August J. Pollak writes here about his horror story of moving five hours to a new apartment with a new job (Language Warning). Anyone who has tried to move using nothing more than a rental truck and the labor of friends will sympathize.
We're lucky enough that, in 3000 miles worth of moves, we've never run into a hailstorm. We've also never locked ourselves out of a U-Haul with a dead battery. However, we did have a U-Haul blew up outside Des Moines, Iowa, a half hour after every U-Haul employee in the greater Des Moines area called it a night. The move went downhill from there. The tow truck managed to decapitate my good 3-way floor lamp.
Next move, we're renting both the truck and the people to do the heavy lifting. Before you say anything, yes we are taking reasonable precautions to assure that all of our stuff makes it to the destination.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Weird Stuff On The Net
When I say I am a caffeine addict, I mean that if I miss my morning cup of coffee, by 5 p.m. I feel like I have a meat cleaver in my skull and by 6 p.m. I'll have my head in a toilet. That said, even I think caffeinated soap is a little excessive.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Home Networking in Two Easy Steps
I'll gloss over how we came to look at components for a home network today and skip right to the instructions on the wireless internet router that promised we could network our computers in two easy steps. I was doubtful, since it takes us at least three easy step to turn on our television set.
Step One of the two easy steps: "Follow the instructions for creating your home network." Well, damn. Steps don't get much simpler than that.
Step One of the two easy steps: "Follow the instructions for creating your home network." Well, damn. Steps don't get much simpler than that.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Undecided Voters
In a revealing typo, this post was nearly titled "Undecoded Voters."
Today's Doonesbury comic asks the question on many a mind at this late date in the election cycle: how can there still be undecided voters? In the Presidential race, I'm in total agreement. People may not be enamored of either man, but, given that we've been listening to this campaign for nigh on six months, they should have had the time to settle on who they think would do the least damage for four years until we can try this again. Strangely, I think that's what I said four years ago about this time.
The local elections are another matter entirely. As Zonker put it in the punchline, "Who's running again?" I just spent a half hour online trying to track down what else would be on the ballot. I finally managed to click my way into the Ohio Board of Elections website, where I could print out a list of the issues and candidates on the statewide ballots next month. So I still have no real information to use to make a decision, but at least I have a vague idea of what I'm deciding about. I miss my first couple elections in Oregon. There, the office that puts on the election mailed out a booklet to every voter that had the sample ballot printed, the text of every ballot measure, biographies of all the candidates, and arguments pro and con from anyone who forked over $500 to buy half a page. That was the last place I lived where the people putting on the elections thought that they should not only hand out and collect the ballots, but make sure voters were educated about the issues. Here in Ohio, I called the Board of Elections for the last mid-term elections to ask how I could get a voter's guide. Their answer (I kid you not): "The newspaper publishes something the Sunday before the election." We plopped down a clam and a half for that Sunday paper. The comics page was more educational. Their supposed voter's guide is a joke.
One final word. I'm voting for the county coroner? Those are the guys who pick up dead people, aren't they? When did that become an elected office? Shouldn't that be a job that is filled on the basis of medical knowledge rather than party affiliation?
Today's Doonesbury comic asks the question on many a mind at this late date in the election cycle: how can there still be undecided voters? In the Presidential race, I'm in total agreement. People may not be enamored of either man, but, given that we've been listening to this campaign for nigh on six months, they should have had the time to settle on who they think would do the least damage for four years until we can try this again. Strangely, I think that's what I said four years ago about this time.
The local elections are another matter entirely. As Zonker put it in the punchline, "Who's running again?" I just spent a half hour online trying to track down what else would be on the ballot. I finally managed to click my way into the Ohio Board of Elections website, where I could print out a list of the issues and candidates on the statewide ballots next month. So I still have no real information to use to make a decision, but at least I have a vague idea of what I'm deciding about. I miss my first couple elections in Oregon. There, the office that puts on the election mailed out a booklet to every voter that had the sample ballot printed, the text of every ballot measure, biographies of all the candidates, and arguments pro and con from anyone who forked over $500 to buy half a page. That was the last place I lived where the people putting on the elections thought that they should not only hand out and collect the ballots, but make sure voters were educated about the issues. Here in Ohio, I called the Board of Elections for the last mid-term elections to ask how I could get a voter's guide. Their answer (I kid you not): "The newspaper publishes something the Sunday before the election." We plopped down a clam and a half for that Sunday paper. The comics page was more educational. Their supposed voter's guide is a joke.
One final word. I'm voting for the county coroner? Those are the guys who pick up dead people, aren't they? When did that become an elected office? Shouldn't that be a job that is filled on the basis of medical knowledge rather than party affiliation?
Friday, October 15, 2004
Bit o' this and that
Just when I start running Google ads, Slate runs an article about how the political campaigns could take advantage of them.
Google ads work on targeted keywords. Ads that Google places here are (supposedly) related to the content of the site. For instance, I've been writing a lot about the upcoming election, and lo and behold, one of the ads over there is for The Washington Post's election coverage (your ads may vary). The ad guys over at the Post think that if you're getting your election news from me, maybe you'd like to check theirs out.
Speaking of the WP, I've been meaning to plug www.bugmenot.com. If you don't like registering for websites just to read their content, this is the site for you. All you do is go to www.bugmenot.com, type in the URL of the site you want to visit, and they show a valid username and password that some nice person somewhere in cyberspace has decided to share. It's great for people worried about their Internet privacy. I use it because it cuts down on the number of usernames and passwords I have to remember, particularly for websites I don't read regularly.
Google ads work on targeted keywords. Ads that Google places here are (supposedly) related to the content of the site. For instance, I've been writing a lot about the upcoming election, and lo and behold, one of the ads over there is for The Washington Post's election coverage (your ads may vary). The ad guys over at the Post think that if you're getting your election news from me, maybe you'd like to check theirs out.
Speaking of the WP, I've been meaning to plug www.bugmenot.com. If you don't like registering for websites just to read their content, this is the site for you. All you do is go to www.bugmenot.com, type in the URL of the site you want to visit, and they show a valid username and password that some nice person somewhere in cyberspace has decided to share. It's great for people worried about their Internet privacy. I use it because it cuts down on the number of usernames and passwords I have to remember, particularly for websites I don't read regularly.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Attitude is Everything
For the past three years, I've been rather uncomfortable with all the flag waving. We all know when this started: when, as they say, we were all Americans. Somewhere along the lines, our flag got hijacked. "Patriot" became an acronym for Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (catchier than HR 3162, isn't it?). The flag has become a rallying banner for the War on Terror. It's on the lapels of our pandering politicians and draping the caskets of our dead. It's presented, neatly folded, to widows who are far too young. The one place it isn't lately is anywhere happy. I've come to miss the Fourth of July parades I went to as a child, when the F-15 flyovers were ceremonial, and we stood as the flag passed, in respect to the country and the principles of hope on which the country stood. That was back when I could look at the flag and think of America, not just the government.
Tonight, I saw something that brought those old feelings back. In three years, I'd almost forgotten what it was like to see someone waving the flag for a reason other than supporting the current administration/policies/military actions. Then I watched the first half of "Black Sky," the Discovery Channel documentary of Scaled Composite's flights that won them the Ansari X-Prize. As Space Ship One was towed back to the hangar after the winning flight, pilot Brian Binnie stood on top of the spaceship waving the American flag. In a change from what I've seen out of a lot of people lately, he was waving that flag because an American group had accomplished something to the benefit of all mankind that had nothing to do with "making the world safer." Here's the irony: the fundamental accomplishment of winning the Ansari X-Prize was breaking governments' monopoly on space travel.
Tonight, I saw something that brought those old feelings back. In three years, I'd almost forgotten what it was like to see someone waving the flag for a reason other than supporting the current administration/policies/military actions. Then I watched the first half of "Black Sky," the Discovery Channel documentary of Scaled Composite's flights that won them the Ansari X-Prize. As Space Ship One was towed back to the hangar after the winning flight, pilot Brian Binnie stood on top of the spaceship waving the American flag. In a change from what I've seen out of a lot of people lately, he was waving that flag because an American group had accomplished something to the benefit of all mankind that had nothing to do with "making the world safer." Here's the irony: the fundamental accomplishment of winning the Ansari X-Prize was breaking governments' monopoly on space travel.
Penguin Perspectives, Now With Ads
If you look several inches to the right, you may notice I'm trying something new. In an effort to turn this little blog into a possible source of income, thus hastening my journey into the realm of Full Time Professional Writer, I'm taking on ads. Apparently I get a lira or two per ad-click. If you see something you like over there, go ahead and click to support your local blogger.
The ads are supposed to be content-sensitive. Let's hope Google's ad engine has developed a sense of sarcasm since the good old days when Blogger had the banner ads at the top of my page here. Long time readers may recall that I got ads for Ambien after writing about how silly it was that an insomnia medication warned that it may cause drowsiness.
The ads are supposed to be content-sensitive. Let's hope Google's ad engine has developed a sense of sarcasm since the good old days when Blogger had the banner ads at the top of my page here. Long time readers may recall that I got ads for Ambien after writing about how silly it was that an insomnia medication warned that it may cause drowsiness.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Fact Check
The fact-checkers on tonight's debate so far seem to be missing this one. The question was, (paraphrasing): "how did we end up with a shortage of flu vaccine?"
Bush's response (cut-and-pasted from CNN's debate transcript, emphasis added):
Bob, we relied upon a company out of England to provide about half of the flu vaccines for the United States citizen, and it turned out that the vaccine they were producing was contaminated. And so we took the right action and didn't allow contaminated medicine into our country.
Fact: The lab that produced the now-impounded vaccine is in Liverpool, England. The company is out of Emeryville, California. See their full list of locations here.
Bush's response (cut-and-pasted from CNN's debate transcript, emphasis added):
Bob, we relied upon a company out of England to provide about half of the flu vaccines for the United States citizen, and it turned out that the vaccine they were producing was contaminated. And so we took the right action and didn't allow contaminated medicine into our country.
Fact: The lab that produced the now-impounded vaccine is in Liverpool, England. The company is out of Emeryville, California. See their full list of locations here.
Third Debate
A few good jabs in early, then the entire debate kind of turned to mush. Then again, maybe the mush was my brain rejecting all of the lines I've heard before, and all of the crap questions. "What have you learned from the strong women in your life?"! I'm sure that is just what the electorate wants to know.
I've found these debates very educational, but I am glad they are finally over. Kerry is making promises he can't keep. Bush is running like he hasn't already had four years to start doing some of this, and is dodging inconvenient questions about that first term. No one is saying anything new, or answering the important questions on the minds of voters.
The election is in just under two weeks. Please make some time to go out and vote for whichever guy you think can best lead the United States for the next four years. I'll blog lightly on November 2. That way, you can take some of the time you usually spend reading this and go out and cast a ballot.
I've found these debates very educational, but I am glad they are finally over. Kerry is making promises he can't keep. Bush is running like he hasn't already had four years to start doing some of this, and is dodging inconvenient questions about that first term. No one is saying anything new, or answering the important questions on the minds of voters.
The election is in just under two weeks. Please make some time to go out and vote for whichever guy you think can best lead the United States for the next four years. I'll blog lightly on November 2. That way, you can take some of the time you usually spend reading this and go out and cast a ballot.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Human achievement
I don't put too much stock in online polls, given how easy they are to fix. Nonetheless, this one over at CNN gives you something to ponder: What was the most significant invention/breakthrough of the past 50 years?
The choices given are: artificial heart, ATM, barcode, compact discs, the computer mouse, cloning, fiber optics, the Human Genome Project, jumbo jets, lasers, mobile phones, MRI scanners, nanotechnology, nuclear power, personal computer, Prozac, satellites, silicon chips, soft contact lenses, test tube baby, the pill, Voyager, the Walkman, the world wide web, or "other."
In my mind, a few can be eliminated right off the bat because they piggyback on something else on the list. Compact discs and barcodes are dependent on laser technology, which would fundamentally make lasers the most significant breakthrough. The computer mouse and World Wide Web aren't anything without the personal computer, which in turn was only possible because of the silicon chip.
A few others can be eliminated as lifestyle enhancements, that while making life a bit cushier, don't really change the world. The ATM, soft contact lens, and Walkman are nice and all, but I don't really think the world would be a fundamentally different place if we had to get the cash from the bank, wear glasses, and jog without the tunes. With respect to families who cannot conceive biological children the old-fashioned way, I'd classify test-tube babies as a lifestyle enhancement, too, inasmuch as the main benefit of IVF is that infertile couples who can afford to sink $9000 per attempt (with an average of 3 attempts) now have the technology pass on their own genetic material.
Nanotechnology, cloning, and the Human Genome project may yet prove to be incredibly significant, but as of yet, they are in their infancy. Same can be said of Voyager--on the off chance that E.T. stumbles across the interstellar probe, figures out what it says, and manages to contact us, it could prove to be a turning point in planetary history, but we've got nothing so far. The artificial heart, Prozac, and MRI scanning have benefits for small(ish) segments who need that particular medical intervention, but worldwide, their effect is not that great.
So, when all is said and done, of the things on the list, I'm voting for the satellite because of the broad range of uses it has been put to for the benefit of all of humanity. Satellites allow scientists to study what is going on with the planet--ozone levels, polar ice sheets, desertification, and the like--so we can change our behavior before our world becomes uninhabitable. Weather satellites help me know how to dress in the morning. Remember a few weeks ago, all that hurricane forecasting that allowed Florida to evacuate, potentially saving lives? That was satellite imaging. GPS for military uses, civilian in-car navigation, and locating lost hikers is all satellite based, as are some non-GPS-based military systems. Satellites are how we have global communication, even from the remotest desert and mountains with satellite phones. We know instantaneously what is going on in our world (wars, elections, all that good stuff) because of satellite news feeds. And here's a little tidbit I bet you didn't know: any of you who put yourself through college on student loans and as a result have a better job and higher standard of living have satellites to thank, and one satellite in particular. The original student loan program was a direct response to the launch of Sputnik. The government wanted to be competitive in the Cold War, so they started fronting the money for higher education in math and science.
Rounding out my top 7 would be silicon chips (because it made the personal computer possible), lasers, the World Wide Web, the pill, and nanotechnology. If I remember, I'll tell you all later about how the pill made my list only because it was the first baby step.
It appears I am in a decided minority. Satellites got only 3% of the vote. The big winners are (in order): silicon chips, the World Wide Web, and personal computers. Frighteningly enough. 44 people actually voted that the apex of human achievement in the last 50 years was the Walkman.
The choices given are: artificial heart, ATM, barcode, compact discs, the computer mouse, cloning, fiber optics, the Human Genome Project, jumbo jets, lasers, mobile phones, MRI scanners, nanotechnology, nuclear power, personal computer, Prozac, satellites, silicon chips, soft contact lenses, test tube baby, the pill, Voyager, the Walkman, the world wide web, or "other."
In my mind, a few can be eliminated right off the bat because they piggyback on something else on the list. Compact discs and barcodes are dependent on laser technology, which would fundamentally make lasers the most significant breakthrough. The computer mouse and World Wide Web aren't anything without the personal computer, which in turn was only possible because of the silicon chip.
A few others can be eliminated as lifestyle enhancements, that while making life a bit cushier, don't really change the world. The ATM, soft contact lens, and Walkman are nice and all, but I don't really think the world would be a fundamentally different place if we had to get the cash from the bank, wear glasses, and jog without the tunes. With respect to families who cannot conceive biological children the old-fashioned way, I'd classify test-tube babies as a lifestyle enhancement, too, inasmuch as the main benefit of IVF is that infertile couples who can afford to sink $9000 per attempt (with an average of 3 attempts) now have the technology pass on their own genetic material.
Nanotechnology, cloning, and the Human Genome project may yet prove to be incredibly significant, but as of yet, they are in their infancy. Same can be said of Voyager--on the off chance that E.T. stumbles across the interstellar probe, figures out what it says, and manages to contact us, it could prove to be a turning point in planetary history, but we've got nothing so far. The artificial heart, Prozac, and MRI scanning have benefits for small(ish) segments who need that particular medical intervention, but worldwide, their effect is not that great.
So, when all is said and done, of the things on the list, I'm voting for the satellite because of the broad range of uses it has been put to for the benefit of all of humanity. Satellites allow scientists to study what is going on with the planet--ozone levels, polar ice sheets, desertification, and the like--so we can change our behavior before our world becomes uninhabitable. Weather satellites help me know how to dress in the morning. Remember a few weeks ago, all that hurricane forecasting that allowed Florida to evacuate, potentially saving lives? That was satellite imaging. GPS for military uses, civilian in-car navigation, and locating lost hikers is all satellite based, as are some non-GPS-based military systems. Satellites are how we have global communication, even from the remotest desert and mountains with satellite phones. We know instantaneously what is going on in our world (wars, elections, all that good stuff) because of satellite news feeds. And here's a little tidbit I bet you didn't know: any of you who put yourself through college on student loans and as a result have a better job and higher standard of living have satellites to thank, and one satellite in particular. The original student loan program was a direct response to the launch of Sputnik. The government wanted to be competitive in the Cold War, so they started fronting the money for higher education in math and science.
Rounding out my top 7 would be silicon chips (because it made the personal computer possible), lasers, the World Wide Web, the pill, and nanotechnology. If I remember, I'll tell you all later about how the pill made my list only because it was the first baby step.
It appears I am in a decided minority. Satellites got only 3% of the vote. The big winners are (in order): silicon chips, the World Wide Web, and personal computers. Frighteningly enough. 44 people actually voted that the apex of human achievement in the last 50 years was the Walkman.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Endorsement Wars
In the interest of fairness, I should point out that the Lowell (Mass.) Sun endorsed George W. Bush. I'd go into the logic of their position, but they don't have free archives on their website and I'm not dedicated enough to pay $2.95 to view it.
Iconoclast, the Sequel
Thanks to ME for pointing out this editorial regarding the reaction to the Lone Star Iconoclast's endorsement of Kerry. In short, some advertisers pulled their ads (normal), some subscribers cancelled their subscriptions (reasonable), some readers wrote in well-thought-out letters to the editor respectfully disagreeing with the editorial (expected), and some Texans threatened to run any business that continued to advertise in the Iconoclast out of town and/or physically harm the editors.
A sampling of some of the more cro-magnon responses from readers. I had to put my own editorial comments in a couple of them, in [brackets] and italics. Everything else is cut-and-pasted.
If you think I am just picking out the worst, bear in mind I may be cherry-picking from the worst of the lot, but I left out the letter questioning the editor's genitalia.
A sampling of some of the more cro-magnon responses from readers. I had to put my own editorial comments in a couple of them, in [brackets] and italics. Everything else is cut-and-pasted.
I am embarrassed and sad that someone who names his paper after the great
State of Texas (LONE STAR) could have the audacity to take a public position
against our President [PP: Publicly oppose the incumbent--what a an irrational idea in a free election]. President Bush and the first Lady represent everything real TEXANS and CHRISTIANS stand for today. I cannot understand how anyone in your community could ever buy an ad or one of your papers again. Please think about what John Kerry represents as compared to President Bush and hopefully you will make the decision to honor your home by supporting OUR PRESIDENT [PP: did this person make it to the end of the original editorial where they state, and I quote, "That’s why The Iconoclast urges Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown..."?]
YOU MUST BE THE BIGGEST IDIOT NEWSPAPER IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY. JOHN KERRY IS A BIG LIAR AND SO ARE YOU AND YOUR NEWSPAPER!!!
You must be a room mate of Bill Burket at the local insane asylum. My God people, this is your President, your neighbor [PP: see comment above quoting the original editorial]. Are you trying to have your 15 minutes of fame at President Bush's expense? Good bye, find another way to make a living, I'm sure the good folks in Crawford will run you out of town
In the Old West days they hung people for being traitors. Quite frankly, I
feel that way about the liberal press, both in the newspapers and on TV [PP: does that sound like a death threat to anyone else here?]. It sounds like you’ve gotten on the “Flip/Flop” bandwagon and I sincerely hope that ALL Texans will ban your newspaper. Anyone that would speak of a sitting President of the United States as you have and all the rest of the liberal press have should be banned [PP: again, offering a dissenting opinion in the run-up to free elections--how dare they!].
I think Bush is a very find Christian man. I believe he does what he thinks
is right, and what else can he do. I’m sure he has feelings just as everyone
else does. I’m sure you hurt his feelings by endorsing Kerry. [PP: hurt his feelings?! What are we running here? An election or a day care center?]
Perhaps you think the war in Iraq was unnecessary? Perhaps you don't like
having a President living in your little town? [PP: I'd comment, but I'm tired of repeating myself--people read what you're writing about first!]. Perhaps you are certifiably nuts? I don't know what your deal is, but I think your actions are shameful. As editor of the iconoclast, you have a responsibility to print the news and keep your opinions to yourself - not make news! [PP: Actually, that's why newspapers have the opinion pages to which you are writing]. To endorse John Kerry - a man who turned against the people fighting in Vietnam and caused the POWS of Vietnam to suffer humiliation and torture - against a man like George Bush is unthinkable. I don't know who made you God and primary decision make of your paper [PP: I don't know about the God part, but whoever hired him as editor of the paper made him the primary decision maker--it's his job], but this decision needs to be re-thought and you need to be fired!
Gentlemen: Helloooooooooo! Hellooooooooooooooooooooo! Is it very hot out there? You fellows must have been exposed to too much sun! Or could it have been the Tequila? Mama mia! What a choice..., I'm sure someone's drunk out there! Take a long walk in the shade....!
Your newspaper is a joke. No one cares what your editorial board thinks or writes. You liberal dumbasses are a disgrace to Texas.
If you think I am just picking out the worst, bear in mind I may be cherry-picking from the worst of the lot, but I left out the letter questioning the editor's genitalia.
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Damned if you do, damned if you don't
It seems like since the moment John Kerry threw his hat in the ring for this presidential election, the media has made a big fuss over his propensity for prefacing statements with caveats and qualifiers. From May 18 to July 23, Slate even had a department called "Kerryisms" (subtitled "the senator's caveats and curlicues") in which they footnoted all the qualifiers in 36 Kerry quotations. Point being, one of the prominent criticisms of John Kerry in this campaign is his tendecy to provide complex answers. I even fell prey to this before the first debate when I predicted that Kerry would go over the time limit more, on the logic that I hadn't heard him give a short answer yet.
So he's stopped. He's reigned in the footnotes and qualifiers and simplified his responses. The reaction: now the media cites him for inaccuracy and/or vagueness.
A brief perusal through some of the fact checks of the first two presidential debates shows that Kerry is called to the carpet for a new tendency to not qualify his statements. They cite him for claiming that the economy has lost 1.6 million jobs without indicating that those are only private-sector jobs, and for referencing "sneak and peek" searches in a discussion of the USA PATRIOT Act without stating that those were permissible before the PATRIOT Act. After the first debate, media fact checkers cited Kerry for saying that the war in Iraq has cost $200 billion and that the President is spending "hundreds of millions of dollars" in bunker-busting nukes without saying that the figures include money that has been or is expected to be appropriated but that has not, technically, been spent yet. Certainly, without the footnotes, those figures are false. Kerry could have easily used figures that could be accurate without qualifiers (total net job loss is over half a million, the Iraq war cost-to-date is $120 billion, and the bunker-busting-nuke budget is about $35 million). Still, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. The media faulted him for using so many qualifiers to support the accuracy of his figures, then for not using enough.
The media have also faulted Kerry for telling people "I have a plan" 13 times in Friday's debate without going into more details than "download it off my website." Saturday Night Live even poked a comic jab at that in last night's opening sketch. I'm working on reading these plans. They are properly complex in response to the realities of international relations, and there is no way to do them justice in two minutes. If Kerry tried to set them out in a sound bite, he would be criticized for oversimplifying.
All of those inaccurate figures and references to an unstated plan came from the debates, where the candidates had to make whatever point in less than two minutes. We're asking the future Leader Of The Free World to explain himself in less time than we give to a bag of microwave popcorn. This world is not an easy or simple place. Unfortunately, most Americans seem to have shorter attention spans than lab mice, who can be trained to complete a task if you bribe them with food pellets.
If you have a longer attention span that Pinky (see "Pinky and the Brain"), check out this article from the New York Times magazine section. Yes, it is 11 pages long, but it goes into some of the reasons why Kerry seems so distant and defensive around the media, his character (contrast the description of what he did when security evacuated the Capitol to the My Pet Goat fiasco), and just what brought him to some of these enormously complex views of how the world works. Also, if you manage to get all the way through it--and you're all smart people, I know you can--you'll read a very sensible strategy in fighting this War On Terror(ism) that, since it does not involve bombing the crap out of anyone, will never resonate with the large chunk of America that is still stuck in On-9/11 mode.
So he's stopped. He's reigned in the footnotes and qualifiers and simplified his responses. The reaction: now the media cites him for inaccuracy and/or vagueness.
A brief perusal through some of the fact checks of the first two presidential debates shows that Kerry is called to the carpet for a new tendency to not qualify his statements. They cite him for claiming that the economy has lost 1.6 million jobs without indicating that those are only private-sector jobs, and for referencing "sneak and peek" searches in a discussion of the USA PATRIOT Act without stating that those were permissible before the PATRIOT Act. After the first debate, media fact checkers cited Kerry for saying that the war in Iraq has cost $200 billion and that the President is spending "hundreds of millions of dollars" in bunker-busting nukes without saying that the figures include money that has been or is expected to be appropriated but that has not, technically, been spent yet. Certainly, without the footnotes, those figures are false. Kerry could have easily used figures that could be accurate without qualifiers (total net job loss is over half a million, the Iraq war cost-to-date is $120 billion, and the bunker-busting-nuke budget is about $35 million). Still, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. The media faulted him for using so many qualifiers to support the accuracy of his figures, then for not using enough.
The media have also faulted Kerry for telling people "I have a plan" 13 times in Friday's debate without going into more details than "download it off my website." Saturday Night Live even poked a comic jab at that in last night's opening sketch. I'm working on reading these plans. They are properly complex in response to the realities of international relations, and there is no way to do them justice in two minutes. If Kerry tried to set them out in a sound bite, he would be criticized for oversimplifying.
All of those inaccurate figures and references to an unstated plan came from the debates, where the candidates had to make whatever point in less than two minutes. We're asking the future Leader Of The Free World to explain himself in less time than we give to a bag of microwave popcorn. This world is not an easy or simple place. Unfortunately, most Americans seem to have shorter attention spans than lab mice, who can be trained to complete a task if you bribe them with food pellets.
If you have a longer attention span that Pinky (see "Pinky and the Brain"), check out this article from the New York Times magazine section. Yes, it is 11 pages long, but it goes into some of the reasons why Kerry seems so distant and defensive around the media, his character (contrast the description of what he did when security evacuated the Capitol to the My Pet Goat fiasco), and just what brought him to some of these enormously complex views of how the world works. Also, if you manage to get all the way through it--and you're all smart people, I know you can--you'll read a very sensible strategy in fighting this War On Terror(ism) that, since it does not involve bombing the crap out of anyone, will never resonate with the large chunk of America that is still stuck in On-9/11 mode.
Saturday, October 09, 2004
More Innocent Bystanders
A feral cat took up residence in the garden of Reuters' Baghdad Bureau, but ran off shortly after giving birth to a litter. The bureau staff took the abandoned litter in and was trying to figure out how to care for the newborn kittens when a car bomb went off nearby. Picture a bevy of reporters frantically sending off breaking news reports while cradling tiny kittens in their laps for warmth, breaking occasionally to give them droppers of milk.
Here's the link to the story by Reuters' Chief Iraq Correspondent. No word on how the kittens are doing or if they've found homes.
Here's the link to the story by Reuters' Chief Iraq Correspondent. No word on how the kittens are doing or if they've found homes.
Friday, October 08, 2004
Did You Miss Me?
I leave for 5 days and miss the Ansari X-Prize being won, Mount St. Helens almost but not quite blowing, Martha Stewart checking into the slammer, and a VP debate that caused everyone on the internet to go bonkers refuting a largely irrelevant claim made by Cheney about Edwards. I have the VP debate on the TiVo, and if I have anything to say about it after I watch it that hasn't already been said by 17,000 other websites, I'll mention it here. However, on the subject of the Vice President, I spent the week at training at a federal Department of Education facility and had to pass the official pics of Bush, Cheney, and the Secretary of Education every day. Cheney should not try to smile.
I did get home in time to catch the Presidential debate tonight. I rather liked that the audience tried to get the candidates to answer the questions that people really want to hear straight answers to. They largely failed, of course. The questions were blunt and to the point and predictable enough to allow the candidates to have practiced evading them. My personal favorite evasion was when someone asked Bush if he could name 3 mistakes he'd made. Bush evaded it by saying that the questioner was trying to goad him into admitting that Iraq, etc. was a huge failure and we shouldn't be there, but that he stood by his decisions on the big stuff like that. WRONG. I want to know the answer to that question to reassure me that we have a President capable of admitting that he's ever made an error. I'd be happy knowing that he is capable of fessing up that, in retrospect, maybe he shouldn't have had the tuna melt for lunch.
And for my favorite "I know what you want me to say to pander to your group and I'm not going to say it even if it means I know you'll vote for the other guy now" answer: to the woman who wanted assurances from Kerry that her tax dollars would never go to pay for an abortion, Kerry replied to the effect of, he's personally Catholic, etc. but that he could not as President impose that personal belief on others to restrict access to a legal medical procedure (In sum, as long as something is legal, what I think about it doesn't count for squat in policymaking).
I'm paraphrasing all of the candidate's replies, of course, but I'm reasonably certain the full transcripts of the debate will be out on the web soon if they aren't already.
Both sides got a few good zingers in, but I think this will do more to feed pundits than to change people's minds. We got to see them face some pointed questions, but didn't hear anything new of substance. At most, we finally got to hear from their own lips on live TV the answers that we already knew they would give.
I did get home in time to catch the Presidential debate tonight. I rather liked that the audience tried to get the candidates to answer the questions that people really want to hear straight answers to. They largely failed, of course. The questions were blunt and to the point and predictable enough to allow the candidates to have practiced evading them. My personal favorite evasion was when someone asked Bush if he could name 3 mistakes he'd made. Bush evaded it by saying that the questioner was trying to goad him into admitting that Iraq, etc. was a huge failure and we shouldn't be there, but that he stood by his decisions on the big stuff like that. WRONG. I want to know the answer to that question to reassure me that we have a President capable of admitting that he's ever made an error. I'd be happy knowing that he is capable of fessing up that, in retrospect, maybe he shouldn't have had the tuna melt for lunch.
And for my favorite "I know what you want me to say to pander to your group and I'm not going to say it even if it means I know you'll vote for the other guy now" answer: to the woman who wanted assurances from Kerry that her tax dollars would never go to pay for an abortion, Kerry replied to the effect of, he's personally Catholic, etc. but that he could not as President impose that personal belief on others to restrict access to a legal medical procedure (In sum, as long as something is legal, what I think about it doesn't count for squat in policymaking).
I'm paraphrasing all of the candidate's replies, of course, but I'm reasonably certain the full transcripts of the debate will be out on the web soon if they aren't already.
Both sides got a few good zingers in, but I think this will do more to feed pundits than to change people's minds. We got to see them face some pointed questions, but didn't hear anything new of substance. At most, we finally got to hear from their own lips on live TV the answers that we already knew they would give.
Saturday, October 02, 2004
What A Week To Leave!
I just checked out the news. Next week looks to be a bad week to be away from my blog. Not only do I miss the VP debate (I'm TiVoing it just in case I miss it in my hotel room) and a possible sequel to the Mt. St. Helens eruption, but it looks like there's a good chance I'll miss the winning of the Ansari X Prize. The Ansari X Prize, for those of you who aren't science news junkies, is a $10,000,000 prize to be given to the first privately-funded team to build a spaceship capable of carrying 3 people to an altitude of 62.5 miles, and launching and landing it twice within two weeks. A team did a successful flight on Thursday, and plans another one for Tuesday.
Read more about the Ansari X Prize here. It really is an interesting concept: encourage private investment in space travel technology, so that one day, the general public might be able to travel to space. The prize is based on the early days of aviation, when cash prizes motivated pilots to reach a lot of the milestones in early air travel, such as Charles Lindberg's transatlantic flight. One of the purposes of the X Prize is to break the monopoly governments have on space travel. Now, I have to drug myself up to take a turboprop from Toledo to Detroit without vomiting, but I admire the principle of mass-market spaceflight nonetheless.
Read more about the Ansari X Prize here. It really is an interesting concept: encourage private investment in space travel technology, so that one day, the general public might be able to travel to space. The prize is based on the early days of aviation, when cash prizes motivated pilots to reach a lot of the milestones in early air travel, such as Charles Lindberg's transatlantic flight. One of the purposes of the X Prize is to break the monopoly governments have on space travel. Now, I have to drug myself up to take a turboprop from Toledo to Detroit without vomiting, but I admire the principle of mass-market spaceflight nonetheless.
See you next weekend.
Have a Great Week
I'm off to Chicago tomorrow for the week (work, not fun), and I will be offline until Friday evening. I'll be back then, spending next weekend with some lengthy catchup blogging on The Week In Review. While you're taking a break from me, check out the links over on the right.
Another Immutable Law of the Universe
Somewhere between the Theory of Relativity and Murphy's Law lies another law of the cosmos: when you're running late for work, that will be when you have to wash the cat.
The kitten decided to take a dunk in the eyeglass cleaner this morning as I scrambled to get out the door on time. I'm not entirely sure what is in the cleaning solution, but I'm reasonably certain it is not edible. Fortunately, Chakaal doesn't mind water too much, so she didn't object too strenuously to being plopped in the sink and having her paws held under the faucet.
The kitten decided to take a dunk in the eyeglass cleaner this morning as I scrambled to get out the door on time. I'm not entirely sure what is in the cleaning solution, but I'm reasonably certain it is not edible. Fortunately, Chakaal doesn't mind water too much, so she didn't object too strenuously to being plopped in the sink and having her paws held under the faucet.
Thar She Blows!
The lady's blowing off some steam again. In a sign of the times, "footage" of St. Helens'1980 eruption was cobbled together from a series of still photos and looks like some of the worst stop-motion animation you've ever seen. Today's eruption was carried live on the internet via the crater-cam.
Word from some relatives in the area was that it was "quite a sight."
Word from some relatives in the area was that it was "quite a sight."
Friday, October 01, 2004
The Envelope Please
Let's see how my debate predictions panned out.
Prediction 1: I'll call this one half credit. George W. Bush did do more than just parrot his talking points for 90 minutes, but I found a hefty dose of them mixed into the answers. For instance, at least 3 separate uses of "My opponent said he voted for the $87 Billion before he voted against it."
Prediction 2: I blew this one. Kerry kept his responses within the allotted time. The moderator did not have to cut off either candidate, and they definitely did not have to resort to the Buzzer of Doom.
Prediction 3: Final flip-flopper count: 12. We passed my prediction of 5 at the 35-minute mark, just over 1/3 of the way through the debate. The count includes things like the above voted-for-then-against snipes, and subtler jabs like references to not sending mixed messages.
Prediction 4: I'm not paying attention to the pundits who declare victory in these debates, but there was no projectile vomiting.
Prediction 5: Blew this one, too. Though a sizable chunk was recycled campaign material (more so, to my mind, on the Bush side than the Kerry side), we did get to hear the candidates actually addressing some critical issues and being allowed to explain their positions more clearly.
Other than that, I'm not getting into the post-debate analysis. These debates should not be about winning or losing, but about articulating policy and being able to more directly confront and address some of the mud that has been slung around. This is not a game of parchesi.
Prediction 1: I'll call this one half credit. George W. Bush did do more than just parrot his talking points for 90 minutes, but I found a hefty dose of them mixed into the answers. For instance, at least 3 separate uses of "My opponent said he voted for the $87 Billion before he voted against it."
Prediction 2: I blew this one. Kerry kept his responses within the allotted time. The moderator did not have to cut off either candidate, and they definitely did not have to resort to the Buzzer of Doom.
Prediction 3: Final flip-flopper count: 12. We passed my prediction of 5 at the 35-minute mark, just over 1/3 of the way through the debate. The count includes things like the above voted-for-then-against snipes, and subtler jabs like references to not sending mixed messages.
Prediction 4: I'm not paying attention to the pundits who declare victory in these debates, but there was no projectile vomiting.
Prediction 5: Blew this one, too. Though a sizable chunk was recycled campaign material (more so, to my mind, on the Bush side than the Kerry side), we did get to hear the candidates actually addressing some critical issues and being allowed to explain their positions more clearly.
Other than that, I'm not getting into the post-debate analysis. These debates should not be about winning or losing, but about articulating policy and being able to more directly confront and address some of the mud that has been slung around. This is not a game of parchesi.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)