Just finished Up in the Air by Walter Kirn - the book that the Clooney movie was based on (though substantially different). I had heard the book was hilarious and was disappointed that it definitely wasn't. However, if I didn't have the expectation of laughing like I was reading an Evanovich mystery, I think I would have enjoyed it more... it was a good book. Once I got into it, I really enjoyed the writing.

I found the movie intensely good, but it was definitely more inspired by the book than based on it -- a lot has changed in America since 2001 when this was written.

Kirn makes some great observations - this in particular struck me on many levels:

As a younger man, I made the mistake of talking to a stripper, in depth and at length, about her finances. Her income shocked me. It was double mine. She claimed to be saving for college, but when I presser her, I learned that she didn't even have a bank account and supported not one but two delinquent boyfriends. I didn't feel sorry for her, I felt insulted. There I was, the sort of clean achiever this beautiful girl should consider marrying, but instead she was shaking me down for twenties to lavish on my Darwinian inferiors.

Another one:

His painful, frostbitten feet explained the slippers, but the bubbles he blew were the purest affectation, intended to show that he plays by his own Hoyles. He knows, as all the cleverest ones do, that no human being is so interesting that he can't make himself more interesting still by acting retarded at random intervals.

Observations like these really made the book worth reading for me, as they were far more interesting than the story. The end was kinda odd and I didn't really follow it but it doesn't bother me because I was mining the book for insights more than being wrapped up in the characters. I guess I read it like a nonfiction book and I have no regrets, but it sure doesn't seem like praise.

Rachel Maddow has a really powerful video - starting at about the half way point. I think the entire video fun, but a little long and not everyone may be as entertained by the US House Penalty Box and Robert's Rules of Withdrawing Insults.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Did you wake up hearing my voice on your radio? MPR ran a story this morning with a short quote from me - the story covering Duluth's desire for Google gigabit fiber.

Hilarious - hat tip to Bjorn.

Remember that Dodge Charger commercial in the Superbowl that portrayed men as totally emasculated by the women in their lives, only to assert their manhood by driving a friggin' Dodge?? Well, this is why I love freedom of speech - the best response to stupid ads like that is to create a spoof.

A palindrome it isn't... but it is a fascinating watch.

Michelle and I are up north with her parents... and we just discovered someone's secret identity...

As a person who researches a lot of the crap I talk about (it may sounds like BS, but sometimes it isn't!), I am often flummoxed by those who take the position that the truth lies half way between the extremes:

I think that often where I am is just in the middle. The middle is often the commonsensical place to be. The notion that one side is right and one side is wrong is generally, as one finds in life, not the case.

Fortunately, Jonathan Chait offered a terrific response to this inane comment, starting with:

Roberts has a great point. The sensible position usually does lie halfway between two extremes. Just look at history. In the 1960s, the country was split between extremists who wanted to deny civil rights to African Americans, and extremists who insisted on completely equal rights everywhere. The dispute caused so much strife and anger because no sensible moderates could be found to stake out the middle ground between these equally radical positions--say, desegregating some institutions but not others, or letting black people vote in every other election.

The article makes good points, explaining why compromising for the sake of compromising is doomed to failure. Some situations require a 100% solution, not a 50% solution. Beyond that, we can often have sides where one side represents their position honestly and the flip side is totally full of shit - as often happens. What happens when a situation has more than 2 sides?

The idea that the truth is "in the middle" may work when it comes to subjective memories recalling some events when people are exaggerating but has little application elsewhere, and those that cling to it to avoid actually thinking about how to solve a problem are lazy.

Would Jesus spend $3 million on a thirty second spot to preach to millions? Well, I'm no expert but I don't think it jives with the Gospel of Matthew at least.

Nonetheless, Tim Tebow is putting on the ad, and if you are a facebook friend of mine, you know that I have noted several interesting takes on it (it is just too easy to paste on Twitter/Facebook, so I do it more often than I post here). But I think this article from NPR's "Only a Game" show nails the subject.

I'm looking forward to my Mom posting in the comments on this issue - she is apparently now a fan of Mike and Mike on ESPN so I'm sure she has been thinking about it!

Update:Slate has a great take on this by Will Saletan:

Being dead is just the first problem with dying in pregnancy. Another problem is that the fetus you were trying to save dies with you. A third problem is that your existing kids lose their mother. A fourth problem is that if you had aborted the pregnancy, you might have gotten pregnant again and brought a new baby into the world, but now you can't. And now the Tebows have exposed a fifth problem: You can't make a TV ad.

I just wrote to my Congressional Representative Betty McCollum to encourage her to sponsor a bill on Network Neutrality. You can learn more about the issue here as well as how your representatives have acted. If you recognize the benefits of freedom on the Internet (as compared to commercial-dominated FM radio and TV) to be a part of the conversation, you should take a few minutes to act.

The text of my letter is below:

I see the Representative McCollum is not a co-sponsor of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (HR 3458) and I find that a disappointment.

In a time when the Supreme Court has just greatly increased the power of major corporations to shape our government and country, I think we need to preserve freedom from corporate control on the only mass communications medium they do not currently dominate (compare to TV, radio).

Network Neutrality is, at best, a flawed approach to preserving freedom on the Internet but it is the best option Congress has today. Network Neutrality is necessary to prevent major companies from becoming gatekeepers to content.

Comcast is already the only real option for Internet in your district (Qwest is pathetically slow by comparison) - if they are able to exert even more control over how people use the Internet, nothing good will result.

Thank you for your time.