Recently in Society / Politics Category

Today, I got the following email from the Hamilton County (Ohio) Democratic Party. I think it stands on its own. Enjoy.

Dear Craig,

There is controversy over President Obama's televised speech today to school students across the nation, a speech urging them to stay in school, to graduate, to work hard and emphasizing the value of a good education. Many schools have chosen not make use of the speech. One such case is worthy of particular attention.

The case of the Lakota School system in the northern area of metropolitan Cincinnati speaks volumes. The Lakota school system is one of those refusing to make use of the President's speech.

Source: http://www.lakotaonline.com/news.cfm?story=1999&location=8

Clearly, in doing so, they bow to the political pressure coming from parents and others in this largely Republican area.

But a bit of history puts this decision in perspective. In late September 2004, George Bush in the heat a close re-election campaign, came to that area for a campaign rally billed by the Republican Party as the"biggest of the year." They hoped for 50,000 people.

What did the Lakota School system do then? Did they remain non-partisan?

The record shows:

* They shut down the entire school system two hours early so people could attend.
* They canceled afternoon preschool and kindergarten.
* They packed the 500+ marching member marching band onto 19 school buses and sent them to entertain the crowd.
* They sent the school choir to sing the national anthem.

Presumptively all this was justified as "showing respect the office," since using taxpayer dollars for partisan political purposes would be highly inappropriate.

From Cincinnati Enquirer press reports at the time:

"LakotaSchools are dismissing two hours early, and afternoon preschool andkindergarten classes are canceled, as are junior school sportingevents.Students at the International Academy of Cincinnati in WestChester and Mother Teresa School in Liberty Township also will headhome two hours early today. The Lakota district will fill 19 buses with565 members of the Lakota West and East high school marching bands andthe Lakota West chorus, and transport them to the rally."

Source: http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/09/27/loc_loc1abush.html

"...in the hours before Bush's arrival, National Football League Hall of Famer Anthony Munoz helped lead off a series of speeches by local leaders. The former Cincinnati Bengal, who has been active in charitable efforts to benefit Greater Cincinnati youths, called himself "a big Bush fan."

"He's proven that he's a great leader and we need that leadership for the next four years," Munoz told the crowd that included many local students. Lakota Schools and some other nearby schools dismissed classes early today. Lakota school bands performed, and the Lakota West High School choir sang the national anthem."

Source: http://www.enquirer.com/midday/09/09282004_News_mday_bush28.html

So what "respect for the office" does the Lakota school system show now for President Obama? None.

Laid side by side, what message do these two decisions convey to students?

1. That one President is worthy of respect and another is not. This is clearly partisan, having nothing to do with "the office".

2. There is nothing wrong with being deceitful about what you are doing and why you do it.

Is this really the message we should be sending to our children?

Talk about a double standard. It just can't get much more blatant than that. Just who is indoctrinating who? This is not what our country is about.

Caleb Faux
Executive Director
Hamilton County Democratic Party
6109 Webbland Place
Cincinnati, OH 45213-1405
513.421.0495
www.hamiltoncountydems.org

Since having their elected leaders tossed out in the elections of 2006 and 2008, some conservative and libertarian Americans have started to emulate the people of the two countries the US recently invaded: Iraq and Afghanistan.

Certainly, it's understandable that some would tend to idolize those who they see daily on television and begin to copy some of their more entertaining mannerisms. Just like movie stars can start fashion trends, these celebrities of the 24-hour news channels seem to be influencing the social behavior of the political minority here in the US.

Let's take a look at a few examples:

On the left, we see an angry mob of al-Qaeda (or perhaps Taliban) expressing their outrage (likely at something the US has done or not done). On the right, we see some health care town hall attendees behaving in a similar manner. One key difference: American conservatives encourage women to participate in these demonstrations, too. Also, Americans prefer to hold their protests indoors, especially during the warm summer months.

Here, on the left, we see some douchebags burning former President Bush and former Secretary-of-State Rice in effigy. On the right, we see a conservative copycat douchebag from the Maryland suburbs with an effigy of his congressman. At first blush, they appear to represent almost identical positions: advocating murder of an elected official is universal, right? Not so fast...notice that in the Middle East, politicians should be burned, whereas it's preferable to hang them in the US.

Finally, on the left, we see your average, everyday Taliban member attending a meeting to discuss an important social issue. On the right, we see a libertarian doing the same thing. Again, there's just one key difference: while the Taliban carries a rifle to symbolize his group's hegemony, the assault-rifle-toting American is simply making a thinly veiled threat against the President of the United States.

So, are these just superficial resemblances to celebrities on TV, akin to hipster jeans or belly button jewelry? Or, are they a deeper indication that some conservative and libertarian Americans have truly bought into the social lifestyle advocated by their Middle Eastern counterparts? It's too soon to tell for sure, but it's definitely a trend worth watching.

I just read this fascinating article, "Is the U.S. on the Brink of Fascism?" by Sara Robinson.

In it, she compares recent events in the US to an academic's historical 5-step process by which nations fall into fascism.

By her reckoning, we're in stage 3 and moving towards stage 4.

America's conservative elites have openly thrown in with the country's legions of discontented far right thugs. They have explicitly deputized them and empowered them to act as their enforcement arm on America's streets, sanctioning the physical harassment and intimidation of workers, liberals, and public officials who won't do their political or economic bidding.

And she comes to some very scary conclusions.

It's so easy right now to look at the melee on the right and discount it as pure political theater of the most absurdly ridiculous kind. It's a freaking puppet show. These people can't be serious. Sure, they're angry -- but they're also a minority, out of power and reduced to throwing tantrums. Grown-ups need to worry about them about as much as you'd worry about a furious five-year-old threatening to hold her breath until she turned blue.

Unfortunately, all the noise and bluster actually obscures the danger. These people are as serious as a lynch mob, and have already taken the first steps toward becoming one. And they're going to walk taller and louder and prouder now that their bumbling efforts at civil disobedience are being committed with the full sanction and support of the country's most powerful people, who are cynically using them in a last-ditch effort to save their own places of profit and prestige.

We've arrived. We are now parked on the exact spot where our best experts tell us full-blown fascism is born. Every day that the conservatives in Congress, the right-wing talking heads, and their noisy minions are allowed to hold up our ability to govern the country is another day we're slowly creeping across the final line beyond which, history tells us, no country has ever been able to return.

Please, read the entire article...it's 10 minutes well spent.

There are many reasons to support the plan to bring streetcars back to Cincinnati, such as renewed development and financial investment in downtown, reduced crime, increased visitorship, environmental health, and so on. A good introduction to the proposal is in this whitepaper produced by the UC Economics Center (PDF).

Comparatively, there are relatively few reasons not to support it, with the primary ones being ignorance of the facts combined with fear of change.

Hopefully, if the matter does come to a vote, concerned citizens will educate themselves before casting their ballots.

According to a report by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, most Americans change their faith at some point in their lives, and many do so more than once.

More than half of American adults have changed religion in their lives, a huge new survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found. And there is no discernible pattern to the change, just "a free for all," one of the lead researchers told CNN.

"You're seeing the free market at work," said Gregory Smith, a research fellow at the Pew Forum. "If people are dissatisfied, they will leave. And if they see something they like better, they will join it."

Many people switch because they move to a new community, and others because they marry someone of a different faith, he said.

Some don't like their ministers or pastors; some like the pastor at another church better.

And many people list more than one reason for changing, Smith said.

"The reasons people change religions are as diverse as the religious landscape itself," he told CNN by phone.

Read full story (CNN.com)

So if religion is something most people choose to engage in, and their religion isn't forced upon them, but rather freely decided upon in a "free market" environment, why is religion protected from discrimination along with race, color, gender, and national origin by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Those protected attributes other than religion are inherent and impossible, if not exceptionally difficult, to change. One's race, color, and national origin are set for life; one's gender is genetically mandated at birth, although outward manifestations can be altered through radical surgery and hormone treatment.

But religion is something completely different. No one is born a religion and unable to change it during their lifetime. Even if that statement doesn't pass one's "common sense" test, the Pew study's statistics show it clearly to be true. Religion, or, more specifically, one's religious affiliation is a conscious choice that everyone is free to make and change at any time.

Some individual attributes that employers can legally discriminate against and fire (or not hire) an individual based on include the employee's clothing, their education level, and their willingness to travel, just as a few examples. It's relatively easy to see why an employer should be able to let an employee go, or not hire someone in the first place, if the employee chooses to wear inappropriate attire, doesn't have the correct education, or declines to travel for a job that requires it.

If individuals can, and do, choose their religious affiliations and change them at will, why do we protect religion when other individual attributes, such as what we wear, what we know, and how far away from home we prefer to go, are not protected? Is what we believe so different from these when they can all be changed at will? Logically, it doesn't seem so.

In some sense, it almost appears as if religion is getting special treatment as the only choice given protection from discrimination.

But why should it matter what religious affiliation someone has when considering or retaining them as an employee? Because sometimes it makes a difference in how well, or even if, the employee fulfills his job responsibilities.

Case in point: healthcare workers whose religious beliefs trump their medical training when making decisions that can affect the health of their patients (e.g., this article in the Detroit News).

Suppose someone is hired as a pharmacist and, at the time of hiring, has no qualms about fulfilling prescriptions for emergency contraceptives. A short while later, he switches religions to one that opposes this practice and decides that he can no longer fulfill that responsibility.

I am no lawyer, but under the Equal Rights Act, I would suspect the pharmacist's employer would have a difficult time replacing him with someone who would fill the script.

But why is this situation different than when an employee decides that he doesn't want to travel any more, or is tired of wearing neckties, or fails to complete a mandatory educational requirement? All of these would be sufficient reason to fire the employee, as travel, dress, and education aren't protected attributes.

If I can choose my religion just as I choose what to wear, why is one protected and the other is not? Why are some of our choices permitted to be inspected and acted upon by employers while others are not? This is logically inconsistent, which seems like a significant chink in the armor of an otherwise good law.

Ultimately, one's choice of religion seems much more similar to one's other choices in life (e.g., where to live, what to wear, how much and what kind of education to get, etc.) than it is to one's personal attributes that cannot be changed (e.g., race, ethnicity, origin, and gender).

It is likely that those with strong religious beliefs will make claims that what one believes should be protected from discrimination. Fine...what about beliefs regarding clothing? One might believe that God says "life is sacred" just as someone might believe that ties are uncomfortable, yet only one of these beliefs can be acted upon by an employer.

In reading the above, some might accuse me of trivializing religion. Certainly not -- I would very much like to have my choice of clothing also be off-limits when discussing job security with my employer -- but a belief is a belief, and beliefs are not the same as permanent, unchangeable attributes that define who we are and for which we had no choice.

One can change one's religious convictions and affiliations; one cannot readily change one's race, color, sex, or national origin. So, again, why are all of these granted equal protection? So far, I fail to see a compelling reason.

I'm losing a battle, the battle to keep my personal online self separated from my work/professional online self. And losing that battle has some potentially serious consequences.

In the 15 or so years I've been "on the web," I've tried to maintain a division between my personal life and my professional life. The reason is pretty simple: some of the things I might say or do with friends and family might be incompatible with expectations for my behavior as whatever kind of professional I'm employed as at the time.

I'm not talking anything scandalous...no KKK activities, secret families, or felony indictments...but statements and actions that might seem totally innocuous in one context and to one person (e.g., joking with an old friend) might seem out-of-place in another context to a different person (e.g., to a student or client).

And that division is slowly eroding...slipping away as my ability to keep one "life" separate from the other disintegrates. Some of my work colleagues and students have started following me on Twitter and friending me on Facebook (hi, folks!), places that I've never intended to engage anyone from work (with, perhaps, a few exceptions). More confounding is LinkedIn, on which I have a complete cross-section of associations from every corner of my personal and professional lives.

Many of those connections, and the overall intermixing of my personae, are, admittedly, my own fault. When I initially set up Facebook, I accidentally let it troll through my Gmail addressbook and send out automatic invitations. Newbie mistake. On Twitter, my profile is open, meaning anyone can follow me. And, I also have this tendency to only use my real name online; I never felt comfortable hiding behind a quasi-anonymous pseudonym or fake profile. All considered, I really only have myself to blame for allowing the online division between my personal self and my work self to blur.

So what does this mean? I think it means that my online "self" will have to be much more thoughtful and considerate of the implications, for every facet of my life, of my actions online. A bawdy joke told in a small, yet public, mailing list could easily find its way to my boss' desk. A thoughtless, or even mean-spirited, comment could ultimately offend a co-worker. These unintended consequences are like civilian casualties in a war; collateral damage from acting thoughtlessly in a casual space that is, ultimately, connected in a very real sense to one's professional environment.

Perhaps this is precisely what all those Gen-Y kids were learning when their Facebook profiles and Myspace pages were being used by potential employers as reasons to not hire them; 27 photos of you drunk off your butt at a fraternity party doesn't tend to impress the HR department very much.

So, the bottom line is this, what I'm calling my Golden Rule for the digital era:

If I treat every interaction, whether online or face-to-face, as if it were happening in person, I'm sure there would be times I would handle it differently. Is it better to have less freedom to do as my basest reactionary self wants, less consideration for the human on the other end of the bitpipe? No, I think society has always relied on our ability to reign in that temptation. And the Internet changes nothing in that regard, except, perhaps, to give us more opportunities to screw up.

So, now, going forward, the real test is seeing if I can live by that rule of mine. Wish me luck!

It's been about 8 months since our first Hot/Not List, so I thought I'd post an updated one:

HOT

• Logitech Squeezebox - After Logitech's acquisition of Slim Devices, a lot of fans of the smaller company's products were concerned that innovation would halt and corporate fossilization would set in, as happens in so many of these cases. Well, it couldn't be further from the truth. Slim's innovative products are benefiting from Logitech's branding and distribution muscle and the combined firm is churning out really impressive audio streaming devices. Our home audio ecosystem now consists of a Squeezebox Duet controller, two receivers, and a Boom; these three cover about 80% of the house and it's wonderful to have perfectly synced music streamed throughout without breaking the bank.
  
• Palm - The Pre smartphone was the buzz of CES and is still making strong headlines at MWC. Sprint may have a winner on its hands with this new device.
  
• Sprint - Coming off a really impressive turnaround regarding its customer service and anticipation of its 4G wireless network, Sprint could be poised for strong growth in the next few years.
  
• Aptera - So far, this innovative hypermileage boutique car-maker in California has avoided some of the pitfalls that its performance-oriented sibling Tesla Motors has made, and the 2e vehicle it should be shipping very soon looks like it could be a key evolutionary link in transforming the way we think about cars.
  
• Twitter - Easily the most addictive thing I've tried recently.
  
• Windows 7 - Sure, it's still in beta, but I am SO looking forward to its release. As much as I've panned Vista over the years, I think 7 will be a winner.
  

NOT

• Cloud-Based Contact Management - Even with Google's recent improvements to Gmail Contacts, there are no really excellent cloud-friendly contact management solutions available. The best I've found is ClearSync, and that isn't as widely compatible as most would like.
• Battery Technology - Seriously...scientists and engineers have been working on this for decades and we're still not fundamentally better than we were 20 years ago.
• Obese Netbooks - Almost by definition, a "netbook" should be incredibly lightweight. Why, then, are we seeing netbooks weighing over 3 lbs released to market??
• Winter - by definition. I am quite ready for Spring, thanks very much.
• Digital Transition Delay - We set the date for February 17th, and now Congress is pushing it back to June 12 for those stations that want extra time. Why? Delaying it doesn't solve anything and, in fact, actually increases the costs of the conversion and sows more consumer confusion. Clearly a lose-lose proposition.

CNN.com and Facebook have partnered to bring a unified live, social experience for the 2009 Inauguration of Barack Obama today. It's accessible to everyone; Facebook account not needed to view (but needed to comment).

It's a pretty cool collaboration...I expect the merging of live TV from established channels with social media functions to be a big theme of 2009.

Each year, we at GearBits post some predictions for the coming year. And then, in the interest of honesty, fairness, and self-deprecation, we take a look back to see how we did. Each of our predictions for 2008 are listed below, along with an update on what actually happened.

1) Blu-Ray Wins the Format War
Yep, I'm going to pick a winner and it's going to be Blu-Ray. The one-two punch of Warner Brothers's move to Blu-Ray exclusivity (from its Switzerland-like neutrality of supporting both formats) later in 2008 and Apple's announcement that BD will be the only HD format available in its products will cement HD DVD's demise. And none too soon. I don't really care which wins...just make it snappy so that prices on players and media can plummet, thanks.

As of now, the end of 2008, it seems like forever since Blu-Ray trounced HD DVD in the format war. But back in early January, it was anyone's guess. But then, on February 18th, Toshiba officially threw in the towel. Interestingly, the Warner Bros. move I thought would happen eventually was actually announced the day after I posted my predictions. Of course, Apple hasn't yet released any products with any form of HD optical drive, so that bit wasn't exactly spot on. And I'm still waiting for my $99 Blu-Ray player. But, overall, this prediction looks pretty solid.

2) Google's Android Shakes Up Phone Industry
For a while now, the cellphone industry has been fairly static. A few smartphone and mobile OS makers have generally tussled for market share, but the overall industry has been pretty evolutionary. Google's entry will prove to be a watershed moment, with open source finally making a big impact in the handheld space (and no, I don't consider the Zaurus to be a big deal...sorry). Actual handsets running Android will be announced, if not available, before the end of 2008.

Depending on your threshold for "shaking up" the phone industry, I think most people would agree that Android made quite a splash in 2008 when the HTC G1 was launched on T-Mobile in the US on September 23rd. And we've already heard of around a dozen hardware makers signed on to release Android handsets. While handset sales still pale in comparison to the iPhone, 2009 looks like it just might be the year of the Android.

3) Palm Supports Android
This is more of a hope than an actual prediction, as I just don't know whether the egos at Palm will let the company do the right thing and admit that their next-generation OS (which has been under development since 2004!) will be a viable contender against Android (which has essentially the same technical details but scads more developer support). But, if cooler, more rational heads prevail at Palm, they'll announce that they're plans will be to produce at least one Android-based product (probably to come out sometime in 2012 :-/ ).

Ouch...I couldn't have been more wrong. While I still think Palm would have been smart to advance their product refurbishment by a full year (maybe more) by going with Android instead of continuing to pursue Nova, the company stuck to its original, go-it-alone plans. We'll see how well that pans out in 2009.

4) Microsoft's HD Photo Replacement for JPEG Image Standard Goes Nowhere
I'm not saying it's a bad idea technically; I'm just saying that JPEG is so entrenched now that replacing it would be about as reasonable a thing to try as would be replacing MP3 with any of the multitudes of better formats. JPEG, like MP3, isn't great, but it's adequate (at least for consumers) and ubiquitous. We'll still be saving all our photos in JPG (and maybe RAW) at the end of 2008...and likely long after that.

JPEG XR, the official name of Microsoft's HD Photo format, has generated essentially zero traction in the camera industry. Part of that is Microsoft's less-than-swift transition of JPEG XR into its quasi-open licensing portfolio, a move that will have to happen for camera makers and developers to trust that they won't be bitten by huge licensing fees in the future if they move their products away from RAW to JPEG XR.

5) Subnotes Will Explode in Availability (and Maybe Popularity)
I've always been a fan of tiny, sub-3-pound laptops, but I think 2008 will see a huge number of these clamshell devices come out of every corner of the consumer electronics space. The Asus EeePC and the OLPC XO Laptop are two examples. While Microsoft had a good idea in its UMPC (Ultra-Mobile PC) concept, the hardware was just never executed all that well. Frankly, I think a 7" touchscreen for Windows is just too difficult. But, going with the traditional clamshell design and using cheaper and/or smaller technologies (e.g., flash memory instead of a HDD) will bring us a raft of interesting (and some good) designs at <$500 price points. Bring 'em on! And I think we'll start to see a lot more people toting these things along that traditionally avoided laptops for whatever reason (cost, weight, etc.).

Bingo. If the shelves at Best Buy and Circuit City are any indication, these "netbooks" (the now-favored term...at least by everyone except Psion) have multiplied faster than Tribbles on Cialis. One glance at the huuuge list of netbooks over at small-notebooks.com is enough evidence to suggest that this prediction was spot on.

6) The GPS War Heats Up
TomTom, Nokia, and Garmin will exchange hostile fire over the GPS market due to convuluted agreements regarding mapping data as well as market-share for hardware. Products will continue to decline in price and improve in functionality, and >50% of cellphones will have some form of GPS functionality available on them. I guess that's two predictions in one...oh well.

I'm going to give myself this one. While we haven't heard that much more about the complex licensing agreements involving the big three, you need only walk through a Staples, Radio Shack, or Target to see a vast assortment of portable GPS units now available for under $150, most even having text-to-speech and other advanced functions. That's in direct comparison to late last year, when it was difficult to find a decent unit for under $300.

7) DRM Hits Choppy Water
2007 saw some movement away from DRM (digital rights management), especially in the music industry, but I expect we'll see similar initiatives in all areas of media. DRM has been proven again and again to be little more than an expensive technological boondoggle, and the leading innovators at the consumer media interface (e.g., Apple, Amazon, and Google) will make some headway into reversing the trend of more encumbrance for our media. The RIAA and MPAA will continue to fight it...they know how to do nothing else...but economic results will start to demonstrate that DRM actually hurts profitability.

Nope...we didn't hear much consistent with my prediction. While some markets moved towards offering DRM-free downloads, most are still heavily laden. And the RIAA actually reversed its strategy and is now no longer suing everyone and their mother for alleged downloading. So that's two different ways I was off on this one. Just goes to show that there's no telling what the content owners are thinking.

8) Major Tech Stocks End 2008 Up Significantly
These are bound to be wrong, but what the heck...nobody pays me for stock tips. I think Apple will end 2008 at 235, Google will be at 960, and Microsoft will finish the year at 50. As for other stocks, iRobot will end up at either 46 or 12 (can you tell I'm a cynical shareholder?), IBM will show tepid growth to 112, and RIM, hurt by the continued weak US dollar and facing increasing competition, will struggle to match its 1-year high of 127.

Uh, no. While I doubt many saw the massive downturn in stocks coming, tech stocks are decidedly not even slightly better off than most. Let's see how my specific price predictions held up:
  • Apple (AAPL): Predicted = 235; Actual = 86.29
  • Google (GOOG): Predicted = 960; Actual = 303.11
  • Microsoft (MSFT): Predicted = 50; Actual = 19.34
  • iRobot (IRBT): Predicted = 46 or 12; Actual = 8.95
  • IBM (IBM): Predicted = 112; Actual = 83.55
  • Research in Motion (RIMM): Predicted = 127; Actual = 38.77
In summary, do not ask me to manage your stock portfolio...you would be better served by setting your money on fire, as then you could at least stay warm for a while.

9) I Buy a New Laptop and Am Disappointed
My Panasonic CF-W2 is now three-and-a-half-years-old and I'm starting to cringe every time I turn it on (my luck with hard drives makes me skeptical of many living past their 4th birthday). I've been looking at possible replacements (e.g., Toshiba R500, Panasonic W7, maybe the Lenovo IdeaPad U110 or the rumored Apple subnote) and so far every single one has some significant trade-offs. So, I expect I'll get one and it will turn out to be not significantly better than my aging Toughbook. You'd think in nearly four years that two grand would buy something markedly superior. We'll see...

Unfortunately, I was right on this. The Fujitsu LifeBook P8010 I ended up purchasing in February is a good laptop...don't get me wrong. It's just not a heads-and-shoulders better laptop than my ToughBook was, and that's what I was expecting given the nearly 4 years newer technology and the $2500 it cost. And, given that I've already had to send it in for a repair (the power button broke off), I'm guessing the durability won't even come close to that of the Panasonic (which I still use regularly around the house).

10) Major Changes in Automotive Industry Announced
While the car business makes actual change only very slowly, we'll see some huge announcements in 2008 that will fundamentally change the future of that industry. Things like record oil prices, an increasing attention to sustainable/green technology, and significant ownership changes will substantially change the competitive landscape. Make no mistake; Toyota will continue its ascent and eclipse GM as #1 car-maker in the world. But, we will see several major announcements that will start affecting actual consumers in 2009 and beyond.

While I didn't get the stock predictions exactly right (OK, not even close), I think it's safe to say that the US automotive industry has been shaken up with major changes during 2008. We saw record oil prices (check!), more attention to green tech (check!), and the bottom dropping out of US consumption didn't leave them anywhere to go except to the Congress for help. And Toyota did indeed become the biggest carmaker in the world in 2008, just as predicted. Let's hope the Volt truly is something special...for all our sakes.

So, there you have it: our final score is 7 winners and 3 losers. I'll take it. :-)

In a couple of days, I'll be posting GearBits' predictions for 2009, so make sure you come back and check those out, m'kay?

We get a lot of mail-order catalogs at our house. For whatever reason or past sin, our mailman comes bearing some catalog or another nearly every day. As an experiment, I decided to keep every single catalog we received between the day after Thanksgiving ("Black Friday") and Christmas to see just how many we get during this most joyous of holiday seasons.

And here's the resulting pile:

Yes, that's over 12" of catalogs...121 in total...

...weighing in at a mind-boggling 34 lbs!

This is absurd on several fronts. First, we have never ordered from probably 90% of these companies, and likely never will. Second, several companies sent us multiple copies of the same catalog on the same day. What purpose does that serve, other than to illustrate how bad your marketing department's data-mining efforts are? Third, we received at least five different catalogs from several firms in this one-month period; if the first four catalogs didn't catch our eye, believe me, it's unlikely we're even going to look at the fifth.

In this age of heightened awareness towards ecological and energy concerns, it seems ridiculous that such wasteful physical marketing efforts would not only be tolerated, but be encouraged by discounted postal rates for materials like this. If it cost these companies the same per pound to ship these as it does for you and I to ship something, I guarantee you we'd see fewer of them in our mailboxes.

Imagine the make-up sex.

To mix a metaphor or two, I'm going out on a limb and sticking my stake in the dirt with a firm prediction of the outcome of the upcoming Presidential election.

Final popular vote totals: Obama 51.4%, McCain 46.7%

Final electoral vote totals: Obama 311, McCain 227

In the weeks running up to the 2004 presidential election, my yard sign was often pilfered and/or destroyed. After the 4th time, I had had enough, and rigged up a fairly simple alarm to help protect my sign. This post documents how to do it in case you're facing your own First Amendment-hating neighborhood antagonists.

What You'll Need
   • Duct tape
   • A wire hanger
   • Fishing line (string or twine can also be used)
   • A personal alarm (more on this below)

The "personal alarm" mentioned above is one of those little keychain fobs that emits a loud, piercing sound when you pull the pin out (see photo below). I got mine, a Nexxtech brand (?), at Circuit City for about $5, but they're pretty easy to find online as well as in retail stores. A cheap alternative to buying one is to find one of the several custom screenprinters who sell these and request a sample unit; many companies will send you one for free in hopes that you'll order a few hundred.

Click the "Continue reading" link for complete instructions and photos.

Barack Obama came to Cincinnati on Thursday, October 9th and visited one of our city's most attractive places...Ault Park. On an immaculate Fall day, a crowd of roughly 15,000 people waited, some over 4 hours, to hear this future US President speak. Below are some of the nearly 400 photographs I took at the event.

A Cincinnati Enquirer story gives more details about the rally.

A crowd of about 15,000 on hand.

Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland revs up the crowd.

Obama takes the stage.

I'd like to propose two changes to some common election-related practices that could, possibly, improve our ability to elect credible, wise, honest, and intelligent leaders. Or, at least, to elect the best people we have to choose from.

#1) Knowledge-Weighted Voting

The more radical of the two suggestions is to weight each voter's vote based on that voter's mastery of important, relevant knowledge. Why is it that a vote cast by someone who is utterly ignorant of any and all facts related to the candidates, offices, and issues counts as much as a vote cast by someone who is highly informed about the issues and candidates and engaged in the voting process? Shouldn't we reward a citizen who takes voting seriously enough to understand what's being voted on, or the electoral process in general, with greater influence on the outcome?

The obvious objection to this violation of "one person, one vote" is that it could possibly deny someone a say altogether. Well, we already do that. In all states, children cannot vote. Why not? The feeling is that children (a) are unable to fully grasp the issues, and/or (b) are easily influenced by their parents. Even though an adult were to fit these same criteria (not able, or willing, to fully grasp the issues, and easily influenced by a spouse, parent, or child), that adult would still get to cast a full ballot. So I do not see where the rationale makes particular sense in denying suffrage to children.

Another obvious objection to this violation is that it penalizes those of low intelligence, who may not be able to understand the questions. If the voter isn't able to understand the questions, he is unlikely to be able to understand the issues on the ballot. And someone who is voting without a reasonable understanding is not contributing to the validity of the election's results. Moreover, how can we justify giving a mentally retarded adult the right to vote when a highly intelligent, highly informed 15-year-old is not?

One way to implement this idea would be to add a simple quiz to the ballot. By asking the voter to take a quick, 10-question quiz, made up of a random set of questions from a large pool, the system could then ascertain what weight should be applied to that voter's ballot. If, for example, the voter got 9 out of 10 questions correct, his vote would count 0.9 of a full vote towards each candidate/issue he voted on.

Obviously, we would want everyone to cast a fully weighted ballot. To that end, we would hand out voter education pamphlets with all the questions and answers contained therein. In effect, we are copying the written testing system we currently have to evaluate an individual's readiness to drive a car and applying it to evaluate an individual's readiness to cast a ballot.

#2) Change the Debate Format

Watching the "town hall-style" Presidential debate on TV last night, I was struck by how rigid the rules were in denying either party to correct a mischaracterization (or outright lie) told by his opponent. I would suggest that all future debates have a team of fact-checkers watching the debate and examining the truthfulness of the candidates' statements when they're said.

If a statement is made where more than one or two fact-checkers find reason to question the statement's consistency with facts, then the opponent is automatically given a 1-minute "final word" period to correct the misstatement. Consider this the "video review" of calls used in pro football, but for debates.

If candidates know that they will cede the final word to their opponent every time they tell a lie (or stretch the truth beyond reason), I believe the candidates will reduce their tendency to deviate from speaking honestly...at least to a degree.

The nice thing about this proposal, in my opinion, is that it could be implemented immediately. Not only could the fact-checkers be recruited and managed online (thanks to instant messaging and microblogging technologies), those watching at home could also participate via 2-way cable systems and/or text messaging. Participatory debates with instant fact-checking would be an interesting experiment, I think.

The elections of 2010 and 2012 will feature perhaps the most egregious example of party-before-country politicking we've seen in modern times.

Today, the $700 billion bailout legislation (hereafter referred to as the Mother of All Bailouts, or MOAB) was announced. It was clearly a compromise that neither side -- the Bush legislature and the Democratic Congressional leadership -- felt any pride in. It was, as several said, a sad day in American history.

But, I think we all expect the legislation to be passed tomorrow on party lines and signed by Bush. The Republicans will vote "no" for many reasons: to distance themselves from Bush, as an attempt to recapture the mantle of "the party of economic responsibility," and to attain some semblance of moral outrage over what is effectively a disaster of their own making.

The economy will feel the aftershocks of this financial earthquake for many years, perhaps decades. At best, our economy will be "soft." At worst, well, I hope everyone has been stockpiling potable water (j/k).

For the next few, or several, years, there will still be near-record unemployment, a weak dollar, and tepid economic growth for the US.

What I expect to see in the elections of 2010, and then again in 2012, is Republicans running on a campaign of fiscal conservatism to combat the "soft" (or whatever) economy while blaming it squarely on the Democratic Congress that passed this legislation. They will blame Barack Obama, the current President (prediction), and the Congress, which will continue to be controlled by Democrats, for everything economic.

This political amnesia will be especially disgusting to those of us who have supported some form of MOAB only as an action of last resort...a necessary evil. We have realized that this bailout, while a necessity, is at best an embarrassment and at worst an ineffective attempt to buy our way out of a period of significant decline.

When Republicans go up for re-election (or even first-time election, as there will likely be MANY of them), they will proclaim that they are running for the position to unseat Democrats responsible for the poor economy.

Today, it seems impossible that we would not remember exactly HOW and WHY this situation came to be. But, in two, or four, years, when a whole slew of new challenges have come into view, it will be easier for the Republicans to claim that they were merely victims in this whole mess.

It is then that we must shout louder than ever the truth that we all know today: This situation was caused by a lack of oversight, initiated by a Republican-controlled economic agenda, and exacerbated by unfounded faith in market forces.

Please remember this...it will matter.

Update: The House did not pass the legislation on 9/29, so we'll have to see what happens next. I get this weird feeling like we're playing economic chicken on a cliff-side road with no guard rails.

Please help me help Barack Obama and Joe Biden lead this country to more prosperous and more peaceful days ahead. Click the banner below to make a donation today.

September 11, 2001 was a bad day all around. Planes being flown into two iconic buildings, as well as the Pentagon and the ground, killed just less than 3,000 people. That event has resulted in a massive sociopolitical change in the United States, a change many argue is largely for the worse. But let's look at 9/11 in the context of other recent events:

September 11, 2001 = 2,998 killed ^cite
2008 Sichuan, China Earthquake = 70,000+ killed ^cite
2004 Boxing Day Tsunami = 230,000 killed ^cite

Compared to these two more recent disasters, 9/11 looks pretty tame in terms of casualties.

Some will counter "but 9/11 happened to people in MY country." Fine...let's take a look at a "disaster" on the order of 9/11 that happens every week in the United States.

During 2007, 45.7 million Americans, or roughly 15% of the population, went without health insurance at some point. ^{cite, cite}

Last year, approximately 75,000 died due to lack of care that would have been prevented had they had insurance. ^cite That number is expected to rise in 2008.

So, while we mourn the loss of life associated with 9/11, we should also realize that the fact that the US is the only industrialized country to not offer health coverage for 100% of its citizens results in more than 20 times as many deaths every year as that one event. The US could end up spending $2.4 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or roughly $8,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. ^cite

Are we really better off spending that money on a "war on terror" than we would be investing it in a "war on disease?" The numbers seem to suggest that we are not.

John McCain turns 72 today...happy birthday!

President George W. Bush joins Arizona Senator John McCain in a small celebration of McCain's 69th birthday Monday, Aug. 29, 2005, after the President's arrival at Luke Air Force Base near Phoenix. White House photo by Paul Morse

August 29th, 2005...why does that date ring a bell?

Oh, that's right...that was the day Hurricane Katrina made landfall in New Orleans as a Category 3 storm. After watching this deadly, disastrous storm for more than 4 days, and knowing that it was about to hit Southeast Louisiana, Bush and McCain chose to have cake on the tarmac and have their photos taken.

So, John McCain, what do you have planned for this year? Watching reruns of the Democratic National Convention on TV, perhaps?

Update: Nope, John hoped he would make us all forget his birthday by announcing his VP pick.

I have a soft spot for well-crafted analyses, and Phil Vogels has just assembled one I think anyone interested in the 2008 election will want to read:

A Critical Examination Of The Experience Question (August 11, 2008)

There has been much attention focused on the difference in age and, therefore, experience in politics between Barack Obama and John McCain. The Republicans would like to make it a keystone of their strategy. But this study doesn't seem to support that.

In fact, it suggests that the best presidents often have less political experience than average before being elected president. Using data regarding state and federal elected service, along with presidential effectiveness ratings from a 2000 Wall Street Journal Historians poll, Vogels makes some interesting observations:

What jumps out, beyond that having more political experience is not an indicator of a better president, is that the top tier of experienced presidents are mediocre to bad, with the exception of Jefferson, a Founding Father. In fact, the sweet spot appears to be in the 10 to 21 range, which includes six of the top ten presidents.

And then considering just federal experience:

large amounts of federal political experience do not seem to be a good thing (except for Jefferson). The sweet spot here is again lower down the experience ladder: six of the top ten had between 1 and 11 years of experience, although really having more than six starts to get risky. It is also clear that it is a risk to have no federal political experience (think about the beginning of Bill Clinton's term as he struggled to work in the federal bureaucracy).

And then summarizing the analysis, which suggests that there's a sweet spot of experience in the 1-6 years range for federal service and 4-10 years for state service:

It is extremely important to place all of this in the proper context. This emphatically does not mean that Obama will be a good president and McCain will not. What it does mean is that the whole experience argument is a complete crock. Levels of political experience do not equate to presidential success. Great presidents have had little to no political experience (much less than Obama has). Great presidents have had much more political experience than Obama and close to the amount McCain has, well, just Jefferson, but there still is a historical precedent. Terrible presidents have had very similar levels of political experience to Obama and terrible presidents have had very similar levels of political experience to McCain.

So, while the purposely uninformed and perpetually ignorant will likely buy the argument that less experience = less qualified, anyone willing to take five minutes and read Vogel's article will come away with what I think is the important point: the experience difference is not an important factor when deciding between the two candidates.

Today's headline from CNN is "Poll: Race for White House tied".

It's been a lot of work to bring John McCain back from irrelevant, but for American mainstream media, no task is too large when profitability is on the line.

So, prepare to see lots and lots of "the race is too close to call" between now and November; the media wouldn't have it any other way.

According to McCain's campaign (via CNN):

Barack Obama has added his "harshest critic" to the Democratic presidential ticket...

About 150 or so years ago, President Lincoln did the unheard of and appointed some of his fiercest rivals to important cabinet positions. This basically proved to be an excellent strategy, since not only were these some of the best and brightest in his party at the time, their willingness to point out Lincoln's faults and the weaknesses of his plans meant that his policies were heavily vetted even before leaving the White House.

Joe Biden's experience, intelligence, and willingness to work hard will be valuable assets both during the election and during Obama's presidency.

As a companion piece to Jessica Hagy's Indexed perspective on the election...

I was reading a news story about a stolen van, chased by cop cars, sped down a street only to find it closed by police due to an earlier hit-and-run at that location. The van veered onto a side street and the criminal was later captured.

The gem in this otherwise unnoteworthy story was one insightful reader's rather pithy comment:

"You know it's bad when crime scenes start to overlap each other."

Sometimes we (alright, I) take politics a bit too seriously. So, let's make use of the upcoming Democratic and Republican conventions as the political theater/entertainment they truly are.

I've crafted up some BUZZWORD BINGO card templates for each convention. They're available as an Excel spreadsheet because they have some interesting functionality. Each sheet can automatically generate over 16 million different cards through some randomized filling in of the buzzwords.

 

To use, just open up the file (download below) and switch to the appropriate worksheet (tabs at the bottom: DNC = Democratic convention, RNC = Republican convention). Hit the F9 key a few times until you see a card you like and print it. Hit F9 a few more times to generate a new card, print, and repeat until you have enough for your players.

While watching the convention, any member of the party speaking in official capacity is fair game, so make sure to stay tuned between the speeches as well. Standard Bingo rules apply.

Download here: 2008_convention_bingo.xls (Microsoft Excel 1997-2003 format)

Enjoy!

McCain and the Republican talking heads have been, shall we say, critical of Obama's suggestion that keeping tires optimally inflated and getting our cars properly tuned up would save more oil than offshore drilling would produce. But guess what...they're wrong!

The Tire-Gauge Solution: No Joke

How out of touch is Barack Obama? He's so out of touch that he suggested that if all Americans inflated their tires properly and took their cars for regular tune-ups, they could save as much oil as new offshore drilling would produce. Gleeful Republicans have made this their daily talking point, Rush Limbaugh is having a field day, and the Republican National Committee is sending tire gauges labeled "Barack Obama's Energy Plan" to Washington reporters.

But who's really out of touch? The Bush administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 barrels per day by 2030. We use about 20 million barrels per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage by 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone else did, we could reduce demand several percentage points immediately. In other words: Obama is right.

Read the whole story (Time.com)

And yet, being wrong doesn't seem to keep them from saying it over and over again.

It's unfortunate, but not unexpected, that politicians seem much more interested in managing perceptions than dealing with truths.

Maybe I'm a little slow to realize this, but the major and traditional news media need the presidential race, actually political competition in general, to be excruciatingly close.

I don't believe most general news outlets are significantly biased (although there are some disturbing exceptions), but one thing is becoming increasingly clear: the media will work very hard to ensure that the contest is a close one. They will not settle for an easy victory. Rather, they will work to ensure that the underdog gets better, and more, coverage than the front-runner.

They do so for simple economic reasons. Media is a business. They rely on syndication of their content and advertising as their primary sources of revenue. If the contest is not close, people lose interest in the race and there is less consumption of stories about the race. This hinders syndication revenue and reduces the opportunity to sell ad space associated with those stories that people would otherwise read.

Additionally, and perhaps more significantly, the media (which mostly include both news sources and general distribution networks) sell tremendous amounts of ad space to the candidates, parties, and third parties with an interest in the outcome of the race. Much of that ad revenue would be lost if the race were considered to be a highly lopsided affair.

Without a competitive race, the media (news production and distribution networks) find themselves in a less desirable position. Thus, there is huge motivation for them to even up the race. Even if there is no official mandate from management to bias reporting, we should expect a slight shift (both in the type and amount of content) to favor the less-favorable candidate.

As I finished that last paragraph, a thought ran through my head: "No one will believe me without data." So I Googled around a bit and found a rather timely report:

Report on media bias that found a John McCain slant sparks fierce debate

A war of words over media bias in the presidential race has become, at least at the moment, at least as fierce as the debate between the candidates themselves.

An "On the Media" column Sunday in the L.A. Times on a new study concluding that, since early June, Barack Obama has drawn tougher network television coverage than John McCain, met with a predictable response -- applause from the left and skepticism from the right.

Read the entire story (LA Times)

So, I guess there may be a bit of empirical evidence to support what seems like an obvious conflict-of-interest in our political reporting industry. Given the power the media has to influence polls, perhaps it's time that some of McCain's own ideas, such as the removal of private money in campaign finances, gets reconsidered. Except now, maybe we should consider reporting on the matter to be an in-kind contribution. Since we can't control political speech, it makes one wonder if there's any way out of this Catch-22. Certainly something to think about.

In this CNN story -- Poll: Most Americans want offshore drilling -- there are two things I find incredibly troubling.

First, is this quote:

Most Americans favor an increase in offshore oil drilling but the public is split over whether or not it would result in lower gas prices in the next year, according to a just-released CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll. (emphasis mine)

It is a cold, indisputable fact that initiating offshore oil drilling today would have no impact on gas prices for several years, certainly not in the next 12 months. Nobody who knows anything about the industry would claim otherwise.

The second thing I find troubling is that this fact was even considered to be something that should appear on a poll. Polls are meant to discern sentiments, not uncover core understanding and comprehension of the facts at hand.

It made me wonder why don't we poll people on some other things, like scientific constants: "Do you believe gravitational acceleration on Earth is approximately (a) 8 m/sec/sec, (b) 9.8 m/sec/sec, or (c) 12 m/sec/sec?"

Or historical facts: "Which country do you feel was more directly responsible for the American Revolution: England or Mexico?"

If the oil poll was intended merely to demonstrate how little the public knows about the topic, it is clearly successful.

If, however, it was supposed to influence policy-makers, it failed miserably to show that any general public will on the matter is based upon anything other than a short-term, myopic desire for lower gas prices regardless of the long-term costs incurred.

Unfortunately, that's neither journalism nor science. In fact, I'm not really sure what it should be called other than a waste of time and effort.

Well, OK, it's not really CNN doing the fact-checking, but rather reporting on what the actual fact-checkers (i.e., FactCheck.org and PolitiFact) have found out.

Watch this: Reality-Checking McCain, Obama (CNN.com)

Hey, it's a start.

Some good entries...and some not so good...and some downright awful.

The Back-of-the-Envelope Design Contest from the Chronicle of Higher Education

A screwball Senator is proposing a national speed limit to save gas.

That's a bizarre suggestion for this country, which is infamous for its willingness to just let market forces work things out.

No, instead, we should just tax the heck out of gasoline and let people decide how fast they can afford to go...if they can afford to go at all.

Or better yet, let's take those tax revenues and actually invest in public transportation infrastructure. If we also reward good local development decisions, people might not require a car for 99.99% of their trips. And that would be the best situation by far.

BTW, here's a nifty Department of Energy report from April, 2008 on gasoline usage trends chock-a-block full of graphs, charts, and other statistical goodness. Enjoy!

Apparently, Fox News is dead set upon further distancing itself from all "truthiness." According to the Silicon Alley Insider, it has begun doctoring photos to make people it doesn't like appear uglier, stranger, and unlikable.

Here's an example:

So they removed some of his hair, stretched his head, gave him black circles under his eyes, and yellowed his teeth.

Sheesh...and to think there are still people who believe Fox News is a legitimate journalistic endeavor.

Read the complete story here. (alleyinsider.com)

While I'm not into reality TV shows or paparazzi-style reporting, it is tremendously refreshing to see a political candidate living his life...or, rather, living that part of his life he seems to share so many of the rest of us.

Watch this short video on CNN about the Obamas at their daughter's soccer game and I think you'll agree they seem more like your typical American family than nearly any other major politician in recent memory.

Time.com has positively deviated from the typical "gas prices are awful, aren't they?" approach most journalists take when writing about the fuel situation. Instead of adding to the incessant yammering about how life is going down the crapper because of $4 gas, they decide to highlight 10 positives that might come about because of it:

1. Globalized jobs return home
   
2. Sprawl stalls
   
3. 4-day work weeks
   
4. Less pollution
   
5. More frugal use of transportation
   
6. Fewer traffic deaths
   
7. Cheaper car insurance
   
8. Less traffic
   
9. More cops out of their cars
   
10. Less obesity

Now, I'm not confident all these will happen just because of high gas prices, but you have to give them a nod for at least trying to remind us that some good will likely come out of this.

Read the whole story here.

Mitch, seeing my Hot/Not list from yesterday, compiled his own, so here it is:

HOT

• iPod Touch - I tried the Archos 605 Wi-Fi first and its mediocrity makes the Touch that much more delightful. I really love well done user interfaces and this one is first rate. My only complaint is its picky eating habits when it comes to video formats.
  
• iMac - I waited longer than any other tech purchase to finally go with Apple's all-in-one desktop PC. I opted for the top of the line 3.06 GHz 24" model and have been completely blown away by it. So far I have found no flaws. It is stunning.
  
• High Gas Prices - Innovation rocks and if it takes $5/gallon gasoline to get us out of this oil addiction then I'm more than willing to pay my dues. Fewer SUVs and pickups, electric cars, solar energy, alternative fuels, more big butts on bicycles, less traffic congestion; I'm all for it. Let's drop our consumption by half and let OPEC drink their devalued crude.
  
• Synology - A NAS will soon be as ubiquitous on a home network as the router is today. The clever, feature-filled offerings from Synology are the best of the breed. I'll have a DS508 please!
  
• Subaru - Totally agree with Craig here. I've been
  in Imprezas now going on six years and I still feel like I'm cheating when I share the road with normal cars. Scoobys are fabulous.
  
• Ken Follett's Historical Novels - "The Pillars of the Earth" and "World Without End" are two of my favorite books of all time and I just took them in this Spring. I listened to both on my iPod (over 40 hours each) after downloading them from Audible and they made a month of 1000 mile weekly commutes totally enjoyable. Masterful stuff.
  
• CrossFit - I was in good shape 20 years ago and at 44 I can wipe the floor with my 24 year old self (if that was possible). I've been CrossFitting for almost a year now and some of the things I can do now would have seemed outlandish back then.

NOT

• General Motors - If you Google dinosaur, out of touch, lethargic, and unimaginative you should pull up GM's home page. I used to be a fan, but they have been disappointing me for 25 years now and don't seem to be planning any big changes. The sooner they finish themselves off, the better off we'll be.
  
• Labor Unions - Working in the industrial world I cross paths with unions
  of all sorts way more than I would like. I completely understand why our manufacturing sector is fleeing to other countries. I have never seen such a lazy, selfish, destructive, regressive bunch of people in my life. They can't all be like that, but the ones I've met surely are.
  
• Sheeple-Filled Corporate IT Departments - My 26,000 strong corporation is going to switch to Vista because they don't want to be left with no anti-virus support for their XP platform. Goodbye nice warm frying pan and hello fire.
  
• Cable/Satellite TV - I'm SO tired of paying $80 a month for a bunch of
  garbage that I would never watch even if I had the time. It won't be long until I cut that cord and start rolling my own TV. If I could just decide which way I want to do it!
  
• Global Markets - I realize that even the lowliest trader in/on most investment banks/trading floors/commodities exchanges is smarter than I am, but I would really love to see them use those brains rather than run with every emotion that riffles through the world markets. Do investors even pay attention to P/E ratios or supply and demand or is it all about what the hot analyst is saying or the sheeple are doing?

It's hard being a visionary; nobody knows you're right until well after you did, and by then it may be too late.

Take Dean Kamen, for example. Inventor of over 27.3 million different gizmos, his much-maligned Segway was supposed to redefine how we think of cities.

It didn't. Not even close.

Now, more than seven years after its debut, they're still quite rare.

Well, they're going to be a little less rare, at least in one Ohio town. Hamilton has bought several Segways for its police force to patrol the streets in...er, on...whichever.

My question is this: if Hamilton wanted to buy something for its officers to use that reduced energy costs, why not just buy them bicycles? Five grand will get you a really nice mountain bike. Or three.

Eugenio just read one of Clay Shirky's recent articles, Gin, Television, and Social Surplus, and said it reminded him of a piece I posted here a little over three years ago:

The Great Decision: Consume or Produce
January 29, 2005

Every time I sit down at a PC and every time I walk into my office at work, I'm struck with a fundamental decision: consume or produce.

I'm talking about information. Any minute can be reasonably and justifiably spent either consuming information, such as reading research papers, news sites, emails, blogs, etc., or producing new information, such as writing my own papers, putting up blog entries, leaving comments on blogs (hint, hint), composing an email, and so on.

Some people are very content to be primarily, if not entirely, consumers. They feel little or no need to share their knowledege, opinions, and thoughts with others. Some are more biased in the opposite direction, churning out an unending stream of content. ...

Read the entire post

What's particularly serendipitous about Eugenio's note is that I recently signed up for Twitter and have been trying to figure out it can be the most useful as a communication tool. Twitter, as you likely know, is much more about production than consumption -- it makes creating and distributing tiny bits of information almost frictionless, thereby further increasing the load on us as consumers.

This is still an issue I struggle with every day. I doubt I'll ever resolve it.

If Florida gets the Christian license plates that some lawmakers there have proposed, this should be an equally justifiable plate option for Sunshine State residents:

Pundits figured it would take gas at $4/gallon to curb driving. Looks like they were about right, but with the overall economy in recession, it only took $3.50/gallon or so to get things started. BusinessWeek has a good article on it.

This story on InsideHigherEd.com describes the crusade that Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, is directing towards the scourge of industry-sponsored research. Apparently, Mr. Grassley believes scientists/physicians shouldn't accept money from companies related to whatever they're studying.

Last August, in advocating for a national reporting system of drug company payments to doctors to help ensure that patients know about potential conflicts of interest for doctors who might prescribe medications, Grassley singled out DelBello, associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at Cincinnati, for what he said was her failure to accurately report her outside income in 2003 and 2004 from Astra Zeneca, a pharmaceutical company whose drug Seroquel she had studied in 2002.

On April 2, Grassley stepped up his criticism. He took to the Senate floor to "report on the actions of one physician" -- DelBello -- "to explain how industry payments to medical experts can affect medical practice."

Read the full story

Don't think for a minute that his efforts are limited to "a national reporting system." It's clear that he feels industry money shouldn't go to not-for-profit and academic researchers.

While it's obvious that conflicts-of-interest are bad, most researchers that receive corporate support, either directly or indirectly, do not let their results be influenced by that funding. Beyond that, eliminating or further restricting industry support isn't a viable solution. Or is this Republican going to fill in those funding gaps for science with government money? I seriously doubt that.

What's even more ridiculous is the sheer hypocrisy of the Senator's statement:

He said, harshly: "This situation is unfortunate on so many levels. It is unfortunate...for patients who once believed that their doctor was not for sale..."

It takes guts to stand up and criticize a state university researcher for "being for sale" when he, himself, has accepted nearly $1,000,000 in campaign contributions from medical organizations and related companies since 2003.

Is it possible that Senator Grassley feels that if he makes it too difficult for the healthcare industry to fund research that it will simply divert those funds to their lobbying efforts instead (and, therefore, into Grassley's hands)? Talk about a conflict of interest.

Remember that pack of teenage girls behaving like lunatics and videotaping the beating they planned and dished out on another girl?

Well, the supposed "ringleader" of that group has been bailed out of jail (for $30,000) by...Dr. Phil! Supposedly so that the Dr. Phil Show will have exclusive rights to interview her.

It takes a lot of gall to glorify adolescent violence (purely in the name of ratings) and then decry it as a social evil.

I don't know if there's a TV Personality Scumbag award, but if there is, I'm sure Dr. Phil is a shoe-in.

"...I began to wonder about the phenomenon of text messaging as a whole. Sometimes it seems that it would make more sense to call or send an email, but that crap is for old people."

I think the biggest drawback I see to texting is the whole temporal retention issue. I rely extensively on my ability to search through my emails, both professional and personal, sometimes going back years to look up something. In contrast, I don't know anyone who saves their text messages for even more than a few months. I asked a classful of college seniors how long they kept text messages on their phones. Less than 10% keep them longer than a week!

Do I txt? Yep, everyday, but I still use email a lot more. I'm not going to pull the "age = wisdom" card and claim that "old people" (per the Gizmodo story) use email more because they're wiser (I'm not even sure I'd be considered "old"), but my perception is that email offers a lot of advantages that texting just can't match right now.

Some things you just couldn't make up if you tried:

Pamela McNeil, 44, of Northside, had just been released from the Hamilton County Justice Center -- where she was taken on a theft charge and nine minor arrest warrants but released because of overcrowding -- when she was arrested less than an hour later, accused of stealing from the blind man who runs the deli inside the Hamilton County Courthouse.

Full story (Cincinnati.com)

The sheer power of social computing had me wondering how I could best capture some of these new technologies in my everyday life. What occurred to me was that I spend a lot of time sharing: links, stories, photos, videos, etc. Sure, there are lots of tools for sharing these days. Sites like Digg and the sharing feature in Google Reader are just two examples.

But those tools rely on my friends/colleagues to use those same tools, go to those sites, or interface with them in some other new way. No, what I'd really like is a sharing interface that spans multiple media and methods. My idea for that is...the Buddy Bar:

Basically, the Buddy Bar combines (some of) the functionality of an IM client, an email client, a photo/document-uploader app, and blog interface. Here's how I envision it working:

1) You add some friends to your Buddy Bar. You include their name and all contact info you have for them: phone number(s), email address(es), IM/Twitter IDs, and so forth.

2) Simply clicking on a friend opens up an IM dialog. Buddy Bar would be service agnostic, so it would use whatever IM service your friend used.

3) Drag and drop a URL onto your friend's avatar would send it to your friend via one of the predetermined methods you set up for him/her (e.g., email, IM, etc.).

4) Dragging and dropping a file would generate a pull-down menu for you to send that file via one of the various methods you set up for that friend. For example, drop a JPG and the menu might include
• Email
• Email
• IM
• MMS
• Flickr
• Webify*

*Webify could be to upload it to a web space under your control and send your friend a URL to that location.

Drop a Word file and you might get a different set of options:
• Email
• Email
• IM
• Google Docs
• Webify*

5) Select some text from a webpage or document and drag that over to your friend's avatar and you'd get a similar drop-down for methods of delivery.

6) Drop something big on their avatar (e.g., a 200MB home movie file) and it could initiate a Torrent invitation to your friend.

7) Right-click a friend and you get options for audio/video chat, invite to room, ping, and other options.

You get the idea. Basically, it would be an automator for distributing content and managing communication with those in your private social network. I think it could also be very handy for people who work in a distributed environment and constantly need to share info (extra functionality could be built in if it was being used in an intranet setting).

One thing Bob mentioned is the chance for abuse. "Stop sending me this crap!" was his actual comment, IIRC. So, you'd have to have some sort of content/contact moderation much like you have in good IM clients, but with better discrimination based on the type of content being offered.

Anyway, I'd love to see something like this developed. Anyone know of an app/service that accomplishes even most of this?

        "Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient.
        There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning."
                  - Bill Gates, Time Magazine, January 13, 1996

Here's a humdinger of a story, thanks to KETV in Omaha, Nebraska: Police: Child Shows Investigators How To Use Marijuana

I'm not sure which I find more ridiculous: that these idiots would be granted a license to own a shotgun, or that they don't need a license to bring two children into the world.

Seriously...society restricts all sorts of activities to only those who can show they won't endanger themselves or others -- driving, owning handguns, scuba diving, drinking, operating heavy machinery, hunting, and so on. But, to be a parent, all you need to do is be able to procreate.

If the State actually has a significant interest in both (a) promoting healthy and stable families (the reason given for denying marriage licenses to gay couples) and (b) ensuring safe conditions exist for children (the reason for requiring schools and daycare centers to be licensed), then why is it that just anybody can produce children without the state requiring them to take a class or a test or something like that?

I mean, we insist that every prospective driver knows what a stop sign means before we say he can drive a car. Why don't we insist that every expectant parent knows that babies require regular feedings and diaper changes before being able to keep their offspring?

I'm not advocating a Brave New World-type scenario where the government controls baby production. I'm just suggesting that every parent should have certain knowledge before he/she is allowed to care for children. Why would we hold parents to less of a standard than we hold daycare workers? Seriously...why?

CNN has a video story of an Armenian family who is being deported from the US.

People get deported every day. But, there are two things about this story that seem absurd.

First, the family has been here for 15 years without a problem.

Second, the family has a 13-year-old daughter who -- you guessed it -- was born in the US and, therefore, is a US citizen. And because she wasn't born in Armenia, the US government won't pay for her plane ticket to Armenia so she can stay with her family. So, the family has to leave the 13-year-old here in the US by herself.

Help me understand, folks. Is this situation the result of "compassionate conservatism" or is it due to the administration's "family values?"

It amazes me what religion can do to people's sense of what's right and wrong.

CNN.com has a story about a man who killed a convenience store clerk during a robbery 14 years ago, but who just recently turned himself into police. The crazy bit is the reaction of the members of the church where he had been a youth pastor: "He's a hero, really," and "To lock him away someplace and say he owes it to society is robbing the next generation of a mentor" are some off the more bizarre comments congregants made about the situation.

So, let me get this straight: doing something awful (like murder) is no concern at all as long as you confess, and when you do, you're setting a better example for others than someone who didn't do something bad in the first place? I just don't understand that kind of logic.

Mark Fiore has whipped up a truly awesome cartoon explaining just why the Fed's warrantless wiretapping program is a good thing...really. Give it a watch!

CNN has two videos of cops acting like disrespectful bullies to a quadriplegic and some little kids.

Quadriplegic dumped out of his wheelchair

Cop puts skateboarder in headlock

I know they have stressful, dangerous jobs (well, some of them), but if they want respect, they're going to have to stop acting like this.

I just came across this ridiculous story on BoingBoing about Ford preventing a Mustang owner's group from publishing a calendar featuring photos the owners took of their own cars on the grounds that all images of Ford cars are inherently trademarked and, therefore, property of Ford.

Can American companies become any more stupid than this? I'm not quite sure it's possible.

For the record, I'm fairly confident Subaru has no such policy. And just to try it out, here's a shot of my own car (a 2005 Impreza WRX STI).

And the results are horrifying. I guess it's about time to pack that show up.

I've only met two people who didn't "get" the humor in Monty Python and the Holy Grail and they were both about as smart as a bag of hammers.

When a grown man, who knew it was wrong, repeatedly rapes and abuses a 3-year-old boy over a long period of time.

There is no doubt about the crime. There is no reform likely for the criminal. There is no place in society for him, yet the $100,000+ each year it costs to feed, house, and care for him could instead go towards medical care for children, public services for the mentally ill, better police training, more fire crews on staff, better roads...the list is endless.

Why waste (and I use that term in the most literal way possible) perfectly good public funds on keeping this child-rapist and murderer warm, safe, healthy, and well-fed when so many more deserving are left cold, sick, and hungry? There is simply no valid, rational reason to.

Under 50 years old and want to drive a car in the United States? Then you'll need a forthcoming "Real ID", a souped-up, extra-secure, and extra-costly driver's license that is regulated on the federal level. The data contained on the card will be shared among a wide array of state and federal agencies, you know, just in case you're a terrorist.

CNN has the details.

Oh, and in case the Republicans are elected again later this year, I've already figured out what they'll change the United States crest to when they come into power.

As has become customary around the changing of the calendar, here are GearBits' official predictions for 2008.

1) Blu-Ray Wins the Format War
Yep, I'm going to pick a winner and it's going to be Blu-Ray. The one-two punch of Warner Brothers's move to Blu-Ray exclusivity (from its Switzerland-like neutrality of supporting both formats) later in 2008 and Apple's announcement that BD will be the only HD format available in its products will cement HD DVD's demise. And none too soon. I don't really care which wins...just make it snappy so that prices on players and media can plummet, thanks.

2) Google's Android Shakes Up Phone Industry
For a while now, the cellphone industry has been fairly static. A few smartphone and mobile OS makers have generally tussled for market share, but the overall industry has been pretty evolutionary. Google's entry will prove to be a watershed moment, with open source finally making a big impact in the handheld space (and no, I don't consider the Zaurus to be a big deal...sorry). Actual handsets running Android will be announced, if not available, before the end of 2008.

3) Palm Supports Android
This is more of a hope than an actual prediction, as I just don't know whether the egos at Palm will let the company do the right thing and admit that their next-generation OS (which has been under development since 2004!) will be a viable contender against Android (which has essentially the same technical details but scads more developer support). But, if cooler, more rational heads prevail at Palm, they'll announce that they're plans will be to produce at least one Android-based product (probably to come out sometime in 2012 :-/ ).

4) Microsoft's HD Photo Replacement for JPEG Image Standard Goes Nowhere
I'm not saying it's a bad idea technically; I'm just saying that JPEG is so entrenched now that replacing it would be about as reasonable a thing to try as would be replacing MP3 with any of the multitudes of better formats. JPEG, like MP3, isn't great, but it's adequate (at least for consumers) and ubiquitous. We'll still be saving all our photos in JPG (and maybe RAW) at the end of 2008...and likely long after that.

5) Subnotes Will Explode in Availability (and Maybe Popularity)
I've always been a fan of tiny, sub-3-pound laptops, but I think 2008 will see a huge number of these clamshell devices come out of every corner of the consumer electronics space. The Asus EeePC and the OLPC XO Laptop are two examples. While Microsoft had a good idea in its UMPC (Ultra-Mobile PC) concept, the hardware was just never executed all that well. Frankly, I think a 7" touchscreen for Windows is just too difficult. But, going with the traditional clamshell design and using cheaper and/or smaller technologies (e.g., flash memory instead of a HDD) will bring us a raft of interesting (and some good) designs at <$500 price points. Bring 'em on! And I think we'll start to see a lot more people toting these things along that traditionally avoided laptops for whatever reason (cost, weight, etc.).

6) The GPS War Heats Up
TomTom, Nokia, and Garmin will exchange hostile fire over the GPS market due to convuluted agreements regarding mapping data as well as market-share for hardware. Products will continue to decline in price and improve in functionality, and >50% of cellphones will have some form of GPS functionality available on them. I guess that's two predictions in one...oh well.

7) DRM Hits Choppy Water
2007 saw some movement away from DRM (digital rights management), especially in the music industry, but I expect we'll see similar initiatives in all areas of media. DRM has been proven again and again to be little more than an expensive technological boondoggle, and the leading innovators at the consumer media interface (e.g., Apple, Amazon, and Google) will make some headway into reversing the trend of more encumbrance for our media. The RIAA and MPAA will continue to fight it...they know how to do nothing else...but economic results will start to demonstrate that DRM actually hurts profitability.

8) Major Tech Stocks End 2008 Up Significantly
These are bound to be wrong, but what the heck...nobody pays me for stock tips. I think Apple will end 2008 at 235, Google will be at 960, and Microsoft will finish the year at 50. As for other stocks, iRobot will end up at either 46 or 12 (can you tell I'm a cynical shareholder?), IBM will show tepid growth to 112, and RIM, hurt by the continued weak US dollar and facing increasing competition, will struggle to match its 1-year high of 127.

9) I Buy a New Laptop and Am Disappointed
My Panasonic CF-W2 is now three-and-a-half-years-old and I'm starting to cringe every time I turn it on (my luck with hard drives makes me skeptical of many living past their 4th birthday). I've been looking at possible replacements (e.g., Toshiba R500, Panasonic W7, maybe the Lenovo IdeaPad U110 or the rumored Apple subnote) and so far every single one has some significant trade-offs. So, I expect I'll get one and it will turn out to be not significantly better than my aging Toughbook. You'd think in nearly four years that two grand would buy something markedly superior. We'll see...

10) Major Changes in Automotive Industry Announced
While the car business makes actual change only very slowly, we'll see some huge announcements in 2008 that will fundamentally change the future of that industry. Things like record oil prices, an increasing attention to sustainable/green technology, and significant ownership changes will substantially change the competitive landscape. Make no mistake; Toyota will continue its ascent and eclipse GM as #1 car-maker in the world. But, we will see several major announcements that will start affecting actual consumers in 2009 and beyond.

So, I'll check back in about 12 months to see how I fared. In the meantime, what do you think will happen?

Wired has an interesting article that shows the media (recording artists, TV shows, and movies) most popular on the P2P networks (i.e., BitTorent). I was surprised...surprised by (a) two of my favorite shows were on the list, and (b) I'd heard of nearly nothing on the music list. I guess aging has its consequences, eh?

Anyway, here are the lists (for the full details, check out the Wired story):

Top Songs of 2007
1. Shop Boyz - "Party Like A Rock Star"
2. Akon - "I Wanna Luv U"
3. Sean Kingston - "Beautiful Girls"
4. Mims - "This Is Why I'm Hot"
5. Akon - "Don't Matter"
6. T-Pain - "Bartender"
7. Soulja Boy - "Crank Dat Soulja Boy"
8. Justin Timberlake - "My Love"
9. DJ Unk - "Walk It Out"
10. Jim Jones - "We Fly High"

Top Music Artists of 2007
1. T.I.
2. T-Pain
3. Akon
4. 50 Cent
5. R. Kelly
6. Lil Wayne
7. Justin Timberlake
8. Fergie
9. Ludacris
10. Snoop Dogg

Top Movies of 2007
1. Resident Evil: Extinction
2. Pirates of The Caribbean: At World's End
3. I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry
4. Ratatouille
5. Superbad
6. Beowulf
7. Transformers
8. American Gangster
9. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
10. Stardust

Top TV Shows of 2007
1. Heroes
2. Prison Break
3. Top Gear
4. Smallville
5. Desperate Housewives
6. House, M.D.
7. Lost
8. Grey's Anatomy
9. 24
10. Dexter

Our One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) device arrived in the mail today. We participated in the Give One Get One campaign (we bought two; one was sent to us and the other was donated to a developing area of the world somewhere).

After less than an hour with it, I'm pretty amazed at the hardware that's packed into this little guy, especially for the price of <$200. Sure, the processor is a little slow for handling complex Flash-enabled websites, and you won't win any speed races initiating apps, but it has just an amazing mesh Wi-Fi interface (which allows instant sharing amongst other OLPCs of most activities on any one of them), an embedded webcam, and a whole host of pre-installed applications (from a music mixer to drawing to a web browser to a journal/notebook and so on).

I'm not sure it is a better solution for a kid's school laptop if that kid has access to regular electricity and his/her parents can scrape up the cash for an Asus EeePC or cheapie Dell (I just saw one in a flyer for <$370), but as it was designed for children in third-world countries, I think it should be a great fit for any kid 5+ who wants to just explore what computers can do.

Update: I just noticed that our unit does not have the two "keyboard LEDs" shown in the above pic. I wonder why not...they'd be handy for nighttime 'puting.

And to think that someone once told me I was wasting my time saving Canadian pennies.

Canada's Dollar Reaches Record High on Fed Rate Cut Speculation

Nov. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Canada's dollar climbed to a record against its U.S. counterpart on speculation credit market losses will prompt the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates again this year.

The currency rose 0.7 percent to $1.0791 at 8:07 a.m. in Toronto as the U.S. dollar weakened against 15 of the 16 most- traded currencies.

Read the whole story (Bloomberg.com)

You know the signs of a government run amok. We've seen the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Iran, and other countries' governments do dastardly things to preserve, if not outright abuse, the establishment's power base.

Here are some more easily recognized hallmarks of a bad government:

1) Abuses its citizens, such as by torturing them or throwing them in jail without the chance for a fair hearing

2) Manipulates public information so as to hide evidence that contradicts its position

3) Spies on its citizens without the oversight of an independent judiciary

4) Diverts funds intended for the public good, such as healthcare or research, to military build-up and private enterprise (usually those close to government officials)

5) Rewrites and reinterprets existing laws so as to validate previously illegal (or quasi-legal) activities

6) Behaves aggressively towards other countries, especially those that have valuable resources, yet pose little or no threat

7) Converts the media into a propaganda tool

8) Relies heavily on fear tactics to maintain power

It's good to know that the Bush administration is trying its best to rid the world of those awful governments that do these terrible things. After all, one such government is plenty.

A terrific editorial in the New York Times provides some interesting insights into what many of the founders of the US thought about religion and its influence on the country.

A Nation of Christians Is Not a Christian Nation

By Jon Meacham, 10/7/2007

JOHN McCAIN was not on the campus of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University last year for very long -- the senator, who once referred to Mr. Falwell and Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance," was there to receive an honorary degree -- but he seems to have picked up some theology along with his academic hood. In an interview with Beliefnet.com last weekend, Mr. McCain repeated what is an article of faith among many American evangelicals: "the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."

...

The only acknowledgment of God in the original Constitution is a utilitarian one: the document is dated "in the year of our Lord 1787." Even the religion clause of the First Amendment is framed dryly and without reference to any particular faith. The Connecticut ratifying convention debated rewriting the preamble to take note of God's authority, but the effort failed.

...

The founders were not anti-religion. Many of them were faithful in their personal lives, and in their public language they evoked God. They grounded the founding principle of the nation -- that all men are created equal -- in the divine. But they wanted faith to be one thread in the country's tapestry, not the whole tapestry.

In the 1790s, in the waters off Tripoli, pirates were making sport of American shipping near the Barbary Coast. Toward the end of his second term, Washington sent Joel Barlow, the diplomat-poet, to Tripoli to settle matters, and the resulting treaty, finished after Washington left office, bought a few years of peace. Article 11 of this long-ago document says that "as the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion," there should be no cause for conflict over differences of "religious opinion" between countries.

The treaty passed the Senate unanimously. Mr. McCain is not the only American who would find it useful reading.

Read the entire article (nytimes.com)

Police: Couple Abandoned Baby So They Could Party

GLENDALE, Wis. -- A Glendale couple said they couldn't afford a baby sitter, so they strapped their 14-month-old son in his stroller at home while the couple went out, police alleged.

Rachel Anderson and her live-in boyfriend, Mitch Laputka, were ordered to stand trial Thursday on charges they neglected baby Gabriel so badly that his body was covered with diaper rash, his body temperature was 12 degrees below normal and he stopped breathing, requiring 21 minutes of CPR to revive him. Police said the couple admitted to leaving the boy home alone because they wanted to party.

The couple recently got jobs at Pizza Hut, police said Anderson told them, and the couple used the money for drinking parties. Police said Anderson told them that she often left Gabriel strapped in his stroller when the couple went out or to work, and that she changed Gabriel's diaper once per day. Police said Laputka told them that he didn't do diapers, that was Anderson's job.

Read the whole story (WISN.com)

We need a government permit to hunt, fish, drive a car, run a business, return to the country after traveling outside it, build a house, dig a well, camp, boat, and own certain types of animals, but not to create and raise a new human being, perhaps the biggest responsibility there is.

How in the world does that make sense?

President Bush is threatening to veto a bipartisan bill expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) by $35 billion (distributed over 5 years, or $7 billion a year) because it's not "fiscally sound," but is simultaneously planning to ask for another $200 billion to continue his illegal and widely condemned devastation, occupation, and rebuilding (sort of) of a non-threatening country.

$200 for bombs and Humvees and murderous contractors, sure...but no $7 to help sick kids. Really makes me wonder who the hell supports this unconscionable moron.

CNN has an interesting story on the origins of the smiley emoticon :-) that is now ubiquitous.

However, I'm still waiting on Strunk & White to nail down how it should get used with punctuation. ;-)

After years of shame, embarrassment, and grief caused by the actions of a jingoistic, power-mad president, unchecked by a timid, sheeplike Congress, this story restores a bit of the pride I had in my country by demonstrating the magnitude of what Americans can do for one family when united by concern, caring, and generosity.

Youssif and family arrive in U.S.: 'Am I in heaven?'

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Youssif, the 5-year-old Iraqi boy who was savagely burned by masked men, arrived in the United States late Tuesday with his family -- the first step toward his lengthy rehabilitation.

For a family whose lives were tortured by the random and brutal violence of Iraq, the sheer magnitude of stepping onto American soil was surreal. His parents were rendered speechless. Quite simply they grinned from ear to ear. They didn't need to speak. The joy on their faces was palpable.

They had traveled more than 7,500 miles to get help for their son, from war-torn central Baghdad to coastal Los Angeles. It marked the first time the family had ever left their homeland, let alone flown on a plane.

"Oh my God, it's so green. Am I in heaven?" Youssif's mother, Zainab, said after arriving in Chicago before the family flew on to Los Angeles where Youssif will be treated.

CNN and CNN.com first reported his story on August 22 after the family risked their lives to tell his story: On January 15, masked men grabbed Youssif outside his home, doused him with gas and set him on fire.

The story prompted an outpouring of support to get help for Youssif. More than 12,000 CNN.com users have contributed to a fund set up by the Children's Burn Foundation.

Youssif and his family are expected to be in the United States for six months to a year while he undergoes multiple surgeries and extensive rehabilitation.

Read the entire story (CNN.com)

It will take the US at least a generation to even attempt to fully undo the damage we've done to generations of Iraqis. Not that we are alone at fault, but certainly we bear the majority of the responsibility for reparation and redress.

Good grief!

Police: Man Found In Kids' Bedroom Has Predatory Past

BALTIMORE -- The Baltimore County man who was caught lurking in a children's bedroom in the middle of the night has a history of burglary and sex offenses, according to police documents.

Richard Marks, 49, was charged with attempted sex offense in the most recent case, but charging documents indicate that the incident is part of a pattern of behavior for Marks that dates back to early 1970s.

Charging documents obtained by WBAL TV 11 News showed that Marks had several prior arrests on charges including robbery, burglary and sex offenses; however, since he was never convicted of sexual offenses, he was never put on a sexual predator list.

In 1974, he was sentenced to five years behind bars. In 1980, he was convicted of assault with the intent to commit murder and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

Nine years later, Marks was convicted on burglary charges and sentenced to four more years.

Court documents show that in 1991, Marks entered a Dundalk home on Kavanaugh Road through an unlocked basement door. The documents stated that Marks approached a sleeping teenage boy, told him to undress or he would kill him and then sexually assault him.

Marks was sentenced to 25 years in prison with no parole on burglary charges, while sexual offense charges against him were dropped. But he was released in April of this year -- after only 16 years behind bars -- because of good behavior, corrections officials told 11 News.

Officials said at the time of his sentencing in 1991, Marks admitted to being a repeat offender.

In the most recent case, Brian Jarrell said he saw Marks in his two children's bedroom armoire at 2:30 a.m. Monday.

"I don't remember much. My only thought was, 'I can't let this guy get out,'" Jarrell said.

Jarrell was able to subdue Marks until police arrived.

Charging documents revealed that at the time of his arrest, Marks was wearing clear rubber gloves, had three bandanas on him and that Jarrell found two rags with a strong odor of chemicals in the bedroom.

Police said they found a stain on the fitted sheet by the children's heads and found the same chemical odor on the children's hair. After Marks was subdued out front, a neighbor said he had to shake one child several times to wake him and that he seemed very lethargic and confused.

Police said they also found a backpack inside the home that they believe belonged to Marks. Inside it they found petroleum jelly, plastic gloves, girls panties, chemical-soaked rags, gum, candy, a razor and putty knife and costume false teeth.

Read the original story (WBALTV.com)

Seriously, are we ever going to let this guy out? And if not, why keep him around? Personally, I don't want my tax dollars wasted on the $100,000 a year it takes to feed, clothe, medicate, and house this guy for the rest of his life when so many other social needs go unmet.

Just 16 more months...just 16 more months...

Gaffe-prone Bush in fine form at APEC summit
'OPEC' forum filled with slips of the tongue, confusion for president

SYDNEY - Even for someone as gaffe-prone as U.S. President George W. Bush, he was in rare form on Friday, confusing APEC with OPEC and transforming Australian troops into Austrians.

Bush's tongue started slipping almost as soon as he started talking at a business forum on the eve of an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Sydney.

"Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for your introduction," he told Prime Minister John Howard. "Thank you for being such a fine host for the OPEC summit."

As the audience of several hundred people erupted in laughter, Bush corrected himself and joked, "He invited me to the OPEC summit next year." Australia has never been a member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.

Later in his speech, Bush recounted how Howard had gone to visit "Austrian troops" last year in Iraq. There are, in fact, no Austrian troops there. But Australia has about 1,500 Australians military personnel in and around the country.

Upon finishing his speech, Bush took the wrong way off-stage and, looking slightly perplexed, had to be re-directed by Howard to a center-stage exit.

But not before a veteran White House correspondent seized the opportunity to ask Bush whether there had been any new message in his speech. Apparently misunderstanding the question, he bristled and asked, "Haven't you been listening to my past speeches?" before turning away.

Read the entire story (MSNBC.com)

CNN (via the AP) has the following story, Where have all the hunters gone?

Hunters remain a powerful force in American society, as evidenced by the presidential candidates who routinely pay them homage, but their ranks are shrinking dramatically and wildlife agencies worry increasingly about the loss of sorely needed license-fee revenue.

Observers say increasingly urban and suburban culture is contributing to the decline in hunters and fishers.

New figures from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service show that the number of hunters 16 and older declined by 10 percent between 1996 and 2006 -- from 14 million to about 12.5 million. The drop was most acute in New England, the Rocky Mountains, and the Pacific states, which lost 400,000 hunters in that span.

The primary reasons, experts say, are the loss of hunting land to urbanization plus a perception by many families that they can't afford the time or costs that hunting entails.

"To recruit new hunters, it takes hunting families," said Gregg Patterson of Ducks Unlimited. "I was introduced to it by my father, he was introduced to it by his father. When you have boys and girls without a hunter in the household, it's tough to give them the experience."

Some animal-welfare activists welcome the trend, noting that it coincides with a 13 percent increase in wildlife watching since 1996. But hunters and state wildlife agencies, as they prepare for the fall hunting season, say the drop is worrisome.

"It's hunters who are the most willing to give their own dollar for wildlife conservation," Patterson said.

Read the entire story (CNN.com)

I'm quite content to hear that hunting is declining, but I find it a bit ironic that wildlife conservation efforts would still be significantly dependent upon those who wish to kill the large animals in those areas. It's almost like saying that the only way to extract value from the natural spaces is to use them as shooting ranges. It really suggests that the US Fish and Wildlife Service needs to partner with other governmental organizations to figure out better ways to simultaneously promote and extract revenue from non-hunting/non-damaging uses of natural spaces.

Of course, as suburban sprawl continues to envelop larger and larger areas of formerly wild land, the chances for anyone to observe, let alone hunt, big animals will be greatly reduced. Will we get to the point where the only large wild mammals left in the US are deer? Given the range of animals that lived here just 200 years ago, that will certainly be a sad day if (or when) we do.

Fortune / CNN Money.com have an interesting piece: Are Americans too lazy? U.S. workers can't compete globally unless they work harder, writes Fortune's Geoff Colvin.

The surprising report of our relative sloth arrives in new research from the UN's International Labor Organization, which looks at working hours around the world. When it comes to what we might call hard work, meaning the proportion of workers who put in more than 48 hours a week, America is near the bottom of the heap. About 18% of our employed people work that much.

We have increased our leisure time enormously over the past 40 years -- so much so that it "corresponds roughly to an additional five to ten weeks of vacation a year," says a study by Mark Aguiar of the Boston Fed and Erik Hurst of the University of Chicago business school, who conducted the study.

People with jobs are working fewer hours. Compounding the effect, fewer of us work at all, with growing numbers of people spending more time in retirement.

Of course, there's more to work than what we do on the job; there's also the work we do at home, and that too has fallen drastically. (It has fallen on average; men are actually doing a bit more work at home than they used to, but women are doing much less.)

Put it all together, and the researchers figure we're getting about 117 hours of leisure per week (including sleep), vs. 110 hours in 1965. That's more than 360 additional idle hours per year. We are a couch-potato nation.

Read the entire story (CNN.com)

If these data are accurate and the analysis is sound (e.g., it doesn't conflate the growing retired population with those of a working age who simply choose not to work), then it speaks directly to those who decry the growing wealth gap in this country (the populations at the top and bottom of the income scale are growing while the middle shrinks). I'm all for social equity, inalienable rights, and equal opportunity for everyone to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but I'm also of the opinion that rewards tend to be the fruits of one's effort, not simply one's existence.

Instead, why not read a book? Chances are that you're not reading as much as you used to...or should.

A terrific summary of the main candidates' positions on over two dozen different issues are clearly presented on this table (flickr.com), which is a graphic version of this table (2decide.com).

Granted, the table doesn't get into specifics or degree of intensity of support, but it's definitely a helpful start when the field is so heavily populated.

And I'm shocked...shocked, I tell you, to realize that of all the candidates, Dennis Kucinich, the boy from my own state of Ohio, most closely matches my own positions (as far as I can tell...he and I seem to disagree only on capital punishment).

I just read a fascinating article in the New York Times, In Silicon Valley, Millionaires Who Don't Feel Rich and it reminded me how fortunate I am to live in Cincinnati. Sure, we don't have beaches here, but $300K will buy you a really nice house in most parts of town and, unless you live in the outmost 'burbs, your commute is likely under 30 minutes.

What's particularly saddening is that most of these single-digit millionaires who work 70 hours a week just to maintain their social status could have a much better quality-of-life somewhere else. Shorter commutes, housing prices a third of what they're used to paying, and more time for family and friends is all available if they just leave Silicon Valley.

I guess it's kind of like getting kids hooked on drugs to clean up. One of the first steps is to remove them from the bad influences (i.e., other kids who do drugs). However, in the case with these tech managers, it may be that they need to be removed from the other Menlo Park digerati before they realize that social pressure is really destroying their quality of life.

There has been a lot in the news about the rise of religious fundamentalism around the world. It is blamed on inspiring extremists of all stripes to do and say things many consider shocking.

Well, add one more to the pile. Today, a large religious institution claimed it was the only true church and that others are, in fact, lesser pursuits.

The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ.

The Vatican said other churches are "wounded" since they do not recognize the primacy of the pope.

A 16-page document, prepared by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Pope Benedict used to head, described Christian Orthodox churches as true churches, but suffering from a "wound" since they do not recognize the primacy of the Pope.

But the document said the "wound is still more profound" in the Protestant denominations -- a view likely to further complicate relations with Protestants.

"Despite the fact that this teaching has created no little distress ... it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to them," it said.

Read the full story (CNN.com)

That kind of in-your-face, my-faith-is-better-than-your-faith chutzpah is good to hear, because Christianity just isn't keeping up its reputation as the ass-kicking, witch-burning, proselytizing, pagan-killing religion it worked so hard to earn back during The Crusades. Tolerance, schmolerance!

Adults who routinely abuse children deserve nothing less...or more.

Man accused of biting off 3-year-old's lip, ear

NEW BEDFORD, Massachusetts (AP) -- A man accused of biting off the lip and ear of his girlfriend's 3-year-old daughter pleaded not guilty Thursday and was ordered held without bail.

Bryan James, 34, was charged with assault and battery upon a child causing substantial bodily injuries. Police said the attack left the girl so mutilated doctors could not fully repair the damage.

The child's mother, Jessica Silveria, 26, pleaded not guilty to permitting substantial injuries to a child under 14 and intimidation of a witness. She was also ordered held without bail.

The girl lost the upper part of her lip and her ear was so mutilated that surgery could not return it to its natural state. The child also suffered other human bites on her body, New Bedford police Capt. Richard Spirlet said.

Read the whole story (CNN)

I have an idea. It's pretty crazy and 99% likely never to bear fruit, but I feel compelled to describe it here...just in case. And don't think this is entirely thought out...I'm imagining it literally as I type.

Imagine this: a road race around the 86-mile loop of highway circling Cincinnati, Ohio known as I-275 (map below). I-275 in Cincinnati is a divided highway ranging from 2 to 4 lanes in both directions. It wanders through three different states -- Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky -- and crosses the Ohio river twice.

Who could race in this event? Anyone. It would be a true road race where any road-worthy automobile may enter. Think road rally for the everyman.

But who would race in this event? That's an entirely different question. Since closing I-275 would be impossible for any period of time more than, say, a few hours (if even then), the field of cars would have to be limited to about 180. Here's how I figure that. If one lap is 86 miles and even the pokiest racer should be able to average 100 mph, that's .86 hours, or about 50 minutes around the whole loop. If you want to finish the last car in by noon (to re-open the highway), and you wanted to start each car a minute behind the previous one (so as to limit bunching up), then you could launch cars for three hours straight (e.g., starting at 8am, the last one leaving at 11am and returning just before noon).

But, who would those 180 racers be? Well, we'd need to make sure that they know how to drive, so they would have to show that their cars are road-legal and pass a full race safety inspection (a la SCCA rules). But that would still leave thousands aching for a chance to blast through closed highways at ridiculous speeds.

So, to further pare the field, a $500 entry fee would be required. Maybe make it $1,000...or maybe auction off the spots. Alternately, and this could be done to help offset the costs of hosting the race (more on that later), the organizers could require a $X00 fee to enter a RAFFLE from which participants would be drawn. Then, each participant would have to pay the entry fee to actually race. The motivation would be the thrill, potential prize money, and some local fame.

I also imagine that you'd need a few classes of cars, primarily for sequencing the starts (you should have the fastest cars at the beginning and the slowest at the end in order to minimize overtaking and passing) and based primarily on top speeds (e.g., 180+, 160-180, 140-160, and less than 140). This would be the perfect opportunity for those rich guys with their Porsche Carreras and Mercedes SLRs to really open them up on public roads. It would also make for a really fine exotic car show.

Staging the cars could be done at an on-ramp area near I-75 and adjacent to a large commercial base of restaurants, etc. for helping support the hordes of tourists.

And that brings me to the money part. This could, if managed correctly, be a HUGE money-maker for the region. While you could you sell TV rights to the event, the tourism dollars alone would be enormous. If the race is on a Sunday morning (lightest traffic means the best time to close the highway for a few hours), then the day before, a Saturday, could be a huge parade of all the cars through downtown Cincinnati. It could be like a public Indy 500 for the everyday guy.

My biggest concern would be the ability to negotiate a way to close down a major highway loop that crosses three different states for a period of 4 daylight hours. If that could be done, the rest would be perfectly feasible, I think. And, if it could be pulled off once, the second year would be bigger, better, and easier just because a lot of the complexities would have already been worked out.

So, if anyone from Cincinnati town council or Hamilton County is reading this, please consider this idea; I think it would be at least an interesting thing to attempt. Heck, Cincinnati once proposed to be the site of the summer Olympics. This race wouldn't be one-tenth that much cost or effort, yet might still accomplish many of the same goals for the city and the region.

Central Message of the Republican Debate: Vote for us or bad things will happen.

Central Message of the Democratic Debate: Vote for us and good things will happen.

Fear versus hope. I'm tired of fear.

Update (6/9/07): In response to Mark's rather silly comments below, I put together a graph based on public data showing the relationship between tax rate and standard of living for the 10 best nations. It uses the most recent data I could find for each variable and may portray a reasonable temporal effect (one would assume that tax rate would be a leading indicator of standard of living):

Sources: HDI (Wikipedia); Tax Rate (OECD)

The Associated Press has reported that a 4-year-old boy whose mother and father are both deployed in Iraq was beaten to death by the mother's boyfriend.

CALUMET CITY, Illinois (AP) -- A man beat his girlfriend's 4-year-old son to death after she left the boy in his care while she was deployed to Iraq, police said.

Donnell Parker, 23, was charged Friday with first-degree murder in the death of Cameron Smith. The boy was found dead in his bed Thursday in a suburb south of Chicago.

Parker told police he beat the boy, but would not say why, said Calumet City police Chief Patrick O'Meara. Cameron was punched in the head, stomach and chest, and whipped with a belt from Tuesday to Wednesday evening, O'Meara said. An autopsy found he died of blunt-force trauma to the abdomen and head, O'Meara said.

Family members said Cameron's father, Gary Smith Jr., 27, had been deployed to Iraq last August and last saw his three children on a brief leave in January.

Read the entire story. (CNN.com)

The President's self-proclaimed "bloody summer" has already begun, and it's not even on the battlefield. How many more lives (3,448 US soldiers killed, 24,000 more wounded and countless families disrupted or destroyed) and dollars ($429 billion, or over $1,400 for every person in America) can we afford to sacrifice on this goatrope?

Note: I posted part of this at another website last week, but it keeps getting bigger and longer, so I thought I'd move it here for permanence.

During the six years of George Bush as President, he has made many statements about individuals who later on turned out to be perhaps not the best suited for their jobs. Here's a quick compilation of President Bush's own quoted statements and some background information about some of the individuals he has praised.

"I want to thank the grassroots activists. I want to thank ... and Tom Noe for their leadership in Lucas County." - October 29, 2004

Tom Noe, an Ohio Republican party fundraiser and activist, pleaded guilty of money laundering for the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign and of theft and corruption in the Ohio "Coingate" scandal.

"I appreciate the leadership of Congressman Tom DeLay in working on important issues that matter to the country...He's been a very effective leader." - April, 2005

Tom Delay was indicted September 28, 2005 for conspiring to violate Texas state election law by using his political action committe, TRMPAC, to accept corporate contributions, launder the money through the Republican National Committee, and then direct it to Republican candidates in Texas.

"Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job." - September 2, 2005

After grossly incompetent handling of Hurricane Katrina recovery and amid allegations that he falsified portions of his resume, Michael Brown resigned on September 12, 2005.

"I'm confident that Harriet Miers will add to the wisdom and character of our judiciary when she is confirmed as the 110th Justice of the Supreme Court." - October 3, 2005

Harriet Myers was nominated by President Bush for Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, but then the President withdrew her nomination after outcries over her lack of credentials and opposition from conservative groups.

"I don't appreciate the speculation about Don Rumsfeld; he's doing a fine job; I strongly support him." - April 14, 2006

"America is safer and the world is more secure because of the service and the leadership of Donald Rumsfeld." - November 1, 2006

Donald Rumsfeld was the primary architect of the largely unsuccessful Iraq War, was in charge of the military during the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, and used a machine to put his signature on over 1000 letters of condolence to families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"I've gotten to know ... and Roy Blunt over the past six years; I value their friendship, I look forward to working with them. And I know that the Republican Party is in good hands in the House of Representatives with these fine leaders." - January 26, 2007

Roy Blunt paid roughly $88,000 in fees since 2003 to Jim Ellis, a consultant indicted in 2005 with Tom DeLay for laundering campaign cash. Ellis, who ran Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC), DeLay's national fundraising organization, was indicted in Texas along with DeLay for allegedly funneling corporate campaign contributions into Texas state elections in 2002 in violation of Texas law.

"I do have confidence in Attorney General Al Gonzales." - March 14, 2007

Alberto Gonzales is "an honest, honorable man in whom I have confidence." - April 23, 2007

Alberto Gonzales, as US Attorney General, was involved in the politically-motivated dismissals of eight US attorneys in 2006 and early 2007.  His inconsistent admissions to Congress about his involvement have undermined his credibility as being suitable to lead the DOJ.

"I think Paul [Wolfowitz] will be a strong President of the World Bank. ... He's a compassionate, decent man who will do a fine job in the World Bank." - March 16, 2005

Paul Wolfowitz, after continuing a wide-ranging effort to root out corruption started by his predecessor, resigned as president of the World Bank after weeks of turmoil over the lavish pay rise he arranged for his girlfriend that triggered the worst crisis in the institution’s history.

If history is a guide, the future could be very interesting...

"Karl [Rove]'s got my complete confidence. He's a valuable member of my team." - August 2, 2005

"I trust Karl Rove." - June 14, 2006

Update (April 24, 2007): Just an hour ago, CNN.com published this interesting story:

A small federal agency responsible for safeguarding federal employees from political coercion has launched an extensive investigation into the activities of the White House's political operation and its architect, Karl Rove. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel is looking into whether Rove -- President Bush's longtime trusted political strategist -- or other White House aides violated federal law by making political presentations to government employees in the run-up to last year's midterm elections.

Wow...it's like the guy has a gift or something.

You'll be missed.

The newly passed royalty rates, some of which are (incredibly) retroactive, for online music broadcasting are patently ridiculous. Wired's coverage outlines many of the ways these new rates will effectively demolish online broadcasting for US-based companies.

The new rates force webcasters to pay for each song streamed to each user, and increase over the next few years as follows:

2006: $0.0008 to stream one song to one listener
2007: $.0011
2008: $.0014
2009: $.0018
2010: $.0019

Those fees will add up quickly for larger webcasters; the Radio and Internet Newsletter (RAIN) calculates that, assuming that the average station plays 16 songs per hour, sites would have to pay "about 1.28 cents" per listener per hour using the 2006 rate, and would owe this retroactively, in addition to licensing fees going forward.

This is very, very bad, especially for small- and medium-sized webcasters like our beloved WOXY.com. Also, you have to realize that these rates don't even include royalties paid to the original writer/composer of the work being broadcast; the rates above are just to the recording artist!

It makes me wonder exactly how much those fogeys on the CRB get paid by the RIAA. Sure, not directly -- they're not that dumb -- but gifts to friends and family and the occasional perk indirectly sponsored by the RIAA are, I'm sure, part and parcel of the assignment. After all, if it's not bribery, how do you explain a ruling so lopsidedly in favor of industry at the expense of consumers and to the detriment of innovation?

In the latest example of punishment in the form of government-sanctioned public shaming, Ohio may soon be putting bright green license plates on the cars of convicted sex offenders.

This practice seems utterly inconsistent with the way our justice system is supposed to work.

Inconsistency #1: If these criminals weren't reformed by a prison term and are still such a threat to society (thus requiring the state to notify everyone around these individuals as to the crime they committed), why are they being released back into society? Why aren't these dangerous, predatory individuals still locked up?

Inconsistency #2: On the other hand, haven't felons "paid their debt to society" by serving their prison sentences? In contrast, the government continues their sentence indefinitely (until death) through restriction on key civil liberties like choice of where to live (e.g., not living within 1000 feet of parks and schools) and basic privacy (e.g., these license plates).

Lest someone claim I'm being soft on these individuals, far from it; I think sex crimes can be as evil and as deserving of punishment as anything man can commit. But, the current trend towards eliminating basic civil liberties for the rest of the convict's life seems a bizarre punishment inconsistent with the ethical foundation underlying our justice system. Either these individuals' crimes are sufficiently different and, therefore, merit continued/indefinite incarceration (i.e., longer sentences), or these individuals should be allowed to reintegrate back into society after serving their sentences the way other criminals are permitted to.

And sea lions, too.

NBC is actively pursuing individuals who use the BitTorrent peer-to-peer network to acquire episodes of TV shows NBC owns. NBC's primary tactic of the moment is to find active torrents of these shows and identify the IP addresses of anyone sharing (uploading) any piece of the "offending" file.

Given that it's relatively easy to associate IP addresses of seeders with the ISPs who are providing that Internet address, NBC likely has a small army of interns and co-op students busily tracking these networks. Once they locate an offense, they issue a boilerplate letter containing the specifics (IP address, date, time, file, etc.) to the ISP, which is then supposed to take preventative measures against the offending IP address user.

There are (at least) two significant problems with this approach.

One reason is attribution; just because an IP address is associated with offending activity, it is not necessarily the account holder, or even someone associated with him, that is engaging in the activity. As we all know, wireless networks are inherently insecure and easily tapped into in most cases by someone with even a modicum of know-how. Beyond that, many types of malware tap into peer-to-peer networks without the PC owner even remotely aware that it's happening. Punishing the account holder in either of these situations seems difficult to justify, indeed.

But that's not even the biggest problem with the tactic NBC is currently taking.

An even more ridiculous problem is that NBC is essentially undermining its own business model. By asking ISPs to terminate the accounts of users who download an episode of, say, Battlestar Galactica, this makes several things happen.

First, it causes ill will with consumers of its programming; swearing off watching any particular show because the studio is making your life difficult (and switching ISPs can be a royal pain-in-the-ass) is not a great stretch, especially when TV watching in general is already on the decline. This reduces its viewer base and reduces potential ad revenues.

Second, canceling the Internet access of those who watch your TV show that way effectively eliminates them from your potential customer base entirely. Instead of coercing them into some more desirable activity, such as paying for and downloading the episodes through iTunes, these individuals now have no Internet access whatsoever, so they won't be getting the content either way (free or paid). This further erodes the potential customer base for any legitimate online offering.

So, through its simple-minded pursuit of file-sharers, NBC is basically undermining its very ability to monetize new programming. Maybe there are enough people watching the episodes of a given show straight through, commercials and all, to support these programs. But for shows appealing to young people and nerds (e.g., Battlestar Galactica), I doubt it. If these watchers aren't viewing directly off a TiVo/DVR (and skipping the ads), they're watching an MPEG-4 copy they ripped from their DVR or downloaded from the Internet. Sure, some might be buying them off iTunes, but given all the DRM attached to that method, the cost there would have to be a lot closer to free to make it worth considering.

NBC, like all the major networks, needs to shed its ideas that a 1980's business model is still viable. The Internet is not going away, no matter how hard they wish it would. Better to embrace the new challenges than resist them altogether and wake up one day to realize that you've joined the buggy-whip manufacturers as an icon of anachronistic industries.

Imagine this scenario:

Amy pays her cable company to deliver television service to the digital video recorder (DVR) she rents from the same company. Amy programs her DVR to record the entire series of a particular TV show. One week, however, the cable goes out (as it's wont to do) and her DVR fails to record an episode.

So, Amy visits the website of the broadcaster and discovers that the company doesn't offer downloads of its episodes. Amy then finds out that she can pay $2 for the right to download and play (for a limited number of times and only under certain circumstances) the episode she missed. Amy also discovers that she could alternately download a copy of the missing episode for free from a peer-to-peer network.

Does Amy have a right to view the content that was delivered to her (but that her DVR failed to capture) without paying for it again? The TV network, as the copyright holder of the show in question, feels that Amy does not have such a right, and it will apparently pursue her through her ISP for copyright infringment if she goes about grabbing the show from a P2P network. However, if the network can get Amy to cough up $2, it's more than happy to let her have a copy of the episode.

But what about the cable company? Shouldn't it be the one to pay the network for Amy's episode? After all, it was a failure with the cable company's network/equipment that lead to this situation in the first place, isn't it? But Amy is smart enough to realize that getting her cable company to reimburse her $2 for an episode download is quite unlikely.

And what about "fair use?" This concept has little relevance to this situation, unfortunately (at least as I understand it; IANAL), so Amy is basically up a creek.

Why has US copyright law allowed such a situation to occur? Lobbyists for the networks (e.g., NBC), their parent companies (GE), and various affiliated organizations (e.g., the RIAA and the MPAA) have simply done an excellent job at buying our publicly elected officials. And guess where the money comes from for these lobbying efforts? Yep...that $2 Amy now needs to pay the network to see her missing episode. How convenient.

Maybe the best solution is, after all, swearing off corporate content altogether. Independent and foreward-thinking artists, be they music acts, filmmakers, or authors, tend to be much more encouraging of free dissemination of their work. Maybe they do it primarily for the joy of creation rather than the money. Maybe they don't need to support an army of lawyers, country club memberships for everyone in the C-level executive suite, and fuel for corporate jets. Maybe, just maybe, they know what the corporations have forgotten: copyrights are meant to foster, rather than inhibit, innovation.

Whatever the cause, the effects are clear: Amy will consume less TV the harder and/or more expensive it becomes. Frankly, TV isn't all that terrific anyway, and the creative power of the networked masses has yet to be fully realized.

As per tradition (OK, for at least the third time), here are my predictions for the upcoming year, 2007:

1) Apple's iPod continues PMP domination
Thought I'd start off with a safe one. Yep, I don't think too many would argue that the iPod is poised to remain the de facto standard in portable media players. Given that the #1 seller in Amazon's electronics category during the 2006 holiday season was the iPod by a significant margin, and given that accessories for all other PMPs combined amount to about 1/100th of what's available for the iPod, there's really no doubt that newcomers will have a hard time challenging the king, despite any technical advantages.

2) 802.11n gets ratified and gear floods to market
802.11n, the next generation of that family of wireless networking standards, has been forever in getting off the ground. 2007 should see its final certification, opening the gates to loads of networking hardware compliant to the new standard.

3) Film cameras all but disappear from electronics stores
While you'll still be able to find cheap disposables, it will become nearly impossible to find any mainstream electronics retailer selling more than one or two token models. $99 digital cameras from recognizable brands will become commonplace.

4) Nintendo tops Sony and Microsoft as gaming overlord
Not a big leap here, but Nintendo, through its Wii and DS lines, will lead all brands in game unit sales in 2007. Sony will retain the crown of technological leader (and work though its Blu-Ray production issues), and Microsoft will continue to play the spoiler in the industry.

5) TiVo is acquired
If this prediction was good enough to be wrong in 2006, then it's good enough for 2007 as well.

6) Google launches the GooglePhone
Google, in partnership with some handheld maker and/or carrier, will launch a branded QWERTY smartphone that natively runs its main offerings (e.g., Gmail, Google Docs, Google Maps, Google Talk, etc.). Maybe I'm predicting this purely out of desire -- I so want such a device -- but I do think it will happen eventually.

7) eBay sells Skype
You heard it here first. Or maybe you didn't. Either way, this is a long-shot prediction, but I think Meg Whitman is smart enough to realize that Skype is worth more to eBay when it's owned by somebody else.

8) Palm brings Jeff Hawkins back to reinvent Treo line
The current Treo line is getting a bit long in the tooth (not to mention the now-ancient Palm OS, which Palm just repurchased the permanent rights to) and its sales are likely getting pinched by slimmer, more aesthetically appealing (while not as functional, but a lot of people by phones based on looks...kind of like how they pick boy/girlfriends in college) offerings from Motorola and others. So, since Palm doesn't seem capable of designing anything anyone wants to buy on its own, the company will announce that Jeff Hawkins is coming back to help lead the development of the next-generation Treo. And many will ask, "What took you so long?"

9) HD-DVD and Blu-Ray persist; nobody cares
More devices will be available at cheaper prices, but sales of both players and media will continue to be tepid. Not only is renting becoming the dominant mode of DVD acquisition, but the current quality of standard dual-layer DVDs is perfectly adequate for 99% of the population. Maybe in a few years, the proliferating 1080p sets will drive people to want high-def movies, but it won't be as rapid an adoption rate as the original DVD was.

10) Robots become sentient, destroy all of humanity
On a related note, iRobot's stock price will double in 2007 as a result of strong sales and the announcement that a first-gen AI will take over as President and CEO.

Have a good year, everyone!

Since I made a series of predictions for 2006, I thought I'd go back and see how many actually came true.

1) Google Launches All-in-One Suite
I've been expecting this for some time, as have other folks, I'm sure, but I think 2006 will definitely see this announcement. Google will, I predict, launch a converged, multi-purpose, browser-based work environment -- lord knows what it'll be called, maybe GoogleDesk or something like that. Anyway, it will incorporate and integrate many of the disparate services that Google currently offers plus add a few. GoogleDesk will integrate Google search, Gmail (plus an enhanced contacts management function), Google Maps (auto-mapping of contacts, natch!), Blogger (for publication/hosting of created content), a new mini-suite of document tools based on the OpenOffice standard (so you can create word processor documents, spreadsheets, and presentation files), GoogleBase (the use of which will become more obvious with time), and Google News (of course). All these will be wrapped up in a browser-neutral (although I wouldn't be surprised for Google to cozy up to Mozilla to enhance Firefox with some special goodies), Java-based interface. Personally, I eagerly await this.

Kinda, sorta true. Google's offerings did indeed multiply in 2006, with Google Documents and a raft of other new and enhanced online services popping up. Technically, they haven't all been integrated into a single UI, but given they all work in a single browser session, that's pretty close.

2) The HD-DVD/Blu-Ray war ends...Blu-Ray wins
Yes, Sony will finally be able to claim a victory in the format wars. After so many failed attempts at ruling the world (cue Pinkie and the Brain theme) -- Betamax, minidisc, all the various flavors of Memory Stick, etc. -- Sony and friends will edge out the HD-DVD group and Blu-Ray will become the de facto format for HD content. That is, until something better comes along almost immediately, but hey, that's a prediction for next year.

The war ain't over, but I think most people who follow the industry would agree that Blu-Ray, despite Sony's floundering on the PS3, has more behind it than does HD-DVD at this point. It will likely take a few more years for the winner to become obvious -- until then, consumers will just be faced with more options they couldn't really care less about. After all, normal DVD looks pretty good on an HDTV and more people are choosing to take their video with them on the go; high-definition is the least of concerns for the joe wanting to watch Family Guy on his iPod.

3) The Linux-based replacement for Palm OS comes out
To limited acclaim in the West, it is immediately adopted by a significant number of Asian companies for its cheap, flexible architecture. The number of devices (almost entirely phones) running it by the end of 2006 will be around 10 in Asia and zero (maybe 1 or 2) in the West (US + Europe).

Wrong. Well, ALP (Access Linux for Palm) was released, but I've yet to hear of any actual adoption, so I'll just have to chalk this up to pure optimism.

4) Nokia will launch a Linux phone
Following the nascent success of its Linux-based 770 Internet Tablet, Nokia launches its first phone using a Linux-based OS. It mimics the S60 in look and feel. It does well, but not markedly so, causing much speculation and debate around the web about whether Nokia is abandoning S60 entirely.

Nope, didn't happen.

5) Democrats regain control of US Senate, make gains in HOR
The margin won't be enormous, but the Senate will once again be in the familiar (and, arguably, beneficial to the electorate) position of being led by the party not in control of the White House. More negotiation will result in 2007 and something a wee bit closer to "democracy" will return to the US shortly thereafter. Still a long way from acceptable, but closer.

Pretty much right on the money. In fact, you might say I underestimated their gains. Looking forward to a government much more balanced by checks and balances than it has been lately.

6) Windows Vista will launch, Apple users yawn
Windows Vista (launched in early Q4) will excite few, especially in the corporate ranks, due to the combination of a lack of "must-have" improvements and unattractive licensing structures offered by Microsoft. The 17 or so flavors of Vista will also leave consumers puzzled over which version is best for them and ultimately wait until they replace their hardware to upgrade. Given that processor speeds aren't increasing much and hard drives are getting easier to replace, there will be fewer changing out their PCs. Microsoft faces a tougher year than usual next year regarding financials; Windows Mobile and Xbox divisions still not profitable (but closer).

Sounds like a pretty accurate description of what actually happened.

7) Digital/HDTV makes big inroads
2006 will be the year of the migration to HDTV. Falling HDTV set prices (especially DLP and LCD), plus an exciting bounty of converging digital content, will usher in a period of rapid adoption that will continue into 2007. Content providers will actually start getting significant numbers of complaints when they broadcast non-HD content on their HD channels, leading to fewer programming lapses.

For the most part, yup. The sales of HDTVs were so large this holiday season that they actually affected the profitability of several large electronics retailers. So I guess it's clear that HDTV is taking off as expected. What remains to be seen is whether the broadcasters actually start paying attention now that HD viewership is climbing into significant numbers.

8) Satellite radio subscribership grows, but limited
Sirius and XM will continue to gain subscribers, but neither will top 10 million by the end of 2006. Someone will launch a mySatelliteRadio service that lets users listen to their personal music collections via satellite receiver (think MP3.com's old model applied to satradio). The RIAA will eat it for lunch, with a few hundred new downloading lawsuits for dessert.

XM had less than 8 million subscribers at the end of 2006 and Sirius had about 6 million, with the latter growing more quickly. Both are growing more slowly than the companies had predicted (and promised to investors), so that part of my prediction is absolutely spot on. I haven't heard of anything like the mySatelliteRadio service being launched, but given that many satellite receivers now enable playback of MP3 files, the two music sources are definitely getting closer.

9) TiVo is acquired
I don't know by whom, but I think this will happen within the next 12 months.

Ahem, no.

10) Resurgances of sci-fi/fantasy TV shows
The recent success of Battlestar Galactica and Lost, and the big money that the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings franchises generate cause network television studios to start prepping more science fiction and fantasy content. A friend of mine thinks I'm daft to predict this -- we'll see. If not next year, then 2007. Or not.

Not exactly, at least not on the major networks. They are still heading towards the safe-and-familiar lines of reality/unscripted programming, dramas, and situation comedies. Alas, none of those are in space or in a castle somewhere. Too bad.

So, in the end, I had 5 predictions true or mostly correct, 4 that were mostly or completely wrong, and 1 that was unclear. Stay tuned for my predictions for 2007...

I thought this was a joke until I read the article (ABC News). Apparently, anything that poses a legal risk for schools will no longer be allowed.

What's next...no water in the toilets? I mean, if the school simply ignored such a dangerous combination of easy access to water in an unsupervised area, a 'swirlie' could mean big payouts to the victim's family.

Of course, they'll also need have to pad the walls and floors. And anything sharp should be removed, so no more cutting anything in art class. And don't get me started on the physical hazard posed by drumsticks and trombones! Band is a deathtrap!

*sigh*

Of course, this wouldn't be an issue in the first place if parents weren't so eager to sue their schools over every little bruise, scrape, or scratch. Heck, if that were the norm when I was a kid, my parents would have been the wealthiest couple in town.

Teaching kids to fight back against classroom invaders

Youngsters in a suburban Fort Worth, Texas, school district are being taught not to sit there like good boys and girls with their hands folded if a gunman invades the classroom, but to rush him and hit him with everything they've got -- books, pencils, legs and arms.

"Getting under desks and praying for rescue from professionals is not a recipe for success," said Robin Browne, a major in the British Army reserve and an instructor for Response Options, the company providing the training to the Burleson schools.

That kind of fight-back advice is all but unheard of among schools, and some fear it will get children killed.

Read the entire story (CNN.com)

This baffles me. At a time when all parents are concerned about violence in schools, we have a school programmatically teaching its students how to be violent. Granted, the context of the lesson is how to fight back against an intruder, but these are children; are they really able to reconcile these lessons in violence with the larger message that violence in society is a bad thing? Or, rather, are we instilling in them the lesson that violence is the best, if not only, way to combat aggression and giving them the basic skills to use violence against others?

I think Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi would be saddened indeed.

Of course, it will only take the death of one child attempting to fight back for this program to come to a screeching halt. But it's sad that it will have to come to that.

Impressed by the GOP's fun-loving lifestyle? Then learn how to become a Republican.

I'm not an advocate of big government or pointless bureaucracy, but time and time again, companies around the world have demonstrated that they cannot govern themselves when it comes to environmental safety and preservation.

The latest example comes from a story in The New York Times, which provides details on a horrific toxic waste disaster in Abidjan, Ivory Coast.

Six-month-old Salam Oudrawogol of Abidjan, Ivory Coast, has been covered with sores since he was exposed to toxic waste in August.

Globalism is inevitable and, I believe, has the potential to improve the lives of the planet's residents, but that will not happen without improved oversight and governance of corporations and individuals across international boundaries. The profit motive is a valid one, but it cannot come at the expense of social responsibility.

Ryan Singel over at Wired News has posted a nifty revision of the sadly ubiquitous terrorism "threat level" color coding system adopted by the (assumedly) well-intentioned Department of Homeland Defense shortly after it was formed (click the image to read the Wired story):

Now, tell me again why we're spending so much fighting terrorism instead of, well, anything else?

Bruce Schneier's article in Wired News, Refuse to be Terrorized, clearly conveys a message I've long advocated: any reaction to terrorist threats that degrades individual and collective liberties is simply aiding the terrorists' objectives.

The point of terrorism is to cause terror, sometimes to further a political goal and sometimes out of sheer hatred. The people terrorists kill are not the targets; they are collateral damage. And blowing up planes, trains, markets or buses is not the goal; those are just tactics.

The real targets of terrorism are the rest of us: the billions of us who are not killed but are terrorized because of the killing. The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act.

And we're doing exactly what the terrorists want.

Read the whole article.

These are the kinds of people making laws to govern the Internet in America.

Thanks for the lesson, Ted Stevens (R-AK)...suddenly, Al Gore doesn't seem so far out.

The Houston Chronicle has a story from the Associated Press that discusses how a new Canadian study offers broader, statistically significant evidence that homosexuality in men is likely the result of effects prior to birth.

Men with several older brothers have a greater chance of being gay -- whether they were raised together or not -- a finding researchers say adds weight to the idea that sexual orientation is based in biology.

One day pretty soon, I suspect, there will be amassed so complete an evidential trail that homosexuality is an innate quality, akin to gender, height, and eye and skin color. When that happens, I expect people like those in the Center for Marriage and Family Studies ("We don't believe that there's any biological basis for homosexuality," Dailey said. "We feel the causes are complex but are deeply rooted in early childhood development," as quoted in the article) will fall into two camps: (A) the deeply apologetic that gays have been so maligned (e.g., constitutionally prevented from marrying) who will work to counteract these prejudices and social injustices, and (B) the offensively ignorant who will continue to refute sound science (as they have with global warming, evolution, and a host of other topics) and "believe" that this subset of the population is unfit for society. And unfortunately, those falling in camp (B) have had a lot of practice preaching intolerance already.

Working to eradicate a social problem (e.g., ignorance or poverty) is charity; working to eradicate a biological trait in those who don't want to change is genocide. Learning to tell one from the other is apparently something that many in our society haven't learned how to do yet.

Read the full news story.

CNN.com has an interesting article, Tattoo nation -- the U.S. is getting inked, which summarizes the findings in a new survey.

Here are some of the statements I found interesting:

...about 36 percent of Americans age 18 to 29 with at least one tattoo...

...24 percent of Americans between 18 and 50 are tattooed; that's almost one in four. Two surveys from 2003 suggested just 15 percent to 16 percent of U.S. adults had a tattoo.

"Really, nowadays, the people who don't have them are becoming the unique ones," said Chris Keaton, a tattoo artist and president of the Baltimore Tattoo Museum.

The survey also found that what your mother may have told you about who has tattoos is true: People who drink, do drugs, have been jailed or forgo religion are more likely to be tattooed.

Nearly one in four [with piercings] reported medical problems, including skin infections. Among those with mouth or tongue piercings, an equal proportion reported chipped or broken teeth.

So I'm becoming more unique the longer I go without getting inked or pierced? How odd...it always seemed that proving uniqueness and individualism was why people got it done in the first place.

By the way, here's one example why tongue piercings aren't such a hot idea.

Nearly every day, we hear statements to the effect of "the world is getting smaller." This, of course, is a metaphor for how access to places on the planet we'd previously only read about is getting easier, faster, and more trivial. But it's a lie.

For a while, the world did indeed seem to shrink. In the early part of the 20th century, radio brought us sounds from remote places. Then, with the rise of film reels in the 1930s and 1940s, and television in the 1950s and 1960s, we saw images of these far-flung locations, distant events, and foreign peoples. The 1970s and 1980s brought us cable television and greatly expanded real-time news coverage, which seemed to bring these distant things just that much closer, both in space and time.

Then, we got us the Internet and the World-Wide Web. In the mid- and late-1990s, we were all about connecting each other even more tightly. Email made it trivial to get text messages to each other. We could send photos, which closed the distance that separated us. CUSeeMe and other video/web-conferencing apps enabled us to see each other in real-time, too, making it seem like we were just in the next room. The world did indeed seem like it was growing smaller by the moment.

But then we got the big idea that we didn't need to be constrained by the physical universe. People began inventing alternative, purely digital existences. They started out as MUDs (multi-user domains, or dungeons) and then grew both in sophistication and scope. And they also started generating a whole lotta content that existed only on the web. We moved beyond merely putting images of paintings in the Louvre on the museum's website -- we had started creating art that had no physical counterpart.

Sure, the Internet/Web was referred to as "cyberspace", suggesting that it had some otherworldly dimensions. But for the most part, we used it merely as a reflection of this tangible world we exist in every day.

These online worlds -- the Sims, the WoWs, the Second Lifes -- combined with the social networking spaces -- MySpace and Facebook, as two examples -- are effectively now making the world a bigger place. All this new content -- the what, the where, and the when -- is creating more "space" that we can, and often feel compelled to, explore.

While our ability to communicate with each other improves in both synchronicity and richness, the amount of space -- both physical and virtual -- is increasing at a faster rate than our communication can keep up with. The upshot is that we are getting more and more overwhelmed by the possibilities of how -- and where -- to spend our time. And this will only continue as new virtual spaces multiply, grow, and become increasing sophisticated.

What are the social implications of this? I've some ideas, but we'll definitely all be surprised as the specifics play out. Should be interesting, to say the least.

EarthQuest Generates First Property Ownership Lawsuit

EarthQuest combines the Google Earth 3-D mapping service launched several years ago with Google's recent acquisitions, gaming titles World of Warcraft and The Sims, and online property research firm Zillow.com.

The result is the first full-planet, geographically accurate massively multi-player online game. EarthQuest provides players with the chance to "buy" the rights to digital versions of real property, whereon they can then build virtual homes, buildings, or develop other, creative uses for the space.

The recently filed lawsuit contests two real-world neighbors, John Henkin and Wade Godby, both residents of Coral Gables, Florida. Godby claims that Henkin has artificially reduced his physical home's property value by buying the virtual space corresponding to Godby's yard in EarthQuest and erecting what was described as "a 75-foot digital phallus" on that spot. Henkin claims no wrong-doing as his purchase of that space in EarthQuest was valid within the parameters of the service, and erecting such a structure does not violate game rules.

Apparently, the feud between Henkin and Godby has been long-standing. Those living near the quarreling neighbors recount trashed Halloween and Christmas decorations, yards defaced with lime, and several instances of wireless network disruption emanating from one or the other household. A court date for the suit has not yet been set.

Customs Dogs Sniff out Stolen Office Supplies

A spokesperson for Staple Depot, the recent office supply mega-chain formed when Staples merged with Office Depot, stated that the company had invested in this effort as "an innovative solution to a growing threat to the health and morality of American business." Said the company representative, "Staple Depot believes that fighting terrorism and crime go hand in hand. After all, terrorists need Wite-Out and binder clips just like the rest of us."

DHS Home Searches Contested by Angry Liberals

The most recent round of physical property searches was defended by the outgoing DHS Secretary, Michael Chertoff. "Wiretaps have proven to be a useful tool for fighting terrorism here and abroad. Property searches are the next obvious step in rooting out terrorists who are already here in the US where they can do the most harm. Seeking warrants in these cases only reduces our ability to protect Americans."

One property owner, whose house was inspected at 3am yesterday by the FBI, complained, "Ain't we got no rights no more? What happened to the gall-dang Constitution?"

Attorney General Harriet Miers dismissed this criticism: "If you've nothing to hide, like any good American, there's no reason to be concerned about opening your home up to these rather unobtrusive searches." The ACLU has vowed to contest the legality of this program in US federal court.

Read more "Headlines from the Future"

I love data, especially data nicely depicted in graphical form. So, maps are a favorite of mine.

Here's one that's kind of interesting: it depicts self-reported religious adherance county-by-county throughout the US based on 2000 census data.

(Click the map for a larger image straight from the source, Valparaiso University).

I'll leave it up to you to interpret it.

Today, President Bush visited Cincinnati to throw out the first pitch of the National League's opening day game. The Cubs slaughtered the Reds 16-7.

The last time the President came to Cincinnati for a much-publicized event -- October of 2002 -- it was to announce the start of preparation for the Iraq war. There, he declared that Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism... Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past." Not one of those statements was actually true.

As of today, 109 Ohioans have been killed in Iraq since military operations began there.

Perhaps Bush needs to stop coming to Cincinnati -- every time he does, the results for Ohioans are terrible. While Ohio seems to be a good luck charm for the President, he's a bad omen for this state.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

With that quote in mind, let's visit an excellent post at DailyKos:

Meet the four horsemen of the Constitutional apocalypse: Republican Senators Mike DeWine, Olympia Snowe, Lindsey Graham, and Chuck Hagel. "Apocalypse, what hyperbole!" you say. But how else to label the fact that these four Senators will bring to the Senate a billowing white flag of surrender, and a crown for their King?

Yesterday, these four Senators introduced the "Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006." The bill would legalize the President's crimes. It would allow this Congress to rubber-stamp the administration's violation of FISA and the Fourth Amendment by condoning warrantless spying. According to their ass-backwards approach to oversight, the President can continue to spy on Americans without a warrant for 45 days. After 45 days, the President has three choices:

1. "Stop" the spying: Because naturally, we can trust this government to cease and desist on demand, given its amazing track record of self-restraint;
2. Ask the FISA court for a court order: Because naturally, this President has shown great respect for the FISA court process and would dutifully follow Congressional directives when it comes to applying for a FISA order; or
3. Inform the Intelligence Sub-committee: Because, of course, the President has proven he can be trusted to follow the law and notify intelligence activities about warrantless spying.

The bill is co-sponsored by four so-called "moderates" in order to hide its radical and catastrophic nature. What these four extremists accomplish with their bill is to amend the Constitution unilaterally--without the consent of the states--by nullifying the Fourth Amendment. Warrant? Reasonable cause? Psssh. Remnants of a pre-9/11 world, my friends.

Their bill, by making congressional notification optional, also effectively repeals the National Security Act of 1947, which requires the President keep the House and Senate Intelligence Committees "fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities." If the administration does chose to inform the Intelligence Sub-Committee, the members on that committee cannot disclose any abuses they may learn of. They can't order the government to stop the spying and they can't hold the government accountable for any abuses. Their mouths are sealed shut. Their hands are bound with inaction. They can do nothing but serve as audience for an all-powerful King. As Senate Judiciary Chairman Specter commented, this bill lets the administration "do whatever the hell it wants." And this is "oversight"? The sadder question that needs to be asked is is this America anymore?

So, let's review, shall we? Striking out part of the Bill of Rights? Check. Unfettered Executive authority to conduct massive, intrusive spying on Americans in secret? Check. A paralyzed Congress bound, blindfolded and gagged? Check. Establishing the precedent that the President can flat-out ignore the law of the land? Check. A Congress filled with Rubber-Stamp Republicans who couldn't give a shit about the rule of law as long as they make this scandal go away? Check.

A constitutional catastrophe doesn't look to hyperbolic now, does it?

Read the FULL STORY here.

I don't typically quote entire stories (apologies to Kos), but I think this one needs to be read by as many Americans as possible -- it's THAT important.

We all see it every day: police cars with no sirens or lights on whizzing through traffic lights, blatantly speeding, not using their turn signals, and just general bad driving that would otherwise get any one of us proles pulled over, if not a ticket.

This example of abuse of power I spotted yesterday. A cop pulled his car into a no-parking zone four feet from a busy city intersection. He then hopped out (well, "hopped" might be generous) of his car, ginormous spill-proof coffee mug in hand, and proceeded to walk the 60' or so to the coffee shop, assumedly to get a (free?) refill. The car was parked there at least 10 minutes, so maybe he got a scone to go as well. The photos show some details:

The cruiser is parked well within 10 feet of the intersection, in a "Tow Zone", even. I was taught that isn't permitted.

Oh, Mr. Policeman in car #03365, why do you do these things?

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

I think I just answered that last question. This is from the Ohio Revised Code (emphasis added):

4511.68 Parking - No parking of a vehicle is permitted in the following areas unless unavoidable or authorized by a police officer.

...

- Within 20 feet of a crosswalk at an intersection.

- Within 30 feet of a traffic control device.

...

- At any place where signs prohibit stopping.

So, it's the old "because I said so" excuse. Good thing to know that parking your cop car where Joe Civilian can't park, just to go grab some coffee, is validated by state law. So I guess a more accurate title for this entry would be "Coffee-Loving Cop Parks Where You and I Aren't Allowed Just to Refill Mug". Nice.

From Gizmodo:

Bad Samaritan Keeps Camera

This is the story about Judith and her unlost, but not yet found camera. She lost it on a trip to Hawaii, the camera had well over 500 photos on the memory card. Much to her delight she received a call from a park ranger informing her that somebody found her camera. A phone call later she found out that the camera was given to the diabetic son of the Canadian that found the camera. What is astonishing is that she actually accepts this pity excuse and works out a deal. All she wanted was her memory cards and a little bit of compensation - $50 for her $500 camera to be exact - for the camera.

She received a package two weeks later that had burned CDs of the pictures and a note saying that the Canucks needed the memory card for the camera. What's a lady to do? Of course, furiously call and demand justice! The bad Samaritan didn't care and told Judith that she was lucky to get anything back at all.

So go ahead, Stephen -- tell me why Judith doesn't deserve her camera back and that the unnamed Canadian is justified in keeping it. I'm sure your unique perspective on yet another example of ego-centrism run amok will be interesting.

Assuming the story contains all relevant details, I'm calling a spade a spade and labeling the finder of the camera a greedy, antisocial jerk. "Sucks to be you" just isn't an appropriate guiding philosophy for a modern society.

Something is very, very wrong with this scenario:

From the Associated Press

Missouri Firefighters Refuse to Help Non-Member

MONETT, Mo. - Rural firefighters stood by and watched a fire destroy a garage and a vehicle because the property owner had not paid membership dues.

Bibaldo Rueda - who was injured battling the flames Monday - offered to pay the dues as the fire blazed away, but the Monett Rural Fire Department does not have a policy for on-the-spot billing, Sheriff's Detective Robert Evenson said.

Fire Chief Ronnie Myers defended the no-pay, no-aid policy, saying the membership-based organization could not survive if people thought the department would respond for free. The department said it will fight a fire without question if a life is believed to be in danger.

Rueda used a garden hose and buckets to fight the flames while firefighters stood by on the road, watching in case the blaze spread to neighboring properties owned by members. The fire eventually burned itself out.

Rueda said no one told him about the dues policy when he moved in 1 1/2 years ago.

So if you owe back taxes, will they kick you out of a hospital emergency room in Missouri, too?

Yesterday, NPR had this story:

Commission Mulls Standardized Testing in Colleges
by Claudio Sanchez

Morning Edition, February 14, 2006 - The Bush administration has appointed a commission that is considering standardized testing for college students. The testing would be meant to measure the quality of higher education in the United States. [Listen]

This is a horrible idea, for many reasons. Here are just some:

1. Unlike public K-12 education, students aren't required to attend college. Students choose to go to a university if they want advanced education in a narrower field, such as engineering or art history or business, than what K-12 education provides them. This choice to obtain specialized education precludes any significant level of standardization because the educational outcomes are inherently different. Unlike high school, where our government has decided that nearly all graduates should know pretty much the same thing, universities teach to divergent outcomes.

2. Those who craft up the curricula at most universities in the US have doctoral degrees in their fields. That means they have greater knowledge about what is important to know about their areas of knowledge than any bureaucrat without similar background and education. So why would someone with less awareness and expertise in a particular field be better off creating a curriculum than someone who has spent his/her life studying that area?

3. A nationwide, standardized curriculum would limit the flexibility of colleges and universities to adapt to the rapid changes in technology, science, and other technical and non-technical fields that our graduates need to not only compete, but lead, in the global marketplace. A standardized curriculum will be inherently less agile, putting our world-class institutions at risk of falling behind other advanced nations. Our K-12 systems are already sub-standard compared to our peer nations -- do we really want to drag our colleges and universities down as well?

4. There is an inherent inconsistency in wanting higher graduation rates, more consistent knowledge across graduates, and cutting-edge curricula: You only get to choose two of those three. If you desire standardization in outcomes and are willing to make the content such that a higher percentage of the population can grasp it, then it will hardly be cutting-edge. If you want to a higher graduation rate for those with a cutting-edge education, then you will have to accept fewer into the programs (assuming there isn't some miraculously sudden increase in the competence of high school graduates being produced in this country). Finally, if you want more standardization of students having a cutting-edge curriculum, then you will need to cull those who aren't likely to graduate with a high degree of learning (i.e., flunk-out rates will be higher).

5. Finally, this is also a political philosophy question: why on Earth would Americans, most of whom do not prefer the government to meddle in affairs when it isn't necessary, desire this "big government" initiative when it will only increase the size of an already bloated government? Problems are rarely best fixed through added bureaucracy, and I'm still not sure why a lack of standardization in college curricula is even considered a problem.

If the Bush administration is worried about college graduates not having fundamental skills, such as calculating a 15% tip, perhaps it needs to go back and figure out why its "No Child Left Behind" program is letting kids with no knowledge of fractions and percenates. We don't teach those skills in college, as we assume students already have them when they get here. If the problem truly revolves around the inputs to the college system, rather than its outputs, then put the focus where it belongs and leave our colleges alone.

Public institutions are already facing increasingly daunting financial problems all across the country -- why burden them even more just to try and fix a problem with the K-12 system the government already has attempted to mend?

I will never understand the mentality necessary to incite riots, arson, and murder over cartoons, regardless of what the cartoons depict.

Drawings are not real...they have no impact unless you react to them. Even the opinions behind the drawings themselves are of little importance, certainly not worth this manifested outrage.

To further confound my ability to comprehend, these reactions are in many places where daily life is already hard. One would think that there are more essential things to worry about than cartoons, such as feeding one's family and raising one's children. Why on earth would you care this much about what some newspaper thousands of miles away on another continent publishes?

I don't, and probably can't, understand. And frankly, I'm not sure that I want to.

The New York Times has an interesting article wherein NASA's top climate scientist, Dr. James E. Hansen, claims his ability to discuss his research with the public is being curtailed by NASA and White House administrators. Other instances of this have been widespread (e.g., "Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us"), so this is just one more example of the US administration's unwillingness to upset its relationship with the power lobbyists.

Perhaps equally interesting is a paper by Dr. Hansen refuting Michael Crichton's critique (PDF) of scientists whose work finds that global warming is happening, nearly all of whom attribute it to industrialization's release of various pollutants into the environment. It uses actual data to debunk Crichton's factless claims...imagine! That paper is publicly available from Dr. Hansen's public webpage at Columbia University.

Rare throughout history has it been for a majority of the world's scientists to agree on something and then later for that to be found false. Even when churches and governments hold steady to whatever belief best fits their ideology/platform/foundation of power, science tends to prevail in the long term. I believe we will see the same outcome related to global warming decades or centuries into the future, but by then it may be too late to restore the planet's thermal cycle to a more natural, and stable, state.

"America believes in education: the average professor earns more money in a year than a professional athlete earns in a whole week."
    - Evan Esar

I stumbled across this graph just now, showing the US personal savings rate, or the percentage of individual income stashed away for a rainy day.

Holy crap, folks...you do NOT need that new flatscreen TV that badly.

Of course, maybe my fellow Americans are just being exposed to a bad influence: our Congress and President seem to be unable to limit the government's budget deficit growth recently.

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
    - Abraham Lincoln

From the Associated Press:

Calif. Husband, Wife Leave Sons Home Alone

by JULIANA BARBASSA
Associated Press Writer

MANTECA, Calif., Jan 5, 2006 - A husband and wife who found a dog sitter for their new puppies, but left their 9-year-old son home to care for his younger autistic brother while they celebrated the new year in Las Vegas, were arrested Wednesday, police said.

Jacob Calero, 39, and his wife, Michelle De La Vega, 32, left Calero's sons _ Joshua and Jason, 5 _ at their San Ramon home early Friday while the newlyweds headed out of town for a five-day trip, police said.

The children's mother, Cristina Calero, died of breast cancer in 2003 and Jacob Calero married De La Vega last year.

Joshua, interviewed Wednesday at his maternal grandmother's apartment in Manteca, said his dad and stepmother got each other puppies for Christmas, and went so far as to bring the pug and the poodle-Maltese mix to De La Vega's mother before leaving town.

"I thought they loved them more than us," the boy said.

Read the whole story (ABC News)

And more...

S.D. Woman Admits Putting Baby in Landfill

By CARSON WALKER
The Associated Press
Wednesday, January 4, 2006; 9:30 PM

ELK POINT, S.D. -- Saying she was afraid of how her boyfriend would react, a woman admitted Wednesday to throwing away her newborn, whose body was found in a garbage bag at a Nebraska landfill.

Lori Schultz, 21, pleaded guilty in Union County court to second-degree manslaughter, in an agreement with prosecutors. She could receive up to 10 years in prison at sentencing, set for Feb. 28.

Read the whole story (Washington Post)

I feel sorry for the kids, but the parents certainly don't deserve to be parents. It's amazing to think that we need a license to drive a car, own a gun, and even fish, yet there's no qualification for being a parent other than having a functional reproductive system.

Update: And one more, just because it's so apalling:

Mom Jailed After Deputy Finds Kids, 7-Day-Old Outside Without Coats

UPDATED: 9:08 pm EST January 7, 2006

NEW CARLISLE, Ohio -- A woman was jailed after a deputy said three of her young children and her newborn were outside alone Friday in freezing weather -- without coats -- as she slept soundly on a sofa.

Rosetta Welbaum, 25, faces four counts of endangering children, a misdemeanor that carries up to a $1,000 fine and six months in jail.

Three of the children, ages 2, 3 and 4, were still outside when Clark County Sheriff's Deputy Chad Eubanks arrived at the home, where the door stood open. The youngest was covered in urine and feces, and none had coats, hats or gloves, the sheriff's office said in a release.

Temperatures hovered around 30 degrees on Friday, and wind made it feel like 17 degrees.

Eubanks found Welbaum sleeping inside. As he tried several times to wake her, the 4-year-old girl alerted him to her 7-day-old brother, lying face down and covered on a chair. The baby had reddened, cold skin, and the children indicated they'd been playing outside with him.

The infant and 2-year-old boy were treated for hypothermia at Mercy Medical Center of Springfield. All four children were released to their father, who was not at home when they were outside.

Read the whole story (NewsNet5)

It just boggles my mind.

Gazing into my crystal (liquid crystal, of course) ball, the haze clears and 2006 looms large. Here is what the future holds for us in the coming year:

1) Google Launches All-in-One Suite
I've been expecting this for some time, as have other folks, I'm sure, but I think 2006 will definitely see this announcement. Google will, I predict, launch a converged, multi-purpose, browser-based work environment -- lord knows what it'll be called, maybe GoogleDesk or something like that. Anyway, it will incorporate and integrate many of the disparate services that Google currently offers plus add a few. GoogleDesk will integrate Google search, Gmail (plus an enhanced contacts management function), Google Maps (auto-mapping of contacts, natch!), Blogger (for publication/hosting of created content), a new mini-suite of document tools based on the OpenOffice standard (so you can create word processor documents, spreadsheets, and presentation files), GoogleBase (the use of which will become more obvious with time), and Google News (of course). All these will be wrapped up in a browser-neutral (although I wouldn't be surprised for Google to cozy up to Mozilla to enhance Firefox with some special goodies), Java-based interface. Personally, I eagerly await this.

2) The HD-DVD/Blu-Ray war ends...Blu-Ray wins
Yes, Sony will finally be able to claim a victory in the format wars. After so many failed attempts at ruling the world (cue Pinkie and the Brain theme) -- Betamax, minidisc, all the various flavors of Memory Stick, etc. -- Sony and friends will edge out the HD-DVD group and Blu-Ray will become the de facto format for HD content. That is, until something better comes along almost immediately, but hey, that's a prediction for next year.

3) The Linux-based replacement for Palm OS comes out
To limited acclaim in the West, it is immediately adopted by a significant number of Asian companies for its cheap, flexible architecture. The number of devices (almost entirely phones) running it by the end of 2006 will be around 10 in Asia and zero (maybe 1 or 2) in the West (US + Europe).

4) Nokia will launch a Linux phone
Following the nascent success of its Linux-based 770 Internet Tablet, Nokia launches its first phone using a Linux-based OS. It mimics the S60 in look and feel. It does well, but not markedly so, causing much speculation and debate around the web about whether Nokia is abandoning S60 entirely.

5) Democrats regain control of US Senate, make gains in HOR
The margin won't be enormous, but the Senate will once again be in the familiar (and, arguably, beneficial to the electorate) position of being led by the party not in control of the White House. More negotiation will result in 2007 and something a wee bit closer to "democracy" will return to the US shortly thereafter. Still a long way from acceptable, but closer.

6) Windows Vista will launch, Apple users yawn
Windows Vista (launched in early Q4) will excite few, especially in the corporate ranks, due to the combination of a lack of "must-have" improvements and unattractive licensing structures offered by Microsoft. The 17 or so flavors of Vista will also leave consumers puzzled over which version is best for them and ultimately wait until they replace their hardware to upgrade. Given that processor speeds aren't increasing much and hard drives are getting easier to replace, there will be fewer changing out their PCs. Microsoft faces a tougher year than usual next year regarding financials; Windows Mobile and Xbox divisions still not profitable (but closer).

7) Digital/HDTV makes big inroads
2006 will be the year of the migration to HDTV. Falling HDTV set prices (especially DLP and LCD), plus an exciting bounty of converging digital content, will usher in a period of rapid adoption that will continue into 2007. Content providers will actually start getting significant numbers of complaints when they broadcast non-HD content on their HD channels, leading to fewer programming lapses.

8) Satellite radio subscribership grows, but limited
Sirius and XM will continue to gain subscribers, but neither will top 10 million by the end of 2006. Someone will launch a mySatelliteRadio service that lets users listen to their personal music collections via satellite receiver (think MP3.com's old model applied to satradio). The RIAA will eat it for lunch, with a few hundred new downloading lawsuits for dessert.

9) TiVo is acquired
I don't know by whom, but I think this will happen within the next 12 months.

10) Resurgances of sci-fi/fantasy TV shows
The recent success of Battlestar Galactica and Lost, and the big money that the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings franchises generate cause network television studios to start prepping more science fiction and fantasy content. A friend of mine thinks I'm daft to predict this -- we'll see. If not next year, then 2007. Or not.

OK, those are my predictions. I may add some more...come this time in 2006, I'll look back on these and, well, probably LMAO at how poorly I forecast the future. Until then, have a good one!

Two years ago, on December 31, 2003, I made a series of predictions for what would happen in 2004. Well, OK, so I'm a year late reviewing how I did...sue me.

Anyway, I had some hits and some misses:

Prediction: PalmSource will release Palm OS 6 to much fanfare. It will be a marked improvment for the operating system, and devices running on OS6 will be available before July. They will rock.

LOL! Man, can I blow a prediction or what? In case you've been under a rock, Palm OS 6 never made it into any consumer devices (the closest I saw was some prototype phones from Asia) and PalmSource has switched to a Linux-kernel future for Palm OS and has since been acquired by Access, an Asian phone software firm.

Prediction: Samsung will continue to encroach on Sony's market share in nearly every consumer electronics product area except for gaming.

I think this was a pretty much dead on. As a direct competitor for Sony in nearly every product segment, Samsung's sales are way, way up -- 44% higher in 2004 than in 2003 -- with a lot of that momentum coming at Sony's expense (revenue down 7.2% compared to 2004). Sony's forthcoming PS3 will definitely grab some market share and Samsung so far has no competitor for it (and I can't imagine it doing so any time soon).

Prediction: LCD televisions will continue to expand as prices drop, brands multiply, and sizes increase. Plasma TV sales in 2004 will plateau, leading to a year-on-year decline (the first ever) in 2005.

Pretty close, but my prediction was a bit early. While plasma sales have continued to rise, they're increasing much more slowly than before. LCD TV sales, however, are skyrocketing and are set to pass plasma sales in 2006.

Prediction: Wi-Fi mania will continue to build and someone will announce a low-power, low-range Wi-Fi variant that effectively obviates the need for Bluetooth. The "death of Bluetooth" will be once again announced by the press...and this time they may be right.

Not quite. Bluetooth is that technology that really hasn't achieved its full potential. Even now in late 2005, it's hard to configure and finicky with most hardware combinations. Rumors of wireless USB and some other interesting technologies are still poised to replace Bluetooth, but it may take a few more years. In the meantime, we'll continue to mutter "you couldda been a contender!"

Prediction: Bad news will continue to pour forth from the US Congress and White House in terms of poorly conceived, technology-ignorant legislation and cow-towing to powerful media lobbyists (e.g., RIAA and MPAA). Environmental devastation and deregulation will increase at the hands of the Bush administration.

Well, this wasn't really a fair prediction since it was almost assured to happen. From the FCC's crackdown on "smut" on TV to MPAA/RIAA-friendly bills requiring digital flag handling in hardware to total refusal to participate in the Kyoto protocol to reduce greenhous emissions (justified, as usual, with selectively edited "scientific" studies), the US government has had a banner couple of years regarding technology abuse.

Prediction: Convergence in home entertainment (audio/video) electronics will be hampered by an industry that is unable and/or unwilling to agree on and follow technical standards.

Again, not hard to predict. The fact that we are STILL wrangling over Blu-Ray versus HD-DVD is just sad. Moreover, there has been little progress towards unification on either of the HDTV specs (720p vs. 1080i), but people are starting to gravitate towards accommodating both and getting 1080p sets.

Prediction: Despite technical and legislative solutions, spam will continue to increase as a percentage of total email, but more slowly (due to the convergence towards 100%).

Pretty much hit this one. Back in mid-2003, spam represented about half of all email. By late 2004, it had stabilized at around 67%, and hasn't climbed much more since then. Spammers have been using more sophisticated methods, such as phishing, to get higher returns out of the the spam they do send out. So, while the volume hasn't gone up dramatically, the danger level continues to rise faster than filtering technologies can adapt.

Prediction: There will be peace on Earth (hey, I can dream, can't I?)

Worst...prediction...evar.

Stay tuned for some end-of-the-year predictions for 2006 and beyond, to be posted next week.

Tap our minds, instead

In the minds of many, Alaska's pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge might seem irrelevant to the ordinary business of our lives or the great challenges of our time. But the fight to protect the refuge today is also a fight to confront our national priorities for tomorrow. Those who limit this discussion to caricatured arguments about the competing value of oil reserves and protected lands are irresponsible. We must ask hard questions.

Read the entire editorial (USA Today)

The ruling by a US District Court on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is out. In a nutshell, the judge dropped a Bunker Buster on Intelligent Design. Here's my favorite quote (page 43):

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.

Grab a copy of the ruling and read all 134 pages of it for yourself. This is a big win for science and the future of America.

Particularly relevant in light of recent events. Have we actually progressed so little in nearly 40 years?

"And the leaders of the world today talk eloquently about peace. Every time we drop our bombs in North Vietnam, President Johnson talks eloquently about peace. What is the problem? They are talking about peace as a distant goal, as an end we seek, but one day we must come to see that peace is not merely a distant goal we seek, but that it is a means by which we arrive at that goal. We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means. All of this is saying that, in the final analysis, means and ends must cohere because the end is preexistent in the means, and ultimately destructive means cannot bring about constructive ends.

- Martin Luther King, Jr., "A CHRISTMAS SERMON" 24 December 1967

The Associated Press had an interesting story yesterday:

Paying Iraqi Newspapers Troubles Bush

President Bush is disturbed by the U.S. military's practice of paying Iraqi papers to run articles emphasizing positive developments in the country and will end the program if it violates the principles of a free media, a senior aide said Sunday.

"He's very troubled by it" and has asked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to look into the pay-to-print program, national security adviser Stephen Hadley said.

Complete story here.

Wait a minute. Is this the same President who was pretty keen on the idea of feeding US media outlets fake news stories by fake reporters promoting the White House's policy initiatives, all funded by the executive branch of the government?

Per the Washington Post:

Fake News Gets White House OK

By Dan Froomkin, Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Then Andrea Mitchell reported that "for millions of viewers, the government has found the best way to spin the news is to produce the stories itself. . . .

"On issues from Medicare to farm prices, hundreds of local stations are running stories extolling Bush administration policies, reaching tens of millions of people."

"But all these reports were written and distributed by the administration and its public relations firms -- not by journalists."

Here's McClellan addressing the issue in his briefing yesterday: "As long as this is factual information about department or agency programs, it is perfectly appropriate," he said. In fact, he added, "I think agencies and departments have an obligation to provide the American people with factual information about their programs."

Here's how Ken Herman reported it for Cox News Service: "The White House, intent on continuing to crank out 'video news releases' that look like television news stories, has told government agency heads to ignore a Government Accountability Office memo criticizing the practice as illegal propaganda."

So once again, our administration preaches "do what we say, not what we do" to the world. Advocating torture, but decrying other countries who do it. Advocating freedom, but then passing the most intrusive anti-liberty measures (US Patriot Act) we've seen in quite some time. Advocating free trade, but then setting up tariffs to protect US industries. Advocating a free media, but then subverting the credibility of that media by both feeding it propaganda -and- possibly plotting to destroy foreign media outlets. Advocating fiscal responsibility, but then running up the largest deficit in the nation's history. Advocating unity, tolerance, and equality, but then trying to divide the country by segregating against those who seek same-sex marriages. The list goes on and on...when will these hypocrites be held accountable?

According to the NY Times, the US Department of the Interior has announced its intention to remove the grizzly bears (brown bears) that live around Yellowstone National Park from Endangered Species protection.

Their stated reasoning is that that population has increased from ~250 to ~600 bears over the past 30 years, and apparently 600 animals is enough.

A spokesman for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Hugh Vickery, said ... that a comprehensive management plan has been completed that says how the species would be managed. "It guarantees that the species will not decline," he said. "It is designed to keep the species population increasing, or at least so that it would never become threatened again."

It's a sad and discomforting realization that we're managing the world's wildlife the same way we would manage a store's inventory. This can't be right.

John Rennie's Scientific American editorial, Kansas, Where "Ignorant" is the New "Educated" is spot on.

Somewhere right now in Kansas, there is a little child who may grow up to be a brilliant scientist. She may make fantastic contributions to science, and future generations may remember her as one of the brightest intellectual lights of her time. But if so, it will be despite the public education that she received in Kansas, because today six dimwits on the state's Board of Education voted to lower the standards for how science is taught.

And...

It wasn't enough for them to undermine the teaching of biology by falsifying a scientific controversy over evolution. No, the Board of Education went as far as to redefine what science is: it's no longer just a search for natural explanations for natural phenomena. Now it's a search for... well, that's a bit hard to say. Any sort of explanation, apparently. Pixies, ghosts, telekinesis, auras, ancient astronauts, excesses of choleric humor, they all seem to be fair game in the interest of "academic freedom."

References to Aldous Huxley and the last paragraph's excellent literary construction are added highlights, IMO.

Go read it.

And for those Kansas science teachers who will now have to present this faux skepticism over evolution and offer a sincere lecture on 'intelligent design,' I encourage you to do it using a Jesus hand puppet, just to give it the proper authority and gravitas.

Reuters reporter Alan Elsner, in his column Is US becoming hostile to science?, outlines the many fronts on which science is being attacked in the US by the growing religious conservative movement.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bitter debate about how to teach evolution in U.S. high schools is prompting a crisis of confidence among scientists, and some senior academics warn that science itself is under assault. In the past month, the interim president of Cornell University and the dean of the Stanford University School of Medicine have both spoken on this theme, warning in dramatic terms of the long-term consequences. ... In the past five years, the scientific community has often seemed at odds with the Bush administration over issues as diverse as global warming, stem cell research and environmental protection. Prominent scientists have also charged the administration with politicizing science by seeking to shape data to its own needs while ignoring other research.

Perhaps what is even more distressing is the huge amount of ignorance of science in the US, as Elsner discusses:

Polls for many years have shown that a majority of Americans are at odds with key scientific theory. For example, as CBS poll this month found that 51 percent of respondents believed humans were created in their present form by God. A further 30 percent said their creation was guided by God. Only 15 percent thought humans evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years.

Other polls show that only around a third of American adults accept the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, even though the concept is virtually uncontested by scientists worldwide.

This troubles me greatly. The U.S. has relied to a large extent on its prowess in science, math, and technology to provide the high standard of living its citizens enjoy. Now, we see this movement away from science towards a "faith-based" model of how the world works (because, you know, that worked so well for medieval Europe), which will only further undermine this country's ability to compete and innovate.

Religion is fine and good, but it doesn't power an economy and it certainly doesn't help us achieve important goals like spaceflight, advanced energy sources, biomedical and pharmaceutical advances, etc. Even a competent military defense requires a sound science program. By turning away from science, the religious conservative movement threatens to weaken this country's economic base and undermines its security. Moreover, it rejects the results of millions of person-years of rigorous research and investigation and replaces it with ideas that can not be tested (e.g., creationism).

Perhaps religious conservatives who reject some of the principal tenets of science should restrict themselves from enjoying the benefits of science, as the Quakers do. No more motor vehicles or pharmaceuticals or electricity or the use of plastic. No, these things are based on science, and if they think science is wrong, then using them should be wrong, too. After all, how can such a flawed approach to life, devoid of faith, produce anything virtuous enough for the faithful to use?

I've long been amazed at the tendency of the right, especially the religious right, to resort to fear tactics, if not outright terrorism, to influence public opinion. Examples like the bombing & terrorism of abortion clinics, constant reminders of 9/11, and statements that foreign leaders should be assassinated remind us how a "moral majority" need not be moral at all, and illustrate how a commandment (e.g., thou shalt not kill) is only applicable when it doesn't preclude you from of getting what you want.

Well, now I have witnessed some of these fear tactics first-hand. In response to a letter to the editor of my local tabloid newspaper, the Cincinnati Enquirer, I received an anonymous piece of hatemail and three phone calls from some irritated (and apparently unstable) stranger.

First, some background. On October 4, 2005, Peter Bronson, a notoriously right-wing columnist for the Enquirer, penned an editorial entitled Bennett is latest victim of liberal P.C. police. You can read it for yourself, but my take on the article was that Bronson was up in arms that "liberals" were taking William Bennett's comments out of context and wrongly calling him a racist for suggesting that black babies be universally aborted in the US. I think that's nonsense, as I indicated in my letter to the editor, which was published on October 7, 2005:

Peter Bronson's column "Bennett is latest victim of liberal P.C. police" (Oct. 4) clearly demonstrates the difference between thoughtful and thoughtless criticism. Some thoughtless critics, like Bronson, have misunderstood the furor over Bennett's comments, mistakenly believing that his statement was taken out of context to promote the idea that he supports abortion.

Thoughtful critics correctly understand that Bennett's actual offense is that his statement, even in the context of the discussion, suggests that one specific race should be targeted for reducing crime. Such racial bigotry, especially by a past secretary of education, is simply appalling.

Now, the Enquirer limits letters to the editor to 100 words or less, certainly not a lot of room to say something incredibly substantive. But, I thought my main point was fairly clear and not put in a way that anybody (except perhaps Peter Bronson) would find offensive.*

A bit before 10pm the evening of the 7th, the day the letter was published, our phone rang. Our phone rarely rings after 9pm, as nearly every civilized person knows it's rude to call that late. Someone identified himself as Al Zellhuber (and Caller ID agreed: (513) 233-2642 - 6217 Roxbury St, Cincinnati, OH 45230 per Google; sometimes listed as Al Zellhuber or Albert Zellhuber on the Internet).

He asked if I was the person who wrote the letter to the editor. I said yes. He then said he wanted to talk to me about it. Fairly sure this wasn't going to be a friendly exchange of ideas, I said I wasn't interested. He then asked, "So you write this letter and now you're not willing to discuss it?" I said no, especially not at this hour, and hung up. I have to admit to being a little freaked out.

Well, the phone rang again a few minutes later and Mr. Zellhuber was more persistent. I told him that I did not welcome his call, especially since a ringing phone risked waking up our sleeping baby (and every parent knows that you do NOT want to wake a sleeping baby). I told him that if he wanted to respond to my letter, that he should submit his own letter to the Enquirer. I then asked him not to call back and hung up. This sort of subtly threatening behavior is not something I'm used to.

This exchange intrigued/amused some friends of ours who had come over to watch a movie, and the ensuing discussion was interesting (and fairly unanimous that someone would have to be at the fringe of sanity to call a total stranger late at night based on their 100-word letter to the editor). My wife was quite shocked that this could happen ("how could he get our phone number?"). Oddly enough, reminding her that our number and address are listed in the phone book didn't seem to calm her any.

The next morning, Mr. Zellhuber, to his credit, called to apologize for disturbing us the previous night. I told him that I hadn't intended to be rude, but that I didn't believe publishing a letter to the editor (next to which is only my name and the part of town I live in) was an open invitation to have strangers contact me to argue about it. To my surprise, he didn't try to engage me on the subject of the letter and we ended the conversation amicably.

Then, when our Saturday mail arrived, in it was a hand-addressed letter to me with no return address. It contained a single page of 5" x 7" ruled yellow paper with a hand-written note in black ballpoint ink:

I do suspect that Al Zellhuber wrote this letter as well, but I have no proof. I find it a bit disconcerting that while I associate my name with my opinion, this letter's author criticizes me while hiding behind anonymity. Courage does not appear to be universally borne out of believing one is right.

You might notice that it looks like it's been ripped. Yes, well, upon reading it the first time, I tore it up and threw it in the trash. It was only upon thinking about it a bit that I decided to tape it back together and post it here. The reason I am doing this is so others who, after submitting editorials to the Cincinnati Enquirer, may receive similar contact from anonymous and/or moderately deranged individuals will know they are not alone.

Anyway, it's been a strange few days. I'm used to the Internet, where things are a bit more sane -- if you don't like something someone says, you email them, flame them on a forum, or blog about it. This calling people and sending letters business is disturbing, perhaps only because it deals with my physicality. And that, I think, is where the tactic starts to identify itself with intimidation and capitalizing on fear. Fear for one's safety and that of his family are powerful motivators to stop writing what one believes. I'm not suggesting that a few phone calls and an anonymous letter have left me fearful, but I do believe it is consistent with a larger pattern of threat, coercion, and, yes, terrorism.

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

* Had I been given space, I would have clarified (as I will here).

First, as I said, the issue of abortion is not the problem with Bennett's statement. Columnist Bronson said "Are they worried that we might discover that African-Americans account for a disproportionate share of crime compared with their population?" But Bennett wasn't talking about per-capita crime; Bennett's simply said that the US could theoretically cut its crime rate by aborting every black baby. This is damning evidence to Bennett's bigotry, for even when speaking in theoreticals (as he claims he was), targeting blacks would not create the largest net reduction in crime. In 1994 (the best stats I could find), US crime (as measured in arrests) fell pretty much along racial proportions (i.e., the % of arrests for any given race was about the same as the % of that race in the population). So, targeting a specific race for any type of crime-reduction strategy (Bennett mentioned abortion) is simply foolhardy, and Bennett's focus on blacks as the primary cause of crime in America clearly shows his intolerance and bigotry.

Second, Bronson writes "Only a moral imbecile would advocate using abortion to cut crime. Anyone who listens fairly can see Bennett did not do that. But now anyone who defends [Bennett] takes the risk of being called a "racist" by the P.C. Police. That's why it needs to be done." This is an amazing piece of logical fallacy. First, Bronson totally miss the reason why people are calling Bennett a racist (as I stated in my letter). Then, he professes that defending Bennett is the correct thing to do simply to combat (potentially mistaken) political correctness. Granted, Bronson makes it clear that he doesn't support abortion, but the racism issue is still very much the elephant in the room. And, for that matter, Bronson doesn't seem aware that even the White House thought Bennett was out of line.

Here is the "anonymous" and rather pathetic letter that Mark received on February 23, as described in his comment below.

By State. Looks like South Dakota has a wicked post-election hangover and might be suffering from some "I can't believe I brought him home with me last night."

Check it out.

I was very bothered by this story on Wired, IPod Maps Draw Legal Threats, where a NYC guy is getting cease-and-desist letters from municipal transit authorities who claim their subway maps are copyrighted.

Let me get this straight...the public's tax dollars are being used to fund these transit agencies, yet the documents they release back to the public so the public can use the services their tax dollars are also funding are NOT able to be freely used by the public.

That seems very wrong.

It reminds me of the time several years ago when someone contributed several volumes of Arizona's Revised Code (the state laws) in PDA format to MemoWare, a site I used to own and operate. I got a cease-and-desist letter from the Arizona State Attorney's office asking me to remove the documents because they were copyrighted by the state and not freely disseminable.

Basically, they want a taxpayer-funded monopoly on how this "intellectual property" can be represented, distributed, and accessed. I think that's inappropriate.

So here's what I propose: All documents produced by any government agency or government-funded organization (i.e., more than 50% of operating funds coming from local, state, or federal government...i.e., taxes) intended for public use must be uncopyrighted and enter the public domain immediately upon production, with the following exceptions:

-- Scientific research (because it may lead to patentable technologies/methods that could then enable the organization to require less taxpayer funding)

-- Workpapers, notes, and other personal documentation (i.e., that which is never intended for public use)

-- Documents addressing matters of public security (e.g., "Top Secret" documents)

Does this make sense? Are there any other types of publicly available government-produced documents that shouldn't be made PD? Should I start suggesting this to my representatives in Congress?

There's an interesting political tendency quiz over at OK Cupid. It is by no means a perfect test -- I was muttering "It depends!" for many of the questions -- but it's not bad either. Check it out.

Here's how I scored today (tomorrow, who knows?):

You are a Social Liberal (80% permissive) and an... Economic Moderate (50% permissive) You are best described as a: Democrat Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid

I wish I had a "Science" category for this, but here it is regardless: New Scientist Special Report on Evolution.

In case you're not familiar with New Scientist, it is an excellent source of science news.

America, the land of liberty and freedom, seems to be losing its appreciation for those two ideals. Despite believing that liberty and freedom set it apart from other countries, Americans appear to be all too eager to let their government take away their rights in the face of hardship.

When the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 hit, the federal government responded with the US Patriot Act, one of the most privacy-infringing pieces of legislation this country as ever seen. Most Americans didn't seem too ruffled by the fact that police and other government agencies were now allowed to access private records without reasonable cause or notice to those being spied upon.

In acting upon an issue of apparently grave social importance, several state governments have outlawed the possibility of same-sex couples to marry. Furthermore, if another state does allow them to marry, their marriage won't be recognized by the states with these laws. To most Americans, this reduction in some of the country's citizens' personal liberty is apparently perfectly acceptable.

Now with Katrina, two new liberties are being trod upon with abandon. First, in New Orleans, police have decided that, regardless of the 2nd Amendment's statement that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," no one except for police and military personnel (and a few rent-a-cops guarding wealthy individuals' homes) may carry or own any form of firearm until further notice. I am about the furthest thing from a gun advocate, but how is this acceptable? NOLA is not under martial law, at least not officially.

The other liberty atrophying in the aftermath of Katrina is freedom of the press. The Bush administration, who has so obviously bungled nearly every aspect of the federal response to this disaster so far, is apparently tired of the mountains of bad press coming out of NOLA. So, in response, reporters are being forbidden from accessing affected areas. Some reporters are even being beaten, harassed by police and/or military, and having their cameras confiscated despite these reporters doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing: covering the news of the disaster.

When the government of the world's most prominent Democracy starts so brazenly spying on its citizens, taking away their weapons, and limiting the press, something is very, very wrong. Yet, most Americans seem willing to sit idly by, content with thinking it will be better some day. Maybe they should take another look at the rears of their cars, where their bumper stickers read "Freedom Isn't Free." Nor is it ever safe from incursion, even from within.

Lost Remote has a great entry about the recent uproar over two murders in Aruba. They compare Aruba's muder-per-capita rate with other places in the hemisphere.

Last year in Aruba there were two murders - possibly just one, depending on which stat you believe. We'll go with two anyway. No tourists were killed. That's a murder rate on Aruba of a little over 2 per 100,000, but we'll call it an even 2. Or look at it this way: The Aruba murder rate is .0002.

Still, you can't go a minute without hearing about Natalee and you're worried. Maybe you're switching your vacation from Aruba to Jamaica. Bring some Kevlar. Murder rate: 32 per 100,000.

Read the entire story.

I'm a greedy, self-centered consumer. I want the best of everything for a reasonable (not necessarily the lowest) price. And you know what, that makes me not even the slightest bit different from the majority of consumers.

As a consumer looking out for my own best interests, I've come to the conclusion that 1 is a sucky number indeed. 1 sucks when there is only 1 company in a market because, more often than not, its products and services start going downhill fast. The firm doesn't have the competition to spur it on to improve and innovate.

For example, I run exclusively Microsoft operating systems on our PCs here at home. Does this suggest that I want Microsoft to be the only supplier of consumer operating systems? Not hardly. In fact, I wish they had less market share than they do now so they'd be motivated to update Windows even faster and better than they have been. Another example is Firefox, the open source browser. When Internet Explorer had like 96% of the browser market, Microsoft essentially stopped improving it (apart from the requisite security hole patching). Now that Firefox has gone from 0% to nearly 10% of the browser market in under 18 months, Microsoft is all of a sudden breaking out Internet Explorer 7. Don't tell me that competition doesn't help us consumers.

ebay is another example. If you want to auction something online, ebay is pretty much the only game in town. ebay knows this and has essentially stopped trying to make significant improvements in their service. Right now, they're just raking in profits and buying other companies (e.g., Paypal). There are lots of things ebay could do to improve their auction services. But, because they basically have no significant competition, they see no reason to spend the money on making these improvements they could otherwise distribute out to shareholders. This doesn't do us consumers any good (unless we also own ebay stock).

1 is a sucky number sometimes even outside consumerism. For example, I'm not devoted to either of the two main parties, Democrats or Republicans. I've voted for both in my life, and may well possibly continue to do so. But, as we see the "balance" of power list dangerously far to the right in this country, we start to see the problems that become even more rampant when there is only one party: corruption, abuse of power, favoritism, nepotism, and a total lack of moderation. Amazingly, the political party starts acting just like the firm with monopoly power and becomes an ineffective, if not outright bad, institution. If the Democrats continue to fall further into disarray and organizational atrophy, we risk becoming a one-party nation. And we know how well those do.

Rooting for the underdog is an American tradition, so I urge my fellow countrymen to go out and support that #2 (or #3 or #4) company/party/organization they've had their eye on. Buy a Mac. Use Firefox. Vote Democrat for a change. Support the underdog and keep potential monopolies from consolidating their power. Do this because, frankly, it's simply in your own best long-term interest.

According to this story posted on Broadcasting & Cable, the US Senate is still full of baffled, bewildered, and bollixed lawmakers seething at the thought of unregulated peer-to-peer file sharing.

The chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee Thursday issued a stern warning to operators of file-sharing networks and Internet service providers that Congress will impose penalties on them if the industries don't do more to stop illegal downloading of music, movies and TV shows.

"We are going to be watching," said panel chairman Ted Stevens, adding that he is disappointed file sharing companies haven't done more in the wake of the Supreme Court's Grokster decision holding P2P liable for copyright violations if they encourage copying without compensation of the artists, record labels and studios that produced the content.

"We've got to find some way of protecting our intellectual property. We can't expect people abroad to protect our intellectual property if we can't protect it at home," he said during a hearing on the impact of the Grokster case. ...

Reading this made me wonder a couple of things. First, why haven't the lawmakers gotten this upset about roads? Our highway system is used by far more people than P2P networks, and I'd bet that as much, if not more (I'm too lazy to look up figures), stolen property (dollar-wise) is transported on highways each year than on P2P networks. Why aren't they threatening the state transportation departments with added oversight and regulation unless they police their roads more effectively (e.g., mandatory searches on every trip, signed agreements by motorists who want to transport something on the roadway, etc.)? Other than the digital/corporeal difference, why aren't P2P networks and a roadway networks subject to the same standards?

Second, Senator Stevens obviously has no clue about technology, innovation, or world commerce, but how can he believe that our development of P2P networks, one of the most powerful concepts overlaid on the Internet, is somehow encouraging people in China and India and elsewhere to pirate content? Does he really think the guy standing on a Shanghai street corner selling low-quality DVD copies of Revenge of the Sith is doing it because he thinks "well, the Americans use their P2P networks, so this must be OK"?

If the senators are so concerned about this copyright violation problem, why don't they worry about enforcing the copyright laws we already have instead of adding new regulation that will only stifle technological innovation?

Bush Is Serving Up the Cold War Warmed Over is well-written and insightful. It's recommended reading for anybody willing to think about the state of our union (those of you with "God Bless President Bush and Our Troops" bumper stickers can ignore this message).

You've seen them: those "mega-churches" that are springing up all over America. They look like warehouses or malls, replete with enormous parking lots and corrugated steel siding. They have hip-sounding names like Crystal Cathedral and Willow Grove (isn't that a golf course?) with multi-million-dollar budgets and high-tech sermon production studios. They borrow heavily from the business school playbook, with many hiring MBAs from prestigious programs to help grow the congregation.

Perhaps most interesting in many of these evangelical megachurches is the abandoning of traditional religious symbols, such as the crucifix, crosses, and even the Bible in some. According to a recent article in BusinessWeek, these artifacts are avoided so as to not scare away potential new attendees who might otherwise be intimidated or disturbed at the thought of "going to church."

This is the advent of religion as retail -- where different churches/faiths market their offerings (many of which have nothing to do with spirituality) in an attempt to capture greater market share and increase revenues. Size matters, marketing gets the word out, and slick operations makes sure that the member's "experience" is a good one. Sound like the same types of activities that Target and Best Buy engage in? It is.

And this shift towards religion as retail is occurring just like the transition that retail followed in America not too long ago. The retail landscape used to be dominated by multitudes of small, locally owned and managed stores, each offering a tailored service to its local clientele. These "mom and pop" operations were the standard.

Then, the efficiencies of scale were discovered and modern technology -- transportation, communication, information -- enabled coordination of much broader operations. Local chains became regional chains, and regional chains evolved to national and international market icons: Target, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, etc. This "big box" phenomenon -- the super-sizing of stores -- has occurred for a variety of reasons, many of which have to do with operational efficiency (which leads to lower costs and lower prices) and marketing effectiveness (e.g., large-scale advertising is usually more easily accomplished by larger companies).

So is this where religion in the US is headed? If we look at retail as a guide, we're at the early stage of consolidation and the emergence of some larger chain-style churches ("franchising" is a term common in some megachurch circles these days). "Mom & pop" churches are still the norm in many communities. But if the retail pattern replicates in religion, then the small, cozy, local church with the pipe organ and the minister/pastor who everybody knows (and who knows everybody) will be largely gone within a couple of decades. In its place (or rather, in the place of dozens of these small churches) will be a single, new, heavily branded megachurch, possibly part of a recognized chain or franchise, replete with coffee shop, bookstore, sports leagues, and maybe even a car repair center (some have them, I'm not kidding). Instead of the quaint, iconic church of stone, brick or clapboard with the steeple and the cross on top, there will be a huge steel (glass optional) box or dome that resembles much more closely the Wal-Mart across the street than the old, beautiful churches of Europe.

Is this what we want? Has spirituality in the US become such an impersonal commodity that this retailing of religion will be the new dominant mode of worship? Will this retailization lead to the same decreasing level of commitment and loyalty that retailers now struggle with? Will churchgoers "shop around" for the best combination of services and convenience, perhaps with the deciding factor being wherever most of their friends are at the moment? Will churches start offering "worship loyalty cards" like the one from Kroger on my keychain? It will be interesting, if not depressing, to find out.

James Howard Kunstler has penned a compelling essay about the impact of energy, or specifically the lack of it, on our future. In a nutshell, The Long Emergency (or here) suggests that our inability to move from ever-more-expensive petro-chem-based fuel to something truly more sustainable will have far-reaching effects on society, including a retraction of cities and the general economic regression one would associate with a global disaster. In fact, that's a pretty fair summary of his predictions:

It has been very hard for Americans -- lost in dark raptures of nonstop infotainment, recreational shopping and compulsive motoring -- to make sense of the gathering forces that will fundamentally alter the terms of everyday life in our technological society. Even after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, America is still sleepwalking into the future. I call this coming time the Long Emergency.

Most immediately we face the end of the cheap-fossil-fuel era. It is no exaggeration to state that reliable supplies of cheap oil and natural gas underlie everything we identify as the necessities of modern life -- not to mention all of its comforts and luxuries: central heating, air conditioning, cars, airplanes, electric lights, inexpensive clothing, recorded music, movies, hip-replacement surgery, national defense -- you name it.

The few Americans who are even aware that there is a gathering global-energy predicament usually misunderstand the core of the argument. That argument states that we don't have to run out of oil to start having severe problems with industrial civilization and its dependent systems. We only have to slip over the all-time production peak and begin a slide down the arc of steady depletion.

Granted, Kunstler is a very "glass is half empty" kind of guy. His Eyesore of the Month serial (covered in GearBits in January, 2003) is a prime example of the pessimistic cynicism that pervades his mind. Of course, just because he's pessimistic doesn't mean he's wrong: the logic he uses in The Long Emergency is consistent, fact-based, and pretty frightening.

But, I personally believe that Kunstler isn't putting as much stock in one thing as he should: our ability to innovate. Mankind has proven to be incredibly adept at making itself comfortable even in the worst conditions. Now that we have seen the marvels of economic transcontinental flight, cheap hot water, and ubiquitous fresh food, I doubt very much that we'll give it up without a fight. The fight that Kunstler alludes to -- class warfare and violent uprisings -- may happen, but I don't think it will. These changes will come about slowly, if at all, so it's not like there will suddenly be no oranges in the supermarkets in Michigan.

No, I believe that we'll figure out ways to compensate, at least partially, for oil's increasing rarity and cost. For one thing, I continue to believe that nuclear power needs another go.

But then, I certainly don't think that we'll all be living better in 20 years than we are now. At the least, we'll be living differently. I do agree with Kunstler that the suburban growth model is unsustainable and doing awful things to this country. Many of suburbia's "advantages" are short-sighted and/or built upon illusory benefits. This pattern seems to fit perfectly with a country where many of its business leaders make decisions that only serve them through the end of the quarter (when their bonuses are calculated) and many political leaders make decisions aimed primarily, if not solely, at creating short-term or personal benefit (setting themselves up for the next election). But I digress. :-)

To sum up, Kunstler's essay is interesting, frightening, and perfectly possible. In order for us to avoid such a disturbing future, we need to start making smarter decisions, both individually and as a community/nation/species, today. If we don't, then Kunstler's dark predictions may actually resemble reality more than most of us are prepared to accept.

(Thanks for the lead, Mitch.)

I'm becoming increasingly impressed with Wikipedia -- the latest well-written entry I've read there is this one on Democracy (there's a high probability you don't know as much about that topic as you've been lead to believe).

I'm sure you've heard all the uproar about how Kansas is working on redefining what science is to make the concept of "intelligent design" (a.k.a. Creationism) more easily taught in public schools. The new definition opens up the realm of explanation for things to those outside "natural phenomena," which of course means miracles and all sorts of magic and supernatural ideas can be discussed as reasonable explanations for otherwise scientific issues. "Today in biology, children, we'll be discussing how God created mitochondria." Of course, that begs the question "which god?" There are so many to choose from around the world...maybe they can only afford one in Kansas.

Yes, this is happening in the same state that just recently amended its constitution to prohibit gay marriage. So how are these two stories related? One possibility is that the forces behind the gay discrimination legislation are scared not only of "activist" federal judges striking down their laws as unconstitutional, but also of the mounting science providing evidence that homosexuality is an innate trait, akin to hair color or personality type, rather than supporting their view that it is a consciously adopted lifestyle. Here's what one recent study found:

A compound taken from male sweat stimulates the brains of gay men and straight women but not heterosexual men, raising the possibility that homosexual brains are different, researchers in Sweden reported on Monday. ... "These findings show that our brain reacts differently to the two putative pheromones compared with common odors, and suggest a link between sexual orientation and hypothalamic neuronal processes," Savic's team wrote.

If homosexuality is innate, it would be completely against our expectations of individual freedom and equality for any laws to discriminate against those having the trait. That would quickly undermine the new no-gay-wedlock constitutional amendments Kansas and other states have passed.

But, with a revised definition of science, those supporting anti-gay measures can simply shrug off the new findings as being but one of many possible explanations. By virtue of this definition, they could more easily point to the Bible, the only science textbook true believers apparently need (I guess that would help balance the Kansas state budget to only have to buy a single book for every class students might take), to respond that "intelligent design" has crafted a scenario where our brains change based on the lifestyle we choose. Of course that's bunk, but that's why they call it "faith" -- you believe what you believe even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Of course, some might just call it ignorance.

So, dear Kansas, 34th member of the union, please put down your Bibles and read, for once, something that actually employs those scientific methods you ascribe -- measurement, experimentation, hypothesis testing, etc. You might find out that while faith and science can indeed co-exist, they are certainly not substitutes for one another.

Republican Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania thinks the National Weather Service should be less of a service. He is introducing a bill that will make it illegal for the NWS to provide any information (other than severe weather forecasts) that the private sector could also provide. The decision on what services the NWS may provide would be made by one person: Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez.

These other (non-severe weather) services that could be discontinued include routine public and marine forecasts that many citizens and residents of the US depend on. Moreover, Jeff Masters over at Weather Underground makes several excellent points about the quality of the NWS' services:

It is unclear from the bill's language whether the NWS would be allowed to continue making its routine public and marine forecasts. This decision would be made by the Secretary of Commerce. I believe the expertise of the NWS forecasters is unmatched anywhere in the world, and throwing away their forecasts would be a shameful waste. Although the private weather industry can and does provide routine public and marine forecasts, the quality of these forecasts is sometimes poor and would likely worsen if the NWS ceased issuing forecasts. When I participated in forecasting contests both as a student and an instructor, I discovered that while it was difficult--but not impossible--to beat the NWS forecast, it was nearly impossible to beat the "consensus" forecast--that is, the average of everyone's forecast. Private weather industry forecasters do their own forecasting, but will usually check their forecast against what the NWS says before sending it out. If the NWS forecast differs considerably, there will frequently be an adjustment made towards the NWS forecast, resulting in a better "consensus" forecast. So, with the proposed legislation, not only would we lose the best forecasts available, but the forecasts from the private weather companies would also worsen. Many sectors of our economy depend upon good forecasts, and passage of the bill might result in a loss of millions of dollars to the economy.

He goes on to say that other reasons for this bill to be opposed include (a) it wouldn't really reduce the NWS' spending, since in order to forecast severe weather, they have to forecast 24 hours a day anyway, and (b) the benefits to Americans and American companies from this bill are neither uniform nor highly likely to occur. You can read Dr. Master's Weather Undergroundentire commentary here. There is also an online petition to stop this bill: sign the petition

While I'm certainly not in favor of wasteful government spending, the effectiveness of the NWS as a centralized weather agency certainly seems to indicate that we shouldn't be messing with a good thing. The NWS doesn't have a material impact on our country's economy (not the way things like, oh, the war in Iraq do), so cutting its services makes little sense in the overall scheme of things.

According to an interesting article in The New York Times, data-mining and large-scale surveys are turning up interesting consistencies between the cars people drive and their political leanings.

Among their findings: buyers of American cars tend to be Republican - except, for some reason, those who buy Pontiacs, who tend to be Democrats. Foreign-brand compact cars are usually bought by Democrats - but not Mini Coopers, which are bought by almost equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. And Volvos may not actually represent quite what you think.

Two of the passages I found particularly interesting (possibly due to their personal relevance) are the following:

Scarborough found that Porsche owners identified themselves as Republican more often than owners of any other cars, with 59 percent calling themselves Republicans, 27 percent Democrats and the rest either calling themselves independents or declining to answer. Jaguars and Land Rovers also registered as very "Republican" vehicles.

"Volvos have become more plush and bourgeois, which is a Republican thing to be," said Mickey Kaus, a dual expert in politics and cars as the author of the Kausfiles and Gearbox columns for Slate. "Subaru is the new Volvo - that is, it is what Volvos used to be: trusty, rugged, inexpensive, unpretentious, performs well, maybe a bit ugly. You don't buy it because you want to show you have money; you buy it because you have college-professor values."

Read the full article if this piqued (not "peaked") your interest.

Tomorrow, like Ohio and 16 other states before it, Kansas will offer its voters an option to ban gay marriage through the addition of an amendement to its state constitution. The Kansas City Star has more on the story. Here's why this action is wrong:

If marriage is a purely religious institution, which some argue, then the state has no (or very limited) right to control it by virtue of the 1st Amendment's separation of church and state. If a couple, or group, even, regardless of gender or sexuality, wants to be married religiously, all they need to do is find a consenting religious institution that will marry them. If the majority in a religion want to bar gay marriage in that religion, they are free to do so per the liberties and religious freedoms granted by the United States. Just like the state has no authority over baptisms, it would have no authority over a purely religious marriage.

However, if marriage is indeed a purely religious institution, then, because state and federal governments can show no preference for one religion over another (or over an absence of religion), religiously married couples should get no state/federal rights that unmarried couples can't receive, such as different tax specifications or medical benefits.

If, on the other hand, marriage is a purely civil institution, such as "civil unions," being incorporated, or being a registered voter, then the state has every right to control who can, and who cannot, be married. Just as the state can decide who may adopt a child and who may drive a car, it may decide that certain conditions must be met in order to be married. And, the corresponding civil benefits mentioned above could then be granted by the state as it sees fit.

However, if marriage is indeed a purely civil institution (i.e., based on secular principles), then there is no valid basis for discriminating against gays and lesbians. Some argue that homosexuals choose to be that way (a contentious argument), but if that were an acceptable basis, we would be justified in discriminating against people of certain religions (since we choose our religions...it is not an inherent part of our physiology) or particular political affiliations simply because we disagree with their beliefs/lifestyle/etc. Some argue that homosexuals cannot conceive children, the primary purpose of marriage. If that were a valid argument, then it would be appropriate to withhold marriage rights from anyone who is sterile or otherwise unable to reproduce. Obviously, both these arguments are poorly founded. Finally, some, if not most, argue that homosexuals should not marry because it goes against their religious beliefs. This is obviously of little relevance if marriage is a purely civil institution -- one person's religious beliefs should not (generally) be the basis for withholding the rights of another citizen who does not share those beliefs. If that were the case, no one in our country would be allowed to consume beef or pork, no one would have access to birth control, no one would be permitted to work on Saturday or Sunday, etc.

Clearly, neither of these two options fully explains the situation at hand. Therefore, there can be only a single explanation: that marriage in the US is a civil institution based on the dogma of a particular religion (Christianity) or religions. So, is it appropriate for a religious majority to withhold the civil rights of US citizens who do not agree with that religion's beliefs? Before you say "yes," consider this: isn't this inequity, repression, and loss of freedom precisely what we've been fighting against in the Middle East? Isn't the fact that certain religious groups have lorded over other groups, abusing that power by limiting the rights and liberties of the repressed, one of the factors that so outraged our leaders that we've sent troops or gone to war time and again? If so, why is it OK for us to repress our citizen minorities while it is not OK for other countries to repress theirs?

So, it follows that Kansas can legitimately ban the civil act of gay marriage if, and only if, it can find a rationale that (a) is not based on religion and (b) results in a significant common good unachievable by other measures. If the ban is based purely on religious doctrine, then it is at odds with the US Constitution. If the ban is not based on religion, but nor does it produce a common good unachievable by other measures, then the ban is pointless -- it merely eliminates the rights of some individuals to no benefit of others.

I hope that Kansans think about this before voting tomorrow, but I do not expect it will happen. If there is one thing this country seems to have no shortage of these days, it is religion-fueled intolerance. In that way, we're starting to look a lot like the parts of the world we've attempted to liberate.

Tired of right-wing rhetoric and biased reporting filling your eyes and ears as your TV wanderings happen upon the FOX News channel? Sam Kimery was, so he invented the "FOX Blocker," a small device that filters out FOX News from cable signals. Kimery has sold about a hundred of the devices so far, according to The Seattle Times.

Apparently, Kimery's invention has resulted in him receiving multiple death threats. Some right-wing conservative extremists apparently believe that anyone who would help people avoid watching FOX News should is morally flawed and should be killed. This despite Kimery being a former Republican party precinct captain and the fact that Kimery himself doesn't even use the device.

This kind of reminds me of the old TV show "The Max Headroom Show," which took place in a future where it was illegal to turn off your television or tune it to something other than the state-provided broadcasts.

Every day, it seems, I read about how lawmakers and trade groups (sometimes they seem to be one and the same) like the MPAA and the RIAA are concerned with how to regulate the Internet or some new-fangled piece of technology so that people can't violate copyright laws or do something else bad.

• Some people are using peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing systems to illegally trade music and movies, so they want to outlaw those systems.
• Some people are using the Internet to upload porn that children might see, so they want to regulate it.
• Some people are switching to VOIP to make phone calls instead of paying their interstate communications taxes like good little sheep citizens, so they want to tax Internet-based communications.
• Some people are selling things on ebay and then not completing the deal, so they want to make everyone get a vendor license.

ENOUGH! You can't keep everyone in line all the time, and locking down the system so as to reduce the chances of abuse to zero only results in a system that nobody can use for anything, good or bad.

• Some people are using highways to smuggle stolen merchandise, so why don't we outlaw highways?
• Some people are making telephone calls to arrange criminal activity, so why don't we eliminate the phone system?
• Some people are using lighters, spoons, and syringes to partake in illegal drugs, so why don't we regulate lighters, spoons, and syringes?
• Some people have used knives and baseball bats to murder other people, so why don't we put limits on who can buy those items?

The reason is that all these items have significant valid and legal uses and their presence benefits society. Instead of regulating spoons and baseball bats, we regulate what can not be done with them (taking drugs and assaulting people).

And this is how it should be. The laws have generally tended to regulate activity, not the things related to the activity. While we regulate cars in terms of safety, we don't put onerous speed limiters on them...why not? Because it's already illegal to speed -- the law addresses the behavior, not the technology.

There are laws that focus on the technology rather than the use, such as the design of vehicles and medicine bottle caps. But that is done primarily for safety reasons, not to prevent criminal behavior. One exception to this is gun control, which is done to reduce the possibility of guns being used to commit crimes. The argument for this regulation is that guns, especially assault rifles, have few valid and legal uses.

Even though I've long been an advocate of gun control, I just realized that one of the arguments against gun control is very similar to the argument I'm making against technology control. That is, laws should address the behavior (e.g., armed robbery or assault with a deadly weapon), not the technology itself. From that perspective, I can appreciate the NRA's position, even if I do still believe their objectives are unfounded (IMO, no private citizen has a valid reason for keeping a gun on his person at all times). But I digress.

So, we already have laws limiting trade, communications, and various criminal acts. If something that's illegal in the real world happens on the Internet, it should be illegal in that case as well. But, we do NOT need new laws specifically for the Internet and related technologies. If an entirely new and unregulated behavior emerges that society wants to constrain, then a law may be appropriate, but regulating information technology itself is just bad policy.

The Associated Press has produced an interesting Flash slideshow that highlights the debate over oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Here's one page that is particularly informative:

If you want to see the rest of the document, it's available for the moment from CNN.com.

Said President Bush, kowtowing to right-to-lifers, of the Terri Schiavo case, where he and other right-wing politicians passed a special bill giving the federal courts jurisdiction over the matter: "This is a complex case with serious issues. But in extraordinary circumstances like this, it is wise to always err on the side of life."

This is the same Bush who oversaw 152 executions, some in questionable cases, during his 6-year period as Governor of Texas.

Hypocritical are also the actions of various who supposedly "support life," even if it means killing. According to this CNN story, the 6th Circuit judge, George Greer, who has repeatedly ruled in favor of Terri Schiavo's privacy, has had lots of death threats. "Greer has been under 24-hour protection by two U.S. marshals due to increased threats against his life by those unhappy with his handling of the Schiavo case." The story goes on to describe a man in North Carolina who offered $250,000 to anyone willing to kill Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband, and $50,000 to kill Greer. This appears to be a long list of violent acts by protesters to the courts' rulings.

I'm sure not everyone who wishes Terri to indefinitely remain in a persistent vegetative state is willing to kill a bunch of people, but it does make an interesting contrast with the "moral values" argument that supposedly decided the last election.

So, just to recap, there is a growing Christian Right movement in this country of people who feel it is acceptable to:
1) Deprive US citizens of fundamental rights (i.e., right to marry) based on something that could be genetic/inherent rather than merely a lifestyle choice (I haven't seen much scientific evidence either way) -- didn't we decide this was a bad thing back in the 1960s?
2) Deprive US citizens of their right to privacy and deny the wishes they effect through guardianship and other legal means
3) Kill, or have killed, those who disagree with you because they disagree with your beliefs -- isn't this what people think is so awful about Muslim extremists?

Oh, Founding Fathers, where have we gone wrong?

From the "Glass is Half Full" department comes a study suggesting that rising obesity in the US may shorten average lifespans enough to offset some of the financial woes facing the Social Security system. Read more....

In yet another sign that many of our elected officials are more interested in supporting corporate welfare than enacting the will of the citizenry, the Senate just defeated an amendment that would have removed authorization to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from the proposed 2006 federal budget. The vote was 51 opposed to 49 in favor.

Having actually visited Alaska a few times, I am personally saddened by this outcome. It is clear that the Republicans who voted this amendment down have no interest in the environment and they aren't concerned with "moral values" when their own pocketbooks might be involved.

I wish I could say something humorous about this, but I'm too angry to be funny at the moment.

Senator Larry Mumper wants to promote conservative values by restricting freedom of speech in the state's colleges and universities. It is incredible the hypocrisy embedded in a bill that supposedly wants to foster diversity of thought, but does so by putting limits on speech.

Pete Kotz at the Cleveland Scene wrote a particularly wonderful story about Mumper and his ambitions:

So Larry launched a bill that would bar professors from discussing "controversial" topics that had no relation to the subject at hand. It would also mandate that professors be hired for their competence, rather than their political or religious beliefs.

It never occurred to him that it was wholly unworkable.

And unfortunately, this attack on freedom of speech doesn't stop in Ohio -- it's all over the US thanks to the efforts of Marxist-turned-Conservative David Horowitz. An article in Time recently discussed these disturbing legislative initiatives:

For those on the right, true freedom [of speech] requires more diversity--which, to them, means more conservatives in faculty ranks. "If the system were fair," says Larry Mumper, sponsor of the Ohio bill, "Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would be tenured professors somewhere."

Where are these neo-conservatives taking us...is a Department of Acceptable Speech next?

According to Wired, the United Nations has passed a non-binding resolution urging member states to ban all forms of human cloning "...in as much as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life."

The document, which has no legal force, passed 84 to 34, with 37 abstentions. The United States was joined by many African, Arab and Latin American states in voting for it; mostly European and Asian countries opposed.

In speeches after the vote, several nations including Britain, South Korea and the Netherlands flatly rejected the resolution. They promised to push ahead with therapeutic cloning, which scientists believe may lead to new treatments for diseases.

US leaders are apparently quite satisfied with joining forces with many of the developing world's countries that base their policies primarily on religious zealotry and short-term wealth-creation opportunities for the nation's powerful. Yes, we may not be able to provide 21st century healthcare to our citizenry, but we'll have the Ten Commandments in every school, a bible under every pillow, and no scrap of public land will go without its own oilwell.

It was nice being a world leader...I'll miss that.

Apparently, according to the Pope's new book, gay marriage is evil.

It would have been refreshing if language that strong had been used when the church learned about Catholic priests raping young boys.

Apparently, two gay adults entering into a public, monogamous relationship is worse for humanity than supposedly celibate religious leaders secretly having their way with children. Certainly an interesting moral position.

p.s. No, there's no "tech" aspect to this post...get over it.

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has sued Jack Murthy of Winnetka, IL over alleged copyright violations related to Mr. Murthy's memory-enhancing brain implants.

The MPAA contends that Mr. Murthy broke US copyright law when he entered the entirety of the film Harry Potter 7: Yet More Trouble at Hogwart's into the artificial memory he had surgically implanted last year.

Murthy had been suffering from the increasingly common ailment known as Electromagnetic Field Induced Memory Atrophy, or EFIMA. EFIMA is often caused by extended use of phones and other wireless communications devices when placed near the head. Murthy purchased the surgical procedure that implanted several terabytes of silicon-based RAM into his brain in order to overcome the debilitating effects of EFIMA.

The MPAA's suit against Murthy partly stems from the recently overhauled US copyright code, which forbids any and all duplication of copyrighted work "for so long as any party with intellectual or financial interest in the work exists." The MPAA claims that by retaining his memory of watching the movie in his artificial memory, Murthy effectively made a perfect duplicate of the content without permission of the movie studio.

Mr. Murthy's defense is to include at least one epistomologist, who will likely argue that the nature of memory and knowledge does not allow it to be subsumed under US copyright law.

Sony-Miramax-Pixar, the movie studio that made the film in question, had no comment for this story.

---
Read previous editions of Headlines from the Future

According to Wired, one public school system will continue to allow children to leave the building during school hours to attend "bible classes" at nearby churches.

"In the Weekday Religious Education program, first-, second- and third-graders go to nearby churches for Bible classes during school hours.

Some parents had asked the board to eliminate or modify the program, saying children who choose not to go are stigmatized and lose valuable class time."

What I wonder is what those kids who choose not to go to Bible class are doing while the other students are off-site. The article doesn't specify, but if this public school isn't making other classes available to the non-participators, then there's a serious problem here.

Beyond that, how is a Bible class furthering this nation's goal of producing well-educated citizens who are able to compete in a global marketplace? Taxpayer-funded time spent studying religion doesn't seem consistent with the separation of church and state (only churches were mentioned; does that mean only Christian religions are available through the program?) and doesn't seem consistent with the "No Child Left Behind" program (unless only Christian children are being worried about). Would it be OK to go study ancient Greek religion (i.e., mythology) or Native American religions off-site during the school-day? If not, then this government-run institution is favoring one religion over another, which is precisely the sort of thing the Constitution forbids.

Given that the US' children aren't even close to keeping up with many other countries in math, science, and other areas of important knowledge, this program seems a very poor use of these students' publicly-funded educational time.

I've always been a fan of nuclear energy. It now seems that Wired is as well:

"Burning hydrocarbons is a luxury that a planet with 6 billion energy-hungry souls can't afford. There's only one sane, practical alternative: nuclear power.

We now know that the risks of splitting atoms pale beside the dreadful toll exacted by fossil fuels. Radiation containment, waste disposal, and nuclear weapons proliferation are manageable problems in a way that global warming is not. Unlike the usual green alternatives - water, wind, solar, and biomass - nuclear energy is here, now, in industrial quantities. Sure, nuke plants are expensive to build - upward of $2 billion apiece - but they start to look cheap when you factor in the true cost to people and the planet of burning fossil fuels. And nuclear is our best hope for cleanly and efficiently generating hydrogen, which would end our other ugly hydrocarbon addiction - dependence on gasoline and diesel for transport."

Yes, there are things we have to worry about, but Watt-for-Watt, nuclear is far better for the planet than any other large-scale energy source currently available to us. Well, that is until someone delivers me the Mr. Fusion I ordered back in 1987.

Michael Powell, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, announced last Friday that he will be stepping down from that post. Powell, son of Secretary of State Colin Powell, leaves a mixed legacy.

His most public action was to increase the fines for indecency on radio and television stations by several magnitudes. And you know, that's just what the networks needed, because they're already doing so great competing against cable and satellite. I'd much rather he imposed fines for excessive "reality TV" programming, but maybe that's just me.

While he did do some technology-friendly things, such as nixing a proposal to regulate VOIP, he won't be remembered fondly by most of those who appreciate the First Amendment. Most notably, he bent over backwards to please the MPAA and put into regulation the stipulation that all video-receiving devices must make provision for the dreaded "broadcast flag" by mid-2005. Yes, even though the movie industry keeps reporting record-breaking revenues and profits year after year, Powell thought they needed some help in making sure that consumers aren't allowed to watch what they've already paid for unless the MPAA says it's OK again. Brilliant...thanks a heap, pal.

Lori sent me this today...I laughed.

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

The President, the First Lady, and Dick Cheney are flying on Air Force One.

George looks at Laura, chuckles, and says, "You know, I could throw a $1,000 bill out the window right now and make somebody very happy."

Laura shrugs her shoulders and says, "Well, I could throw ten $100 bills out the window and make ten people very happy."

Cheney says, "Of course, I could throw one hundred $10 bills out the window and make a hundred people very happy."

The pilot, hearing this, rolls his eyes and says to his co-pilot, "Such big shots back there... hell, I cou