful.

5) The controller kicks ass. In all kinds of ways. You probably already knew that, but it really does. Your characters end up mirroring your movement, for example. And yes, you really really need that wrist strap.

6) Internet setup. I click on Wireless Search. It finds my router. I put in the access code. It's connected. Never was a setup more easy. And once online...

7) (not "The") Weather channel. Here's where nobody else will agree, but this is my favorite part of Wii. I can see my weather. It's beautifully done. I can click around (this is all done via the remote, no cords) and see 5 day forecasts. Yeah, yeah so what. Well. Then I click on Globe, and I can grab and spin a NASA globe, zoom in/out, click on foreign cities... their weather comes up. I mean, if it is raining in London, I hear rain. And this lovely soothing music. This is the kind of thing they sell in those Sharper Image catalogs for $699. I love it. I love it.

8) News channel. I can read very good news articles, dozens, with the globe spinning to the right location. Better articles that most newspapers except Times/Post. I can click Slideshow and it will slideshow the headline, and I click the remote to view the article. I spent about 90 minutes reading the news on Wii last night. Seriously, after this and the Weather thing, I was reconsidering whether I still wanted cable.

9) Mii. You can make little copies of you and your friends. The detail is great; moles, hair selection, face, skin color, clothing color, glasses, height, probably 200-300 individual bits to choose from. You name them. They are saved. When you play a game, you can choose from your Miis. When I played baseball as Me/ii, A was my catcher. In her brown top and shades.

10) You can download Donkey Kong, Galaga etc (for a fee) direct to your Wii and play them. Those old games that you could just pick up, play, then put down.

I've left out the story of how A and I got the Wii, which is kind of funny. But suffice it to say that if we hadn't thought we had to quickly buy it or it was gone, we might not have. What a mistake. It's not just hype. This is a great, fun system.

The abortion one

2007-06-12T07:48:00.000-07:00

B from Tiny Cat Pants suggested I post this here as well. Here ya go.

============

This topic has come up repeatedly here (as other places) so I imagine some people are impatient having to explain what they feel is a basic right. Imagine having to explain to people over and over again why you should be able to have whatever religious beliefs you wanted, when others constantly said “but if we let you believe that you’ll go to hell!”… what I mean is that the position you are advocating is something that is very well understood by many of those (here at least) who disagree with it. Some are patient about it, others just very frustrated, especially given the current trend in abortion politics.

Having said all that, if you are sincerely interested in understanding the line of thinking (which I believe you are based on what you said), I’ll do my best to paraphrase it.

I guess the logic runs like this:

1) The analysis will make more sense if you start with and hold firm the following concern: throughout history women have been viewed as property; of their fathers, their husbands. Women were traded for family alliances. Women couldn’t vote. Women could be raped with impunity by their husbands. Even today is some cultures, besides the whole genital mutilation thing, if a woman is sexually active, even in some cases where she is raped, she may be killed by her “tribe” for bringing disgrace. Not the man (even the rapist). The woman. Who belongs, especially her body/sexuality, to the community.

You may be saying “yes yes I know, but what in the world does this have to do with the life of the baby?” But if you neglect this past you’ll never grasp the context in which abortion rights are seen. Simply put, it’s this: When it comes to women, especially women’s sexual and reproductive rights, men have throughout history and across cultures presumed that they needed to control it, in part because they were wiser protectors better qualified than the women themselves to make decisions. And thus, a woman’s body never belongs to herself as fully as a man’s belongs to himself. And not feeling secure in your own body makes you respond to even well-intentioned concern with a “make all the suggestions you want but keep your hands off my body.”

Okay, now to your points, because they are valid, they just need context to address:

2) Life. Yes, a fetus/undelivered baby is alive. But lots of things are - butterflies, sunflowers. I expect you’d ask, “well sure but they aren’t alive AND human” … that’s more to the point. The question is a fetus/undelivered baby alive AND human. This is what some of the responses above were addressing. There are two answers, each of which are consistent with a pro-choice position, but get there different ways.

A) The fetus/unborn is alive, and human, but not fully so. Either it’s not fully alive (not viable, etc) or not fully human (a small clump of cells, not implanted, shrimplike, etc). The line of this thinking is that, to the extent that the fetus/unborn is less than a full born human baby, any conflict of rights between it and the woman carrying it will benefit the woman. I imagine you can fill in the blanks in this line of argument. I’d only point out the strength and the weakness of this position. The strength is that if at the moment of conception a fetus/unborn is fully alive and human (with all rights etc) then it raises tricky issues - for example, fertilized eggs for IVF that are not implanted can be viewed as murder (full human life stopped), etc. So the strength is that, for most people, there is some qualitative difference between an eggs 2 seconds after fertilization and a toddler. The weakness though is that a fetus/unborn baby 2 seconds before birth seems for all intents and purposes to be just as alive and human as it is 4 seconds later. So there seems very little qualitative difference between fetus/unborn and toddler as pregnancy approaches 9 months.

I think for most people, strengths of the “it’s a mass of cells” and the “it’s a baby” arguments lead to the compromise we have in law: that at first it’s almost all the woman, and by the end it’s almost 50/50 woman and baby, and so as the pregnancy progresses, the fetus/unborn gets more rights relative to the woman.

B) The second argument (which I find persuasive) avoids the whole cells/full human argument, and brings in the history of women as property. It goes like this: Even if for argument you assume a fetus is 100% alive full human with all rights from the moment of conception, the question remains whether that human has the *legal* right to take from a woman’s body. As in, if the child had already been born, and needed a bone marrow transplant to survive, could the government compel the mother (or father) to undergo a bone marrow donation to save the child’s life? I may not be able to express the point I want here, but it is something like this: we say “it’s a child’s life”, and even if in many circumstances that is debatable (as described above), there is a huge step from saying that a woman saves a child’s life by carrying a pregnancy to delivery, and saying that the government can compel a woman against her will to give her body to save someone else, at risk to her own health (which pregnancy always is).

Here’s where the history recap at the top comes in: a woman is perfectly capable of making a moral decision about life and death, and women tend to be just about as anti-abortion as men are. They are stereotyped as having a greater emotional connection to the baby; they carry it inside them. She would seem to be well positioned to understand what is at stake. But if a woman decides she wants her body to be free of the demands of another life (whether fully human, fully alive, or not), do men allow her to have that freedom that men always have, or do they say that the woman’s body belongs to the fetus/unborn, or to the husband, or society, etc? Or does the woman’s body belong to herself, and thus the moral question about whether to risk her health to keep the fetus/unborn alive rests with her?

I think there is a sense that as some feel that the government needs to step in to make the decision (as the last Supreme Court ruling effectively said ‘to save women from making mistakes they might later regret’), that again men are assuming that women are not capable of being responsible with their bodies, and thus someone else needs to step in and take ownership of their bodies and choices. This may also explain the “hey you’re a man, butt out” responses you will often get; it can be interpreted rather like a man who looks over the shoulder of a woman doing household repairs - implying she isn’t capable of taking care of these things without your help.

And this discussion about miscarriages is a case of that; women just trying to live their lives, but finding that men/society are saying that women owe them an accounting of how their bodies are working: the women do not own their bodies, but are allowed to have them by society, on the condition they report back on their use.

Some of that is of course hyperbole, but if you are really interested in understanding where people are coming from, I think that is where people are coming from. Of course most parents would give bone marrow to save their children, and most expectant mothers and fathers think of their unborn babies as babies, and would not want to lose that life. It’s more often the men who run off and leave single mothers. Given how disproportionately the burden of children falls on women, I understand why many feel that they don’t owe anyone else an explanation or obedience for how they use their bodies, and why if they feel they cannot or do not want to carry a pregnancy to delivery, other people should trust them with that difficult decision.

This is where bridgett’s point comes in, and I think it is a key one: that people (and men especially) who feel that they wish women would make different decisions, could best put that energy to use making the burdens of children less. For example, making it easier for women to have children and keep their jobs, better health care (especially prenatal care), etc etc. Point being, that if it is about valuing life and not bossing women around, then trust women, ask them what they need to carry life, and try to give it to them.

That’s what I believe, and I think many (not all) people here believe. Wanted to give you a real chance to understand. And thanks for asking and reading.

Corey's Coming

2007-06-07T20:07:00.000-07:00

no more sad stories

Ian McEwan

2007-06-01T22:06:00.000-07:00

on Charlie Rose.... I love Charlie Rose, and Ian McEwan is on discussing art, writing, and Iraq.

I want to live in a world full of people like them. Not because he is full of fire, but because of the wonderful heart and equanimity.

This is a bigger, later post.

But it's stuff like this that gives me more hope than almost anything.

American Doll Posse

2007-05-28T11:37:00.000-07:00

"American Doll Posse... is it good?"

Been wanting to answer this every time I'm in the car, then the engine stops, the music stops, and it's back to everyday life.

Here's my take.

=============================

Tori's last two, Beekeeper and Scarlet's Walk, were rather mellow.

The Beekeeper in particular, let's admit it, had many of us worried that Tori was going the way of Sarah McLachlan. Very adult contemporary. Not that it was all bad - most of my favorites (Orange Knickers, Jamaica Inn, Ribbons Undone, Cars and Guitars, Ireland, Martha's, Pisces) on it were of that ilk . It's just that the stuff that tried to be 'funky' or whatever had the same mellow grove, which made it all very awkward.

Hadn't been a huge fan of Scarlet's Walk either. There were some lovely moments on it (Sorta Fairytale and Taxi Ride were tight, Wednesday fun, ... okay now that I look at it a lot of it was excellent ... Gold Dust and Your Cloud just beautiful). But again, mostly in a smooth sonic groove. No Crucify, no Cornflake/God, no Lite Sneeze, no Spark, no Bonnie and Clyde, no Bliss (though to be honest I felt this trend started on Venus and Back).

So where does American Doll Posse stand? It has some rock back, and feels mostly like Scarlet's Walk + Strange Little Girls with a bit of Choirgirl in there.

Here's the track breakdown. The "Musically" is just sonic style, what album/songs it recalls to me. Nothing to do with lyrics or quality (except "Like?").


American Doll Posse.........Musically.....................Like?
-------------------.........---------.....................------------
01. Yo George...............(throwaway)...................Nope
02. Big Wheel...............Rockabilly Talula.............Yes
03. Bouncing Off Clouds.....Glory of the 80s..............Yep
04. Teenage Hustling........Strange Little Girl...........Oh yeah
05. Digital Ghost...........Northern Lad..................Nice
06. You Can Bring Your Dog..Funky Rattlesnakes............So-so
07. Mr. Bad Man.............Ireland.......................Cutesy/fun
08. Fat Slut................40 secs of Heart of Gold......Ugh
09. Girl Disappearing.......Strange.......................Yes, if monotone
10. Secret Spell............? Taxi Ride via Beekeeper.....OK
11. Devils and Gods.........Agent Orange w/ Irish guitar..Nice, short
12. Body and Soul...........Spark via Strange Lil Girls...Yeah
13. Father's Son............Marianne......................Yes, again monotone
14. Programmable Soda.......Mr Zebra......................Much fun
15. Code Red................Sugar/Honey with groove.......Very much so
16. Roosterspur Bridge......Virginia......................Yeah, not listened to much
17. Beauty of Speed.........Amber Waves...................OK, rhythmic variety
18. Almost Rosey............Jackie's Strength.............Yes, melodic
19. Velvet Revolution.......Purple People.................Love it, too short
20. Dark Side of the Sun....Choirgirl-ish Not Red Baron...Yes
21. Posse Bonus.............Groovy Take to the Sky........Yeah, head-bouncy
22. Smokey Joe..............Beauty Queen/Gold Dust........Great
23. Dragon..................Pretty Good Year..............Very good

So overall? I'd go UtP > LE > Choirgirl > Pele > ADPosse > Venus > Scarlet > Strange > Beekeeper. But ADPosse, Pele and Choirgirl are all close, and ADPosse may improve on more listening. I've read some say if Tori trimmed this to 12 tracks it would be among her very best; I'd say that's true... its upside is kinda Choirgirl plus all B-sides.

Note iTunes has booklet and 2 videos in price, 1st blah, 2nd good.

Definitely worth getting, and I'll probably go see her perform this.

2007-05-23T21:16:00.000-07:00

Nothing much to say, but I suppose that is something to say.

Last several weeks tough, ever since A. went back to her degree. Have chunks of things to write in my mind, but as a rule I only do stream of consciousness on comments, not posts.

So posts require stepping outside and getting perspective, and saying something from that perspective.

And like the White House not wanting status reports on Iraq, I'm not itching to do my own status reports.

When I was in school once I hid my report card so I'd have a chance to get some good grades in the bad class before my Mom and Dad asked about it.

I'm torn over whether it is a "good" or "bad" thing to be so tapped into the world/politics thing to let it get to you emotionally. Ideally, I want to be tapped in, do something, and still stay "clean". Right now, I'm tapped in, very burdened with it, but doing something. The alternative is backing out, doing nothing, to recover and get some clarity.

Sometimes when I'm not fed and watered I get short-tempered... okay, always when I'm not fed and watered I get short-tempered and want to fix everything in the world, because every problem is intolerable.

I'm there now, pretty much. The way you feel with low blood sugar, no meal in 2 days except cotton candy. Except I am fed and watered. I've learned good coping methods living w/ A, so I know to relax, separate my emotional reaction from my analytical one, make time to relax etc.

So it's all difficult right now, and I'm not sure why. I have sensible theories, but none really testable. And the bottom line of all of them seems to be, get used to it and hope it goes away.

I get to spend time with T, KP and A in the next 2 months. Next year A and I expect to be together again. Plus there will be a new election. Reason for some hope all around.

But now. Now is hard. Let's hope it is a growth hard, and not a damage hard.

Two more

2007-05-15T22:42:00.000-07:00

letters. Electronic. Same idea as before, but angrier.

I want to write about something else. I can't get past my anger over this topic, though. The Justice Department.

I am stunned at the moral blindness and unpatriotism of most of the Republicans in Congress. I'm not saying the Democrats are better, I don't know that. But I thought the Republicans were much, much better. They swore to their God that they would?

a) Fight for Republican dominance of government
b) Reduce taxes
c) Tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
d) Defend the constitution

It's D folks. We can disagree about taxes and abortion and health care and Iraq. The deal is we put our collective heads together and come up with the best compromise for us all. I don't always like the compromise, but it is better than all known alternatives.

But stocking the government's Department of We'll Decide Whose Rights to Protect and Who to Throw in Jail with only people who share your politics... hell not just your politics, people who are in your gang... pushing out others, pressuring prosecutors, etc. That's not a government, that's a mafia. That's Stalinism (minus the omnipresent government spies and the gulag...).

I expect the party in power to take my money. I know no political system that doesn't enrich the leaders. But my liberty, my rights to get a fair shot at a public service job regardless of whether I went to a historically black school or interned for the EPA... My right to have a fair election as defined by neutral referees and not one team. I do not expect the government to infringe on that. In fact, it's the reason I justify all the guns in America... because people fear the alternative is repressive government.

Anyway, all the shouting in the world isn't helping. I think I understand how people felt when they volunteered for the military after 9/11. I want to do something. If the enemy was in a foreign country, I could go fight. But I don't want to fight, and the enemy is here. I want my representatives to protect the relatively free country we have. I want to do my part to make it as free a country for my kids as it was for me.

Caring is hard. I'm shouting while I can, for as long as I can. I hope it is, in the scheme of things, enough.

Citizen Democracy

2007-05-06T19:27:00.000-07:00

Prescription for what ails ya... one a day , repeat as necessary.

================================

Dear Senator/Congress(wo)man _________,

My name is _____________, and I live in Houston, TX. I'm a 34 years old political moderate who has been actively involved in politics since age 16. I have voted, worked and campaigned for, and donated to candidates of both the Democratic and Republican party. I sympathize with liberal concerns about the condition of those less well off, and share conservative skepticism about where government involvement can have a positive effect.

No action of the US government has troubled me more than those of the White House and the Attorney General's office to politicize the Department of Justice.

I remember the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, just after Easter 1995. That was my first exposure to Americans who thought their own government was their enemy. After September 11, 2001, I heard more people claim government conspiracies to seize greater power. They said the government could not be trusted. I now watch with great sadness how our attempts to build a legitimate government in Iraq have been undermined, perhaps fatally, by the deep lack of trust and civility between Iraqi citizens of different factions. It occurs to me that while we as Americans often disagree with our government, we still fundamentally believe in it and consider ourselves Americans first.

I understand that at some level, politics is a game. There is a certain amount of holding on the offensive line, hand-checking in the paint, that goes on. One campaign steals the others' signs. It's not pretty but it doesn't fundamentally hurt anything. The referees aren't going to call every foul. And when you are the away team, you usually have to play with the home team's refs. And sure, the home refs may have a little bias, even if they try to be fair.

And when I first heard of the firings of the eight U.S. Attorneys, I assumed this was the equivalent of one team whining about a questionable call. When you are the away team, you have to expect some questionable calls to go against you. But as details of the activities of the Attorney General's office and the White House have come out, this doesn't look like a case of a bad call or two, or even a biased ref.

This looks like one team pressuring the refs, threatening them, and replacing them based on how they call the game. It also looks like the neutral referees, the civil service, were being selected based on their loyalty to one team.

The reason we play this game of politics is that in the competition of ideas, the best ideas win and the country wins with them. I root like hell for my team, and I usually disagree with close calls that go against them. But if my team tried to fix the game, it would be game over for them and rightly so. The problem here is there are only two teams, so if one cheats, it's not just them that loses, it's the whole sport. American democracy.

The sports metaphor seems apt but it understates the seriousness of the situation we're in. We have soldiers dying every day in Iraq, willing to give their lives to help build a government that represents all Iraqi citizens, out of a society that doesn't trust its government or other factions. Meanwhile, we have an administration that seems bent not on winning a battle of ideas, but in sacrificing Americans' trust in their government in order to increase the power of its own political faction. The irony is heartbreaking.

If Americans cannot trust the impartiality of the government officials who have the responsibility to protect their rights and the power to imprison them, I fear for the health of our country. I fear more conspiracy theorists. I fear greater polarization. I fear more Oklahoma City bombings.

My hope in writing you is to challenge you to take risks, just like our soldiers do, to help ensure that our government, especially the Department of Justice, re-establishes the trust of the American people. Conservatives fought the cold war to defeat an ideology of government political intrusion into every aspect of citizen's lives. We can't tolerate politicization of our legal system. Please help the Republican party prove itself worthy of being trusted with power, ensuring the continuing dialog of ideas our country depends on to prosper.

Thank you for spending time with me in reading this. God bless you, and give you strength, courage and wisdom for our country and our children.

All the Best Regards,
___________

Coup d'America

2007-05-06T16:51:00.000-07:00

Okay, this isn't funny anymore.

It was amusing at first to see Alberto Gonzales getting grilled. The White House seemed to get caught with their pants down, trying to put some Republican-friendly lawyers in as federal prosecutors. People defending the administration said, "hey these are political appointments, Bush can pick whoever he wants."

I thought they had a point. I thought Bush and co. were trying to cover up something the public wouldn't like - political patronage - and were dirtying up some good attorneys in the process. But it didn't seem like anything dangerous... I assume that there is a little bit of politics in all these appointments, and the White House just got caught lying about it.

Inside-the-beltway kind of stuff.

But I've been keeping an eye on this, and the more information comes out, the scarier this gets. By which I mean, to me this is worse than the Iraq war, and believe me I don't say this lightly. And what worries me is that the press isn't putting the big picture together for the public. They need to. I'll do my little bit here.

None of this is proven, but this is what the evidence suggests to me so far. And I'm being as honest as I can, imagining this was some other administration that I loved and whose policy goals I approved of.

There was a concerted effort to infiltrate the Department of Justice and turn it into a political weapon to ensure Republican political dominance. Let me repeat that for clarity. The part of our executive that can put people in jail, that we depend on to enforce our laws fairly, to ensure that all Americans are treated equally... there was a concerted, well thought-out, intentional plan to put political pressure on public servants to prosecute Democratic political candidates, and to stop investigations of Republican political candidates. This occurred at multiple levels. It's not just phone calls, people were relocated to close districts and given prosecutions to pursue and voters to purge, against the recommendations of the civil service staff. This was in violation of clear policies banning this kind of activity in an election year.

And it's not just the 8 attorneys. Previous attorneys were removed (albeit more quietly... pressured to resign etc) and replaced by people with strong partisan backgrounds who immediately proceeded to initiate political prosecutions. Remember Jack Abramoff, the guy who bought off Bob Ney and was chummy with lots of Republican congressmen? He went to jail and the Republicans lost the election. Then the prosecutor who won the case was fired for performance reasons.

What about the whole "the President can appoint whomever he wants" part? Well, until a measure was snuck into the USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization, the President couldn't really pick anyone he wanted, he had to have approval. The part snuck in said that if Bush timed it right, he didn't need any approvals. Not even the Republican congressmen claim to have known the provision was in there, and it has now been abused and repealed.

And besides, it wasn't just these appointments that were being used as partisan weapons. The Department of Justice let a White House representative screen new civil servants so that only good Republicans could get jobs. That's right, federal law enforcement is now dependent on political beliefs. This needs to be on the cover of Time Magazine. The Department of Justice was *illegally* blocking Democrats and Independents from civil service jobs.

This shouldn't be a surprise. Remember that other Texas Republican, Tom Delay, who was pushing the "Permanent Republican Majority"? Who had a K Street Project to force lobbying firms to fire Democrats else they couldn't get a fair hearing? Not to mention the unprecedented midcycle Texas redistricting to create a bunch of new Republican seats in the Congress?

Another name you need to know. James Comey is a senior VP of Lockheed Martin. He worked his way up through the US attorney's office ranks from 1987 to 2002 when he became Bush's Deputy Attorney General. He was the #2 in the Department of Justice until 2005. In this administration. He knows the attorneys who were fired.

This lifelong Republican sat before Congress and defended the fired attorneys as 1st rate. He said that juries have to know that the prosecutors bringing charges against people are 100% clean, that they are the good guys and can be trusted. He said that the damage that has been done to the Department of Justice may be irreparable.

I'd argue the same is being done to the government as a whole. I'm a Democrat by political allegiance but if the Democrats ever tried to take over the civil functions of the government for political purposes I'd vote straight ticket Republican. Our country cannot function if people fundamentally distrust the motives of the government. It's bad enough when, like Watergate, one party breaks the law to beat the other party. A healthy Democracy depends on parties battling over ideas, and absolute power corrupts any party. But it's a whole other Kafkaesque level when one party attempts to turn the government against non-politicians who don't pledge political loyalty.

And who does it look like was behind this? Karl Rove (who I have nothing whatsoever personal against, he's a political strategist, it's his job to be Machiavelli) and Harriet Miers. Let's pause here. George Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. If it were not for the fact that she was not conservative enough for her own party, we might have had a sitting Supreme Court Justice who was behind an illegal and fundamentally anti-constitutional partisan takeover of the one part of the executive branch (save the military) that desperately needs to be nonpartisan. Nothing is sacred.

============

I'm generally charitable about people's motives, but for this I'll make an exception. This is rotten as Hell. This is supposedly why we fought a cold war, to protect America and people around the world from corrupt governments that seek to control people's live through enforced political loyalty. This is why true conservatives distrust government, because of the corrupting influence that centralized power brings. At least with Iraq, one can charitably say that this administration was trying to replace something dictatorial with something democratic, and naively underestimated the obstacles.

I cannot believe it is possible to look impartially at the facts coming out every day and conclude anything other than that the administration and its allies were trying to stage a coup of sorts, increasing political power by taking over non-political parts of the government.

This is exactly the kind of thing that is killing our soldiers overseas every day. Americans ask why we should sacrifice lives to support Iraqi leaders who won't find a way to set aside political differences and to build a functioning government that fairly represents and works for all Iraqis. Yet while Maliki and co talk unity, behind the scenes they work to consolidate power just like Putin in Russia.

The White House and its allies are trying to set aside a functioning government that represents all Americans and replace it with one that furthers their political aims. This makes me deeply sympathetic to those I know who want guns to protect themselves not from criminals but from our own government. Our country depends on trusting each other and the government we elect. We see every day from Iraq how hard it is to rebuild trust and civility once it is destroyed. To sacrifice the bipartisan trust that keeps America together, for partisan power... is fundamentally unpatriotic and un-American.

The Department of Justice is not the only thing that this administration has irreparably damaged. And I for one am going to add my voice to the noise about it.

If you'll excuse me, I have to start writing letters to my representatives.

Fear Factor

2007-05-03T21:32:00.000-07:00

Grades for the California Republican Debate:

Mitt Romney
Slogan: "I'm not a charming actor, but I play one on TV"
Fear Factor: The evil stepdad in the Lifetime Weekend Movie

Rudy Giuliani
Slogan: "If you let me in your club I promise to blow something up"
Fear Factor: J.D. in Heathers

John McCain
Slogan: "Sorry I get a bit unhinged when the meds wear off. Heh heh. Zzzz"
Fear Factor: Dr. Frank-N-Furter, Rocky Horror Picture Show

Sam Brownback
Slogan: "I love life, I eat it every day"
Fear Factor: Zombie Ned Flanders

Tommy Thompson
Slogan: "Yes, I'm a proud conservative. No, I wasn't in Law & Order"
Fear Factor: stumbling high-heeled beauty queen in any slasher pic

Jim Gilmore
Slogan: "I'm a proud conservative, too, AND I got a 9/11 plane!"
Fear Factor: driver who stops at the old house/farm/hotel for the night

Duncan Hunter
Slogan: "No, that's not a porn name"
Fear Factor: Zed from Pulp Fiction

Tom Tancredo
Slogan: "How can we talk about taxes & wars with all these Mexicans everywhere?"
Fear Factor: Prince Prospero, Poe's Mask of the Red Death

Mike Huckabee
Slogan: "Would you mind if I asked your sister out?"
Fear Factor: cuddly puppy

Ron Paul
Slogan: "Corrupt, incompetent Republicans just prove government doesn't work!"
Fear Factor: Scientist who decides to study the alien rather than kill it

Blogging the Republican debate

2007-05-03T18:00:00.001-07:00

Crap, I thought it started at 8pm! dang!

This is going too fast, and I missed most of it.

But seeing a show of hands of who doesn't believe in evolution,

well, that's just grand.

And Sam Brownback saying that he has a compassionate and aggressive foreign policy.

Mike Huckabee says that if Republicans let big business move jobs overseas, dump pensions and then take multimillion dollar bonuses, then the Republicans don't deserve to win the White House.

So not all Republicans are in the pocket of Wall Street. Cool.

Ron Paul, meet Mike Gravel, Mike meet Ron.

Terry Schiavo... McCain is not impressing me. Of course, I'm not the target audience. Too wishy washy.

Now it's time for Clinton-bashing... yadda yadda

Damn, this is why I hate Republicans (I hate Democrats, too, sometimes). The laughing at trashing people. Just a little too much like the way folks laugh about the blacks/gays/immigrants/etc. Very clubby. Waaaaaaay too clubby. A lack of seriousness.

McCain I'll give credit here. At least he's not being insulting. I do sympathize with the Republicans who are turned off by Bush-bashing. This is the same thing in reverse.

Is it just me or does every question start with Romney?

They are having to raise their hands to get to speak. Matthews isn't doing as well as Williams, but I think it is more the willingness of the candidates to go over.

Sam Brownback supports the Biden approach to Iraq.

Thompson fumbles his words too much. Stage left, Governor.

Giuliani and Romney come off best, though Huckabee and Gilmore are good.

That's it, at least they are rebroadcasting this one at 10pm CDT.

==================

Recap from the top.

Brownback. Scary scary. Seems almost orgasmic when he says confrontation and aggressive. Like the kid who sketches guns and skulls on his notebook cover.

Huckabee. I like him. Don't know his politics exactly, but seems to be thoughtful and not afraid to speak hard truths. Said we needed 300k troops and didn't listen to the generals, but doesn't pile on. He's positive.

Ron Paul. Non-interventionist.

McCain on Iran. (Earlier he talked about winners and losers... comes across as more interested in "winning" than in soldiers... like someone who wouldn't stop arguing until he 'won'... a little scary). Dances around. Basically says war with Iran if they get a nuke and .... and.... if intelligence indicates they ... well...

Who's this guy? He stutters. He says a threat to the existence of Israel is a threat to the existence of the United States.

Giuliani. Much more polished. Invoked Reagan... again

Gilmore on bin Laden. Seems thoughtful as well. Understands diplomacy (or at least talks the talk) .. invokes moral high ground... he's actually very good on this... needing to win hearts and minds. He doesn't scare me.

Romney says bin Laden will pay, will die. Eh. Seems like a pressed suit. Too rehearsed, get no sense of his thought process. Like an actor.

McCain is funny on whether to put Tancredo (Mr. Anti-immigration) head of immigration.. "In a word 'No'"

Huckabee Yes on immigrants for president after his 8 years. Everyone else is No. McCain and Giuliani both dodge the question. Kudos to Romney for the guts to at least answer the question.

Romney asked what he dislikes about America, and ... he loves it, the mountains, god-loving people, now Reagan, ... (ugh) you could make a pull-string doll with that recording.

Huckabee on climate change... boy scout... leave the campsite in better shape... says science is for scientists. Wow, another really attractive answer. I'm ... impressed.

Mr Stutter on curing diseases, stem cells, cloning people...

Duncan Hunter on compassionate conservative. Says Yes, then immediate pivots to threatening Iran. Isn't compassion touching? Doesn't want to wait until Iran has the bomb, implies he wants to bomb now.

Ron Paul on the IRS... wants to eliminate it. Says we shouldn't police the world and take care cradle to grave, can do without IRS if change role of government.

Roe v Wade... everyone says great except Giuliani.. he says he'll take it either way, that precedent counts for something.

Subtlety. Gilmore says exceptions for abortion okay, touts his credentials. Thompson says leave it to the states, though pro-life.

Romney ... always for life or pro-choice. Personally pro-life, but protects the law which was pro-choice. Notes Reagan, Bush, Hyde were pro-choice once. Says he changed because of cloning etc was Brave New World and changed his mind.

Brownback says he could support pro-choice because big tent is important, 80% agreement is still good. Darn, both scary and smart.

Giuliani is caught trying to dodge abortion issue. Says he hates abortion but supported abortion funding in New York. Problem is he tried to dodge it 3 times before saying "Yes".

McCain... "good and evil" ... doing the "My friends"... presidential bit. Sounds okay. Talks about Powerful nation. Eh. Now everyone else is crowing about defense backgrounds and growing threats.

Huckabee again. He talks softly and optimistically. Culture of life... islmaic fascists .. eh. Clearly I'm not that target audience.

Ron Paul... back to the role of government... not policing the world. Overdoing military aggressiveness weakens us.

Private employer firing gay workers. Tommy Thompson would leave it up to business (hence okay).

Romney on Roman Catholic bishops denying communion. Clever answer, government shouldn't tell churches what they can do. Smart, well prepared.

Huckabee says his faith explains his decision process. Getting grilled about criticizing Romney, rather unfairly.

Romney getting a lot of airtime. Blather.

Brownback we're a nation of faith. Invokes Lieberman. We need to embrace it, not running it out of public square.

Hunter on border fence. Double fence. Reduced crime etc.

Gilmore. Knows Karl Rove, should keep him? Dodge first try. Dodge second time, more elegantly, talks about more important things.

Tancredo... that's the stutterer. Rove is out, especially because of immigration.

Giuliani on Christian Conservatism. Lots of anyone in the party is good. Says no party has monopoly on virtue. And he can get Democrats to

Thompson is conservative in a blue state, popular, and started welfare reform, will reform Washington. Reagan Reagan Reagan. Did we mention Reagan.

Brownback on corruption in Republican Party. Says they go to jail, but what about stronger families (huh?). Keeps talking about backing up, kids born out of wedlock. Kids hearing nappy headed hos. (What this has to do with corrupt politicians... ?)

Tancredo on corruption... failure of individuals. Centrist needed to win? No Reagan was not a centrist, he followed his belief. What matters is believing what you say.

McCain on special interests (passing a chance to shoot at Giuliani, bit classy and well handled). Spending is to blame for loss. Good line about drunken sailors, but fumbles it by saying he has more time.

/// now we're at start again///

McCain is weird when he acts tough then, ending his answer, suddenly does this awkward smile.

Romney takes an invited shot at Giuliani about taking actions to limit abortions.

Giuliani says he doesn't like abortion but ultimately respects a woman's right to make a different moral decision. Credit for the toughest answer of the night.

Thompson on racism, you can try to rally against it setting a good precedent.

Tancredo says if they talked straight about immigration, he would get the nomination.

McCain says enforcement plus dealing with 12 million people.

Inconvenient Truth? Didn't watch it, says Duncan Hunter, but no taxes on alternative energy, wants to invest in private industry for this.

Ron Paul on crisis decisions. He was a doctor I guess, can't think of a critical decision, urged to not go to war.

Gilmore, women in prison, nonviolent first time offenders. Must insist upon obedience to the law. Notes he was also prosecutor and governor during 9/11.

Stem cell. Romney has sick wife but will not farm embryos, will allow private funding. Brownback, adult stem cells will work. Everyone concurs, Thompson says you can't answer but then clearly says it isn't necessary. McCain says we need to support federal funding. Ron Paul says government should say out.

Romney on health care. Not ashamed of it, invokes Heritage Foundation, market market, private sector, joke about Ted Kennedy. Market.

McCain on tax cuts. He was being a budget hawk, good pivot to invoke anger at spending.

Everyone talks about tax cuts. No capital gains tax, alternative flat tax, AMT, flat tax, no IRS, consumption tax instead, manufacturing tax, line item veto, tax credits for health care. Ron Paul no income tax and reduce government spending. Death tax, marginal rates.

Law & Order

2007-05-02T22:42:00.001-07:00

I just realized this post needs some context. A recent discussion over at TinyCatPants got me thinking about how lots of folks talk about the importance of law and order in immigration, and conflate the illegality of immigration with terrorism and public safety. It occurred to me that every day most Americans ignore laws that aren't consistently enforced, with far greater public safety impact.

I wondered how the law and order crowd would feel if the whole "no amnesty, send them home" argument was applied to them.

============================================

Washington, D.C.
Wednesday, May 2, 20xx 7:45pm

The administration today announced the results of a major new security initiative. The President addressed reporters in a conference at the White House briefing room just before 11am.

“Good morning.

Just over a year ago, on May 1, the federal government -- working with the governors of over 30 states -- completed the installation of an extensive network of high-resolution satellite cameras along America’s national borders, highways and rural roads. Using the data from this network – called SAFENet -- government analysts at the Department of Homeland Security have spent the last 12 months identifying lawbreakers who have put this country and its citizens at risk. The identity and location of these individuals has been passed to local law enforcement in all 50 states.

I’d like to address some comments to the good law-abiding citizens of the America, and also to those who will be contacted by the police over the coming weeks. Then I’ll take your questions.

On September 11, 2001, our nation was attacked by terrorists. In addition to military, diplomatic and intelligence responses, our government combined the expertise of the FBI, the Transportation and Security Administration, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and others organizations to form the Department of Homeland Security. DHS’s mission was and is to “lead the unified national effort to secure America … prevent and deter terrorist attacks and protect against and respond to threats and hazards to the nation … ensure safe and secure borders, welcome lawful immigrants and visitors, and promote the free-flow of commerce.”

This administration understands that you want to be able to live and bring up your children in communities that are free from fear and insecurity. You teach your children to play by the rules, and you want them to be able to get ahead. You want them to be safe in a dangerous world.

Your government has worked to achieve all these things. But until now we have failed you in one important respect. Though we have laws controlling the flow of people into, out of, and across the country, we’ve had neither the technology nor the will to enforce them.

Now that we’ve developed the technology, we intend to demonstrate the will to protect the American people.

Ineffective border enforcement contributed to the nearly 3,000 deaths on 9/11 and contributes to about 5,000 deaths due to illegal drug overdoses every year. Within our borders, ineffective traffic enforcement contributes to the death of over 10,000 fellow Americans every year.

Immigration laws exist to promote economic and social stability, and to prevent the flow of drugs and other dangers into this country from those who would wish us harm. Speed limits promote fuel efficiency, protecting our lungs and the air we breathe, and lessening the flow of funds out of this country to people who would wish us harm.

Speed limits and other traffic laws can save lives. The lives of children playing in their front yard, the lives of parents walking to church, the lives of families cycling on a Sunday afternoon. Speed limits and other traffic regulation can also save the lives of thousands of drivers themselves.

This is not only about security.

Many Americans feel like they are always falling behind. They wait patiently in line, abide by the law, and watch as others illegally pass them by. It does not matter that those cutting in line -- whether undocumented Mexicans or BMW-driving businessmen -- may think they are “bending” our laws to meet family obligations. These are our laws. We chose them democratically. They exist to protect us and our freedoms, and nobody is above them. Nobody can choose which laws he wants to follow and which he does not.

Some argue that it is our laws that should change, that if the laws were different then people would obey them. We can debate changes democratically. Perhaps We the People will decide to raise the limits on speed and immigration. But the American people will not support any such changes to the law as long as they believe violations of the law will continue to be ignored. Americans have seen that words are cheap; it is easy for the government to relax limits and promise future enforcement. Americans want to see enforcement first.

We hear you.

Starting immediately and using the data gathered by SAFENet over the past 12 months, local and state police and the FBI will be enforcing the existing penalties on the books for all detected violations of the law. These will mainly fall into two categories. Anyone seen entering or remaining in the country illegally will be deported to their country of entry or origin. Anyone seen repeatedly violating speed limits or other traffic safety laws will have their driver’s license revoked. These folks can apply again for a visa or license after paying all fines and observing waiting periods of 1-3 years, consistent with existing state and federal laws. These folks will then start at the back of the line.

To those who will be contacted by the police: we recognize that this enforcement action will bring hardship to many families. We remind everyone that the government is merely punishing violations of existing law, under current statutes of limitation. The government does not force anyone to break the law. The fact that everyone else does it, or you think you can get away with it, is not an excuse. All who would seek to live and travel in America have a responsibility to do so lawfully. The only way to make our roads and our country safe is to ensure that there is no room for those who have repeatedly demonstrated their disrespect for the law.

We do not seek to demonize or discriminate against anyone. The economy of America depends on cars, trucks and immigration. The vast majority of immigrants and drivers are good people. But just because you are a good driver or worker, this does not entitle you to ignore the rules. It’s not personal, we’re not saying we don’t like you. But it’s time for you to go home and stay there.

And now I'll take any questions.”

Rambling praise for sanity

2007-04-25T18:34:00.000-07:00

Hope comes from the strangest places.

I was planning to write this from an angrier, more earnest place. Anyway, I was in that place walking back from lunch. Right now, after a yummy panini, some fruit and wine, and chocolate cake staring at me from across the floor, I can't get back there.

Or don't want to.

Rather than wait, though, I wonder how the same thought would come out.

I hope this doesn't suck.

So what I was saying was, I've got this vague hopefulness that comes from how upset some Republicans are at their own party. It's hopeful to me because what I've seen from the party over the past few years has been pretty much exactly what I thought the party was always about. And which was why I generally don't vote Republican. But hearing all these people coming out against the party and more specifically against the administration, well... it makes me think that (a) there is more to the party than this, and (b) the majorities that once voted for the Republicans in Congress and the White House weren't necessarily voting for this.

The majority of Americans whose beliefs I feared, well, maybe they didn't believe what I thought they did. And that gives me hope.

Allow me to recap.

I grew up in a small town in Alabama. I may make too much of that, but the fact is it forms the basis for most of how I see the world. I saw people who went to church and treated it like a social club. They were petty. The churches had little to do with the revolutionary character I later came to understand Christianity (or at least Jesus Christ) as embodying. It was not at all revolutionary, but extremely conservative. The girls didn't want to get caught dancing with boys. Trousers were for boys. Kids were required to pray the Lord's prayer aloud in class, in the public school. The blacks went to the pool on "their" side of town.

I got to know these kinds of people. The sanctimony that they wore like a new coat, the sermons that told them how godly they were as members of the right church, how everyone else was going to hell.

I knew these folks in college. They used their social and political power to punish anyone different from them. They tried to de-fund the gay lesbian association, forcing every campus organization to sign a letter pledging not to encourage any behavior that would violate state laws (that still ban heterosexual blowjobs, incidentally). They harassed and shot at blacks. They treated women like properties of their husbands. It was all about loyalty: our country, our state, our team, our race, our sexual orientation, our language, our tax bracket.

I did know Christian Christians. They were generous, loving people. And with the exception of the gay man who was chaste (since he thought his homosexuality was a sin), they were all liberal. The challenge of Jesus to give everything away and follow him, judge not lest we be judged, hanging out with the least of society, throwing out the money lenders from the temple, didn't match with my understanding of the conservative agenda to free the powerful from the burden of caring for others, and burden the powerless with the threat of punishment for difference.

That's an abbreviated version of how I came to view the Republican Party and the conservative movement as a coalition of on the one hand social busybodies who wanted to use the power of the state to control peoples' bodies, their bedrooms, their speech and their beliefs - with on the other hand - scrooges who did not want to share the opportunities and advantages they had with others. To put it on a bumper sticker, conservatism was to me a movement to free the powerful, control the powerless, and bully everyone who is different. Us vs Them.

When the Bush Administration took power with a Republican Congress, I saw the following:

Just like the churchgoers of my youth, the administration talked about using religious faith for good works to help the poor, but scorned it privately.

Laws against marriage or civil unions for gay couples were passed around the country, in places that had no such marriages or laws. Laws that thus have no effect today, but like the Sunday blue laws across the south, will preserve older generations prejudices against their children's generations.

Okay, now the irritation is coming back.

They worked to repeal women's control over their own bodies, while cutting funding for birth control programs that prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. They passed laws interfering in the Terry Schiavo stuff.

They cut taxes of the richest even as the children of the poorest went off to war. They told the world, "with us or against us." They filled the government with people whose chief qualifications were disdain for the responsibilities of government and a personal loyalty to the boss.

I could go through a litany of these, but in a nutshell, I saw an administration that was interested in protecting its wealthy friends, imposing its view of morality on the world, completely unable or unwilling to empathize with friends or those it was purporting to help, and scornful of any sense of obligation to anyone. The same folks from my youth who thought that laws existed only to control others. Who thought that being in the club mattered more than the content of character.

So it was a pretty shitty few years.

But then something strange happened. As often happens when you try to boss people around, the enemies list grew. First Bin Laden, then the Taliban, then Saddam, then the French and Germans, then Shinseki, then Muqtada, then the insurgents, then Syria, then Ahmadinejad, then Al-Jazeera, then the jumpsuited captives in Guantanomo, then the ACLU, then the newpapers, then the leakers, then Defeatocrat war veterans, then the retired generals, then Fitzgerald, then Senator Specter, then Senator Hagel.

None of this was a surprise. I basically assumed that the same folks who ran my hometown and my college were now running the country. And that the country was the same kind of place.

But Republicans have been speaking out. Sure it is easier to do now that they don't have to hold a congressional majority together. But if the majority of the country, heck the majority of the Republican states, were really like the Bush Administration, itching to tell people what to do, Bomb bomb bomb Iran, with no sense of obligation to their fellow Americans, then the politicians wouldn't be tacking to the center.

I feel the Administration showed no respect for our friends, for our enemies, for the "collateral damage" in Iraq and Afghanistan and Cuba, for our constitutional rights, and for the constitutional separation of powers. Now at last, many Republicans in Congress (more than I expected) have stood up to preserve the health of our Democracy rather than support K Street power projects or executive nepotism.

Having watched Iraq fall apart for a lack of Iraqi patriotism, I am heartened that there are so many Republicans who love their country more than consolidation of power. Many Republicans want checks and balances, competence in government, and a non-messianic foreign policy. Many Republicans do not want to appeal to racism against immigrants. Many Republicans want a government that pays its bills rather than passing them to children.

I thank them, and I thank everyone who voted, called their representatives, and made their voice heard in our political process.

And though I fear it will sound patronizing (and I swear it is not at all), I do wonder what it was that those voting for the Republicans the past few years expected to happen. What did you hope you were voting for, and what experiences led you to expect you might get it?

(As a college adviser once told me, "the rest of the world is not like this")

The fetus is dead

2007-04-19T17:21:00.000-07:00

In retrospect the Supreme Court decision yesterday should not have been a surprise.

The political left prides itself on being the protector of the less-well-off. They fought slavery with religious zeal. When nobody thought a Catholic could be elected president, the Democrats nominated one. They're likely to nominate a white woman or a black man next. The left is for sheltering the homeless, feeding the hungry, taking in the immigrant, for good pay and safe jobs.

In many ways the political left can be summed up as being opposed to the abuse of the powerless by the powerful.

This is why the abortion issue has hurt the left. Over the last 30 years the left has sought to sanctify the birth canal, claiming for it the moral power of granting entitlement to life. On one side, tissue. Pass through, be blessed, and be worthy of protection.

And comes the inevitable rejoinder: "what if this tissue is passed through the birth canal before an abortion, is it not annointed? If life begins at birth, does not a partial birth result in at least a partial life?"

It is a fair point, one that must be acknowledged. From a moral, philosophical, and scientific standpoint there is nothing fundamentally different about the fetus inside the mother's womb at nine months and the infant emerging minutes later at birth.

They are morally equivalent.

There is, slowly developing, a person whose life depends on a myriad of sacrifices made and risks taken by the woman carrying it. To choose not to carry those responsibilities and let that nascent life end, is a tragic choice - though perhaps the least tragic remaining.

The public understands this.

But in the desire to protect women from being treated as second class citizens, the left has employed the callous language and ideology of the fetus as tissue, displaying an intentional moral blindness that they themselves so often criticize in their opposition (as when we hear that Jesus would have favored a cut in the capital gains tax).

How many prospective parents talk about how their "fetus" is doing?

All the while, medical technology advances, and with it the viability and visibility of the life inside a pregnant woman. By not acknowledging this life, the pain of its loss, and the gruesome similarity of some procedures to infanticide, the political left undermines its credibility and claims to moral superiority.

The same happened when President Bush watched an unfolding tragedy in Iraq and claimed everything was fine. The public stops listening until the obvious ugliness was addressed and the requests for support made in light of it. People understand hardship, but the don't tolerate being patronized (just ask Al Gore).

Yesterday, through their elected and appointed officials, the American people said that if society's right to care for the life of a fetus stops at the birth canal, then it starts there, too. The myth cuts both ways.

So why do we object? Not because we feel a fetus has been granted "human" status and rights.

No, we object because the government is exerting its control over a woman's body in the name of another. Just as when women were the property of their fathers and their husbands. Once men could rape their wives with impunity; her body belonged to him. That history is why we object so bitterly to the court's ruling. The court is effectively saying that there is a legal right to injure a woman, granted to the government on behalf of a child. If the child had been born, and needed a kidney or bone-marrow transplant from the mother to stay alive, many people would feel the mother is morally obliged to risk her health for the life of the child, but very few people would be comfortable with the government compelling the woman to undergo a risky medical procedure. Yet pregnancies are risky.

I believe this is the essence of the more-honest dialog we need to begin with America. Acknowledging the moral imperative of protecting those in need, acknowledging the increasing moral standing of the life growing, the deep sadness that any person feels when they cannot choose to carry a life and must let it end, the great moral questions this raises, but emphasizing that freedom means freedom to make mistakes, even tragic ones, that we are a nation of free people, that when a government can force you to put your health at risk against your will, you are not free. That even when we deeply disagree with the morality of another's actions, when those actions fundamentally affect their own health and future, we must be humble enough to leave the judging to the individual, her doctor, and her God.

And that to the extent that we want to take action to avoid the tragedy of unwanted pregnancy and abortion, we should focus on making the situation rare and the alternatives better, without adding extra burdens or coercions to an already heavy decision.

Freedom

2007-04-18T15:55:00.000-07:00

I want this post to be eloquent. I associate eloquence with cool detachment, careful choice of words. It's hard to be cool or detached. I'll try to be careful anyways.

What has happened to freedom in this country?

I lived as an American in Europe for many years. I was greeted warmly traveling on the continent, complete with "I love America!". The outpouring of sympathy after the Oklahoma City bombing and after 9-11 were tremendous.

I spent one Valentine's Day with A. in Casablanca, and was humbled by the King Hussein Mosque, perhaps the most beautiful building I've ever seen. In Marrakesh we chatted with locals about the Sahara. We looked forward to going back and riding camels.

I read last week about some violence towards Americans in Morocco. I forget the details. I just remember thinking that I wouldn't feel safe visiting Morocco again.

I'm headed to France in June. I love France. I love the language, the country is beautiful, the appreciation for food and wine and quality of life. I now have to deal with France jokes whenever I mention the place, and I feel the need to be apologetic when I'm there.

I live daily knowing that phone companies and libraries and internet providers are being leaned on by the government to turn over personal information, without proper government oversight or based on fraudulent information.

I know that innocent people are locked away in Cuba not just by Castro but by our own government, and innocent people are killed by our soldiers, not due to any malice on the part of the captors and soldiers, but because these innocents are necessary collateral damage to achieve a world that looks and acts the way we want it to.

I know families are torn apart by the strain of deployments, injuries and deaths.

I know the soldiers too are held hostage to a military strategy that on the one hand claims to be aimed at winning the loyalty of the Iraqi population, while at the same time arguing that we choose to fight our wars in their backyard because we would rather the collateral damage happen there than happen here.

Today 5 men told all women in America that if they choose to have a second-term abortion, they may be required for moral reasons to have knives stuck deep into their bodies, acknowledging this may endanger the health of the women.

We are told that we are fighting to spread freedom and democracy.

"The state can't give you freedom, and the state can't take it away. Freedom is something you're born with, and then one day someone tries to deny it. The extent to which you resist is the extent to which you are free." - Utah Phillips

Freedom is something you do.

What are you going to do now?

Remember when

2007-03-18T20:05:00.000-07:00

...you were a high school student, or an undergraduate, and things were just *cool*?

Not everything mind you, but a ride late at night with someone's new CD, or the bar you'd go to after classes, or this new book or this class you were taking...

it was just cool, like it made you think,

"hey, a lot of life might be boring or tedious or crappy, but there's this place that isn't like that, I'm gonna find out more about it, and though it isn't a physical place, I'm still gonna move there, because all travel is mental travel."

I'd say that, for the moment, I've found it in Houston.

Of course, that doesn't mean that Houston is all *cool*, or that there is more cool here than in in DC or London or Opelika for that matter.

It just means that, tonight was cool like Coronas with lime and philosophy class. And that matters not because I think for one moment that work tomorrow won't be frustrating and tedious. That's not the point. The point is that, it occurs to me that that feeling of cool that existed in college wasn't illusion. No, that's not the point either. Hard to express this... maybe this: you don't have to be young and naive to feel that way. Or, it is possible to feel that way in spite of knowing what in time you inevitably find out about the world.

Tonight, in case I didn't mention it, was a house concert with Sarah Golden and Anais Mitchell. But more than the concert (which was amazing), tonight reminded me of sitting around at Maps while T and KP played guitar and sang Indigo Girls, reminded me of A & H coming over to Opelika and drinking tequila shots and doing thrashy dancing with black eyeliner. Cruising the Alabama cyclone with T listening to Counting Crows before they recorded Big Yellow Taxi. Making tiny snowmen in Auburn at 2am during a freak snowstorm for while A was in bed.

Etc etc. Point is that it doesn't require lots of alcohol or a teary movie or photo album. Just spending an evening with a lot of open, lovely people who enjoy music. Who talk to each other. I could tell the story here but I'll save it.

And, for the record, I missed all of you and wished you were here to enjoy it with me.

***************

About the videos below. Started big, then small, then camera died. Quicktime format. Sorry about the guy's elbow. If you only have time for one, try The Wall (Hadestown).

Oh, and these are ridiculously big files, so it's gonna be Monday probably before they are up.

Namesake
Friday Night
Dont Fail Me Now
The Wall (Hadestown)
Changer
Venus
Out of Pawn
Before the Eyes of Storytelling Girls
Shenandoah
The Belly and the Beast
Autumns Ashes
I Wear Your Dress (start)

Others not recorded:
Orion
Hades and Persephone
Song of the Magi
Your Fonder Heart
Time after Time (Cyndi Lauper sing-along)
Two Kids
1984

That's what I'm talking about

2007-03-16T21:03:00.000-07:00

Everyone has time for a 12 minute vacation

While we're at it

2007-03-15T21:00:00.000-07:00

Storm Front Coming

2007-03-15T20:30:00.000-07:00

Thinking about heading WNW to SXSW.

Or remembering which way winds blow in winter, I may just kick back and watch the clouds gathering, and contemplate how close lightning may strike.