Erik

An open letter

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 01:00:12 GMT

To: Prince
Re: MPLSoUND

Dear Prince,

You don't need autotune. You're Prince.

Your fan,
Erik

the public option isn't dead (but what if it is?)

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:21:37 GMT

For those who feel disappointed and disillusioned by the story this weekend that President Obama was abandoning the public option, I have good news and bad news. The good news is that he hasn't reversed his position. The bad news is that his position has never been what you thought it was.

At a town hall meeting on Saturday, Obama said something he's said before - that a public health plan is not the only important part of health care reform - and the AP and the media spun it into "Obama throws public option under bus". The AP article contrasts Obama's comment this weekend to an earlier statement that doesn't actually contrast with it. In July he said that "one of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices and assure quality is a public option". Notice how he didn't say that a public option is the only way to achieve the goal? How he didn't say that health care reform without a public option is meaningless?

Obama thinks that a public health insurance program offered alongside private insurance is the best way to ensure all Americans can get the health care they need. However, if if health care reform without a public option makes it through Congress, he's not going to throw a tantrum and kill the bill. This is Obama's position. It hasn't changed.

President Obama still supports a public option. I don't believe he's given up on it. But other people have! And one of the best of them is Nate Silver, who explained on fivethirtyeight.com yesterday why he considers the public option unlikely to pass, what he thinks about the prospects for reform without a public option, and what to do next.

The Parakeet Caper

Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:12:58 GMT

Kate drew a 24-page, 24-hour comic, and I liked it, so I posted it on Facebook, but I still like it, so I'm telling you about it here on LiveJournal too. It's called The Parakeet Caper.

(Actually it took her 29 hours. Still pretty fast.)

the internet vs. real life

Mon, 11 May 2009 18:54:42 GMT

Some thoughts evoked by this rant, and dedicated, with decidedly mixed feelings, to my old colleagues at Liquid Audio:

Sometimes I read about how the major labels are just in the music business for the money, they don't really care about music, and they're oppressing the artists. Sometimes I also read that they're oppressing innovative music industry start-ups.

Okay, maybe they are, but let's be honest: Internet start-ups are in it for the money too. Not that everyone who works there is motivated purely by profit. (Label employees aren't either.) But it's the nature of business. Businesses exist to make money.

This kind of false opposition is especially bewildering when the innocent start-up is imeem or Lala (partly owned by Warner), InSound (owned wholly), or Last.fm (a CBS subsidiary). Who does anyone think anyone is fooling here? Let's not talk about Big Music vs. iTunes, either.

On the Internet we used to talk about what was happening "IRL", in real life. Then gradually we discovered that the Internet was becoming real life, and vice versa. To a great extent the Internet is no longer separate from our daily lives.

Similarly, it makes less and less sense to talk about "the music business" and "the internet music business" as separate things. It's all part of the same mess: a great swirling ocean of venality with little islands of grace.

a footnote

Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:48:42 GMT

One final quote from The Gift, a footnote from the chapter on gender, p. 97:

In the modern world the rights that adults have in their children - male or female - normally pass away slowly from parent to child during adolescence and become fully vested in the child when he or she is ready to leave home.

If our lives are gifts to begin with, however, in some sense they are not "ours" even when we become adults. Or perhaps they are, but only until such time as we find a way to bestow them. The belief that life is a gift carries with it a corollary feeling that the gift should not be hoarded. As we mature, and particularly as we come into the isolation of being "on our own," we begin to feel the desire to give ourselves away - in love, in marriage, to our work, to the gods, to politics, to our children. And adolescence is marked by that restless, erotic, disturbing inquisition: Is this person, this nation, this work, worthy of the life I have to give?

Dr. Liar

Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:39:31 GMT

Chapter 7 of The Gift traces a history of usury in the Judeo-Christian world (with brief visits to Islam, Aristotle, and others). In Deuteronomy, a distinction is drawn: You can charge interest to a foreigner, but not to your brother. A gift economy prevails within the tribe, and a market economy with the outside.

(This kind of inside-outside distinction runs through the book. I thought of how often we'll give CDs to bands we've played shows with, and often receive them in turn; on the same night, we'll charge anyone in the audience ten dollars for the same disc. And then there are border cases. If I know someone is a musician but we haven't been through the ritual of experiencing each other's music, I may not give them our CD, or even think of it. Or sometimes we'll give someone a CD, and they'll say "thanks" and charge us $15 to buy theirs; we gave ours with no strings attached, but it still feels like an affront. It's interesting to revisit these experiences, thinking of them as marking a tribal boundary: Who's in? Who's out?)

Anyway, Hyde writes, "The Reformation changed this." Martin Luther, centrally, approved of new civil laws that allowed for the charging of interest, while redefining usury as interest taken in unjust circumstances, or to an unjust degree. A related dispute was over the institution of Roman law, which "knew only private propery and therefore imperiled the commons - the woods, streams, and meadows shared by the community in old Germanic tradition" (p. 120, quoting Roland Bainton). On both issues, Luther sided with the "princes", praising the virtue of Christian generosity while approving the new civil laws as necessary.

(In so doing, the reformers took the old boundary between brother and foreigner, and relocated it inside each individual. "Now when I meet someone on the street he is either alien or kin, depending on his business. As each man may participate in a universal brotherhood, so he may partake in an unlimited foreignness. He may be an alien anytime he chooses and without leaving home" (p. 125).)

Not everyone thought the new approach was a good idea. Here's Hyde, quoting another 16th-century priest (p. 122):

Thomas Müntzer... actively supported the peasants in Saxony and stood in clear opposition to Luther and his advice to statesmen:
Luther says that the poor people have enough in their faith. Doesn't he see that usury and taxes impede the reception of the faith? He claims that the Word of God is sufficient. Doesn't he realize that men whose every moment is consumed in the making of a living have no time to learn to read the Word of God? The princes bleed the people with usury and count as their own the fish in the stream, the bird in the air, the grass of the field, and Dr. Liar says, "Amen!" What courage has he, Dr. Pussyfoot, the new pope of Wittenberg, Dr. Easychair, the basking sycophant?
What a clear voice! The authorities caught up with this man, tortured him and cut off his head.

equal pay for equal work

Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:41:16 GMT

Chapter 6 of The Gift is about market economies and gift economies as "gendered". I'm mostly going to gloss over that, as it's a complex set of ideas that seems risky to summarize. But toward the end (p. 106) he talks about a continuum between market-based work - "banking, law, management, sales" - and gift labor - "social work, nursing, the creation and care of culture, the ministry".

No field is entirely one or the other, of course, but there are leanings: "social work and soul work... cannot be undertaken on a pure cost-benefit basis because their products are not commodities, not things we easily price or willingly alienate." And so, he says, that is one reason these labors receive less pay than more adversarial, market-based work.

But, you ask, if we really values these gift labors, couldn't we pay them well? Couldn't we pay social workers as we pay doctors, pay poets as we do bankers, pay the cellist in the orchestra as we pay the advertising executive in the box seat? Yes, we could. We could - we should - reward gift labors where we value them. My point here is simply that where we do so we shall have to recognize that the pay they receive has not been "made" the way fortunes are made in the market, that it is a gift bestowed by the group. The costs and benefits of tasks whose procedures are adversarial and whose ends are easily quantified can be expressed through a market system. The costs and rewards of gift labors cannot. The cleric's larder will always be filled with gifts; artists will never "make" money.

Something in here feels very right to me (it lies behind the file sharing post I made over on the Tin Cat blog) but it's somehow hard. I can't figure out what I want to say about it.

Returning The Gift

Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:18:06 GMT

Before I return The Gift (mentioned previously), I'm going to post a few more passages I liked. Here's one, from page 82:

"Academic freedom," as the term is used in the debate over commercial science, refers to the freedom of ideas, not to the freedom of individuals.... The issue arises because when all ideas carry a price, then all discussion, the cognition of the group mind, must be conducted through the mechanisms of the market which - in this case, at least - is a very inefficient way to hold a discussion. Ideas do not circulate freely when they are treated as commodities. The magazine Science reported on a case in California in which one DNA research group sought to patent a technique that other local researchers had treated as common property, as "under discussion." An academic scientist who felt his contribution had been exploited commented, "There used to be a good, healthy exchange of ideas and information among [local] researchers.... Now we are locking our doors." In a free market the people are free, the ideas are locked up.

tonight I'm gonna pirate like it's 1999

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 04:38:49 GMT

Over on the Tin Cat blog I wrote an open letter to a mother concerned about file sharing, one of many published today by blogging musicians around the web. Her son thinks he shouldn't pay for music because the money all goes to the label, and anyway bands make their money on touring. His mother thinks not paying for music is stealing, and anyway he's a musician and what's going to happen when he needs to make a living?

My favorite response is David J. Hahn's:

My perspective on file-sharing is probably different that you would expect. I think that your son should download every track he can find. I mean it. Download every song out there and sift through them one by one. And not just the genre’s he likes - but everything - Creole bandeon playing, French rap, hymns, metal, classical, South African jazz, samba - whatever he can find.

Go read his post to find out why.

I bought a house!

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 03:48:20 GMT

... or so I hear.

Today I got a notice from my bank that my credit line had been cut roughly in half. This is okay - I rarely buy on credit - but they said their "decision was based in part on information provided by" Equifax. That sounds like I got a bad credit rating, which sounds like something I don't want.

So I went to Equifax's web site, to see if I could get my credit report without writing a letter. I was delighted to find that they offer credit reports online, and they don't even make it hard to find! I filled out a form with some basic identifying information, and then I got this:

Pretty exciting! Now, I know they only said "may have", so it's not a sure thing. But they seemed to have some pretty specific knowledge about the mortgage I "may have" opened.

I've never made a payment on this loan, so I get why my credit might be getting a little shaky. But I wonder where my house is? And does it have solar panels? I've always wanted a solar-powered house.

on enthusiasm

Sat, 28 Mar 2009 19:28:09 GMT

I'm reading Lewis Hyde's The Gift, and it's great - deeper and denser than most of what I read, which is why I can't really say much about it now, except to recommend it to anyone who's interested in the creative commons or the worth and/or value of art, and to quote this tidbit (one of many I've been marking to share), from the section on Walt Whitman:

To be "enthusiastic" originally meant to be possessed by a god or inspired by a divine afflatus. The bacchants and maenads were enthusiasts, as were the prophets of the Old Testament, the apostles of the New, or, more recently, Shakers and Pentecostal Christians. Enthusiasts, having received a spirit into the body, have never been hesitant to describe their spiritual knowledge in terms of the flesh, to speak of "a sweet burning in the heart" or of a "ravished soul." Whitman is no exception....

And, a little further down:

Enthusiasm has recurrently fallen into disrepute because there have always been those who claim they are filled with the spirit when they are only full of hot air.

Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:48:44 GMT

Obama's tax plan will hit Silicon Valley hard, San Jose Mercury News, 2/28/2009:

President Barack Obama's tax plan, which would boost income taxes on those earning $250,000 or more a year, would affect about twice the share of taxpayers in Santa Clara County as in the state and nation.

... But high-earning valley taxpayers who have been paying the so-called alternative minimum tax may get a little break. People at the $250,000 to $400,000 income level are likely to be hit less hard by the Obama tax plan in high-tax, high property-cost states such as California, because their exposure to the AMT will be reduced as their regular tax bill rises, explained Clint Stretch, managing principal for tax policy at Deloitte in Washington, D.C.

The good news is, you are not going to get hit as hard by the taxes that the president has proposed, he said. The bad news is, they've already been hit by the AMT.

How about "The good news is, you make three hundred thousand dollars a year"? Except for one paragraph, this entire article is about how the tax plan will affect rich people.

new from U2 and MySpace Music

Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:38:42 GMT

I've heard Album Title is one of they're best albums to watch.

the best americans

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 01:21:30 GMT

We have five Best Americans in the house right now, and before I take The Best American Comics 2008 back to the library I wanted to write down my favorite comics from the book. And where better to write them down than in public?

The introduction by Lynda Barry is about things that are good. I must once have lived within range of a weekly paper that carried Ernie Pook's Comeek, because I remember the feeling of mostly not getting it, but reading it week after week because it seemed like it was worth getting and someday that might happen. These days I like everything I read by her. Way to go, Lynda Barry!

Graham Annable's "Burden" and Sarah Oleksyk's "Graveyard" - a noir cartoon about a man taking care of his brother, and a bittersweet slice of Portland life - were both published in Papercutter. Way to go, Tugboat Press!

Selections from Will and Abe's Guide to the Universe by Matt Groening and The Teachers Edition by John Mejias both featured kids being kids (sometimes on vacation or at school), and made me laugh.

Cathy Malkasian's Percy Gloom and Lilli Carré's The Thing About Madeline were engrossing tales of a world slightly off. In Carré's story, the title character stumbles home from her daily routine to find herself in the bedroom, already sleeping. Percy Gloom, excerpted here, seems to be about fanaticism, and might be my favorite thing in the book.

Chris Ware's Thanksgiving covers for The New Yorker were enjoyable on their own, but gained depth when I read the author's note about the connections between them. That's one thoughtful guy. (All four covers are still on the magazine's web site, but the onetime online exclusive is not.)

Update: Via Barry, here's a copy of the fifth "cover".

Thankedgiving

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 01:37:57 GMT

We made/ate vegetarian dinner at Wei's house, with Jason, Wei, and Wei's friend Steph. Tofurky, roasted vegetables, steamed brussels sprouts and spinach, cranberry sauce, mashed potatoes and gravy, and apple pie. Jokes were made, cards were played. I didn't have high hopes for Thanksgiving this year, but it was really nice.

Today we went to Hijinx Comics and picked up 13 trade paperbacks for $5 apiece (well, one was $7). Kate came home, said "I think I'll make some dinner," and immediately started reading. I expect she's halfway through them by now. Also we saw "Slumdog Millionaire." I like movies a lot, especially good ones. I liked this one.

Things are pretty good.

Proposition 8

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:09:31 GMT

[This post began as a letter to my cousin, who is active and vocal in the movement to reject Prop 8. I'm proud of him for that. But I really don't know him well - we see each other now and again at family gatherings - and eventually it seemed wrong to be blasting all this concentrated thought in his direction, complete with unfounded assumptions about what he thinks or doesn't think. So instead I'm posting it here, as sort of an open letter to the person I imagine him to be.]

Everyone I know wants to undo Prop 8 and restore the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Half of them changed their Facebook status to "California, I'm disappointed in you," but that doesn't do any good, because California doesn't read Facebook. Everyone's joining Californians Ready to Repeal Prop 8, or Repeal the CA Ban on Marriage Equality - 2010, or One Million Strong for Marriage Equality. Awesome! Get involved however you can. Prop 8's a bad law, sold to the people of California by out-of-state interests with false advertising. We need to get rid of it. But I think a lot of people don't know how.

The legislature didn't outlaw same-sex marriage. (They've passed legislation twice to legalize it.) The governor didn't outlaw same-sex marriage. (He vetoed that legislation I just mentioned, but he publicly opposed Prop 8.) The courts didn't either - it's because of the courts that some 18,000 same-sex couples are already legally married in California.

California voters (52% of them, plus all the ones who couldn't be bothered to vote at all) outlawed same-sex marriage.

So fine, the government didn't get us into this mess, but can it get us out of it? Well, the courts could invalidate the amendment. There are lawsuits to this effect already underway. I'm skeptical (similar efforts have failed in other states), but I wish them luck.

The governor, though, has little or no power to make or unmake laws. And since Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment, the legislature can't directly overturn it. All they can do is put a reverse amendment on the ballot for the public to vote on again. But it'd take a 2/3 majority in both houses - a tough sell even before the voters passed a constitutional amendment - and it would only set the stage. To overturn Prop 8, barring another court intervention, we need majority public support for marriage equality.

In a way, going back to the voters seems like the hardest approach, just because there are so many who need to be convinced - there are about 23 million eligible voters, compared to 120 legislators, 7 Supreme Court justices, and just one governor. But there's a lot of good news:

48% of those who voted are already on our side. That's almost enough to overturn 8 right there.

That means there are a lot of us to help with the convincing. Over five million people voted No on 8.

Generational currents are on our side. Exit polls showed results by age, but the right way to think about it is by year of birth. Voters born before 1978 tended to vote for Prop 8, and voters born since 1978 voted against it. Life being what it is, over time there will be fewer of the first group and more of the second. And it's not like older voters' opinions are fixed in stone, either. More minds are changing in favor of marriage equality than against it.

In 2008, a whole lot of potential pro-gay activist energy was focused on getting a Democrat in the White House. That done, there should be more people to help with marriage equality and other campaigns.

I can't back this up with data, but here's what I believe: The way to win people over to our side is love. Isn't that beautiful? People fall in love, people get married (legally or not), and the people who love them see that and want to help. Not everyone comes around. But each bond we make makes all the other bonds stronger. (That's one of the reasons we have marriage in the first place, and one of the reasons marriage equality is important to me.) And it's much easier emotionally to be on the side that wins by loving.

The demonstrations I see you attending, and organizing, are great. They give like-minded people an opportunity to meet, reinforce, and energize each other. And they make a public statement: We support and demand the right to marry, there are many of us, we're not going away. But if the courts don't solve this problem, and it comes down to mass action, I think a quiet sort of activism might be the most effective. You're already doing it, but I want to share this post that resonated with me:

What Should You Do for Gay Rights

--by Sebastian

Now that Prop 8 has provided a temporary setback to marriage rights in California, I was thinking about what the best positive step next would look like. Eventually there will probably have to be another vote, and the best thing I can think of for that is rather mundane. In the next weeks and months, talk to some generally good but misguided people you know about why marriage is so important. Talk about how the commitment of two people is just as important for those people no matter what sex they are. Talk about how the community benefits from the commitment by allowing the joy of the public commitment to be shared. Talk about how much it can hurt for the ceremonies of love to be denied. You can preempt some of the stupid lies about schools and tax exemptions that were spread by the "Yes on 8" campaign, but ultimately focusing on the human aspect is best. It may seem boring compared to other forms of political activism, but ultimately it is how we win.

If you don't think you know any otherwise good people who are also against gay marriage, look again.

That last paragraph meant a lot to me, because in the week before the election I realized that some people I respect and love don't believe what I believe about marriage. It's easy to feel like there's an enemy that needs to be defeated. But there are also friends that we need to persuade.

W.

Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:05:30 GMT

Saw Oliver Stone's George Bush movie today. Something like a record by a really good tribute band. All the hits are there, but some of them truncated and worked into a medley. All the players are excellent, but some of them don't exactly mimic the nuances of the original. Oh, and although you know all of the songs from the radio, you really kind of hated this band.

Two notes:

I really miss Donald Rumsfeld's presence in public life. I'm glad he's no longer in any part of government, but I enjoyed his press conference persona. I think he should host a reality show.
The facts of the war in Iraq are still infuriating.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

well, it's a start

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:22:26 GMT

I find I'm ambivalent about the election - maybe more than I should be.

Obviously Obama's victory is great news for the country. More about that in a future post, I hope.

I'm most disappointed that California's gay marriage ban passed, writing a new form of discrimination into the state constitution. I plan to write about that one separately too.

And everything in between. I'm glad the Democrats picked up about 20 House seats, and at least five in the Senate, although it's too bad we couldn't make 60. Of the candidates I was really following, a few won (Kay Hagan, at least), more lost (Madia, Tinklenberg, Cook), and others are still too close to call (Franken, Merkley, Burner, Martin, Begich). Maybe this just means I tend to be interested in races that are hard to win.

Californians voted for high-speed rail, but my county voted against extending the regional rail system to San Jose. We voted for more humane treatment of livestock, which I like. Anti-abortion measures failed in California, South Dakota, and Colorado. Michigan and Massachusetts passed marijuana reform. Washington will allow terminally ill patients to choose how to end their lives. Connecticut decided not to hold a constitutional convention, which means same-sex marriages will probably be legal there by the end of the month. But not in Arizona, Florida, or California, where new bans were passed. And Arkansas banned adoption by unmarried cohabitants, mostly because some unmarried couples are gay.

There's plenty of good in there along with some bad. Partly I'm disappointed because this amazing event, the election of Barack Obama, doesn't seem to have swept other needed changes in along with it. But I think mostly what's getting to me is that so many of the losses came from the two states where I've lived most of my life. What happened, California and Minnesota? I thought we were pals!

polling places

Tue, 04 Nov 2008 20:30:55 GMT

I've been volunteering lately for the Obama campaign and, briefly, for No On 8. But today there's not much for shy people to do, and I voted yesterday at the registrar's office, so today I've kind of got the day off. I dropped by a few of my neighborhood polling places.

At the library they said there were 50 people waiting in line at 7:00, and since then there's been no more than 5 people at a time. (I don't remember if that was "5 in line" or "5 voters on the premises".) At the unidentified church, um, they were just kind of confused by my presence. And at my polling place, a guy told me he's been doing this for years and this is the highest turnout he's seen: 200 ballots mailed in, some 300 so far on site, and the lunch rush still ahead.

Everybody seemed to be having a good day. I'm having a good day.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

favorite debate moments

Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:03:27 GMT

My top three:

Obama explains that he supports a ban on late-term abortions, "as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life". McCain responds with an incoherent jumble of sentence fragments, highlighted by repetition of the word "health" with air quotes, because, you know, health is a made-up concept that only new-age tree-huggers believe in.
Obama describes at length how his health insurance plan works for small businesses, and what's wrong with McCain's alternative. The moderator turns to McCain for a response, which is: "Joe. You're rich. Congratulations." McCain was speaking into the camera, and in a close-up, it probably made sense, but on ABC (part 6), which had it in a wide shot, it's hilarious: Instead of responding to Obama's points, McCain is suddenly talking to an invisible guy across the table from him.
Speaking of health care... referring back to Obama's analogy that a spending freeze is "using a hatchet where you need a scalpel," McCain explains: "That's a hatchet... and then I would get out a scalpel." The patient appreciates your consideration.

Overall, I thought it was a good debate, both in general and for my candidate. Schieffer mostly didn't let people run on at length, and except for the tiresome Ayers/ACORN hash, kept them talking about matters of substance. Obama, I thought, talked directly to voters about things that affect their lives. McCain seemed lost in the weeds, speaking in inside-the-beltway code words, earmarks and litmus tests and pork barrels and "elections have consequences" and "health." He did make an effort to connect with "Joe the Plumber" but of course that turned out to be mostly nonsense.

What'd I miss?

wall street

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:02:47 GMT

Someone on Forum said (I'm paraphrasing from memory), "You and your guests all advise remaining calm. My financial advisor says the same thing. So who are the people who are panicking?" They cited last week's Wall Street drop as an example. These are supposed to be financial professionals, and smarter than the rest of us. Why are they the ones flopping around like a fish on the dock?

As time goes by and I read more insider accounts, I increasingly believe that people in the financial industry are not any smarter or better with money than the rest of us. They are only more macho.

According to this theory, Wall Street pros act more aggressively than any sensible person would. When the economy is doing well - or seems to do well, all the while floating on an ever-growing ocean of debt - this aggression pays off at a higher ROI than sanity, and they look smart. It's just when reality rears its head that they freak out and demand thousands of dollars from everyone in America to support their testosterone habit.

I'm no expert. Prove me wrong.

Mitt

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:24:46 GMT

I listened yesterday to Mitt Romney's address to the RNC, courtesy of C-SPAN's Podcast of the Week. The whole thing's sort of a spectacular mishmash of liberals-bad-conservatives-good cliches, brazen claims, and outright lies, but I especially liked this awkward metaphor in the context of the GOP's ongoing War on Science:

You know, for decades now, the Washington sun has been rising in the east - you see, Washington has been looking to the eastern elites, to the editorial pages of the Times and the Post, and to the broadcasters from the p - from the coast! (Boos.) Yeah.

If America really wants to change, it's time to look for the sun in the west, cause it's about to rise and shine from Arizona and Alaska!

Okay, well... if you guys want to look for a sunrise in the west, you keep on looking. I'll be over here.

volunteer army

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:31:26 GMT

About a week ago I did some volunteer work. I signed up through Democrats Work, an organization that aims to get people out doing good work for their communities, and doing it as Democrats, to show how Democrats are good hard-working members of the community. Mostly what I think we showed is that the Democrats aren't very good at getting organized - I think there were three of us.

But we had fun! And we did some useful stuff for RAFT, which is awesome. Basically they take stuff that people were going to throw away, and turn it into low-cost resources for teachers. Some of it's obvious stuff - I spent most of my time sorting hundreds of looseleaf binders by size and color so they can sell them in fairly uniform boxes. But I also disassembled 30-odd CD cases and put the CDs in a pile so another group could package them with balloons and instructions to make a hovercraft. You know, for hands-on scientific understanding. That kind of creative reuse is their forte. I hope to go back and help them out again.

ambivalent evening

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 06:12:51 GMT

1. I really like biking, and in theory I like public transit, but I didn't like the bus driver being grumpy at me when I wanted to bring my bike on the bus. But I did like being able to anyway.

2. Saw Stealing America: Vote by Vote, a documentary about, you know. Election irregularities. I'm glad they made it, but it made me feel kind of sick. Mostly the sequences about the 2004 election - I remember what it was like, watching all those swing states with pro-Kerry exit polls fall to Bush as the night went on. And then watching the stories come out over the next few days about voters that weren't allowed to vote, machines that registered Kerry votes as Bush votes right on the screen, mysteriously missing and just uncounted votes... and watching as Kerry, Congress, and the media just did nothing. Reliving that wasn't so great.

3. At the Q&A afterward, someone asked if, as a permanent absentee voter in Santa Clara County, his vote was safe. (In California, any voter can register as "permanent absentee," no reason required, and basically vote by mail.) The answer from the activists on hand was, not very. I didn't get all the details, but they felt that there were too many people with too many opportunities to tamper with the ballots between mailing and election. They recommend taking your ballot to the polling place and dropping it off in person (which kind of defeats the purpose). And they urged us to "use your polling places, because if we don't use them, we'll lose them." They're concerned that the state might go entirely vote-by-mail, like Oregon.

When I registered voters in 2004, the Democratic Party told us to encourage people to register as permanent absentees, because their statistics show permanent absentee voters are more likely to actually vote. It makes sense - not everybody has the time and ability to get to a specific place during specific hours on one Tuesday in November, but most people can get to a mailbox sometime in October. So I'm a little troubled that absentee voting, which helps more people vote, is regarded as pernicious by people who are trying to help our votes get counted.

They're big fans, as am I, of making Election Day a holiday. Or just moving it to Saturday. Write your representatives. Oh, and if you'd like to see the movie, let me know, I can get you a DVD.

4. Biked home from the movie. 7 miles, my longest ride without a break. It was a leisurely ride, and pretty nice once I got out of the creepy industrial section and past noticing the chill.

palin

Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:19:23 GMT

Worried about putting a small-town mayor in the White House? Not to worry - she'll learn on the job!

“She’s going to learn national security at the foot of the master for the next four years, and most doctors think that he’ll be around at least that long,” said Charlie Black, one of Mr. McCain’s top advisers, making light of concerns about Mr. McCain’s health, which Mr. McCain’s doctors reported as excellent in May.

Probably for a full four years!