An Iowa City police sergeant has been charged with drunken driving and interference with official acts.
Police say that Sgt. Sid Jackson was arrested early Saturday by University of Iowa police after an officer saw him sitting in his car with the door open.
Monday, February 23, 2009
For all of you who grew up in Iowa City
I'll just let this speak for itself:
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Sesame Street Day
Apparently it's time for a bunch of Sesame trivia, 'cause there are a pair of articles on CNN entitled 'How do you get to 'Sesame Street' and 'Surprising stories behind 20 Muppet characters.'
When I was three, I was convinced Sesame Street was right down the road, only the 'other way' as I called it then. See, our house sat about two blocks off a main road. So naturally, all the 'grown ups' took a left out of the driveway, a right to the main road (North Avenue, for those of you from Chicagoland) and then proceeded on to wherever we were going. All I knew was, every time we turned out of the driveway, we went left. So I was convinved that if we went right instead, that must be where Sesame Street was. Seemed logical to me. I recall my father deciding to take me on a walk that way, to show me there was no Sesame Street there. I guess my mother was afraid I'd decide I'd rather go live with cookie monster and make the hike on my own. Dad kept saying stuff like, "See? No Sesame here." Problem was, the suburbs are endless. We walked a few blocks, but there are always more blocks to walk, the possibility that it was just around the next corner. I returned home convinced we had just not gone far enough. Though I remember getting the feeling I shouldn't mention that to Mom. It was just one of those things grownups didn't understand.
When I was three, I was convinced Sesame Street was right down the road, only the 'other way' as I called it then. See, our house sat about two blocks off a main road. So naturally, all the 'grown ups' took a left out of the driveway, a right to the main road (North Avenue, for those of you from Chicagoland) and then proceeded on to wherever we were going. All I knew was, every time we turned out of the driveway, we went left. So I was convinved that if we went right instead, that must be where Sesame Street was. Seemed logical to me. I recall my father deciding to take me on a walk that way, to show me there was no Sesame Street there. I guess my mother was afraid I'd decide I'd rather go live with cookie monster and make the hike on my own. Dad kept saying stuff like, "See? No Sesame here." Problem was, the suburbs are endless. We walked a few blocks, but there are always more blocks to walk, the possibility that it was just around the next corner. I returned home convinced we had just not gone far enough. Though I remember getting the feeling I shouldn't mention that to Mom. It was just one of those things grownups didn't understand.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Made me giggle
Fox stops in mid-fight. Comedy ensues. "Hey! What is this, then? Bouncy!!! Bouncy!!!!" Is it just me, or is the other fox kind of hanging back, saying: "Oh, grow up!"
Friday, February 06, 2009
Tidbits
I'm sure you've all heard the audio of the crash of US Airways Flight 1549 by now, but I still have to link it. I'm absolultely amazed at how steady and calm that pilot was in the middle of a huge crisis.
Kinda makes the whole Christian Bale thing look even worse, no? Pilot facing mortal peril with hundreds of lives at stake = James Bond cool. Actor distracted from the scene = raving f*cking lunatic. Nice perspective.
Oh, and this. Just 'cause:
Kinda makes the whole Christian Bale thing look even worse, no? Pilot facing mortal peril with hundreds of lives at stake = James Bond cool. Actor distracted from the scene = raving f*cking lunatic. Nice perspective.
Oh, and this. Just 'cause:
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Risky Business
A Consumer Reports telephone survey of 1,000 adults apparently shows that we're all living on the edge:
Q-tips being used in the ear!!! I'll bet we've run with scissors, too. Raw cookie dough!!! OMIGOD! Never mind that most of us have eaten that our entire lives without ill effects. No rubber mat in the shower!!!! (Side note: does anyone still need those? I mean, about every shower I've been in since the eighties has a non-slip floor). Drinking beer using power tools!!! Wait . . . Dammit, I just spilled my Blue Moon all over the electric stapler.
It found nearly 3 of every 4 Americans put cotton swabs inside their ears, risking a perforated eardrum. Nearly 4 in 10 admit eating raw cookie dough, which can carry salmonella.
Only half the respondents have a carbon monoxide detector at home and 61 percent don't have a rubber mat in the shower. Thirteen percent admitted sometimes drinking beer while using power tools.
Q-tips being used in the ear!!! I'll bet we've run with scissors, too. Raw cookie dough!!! OMIGOD! Never mind that most of us have eaten that our entire lives without ill effects. No rubber mat in the shower!!!! (Side note: does anyone still need those? I mean, about every shower I've been in since the eighties has a non-slip floor). Drinking beer using power tools!!! Wait . . . Dammit, I just spilled my Blue Moon all over the electric stapler.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Stimulating Thoughts
Here's how I see it:
The companies at the top have lost in their speculations, which has left them strapped for cash. Only no one wants to loan to them anymore due to the speculations. So they want cash to avoid going belly-up, throwing thousands of workers out of work.
Meanwhile, the lack of cash flow has led smaller companies to have to cut down.Thousands Over a million workers have already been thrown out of work.
Further, people who had money in investments have watched those all go bye-bye, and so their disposable income no longer looks so disposable. They've stopped doing much of the big-ticket spending, and are starting to trickle to a halt on the medium-ticket nonessentials. People are buying less stuff, which leads companies to need to make less stuff, which means they're downsizing and . . . . over a million workers are out of work.
Okay, so we need to stop a huge circular clusterf*ck, right? Well, there's three things I see that are being talked about as solutions: 1) Band-aid some of the companies that are bleeding by throwing money at them, to let them go on functioning. 2) Throw money into stuff. Buying goods and services gives those companies profits they wouldn't have otherwise and keeps their people at work. Stuff that will be useful, not just anything, but still, let's buy us some stuff. 3) Take some of the money and use it for social programs to help the people who are already out of work, or are soon to become unemployed, so that they don't die or fall so far down the socioeconomic staircase that they and their kids will become permanent drains on the system instead of a recovered middle class once this is all over with. That means providing some fail-safes for food, shelter, and physical and mental health. 4) Take things that are simply waste and eliminate them. 5) Give tax breaks to people who've managed to keep their jobs, hoping that the extra will be considered disposable income and be spent and not hoarded, this way the government doesn't do so much of the spending to start the economy, the people do.
Some further observations:
Obviously the whole "give the money to the companies" thing was a good idea in theory, but in practice they're using it to fund luxury vacations and jets (indirectly, granted, but I presume that if the company had tanked by not getting bailout funds, it couldn't pick up the tab for these things). As a pragmatic matter, I suppose this is still "stimulus" in that the people who work in the vacation and jet industries get to hold onto their jobs a bit longer. However, I'm not certain that we're prepared to pay for Nero to fiddle while Rome burns just to keep the fiddlemakers in the black. Oversight appears necessary.
The "tax breaks will lead to growth" thing only works if the people spend the rebates. If they're using it to pay bills (which is what mine was used on last year) or stuffed in a mattress, it isn't going to work. This holds true even if we include businesses in the tax breaks. If all the Jane Consumers aren't buying clothes this year because they need to stash the cash to recompense a tanked savings fund, then clothesmakers aren't going to use a tax incentive to expand their business. No market = contraction, not expansion. Also, a tax break to a corporation also has no oversight. They might reinvest it in workers and expanding the factories, or they might use their refund to pay for vacations to Tahiti. Normally, I wouldn't give a damn what they do with it. But since we're considering giving them this money, I think we might want to know what the plan is, and have a bit to say in how it's spent (see previous paragraph). For all those business leaders who will b*tch about this - you shouldn't have changed my mind by buying jets, luxury vacations, and crap. In screwing us, you screwed yourselves.
It's easy for me to say "eliminate waste" and not so easy for the sides to decide what is waste. So maybe we should come up with a system for rating these things, not just believe politician's buzzwords. How's this: 1) Does it put or keep someone in a job? 2) Is the proposed end product useful? 3) Does it prevent the unemployed from bottoming out in crucial areas (medical, housing, etc), or help them to improve their job prospects? 4) Is the industry targeted in actual trouble? 5) Is there some oversight to ensure the above will happen, or is it just a blank check (i.e. throwing money at a company or giving a huge tax break tantamount to throwing money at a company)?
These are, IMHO, the crucial questions to be answered in order to target the stimulus properly. There may be more factors, if I think of any I'll list them in an update.
Where am I going with this? When I saw in this article where the Republican leaders have weighed in on their idea of waste, I take issue with some of the list. Keeping the factors in mind:
ball money and go home. It may be a boondoggle, or it may be a good example of investing in the future. So which is it? I think we have to ask the scientists. In absence of a clear answer, I'd say no to this one, but I'm open to correction.
Creates jobs? Check. Creates something useful? Actually, a huge old Check. We need the things. Is the industry in trouble? Again, not sure which industry, but it sounds like generic factory work plus tech people, plus people to truck the parts, etc. This sounds like a good investment.
* * * *
I won't go into each and every provision, the rest are listed below, but you see where I'm going with this and apply the theory. We need to bring some brains to bear on this topic, and stop the partisan bullsh*t.
The companies at the top have lost in their speculations, which has left them strapped for cash. Only no one wants to loan to them anymore due to the speculations. So they want cash to avoid going belly-up, throwing thousands of workers out of work.
Meanwhile, the lack of cash flow has led smaller companies to have to cut down.
Further, people who had money in investments have watched those all go bye-bye, and so their disposable income no longer looks so disposable. They've stopped doing much of the big-ticket spending, and are starting to trickle to a halt on the medium-ticket nonessentials. People are buying less stuff, which leads companies to need to make less stuff, which means they're downsizing and . . . . over a million workers are out of work.
Okay, so we need to stop a huge circular clusterf*ck, right? Well, there's three things I see that are being talked about as solutions: 1) Band-aid some of the companies that are bleeding by throwing money at them, to let them go on functioning. 2) Throw money into stuff. Buying goods and services gives those companies profits they wouldn't have otherwise and keeps their people at work. Stuff that will be useful, not just anything, but still, let's buy us some stuff. 3) Take some of the money and use it for social programs to help the people who are already out of work, or are soon to become unemployed, so that they don't die or fall so far down the socioeconomic staircase that they and their kids will become permanent drains on the system instead of a recovered middle class once this is all over with. That means providing some fail-safes for food, shelter, and physical and mental health. 4) Take things that are simply waste and eliminate them. 5) Give tax breaks to people who've managed to keep their jobs, hoping that the extra will be considered disposable income and be spent and not hoarded, this way the government doesn't do so much of the spending to start the economy, the people do.
Some further observations:
Obviously the whole "give the money to the companies" thing was a good idea in theory, but in practice they're using it to fund luxury vacations and jets (indirectly, granted, but I presume that if the company had tanked by not getting bailout funds, it couldn't pick up the tab for these things). As a pragmatic matter, I suppose this is still "stimulus" in that the people who work in the vacation and jet industries get to hold onto their jobs a bit longer. However, I'm not certain that we're prepared to pay for Nero to fiddle while Rome burns just to keep the fiddlemakers in the black. Oversight appears necessary.
The "tax breaks will lead to growth" thing only works if the people spend the rebates. If they're using it to pay bills (which is what mine was used on last year) or stuffed in a mattress, it isn't going to work. This holds true even if we include businesses in the tax breaks. If all the Jane Consumers aren't buying clothes this year because they need to stash the cash to recompense a tanked savings fund, then clothesmakers aren't going to use a tax incentive to expand their business. No market = contraction, not expansion. Also, a tax break to a corporation also has no oversight. They might reinvest it in workers and expanding the factories, or they might use their refund to pay for vacations to Tahiti. Normally, I wouldn't give a damn what they do with it. But since we're considering giving them this money, I think we might want to know what the plan is, and have a bit to say in how it's spent (see previous paragraph). For all those business leaders who will b*tch about this - you shouldn't have changed my mind by buying jets, luxury vacations, and crap. In screwing us, you screwed yourselves.
It's easy for me to say "eliminate waste" and not so easy for the sides to decide what is waste. So maybe we should come up with a system for rating these things, not just believe politician's buzzwords. How's this: 1) Does it put or keep someone in a job? 2) Is the proposed end product useful? 3) Does it prevent the unemployed from bottoming out in crucial areas (medical, housing, etc), or help them to improve their job prospects? 4) Is the industry targeted in actual trouble? 5) Is there some oversight to ensure the above will happen, or is it just a blank check (i.e. throwing money at a company or giving a huge tax break tantamount to throwing money at a company)?
These are, IMHO, the crucial questions to be answered in order to target the stimulus properly. There may be more factors, if I think of any I'll list them in an update.
Where am I going with this? When I saw in this article where the Republican leaders have weighed in on their idea of waste, I take issue with some of the list. Keeping the factors in mind:
• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.It will create construction work, and technological work. Perhaps some shipping of the parts. Can we make sure we are dealing with US suppliers? Just a suggestion. As for the inefficiency, I'm not sure one way or the other. In doing a bit of checking, this has to do with coal and new technology to refine it and reduce emissions, etc. I'm seeing one side say that the technology is just too expensive to be efficient at this time, and another side saying it was only too expensive when Illinois won the bid for the project over Texas and Texas-linked politicians decided to take their
• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.Are movie producers in trouble? I'm thinking not, or not yet. While producing film does fund jobs making film, I don't believe there will be less film bought if we don't fund it. So, as it fails Factor #4, I wouldn't be in favor of this.
• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.Are they locally built? If so, it keeps jobs going. The things are handy for the digital switch (Though I'm tempted to deduct points because I'm not so sure I agreed with the digital switch in the first place, however, given it's a done deal, the things will count as useful). I'm not sure how you would categorize "people that make TV converter boxes" as a job, but the people who sell them - Radio Shack, Circuit City, etc. are showing a downtrend, so the industry probably qualifies as troubled. So, all in all, it's valid. There is one negative, however, that doesn't fit neatly into the boxes above: We loves us some TV. I know people who would starve before they shut off their cable. So I'm not so sure we need this much funding. Let's make sure only the needy get the coupons. Can we go halves?
• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).
Creates jobs? Check. Creates something useful? Actually, a huge old Check. We need the things. Is the industry in trouble? Again, not sure which industry, but it sounds like generic factory work plus tech people, plus people to truck the parts, etc. This sounds like a good investment.
• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. • $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.Create jobs? Oh, yes. Construction jobs, furniture makers, shipping, architects, and so forth. Is it an industry in trouble? I think construction qualifies, not sure about furniture makers but my instinct tells me probably yes - I'm fairly sure new furniture falls under "luxuries to cut" for most people. Is the product useful? Well, they need a headquarters, and this particular site, while controversial, has already been approved. So I guess it's only wasteful to go ahead and build the damn thing? Oookaaay. Kinda surprised the Reps were the ones bitching about this.
• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.Create jobs? Yep, auto industry sucks right now. Useful product? Absolutely, given gas prices and pollution reduction. So what's to whine about? Not understanding the problem here, either, except perhaps a knee-jerk "blech" reaction to anything with the word "green" in it.
• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.Job creation? Medical workers, receptionists, basic desk jobs. Industry in trouble is n/a because it's not handing money to an industry, it's a government entity so by nature all its funding is government. It does provide medical assistance to those people who are not working, though I see where the Reps are upset - it has to do with sex. Okay, fine. I get that nobody is supposed to be having sex, hence the removal of the birth control portion of the bill (though why in the h*ll they think it will be cheaper to pay for welfare babies than the pill is beyond me). But what about making it part of a more comprehensive health provision? I'd expand, not contract, this puppy.
* * * *
I won't go into each and every provision, the rest are listed below, but you see where I'm going with this and apply the theory. We need to bring some brains to bear on this topic, and stop the partisan bullsh*t.
• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.
• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.
• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.
• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.
• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."
• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.
• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.
• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.
• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.
• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.
• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.
• $500 million for state and local fire stations.
• $650 million for wild land fire management on forest service lands.
• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.
• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.
• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.
• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.
• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.
• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.
• $850 million for Amtrak.
• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.
• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.
• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.
• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Um, Say Again? *Updated with further thoughts after a modicum of caffiene*
Okay, it is Monday morning and I'm undercaffienated, but please explain to me this logic:
It takes awhile to get all my cylindars firing, but I'm pretty sure that the stated reason for this change - it prevents identity theft - makes little sense. Sure, you might be closing one loophole, wherein someone who illegally acquired a driver's license, or forged a bunch of other id, and happens to look just like the person could theoretically have come into the station and demanded a new one. Now it would be mailed to the old address instead. But what are we really changing?
1) How often do people who illegally acquire licenses actually fit the stats of the person whose license they acquire sufficiently to pass the security involved with going in and getting the license changed? In other words, this is not generally a crime of opportunity - I'd imagine there's planning involved. Planning connotes a capability of circumventing the little "oops, it's going to be mailed to me?" idea.
2) Doesn't subjecting the license to the mail, rather than handing it to the individual involved, create a greater risk that the license will be illegally 'acquired' in the first place by someone simply stealing it from the mailbox?
3) Does this really solve the problem? I mean, I presume there will still be a mechanism for changing our address on the license, unless the powers that be intend that we never, ever move again. As they've not mentioned any changes to this process, I further presume it will be similar to the one in place now - bring in a utility bill or something showing where you live now. Okay, if I'm someone whose going to go to the trouble to have an illegally acquired license/id and actually take it on as my own by changing the address to mine, is it really that hard for me to forge a utility bill? I'm thinking not so much. Give me a color scanner and ten minutes' time and I'm pretty sure I could have a passable phone or electric bill for you.
Given this, will someone please try to explain to me why we're doing this again? Particularly given that this will increase costs:
Of course, they "think" it might lower costs in the end by having a central processing area. Pretty sure they won't then drop the fees for the license, though, if that does turn out to be the case.
I realize that the DOT has unilaterally decided this under the administrative rules, but I'm wondering if we can't bring some pressure to bear on this subject? I, for one, would rather drive to freaking Des Moines to physically acquire a new license than to have one mailed to me.
If anyone4 can think of a reason why this would be a good idea, please leave it in the comments. My still-tired brain thanks you.
[U]nder new procedures coming this year, Iowa drivers will wait up to 10 days after renewal to receive a new license card in the mail.
The new renewal process, expected to start as soon as this summer, is aimed at improving security, Iowa transportation officials say.
"It's a mechanism we're using to help ensure our process does not lend itself to identity theft," said Shirley Andre, director of the Iowa Department of Motor Vehicles.
It takes awhile to get all my cylindars firing, but I'm pretty sure that the stated reason for this change - it prevents identity theft - makes little sense. Sure, you might be closing one loophole, wherein someone who illegally acquired a driver's license, or forged a bunch of other id, and happens to look just like the person could theoretically have come into the station and demanded a new one. Now it would be mailed to the old address instead. But what are we really changing?
1) How often do people who illegally acquire licenses actually fit the stats of the person whose license they acquire sufficiently to pass the security involved with going in and getting the license changed? In other words, this is not generally a crime of opportunity - I'd imagine there's planning involved. Planning connotes a capability of circumventing the little "oops, it's going to be mailed to me?" idea.
2) Doesn't subjecting the license to the mail, rather than handing it to the individual involved, create a greater risk that the license will be illegally 'acquired' in the first place by someone simply stealing it from the mailbox?
3) Does this really solve the problem? I mean, I presume there will still be a mechanism for changing our address on the license, unless the powers that be intend that we never, ever move again. As they've not mentioned any changes to this process, I further presume it will be similar to the one in place now - bring in a utility bill or something showing where you live now. Okay, if I'm someone whose going to go to the trouble to have an illegally acquired license/id and actually take it on as my own by changing the address to mine, is it really that hard for me to forge a utility bill? I'm thinking not so much. Give me a color scanner and ten minutes' time and I'm pretty sure I could have a passable phone or electric bill for you.
Given this, will someone please try to explain to me why we're doing this again? Particularly given that this will increase costs:
An average of 850,000 driver's licenses are issued by the Iowa DOT per year and with the increased cost per card, the state will be paying an estimated $120,000 more per year, she said.
Of course, they "think" it might lower costs in the end by having a central processing area. Pretty sure they won't then drop the fees for the license, though, if that does turn out to be the case.
I realize that the DOT has unilaterally decided this under the administrative rules, but I'm wondering if we can't bring some pressure to bear on this subject? I, for one, would rather drive to freaking Des Moines to physically acquire a new license than to have one mailed to me.
If anyone4 can think of a reason why this would be a good idea, please leave it in the comments. My still-tired brain thanks you.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Hidden Wonders
I keep track of Snopes' New Urban Legends, primarily because I have a bunch of people forward me conspiracy crap and I like to do my part in stopping it in its tracks. But every now and again, I get a good lesson myself. This morning's addition was true, and one to contemplate:
The original Washington Post story is here. It has video. It's worth reading.
As for me, I'm making one of those resolutions to find more beauty in my day.
A Most Interesting Story
A man sat at a metro station in Washington DC and started to play the violin; it was a cold January morning. He played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes. During that time, since it was rush hour, it was calculated that thousands of people went through the station, most of them on their way to work.
Three minutes went by and a middle aged man noticed there was musician playing. He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds and then hurried up to meet his schedule. A minute later, the violinist received his first dollar tip: a woman threw the money in the till and without stopping continued to walk. A few minutes later, someone leaned against the wall to listen to him, but the man looked at his watch and started to walk again. Clearly he was late for work.
The one who paid the most attention was a 3 year old boy. His mother tagged him along, hurried but the kid stopped to look at the violinist. Finally the mother pushed hard and the child continued to walk turning his head all the time. This action was repeated by several other children. All the parents, without exception, forced them to move on.
In the 45 minutes the musician played, only 6 people stopped and stayed for a while. About 20 gave him money but continued to walk their normal pace. He collected $32. When he finished playing and silence took over, no one noticed it. No one applauded, nor was there any recognition.
No one knew this, but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the best musicians in the world. He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written with a violin worth 3.5 million dollars.
Two days before his playing in the subway, Joshua Bell sold out at a theater in Boston and the seats average $100.
This is a real story. Joshua Bell playing incognito in the metro station was organized by the Washington Post as part of an social experiment about perception, taste and priorities of people. The outlines were: in a commonplace environment at an inappropriate hour: Do we perceive beauty? Do we stop to appreciate it? Do we recognize the talent in an unexpected context?
One of the possible conclusions from this experience could be: If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world playing the best music ever written, how many other things are we missing?
The original Washington Post story is here. It has video. It's worth reading.
As for me, I'm making one of those resolutions to find more beauty in my day.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
End of an Era
Bill was there for my first ICCT show, back when I was 18, playing the doctor in Blithe Spirit. He was in my first show back when I returned in my thirties, as the cab driver in Harvey. Geez, we were talking about him at Vicki's on New Year's Eve, when the subject of ICCT came up.
Like Dweeze, I wonder if anyone will mention at the memorial his half-joking idea of being stuffed and set in ICCT's lobby to hold programs. I remember him talking about it once, and someone saying he could incorporate animatronics so he could bow to people.
I wonder if he'll have the ring, and if we can rub it one last time, for luck.
I wonder if we could set off some of his special effects so he can go out with a bang.
I wonder if we could work "three and a quarter" into the eulogy, 'cause that's funny.
We'll miss you, Bill.
Like Dweeze, I wonder if anyone will mention at the memorial his half-joking idea of being stuffed and set in ICCT's lobby to hold programs. I remember him talking about it once, and someone saying he could incorporate animatronics so he could bow to people.
I wonder if he'll have the ring, and if we can rub it one last time, for luck.
I wonder if we could set off some of his special effects so he can go out with a bang.
I wonder if we could work "three and a quarter" into the eulogy, 'cause that's funny.
We'll miss you, Bill.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Things I Learned on the Internet this Morning
Despite the depression recession and that whole women's liberation thing, they still have debutante balls. Seriously?! And why is it this photo resonates less of "Eighteenth-century glamour" than "Anne Boleyn putting her head on the chopping block"? Color me cynical.
Apparently, you shouldn't regift, but if you're gonna, there's rules. Here's a question: why not? I mean, if I'm not enamored with a particular item of clothing, already have the latest kitchen gadget, or I really don't mesh with a bit of household shelf-shrapnel, why am I supposed to let it gather dust in the basement rather than giving it to someone who would actually appreciate the thing? That's stupid. Here's my proclaimation, in writing and in public: if I've ever given you anything you don't like, please feel free to exchange it, return it, or give it away. It's not a damn shrine, it's a gift. I thought you'd like it or find it funny, but I was wrong. No biggie. If you accidentally regift it to me, I will probably laugh at you. But that's part of the fun. Lighten up, people. Caveat: if someone made or gave you something thinking it's totally cool, it's probably not a good idea to bring it to any gag-gift or white-elephant exchange they're going to attend. It looks like you're making fun of their taste. This, and a nasty cold that kept me home this year, was the only thing precluding me from unloading a couple of sappily sentimental statuettes from the wedding at white elephant exchanges this year. Oh, but I'm keeping the tabletop cross that has the Virgin Mary on it with the word "Purity" engraved in the base . . . and lights up inside and changes colors like some lava lamp or insane LED tree. That's just too good to give away.
Book buying is apparently becoming a social conscience thing - who do I want to support with my dollars? Oh, I so don't think so. Unless I know the author personally, I'm buying as cheap as I can get it. Ask anyone, I'm a total book junkie. I go through a book every a day or two unless my life is insanely busy. A new book is a huge treat, I'm generally forced by economics and not having a ton of time to make treks to the library to reread my own. I once had aspirations of having a highbrow library - leatherbound or hardback, no paperbacks, and a whole ton of classics. Yeah, sure. I can no more put down a book with an intriguing blurb than a chocoholic can walk away from chocolate cake. It doesn't matter if it's a timeless classic I've not had time to read, or some bestselling drivel with a thrilling plot, I'm absolutely compelled to read it. So if you think I'm going to be spending $25 for a hardback when I can get the same fix for a penny plus postage, you're insane. Unless . . . Well, I already have it right here in my hand, and I would have to wait for delivery if I ordered it online, and I don't have a show going on right now, so I could probably finish it tonight. . . . yeah, I don't think the publishing industry has much to worry about on this end.
Everyone says to be careful out driving tonight. What you should actually be worried about is walking.
Apparently, having an upside-down mortgage is the glue that keeps bad marriages together these days. I understand marriage advocate's ideas that it's for keeps and everyone just needs to try a little harder, but wouldn't this be a particular brand of hell?
Apparently, you shouldn't regift, but if you're gonna, there's rules. Here's a question: why not? I mean, if I'm not enamored with a particular item of clothing, already have the latest kitchen gadget, or I really don't mesh with a bit of household shelf-shrapnel, why am I supposed to let it gather dust in the basement rather than giving it to someone who would actually appreciate the thing? That's stupid. Here's my proclaimation, in writing and in public: if I've ever given you anything you don't like, please feel free to exchange it, return it, or give it away. It's not a damn shrine, it's a gift. I thought you'd like it or find it funny, but I was wrong. No biggie. If you accidentally regift it to me, I will probably laugh at you. But that's part of the fun. Lighten up, people. Caveat: if someone made or gave you something thinking it's totally cool, it's probably not a good idea to bring it to any gag-gift or white-elephant exchange they're going to attend. It looks like you're making fun of their taste. This, and a nasty cold that kept me home this year, was the only thing precluding me from unloading a couple of sappily sentimental statuettes from the wedding at white elephant exchanges this year. Oh, but I'm keeping the tabletop cross that has the Virgin Mary on it with the word "Purity" engraved in the base . . . and lights up inside and changes colors like some lava lamp or insane LED tree. That's just too good to give away.
Book buying is apparently becoming a social conscience thing - who do I want to support with my dollars? Oh, I so don't think so. Unless I know the author personally, I'm buying as cheap as I can get it. Ask anyone, I'm a total book junkie. I go through a book every a day or two unless my life is insanely busy. A new book is a huge treat, I'm generally forced by economics and not having a ton of time to make treks to the library to reread my own. I once had aspirations of having a highbrow library - leatherbound or hardback, no paperbacks, and a whole ton of classics. Yeah, sure. I can no more put down a book with an intriguing blurb than a chocoholic can walk away from chocolate cake. It doesn't matter if it's a timeless classic I've not had time to read, or some bestselling drivel with a thrilling plot, I'm absolutely compelled to read it. So if you think I'm going to be spending $25 for a hardback when I can get the same fix for a penny plus postage, you're insane. Unless . . . Well, I already have it right here in my hand, and I would have to wait for delivery if I ordered it online, and I don't have a show going on right now, so I could probably finish it tonight. . . . yeah, I don't think the publishing industry has much to worry about on this end.
Everyone says to be careful out driving tonight. What you should actually be worried about is walking.
Apparently, having an upside-down mortgage is the glue that keeps bad marriages together these days. I understand marriage advocate's ideas that it's for keeps and everyone just needs to try a little harder, but wouldn't this be a particular brand of hell?
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Update
Maybe they do have the evidence of an actual pay to play on Blago after all:
But is it part of the indictment?
Tricksy politicians.
[T]wo sources close to Jackson told CNN that, in 2002, Blagojevich -- then running for governor of Illinois -- solicited a $25,000 campaign donation from Jackson, which he did not get.
At the time, Jackson's wife, Sandi, was a candidate for the job of director of the state's Lottery Commission, a post she did not win, the sources said.
After Blagojevich took office, in early 2003, he told Jackson something to the effect of, "You see what $25,000 would have done?" the sources said.
In 2006, Jackson reported the incident, which he believed to have been an attempt at a shakedown, the sources said.
But is it part of the indictment?
Spokesman Kenneth Edmonds described Jackson's interaction with federal authorities this way: "As a responsible citizen and elected official, Congressman Jackson has in the past provided information to federal authorities regarding his personal knowledge of perceived corruption and governmental misconduct.And if not, does the indictment have enough hard evidence of an offer? Even this is rather oblique - a donation coinciding with appointment, but it's not made explicitly contingent until afterward, and that is open to spin.
"This was completely unrelated to the current investigation regarding the U.S. Senate appointment. And it is absolutely inaccurate to describe the congressman as an informant," Edmonds said in a written statement.
Tricksy politicians.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Mysteries
Two legal articles are making me scratch my head during my lunch break.
First, CNN has announced that the Adam Walsh case is finally closed. Cool. But on what basis? I've read the article three times, and the closest I get is this:
Second, it is now being questioned whether there's a case against Blagojevich at all, according to this NY times article:
Meanwhile I'm working from home, waiting out this freaking winter wonderland - at least until my next hearing at 9 tomorrow - and another head-scratching puzzle has come up: There's me, a cat, and a dog, in a house with a bunch of square footage to roam in. So why is it again that I always seem to find us all in the same chair, bed, or couch?
First, CNN has announced that the Adam Walsh case is finally closed. Cool. But on what basis? I've read the article three times, and the closest I get is this:
When he took over last year as police, Wagner vowed to close the Walsh case. He reviewed the entire case file and assigned a retired detective, Joe Matthews, to conduct an independent review. Toole, a convicted pedophile and killer who associated with notorious serial killer Henry Lee Lucas, died in prison in 1996. Wagner said investigators were able to place Toole in Hollywood at the time Adam disappeared.So is it over just 'cause they decided it was? Surely any new evidence can't be classified as part of an ongoing investigation, 'cause the killer they've named is dead. Unless there's an alleged accomplice? I'm simply puzzled.
Toole twice confessed to killing the boy -- and twice recanted his story, saying he made it up. It could not be learned what, if any, new evidence exists. . . .
Walsh has long believed Toole killed Adam, and on Tuesday, Chief Wagner said there never any other suspect. Toole died in prison in 1996 while serving a life sentence on unrelated charges.
Toole's confessions in the Walsh case were questioned by police because Toole confessed to other murders that police knew he did not commit.
Although the details of his story changed, Toole did lead police to the Sears store and pointed out the spot where Adam was last seen. He also led police to the canal where the boy's head was found.
But investigators could not find Adam's body where Toole said he left it.
A bloody piece of carpet removed from Toole's car was lost by police many years ago, before DNA testing became available.
Second, it is now being questioned whether there's a case against Blagojevich at all, according to this NY times article:
There is no evidence, at least none that has been disclosed, that the governor actually received anything of value — and the Senate appointment has yet to be made.Please tell me they didn't push this too early, that they actually have at least a recording of an offer for value.
Meanwhile I'm working from home, waiting out this freaking winter wonderland - at least until my next hearing at 9 tomorrow - and another head-scratching puzzle has come up: There's me, a cat, and a dog, in a house with a bunch of square footage to roam in. So why is it again that I always seem to find us all in the same chair, bed, or couch?
Thursday, December 11, 2008
That's Gotta Smart
Actor slits his own throat as knife switch turns fiction into reality. D's comment: "Good thing they weren't doing Sweeney." No sh*t.
Perfect fodder for the "always check your props before the house opens" lecture.
Perfect fodder for the "always check your props before the house opens" lecture.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Do You See Jesus?
I was given a vintage nativity set by an aunt, one I'd admired in her home. She has her own rules on religion, including following the old Protestant precept that it's bad to show pictures of God. So I wasn't surprised when she had displayed it without the actual manger. But I was rather surprised when she gave it to me sans child, and when I asked she said she'd thrown it away. So its more respectful to toss Baby Jesus out with the old coffee grounds than it is to display it? Ooookaaay.
So now I've got Joseph, three kings, and a bunch of shepherds hanging around with Mary and the animals, all waiting for a non-existant savior. I know exactly how appropriate the atheists and agnostics would find that, and while I'm not without a sense of irony, I'd like to complete the set. Call it OCD. So I'm searching on Ebay through 11,000 some items for nativity scenes to find one that roughly matches. There are tons of odd statuettes, but you'd be surprised how much the Jesuses (Jesusi? Jesi?) go for. D thinks people make wreaths out of them. How odd.
Of course, I could always just do as a colleague suggested - wrap a bunch of cotton up, plop it in the center, and when people look at it oddly, say: "Do you see Jesus? You have to really believe, you know. Don't you see Jesus?"
I think I'll keep looking.
**UPDATE**
D found the baby Jesus wreath bit - - Annelle makes one in Steel Magnolias. So the good news is that I won my baby Jesus and hopefully it will blend nicely with the rest of the set. The bad news is that somewhere a propsperson is cussing.
Side Note: A beautiful quote he found while looking it up: "When someone asks you 'think about what Jesus would do', remember that a valid option is to freak out and turn over tables" -- Unknown
So now I've got Joseph, three kings, and a bunch of shepherds hanging around with Mary and the animals, all waiting for a non-existant savior. I know exactly how appropriate the atheists and agnostics would find that, and while I'm not without a sense of irony, I'd like to complete the set. Call it OCD. So I'm searching on Ebay through 11,000 some items for nativity scenes to find one that roughly matches. There are tons of odd statuettes, but you'd be surprised how much the Jesuses (Jesusi? Jesi?) go for. D thinks people make wreaths out of them. How odd.
Of course, I could always just do as a colleague suggested - wrap a bunch of cotton up, plop it in the center, and when people look at it oddly, say: "Do you see Jesus? You have to really believe, you know. Don't you see Jesus?"
I think I'll keep looking.
**UPDATE**
D found the baby Jesus wreath bit - - Annelle makes one in Steel Magnolias. So the good news is that I won my baby Jesus and hopefully it will blend nicely with the rest of the set. The bad news is that somewhere a propsperson is cussing.
Side Note: A beautiful quote he found while looking it up: "When someone asks you 'think about what Jesus would do', remember that a valid option is to freak out and turn over tables" -- Unknown
Miscellanea
A few changes on the sidebar required some tweaks, let me know if they're not working.
Merry Christmas, Illinois.
It's been suggested that the Coleman/Franken election recount is close enough that they should have a coin toss:
I'm thinking not so much. The text of the Minnesota law states as follows:
As I read it, it says a "tie vote" not a "statistical tie." Last I looked, Coleman had it by 192 votes. That's not a tie. Yes, there are a lot of arguments about certain ballots (I'm not surprised Mr. Lizard People has come forward for his 15 minutes of fame), but let's face it, people: there are going to be errors whenever you count this many items. Just ask anyone who's had to work retail inventory. If it were an actual tie, I'd be all for the coin toss - though a trial by combat sounds far more interesting.
I should get back to work now.
Merry Christmas, Illinois.
It's been suggested that the Coleman/Franken election recount is close enough that they should have a coin toss:
Luckily, Minnesota’s electoral law has a provision for ties. After all the counting and recounting, if the vote is statistically tied, the state should invoke the section of the law that requires the victor to be chosen by lot. It’s hard to swallow, but the right way to end the senatorial race between Mr. Coleman and Mr. Franken will be to flip a coin.
I'm thinking not so much. The text of the Minnesota law states as follows:
204C.34 TIE VOTES.
In case of a tie vote for nomination or election to an office, the canvassing board with the responsibility for declaring the results for that office shall determine the tie by lot.
History: 1981 c 29 art 5 s 34
As I read it, it says a "tie vote" not a "statistical tie." Last I looked, Coleman had it by 192 votes. That's not a tie. Yes, there are a lot of arguments about certain ballots (I'm not surprised Mr. Lizard People has come forward for his 15 minutes of fame), but let's face it, people: there are going to be errors whenever you count this many items. Just ask anyone who's had to work retail inventory. If it were an actual tie, I'd be all for the coin toss - though a trial by combat sounds far more interesting.
I should get back to work now.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Amazing
We're into transition time and the left is mystified as to why Obama isn't picking liberal progressives, and the right is saying that the Dem establishment is the liberal/progressive pick is claiming he's just another Washington politician.
*Sigh*
He's doing exactly what he said he'd do, keeping centrist. Despite the campaign hype, he's not a communist and not going to impose every left-wing fantasy upon us. If you read his position papers, you'd know that. Why are both sides acting surprised?
Time they both figured out that the so-called "silent majority" might just be (cue scare music) . . . moderate.
*Sigh*
He's doing exactly what he said he'd do, keeping centrist. Despite the campaign hype, he's not a communist and not going to impose every left-wing fantasy upon us. If you read his position papers, you'd know that. Why are both sides acting surprised?
Time they both figured out that the so-called "silent majority" might just be (cue scare music) . . . moderate.
Okay, Here's a Test
AmericanCivicsLiteracy.org has a decent civics test up on its site. Unfortunately, the public doesn't do so well:
My score:
So what's yours?
Side note: some of this ain't civics, some of it is political theory. For example, they ask a question about what the government should do in a recession (raise or lower taxes, raise or lower spending). That's economics, and it's dependent upon the causes of the recession and which economic theory you espouse. So there's a bit of a bias.
Side note #2 - SPOILER ALERT, TAKE THE TEST BEFORE READING IF YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE IT AT ALL: D says questions are changing between when he took it (He got 100%. Toldja he's smarter than I am.) and when I took it, as bloggers are calling the site out on nuances. (Question #9 specifically had originally included "levy income taxes" as its "B" choice instead of "make zoning laws" and both are powers granted to the U.S. federal government by the Constitution. As the commenter I linked said: Perhaps they're making some distinction between the original Constitution and the current version as amended (the power to levy income taxes was granted by amendment), but Amendments are properly part of "the Constitution".tax question, and was wrong. So given some inherent bias in the questions, and the fact that the questions are evolving, it appears it is not exactly scientific. But it's subtle enough and it's a good enough idea to know this stuff that I endorse it.
ISI crafted a study to measure the independent impact of college on the acquisition and maintenance of civic literacy over a lifetime. First, a random sample of 2,508 American adults of all backgrounds was surveyed, allowing comparisons to be made between the college and non-college educated. They were asked 33 straightforward civics questions, many of which high school graduates and new citizens are expected to know. Respondents were also asked several questions concerning their participation in American civic life, their attitudes about perennial issues of American governance, and other behaviors that may or may not contribute to civic literacy. Finally, the results were run through multivariate regression analysis, allowing ISI to compare the civic impact of college with that of other societal factors.
Seventy-one percent of Americans fail the test, with an overall average score of 49%.
- Liberals score 49%; conservatives score 48%. Republicans score 52%; Democrats score 45%.
- Fewer than half of all Americans can name all three branches of government, a minimal requirement for understanding America’s constitutional system.
My score:
So what's yours?
Side note: some of this ain't civics, some of it is political theory. For example, they ask a question about what the government should do in a recession (raise or lower taxes, raise or lower spending). That's economics, and it's dependent upon the causes of the recession and which economic theory you espouse. So there's a bit of a bias.
Side note #2 - SPOILER ALERT, TAKE THE TEST BEFORE READING IF YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE IT AT ALL: D says questions are changing between when he took it (He got 100%. Toldja he's smarter than I am.) and when I took it, as bloggers are calling the site out on nuances. (Question #9 specifically had originally included "levy income taxes" as its "B" choice instead of "make zoning laws" and both are powers granted to the U.S. federal government by the Constitution. As the commenter I linked said: Perhaps they're making some distinction between the original Constitution and the current version as amended (the power to levy income taxes was granted by amendment), but Amendments are properly part of "the Constitution".tax question, and was wrong. So given some inherent bias in the questions, and the fact that the questions are evolving, it appears it is not exactly scientific. But it's subtle enough and it's a good enough idea to know this stuff that I endorse it.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Odds and Ends
I'm experimenting with acquiring a cat. The dog seems happy, something else to play with. The cat. . . well, it's getting better. She misses the other cats in the barn where she lived until I rudely took her home in her very first car ride. She still hides much of the day. But she uses her litterbox - 100% yesterday - and is becoming a little more bold. As for the dog, she's not liking it. It's a good thing she has all her claws. However, she doesn't choose to inflict any real damage and she seems more willing to tolerate being constantly sniffed. Funny moment: Dog and cat in face-off in hallway. Dog picks up rope and tries to get cat to play tug of war. Cat looks at dog with total "WTF are you doing? I'm a CAT!" look on her face.
Car update: still dead. Mechanic 1 says my timing belt snapped and he can't fix it, so I should call Mechanic 2 in the next town over. Mechanic 2 says I don't have a timing belt, I have a timing chain and get it over to him so he can figure out what's really wrong, he suspects it's a fuel issue. Tells me if Mechanic 1 wants to charge me more than $65 to tow it over, I should call him and he'll go get it instead. Arranged for the tow with Mechanic 1 for $65, plus he knocked half off the tow into the garage since it was pointless. I feel pretty good about Mechanic 2, though I'm always very nervous using people I don't know. Waiting to hear the verdict, using D's jeep in the meantime.
Computer update: Kmacis is very kindly working on it - he's eliminated the new hard-drive we installed six months ago, and eliminated one memory card. We're down to another memory card, which is apparently hidden somewhere and he has to disassemble more to find it (it may be in the motherboard itself), or the motherboard. I'm pricing new computers. Dammit. I'm also trying to work efficiently without any of my shortcuts or toolbars and with more printer issues - the computer finds the printer, but not the scanner. Odd.
CCD again last night (Catholic class). It's odd to me that there's no agenda, nothing I have to have accomplished by the end of the year. So it's totally organic. Last night we went from reading the story about the manna in the desert to them asking me what exactly is the separation of church and state and why do we have it, what the difference is between the Catholic and Protestant bibles. We also somehow diverged into doctrinal issues and things like the old "name it and claim it" issue, and I happened to mention Janis Joplin's song, Mercedes Benz. They'd never heard of Woodstock. Last week, we were talking about gay marriage and whether the government should ban it, and what the church's role should and could be. That makes it sound like a reasoned debate, but remember, they're 8th-graders. So it was more one person asking a question, and I try to answer it while three side conversations are going on, and then somebody blurts out another point, and I shut them up long enough to get something out. Like herding cats. I suppose if I were any better at this, it would look like a reasoned debate. Oh, well. At least we're having the conversations and I was never trained in this stuff anyway.
I should post something intelligent about the news of the day, but I'm too wrapped up in the little crap today. If you want it, you know where the news sites are.
Car update: still dead. Mechanic 1 says my timing belt snapped and he can't fix it, so I should call Mechanic 2 in the next town over. Mechanic 2 says I don't have a timing belt, I have a timing chain and get it over to him so he can figure out what's really wrong, he suspects it's a fuel issue. Tells me if Mechanic 1 wants to charge me more than $65 to tow it over, I should call him and he'll go get it instead. Arranged for the tow with Mechanic 1 for $65, plus he knocked half off the tow into the garage since it was pointless. I feel pretty good about Mechanic 2, though I'm always very nervous using people I don't know. Waiting to hear the verdict, using D's jeep in the meantime.
Computer update: Kmacis is very kindly working on it - he's eliminated the new hard-drive we installed six months ago, and eliminated one memory card. We're down to another memory card, which is apparently hidden somewhere and he has to disassemble more to find it (it may be in the motherboard itself), or the motherboard. I'm pricing new computers. Dammit. I'm also trying to work efficiently without any of my shortcuts or toolbars and with more printer issues - the computer finds the printer, but not the scanner. Odd.
CCD again last night (Catholic class). It's odd to me that there's no agenda, nothing I have to have accomplished by the end of the year. So it's totally organic. Last night we went from reading the story about the manna in the desert to them asking me what exactly is the separation of church and state and why do we have it, what the difference is between the Catholic and Protestant bibles. We also somehow diverged into doctrinal issues and things like the old "name it and claim it" issue, and I happened to mention Janis Joplin's song, Mercedes Benz. They'd never heard of Woodstock. Last week, we were talking about gay marriage and whether the government should ban it, and what the church's role should and could be. That makes it sound like a reasoned debate, but remember, they're 8th-graders. So it was more one person asking a question, and I try to answer it while three side conversations are going on, and then somebody blurts out another point, and I shut them up long enough to get something out. Like herding cats. I suppose if I were any better at this, it would look like a reasoned debate. Oh, well. At least we're having the conversations and I was never trained in this stuff anyway.
I should post something intelligent about the news of the day, but I'm too wrapped up in the little crap today. If you want it, you know where the news sites are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)