Pancake City

Yay for Yoono!

2008-02-02T02:04:00.000-05:00

Yoono was exactly what I was looking for in an Internet media sharing site. I love it so far. Almost every day I see an interesting article or blog post that I want to share, but the extra step of creating a blog post to do so was enough to deter me. Yoono makes it very easy to impulsively share media on the web. You right-click or select what you want to share, select "Buzz it", type in a descriptive note if you want to, and that's pretty much it.

Here is my Yoono blog. I will add it to my sidebar soon, and likely post most of my links on here from now on. I already added a few if you want to check it out.

This is the first time in a while that I thought, "I wish there a program that did X" and found out that Program X actually exists.

Recommendation Request

2008-02-02T00:14:00.000-05:00

What's the best way to share the interesting things you find on the Internet?

I'm looking for a cool stuff aggregater, something that would be integrated with Firefox, allow me to add bookmarks with one click (like del.icio.us), allow me to write a description when I want to (kind of like del.icio.us), offers a recently bookmark feature that I can add to my blog page (like del.icio.us?)...

Okay, I'm going to give del.icio.us another try and see if it has what I need. I remember trying it and not being keen on the interface, so if you have another option, let me know.

Update: Yeah, del.icio.us isn't what I need. I think I found the perfect web app: Yoono. Just installed it, but it's very promising so far.

Non-live Debate Blogging, Part 2

2008-02-01T00:22:00.000-05:00

Anyone else watch the debate between Clinton and Obama? I'm not sure how many more Democratic debates there will be, but you can watch them online at the sponsoring network's web site if you don't have cable.

Both of them had very strong performances in what was a pleasantly civil debate. The moderators asked some good questions, a few of which should have been asked 10 debates ago, but late is better than never.

The only slight downside is that Wolf Blitzer would occasionally egg on Obama and Clinton to attack each other. "Senator Clinton, that sounds like a swipe at you from Senator Obama. Care to respond?" I think his salary is based in part how much the candidates fight on stage. The O.C. did well at brushing off Blitzer's rhetorical equivalents of "Fight, fight, fight!"

It's very possible that before Clinton laughs, the command center director in her head saying: "We got a joke from the moderator. Processing. Okay. Optimal response calculated. Prepare laughter. Open mouth, smile--not too much. Perfect. Engage laughter units!"

It doesn't matter because even if it's somewhat calculated, it still goes leaps and bounds into making her more likable. She was as warm and as easy going as she can be, and her biggest gain from the night was easing some of the enmity her abrasive campaign style generated in the past few weeks.

Obama isn't as good of a debater as Clinton, so it was an accomplishment that he did as well as she did in this debate. Obama is a cerebral guy, and unfortunately has trouble articulating his intellectual and political philosophy in easy-to-understand snippets. That's his fault though. Most of what I know about the way he thinks is from articles about him or extended interviews with him, not from what he says at debates, which unfairly or not is the primary exposure most Americans will have to him before voting.

That's why many people think he's vague or unsubstantive. His arguments for his candidacy and way of thinking aren't as sharp as they could be, to the point where sometimes I felt I could argue his case better than he could.

But he crystallized some of the ideas behind his candidacy and delivered them in a way that would connect with more voters in this debate.

There were several examples of this, the best perhaps when he was criticizing both Clinton and McCain: "I don't want to just end the war, I want to end the mindset that got us here in the first place.�

The nerd in me also applauded when he finally mentioned in a debate his idea to broadcast his health care plan negotiations on C-SPAN. Clinton scoffed, although she is probably right to do so as I don't know he will get Congress and the insurance industry to agree to have their meetings open to the public. It's a nice thought though, and I'm glad he suggested it in such a public forum.

His answer on the type of people he wants in his cabinet cheered me, because it goes to the heart of how he thinks: "...people with independence, who are willing to say no to me so, so that, you know, no more yes-men or women in the White House. Because I'm not going to be right on every single issue."

The ability to realize you can be wrong is one of the hallmarks of a skeptical thinker. Is that a critical trait for a good President? Probably not if the President is intellectually strong in other ways, as Clinton is, but being open to the possibility of being incorrect does take a certain lack of ego, which is a little surprising to find in someone who aspires to be the most powerful person in America.

In short, it was an odd debate where both candidates came out looking a little better than when they came in.

On a related note, the last question to them was, "Would they consider a Clinton\Obama or a Obama\Clinton ticket?" The audience cheered wildly. Most commentators poo-pooh the idea, citing the animosity the two candidates have against each other as a deal-breaker.

I agree that it won't happen, but not because of personal dislike. Enemies can turn to friends instantly in politics, especially when it's personally advantageous to both parties. I'm sure Ted Kennedy and President Bush dislike each other, but they had no problem working with each other on No Child Left Behind. John Edwards ran against John Kerry in 2004 and ended up being his VP candidate.

The reason I can't see it happening is that they're worldviews are very different from each other. Clinton believes in top-down government. Obama bottom-up. While by the end they will be able to overcome the bad blood between the two, they still aren't going to click as people because they don't have enough in common with how they view the world. I don't see either of them willing to put up with that sort of personal awkwardness for 4-8 years.

Non-live Debate Blogging, Part 1

2008-01-31T22:44:00.000-05:00

Best blog comment on the Obama\Clinton debate comes from Josh Marshall of TPM:

"8:08 PM ... What GOP operative masterminded holding this debate at the Kodak theater with a bunch of movie stars in the audience?"

Seriously. What was the venue decision meeting like?

CNN PRODUCER: "Here's what I'm going to do for you. You tell me where you want to hold the Republican presidential debate, and we'll do it."
REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE: "Anywhere? Wow. Even the Ronald Reagan library?"
CNN PRODUCER: "You got it. What else do you want?"
REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE: "Uh...midway through the debate, could you bring out one of Reagan's diaries, so we can further worship Our Savior and Holy Father?"
CNN PRODUCER: "I'm going to do you one better. Not only will we bring out one of Reagan's diaries, I'll program Anderson Cooper to say "I'm a little too nervous to actually even touch it, but that is Ronald Reagan's original diary."
REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE: "Program?"
CNN PRODUCER: "Yeah. He's a robot. That's why his hair is white. Silicone gets like that in a sun."
REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE: "Wow. Well, thank you. This is so much more than I expected."
CNN PRODUCER: "Whoa, hold on there. We're not done yet. Where do you want to hold the Democratic presidential debate?"
REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE: "Are you being serious?"
CNN PRODUCER: "Yeah. Shoot."
REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE: "Okay. I'll play along. I want you to have the debate...in Hollywood. In the Kodak theater, where they hold the Academy Awards. Oh, and no regular people in the first 10 rows. Just rich, obnoxious Hollywood celebrities whose very countenance will remind middle America of the phrase 'Hollywood liberal.' "
CNN PRODUCER: "As good as done." [yells] "Cooper-Bot, get in here!"
ANDERSON COOPER-BOT: "YES, MASTER."
CNN PRODUCER: "Cooper-Bot, you're going to the Reagan library, Before you go, tell Wolf-Bot he's going to Hollywood. And make sure he's loaded his Obnoxious Goading sub-routine. If he doesn't start a fight between Clinton and Obama, he's scrapped."
ANDERSON COOPER-BOT: "RIGHT AWAY, MASTER."
REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE: "Wow. Robot technology has progressed so far in 30 years."
CNN PRODUCER: "You've seen a robot before?"
REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE: "Hello? Reagan fan here."

Well Done, Mr. Toles

2008-01-31T11:25:00.000-05:00

Tom Toles gets one last lick in on Rudy Giuliani, the only presidential candidate to use actual 9/11 footage in his campaign videos.

Thank You, Random Gmail Ad

2008-01-30T17:06:00.001-05:00

David Blaine: Street Magic, Part 3

2008-01-28T22:27:00.000-05:00

Because you haven't seen enough YouTube videos.

Martial Arts and Politics

2008-01-28T19:51:00.000-05:00

I am going to make a generalization about martial arts. There are two types of martial arts: disciplines that focus on attacking your enemy (e.g. karate), and disciplines that focus on redirecting your opponent's attacks and using them against him (e.g. judo).

Now I am going to make a generalization about politics. Most politicians practice karate. When political commentators remark that one candidate runs a better campaign than the other, they mean that one candidate is better at karate than the other, better at attacking one's opponent and dictating the terms of the fight.

If you are running a positive campaign, especially one emphasizing change, you can't fight back with karate. It runs contrary to your disposition and your message. It doesn't take many days of attacking to make your supporters feel that you're just another politician using the same negative tactics as every other politician.

Yet you have you fight back, and fight back strongly. The best (and only way, I'd argue) to do this is through judo, using your opponent's attacks against him or her.

I'm obviously talking about karate master Hillary Clinton and judo practitioner Barack Obama. Neither style is morally superior to the other. Politicians choose whatever style best suits their talents and message. Yet the judo style of campaigning is more difficult to execute, and up until a few days ago, Obama wasn't doing a good job at doing it.

For much of the past three weeks, Hillary Clinton's campaign was a step ahead of Obama's campaign. She was controlling the debate, controlling the news cycles, and got Obama to engage in karate for the first half of the South Carolina debate against someone he can never beat with this style.

I have no idea how much of this insider politics stuff influences voters, but it made me worry that his campaign didn't have the cleverness or responsiveness needed to win the nomination. And quite frankly, if his campaign couldn't figure out a way to turn Clinton's attacks on herself, then he didn't deserve to win.

It heartened me several days ago when his campaign first aired the idea that Hillary would do anything to win. That was the right Judo response. One of Hillary Clinton's strengths is that she is willing to do anything to win. This is a good thing. It may be off-putting at times, but if she wins the Democratic nomination and you are a Democrat, you want her to do anything to win. It's too "ends justifies the means" for my taste, but if the only alternative is losing, then it's better than losing.

But Obama was able to reframe this strength as a negative and tie it into a message about how he represented a new style of politics and Clinton an old style of politics. His victory speech after he won the South Carolina primary is a masterful example of a judo response, and made me think that he finally got it.

It's also an inspiring speech that has won admiration even from some conservative Republicans. If you don't have time to watch the whole speech, minutes 4:00-9:00 are a good example of what I wrote about.

Transformers

2008-01-21T23:05:00.000-05:00

I finally watched "Transformers", directed by Michael Bay. It is the type of movie that if I don't write about it now, I never will because I already forgot half of it and I just finished it five minutes ago.

Crap. I just spent five minutes after writing the above sentences trying to remember what snide comments I was about to make, and all that's left in my head is "Poosh". If you don't know, poosh is the culminate sound of two hours of car crashes, explosions, missile fire, and blown-up buildings all compressed into one second. Michael Bay made my brain go poosh.

The experience was exactly like watching "Memento", where time was sliced into a dozen pieces and the fragments rearranged out of order, casting doubt on the existence of narrative yet cohesive enough to motivate one to search for it.

Actually, the experience was nothing like watching "Memento." This is a better analogy. My brain felt like an asteroid hitting another asteroid, which then hit a third asteroid, and then somehow the asteroids rearrange their flight paths so they all start spinning in unison and plummet together towards Earth.

That is also the beginning sequence of Transformers, except there is also a melodramatic voice-over about how Earth is in danger from the Decepticons who want the All Spice so they can season Earth with their evil and then, I dunno, buy a time share and summer in Maine.

I was 100% prepared for a fun but brainless movie when I rented Transformers. Where I erred was not checking the running time beforehand. I saw the Netflix sleeve and thought, "Crap, two and a half hours? That's a long time for a bad movie."

When you are watching a movie that turns time into an abyss with no ledges to anchor oneself, 1 hour and 22 minutes is the same as 2.5 hours. except the latter fosters more pee breaks and thoughts like, "Why is the robot talking like Martin Lawrence from 'Bad Boys II'?"

Ooh, I remembered a thought! Michael Bay passed up an amazing opportunity for a joke. This opportunity was so amazing, that in spite of what I wrote, I would have become a Michael Bay fan for life if he had made this joke.

It was the scene where High School Guy Who Looks 25 and High School Girl Who Already Had Plastic Surgery were meeting the Autobots for the first time.

High School Guy asked Optimus Prime how the Autobots know slang. (Let's ignore the ridiculousness of this question, or why his first question wasn't "HOW THE FUCK DID YOU CRAZY TALKING ROBOTS GET HERE?") Optimus Prime said, "We learned it from the Internet."

What a great set-up for a joke. You can draw from one of many areas of Internet linguistic oddness: l33t speak, IM chat, penis enhancement spam, and so on. What does one of the Autobots say to show off his Internet language?

"This looks like a cool place to kick it!" Wow. Move more, Mr. T. "Jazz" of the Autobots is here.

Here's what would have made me a Michael Bay fan for life:

GUY: "Where did you learn English?"
OPTIMUS PRIME: "The World Wide Web."
JAZZ: "I CAN haz cheezburger." (1 2 3)

SC Dem. Debate Reaction

2008-01-21T22:32:00.000-05:00

I wrote this debate reaction for the comments section of another blog, and it became so long that I figured I might as well post it. Probably not interesting if you didn't watch the debate:

All three candidates had their moments. Edwards positioned himself perfectly in the first half of the debate as being above the squalor when Obama and Hillary were attacking each other relentlessly. He appealed well to African-American voters and sounded more authentic than usual in his rhetoric. He still has a few phrases that he repeats too often, but overall, he had the right tone and it felt like his best debate performance so far.

Obama showed for the first time that he can hit back very hard, but his attractiveness as a candidate is so dependent on positivity, much more so than either Clinton or Edwards, that just having to be in the position of attacking someone harshly may have hurt him overall. He seemed much better in the 2nd half of the debate, like when he connected his positive message to a political strategy better than he has before, and seemed more eloquent than in the first half of the debate (for example, when Clinton brought up his "present" votes in the Illinois legislature in the first half of the debate, I could have explained them better than he did).

Clinton's performance is hard for me to gauge. One of her strengths is policy, and she comes off as more knowledgeable and sharp than Obama and Edwards time and time again. She had a few moments of passion that came off well too. On the downside (or upside, depending on how you look at it), she has wholly adopted the "win at any cost" campaign tactics that Republicans national candidates often favor and have used to great effect. Her comments on Obama's remarks about Reagan and his present votes in the Illinois legislature are just plain willful distortions.

Some people may find it a plus that she is willing to get dirty to win, but for me, every time I started warming up to her, she would make an attack untruthful in spirit, if not in substance, and I would lose whatever admiration I was starting to gain from her. Politicians who are willing to do anything to get into power are willing to do anything to stay in power. The last seven years is as good of an example of that as any. Her character is my biggest reservation about her.

Summary:
Edwards: Did well, may have "won"
Obama: Mixed performance, better in 2nd half of the debate
Clinton: I have no idea. Probably depends on whatever beliefs one already had about her more than anything.

This Kid Cracks Me Up

2008-01-17T22:28:00.000-05:00

Keep true to thy spirit, party dude.

Debate Comments

2008-01-15T23:35:00.000-05:00

I watched the Nevada Democratic debate tonight on MSNBC's web site. As wonderfully moderated as the ABC\Charlie Gibson debate was, this one, moderated by Tim Russert and Brian Williams, was horrible. The questions in the first 1/2 hour were unsubstantial and exclusively focused on insider politics.

At one point, one of the moderators (Williams?) told Obama that he received an email alleging that Obama was a Muslim, swore into office using a Koran, etc., and asked him to respond. Sheesh. Is this the new basement of accusations that is now worthy of a televised response?

Did anyone else watch the debate? Perception plays such a powerful role in how one perceives these debates that I don't feel comfortable declaring any universal truths about this one, like who won or who looked better. I favor Obama, and that colors my view significantly. That aside, this is what caught my eye.

* I've watched all of the debates, and whatever I think about Obama and Clinton's responses, they have been syntactically different each time. The variation in language helps their answers sound fresh, and is done in part because they are adapting their language to a consistently changing campaign, including whatever interest groups they are trying to target in the state where the debate is held.

Edwards, on the another hand, keeps repeating the same phrases with little variation. This is OK if a voter only hears it once, but for me, I found my attention drifting almost every time he talked. The intense focus on message makes him come off to me as unimaginative and somewhat lacking in depth, traits he probably doesn't have in real life. I think the lack of even superficial deviation from one's message is a poor tactic, and he risks being tuned out more than the other candidates.

Next debate, I'm making a Edwards drinking game. One sip everything time he says mill, I'll fight for your interests, corporate greed, lobbyists, or middle class. I am going to get trashed.

* Small thing, but I liked it when Obama said (paraphrasing, hopefully correctly) that one of the biggest ways to head towards energy independence was to focus on efficiency. From what I read, it's true. The biggest way to reduce energy consumption is the most boring: buying fluorescent light bulbs, more energy efficient washers and dryers, and so on.

* Just thought of this. In spite of what I said about Edwards, I wonder if Obama needs to be more on-message, in specific, explaining to people his philosophy of governance.

I'm not sure it comes through enough during the debates. Whether you support him or not, do you feel you understand how he aims to enact and garner support for policy?

My understanding is that it is based on the principles of mediation, inclusiveness, and evaluating the interests of different groups based on science and rationality rather than ideology. In short, the language and politics of cooperation, rather than combativeness (e.g building "good enough" majorities, seeing the other side as the enemy).

This may be naive of me, but I think there is a lot to be gained from acknowledging the view of someone you disagree with, and showing that you understand that person's view. Angry people don't change their minds, whether it's you or the other person who is angry. I believe there are practical benefits to encouraging a civil discussion and reducing the overall level of emotional arguments in political discourse besides the fact that it makes most people feel warm and fuzzy.

At any one time, you can either be in an emotional state or a rational state. You can't be in both. I think better decisions would be made if politicians did less to generate support through emotionally loaded words and speeches, and instead focused on appealing to people's brains.

I remember during the run-up to the Iraq war people on both sides were extremely emotionally invested in the conflict, and we were never able to have a rational, national debate on the decision to go to war. I definitely got emotionally invested at one point and became angry above all else. A good part of that reason was that our leaders were using emotions like fear and anger to fan support for the war, which inspired similar emotions in the other side, and whatever chance we had for a level-headed evaluation of the available information by the public was lost.

It would be difficult, and perhaps impossible, for a President to avoid creating or succumbing to an emotionally charged environment, especially if there were another terrorist attack. But the country would be better off if it could be done, and in my opinion Barack Obama is the best hope for creating a better political environment.

What Is McCain Snorting?

2008-01-14T19:27:00.000-05:00

No, he didn't say something stupid. I ask because he's 71, and he says during the campaign season he wakes us at 6:00 A.M., and goes to bed at 1:00 A.M.

I'm 31, and that's a full five hours less than my ideal sleep time. I'm a firm believer in that when creating schedule, there should be one A.M., and one P.M. Two of each means you either aren't getting enough sleep or are narcoleptic.

The presidential campaign does nothing but remind me of how unqualified I am to be President. I can't even fantasize about being President anymore. I envision myself speaking to a crowd and I think: "Ugh, I don't want to shake all these people's hands. I'm going to bed."

I'm suspicious of everyone running for President. The job itself is slightly less worse than the process to get it. It's stressful, insular, and erodes whatever ethics or principles one may have had entering politics. If you do a really good job, 55% of people will like you. If you do a great job, you get assassinated.

There has to be a better way to obtain power. You know those six mysterious bankers that supposedly control the entire world? One of them has to die sometime. Why not aim for being one of them? There has to be a cadre of backup bankers somewhere, waiting to step in when one of the original six dies. That backup banker could be you.

Better yet, get five of your banking friends and hold a press conference declaring that you all are The Six. What are the mysterious bankers going to do, come out of hiding? They're Mysterious. They don't do that. Just issue terse, cryptic statements after events like when oil hit $100 a barrel ("If only the world didn't disappoint us.") and enough people will start believing you have power that you will have power.

Chutzpah goes a long way. I am convinced this is how Paris Hilton became a celebrity. She crashed a ritzy party and everyone was too embarrassed to admit they didn't know who she was. There was one dicey conversation ("I didn't invite her. Did you invite her." "No. I thought you did." "Maybe...Carl invited her?" "I guess.") and then she was home free.

To tie this back to the original subject, I suspect McCain will win the Republican nomination. My astute political reasoning behind my belief is that the other five Republican candidates are douche bags.

To be more specific: jerk, fear mongerer, devoid of integrity, doesn't believe in evolution, and not really a douche bag, but seriously, the gold standard? "FEDERAL RESERVE: The economy needs more money. Quick, get a pick ax!"

The other candidates each have at least one huge flaw, so I think McCain will win. I also think he would make the best President out of the Republican candidates, so that's a good thing, even if it makes the general election more difficult for the Democratic nominee. A lot of good can come from competition, and I would rather have two strong candidates running for President than a strong one and a weak one.

Web Sites I'm Too Lazy To Create

2008-01-10T10:49:00.000-05:00

I need a Web 3.0 widget that will let me create Web 2.0 sites with a minimum of effort, which happens to be the maximum amount of effort I am willing to spend on making a web site. Two ideas I thought of last night:

1. "Best 10 Minutes." Almost every town hall meeting or Q&A like the candidates' visits to "the Google" has been uploaded to YouTube. There is a lot of good, in-depth information in these videos that one can't find on traditional outlets like the news, newspaper web sites, or the candidate's web site.

YouTube's system for rating and recommending videos works pretty well, but I think a web site dedicated to just videos of candidates discussing philosophy or policy would make them easier to find, and save people the time of digging through hours of video to find the best parts.

I would (I don't know what verb tense describes 'action that I wish I could take but I never will', so "I would" will have to do) set up a web site that would allow users to nominate 10-minute or less video snippets that best capture what they like about their candidate.

Each candidate would have their own section. I am guessing but don't know that YouTube allows you to embed a clip of a video using time codes, so only a link with relevant time codes would have to be uploaded. People could vote what effect the video had on them (positive, neutral, negative) and clips with the highest combination of votes and positive ratings would be featured under each candidate's section.

Yes, there is potential for abuse in a voting system like this. I'll be sure to install as many safeguards in the voting system when I don't make this web site.

2. "Pork Patrol." I am so disappointed that PorkPatrol.com is already taken. At least it doesn't go to a porn site. It redirects you to Citizens Against Government Waste, or CAGW. Yes, that is much catchier. If you want to remember what Web 0.7 looked like, be sure to pay them a visit.

At his Google talk, Obama says he wants to "Googlefy" government (my word, not his). Make bills fully searchable, attach Congress member names to earmarks, and so on.

If these changes were made, the next step would be to create a web site where people could search bills and mark each item in the bill (e.g. separate earmark, proposal for funding). If someone saw a questionable project, they could flag it, where it would appear in a public area for a certain amount of time. People would then be able to ask questions about the project, share information, and rate the earmark.

Every week, the Congress members with the top 10 negatively voted earmarks (for example) would be contacted by the site and given a chance to respond. There would be a new voting period, and then a determination would be made to publicly shame the creator of the earmark, start a phone campaign, or drop the matter and move to a new issue.

I think limiting the number of earmarks, bill language, and so on that would move on to the next stage is important. A limit would make people more judicious when voting and selecting parts of a bill to complain about. If only x items were highlighted a week, it would encourage people to focus on only the most expensive and egregious waste.

Since many earmarks are added at a last-minute and often without a vote, and a web site like this would actually encourage that practice, perhaps there should be a public comment period of 2 weeks after every significant bill so public watch groups like this site could at least bring a bill's shadier parts to the public's attention.

What makes this idea great in my eyes is that it's not even possible to do yet, so I don't feel guilty about not creating the web site. Also, I barely know anything about the minutia of the legislative process, so I am blissfully aware of whatever huge holes there are in my idea. But if budgets were made fully searchable, accountable, and indexable, a site like this would be the logical next step.

Every Candidate Should Answer Questions At Google

2008-01-10T01:28:00.000-05:00

Edit: I should have used Google before writing that title. Other candidates that have appeared at Google.

I linked to a video of Barack Obama answering questions from Google employees in the last post that I have heard of but never watched. I finally watched it, both 25 min. parts.

In the campaign, we hear stump speeches, pundits, and occasionally an informative debate, the best of which might allow each candidate to speak for a few minutes at a time. There is a lot of attention paid to each candidate, but sometimes little information.

Unless you live in Iowa or New Hampshire, you probably aren't going to have the chance to go to a town hall meeting and hear a candidate talk in-depth for an hour or two on policy and philosophy. The video of Obama's Q&A session from a few months ago was interesting for that reason, because it gave him a forum to elaborate on some of his policy interests, governing philosophy, and most important to me, his decision making process. It took place in a laid-back environment away from the mass media and before the primaries, and the talk was as unguarded as one could expect from a politician.

There is no one moment that blew me away, but he said a lot of things that seemed rational and well-reasoned. The cumulative effect made me feel more comfortable about him being elected President.

If you want a good sample, forward to 18:30 in this video and watch the rest (6 minutes).

I was already leaning towards him, so there is some bias there. The clip (and whole video) is worth watching though, and it has the type of information that I think will be difficult to get from any candidate at this point in the campaign.

If you have 10 min. of a video of another candidate to suggest, post it in the comments. I will watch it, whoever it is.

Search for America: A Presidential Campaign Website Review

2008-01-09T21:01:00.000-05:00

I visited the web sites of the top nine Presidential candidates left in the race...

Bill Richardson just dropped out.

Okay. I visited the web sites of the top eight Presidential candidates left in the race to see which of them allowed users to search their sites. First thing I noticed: they all have a blue background. Except John McCain's web site, which has a black background, because he's a maverick.

I resisted the temptation of fully reviewing each candidate's web site. While there is great appeal in spending several hours analyzing each site's layout, color scheme, organization, and pictures of Muslims holding AK-47s (advantage: Rudy!) so I could to create a comprehensive review that would gather, all in one place, a bunch of crap almost no one cares about, I decided to focus on just one aspect.

Does McBama-Hillarudy-Ronbee's web site have a search bar?

Yes, the gold standard achievement in the �I Barely Give a Shit� class. Did they bother to insert an extremely useful function that is on almost every other web page on the Internet? Let's find out.

As a comparison point, I picked a random web page on the Internet: �Pancake City.� Does �Pancake City� have a search bar? Yes, it does. Is it near the top of the page and easy to find? Yes.

Pancake City is the front runner. In response to the site's new status, I have disabled comments and will stop taking questions from the press. I will resume friendly relations with the press once my poll numbers slip, as they have in the past 437 elections when a candidate surged in popularity and became overly cautious and guarded out of fear of screwing it all up.

Democrats

Hillary Clinton: No search bar.

Barack Obama: Dude, you gave a detailed technology speech at Google and then fielded questions from the employees. WHERE IS THE SEARCH BAR?

John Edwards: Search bar, but at the bottom of the page. Clearly labeled. (2^nd place)

Republicans

Rudy Giuliani: I would like to point out that I hate writing about Rudy Giuliani, because I can never remember how to spell his name. I end up having to type something like �Giulaniuani� in Google and hope it recognizes who I am searching for. No search bar.

Mitt Romney: Search bar! Top of the page! The only major candidate to have a search bar near the top of his or her web page. This is True Strength for America's Future. (1^st place)

John McCain: Search bar at the bottom of the page. A real maverick would have put it sideways. (3^rd place)

Mike Huckabee: Mike Hucka-be better putting a search bar on his web page soon. No search bar.

Ron Paul: Ronbots, what happened? The web page is snazzy, attractive, and well-designed. Except no search bar. What am I going to do when I'm drunk and looking for a plan to privatize roads?

I'm leaving Fred Thompson out. That guy is phoning it in more than Leno on most nights. Instead of campaigning 12 hours a day, he's pulling up near prospective voters in his red pickup truck, yelling �Hey, I'm Fred!� and then speeding off to his limo parked around the corner.

Here's the big question: Is the lack of a search bar on these lavishly-funded, professionally-designed web pages an oversight, or were they deliberately left out for some nefarious yet stupid reason, like wanting to control how their visitors access information? Is search too "off message" for most campaigns?

Idea for a New Primary System

2008-01-05T22:49:00.000-05:00

Larry Sabato argues in his book, "A More Perfect Constitution", that many of the current problems with the American political system are structural and can only be remedied by updating the U.S. Constitution to handle issues the founding fathers were unable to anticipate.

For example, once you get elected to Congress, getting reelected is almost automatic. The reelection rate for House members for the past 40 years has been 85% or higher, and it is often 95% or higher. The Senate is more competitive but not by much.

One reason, among many, is that Congressional districts are gerrymandered, drawn in odd shapes to ensure favorable demographics for the member of Congress. The practice has been brazen recently, such as when former Rep. Tom Delay redrew his district in the shape of a middle finger.

A common-sense solution is to divide states into districts using a grid system with the process managed by a non-partisan group such as a panel of judges. Yet the fact that this would make House races more competitive is precisely why Congress will never pass a law to do this, along with anything related to term limits, reduction of franking privileges and so on. As difficult as it would be to pass a Constitutional amendment implementing this process, it's probably the only way it will ever be done.

It's a great book with many interesting ideas. I highly recommend it. One of his ideas came to mind with the media storm around the Iowa caucus.

With Iowa, New Hampshire, and other states leapfrogging each others' caucus or primary date so they would be one of the first states (and few that are relevant), we are now in a situation where the primary system starts in the beginning of January, yet will likely be over by the beginning of February ("Super Tuesday"). Some talking heads are even suggesting the Democratic nomination will be over by the third state, South Carolina, if Barack Obama can win in N.H. and S.C.

It's the longest election process in the world, gives a disproportionate power to the same, few states every four years to elect a candidate, and thus disfranchises most of the country. In Presidential re-election years, the sitting President is distracted and essentially out of commission for an entire year, 1/4 his or her elected term.

I'm recounting Larry Sabato's idea to fix this by memory so the details will be off, but the spirit is the same. Divide the country into four quadrants: Northeast, South, Midwest, and West. On February 1st, select by random drawing which month each quadrant will be able to hold its primaries: e.g. April, May, June, and July. (Edit: I found his write-up of this idea after posting this. The details are different and more in-depth, but the basic idea is the same.)

There is a large benefit to having two small states hold the first caucus and primary though. Small states give unknown and underfunded candidates a chance to gain traction with with retail politics, face-to-face interaction, and town hall debates, something that would be impossible in a state like California.

That is why, in addition, two out of the 10 smallest states by population will be randomly selected to have the first two primaries in the nation, a week before the first regional month. This retains the benefits of involving a small state early on and gives a state besides Iowa and New Hampshire a chance to be relevant.

I enjoy watching politics and being informed, but the primary season continues to get longer with no limit in site, and practically forces every state to push their date earlier is they want a chance to be relevant. The result is that Iowa + N.H. gets months of attention and input, and the other states, forced to have their primaries on the same day plus early in the calendar, get almost no attention and input.

This year, there are 24 states who are holding their primary on Feb. 5th. That's ridiculous. It's the longest short campaign in American history. Six months for Iowa + N.H., one month for the rest of the country, and nine months of a general election with no good TV to pass the time because of the writer's strike. I'm am going to kidnap Jon Stewart and force him to write comedy at gunpoint.

It would be ideal to fix this without a Constitutional amendment, but this has been a problem for several elections so far and I think if the national parties were able to implement and enforce a plan like this on their own, they would have done so by now.

NFL Picks 2007 Review

2008-01-02T22:58:00.001-05:00

With the end of the NFL season last Sunday, now is a good time to review the results of some of professional football's most well-known prognosticators. How accurate were their predictions against the spread?

Starting us off is ESPN's Bill Simmons. According to his Wikipedia entry, Bill has been a writer for ESPN's print magazine and web site for over five years. He is a prolific writer and shares his sports knowledge with readers on a near daily basis. His record after Week 16 is 102-114-9.

Next up is a penny. Pennies are made with copper-plated zinc. Sometimes they are dirty. Sometimes they are pretty and shiny. On the penny is the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. After Week 16, the penny's record is 110-110-4.

The Associated Press is the world's largest news association, and one of the most trusted ones as well. They have over 4,000 employees working in over 240 bureaus around the world. It is unclear how many of the 4,000 employees contribute to its weekly football picks. After Week 16, the AP's record is 110-106-8.

We come to our final prognosticator. A weather vane is a movable device attached to an elevated object such as a roof for showing the direction of the wind. A weather vane can come in many shapes and sizes, like a rooster or an arrow. Do you know which way the wind is blowing? You would if you had a weather vane! After Week 16, the weather vane's record is 104-94-6 (the weather vane was unable to make picks in Week 15 due to excessive rust).

Pancake City will update this summary as more sport columnist picks are found.

Book Notes: What Einstein Told His Cook

2007-12-17T00:13:00.000-05:00

Robert l. Wolke writes a food column for The Washington Post in which he explains the science behind food, cooking methods, and so on. I read a collection of his columns, "What Einstein Told His Cook", and really enjoyed it. Here is a handful of the interesting parts, paraphrased:

* Caramelization is the heat-induced browning of a food that contains sugar, but no amino acids (which make up proteins). Onions contain amino acids, so technically one can't "caramelize" an onion. When a food with amino acids in addition to sugar is heated to induce browning, such as onions, a set of chemical reactions take place called Maillard reactions. (pg 23)

* White chocolate has no chocolate in it. It is the fat from the cacao bean mixed with milk solids and sugar. (pg 34)

* Salt expose: Salt Sense is real salt, but it can claim to have "33 percent less sodium per teaspoon" because the salt crystals are flaky and fluffy, taking more room in a teaspoon than regular salt. (pg 46).

* His general point about salt is that all types of salt--table salt, sea salt, popcorn salt, kosher salt--are either identical or virtually identical chemically. The only significant difference is the size of the salt grain. (pg 42, others)

* Most European butters have a higher minimum milk fat content, which give them a richer flavor than American butters. (pg 78)

* The point of pasteurization is to heat a liquid to a temperature that will kill or deactivate dangerous microorganisms. Traditional pasteurization, not used much anymore, heats milk to 145-150 degrees F for 30 minutes. Flash pasteurization heats milk at 162 degrees F for 15 seconds. Ultra-pasteurization heats it to 280 degrees F for only 2 seconds.

The ultra-pasteurization equipment heats the milk under a high gas pressure to raise the boiling point of milk and prevent it from evaporation during the process. The process also increases the milk's shelf life by 4-5 weeks compared to flash pasteurization. (pg 91)

* Potato chips bags have opaque windows to keep out ultraviolet light, which speeds up the oxidation process of the fat in chips, turning them rancid. As a general rule, keep all fats and oils out of strong light. (pg 118)

* Green skin and sprouting eyes on a potato are sources of solanine, a toxic alkaloid. The solanine doesn't lie deep, so you can cut these parts of the potato
off and use the rest. (p 119)

* Salt (mixed with a bit of water) preserves food because it kills or deactivates bacteria by osmosis. Osmosis is the passing of water through a membrane to balance out the concentration of water in a 2nd solution. The salty solution sucks out the less-salty water in the bacterium, making it shrivel up and become inactive. (pg 138) I wonder if water could bring a dried-out bacterium to life.

* If you aren't defrosting a home-frozen food in the microwave, put it in a metal pan. Metals are great heat conductors, better than air or water, and will transfer the room's heat to the food faster than those methods. A bowl of warm water changed every half-hour is better for bulky foods, like a whole chicken. (pg 201)

* You can sterilize a sponge by placing it in a microwave and running it for 1 minute. The sponge has to be wet or it could smoke or catch fire. (pg 255) This article, from the original study, recommends two minutes so I would go with that.

* Most microwaves can only operate at full power. When you select "50% power", the microwave is cycling on and off so it is only on 50% of the time. An exception is a microwave with "inverter technology", which can deliver a lower level of power. (pg 256)

* Microwaves can penetrate glass and not metal. The reason the metal grate on a microwave door blocks microwaves is because microwaves are 4 3/4 long, too long to fit through the tiny gaps in the grate. (pg 260)

* The most important quality of a frying pan is heat conductivity. The best heat conductor is silver. (I couldn't find a silver frying pan for sale online though). The next best is copper, which conducts heat 91% as well as silver. Too much copper can be toxic, so the pan will need to be lined with a less toxic metal, such as stainless steel or nickel.

Next is aluminum, which conducts heat 55% as well as copper. The aluminum will need some type of coating to protect it from damage from food acids. The worst conductor among common skillet materials is solid stainless steel, only 4 percent as good as silver.

* He tested how much water button mushrooms absorb when you wash them, and found that it's next to nothing. I've found this to be my experience too, in spite of the warnings against washing mushrooms. (pg 286)

* The reason for different measuring cups from liquids and solids (usually with wider mouths than liquid measuring cups) is to account for how the two substances settle in a container. One cup of a liquids will fill all available space in the container. One cup of a solid like sugar or flour will settle unevenly and leave small caps among the granules. Most measuring cups for solids have wide mouths to let the solids spread out more and fill the spaces between them (more like a liquid).

He mentions a product called a Perfect Beaker that does a good job measuring both dry and liquid substances. (pg 293)

Another Haircut

2007-12-13T19:05:00.000-05:00

There is a hereditary rule for predicting baldness. I forget the specifics. If your Uncle on your Mom's side is bald, you'll be bald? Or is it your mother's father, or your father's mother? It doesn't matter. In my family, they're all bald.

My hairline has rapidly receded for several years now. I'm reminded of this on occasion. I'll have a moment of consternation and self-pity, and then adjust to the new setback in the War on Forehead until the next reminder.

The latest one was yesterday, staring at myself in the mirror at The Hair Cuttery. The stylist had just finished cutting my hair, and I was completely lost in thought, feeling depressed at the vast expanse of forehead facing me, sparely dotted with small wisps of hair huddling together like refugees from a still ongoing battle.

"It's okay," the stylist said.

I broke out of my thoughts. The worry on my face must have been obvious for her to say that.

She put her hand on my shoulder. "It's okay."

That made me smile. You know what? It is okay. Balding sucks, but it's not the end of the world. It's part of life, and I'll just have to live with it. I gave her a knowing nod. You're right. It is okay.

It wasn't until the third time that she asked "It's okay?" that I realized we weren't having an unspoken connection where a familiar combination of male baldness and angst made my inner thoughts clear and my need for comfort obvious, but rather she just wanted to know if I liked my haircut, and for the past 30 seconds I was just responding to her by winking and nodding.

"Yeah, yeah, it's okay!" I jumped out of the chair. As I left, I realized I still felt a little better, even if the compassion was accidental.

Rubber Thug

2007-12-11T23:36:00.000-05:00

How did I miss this bit of marketing genius for so long?

I have had an old Rubbermaid "Roughneck" laundry basket for many years now. The label copyright is 1983. I just noticed two things about it today.

1. The original product sticker is still on the bottom.

2. The Rubbermaid mascot is a thug.

The image quality is poor, but the message is clear: this guy is mad about laundry. His arms are crossed, his dockworker hat is pulled to the ridge of his forehead, and whatever is strapped to his wrist is either an unusual watch or portable garroting wire.

"Five Year Warranty"? Yeah, like I'm going to call Rubbermaid customer service and give my phone number and address to a company with Sir Thug-A-Lot on the payroll. "You got a problem with your basket? Yeah, I'll come right over and fix it. I'll fix it real good."

I'm afraid to put laundry in this thing anymore. I was blissfully unaware of this relic of the tough-guy marketing trend for over a decade, and now I can't fall asleep without a pullover and a pair of socks covering his face.

I understand the manly man marketing philosophy, but even accounting for today's slightly increased sensibilities, what was Rubbermaid thinking?

AD MAN 1: "Hey, let's put a picture of a man who looks like he beats his wife when the booze runs out on all our products aimed at women, many of whom who stay at home alone or with defenseless kids."
AD MAN 2: "I like it! Mr. Clean, you going down."

Best Album of 2007?

2007-12-08T16:58:00.000-05:00

I could easily find 100 good candidates for Song of the Year, but Album of the Year is much different. I tend to listen to singles or will just download 2-3 songs from an artist rather than the whole album, so I don't have many candidates to choose from.

My favorite album, which I'm surprised isn't even on most people's Top 10 lists, is All Hour Cymbals by Yeasayer. "2080" is crazy good and the rest of the album is repeat-worthy as well. I've listened to the entire album a few dozen times and am still enjoying it.

The rest of my list will be unsurprising to people who likes indie pop \ rock. I was hesitant to make a "Best of the Year" list at all because there's not much here that's interesting if you keep up with this type of music.

All Hour Cymbals / Yeasayer
The Flying Club Cup / Beirut
Andorra / Caribou
Night Falls Over Kortedala / Jens Lekman
Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga / Spoon
Ghettoblaster / Socalled
Mice Parade / Mice Parade

From the �Wish I Heard About in 2006? club:
Night Ripper / Girl Talk
The Dusty Foot Philosopher / K�Naan

Other stuff: I like a lot of songs on Arcade Fire's "Neon Bible", but I haven't listened to the entire album enough to stand by it. I just downloaded "In Rainbows" by Radiohead and am enjoying it so far, which is something because I'm not a big Radiohead fan (sacrilege!)

I also finally listened to M.I.A.'s "Kala", an alum that seems to appear on every Top 10 list out there. It's good, especially "Jimmy" and "Paper Planes", but at the same time I don't quite get why so many people are in love with it.

Okay, your turn. Jim, Meghan, other fans of music: what are your Best Albums of 2007?

A Better Way To Read Through Technology?

2007-11-27T02:28:00.000-05:00

We (Westerners) currently read left-to-right, snapping our eyes all the way back to the left after reaching the end of the line. This snapping back is a huge inefficiency. People, once they got comfortable with the method, would be able to read faster if text were printed so the next word after the end of the line was directly below, not across the page.

There are some obvious problems with changing to this system, and it would be impossible to do on a national scale. America can't even change to the metric system, and that makes a lot more sense than this idea.

It is currently near impossible to do on a personal level too. The comfort of reading in one style for decades may be too difficult to overcome. Even if one had the desire, the number of books and newspapers printed in this wraparound format is either zero or close to it, and every publisher would find the thought of doing so ridiculous.

The Sony Reader and Amazon Kindle--two EBook readers that display text electronically on a handheld device--got me thinking of a time in the near future that would at least remove the technological roadblocks. It would be a trivial matter for an EBook reader to automatically display text in a wraparound format. The Kindle allows for one to read online newspapers and blogs too, so presumably wrapping text for these would be easy as well.

What if these EBook readers decided to offer an option to switch to this reading mode at the press of a button? It may end up a novelty, but perhaps it turns out that one can feel comfortable with this new reading style after a few hours, and the benefits make it worth it.

There's no extra publishing cost, no large technical hurdles to overcome, and it's optional. It's also a feature not offered in print, and probably never will be. Shouldn't these EBook readers do something better than their print counterparts?

I think if one were to switch to a different reading style, the majority of what we read--at home, at work, on the web--would need to be electronic plus convertible to this new style. We are many years from that becoming the everyday environment, but electronic publishing is at a point where, with the help of a few yet-to-be-developed computers programs, a motivated individual could experiment and get a good sense of the costs and benefits of learning a more efficient reading style.

Can I Haz Credit Card?

2007-11-27T01:18:00.000-05:00

I applied for a business credit card because it offered a bonus of 15,000 Reward Points, which one could use to get $100-$150 worth of gift certificates. I am quite poor. No self-respecting credit card company would offer me a business card based on my actual income, so I added $10,000 to my yearly income, technically still a possibility if the U.S. dollar becomes so low in the next month that they switch to dried noodles as currency. I have a Fort Knox of noodles in my pantry.

I got an email a few minutes ago saying I was rejected for the card because my income is too low. After adding $10,000 in imaginary money to it.

It is official. I am so poor, I can't even afford to lie.

Thansgiving Fun

2007-11-23T22:57:00.000-05:00

* While making Thanksgiving dinner, I asked my Mom what was in this bowl of sweet-smelling herbs. "Guess. You can test your smell." Two seconds later, as I'm still in the process of bending over to smell then, she blurts out "Sage!"

ME: "Why did you tell me before I could guess?"
MOM: "I like to cheat."

* "Sous Chef" is a fancy name for "chump who is unable or not trusted to cook." I am always the Sous Chef on Thanksgiving.

* Mom has a hand-painted serving platter that she got from France. She loves this platter. I didn't realize how much she loved it until she handed it to me to put on the dining table. "Jason. if you drop this, I will kill you. [laughter] I am serious. I will show no mercy." After we stop laughing, she took the Death Platter back from me and put it on the table herself.

* I bought myself a hand blender for my birthday next week. Mom reimbursed me, and then Michele said she wanted to pay for the gift.

MOM: "Okay. You owe me $40."
MICHELE: "$40? Jason told me it was $20."
TINA: [looking to me] "I thought you said it was $30."
ME: "It is $30. They are trying to one-up each other."