Xark!

I've got a bad feeling about this...

I'm generally a pretty optimistic guy, and there's a general logic to that attitude:  Things have pretty much always looked bad to some degree, yet things have, generally,  gotten better over time.  So you shut your eyes and you keep on walking and you whistle past the graveyard and then, you know -- the sun comes out.

But now a-days you look around, you do the math, and you realize: Holy shit, dude -- are we fucked?

I get the sense that this is one of those moments when things are much worse than "they" are letting on. Which makes me think: We need an "F-Scale."  Like, if stuff is just sorta screwed up, but things generally work and you can pretty much expect that you're going to be able to keep your job and your house and suicide bombers aren't going to move in next door and really downgrade your property values, that would be F-1.

And then an F-10 would be economic depression, the destruction of the Bill of Rights, civil war and environmental collapse. And so on.

So where does that put us? Because when the Feds are bailing out the banks and the President is giving the economy a "You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie" pep-talk, and currency converters in Amsterdam stop exchanging dollars because their value is dropping so fast, that's got to be like an F-7.

And when we're five years into a botched, brutal war and still hoping that the latest strategy is someday going to give the Iraqis a chance to build a society that's stable enough to do simple shit like, say, provide electrical power to most of the grid for most of the day, that's at LEAST an F-8.

And then we've got a political campaign where the entire focus of the past few days has been a concerted, deliberate attempt to destroy an inspiring presidential candidate by endlessly looping out-of-context statements by his preacher?  At essentially the same time that the President of the United States of America is openly advocating TORTURE? And the media doesn't even think the torture veto is really all that NEWSWORTHY?

Where's the F-scale on THAT?

Answers, please, on a post card...

South Carolina Primary Numbers

So here's a few numbers from the South Carolina Democratic Primary. They are, of course, unofficial, and gleaned from sites such as CNN and Charleston.net:

Total number of votes cast
Dem Primary (1/26):     530,322 (54.5%)
GOP Primary  (1/19):     442,918 (45.5%)
Total:                                 973,240

87404 more voters went to the polls in the Democratic Primary than GOP primary. Yes, it was raining and cold on the 19th. It was overcast and cold on the 26th as well. In fact, as Dan and I walked to our polling place, it was sprinkling and windy and made my eyes water.

2004 Dem primary:      280000

Using the total number of votes in both primaries, here are some figures calculated by xark and rounded:
Percentage of total votes in both primaries:
Obama             30%
McCain            15%
Clinton          14%
Huckabee      13%
Edwards           9%

Another fun figure:
If you take the top two vote-getters in each  primary,  Obama and Clinton  for Dems and McCain and Huckabee for GOP, the Dems got 44% of the total  number of votes cast, compared to  28%  for the  Republicans. Interesting, if nothing else.

And away we go

It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine. REM

Once,  the biggies controlled the pipelines, deciding whose content was disseminated and how.  But no more. Thousands of little conduits are siphoning the power from the few and allowing art and information to flow up, over, around to audiences, albeit smaller ones, everywhere.

We've witnessed the phenomenon of Radiohead's Web-only album release. Here's another example of a breach in the wall: Ingrid Michaelson.  The NY-based singer/songwriter's road to fame, if not quite stardom, ran through MySpace, where her music was found by TV types, scoring her an Old Navy commercial and a few seconds on Grey's Anatomy.  Now she's gaining traction as an indie darling, with coverage in the likes of The New York Times and  Rolling Stone. Her second album, Girls and Boys, has been rereleased and is doing nicely on Billboard.com (meaning there's radio play) and iTunes.

Why is this so cool? She's never been signed to a label.

Oh yes, the end is coming.

Bad credit

If you've been rabidly keeping up with the pending mortgage crisis in the U.S. and its global economic consequences, good for you.  I've been out on the town with princesses.

However, if you would like a lovely explanation of just what the hell the "credit crunch" is and why people everywhere are aflutter about looming defaults of thousands of borrowers, visit one of the top sites for U.S. news coverage: the BBC.

This little Q&A lays out nicely what the problem is and why it matters.  It's bizness news in English (no pun intended) for those who would like to be economically literate, but aren't masochistic enough to have an MBA. It's from September, but there are lots of links to news stories on the site if you'd like to know more.

Polish the tiara, ladies!

Mark your calendars: The fifth annual International Princess Day will be celebrated on Dec. 14.

The history:

Also known as "Wear Your Tiara to Work Day," International Princess Day is held each year to raise awareness of the thrills of being a girl ...

The idea for IPD originated from the observation that qualities of the feminine were seen as negatives in certain arenas by both sexes. (Plus Princess Carol and I had birthdays within days of each other in December, so it was convenient.)

(There's more on IPD  here. But, uh, yeah, we've capriciously changed some things from last year already so stay tuned to xark!) All princesses are invited to wear a tiara all day: at work, at home, at the mall, anywhere.  Plan to take lots of photos! That can be published!  For those here in the Lowcountry, there will be a celebration after work, I'm thinking  5-8 or  at a place TBA, but most likely a bar downtown, unless other princesses have better ideas. I hope to  have  discounts for  those wearing tiaras, courtesy of Guerrilla Muse, my online store. Yes! There is IPD merchandise available!!!

Full details will go out as soon as possible, but plan to participate and join the fun! Feel free to spread the word to any and all of your royal friends.

"One For Me, One for a Child": for a limited time only

The "One Laptop Per Child" program has designed a pretty cool device for 3rd world ("developing nations") use, including extreme power efficiency, an even more extremely power efficient reading mode, zero config shared networking, no moving parts, stable free OS, etc, etc, in a ruggedized case.  These guys have really put a lot of thought into a good laptop for the environment.

Their target is a $100 laptop.  Right now they're at $186 or something like that. 

I don't know why they don't just make this generally available on the market.  I'm guessing because it would piss off some of their business partners by competing with them.

However, for a LIMITED TIME ONLY (until 11/26), they're doing this "buy two/get one" program where if you pay for 2 laptops they'll send one to you and one to their target non-market:  a child in a developing country.  It cost $400 and $200 of that is a tax-deductible donation.

So, basically, this is like buying a $400 laptop, and it's probably a good deal at that price.  It's more limited than something from Dell, but it's got some cool features you wouldn't find "commercially" for $400.

I've never personally seen one, and I look forward to it (a friend of mine just ordered one for his kid).  The reviews are interesting.

So, if you're into this kind of charitable giving or just want a pretty unique laptop for a good price, check it out.

Marion's Mea Culpa

Marion Jones has fallen from grace. I’m sure we’ve all read the reports about how, after years of being one of the most vocal athletes to defend herself against the armada of allegations assailing her, this record holder and Olympic medalist confirmed everyone’s worst suspicions. Marion Jones cheated. She was doped up. She not only admitted to taking performance enhancing drugs, but of knowing that she was taking such drugs even while she continued to compete, while she knowingly beat multiple drug tests, and while she knowingly denied every suspicion. Sadly, such stories have become familiar this year, which has had many terrible sports stories. She’s just another athlete who did something they shouldn’t have done, denied and lied, and then apologized in disgrace.

I really liked Marion Jones. Witty, easy to listen to, confident, and, of course, an amazing athlete who seemed to find exuberance in every powerful lunge toward the finish line. And I admit to feeling disappointment and anger over her cheating. I’m not willing yet to give in to cynics who can only say, “I told you so.” I still want to believe in athletes and the amazing things they can do. But I also can see the traces of writing on the wall. This cascade of athlete betrayals is making it increasingly difficult to maintain optimism. Nevertheless, there is a spark of difference in Marion Jones’s cheating story that has rekindled some of my belief in athletics and those who compete.

A new type of computer virus

This article (originally appearing in Wired) is really worth a read for anyone who knows much more than how to turn on their computer:

Worms like Storm are written by hackers looking for profit, and they're different. These worms spread more subtly, without making noise. Symptoms don't appear immediately, and an infected computer can sit dormant for a long time. If it were a disease, it would be more like syphilis, whose symptoms may be mild or disappear altogether, but which will eventually come back years later and eat your brain.

Copyright and Fair Use explained

Little Brother

From Bruce Schneier, an essay on the modern "Big Brother".

When more is less in discussing religion

After nine years, the Department of Veterans Affairs today agreed to include the pentagram on its list of approved religious symbols for veteran gravestones: http://www.cem.va.gov/cem/hm/hmemb.asp

Make no mistake:  I'm thrilled at this development.  While I'm not so much into the conspiracy theories some Wiccans have accepted in explaining the delay, I certainly do believe that it is time for the symbol to be included in the list, especially considering that atheists and humanists already have their own approved symbols as well as several groups less known and less numerous in this country than Wiccans.

At the end of the AP article reporting on this event, however, is the following explanation:

Wicca is a nature-based religion based on respect for the earth, nature and the cycle of the seasons. Variations of the pentacle not accepted by Wiccans have been used in horror movies as a sign of the devil.

Wiccans constantly complain about being compared with Satanism, yet at the same time these sorts of explanations and/or disclaimers continue to compare the two groups - even if in the negative - when no comparison is called for.  The last sentence doesn't even make a lot of sense... perhaps especially to someone not very familiar with Wicca or uses of pentagrams.  Dictionaries generally consider pentacle and pentagram to be synonymous.  A pentagram is a five-pointed geometric shape.  By that definition, not accepting a pentagram makes as much sense as not accepting a rectangle; something either is rectangular or it isn't.  Which also begs the question of how one can vary a pentagram.  Put a happy face in the center of it, I suppose.

Oscars 2007!!

Oscar Picks and Hopes 2007 with Spibby and JMSloop

 Greetings from the Balcony! We thought we would add some clarity to the usual muddle of Oscar deliberations. Yes, you could seek out the advice of professional magazines, staffed by trained journalists with contacts in the movie industry and a vested interest in providing both accurate and concise analysis, but let’s not kid ourselves; this is the Internet. We know why we’re here. We may not be accurate or concise (one of us can’t order a cup of coffee in less than two paragraphs, and the other can’t even pick an Oscar winner without drafting a “principles” manifesto complete with footnotes), but we hope you’ll read on, anyway.

And the nominees are....

 

Me and Anna Nicole Smith: A Denial

I would like to make a brief statement, and I will not be taking questions afterwards.   Because I firmly believe that, at this point, the truth on this matter will only be revealed through a process of elimination, I would like to come forward to announce that I am not the father of Anna Nicole Smith's child.  I never met her; to my knowledge, we've never been in the same state together at the same time.  I deny any knowledge of her beyond seeing her in the newspapers.   Thank you. 

Iraq: Victory for nobody?

As much as I'd like to read Stratfor's 2007 Annual Forecast, I just can't come up with the $399 to buy a copy right now. However, I thought some of you might be interested in the company's sales pitch summary of some of its key preditions:

• Russia and China will rank at least as high in importance as the U.S. conflicts in the Muslim world.
• The United States and Iran are blocking each other's ambitions in Iraq. This will open new possibilities for political arrangements. The war in Iraq will not end in victory for anyone. That will become the basis of all negotiations.
• The United States is the world's leading power. When it moves toward political paralysis, others grow bolder. Aggressiveness will continue from Venezuela to Asia. But the most important moves will come from Russia and China.

It's not the children who need saving

John asked me to write about Little Children. Here are some thoughts.

Little Children is a film about men and women. Children are pretty incidental, except that how they are treated allows us to judge the men and the women in the narrative (and, thankfully, it’s not one of those films with children “wise beyond their years”). Because it is a film about men and women in family relationships, it is also, necessarily in my eyes, a film about (omigod) patriarchy. There are assumptions built into this film, into the construction of the characters (and our expected reactions to them) that are derived from a schema in which women are judged according to one set of criteria and men another. This does not make the film unique (far from it) but it makes it interesting in particular ways. Most interesting to me, this film is a good example of how narrative choices by filmmakers use our prejudices (in this case, about men and women) to shortcut their storytelling. 

Beyond the pale

Try it without the politics:

A 16-year-old student tells his/her parents about  sexually explicit e-mails from a coach.  Eventually, it becomes public not only that the coach did indeed act inappropriately, but it looks like  school officials knew that there was a problem for some time but did not act. When confronted with the school's failure to intervene, the principal claims he knew nothing, despite reports from assistants who said  otherwise. There is also information that indicates other inappropriate behavior may have taken place with additional students. Police decide there is enough to investigate the allegations.

Rather than demand accountability, launch an investigation and support the victim,  school administration supporters  ride furiously to inject themselves into the fray. They: 

1. Claim all 16-year-olds are a bunch of mindless, sex-crazed beasts, who despite being to young to vote, buy alcohol or drive with unrestricted licenses, are still adult enough to lure high-powered and politically savvy middle-aged men into career-ending, stupid licentiousness.  Repeatedly, apparently.
2. Portray those who express outrage and demand accountability as mindless twits who do not believe in public education, don't like organized sports and are pretty stupid in general.
3. Claim above-mentioned haters of education/sports got the victim and everyone else who knew  to keep quiet about the behavior until such time as it would interfere with the homecoming game.
4. Point to any and all indiscretions, crimes and bad behavior from as far back as necessary by anyone who ever opposed the school administration on any issue. Bring up the fact that a superintendent who served 6 years ago was involved in a scandal.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

As If It Isn't a Choice

This morning, after standing in the rain for 15 minutes, I boarded the Metro Nashville Bus which I take to work each morning (my employer, Vanderbilt University, generously provides free boarding for all employees on the entire Metro system).  I noticed, as I always do when it rains, that the bus was at about 75% of its normal capacity.  I've always wondered about this.  As naive as I am sometimes, I asked the driver why the bus was so relatively empty on rainy days.  "For the most part," he says, "the people riding today have no choice.  They'd drive if they had cars rather than stand in the rain.  You've got a choice, today, you drive."

This concerns me.  Not greatly perhaps but it does concern me.  While I'm certainly not "Mr. Green" by any means, and while one could easily point fingers at me as well, I started riding the bus because I'm not sure we do have a choice.  Whether you're concerned about the damage done by auto exhaust (and this isn't even something I'll debate), or you're concerned about the ongoing global impact of our "reliance on" oil, I'm not sure you should be acting as if you do have a choice.  No one likes standing in the rain, no one likes waiting to move, no one likes the inconvenient route buses often take, but some people take mass transit because they don't have other transport.  If the rest of us would begin to really believe that perhaps we shouldn't have a choice . . . . that in the long run we don't have a choice, maybe our behavior would change.  Maybe but doubtful.

GOP, are you listening?

Dear Republicans,
I used to be one of you. Now, I feel betrayed and abandoned. The revelation about secret prisons is the last straw. How someone can break the rules, lie about it and then get kudos for coming clean is just ... depressing. The actions of this administration are beyond the pale. Since when does being conservative require swallowing such bullshit?

Decrying Bush's policies is not the equivalent of advocating socialism. It isn't, no matter how much the Noise Machine tries to make it seem that way. It's not us and them, this or that, either or.

You can support a belief in the Divine without believing that God likes America best. You can believe Jesus Christ is the one true God without categorizing all believers of another faith as enemies of the state.

You can whole-heartedly endorse capitalism and a free market economy without supporting multi-national monopolies that dupe consumers, exploit employees, cheat  investors, and buy no-bid contracts from lawmakers.

You can support a foreign policy that protects American security and combats terrorism without agreeing we ought to nuke all the towel-heads. You can admit that the war in Iraq is a fiasco, without saying that America should cut and run or dissing our troops.

You can call bullshit on the job federal officials did before, during and after Katrina, without agreeing that individuals, cities and states have no obligation to take care of themselves. You can believe the government has a role in helping the less fortunate, without endorsing a state-sponsored redistribution of wealth.

Who knew that my support of health care, environmental stewardship, a global perspective on leadership, better wages for America's workers and a more equitable tax system would one day make me a Commie-loving, blame-America-first liberal? Strange. They're pretty much the views I had when I voted for Reagan and Daddy Bush.

Now I would vote for a goat if it ran against a Republican.

The Importance of Being Irwin

I'm only planning on writing about this topic once, as it's already beginning to wear thin, and this is only day two.

I was introduced to The Crocodile Hunter several years ago by my Bad Movie Night group of friends.  Generally it was what we watched when we failed to find a movie bad enough to live up to our freakishly bad expectations. 

I realized this week that I just presume anything that those particular people are fans of is relatively unknown to the rest of creation, from the science-fiction series Lexx to the live-action superhero British movie musical The Return of Captain Invincible (which, contrary to its name, is not a sequel).  That Steve Irwin's death was the top story on cnn.com astounded me.  That television has been fascinated by this story like a royal car wreck for the last day is just shy of incomprehensible.  He's in danger of becoming another media Princess Di, only with spiders instead of landmine victims, and with far less fashion sense.

Ok, the guy has 200,000,000 viewers.  (Or, to put it another way, ten times the population of Australia.)  So did Baywatch, but no one's going to throw a state funeral if David Hasselhoff dies.  For that matter, we wouldn't make this big a deal about things if it was Tom Cruise who had died.

So what is it about Steve Irwin that has so fascinated us?  Is it the Jackass-like quality of some of his stunts?  That may make him entertaining to some, but it doesn't make him worthy of this commemoration.  Is it his fervent conservationism?  This country has never seemed particularly interested in the topic, other than in saving the occasional owl.  (To paraphrase one associate of Irwin's: anyone can convince people to save koala bears.  Steve took up saving spiders and crocodiles and other nasties that people generally think aren't worth saving.)

Is it his everyman language?  Maybe getting closer, but I think that ultimately stemmed from his refreshing lack of phoniness.  As crazy as he was on camera, he was just as crazy off camera.  The persona we all saw was really him.  He wasn't putting on a show: he really was that passionate, and that crazy, about wildlife.  And while he made pleas impassioned to the point of corniness, he didn't lecture and he didn't often point fingers.  Certain species are dying because their habitats are being destroyed, he would say, not that mean, capitalist developers were callously destroying their homes.  He talked a lot about respect for animals, while avoiding specifically addressing  "animal rights."  I think in that way he made conservation palatable for a lot of people nervous about being associated with radical, tree-hugging members of PETA.

Did I approve of his methods?  Not always.  He took risks that were not necessary.  You have, by now, no doubt seen a couple dozen clips on CNN of him getting bit in the face by snakes.  That doesn't have to happen.  My high school had a program where elementary kids came as field trips to learn about a variety of animals which high schoolers handled.  As a child I attended those field trips.  As a teen I was one of those animal handlers, and the main attraction was a couple boas and pythons that we would bring out draped around our necks that the children could pet.  Never got bit.  No one I knew got bit.  Why?  Because we didn't wave them around like yo-yos.

On the other hand, Steve never EVER blamed the animals.  When he got bit, it was his fault.  (Damn right.)  Nor did he ever tell his audience that these animals were just harmless, misunderstood creatures wanting a cuddle.  These are dangerous animals, neither pets nor to