I like 'em!

These new milk jugs that is. I mean, yes they are better for the environment overall and more efficient in terms of transport and storage. But the real reason is that people don't know how to use them. Milk is being spilled left and right by those who are unable to master the new design, and much crying results...not that it's any use.

Reporting with poor context is grand.

Ain't it? In this case I'm referring to this article about underage drinking. The article is not exactly clear but on initial read it seems to be saying teens getting (any) alcohol from parents is bad. I don't think that is what the article is really saying, but it is very poorly written.

While binge drinking and heavy alcohol use by teens is bad, supervised alcohol consumption is potentially very good. When a teens first beer is at a kegger in a field somewhere, problems can arise (projectile vomiting, drunk driving, forgotten sex, unwanted babies, and sometimes jail or death). If that first beer is at home then (most of) those things are very unlikely to occur. Learning to drink responsibly, like learning to drive responsibly, eat responsibly, ... is best done at home, and taught by parents.

Of course, not all parents are exactly responsible...

The Storm

Five hours outside. Over a hundred degrees. By this time he felt as though he was radiating more heat than the sun was beating into him. "It was supposed to rain, damnit!" he cursed under his breath.
At thirty five and after spending more than ten years doing a bit more beer than exercise he was not the same spry young man who had been drafted by the Cubs out of high school and spent five years playing in Des Moines.
He had never made the big league, and a motorcycle accident had wrecked his arm near twelve years back. So he got a tract of land and dug in.
The land was cheap. He grew vegetables. Some he ate and others went to farmer's markets. He had married his high school sweetheart at age 20. Regretted it at age 21. She left him, then came back, then threatened to leave on a regular basis for the next nine years. They had no children. She was gone now.
"Damn bitch never appreciated how hard I work," he muttered and flung a spade full of dirt over his shoulder.
It landed, scattered, in the vicinity of his pile. A few small clumps bounced of a pair of white sneakers.
The man stopped. He set the tip of the spade at the bottom of the hole he had been digging and guessed the depth to be a bit over four and a half feet.
"Good enough for what it's for," he said and climbed out.
Standing up he noticed that the air had changed. There was a bit of a breeze and it smelled damp. He scanned the skies and could see that a line of clouds had taken up residence to the west. A squall line. So it was going to rain after all.
"Hmph," he grunted and scanned his small field and its withering crops, "looks like you're gonna get the drink you need after all."
He smiled, then turned his attention back to the job at hand.
Bending over, he grabbed the sneakers and lifted them up. The feet inside and legs attached rose as well. The ankle length sun dress slipped down to the woman's waist exposing her legs. A pasty white color that nearly matched the cotton of her panties and was in stark contrast to the tan of her face and arms.
He locked his arms around her ankles and walked backwards, dragging her unceremoniously. Her dress worked its way upward, first exposing her white, round belly, then the underside of her bra, where it stopped, her breasts preventing the indignity from becoming any greater.
When the distant couple came astride the hole--her grave--he stopped and released her legs. They fell, her right foot overhanging the maw. He put his hands on his hips and looked down at her.
He tried to remember the good times. They seemed so distant. They had been in love, he supposed. He wanted to believe that it had been more than teenage lust. He didn't know. In the end it had been an accident, but he had caused it. She had been riding him for not getting the well pump running and when he jumped up to yell back he caught his leg on the coffee table and tumbled into her. They both went down but she had been under him and her head struck the wall coming down. Her neck broke. There was no blood.
They would blame him, he decided. So he chose this path. Dig, bury, tell anyone what asks that she finally made good and run off. He placed his boot against her hip and shoved her in.
The first drops of rain struck his cheeks above and hers down below. He hastily started to fill in the hole.
Each raindrop struck heavily, sparse at first but getting more frequent. The sun was gone and the light was fading fast despite it being just three in the afternoon.
He shoveled faster.
Only an elbow, bent upward from the short violent tumble, remained visible. It vanished then reappeared as the rain stepped up its attack.
His pile was turning to mud but he kept at it.
The hole was three quarters full and the rain was comming down in sheets.
He slopped in the last shovels-full. He was drenched. The hole was topped by a pool of mud.
The rain had created mini-rivers between the planted rows. He dropped the shovel, spread his arms and looked up at the cascading watter.
The torrent continued.
He wept. His tears washed away as quickly as they could form in the corners of his eyes.
Then he heard it. A crack. Loud and close. Lightning does not strike in the middle of the rain, only the edges. He knew this. It couldn't be...
A large branch of the sycamore had broken and fell. It was unrelated to the storm. Just a coincidence. It struck him on the head. He fell unconscious, landing face down in one of the mini-streams that were nourishing his crops. His heart pumped. His chest and stomach moved in and out, replacing the air in his lungs with water and mud. His heart pumped faster, trying to get more oxygen. His lungs were inundated. His heart raced, became erratic, then stopped. Signaling in his brain continued for a bit, then slowed, then stopped.

The next day his nearest neighbor came by to check on him. Then came an ambulance, then the police. His wife's body was discovered, and the coroner's report came back: both had drowned.

Misleading at best

This post over at Daily Kos is a real indicator of a problem, but not the way darkside uses it.

The problem is the second chart which shows the "Percentage of NIH R01 Applications Funded" dropping sharply in ~2003. The reason is not underfunding. NIH is actually fairly well funded. The reason is drift. Because the NIH's research funding budget increased dramatically in the 90's, they were, at first, able to fund more applicants. NSF funding was supposed to be increased as well, but that never happened.

Over the next ~10 years, science depts and universities came to realize that the promised funding would not arrive, and they began a real shift. They pushed hard to expand departments that could capitalize on the NIH funding, and in those areas where NIH funding was traditionally less important (chemistry, physics) there was a drive to shift emphasis in such a way as to qualify for the ample funding, and to hire people whose research goals were better aligned with the new funding reality.

The result was that applications for NIH money soared, and so the modest (inflation type) changes to their money subsequently were not enough to offset the increased number of applicants. So the percent funded started dropping.

The problem is not that the NIH is underfunded, it may be that, but the real problem is that the NSF is severely underfunded. It has caused a shift in fundamental science research in this country...away from things that would lead to advances in energy, for example, and towards health research. This is the real problem, and while simply increasing the NSF budget will fix this, the chart does tell us that the shift back will take ~10 years.

Non-health science research has been hurting in this country, and it won't get better in a hurry. Universities have been hiring health related researchers to take advantage of the existing funding dynamic.

Fuel cells, photovoltaics, battery technology--those very things that would have the best hope
at helping with energy problems--have had the short end of the stick, and the problem started in the 90's. It was exacerbated by the Bush administration, but they were not the cause. Blame it on Clinton (Bill) or the Republican congress that thought taking him out was more important than actually governing, but they caused the disparity that has resulted in the chart darkside shows...and the real problem in science funding.

I Have no Pity

For this woman (edit: stuff was added, I was referring to the woman near the end with 9 children). None. Moreover, I'm a little pissed at the knowledge that this woman (well, her family) has nine little tax deductions, that have to be educated, protected, and otherwise benefit from various other government programs. More tax dollars go to them and they pay lower taxes.

I like children. I would like to have one or two. I am very much opposed to tax deductions for dependents. In fact I would support extra taxes for anyone who has more than 2 or 3 children. We don't need the growth, education comes from taxes, it really would be "fair" but too many people feel entitled to lower taxes...woah, that reminds me of something...

Oh yea, Republicans who hate entitlement programs but are peachy with this type of entitlement.

Oh, well.

Three R's

There are three "R's" that are meant to serve as a guide to consumption in the world. Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. These have been tossed around for decades, but it is still only recycle that is actively practiced by a large number of people in this country (though not by Chicagoans).

The thing is they are even listed in order of importance. For emphasis, I'll do the reverse...

Recycle.

More and more common, this is excellent for metals, pretty good for glass and paper, and better than nothing for plastic. Many things can be recycled to various degrees, but in the majority of cases recycling means downgrading, and in all cases it requires energy input to breakdown then reconstitute. So recycle everything you can, but only after doing the next two things.

Reuse.

On the simple side is using grocery bags to pick up after your dog. On the somewhat more inconvenient side: always bring your own coffee mug to fill up at coffee shop/gas station/... Don't get any frickin' disposable cleaning product (wipes, bowl cleaners, etc.): brushes, mops, rags and even sponges can be cleaned (and disinfected) and reused, so knock that crap off!

If you are insane: flatten out and reuse aluminum foil, wrapping paper, ziplock bags, etc. There are better options for many of these things (gift bags instead of wrapping paper, tupperware instead of baggies...), but try and find second uses for anything that you must use that would normally be one shot and done, and trade out more reusable items for as many disposable ones as possible.

Reduce.

Turn off lights, don't run water, use cold instead of hot when possible (laundry). Don't purchase anything that is individually wrapped. Never buy bottled water. Get as much fresh food as possible. Get food that is processed as little as possible. Cancel magazines. Walk and bike rather than drive. Don't use disposable cleaning products (it bears repeating). Don't sanitize every surface every 30 seconds.

What is odd is that, all told, there is a great deal under the reduce category that is quite simple. Moreover, it often means saving money, living a healthier lifestyle, and helping to reduce our impact on the planet. It is win, win, win!

Oh, also, live in a smaller house, don't fertilize, and drive an efficient vehicle. Damn. I knew there was something wrong. Hummers, golf course lawns (and golf courses for that matter) and McMansions need not apply. No matter what "green" crap you add to a 6000 sq ft house, it will never ever be environmentally friendly--are you listening Al Gore? A family of 4 really doesn't need more than 1200 sq ft (or really, even that much).

This nation is not designed in such a manner to make reducing our impact to a sustainable footprint easy. It is--in the limits--damn hard. Reducing, however is the first and best option for achieving sustainability.

Sexism vs. Racism in the primary

Any form of bigotry contains within it a combination of the overt and the subtle (which has been dubbed "stealth" by those who like to play games with words). Racism and sexism have very different expressions, in both the relative amount of each type and the permeation within the United States.

Overt bigotry is fairly straightforward. It is fear, ignorance and loathing. Integration and education do a good job of getting society past this, but it takes time (like generations). The overt bigot will never vote for any member of a group they are bigoted against. This type of bigotry has diminished quite a bit over the past 60 years. It still exists (particularly in certain areas of the country), and it is far more common with respect to racism--or really toward outside/other groups: Hispanics, Muslims, blacks, LGBT--than sexism.

The subtle bigotry is more prevalent for all types. It is harder to identify the causes, but the general solution is the same, though the level at which it must be applied causes serious problems (just try to force integrate a fortune 500 company or a major university...or a legislature). Moreover, there is no consistent way to identify it. People who are bigoted in this manner may actually vote for a member of a certain group as a way to "demonstrate" how not-bigoted he/she is. People who oppose affirmative action may be more likely to be bigoted but it is hardly a given. As such it is very difficult to discern the effect of this type of bigotry on something like an election. It is real; it does have an overall negative effect on the group that it targets, and there may never be an effective measure to demonstrate it (yes, this includes salary disparity).

I would argue that, though it is confined almost exclusively to the latter category above, sexism is far more pervasive overall. There are myriad reasons which have been given, but there is an underlying one that is as often discarded as it is brought up, but provides the only real differences between men and women which lead to all subsequent treatments of either by either. That is that there are biological differences between men and women. These differences go well beyond: one has a penis and the other a vagina. Hormone levels, gland function and neural activity all vary. Behavior and thought processes have differences based in physiology and biochemistry. One cannot truly understand the other (understanding even this is actually a pretty big step). It is, I would argue, these differences which lead to differences in psychology that allow for the basis for what de Beauvoir writes on in Second Sex (read it, I'm not summarizing here).

I should stress that this in no way implies that one is better or even preferred in any given situation. To the contrary it would imply that an idealized world would have roughly equal numbers of men and women at all levels and functions so as to provide the best balance in opinion, thought and productivity.

In the end bigotry in all forms, including racism and sexism, still exists, but it is most often difficult to spot. Moreover, while the effects are mostly negative they are also not something so easy to discern, particularly in, say, an election.

***note: Sexism is unique among the various forms of bigotry. I've said before (I think here somewhere) that I am a fan of Simone de Beauvoir's writing on the issue of sexism, so some of what I feel on that issue can likely be traced back to Second Sex; I use her writing as a guide. I believe that she did well to describe the sociology that I see as the result of our differing physiology/biochemistry.

Methane fueled cars

This back and forth is presented for your confusion...

Person A:

I agree that Hydrogen is not a viable option. I have done a great deal of research into gaseous fuels and found some interesting facts. Methane from animal waste, garbage dumps etc is readily available and renewable, and is also a by-product of CO2 sequestration. The infrustructure is already in place (natural gas pipelines) and current vehicles readily convert to methane using state of the shelf propane conversion technology. Cars running on methane produce 1/2 the emissions accross the board. The other interesting fact is that methane is over 20 times more damaging to the environment than CO2, yet nobody is promoting this as an alternative.
Any help in getting this idea to the Obama campaign would be helpful. I have a list of experts ie scientists and researchers that are willing to present this concept to the right people.

Person B:
Methane can help, but there is not nearly enough of it to convert, and collection is tough--what with it being lighter than air and requiring separation (from air) and all. Moreover, it would be far more efficient to use it at the collection site to generate power which would be put onto the grid.
Plug-in and hybrid electric vehicles, and if we can ever get them here ultra lightweight Kei/city cars, are the best current infrastructure option, and MeOH/EtOH/H2 Fuel Cells (which are also, technically, electric) are the best next tech option. Research being done now may put both options to pasture, but it is not there yet, or nearly as close. By all means, make a push to capture and use methane to generate power, but the inefficiency associated with using it as a fuel for automobiles--along with it being in insufficient supply--is too great.

Person A:

Ever hear of a guy named Smokey Unik. He was a stock car builber back in the 60's. Before he died a few years ago, he invented a "hot vapor engine" and converted a 1984 Fiero to run on his invention. Type, Hot Vapor Engine into your browser and take a look. His system converted liquid gasoline into a gaseous fuel. The Fiero that he converted made close to 60mpg and still ran on gasoline.

Dairy farmers are erecting methane capture tents and cooking animal waste using passive solar to run large generators. These generators are hooked to the grid and supply energy to the local community.

How many people still use incandescent lighting? Thats an easy one.

What I am promoting is an interum solution. Electric cars are a part of the solution, so is better use of the fuels that we have readity available. Methane including natural gas is a far better solution than drilling for more oil. Cars run cleaner go farther on the same amount of energy and can be easily converted with state of the shelf technology and infrustructure.

I am sure you have seen the Proctor& Gamble commercial using methane produced at the local dump to power their entire production facility.

While we strive for better longer term solutions we have 250 million vehicles in the US alone along with 10's of millions of homes that use natural gas for heating. If methane captured from easy sources was added to the Natural Gas supply that would have a 2 fold benefit.

Methane is not sexy, but neither is additional damage to our environment and economy.

We simply can't wait 10 more years when there are easy solutions we can implement right now with huge reductions.

Person B:
I checked out your engine. It's neat, but it is also simple physics/chemistry. Gasoline as a vapor will burn more completely than it will as a liquid (or as an atomized liquid...i.e. very small droplets). Moreover, current fuel injection technology is much better than then and can just about match his combustion efficiency. All we need to do to match his fuel efficiency is couple that with light weight vehicles through small displacement engines...say, Kei cars (which get as much as 70 mpg).
Methane, starting out as a gas, is easier to burn completely than gasoline. This makes it more efficient. It is still less efficient to use CH4 as fuel for a combustion engine than it is to use it to power a generator, and then plug in an electric car (or to power a generator like in hybrids).
Again, I like using methane to produce energy, and I'm sure that CH4 powered cars are better than gasoline, but they are a step sideways rather than forward. We need to get beyond the (always inefficient) combustion engine, not find ways to make them more efficient, because they will never be able to compete with electric motors in that regard.

Person A:

You are missing the entire point.

The cars we have on the road now are going to be here for the next 10 15 years, (thats if we stop producing cars today). You are wrong about the effeciency of liquid fuel injection. Gasoline when atomized (not vaporized) has the effect that Smokey saw in the Fiero.

Atomized fuel is still not as good as gaseous fuel.

A car running on gaseous fuel will be 40-60% more effecient than a car running on vaporized liquid fuels. The 1984 Fiero has essentially the same fuel injection system that your 08 car has. Not sure where you are getting your information?

How long do you think it will take to replace the current fleet with electric cars or light weight cars, 5 10 25 years, (thats if we stop building cars today) and at what rate of replacement per year, meanwhile we are missing the easy fruit. As I said this is not sexy, but will get us to the next technological advancement, greatly reduce pollution, and greatly increase the effeciency of the current fleet, plus its all state of the shelf and utilizes current infrastructure = 0 develpoment cost.

Not a step sideways, not a huge leap forward, just a step forward. Better than a bunch of self proclaimed experts running their mouths. What do you do when the house is on fire? Talk about building your next house, or call the fire department?

Person B:
I'm really not. I am not only aware that vaporized is better than atomized, I even said that. If you really think that electronic fuel injection has not changed in the past 20+ years, I can see why you would advocate for gaseous fuels. Essentially the same, yes, but that doesn't mean that the differences are insignificant. The primary differences have to do with air flow sensing and the ability to adjust the fuel volume on the fly and based on both the detected air in but also measures of the exhaust that can figure whether the mixture was lean or rich. The efficiency resulting has been noteworthy. The reason that overall fuel economy has been stagnant is because all of that efficiency has been used to move heavier cars faster (bigger engines)...the Honda Accord engine displacement and weight have both increased by 50% over what they were in 1983, so it doesn't matter that the engine efficiency increased by as much as 25%, the car's fuel economy is still worse.
But, really, in the end, it's the infrastructure and conversion argument that really loses me. While there is infrastructure to move methane around the country, there isn't nearly as much to get it to fueling stations or into cars, so that would have to be built. And cars would have to be converted (or purchased new, in which case the existing car point is moot). And then it would be made obsolete by better technology to come? And all this for an improvement in efficiency that would be less than if the average weight of vehicles on the road dropped by 50%. I just don't see how this can help, in the short term or the long term. Methane can be of assistance to our energy problems, but not in automobiles.


Person B(again):
Oh, on a personal note, I'm not sure that I have ever proclaimed myself to be an expert here. I'm a damn good chemist and fairly knowledgeable in sciences and even beyond that.
As for the fire thing, aside from being kind of insulting it really does ignore both what I said overall and what you have been saying. You want to retrofit cars. I want to tax the hell out of anything over ~3500 lbs (not mentioned) and allow the sale of cars in this country that have existed in Japan and Europe for years. There is no solution, no matter how off the shelf, that will not take time (measured in years) and money (in the billions). Just because my opinion differs from yours does not mean that I am ignoring anything.

More to come???

Good Starter Motorcycles...and Guns!

I was surfing the tubes, looking for an inexpensive, used, 250 cc or smaller bike to get to and from work during nicer weather, and I came across this site: Good First Motorcycles. The article is a good read (especially for those certain folks who have never ridden before and decide they want to get a Harley--short answer: bad idea).

I liked the page enough to see what else the site had to offer. The page, immediately below the one above in the "Motorcycles and Riding" section was Motorcycle Firearms. While I found reading this quite funny, I know that there are people out there who will read it and think that it seems like a good idea to fire a .357 Magnum while riding a motorcycle at night and maybe on the highway. It isn't.

Moreover the article tries to fit this in under self defense: "...because the driver is attacking the motorcyclist with a deadly weapon (the car), the motorcyclist is legally entitled to defend him or her self with lethal force," and goes on to advocate (loudly) killing the attacking driver: "...FIRE AT THE DRIVER, NOT THE CAR."

And this is the real problem with the internet: every site, no matter how good it is on the whole, is "user beware." Nothing that comes off the tubes should be taken at face value (unless, of course, you read it here). Facts should always be at least double checked, and opinions and ideas should be thought through very carefully by the reader before any parroting of the statement.

This doesn't have much of a point beyond that except to say that those who comment on the various political blogs, are not a good indication of anything except for that particular commenter's thoughts at that particular moment.

Obama > Clinton >>>>>>> McCain

First the easy one: McCain is either senile, lying, or clueless. I don't care which, there is no way I will vote for him. I used to respect him as a politician, and I still respect the service he has given this country, but I do not trust him with the presidency. Not even close.

So this means Obama, but someone else is still technically in that race...

I have no clue why Hillary is still running. Her campaign has been a disaster, starting off at incompetent, transitioning into GOP hate/fear mongering, and, just when it seemed as though it had found some high ground (after IN/NC), it did a quick side step into crazy. It really is incomprehensible. She is clever, capable, competent; she knows (yesterday's) politics, foreign and domestic affairs, her policies are nearly identical to Barack's, and people loved the Clinton presidency of the 90's. ...and she lost. I take back the disaster comment: this was a clusterf*** of a campaign that resulted from believing politics are the same today as they were 10 years ago, that loyalty should be valued even at the expense of competence, and that the political map and landscape is static.

I love Obama's message. I like his policies well enough (and substantially better than the republican candidate's). I also like that he has demonstrated an ability to compensate for his weaknesses by getting the right people into the right positions. He was not even on my radar a year ago, and I had no real preference between him and Hillary until around a month ago. I do not agree with everything he says, or every position he takes, but I do like the way he does politics.

This country will elect a woman some day. Just not this year, and probably not Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama inspires people. He represents change and true bipartisan appeal (non-wacko republicans do like the guy, or at least don't hate him). He will win in November and this nation will have the chance, for the first time in more than ten years, to set aside petty bickering politics and move forward.

My housing crisis? I don't have one!!!

So others have written more and maybe better, but I just dug 2 cents out of my pocket so I thought I'd throw them in:

Houses are too expensive. Have been for several years now. Falling housing prices are GOOD for the country, not bad. Corrections to any over-inflated market are, in the long run, good. I feel a little bad for folks whose home prices have crashed by 20-50% (CA, FL, AZ) but those prices were fake, and the bleed over lead to overinflated home prices elsewhere.

Moreover there have been far more people who have suffered due to the housing bubble being inflated than there are people who are suffering due to its bursting. Regular, wage-earning and salaried people who have been left without any hope of getting a house any time soon. I am now gainfully employed and will have no problem getting a mortgage for up to $225k, but that doesn't get me much around here. A year ago I probably could have gotten a mortgage for nearly $500k (with my current finances), but I'd have had the sense not to do so. In fact, even with the relatively small post-doc salary I had in Chicago, I probably could have found someone to give me an idiotic mortgage.

I'm not quite so arrogant to believe that everyone who took out such mortgages is getting their comeuppance, because most people don't understand (or care) how the financial side of things works. They trust that those who do (or should) will make things right. And on the one hand, that trust, while misplaced, was not wrong. Lending institutions do what is in their own best interest (not their customers) but it is in their best interest to have their customers pay their mortgage/loan off, not to get in over their head.

The feedback loop killed them: poor lending practices fueled housing price increases which forced poor lending practices as required policy for many people to get houses, which was justified by the rapidly increasing cost of homes which had been fueled by easy credit to begin with...

All that said, I do not support any type of bailout. Borrowers who can afford payments should make them (exception coming). Those who can't pay or whose home values have fallen to less than 80% of the purchase price should walk. Foreclosure is not good, but it is not nearly as bad as bankruptcy, and the penalty is wiped after 3 years of good credit, so it's hardly permanent. Banks should be allowed to only go after those who can afford to pay, whose homes are worth more than 80% of the purchase price, and those who have more than one house and are not foreclosing on all of them.

It is selfish, but I want affordable housing because I won't spend $220k for a two bed one bath slab foundation condo. I simply will not.

Back...soon

First off, as it turns out, I had readers. Who knew?

Of course now that I've been absent a year, they are all gone I'm certain, but still. I've been in a bit of limbo for a year now, but am now living and working in Philadelphia (actually living in Doylestown and working in Warminster). Things are good and, remarkably, I am still right.

This post is just to get something up again. I have a world of things that I have written in the past year, but have just not gotten around to any kind of finalizing/posting. I may string up some hot topics responses (gas, dem primary, McCain not knowing forwards from backwards...aka losing his bearings, et cetera). If anyone who read this in the past happens by again, know that I am once more settled down and will be posting again soon.

Well

It has been a while since I've put anything new here and there are many reasons for that, but not now. The post that follows is one that was written about 5 months ago and has been post-dated to show up as next most recent to this. The reason is simple. I noticed something today. Something that is related to the next post. Racial awareness.

I grew up in Texas and Kansas. Aside from the white folk, the only minority group that I was exposed to to a great extent was hispanics. Now, whenever I speak with someone who is either white or hispanic, I don't think twice. If I am speaking with someone who is asian, or black, however, I do. It isn't about fear or self loathing, but it is an element that was not part of my upbringing. Hispanics were part of my childhood, school, carpooling, et cetera. I certainly saw people of other races/ethnicities growing up, but I never really interacted with them (there was one black student in kindergarten with me--whose name was also Jacob--but he was gone the next year). There is an awareness when I speak with someone who is of a different race than those I grew up with. Some times it is subtle. Other times it is less so.

I am moving and selling many of my posessions in a moving sale. At least two thirds of the people who have come by have been black (including my neighbors). I don't treat them differently, and I don't chat any more or less with them, but I am more likely to have a clearer recollection of them after they have gone.

I'm not sure to what extent they are aware of me, and the whole is likely more complex than I am stating here, but it leads me to one, specific conclusion: forced integration of schools from K-12 is the best way to fight racism. I know this has been tried. It needs one other thing, something to equalize all students, so that there is no difference (other than race) within the classroom: single dealer uniforms. Yea, yea, I know. Issues galore, including with many of my friends. I don't care. Kids don't care about skin color. Ever. They will, however, be very self conscious if they are otherwise different. If a school is naturally integrated (without having to bus) then it may not be an issue, but if one group or another has to be bussed to a different location then they may be entering a school where things are different in terms of manner and dress. If all students are dressed the same then that removes one barrier to integration between transported students and the rest of the campus. I never really had much of an opinion regarding uniforms before. I remember, though, that when younger I felt more out of place when I didn't have Z Cavaricci pants among "peers" that did than I ever did among people
with different ethnic backgrounds.

It's not even about money, necessarily. When I moved from Texas to Kansas, I was completely out of place again. My clothes were wrong. People were different. I don't really know how much, but I know that I integrated more easily into my new school because I didn't have to chose what to wear in the morning before my first day of class. I needed a new wardrobe for football games and mixers. I needed to find out what that was. I don't think that uniforms solve anything. They just make transition easier. Integration is the goal, and anything that makes it easier is welcome.

I'm probably too tired to be writing. I'm off to bed (once "Stomp" has finished).

Racism

It still exists. Most people don't see any in themselves. Much of it is subtle (or stealth). Now, none of what follows does more than scratch the surface. Nor are there solutions contained here--though there are a couple of things that I think would help.

When I get on the 'L' in Chicago, I see all sorts of people. There is a peculiar phenomenon related to people seldom choosing to sit right next to someone they don't know. As the cars fill up, more of those seats are taken. People who are smartly dressed are among those sat next to first. Then those who look "clean," i.e. no stains, tears, groomed (shaved and brushed). Other "non-threatening" types fill up quickly too, this includes parents with children, elderly, many women, travelers. Some of the last seats to be occupied include those next to younger, street clothes dressed men, and the last of those black. But here's the question: is that really the way it is, or is that just the way I see it? If it wasn't for racial overtones, would I even begin to make mental notes about things like that? Does it affect the seat that I choose in a crowded car? If I deliberately choose one way, either way, is it good or bad?

I know, in fact, how I chose what seat to sit in when I must pair up: the seat I see first with the easiest access and most room that doesn't put someone else out. Of course, I'm not sure how I choose if two seats fit the bill. Even still, that doesn't answer the first two questions. Those are harder.

Here's another bone to chew on: affirmative action. I really don't have a problem with it. I'm not sure I would have a problem if it ended either. I generally see it as a good thing, but I know that there are people (white men) who see it, itself, as racist. This gets twisted into two distinct arguments, both of which I hate: 1. Affirmative action is anti-white; 2. Affirmative action is anti-black. The argument for the first is obvious, if wrong, the second is more seditious and nasty. The only real argument against affirmative action is that it is used as a talking point to stir up white anger (GOP voters, almost all) and it, therefore, is not really affirmative in practice, but that argument is weak as it is largely based on the prevalence of the other two.

Then there is the all-powerful: "I'm white, therefore my opinions on this are irrelevant." Which both assumes that all white people are racist and that fixing problems associated with racism is up to those who have felt the brunt of it, rather than those who, most often, have dealt it out. There is also a socialism/communism issue to be dealt with here most commonly reflected by the dishonest line: "Why should I have to be punished for the actions of others?"

Why it is that upper middle class white men so often feel persecuted is beyond me, but it has been a driving force for the Republican party for years, and it seems like it will continue in the near future (immigration, anyone?).

Racism is a very complex problem and it is one of many bad things that comes out of the self as victim perception that is popular in the US. That is to say that if a person feels they do not receive their due then they will want to find a person/group/thing to blame, and it is far easier to place blame on someone or some group that is obviously different, and race fits the bill. I generally believe that such feelings will be more prevalent in a society with more rigid class structure--like this country right now.

A few specific things would go a long way to fixing the problem. Improving education, including student aid, and providing first home purchase aid, and universal health care which really should be a given. I have plans; they don't belong here.

Emergency Landing

Is not a phrase anyone wants to hear. In this case, however, the culprit was a squirrel, and the diversion was Honolulu. While kind of funny in retrospect, the furry bugger could have gnawed through wiring and caused a problem...as that did not happen, wouldn't it be great if you were on a plane that had to be diverted to Hawaii? Even if it were only for a day or so. Actually the main reason I wanted to post on this article is the last line: "Fearing it might have been carrying rabies, authorities had the rodent killed." Now, there may have been some fear of rabies, but that is not the reason they killed it. Hawaii, like California, Austrailia, and many other places, does not want any plants or animals brought there and crazy quarantine rules apply if you want to try. More importantly, squirrels are not even close to endangered, and in the absence of a random squirrel lover to take on the burden, financial and otherwise, of dealing with it, it is going to end up dead. The rabies thing sounds like someone's idea to keep crazy PETA people away. "We destroyed the squirrel, um, uh, because it might have had rabies? Yea, that's it, we didn't want anyone to be endangered by what was obviously a terrorist act by a rodent that was likely deranged by some communicable disease that we are familiar with." I wonder what role TSA had in the spin.

As an aside, don't you wish, sometimes that there were more religions that forbade the consumption of pigs so that bacon would cost less?

The Internet is for Porn

So much more than just a funny video on youtube. This survey talks about child exposure to internet porn, willful and not. I kind of wonder whether it's really all that new. Kids playing doctor, finding dad's/older brother's/friend's Playboy, catching a glimpse of a porn movie (like on a tv) or the like. There may be more of an expectation issue as a result of this than real damage (size, symmetry, what "should" feel good/be acceptable to partner, et cetera).

Brak: Oh, man, that's funny. I can't stop laughing.

...at the city of Boston. So Cartoon network had this viral marketing for Adult Swim, specifically "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" which placed the light-bright like devices seen in the photo around Boston and 9 or 10 other cities. Boston freaked out, thinking they were bombs (check out the gloves on the guy holding the ad). No other city did. Now they are looking to press charges because they were too incompetent and want to pass the blame onto the people who thought up the idea. TBS (which owns Cartoon Network) has actually apologized...presumably to the citizens of Boston for having idiots in charge of their security. I don't watch Adult Swim as much as I used too, but I think that they have some pretty clever people on staff.

'08 Part Five: Also Runnings

For the Democrats Al Gore is currently the only also-mention for president. I don't think he will run, but if he does we will have to hear from idiots who voted for Bush yet have the audacity to pick on Gore for his "I invented the internet" comment which, while a dumb thing to say, was linked to something in reality (though it is a reality which other US Reps and Senators can claim). I like Gore lots more now than when he was VP or running for President. I think he can do more (not inter-) net good with less stress by not running (while it is possible he would be the best president, there is no one on the ballot who can replace him in his current endeavors). Wes Clark is also mentioned a bunch on the net, but I think he had his place in the last election, and there are too many superior candidates to him already running in this one. Note for him though: he is a very strong supporter of the sciences, and is both knowledgeable and curious about scientific issues. The other candidates are mostly a collection of "whos" and "whys": Baya, Biden, Dodd, Kerry, Kucinich, and Vilsack, though Vilsack will do well in his home state of Iowa.

On the Republican side McCain and Giuliani are the apparent front runners. I think the former will be dead thanks to Bush's support for his troop surge (which will fail). The latter is probably the most likely nomination, but he's still a bit of a dark horse. He's from New York, which makes him not a favorite son of the party, and there is a perception that he is more liberal than others which is probably true. Of course he is also a huge supporter of big buisness and heavy handed crime prevention, so he'll probably manage it. Brownback is a likely GOP spoiler. He is the type of candidate to do well in a GOP primary and tank in the national. If he wins, pretty much any Dem short of Kucinich would coast to the White House...probably. He also has a fair chance of winning, especially if McCain's support dries up before the primary. Dem spoiler potentials include Giuliani, but also Romney and Pataki. Probably the only Republican who would be a favorite in Nov '08 would be Colin Powel, and there is no chance he will run after the shit storm surrounding this administration that he was part of. Giuliani and currently McCain are probably even at best, and McCain certainly won't stay there.

'08 Part Four: John Edwards

Former Senator John Edwards is probably my current top choice for the Democratic nod for President. Two chief reasons for this, and neither is related to his alma mater (UNC). One: he is a staunch supporter of the poor and working class in this country. Maybe an odd thing to say about a man who made millions as a trial lawyer--though not an odd thing to say about the son of a miner who worked hard to get through college and law school--but he is. Under Bush, and in fact since the republican takeover of congress in 1994, the wealthy in this country have had it great while the poor and working classes haven't even gotten a boost in crumbs from their plates. Poverty leads to crime, disease and poorer education, that last often leads to more poverty. Universal health care, functional social security, affordable higher education, and a better welfare/unemployment system are necessary. I believe that Edwards will work harder for those and other things to support average citizens than any of the other candidates (maybe save Richardson). That belief leads nicely to the second thing.

The second thing is a bit more gut less intellect, but I. believe. John. Edwards. speaks. for. me. For whatever reason, every time I see, hear, read about Edwards I get the feeling that if he and I spoke, that he'd listen to my ideas, give back some of his own and that we'd get along well. More, if we had gone through school together I feel as though we would have ended up friends. It's that projected persona that resonates with people. Many celebrities have it. Regan had it. Bill Clinton has it. Obama may have it. Edwards definitely does. I still don't know if he'll get my vote in the end, and it isn't his to loose, not yet, but John Edwards is currently my top Democrat candidate for president.

I should note that Edwards also voted for the war, but that is often seen as less relevant. I'm not sure entirely why. Maybe because he was willing early on to say it was a mistake, and not try and pass it off as a good vote that the president screwed up by mishandling. Maybe because he had been a senator for less than one year before the vote and would only remain one for a total of two years. That vote, however is the reason that he is not a strong favorite of mine, and could easily be replaced at the top by one of the others mentioned.

'08 Part Three: Bill Richardson

New Mexico governor Bill Richardson is arguably the most qualified candidate on the Democratic ticket (I'd probably rank Hillary and Edwards behind him, in that order). Problem is he does not have the name recognition in a crowded field with an unusually large number of credible candidates that do. There is strong support for him online, but it seems to be mixed with the feeling that he is running for Vice President.

He has executive experience as governor of a border state (immigration). He has DC experience as a former congressman. He has been U.N. ambassador and Energy Secretary. He has experience in all critical areas for a president, plus he is hispanic (fastest growing demographic in the country which is becoming increasingly blue). Everything about this guy says "winner." Except that his name will follow Obama, Clinton and Edwards. At present I do not expect him to receive the nomination. This could change come November/December. I don't know much about him, myself--in particular with respect to the economy and social programs (including education), which I consider key as most/all candidates support: bringing our troops home, increasing domestic security, reinstating our civil liberties...

I believe Bill Richardson is the candidate to watch, kind of an X-factor. If he can become better known by debate time and stand out in those debates then he could be a real contender. Even if not I think he would still be a strong choice for VP.