miscible.net

Kanye West arrested after skirmish at airport - CNN.com

2008-09-11T17:53:00.001-05:00

Hey Kanye, why don't you try to be a bigger crybaby ass next time?

And hey, 1982 called and it wants Sarah Jessica Parker's glasses back.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/11/kanye.west.arrested/index.html

Rest in peace, Don LaFontaine

2008-09-02T19:48:00.000-05:00

Another book list

2008-08-20T20:07:00.000-05:00

Stolen. I'm feeling snap-judgement-y tonight.

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

This is another good one. I even liked the TV movie with Spock as The Big Giant Head, or whatever his name was.

The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt by Edmund Morris

And another. Riveting.

Swiss Family Robinson by Johann David Wyss

Ugh.

Dharma Bums by Jack Kerouac

Nope.

The Iliad and Odyssey of Homer

I read some of it. Just enough to escape with a 'C'.

Bluebeard by Kurt Vonnegut

Vonnegut sucks.

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

Nope.

Another Roadside Attraction by Tom Robbins

Never heard of it.

White Noise by Don Delillo

Ditto.

Ulysses by James Joyce

Nope.

The Young Man’s Guide by William Alcott

No.

Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West by Cormac McCarthy

No.

Seek: Reports from the Edges of America & Beyond by Denis Johnson

No.

Steppenwolf by Herman Hesse

Wasn't Andy Dick in Steppenwolf?

The Book of Deeds of Arms and of Chivalry by Christine De Pizan

Nope.

Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra

Possibly, parts. Don't remember anything about it. Was this the one about windmills?

Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer

Nope.

The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri

Might have read some of it. Good stuff, I think. Surprising how much of our current religious beliefs came from this.

The Rough Riders by Theodore Roosevelt

No. Should.

East of Eden by John Steinbeck

No.

Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes

No. Don't they make light switches?

The Thin Red Line by James Jones

No. I think I have the 1964 film waiting on my DVR.

Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain

Did read this one. I liked it.

The Politics by Aristotle

No.

First Edition of the The Boy Scout Handbook

Does the Webelos handbook count?

Cyrano de Bergerac by Edmond Rostand

No.

Tropic of Cancer by Henry Miller

No. Probably should. I liked Death of a Salesman.

The Crisis by Winston Churchill

No.

The Naked and The Dead by Norman Mailer

No.

Hatchet by Gary Paulsen

No.

Animal Farm by George Orwell

Yes. More annoying, constant comparisons to anything we don't like in modern times.

Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs

Does George of the Jungle count?

Beyond Good and Evil by Freidrich Nietzsche

I'm living it!

The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison

Probably should.

Moby Dick by Herman Melville

No.

Essential Manners for Men by Peter Post

Burp! What?

Frankenstein by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelly

I think I read this. I know I read Dracula.

Hamlet by Shakespeare

Yes.

The Boys of Summer by Roger Kahn

No.

A Separate Peace by John Knowles

No.

A Farewell To Arms by Ernest Hemingway

No.

The Stranger by Albert Camus

No.

Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Dafoe

No. But saw it about a thousand times on WGN's Family Classics. [que song and Frazier Thomas]

The Pearl by John Steinbeck

No.

On the Road by Jack Kerouac

No.

Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson

Ditto about the Family Classics.

Confederacy of Dunces - John Kennedy Toole

No.

Foucault’s Pendulum - Umberto Eco

No.

The Great Railway Bazaar by Paul Theroux

No.

Fear and Trembling by Soren Kierkegaard

Does Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas count?

Undaunted Courage by Stephen Ambrose

Is this one of those "Look at me and how wonderful I am for not killing my family" books?

Paradise Lost by John Milton

No. Or maybe I did?

Cannery Row by John Steinbeck

No.

American Boys’ Handy Book

Was this the one that taught us was menses and vas deferens were?

Into Thin Air by Jon Krakauer

No.

King Solomon’s Mines by H. Rider Haggard

No. I prefer his brother Merle's work.

The Idiot by Fyodor Dostoevsky

Living it.

A River Runs Through It by Norman F. Maclean

No.

The Island of Dr. Moreau by H.G. Wells

No.

Malcolm X: The Autobiography

No.

Theodore Rex by Edmund Morris

Liked this one too. Ran a little long-winded, but still excellent.

The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas

Wasn't he the guy that invented deep fried sandwiches?

All Quiet on The Western Front by Erich Maria Remarq

No.

The Red Badge of Courage by Stephen Crane

No.

Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans by Plutarch

No.

The Strenuous Life by Theodore Roosevelt

Swimmin' nude in the Potomac!

The Bible

I guess. There is some good stuff in there.

Lonesome Dove by Larry McMurtry

No.

The Maltese Falcon by Dashiell Hammett

Good movie.

The Long Goodbye by Raymond Chandler

No.

The Dangerous Book for Boys by Conn and Hal Iggulden

I think I downloaded this off a BBS once.

The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara

No.

The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin

Should read this.

The Histories by Herodotus

No.

From Here to Eternity by James Jones

Good, sad movie.

The Frontier in American History by Frederick Jackson Turner

No.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig

Yeah, I read this. A bit self-indulgent for my tastes. I didn't like the ending.

Self Reliance by Ralph Waldo Emerson

Maybe should.

Content is king

2008-08-20T19:28:00.000-05:00

And thus, I will steal it. Some guy listed the top thirty books you must read before you're 30. In honored fashion, a point by point exercise.

1. Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse

Never heard of it.

2. 1984 by George Orwell

Read is a long, long time ago. Won't say it was before 1984, but it might have been. I'll tell you this: I'm sick of the comparisons.

3. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

Can't honestly remember if I've read it. I think so. But definitely saw the movie. Powerful stuff.

4. A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess

Never read it. Or saw the movie.

5. For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway

Ditto.

6. War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy

Ditto.

7. The Rights of Man by Tom Paine

Nope.

8. The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Nope. I might be an uneducated slob?

9. One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel García Márquez

Not this one either. But I read something else by him and didn't like it.

10. The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

No. One of the most impactful books ever, but does it actually need to be read anymore?

11. The Wisdom of the Desert by Thomas Merton

Sounds boring.

12. The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell

Nope.

13. The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Graham

Probably?

14. The Art of War by Sun Tzu

Probably should read this one.

15. The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien

I tried to read this a long time ago, and couldn't get into it. Liked the movies though.

16. David Copperfield by Charles Dickens

Yeah right. 7000 pages on child abuse. No thanks. Could barely sit through the movie. Nobody plays Mcgongle like WC Fields, nor the stern step father like Basil Rathbone, however.

17. Four Quartets by T.S. Eliot

I knew a guy who escaped Dresden and watched it burn. Close enough.

18. Catch-22 by Joseph Heller

Another one I tried to read but didn't.

19. The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald

Great book. Informs on the dangers of getting too "into" the party culture. It'll always end in tears.

20. The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger

Another false start.

21. Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Nope.

22. The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli

No, but I should.

23. Walden by Henry David Thoreau

GAFB.

24. The Republic by Plato

Nope.

25. Lolita

Saw the movie, and it creeped me out. Peter Sellers in a very weird role.

26. Getting Things Done by David Allen

Cram it. How can you get anything done when you're up to your jowls in ticklers?

27. How To Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie

I have read this. Simple and to the point. Be nice. Be ethical. Expect same.

28. Lord of the Flies by William Golding

My asthma!

29. The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck

No. Does hearing my grandparents talk count?

30. The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov

Nope.

31. BONUS: How To Cook Everything by Mark Bittman

Bittman's a jerk.

32. BONUS: Honeymoon with My Brother by Franz Wisner

Isn't this basically what Jimmy Buffet's Maragaritaville is about?

South Sider, actor Bernie Mac, dies at 50

2008-08-09T07:45:00.001-05:00

http://www.suntimes.com/1099574,mac080908.article

That's a shame. I really respected and liked his "The Bernie Mac Show". He didn't go for the cheap racist comedy like so many other shows still do. George Lopez, I'm talking about you. In fact, in that regard, his show was a step above "The Cosby Show", where white people were occasionally stereotyped. I watched a good many of the episodes, and I don't remember ever seeing a stereotype of any kind, ever (*). It simply showed the spectrum of people and how they lived and got along. With Carl Reiner as Carl Reiner, the wacky neighbor.

(*) OK, I suppose there was one, sort of. But it was a hilarious conflation of two stereotypes- the Irish priest principal of their school who acted like some kind of mob enforcer.

Schools eye four-day week to cut fuel costs

2008-07-25T10:12:00.001-05:00

http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSN2439039120080724?feedType=RSS&feedName=lifestyleMolt&rpc=22&sp=true

Actually, this might have educational benefits as well.

Take Wednesday off, change the lesson plans around and give unusual homework for Tuesday (and Friday) night. The chapter reading, various projects, watch an educational DVD, bone up on the times tables, etc. Then the other nights could be reserved for lighter stuff.

On the other hand, I know a certain math teacher would simply have assigned 3000 derivations.

On the other, other hand, I can imagine certain teachers' unions demanding the day off be a Monday or Friday to preserve their "right" to three day weekends.

Voters to decide on naming sewage plant for Bush - CNN.com

2008-07-17T21:08:00.001-05:00

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/17/presidential.putdown.ap/index.html

HA!

Satire

2008-07-15T07:40:00.000-05:00

Regarding the New Yorker's Obama cover, they are crying that nobody "gets" their satire. Except that it's not satire. From the wikipedia definition:

In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with the intent to bring about improvement.

There is NOTHING in that illustration that does ANYTHING to 'poke' the holders of that opinion about Obama. It just seems to legitimize their hate. It does nothing to ridicule them- to them, it is a depiction of what's "real". That's not satire- there is no depiction of the idiots.

Another customer complaint letter!

2008-07-09T08:07:00.000-05:00

This time to Costco:

I have a couple of comments regarding a recent visit to your store in Orland Park, IL.

First, the store was clean and friendly. Thank you!

Second, I was surprised and disappointed in the packaging choices of many of your products. It struck me when I was looking at the pens/pencils/markers- except for the cheaper Paper-Mate pens, they are all packaged in huge plastic clamshell style containers. Seriously, 12 pens in a 10 inch by 15 inch plastic package? In some cases, it seemed like there was more packaging than product! What happened to a little box with a dozen pens in it? Same for a lot of the other products- I'm remembering a Panasonic phone system in a two foot by three foot floppy clamshell thing? Seems like a lot of plastic that the customer has to throw away, and a lot of air that you are paying to ship around.

(And, not for nothing, the "display" type of boxes these plastic clamshells are shipped in are useless for using to pack up our purchases for taking home- after checking out, the big dumpster of boxes was full of useless boxes.)

Third, and maybe this is just me, but I tend to prefer buying my bulk products in normal sizes. For example, I bought cases of normal sized cans of tunafish and tomato paste. Or the 36 packs of Pepsi cans. I suspect many customers would prefer that as well- I just can't use a gallon of mayonnaise. But I'd buy a four pack of those 16 ounce squeeze things in a heartbeat.

Fourth, in your mens clothing section, there was a table of blue jeans- I think they were cargo/carpenter pants- and they smelled. I couldn't identify the smell, but it was sort of a musty and bug spray kind of thing. Eew.

Fifth, I absolutely love the Kirkland brand white undershirts. You guys have somehow hit on the perfect cotton blend and shirt design! Thank you! It would be nice to see them in a V-neck variety also.

Thanks for letting me share my concerns, and I wait with interest to hear your comments!

Burger Purism?

2008-07-08T19:59:00.000-05:00

I think I've become a burger purist.

Let me explain. For example, in the french fry world, a really good french fry does not need ketchup. In fact, if it's a really good french fry, ketchup wrecks it. And so the perfect french fry stands on its own- golden brown, a good crisp to soft ratio, a bit of salt.

I think I feel the same way about a hamburger. The true test of a burger is to get it as plain as you can handle, with only the toppings in its name. A bacon mushroom swiss burger should have just those things. Etc. If the burger is good, the delicious flavor will have nowhere to hide.

That, and onions seem to make me burp.

Putting The Country First By Senator John McCain

2008-07-04T14:15:00.000-05:00

Link stolen from CO's blog.

"Who shall write the history of the American revolution?" Adams asked Jefferson in one of the 158 letters they exchanged after they'd rediscovered their bonds. "Nobody," responded Jefferson, suggesting that while writers could understand the facts, they might never grasp the sacrifices.

So they TOLD us that what people write will be wrong. What are we to believe about the founding, then? How are we to know if what we are acting in accordance to their hopes for their America of tomorrow?

I believe they would. Patriotism is deeper than its symbolic expressions, than sentiments about place and kinship that move us to hold our hands over our hearts during the national anthem.

Nice dig on Obama. Classy.

It is putting the country first, before party or personal ambition, before anything.

Yes, that's patriotism. Of course, the definition is nebulous, even circular, because The Country cannot tell us what its needs are. And so pure patriotism would seem to be impossible. So what "the needs of the country" are get defined by individuals, who so often do the wrong thing for the right reason.

It is the willing acceptance of Americans, both those whose roots here extend back over generations and those who arrived only yesterday, to try to make a nation in which all people share in the promise and responsibilities of freedom.

Who is the patriot? The person who does the wrong thing in name of Country, or the person who does the right thing no matter what?

I've spent a lot of time listening to veterans, talking to them, and also serving with them when we were young and at war. After their tours end, these soldiers, sailors, aviators, and Marines almost always return to the hard times, times of pain, suffering, loss, violence, and fear. They remember where they risked everything, absolutely everything, for the country that sent them there. It gives their lives special meaning.

Wait, I thought they risked everything for good of the country? Is really it a sacrifice if I do something that gives my life special meaning? I thank all soldiers for their service. But it is folly to believe that joining the Army will result in any change at all on the homefront, except to maintain its existence.

Today, politics is derided for its self-interest, combativeness, duplicity, and triviality. But such failings are not unique to our age. Both Adams and Jefferson lamented them in their own time. But that's the great beauty of our form of government, which they helped to create; it accounts for the vices of human nature as much as it hopes for our virtues. This blessed country remains a place of limitless horizons, a country where ideals, where a love of liberty and self-reliance still check the excesses of both government and man.

I'll agree with that. But in this recent political epoch, who is calling who names? Which cohort calls any differing opinion of the "other side" unAmerican? Who is going around saying that wanting change, wanting to make a great country even better, means that one hates America? There's some leadership I'd like to see.

In return, the gift we can give back to our country is a patriotism that requires us to be good citizens in public office or in the community spaces where government is absent. We should, by all means, argue with each other, as did Adams and Jefferson, about the policies of government and the history we hope to make tomorrow. But it should be an argument among friends, who agree more than they disagree, each of us united in a cause larger than our individual interests, honestly debating the best means to serve that cause, and intent on finding some common ground upon which to overcome together the many challenges before us. To love one's country is to love one's countrymen. And if we are to replicate the spirit of our founding age, if we are to be genuine patriots, we must remember also that we are patriots because we love the countrymen we will never know, who will be born after we are gone.

Again, completely agree. You first.

More Ethanol thought experiments

2008-06-30T05:28:00.000-05:00

As I learned here, the octane rating is a comparison of the actual fuel being tested to a theoretical fuel. Gasoline is a mixture of various hydrocarbon molecules, and different hydrocarbon molecules have different burn characteristics. Refiners put the raw petroleum stock in one end of the process, and gasoline comes out the other end. The theoretical gasoline used in the comparison is a fuel containing only octane and heptane. (It is theoretical only because no real world gasoline can be that pure, not because it is impossible to create such a fuel.) The octane rating of that fuel is the ratio of octane to heptane in it. If it has 87% octane, that's what the octane rating is.

To test actual fuels, they put the fuel into an engine and compare its characteristics to the known characteristics of the octane/heptane control fuel.

Also note that it is seemingly cheaper to produce fuels with lower octane ratings.

On to ethanol, which has an octane rating of 130. It is, after all, racing gas. The point of all of this testing and whatnot is that the higher a fuel's octane rating, the more it can be compressed in the cylinder before it behaves badly.

So, it seems to me that to get normal E10 fuel at an 87 octane rating, you need to mix gasoline of a lower octane rating with that ethanol of a higher rating to get 87.

.9(x) + .1(130) = 87, right? So .9(x) + 13 = 87 and .9(x) = 74 Meaning the X ends up being 82.

My point is, I wonder what effect blending this shitty gasoline with the less-energy-containing ethanol has on an engine? That ethanol blends aren't worse because of ethanol, but because of the worse gasoline being used?

More importantly, when are we going to start building cars that can actually take advantage of ethanol, instead of hacking on engines tuned for gasoline to make them tolerate ethanol? As it is, the engines now are basically de-tuned to tolerate the cheaper 87 octane, and now we're detuning them even more to tolerate ethanol. No wonder ethanol seems to be a lie.

An Ethanol myth?

2008-06-21T08:08:00.002-05:00

From this posting I found from a google search:

Specific post:
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showpost.php?s=4553d4af24c098ec6a4afb3334550a07&p=22644127&postcount=8

Whole thread:
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?s=065da5cb0f0f5a5b29a5621b89da9273&t=1536536

"Fuel economy does not track with fuel energy per gallon it tracks with engine efficiency. Since E85 is a superior fuel it produces more useful work per BTU of available fuel energy."

and

"Now it the OEM manufactures would just produce a FFV that is half as efficient as back yard tuners can produce in a couple hours, we could actually get some where with it."

That seems to track with my version of "common" sense. It is incontrovertible that there are fewer BTUs in E85 than in regular E10 gas. But if engines can use it more efficiently, who cares?

I would imagine that the problem that car makers have with designing cars to use E85 is that they are forced by fuel availability constraints to make the engines flexible fuel. They have to be able to run on either, and do so automatically with no intervention from the driver. E85 is racing gas, in reality. To make it work most efficiently, you need an engine specifically designed to use it. Higher compression, more advanced timing, etc. Those things just aren't adjustable after the car is built. Well, actually they are, but not cheaply. You can throw on a turbo or super charger along with adjustable timing and make it work. But that's expensive.

Why Be Libertarian? - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Institute

2008-06-21T07:34:00.001-05:00

http://mises.org/story/2993

One of the better pieces in favor of the libertarian movement. Thank you Carl for pointing it out. I mostly agree 100%. Especially with his analysis of the motivations of those who choose libertarianism as a movement. It strikes me that many of the adherents today are of the selfish variety- liberty for ME, NOW, for the stuff I want to do. And then maybe for the people I agree with. And probably not for the people I don't agree with. All but the purest of libertarians agree with the ACLU, for example. (And frankly, I'm not sure whether their goal is the furthering of liberty, or the mocking of the idea via reductio ad absurdum.)

My quibbles:

- Pure, absolute liberty is impossible, just like perfection. We humans just don't have it in us. We can try to come close, and should. But all (tangible) resources are finite- if there isn't some way for society to reset some of those things, resources will tend to concentrate. Those who are smart, motivated and lucky will eventually gobble them up during the good times and eventually (my turn at reductio ad absurdum) one person/entity/family will have everything. Sure, they'll dole out their resources to the peasants to gain things they need, but it just won't even out. To accept absolute freedom (even within the constraints of justice) is to accept that nature is brutal, and there will be losers. And they will lose badly. And then you get revolution. I just don't see how living such a brutal, hardscrabble life is freeing in any tangible way for the actors involved.

- It strikes me that libertarianism only works when there is a seemingly endless supply of resources. And/or when you have the freedom to be able to ignore externalities. Why, if you need more water, you just pay someone to get you some more- build a canal, hire laborers to cart some more in, build another well, etc. That's fine when the natural resource isn't being stressed. Or when, if you run out of resources in your current place, you can sell the farm, pack up the kids and Move West. It just seems wasteful, for one. What happens when resources are at their limit? Those who control them have the power, those who don't lack the power (liberty?). Sure, if I don't like what Big Mousetrap is doing, I can build a better mousetrap to my profit, and that of my customers. But what do I do when Big Water uses up all the water in my stream? I dig a well. But Big Sorghum has sucked up all the groundwater. My free market choice there is to not but their product. Which is easy to do since I will have long since starved to death before I need another hog.

- And so I disagree with his abhorrence of the utilitarian. Life is compromise, it just can't be any other way. The libertarian hates government intrusion. But I, individual, am free to associate and am further free to use that freedom to start a labor guild, right? What is government but an all-encompassing citizens' guild?

Should I vaccinate my baby? - CNN.com

2008-06-19T16:10:00.000-05:00

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/family/06/19/ep.vaccines/index.html

Yes. YES! You morons are going to kill us all.

Alternate theory- it's much more likely that these kids already had autism, and had a "break" when the scary man in the white coat stuck them with a needle and caused them pain, right at a time when a) autism tends to appear and b) children are building a concept self and the world.

Quote of the day

2008-06-18T07:33:00.001-05:00

 The struggle with evil by means of violence is the same as an attempt to stop a cloud, in order that there may be no rain. -Leo Tolstoy, novelist and philosopher (1828-1910)  Stolen from A Word A Day

Multimedia Madness!

2008-06-15T23:06:00.002-05:00

Fire up this youtube video (audio only):

And then read this article and view the mugshots. I suggest waiting until the first chorus begins before opening it. Gold!

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0612081hammond1.html?link=rssfeed

Also, Hammond!

Supreme Court wackiness

2008-06-13T07:49:00.002-05:00

I know I'm just some guy, but this seems wrong (from Scalia's dissent):

My problem with today's opinion is more fundamental still: The writ of habeas corpus does not, and never has, run in favor of aliens abroad; the Suspension Clause thus has no application, and the Court's intervention in this military matter is entirely ultra vires.

I thought that Guantanamo was considered US territory?

It has threatened further attacks against our homeland; one need only walk about buttressed and barricaded Washington, or board a plane anywhere in the country, to know that the threat is a serious one.

That doesn't prove the threat serious, it only proves that law enforcement takes it seriously.

The game of bait-and-switch that today's opinion plays upon the Nation's Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. That consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic.

Seems to me that expedient justice for all is a time honored legal principle. How can we claim to stand for anything if not that?

You can't invent a special type of non-war so that you can rewrite the rules. When we deny any kind of justice to those taken into our custody, we demean what we (claim to) stand for.

'Hey, get out of the street' -- Update to Pedestrian Story

2008-06-10T07:46:00.004-05:00

Points of note:

Click the title of the post for the Tribune story.

It's not downtown: The area they are in IS notoriously bad for all modes of transport. And/but there are tons of uncontrolled intersections. If a car is rocking along in traffic at 25 or 30 and some guy appears in the middle of the street, it is hard to judge whether some guy in the street is a nut, AND if you can safely stop to let him through. Lacking a painted crosswalk and/or a traffic control device, I'm not stopping for anyone unless they are directly in my path. The "all pedestrians have the right of way" law is fine, but we need to understand the social contract- you can't just walk into traffic and expect to world to yield to your whim.

It's also coincidentally where the governor lives. (I've slightly obfuscated the location ("F"). While I believe it's publicly available information, I don't want any hassles. I will say this- I was in the area on business during the snowy season, and his were the only sidewalks that were uncleared. Classy.)

View Larger Map

More: what happened to "look both ways before you cross"? This is just a snapshot, but a responsible pedestrian doesn't walk into the middle of traffic as is depicted here:

Chicago to start crosswalk stings next week

2008-06-07T10:14:00.000-05:00

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-crossing-sting_07jun07,0,7822062.story

OK, but will they also be ticketing pedestrians who don't follow the rules? Like the average of 5 people I almost kill everytime I'm downtown because they are jaywalking or crossing against the light?

How about adjusting the walk don't walk lights so drivers have half a chance at making a legal turn? Why should traffic get backed up because some jerk dragging a suitcase on tiny wheels can't wait his turn?

Scott McClellan's book

2008-05-31T11:40:00.002-05:00

A comment I made on Angry Bear:

I can't believe how many people have deigned to criticize the book without having read it (and worse, without intending to read it).

Now, I will do the same: McClellan's job was not to be non-partisan. His job is to be the mouthpiece of the President and his administration. They tell him what their policies, opinions and tone should be and he goes out and says it. So we can't criticize him for failing to ferret out inconsistencies in his employers' statements. And as long as he truly believes that he's being told the truth, and that he himself is telling the truth, he is on solid moral ground.

Also, he did quit. Maybe it says exactly why in the book, I'll read it and find out. But you don't leave a job for no reason- maybe he was starting to feel dissatisfied with the climate in the White House.

You have to cut him some slack- when you are ensconced in a job like that, it becomes difficult to maintain pure objectivity. The Stockholm effect, if you will.

So now he leaves the job and has time to reflect and analyze his time there. And sometimes when you do that, pieces start to fall into place. Maybe he reads some other guy's book or interview that fills in a missing piece. You get that "ah ha" moment- "so *that's* what that meeting was about!" And it becomes clear that what you believed at the time to be the truth was in fact, not.

I think the important lesson of this book is the furthering of the central tragedy of the Bush White House: that Bush isn't all that bad of a guy, and that his failing is that he trusts people too much. I think history will show that he was a pawn. He wanted the full spectrum of information to make decisions from, and his people only gave him what they wanted. And his failure was in trusting them too much and not seeking counsel outside the circle.

(I can't wait for Rumsfeld's book. I hope he's writing one. I think that will be a masterpiece- I think he was one of the lynchpins of the various forces in the government. Remember when he was hired? His mission was to rebuild the DoD. Not fight a war. Or at least, not this war at that time. And nobody can say he's not a smart guy- I bet after he does some similar rethinking, he will be able to put the whole thing together.)

Comsumer feedback!

2008-05-29T08:02:00.001-05:00

Written, by me, to Dunkin Donuts:

I read today where you removed an advertisement based on the complaining of Michelle Malkin. I find your kow-towing to a ridiculous blogger far more offensive than any picture of a scarf could possibly be. She (and others like her) makes her living by creating controversy where none exists in order to gain readership and expand her ego. It is disappointing that Dunkin Donuts fell for her act. Certainly doesn't make me want to patronize your stores.

Yet another example of spin/dishonesty

2008-05-15T21:51:00.002-05:00

Tilting at windmills here, of course. Heard on the newsradio today about the California Supreme Court overturning the California ban on same-sex marriages. The expected voices were there, including some guy from (something like) the "Institute of Freedom" who said (something like) "this is just another example of activist judges making law from the bench. Leave the lawmaking to the lawmakers and stick to being judges!"

Except that's exactly what happened: the lawmakers made a law, and the judges judged it. That's how it's supposed to work.

Of all the dangerous things people do and say these days, in my opinion, this meme of distrust in the judicial system spouted off by the right-wingers might be the most dangerous.

Score!

2008-05-13T10:56:00.002-05:00

Stimulus payment and tax refunds received! Right to the credit card!

My good-American rationale is that while I'm not in a tremendous amount of debt, I am in some. I do long term investments like 401k (though based on my last statement, it should really be called a 350k - this stock-market downturn joke brought to you be Chuck Schwab- Chuck won't give you your money back either!) and mortgaging instead of renting. But aside from that, I'm pretty much paycheck to paycheck. So the credit card is buffer- I'm making more than I spend overall, and am thus on the right track, but in some past years I wasn't. It's an amazing money-math thing to see happen: go a few years simply spending $500 more than you make over the entire year (we're talking $40-50 a month) and watch it build. A cautionary tale in the dangers of bad budgeting and poor self-control.

Anyway. My point is. While I'm being un-American by depriving the CC company of this interest, I AM giving them their money back which they can lend to some other sucker who will give them their interest. So a net-zero to the economy. And I will now have that much less interest to pay per month with which to spend in a variety of stimulating ways.

Bush Quote

2008-05-13T07:43:00.001-05:00

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/

Since the content is dynamic, quote cut and pasted here. Disgraceful.