When Christopher Buckley wrote a column for The Daily Beast explaining why he - a staunch conservative - was voting for Obama, Mister Buckley was then subjected to a torrent of angry responses from persons on the right. The vast majority of these misanthropic missives were sent to conservative publication The National Review, for which Buckley has long been a writer. He then tendered his resignation to the Review, which accepted with alacrity.
Well, this week a former democratic speechwriter - Wendy Button - wrote a column of her own for The Daily Beast explaining why she's voting for McCain. Evidently she's now been subjected to a similar inundation of not-nice notes, this time originating from persons on the left.
Really, they were another mass of misanthropic missives - threatening her dog, in some cases, (does that make them mis-canine-ic?) according to a column she's now written in response.
This is disappointing. Not surprising, but disappointing.
I've recently been commenting about how much crazy people scare me, and I'm disappointed to be forced to admit that there are most likely just as many crazy people on the left as there are on the right. Somehow I often fool myself into thinking that people who agree with my positions on various issues are good, right-thinking (or left-thinking) people like myself who are of the live and let live / agree to disagree (but hopefully we can outvote you) sort.
Not so.
Oh well. I'll shelve my disappointment for now and take this as an opportunity to point interested parties from all across the political spectrum to check out The Daily Beast which is, among other things, the new home of regular columns from Christopher Buckley.
They're an eclectic lot at The Daily Beast. A full list of contributors would be lengthy, but a few names from all over the political map leap out at me, including Tucker Carlson, Melissa Etheridge, Colin Powell, and Cindy Sheehan.
I've also added The Daily Beast to the list on the right of Things I Check Daily. Enjoy.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Trains
In a recent post I was lamenting the fact that rail travel isn't really an option for me.
This may be changing. Rail travel is looking more attractive to people, and it's getting more funding.
Exciting stuff!
This may be changing. Rail travel is looking more attractive to people, and it's getting more funding.
Exciting stuff!
Happy Halloween
And here's an appropriate quote that amuses me:
"We can provide you with a zombie kit, we can train you to walk like a zombie, talk like a zombie, shuffle like a zombie.
"We can provide you with a zombie kit, we can train you to walk like a zombie, talk like a zombie, shuffle like a zombie.
"We'll train you to do the Thriller dance."
"As any self-respecting zombie knows, it's very important that they come together and dance the Michael Jackson Thriller dance because that's what zombies do when they congregate."
Click here for context.Clearly, zombies (self-respecting zombies, anyway) have gotten more fun than they used to be (before Thriller it was all about eating the living) and clearly we have Michael Jackson to thank for it.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Name that Socialist
Here's a pretty extensive quote from a well-known world leader. It appears to be - by today's standards - an example of someone who clearly harbors what the McCain campaign would call "socialistic tendencies". Here's the quote:
“We will continue to fulfill the obligations that spring from our national conscience. Those who through no fault of their own must depend on the rest of us, the poverty-stricken, the disabled, the elderly, all those with true need, can rest assured that the social safety net of programs they depend on are exempt from any cuts.”
Can you name that socialist?
That socialist is Ronald Reagan, my friends. The man who has been given credit - more than any other man - for winning the Cold War against what Reagan called "The Evil Empire" of the communist Soviet Union. That's the poster boy for capitalism speaking. Specifically that quote is taken from his first State Of The Union address on the 19th of February, 1981.
The republican party sure has changed a lot in the last 28 years. I don't think Reagan - an actor from a very blue state - would have received the republican nomination this year.
Chain of Attribution: The quote in question was brought to my attention this week by Christopher Buckley in his column at The Daily Beast. His column says better and more eloquently what I am trying to say in this blog entry. It took me a little careful googling to place the quote in the 1981 State of the Union.
“We will continue to fulfill the obligations that spring from our national conscience. Those who through no fault of their own must depend on the rest of us, the poverty-stricken, the disabled, the elderly, all those with true need, can rest assured that the social safety net of programs they depend on are exempt from any cuts.”
Can you name that socialist?
That socialist is Ronald Reagan, my friends. The man who has been given credit - more than any other man - for winning the Cold War against what Reagan called "The Evil Empire" of the communist Soviet Union. That's the poster boy for capitalism speaking. Specifically that quote is taken from his first State Of The Union address on the 19th of February, 1981.
The republican party sure has changed a lot in the last 28 years. I don't think Reagan - an actor from a very blue state - would have received the republican nomination this year.
Chain of Attribution: The quote in question was brought to my attention this week by Christopher Buckley in his column at The Daily Beast. His column says better and more eloquently what I am trying to say in this blog entry. It took me a little careful googling to place the quote in the 1981 State of the Union.
Vote. Volunteer on Election Day if you can.
I got this from Wil Wheaton's blog, and I just had to include it in mine:
Yes, Wil Wheaton - the actor who played that kid Wesley Crusher - has a blog and yes, I read it. Got a problem with that?
Dude is only 1 year younger than me, and I can identify with him entirely too well, sometimes.
Go read it yourself and make your own judgement. Having been reading it regularly for a while, I've decided my opinion of Wil is the same as that held by the folks over at Abstruse Goose.
Meanwhile, I'm hoping for a peaceful, smooth, and irrefutable result on Election Day.
Mostly I'm hoping for peaceful.
Yes, Wil Wheaton - the actor who played that kid Wesley Crusher - has a blog and yes, I read it. Got a problem with that?
Dude is only 1 year younger than me, and I can identify with him entirely too well, sometimes.
Go read it yourself and make your own judgement. Having been reading it regularly for a while, I've decided my opinion of Wil is the same as that held by the folks over at Abstruse Goose.
Meanwhile, I'm hoping for a peaceful, smooth, and irrefutable result on Election Day.
Mostly I'm hoping for peaceful.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
More on the SOFA
I mentioned in an earlier post that our Status Of Forces Agreement with Iraq has not yet been approved. Here's the latest from the AP on the subject. It also mentions our recent strike on individuals in Syria and the ongoing fallout from that situation.
Oh, and it also mentions that we've turned security over to the Iraq government for 13 of Iraq's 18 provinces . We're over 2/3 of the way to where we want to be! That's pretty cool.
Oh, and it also mentions that we've turned security over to the Iraq government for 13 of Iraq's 18 provinces . We're over 2/3 of the way to where we want to be! That's pretty cool.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
One More Week
Last week I put forth my election predictions. I don't really have anything else to say about the election just now. I'm reading the headlines and generally taking in every piece of election-related news I can, but I don't see much changing in the next week.
I really, really hope the voting goes smoothly a week from today. If massive voter turnout causes long waits then that will be a good problem to have.
Foreign policy could become a big issue very quickly. It appears that US forces launched a raid into Syria on Sunday, killing several people and possibly capturing a couple of others. Syria is saying we killed innocent people. Unnamed US military sources are saying we carried out a surgical strike against a terrorist cell that was helping to facilitate the entrance of foreign fighters into Iraq.
This comes at a time when we're trying to negotiate a Status Of Forces Agreement - yes, they call it a SOFA - with Iraq. If we can't get that nailed down before the end of the year then we have a problem.
At the end of this year the UN Mandate for our presence in Iraq expires. Again. It was going to expire at the end of 2007 but it was renewed. Maybe it will be renewed again if we can't find a way to share a SOFA with Iraq, but maybe it won't.
If the UN Mandate is not renewed, and the SOFA is not agreed upon, then we have to cease all US military operations in Iraq. I'm sure our troops will be allowed to defend themselves if attacked, but I don't believe they'll be able to patrol or otherwise continue the day to day security operations they've been performing until now.
Our news has been dominated by the election, and by the stock market and other economic matters. I'm hoping the outcome of the election is clear and uncontested so that we can move on to resolve the economic matters (as if that will be simple) while we turn our attention back to the Middle East.
I really, really hope the voting goes smoothly a week from today. If massive voter turnout causes long waits then that will be a good problem to have.
Foreign policy could become a big issue very quickly. It appears that US forces launched a raid into Syria on Sunday, killing several people and possibly capturing a couple of others. Syria is saying we killed innocent people. Unnamed US military sources are saying we carried out a surgical strike against a terrorist cell that was helping to facilitate the entrance of foreign fighters into Iraq.
This comes at a time when we're trying to negotiate a Status Of Forces Agreement - yes, they call it a SOFA - with Iraq. If we can't get that nailed down before the end of the year then we have a problem.
At the end of this year the UN Mandate for our presence in Iraq expires. Again. It was going to expire at the end of 2007 but it was renewed. Maybe it will be renewed again if we can't find a way to share a SOFA with Iraq, but maybe it won't.
If the UN Mandate is not renewed, and the SOFA is not agreed upon, then we have to cease all US military operations in Iraq. I'm sure our troops will be allowed to defend themselves if attacked, but I don't believe they'll be able to patrol or otherwise continue the day to day security operations they've been performing until now.
Our news has been dominated by the election, and by the stock market and other economic matters. I'm hoping the outcome of the election is clear and uncontested so that we can move on to resolve the economic matters (as if that will be simple) while we turn our attention back to the Middle East.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Google search tools
I learned something new today. Something that would have come in VERY handy when writing yesterday's post.
Google can do unit conversions. Go to google and type without quotes "400km in miles" and google will spit out an answer above all the theoretically relevant links your search brings up. Like so.
I found this out by reading today's column over at machinist.salon.com, which, in turn, references a column from John Battelle. Cyrus Farivar, the author of the Machinist column, says that "Battelle is a long-standing authority on Google and search technology."
Evidently there's a lot that google can do. I think its conversion ability is the most exciting, but check out this google page for some tips and tricks on other ways you can use google. This is cool!
Google can do unit conversions. Go to google and type without quotes "400km in miles" and google will spit out an answer above all the theoretically relevant links your search brings up. Like so.
I found this out by reading today's column over at machinist.salon.com, which, in turn, references a column from John Battelle. Cyrus Farivar, the author of the Machinist column, says that "Battelle is a long-standing authority on Google and search technology."
Evidently there's a lot that google can do. I think its conversion ability is the most exciting, but check out this google page for some tips and tricks on other ways you can use google. This is cool!
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
More on electric cars
The really exciting things in electric cars are happening in places other than America. Which makes sense. I hate to admit this, but electric cars are not a great fit for America. America is just too big.
There’s an observation I heard many years ago about one of the primary differences between Europeans and Americans:
Americans think 100 years is a long time.
Europeans think 100 miles is a long way.
Actually, Europeans don’t think about 100 miles one way or another. They would probably agree, though, that 161 kilometers (that's 100 miles to you and me) is a long way.
Europeans, then, (and other folks around the globe who are not Americans) are more interested in electric cars because they think a bit more long-term than we do, and they can see how electric cars would be a Good Thing, long-term.
Also, a car that’s limited to 40 miles (64 kilometers) on a single charge is probably more useful in Europe than it is in America.
Of course, that 40-miles-per-charge thing is all about America. The average American drives 30 miles a day. Give us a 40-mile-per-charge car and we can probably make it work most of the time.
But not all the time. If I want to drive to visit my extended family then I’m looking at anywhere from 100 to 300+ miles, meaning round trips of 200 to 600+ miles. This presents an electric car owner with a host of problems.
Europeans, in this scenario, could probably just take a train instead.
There are no passenger trains that serve my town. In fact I would have to drive 100 miles to catch a train to anywhere. And then I would find that no trains go to the other locations of my extended family, anyway.
I could take a Greyhound bus pretty much anywhere, but it would take a while. In fact, if I were to take the Greyhound to visit my most rural relatives, then that Greyhound trip would take 12 hours - minimum - to complete a journey that I can drive myself in 5. And then I’d still need either to rent a car to get to my multiple household destinations on the other end, or ask that a relative come pick me up and then ask relatives to chauffer me about for the duration of my stay.
They'd probably just lend me a car, actually...
Suddenly an electric car with a gas engine to charge the battery – the Chevy Volt, basically – looks a lot more reasonable.
To be fair, a lot of Europeans probably have similar issues. An electric car may work better for them, most of the time, but there are still going to be those times when you want to go to somewhere farther and more remote than either an electric car or public transport can take you.
There are some environments, though, that appear to be designed for the electric car. Isolated environments that have a small, closed footprint, basically. Environments like Israel. And Hawaii. These are two of the environments in which an organization named Better Place and its head dreamer Shai Agassi are working to make electric cars not just viable, but standard.
(Click the Shai Agassi link to an article from Wired, especially. The Better Place site is okay, but it always wants me to upgrade Flash.)
This is exciting stuff, but there’s another recent overseas electric car development to which I want to draw your attention. From South Africa by way of Paris, France I give you – the Joule! (Thanks again to Wired magazine).
There's a lot to like about the Joule. In addition to all the specs, I've got to say that I like the look of it.
Wired says the Joule will retail for $22,000 to $28,000. It has a range of 200 kilometers, although a battery expansion – cost unknown – can increase the range to 400km.
400km is not quite enough to get me from my current home to my ancestral home, but it’s close.
Interestingly enough, both the Joule manufacturer and Agassi’s Better Place have come to one basic out-of-the box conclusion regarding electric cars: Battery Leasing. The cost of the battery for an electric car and the ability to replace it years down the road is one of the most basic issues facing the electric car consumer. Leasing the battery cuts through most of these issues. In the case of Better Place it’s a critical component, as the plan is to swap out depleted batteries with fully-charged batteries on long car trips.
That being said, I want more financial information on how these battery-leasing programs are going to work, exactly. How much is it going to cost the consumer per year? How much is the charge for swapping out a depleted battery for a fresh one on a long trip? In short, what are all of the costs?
There’s an observation I heard many years ago about one of the primary differences between Europeans and Americans:
Americans think 100 years is a long time.
Europeans think 100 miles is a long way.
Actually, Europeans don’t think about 100 miles one way or another. They would probably agree, though, that 161 kilometers (that's 100 miles to you and me) is a long way.
Europeans, then, (and other folks around the globe who are not Americans) are more interested in electric cars because they think a bit more long-term than we do, and they can see how electric cars would be a Good Thing, long-term.
Also, a car that’s limited to 40 miles (64 kilometers) on a single charge is probably more useful in Europe than it is in America.
Of course, that 40-miles-per-charge thing is all about America. The average American drives 30 miles a day. Give us a 40-mile-per-charge car and we can probably make it work most of the time.
But not all the time. If I want to drive to visit my extended family then I’m looking at anywhere from 100 to 300+ miles, meaning round trips of 200 to 600+ miles. This presents an electric car owner with a host of problems.
Europeans, in this scenario, could probably just take a train instead.
There are no passenger trains that serve my town. In fact I would have to drive 100 miles to catch a train to anywhere. And then I would find that no trains go to the other locations of my extended family, anyway.
I could take a Greyhound bus pretty much anywhere, but it would take a while. In fact, if I were to take the Greyhound to visit my most rural relatives, then that Greyhound trip would take 12 hours - minimum - to complete a journey that I can drive myself in 5. And then I’d still need either to rent a car to get to my multiple household destinations on the other end, or ask that a relative come pick me up and then ask relatives to chauffer me about for the duration of my stay.
They'd probably just lend me a car, actually...
Suddenly an electric car with a gas engine to charge the battery – the Chevy Volt, basically – looks a lot more reasonable.
To be fair, a lot of Europeans probably have similar issues. An electric car may work better for them, most of the time, but there are still going to be those times when you want to go to somewhere farther and more remote than either an electric car or public transport can take you.
There are some environments, though, that appear to be designed for the electric car. Isolated environments that have a small, closed footprint, basically. Environments like Israel. And Hawaii. These are two of the environments in which an organization named Better Place and its head dreamer Shai Agassi are working to make electric cars not just viable, but standard.
(Click the Shai Agassi link to an article from Wired, especially. The Better Place site is okay, but it always wants me to upgrade Flash.)
This is exciting stuff, but there’s another recent overseas electric car development to which I want to draw your attention. From South Africa by way of Paris, France I give you – the Joule! (Thanks again to Wired magazine).
There's a lot to like about the Joule. In addition to all the specs, I've got to say that I like the look of it.
Wired says the Joule will retail for $22,000 to $28,000. It has a range of 200 kilometers, although a battery expansion – cost unknown – can increase the range to 400km.
400km is not quite enough to get me from my current home to my ancestral home, but it’s close.
Interestingly enough, both the Joule manufacturer and Agassi’s Better Place have come to one basic out-of-the box conclusion regarding electric cars: Battery Leasing. The cost of the battery for an electric car and the ability to replace it years down the road is one of the most basic issues facing the electric car consumer. Leasing the battery cuts through most of these issues. In the case of Better Place it’s a critical component, as the plan is to swap out depleted batteries with fully-charged batteries on long car trips.
That being said, I want more financial information on how these battery-leasing programs are going to work, exactly. How much is it going to cost the consumer per year? How much is the charge for swapping out a depleted battery for a fresh one on a long trip? In short, what are all of the costs?
Voting with your money part IV - WalMart again
I’ve written previously about WalMart going green. Now I find more news about WalMart that is improving my opinion of the corporate leviathan: According to BBC News they’re insisting on better quality standards from their suppliers.
Garrison Keillor in Abilene
I like Garrison Keillor's weekly column. He's unabashedly liberal, but he can still communicate with the Real America.
He's tough on Bush 43 this week - as he is every week - but he writes with admiration of the folks in Abilene who almost certainly voted for Bush 43 in 2004. I find that this week - even more than most weeks - Garrison Keillor speaks for me.
I'm tempted to blather on in my admiration - bloviate, even - but I shall refrain. Click here to read this week's Garrison Keillor column.
He's tough on Bush 43 this week - as he is every week - but he writes with admiration of the folks in Abilene who almost certainly voted for Bush 43 in 2004. I find that this week - even more than most weeks - Garrison Keillor speaks for me.
I'm tempted to blather on in my admiration - bloviate, even - but I shall refrain. Click here to read this week's Garrison Keillor column.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Real Mavericks
Evidently the word Maverick (and the word gobbledygook) come from the Maverick family.
Check out this New York Times column for info on the Maverick clan.
Check out this New York Times column for info on the Maverick clan.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Clean Coal is like Safe Sex
Clean Coal is like Safe Sex: There’s no such thing.
There is such a thing as SAFER sex. And there’s such a thing as CLEANER coal.
Safer sex, which I’ll define as always and properly using a condom, results in a 98% rate of pregnancy prevention, and a roughly 70% to 85% rate of disease prevention, depending on what study of what disease one is going by. There's a lot of factors, and a lot of diseases...
Cleaner coal, which I’ll define as “use of chemical processes, steam reformation and scrubbers to reduce the amount of sulfur dioxide, mercury and particulate emissions from the smokestack”, results in “a decrease in the amount of criteria air pollutants, or emissions that result in locally unhealthy air quality”. Let’s say cleaner coal technology is 100% effective at this. In this hypothetical situation then cleaner coal has exactly 0% effect on reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
If “clean coal” was “safe sex” then we’d be disease-free and pregnant. Or pregnancy-free and disease-ridden. It all depends on how you view the metaphor. That’s if clean coal was fully implemented around the nation and the world, which it’s not and it’s not.
If we were able to implement carbon dioxide sequestration - preventing carbon dioxide emissions - then it would drive the cost of energy generated from coal way up, to the point where energy generated by wind would be officially cheaper than energy generated from coal.
This is why, long-term, my money's on wind power.
There is such a thing as SAFER sex. And there’s such a thing as CLEANER coal.
Safer sex, which I’ll define as always and properly using a condom, results in a 98% rate of pregnancy prevention, and a roughly 70% to 85% rate of disease prevention, depending on what study of what disease one is going by. There's a lot of factors, and a lot of diseases...
Cleaner coal, which I’ll define as “use of chemical processes, steam reformation and scrubbers to reduce the amount of sulfur dioxide, mercury and particulate emissions from the smokestack”, results in “a decrease in the amount of criteria air pollutants, or emissions that result in locally unhealthy air quality”. Let’s say cleaner coal technology is 100% effective at this. In this hypothetical situation then cleaner coal has exactly 0% effect on reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
If “clean coal” was “safe sex” then we’d be disease-free and pregnant. Or pregnancy-free and disease-ridden. It all depends on how you view the metaphor. That’s if clean coal was fully implemented around the nation and the world, which it’s not and it’s not.
If we were able to implement carbon dioxide sequestration - preventing carbon dioxide emissions - then it would drive the cost of energy generated from coal way up, to the point where energy generated by wind would be officially cheaper than energy generated from coal.
This is why, long-term, my money's on wind power.
Two More Weeks
There are two more weeks left in the election season. A lot can happen in two weeks, as we’ve seen recently.
It is, therefore, the greatest of hubris to make predictions at this point. So of course I’m going to do it anyway.
My prediction: Obama wins the electoral college 349 to 189.
I'm trying to include a map of my prediction, but I'm finding it difficult and time-consuming. You'll just have to be content with the numbers for now. Then in two weeks you can tell me how wrong I am.
Obama is making a big push in states that Bush carried in 2004. If he’s inordinately successful then the very best case scenario is that he wins 386 to 152.
There’s also a worst case scenario, in which all the states that are remotely in play just now go for McCain, resulting in Obama winning 273 to 265.
Personally, I’d love to see something like my original prediction, but one in which Obama also carries either North Carolina or Indiana. This would give him a 2 to 1 electoral victory. That would be very satisfying. It might even be a mandate.
There’s two weeks to go, though. During the next two weeks Obama will continue to chip at McCain Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, and Montana – possibly in that order.
During the next two weeks McCain will be talking about voter fraud.
There is very, very little evidence of attempted voter fraud. There is almost no evidence of successful voter fraud – existing systems for detecting and preventing voter fraud work surprisingly well – so well that they might flag real voters as fraudulent, actually. Nevertheless, you’re going to be hearing a lot about voter fraud in the next two weeks.
What it comes down to is this: The Obama campaign has registered a lot of new voters, and also has implemented a very effective get-out-the vote apparatus. A lot of people are going to be voting this year who don’t always vote, or have never voted before.
If the GOP wants to win, one possible strategy is to prevent or disqualify those voters using any and every legal means at its disposal.
Here are a couple of AP articles from October 7th and October 9th regarding the ongoing voter verification process.
The upshot is that in order to challenge as many votes as possible on election day, the GOP will be talking about voter fraud between now and then. That's all they seem to talk about on FOX News.
Yes, I've been trying to watch FOX News. I have, on occasion, been guilty of reading and watching news only from the more liberal side of our news media. So, in order to prevent myself from being the unwitting victim and carrier of media bias I am making an attempt to tune into FOX News on occasion. All they can seem to talk about just now is voter fraud. Voter fraud and Joe the Plumber.
Poor Joe. He asked a decent question, and the media has been tearing his life to shreds.
Thank goodness for The Daily Show. No better media watchdog exists just now. Here's their take:
It's interesting to note, though, that Joe asked a question that was not about how Obama's tax plan would affect him now or in the near future, but rather about how Obama's tax plan would affect him when he attained his particular version of The American Dream.
A lot of people do this. A lot of voters vote for tax plans (or rather for politicians who offer tax plans) that will benefit them when they are wealthy, but will not so much benefit them now. They vote for they guy who's going to be good for them when they Get Rich. They don't necessarily vote for the guy who will help them Become Financially Secure.
This is an interesting phenomenon. I wonder if I'll still vote democratic when I win the lottery...?
It is, therefore, the greatest of hubris to make predictions at this point. So of course I’m going to do it anyway.
My prediction: Obama wins the electoral college 349 to 189.
I'm trying to include a map of my prediction, but I'm finding it difficult and time-consuming. You'll just have to be content with the numbers for now. Then in two weeks you can tell me how wrong I am.
Obama is making a big push in states that Bush carried in 2004. If he’s inordinately successful then the very best case scenario is that he wins 386 to 152.
There’s also a worst case scenario, in which all the states that are remotely in play just now go for McCain, resulting in Obama winning 273 to 265.
Personally, I’d love to see something like my original prediction, but one in which Obama also carries either North Carolina or Indiana. This would give him a 2 to 1 electoral victory. That would be very satisfying. It might even be a mandate.
There’s two weeks to go, though. During the next two weeks Obama will continue to chip at McCain Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, and Montana – possibly in that order.
During the next two weeks McCain will be talking about voter fraud.
There is very, very little evidence of attempted voter fraud. There is almost no evidence of successful voter fraud – existing systems for detecting and preventing voter fraud work surprisingly well – so well that they might flag real voters as fraudulent, actually. Nevertheless, you’re going to be hearing a lot about voter fraud in the next two weeks.
What it comes down to is this: The Obama campaign has registered a lot of new voters, and also has implemented a very effective get-out-the vote apparatus. A lot of people are going to be voting this year who don’t always vote, or have never voted before.
If the GOP wants to win, one possible strategy is to prevent or disqualify those voters using any and every legal means at its disposal.
Here are a couple of AP articles from October 7th and October 9th regarding the ongoing voter verification process.
The upshot is that in order to challenge as many votes as possible on election day, the GOP will be talking about voter fraud between now and then. That's all they seem to talk about on FOX News.
Yes, I've been trying to watch FOX News. I have, on occasion, been guilty of reading and watching news only from the more liberal side of our news media. So, in order to prevent myself from being the unwitting victim and carrier of media bias I am making an attempt to tune into FOX News on occasion. All they can seem to talk about just now is voter fraud. Voter fraud and Joe the Plumber.
Poor Joe. He asked a decent question, and the media has been tearing his life to shreds.
Thank goodness for The Daily Show. No better media watchdog exists just now. Here's their take:
It's interesting to note, though, that Joe asked a question that was not about how Obama's tax plan would affect him now or in the near future, but rather about how Obama's tax plan would affect him when he attained his particular version of The American Dream.
A lot of people do this. A lot of voters vote for tax plans (or rather for politicians who offer tax plans) that will benefit them when they are wealthy, but will not so much benefit them now. They vote for they guy who's going to be good for them when they Get Rich. They don't necessarily vote for the guy who will help them Become Financially Secure.
This is an interesting phenomenon. I wonder if I'll still vote democratic when I win the lottery...?
Friday, October 17, 2008
Washington Post Endorses Barack Obama
This is noteworthy. I saw it in Salon this morning, but it was also brought to my attention by YrObtSvt .
The Washington Post endorses Obama for president.
It's my understanding that the Washington Post typically leans conservative, which is what makes this remarkable. Something Has Changed.
From the post:
The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain's disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president.
I am not a Palin supporter, but to go ahead and give voice to the other side for a moment, I have to admit that Palin technically has more executive experience than Obama. Obama's only real executive experience is in running his campaign.
Of course, the performance of his campaign is why I'm voting for him.
Anyway, the last few paragraphs of the Post column sum up the paper's position well:
IT GIVES US no pleasure to oppose Mr. McCain. Over the years, he has been a force for principle and bipartisanship. He fought to recognize Vietnam, though some of his fellow ex-POWs vilified him for it. He stood up for humane immigration reform, though he knew Republican primary voters would punish him for it. He opposed torture and promoted campaign finance reform, a cause that Mr. Obama injured when he broke his promise to accept public financing in the general election campaign. Mr. McCain staked his career on finding a strategy for success in Iraq when just about everyone else in Washington was ready to give up. We think that he, too, might make a pretty good president.
But the stress of a campaign can reveal some essential truths, and the picture of Mr. McCain that emerged this year is far from reassuring. To pass his party's tax-cut litmus test, he jettisoned his commitment to balanced budgets. He hasn't come up with a coherent agenda, and at times he has seemed rash and impulsive. And we find no way to square his professed passion for America's national security with his choice of a running mate who, no matter what her other strengths, is not prepared to be commander in chief.
ANY PRESIDENTIAL vote is a gamble, and Mr. Obama's résumé is undoubtedly thin. We had hoped, throughout this long campaign, to see more evidence that Mr. Obama might stand up to Democratic orthodoxy and end, as he said in his announcement speech, "our chronic avoidance of tough decisions."
But Mr. Obama's temperament is unlike anything we've seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.
The Washington Post endorses Obama for president.
It's my understanding that the Washington Post typically leans conservative, which is what makes this remarkable. Something Has Changed.
From the post:
The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain's disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president.
I am not a Palin supporter, but to go ahead and give voice to the other side for a moment, I have to admit that Palin technically has more executive experience than Obama. Obama's only real executive experience is in running his campaign.
Of course, the performance of his campaign is why I'm voting for him.
Anyway, the last few paragraphs of the Post column sum up the paper's position well:
IT GIVES US no pleasure to oppose Mr. McCain. Over the years, he has been a force for principle and bipartisanship. He fought to recognize Vietnam, though some of his fellow ex-POWs vilified him for it. He stood up for humane immigration reform, though he knew Republican primary voters would punish him for it. He opposed torture and promoted campaign finance reform, a cause that Mr. Obama injured when he broke his promise to accept public financing in the general election campaign. Mr. McCain staked his career on finding a strategy for success in Iraq when just about everyone else in Washington was ready to give up. We think that he, too, might make a pretty good president.
But the stress of a campaign can reveal some essential truths, and the picture of Mr. McCain that emerged this year is far from reassuring. To pass his party's tax-cut litmus test, he jettisoned his commitment to balanced budgets. He hasn't come up with a coherent agenda, and at times he has seemed rash and impulsive. And we find no way to square his professed passion for America's national security with his choice of a running mate who, no matter what her other strengths, is not prepared to be commander in chief.
ANY PRESIDENTIAL vote is a gamble, and Mr. Obama's résumé is undoubtedly thin. We had hoped, throughout this long campaign, to see more evidence that Mr. Obama might stand up to Democratic orthodoxy and end, as he said in his announcement speech, "our chronic avoidance of tough decisions."
But Mr. Obama's temperament is unlike anything we've seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.
Campaign Humor
Whoever wrote McCain's humorous speech for the Al Smith dinner needs to be put in charge of the McCain campaign. It's the best stuff I've heard from McCain in years.
This is from the Rachel Maddow show. If you're not a fan of hers then just fast forward through the first minute or so.
McCain has some pretty good comedic timing, too.
I haven't watched Barack taking his turn. It was evidently pretty good, too, but just this once McCain was a tough act to follow.
Rachel Maddow speaks for the first 40 seconds of this one.
This is from the Rachel Maddow show. If you're not a fan of hers then just fast forward through the first minute or so.
McCain has some pretty good comedic timing, too.
I haven't watched Barack taking his turn. It was evidently pretty good, too, but just this once McCain was a tough act to follow.
Rachel Maddow speaks for the first 40 seconds of this one.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Voting for the more effective campaign
I like McCain. I think the McCain Campaign has been ineffective.
McCain-the-man seems to be very different from McCain-the-campaign. The man is thoughtful, knowledgeable, and surprisingly fair. In town hall meetings the man has attempted to correct his own supporters’ misconceptions of who Barack Obama is. When they’ve said they’re afraid of Obama and that Obama is a terrorist, he’s told them they shouldn’t be afraid of Obama, and that Obama is a well-meaning family man with whom McCain happens to disagree on many issues. When one woman tried to articulate her fears and did so by saying of Obama “He’s an Arab”, McCain corrected her as well. McCain, I believe, is a good man.
I think he has been poorly advised.
It was passed nearly two weeks later as a much, much bigger package that is, no doubt, better for the people than the first version. But better is still not necessarily good. There remain doubts about the rescue plan’s ability to stave off disaster.
This whole Suspending / Unsuspending-With-Assurances-Of-Victory / Defeat thing was almost certainly the turning point for the McCain campaign. No doubt events and decisions both before and after that particular incident have played into the larger narrative, but that particular attempt and failure by the McCain campaign was massive.
I think I like Obama. I know I love the Obama campaign.
There’s a lot that’s impressed me about the Obama campaign. The campaign is innovative (advertising within video games, creating its own Dish Network channel) and traditional at the same time (offices and feet on the ground, bumper stickers, yard signs). The campaign has been consistent and on-message. The campaign and the candidate both have been trying to keep to the issues, which is especially cool.
But most importantly, the campaign has demonstrated its ability to get positive results in the face of adversity.
Specifically, when the common wisdom was that Hillary Clinton had the democratic nomination sewn up, the Obama campaign persevered to win the nomination. Even more importantly, the Obama campaign very thoroughly examined the rules and the battleground and was able – through careful use of resources – to get more convention delegates than the
Go here for an explanation of how the Obama campaign was planning to do (and did) the same thing in
Admittedly, the rules for choosing delegates to the democratic convention are complicated, convoluted, and possibly insane, but the Obama campaign was able not only to navigate its way through those complicated and convoluted rules, but was, in fact, able to work within and exploit those complicated and convoluted rules to achieve the results it wanted.
Currently our economic system doesn’t look too good, and it’s largely because our investment systems have become extremely complicated and convoluted (and possibly insane).
I’m voting for the campaign – for the team – that has demonstrated its ability to navigate and exploit a complicated and convoluted system and achieve a positive outcome.
There are many, many reasons I’m voting for Obama. I agree with him on most issues. I like the fact that he actually wants to talk about issues. But most importantly I believe that an Obama administration will be an effective administration that uses its resources (our resources) carefully, works within the law, and produces good results.
UPDATE 1 - in response to idmike's comment:It is interesting to the point of unfathomable that the democratic party nomination process is one that can give the nomination to someone OTHER than the person that received the popular vote. The republican party in most states gives the delegates in a winner-take-all fashion that is, at the end of the day, a lot simpler. It certainly allowed the republican candidate to be determined much earlier in the election year.
That being said it appears that the democratic party process - while quite possibly flawed - has resulted in a better candidate than Hillary would have been. (In My Humble Opinion. Your Mileage May Vary.)
The democratic party process is one that theoretically gives more voice to dissenting opinions. It allowed, in this case, people dissatisfied with Hillary to put forth and eventually choose an alternative to the "predetermined" candidate.
UPDATE 2: I find myself really bothered over this question of whether or not Obama actually won the overall popular vote. I know he got more delegates from individual states in which he didn't win the popular vote, but how did he do overall?
Well, it depends on how you look at it. Look at this page from the realclearpolitics.com site.
Basically if you include Michigan - which did not have Barack Obama on the ballot - and include estimates from Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington then Clinton won by 176,465 votes (0.5% of the total vote).
"Uncommitted" received 238,168 votes in Michigan. That being said, Biden and Edwards and Richardson also took themselves off the ballot in Michigan, so some of those votes might belong to them. Hillary, Kucinich and Gravel remained on the Michigan ballot.
Man, I forgot how bizarre the primary was this year.
Did Obama win the popular vote? Without Michigan's votes for Hillary, yes. Without them? There's no way to know.
Real Clear Politics? I don't think so. Thanks for trying, though!
UPDATE 3: In response to YrObtSvt's comment - I agree with you regarding McCain2000. I liked McCain2000. McCain2008 is another story. I don't think McCain2000 would vote for McCain2008.
And yes Obama is glib sometimes. Still, I'm voting for the Obama campaign, and for the reasons I outlined originally. I hope his administration does its homework as well as his campaign does. If it does I think we'll be okay.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Much more entertaining than the Norwegian Blue
A little linkblogging today. Some headlines I just can't resist passing along to my friends:
John Cleese compares Sarah Palin to a Parrot
This headline even comes with video of Cleese making his remarks. I may embed the video, but I need to get to a computer with speakers first...
John Cleese compares Sarah Palin to a Parrot
This headline even comes with video of Cleese making his remarks. I may embed the video, but I need to get to a computer with speakers first...
Monday, October 13, 2008
C'est Joost!
I don't know when I'll get a chance to try it out properly, but supposedly there may be a competitor for my affection for hulu. I'm talking about Joost.
Joost is a video content site that has a deal with Viacom. Previously users had to download a plugin to view content on Joost. As of today Joost uses Flash video, eliminating the need for the plugin.
Evidently YouTube also has some sanctioned full episodes available with advertising.
In both cases - YouTube and Joost - I don't find it as user-friendly as hulu. Neither site makes it easy to view only full episodes. That is, I can search for a show and get a list of all video segments for that show, but the list includes maybe one or two full episodes scattered in a haystack of short clips. I can't find any easy way to get JUST a list of full episodes. I can't even find a way to list the clips by length, which would group the full episodes together.
Hulu lists full episodes separately from clips, which I quite prefer. It's like they actually understand that I'm trying to watch a TV show or something.
We'll see. I'm sure competing sites will become more user-friendly over time. We'll see how much of the online viewer marketshare hulu can grab before this happens, though.
UPDATE: Tried to watch something on Joost from home just now, and it wants me to create a login. I don't have to log into hulu. I'm spoiled, I suppose. Still, until further notice I'm sticking to hulu over this login issue, as well as hulu's better user-friendliness.
Joost is a video content site that has a deal with Viacom. Previously users had to download a plugin to view content on Joost. As of today Joost uses Flash video, eliminating the need for the plugin.
Evidently YouTube also has some sanctioned full episodes available with advertising.
In both cases - YouTube and Joost - I don't find it as user-friendly as hulu. Neither site makes it easy to view only full episodes. That is, I can search for a show and get a list of all video segments for that show, but the list includes maybe one or two full episodes scattered in a haystack of short clips. I can't find any easy way to get JUST a list of full episodes. I can't even find a way to list the clips by length, which would group the full episodes together.
Hulu lists full episodes separately from clips, which I quite prefer. It's like they actually understand that I'm trying to watch a TV show or something.
We'll see. I'm sure competing sites will become more user-friendly over time. We'll see how much of the online viewer marketshare hulu can grab before this happens, though.
UPDATE: Tried to watch something on Joost from home just now, and it wants me to create a login. I don't have to log into hulu. I'm spoiled, I suppose. Still, until further notice I'm sticking to hulu over this login issue, as well as hulu's better user-friendliness.
Friday, October 10, 2008
The Long Depression
I think of myself as a smart, well-read fellow. I like to think I’m more knowledgeable than the average American, as evidenced by the fact that I do passably well when faced with Jeopardy questions. I admit that I’m not Ivy League by any stretch of the imagination. (In fact I’m not even a college graduate.) Despite all, though, I’m a bit of an elitist, and I fool myself into thinking that I am (or at least could be) one of The Elite.
Ah, hubris.
If I am more knowledgeable than the average American – hopefully I'm not – then it speaks poorly of all of us Americans. Because I don't really know all that much. Every day I learn more about how little I actually know.
Like many Americans I have failed to learn from history. History, as it was taught to me, was boring. It was about memorizing names and dates, but it was seldom about understanding context and motivation. It was more often about war than it was about economics, despite the fact that war and economics are inextricably intertwined.
I think I am not alone in failing to learn the lessons of history.
According to George Santayana and common wisdom, then, we are condemned to repeat history. And we appear to be repeating history as I write this.
We may not, however, be repeating the mistakes that brought about The Great Depression. Instead we are repeating the mistakes that brought about The Long Depression.
I don’t know that I’d ever heard of The Long Depression until this week. (Did I mention I have failed to learn from history?) Twice this week, though, the subject has been brought up by Andrew Leonard in his excellent blog How The World Works over on the salon.com news website.
In his second piece this week on the subject he links to a piece by history professor (at the college of William and Mary) Scott Reynolds Nelson, in which Nelson claims that The Long Depression “looks much more like our current crisis” than The Great Depression does.
Nelson draws some interesting parallels, and he certainly knows more about the 19th century than I do. I strongly recommend you click the link above to read his piece.
In addition to Nelson's parallels, there's another significant parallel that I see from the paltry reading I've done on The Long Depression in the last 24 hours: The Presidency.
Specifically, a president who was enormously popular early in his two terms, but whose administration was riddled with scandal. Economic policies of the administration in question were contributors to – but not the only cause of – market panics that led eventually to full-fledged market crashes. During his second term the president appeared to be ineffectual, eventually leaving office in something akin to shame.
Here’s a paragraph from Wikipedia with the mystery president’s name removed:
“Although _____ himself did not profit from corruption among his subordinates, he did not take a firm stance against malefactors and failed to react strongly even after their guilt was established. When critics complained, he vigorously attacked them. He was weak in his selection of subordinates, favoring colleagues … over those with more practical political experience. He alienated party leaders by giving many posts to his friends and political contributors rather than supporting the party's needs. His failure to establish working political alliances in Congress allowed the scandals to spin out of control. At the conclusion of his second term, _____ wrote to Congress that ‘Failures have been errors of judgment, not of intent.’”
Who is that mystery president? It’s Ulysses S Grant.
If we’re really doomed to repeat history as directly as we possibly have been then what can we look forward to?
Evidently we can expect a disputed election, after which a republican president who failed to win the popular vote will order US troops to fire on striking workers, killing many.
President Rutherford B Hayes, ladies and gentlemen! Evidently he's the kind of leader we could conceivably have in times like these.
Let’s learn from history. Quickly.
One last observation: The Posse Comitatus Act - which I find myself referencing a lot lately - was passed in 1878, just after US troops killed 70 striking workers under President Hayes. I mention this largely because this is another piece of history I'm actively trying to learn - the role of the US military in domestic affairs.
Ah, hubris.
If I am more knowledgeable than the average American – hopefully I'm not – then it speaks poorly of all of us Americans. Because I don't really know all that much. Every day I learn more about how little I actually know.
Like many Americans I have failed to learn from history. History, as it was taught to me, was boring. It was about memorizing names and dates, but it was seldom about understanding context and motivation. It was more often about war than it was about economics, despite the fact that war and economics are inextricably intertwined.
I think I am not alone in failing to learn the lessons of history.
According to George Santayana and common wisdom, then, we are condemned to repeat history. And we appear to be repeating history as I write this.
We may not, however, be repeating the mistakes that brought about The Great Depression. Instead we are repeating the mistakes that brought about The Long Depression.
I don’t know that I’d ever heard of The Long Depression until this week. (Did I mention I have failed to learn from history?) Twice this week, though, the subject has been brought up by Andrew Leonard in his excellent blog How The World Works over on the salon.com news website.
In his second piece this week on the subject he links to a piece by history professor (at the college of William and Mary) Scott Reynolds Nelson, in which Nelson claims that The Long Depression “looks much more like our current crisis” than The Great Depression does.
Nelson draws some interesting parallels, and he certainly knows more about the 19th century than I do. I strongly recommend you click the link above to read his piece.
In addition to Nelson's parallels, there's another significant parallel that I see from the paltry reading I've done on The Long Depression in the last 24 hours: The Presidency.
Specifically, a president who was enormously popular early in his two terms, but whose administration was riddled with scandal. Economic policies of the administration in question were contributors to – but not the only cause of – market panics that led eventually to full-fledged market crashes. During his second term the president appeared to be ineffectual, eventually leaving office in something akin to shame.
Here’s a paragraph from Wikipedia with the mystery president’s name removed:
“Although _____ himself did not profit from corruption among his subordinates, he did not take a firm stance against malefactors and failed to react strongly even after their guilt was established. When critics complained, he vigorously attacked them. He was weak in his selection of subordinates, favoring colleagues … over those with more practical political experience. He alienated party leaders by giving many posts to his friends and political contributors rather than supporting the party's needs. His failure to establish working political alliances in Congress allowed the scandals to spin out of control. At the conclusion of his second term, _____ wrote to Congress that ‘Failures have been errors of judgment, not of intent.’”
Who is that mystery president? It’s Ulysses S Grant.
If we’re really doomed to repeat history as directly as we possibly have been then what can we look forward to?
Evidently we can expect a disputed election, after which a republican president who failed to win the popular vote will order US troops to fire on striking workers, killing many.
President Rutherford B Hayes, ladies and gentlemen! Evidently he's the kind of leader we could conceivably have in times like these.
Let’s learn from history. Quickly.
One last observation: The Posse Comitatus Act - which I find myself referencing a lot lately - was passed in 1878, just after US troops killed 70 striking workers under President Hayes. I mention this largely because this is another piece of history I'm actively trying to learn - the role of the US military in domestic affairs.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
More Amy Goodman
Earlier today I wrote a minor update about the US Army's CCMRF (pronounced Sea Smurf) brigade, which will operate within the United States under the authority of our illustrious Commander-In-Chief. In that update I referenced award-winning journalist Amy Goodman.
Well, here it is later the same day and I find that ABC News is claiming as their exclusive something that Amy Goodman reported back in May.
The gist of the "exclusive": The government is spying on US citizens who have no record of any ties or associations with any terrorist organization.
Click here for today's ABC News piece.
Click here for a transcript of Amy Goodman's interview back in May.
Well, here it is later the same day and I find that ABC News is claiming as their exclusive something that Amy Goodman reported back in May.
The gist of the "exclusive": The government is spying on US citizens who have no record of any ties or associations with any terrorist organization.
Click here for today's ABC News piece.
Click here for a transcript of Amy Goodman's interview back in May.
A real humdinger
Humdinger Wind is a site I've been watching for months, and they just got a facelift. Looks like they're making progress toward some kind of product launch.
Here's the short explanation of Humdinger Wind and what they're doing: They're developing non-turbine wind-power technology that will work in areas that don't get a lot of wind, and that can be scaled for different applications.
For the long, more detailed explanation please visit the humdingerwind.com site.
Incidentally, Humdinger Wind was one of Discover Magazine's recent list of "10 Everyday Technologies That Can Change the World".
As someone who lives in an area where traditional wind power doesn't work, I'm terribly excited about Humdinger's possibilities. They don't have anything on the market just yet, though.
Here's the short explanation of Humdinger Wind and what they're doing: They're developing non-turbine wind-power technology that will work in areas that don't get a lot of wind, and that can be scaled for different applications.
For the long, more detailed explanation please visit the humdingerwind.com site.
Incidentally, Humdinger Wind was one of Discover Magazine's recent list of "10 Everyday Technologies That Can Change the World".
As someone who lives in an area where traditional wind power doesn't work, I'm terribly excited about Humdinger's possibilities. They don't have anything on the market just yet, though.
Sea Smurfs II - Son of a Smurf!
A couple of weeks ago I wrote a column on the looming 1st of October deployment of US troops on US soil for peacekeeping purposes. Look back to that article to see why the acronym for this now active force is CCMRF.
It's pronounced Sea Smurf, which makes them sound cute.
Amy Goodman - award-winning journalist - wrote a pretty alarming piece about the CCMRF brigade on the 2nd of October.
In brief, Goodman is concerned that the CCMRF brigade can be used by the president to stifle dissent against the Treasury's economic recovery plan, in violation of Posse Comitatus.
I really hope I never have to hear about the CCMRF brigade in the mainstream press.
It's pronounced Sea Smurf, which makes them sound cute.
Amy Goodman - award-winning journalist - wrote a pretty alarming piece about the CCMRF brigade on the 2nd of October.
In brief, Goodman is concerned that the CCMRF brigade can be used by the president to stifle dissent against the Treasury's economic recovery plan, in violation of Posse Comitatus.
I really hope I never have to hear about the CCMRF brigade in the mainstream press.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Investing update
In my last post on the market I mentioned that my net loss had gone from 20% to 40%.
Well, as the market continues to fall I end today with a net loss of 49%. This is about where I was at yesterday's close, actually. Today was technically a good day for me, in that my holdings went up about 0.3%.
My 401K, though, continues to plummet. "Plummet" is a pretty alarming word, but it seems to apply. Look a the following images:
These are actual 5-year graphs of funds from my 401K.
Is there a better word than "plummet"? How about "terrifyingly steep plunge eerily reminiscent of the screaming descent down a roller coaster's initial hill"?
Splunge!
This 401K and my house are pretty much my entire retirement plan. I thought I was doing very well on my retirement plans. Now I'm pretty sure I'm not.
I'm an unhappy voter. I've been saving for my retirement, and I'm seeing that savings evaporate into thin air.
At least the descent is thrilling. Hold on tight, folks.
Well, as the market continues to fall I end today with a net loss of 49%. This is about where I was at yesterday's close, actually. Today was technically a good day for me, in that my holdings went up about 0.3%.
My 401K, though, continues to plummet. "Plummet" is a pretty alarming word, but it seems to apply. Look a the following images:
These are actual 5-year graphs of funds from my 401K.
Is there a better word than "plummet"? How about "terrifyingly steep plunge eerily reminiscent of the screaming descent down a roller coaster's initial hill"?
Splunge!
This 401K and my house are pretty much my entire retirement plan. I thought I was doing very well on my retirement plans. Now I'm pretty sure I'm not.
I'm an unhappy voter. I've been saving for my retirement, and I'm seeing that savings evaporate into thin air.
At least the descent is thrilling. Hold on tight, folks.
Have I told you lately that I hulu?
I’m a big fan of NBC’s show Chuck. I’m also a fan of CBS’s show How I Met Your Mother. And I want to like FOX’s Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.
As I write this, it occurs to me that these shows each have something in common. Primary characters on each have appeared in a Joss Whedon program. Chuck’s Adam Baldwin was on Whedon’s Firefly, as was Sarah Connor’s Summer Glau. How I Met Your Mother’s Neil Patrick Harris recently appeared as the eponymous lead of Whedon’s game-changing Dr Horrible’s SingAlong Blog.
(Expect to see another column in the near future about personality as brand. Are you Whedonesque? Are you Fey? Are you Abramsish? Or maybe you’re a Gaiman? If you want Moore do you want Alan or Ronald D?)
These shows have something else in common, and it's the reason I listed them in the first place. They’re all on Monday night between 8 and 9 pm.
This is annoying.
It’s especially annoying when I suddenly have a conflict on Monday night and can’t watch any of them in real time.
I’m a late adopter. It took me a while before I had a stereo that did not include an 8-track player. It took me longer still to throw out the Compaq lugabout with its 4.25” disk drives. My cellphone has no camera. I do not TiVo, nor do I possess a DVR. I have a VCR, but I’m not sure when was the last time I actually recorded something with it. To me a VCR is useful as a remote-control cable box for a TV that was only made for UHF and VHF. It’s also a handy way to run the TV sound through the stereo.
But a VCR seems a really cumbersome way, these days, of recording television shows.
Thank goodness for hulu. I watched last night's Chuck on my laptop this morning before actually getting out of bed.
Do a google search for hulu and YouTube and you’ll find links to many a blog. That’s where I first heard of hulu, actually – on Salon’s Machinist blog. The Machinist column was unenthusiastic in it’s original piece on hulu in August 2007. Exactly two months later Machinist encouraged its readers to sign up for trial accounts.
And I did. I was an early adopter of hulu.
You no longer need to sign up for an account with hulu in order to watch its content. Check it out. It’s changed the way I watch television.
I don’t record television. I just wait for it to be on hulu the next day. This allows me to leapfrog the DVR and go straight to content-over-the-net.
I can watch the content of my choice at the time of my choosing. A DVR will do the same thing, but I actually have to set the DVR. Hulu has the content I want without me having to arrange for hulu to record it.
A TiVo would, no doubt, learn my tastes and record things I would like it to record. I find this creepy, though. And there’s only so many hours in the day. I’m sure I’d like The Office, and 30 Rock, and Sanctuary, and Life and any number of other shows for which I don’t currently have time.
And evidently I don’t have time for The Sarah Connor Chronicles either.
I was watching Sarah Connor last year on hulu, and I fell behind the schedule. For current programming, hulu keeps 4 to 5 weeks of a given show, so that should be no problem. But then I fell more than 5 weeks behind and I officially missed one. I haven’t watched Sarah Connor since.
Which is a shame, because I’m a big Summer Glau fan. Oh well, I have Firefly and Serenity on DVD…
That’s the one problem with hulu. Content is not permanent. It will go away. Especially if it’s a current TV show.
Hulu is a joint venture between News Corp (FOX) and NBC. They realize that if they keep all of a show available to me for free (or nearly free – I do have to watch some commercials) then I will not go out and buy the DVD box set of the season. And the money for the studios is in the DVDs, for now (although there’s also money in them thar’ commercials I have to watch on hulu).
When season 2 of Chuck was about to start I got a hankering to watch some of season 1. I found that hulu did not have the episodes I wanted to see online, so I went out and bought the DVDs. This indicates that hulu might be an effective marketing tool for DVDs.
For established and completed shows hulu is even more officially insidious, though. The first season of Buffy is on hulu for free. Watch it! Enjoy! Oh, you want to see season 2? Well, I’m afraid you’re going to have to go buy the DVDs…
Actually, I just checked and Buffy season 2 is on hulu as well. Still, you have to buy the DVDs if you want to see seasons 3 through 7. Legally, anyway.
Whedon is pretty well represented on hulu. Angel season 1 is there. Firefly’s complete half-season is there (good job on that one, FOX. I won’t be surprised if you screw up Dollhouse, too). And of course Dr Horrible is on hulu. (Is there any Whedon television completely missing from hulu?)
Here’s the thing I can’t figure out. Why would they put complete runs of shows on hulu when they're available on DVD? I understand giving away the first season for free. The First Taste Is Free is a time-honored marketing tradition for pushers and ice cream vendors.
Maybe they really are making money on the commercials. (Shhh, don't tell the writers.)
For you Neil Patrick Harris fans – the complete Doogie Howser MD is on hulu as of this writing.
As I go through and check the shows in which I might be interested I find that the complete Arrested Development is on hulu. As is the complete Highlander television series. I never watched either one, but I've heard good things.
The complete Burn Notice is on hulu. This has not always been the case. They must by trying to promote the show. Watch it now while you can. Seriously. Stop reading this. Go watch Burn Notice, starting with the pilot. Here.
Still reading? Then help me out here. It appears the complete It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia is on hulu. I’ve heard good things. Should I watch this from the beginning while I can?
They only have the most recent 5 episodes of Sarah Connor on hulu. Guess I won’t be catching up on that one.
Hulu has become the video portal of choice for me. And I’m guessing it’s gotten popular enough with other folks to cause a significant change: Hulu is now carrying some content that has no direct association with NBC or News Corp. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report – both owned by Viacom – are now on hulu. At any given time you can catch up on the last 2 weeks worth of full episodes of surprisingly informative fake news.
I’ve tried to watch shows online that aren’t on hulu, but the experience has been dissatisfying. Many of them require me to download their viewing software.
Have I mentioned I’m a late adopter? I try not to download anything extra unless I have to.
If you want me to watch your show then you’ll have it on hulu. How I Met Your Mother - I'm talking to you. Full episodes, please.
As I write this, it occurs to me that these shows each have something in common. Primary characters on each have appeared in a Joss Whedon program. Chuck’s Adam Baldwin was on Whedon’s Firefly, as was Sarah Connor’s Summer Glau. How I Met Your Mother’s Neil Patrick Harris recently appeared as the eponymous lead of Whedon’s game-changing Dr Horrible’s SingAlong Blog.
(Expect to see another column in the near future about personality as brand. Are you Whedonesque? Are you Fey? Are you Abramsish? Or maybe you’re a Gaiman? If you want Moore do you want Alan or Ronald D?)
These shows have something else in common, and it's the reason I listed them in the first place. They’re all on Monday night between 8 and 9 pm.
This is annoying.
It’s especially annoying when I suddenly have a conflict on Monday night and can’t watch any of them in real time.
I’m a late adopter. It took me a while before I had a stereo that did not include an 8-track player. It took me longer still to throw out the Compaq lugabout with its 4.25” disk drives. My cellphone has no camera. I do not TiVo, nor do I possess a DVR. I have a VCR, but I’m not sure when was the last time I actually recorded something with it. To me a VCR is useful as a remote-control cable box for a TV that was only made for UHF and VHF. It’s also a handy way to run the TV sound through the stereo.
But a VCR seems a really cumbersome way, these days, of recording television shows.
Thank goodness for hulu. I watched last night's Chuck on my laptop this morning before actually getting out of bed.
Do a google search for hulu and YouTube and you’ll find links to many a blog. That’s where I first heard of hulu, actually – on Salon’s Machinist blog. The Machinist column was unenthusiastic in it’s original piece on hulu in August 2007. Exactly two months later Machinist encouraged its readers to sign up for trial accounts.
And I did. I was an early adopter of hulu.
You no longer need to sign up for an account with hulu in order to watch its content. Check it out. It’s changed the way I watch television.
I don’t record television. I just wait for it to be on hulu the next day. This allows me to leapfrog the DVR and go straight to content-over-the-net.
I can watch the content of my choice at the time of my choosing. A DVR will do the same thing, but I actually have to set the DVR. Hulu has the content I want without me having to arrange for hulu to record it.
A TiVo would, no doubt, learn my tastes and record things I would like it to record. I find this creepy, though. And there’s only so many hours in the day. I’m sure I’d like The Office, and 30 Rock, and Sanctuary, and Life and any number of other shows for which I don’t currently have time.
And evidently I don’t have time for The Sarah Connor Chronicles either.
I was watching Sarah Connor last year on hulu, and I fell behind the schedule. For current programming, hulu keeps 4 to 5 weeks of a given show, so that should be no problem. But then I fell more than 5 weeks behind and I officially missed one. I haven’t watched Sarah Connor since.
Which is a shame, because I’m a big Summer Glau fan. Oh well, I have Firefly and Serenity on DVD…
That’s the one problem with hulu. Content is not permanent. It will go away. Especially if it’s a current TV show.
Hulu is a joint venture between News Corp (FOX) and NBC. They realize that if they keep all of a show available to me for free (or nearly free – I do have to watch some commercials) then I will not go out and buy the DVD box set of the season. And the money for the studios is in the DVDs, for now (although there’s also money in them thar’ commercials I have to watch on hulu).
When season 2 of Chuck was about to start I got a hankering to watch some of season 1. I found that hulu did not have the episodes I wanted to see online, so I went out and bought the DVDs. This indicates that hulu might be an effective marketing tool for DVDs.
For established and completed shows hulu is even more officially insidious, though. The first season of Buffy is on hulu for free. Watch it! Enjoy! Oh, you want to see season 2? Well, I’m afraid you’re going to have to go buy the DVDs…
Actually, I just checked and Buffy season 2 is on hulu as well. Still, you have to buy the DVDs if you want to see seasons 3 through 7. Legally, anyway.
Whedon is pretty well represented on hulu. Angel season 1 is there. Firefly’s complete half-season is there (good job on that one, FOX. I won’t be surprised if you screw up Dollhouse, too). And of course Dr Horrible is on hulu. (Is there any Whedon television completely missing from hulu?)
Here’s the thing I can’t figure out. Why would they put complete runs of shows on hulu when they're available on DVD? I understand giving away the first season for free. The First Taste Is Free is a time-honored marketing tradition for pushers and ice cream vendors.
Maybe they really are making money on the commercials. (Shhh, don't tell the writers.)
For you Neil Patrick Harris fans – the complete Doogie Howser MD is on hulu as of this writing.
As I go through and check the shows in which I might be interested I find that the complete Arrested Development is on hulu. As is the complete Highlander television series. I never watched either one, but I've heard good things.
The complete Burn Notice is on hulu. This has not always been the case. They must by trying to promote the show. Watch it now while you can. Seriously. Stop reading this. Go watch Burn Notice, starting with the pilot. Here.
Still reading? Then help me out here. It appears the complete It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia is on hulu. I’ve heard good things. Should I watch this from the beginning while I can?
They only have the most recent 5 episodes of Sarah Connor on hulu. Guess I won’t be catching up on that one.
Hulu has become the video portal of choice for me. And I’m guessing it’s gotten popular enough with other folks to cause a significant change: Hulu is now carrying some content that has no direct association with NBC or News Corp. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report – both owned by Viacom – are now on hulu. At any given time you can catch up on the last 2 weeks worth of full episodes of surprisingly informative fake news.
I’ve tried to watch shows online that aren’t on hulu, but the experience has been dissatisfying. Many of them require me to download their viewing software.
Have I mentioned I’m a late adopter? I try not to download anything extra unless I have to.
If you want me to watch your show then you’ll have it on hulu. How I Met Your Mother - I'm talking to you. Full episodes, please.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Debate: Hulu vs YouTube
Earlier today I wrote a couple of pieces on the vice presidential debate. I've been trying to avoid expressing my own opinion in these posts. More than anything else I've been trying to direct any interested parties to the unvarnished information - the debate itself, in this case - although I'm sure my opinion seeps through the cracks in my writing, despite my efforts. The point is I want people from all points on the political spectrum to feel comfortable reading and posting here. I don't want my blog to be too one-sided.
Including the SNL intro in my earlier post almost certainly reflects some bias on my part, suppose.
I embedded the debate itself, though, so that my readers could see what SNL was distorting for comedic effect.
I googled Palin Debate Video and the best link I got was a YouTube video taken from C-SPAN. It has no commercials, but it's a little grainy.
I embedded the SNL intro straight from hulu.
I love hulu, and I will almost certainly write extensively about hulu in the near future.
When I had a little extra time today I checked hulu's debate coverage. They've got the entire debate! Twice!
Hulu is a joint venture between FOX and NBC. One copy of the debate is from FOX. The other is from MSNBC. Both copies have better video than C-SPAN via YouTube. Both also have commercials - such is the nature of hulu.
FOX's version has twice as many commercial breaks (8) as MSNBC's (4), but their full-screen video looks better on my laptop. Maybe the quality of the video is directly proportional to the number of advertisements.
Here's FOX:
I wasn't going to include the SNL skit again, but I find that I have to have its hulu image directly under the one above...
Here's MSNBC:
And Here' CSPAN / YouTube:
Including the SNL intro in my earlier post almost certainly reflects some bias on my part, suppose.
I embedded the debate itself, though, so that my readers could see what SNL was distorting for comedic effect.
I googled Palin Debate Video and the best link I got was a YouTube video taken from C-SPAN. It has no commercials, but it's a little grainy.
I embedded the SNL intro straight from hulu.
I love hulu, and I will almost certainly write extensively about hulu in the near future.
When I had a little extra time today I checked hulu's debate coverage. They've got the entire debate! Twice!
Hulu is a joint venture between FOX and NBC. One copy of the debate is from FOX. The other is from MSNBC. Both copies have better video than C-SPAN via YouTube. Both also have commercials - such is the nature of hulu.
FOX's version has twice as many commercial breaks (8) as MSNBC's (4), but their full-screen video looks better on my laptop. Maybe the quality of the video is directly proportional to the number of advertisements.
Here's FOX:
I wasn't going to include the SNL skit again, but I find that I have to have its hulu image directly under the one above...
Here's MSNBC:
And Here' CSPAN / YouTube:
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Bollywood is on strike
BBC News again. Letting us know, if we care, that Bollywood is on strike.
Why we should care:
As of 2001, Bollywood films sold about 1 billion more tickets per year than Hollywood films.
It's true that Bollywood's revenues are about 2% of Hollywood's, but it's also true that Bollywood's costs are about 2% of Hollywood's, also.
Oh, and Bollywood makes over 33% more movies than we do.
At least the Hari Puttar movie was released before the strike...
Why we should care:
As of 2001, Bollywood films sold about 1 billion more tickets per year than Hollywood films.
It's true that Bollywood's revenues are about 2% of Hollywood's, but it's also true that Bollywood's costs are about 2% of Hollywood's, also.
Oh, and Bollywood makes over 33% more movies than we do.
At least the Hari Puttar movie was released before the strike...
Hillary
Evidently I was wrong about Hillary.
A week or two ago I was dismayed that the only sign of Hillary’s involvement in the presidential election was SNL’s brilliant introduction featuring stand-ins for Hillary and Sarah Palin.
It turns out I was wrong. Evidently Hillary has been hitting the important swing-states:
Evidently she's going to Arkansas. (Not so much a swing state.)
I don’t live in a swing-state (although if she's going to Arkansas then maybe she'll swing by Kentucky) and the national news has been dominated by all things Palin and all things financial, so Hillary’s actions were unknown to me.
If one searches through the news, though, then it turns out she’s on the campaign trail for Obama.
Go Hillary. And thanks.
Credit Crunch
All of my stocks are significantly lower than they were last week.
If you’ve read any of my previous investment posts then you know I’m a novice who is learning by doing when it comes to stocks. And in the process of learning some valuable lessons (read: in the process of experiencing a net loss of 20% of my investments) I’ve learned to pick some decent stocks. Stocks with positive balance sheets, for instance.
Then the credit crunch kicked into high gear.
Here’s the thing: Only 1 of the 6 stocks I own is actually kicking out any kind of dividend. That is, only 1 of them is actually earning money. All the rest of my stocks may become profitable for investors someday – and there are signs that they would in a normal market – but they aren’t profitable right now. Right now they’re all really dependent on their credit in order to continue and to expand operations and become profitable.
And credit is hard to get right now.
Guess how my stocks are doing!
I’ll tell you: I’ve now experienced a net loss of 40% - and this time without having learned anything except not to put my money in the stock market
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)