I'm a work-in-progress and there are several ways in which I would like to improve myself when it comes to my sociability, but one thing I like about myself is my tendency to get to know clerks at places I frequent. I live across the way from a convenience store and got to know a guy that worked there well enough that if I'd known he was going to quit I probably would have gotten some contact information to hang out with him some time.

Since then I've gotten to know the young lady that took his place. Sweet girl, about college age I'd guess. I also got a pretty good reminder of how little you know about someone and how off your guesses can be about their lifestyle.

Commenting about her jacket, she said that it wasn't really hers, but her fiance wouldn't really be able to until he got out of prison anyway.

It actually took some doing to get me to like the taste of beer. It surely did not come to me naturally. When I first started going to live music shows, I mostly stuck to Gold Schlauger. That got really expensive really fast. Once it became apparent that my interest in live music would not begin and end with Phil Pritchett and that it would become a regular thing, I decided to economize. Not only was beer cheaper, but it lasted longer. I'd learned the hard way what happens when your primary drink is something that can be consumed in seconds.

The Firehouse Saloon then was not the Firehouse of today. The air conditioning was wholly insufficient for a Houston summer. The beer was cold and wet in a rather warm environment and I correctly strategized that my taste buds would associate beer with refreshment - I'd pulled off the same trick with Diet Coke months before. A cold beer in a warm environment is what got me in to it to begin with.

Idaho, to say the least, is not as warm as Houston. The warm drinking season is also considerably shorter. However, I have now been introduced to the cold drinking season.

Camille and I took a trip to Jackson, Wyoming over the weekend. The weather turned a week or so back and there was much snow on winding roads with grades of 10% and greater. At one point on the way to Wyoming we had a little bitty bit of trouble getting past an ice-patch that had kept an oil truck stationary for quite a while. I think the second or third sentance out of my mouth when we arrived was to thank our generous host Linus if he had any beer. Man, did I need a beer. On the way from we were going downhill on snowy and icy road. I wanted a beer then, too.

The weather has been white ever since. The 50-minute drive home from work actually took 75. Not because it was a relaxed drive. Whereas in Houston I associated beer with hot and sunny weather, I'm increasingly associating it up here with the cold and snow.

Man, do I need a beer.

Every now and again, you meet someone and fall in love and they will teach you things you never knew that you never knew and make you see things you didn’t know you weren’t seeing.

This happened over this weekend when Camille demonstrated that my car has rear window defrost. I had thought that it worked on the same basis as the windshield defrost and was simply broken. Turns out that there’s a separate button. Who knew?

She also stopped at a gas station less than ten miles north of Idaho Falls because of what she described as smudges on the windshield. I couldn’t for the life of me see what she was talking about. Anyway, I had to run into the convenience store and grab some some Windex and paper towels. After we cleaned the windshield, I could see what she was talking about.

Camille generally seems to be quite interested in this “safety” thing, particularly when it comes to “visibility.” In short, she is highly unimpressed with my tolerance for visual ambiguity.

Some of you may recall that this has been an issue before.

Updated: Link fixed.

Renegade Utahn Maddox fires a salvo against Taterland.

Not only is Idaho a ho-hum state, Idahoans (their word, not mine) are gullible. Idaho was named in 1860 by George M. Willing, a mining lobbyist who pulled the name out of his ass (look it up). He picked the name "idaho" and told congress that it was a Shoshone Indian word that meant "Gem of the Mountains." Most westerners in the United States are completely devoid of any cultural heritage, so it has always been popular out here to latch onto American Indian monikers. When people finally caught on that "Idaho" was a made up name, it was too late. The name caught on and the morons who live there have called themselves "Idahoans" ever since.

I propose that we give Idaho back to the British, since that's who we got it from in the first place. I don't think it'll be too much of a problem because there aren't a lot of people in Idaho. According to the 2004 Census report, Idaho's population is 1,393,262. Just for comparison, there are 1,970,000 cows in Idaho. New rule: if your state has more cows than people, you don't get to be a state anymore.

I actually consider Utahns to be worse drivers than Idahoans. Utah and Idaho tend to have little use for one another. I guess it's like a Wisconsin/Minnesota thing where it's a too-alike thing rather than a too-different one. Utah is majority Mormon and in Idaho they are a plurality - a majority in eastern Idaho, with which Utah gets the most exposure. Utah is the most conservative Republican state in the country, Idaho is #2. But few of the people up here - including Mormons - seem to care much for Utah and the feeling among Utahns seem to be similar about Idaho.

Of course, Maddox is completely non-representative of Utah In fact, you coulda knocked me over with a feather when I discovered that was his base of operations, though it does partly explain his bitterness.

His history of the name of Idaho is a bit off, though, from what I understand. It was Colorado that was taken in by the scam. Colorado was originally slated to be named Idaho after a made-up Indian word. Shortly before it became a state, it was discovered that it wasn't a real word and they went back to the name of Colorado. In the meantime, though, there was a ferry that was named Idaho after the proposed name of Colorado. The ferry lead to what is current day Idaho and so people who went from Colorado to the unnamed land did so by the Idaho and began to use that as the name of the unnamed land. And this time it stuck.

And he should lay off Idaho's potatoes. They are that good up here.

Presuming:
(A) that John Kerry had won the 2004 Presidential Election, and
(B) that, acting on the same information that President Bush has at his disposal, had kept our troops in Iraq and done things mostly the same way;

Answer the following question: what percentage of the current Democrats/War Protesters would still be protesting, and what percentage of the current hawks on the Republican/Conservative side would be protesting instead for some reason?

Bonus Points: What does this reveal about the state of current politics?

I managed to cash in some chips at work so that I can be home for Christmas.

This is going to be so awesome. It's going to be awesome spending Christmas with my family. It will also be awesome to go to Lafayette and hang out with Camille's family. Seeing friends. Awesome. Awesome. Awesome.

What's not going to be awesome is the live country music scene. Now considering that it will be the weak between Christmas and New Years, I don't expect much. But my last three years down there I was treated to outstanding New Years shows by Roger Creager, Bleu Edmondson, and Randy Rogers. Naturally, I assumed that whomever they got would be up to that caliber.

So excitedly I check the Firehouse's website to see what live music I will be listening to as I ring in the New Year. Instead of an anticipatory sound of a song I await hearing, I hear that of laughter. Laughter from a very, very bad joke.

Honeybrowne.

The boys of Honeybrowne are the spokesmen for the Texas chapter of Tampon Sales International. Their music, actually, isn't that bad. I bought their first two CDs, went to the trouble of compiling them into one for easier listening, and Deeper Shade of Blue [lyrics, though the site has popups and you can't go "Back", which is roughly half as annoying as what I'm about to describe] is might actually make the Top 25 Texas music songs. But as a live act, they are utterly uninspiring at best. The first time I went to one of their shows, I left fifteen minutes in - coming to $.67 per minute of entertainment. I went home and listened to their CD instead.

Their lead singer is a boy-toy with vocal chords and gestures that young ladies seem to find appealing for some reason or another (something tells me he could be flipping them all the bird while drooling uncontrollably and he would be similarly "appealing." Their stage presence ranges from passable to that of a high school band trying to be rock-and-roll kewl. Think Ben Folds's Rockin' the Suburbs [lyrics] and you're on the right track.

The second time I saw them play, I again left twenty minutes into their set (this time I got my money's worth as Phil Pritchett opened), as did my two companions (they actually left before I did). The third time I saw them they were opening for Phil and were so bad that one companion said "I swear to god, if they play one more song I'm leaving." and volunteered to sit in the car -- this was after significant improvement. They were, by this point, leaps and bounds ahead of where they were. Deeper Shade of Blue was actually recognizable. And I say all this with at least some appreciation for their music (as performed on the record).

But the lead singer is hot and knows how to shake his booty, so they remain popular with people who really should (and have demonstrated the ability) to know better. And they're getting the prime New Years Show. And the blasted joke is on me.

The entire New Years picture is looking incredibly bleak.

Blanco's appears to be going with John Evans, who is not nearly as annoying on stage as is Honeybrowne, but whose music I don't like. I've been to two Evans shows and stayed the duration for neither. The Armadillo Palace has Jesse Dayton, whom I've never really gotten in to. Maybe I should try, cause the Continental Club is going R&B and the Innkeeper is going with somebody I've never heard of.

If anyone knows of any good music shows on New Years, please let me know. I think we'd even be willing to drive to Bryan or College Station or even New Braunfels or San Marcos.

I just wanna hear some danged music. It's incredible that I got better Texas music in Idaho last New Years than I appear likely to get in Houston this one.

CG Hill has an thoughtful post up on Walmart wages and one Donald Ramaker's take on the argument that Walmart is costing the taxpayers because they pick up the slack between what Walmart pays and what it's employers need to live on:

Let’s take the issue of living wages first. One of the great mantras of the Left is that Walmart workers who are single parents typically earn less than the poverty level. It is said that they can’t live on the low wages paid by the evil profiteering Walmart. One has to ask: if you are a single parent, why are you working at Walmart?! Unless you are management, it is a well known fact that you will not make a living wage working in retail, regardless of what store it is. Or are the crusaders on the Left claiming that anyone can be a single parent and make it by working at Target or Kmart, because those companies pay so much more? Retail is a half step above fast food in that anyone working there is typically a student, a part-timer working their second job or full timer working their household’s second job, a retiree, or……..a loser.

Part of me is inclined to not only agree, but to ask those that use this argument if they're sure of the implications. From a market point-of-view, the problem isn't that Walmart is paying so low, it's that the government is helping out at all. Liberals and conservatives may agree that the situation is undesirable, but the common cause ends right there.

That being said, there are some legitimate issues hovering about. Conservatives getting too comfy on their high horse can begin to sound like Eric Cartman screaming at the destitute Costa Ricans to get a job. The thing about these low-wage jobs is that someone has to have them. No matter how many college degrees we give out, we only have so much need for engineers and software programmers in this country.

At the end of the day, someone has got to flip the burgers and bag the groceries. We can call them lazy and stupid all day long if we want, but in many cases they're doing a job that we don't want to do. The conflict America faces is that there must be such people in this country and that working people deserve respect. Heaven help conservatives if we can't agree on that latter point. Market capitalism, wonderful though it may be, leaves gaps that must be covered by someone. Talk of fairness rings hollow when someone is fairly starving to death.

I guess where I part company with the more staunch libertarians and conservatives is that capitalism is, to me, the means to an end. While I do not believe we could have just pumped money into New Orleans's Ninth Ward and it all would have been okay, it is uncumbent upon us as people to put a system in place to try to minimize the span and impact of such places in this country. Capitalism may be a better way to do it than socialism, but it's a way to achieve results, not results in themselves. When and if the system fails to reward work, the system needs to be investigated.

The challenge we face is to harness the power of market-incentives and do what we can to provide the means of those in the lower cusp of things the opportunity to work there way up. The American Scene's Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam have been fleshing this out for some time now and it has been most thought-provoking reading, propelling them to join Brothers Judd as the two must-read blogs of the conservative blogosphere (albeit for different reasons).

If I could set up one conversation to occur between liberals and conservatives, it would be over the balance between economic justice, whose face is capitalism, and social justice, whose face is charity. Unfortunately, in many ways we've bogged each other down in debate over personalities and the dogmatic tendency to see things exactly so that they will confirm what we already believe.

What makes a good band name?

There are a number of factors involved, in my estimation. I tend to prefer band names that are plural (Jayhawks, for instance) but others disagree. I think that band names should avoid being too long ("And You Will Know Us By the Trail of Dead", for instance, is too long). I would say no more than three words, though some exceptions may apply.

But it's not long names I am interested in talking about today, it's short ones. Short and generic ones. Ones you can't google. It may be the computer nerd in me that says as much, but bands ought to increasingly consider the googlability of a band's name.

A classic example would be the band Live. The good news for that name, I guess, is that even during the heyday of Napster it was difficult to find their music. They're big enough that if you put "live band" in google you will find some information, but that would be pretty difficult to pull off these days.

Recently I've become interested in a couple of bands that it is rather difficult to get information on. The first is an pot-country band out of Sacramento named Jackpot. Not only are there a couple bands out there named Jackpot, but like Live it's littered with completely irrelevent links. If I didn't already know that they're from Sacramento, I never would have been able to find their website. Another band is Missouri alt-country outfit Hadacol, who found a long time ago on eMusic. I was wondering if they had new stuff, but because they named themselves after an established product, I really have no way of finding out.

My best friend was in a band called The Drinks, which was doubly bad. They were a quite talented group, but who is going to stop at a bar when all it says on the marquee is "Tonight... The Drinks"... do they even know it's a band? Hadacol and Jackpot would run into the same problem, the former being a type of drink and the latter possibly implying gambling night or something.

So not only are these names bland, but they're quite impractical.

So to anyone naming a band: don't give your band a lame name.

Next lesson: Don't have a lame website. Jackpot really needs a new one. Complain, complain...

A little while back Aldahlia gave me a link to A Vindication of the Rights of Vampires, saying that it made her think of me. Not sure what to make of that last part, but I did find the point-of-view to be fascinating from a purely philosophical standpoint. The question is whether or not a vampire that could only exist on human blood would be entitled to individual rights. Murray Rothbard says no, Francis Dumouchel makes a case that they could co-exist peacefully under free-market capitalism.

It's labelled satire, but I actually think that Dumouchel really has a point. Though I can see good arguments both ways.

A while back I mentally drafted a backdrop with similar repercussions: Could a post-industrial democracy exist in a fantastical world that included humans, elves, hobbits, gnomes, and orcs. A lot of it depends on which incarnation of the above you use and in many it would be completely incompatible. The different races had different lifespans (which proved to be quite significant) and different reproductive rates that caused demographics to shift and political power and allegiances to shift accordingly.

On one side was the "old ways" mage party (actually a collection of parties in a parliamentary system, but a pretty consistent alliance). They reliably had upwards of 90% of the elven vote, 60-70% of the orc vote, 30-40% of the human vote, and less than 10% of the gnomes (hobbits/halflings were not an electoral power, though they leaned more favorably on the magens. They were generally a conservative bunch, supporting piety, environmental conservation, and federalism. Elves had the biggest sway in the party and they very much just wanted to be left alone to their families and their communities and their magic. They mostly just wanted the government to stop wars and protect their lands from being paved and built upon.

On the other side were the technologists. As elves are at the center of the mage alliance, gnomes are at the center of the technology alliance in part because their mining activities are more rewarded by technology than magic, in part because of their materialism, and in part because of animus towards the elves. The technologists are generally lead, however, by humans. Humans tend towards the technologists because they simply don't live as long as the elves and the beauty of technology is that it lets each generation build on the successes of the previous (rather than learning the magic ways from scratch, which they would never live as long to even be able to approach the elves).

The magen alliance held power throughout most of the span of the confederation. Uniformity among the elves and the sizable orc vote was enough to put them over the top. They generally went out of their way to rule by consensus, however, lest relations dissolve and wars resume. As time passed, however, the elves continued to hone their magical skill while the humans and gnomes procreated like bunny rabbits. The orcs repopulated quickly, but they had high infant mortality rates due to their lacking the social support networks that the other races had afforded themselves.

At the time of the story, the first technologist Prime Minister had been elected and government reform is sweeping through. As the tide shifted towards the techies, the mages lost their hold on the orcs. The orcs were never very ideological creatures to begin with and mostly gravitated towards the magen because they were in power. The new Prime Minister also made capturing the orc vote a priority and set out to extend gold benefits to the orc ghettos in the cities, which had long been neglected. With the orcs shifting and everybody but the elves reproducing in high numbers, many elven communities started relocating to the next kingdom down. The technologists were on the cusp of a perpetual majority in which they had little intention of being as conciliatory as the mages had been.

The the story opens with the last magen Prime Minister about to be ousted. The idea itself wasn't particularly political and mostly dealth with a team of government agents in charge of putting out potential insurrections and subvert the two neighboring kingdom's attempts to feed the flame, so to speak. But even that's sort of a backdrop for a human story of revenge, growing up, and making peace with where you come from.

I guess it's a longer leap from vampire rights to the Four Kingdoms story I plotted out (but lost my blueprint with a harddrive some time back) when written down than it is in my mind. And it's probably more fun for me to think about than it is for you to read.

Five weeks after the Guardian gloated that there was "little the US government can do but acquiesce" to demands that it cede control of the Internet's infrastructure, the US did not acquiesce to demands that it cede control of the Internet's infrastructure. Read carefully and you can almost sense the AP writer's disappointment, or at least his attempts to spin it as a defeat.

First, the article's title: "Nations Urge U.S. to Cede Internet Control."

Except that the US did not cede control of the Internet's infrastructure. Nor did it promise to at a later date.

Representatives of a number of countries remained adamant that U.S. control must be tempered if the Internet is to fully reach its potential. And even traditional allies of Washington considered it to have opened the door to the possibility of more shared governance.

Except that the US did not cede control of the Internet's infrastructure. Nor did it promise to at a later date.

Mugabe's remarks signaled that, despite the U.S. success in winning over a broad group of nations including the
European Union bloc, underlying complaints about American hegemony in Internet control still linger.

In an extreme case, complaints left unchecked could prompt dissatisfied countries to create their own addressing system, splintering the Internet such that two people typing in the same Web address may reach different sites, depending on where they live.

Questions about the Internet's plumbing have overshadowed the summit's original intent: to address ways to expand communications technologies to poorer parts of the world.

Except that despite assurances that the US would have to cede control of the Internet's infrastructure, it did not. Nor did it promise to at a later date.

You also have to appreciate how the only admission that the US won over a broad group of nations including the EU (which had previously supported internationalization) comes after the word "despite."

"The U.S. has done a good job making the Internet safe for robust political discussion and commerce, but will gradually need to start recognizing international norms," said Frank Pasquale, a law school professor at Seton Hall University in New Jersey.

Except that the US did not cede control of the Internet's infrastructure. Nor did it promise to at a later date.

I'm really not looking to gloat here. Truth be told, I don't believe that the Internet should be under the control of a single government. I definitely believe, however, that it should not be under the control of many governments. Declan McCullough and Kenneth Neil Cukier explained all that was at stake, and the stakes were considerable. The anti-US side can redefine victory all day long, but they were supposed to at least get the promise of the UN taking control of ICANN.

It was, in fact, the fear of thugs like Robert Mugabe (last seen trying to crack down on email activists) taking control of things that prompted the Commerce Dept to pledge to hold on ICANN longer. The problem with this issue is the same problem with the UN at large: it makes no distinction between democratic states and authoritarian ones. The result of all of this is that there is now plenty of time to cool off and discuss feasible plans for unnationalizing (as opposed to internationalizing) the Internet and holding on to the freedoms that make it so worth holding on to.

And that's a victory for everyone but the bad guys.

Edit: AP Link Added

Update: I wonder if I might actually be misreading the tone. The BBC has a much more straightforward accounting of events and I'm much more suspicious of slants in their coverage than the AP's. I'm wondering if the whole "UN wants control of the Internet" isn't so much an effort to obscure the actual results, but rather an attempt to catch up on the story since there wasn't much coverage of the issue to begin with. Before explaining that US retains control of the Internet, you must explain that someone else wanted control. Of course, one journalistic mistake (missing a story with important repercussions) with another (framing the story poorly) is not particularly impressive. In any event, even if so it conveniently obscures a diplomatic success by the government while playing up the "The World Hates Us Because of Bush" angle that one frankly expects to see more in the BBC than the AP.

Houston apparently has a good chance of landing San Jose's MLS team, the Earthquakes. The Houston Earthquakes is a pretty crummy name, but then again the MLS is littered with... uhh... curious names (Real Salt Lake? Citiless MetroStars? Club Diportivas Chivas USA?).

We used to have an indoor soccer team named the Houston Hotshots. There was a guy named Nebo that used to play for them and my high school had a Nebo fan club that was (no kidding) chalk full of some of the most popular kids on campus.

I'm not a big soccer person, but it's certainly a better fit than hockey - and doubtlessly less expensive. Houston's vigorous Hispanic population often crowded UH's Robertson stadium for this soccer game or that. It made it impossible to maneuver around campus in a car. If they can attract anything close to that kind of attendence, I think it'll be a success.

If you're astounded by the lack of intellectually stunning commentary, it's because I'm talking about soccer.

Rob Booth is a little more excited and has FURLed a few worthwhile links.

The movie Napoleon Dynamite made Preston, Idaho, famous as a quaint mountain town a little out-of-step with the times. Preston, an hour or two south of Pocatello, has recently become famous - or perhaps infamous is more appropriate - in its own right due to official misconduct.

A couple months ago, Preston's Police Cheif Scott Shaw plead guilty to misuse of public money and perjury:

Count Six charged Shaw with misuse of public money by accepting and depositing into his own account a City of Preston check in the amount of $882. According to the complaint, the money was for tuition and per diem to attend the FBI Command College, and Shaw did not attend or attempt to attend the training.

Count Seven accused Shaw of perjury during a deposition in a civil lawsuit Shaw brought against the City of Preston. According to the complaint, Shaw falsely stated under oath that he had kept the $882 in his desk to be used as “buy” money.

As part of a plea agreement, the Attorney General’s Office dismissed the remaining five counts. Those counts alleged unlawful activity by Shaw in obtaining, serving and processing a search warrant at the Preston residence of Bart Pitcher. Pitcher was convicted and sentenced to prison as a result of the unlawful search.

Pitcher's conviction was overturned and he's now suing just about everybody in sight, including Shaw and former Preston Mayor Heusser, who was apparently Pitcher's parole officer:

Pitcher was allegedly coerced into pleading guilty to meth possession and trafficking charges as well as forfeiting property, including his home, vehicles, a trailer, two dragsters, a motorcycle and more.

“Shaw wanted to keep the motorcycle as a trophy,” the document says. Officer Greg Balue allegedly used one of Pitcher's vehicles as his own.

Pitcher was told if he refused, racketeering, rape and federal firearm violations would be filed against him. The home and business of Shaw's ex-wife were also confiscated after Shaw threatened her with unfounded charges.

“Approximately $10,000 was deposited into the Franklin County Drug Endowment Fund from the sale of property seized from (Pitcher and his family),” the complaint says. “Shaw believed that the assets forfeited in Bart's case would ultimately yield approximately $750,000, with which he wanted to build a new police station.”

An investigation by Attorney General Lawrence Wasden's office resulted in Pitcher's conviction being set aside and much of the confiscated property returned. It is also the basis for the civil suit.

It basically alleges that Pitcher was recruited to be an informant to get out of a jam. When Pitcher wanted out to get a handle on his drug problem, the city turned their dogs on Pitcher with some charges that appear to be trumped up. Shaw was sentenced last week and apparently Heusser has just been indicted for misuse of funds. It does not paint a pretty picture.

My coworker Bryce is part of a sweat equity program, meaning that he helps build his house (and nine others) in return for a reduced payment. It's one of those government programs that I can't help but support. The group building their houses are almost certainly going to appreciate it a lot more and in a sense they are merely being paid for their labor. It's that sort of government assistence that promotes a good work ethic and helps those get a house that otherwise wouldn't be able to afford it.

Cold weather has officially hit Pocatello and Idaho Falls. The snow was falling sideways earlier. Even when it wasn't snowing, it was cold and overcast. I'm still new enough to Idaho that I like the cold. Unfortunately, this winter I will be unable to celebrate either the snow or the cold.

Unfortunately, now every time it snows and is overcast and is cold, I can't help but feel sorry for Bryce since he's going to have to work in it. Right now they're roofing the house, which is particularly problematic in this kind of weather.

It's kind of a downer when otherwise I'd want to cheer the weather.

Of course, come February I'll welcome the warmth and Bryce and I will be on the same page.

I was wandering aimlessly around Walmart last night when I stumbled into the gun department. A little girl was wandering into the aisle. The father, trying to get his little two-year old (or so) girl to come back said, "Careful, sweety, or that man is going to run you over."

The girl looked at me in horror, asking "Why would you do such a thing?" with her eyes, bursting into tears and running back into the arms of the father.

I don't ordinarily like being cried at, but I guess since it got her to go back to her dad it was for a good cause...

This is just an observation. I may be entirely wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not. It's an observation of political leanings, too, so feel free to pick it apart.

I'm following up on RAW's earlier post below, somewhat, in that it sparked some things I read a while back. If you look over the blogosphere, in respect to the recent Texas constitutional amendment outlawing Gay Marriage, there are pretty much two reactions - "eh" and "OMG WTF those Texans are so intolerant." This seems to be especially true of certain blogs I read that are authored by Texans who were vehemently opposed to the amendment before it passed.

Strangely disheartening, despite the fact that the amendment passed by a more-than-clear majority, is two common components: comment posts explaining rationally why someone would vote for the amendment, and comment posts by those who are in agreement but don't agree about calling people names.

Thus, the "echo chamber." It has been posited that part of the reason for the political split in the country has to do with people's associations: as politics gets more charged up, people start using political views as an excuse to disassociate with people (because their political discussions don't remain friendly). Pretty soon, they get to the point where many sit today - a soundproofed echo chamber where their own viewpoint is reflected back at them by their friends, and opposing viewpoints are bounced out by a wall of "I can't believe you just said that, you're so uneducated/redneck/bigoted/intolerant/insert vitriol here."

Obviously, the left has no monopoly on this. Listen to a radio talk show like Limburger or inHannity and you get much the same format - a host going on and on, who gladly accepts callers who agree, and whose concept of "reasoning" with someone who disagrees more or less consists of cutting them off in the middle of any statement they make.

However, the echo chamber of the left, at least to me, seems more institutionalized and uncomfortable. Part of this is the fact that the Democratic Party is "unified" whereas many so-called Conservatives are not Republicans. Democrats follow the wisdom of Lyndon Johnson, who admonished his party to keep their critics inside the tent peeing out, rather than outside the tent peeing in. The result is that the Democratic Party platform, and its top officials, go through an amazing vetting process. Even lesser-known Democrats know that to utter certain heresies is to bring the wrath of these groups.

For instance:
- Suggesting that Roe v. Wade is anything but a blanket "any abortion, any time, at moment's notice" decision is highly frowned upon.
- Suggesting that there are cultural problems within the black community (gangsta rappers, disdain for education and proper speaking via the "acting white" stereotype) that cause many of the problems for them today, even by certain black leaders, is heresy.
- Suggesting that environmental groups may be partly to blame for our energy problems, because they have constantly opposed the creation of new power plants and refineries anytime one was to be built, is heresy.
- Suggesting that our border with Mexico needs controlling? Heresy.
- Suggesting that maybe, just perhaps, the same forces of evolution that have left females to be (on average) shorter, and less muscled, with wider hips, than males also have shaped a few differences in brain structure? Utter heresy.
- Suggesting that they "gay rights" movement isn't exactly the same, and just as urgent, as the Civil Rights movement under MLK was? Heresy.

Now, these are just a few, and I won't say that you never hear these - but I can say with certainty that when you do, some interest group or other within the Democratic Party is going to throw a screaming hissy fit and demand an apology. Even in mixed company, discussions along any "heretical" topic from the side of the left tend to begin with comments incorporating a dismissive buzzword, that attacks the opposing viewpoint on emotional rather than logical grounds.

Case in point: the crew I was hanging out with earlier this week. Normally, we don't discuss politics, because we've got 1 hyperlibertarian, 1 true moderate, 1 moderate-to-conservative (me), and at least two hyperliberals. But this one was "important."

The entire discussion, before it degenerated and got cut off in favor of not becoming crazy and hurting feelings, was:
1: "Hey, did you hear the Prop 2 amendment passed by over 70%?"
2: "Yeah, I can't believe this entire state is so *bleep*ing intolerant."

That was it. A few more words were spoken, but the underlying assumption - that all of the room would be in agreement - was flat wrong. And yet it didn't get challenged. Why? Because there would be no point. You've already been called "intolerant", and you know by that word that the person who uttered it will not be convinced to any other point of view. You know that if you argue it, you're likely going to be called a few more of those names. The alternative, which I followed, was to bite my tongue and just sit it out.

Echo Chamber, in a nutshell.

On a statewide basis, one has to wonder how prevalent this is. There were plenty of pro-gay rights activists out trying to drum up support. The cries of "intolerance" were heard far and wide. Talk radio hosts might have been the other side, but plenty of callers were calling those shows and voicing their opinion that the amendment needed to fail.

Yet it passed, by 70+ percentage points voting for it. Where were all these voters? Apparently they were the silent majority. Calling them intolerant, or bigots, or anything else, just gave them that much more reason to pull the lever for the amendment in the privacy and anonymity of the voting booth.

The echo chamber is a more generalized case of RAW's earlier observation about the vitriol in the issue and the fact that rather than wondering why so few people agreed with them, the activists are still busy attacking everyone who didn't vote their way, but it's still valid.

The bigger problem for the left is that they're presenting themselves as un-convincable. To convert someone - even a moderate - to your side, you have to at least give the appearance that you're willing to listen to their concerns or ideas if they think you're not quite right.

The left, even being out of power, still aren't doing that. And that's where they're losing the moderates, many of whom (like myself) probably agree with them on 45-55% of the issues.

Tuesday, the people of the state of Texas passed Proposition 2, which constitutionally defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. As I am officially an Idahoan, I did not vote. If I could have, I absolutely, positively would have voted against. I share conservative concern over the breakdown of the family, the shift of marriage from an emotional rather than societal institution, and the sort of amoral sexuality that the public perception of homosexuals represents. Ultimately, I believe homosexuality to be sufficiently genetic and insufficiently immoral to be accepted, if not embraced, by society as a whole. Without the belief that homosexuality is something to be discouraged, I cannot support support treating homosexual relationships as differently than heterosexual ones.

I wish that more Texans felt the same way than apparently do. But they don't. And the reaction by various liberals have done absolutely nothing to change that and, in some ways, represents a real lack of desire to. Granted, people on every side of the aisle are quick to discount public opinion whenever they agree with it, but when you're dealing with majorities in even the most liberal states and supermajorities in the conservative ones, it might be more helpful to listen and try to change their minds rather than call them bigots and celebrate court-enforced end-runs around popular opinion - and then wonder what's wrong with Kansas because they vote against candidates that (allegedly) represent their financial interests.

The wave of statewide referenda regarding gay marriage is neither part of increasing religious conservatism on the part of the general public nor a sort of encroaching theocracy. It was a direct response to the apparent threat of gay marriage being mandated by the courts. Maybe it's an illogical fear because Massachusetts is a unique case, but the festivities in kicked off in San Francisco and elsewhere will haunt the cause for some time to come. It represented an enthusiastic embrace of the idea that gay marriage is a constitutionally-protected right that scared a lot of people into the arms of their ideological opponents. At the very least, it forced states to know a potential loophole that could be later used to legalize gay marriage. If you don't want gay marriage to be legalized, this is not insignificant.

This is not showboating. This is stirring up the pot. This is a perfectly logical reaction to prevent the law from being changed in a way by which there is no democratic recourse. You prevent a judge from saying "The Constitution doesn't say..." by making the Constitution say exactly that.

Even though I strongly disagree with the substance of their position, I don't disagree with their methodology nearly as much as I disagree with those that are more outraged than concerned that a clear majority of the public does not agree with them.

Once upon a time there was a singer and not-really-songwriter in Nashville by the name of Tim McGraw. Tim McGraw was a popular musician at the time, but reviled by some in the Great State of Texas as representing everything that was wrong with Nashville country music. Then Tim started performing a couple of songs written by Texas Bruce Robison and he started recording with the band that he toured with, so the bark lost some bite.

About the same time, another singer and not-really-songwriter named Kenny Chesney started to make a name for himself. The animosity that had previously been aimed at Mr. McGraw was instead directed towards Mr. Chesney. All the animosity and then some. Particularly critical of Chesney was an up-and-comer by the name of Randy Rogers. Rogers was relentless in his criticisms of Chesney and all that he represented in Nashville country music.

Somewhere along the way, Rogers started catching the attention of some of the right people and was signed by a bigger booking company. As Rogers's stature grew, the references to Mr. Chesney diminished. Then one day Rogers was big enough to get the attention of Mr. Chesney. Mr. Chesney was so impressed with Mr. Rogers's music that he decided to buy one of his songs and put it on his own record. The result being that Mr. Chesney's newest CD has a watered-down, soulless imitation of a Randy Rogers song.

Particularly surprising in all this is that, faced with this contradiction, the world's spin did not slow down or take an abrupt stop.

Scientists, I'm sure, are investigating this oddity as we speak.

And somewhere in Texas, a cadre of Texas musicians are convening secretly to determine whether Chesney is due a pass for financially assisting a genuine musician. This meeting is expected to last no longer than one-half a listening to Mr. Chesney's watered-down, soulless rendition of Mr. Rogers's original work.

I just ordered a bunch of parts from Newegg:

1. A 24 CD Wallet
2. A Samsung DVDRW
3. A Samsung DVD drive
4. Speakers
5. 2GB of Kingston RAM

Gmail, as most of you know, puts up ads based on the content of the emails. So when it sent the receipt to my Gmail account, it tried to sell me:

1. A 24 CD Wallet
2. A Samsung DVDRW
3. A Samsung DVD drive
4. Speakers
5. 2GB of Kingston RAM

Not particularly helpful, but at least the ads weren't cheaper than what I'd just paid.

That would really have pissed me off.

Glenn Reynolds approvingly links to this Salena Zito column about how the Republicans have lost their way. It's an article I'd be inclined to agree with, were it not utterly disconnected with reality:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is steadfast about governing responsibly, which translates into consistently facing resistance when balancing fiscal policies with social concerns. His maverick approach to remaining true-blue has earned him a solid reputation with conservatives. Beltway-types look to him as perfect vice-presidential material, despite his disdain for elbow-rubbing.

U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a fellow Republican, briefly considered running against Perry in 2006. Faced with a daunting primary against a truer Republican, she quickly backed down.

I'm sorry. What?

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is steadfast about governing responsibly, which translates into consistently facing resistance when balancing fiscal policies with social concerns. His maverick approach to remaining true-blue has earned him a solid reputation with conservatives. Beltway-types look to him as perfect vice-presidential material, despite his disdain for elbow-rubbing.

U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a fellow Republican, briefly considered running against Perry in 2006. Faced with a daunting primary against a truer Republican, she quickly backed down.

That's... one way of reading Perry's polling numbers. Something vaguely resembling reality would be another.

Vice President? The man couldn't win an open senate seat at this point.

If he's the future of "true" Republicans, the heaven help us all..

NetThoughts:

• Is anyone else having problems with GoogleAds on Firefox? It doesn't tend to want to go where it's supposed to go, flashing stationary and obscuring the main text of the page.
• As mentioned to the left, spammers have found Ten Second News, so registration is now required over there. On the upshot, Nucleus did a fantastic job of catching their comments. I'm not sure how since I don't even think I had Comment Control on. But none of them got through. I wonder if there's a way to get it to block anything that puts "href" in a post. That would get rid of a whole lot of them right then and there.
• It's amazing how much easier the Internet has become, isn't it? I was just remembering how much of a hassle it was to get connected from the University of Houston dorms using Windows 95.
• It's a great thing that internet domain registration cost has become as low as it has, but I really wish there were some way to prevent people from buying up domain names for prospecting purposes. It's one thing when my preferred domain name is taken by someone that that's using it. It's another when it's taken up just because someone thought that someone else might someday need it.
• I know that you can keep certain sites from being archived, but is there any way to make a site completely invisible to search engines completely?

Every now and again, I'll write a post and put it in the Drafts folder (or its Nucleus equivalent). Then I'll forget about it. Then, longer after it's relevent, I'll forget that I ever wrote it. This is one of those posts. Many of you are familiar with my fascination with Mountain Dew lines of drinks. Grape-flavored Pitch Black replaced my beloved Livewire a year or two back in their seasonal rotation. It did so poorly that they eventually had to start selling them 3/$1. This year they introduced Pitch Black II, or as I call it: Mountain Dew Sour Grapes. Anyway, here's a post that I never posted on the Pitch Black of the old variety.

RAW: I'm not sure what I'm going to do with my Pitch Black.
Eel: Why did you buy it?
RAW: It's on sale. 3 for $1.
Eel: But you don't like it, do you?
RAW: No, but I was coming around.
Eel: But...?
RAW: I'm starting to feel sick every time I drink it.
Eel: Then don't drink it. It won't go bad if it sits in the fridge a few days.
RAW: But I don't know how long this is going to last. It might make me sick in the forseeable future.
Eel: Then don't drink it!
RAW: But it'll go bad. I learned that with the Livewire. Except that Pitch Black isn't as good. I can't imagine how bad it would be flat.
Eel: There are worse things than letting a drink go bad.
RAW: Yeah, a thirty-three cent drink.
Eel: Yeah.
RAW: That I don't like very much.
Eel: Yeah.
RAW: That's making me sick to my stomach.
Eel: ...
RAW: I should probably let this slide.
Eel: ...

Hope y'all had a Happy Halloween.

Things still getting settled in Pocatello, but posting will remain intermittent and mostly on Ten Second News to the left. Not much to report, though the heavy lifting is over. Relaxation sounds like a good thing, so no NaNoWriMo for me this year and limited blogging.