Arianna Huffington in the Huffington Post, August 6:
With just ninety days left in the election it's come down to this: our energy policy and a good deal of this presidential campaign are being discussed through the lens of Paris Hilton. What a big goof it all is! If you just ignore all the soldiers and civilians dying in the Mideast, and all the millions losing their homes and their jobs at home, you could really see the lighter side of it all.
read more | digg story
Thursday, August 07, 2008
The White House's Weak Denials
Dan Froomkin in the Washington Post, Wednesday, August 6:
- The allegation in Ron Suskind's new book that the White House ordered the CIA to forge evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda is so incredibly grave that it demands a serious response from the government. If what Suskind writes is true -- or even partially true -- someone at the highest levels of the White House engaged in a criminal conspiracy to deceive the American public. (See yesterday's column for all the details.)
But so far, we've gotten mostly hyperbole, innuendo and narrowly constructed denials.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto's response was a classic non-denial denial: "The notion that the White House directed anyone to forge a letter from [former Iraqi intelligence chief Tahir Jalil] Habbush to Saddam Hussein is absurd," he said. He accused Suskind, a Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter and well-respected chronicler of Bush administration secrets, of engaging in "gutter journalism."
"Classic" indeed: The current administration, and too much of the GOP establishment, moves immediately to smear anyone who dares so much as question them, let alone point out that they are unclothed. One wonders how long before "real" Republicans, "genuine" Republicans--those of a more moderate bent, conservative but not ideological, engaged but not enraged and motivated by impulses other than sheer hatred for "the other" (and they exist: I know a few of them...although I suppose it's possible that they are the last of their kind)--wake up and realize how Bush, Cheney, McCain, et al., have all but destroyed their own party, and to what end?
Or is it already too late--for them and for the rest of us, too?
Shouldn't the Headline Make Me WANT to Read the Story?
Things are pretty bad when the Humane Society has to give you dining tips...
It's All Very Zenlike, No?
I happened to note this ad at the bottom of a page I have on one of the freebie web-hosting services. It sort of makes sense...
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
You...You Mean They LIED?!
This at Think Progress, posted by on Aug 5:
read more | digg story
Suskind: White House Ordered Forged, Backdated Letter After Invasion To Concoct Saddam-9/11 Link
A new book by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind claims that, after the Iraq war began, the White House ordered the CIA to forge a “backdated, handwritten letter” from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein, in an attempt to tie Hussein to the 9/11 attacks. Here’s what Suskind reports:
Also this:– Saddam Hussein’s intelligence chief, Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, told U.S. and British officials there was no WMD in Iraq, “intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.”
– In the fall of 2003, the White House ordered CIA Director George Tenet to forge a “fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001,” Suskind writes. “It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq” and that Iraq bought yellowcake uranium from Niger with the help of al Qaeda.
– The letter was commissioned “from the highest reaches of the White House.” “It would have to come from the very top,” Suskind told NPR today.
Suskind also said he spoke with U.S. intelligence officials who stated that Bush was informed unequivocally in January 2003 that Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.
And in rebuttal, the usual:
White House press spokesman Tony Fratto attacked Suskind today, stating that he “makes a living from gutter journalism” and calling the book one of Suskind’s “bizarre conspiracy theories.”
Well, I hate to say it, but this begins to shake my faith in the Bush Administration a little...
read more | digg story
File Under "Unintended Consequences"
From the New York Times:
August 6, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
Dark Meat
By SHMUEL HERZFELD
Washington
ACCORDING to the Jewish calendar we are now in the month of Av, a period of increasingly intense mourning that culminates with a total fast on the Ninth of Av, which this year coincides with Sunday, Aug. 10.
One of the customary practices in these nine days is the avoidance of meat: it’s the way we commemorate the destruction of the Temple, where daily animal sacrifices were once brought.
Refraining from food is symbolic, of course. The idea is not just to avoid meat but to limit ourselves so that we can better focus on the spiritual.
Unfortunately, this year kosher meat has become a different type of symbol, one not of mourning and spiritual devotion but of ridicule, embarrassment and hypocrisy. In May in Postville, Iowa, immigration officials raided Agriprocessors Inc., the largest kosher meatpacking plant in the country.
What began as an immigration sting, however, quickly took on larger dimensions. News reports and government documents have described abusive practices at Agriprocessors against workers, including minors. Children as young as 13 were said to be wielding knives on the killing floor; some teenagers were working 17-hour shifts, six days a week.
This poses a grave problem and calls into question whether the food processed in the plant qualifies as kosher.
You see, there is precedent for declaring something nonkosher on the basis of how employees are treated. Yisroel Salanter, the great 19th-century rabbi, is famously believed to have refused to certify a matzo factory as kosher on the grounds that the workers were being treated unfairly. In addition to the hypocrisy of calling something kosher when it is being sold and produced in an unethical manner, we have to take into account disturbing information about the plant that has come to light.
The affidavit filed in the United States District Court of Northern Iowa, for instance, alleges that an employee was physically abused by a rabbi on the floor of the plant. If true, this calls into question the reliability and judgment of the rabbi in charge of making sure the food was kosher.
What’s more, two workers who oversaw the poultry and beef division were recently arrested for helping illegal immigrants falsify documents. If they were willing to break national immigration laws, one could reasonably ask whether they would be likely to show the same lack of concern for Jewish dietary laws.
Unfortunately, the responses of the leading Orthodox organizations, the Rabbinical Council of America and the Orthodox Union, have, in my opinion, fallen far short of what is needed to be done and have done little to diminish the extent of the desecration of God’s name. I am a member of both groups, but I am dissatisfied with their stance, which asks us to sit back patiently and wait for the results of a federal investigation. On some level, this might be prudent, but on another it is unacceptable.
What is needed is for the Orthodox Union to appoint an independent commission whose members have not in the past been paid by either the Orthodox Union or Agriprocessors. Such a commission would select a team of rabbinic experts to spend an extended period of time at the plant and then make suggestions and recommendations. This independent team would make sure the plant upholds basic standards of kashrut and worker and animal treatment — and that it is in full compliance with the laws of the United States.
Hebrew National used to run a commercial that said: “We answer to a Higher Authority.” Well, we do. We need to express shame and embarrassment about the reports coming out of Iowa, and we need to actively work to change these matters. Then we should ask ourselves if our behavior and our values need improvement. Only if we truly think about these issues will we truly be keeping kosher.
Shmuel Herzfeld, rabbi of Ohev Sholom-The National Synagogue, is a member of the Rabbinical Council of America.
Or we could file this under, "Who Watches the Watchers?"
August 6, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
Dark Meat
By SHMUEL HERZFELD
Washington
ACCORDING to the Jewish calendar we are now in the month of Av, a period of increasingly intense mourning that culminates with a total fast on the Ninth of Av, which this year coincides with Sunday, Aug. 10.
One of the customary practices in these nine days is the avoidance of meat: it’s the way we commemorate the destruction of the Temple, where daily animal sacrifices were once brought.
Refraining from food is symbolic, of course. The idea is not just to avoid meat but to limit ourselves so that we can better focus on the spiritual.
Unfortunately, this year kosher meat has become a different type of symbol, one not of mourning and spiritual devotion but of ridicule, embarrassment and hypocrisy. In May in Postville, Iowa, immigration officials raided Agriprocessors Inc., the largest kosher meatpacking plant in the country.
What began as an immigration sting, however, quickly took on larger dimensions. News reports and government documents have described abusive practices at Agriprocessors against workers, including minors. Children as young as 13 were said to be wielding knives on the killing floor; some teenagers were working 17-hour shifts, six days a week.
This poses a grave problem and calls into question whether the food processed in the plant qualifies as kosher.
You see, there is precedent for declaring something nonkosher on the basis of how employees are treated. Yisroel Salanter, the great 19th-century rabbi, is famously believed to have refused to certify a matzo factory as kosher on the grounds that the workers were being treated unfairly. In addition to the hypocrisy of calling something kosher when it is being sold and produced in an unethical manner, we have to take into account disturbing information about the plant that has come to light.
The affidavit filed in the United States District Court of Northern Iowa, for instance, alleges that an employee was physically abused by a rabbi on the floor of the plant. If true, this calls into question the reliability and judgment of the rabbi in charge of making sure the food was kosher.
What’s more, two workers who oversaw the poultry and beef division were recently arrested for helping illegal immigrants falsify documents. If they were willing to break national immigration laws, one could reasonably ask whether they would be likely to show the same lack of concern for Jewish dietary laws.
Unfortunately, the responses of the leading Orthodox organizations, the Rabbinical Council of America and the Orthodox Union, have, in my opinion, fallen far short of what is needed to be done and have done little to diminish the extent of the desecration of God’s name. I am a member of both groups, but I am dissatisfied with their stance, which asks us to sit back patiently and wait for the results of a federal investigation. On some level, this might be prudent, but on another it is unacceptable.
What is needed is for the Orthodox Union to appoint an independent commission whose members have not in the past been paid by either the Orthodox Union or Agriprocessors. Such a commission would select a team of rabbinic experts to spend an extended period of time at the plant and then make suggestions and recommendations. This independent team would make sure the plant upholds basic standards of kashrut and worker and animal treatment — and that it is in full compliance with the laws of the United States.
Hebrew National used to run a commercial that said: “We answer to a Higher Authority.” Well, we do. We need to express shame and embarrassment about the reports coming out of Iowa, and we need to actively work to change these matters. Then we should ask ourselves if our behavior and our values need improvement. Only if we truly think about these issues will we truly be keeping kosher.
Shmuel Herzfeld, rabbi of Ohev Sholom-The National Synagogue, is a member of the Rabbinical Council of America.
Or we could file this under, "Who Watches the Watchers?"
What Other Kind Is There?
This from a "bulletin" today on Ecunet, aka FaithGroups. Emphasis added:
Late yesterday afternoon some Ecunet members may have experienced a service outage of up to an hour while a Spam filter was being updated but then inadvertently caused a system malfunction. The problem has since been fixed and you should now experience a greater degree of Spam protection as a result.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Despite Media Narrative, Obama Leads By Over 100 electoral votes
Mark Nickolas in The Huffington Post:
I realize that it cuts against the media narrative right now to focus on anything that doesn't suggest a dead-heat, but it's quite instructive to see how the independent groups (and even right-leaning ones) currently see the state of the race through the only prism that matters -- the Electoral College:
read more
Nikolas has this insight as well:
I realize that it cuts against the media narrative right now to focus on anything that doesn't suggest a dead-heat, but it's quite instructive to see how the independent groups (and even right-leaning ones) currently see the state of the race through the only prism that matters -- the Electoral College:
read more
Nikolas has this insight as well:
- In Michigan, McCain had not led in any poll since May;
- In Pennsylvania, McCain has not led in any poll April, and a Republican poll released last week showed McCain trailing by 9, in line with the current Pollster.com average;
- In New Hampshire, McCain has not led in any poll since April;
- In Minnesota, while one recent poll showed McCain within the margin of error, no other poll in the past month (including one poll taken more recently) has him within 12 points.
McCain security ousts reporter | tallahassee.com
This from Tallahassee.com:
Tallahassee Democrat senior writer Stephen Price on Friday was singled out and asked to leave a media area at the Panama City rally of presidential candidate Sen. John McCain.
Price was among at least three other reporters, and the only black reporter, surrounding McCain's campaign bus — Gov. Charlie Crist and his fiancee, Carole Rome, were already aboard — when a member of the Arizona senator's security detail asked the reporter to identify himself. Price had shown his media credentials to enter the area.
These are dangerous times, comrades.
read more | digg story
Tallahassee Democrat senior writer Stephen Price on Friday was singled out and asked to leave a media area at the Panama City rally of presidential candidate Sen. John McCain.
Price was among at least three other reporters, and the only black reporter, surrounding McCain's campaign bus — Gov. Charlie Crist and his fiancee, Carole Rome, were already aboard — when a member of the Arizona senator's security detail asked the reporter to identify himself. Price had shown his media credentials to enter the area.
Price showed his employee identification as well as his credentials for the Friday event.
"I explained I was with the state press, but the Secret Service man said that didn't matter and that I would have to go," Price said.
When another reporter asked why Price was being removed, she too was led out of the area.These are dangerous times, comrades.
read more | digg story
G.O.P. Drops in Voting Rolls in Many States
From today's New York Times:
Voting experts say the registration numbers may signal the beginning of a shift that could affect local, state and national politics over several election cycles.
To which I add: Registration is one thing, turnout something else entirely.
read more | digg story
Voting experts say the registration numbers may signal the beginning of a shift that could affect local, state and national politics over several election cycles.
To which I add: Registration is one thing, turnout something else entirely.
read more | digg story
Monday, August 04, 2008
Why Does this Keep Happening to Me??
Well, it's happened again. I knew it was just a matter of time. But still...
Once again a well-meaning but oh-so-gullible friend has forwarded to me (and about 100,000 other people, giving me about six inches' worth of addresses to scroll past before I get to the meat of the message...which contains not only the hideous and distracting " > " in front of every line but also " > " in front of each line as well, making it especially fun to read) a completely sincere "warning" about something that I know darn well is a hoax.
In this case, it's the classic old VERY IMPORTANT - BIG VIRUS COMING - Disquised as a Hallmark Card. I assume a "disquise" must be a portmanteau, perhaps for "disquieting disguise." Not sure. More research needed.
Since I have been "warned" about this BIG VIRUS more than once over the years I no longer need to go to the Urban Legends Reference Pages to look it up. If you want to, you can do so here.
At this point you're wondering what the problem is. After all, I know it's a hoax; I can simply ignore it, no? Well, sure, I could. Except I always feel, in these instances, a responsibility to allay people's fears. The BIG VIRUS COMING is supposed to burn "the whole hard disc C of your computer" if you open the "POSTCARD FROM HALLMARK" attachment that purports to accompany it. (The annoying thing, which the Urban Legends Reference Pages explains, is that there really is a "postcard" virus out there, but it isn't new, and it won't burn holes in anything. But the BIG VIRUS COMING warning is a hoax about something that is real, though less scary than the hoax portrays.) So I have a mental picture of these other 99,000 people to whom my friend forwarded the warning--which of course includes the exhortation to further forward it to everybody they know--living in constant fear of receiving the dreaded POSTCARD FROM HALLMARK that will burn a hole through their C drive and on down to the earth's core.
And so it is more than likely that I will compose a reply that tries very hard to avoid making my friend feel foolish while at the same time setting her straight and encouraging her to be less gullible in the future. (It's the "gullible" and "not feeling foolish" tension that makes such replies tricky.)
Not that it will do much good, probably. Some time back, an acquaintance was in the habit of forwarding every single hoax or gag that went around--viruses, dying kids, exploding gasoline pumps, unlocking your car with your cell phone, you name it. And every time I would kindly explain that this was something else to add to the don't-worry list, or something else that didn't work, or something else that wouldn't happen. And she would thank me...and, two days later, send out the next hoax or e-mail urban legend. One day, however, I noticed that it had been some time since I had heard from her. I would have liked to think I had wised her up, but I checked with a mutual acquaintance and got the information I knew I would.
She had simply dropped me from her mailing list.
Once again a well-meaning but oh-so-gullible friend has forwarded to me (and about 100,000 other people, giving me about six inches' worth of addresses to scroll past before I get to the meat of the message...which contains not only the hideous and distracting " > " in front of every line but also " > " in front of each line as well, making it especially fun to read) a completely sincere "warning" about something that I know darn well is a hoax.
In this case, it's the classic old VERY IMPORTANT - BIG VIRUS COMING - Disquised as a Hallmark Card. I assume a "disquise" must be a portmanteau, perhaps for "disquieting disguise." Not sure. More research needed.
Since I have been "warned" about this BIG VIRUS more than once over the years I no longer need to go to the Urban Legends Reference Pages to look it up. If you want to, you can do so here.
At this point you're wondering what the problem is. After all, I know it's a hoax; I can simply ignore it, no? Well, sure, I could. Except I always feel, in these instances, a responsibility to allay people's fears. The BIG VIRUS COMING is supposed to burn "the whole hard disc C of your computer" if you open the "POSTCARD FROM HALLMARK" attachment that purports to accompany it. (The annoying thing, which the Urban Legends Reference Pages explains, is that there really is a "postcard" virus out there, but it isn't new, and it won't burn holes in anything. But the BIG VIRUS COMING warning is a hoax about something that is real, though less scary than the hoax portrays.) So I have a mental picture of these other 99,000 people to whom my friend forwarded the warning--which of course includes the exhortation to further forward it to everybody they know--living in constant fear of receiving the dreaded POSTCARD FROM HALLMARK that will burn a hole through their C drive and on down to the earth's core.
And so it is more than likely that I will compose a reply that tries very hard to avoid making my friend feel foolish while at the same time setting her straight and encouraging her to be less gullible in the future. (It's the "gullible" and "not feeling foolish" tension that makes such replies tricky.)
Not that it will do much good, probably. Some time back, an acquaintance was in the habit of forwarding every single hoax or gag that went around--viruses, dying kids, exploding gasoline pumps, unlocking your car with your cell phone, you name it. And every time I would kindly explain that this was something else to add to the don't-worry list, or something else that didn't work, or something else that wouldn't happen. And she would thank me...and, two days later, send out the next hoax or e-mail urban legend. One day, however, I noticed that it had been some time since I had heard from her. I would have liked to think I had wised her up, but I checked with a mutual acquaintance and got the information I knew I would.
She had simply dropped me from her mailing list.
McCain's Problem Isn't His Tactics. It's GOP Ideas.
By Greg Anrig, in yesterday's Washington Post.
Anrig writes:
Also:
Me, I think it too early to be ordering the funeral spray. People like to be told what they like to hear--part of the reason I like Anrig's essay!--and are very good at filtering out inconveniences like "doesn't work." As Anrig himself points out. And once people have invested themselves emotionally in an idea, the abandonment of that idea--or ideology--becomes near-unthinkable.
read more | digg story
Anrig writes:
- But now, seemingly all of a sudden, conservatives are the ones who are tongue-tied, as demonstrated by Sen. John McCain's limping, message-free presidential campaign. McCain's ongoing difficulties in exciting voters aren't just a tactical problem; his woes stem largely from his long-standing adherence to a set of ideas that simply haven't worked in practice. The belief system and finely crafted policy pitches that enabled the right to dominate the war of ideas for the past 30 years have produced a relentless succession of governing failures, from Iraq to Katrina to the economy to the environment.
Also:
- As I listen to leading voices and thinkers on the right pondering the condition of their ideology, it is increasingly clear to me that they face a fundamental dilemma -- one that cannot be resolved anytime soon and that might well leave the conservative movement out to pasture for as long as we progressives have been powerlessly chewing grass. That choice is whether to stick with rhetoric and policies wedded to free markets, limited government and bellicose unilateralism, or to endorse a more robust role for the public sector at home while relying more on diplomacy and international institutions abroad. Either way, conservative Republicans seem destined to have a much harder time winning elections for the foreseeable future. Just ask McCain how much fun he's having.
Me, I think it too early to be ordering the funeral spray. People like to be told what they like to hear--part of the reason I like Anrig's essay!--and are very good at filtering out inconveniences like "doesn't work." As Anrig himself points out. And once people have invested themselves emotionally in an idea, the abandonment of that idea--or ideology--becomes near-unthinkable.
read more | digg story
Friday, August 01, 2008
So Now They Have to Ignore a District Court, Instead
From today's New York Times:
- Judge Rules Bush Advisers Can’t Ignore Subpoenas
By DAVID STOUT
Published: August 1, 2008
“The executive’s current claim of absolute immunity from compelled Congressional process for senior presidential aides is without any support in the case law,” the judge, John D. Bates, ruled in United States District Court here.
Apostrophe Catastrophe
It's one thing when ordinary citizens can't bring themselves to put an s on the end of a word without sticking an apostrophe in front of it. (I wish I had a firecracker to put in every mailbox in town that has Anderson's on it. But it's another when "professional" products are so afflicted, and when the "professionals" who produced them can't manage to check a style and usage guide...or ask a clever junior-high student.
Here's a screenshot from Zap2It.com, which I checked to see when Doctor Who is on tonight (7:30, in case you're interested):
For the record: The lackluster Flash Gordon reincarnation, which was on SciFi last season but now has moved to Ion, is on at 7/6 C on Fridays. Not Friday's. Fridays. I know it's difficult, Ion marketing/advertising people, but with practice you too can learn to put the letter s at the end of a word without an apostrophe.
I put it to my students thusly: The apostrophe-s indicates either possession or contraction:
It is a beautiful day in the neighborhood = It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood = Correct!
The ball belongs to Spot = It is Spot's ball = Correct!
Members of the Nelson family are coming for dinner = The Nelson's are coming for dinner = Incorrect!
The lackluster Flash Gordon is on every Friday at 7 = The lackluster Flash Gordon is on Friday's at 7:00 = Incorrect! (Except for the lackluster part.)
So as I told the class, if you can't rephrase the sentence to indicate a contraction or possessive (and still have the sentence make sense!), then you need to ditch the apostrophe.
We will save for another day the matter of forming possessives when the word ends in s already!
Addendum A: I do wonder, however, about the mailbox mentioned above. It is, I suppose, possible that the labelers of said box intended to indicate that it belongs to Anderson, in which case Anderson's would be correct. But I rather suspect it's meant to indicate that the box receives mail for members of the Anderson household, in which case Andersons is what you need. Of course, you can save time, confusion, and a sticky metal letter if you go with Anderson and hope the letter carrier can figure it out from there.
Addendum B: Some years ago I worked for a company called The Webb Company in St. Paul, Minnesota. It no longer exists. The company, I mean. Anyhow, some time after I left there I communicated to a former co-worker that I would be meeting a friend of his who also had worked at Webb but had left shortly before I joined. My friend told me not to be alarmed when the other fellow referred to the place as Webbs, as my friend rendered it in his letter to me. And sure enough, when I introduced myself to the other fellow, mentioning our mutual friend, he in turn introduced me to his wife and said that I too had worked at Webbs...except that, as I later expressed to my friend, I think it was in fact more properly rendered Webb's. I have often noticed a local tendency to incorrectly render various business names as
possessives. One of the most common around here is the John Morrell meatpacking plant, which is universally referred to ('round here) as Morrell's...even though none of their signage or labeling has ever, to my knowledge, said anything except John Morrell or Morrell. I don't know why this should be, unless it goes back to a time when many if not businesses carried the proprietor's name: Bob's Grocery, Foley's Garage, etc. (Sure, names like that are still around, but my guess is there are fewer than in bygone times.)
McCain's Ugly Campaign
Eugene Robinson in this morning's Washington Post ("So Much for St. John") got me thinking, which is about par for the course with him:
- It's awfully early for John McCain to be running such a desperate, ugly campaign against Barack Obama. But I guess it's useful for Democrats to get a reminder that the Republican Party plays presidential politics by the same moral code that guided the bad-boy Oakland Raiders in their heyday:"Just win, baby."
- The latest bit of snarling, mean-spirited nonsense to come out of the McCain camp was the accusation, leveled by campaign manager Rick Davis, that Obama had "played the race card." He did so, apparently, by being black.
Not that anyone cares, but I'm extremely disappointed in John McCain. I was one of those naive souls who, eight years ago, thought he would be okay on Pennsylvania Avenue should he arrive there...which at the time seemed a disctinct possibility. He struck me than as someone who, as my father would have said, had his head on straight. He was, after all, a moderate. A maverick. A straight-talker. Even an unrepentant leftist like me found him the least-worrisome of the field of GOP contenders that summer.
(The GOP, of course, went and nominated the most worrisome of the contenders, but we all know that story.)
I'll be the first to admit I'm naive...but I'm not completely naive. I don't think that Straight-Talk McCain was a complete
fabrication. If so, he was pretty damn good at it. But the McCain we see today, Mud-Sling McCain, quick to disparage, quick to cast aspersions, quick to imply, quick to lie, seems so completely formed that I have to wonder about the man's personality. I mean, he didn't seem phony eight years ago when he was Straight-Talk McCain, and he doesn't seem phony now that he's Mud-Sling McCain.
So which one is real and which one the mask?
Or are they both real?
Or are they both masks?
Or is it simply that, having missed the brass ring the last time around, McCain this time decided to follow that time-honored tradition of doing anything--any...damn...thing--in order to win?
We wouldn't have dirty politics if it never worked.As Robinson rightly points out:
- Negative campaigning is not a pretty thing, and it should be beneath John McCain to stoop so low. But Democrats would be foolish to forget that sometimes it works.
Meanwhile, over at the New York Times, Paul Krugman has this to offer:
- Most criticism of John McCain’s decision to follow the Bush administration’s lead and embrace offshore
drilling as the answer to high gas prices has focused on the accusation that it’s junk economics — which it is.
A McCain campaign ad says that gas prices are high right now because “some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America.” That’s just plain dishonest: the U.S. government’s own Energy Information Administration
says that removing restrictions on offshore drilling wouldn’t lead to any additional domestic oil production until 2017, and that even at its peak the extra production would have an “insignificant” impact on oil prices.
What’s even more important than Mr. McCain’s bad economics, however, is what his reversal on this
issue — he was against offshore drilling before he was for it — says about his priorities.
Back when he was cultivating a maverick image, Mr. McCain portrayed himself as more environmentally aware than the rest of his party. He even co-sponsored a bill calling for a cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions (although his remarks on several recent occasions suggest that he doesn’t understand
his own proposal). But the lure of a bit of political gain, it turns out, was all it took to transform him back into a standard drill-and-burn Republican.
And the planet can’t afford that kind of cynicism.
Bet They Now Wish They Had Given it a Different Name!
This from BusinessWeek's Tech Beat:
- Cuil: Another Google Challenger Launches--to a Cool Reception
Posted by: Rob Hof on July 28
Just weeks after the last highly touted Google challenger, Powerset, was snapped up by Microsoft, a new one is launching Sunday night. Cuil (pronounced “cool” and previously sporting an additional “l”), boasts a Web index three times the assumed size of Google’s (though I’m not aware of Google admitting to a particular index size lately), a management team with an impressive pedigree (several people from Google), a different set of algorithms that in part analyze the content of pages, and a radically different presentation of search results.
Read the whole article here.
Yet Another Reason to Avoid Wal-Mart. As if I Needed Another Reason...
This from this morning's Wall Street Journal Page One:
Yes, that's right: If the scary no-good godless bleeding-heart Democrats succeed in reclaiming the White House and/or Capitol Hill, they'll make it easier for workers to protect themselves from predators like Wal-Mart. The scurvy scoundrels!
I especially love this paragraph:
That's right, kiddo--if you join an organization that has the potential to protect you from me, that would be very, very bad. Um, for you, I mean. Yeah--bad for you. Me, I don't care. I'm just looking out for you. Like always. Heh-heh-heh.
It's times like this I wish I shopped at Wal-Mart so I could boycott them.
Wal-Mart Warns of Democratic Win
By ANN ZIMMERMAN and KRIS MAHER
August 1, 2008; Page A1
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they'll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies -- including Wal-Mart.
By ANN ZIMMERMAN and KRIS MAHER
August 1, 2008; Page A1
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they'll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies -- including Wal-Mart.
Yes, that's right: If the scary no-good godless bleeding-heart Democrats succeed in reclaiming the White House and/or Capitol Hill, they'll make it easier for workers to protect themselves from predators like Wal-Mart. The scurvy scoundrels!
I especially love this paragraph:
In recent weeks, thousands of Wal-Mart store managers and department heads have been summoned to mandatory meetings at which the retailer stresses the downside for workers if stores were to be unionized. (Emphasis added)
That's right, kiddo--if you join an organization that has the potential to protect you from me, that would be very, very bad. Um, for you, I mean. Yeah--bad for you. Me, I don't care. I'm just looking out for you. Like always. Heh-heh-heh.
It's times like this I wish I shopped at Wal-Mart so I could boycott them.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Reading Materials
I composed this as e-mail to my friend Jerry, with the warning that he should expect it to show up here at some point.
He replied, "Blog, hell, you should submit the piece to the National Review."
Nevertheless, here it is. If you're with the National Review, we can discuss reprint rights.
Now, this is interesting: "O'Reilly, Savage, Hannity on accused church shooter's reading list" (see below), the gist of which is that the guy who shot up a UUC children's program in Tennessee had in his personal library such classics as "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder by radio talk show host Michael Savage, Let Freedom Ring by talk show host Sean Hannity, and The O'Reilly Factor, by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly."
[The complete article is here]
Now, I put it to you this way: From time to time, you may have noticed, our right-wingnut friends will get all frothy on the subject of pornography (which they know when they see it). Despite any number of studies which might cause thinking people to question the existence of any causal link between the consumption of pornography and the commission of crimes, sexual or otherwise (and indeed I've read of studies that seem to indicate such misdeeds occur in greater frequency at times and in places where pornography has been tightly censored), our right-wingnut chums know--with that deep and unshakable and frighteningly single-mindedness which only they can master--that pornography will compel its consumer to act out that which he sees on the page or the screen.
After all, they will and have argued, there is agreement that people are positively influenced by "good" material like the Bible and other inspirational or motivational works. It is, then, only logical that they would be negatively influenced by "bad" material.
(I know plenty of people who have vast libraries of "Christian" books, CDs, DVDs, and bumper-stickers and who are, in practice, shits, which tends to belie the idea that reading/viewing/listening = behavior, but let's leave that for another time.)
So if we accept the "logic" expressed by the right-wingnuts who are on the prowl for every opportunity to scuttle the First Amendment, then we have to conclude that the works of Savage, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al., must be suppressed!
They are, after all, slanderous hatemongering tracts, which have, demonstrably, incited violence.
This sort of mentality--"they" are all bad; "they" are responsible for everything that has gone wrong; "they" are ruining "our" country; it's "us" against "them"--sounds dangerously familiar, does it not? Just replace the word liberals with the word Jews.
We would not, as a society, tolerate the mass production of books, television programs, radio broadcasts, and websites that suggest that Jews are responsible for everything bad in the world, Judaism is a mental disorder, Jews are godless sub-humans who need to be wiped out by any means. (Such things exist in the shadows, of course, but not on the bestseller lists.) Why would we not so tolerate? Because of the fear that such incendiary hatemongering might lead the mentally imbalanced to conclude that they must "do something"--burn something, blow something up, kill someone--in order to "solve" the "problem."
Well, golly...look what's happened in Tennessee.
The phrase "accessories before the fact" keeps percolating to mind...
Look for this to show up on the blog sooner or later...
He replied, "Blog, hell, you should submit the piece to the National Review."
Nevertheless, here it is. If you're with the National Review, we can discuss reprint rights.
Now, this is interesting: "O'Reilly, Savage, Hannity on accused church shooter's reading list" (see below), the gist of which is that the guy who shot up a UUC children's program in Tennessee had in his personal library such classics as "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder by radio talk show host Michael Savage, Let Freedom Ring by talk show host Sean Hannity, and The O'Reilly Factor, by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly."
- Adkisson targeted the church, Still [Bad editing on the part of TRS: "Still" is a Knoxville cop who is never ID'd in the story] wrote in the document obtained by WBIR-TV, Channel 10, "because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets."
[The complete article is here]
Now, I put it to you this way: From time to time, you may have noticed, our right-wingnut friends will get all frothy on the subject of pornography (which they know when they see it). Despite any number of studies which might cause thinking people to question the existence of any causal link between the consumption of pornography and the commission of crimes, sexual or otherwise (and indeed I've read of studies that seem to indicate such misdeeds occur in greater frequency at times and in places where pornography has been tightly censored), our right-wingnut chums know--with that deep and unshakable and frighteningly single-mindedness which only they can master--that pornography will compel its consumer to act out that which he sees on the page or the screen.
After all, they will and have argued, there is agreement that people are positively influenced by "good" material like the Bible and other inspirational or motivational works. It is, then, only logical that they would be negatively influenced by "bad" material.
(I know plenty of people who have vast libraries of "Christian" books, CDs, DVDs, and bumper-stickers and who are, in practice, shits, which tends to belie the idea that reading/viewing/listening = behavior, but let's leave that for another time.)
So if we accept the "logic" expressed by the right-wingnuts who are on the prowl for every opportunity to scuttle the First Amendment, then we have to conclude that the works of Savage, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al., must be suppressed!
They are, after all, slanderous hatemongering tracts, which have, demonstrably, incited violence.
This sort of mentality--"they" are all bad; "they" are responsible for everything that has gone wrong; "they" are ruining "our" country; it's "us" against "them"--sounds dangerously familiar, does it not? Just replace the word liberals with the word Jews.
We would not, as a society, tolerate the mass production of books, television programs, radio broadcasts, and websites that suggest that Jews are responsible for everything bad in the world, Judaism is a mental disorder, Jews are godless sub-humans who need to be wiped out by any means. (Such things exist in the shadows, of course, but not on the bestseller lists.) Why would we not so tolerate? Because of the fear that such incendiary hatemongering might lead the mentally imbalanced to conclude that they must "do something"--burn something, blow something up, kill someone--in order to "solve" the "problem."
Well, golly...look what's happened in Tennessee.
The phrase "accessories before the fact" keeps percolating to mind...
Look for this to show up on the blog sooner or later...
Man Bites Dog!
I'm as keen as anybody to see an end to excessive early-termination fees on cellphone contracts, but let's not get ahead of ourselves!
This is the headline on G4's The Feed ("The Only News You Need to Know") in re the preliminary ruling by an Alameda County, California, Superior Court Judge that orders Sprint Nextel to pay California customers $18.2 million as part of a class-action suit over early-termination fees:
Which sort of implies that Sprint Nextel has started writing out all those checks. Which it isn't. In fact, yours truly can hardly make himself believe that Sprint Nextel won't appeal the decision. Which, by the way, is a preliminary decision. In one state.
The Feed's article's opening paragraph is more measured, and more accurate:
Read the whole thing here.
This is hardly the first time I've wondered whether the writers of headline even read the item in question.
This is the headline on G4's The Feed ("The Only News You Need to Know") in re the preliminary ruling by an Alameda County, California, Superior Court Judge that orders Sprint Nextel to pay California customers $18.2 million as part of a class-action suit over early-termination fees:
Sprint Nextel Paying Back Termination Fees
Which sort of implies that Sprint Nextel has started writing out all those checks. Which it isn't. In fact, yours truly can hardly make himself believe that Sprint Nextel won't appeal the decision. Which, by the way, is a preliminary decision. In one state.
The Feed's article's opening paragraph is more measured, and more accurate:
- Sprint Nextel just got ordered to refund $18.25 million to California customers who paid early termination fees to get out of their mobile contracts. A judge is also requiring the company to relinquish $54.75 million in early termination fees it charged that went unpaid by Cali consumers.
This is hardly the first time I've wondered whether the writers of headline even read the item in question.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Not Just Me
Others were as underwhelmed as I by yesterday's debut of Cuil. This from Time:
Monday, Jul. 28, 2008
Why Cuil Is No Threat to Google
By Anita Hamilton
Rest easy, Google ... The much-hyped new search engine Cuil (pronounced "cool"), purports to index more Web pages than any of its rivals. But based on its Monday debut, the new site poses little immediate threat to industry leader Google, or even its nearest competitors, Yahoo and Microsoft, in either relevance or breadth of results it delivers.
"Anybody who thought [Cuil] was this Google killer can really see now that no, that's not going to happen today — and the likelihood is that's not going to happen a year from now," says Danny Sullivan, internet search guru and editor-in-chief of SearchEngineLand.
Despite its lackluster performance, Cuil (which means wisdom or knowledge in Gaelic) got so many visitors on Monday, that its servers crashed around 3 p.m. E.T. "Due to excessive load, our servers didn't return results. Please try your search again," the site read intermittently throughout the afternoon. But even when it was working, the results were fair, at best. Enter a keyword such as "mint" and the first result that comes up isn't the herb or flavor but the U.S. Mint. ...
Read the whole article here.
Monday, July 28, 2008
No Surprise
Even as I was posting the previous entry in re the new search engine, Cuil, this appeared:
So I think my original conclusion was valid: Give them some time.Searching Every Which A-way
However many years ago it was, I recall hearing about a new search engine called Google, which threatened to be way better than Yahoo! and Netscape combined, hard to imagine though that was. (Actually, the context in which I first heard about Google was how great it was for finding song lyrics...which it was and is.) But I tested it out, one Saturday morning ten or so years ago, by of course typing in my name. Pretty common, I'm afraid, so not terribly illuminating. So I tried my grandfather's name (my father and I shared a name, so there wouldn't have been much point searching for him), which again was a little too commonplace to be of use. So I tried his grandfather, on the theory that there can't be too many Phineas Bates Reynoldses running around. And to my amazement, up came a number of decent hits. Which is more than I could say for Yahoo! and Netscape.
Those hits led to some good internet contacts that helped me immeasurably when it came to filling in some gaps in the family tree. And Google became my search engine of choice, a tool so helpful that it remains today the home page on my browser of choice, Firefox.
So it was with interest this morning that I heard on NPR's Morning Edition about Cuil, the new search site founded by former Google employees, which went live this morning. Cuil supposedly indexes more of the web than other search engines ("Search 121,617,892,992 web pages"), which may very well be so...but when I had a chance to check it out, repeating the searches indicated above, I came away pretty underwhelmed. If nothing else, I was surprised that the family history pages that I have online--which include, of course, me, my grandfather, and his grandfather--didn't appear among the hits. Indeed, I and my grandfather seem barely to exist in Cuil, and old Phinny shows up in a couple of old genealogical pages that were among those that Google took me to almost a decade ago.
Is that a fair test? Well, you tell me. For my dime, I like a search engine that will help me find the obscure, and in that regard Google has always been the go-to guy.
Here's another couple of oddities:
First, if I put "Phineas Bates Reynolds" in quotation marks--the standard, I think, for searching for an exact term--Cuil shows me one hit but tells me there are 1,066 results for "phineas bates reynolds". I wouldn't mind knowing how to access those results. If Cuil provides a way, I have yet to find it. (The line that tells me 1,066 results for "phineas bates reynolds" is not clickable, though it feels like it should be.)
If I search Phineas Bates Reynolds without the punctuation marks, I of course get more results displayed...but most of them are wrong. And I can't seem to access the 17,056 results its says it found.
Second--and this is inexplicable--if I turn off Cuil's "safe search mode," the single result it previously displayed disappears, as do the alleged 1,066 results it claims to have found but isn't showing...and now it tells me that it's finding nothing! Very strange, no? I assure you, there is nothing pornographic or objectionable in "Whiteside Co IL Township Histories," so I'm at a loss to explain Cuil's apparent issues with it...and the thousand other results it claimed to have once had.
It is also disconcerting to click on "About Cuil" at the bottom of the page and be rewarded with this:
Well, it's all very new and all. I suppose, in fairness, I should pop back in after Cuil has been up and running a week or so and see if these apparent oddities have been addressed. For now, however, I think I'll stick with Google...even though it must be said that Cuil is much prettier.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Thursday, July 24, 2008
How Many Superheroes Does It Take to Tire a Genre?
“The Dark Knight,” “Iron Man” and “Hancock” test the limits of the superhero film. (In times of economic distress, people long for saviors, and fictional superheroes will do in a pinch.)
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
One of the Things I Love About the Interweb!
I love when little ironies--perhaps intentional, perhaps not--pop out on the internet. For instance, here's a screen shot of a page I was looking at earlier on the New York Times website. You'll see that it's an Op-Ed piece referencing T. Boone Pickens's branding as "totally misleading" the GOP's cherished notion that the answer to today's high gas prices is "more drilling." It's fun that Pickens is one of the driving forces behind George W. Bush's ascendence to the White House, but that's not the ironic part. The irony lies in the placement of the ad directly to the right of the column, i.e.:
Yes, right next to the line that says "we can’t drill our way to lower gas prices" is an ad from "the people of America's Oil and Natural Gas Industry."
I didn't click the ad, but my guess is that "the people of," etc., aren't saying we can't drill our way out of the current state of affairs.
Gotta love it.
Yes, right next to the line that says "we can’t drill our way to lower gas prices" is an ad from "the people of America's Oil and Natural Gas Industry."
I didn't click the ad, but my guess is that "the people of," etc., aren't saying we can't drill our way out of the current state of affairs.
Gotta love it.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Promises, Promises
Some little while back I wrote about e-mail sent to me by Sprint upon my completing a customer satisfaction survey for them. In the survey I reported, truthfully, that I was dissatisfied with the results of an e-mail inquiry I had made of them previously (indeed, the survey was a "how are we doing?" follow-up to my e-mail query). (I wrote about that experience, too.) Anyhow, what they had to say at the time was this:
As previously reported, that e-mail came to me on May 15. Today is July 23. No message from Sprint, via PCS phone, e-mail, snail mail, or homing pigeon, these past two months.
File that under Don't Make Promises...
Anyhow, last night I happened to be in the Verizon store as my daughter had her phone attended to. She's already made the switch, obviously, and seems to be happy as all get-out with their service. (I should have pulled out my phone to see what sort of coverage I had in the Verizon store.) Anyhow, I've already packed our bags mentally as far as abandoning Sprint...after something like ten years. It's not as amusing as you might think to be in a public place passing the time watching other folks chat away on their cell phones while mine is doggedly Looking for Service. And since both my son and I do a fair amount of texting--often with one another--it's also a treat to see what the next phone bill has in store overage-charges-wise. (That issue, you may recall, was the genesis of my original e-mail to Sprint, the one that got responded to but not answered, which triggered the customer-satisfaction survey, which generated the above-mentioned e-mail, which did not produce the promised phone call, which lived in the house that Jack built.
But I digress.
It turns out that two of our three Sprint contracts expire in February, with the third ending the following October. That's a bit longer than I'd like to dally, but I'm unenthusiastic about spending money to get out of this indentured servitude. So it occurs to my to try a radical approach:
Ask them.
No kidding. I'm mentally drafting a nice, polite, even friendly letter to, say, the CEO of Sprint/Nextel. Something along this line:
Yeah, I know: I might as well go talk to the side of the Sprint/Nextel headquarters building. But you never know. Might be worth a stamp. Stay tuned for further developments.
- Thank you for responding to our survey. We are sorry to learn that you have an unresolved issue as your satisfaction is very important to us.
A Sprint representative will contact you via your PCS phone at no charge, within 3 business days to assist you.
Please do not respond to this email. If you have any questions please contact Customer Service or visit one of our websites:
http://www.sprint.com or http://www.sprintpcs.com
As previously reported, that e-mail came to me on May 15. Today is July 23. No message from Sprint, via PCS phone, e-mail, snail mail, or homing pigeon, these past two months.
File that under Don't Make Promises...
Anyhow, last night I happened to be in the Verizon store as my daughter had her phone attended to. She's already made the switch, obviously, and seems to be happy as all get-out with their service. (I should have pulled out my phone to see what sort of coverage I had in the Verizon store.) Anyhow, I've already packed our bags mentally as far as abandoning Sprint...after something like ten years. It's not as amusing as you might think to be in a public place passing the time watching other folks chat away on their cell phones while mine is doggedly Looking for Service. And since both my son and I do a fair amount of texting--often with one another--it's also a treat to see what the next phone bill has in store overage-charges-wise. (That issue, you may recall, was the genesis of my original e-mail to Sprint, the one that got responded to but not answered, which triggered the customer-satisfaction survey, which generated the above-mentioned e-mail, which did not produce the promised phone call, which lived in the house that Jack built.
But I digress.
It turns out that two of our three Sprint contracts expire in February, with the third ending the following October. That's a bit longer than I'd like to dally, but I'm unenthusiastic about spending money to get out of this indentured servitude. So it occurs to my to try a radical approach:
Ask them.
No kidding. I'm mentally drafting a nice, polite, even friendly letter to, say, the CEO of Sprint/Nextel. Something along this line:
- Look, I've been a customer of Sprint for something on the order of ten years. If you haven't made a profit on me by now, you never will. On the whole I haven't been hugely dissatisfied with Sprint--it clearly was the best game in town when I first signed up--but lately it's been losing ground, at least in my area. Coverage isn't good. Calls are frequently dropped. Indeed, I was sitting at my desk on the second-floor of my centrally located home, chatting with my aunt, when suddenly I was talking to myself when the phone lost its signal. And then I had to wait for it to regain its senses, go into Analog Roam, and then finally find a digital signal again. Not good. Anyhow, with this and that my family and I are, as the song has it, already gone. We're not renewing the contracts as they expire. Given that--and given that two of our lines runs out in February--how about we agree to an amicable split? Let us out of our contract and we'll go try somebody else. No hard feelings. There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy; there's only you and me and we just disagree.
Yeah, I know: I might as well go talk to the side of the Sprint/Nextel headquarters building. But you never know. Might be worth a stamp. Stay tuned for further developments.
Who Pays? Who Doesn't?
As Bob is my witless, I will never know why people say things like this (from yesterday's edition of the local rag):
- In her letter in the July 9 Argus Leader, Lorri May praised Sen. Tim Johnson for voting to tax the windfall profits of the U.S. oil companies. Hello! Corporations do not pay taxes. They just pass the tax increase on to you and me with higher prices.
And so on. This is not the first person I've encountered who seems to have studied economics on the Bizarro World. Nor, I suppose with a sigh, will he be the last. Nevertheless, I posted the following pithy rejoinder to the rag's website:
- So if we rely on this kind of muddled "logic," we would conclude that corporations also "don't pay" electric bills, water bills, phone bills, insurance, etc., etc....they just "pass it on to you and me with higher prices." Hello! Corporations most certainly DO pay taxes, and all of the above. (Except when they dodge their tax responsibilities by moving off-shore.) Does some of it get "passed along"? Of course! That's how the economy works.
I might have added that it's simple-minded to imply, as do the letter-writer and his ilk do, that the entire tax burden automatically is passed along to the consumer. That's ludicrous. If any corporation raised the price of its goods or services that much in one fell swoop, it would soon find itself bleeding customers. And it needn't be taxes, although that's the favorite bete noire of the right-wingnut crowd: The same is true if, say, the price for hand soap in the bathrooms: Someone gets the fun task of deciding whether and how much of the expense can/should be absorbed in the form of higher prices, and how much can/should be absorbed from profits. The idea that if Conglomeroid Company has to pay a dollar in taxes it will raise its rates to get back that dollar is addled.
I am similarly amused/amazed/annoyed by the various business types who warn against any proposed increase in minimum wages because it will "force" them to increase their prices or lay off workers or sacrifice a virgin over an active volcano or whatever the issue is supposed to be. Again, it's only their having to pay workers that will cause their business to teeter on the brink of bankruptcy...it's never the price of the goods and services they must buy in order to do business. (Damn that Abraham Lincoln for ending slavery! Just another example of the government butting in and crippling the small-business owner! They should let The Market decide what wages should be paid. If any.)
But now that the minimum wage has gone up, well, it develops that it wasn't such a big deal after all. This too from the daily rag:
- Minimum wage hike won't have big effect
Many Sioux Falls jobs already pay more
South Dakota's minimum wage Thursday will rise 70 cents to $6.55 an hour, but it appears the increase will have little effect on most Sioux Falls businesses.
The South Dakota Department of Labor estimates that of Sioux Falls' 132,000 workers, only about 3,900 or 3 percent will be affected by the latest increase in the minimum wage.
Um...what?
No pandemonium? No rampage in the streets? Not even a little one?
Well, I could hardly let that pass unnoticed (obviously), so I posted this to Hearing Voices or In Your Voice or The Voice in My Head or whatever they call the comments section:
- Golly...when the new minimum was being discussed awhile back, we were assured by several local businesspeople that it would be the end of civilization as we know if it they were "forced" to pay a semi-decent wage. Now we're told that it "won't have big effect" because "many Sioux Falls jobs already pay more." It's almost as if the sky wasn't really in danger of falling after all!
Personally, I'm of the opinion that a business, large or small, that "can't afford" to adequately pay its workers doesn't deserve to stay in business. Isn't that the way of The Market that we're all supposed to bow down and worship?
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Cities, Customers Launch "Save Our Starbucks" Effort
From WSJ.com:
Starbucks' disclosure of the 600 locations it wants to shutter has given rise to a phenomenon: the Save Our Starbucks campaign. Across the nation, customers and city officials are pleading with the coffee giant to change its mind.
read more
Starbucks' disclosure of the 600 locations it wants to shutter has given rise to a phenomenon: the Save Our Starbucks campaign. Across the nation, customers and city officials are pleading with the coffee giant to change its mind.
read more
- As I said when I posted this on Digg:
- Since none of my local Starbucks is on the endangered list, I know this is easy for me to say, but still: It's just a coffee shop!!
Monday, July 21, 2008
Irony
Tobacco 'could help treat cancer'
 The tobacco plant may provide a cheap vaccine factory |
The tobacco plant - responsible for millions of cancer cases - may actually offer the means to treat one form of the disease, a study suggests.
Read the article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7517799.stm
Trust Issues
At this moment, AccuWeather.com tells me that the current temperature in my locale is 84°F with a RealFeel® of 87°F. But Weather.com says it's 85°F and "feels like" 85°F. Whom to believe?
30 Most Incredible Abstract Satellite Images of Earth
The images were taken at the turn of the Millennium, when NASA’s scientists had a brilliant idea: to scan through 400,000 images taken by the Landsat 7 satellite and display only the most the most beautiful. A handful of the best were painstakingly chosen and then displayed at the Library of Congress in 2000.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Aw, Shucks
So I took this Personal DNA test ("Your True Self Revealed!"), and it turns out I'm a Generous Idealist. So my "swatch" looks like this:
For what that may be worth. It says I'm supposed to be able to mouse over the various colored patches to reveal what they mean, but it doesn't seem to work for me. That's probably not a good thing. On the other hand, I should imagine there are worse things to be than a Generous Idealist.
Here's what they have to say about me. Trust me, I'm blushing.
You are an Idealist
As an IDEALIST, you are distinctive for your integration of confidence, imagination, willingness to explore, and desire for competence over style.
You have a strong capacity to comprehend the inner workings of things, finding new ideas and innovative insights to feed your curious nature.
You are quite comfortable in the realm of abstract thought. You don't need a practical solution to every one of life's questions.
You are comfortable with the decisions you make in life. You don't need to second-guess yourself, or seek a lot of opinions before you make up your mind.
You enjoy the routines that you have created in your life, and don't feel the need to shake things up just for the sake of change.
You generally succeed at what you do, and others would describe you as successful.
It is important to you that products be efficient – looking good has to come second to working well.
You aren't the kind of person who needs to collect stylish items in an attempt to create an attractive environment – you know that what matters most is function, not style.
You're not afraid to let your emotions guide you, and you're generally considerate of others' feelings as well.
You prefer to have time to plan for things, feeling better with a schedule than with keeping plans up in the air until the last minute.
You do your own thing when it comes to clothing, guided more by practical concerns than by other people's notions of style.
You are Generous
Your awareness of those around you, along with your nuanced perceptions of the world at large, makes you the GENEROUS person that you are.
You value time to yourself and understand how rich your private world can be—you know that you don't have to go wild to have a good time.
You are excited and energized by ideas and often enjoy things more through observation than through experience.
This tendency gives you an appreciation for different perspectives and opinions about the world.
Being as aware of others as you are doesn't mean you find it easy to trust them immediately—this is something that happens more slowly for you.
Despite this, you are aware of the complexities of many situations and are reluctant to pass judgments on others.
Although you have fewer friendships than some people, those that you have are meaningful and are important to you.
You value spending time alone—it is while reflecting on the world around you that you often learn something new about yourself or begin to understand something that's been bothering you.
Shucks. Of course, it does occur to me that a lot of the above is simply parroting back to me what I told them in the course of their quiz, but at least I can place a high premium on its accuracy.
For what that may be worth. It says I'm supposed to be able to mouse over the various colored patches to reveal what they mean, but it doesn't seem to work for me. That's probably not a good thing. On the other hand, I should imagine there are worse things to be than a Generous Idealist.
Here's what they have to say about me. Trust me, I'm blushing.
You are an Idealist
As an IDEALIST, you are distinctive for your integration of confidence, imagination, willingness to explore, and desire for competence over style.
You have a strong capacity to comprehend the inner workings of things, finding new ideas and innovative insights to feed your curious nature.
You are quite comfortable in the realm of abstract thought. You don't need a practical solution to every one of life's questions.
You are comfortable with the decisions you make in life. You don't need to second-guess yourself, or seek a lot of opinions before you make up your mind.
You enjoy the routines that you have created in your life, and don't feel the need to shake things up just for the sake of change.
You generally succeed at what you do, and others would describe you as successful.
It is important to you that products be efficient – looking good has to come second to working well.
You aren't the kind of person who needs to collect stylish items in an attempt to create an attractive environment – you know that what matters most is function, not style.
You're not afraid to let your emotions guide you, and you're generally considerate of others' feelings as well.
You prefer to have time to plan for things, feeling better with a schedule than with keeping plans up in the air until the last minute.
You do your own thing when it comes to clothing, guided more by practical concerns than by other people's notions of style.
You are Generous
Your awareness of those around you, along with your nuanced perceptions of the world at large, makes you the GENEROUS person that you are.
You value time to yourself and understand how rich your private world can be—you know that you don't have to go wild to have a good time.
You are excited and energized by ideas and often enjoy things more through observation than through experience.
This tendency gives you an appreciation for different perspectives and opinions about the world.
Being as aware of others as you are doesn't mean you find it easy to trust them immediately—this is something that happens more slowly for you.
Despite this, you are aware of the complexities of many situations and are reluctant to pass judgments on others.
Although you have fewer friendships than some people, those that you have are meaningful and are important to you.
You value spending time alone—it is while reflecting on the world around you that you often learn something new about yourself or begin to understand something that's been bothering you.
Shucks. Of course, it does occur to me that a lot of the above is simply parroting back to me what I told them in the course of their quiz, but at least I can place a high premium on its accuracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)