Not that I didn't suspect it, but nothing proves what we already know like a new study. From MSN:

Nationally, only 2 percent of workers log those kind of one-way commuting times, but their numbers are growing, according to a 2003 Census Bureau survey released Wednesday.

In New York City and Baltimore, 5.6 percent of commuters spent 90 minutes or more on the trip into work; elsewhere, 5 percent of commuters in Riverside, Calif., and 3 percent of commuters in Philadelphia and Los Angeles spent an hour-and-a-half on the one-way commute.

The average one-way commute took 24.3 minutes in 2003, two minutes more than it took in 1990, according to the survey, which included all 50 states and cities with populations of 250,000 or more.

On average, workers in New York City spent the longest traveling to work — 38 minutes. Chicago commuters came in second at 33 minutes. Commuters in Newark, N.J., Riverside, Calif., and Philadelphia rounded out the top five cities, with workers in each needing about 30 minutes.

Newark and Riverside are kind of deceptive since the commute times have more to do with New York City and Los Angeles respectively than with the townships themselves. It's interesting to note, though, that all five MSA's are World Class with rail and the whole shebang (though, from what I understand, LA's is pretty weak).

I also find it interesting to note that neither Houston nor Dallas are on this list. Houston despite being geographically larger (evil, evil "sprawl") than every city but LA and Dallas despite having an MSA that covers quite a bit of area with Fort Worth and its suburbs included. I wish I had more information cause I will feel pretty stupid if they're #6 and #7 respectively, but there's not much reason to assume that and it's impressive regardless because Houston is the only city in the top five that isn't on the list (or, in the case of NY and LA, have a suburb on the list).

Not bad for a city that is emblematic of everything wrong with cities.

On a related MSN link, they have a map with the 22 largest bottlenecking freeways. Houston has two on the list (I10/I610 and US59/I45), both very familiar to Houstonians. I'm a bit surprised that I610/I45 isn't on there, though I guess only one particular turn is the huge problem there (I610 eastward to I45 southbound). Dallas doesn't have any on the list.

Interesting stuff.

A short time ago I furled an article from the New West Network about a drug-and-prostitution ring in a small Montana town. A man named Dick Dasen helped a lot of young girls out financially in return for sexual favors. When one of the "Dasen girls" died in a car accident, the whole thing became unravelled and the depth of Dasen's activities became public.

There are a few things I take from the story. The author was as subtle as a sledge-hammer in pushing for more services for those addicted to meth and, honestly, I don't disagree. But being conservative gives me a different view of the events than I think those that don't share my point of view. While lamenting the lack of support for those confronted with addiction (generally a liberal theme), there are a couple of conservative lessons to be learned.

One thing the article demonstrates is how little help money can sometimes be to the poor. These Dasen Girls recieved huge amounts of money that went straight into the meth addictions. Moreso than the prostitution even, I think Dasen's biggest sin here is enabling the addiction. A welfare society may breed comfort for some, but for many it breeds helplessness and an insulation from the consequences of one's actions. This is something that Clinton/Gingrich welfare reform in the 90's helped alleviate.

I see it all the time at Thrifthaven, my run-down apartment complex. Those living on government support are the most likely to be alcoholics, the most likely to be meth addicts, and the least likely to have a future. One could argue that it's the addictions and not the government support causing this, but it feeds both ways. Without the responsibilities of work, there is less motivation to take care of your own business. Uncle Sam's got your back.

There is also a more liberal argument here to make sure that those who do work are compensated sufficiently so that they are rewarded more than those that don't work. But the more help they get that they do not earn, the less responsible they tend to be. The simple act of going to work, of being responsible to be somewhere forty hours a week, seems to make a tremendous difference.

The second conservative theme is not a strike against liberalism as much as libertarianism. Drug use and prostitution are two parts of the trifecta of "victimless crime" (euthanasia is the third). Yet one cannot possibly read this article and say that there haven't been any victims here. I'd also challenge a libertarian to read it and say that these people could not have otherwise led more productive lives had they not been sucked in to drugs and prostitution. It's also difficult to maintain that the communities themselves have not suffered a great deal by the self-affecting actions of some of its people.

Though it pains my libertarian heart to say it, I don't think that society can rightfully stand by while people drive themselves to ruin mentally, emotionally, spiritually, and physically. While some people are lost causes, making drugs less available and illegal to use and possess makes less borderline individuals look away in moments of dispair when instant happiness is only a hit away. I've heard it argued that the illegalization of drugs doesn't actually provide a deterrent, but the illegality is one of the two major reasons I never partook in anything substantial. It made the drugs less available and it made the consequences of (getting caught) taking them more tangible. It's no coincidence that what have historically been my two biggest vices (alcohol and tobacco) are the two that are legal. Both came at times in my life when I was not happy and searching for a little relief. Many use the alcohol-tobacco anomoly as a reason to legalize drugs. To me it's the very essense of reasons not to.

And prostitution is an easy buck. I'm less concerned about the effect it has on the family than I probably should be and more concerned with the easy-way-out that it provides young women. I'm more sympathetic to legalized prostitution than I am legalized meth or crack. But it provides a false sense of financial security in women whose stock will depreciate considerably with age. And by virtue of the fact that it is (or can be) easy money, it's likely not to be treated the same way by someone who has to put in 40 hours a week on an assembly line or chained to a cubicle.

Now whether or not that's sufficient to keep it illegal I'm not sure. But the article that spawned this pontification demonstrates more clearly than I probably can about how many victims can get caught up in victimless crimes.

By-and-large, I don't think that the government can save us from ourselves. I also don't think that we should expect it to. However, even if we oppose these laws on principle (which I almost... almost do), we ought to recognize that there are a lot of incentives involved here. Ideally, the government should never have to be involved in tilting the incentive scales. But from time to time the immediate incentives to a particular path are so great that it is in everyone's best interest for government to tilt them back again with legal barriers.

[NWN article via Craig]

I carry around two wallets with me. The first one is black and holds my money, credit cards, and so on. The second is for my keys and swipe card to get in to work. I suppose that I could use something designed for keys to hold them, but when I got the new wallet the old red one (with a keyring) seemed to work as well as I could expect.

I didn't realize how much I'd gotten into the habit of putting my black money wallet on my right side and my red key wallet on my left until today when I put them in the opposite sides due to a slight change in routine. I've been reaching for the wrong wallet all day.

What's odd, to me, is that when I first got the two-wallet set-up, I tried to set it up so that I'd know which wallet it went in to. But I could never remember which I wanted for which, so I gave up.

I guess it was one of those things you can only do when you're not trying.

I recieved an email this morning entitled "I have an important link for you." I almost put it in the spambox without even reading who it was from because it seems like half of the spam out there (the ones that are still in English and no t inn s p a m-sp ee ck. Turns out that it was from Anna. Good thing I didn't because it was an important link!

[Read More!]

Thanks to Mike's hard work, we've got Captcha working and therefore we won't have to close comments again until the spammers figure out a way to work around it. Logging in is still helpful because you can edit your comments and you can avoid the Captcha inconvenience, but you no longer have to.

However, now that accounts were created using specific names, that means that the name cannot be used if you're not logged in (which is why Mike uses Tefkam and I use R. Alex instead of RAW). If you want to change the account name or something so that you can use your name without logging in, please let me know.

Anyhow, thanks a lot, Mike!

I've removed the registration barrier for comments. With the upgrade to Nucleus 3.20 I've got Comment Control working which is enough for the moment. I'm still wading through about 200 comment spams a day. Until I get tired of that (or if we get Captcha working), you no longer have to register to post comments.

[Updated by Mike]
CAPTCHA is now working!
After fighting with it and hunting down rogue errors due to the CAPTCHA routine's less-than-documented installation procedure (something that RAW thought had to be added to the Skin, but didn't), I finally found it; the CAPTCHA routine requires the GD2 libraries in PHP that aren't turned on by default.

If it can't find GD2, it just sits there, doing nothing. The upside is that turning it on (once I finally knew that it was required) was a very small operation indeed.

Once again for posterity: CAPTCHA is now working!

Thanks for all the well-wishes. It's been a very exciting week! And a very hectic weekend. For the record, I wasn't holding everything up for the sake of suspense. While I wanted to use the site for the proposal, I nonetheless wanted certain people to be the first to hear about it. So while I made the proposal public, I held off on the follow-up so that we could tell our parents before I make an announcement here.

We don't have very much planned yet beyond a vague idea of when (next March) and where (Louisiana). But... it's going to happen and we're both very excited.

The Idaho adventure has had its ups and downs as has the relationship that caused it. Last November she and I had some pretty serious discussions in which we firmly established that we were not ready to take it to the next level. It was kind of weird because I was expecting to be by that point. Then something happened in December and a chain that had been attached to my ankle came undone. Over late December and January there was something of a sea change in our relationship. While there were circumstances that lead up to its beginning, nothing can explain exactly how it happened. But by the end of January, I was starting to feel ready.

There were only a couple of things I still had to do, both involving a trip down to Texas. The homecoming tour of Texas was everything I needed it to be and while down there I picked up the engagement ring - a family heirloom - and brought it back to Idaho with me. I wasn't sure exactly when I was going to do it, but I knew it would either involve Montana, Wyoming, or Utah.

Camille and I first met in Oklahoma, first kissed in Texas, first said "I love you" in Florida, and got started in Idaho. I wanted to add another state to "the list" (a sentiment not lost on her). When we started planning a trip to West Yellowstone, Montana, I asked her to get a room with high speed Internet if possible. She said that it wasn't that important. I pushed the subject and she started getting a little bit miffed, saying that we weren't going on a nature trip to hang around the hotel and play around on the Internet. Little did I know that she was planning to tell me that she had really felt the "sea change" too and was going to tell me in Yellowstone. But her plans were thwarted when we got to Yellowstone too late and never really had a chance to. My plans were thwarted by the lack of high-speed Internet that she didn't want.

By that point I already knew that I was going to use the web site. Had it not been for the site, I never would have met Kevin and Callie and without meeting them I never would have met Camille. She was also vaguely familiar with my blogging adventures prior to meeting me and thought that I seemed like a pretty cool guy. Using the site seemed appropriate. But that meant that Montana was scrapped.

I didn't want a pixelated proposal. I wanted it to be something personal. I also didn't want anyone seeing the proposal before her. There was also one other issue: while I'd always imagined the traditional on-one-knee proposal, she had said that she thought a discussion was more appropriate than a simple question-and-answer. So I wasn't sure that she would say yes. I was somewhat confident that she would assent in the end, but I didn't want to put the pressure of a public proposal on her.

So I decided that I would use the blog as a set-up and I'd use the posting area of the blog as a tool. I wrote a post of a precise length so that she would have to scroll down twice. When she had to scroll the window down I'd sneak the ring out of my pocket. When she scrolled textbox down (the only line below the scrollbar being the last "please turn around" line) I'd get on one knee as she turned around.

I knew that she was doing a rotation in Salt Lake City. I was reluctant to have Utah, of all states, as a member of our illustrious list. But that reluctance quickly dissipated when I drove down to Salt Lake City and instantly warmed to it. During my first trip down there, Camille was more talkative about "us" issues than usual. She had tried to tell me about her sea change, but I became evasive because I didn't want to have the engagement conversation that I feared she might be leading to. Meanwhile, she was afraid she'd said something wrong.

The following week was a difficult one. Not difficult for us together, but for us individually. But difficult enough that I began to reconsider the timing. Thought about proposing another out-of-state trip pronto. But things calmed down and the train got back on track. On Tuesday I called her parents to ask for their blessing, which they enthusiastically gave. They seemed more certain she would say yes than I was.

Friday I left from work down to Utah.

Now the posting area on Nucleus is set up in absolute lengths, meaning that the meticulously lengthed post wouldn't show up the same way on her laptop as it would on mine. That meant that I had to set my laptop up to call long distance to Idaho using a calling card, something I'd never done before. Camille (who has done this before) helped me out, but it was reluctant to work. She started getting a little bit agitated at my insistence on getting my computer hooked up asking why I couldn't just use hers. I avoided answering.

We finally got it set up.

While she slept in on Saturday morning I got to setting everything up. I changed up the post a little bit, got it set up, and disconnected from the Internet. When she got out of the shower, I told her that I had an "us" post that I wanted her to read. Since I'd agreed to get her approval on any post that involves our relationship, it didn't send up a flag and she sat down - towel in hair - and read the post. She scrolled down the first time and I got the ring out of my pocket and sat it behind me. She scrolled down the second time, confusedly turned around, and I popped the question.

It took her only a couple of seconds to say "Yes." As we hugged, she said that she didn't know what to say. I told her that she'd said the only word that really mattered.

It's funny how you can search high and low for that other person and you can prepare almost every aspect of your life to meet someone, but in the end you're just playing it by ear when you're struck back by the right person stumbling out of a tent at eight in the morning hundreds of miles from where either of you live.

I've probably spent more of my life thinking about the fairer sex than most guys have. I've thought about how to find them, how to relate to them, and what the right one for me might be like. I've dreamed up a constantly-evolving checklist of what the right person for me would be like. I have my doubts as to whether or not Camille satisfies every criteria of any of the internal lists that I've made.

But the funny thing is that with all of my cogitation, all my imagination, and all my creativity, if I'd set out to create the best person with all of the best attributes most suitable to me in the longest of terms, there is no way that I could have dreamed up anyone better than the person that I found, stumbling out of her tent on a chilly Oklahoma morning almost two years ago.

That's not to say that we've been perfect and no problems have poked their nefarious heads in our lives. But together we're fantastic at wading through the problems as they come up. Which is good because we have some difficult decisions ahead. Some sacrifices and compromises by both of us are inevitable. But what gives me the most confidence about us is how little doubt I have that she and I will be able to work through whatever problems arise.

Camille, please turn around. I have a question for you.

I furled Batman New Times this earlier in the week, but I hadn't had the chance to see it.

Anyway, it's a computer generated lego-based Batman movie. They managed to snag the voices of Adam West, Mark Hammil, Courtney Thorne-Smith, and Dick Van Dyke. The sound quality is atrocious (I couldn't understand most of what was being said, but the "feel" was quite interesting.

It totally makes me want to go out and buy someLegos.

And it was a lot better than Batman & Robin.

(requires Quicktime)

Today I paid two dollars, three cents, and nine-tenths of a cent for each of almost ten gallons of gasoline.

It was not something that I had to do, but it was what needed to be done.

There are still a few places that have gas just slightly under $2/gal, but they're either Maverik or Sinclaire gas stations. Those are the places I had to resort to last time around. The problem was that the gas that comes out of those places is cheaper and my mileage drops some 2-4 miles per gallon. For saving a measley 4c per gallon, it was actually costing me more to pay less. I knew that at the time, but I did it for Harvey. Harvey, my little Ford Escort, isn't as young as he used to be. He's starting to demand better food. Otherwise, performance suffers.

Not so worried about paying a little extra to keep my two dollar integrity, but realizing that Harvey isn't going to be around forever, and it's best to start treating him right so that I can squeeze every last drop of usefulness out of him demonstrate my appreciation for over 130,000 miles of service.

[$199 9/10]
[$199 9/10, Part Two]
[$199 9/10: The Eelmobile]
[$1.99 9/10: Still Fighting The Losing War]
[$1.99 9/10: From Jackson to Idaho Falls]
[$1.96 9/10: Victory!!!]

I'm heading from work out to Salt Lake City to see Camille. Last time I was out there we went to a so-so international food restaurant.

The table next to us had a group of about ten people, give or take. They were discussing how appropriate it is to concern yourself with grammar minutae and whether or not you could derive the intelligence of someone from the correctness of the grammar that they use.

I know they were talking about this because they were speaking very loudly. Particularly this one man (who felt that grammar was indeed a good gauge to use to measure one's intelligence on a first meeting.

Then, for just a moment they got quiet. Quiet enough for me to hear the guy in the table behind Camille say, "Why is it that there is a loud guy at every table?"

Luckily, the loud guy at the other table didn't hear him.

As you can tell, I live a very exciting life.

But it's true, though, isn't it? There is a loud guy at every table.

My ska name is Dexter Checkers.
Take The Ska Name Generator today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Name Generator Generator.

The Moderate Okay! You scored 67!

You are a moderate. Not EVERYTHING conservatives do annoys you, but some things get under your skin. You're not entirely comfortable with liberals, but there are some issues you'll support them on. You like to think of yourself as an independant thinker and you refuse to just vote down the party line! You hesitate before leaping into things, but when you get into them, you're quite passionate!

My test tracked 1 variable How you compared to other people your age and gender: You scored higher than 84% on rightness

Link: The how conservative are you Test written by lemonslippers on Ok Cupid

Hmmm... just this side of moderate.

-Dateline: June 9, 2004-

I was driving Peter, Jay, and I back to Pocatello when I noticed that we'd left Jackson and I hadn't gotten gas. Being stubborn when it comes to turning around, I decided that I'd find a gas station on the way. If there is a more beautiful drive than that of Jackson to Idaho Falls, I'm not sure what it is. But there is a notable lack of people (perhaps that's why it's such a beautiful drive) and a really notable lack of cheap gas. Nothing even close to $2.00.

But as stubborn as I was not to drive back, I was even more stubborn not to pay more than $2/gal. So I drove. And drove. I kept waiting for my gas gauge to start ganging up on me, but it never really did. This was particularly surprising since it's not a peek drive (up, down, lots of turns that require slowing down).

It's also a really bad stretch to run out of gas. Had we done so, it would have quite possibly ruined our weekend. But $2/gal is insane! I would pay $2.00 for a gallon of gasoline when they'd extract it from my cold, dead, fingers (okay, so that's a really crappy cliched metaphor).

Somehow, in a miracle that will likely never be repeated, one gallon of gas lasted for over 400 miles. A car that had been struggling to get 30 miles to the gallon had gotten 38.

I was rewarded when the next time I had to refill my gas tank, the prices were falling again and it wasn't a concern.

[$199 9/10]
[$199 9/10, Part Two]
[$199 9/10: The Eelmobile]
[$1.99 9/10: Still Fighting The Losing War]
[$1.99 9/10: From Jackson to Idaho Falls]
[$1.96 9/10: Victory!!!]

I don't generally make a habit out of posting on those who find my site by way of googling this phrase or that. It's really interesting to me, but unless it's searching for nude pictures of Scott Peterson or gay rumors for Kenny Chesney, it's usually not worth commenting on.

But today I got my first sad google.

Apparently, I'm number six on MSN for "my wife says she has to find herself."

And in a person googling for those words, I can't help but see an imminent divorce in the works and a guy who doesn't seem to realize it... or doesn't want to.

Or maybe my imagination is on overdrive.

Amanda Marcotte's not-so-recent post on punk rock and honesty got me thinking about a conversation I had with Rick the other day.

One of my most inconvenient beliefs is a staunch opposition to snobbery in its many, many forms. I'm not entirely sure where it comes from, but it elements of its roots can probably be found in the fact that I was not particularly popular when I was in school and that most of my school came from families with a lot more money than mine (or, at least, families that consumed as if they had more money).

And yet I have seen a lot of people in similar situations turn to their own forms of snobbery. If most of the alternative/punk/grunge movement was not borne from the fact that artsy people are very often ostracized in their younger years, I'm not sure what it is borne from. Intellectual contempt for the masses likely has similar origins.

In the cases of the freaks and the geeks, they tend to form their own hierarchies. Pissant arguments between punk-rock fans about appreciating the most obscure artist they can find are legendary. While computer nerds tend to have more utilitarian methods of stratification, it can sometimes revolve around who can demonstrate a sufficient amount of animosity for Microsoft. And don't get me started on anime fans and American voice dubbing.

I suppose it's natural for people to stratify. I'm not sure if it could really be any other way. But generally speaking, it's an inclination that I fiercely resist. Not just because I used to be the target of such things (and still am, I guess, though I don't really care as much), but because I see it as being one of the cheapest, easiest ways to feel better about yourself: at someone else's expense.

Forrest Gump once said "If you can't sing good, sing loud."

If you can't be better, be different. If a group of people reject you (say the "in-crowd" at high school), reject them back. In the process, exalt yourself to a higher place of enlightenment and individuality. Talk about how you're different and they're just all the same. How you've really taken the time to learn to appreciate good music or film or whatever, while the unwashed masses just accept what's fed to them by corporate America.

Extra points if you say all this while you're smoking a cigarette.

Though while I voice my opposition to snobbery in all its forms, it's nearly impossible not to fall prey to it myself. It's impossible to justify liking anything without saying that you think it is better than the other options available. And while I can often say that I simply "fail to appreciate" a particular form of music or film, if I absolutely refuse any claim to a judgment of the art itself (rather than my failure to appreciate it), then I am saying that some idiot who records a modem connecting and calls it art is the artistic equivalent to someone that spent years working on their masterpiece.

And that's not right, either.

So then I'm somewhat left to either (a) have no real opinions on art at all or (b) fall prey to the snobbery that I detest. And when you get down to it, I don't believe all music is equal. I do believe that there are people who simply accept what is recommended by the big record labels or the art film critics or high priests of indy alt punk rock.

And the most obnoxious people are all are those who say "Well I appreciate all kinds of music" with the smug belief that it makes them somehow more relevent than those that simply prefer this kind of music than that.

Except that I'm that way!

Well, not entirely. I fail to appreciate most rap and R&B, nor do I have any use for techno. But today alone I've listened to James McMurtry, REM, They Might Be Giants, Cake, and Randy Rogers.

So does that make me a better consumer of music?

Well, no.

So does that mean that the amount of time and effort I put in to finding new (to me) music gives me no more claim to the term "music lover" than some guy who listens to smooth jazz radio all day long?

Well, no.

ARGH!

For the past five years, I've been getting emails that telemarketers would soon be able to target cell phones. Usually right before and after I'd get emails about an e-mail tax. I was worried at first, but I eventually just started brushing them off.

Turns out that it looks like they might have been right.

I've been expecting an important phone call, so I jumped at the phone when it went off. I answered and a machine told me about their latest and greatest offer.

I guess there really was a wolf this time.

Addendum: I googled back the phone number and found out that the tele-agency is aligned with some questionable folks. It wasn't USPACS that they were advertising for. I didn't stick around to find out the company that was paying for the calls. Part of me wishes I had as they were in the industry that my employer has for clients.

Addendum II: This is apparently the callers. Found here.

Ten easy ways to stash thousands, from MSN:

1. Pad your accounts.
2. Cull your bills.
3. Institute a family tax.
4. Save your reimbursements.
5. Realize your rebates.
6. Round it up -- or down.
7. Fee yourself.
8. Saving raises.
9. Divide and conquer your paycheck.
10. Pay yourself last.

I've used a few of these in the past. Here are some other ones I've used:

11. Comic book deposits. To do this, you must have comic books hung from the wall. If you're - just to pick a random example - 16 and have a small number of comics, you can actually have your whole collection on the wall (though after a while this requires placing multiple comics in a single sleeve). In addition to being cool, it's also useful because when you get your monthly allowance you can stuff it behind a comic book that you're absolutely sure that you will remember. After all, how can you forget Batman #482, the Doug Moensch masterpiece where Batman takes down Maxie Zeus before the evil Harpie can? Surely you won't forget. Except that you will. Then, when you want to read all about Harpie's ingenious plan to take down Maxie, you're rewarded with $30 you didn't even realize you had! You should be upset because a month ago you were freaking out when you didn't think you had any money, but generally speaking you're just pleased that you have more money than you thought you did. Downside: As your taste in comic books change, you'll be ashamed of the selection of comics you chose to deposit money in.

12. Loan money to people you know will pay you back. Generally speaking, I'm really good about fronting money for someone that needs it. This is particularly true when I know that they will be able to pay me back. Except that whenever I make a loan, I act like I'm never going to actually get it back. So when someone does pay me back, it's extra money in my pocket. An added benefit is that debtors think you're being generous. Downside: High interest rate due to periodic defaults.

13. Have a savings account that your mother recieves the balance for. How much do you really want to buy that you want her to see? This is particularly helpful if she's as thrifty as you aspire to be. Downside: That should be obvious.

14. Plan to buy something, but be too lazy to actually buy it. Case and point, I waited with baited breath for Jason Boland's latest CD to come out. It came out in October or so and I still haven't bought it. My joke of a computer set up is the same way. That new harddrive I've been saving for, the case, the CDR... all stuff I saved with the intention of buying months ago!

15. Don't deposit paychecks for months at a time. With this technique, you think that you're running out of money and incidental spending plummets. Then when you do deposit the cash, you're so thrilled to have it that you're reluctant to part with it lest you end up poor and destitute. Downside: Can cause high blood pressure.

The uncertain fate of Terri Schiavo is a subject that a lot of people feel very passionate about. This happens when a large number of people see what they consider a murder happening. It's why opposition to abortion and capital punishment are also so strong and vocal. I was going to sit out this discussion, but I find myself veering towards commenting on other blogs on this point or that rather than just laying out what I believe and why I believe it.

I am going to say my peace here and I will write on the subject no further - including the comments section below. Since the post is somewhat long, I'm putting it below.

[Read More!]

It took me a couple weeks, but I wanted to make sure there wouldn't be any late replies to my post on the Interview meme. Anyway, though I'm supposed to ask five I'll restrict myself to the one respondent for the time being. That would be Tami of Reflectivity. So here are the questions:
1. What made you decide to start a blog?

2. If you could go back in time and go through high school and beyond all over again - knowing what you know now - would you do it? Why or why not?

3. What is your dream car/truck?

4. What do you like and dislike most about Idaho?

5. If you could go sight-seeing (or vacationing) anywhere, where would it be?

Addendum: Tami's answers.

A month or two back Eel took the Series Three medical exam. The first is apparently taken during medical school, the second on the way out of medical school into residency. This test determines whether or not she can "moonlight" (contract to a rural clinic) and prescribe certain medication without an "okay" from a certified doc.

Anyhow, she was sick as a dog and they wouldn't let her take in a facial tissue because they were so worried about cheaters or somesuch. We'd been anxiously waiting for the results since she took it and finally got it this past week.

She not only passed and now is another step closer to being able to hang out a shingle, but she passed by a considerable margin and also each of the 15-20 areas of competency (they only look at the main score, but it's great nonetheless).

The only test remaining are the state certification exams (which would allow her to put out a shingle and start her own practice).

In any case, excellent news!

"In the United States today, we have reached an unclean compromise. Setting aside the (rare) death penalty, the most cruel punishment is confinement in cells which are mandated to fairly high nominal standards of cleanliness and roominess -- so the State has the appearance of highly civilized mercy. Then, in practice, standards slip and the State turns a blind eye to prisoner abuse at the hands of other prisoners, so as a practical matter imprisonment is a mixture of bland inconvenience and brutal abuse.

"Those who wish for harsher punishments ignore this problem because it has an effect they find desirable; those who wish for greater leniency might wish to change the situation, but their proposals tend to a nominal level of leniency which is completely unacceptable to society. We could reduce jailhouse brutality and prisoner rape, increase the deterrent effect of prison terms, reduce their value as a training ground for criminals, and simultaneously save money -- simply by isolating prisoners more in smaller cells, instead of giving them just enough "rights" to let them create jungle societies." -Sammler

I ran across an interesting blog called 63 Days a few days back. The blog purports to be written by an individual that was kidnapped and dragged in to Utah for 63 days before eventually make it back to safety. He posts as he gets his memories back.

The concept reminds me a great deal of the very first protoblog I tried to write. A long while back I got a LiveJournal site, but being uninterested in writing about myself on it (my how things have changed), I decided to write a fictional story written from the point of view of a young man who wakes up by the side of the freeway about ten miles outside of Conroe with no idea who he is. The few memories he has (and the skills he has, such as internally measuring and estimating things in CC's) lead him to believe that he might be an outlaw. He hitches a ride to a fictional east Texas town and figures out how to start a new life (and trying to figure out if he even wants to know who he used to be). He just got in to the town when I stopped writing it.

It was probably one of my better ideas. Short as it was, it actually helped out my writing skills considerably. It gave me a place to experiment in ways that I wasn't willing to with my "main" writing.

Anyway, so if you're interested in that sort of thing, check it out. I'm hoping to get caught up on it in the next few days.

So I got a new phone. That's a story in and of itself, but I'll skip that tale for now. All I'll say is that at some point the thing ran out of batteries.

I don't know how to turn it on.

There is no "on" button.

What kind of cell phone... scratch that, what kind of anything electronic does not have an "on" button?

Motorola's web site is of no help whatsoever. It'll tell me how to do all kinds of things, but assumes I already know how to turn it on.

By pressing every key at once I did manage to get it on. So I guess I'm going to have to find a way to keep this powered up at all times!

The Deseret News has an article on the 'West Wing' TV show's fictional election.

UNIVERSAL CITY, Calif. — Can Hollywood — vilified by the Republican right wing as the most liberal town in America — portray a GOP presidential candidate sympathetically and accurately?

That's the goal this season on "The West Wing," where the focus has shifted from the incumbent Bartlet administration to the battle to replace him — a battle that will pit the underdog, Hispanic congressman Matthew Santos (Jimmy Smits), a Texas Democrat, against the extremely likable, moderate Sen. Arnold Vinick (Alan Alda), a California Republican.

[...]

How hard is "The West Wing" trying to make this balanced? Before the Iowa caucuses, both candidates had a chance to stand up for what they believed or sell out to political expediency — Vinick stood up; Santos sold out.

Conventional wisdom has been that Santos will win, at least in part so that some of the show's current stars, who play members of a Democratic administration, can continue with the program. But Wells said that's not the case.

And what's more, when asked who will win, he insists, "I don't know yet."

"I'm not trying to be coy. What happens is that we actually watch what's happening between the cast members, the issues that are being presented, what's happening in the country, and try and follow what makes the most story sense," Wells said. "So it's really what's most compelling, what's most interesting, what's giving you the greatest amount of drama."

First a disclaimer: I haven't watched West Wing regularly in years. However, I know a lot of people that do and most of them (regardless of political stripe) have said the same thing: the portrayal of Alda's character is good.

That said, I have to say that (a) I have difficulty imagining the Republican winning because (b) the show will likely become even more offensive to Republicans if he does.

Politics and religion are two extremely difficult issues to write about fairly. I like to consider myself a pretty fair person. I can debate both sides of most issues adequately. Some of the most prominant characters in my writing have actually been Democrats (though I tend to keep such things out of my fiction, I have a lot of 'outtakes' in my mind that I could easily have written in an even-handed or even pro-Democrat manner).

But even despite all this, there is no way that I could convincingly a political show week in and week out from a Democrat's point of view. There are issues that I feel so strongly about that opposition is (at best) rooted in ideals so opposed to my own that I could not possibly give them a fair shake. If anyone else doesn't have issues that they feel similarly strong about, I'd suggest that they are not sufficiently thinking about issues. And they certainly have no business writing a show about politics.

So if you have a group of liberal writers, you have three options:

1) Try to write about a punch of people who espouse positions you deplore. By the time you're done you probably won't even like the characters you're writing and the writing will suffer greatly.

2) You write about a bunch of people whose views you disagree with, but they're open-minded and reasonable. As time progresses, 'open-minded and reasonable' will consist of a series of 'coming-to-Jesus' moments where they will do the 'right thing' and buck party politics.

or

3) You will have characters that agree with you most of the time.

I can't help but think that (3) is the most viable option in the long term. You can get away with writing characters that you disagree with for a while, but eventually it'll become harder and harder to find common ground or else just fake it.

And in a way it's sad that the political atmosphere has become so ancrimonious that we can't see things from each other's perspective. But honestly, thinking critically about the issues leads us to to beliefs, and a belief closes off conflicting beliefs. That's the way it works. And the alternative is that none of us ever honestly believe anything, which is not good.

The 'West Wing' is successful in part because of its passion. They could have gone with a president without a party and mushy beliefs, but they didn't and that formula worked for them. It even got people like me watching for stretches rooting against the protagonists every step of the way.

I'm not sure it's a really good idea to mess with that formula.

Unless, of course, they want Republican writers. In which case, I need a resume!

The Denver Post editorializes on a proposed smoking ban in Colorado:

State Sens. Dan Grossman, D-Denver, and Jim Isgar, D-Hesperus, joined Reps. Gary Lindstrom, D-Breckenridge, and Mark Larson, R-Cortez, to sponsor the Colorado Indoor Clean Air Act. The Colorado Restaurant Association supports the measure because it prefers a "level playing field" for businesses to what is becoming a crazy-quilt of conflicting local regulations.

I'm generally against this sort of thing and not just because of my friendship with Phil. It's the libertarian in me, I guess, that says we ought to let the market sort it out (Houston, considering a similar measure, already has smoke free bars and restaurants... best of both worlds).

But a "crazy-quilt of conflicting local regulations" can be problematic. Having one town with one set of regulations and a neighboring town with different ones can put some places at a real strategic disadvantage.

So maybe I could approach this with an open mind.

The proposed smoking ban would exempt private homes and vehicles, hired limousines, designated hotel/motel rooms, retail tobacco shops and outdoor areas of businesses. Municipalities would have the right to have their own ordinances that are equal to or tougher than the state law.

Oh. Well nevermind, then.

Addendum: The opening paragraph to a different editorial:

No wonder no one seems to be rushing into the governor's race. Unless there is a fiscal rescue, the next governor is going to find that state finances won't leave much room for creative government.

That might be bad for politicians, but some people might consider that a good thing.

Montana Craig has been writing about James "Dr. Death" Bischoff, a Montana doctor he knew that was accused of 'mercy killing' some of his patients (as well as some liberal drug prescription politicies).

Earlier in the week, a bank in Rexburg was robbed. Rexburg is about half an hour from my work. A small town housing a religious university, bank robberies are not a common occurance.

It didn't take them long to arrest Dr. Bischoff for the robbery.

Craig has the pertinent links.

I always forget St. Patrick's Day. As a kid, I got pinched a lot by all the wrong people. So naturally I forgot about it this year, but I ended up wearing green anyhow. I'm not sure how it shakes out statistically, but one of of every four work days I wear green pants and one out of every five work days I wear a green shirt. Since I never wear green with green, that means that 9 out of every 20 days I will be wearing something green.

This demonstrates that I am lucky to be wearing it today.

And that I'm still a dork.

I got to meet Rick, Pocatello's other good blogger, last night. We met at Mocha Madness, a coffee place right down the street from here that has a two-shots-of-caffiene-for-the-price-of-one deal that got me in some trouble last night when I got home.

Anyway, much to my surprise at about FIVE TILL TEN they were telling us it was time to go. A coffee shop place, right near a university, that closes at 10:00.

That is wrong on so many levels.

I'm a little late to this party, but then I usually am.

The basic thrust of the debate is that one of the FEC commissioners suggested that the FEC might want to start regulating Internet speech:

The real question is: Would a link to a candidate's page be a problem? If someone sets up a home page and links to their favorite politician, is that a contribution? This is a big deal, if someone has already contributed the legal maximum, or if they're at the disclosure threshold and additional expenditures have to be disclosed under federal law.

Certainly a lot of bloggers are very much out front. Do we give bloggers the press exemption? If we don't give bloggers the press exemption, we have the question of, do we extend this to online-only journals like CNET?

I have two basic observations:

First, I don't see it happening for a while. The whole "The Internet is Different" Kool-aid still has a few years left in it. Ten years from now the Internet salex tax and McCain-Feingold will probably be a reality. In what form (for either) I do not know. But it won't happen for a while as campaigns haven't yet been able to fully exploit the Internet yet. But once they can, it'll be another "loophole" that has to be closed.

Second, I can think of no reason why the Internet should be exempt. If we, as a nation, have decided that "clean" elections are more important than the freedom of anyone (including big, bad corporations) to speak freely, then we've made that decision. The different between television and the Internet is only a matter of (a) dollars required and (b) people reached.

As most of you know, I thought McCain-Feingold was a travesty and the fact that the courts believe that shutting big-time donors up was more important than our right to speak freely was absolutely obscene. I would not nearly have had the problem with McCain-Feingold if it had only limited money, but they took it a step further and said that people couldn't take out the ads independently of the campaign. It's one thing to talk about yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. It's another to talk about pornography. But once you start talking about what can and cannot be said at all about political candidates when it matters most (the 60-90 days before an election), that's the very essence of free speech.

And yet the people supported it, congress passed it, the President signed it, and the court agreed with it.

And with that, what's the point in writing out an exception for bloggers? Are we the "right" kind of people to be able to speak our mind on candidates and issues? Or do we have to prove that we're journalists first... by a standard determined by the government we wish to influence. Are the ways we contribute to campaigns Constitutionally different from those of PACs because we're the right kind of people with the right things to say?

Says who?

Says us, I guess.

Says those who couldn't stop the legislation from being inacted in the first place. (motto: We're too ineffectual to be censored!")

And says some of those who decided that it was the government's job to decide who can talk to who and say what about what when it matters. (motto: We meant them. Not us. Them!)

Yawn.

"It's silly to make huge generalizations too quickly, but here's one intriguing thought. Billboard says that Apple, the most aggressive player in this market so far, is selling an average of 500,000 tracks a week. If that's true, and it takes just 1,500 sales to be No. 1, then the variety of tracks that people are downloading must be extremely broad—particularly compared with, say, the variety of tracks that make up a typical Top 40 station's play list." -Rob Walker

7:00am - "Blah, I'm still sleepy."

9:00am - "Woah, I'll have to write an excessively vague post about this later."

11:00am - "Good golly, I'm feeling sluggish."

1:00pm - "Boy howdy, I'm tired."

3:00pm - "Aye carumba, I'm exhausted."

5:00pm - "Gosh, I'm feeling inert."

7:00pm - "Boy, I should take a nap, now. But I can't just yet..."

9:00pm - "Why yes, I will completely disregard every signal my body has given me all day long and have a double-shot of caffeine. It's not like I ought to give myself the chance to have a good night's sleep."

11:00pm - "I am a moron."

Update: All of this in Caffeine Awareness Month, even!

Does anyone know what language this is:

Kymmenen virhettä osuu minuun aika hyvin. Ehkä kirjoitushaluttomuuteni onkin tullut siitä, etten noudata noita ainakin ensikuulemalta fiksuja neuvoja. Itsensä haukkuminen ei tuo mitään lisää eikä herätä sympatiaakaan (ja hyvä niin). Vaikka on hienoa rimpuilla irti ruumismista, lukijoilla on rajalliset aivot ja kirjoittajapersoona pakkaa tietoa. Myönsipä sitä tai ei, aika usein tulee katsottua uudesta blogista ensimmäisenä millainen tyyppi sitä kirjoittaa.

Update: I knew there had to be a way for me to figure it out. I just put the words in Google and looked at extentions. Most of them are ".fi" so it's gotta be Finnish.

Here's apparently what it really says:

Ten mistake quota ego period much. Possibly kirjoitushaluttomuuteni hook became siitä , lest follow wizard anyway ensikuulemalta smart advisor. Herself abusing no yonder aught more nor revive sympatiaakaan ( and good thus ). Although is tops resist off ruumismista lukijoilla is rajalliset brain and kirjoittajapersoona package cognition. Myönsipä it or no , period oft tulee katsottua newly blogista ensimmäisenä millainen original it print.

Glad InterTran helped me figure that out.

I was given an opportunity today. Well, sort of an opportunity and sort of a request. In some ways the opportunity would make my life better. In some ways, it would make it more stressful.

It's funny how it's the decision-making process that can give us the best glimpse of who we are. Not just the decision we come to, but how we go about coming to it.

I'm punting.

I am making my decision contingent upon someone else's decision. This has become a bit problematic because unbeknownst to me, he's made his decision based on what I decide to do.

I'm not sure how that will shake out, but I'm really not sure how comfortable I am with my decision-making process. But it's somewhat familiar.

I'm surprised by how averse I can be to change. Sometimes, when I know a decision has to be made, I'll simply and quietly guide myself in a direction where I will have to pick the way that is probably for the best. In a sense I've made the decision. I just want to keep the consequences of that decision (even if it's a net benefit) off as long as I can, to savor whatever situation I'm in just a little bit longer. Even if I don't like the situation I'm in.

Where I am is always with the devil I know. Even if I know I can't dance with said devil forever, I don't look forward to walking away even if an angel is eyeing me from a corner of the dancefloor.

Just one more song.

Nowhere is this more evident than my desire to contact the giver of the opportunity and say, "Could you just give me another six weeks of my life being the way it is? Surely by then I will be ready for the opportunity you've given me."

And, the thing is, even if I'm not ready, I don't have a choice. And it's when I run out of opportunities that I am sometimes at my best. When I have to walk away. When I have to step up to the plate. When I have to do something. Because it's then, and only then, that I am completely unable to question my judgment.

Update: I've changed a couple words that should dispell some concerns that some people have emailed me about. Changed words are in italics.

There is an interesting - and in parts infuriating - debate going on at Hugo Schwyzer's blog about balancing responsibilities between work and the home.

The gyst of the discussion (primarily with feminist liberal participants) is that it's unfair that the decision to work or stay home falls on the part of the woman and the man.

The implicity assumption is that if a woman chooses not to stay home and they both work, she is held accountable and he is not. The other assumption is that staying at home with the kids is a decision that few men would ever make and therefore it's a huge sacrifice on her part.

I very much agree that the first assumption is true and only partially agree with the second.

The biggest problem is that it is expected that if one party or the other stays home, it's going to be the female. The problem isn't necessarily that it's disadvantageous to women, but that it puts women in a position of choice and responsibility that men do not share.

This cuts both ways.

To the extent that a responsibility is a burden (which it often is), this is quite advantageous to the mail. He is not largely considered responsible for taking care of the children. This remains true when both parties work because many of those assumptions still hold as study after study has demonstrated that in dual-income situations, the women carries more of the home workload including childrearing. This may or may not be met with a corresponding difference in hours worked (ie the man works more hours), but I doubt it completely compensates for the inequality.

But to the extent that it's a choice, it does in fact benefit women. It is percieved that in cases where it is economically possible, she can work or stay home. It can become a no-win situation where a quarter of the public is going to disapprove of the decision you make, but your chances of finding a partner and starting a family are not inherently hindered by whichever you are more interested in doing. (Note: I am discussing these options in a financial void, often a woman who would rather stay home will have to work to make ends meet. While I'll touch on economics a bit, I'm largely looking at attitudes here.)

This is less the case with men that are interested in staying at home. One commenter on Hugo's blog tries to make the point, but it's not heard and, to be frank, it's not particularly well stated. But the point that Thomas was trying to make was that the presumption that it would be the woman to stay home is (a) not just an assumption that men make for their own sake and (b) not just an assumption that men make at all.

Cultural biases run pretty deep. Ideas that were concieved when they made sense continue long after their utility expires. Once upon a time it was the man that needed to work because most long-term work was physical in nature. And as such, the childrearing was left to women (who couldn't work during the later months of pregnancy anyhow). Since most work these days is not physical in nature, the primary rationales (pregnancy, breastfeeding) for upholding this model are diminished (particularly after the first couple of years).

But even so, we grow up believing that things are a certain way. These beliefs can be modified, but pretty hard to reverse. There are also legacy factors. Teachers are (arguably) paid less because in the past it was a secondary household income as teachers were generally women and their husbands worked. Teachers were never set up to be primary breadwinners and so women who go into teaching today are not likely to be able to support a family without additional income. The answer could be to get more men teaching, but when we run into the-way-things-have-always-been again (it's hard to attack these things on multiple fronts simultaneously) and, again arguably, biology - if one is inclined to believe that women are biologically more nurturing.

So we're left with both mental (we think of things in the way that things have been) and practical (institutions are set up according to how things used to be) roadblocks.

The general feeling in the comments section is that men do not want to stay home. This is in large part true. Or, it's true that most of them don't think that they do. A lot have never seriously entertained the possibility. Those that have will often dismiss it because of our cultural biases towards men and work.

A man's identity is in large part formed by his public occupation. Many of the most common last names were even derived from employment (Smith, Carpenter, Archer). This is a hard thing to get out of a guy's head. Some might say that this line of thinking was set up by men to benefit men, but men still hold on to it even when it's not in their best interest to do so: retired men are disproportionaly susceptable to depression after retirement.

Thomas turns this on its head in Hugo's comments by pointing out that even if a man didn't want to stay at home, it would seriously hinder his ability to find a partner because women (including those that have no longing to be June Cleaver) tend to be attracted to breadwinners. Because money is accomplishment. Men think this way and so do women. We're trained to from the get-go. This prospect is more-or-less dismissed out-of-hand. Why would women guard biases that are so obviously disadvantageous to them?

Because they do. We all do. People work themselves silly to get a promotion to another job where they will have a heavier workload. They use money they don't have to buy things that they don't need. People like to have a sense of what they "know" about the world and are reluctant to challenge what little they seem to. But mostly, they don't realize that they've been conditioned and don't even know to fight it.

Let's, for a moment, seperate people into two camps: ambitious and non-ambitious people - and let's apply "ambition" solely to career objectives. Let's assume that the division is 50/50 between men and women. That gives us four archetypes: The ambitious man, the ambitious woman, the unambitious man, and the unambitious woman.

Let's take the ambitious man. An ambitious man is likely to attach himself to the conventions of society. After all, he wants to accomplish and society wants him to accomplish (or at least rewards him for it). Because of the coinciding of values here, he is more likely to buy into the system than is someone with objectives that run against society's grain. This is also true of the unambitious woman who places a higher value on relationships (including, and perhaps especially, family). Both the ambitious man and unambitious woman (and remember I don't mean "unambitious" in a bad way at all) are vested to the same system and their goals are very complimentary and therefore are likely to follow society's traditions (male breadwinner, female homemaker).

So that leaves the odd people out as the ambitious woman and unambitious male. One would think that these two would find complimentary skills and partner up as well. And yet that doesn't happen. Neither of them are likely to be particularly keen to society's traditions because it runs against their own objectives. So without that, there isn't as much to rally around.

The woman will often look at all she's accomplished and expect a man to hold his own by the same set of criteria she thrives for: professional accomplishment. She is likely to see the unambitious male as a "slacker" or otherwise not worth her attention. She's worked hard to get where she is and she's earned someone similarly accomplished.

The woman can usually find herself an ambitious man and will generally elect to do so. If they have children, they're likely to be raised by daycare and nannies while the parents pursue their own career goals.

Then take a look at the unambitious male. He's not likely to be able to really relate to her accomplishments. They're all fine and good, but he's more interested other pursuits such as relationships or other personal endeavors. And unlike the unambitious female, he's not trained to look for a breadwinner and may not even really think to.

The man can usually find himself an unambitious woman and he'll be able to relate to her better than he would an ambitious one. Since neither is likely pulling in huge amounts of money, they'll likely both have to work just to pull in enough money to get by.

Even though women may be at a disadvantage under the biases that we hold, it doesn't mean that they don't hold the same biases. A lot of women may theoretically say they want a man that's supportive, but then don't respect a man that doesn't have as firm objectives as she does. Likewise a man may say that he wants a smart woman, but then look at said woman's career objectives and not believe that she will be as supportive as he needs in a wife.

I'm not arguing that these cultural biases do not favor men. I believe that they do. But they do not uniformly favor men in the way that a lot of people seem to believe. And they do not always favor men at the expense of women. A lot of the time (as with the lonely ambitious woman and unambitious man) they hurt everyone. Sometimes they help everyone.

Being on the losing side (an unambitious male), I'm inclined not to look at it all positively and seek change. Where I disagree with a lot of Hugo's commenters is that I don't feel like I'm a part of the male conspiracy to keep women in their place, and I don't feel that I am up against a conspiracy that is uniformly male.

To date, I've only been in Salt Lake City five times. The first two times were on my way to and from the airport in Spokane. The next couple of times I was rushing through to get to the airport for my trip back to Texas and then rushing to get back to Pocatello. It was not enough to form an opinion.

The fifth and most recent time was this past weekend. Eel is doing a rotation down there and I went down to visit. It's the first real trip I've had to the town.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but... I really, really like Salt Lake City.

Really.

I admit that I was going there with somewhat low expections. It is, after all, one of the religious capitals of the world - for a religion I don't belong to. A religion that bans a lot of things that I like to do. Not exactly a rockin' place. But once I got beyond that, it's just a darn neat town. It's embedded in mountains, a feature that I really like in my temporarily adopted hometown of Pocatello. Except that it's a city with over a million people (MSA), which I tend to like.

It also manages a neat kinda rustic feel without feeling grimey like Denver. While its skyline can't match Houston's, it comes closer than most cities I've been to. Not by quantity of buildings, but quality of uniqueness.

I'm told that the roads were created to be large enough to turn a wagon around on them. The result is that even the non-major roads have three lanes and movement was constant. Granted, it was a weekend, but even so the extra lanes allowed for faster speed limits. The roads are also very methodically numbered, which makes finding your way through town a breeze. To give you an idea, a couple street names were slightly wrong on the directions and I still managed to find her condo without any problem.

We ate at a little international food restaurant and afterwards had coffee in the art district. Her condo had a great look at the skyline and town below. Nice parks. Interesting houses.

A while back I read a book that took place in SLC that discussed some of the tensions between the LDS and non-LDS communities in the town. As I read through it, I never quite understood why the non-LDS folks claimed to like the town so much (while not particularly liking its most famous feature).

Now I have an understanding.

The image to the right is what denotes a state highway in Utah. Different states use different things for this purpose. Texas farm roads and ranch roads (FM & RM) use the state with the number inside the state (though state highways themselves are pretty plain jane. Alabama's state highways has a fat version of their state to accomodate the numbers. Florida's cuts off one of its borders. Idaho puts its off the side, wisely. There's actually a website devoted to this sort of thing. Not all states use the state border, though. The state of Washington has its namesake silhouetted. Colorado's has a flag.

Then there's Utah's. I never knew what exactly to make of Utah's the first time I saw it. I wondered if it was a bell or something, but there were these odd nooks along the side. But mostly I couldn't help but think it looked like... well... a pooping turtle. I finally decided that it must be a building with the poop actually being a door.

After discussing the matter with Eel this weekend, she explained that it was a beehive. Since Utah is the "Beehive State" that actually made some sense.

But it still looks like a pooping turtle to me.

Note: If you click on the link above you'll notice that the Utah one they put up is slightly different from the one that I have. First is the green background, which is what I saw from the freeway and puts it in a little better context. The other difference is the poop/door/entrance, which is higher on its than it is on mine. I'm not sure why, but the door differs from sign to sign. Most that I see has the door in between the legs rather than on the shell, reinforcing my crude interpretation of what the sign represents.

Tami at Reflectivity writes about how you can't escape where you came from.:

So I’m sitting in the stall of a bathroom of a bar, discussing the merits of just one more Jagerbomb with a friend in the next stall over, and these immortal words escaped my lips, “Jest one more shawt ain’t gonna keeeel ya!”

It was an epiphany.

At that moment, in a dank bathroom in a yuppie bar at 1:30 on a sunday morning, I realized that a person can never escape their blood. Sure, we can move to the city and dress like the people in magazines, toasting each other and laughing at jokes that aren’t quite funny, discussing jobs and lives and superficiality like that, but in the end, we can only be what our mommas made us.

Nathan at Brain Fertilizer writes a personal account that relates to the current debate over bankruptcy reform:

But I remember being bitterly disappointed, not that I didn't declare bankruptcy, but that all my sacrifice to do the right thing earned me pretty much nothing. One loan that I had had gone into default while I was at basic training, but I made arrangements and paid back every dime and all the penalties...but due to the wording of the student loan company, for the next 5 years, every time I tried to get credit I had to answer questions about why I had applied for bankruptcy, even though it was obvious I had never declared.
Now, they *did* always extend credit, and after 7 years, I was able to buy a new car and a house...

But I still feel very keenly that it just seemed irritating and frustrating that all my sacrifice earned me nothing...He could buy new computers, computer games, a fairly-new car, CDs, new clothes, everything...and I had to be careful and plan ahead getting to eat out at McDonald's, and drove a car that the passenger side floor had rusted through so you could see the road through it.

A while back Kevin Rant wrote a great post on pressure.

How do I relate? She's a lovely petite blonde, and smart as a whip. Yet, she breezed through undergraduate school on a full athletic scholarship. It's been a straight sail for her; an upward-and-onward, unbroken progression from high school, to undergraduate school and now to law school. To her, this is real pressure; probably the most she's yet faced in her young life.

She's a young 22. I was only a year older, chronologically, at the same point in my life. But I took over a year's detour after undergraduate school, thanks to Uncle Samuel, the Draft, and the Flying Circus sometimes fondly referred to as the "Intelligence Community."

I was still healing, still rehabilitating, from being shot down in a helicopter on my second "mission" during my short stint making the Free World safe from evil "Commie Bastards" and their zipper-head running dogs.

Montana Craig humorously writes what life in his household is like and inducting a new kitty-cat into the fold:

It started to get dark, so I summoned the children into the house while I cooked dinner. My son, upon being detained from one of his favorite activities, launched into a tantrum of mythic proportions, as he is wont to do.

When he slips into this mode, the best (read: only) thing you can do is ignore him and let him work it out. Which we did. Until he started pushing big sister, then he got sent to Time Out. After getting out of Time Out, I had supper ready, and he got himself calmed down. After just a few bites, he left the table, crawled up on the couch and fell asleep. (Aha! That’s why he was so cranky!)

He slept peacefully for approximately 2.1 minutes, right up to the moment that I scooted my chair out from the table. The resulting sound waves generated by a wooden chair leg grating on a hardwood floor startled him awake and triggered yet another crying jag. Possibly the 56th of the evening. I don’t know. I lost count after two.

A little while ago, Opie of OPIEblue wrote an interesting account of being the gay guy at a babyshower, peeking into a life that he can't really have:

It was a nice evening, but kind of sad for me at points - I realized tonight, more so than ever before, that Ellen and Shannon were growing up in a way that I don't know I'll ever get to experience. I don't lament the fact that I'm gay and can't marry and start a family too often, but tonight - seeing Shannon all pregers and seeing Ellen's ring and the knowing that in a few years all we'll have in common is a history of memories - well, its a little sad. I accept that being a gay man means I'll be different - and I know I could live a life close to the heterosexual norm, but I honestly don't see it happening - and, truth be told - I'd don't even know if I'd want that.

And, though I've posted on this before, I feel the need to point it out again. A really interesting (and absolutely adorable) day in the life of my friend (and frequent commenter) Papa Zito:

Angel: Whatever. Here's your list of things to do for today.
God: Blast. All right, thanks Sam.
Sam hands God the list, then exits
God: Let's see here...
God pauses the game, scans the list, then switches back to Windows
God: Okay. Start... Settings.. Control Panel. Mmm-hmm. Stellar Settings. Comet tab. There. Comet will hit Earth in 75 years. Next... ah, right. Let me change the Environment Settings here. There we go. Universal Constant is now 42. Hahah! Try to figure out why THAT happened, scientists. Now, last thing... go to Users and Groups. Okay, scroll down...scroll... there we are. Double-click on that, and check the Pregnancy box. Hahahah! They weren't even trying this time!

Dave Friedman kindly shared this cover letter, which is making the rounds in investment banks. It's pretty... uh... impressive. Not so much in the way that the author intended, though.

Josh Hollinger
159 Lowell House Mail Center
Cambridge, MA 02138

Eric Kim
880 Carillon Parkway
St. Petersburg, FL 33716


Dear Mr. Kim,

Through the Harvard University Faculty of Arts and Sciences Office of Career Services, I learned of Raymond James’ present career opportunities. As a senior at the Harvard College, I have a fervent thirst to command the position of Analyst this coming fall.

My background is most impressive, intimidatingly so, and my resume reiterates said impressiveness. While at Harvard, I have immersed myself in the noble pursuits of classroom and academia by large. Outside the classroom, I have proven myself to be a feral participant in the arduous yet glorifying game of life.

While at Harvard (est. 1626), the university’s culture has become a part of my patchwork; my moral fiber; my being. I have offered my mind and flesh to the young people on this campus with an intense humility. Harvard’s shield of Veritas, meaning truth, is now emblazoned into my spirit. It will bleed through my soul until I die a satisfied human on this great blue marble I call Mother Planet.


Extra-curricularly, I have dominated the Executive Board of 2 unique campus organizations, and founded some also. Currently, I am engaged in a marketing consulting project with a number of diverse student colleagues who are slightly less motivated and less organized than myself. I have also found the time to enroll in classes (normally 4 per semester, two times 5, one time 3 (abnormally extended malady)). I feel my unusual ability to balance homework with classes, friendship with acquaintanceship, and still entertain a sympathetic, understanding, concerned, kind, compassionate, intellectually thrusting and competitive nature helps me to lord it over my colleagues like a King.

If you’ll allow me, I’d like to illustrate the type of Raymond James colleague that I will be through a representative story, or analogy. Simply put, the financial world is a sweet-johnson dance party. As your colleague, I will roll-up on other analysts in that piece (conference room) and start flashing my ice (i.e. a bangin’ portfolio) until they step off my shorty (client). I’ll spot the bond market in the corner, advance, and subsequently badunka-dunk-dunk it without mercy until it ejects money like a cash-hydrant.

I command an understanding of many financial terms, including but not limited to Visa, insider trading, W-2, audit, depreciation, appreciation, federal reserve, ATM, futures market, annual reports, proxy statements, form 10-K’s, fiscal responsibility, cash, denaro, green-“backs,” and, last but not least, money.

Raymond James is interviewing at Harvard on November 10, 2004. My schedule is flexible and I am willing to accommodate you at certain times concurrent with my daily planner. Enclosed is a copy of my resume for your review and reading pleasure. Thank you for my consideration, and I look forward to controlling money this September.

Sincerely,

Josh Hollinger

There apparently is a Josh Hollinger that has attended Harvard somewhat recently. He was recruited for their lacross team in 2000. So it sounds like he would be at the point where he's looking for work, so this could be genuine.

If is is genuine and that is the guy, though, it would be odd for him not to mention his lacrosse grandeur.

Update: Adrianne chimes in in the comments with the source of the joke. Good to know that the folks at Harvard have a sense of humor.

Your Brain is 46.67% Female, 53.33% Male

Your brain is a healthy mix of male and female You are both sensitive and savvy Rational and reasonable, you tend to keep level headed But you also tend to wear your heart on your sleeve

Your Seduction Style: Ideal Lover

You seduce people by tapping into their dreams and desires. And because of this sensitivity, you can be the ideal lover for anyone you seek. You are a shapeshifter - bringing romance, adventure, spirituality to relationships. It all depends on who your with, and what their vision of a perfect relationship is.

You Are 65% Left Brained, 35% Right Brained

The left side of your brain controls verbal ability, attention to detail, and reasoning. Left brained people are good at communication and persuading others. If you're left brained, you are likely good at math and logic. Your left brain prefers dogs, reading, and quiet. The right side of your brain is all about creativity and flexibility. Daring and intuitive, right brained people see the world in their unique way. If you're right brained, you likely have a talent for creative writing and art. Your right brain prefers day dreaming, philosophy, and sports.

I Am A: True Neutral Half-Elf Mage


True Neutral characters are very rare. They believe that balance is the most important thing, and will not side with any other force. They will do whatever is necessary to preserve that balance, even if it means switching allegiances suddenly.


Half-Elves are a cross between a human and an elf. They are smaller, like their elven ancestors, but have a much shorter lifespan. They are sometimes looked down upon as half-breeds, but this is rare. They have both the curious drive of humans and the patience of elves.


Mages harness the magical energies for their own use. Spells, spell books, and long hours in the library are their loves. While often not physically strong, their mental talents can make up for this.


Find out What D&D Character Are You?, courtesy of NeppyMan!

After much procrastination, my taxes have been filed.

I had to call Dad and get some information from a W-2 form that was in Texas. He'd read me a number, I'd read it back to him. Repeat process. All the while wearing a handless headset. It gave me flashbacks from my six weeks of tech support.

The tax program kicked me off for inactivity because it was taking too long, so we had to go through it again. This time we did it before I logged on again so that (a) he could go to bed and (b) I wouldn't time out again. But then it actually saved what I'd typed in before. Wacky software reminded me of my six weeks at tech support.

In Idaho, they have this bizarre thing called a "state income tax." That meant that I had to file twice. Repeating the same thing over and over again reminded me of my six weeks of tech support.

Except that between Uncle Sam and Uncle Tater, I am getting a not-insignificant sum.

That part does not remind me of my six weeks of tech support at all.

An SMU professor teaching a class on the world wide web has a site on blogs.

The good news: It lists tons of blogs, including RAWbservations.

The bad news: It lists the old blogspot version, which is two blogs old and ceased publication in January 2003.

This has been making the rounds in recent weeks. Basically bloggers are asking one another five questions. Instead of the usual "Friday Five" sort of thing, these are tailored to the individual being asked. I got pinged by Craig over at MTPolitics cause I commented on his blog when he answered his set.

Here are the questions he asked and my answers:

1. Can you tell us what the “R.” in your name stands for?

Having lips and a tongue, I am indeed capable of saying what the "R." stands for.

2. As a displaced Houstonian, what was the biggest culture shock in moving to Idaho?

There have been several, but the biggest by far has been closing times. Houston is a 24-hour city. If you want coffee, to make copies, or grab a bite to eat you can do it whenever you want. Options become more limited as the night wears on, but there's always something. The biggest example is IHOP, which is the standard post-bar joint. In Pocatello it closes at 10pm. Some chores are also difficult to accomplish. Kinko's is another great example, open 24 hours down there but not so much up here. Oh, and almost nothing is open on Sundays, it seems.

3. What’s the one book you’ve wanted to read, but haven’t yet?

I'm pretty interested in theology. I've been trying to wade through the Book of Mormon in recent months. I'd really like to read the Quran at some point.

4. Baseball or football? Why?

When I was younger I was definitely a baseball person. The older I've gotten, the more it's been football. There's more strategy involved in the latter and it's more of a team sport.

5. You write a lot about work. Do you ever worry about getting dooced?

Not as much as I used to. A few weeks ago there was a "purging" of posts that went into more detail about my work environment than an employer would rightly wish to present. The easier it became to identify my employer, the more I felt obligated to leave them out of it. It's one thing to write about a faceless employer in a city as large as Houston (which couldn't possibly be identified) and another entirely to write about one in Idaho Falls, where it's not so difficult. Pseudonyms are insufficient. Part of it is posterior-obstruction, but part of it is in fairness to my employer.

I post periodically on conversations had at work, but am moving steadfastly against any of the goings on and probably the job itself. I'm at the point now where if one of my coworkers were to discover the blog, it wouldn't be a problem for me.

----

Anyhow, I'll do the same as Craig did. The first five people to comment on the blog will get five questions. If they want to opt out, just say "Pass" at the bottom of the comment.

Since discovering his blog, Sammler has become a daily read. I usually agree, sometimes don't, but his insights into all manner of issues always gets me thinking. Today he made the following comment that I can't quite get on board with:

Today, with affirmative action widespread, I think it is universally accepted that blacks will often be offered better positions than merited on the basis of qualifications. The debate over affirmative action is a disagreement over whether this is a good thing.

It depends, I suppose, on how you define "often." I can agree that it happens periodically and given the number of people that are hired on a given day, it could constitute the adjective "often." But that word, to me, suggests a frequency that's not a relatively insignificant percentage of blacks hired day in and day out. That's where I fall out of "universally."

For most advertised positions, I'd imagine that there are more individuals that are qualified to do it than there are positions to fill. I personally have been turned down a ton of times for jobs I easily could have handled. Why? I'd guess because there was someone more qualified than myself that was hired instead of me. Each time I was hired, I also imagine that there were other individuals who were qualified but sent back to the drawing board.

There are two questions: (1) What should and should not be considered when you have multiple candidates that are qualified for a given position and (2) What actually is considered when you have multiple candidates for the job. Most of us should be able to agree that in an ideal world race would not be a factor when it comes to hiring folks. But is affirmative action the only way that race is considered? Or, less drastically, is affirmative action more frequently a factor in hiring decisions than the racism is purports to counter? Is the proverbial cure worse than the disease?

That's where half of the disagreement is (the other half is whether or not the government has any business in addressing racial injustice even where it does exist. I will not explore that particular topic in this post). Even leaving aside the "atonement for past sins" rationale for affirmative action, there is a case to be made that affirmative action is still necessary in the here and now.

Any white person that is honest with himself will admit that he knows a racist. Not the skinheaded or white-hooded kind, but the kind that speaks in awfully broad strokes about other races and is not bashful in expressing his disapproval for the collective racial behavior of other groups. They're trained to tack an "I'm not racist but..." in front of their comments and hide behind Chris Rock (or Bill Cosby), but the overall message is: we'd all be getting along if it wasn't for those blacks/Hispanics would just get their act together and stop blaming everything on racism.

These people are not uncommon. They are not extreme cases. Most of the time, if the issue doesn't come up, you don't even know they hold the views they do. If it does come up, you find common ground with them and focus on that in order to avoid a pointless argument. But here's the deal: All across the country, people like that are making HR decisions. They are interviewing candidates. It is their subjective measurements that determine who does and does not get a particular job. It is these people that minorities must place their faith in to get a job. I don't blame them for being worried.

And more than that, it doesn't even take that. We're all wired to judge people based on appearence and skin tone is one of its most obvious features. We're all inclined to make judgments about people based on incomplete data. An interview is about more than a resume. If it was just a matter of qualified/not-qualified there wouldn't even need to be interviews. During an interview, an employer tries to get a feel for who they are going to hire: Will they fit in? Do they have the personal traits we're looking for? A lot of these subjective judgments come down to impressions. Impressions are subject to our biases. People feel more comfortable with people like themselves. People are more likely to think that those that look more like everyone else will get along better than everyone else.

The point to all of this is that it's not hard to see that the deck might - just might - be stacked pretty heavily in favor of the norm. Racially speaking, the norm is presently white. And I can honestly say in an absolute void and even with affirmative action in place, I would much rather go into the office of an interviewer with white skin than with darker skin.

So am I advocating affirmative action? Not necessarily. I have some pretty serious problems with it. When it comes to college admissions, I think it does more harm than good. A lot of the subjective judgments that plague job interviews aren't as much a factor when you're looking at GPAs and test scores. Not to mention that I think public schools doing this are unquestionably in unconstitutionalland. But in the working world, I'm not sure how much faith I'd put in the people doing the hiring to make the correct subjective assessments without some sort of measuring stick and if we were in a city as diverse as (for instance) Houston and yet 4/5 of incoming employees were white, I'd want to know why.

There are a fair number of non-English speakers in Houston. I used to joke about my old apartment complex that English was the third language there, fourth if you count Ebonics. But on the whole I had a great deal of respect for my neighbors, packed by the dozen in apartments, hanging out at a "job pick-up" point at the break of d