39 Channels

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

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

And Sarah Palin iz ur new Michael Scott

Someone needs to do this YouTube Mashup. Really.

FailBlog iz ur new cheezburger

FailBlog.org

Don't Vote

Oh, that's it...

Intolerant Chic

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

Out of Touch

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?

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

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

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

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

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

My Boy Biden

You Go Joe

Hubris - Part 2

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

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

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

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