Archive - Jan 2008

After years of eschewing electoral politics, I'm leaning toward attending my local Democratic caucuses. I still would not call myself a Democrat, but I'm deeply fearful that Hillary will get the D nod and I'll either sit out the coming election or vote for McCain.

But is that enough to get me out? No. But in looking at Hillary's opposition, I have been reading a lot about Obama and I am impressed. I usually quickly find things I don't like about candidates, but I find Obama impressive. I think he can forge consensus on important issues without selling out (or triangulation in Clinton-speak).

So I'm going to put up some posts about Obama and some of the things that have motivated me to get involved with the ballot box. I still don't think the ballot box offers much prospect for solving problems. Real solutions come from education, not picking from a few representatives.

On to Obama.

What I really like about Obama's rhetoric and record is that it shows he rejects the black/white world. He sees shades of gray and understands people have complicated, conflicting identities.

Cass Sunstein covers this in "Visionary Minimalist" in The New Republic.

But Obama's visionary thinking is not adequately captured in his policies. It is found instead in his insistent rejection of the standard political categories, in a way that recognizes their obtuseness, their debilitating effect on actual problem-solving, their tendency to entrench the status quo, and the violence they do to American pluralism and diversity. Recall the most important passage from his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention: "We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states. We coach Little League in the blue states, and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq."

I have been writing again. Last week I released a 12 page report that examines the trade-offs of broadband delivery systems. So, if you want to understand why wireless is not the future but fiber optic networks are, you should check it out. If you want to know why DSL and cable networks are totally limited and scale poorly, that report is for you.

I have received many complimentary reviews for its readability among non-technical folks.

One of the best magazines available today, The Atlantic has made all its articles available to everyone. So all those [subscriber required] notices I have posted in the past are no longer applicable.

I strongly encourage you to check out their articles and subscribe. They have great content - for over 150 years now!!

In fact, check out the Dec 2007, and an interesting article about the backstory behind the Golden Compass movie.

I had the good fortune to travel to Reedsburg, Wisconsin a few days ago. Reedsburg is NW of Madison and has a municipal utility that provides a fiber-to-the-home connection. They offer considerably better Internet connectivity than the cable company.

I drove there with a guy who has led quite an impressive life. Spent a decade as the chief economist for the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, dealt with billions for the World Bank, and lived in Eastern Europe when it was the USSR. Spending 7 hours in the car with him was a trip.

Like me, he liked to talk. So we talked a lot. About all kinds of things.

One of things he mentioned that struck me was that he knew Nader back in the day ... in the 70's. Said Nader was a punk (my words). That his whole Public Interest Research Group was a cynical operation that preys on idealistic young folk.

Well I worked for the PIRGs for a summer. I have been (and may still be) one of those folks and I have to agree. The way it is structured, you are pressured to work some 10-12 hours a day and end up making less than minimum wage. You can learn some important skills, but it is a really poor model that undoubtedly results in far more burned out idealists than would otherwise be the case.

There is practically no education for PIRG employees. They are basically taught to regurgitate "the rap" at door after door to get contributions. If the person disagrees, we move on. There is no discussion, no persuasion. No attempt to change mind, just a recruiting of those who are already onboard or too timid to say no to a stranger.

I have long felt that way, but I guess I just accepted that this was how such orgs have to run. I don't think that is accurate. And I also don't think it is efficient. It is all about getting names to persuade a Representative who is already bought-and-paid for by the opposition that (s)he will piss off too many people by overtly supporting their handler.

This is why I have not made donations to any U.S. PIRG canvassers that come to my door. Maybe I'll give them some cash out of pity for their predicament, but that is for them, not for the PIRGs.

Continuing to process old photos, I just put up some shots from Kimmi's birthday (mostly with a bad white balance).

I also put up really old photos (but not the oldest unpublished photos I have) from the 2006 Mitchell cookie day. Here are 2 of my favorite shots from that day.

I am no fan of Newt Gingrich, but I have been surprised in the past at how intelligent he is ... here and there. I've also entertained thoughts about his daftness compared to a doorknob, but his recent piece in the Jan/Feb Foreign Policy called "Lend Them Your Ear" [subscribers only] is quite insightful.

His was one of many about what the next President should first do. I liked his response above and beyond most...

As soon as the new president is elected, he or she should immediately embark on a series of pre-inauguration visits to capitals around the world: not just London, Paris, and Jerusalem, but Ankara, Amman, Beijing, and Cairo. In the span of several weeks, the president should make dozens of stops in Latin America, the Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Asia. During these visits, not one moment needs to be spent trying to prove or demonstrate American power and dominance. Instead, the president-elect should simply listen. There should be no formal agenda, only questions. How do these other leaders think the United States can be most effective with its economic, military, and cultural might? And in turn, how do they propose to help achieve mutual goals during the next four years?

A strong Carlton squad defeated Macalester and I was there to capture it. The photos are posted here.

I am working on a pretty cool coding project that is secret for now but related to my telecom work. As part of it, I was trying to find a list of all the counties in the U.S. to incorporate into a database. I was unable to find anything exactly the way I wanted it, but I did get a list of all counties by state.

I massaged it into this MySQL database of counties and states. The database has two tables - one of states and D.C. - and the other of counties and an id for what state they are in. The file is a gzipped sql dump.

I hope other people are able to use it. I cannot verify the accuracy of the data but I spot-checked some of it and found no errors.

As he packs his desk just 15 steps from the Oval Office, Karl Rove says he will not join any 2008 presidential campaign. That's just as well because none of the Republican candidates presumably could afford the association even if they wanted his strategic smarts. Besides, none of them is running the campaign quite the way he would. The candidate who seems to be adopting his style and methods the most so far? Hillary Rodham Clinton.

At least that's what Nicolle Wallace thinks. The former Bush White House communications director, who worked closely with Rove, said that Clinton "has almost operationalized the whole idea of turning your weakness into strength, message discipline that is almost pathological -- she does not get off message for any reason -- and never skipping an opportunity to exploit her opponent's weaknesses."

Karl Rove brought the Republicans great victories and set them up for their huge fall. One might think there is little to emulate from that pattern, but the Clinton campaign disagrees.

They love the Rovester.

Just days after the November 2004 election, Bill Clinton pulled Rove aside at the dedication of the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Arkansas. "Hey, you did a marvelous job, it was just marvelous what you did," Clinton told Rove, according to the book "The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008," by John F. Harris and Mark Halperin. "I want to get you down to the library. I want to talk politics with you. You just did an incredible job, and I'd like to really get together with you and I think we could have a great conversation."

And they are bashing Obama for his comments about Reagan - a man hardly as reprehensible as Rove - and Obama's comments were not even close to Bill's attempting to jump into bed with the genius behind nearly every frigging problem we hear about from all the candidates.

Screw these people. I'm actually starting to convince myself I would prefer McCain over Hillary. Hell, maybe I'll again vote for a Presidential candidate ... or at least against one.

Michelle and I spent New Year's Eve (and much of New Year's Day!) at Gina and Perry's house in Chaska. The photos from that spectacular Wii-filled evening are now online.

Additionally, I have finally edited and photos from our 2007 Humphrey Institute graduation ceremony. I'm still digging through old photos to get them online!

Here we see Mom and Aunt Cheryl, excited at my future earnings potential...

Kim and Michelle enjoying the afternoon ...

And then Kim got wildly drunk and made a mess...