Life
Well, it turns out I have to order a Mac direct from Apple in order to get a 160-GB hard drive on an iMac, so it'll be 1-3 days before it arrives. So in the meantime, I'm consoling myself by reading all the stuff on their developers page. Here's what I got:
1.25 GHz iMac w/17" TFT (It's the one with the flat screen that comes out of the pod base)
1 GB memory
160 GB disk
Airport Extreme Base Station and Card
iPod w/20 GB
Eventually, I'll put a wireless card in the Brick (my 10-lb Dell Inspiron 7500), so that I can tote it around the house and take it to all the wi-fi enabled places around town. The added benefit of toting the brick is that it strengthens the back and builds up the biceps.
I didn't get a Powerbook, because there's a good chance my Dell notebook at work will get replaced with a Powerbook (Woo-Hoo!).
I didn't get a G5, because of the cost and because I'm figuring that I won't really care about 64-bit processing for a couple more years.
And the iMac should work great for S. All I have to do is buy a JetDirect Card for our HP printer and she'll be all set. Once she's switched over, I can convert the Tower (Dell Dimension 4100) to be a Linux Server.
And if I do get a Powerbook at work, I won't have to put up with WinDoze any more. Woo-Hoo!
Monday, September 29, 2003
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
Society
Roger L. Simon on pathological politics: “Possibly the primary reason I am no longer an adherent of traditional party politics is that both the Democratic and Republican Parties are dominated by a hatred of the other that seems pathological to me”. Link courtesy of Heretical Ideas.
On a related note, I've been listening to the Books on Tape version of Joseph J. Ellis' Founding Brothers. One of things the book focuses on is the bitter (Ellis calls them "scatalogical") partisan politics of the 1790s, when the two-party system first emerged. Both sides commonly referred to the other as "traitors" to the legacy of the revolution. It's worth noting that getting down and dirty did very little for the participants' reputations; Alexander Hamilton, in particular, lost a good deal of his influence and prestige (as well as seriously damaging the Federalist party) after a vicious attack on John Adams in the election of 1800. Adams had already been suffering from the Republican opposition led by Jefferson, who just happened to also be his Vice President. Yet Adams was the only one of the revolutionary participants able to rise above partisan bickering by concluding an unpopular treaty with France that effectively ended an undeclared state of war in 1799. It doomed his chances of being re-elected in 1800; but it was a brilliant piece of policy-making that allowed the nascent republic to gain a breathing space of a few more years in which to solidify its institutions before engaging a foreign power.
Would any of our leading politicians today sacrifice their careers in order to pass an unpopular but necessary measure?
I've read a number of comments in the last few days that the 2004 campaign will be dirtiest in recent history. The recent sniping at Wesley Clark seems to be a harbinger of things to come. While it may not be as vicious as the 1796 and 1800 elections, the caliber of those engaged can hardly be said to equal the real “Greatest Generation”.
Roger L. Simon on pathological politics: “Possibly the primary reason I am no longer an adherent of traditional party politics is that both the Democratic and Republican Parties are dominated by a hatred of the other that seems pathological to me”. Link courtesy of Heretical Ideas.
On a related note, I've been listening to the Books on Tape version of Joseph J. Ellis' Founding Brothers. One of things the book focuses on is the bitter (Ellis calls them "scatalogical") partisan politics of the 1790s, when the two-party system first emerged. Both sides commonly referred to the other as "traitors" to the legacy of the revolution. It's worth noting that getting down and dirty did very little for the participants' reputations; Alexander Hamilton, in particular, lost a good deal of his influence and prestige (as well as seriously damaging the Federalist party) after a vicious attack on John Adams in the election of 1800. Adams had already been suffering from the Republican opposition led by Jefferson, who just happened to also be his Vice President. Yet Adams was the only one of the revolutionary participants able to rise above partisan bickering by concluding an unpopular treaty with France that effectively ended an undeclared state of war in 1799. It doomed his chances of being re-elected in 1800; but it was a brilliant piece of policy-making that allowed the nascent republic to gain a breathing space of a few more years in which to solidify its institutions before engaging a foreign power.
Would any of our leading politicians today sacrifice their careers in order to pass an unpopular but necessary measure?
I've read a number of comments in the last few days that the 2004 campaign will be dirtiest in recent history. The recent sniping at Wesley Clark seems to be a harbinger of things to come. While it may not be as vicious as the 1796 and 1800 elections, the caliber of those engaged can hardly be said to equal the real “Greatest Generation”.
Sunday, September 21, 2003
Life - Snowballs in Paradise
Summer is almost officially over, but it was over 80 today in beautiful Santa Cruz. I think it's just the continuation of a strange weather pattern this year, but it's a little odd. The Amaryllis are still blooming weeks after they're usually gone, and there still seems to be a pretty good number of tourists 3 weekends after Labor Day. The only real sign I've seen of fall is that the surf seems to have gotten heavier in the past 2 weeks, although it was a little milder today. Both dogs have gotten knocked over by big waves the last two weekends, which is a little scary; Greyhounds aren't exactly built for battling the waves.
Life has a mildly hallucinogenic quality here under any circumstances, but the heat seems to make everything even slower and dreamier. I'm driving down Soquel Avenue yesterday, just past the Harley Davidson dealership/museum on the corner of Seabright, with a guy on a Harley in front of me. I look across the street and see a 9 or 10 year-old kid taking aim at the motorcyclist. With a snowball. He throws it well behind the Harley - the rider doesn't even notice - and runs away. There's a flea market going on the next corner down and people are walking down the street on my side, but nobody else seems to see this but me.
Now, where do you get a snowball on a hot day in Santa Cruz? Come to think of it, where do you get a snowball on any day in Santa Cruz?
Summer is almost officially over, but it was over 80 today in beautiful Santa Cruz. I think it's just the continuation of a strange weather pattern this year, but it's a little odd. The Amaryllis are still blooming weeks after they're usually gone, and there still seems to be a pretty good number of tourists 3 weekends after Labor Day. The only real sign I've seen of fall is that the surf seems to have gotten heavier in the past 2 weeks, although it was a little milder today. Both dogs have gotten knocked over by big waves the last two weekends, which is a little scary; Greyhounds aren't exactly built for battling the waves.
Life has a mildly hallucinogenic quality here under any circumstances, but the heat seems to make everything even slower and dreamier. I'm driving down Soquel Avenue yesterday, just past the Harley Davidson dealership/museum on the corner of Seabright, with a guy on a Harley in front of me. I look across the street and see a 9 or 10 year-old kid taking aim at the motorcyclist. With a snowball. He throws it well behind the Harley - the rider doesn't even notice - and runs away. There's a flea market going on the next corner down and people are walking down the street on my side, but nobody else seems to see this but me.
Now, where do you get a snowball on a hot day in Santa Cruz? Come to think of it, where do you get a snowball on any day in Santa Cruz?
Politics - The Administration's Spin Cycle Never Stops
So the National Security Advisor, the Secretary of Defense, and now the President have all gone on record acknowledging that there was no link between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and 9/11, apparently in an effort to spin some earlier comments made by the Vice President about ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune asks: “So why do seven in 10 Americans believe there is a link? Is it just their wild imaginings? Nope: It's because the White House planted the idea and has cultivated it assiduously for months”. Read the whole editorial here.
But they never actually came out and said it. They may have implied it in every way possible, and there seems to have been no shortage of off-the-record suggestions that Saddam and Al Qaeda were intimately involved. But the right level of plausable deniability was maintained.
Robert Scheer writes: “The pattern is clear: Say what you want people to believe for the front page and on TV, then whisper a halfhearted correction or apology that slips under the radar. It is really quite ingenious in its cynical effectiveness”. I don't agree with the rest of Scheer's article, but he gets this point exactly right.
This doesn't just apply to Iraq. Take tax cuts, for instance. Spinsanity debunks the latest spin on this topic. Take WMD's. Oh, but we're still looking for those.
So the question I have is this: When does a pattern of constant manipulation and dissembling in the media come to be regarded as fundamentally dishonest? Where's the dividing line between doctoring the spin and lying?
So the National Security Advisor, the Secretary of Defense, and now the President have all gone on record acknowledging that there was no link between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and 9/11, apparently in an effort to spin some earlier comments made by the Vice President about ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune asks: “So why do seven in 10 Americans believe there is a link? Is it just their wild imaginings? Nope: It's because the White House planted the idea and has cultivated it assiduously for months”. Read the whole editorial here.
But they never actually came out and said it. They may have implied it in every way possible, and there seems to have been no shortage of off-the-record suggestions that Saddam and Al Qaeda were intimately involved. But the right level of plausable deniability was maintained.
Robert Scheer writes: “The pattern is clear: Say what you want people to believe for the front page and on TV, then whisper a halfhearted correction or apology that slips under the radar. It is really quite ingenious in its cynical effectiveness”. I don't agree with the rest of Scheer's article, but he gets this point exactly right.
This doesn't just apply to Iraq. Take tax cuts, for instance. Spinsanity debunks the latest spin on this topic. Take WMD's. Oh, but we're still looking for those.
So the question I have is this: When does a pattern of constant manipulation and dissembling in the media come to be regarded as fundamentally dishonest? Where's the dividing line between doctoring the spin and lying?
Monday, September 15, 2003
Software
The Pragmatic Programmer, by Andrew Hunt and Dave Thomas, is one of my favorite books about the of programming. They distill their advice down to about 70 tips, but three really stand out for me, and I've made them part of my philosophy about my trade.
The combination of the last two is particularly powerful. For years, I've struggled with how to write effective documentation that's both concise and complete, and can be maintained along with the code. Putting those two ideas together helps a lot. So I try to let the code say what it says (this is how it's done), let the UML diagrams and other pictures say what they say (this is what the pieces are, how they're structured, and how they relate), and glue it all together with just enough prose (this is why it is what it is). A crucial tactic in this is to make the software as self-describing as possible - by putting as much application-specific detail as possible in metadata and making the code as simple and clear as I can.
A lot of developers I know believe that all you need is the code, and all you have to do is read it in order to understand the application or system. I disagree; I think that only indicates how immature the discipline of software development really is. I think we need to think of ourselves as writers, not coders, and understand the whole process as a continuum of authorship. And what we produce is writing. And we correct it, enhance it, refactor it, reuse it, and recast it for the whole of its useful life. And we should take pride in making it as easy to understand as possible. The macho attitude of "just read the code" is the attitude of intellectual adolescents.
Critical documentation that is out of date is, of course, another form of broken windows. Don't let entropy win.
Other good books on the craft:
The Practice of Programming, Brian Kernighan and Rob Pike
Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering, Robert Glass
Refactoring, Martin Fowler
Peopleware, Tim Lister and Tom DeMarco
and the all-time classic:
The Mythical Man-Month, Frederick Brooks - I recommend re-reading “No Silver Bullets” at least once a year.
I should read Jon Bentley's Programming Pearls, too, but I just haven't gotten to it yet.
Honesty compels me to admit that Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming trilogy is still a little over my head. I've set myself a goal of reading (and understanding) it all by the end of the decade. I have no doubt that it will still be relevant.
The Pragmatic Programmer, by Andrew Hunt and Dave Thomas, is one of my favorite books about the of programming. They distill their advice down to about 70 tips, but three really stand out for me, and I've made them part of my philosophy about my trade.
- Don't Live with Broken Windows
Don't leave broken windows (bad designs, wrong decisions, or poor code) unrepaired...Don't let entropy win. - DRY - Don't Repeat Yourself
Every piece of knowledge must have a single, unambiguous, authoritative representation within a system. - It's All Writing
Treat English as just another programming language.
The combination of the last two is particularly powerful. For years, I've struggled with how to write effective documentation that's both concise and complete, and can be maintained along with the code. Putting those two ideas together helps a lot. So I try to let the code say what it says (this is how it's done), let the UML diagrams and other pictures say what they say (this is what the pieces are, how they're structured, and how they relate), and glue it all together with just enough prose (this is why it is what it is). A crucial tactic in this is to make the software as self-describing as possible - by putting as much application-specific detail as possible in metadata and making the code as simple and clear as I can.
A lot of developers I know believe that all you need is the code, and all you have to do is read it in order to understand the application or system. I disagree; I think that only indicates how immature the discipline of software development really is. I think we need to think of ourselves as writers, not coders, and understand the whole process as a continuum of authorship. And what we produce is writing. And we correct it, enhance it, refactor it, reuse it, and recast it for the whole of its useful life. And we should take pride in making it as easy to understand as possible. The macho attitude of "just read the code" is the attitude of intellectual adolescents.
Critical documentation that is out of date is, of course, another form of broken windows. Don't let entropy win.
Other good books on the craft:
The Practice of Programming, Brian Kernighan and Rob Pike
Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering, Robert Glass
Refactoring, Martin Fowler
Peopleware, Tim Lister and Tom DeMarco
and the all-time classic:
The Mythical Man-Month, Frederick Brooks - I recommend re-reading “No Silver Bullets” at least once a year.
I should read Jon Bentley's Programming Pearls, too, but I just haven't gotten to it yet.
Honesty compels me to admit that Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming trilogy is still a little over my head. I've set myself a goal of reading (and understanding) it all by the end of the decade. I have no doubt that it will still be relevant.
Good blogging
Spinsanity has two good pieces - one on debunking some of Al Franken's more inflammatory rhetoric disguised as humour (while acknowledging how well Franken dismantles Ann Coulter's Slander and Sean Hannity's Let Freedom Ring) and the other on GWB's misrepresentation of the effect of his tax cuts on both the deficit and on the economy.
I love the tone and approach. Eminently reasonable, logical, clear, well-argued prose with little or no trace of ideological bias. James Madison would be proud of these guys.
Nema, at Iranian Truth, meditates on the questions she gets about what it means to be Iranian and asks “How do you answer a question you spend your life answering?”. I think she's doing a wonderful job in the series of posts that follow.
101-365, on the delay of the recall: “...at least Davis now knows who that chubby Mexican guy down the hall is”. And scroll down and check out the Full Barley Moon and Mars with the Moon Behind a Tree.
My friend T., in his own inimitable style, has a series of posts on mortality and the afterlife. In between, he's discovered flashmobs, the new baby boom, and how Chinatown one-ups McDonalds.. He also says that because he's drinking less, he's changed the title of his blog back to Crazy, Drunk, and Unemployed. What's up with that, T?
Spinsanity has two good pieces - one on debunking some of Al Franken's more inflammatory rhetoric disguised as humour (while acknowledging how well Franken dismantles Ann Coulter's Slander and Sean Hannity's Let Freedom Ring) and the other on GWB's misrepresentation of the effect of his tax cuts on both the deficit and on the economy.
I love the tone and approach. Eminently reasonable, logical, clear, well-argued prose with little or no trace of ideological bias. James Madison would be proud of these guys.
Nema, at Iranian Truth, meditates on the questions she gets about what it means to be Iranian and asks “How do you answer a question you spend your life answering?”. I think she's doing a wonderful job in the series of posts that follow.
101-365, on the delay of the recall: “...at least Davis now knows who that chubby Mexican guy down the hall is”. And scroll down and check out the Full Barley Moon and Mars with the Moon Behind a Tree.
My friend T., in his own inimitable style, has a series of posts on mortality and the afterlife. In between, he's discovered flashmobs, the new baby boom, and how Chinatown one-ups McDonalds.. He also says that because he's drinking less, he's changed the title of his blog back to Crazy, Drunk, and Unemployed. What's up with that, T?
Sunday, September 14, 2003
War and Peace
Molly Ivins, after receiving the usual* hate-mail from the wingnuts on the right after this article:
“Well, I ain't gonna take it anymore. I am not shutting up for Bill O'Reilly or anyone else.
I opposed our unprovoked, unnecessary invasion of Iraq on the grounds that it would be a short, easy war followed by the peace from hell. I predicted that every terrorist in the Middle East would be drawn to Iraq like a magnet.
I was right, and I'm not going to apologize for it.”
You go, girl. Then she adds this:
“I also realize that the future in Iraq is a lot more important than any petty "I was right" vindication...I am trying hard to be a responsible citizen here; I don't think the choice is between "staying the course" or "cut and run." I think we need to change course and be honest enough to admit it to ourselves and everybody else.”
That, unfortunately, is the space (you know, the one between a rock and a hard place) that we find ourselves in. We can't abandon Iraq (or Afghanistan, for that matter) to chaos. Doing so would result in a defeat worse than any military setback we could possibly suffer. But we need to change course and find an effective grand strategy - one that rebuilds and stabilizes Iraq and Afghanistan and that refocuses our efforts on actually fighting the war against terrorism without turning it into a war on Islam.
*(It requires absolutely no imagination at all to figure out what kinds of things were said. That's because your basic right wingnut doesn't have any imagination; all he or she can do is crudely parrot the same tired lines. Your basic left wingnut, on the other hand, suffers from an excess of imagination, which is why they come up with such a wide variety of truly ridiculous notions.)
Molly Ivins, after receiving the usual* hate-mail from the wingnuts on the right after this article:
“Well, I ain't gonna take it anymore. I am not shutting up for Bill O'Reilly or anyone else.
I opposed our unprovoked, unnecessary invasion of Iraq on the grounds that it would be a short, easy war followed by the peace from hell. I predicted that every terrorist in the Middle East would be drawn to Iraq like a magnet.
I was right, and I'm not going to apologize for it.”
You go, girl. Then she adds this:
“I also realize that the future in Iraq is a lot more important than any petty "I was right" vindication...I am trying hard to be a responsible citizen here; I don't think the choice is between "staying the course" or "cut and run." I think we need to change course and be honest enough to admit it to ourselves and everybody else.”
That, unfortunately, is the space (you know, the one between a rock and a hard place) that we find ourselves in. We can't abandon Iraq (or Afghanistan, for that matter) to chaos. Doing so would result in a defeat worse than any military setback we could possibly suffer. But we need to change course and find an effective grand strategy - one that rebuilds and stabilizes Iraq and Afghanistan and that refocuses our efforts on actually fighting the war against terrorism without turning it into a war on Islam.
*(It requires absolutely no imagination at all to figure out what kinds of things were said. That's because your basic right wingnut doesn't have any imagination; all he or she can do is crudely parrot the same tired lines. Your basic left wingnut, on the other hand, suffers from an excess of imagination, which is why they come up with such a wide variety of truly ridiculous notions.)
Wednesday, September 10, 2003
Greed and Stupidity
So now the RIAA is suing 12-year-old girls for downloading music. And 71-year-old grandfathers. And divorced mothers of teenagers. And anyone else they pick out at random.
Bastards.
You know, there's a lot of great music out there that the RIAA doesn't control. There are literally dozens of great artists all over the world waiting for you to discover them. And if you're like me, one of life's sweeter joys is discovering some brilliant musician or band that you never knew even existed before. There's no need to settle for the pablum the big media companies try to foist on us. I'm not telling you to boycott the RIAA (although it's certainly worth considering); I'm urging you to go out and find all the great music that's out there that isn't controlled by plutocrats who seem to feel the need to sue 12-year-old girls.
How do you know whether something comes from an RIAA member company? Just go here.
Here's a list of some of my favorites to help you get started:
Warren Zevon - The Wind, Life'll Kill Ya
Lori Carson - House in the Weeds (you can order it direct from her website)
Gigi - One Ethiopia
Bebel Gilberto - Tanto Tempo (The Special Remix Edition on Ziriguiboom - if you want the original, email me and I'll burn you a copy)
Gilberto Gil - Refavela
Paco de Lucia/Eric Montoya - Flamenco Romantico
Like Irish music? - check out Green Linnet records. I'm partial to Altan and Wolfstone.
Putumayo puts out great collections from all over the world, as well as individual artists like Oliver Mtukudzhe.
The Texas Music Group brings together a bunch of great Texas labels like Antones and Watermelon records, so you can find Toni Price, Don Walser, The Derailers, and more.
And go out and see some live music. A bigger percentage of your dollar goes to the artist than it does when you buy a CD.
So now the RIAA is suing 12-year-old girls for downloading music. And 71-year-old grandfathers. And divorced mothers of teenagers. And anyone else they pick out at random.
Bastards.
You know, there's a lot of great music out there that the RIAA doesn't control. There are literally dozens of great artists all over the world waiting for you to discover them. And if you're like me, one of life's sweeter joys is discovering some brilliant musician or band that you never knew even existed before. There's no need to settle for the pablum the big media companies try to foist on us. I'm not telling you to boycott the RIAA (although it's certainly worth considering); I'm urging you to go out and find all the great music that's out there that isn't controlled by plutocrats who seem to feel the need to sue 12-year-old girls.
How do you know whether something comes from an RIAA member company? Just go here.
Here's a list of some of my favorites to help you get started:
Warren Zevon - The Wind, Life'll Kill Ya
Lori Carson - House in the Weeds (you can order it direct from her website)
Gigi - One Ethiopia
Bebel Gilberto - Tanto Tempo (The Special Remix Edition on Ziriguiboom - if you want the original, email me and I'll burn you a copy)
Gilberto Gil - Refavela
Paco de Lucia/Eric Montoya - Flamenco Romantico
Like Irish music? - check out Green Linnet records. I'm partial to Altan and Wolfstone.
Putumayo puts out great collections from all over the world, as well as individual artists like Oliver Mtukudzhe.
The Texas Music Group brings together a bunch of great Texas labels like Antones and Watermelon records, so you can find Toni Price, Don Walser, The Derailers, and more.
And go out and see some live music. A bigger percentage of your dollar goes to the artist than it does when you buy a CD.
Tuesday, September 09, 2003
Life - The Good and Bad in Santa Cruz
So the city council has decided to send a letter to the House Judiciary Committee to voice the community's concerns about President Bush's actions. It isn't quite a call for impeachment, but it's the next best thing. You might assume that this is payback for the infamous DEA drug bust of a little over a year ago (after which members of the city council handed out medical marijuana on the steps of city hall), but it actually is a reflection of the will of the electorate.
I must look for references to this in various right-wing ideo-blogs tomorrow, just for the entertainment value of watching their mouths foam with righteous indignation. I'm not really a leftist, I just prefer the goofy entertainment the left provides to the mean-spiritedness of the right. And life here in the CenCal Riveria - the land that time and neo-conservatism forgot - is always entertaining.
The bad is that I have to drive over the hill to my job in San Jose. The "hill" is actually the ridge of the Santa Cruz mountains that separates the Pacific coast from Silicon Valley. To get to work, my fellow commuters and I have to take Highway 17, a twisty four-lane mountain road that cuts through Patchen Pass, the lowest point of the mountains near Santa Cruz. Normally, it's not too bad once you're used to it, but today it rained for the first time since late April. This always catches people by surprise, and they tend to do foolish things. That last rain was on a Friday, and I waited until after 8 PM to go home because I knew how bad things would be. And I wasn't mistaken; in addition to passing 3 multi-car accidents that evening, I also two cars - one on each side of the road - flipped over on their roofs in the right-hand lane. Today I only saw 2 accidents, neither of which looked too terrible.
The problem isn't the road itself; all you have to do is slow down and drive carefully. No, the real danger is an impatient yuppie in an SUV or a BMW. I assume today's accidents will be enough to bring the CHP patrols back, and I'll be glad to see them.
So the city council has decided to send a letter to the House Judiciary Committee to voice the community's concerns about President Bush's actions. It isn't quite a call for impeachment, but it's the next best thing. You might assume that this is payback for the infamous DEA drug bust of a little over a year ago (after which members of the city council handed out medical marijuana on the steps of city hall), but it actually is a reflection of the will of the electorate.
I must look for references to this in various right-wing ideo-blogs tomorrow, just for the entertainment value of watching their mouths foam with righteous indignation. I'm not really a leftist, I just prefer the goofy entertainment the left provides to the mean-spiritedness of the right. And life here in the CenCal Riveria - the land that time and neo-conservatism forgot - is always entertaining.
The bad is that I have to drive over the hill to my job in San Jose. The "hill" is actually the ridge of the Santa Cruz mountains that separates the Pacific coast from Silicon Valley. To get to work, my fellow commuters and I have to take Highway 17, a twisty four-lane mountain road that cuts through Patchen Pass, the lowest point of the mountains near Santa Cruz. Normally, it's not too bad once you're used to it, but today it rained for the first time since late April. This always catches people by surprise, and they tend to do foolish things. That last rain was on a Friday, and I waited until after 8 PM to go home because I knew how bad things would be. And I wasn't mistaken; in addition to passing 3 multi-car accidents that evening, I also two cars - one on each side of the road - flipped over on their roofs in the right-hand lane. Today I only saw 2 accidents, neither of which looked too terrible.
The problem isn't the road itself; all you have to do is slow down and drive carefully. No, the real danger is an impatient yuppie in an SUV or a BMW. I assume today's accidents will be enough to bring the CHP patrols back, and I'll be glad to see them.
Saturday, September 06, 2003
CalPolitics
So Cruz is a racist, Arnold once bragged about having group sex, and Gray is...well, Gray. It's great to see how the media is focusing on the important stuff instead of wasting their time on irrelevant matters such as investigating the candidates' solutions to the state's budget crisis. Perhaps it's best to completely pass over the question of how some dignity ever gets restored to California governance.
Bustamante's worst sin, as far as I can tell, is his utter mediocrity. Could the Democrats have two more dispiriting candidates than Cruz and Gray? That may be what makes Arnold attractive to lots of undecided voters. But it seems to me he suffers from the same problem that his Democratic opponents do - he doesn't really seem to stand for anything other than getting elected. It's possible he has some very definite positions, but we have no idea what they might be. And his handlers are working very hard at keeping him under wraps. This might be his best possible strategy. Current and former Texans of a certain age (like me) probably still remember how Clayton Williams lost a huge lead in the Texas Governor's race in 1990 by repeatedly sticking his foot in his mouth.
But comparisons to George W. Bush are probably are little more apt. Like GWB, we have a well-known candidate who's never held public office. He's backed by the best-connected insiders of his party, many of whom have extensive experience in politics. In particular, the folks advising Schwartzenegger are the same ones who were part of Pete Wilson's (the last Republican Governer of CA) administration. Like GWB, there have been charges that AS is simply a frontman for the decision-makers behind the scenes.
A big difference is that the Governor's duties in Texas are largely ceremonial. The Lieutenant Governor is responsible for the day-to-day business of the state. This is not the case in California, where the Governor has far more power and responsibility. GWB was very effective in advancing his agenda during his time as Governor, but it was Bob Bullock and then Rick Perry who ran the day-to-day show as Lt. Gov.
Schwarzenegger's claim is that specifics of his positions on the issues are not that important; bringing leadership to Sacramento is what's needed. This isn't really a bad argument; tough decisions need to be made by someone who's willing to stand up, carry them forward, and get the majority of state's lawmakers on board. But at this point, we have very little to help judge if Schwarzenegger is capable of providing that kind of leadership. A good start would be to demonstrate that's he's done his homework, and that he has some well-thought-out ideas and positions. Despite some test marketing to the far right, he's still largely a cipher, and his candidacy still looks to me more like a vanity project for his ego than a commitment to effectively governing California.
Update: I wrote this on Saturday and posted it without publishing (or so I thought). The reason I didn't publish it was because I thought it was poorly written and not very well informed - based on my emotional judgements of the candidates which have been formed without sufficiently educating myself. So this is a slight rewrite of the original post. It's a little better, but not much.
So Cruz is a racist, Arnold once bragged about having group sex, and Gray is...well, Gray. It's great to see how the media is focusing on the important stuff instead of wasting their time on irrelevant matters such as investigating the candidates' solutions to the state's budget crisis. Perhaps it's best to completely pass over the question of how some dignity ever gets restored to California governance.
Bustamante's worst sin, as far as I can tell, is his utter mediocrity. Could the Democrats have two more dispiriting candidates than Cruz and Gray? That may be what makes Arnold attractive to lots of undecided voters. But it seems to me he suffers from the same problem that his Democratic opponents do - he doesn't really seem to stand for anything other than getting elected. It's possible he has some very definite positions, but we have no idea what they might be. And his handlers are working very hard at keeping him under wraps. This might be his best possible strategy. Current and former Texans of a certain age (like me) probably still remember how Clayton Williams lost a huge lead in the Texas Governor's race in 1990 by repeatedly sticking his foot in his mouth.
But comparisons to George W. Bush are probably are little more apt. Like GWB, we have a well-known candidate who's never held public office. He's backed by the best-connected insiders of his party, many of whom have extensive experience in politics. In particular, the folks advising Schwartzenegger are the same ones who were part of Pete Wilson's (the last Republican Governer of CA) administration. Like GWB, there have been charges that AS is simply a frontman for the decision-makers behind the scenes.
A big difference is that the Governor's duties in Texas are largely ceremonial. The Lieutenant Governor is responsible for the day-to-day business of the state. This is not the case in California, where the Governor has far more power and responsibility. GWB was very effective in advancing his agenda during his time as Governor, but it was Bob Bullock and then Rick Perry who ran the day-to-day show as Lt. Gov.
Schwarzenegger's claim is that specifics of his positions on the issues are not that important; bringing leadership to Sacramento is what's needed. This isn't really a bad argument; tough decisions need to be made by someone who's willing to stand up, carry them forward, and get the majority of state's lawmakers on board. But at this point, we have very little to help judge if Schwarzenegger is capable of providing that kind of leadership. A good start would be to demonstrate that's he's done his homework, and that he has some well-thought-out ideas and positions. Despite some test marketing to the far right, he's still largely a cipher, and his candidacy still looks to me more like a vanity project for his ego than a commitment to effectively governing California.
Update: I wrote this on Saturday and posted it without publishing (or so I thought). The reason I didn't publish it was because I thought it was poorly written and not very well informed - based on my emotional judgements of the candidates which have been formed without sufficiently educating myself. So this is a slight rewrite of the original post. It's a little better, but not much.
Society
Here's an interesting article on ESPN's hiring of Rush Limbaugh by Rogers Cadenhead. I felt motivated to write this comment:
“There's a simple cure for the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters of the world:
By and large, ignore them. Don't buy their books, don't watch their shows. Don't waste energy debating their ridiculous positions. Doing so gives them a legitimacy that they don't deserve.
Of course, they'll continue to appeal to their core constituencies. There'll always be plenty of money to be made pandering to people's worst impulses. But remember that this sort of thing thrives on controversy, especially the emotional, name-calling, mean-spirited kind. Denying them the privilege of being taken seriously averts this and eventually results in their being reduced to irrelevance.
Now, that doesn't mean we should let them get away with anything. The truly offensive things they say and do - Limbaugh's repugnant remarks about 12-year-old Chelsea Clinton and his frequent bouts of racism, Coulter's indefensible defense of Joe McCarthy and labeling of liberals as "traitors" - need to be held up as examples of why they shouldn't be taken seriously. But the important thing is to to debunk and skewer such abuse of the right of free speech, not to respond in kind or descend to personal attacks. Rogers' article is very much in this spirit. The real point, to me, is the cynicism of ABC/Disney in hiring Limbaugh in attempt to boost ratings by 1) bringing in his core audience and 2) hoping this ignites controversy. Don't let it; in this case, principled detachment is more effective than rabid condemnation. Turning off ESPN and ABC is an easy thing to do. If lots of people do it, it's more effective than any other method.
This same advice can be applied to the idiots on the far left. Feel free to substitute Michael Moore and Al Sharpton for Limbaugh and Colter. But the point remains: call them on their nonsense, ignore them otherwise, and eventually they'll fade away.”
Here's an interesting article on ESPN's hiring of Rush Limbaugh by Rogers Cadenhead. I felt motivated to write this comment:
“There's a simple cure for the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters of the world:
By and large, ignore them. Don't buy their books, don't watch their shows. Don't waste energy debating their ridiculous positions. Doing so gives them a legitimacy that they don't deserve.
Of course, they'll continue to appeal to their core constituencies. There'll always be plenty of money to be made pandering to people's worst impulses. But remember that this sort of thing thrives on controversy, especially the emotional, name-calling, mean-spirited kind. Denying them the privilege of being taken seriously averts this and eventually results in their being reduced to irrelevance.
Now, that doesn't mean we should let them get away with anything. The truly offensive things they say and do - Limbaugh's repugnant remarks about 12-year-old Chelsea Clinton and his frequent bouts of racism, Coulter's indefensible defense of Joe McCarthy and labeling of liberals as "traitors" - need to be held up as examples of why they shouldn't be taken seriously. But the important thing is to to debunk and skewer such abuse of the right of free speech, not to respond in kind or descend to personal attacks. Rogers' article is very much in this spirit. The real point, to me, is the cynicism of ABC/Disney in hiring Limbaugh in attempt to boost ratings by 1) bringing in his core audience and 2) hoping this ignites controversy. Don't let it; in this case, principled detachment is more effective than rabid condemnation. Turning off ESPN and ABC is an easy thing to do. If lots of people do it, it's more effective than any other method.
This same advice can be applied to the idiots on the far left. Feel free to substitute Michael Moore and Al Sharpton for Limbaugh and Colter. But the point remains: call them on their nonsense, ignore them otherwise, and eventually they'll fade away.”
Wednesday, September 03, 2003
Barbershop Banter
Speaking of Dean, my barber Jerome mentioned a great quote while he was cutting my hair this morning. Apparently, Dean has been pointing out that he balanced 12 budgets in a row and that George Bush has never balanced one.
I'll attest to that. I was living in Texas when GWB pissed away the surplus Ann Richards had made possible during her term as Governer. And that was during the boom, not after it. Sorry, “pissed” is the wrong verb. He gave away the surplus. To his rich buddies and corporate benefactors. Molly Ivins tells you all about it here.
As an aside, Texas was facing a budget crunch almost as scary as California's current one after the '84-85 bust. One of the key reasons the state didn't melt down financially was Ann Richard's remarkable performance as State Controller and then Treasurer. Her right-hand man and successor, John Sharp, was equally brilliant. Their efforts and a recovery of the Texas economy eventually led to a budgetary surplus. California could really use someone with Governer Ann's financial acumen and leadership right now. Not to mention her wit, charm, and gift for stinging rhetoric. Instead, we've got Gray, Cruz, and Arnold.
Jerome, incidentally, was into self-publishing long before the web made it easy for the rest of us. Is that cool, or what?
Speaking of Dean, my barber Jerome mentioned a great quote while he was cutting my hair this morning. Apparently, Dean has been pointing out that he balanced 12 budgets in a row and that George Bush has never balanced one.
I'll attest to that. I was living in Texas when GWB pissed away the surplus Ann Richards had made possible during her term as Governer. And that was during the boom, not after it. Sorry, “pissed” is the wrong verb. He gave away the surplus. To his rich buddies and corporate benefactors. Molly Ivins tells you all about it here.
As an aside, Texas was facing a budget crunch almost as scary as California's current one after the '84-85 bust. One of the key reasons the state didn't melt down financially was Ann Richard's remarkable performance as State Controller and then Treasurer. Her right-hand man and successor, John Sharp, was equally brilliant. Their efforts and a recovery of the Texas economy eventually led to a budgetary surplus. California could really use someone with Governer Ann's financial acumen and leadership right now. Not to mention her wit, charm, and gift for stinging rhetoric. Instead, we've got Gray, Cruz, and Arnold.
Jerome, incidentally, was into self-publishing long before the web made it easy for the rest of us. Is that cool, or what?
Better Late Than Never
Dave Winer is asking bloggers to link to this post on blogging tips for candidates. Now, it hardly matters whether I do or not, but it's eminently worthwhile reading. Key quote: “Earlier this year I wrote an op-ed piece for the Harvard Crimson explaining the next step in democracy, voters with their own publications, everyone with an op-ed page, citizens with weblogs, a revolution in politics...it's surprising when a vision comes true, no matter how strongly you felt it would.”. The Dean campaign weblog seems to be the one that's blazed the trail, along with Larry Lessig's guest spots by Dean and Kucinich. But no one's really harnessed the medium yet. What's going to happen when someone does?
Dave Winer is asking bloggers to link to this post on blogging tips for candidates. Now, it hardly matters whether I do or not, but it's eminently worthwhile reading. Key quote: “Earlier this year I wrote an op-ed piece for the Harvard Crimson explaining the next step in democracy, voters with their own publications, everyone with an op-ed page, citizens with weblogs, a revolution in politics...it's surprising when a vision comes true, no matter how strongly you felt it would.”. The Dean campaign weblog seems to be the one that's blazed the trail, along with Larry Lessig's guest spots by Dean and Kucinich. But no one's really harnessed the medium yet. What's going to happen when someone does?
Tuesday, September 02, 2003
More Bernard Lewis
“Some features of classical Islamic civilization, such as tolerance, social mobility, and respect for law, are distinctly favorable to democratic development...Socially, Islam has always been democratic, or rather, egalitarian, rejecting both the caste system of India and the aristocratic privilege of Europe...[There remains] the political difficulty - the total absence of any conception or experience of representative or limited government of any kind. It is this, no doubt, that underlies the theory that democracy cannot work in Islamic lands. That there is a predisposition to autocratic government among Muslim peoples is clear enough; that there is an inherent incapacity for any other has yet to be proven.”
“Some features of classical Islamic civilization, such as tolerance, social mobility, and respect for law, are distinctly favorable to democratic development...Socially, Islam has always been democratic, or rather, egalitarian, rejecting both the caste system of India and the aristocratic privilege of Europe...[There remains] the political difficulty - the total absence of any conception or experience of representative or limited government of any kind. It is this, no doubt, that underlies the theory that democracy cannot work in Islamic lands. That there is a predisposition to autocratic government among Muslim peoples is clear enough; that there is an inherent incapacity for any other has yet to be proven.”
Monday, September 01, 2003
Books
I've been reading Bernard Lewis's The Shaping of the Modern Middle East. Here's an interesting quote:
“Of all the great movements that have shaken the Middle East during the last century and a half, the Islamic movements alone are authentically Middle Eastern in inspiration...the religious ideologies alone sprang from the native soil and expressed the passions of the submerged masses of the population. Time and again, the fundamentalists have shown, against all their competitors, that theirs are the most effective slogans and symbols, theirs the most intelligible and appealing discourse...the religious movements can still release direct immensely powerful pent-up emotions and give expression to deeply held aspirations. Aspirations are not programs, and the fundamentalists in office have so far shown themselves no better equipped than their predecessors either to solve the problems of their societies or to resist the temptations of power. But although these movements have so far been defeated or deflected, they have not yet spoken their last word.”
I've been reading Bernard Lewis's The Shaping of the Modern Middle East. Here's an interesting quote:
“Of all the great movements that have shaken the Middle East during the last century and a half, the Islamic movements alone are authentically Middle Eastern in inspiration...the religious ideologies alone sprang from the native soil and expressed the passions of the submerged masses of the population. Time and again, the fundamentalists have shown, against all their competitors, that theirs are the most effective slogans and symbols, theirs the most intelligible and appealing discourse...the religious movements can still release direct immensely powerful pent-up emotions and give expression to deeply held aspirations. Aspirations are not programs, and the fundamentalists in office have so far shown themselves no better equipped than their predecessors either to solve the problems of their societies or to resist the temptations of power. But although these movements have so far been defeated or deflected, they have not yet spoken their last word.”
Friday, August 29, 2003
War and Peace
Salam Pax's postings have become increasingly cynical - maybe even a litle despairing - in the past month or two. Now his parents' house has been searched by the US Army.
“They came, freaked out my mother, pissed off my father, found nothing and left.
After refusing to get one my father finally conceded to get one of those cards that basically say you are a “collaborator”.”
Not a flip remark. Apparently, it's not safe to be to perceived as being in league with the Americans.
Still think we're winning? Apparently the right-wing ideologues do. I'm having trouble deciding where denial ends and cluelessness begins with these guys. They'd probably tell you that Salam and I are both part of the problem - foot soldiers in the army of fifth columnists who will be responsible if things don't go the way they're supposed to. Then again, as an Open Software writer and user, I'm a criminal as well as a traitor, so it's no wonder that I'm subverting the true path of freedom and liberty*.
It's easier to blame someone else when things go wrong than to admit that the policies you favored were flawed. That would too close to taking responsibility for your opinions and actions. And that can't be allowed in this blame culture (which itself, of course, is blamed on those traitorous liberals).
I was never a big fan of Ronald Reagan, but I always admired him for standing up and saying that the blame was ultimately his when something major (e.g., the blowing up of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983) went wrong on his watch. I can't imagine any leading politician of this time doing the same. I mean, can you imagine Gray Davis taking the blame for the California budget? Bush for the economy? Tony Blair for misleading Parliament? Clinton for Mogadishu? Katherine Harris for the election debacle in Florida?
No, it's somebody else's fault. It's always somebody else's fault. The right has the dubious distinction of playing the blame game better, but that's just one more indication that the left is in disarray.
Remember when politicians actually took some responsibility for their actions and policies? Remember when it was a sign of character to admit when you were wrong and that self-restraint and tact were once considered virtues? Remember when Republicans were actually fiscal conservatives and Democrats actually believed in standing up for the working man?
Has the society we live in really progressed from the one our parents lived in when they were our age?
*(But once more, for the record: I'd love to be proven wrong. I'd love to see attacks against us and the British slowly wind down. I'd love to see a successful reconstruction of Iraq that resulted in a stable and prosperous democracy. I'd love to see the repressive Islamic fundamentalists in Iran overthrown and replaced by a representative democracy. I'd love to see Osama and Saddam captured and tried for their crimes. I submit, once again, that you need an effective grand strategy to achieve most of these aims and that the present strategy, including the near-unilateral invasion of Iraq (with a force too small to successfully occupy it), is badly thought out, deeply flawed, and carries too high a risk of failure.)
Salam Pax's postings have become increasingly cynical - maybe even a litle despairing - in the past month or two. Now his parents' house has been searched by the US Army.
“They came, freaked out my mother, pissed off my father, found nothing and left.
After refusing to get one my father finally conceded to get one of those cards that basically say you are a “collaborator”.”
Not a flip remark. Apparently, it's not safe to be to perceived as being in league with the Americans.
Still think we're winning? Apparently the right-wing ideologues do. I'm having trouble deciding where denial ends and cluelessness begins with these guys. They'd probably tell you that Salam and I are both part of the problem - foot soldiers in the army of fifth columnists who will be responsible if things don't go the way they're supposed to. Then again, as an Open Software writer and user, I'm a criminal as well as a traitor, so it's no wonder that I'm subverting the true path of freedom and liberty*.
It's easier to blame someone else when things go wrong than to admit that the policies you favored were flawed. That would too close to taking responsibility for your opinions and actions. And that can't be allowed in this blame culture (which itself, of course, is blamed on those traitorous liberals).
I was never a big fan of Ronald Reagan, but I always admired him for standing up and saying that the blame was ultimately his when something major (e.g., the blowing up of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983) went wrong on his watch. I can't imagine any leading politician of this time doing the same. I mean, can you imagine Gray Davis taking the blame for the California budget? Bush for the economy? Tony Blair for misleading Parliament? Clinton for Mogadishu? Katherine Harris for the election debacle in Florida?
No, it's somebody else's fault. It's always somebody else's fault. The right has the dubious distinction of playing the blame game better, but that's just one more indication that the left is in disarray.
Remember when politicians actually took some responsibility for their actions and policies? Remember when it was a sign of character to admit when you were wrong and that self-restraint and tact were once considered virtues? Remember when Republicans were actually fiscal conservatives and Democrats actually believed in standing up for the working man?
Has the society we live in really progressed from the one our parents lived in when they were our age?
*(But once more, for the record: I'd love to be proven wrong. I'd love to see attacks against us and the British slowly wind down. I'd love to see a successful reconstruction of Iraq that resulted in a stable and prosperous democracy. I'd love to see the repressive Islamic fundamentalists in Iran overthrown and replaced by a representative democracy. I'd love to see Osama and Saddam captured and tried for their crimes. I submit, once again, that you need an effective grand strategy to achieve most of these aims and that the present strategy, including the near-unilateral invasion of Iraq (with a force too small to successfully occupy it), is badly thought out, deeply flawed, and carries too high a risk of failure.)
CC - The Leading Edge of Satire
I just read a post on Adam Felber's site making fun of Ascroft's multi-city tour. You'll note that he wrote it 11 days after I made fun of the idea. I've seen a couple of other satirical references to the same subject in the last day or two, but hey - I WAS FIRST!
Granted, Felber's way funnier than me. But it took him 11 days to be funnier. So there.
Hey, do you think that if I titled this "CC - The Fair and Balanced Edge of Satire" I could get Fox to sue me?
I just read a post on Adam Felber's site making fun of Ascroft's multi-city tour. You'll note that he wrote it 11 days after I made fun of the idea. I've seen a couple of other satirical references to the same subject in the last day or two, but hey - I WAS FIRST!
Granted, Felber's way funnier than me. But it took him 11 days to be funnier. So there.
Hey, do you think that if I titled this "CC - The Fair and Balanced Edge of Satire" I could get Fox to sue me?
Sunday, August 24, 2003
Policy
I'll submit that the California recall and last week's blackouts on the other coast have the same root cause - an inability to make effective policy to achieve desirable outcomes.
The desirable outcome in California is a well-governed state able to endure the vicissitudes of volatile economic changes without succumbing to fiscal crisis during downturns. The desirable outcome for our power grid is to provide safe, highly reliable power without interruption at the lowest possible cost. We've managed to achieve the exact opposite of the outcomes we desire. And the ultimate reason is poor policy.
The recall is simply a second-order effect of California's budget crisis. I'm no big fan of Gray Davis, but the recall does nothing to help solve the budget crisis. The California Journal does an excellent job of tracing the budget crisis down to it roots. “Crisis in California” identifies 5 reasons why things have gone wrong. All are examples of poor policy making. Taken together, they've created a disasterous situation. The biggest question is whether they can be effectively reformed. If not, “The doomsday question is whether Governor Gray Davis is being recalled for failing to govern a state that is no longer governable.”
A not-disimilar story - albeit over a longer period of time - unfolds if you take a look at the roots of the blackout. Since at least 1982, experts have warned that the electric grid's ability to meet its goal of uninterruptable service is becoming more and more compromised. There have been multiple warnings since 9-11. Yet little to no action has been taken. The reason, once again, is poor policy. Some excellent background information can be found here and some good free-market oriented policy discussion here.
Notice that on both of these issues, everyone can share the blame. It's a completely non-partisan failure by all concerned.
I'll submit that the California recall and last week's blackouts on the other coast have the same root cause - an inability to make effective policy to achieve desirable outcomes.
The desirable outcome in California is a well-governed state able to endure the vicissitudes of volatile economic changes without succumbing to fiscal crisis during downturns. The desirable outcome for our power grid is to provide safe, highly reliable power without interruption at the lowest possible cost. We've managed to achieve the exact opposite of the outcomes we desire. And the ultimate reason is poor policy.
The recall is simply a second-order effect of California's budget crisis. I'm no big fan of Gray Davis, but the recall does nothing to help solve the budget crisis. The California Journal does an excellent job of tracing the budget crisis down to it roots. “Crisis in California” identifies 5 reasons why things have gone wrong. All are examples of poor policy making. Taken together, they've created a disasterous situation. The biggest question is whether they can be effectively reformed. If not, “The doomsday question is whether Governor Gray Davis is being recalled for failing to govern a state that is no longer governable.”
A not-disimilar story - albeit over a longer period of time - unfolds if you take a look at the roots of the blackout. Since at least 1982, experts have warned that the electric grid's ability to meet its goal of uninterruptable service is becoming more and more compromised. There have been multiple warnings since 9-11. Yet little to no action has been taken. The reason, once again, is poor policy. Some excellent background information can be found here and some good free-market oriented policy discussion here.
Notice that on both of these issues, everyone can share the blame. It's a completely non-partisan failure by all concerned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
