Outer Monologue

Going dark for now

Not that I'm a regular poster or anything, but I figured I should mention that I'm taking this blog dark for at least a few months.

I've started seeing a doctor about the increasing problems I've been having with my hands (due to work and driving), and have been advised to cease as much non-work-related computer use as possible.

So, there we go.

I'll likely still post very irregularly (heck, promising to go dark may make me a more prolific poster than ever, if my history is any guide), but you likely don't need to check here very often for the forseeable future.

I'm still reachable via email, of course. Just can't make myself give that up!

Ciao for now!

Today is Ninja Day!

Yes kiddies, today is indeed National Ninja Day!

It is NOT "Talk like a Ninja Day", since Ninja's don't talk... just Ninja Day.

See http://ninjaday.com and Ask a Ninja vlog for further details!

Dress up as a ninja, have fun and try not to kill too many people...

I look forward to looking like an idiot soon!

My cat fears Paul Newman

It's true, she does.

And this is a cat that fears little.

She'll happily hiss at evil golden retrievers as they bark across the hall, and take a swipe at any passerby that dares tread too close to her as she sits atop her royal palace (she has a wooden house with a platform on top).

But for some reason, she flees at the sight of Paul's visage, complete with Elizabethan ruffed fringe, that adorns this bottle of Newman's Own Light Balsamic Vinaigrette.

And I should know, I tested it out many times this morning.

Some may call it cat torture... I call it amusing scientific research.

Frankly, I can't blame her for her fear. I mean, look at that picture... with his wee, beady eyes... I bet he puts an addictive chemical in his Light Balsamic that makes me crave it fort-nightly!

]]>

What else?

An amusing update on this post... I finally received most of my ID badges and door cards about a week ago and can now access the building I work in unaided. All it took was a mere three months of waiting! I don't know what I was complaining about!

Good timing too, since Indian Winter is setting in here in balmy southern Michigan with a vengeance.

Speaking of wonderful Michigan weather... It snowed again this weekend. For the 4th time since October (yes, October). This place fooled us, it FOOLED US when we first moved here, with it's happy, warm sunshine-y days and clement weather!

At the current rate, I expect to be snowed-into our apartment completely from mid-december until March.

I've planned accordingly, and I don't care HOW much they stare at the local supermarket as I buy cartsfull of condensed milk and Spaghetti-O's!

Did my first boardgaming (besides with Mary) since moving out here over the weekend (awk sentence much?).

It was pretty fun, actually, with a good-sized crowd. I only had time for one (longish) game of Power Grid. Not exactly my cup of tea (a bit more think-y than my rusty gaming brain was ready to handle) but enjoyable all the same. I finished a vastly distant fifth (of five), but enjoyed myself.

The group I found is called "Lansing Board Gamers" and they even have a Yahoo Group and a website.

Kinda reminds me of the Unity Games Group when I first joined it (about the same size too, I think), but there is, I fear, less room for growth in this area.

Anyway, that's all for now. Just wanted to toss out a few odds and ends!

Ciao!

Happiness is a warm... penguin?

I found a suggestion elsewhere online that I direct everyone to perform:

If you're having a bad day, do a Google image search for the phrase "baby penguin".

How can you be unhappy after that?

Sittin' on the phone all the day...

(Above sung to the tune of "Sittin' on the dock of the bay")

So I'm sitting on another fun conference call (three scheduled at 10am today, perhaps a new record) and I happened to look at my google homepage.

One of the sections I have on my homepage is a "quote of the day" (three of them) and these were the first two:

"If we couldn't laugh, we would all go insane." --Jimmy Buffett

"I can't listen to that much Wagner. I start getting the urge to conquer Poland." --Woody Allen

I don't know why, but those two quotes just so perfectly fit my mood today that I had to laugh...

That's all for now.

Ugh

Senator Russ Feingold will not be running for the Democratic nomination for President.

Well, there goes any chance of me not having to hold my nose while I vote in 2008...

Post-election round-up

Some final thoughts and figures on the 2006 election and then I'll likely shut up on the subject of elections for quite some time (but not on politics).

]]>

Firstly, some numbers. Hey, I can, on occasion, be a bit of a numbers junky (my one claim to fame on a geeky boardgaming website is that I posted an excel spreadsheet doing a detailed [for me] statistical analysis of which "dealmakers" [a role in the game] had an innate advantage... Yes, I'm quite sad).

There were, on my ballot, 23 positions to vote for (not counting initiatives).

Of those, I voted for 15 of them. Of the 8 I did not vote for, one I lacked sufficient information to make even a vaguely educated guess of a vote (not much out there about County Commissioners) and 7 others ran unopposed.

That's right, I do not vote for people who run unopposed, a trait I apparently share in entirety with my father (though I was unaware of that fact until 2 days ago). I do this on general principle. If someone is not opposed in an election, then they aren't actually up for election. Occasionally, on a whim, I'll write in someone from the area that I think is a good person for all unopposed seats, but I didn't know anyone in the area well enough to give them that honour.

The 15 votes I cast broke down by party thusly:

Democrat - 10 - 66.67%
Republican - 1 - 6.67%
Green - 4 - 26.67%

About half my votes were placed for the eventual winners of their respective contests, which is about par for the course for me, but likely will be the high-water mark of my time in Michigan. This is because MA and NY (my prior homes) are more liberal states than MI is, and I tend to vote fairly liberal... you do the math, I'm all mathed-out.

I cast more votes for Democratic candidates this year (as a percentage) than I likely have in years. This was mostly the pragmatist in me doing what I could to elect winners who would oppose Bush-ist policies towards the top of the ticket.

There was one notable exception though: I voted for the Green Candidate, David Sole, for Senator. See this post for why.

My most "out there" vote this time around? I voted for Michael Merriweather for Wayne State University Governor (one of two slots up this year). Why is that out there? Well... he's a Green and he's an undergrad student at WSU. But I liked what he had to say. His statements seemed reasoned, rational and intelligent, and he had a good perspective.

Most students running for the various University boards this year (and there was at least one running for each board) seemed to be over-the-top naive idealists. I love such people... they keep my supply of hope for this world from running dry... but when you're asked how you'd help deal with the rising costs of higher education due to state spending cuts, your answer shouldn't be about how getting the federal government to shut down the Department of Defense and re-direct that money into education would solve the problem.

Well, unless you're running for President. Give me that answer then and we'll talk about my vote...

On the macro-level (that's college-talk for "big picture"), I was quite pleased to see the Dems take both the House and, surprisingly, the Senate.

Mind you, I don't think most of the Dems up there are all that spectacular, but at least they'll stand in opposition to our insane overlord, and that's good enough for now.

Oh, and one other thing:

Bernie Sanders got elected to the Senate in Vermont. No one was actually shocked by this (the man is an icon in that state; deservedly so), but it should be noted that this is a historic event.

He is the first Socialist to ever be elected to the Senate. I bet there's a bunch of dead Cold War leaders rolling around in their graves right now.

Way to go Bernie! I love this guy and couldn't be gladder he's made it to the Big Boy's Chamber. Now we just need to get him to run for President.

Oh, and if you want to learn a bit about why I like this Jewish/Polish Socialist from New York, check out his entry in the Wikipedia and this article called "Being Like Bernie" from The Nation last year (a great read, imo).

Anyway, that's all I've got. Ciao for now!

So very tired...

I was up way too late last night (past midnight) and had to be up way too early this morning (5am-ish).

Stupid elections ;)

I may write up a short take on my thoughts on the election at some point soon.

Of course, looking back through the archives, now that I've made that promise, I've pretty much guaranteed that it won't happen.

VOTE!

Just go and vote.

So I was going to have this big post...

I was in the process of creating this huge layout of the majority of the candidates running in my area, including links to websites, stances on major issues... the whole nine yards.

But I just ran out of time. I found I didn't have the time to both learn all I needed to know AND write about it (and have what little life I can squeeze in), so I chose the responsible course and just learned what I needed to learn.

But in lieu of that, here's a few handy links:

Sample ballot for my polling place, including all candidates and ballot initiatives.

Non-partisan League of Women Voters' 2006 Michigan Voter Guide. This has always been one of the best sources of non-partisan voter information there is.

For those of you not in Michigan, here is the link to find your local League of Women Voters page.

All I can say beyond that is, wherever you are... If you've paid any attention at all, GET OFF YOUR LAZY ASS AND VOTE! I don't care who you vote for, so long as you gave it some thought.

Michigan Election Information Summary #1 - Ballot Initiatives

Below is the first of (hopefully) a series of posts about issues and candidates that will appear on the Michigan ballot on November 7th.

It springs mostly from the fact that I dislike voting in elections where I am uninformed; I'd rather not vote (or not vote in certain races) than vote without all the facts at hand.

So I started gathering information in preparation for the coming election and figured, what the heck, let's post it online!

I'm going to post the information in a manner that is as close to objective and opinion-neutral as I can. However, I may also include comments and opinions of my own in separate boxes.

As a last note, the primary source for below can be found here on the Michigan Secretary of State's website (handy resource).

Be warned, this is a long one!

]]> 2006 Ballot Initiatives

#1 - Constitutional Amendment Regarding Conservation and Recreation funds.

Summary:
Create fund structure to codify the collection and use of funds relating to conservation and recreation and mandating that such funds be used ONLY for such purposes. Fund sources include entry fees for parks, various recreational vehicle registration fees and recreational license fees (hunting, etc).

Upshot: Does the voter trust the legislature to use such monies wisely?

Pro: Prevents "raiding" of such funds for unintended purposes.

Con: Does this really need to be codified into the state constitution? Seems a bit too minutia-oriented for such a document. Also, something to be said for flexibility allowances in running the budget.

This item creates a fun conundrum for me. On the one hand, I'm a great supporter of the environment and I hate the idea that funds generated for environmental uses could be "raided" and used elsewhere. On the other hand, I believe that constitutions (state or otherwise), while living documents, should be kept "clean" of minutia. I'm also against over-legislating decision-making processes as a principle. If you don't trust your legislators to make the right decisions, maybe it's time to vote in new legislators instead of amending the consitution?
In the end, while I like the concept of the item, I think I'll probably vote against it on general principle.

#2 - Constitutional Amendment Banning Affirmative Action in Public Education and Employment.

Summary:
Wording would ban all forms of preferential treatment for groups or individuals based on race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin when regarding hiring, education or contracting. This includes all state-funded colleges (community and otherwise) and all state and local governments. A separate section would ban all forms of discrimination based on the same groupings for same public institutions.

Upshot: The first section would end virtually all affirmative action in Michigan. The latter section has no effect, as another, existing provision of the constitution ALREADY bans discrimination.

Pro: If you believe affirmative action to be unfair or biased, then a Yes vote on this proposal is mandated.

Con: If you believe affirmative action has continued value, then a No vote on this proposal is mandated.

This amendment is perhaps the most controversial item of the entire election this year (in Michigan anyway). I won't go into the full history of the measure (go here for more details), but suffice to say that the initiative was born of somewhat fraudulent and certainly misleading beginnings, and has proceeded accordingly. It's confusing wording and advertisements have, sadly, garnered the desired result: current polls show it a toss-up as to whether it will pass or not.
Having read the prior, you can likely guess that I am a supporter of affirmative action, especially in education.

#3 - Referendum on creation of a "Mourning Dove" hunting season and related issues.

Summary:
Authorize the creation of a hunting season for Mourning Doves and regulation of same. Hunters would need small game license and an additional $2 mourning dove stamp. Also provides for safe dove hunting instruction, management practices for dove propagation and elderly, disabled and youth access for dove hunting.

Upshot: Allows for the hunting of Mourning Doves during a specified open season.

Pro: If you think they're a nuisance and you support hunting, this is for you.

Con: If you believe that there is too much hunting, or that Mourning Doves should be protected, vote no on this.

Of all the initiatives up this year, I find this one the most amusing. It's even spawned a whole series of radio ads against it (and possibly TV as well, though I've not seen any). Frankly, I don't care that much about this either way, but I find it pretty laughable that people want to hunt something as small and useless as the Mourning Dove. I can only hope they'd use automatic rifles while doing it!
So yeah, I'll be voting against this, but don't really care all that much either way.

#4 - Constitutional Amendment prohibiting use of eminent domain for certain private purposes.

Summary:
Prohibits government from taking private property for use by private individuals or businesses for purposes of economic development or increasing tax revenue. Also, if an individual's primary residence is taken by the government for public use, they must be paid 125% of property's fair market value. Also, requires government that takes private property to demonstrate that it is taking it for public use, and that if it is being taken to eliminate blight, that a higher standard of proof is required to demonstrate that taking is for public use. Finally, it provides that any right, grant or benefit afforded to property owners as of November 1, 2005 by any statute or means shall be preserved and will not be affected by this amendment.

Upshot: This amendment is basically a response to the 2005 Supreme Court ruling Kelo v. City of New London, which had an alarming impact on the nature of eminent domain as regards private usage. Several states have are in the process of or have already passed statutes or constitutional amendments limiting the impact of this ruling. The last clause is a bit opaque to me, but the rest is fairly straight-forward.

Pro: Protects the property of individuals against the growing power big business in government.

Con: Shouldn't governments have the right to determine what is best for the community as a whole? Even when it may adversely impact
certain individuals.

This one seems to be a no-brainer to me, and I suspect it will pass by a large majority. I've heard that other states' implementations of a Kelo response (eg - Oregon) had unforseen issues, but the language on this seems to be fairly straight-forward.
I'll be voting for it.

#5 - Legislative Initiative to establish statewide mandatory school funding levels.

Summary:
Would increase current school funding by $565 million and provide for yearly increases equal to the inflation rate for all public schools, intermediate school districts, community colleges and state higher education (including financial aid programs). Any deficiences in funding would be provided from the general budgetary fund. It would also base funding for school districts with a declining enrollment on three year enrollment averages and reduce and cap the the retirement fund contributions paid by aforementioned schools (the excess would be paid by the state). Lastly, it would reduce the funding gap between districts receiving per-pupil foundation allowances and those receiving the maximum foundation allowance.

Upshot: An across-the board increase in public education funding to be paid for by the state out of the general budget. Also a limiting of local liability for retirement funds (an ever-increasing cost in all sectors of the economy). The last section would allowing for an equalization between the wealthiest and poorest school districts.

Pro: Most would agree that education funding is not as high as it needs to be. Investing more in the public schools has long-term positive effects and waiting for the legislature to make such increases on its own has not panned-out thus far.

Con: Tying the hands of the legislature by taking their decision-making power away and forcing these expenditures may work in the short term, but could cause unforseen problems in the long run. In addition, these large outlays from the general budgetary fund have to paid for somehow. We may all agree that education funding should be a priority, but in order to balance the budget, other programs would have to be cut or taxes raised. Also, there is nothing in the wording that says where the money should be directed.

Special Note: The candidates for governor of both primary parties as well as most major newspapers are against this proposal.

Honestly, this one is another close one for me. The fact that pretty much everyone on the institutional level is against it speaks volumes. That alone isn't reason enough for me to vote against it though. But I can see their point. While I believe education should be one of the primary responsibilities of state (and local) government, I don't like the particular way this initiative is set up. It could too easily be used as a bludgeon by small-government conservatives (of which there are many in MI) to cut other socially valuable programs; you know they won't raise taxes after all (the current american phobia of taxes is a disgusting thing to me; I could go one for pages on the subject but won't). The question is, if this gets voted down, will a better-formed idea come along to increase education funding, or will opponents of the increased spending say its failure is a mandate against increasing education funding and proceed accordingly? And of course I still have the same issue of legislating away decision-making that I had with Item #1 on this list...
At this point, I still don't know how I'm going to vote on this one.

Another woman in my life who finds me tiresome

I purchased a new cellphone a few months ago, complete with bluetooth handsfree earpiece.

This new phone includes cutting-edge 2001 technology that allows me to "Say a command" and dial various people by just saying their names.

This feature operates via a pleasant female voice (we'll call her Sarah) who will make statements and ask me questions like the aforementioned "Say a command" and "Did you say name?"

Anyone who knows me well knows I have a tendancy to break into silly voices at the drop of a hat. I foolishly think it makes me funnier (luckily my wife finds it endearing in a very pitiful sort of way; it's why I married her).

Apparently Sarah is not quite so amused.

Often when I "say a command" and she asks back "Did you say name?", I will unthinkingly answer "Yes" in one of a variety of silly/stupid accents or inflections.

Sarah, in reaction, will pause, as if thinking "dumbass" and then will (I swear) give a barely-audible sigh and turn off, leaving me talking to dead air.

Think I should buy her flowers? Perhaps a new carrying case?

I just want to be loved...

I don't know why...

But this image amuses the hell out of me.

They read (and write) letters.

So it's closing in on the mid-term elections (Nov 7th) and that means that in the rare cases that I have the time and energy to post these days, I'll probably be posting about politics.

Today I wanted to relate an interesting personal tidbit of the grand political scene.

A few weeks ago (Sept 28th), an atrocious bill was passed by the Senate (yeah, that doesn't narrow it down these days, I know) called S3930, or "The Military Commissions Act of 2006".

]]>

This horrible bill (now law), which basically existed to try and boost the republicans in the polls (by making them look "tough" on terror) has several frightening aspects to it, but the most important three are:

1) It seriously undermines the concept of habeas corpus (the right of prisoners to challenge the reason for their imprisonment), one of the fundamental concepts of the american legal system.

2) It allows the preznit (the great decider) to interpret what torture is as per the Geneva conventions. If another nation did that, we'd call it a horrible breach of the treaty (imagine if Iran made the same ruling). Only the most ardent Bush-ite could believe he could be trusted with such a decision these days.

3) It allows for NO congressional or judicial oversight of the commission process.

It goes back to Ben Franklin's statement: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I believe that statement wholeheartedly.

So anyway... the personal bit of this...

When the Senate passed the resolution, several Democrats voted in support of it. Why anyone would, I can't understand, but the republicans at least had political reasons to vote for it.

One of those Democratic senators was Debbie Stabenow (MI), who is up for election this year.

Frankly, my annoyance that it passed at all was great, and the fact that one of my senators voted for it just pissed me off.

So I exercised my rights as a citizen and voter and emailed Debbie's office.

As any reader of mine can guess, the resultant missive was long, rambling and filled with controlled anger. I don't have the text of it anymore, but I basically told her that I could not in good conscience vote for anyone who would support such a measure.

Since I also can't support a Republican candidate for senator this year (this country desperately needs at least one house of congress to be in opposition to this president), it leaves me voting for a third party candidate (not a new thing for me).

So anyway, weeks passed and I assumed my email was carefully filed in the circular file by her office.

And then yesterday, I received a response, and it doesn't seem to be a form.

Here is the text of the letter.

Now I'm not confident that Stabenow actually had a hand in reading/writing this, but it clearly isn't a form letter. And Mary relates a story about how she once called her congressman (while in college) looking for his position on an issue and didn't get an answer, but that a few days later he personally called her parents' home (having figured out where they lived and their number) and gave them the answer himself.

So it's possible Debbie wrote, or at least dictated, this response.

The response gives me some insight into her reasoning (she's clearly an incrementalist, which I am not in most cases), but I still disagree with her.

With most presidents, this might have been an acceptable workaround (until a better law could be crafted), but in the case of the current resident of the White House... these people just can't be trusted.

That's not a gut thing. They've proven it repeatedly. They put politics over everything else, and they put "looking tough" over the basic tenets of the american system of government.

He must be limited, and he must be watched. And this law does neither.

I'm still not voting for Senator Stabenow, but at least I understand better why she did what she did (and that it wasn't pure politics, according to her).

And I may even respond to her response. I'm sure she's waiting for it with baited breath...

A moment of silence...

...For the New York Mets.

I'm shocked but not surprised.

After all, I'm a Mets fan. You get used to if after awhile...